The spark that started the war ?

Morlar

This is from todays Irish Independent;

By Adrian Blomfield in St Petersburg

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/russia-accuses-poland-of-sparking-world-war-1762626.html

Russia accuses Poland of sparking world war

Friday June 05 2009

Russia has accused Poland of provoking the outbreak of the Second World War by refusing to accede to the "very modest" demands of Nazi Germany.

The Russian defence ministry posted a potentially inflammatory essay on its website, claiming that Poland resisted Germany's ultimatums in 1939 only because it "wanted to obtain the status of a great power".

The lengthy diatribe also lashed out at Britain and France for giving the Poles "delusions of grandeur" by promising to intercede if the Nazis invaded.

"Anyone who has been minded to study the history of the Second World War knows it started because of Poland's refusal to meet Germany's requests," the statement written by Colonel Sergei Kovalev, a senior researcher at the ministry, read.

"The German demands were very modest."

Appearing to take Germany's demands at face value, the defence ministry insisted that the Nazis were interested only in building transport links across the Polish Corridor to East Prussia and assuming control of Gdansk, which had been designated a free city.

Western historians largely recognise that Poland would have lost its independence had it acceded to the demands, pointing to Hitler's policies of Lebensbraum and the creation of a "Greater Germany" as evidence. Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, prompting Britain and France to declare war.

Poland's foreign ministry said it would summon the Russian ambassador to Warsaw to demand an explanation, as the allegations showed signs of triggering a row between the two countries. (© Daily Telegraph, London)

- Adrian Blomfield in St Petersburg

_______________

Maybe it is my ignorance but I find it an unusual for a russian military assessment on the causes of WWII.

I would not say I would be fully in agreement with it but it does pose an question I would be interested in.

a)
Had britain and france not given Poland such assurances would the Poles (rightly or wrongly) have been as likely to have refused German demands ?


b)
Had Poland acceded to German demands what are the (or are there any) indicators that a europe wide war would still have been inevitable ? I dont mean ignorant guesses or hollywood generalisations - but in reality what would the likely outcome have been specific to Poland & German relations.

ejmaztec

I think that, as Germany lost a lot of territory after WW1, they would have wanted it all back. Gdansk, or Danzig as was, was part of that territory. The war might have been delayed for a short time, but I think that it was still inevitable. After the Munich agreement, the Czechoslovaks were forced into handing over the Sudetenland, but this didn't stop the Germans grabbing the rest a few months later.

http://www.ww1-propaganda-cards.com/lost_territories.html


And after WW2, the Germans lost another big chunk, mostly to Poland.

Morlar

I would think that is a good point. If Poland had acceded to the German demands it could have been interpreted as a sign of weakness depending on how it was handled. I do agree that if that had happened eventually Germany would have wanted their territory back but the question is would this have led to a europe wide war had it not been for British/French assurances. Also could Poland and Germany have avoided conflict by Polish accession to the Germans demands and then additionally to any later demands for return of territory >? Could both sides have lived with that without third party involvement or was (as the Russian military assessment above indicates) a factor in this Polish determination "wanted to obtain the status of a great power".

Tony EH

The "spark" for war came long before the Polish intransigence over German wishes for Danzig.

It came from the Allies unfairly blaming Germany for the First World War and placing the incredibly harsh Versailles treaty on her head. Such a measure was directly responsible for Hitler getting to power and the subsequent grievances Germans felt over whole situation.

No Versailles, No Hitler, No war.

Morlar

Tony EH wrote: »

The "spark" for war came long before the Polish intransigence over German wishes for Danzig.

It came from the Allies unfairly blaming Germany for the First World War and placing the incredibly harsh Versailles treaty on her head. Such a measure was directly responsible for Hitler getting to power and the subsequent grievances Germans felt over whole situation.

No Versailles, No Hitler, No war.

I agree totally that Versailles played a huge part and can not be underestimated, and it was (in my opinion) massively unfair to assign ALL of the blame on Germany. Not just the clean card the allies gave themselves and the fact that the entire blame for the conlict's beginning, but also it's continuation throughout the entirety. Despite the fact that Germany repeatedly tried to end the war amicably. Also the punitive measurements in terms of loss of territory, restrictions and reparations caused untold hardships among the people and did create the political vacum required for National socialism to come to power. Even though it could just as easily have been the bolsheviks who filled that gap and the end result would also have been terrible for europe.

I would assign a lot of the responsibility for Versailles to the french who sought revenge for their defeat in the franco-prussian war, & sought to cripple their nearest & most powerful neighbour for a generation.

This also seems to have been a factor with the Germans who reminded the french of this when they insisted on using the same railway carriage later on. At least the americans seemed to be more willing to listen to the German side until they were effectively shot down by their french and british allies during the lead up to Versailles.

However given that versailles had been effected in 1919 - and that by 1939 Hitler had for the most part undermined & discarded it the question about the immediate pre-war Polish /German relations would be the one I am more curious about. Not least because this is an area which gets very little coverage in terms of general understanding of the causes & the myriad factors leading up to WWII. To be honest it is an area I know little about so that is why I think it would be good to find out more & given the Polish population in Ireland it would be good to get some of their views on this (as well as everyone else's of course).

Tony EH

As far as I'm aware, the Poles were open to discussion with the Germans over the issue of Danzig and the so called Polish Corridor to begin with. That was until the British performed their stunning "about-face", as Liddel Hart called it and offered their "guarantee" to Poland. One which it had absolutely no way of honouring even if they really were intent to do so.

How fruitful talks between the two Nations would have been, if Britain had not stuck her oar in, is anyones guess though.

Would it have averted war?

No, I don't believe so. At least not the war between the two main protagonists in Europe. Hitler admired, feared, loathed and distrusted Bolshevik Russia and as long as that remained, there was going to be a war between the two Nations at some point or other. With that in mind, both Czechoslovakia and especially Poland would have to be "out of the way", so to speak, if he was to deal with them. How that was to come about, I don't think Hitler had fully worked out. Perhaps Hitler may have tried to get the Poles on side in a war against Russia. There was certainly enough animosity between them and Hitler knew that Edward Smigly, C'n'C of Poland's armed forces, was virulently anti-Russian.

As it transpired, when the British, who up to that point I'd say were happy to see Hitler's eyes turned East rather than West, offered their "guarantee", it only served to allow the Poles to completely switch off any potential negotiations that may have been on the cards and thus made war inevitable. It allowed Moscicki's government to snub their noses over what most of Europe (including Britain) saw as quite reasonable German requests.

The British "guarantee" was one of two serious gambles the British took in the latter half of 1939, the other being the declarion of war in September. Both of which Hitler called their bluff on.

Fratton Fred

I think that is looking at it too simply. Danzig was under the protection of the League of Nations and by annexing it, Hitler was directly challenging the league.

Britian and france gave assurances to poland, but i think the fact it was Poland was coincidental, enough was enough and someone had to stand up to Hitler.

citizen_p

i9 think this is russia trying to take some blame away from itself... lets not forget the invaded poland as well.

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Britian and france gave assurances to poland, but i think the fact it was Poland was coincidental, enough was enough and someone had to stand up to Hitler.

Do you think those assurances caused any change in Polish German relations ?

I would say that on the Polish side they shifted the psychological balance of power more to be in their favour.

Britain was in no position to back those assurances up in any kind of meaningful way & Poland suffered because of decisions made (more than likely) on the basis of those assurances.

Would a conflict have been inevitable between Poland and Germany without those British/French assurances ?

Tony EH

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think that is looking at it too simply. Danzig was under the protection of the League of Nations and by annexing it, Hitler was directly challenging the league.

Britian and france gave assurances to poland, but i think the fact it was Poland was coincidental, enough was enough and someone had to stand up to Hitler.

Ummmm, actually, I'd say that was looking at it in far simpler terms.

Britain's "assurances" were nothing of the sort. She had neither the power or the will to follow through on the bluff and it was clear to see. It came of as Britain sticking her nose into European affairs again. So, it was a foolish endeavor and they were gambling with Poland's future.

Such a move, after effectively saying to Hitler that they weren't interested in Eastern Europe when they abandoned Czechoslovakia was bound to cause problems. It's my opinion that the Chamberlain cabinet didn't desire war, but if that war was to come, they preferred it to remain in Eastern Europe and not involved them. It was no secret that Germany and Russia's political outlook were polar opposites and the possibility of some sort of showdown was quite real and I'd say that there would have been quite a few who would have been happy (in a private capacity of course) to see the Fatherland and the Motherland go head to head. It was Communist Russia that was viewed as the pariah to most European states in the 1930's, not Nazi Germany and America's distrust of Russia has always been clear.

However, at some point during March 1939, the British changed direction and believed that trying to get Hitler to negotiate was a better alternative. Unfortunately, they blundered their way into this method by offering a silly "guarantee" that they couldn't possibly stand by and also, they picked the wrong time to do it.

The correct time to "stand up" to Hitler was over Czechoslovakia, in 1938. Hitler already showed that he would pull back if a threat was on the cards, but when Britain, France, Poland and Russia all faltered (in part due to their own political mistrust of each other), Hitler viewed these threatening moves from the West as mere face saving bluster. He was proven correct when his troops marched into Czechoslovakia and Britain etc did absolutely nothing. Thus, he had ample "proof" that Britain neither cared about those Eastern European states in his way, nor were they going to do anything about it if he decided to carry out whatever plan he had in mind for them.

Not only did Hitler believe that Britain didn't give a damn about Poland, but Count Edward Racynski, the Polish ambassador in London told his government the month before that "...the whole of Eastern Europe was considered by British politicians to be outside the scope of British concerns."

Fratton Fred

So what is your point? Britain should or should not have gotten involved in WWII?

Britain has been dragged into the first world war and wanted to keep out of what was rapidly looking like the second. Chamberlain was following a policy of appeasement but finally enough was enough and Britain decided to draw a line in the sand (Along with France). I don't really see how this was an about face.

Are you saying they should or shouldn't have done that?

It sounds scarily like you have been reading Patrick Buchanan's "Churchill and the unnecesary war".

Do you also follow his belief that Auschwitz was a myth?

Fratton Fred

Morlar wrote: »

Do you think those assurances caused any change in Polish German relations ?

I would say that on the Polish side they shifted the psychological balance of power more to be in their favour.

Britain was in no position to back those assurances up in any kind of meaningful way & Poland suffered because of decisions made (more than likely) on the basis of those assurances.

Would a conflict have been inevitable between Poland and Germany without those British/French assurances ?

Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.

However, hitler never hid his desire to spread east and Russia was always in his sights. now, if you are German and plan on expanding eastwards towards Russia, it looks pretty much like you are going through Poland.

poland was always going to be invaded imho.

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

now, if you are German and plan on expanding eastwards towards Russia, it looks pretty much like you are going through Poland.

Well either through or with is possibly more accurate.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

poland was always going to be invaded imho.

I agree, but by who ? Considering what russia did to Poland when it invaded initially, then invaded later and stayed till the late 1980's who is to say that they could not have been better options for both Poland and Germany ?

This is not a 'blame england' thread (as I see it) its more about how a very isolated period in pre-war relations between Germany and Poland would likely have turned out had it not been for 3rd party involvement. The fact that both the colonial powers of britain & france were the 3rd parties in question is more or less irrelevant.

Tony EH

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So what is your point? Britain should or should not have gotten involved in WWII?

Britain has been dragged into the first world war and wanted to keep out of what was rapidly looking like the second. Chamberlain was following a policy of appeasement but finally enough was enough and Britain decided to draw a line in the sand (Along with France). I don't really see how this was an about face.

Are you saying they should or shouldn't have done that?

It sounds scarily like you have been reading Patrick Buchanan's "Churchill and the unnecesary war".

Do you also follow his belief that Auschwitz was a myth?

:rolleyes:

Little bit hysterical there, don't you think?

As for Britain being "dragged" anywhere...it was Britain that dragged herself into both world wars and for her own reasons. She wasn't "dragged" anywhere against her own free will.

My point is, events may have been very, very different, if Britain hadn't performed her about-face on policy in 1939. And it was very much an about-face from the position she previously held. The war, in Europe, could have been minimised to a conflict between Germany and Russia.

Fratton Fred

How were the German's going to get to Russia, Ryanair?

It's not hysterical, it's frustration. Britain had a policy of appeasement, peace in our time, remember that? It didn't work so they drew a line in the sand. Britain did not want war, France did not want war, but where was it going to stop?

Fratton Fred

Morlar wrote: »

Well either through or with is possibly more accurate.



I agree, but by who ? Considering what russia did to Poland when it invaded initially, then invaded later and stayed till the late 1980's who is to say that they could not have been better options for both Poland and Germany ?

This is not a 'blame england' thread (as I see it) its more about how a very isolated period in pre-war relations between Germany and Poland would likely have turned out had it not been for 3rd party involvement. The fact that both the colonial powers of britain & france were the 3rd parties in question is more or less irrelevant.

Britain and France were always going to get sucked into the war, just as Norway and Holland were. What were they going to do, stand and watch as the rest of europe was consumed by Germany and Italy? Was Hitler and Mussolini going to take over one third of the worlds land mass and leave Belgium, the Netherlamds, France and Britain independant?

Poland was toast from day one imho. There is no way that Hitler was going to take back Danzig, Gdansk and the corridor and leave the rest of poland as was, especially considering they were smack in the way of his biggest prize.

Tony EH

Your un-necessary remark about Auschwitz was hysterical. Completely OTT in a discussion of this sort.

As for "peace in our time", that's probably one of the reasons Chamberlain altered his direction on Germany. He was absolutely humiliated by Hitler after he came home clutching his little bit of paper and ridiculed terribly in Parliament.

Up until that point the Chamberlain group had been aloof from German and European affairs in this particular regard. "Appeasment" was almost encouragement. In fact, many of the Tories admired Hitler's firm stance against Communism. It was certainly no secret that the British political classes hated and feared Communism and what that represented to their particular world view. The main problem was that there just wasn't any clear actual policy regarding Hitler, Germany and Eastern Europe and that was something that was desperately needed long before March 1938.

This muddy stance led Hitler to believe that Britain had given him a "green light" as it were to persue his goals in Eastern Europe (whatever they were). But once Czechoslovakia fell apart and Hacha relented to Hitler's demand to make her a protectorate, Chamberlain felt that Hitler had snubbed him and he and his cabinet then made the very rash and nervous decision to "guarantee" Poland's independence. Much to the horror of the British military forces, I may add, who believed the move to incredibly stupid. They knew that they had absolutely no way of honouring that silly promise. They couldn't possibly aid Poland in any shape or form. Chamberlain and his ilk merely believed that Britain was in the position to call the shots and the mere threat of British interference would be enough to make Hitler think twice, simply because Britain was the only superpower in the world then had the natural right to stick their oar into other Nation's affairs.

Of course, Hitler, while surprised at the British move, believed it simply to be a face saving device. Of course the british couldn't be seen to actually "approve" of German demands over Danzig, even though they really believed that Germany had a legitimate claim to a city that had a 90% german population.

You say that Britain didn't want war and France didn't want war. That's true. But Hitler didn't want a war with those two Nations either, especially not with Britain. Hitler's eyes were at all times turned eastwards, torwards Russia and I've often wondered, if Chamberlain and the Cabinet were in on those plans for aggression against Russia, would they have recklessly offered their "guarantee" to Poland? I would hazzard the guess that they would not and they'd content themselves with remaining on the sideline while the two great Nations slugged it out and weakened themselves in the process. WWII in Europe would have played out very, very differently.

Tony EH

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Britain and France were always going to get sucked into the war, just as Norway and Holland were. What were they going to do, stand and watch as the rest of europe was consumed by Germany and Italy? Was Hitler and Mussolini going to take over one third of the worlds land mass and leave Belgium, the Netherlamds, France and Britain independant?

Poland was toast from day one imho. There is no way that Hitler was going to take back Danzig, Gdansk and the corridor and leave the rest of poland as was, especially considering they were smack in the way of his biggest prize.

I know this is a reply to Morlar, but you are entirely incorrect about Countries being "sucked" into war. Britain and France took themselves to war by choice, not by mere accident. They could have avoided it, if they wished.

As for Holland, she wouldn't have been involved in the war at all but for the British declaration of war on September 3rd 1939. Likewise for Norway, who, Hitler preferred as a neutral.

Norway, in fact, had been allowing Sweden to ship iron ore from Narvik to Germany during the winter months as it was the only ice free port. Britain wanted to stop that and had plans to mine those Norwegian ports.

None of the Western countries that suffered war after September 1st 1939, would have done so with British interference.

Perhaps Poland was doomed as you say. But, perhaps Poland may have even come into a war against Russia on Germany's side. As I said earlier, they two Nations shared and equal hatred of the Soviet Union. Poland's generals especially were right wing in their political outlook and it's not inconceivable that Germany and Poland could have struck a deal regarding a carve up of Russia...just like they did over Czechoslovakia. The Poles were very quick to seize the Teschen region when the Czechoslovak amalgamation fell apart. They might be equally quick to take parts of a conquered Ukraine too.

Fratton Fred

now, if I understand you fully, you are saying that if britain and France had not given the gaurantee to Poland, they would have conceded the territory Hitler was after and that was it, there would have been no WWII?

Norway, Sweden, Britain, France and the low countries would have been the only countries in Europe not under German or Russian influence, that is until Germany launched its offensive against Russia earlier and beter equpped than had happened.

How long exactly would this situation have remained, bearing in mind the German's saw Norway as their ethnic birthplace and Alsace Lorraine as a symbol of their defeat in WWII. Sweden was the producer of Iron Ore that Germany desperately needed and it was shipped through the strategically important port of Narvic in Norway.

Maybe you could explain your point and what you would have had Britain and France do.

ejmaztec

There is no way that the Germans would have sided with the Poles without the Poles handing back all of the territory lost to the Germans after WW1, and there's no way that the Poles would have given it up at the drop of a hat. The territory was still largely populated by ethnic Germans, who for the most part, were treated as hated second class citizens by their Polish neighbours. The same treatment was meted out to all of the various groups of ethnic Germans who resided in areas like the Sudetenland and other predominantly German speaking territories, the left-overs from the defunct Austro-Hungarian Empire.

If you look at the link on my previous post, you will see a list of all of the countries that had a piece of German territory handed to them after WW1. Hitler saw himself as protector of all Germans, wherever they were, and wanted all of them and the land on which they lived, back in the fold.

Anyone thinking that WW2 was avoidable is as naive as Neville Chamberlain.

Morlar

I am not so sure that a europe wide conflict as happened was inevitable. Certainly there was going to be conflict (due in a large part to Versailles also German fear and mistrust of bolshevik/Communist aspirations) but that does not mean that the conflict would have had to be europe wide.

All of which doesn't really address the question (which has evolved a bit from the start of the thread).

The first part would be of the worth of the assurances given by Britain and France to Poland (which B/F were possibly not in a position to backup) ?

What alteration did those assurances make regarding Polish & German relations ?

Could Poland and Germany have avoided conflict with each other - had those assurances not been present ? I think without them both Poland and Germany would have had more options and flexibility to withdraw from the public rhetoric, but I am starting to think that there was a major role played by the B/F assurances which gave the germans fewer options and gave poland no chance at all.

Black Swan

There were several sparks before Poland, just none of them caught fire. The French occupation of the Ruhr between 1923 and 1924? The Germans rearmed contrary to the Treaty of Versailles? The German occupation of Austria, followed by the occupation of Czechoslovakia? Hitler had plans for world conquest, and what happened in Poland was just a pretext?

Fratton Fred

There was nothing that Poland had that Hitler could not take by force, so why should he enter into any sort of negotiations with them?

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There was nothing that Poland had that Hitler could not take by force, so why should he enter into any sort of negotiations with them?

If you mean 'why did he' it appears that there was at least a superficial attempt to avoid conflict at least at that early stage.

After entering negotiations britain/France stepped in with an assurance which arguably sabotaged those efforts at the expense of the Poles (considering britain and france were not capable of backing it up).

The assurance put a wedge between the two countries & one of the questions on this thread is ; was that assurance worth anything (considering subsequent events) & did that assurance have an effect which was negative ?

Could it be that it became an obstacle to peaceful dialogue/concessions between Germany and Poland ?

Fratton Fred

the French had backed Poland for longer than the 1939 agreement, their relationship with poland went back to the Polish-Soviet war, so Poland already had assurances.

Why did Hitler negotiate? who knows, he had signed a non aggression pact five years previous recognising their borders, so why the change of mind all of a sudden? Why the staged invasion?

A negotiation is a two way thing. "Hand over the keys or we'll kick the door in" isn't a negotiation.

Tony EH

Fratton Fred wrote: »

now, if I understand you fully, you are saying that if britain and France had not given the gaurantee to Poland, they would have conceded the territory Hitler was after and that was it, there would have been no WWII?

No, not necessarily. You're not reading the posts Fred. I'm saying that without the so-called "guarantee", which was absolute nonsense lets not forget that, there is the possibility that Poland and Germany could come to some arrangement over Danzig and transit through the corridor. BTW, Germany was looking for a ceding of territory in Poland. They were looking for the return of Danzig to German rule. Poland could still have access to the port and all that that entailed. Before the British offer, that was the way things looked to be going. After the British offer, the Poles (who had an incredibly inflated opinion of their military strength) simply shut down the barriers. This was not what Britain was after in any way shape or form. The "guarantee" backfired with spectacular results.

I'm not saying there would have been no "WWII" as it were. But the case is certainly there to be made that the war in Europe would have been minimised to a struggle between Germany (and her allies, Romania and Finland etc) and Russia. Thus many, many Countries that were devastated by the actual war, wouldn't have been.

Norway, Sweden, Britain, France and the low countries would have been the only countries in Europe not under German or Russian influence, that is until Germany launched its offensive against Russia earlier and beter equpped than had happened.

Well, actually, without Britain's foolishness, Norway, Holland, Belgium, France, Yugoslavia, Greece and Britain herself would have been spared the ravages of war. There would be no battle of the Atlantic and no North African campaign either, as Mussolini only got the balls to open his account there after the stunning success in France by the Wehrmacht.

Millions of people would have remained out of the war, even with a German attack on Russia. I'm of the opinion that an attack by either Country is probably on the cards, seeing how much each loathed the other. But even so, the vast majority of Europe is spared.

How long exactly would this situation have remained, bearing in mind the German's saw Norway as their ethnic birthplace and Alsace Lorraine as a symbol of their defeat in WWII.

While the Nazi's (those who were into that nonsense) saw the Norwegian’s as there close relatives. They did not see the Country as the forbearers of the Germans. Besides, the whole "Nordic" "Aryan" rubbish has been blown way out of proportion. Few party members truly bought into it. Himmler was probably its biggest proponent, but even Hitler thought most of the ideas were preposterous. Either way, while Nazi Germany was most definitely a racist state, that "master race" angle is more of a US propaganda shtick. Such things were rarely talked about in reality.

Hitler had also written off the territories that the West claimed after WWI. He certainly wasn't going to go to war with France and Britain over Alsace-Lorraine. So that's neither here nor there. While he was prepared to go to war with Poland over Danzig (because there were much higher rewards on offer, ie Russia), he wasn't willing to risk and re-run of WWI in the West.

Sweden was the producer of Iron Ore that Germany desperately needed and it was shipped through the strategically important port of Narvic in Norway.

Ummmm....Yeh, I know. I just said that in my last post.

Maybe you could explain your point and what you would have had Britain and France do.

My point has been quite clear. The Chamberlain group did not desire a new European (or world) war, but if that was to occur, it was preferable that it should go east, rather than west. It was no secret that Hitler hated the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union hated Germany. But his actions in March 1939, foolishly taken from a sense of damaged pride and panic and aimed at forcing negotiation between Germany and Poland, precipitated the very war he wished to avoid.


As for what they (Britain primailly) should have done...Noam Chomsky once stated that states can do one of three things in times of potential conflict. They can (a) Make things Better, (b) Make things worse and (c) Do nothing.

It's up the individual to decide which letter the British action falls under.

Tony EH

Morlar wrote: »

The first part would be of the worth of the assurances given by Britain and France to Poland (which B/F were possibly not in a position to backup) ?

Given the point that it was absolutely impossible to back up the "guarantee", I'd say that it was worthless. Besides, Chamberlain's move was made not to threaten war per se, but to attempt to make sure that Germany and the Poles remain at the negotiation table. Unfortunately, it was just the completely wrong move to make, at the completely wrong time too and almost guaranteed a conflict. The Polish Government, who were musing over the German proposals for Danzig (much to the ire of general Beck), then decided to shut up shop because they believed that that the British and French would come crashing down on Germany, if Hitler made a move. Some Polish Generals even had fantasies of a glorious march on Berlin with their troops!

What alteration did those assurances make regarding Polish & German relations ?

As mentioned before, it made the Poles simply close the door to further negotiations. General Josef beck, who was always against the idea of negotiating over Danzig, was actually becoming marginalised in the Moscicki government. He absolutely refused to consider negotiation over Danzig just as he point blank refused Soviet Russia transit through Poland to help with France's proposal to neutralise Germany during the Czech crisis, which BTW made many in the French cabinet, including Deladier and Bonet, wonder why the hell they were dealing with the Poles in the first place. In fact, Poland stated publicly that they "...would not honour their alliance with France, if France were swept into war on account of Czechoslovakia". Other Polish ministers too, viewed him as a liability.

But, once Britain had drawn a line in the sand so deep, the Poles felt that they could simply snub Germany and get away with it, because they believed they had British (and subsequently French) might on there side.

ejmaztec

Tony EH wrote: »

Given the point that it was absolutely impossible to back up the "guarantee", I'd say that it was worthless. Besides, Chamberlain's move was made not to threaten war per se, but to attempt to make sure that Germany and the Poles remain at the negotiation table.

Didn't the negotiations with the Germans break down some weeks before the Anglo-French assurance, and didn't the assurance come into being as a result of the invasion of Czechoslovakia, along with Hitler's demand for the return of Danzig to German control?

No the Poles were still "talking";)

prinz

Simple really, any understanding of the Hossbach Memorandum, or the role of von Ribbentrop in German-Polish relations (v. Ribbentrop actually frustrated German - Polish negotiations on transport links and Danzig because he was afraid that the Polish might actually acquiesce to German demands, thereby removing grounds for a localised war) answers the whole lot. Poland's destruction was assured with or without Franco-British assurances, followed by most of the rest of central and eastern Europe. A line had to be drawn, if it wasn't Poland it would have been another country.

Tony EH

ejmaztec wrote: »

Didn't the negotiations with the Germans break down some weeks before the Anglo-French assurance, and didn't the assurance come into being as a result of the invasion of Czechoslovakia, along with Hitler's demand for the return of Danzig to German control?

No the Poles were still "talking";)

Talks had been up and down continuously. The March 1939 negotiations were inconclusive, but they hadn't broken down to the point where either side saw no possibility of a favorable conclusion, or at least continuation.

Britain too, had offered to act as a mediator between the two states and AFAIR, that met with great approval on the German side and general approval on the Polish side pre March 1939. There were, of course a number of Poles, like the aforementioned Beck, who would always be in the "no" camp, even if the population remained strongly pro-Nazi. In fact, in the late 30's Danzig offered one of the strongest Nazi support bases.

But once the British and subsequently the French (although I wonder whether their heart was truly in it) offered the guarantee, all bets were off as far as the Poles were concerned. Thus Chamberlain, in an incredibly foolish move, placed the immediate future in the hands of the Poles, whom Chamberlain counted on continuing the negotiation course.

As far as Czechoslovakia was concerned (and its far more complicated than is usually made out), Chamberlain had made it known quite clearly that he had "seen merit" in Germany's position on the Sudetenland and was supportive of her claims to the territory. In fact, Chamberlain, since he got to power in 1937 had been quite supportive of Hitler in general. He sent Viscount Runciman to Czechoslovakia in August to discuss terms for ceding the Sudetenland back to Germany. Hitler, quite naturally, saw this as positive encouragement from Britain and an endorsement of his opinion.

Later in September 1938, Hitler was becoming impatient with the Czech prevarication and things were coming to head over the Sudetenland. Chamberlain flew to personally meet Hitler and discuss matters. He met with the Fuhrer at Berchtesgaden and was assured by him that the Sudetenland was all that he desired from the Czechs. Chamberlain, in turn went to the French and the Czechs and made his views on the matter clear. The Czechs stalled for time, as Benes knew that ceding the Sudetenland to Germany meant losing valuable industrial resources and also a buffer zone between Czech territory proper and Germany. The French, were worried about sparking a conflict over “…a bunch of Sudeten Germans who wished to be German.” Also, they had debated vigorously over the point about their past decision to “stand by” Czechoslovakia….without a solid conclusion. Despite the political rhetoric, there really was no will to follow through on what had been “assured” before. France, at this point was more concerned with her own affairs and Deladier’s “caretaker” government was under serious pressure to concentrate on matters at home, rather than waste time worrying about a Czech problem. Deladier and Bonnet therefore left the matter in Chamberlain’s hands.

Eventually, Benes agreed to Hitler’s demands after it was made clear to him that Britain and France couldn’t come to the Czechs aid, if Hitler decided to do things militarily. Chamberlain pointed out, however, that the Russians were ready to come to Czechoslovakia’s “aid” though. For Benes, who was more fearful of the Soviets than he was of the Nazis decided on the “lesser of two evils” and ceded the territory.

Hitler then decided that he wanted the territory to be handed over immediately and this threw events into a new phase with culminated with the famous meeting at Munich and the Germans moved into the Sudetenland on October 10 1938. The Poles and Hungarians also got their slice of land and Benes was left with a large slice of humble pie. He was later forced to resign.

Of course, after Munich, the Slovak people began demanding more autonomy, as did the people of Ruthenia. This was the catalyst for Hitler’s cynical plan in March 1939 to then pressurise Hacha (who had succeeded Benes) to allow the whole of the Czech state to become a “protectorate” of Germany and divided into Bohemia and Moravia, while allowing Solovakia to become independent and Hungary invaded the Carpatho-Ukraine, thus effectively destroying the entire 1918 Czechoslovakian entity.

Most of the political classes in Britain and France couldn’t have cared less. The majority consensus was that Czechoslovakia was an artificial creation (born from the destroyed Austro/Hungarian Empire) and doomed to failure somewhere along the line. Besides, the rulers were all of Czech origin and this was seen as a cause of very real tensions within the peoples of the other persuasions. Czechoslovakia was nowhere near the “democratic” bastion that had been envisaged at the end of WWI.

It was Hitler’s cynical opportunism that thwarted Chamberlain and made him look like a chump in the eyes of the world. After the events in Czechoslovakia, which it has to be said Hitler did not plan, Chamberlain came under extreme pressure from the Commons in London. It was under this pressure and in a state of high anxiety that he issued the fatal “guarantee” to Poland at the end of March 1939.

Fratton Fred

there are many many assumptions in your post Tony.

Tell us, how would you see the political landscape of europe today if Britain and France hadn't made the treaties they did with Poland?

If things had panned out the way you say, we would either have a Nazi government controlling everything from Germany eastwards, a Fascist government controlling Italy, Greece, Albania and northern Africa and a Fascist dictator in Spain.

I wonder how a Nazi Europe would have gotten on trading with the arabs for oil, or would they have just marched in and taken it??

Failing that, those countries would all be under communist rule.

There is also the small matter of the Japanese controlling all of the far east.

Damn those British and their war mongering ways.:rolleyes: