To my knowledge, after he did this and with Munich broken, Britain's policy of appeasement headed by Chamberlain stopped. Does anyone disagree that if he had not invaded Czechoslovakia, broken the Munich Agreement, that he could make war with Poland without it escalating into a war with Britain and France? I think Poland would not have caved into German territorial demands, even with pressure from France and Britain. Also, what if he waited anywhere past 1939 to invade Poland?
If Hitler had not invaded Czechoslovakia?
- Thread starter Erick
- Start date
German economy was starting to break down, so Hitler needed Czechoslovakian gold and resources. But suppose that is not the issue. Then a lot depends on Hitler's next demands. If it is only exterritorial highway across the Corridor and Danzig, Poland actually might go with it. Especially under French and British pression. Danzig wasn't Polish at the time and Poland already had Gdynia. If Hitler makes some good will gesture to sweeten the deal, like officialy accept Polish-German border as permanent, that's even better. Add to it a plebiscite in Danizg (just to allow Polish government to save its face), Germany paying for the highway... Then yes, Poland might (very grudginly) agree. Or not: Polish government at the time was quite unpopular, so they might use German threat to unite Poles in face of foreign threat. Only Polish HQ knew perfectly well that Poland was unable to win a war with Germany without western help. If France says they will not help, I'm not sure if Warsaw would choose war, especially if German demands are not very harsh (more damage to Polish ego actually).
However, it is worth noticing that from British POV Hitler's demands would have been considered breaking the Munich Agreement. After all Hitler had promised Chamberlain that Sudetenland would be his last demand. Britain will not fight a war over Danzig, but might promise some economical and military support to Poland just in case Germany becomes too greedy. In short: give that guy what he wants for now, and we will help you modernize your army and economy, and if he demands more, you will have our full support.
However, it is worth noticing that from British POV Hitler's demands would have been considered breaking the Munich Agreement. After all Hitler had promised Chamberlain that Sudetenland would be his last demand. Britain will not fight a war over Danzig, but might promise some economical and military support to Poland just in case Germany becomes too greedy. In short: give that guy what he wants for now, and we will help you modernize your army and economy, and if he demands more, you will have our full support.
Eurofed
Banned
The Chamberlain government was never going to take that statement seriously. Everyone in Europe that had not lived under a rock the last twenty years knew that no German government of any stripe was ever going to accept the 1919 German-Polish border in good faith if it had a choice. All that truly mattered about Hitler showing himself trustworthy in British eyes was to leave Czechoslovakia alone. The radical turnabout of UK policy about the German-Polish dispute only occurred when Hitler invaded Czechia.
In international diplomacy, there are statements that are meant to be taken most seriously if the author has to have any credibility and others that obviously are empty propaganda gestures and never to be taken seriously by any actor with a brain. That statement was as believable as say one from the Chinese government that China has no more irredentist claims when a foreign power is occupying Manchuria or Taiwan. Barring truly extraordinary circumstances, nobody is going to take it seriously, or ought to.
As it concerns the main topic, to respect Czech independence gives Hitler a very good opening with Britain to have a Munich II settlement about Poland. In that context, German claims up to and including recovery of Danzig and West Prussia are going to be acceptable for London, since the British harbored grave doubts about the feasibility and justice of the Versailles border since the beginning. Even more so if Germany can throw in some face-saving measure to preserve Polish access to the sea, such as allowing Poland to keep Gdynia and an extraterritorial access to it.
Poland may or may not refuse such demands, and likely shall, but it does not matter because in these circumstances Britain (and hence France) shall never fight for it. If a German-Polish war occurs as a consequence of Poland refusing a Munich-type deal, German war gains up to and including the re-establishment of the 1914 border and satellitization of Poland are going to be acceptable to the Entente as the war's outcome.
The burning question is whether a Hitler given a more moderate foreign policy approach by the PoD would accept that kind of limited gains, in comparison to his OTL total democidal subjugation of Poland. IMO this is only going to happen if the crisis may somehow result into Poland becoming a German satellite. His objectives re Poland were to control it as a strategic springboard for Barbarossa and as a playground for radical Lebensraum Germanization. The first objective could not really be changed barring much more radical changes in Hitler's mindset than to leave Czechia alone would entail. The latter one might probably be given up in the right circumstances (at least in the brief and medium term) since there were indications that Nazi Germany was somehow prepared to accept Poland as an independent Axis vassal. It once made apparently sincere offers of friendship to Poland if it consented to an anti-Soviet alliance and a borders revision with territorial compensations to be taken out of Soviet territories. Moreover, notwithstanding Nazi racist doctrines, Hitler sometimes showed a pragmatic policy towards Slav vassals, since he accepted Slovaks and Croats in the Axis. A willing Axis Poland would have been much more useful than Slovakia and Croatia to his plans.
Last edited:
If Hitler takes his shot at Poland before occupying inner Czechia, then Warsaw may soon lose a second war to the USSR and/or Lithuania.
Markus
Banned
no occupation of the CSR = minus two german armoured divisions and up to two dozen infantry divisions. the CSR did have a large and well equipped army and an equally big arms industry. incorporating the czech small arms was particularly easy, because they used the same caliber as Germany and their rifle was a Mauser too.
Originally posted by Eurofed
As I said, a lot depends of Hitler's demands. If he demands whole Corridor, Poles will fight. And without Czech arms and gold that might be too expensive for Germany. They will win eventually, but it will cost them too much.
I'm not so sure about Entente peacefully letting Germany do whatever it wanted in Central-Eastern Europe. If Poland falls, Germany is THE power in the region, with all French and British influence being exactly null. Will London and Paris accept that? After all, France and Germany had some unfinished business.
Personally I believe that Britan and France would put pressure on Poland to agree to return of Danzig to Germany and exterritorial highway. But the whole Corridor (with Polish enclave around Gdynia)? That might be too much. Poles were majority there (if you count Kashubians as Poles) except relatively small part around Bydgoszcz (Bromberg).
Besides, would Hitler demand the whole Corridor? IOTL in 1939 he demanded only Danzig and the highway, even if it was just for show.
As I said, a lot depends of Hitler's demands. If he demands whole Corridor, Poles will fight. And without Czech arms and gold that might be too expensive for Germany. They will win eventually, but it will cost them too much.
I'm not so sure about Entente peacefully letting Germany do whatever it wanted in Central-Eastern Europe. If Poland falls, Germany is THE power in the region, with all French and British influence being exactly null. Will London and Paris accept that? After all, France and Germany had some unfinished business.
Personally I believe that Britan and France would put pressure on Poland to agree to return of Danzig to Germany and exterritorial highway. But the whole Corridor (with Polish enclave around Gdynia)? That might be too much. Poles were majority there (if you count Kashubians as Poles) except relatively small part around Bydgoszcz (Bromberg).
Besides, would Hitler demand the whole Corridor? IOTL in 1939 he demanded only Danzig and the highway, even if it was just for show.
I Blame Communism
Banned
Yep, the backbenches were taking arms. A lot of the genuinely idealistic people who had supported appeasement saw the truth after Czechoslovakia.
Chamberlain wanted a compromise over Poland if he could get it, but neither nor Germany nor Poland would settle and if it was war, we had to join in.
I Blame Communism
Banned
Why not? Chamberain was a Birmingham patrician and a born businessman, and he displayed an excessive faith not only in Hitler's honesty but also in the power of "contracts", as it were, between states.
Everyone in Europe knew the Nazis were an inconsistent bunch, and many in Britain had written Poland off as a client-state of Germany since 1934.
Radical what now? We hadn't had an explicit policy on that dispute: why should we have, as it lay dormant? Our policy depended on how it came up.
You're employing hindsight here. We of course know that Hitler would stop at nothing until he had exterminated the Jews, enslaved the Slavs, and conquered Europe, but people at the time thought that he was a rational statesman trying to increase German strength.
And what use did Germany have with anything beyond the Sudetenland? Czechia could be made into a puppet and as far as we were concerned Poland was already a German ally against the Soviets (and the Czechs).
We knew no more about the state of the German economy than about the actual strength of the German military.
Last edited:
Eurofed
Banned
Simply not true. The Munich Agreement got overwhelming approval in Britain and France.
True, but after Hitler occupied Prague. Absolutely not after Munich.
The "contract", here, is the Munich Agreement. And we are assuming that ITTL Hitler honors it. That agreement said absolutely nothing and made no committments about German renunciation to long-standing claims over Danzig and West Prussia.
Last edited:
Eurofed
Banned
Even if costs Germany more military effort to subdue Germany, the outcome was never in question, in a German-Polish fight in 1939, even without the Czech booty. But since it avoids Germany a war with the West, the costs are trivial in comparison to the benefits.
Eurofed
Banned
Not really, if it avoids Germany a war with Britain and France.
Part of the whole point of appeasement was to use Germany as an anti-Soviet bulwark, which pretty much necessarily implied Central-Eastern Europe was to be a prevailing German sphere of influence anyway. And by itself, that sphere of influence was never to be a radical threat to the security of Britain and France, as long as they stuck together. It was not really different from the old Kaiserreich-Habsburg compact. Germany and France had no unifinished business in 1938-39, even in Hitler's eyes, as long as Paris left him free to do what he planned in Central-Eastern Europe.
Hitler made those demands precisely because they were a last-minute figleaf show of moderation for his aim to conquer whole Poland. If we assume he's going to make sincere negotiation demands, we have to assume he's going to ask what any German ruler since 1918 was going to, if he were in the position to ask. Danzig and the whole Corridor (or at the very least the southern portion of it, to re-establish territorial continuity between Pomerania and East Prussia across Torun. That's where the German community in the area clustered anyway, while Poles culstered in the northern portion).
I see no problem whatsoever with London accepting not to count Kashubians as Poles, if that's what it takes to settle a nasty international crisis and spare Britain another major war. The British had harbored serious doubts about the whole Corridor issue since the beginning.
Originally posted by Eurofed
But you do remember with whom that old Kaiserreich-Habsburg compact fought in WWI?
I'm not sure if London even knew who the Kashubians were. They are Slavic, their language is similar to Polish... And if the British wanted to avoid the war at any cost, why exactly did they give unprecedented support to Poland in 1939 IOTL? If Britain was OK with Central-Eastern Europe becoming German playground, why did they care about Germany conquering the Czechs and threatening Poland? Why did they declare war on Germany at all? And what about France? Weren't they worried about Alsace-Lorraine? About loosing their influence in Poland and Romania? And their policy wasn't dictated by London.
But you do remember with whom that old Kaiserreich-Habsburg compact fought in WWI?
I'm not sure if London even knew who the Kashubians were. They are Slavic, their language is similar to Polish... And if the British wanted to avoid the war at any cost, why exactly did they give unprecedented support to Poland in 1939 IOTL? If Britain was OK with Central-Eastern Europe becoming German playground, why did they care about Germany conquering the Czechs and threatening Poland? Why did they declare war on Germany at all? And what about France? Weren't they worried about Alsace-Lorraine? About loosing their influence in Poland and Romania? And their policy wasn't dictated by London.
I Blame Communism
Banned
I wasn't talking about the Munich agreement, but even this is an oversimplification. There was an outbreak of relief that there would be no war, yes - but can we look beyond that? It was in any case stage-managed. Chamberlain has the reputation of a milksop these days but he was actually a very effective minister able to press hard for what he wanted, namely appeasement, and he kept the BBC on a tight leash.
It wasn't long before people began to wonder whether war was coming anyway. The part of Labour who weren't pacifists - and their leader in 1938 was the last man off the beach at Gallipoli and had gone to Spain to encourage the Brigaders - the Liberals, and the growing Conservative circle around Churchill were all against the agreement and said so in parliament.
And then there was Krystallnacht, and a great many souvenir-peace-mugs lying unbought in shops. The idea that people's attitude to Munich was unchanging is a simplified narrative.
Absolutely partly after Munich, absolutely partly before Munich, absolutely partly after Prague. There's 40 millions of us, we don't think as one.
Hitler promised that there would be no further territorial claims in Europe, and Chamberlain, poor bastard, believed him.
Those claims, so we thought and so a great many people all over the place thought, had been renounced in 1934, when Germany and Poland started to get chummier. They hadn't been mentioned in Nazi propaganda since. In mid-'39, Goebbels suddenly discovered that German brothers had been being set on fire and eaten in Poland all the time!
Wyragen-TXRG4P
Banned
Nope, because Czechs where Slavs, Hitler and not just him never saw the potential economical value of Boheme-Moravia, except Heydrich, to an extent.
They seized Czechia so the Czechs wouldn´t open their own front should a fight start with Poland.
Because at Munich we had conceded all halfway reasonable German claims - and within less than six months they had kicked sand in our faces by tearing up the agreement almost before the ink was dry, and seizing a country to which they had no shadow of a claim on any basis of self-determaination.
As a result, when Hitler came back with claims against Poland, no one took them seriously. It was taken for granted that they were merely pretexts for further expansion, and that Danzig, if conceded, would be just a preliminary to taking the rest of Poland, as the Sudetenland had been in the case of Czechoslovakia.
As a teenager in the early 60s, my local library still contained quite a few books from c1938 supporting German (and Hungarian) claims against Czechoslovakia. OTOH, I don't recall any supporting them against Poland - though German claims to Danzig were on paper at least as good as to the Sudetenland. Attitudes had shifted.
In 1938 the issue was the justice of German claims. In 1939, after the fall of Prague, the issue was Hitler. Of course it always had been for some, but until March '39 they were a noisy minority. After it, far more people, and soon a majority, came round to their position.
The final straw was probably the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Till then, some people on the right had seen Hitler as a lesser evil to Communism, and even a barrier against it. Now, the anti-Fascists and anti-Communists found themselves on the same side - probably to the embarrassment of many of them - and the country was pretty much united.
That is a good summary of it IMHO.
I do think that Hitler could not afford not invading the Czech rump. He needed Czech money, and he needed Skoda works. Not seizing both hurts both the rearmament program (weren't two full Panzer divisions equipped with Czech tanks?) and the already shaken finances of the Reich.