How should Poland pursue post-WWI eastern conflicts?

[Magnificate]

Involve itself in the Russian Civil War at all? Aim for the prolonging of conflict in Russia or decisively support one of the sides? Delay as much as possible? Hope for Western arbitration?
Prop up (in)dependent Ukraine or aim to annex it? Which borders? Perhaps work towards a federation? What to do about Lvov and the Ukrainian population?
How about Lithuania? Aim to restore PLC? What to do about Vilnius?

How to best achieve the selected goals? How to pursue diplomacy with the Entente regarding conflicts in the east?

[yourworstnightmare]

It's geographical position between Germany and Russia means whatever they do or don't do will later blow up in their faces. If they somehow could end up with good relations with one of these giant neighbors, it'd help a lot.

[Svetonius21]

Independent Ukraine definitely isn't in polish interest, even if originaly founded with polish support, with friendly govenment installed in Kiev, sooner or later Ukraine will end as german ally-Poles had nothing to offer anymore, while with german support Ukrainians could recall for Lwów/Lviv (if not for Chełm and Przemyśl!) Only potential positive effect-as common enemy Ukraine can bring Russia (unless it's red Russia) and Poland closer to each other. Geopolitically Ukraine was for Poland like Serbia was to Austria-Hungary, or Poland for Prussia/Germany (dangerous just by their existence) The best possible situation for Poland in the East is Russia divided between Reds and Whites into two states balancing each other. Somethin like North and South Korea but far, far bigger.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by yourworstnightmare

It's geographical position between Germany and Russia means whatever they do or don't do will later blow up in their faces. If they somehow could end up with good relations with one of these giant neighbors, it'd help a lot.

Not just help, but IMO, it is mandatory. The issue for Poland post 1922 is that it took enough land from Russia to make it mad, and the same for Germany. Poland needed a diplomatic solution to the dilemma, and was unable/unwilling to find it. So basically it is give up most of the land past the Bug, or give up West Prussia and maybe Posen.

[Tizoc]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

Not just help, but IMO, it is mandatory. The issue for Poland post 1922 is that it took enough land from Russia to make it mad, and the same for Germany. Poland needed a diplomatic solution to the dilemma, and was unable/unwilling to find it. So basically it is give up most of the land past the Bug, or give up West Prussia and maybe Posen.

It's doubtful that giving away land would stop Revolutionary Russia from sooner or later goind to "liberate" Polish peasants & workers. And talking about giving away Greater Poland to Germany - you know that it liberated itself from Germany in 1919 in a succcesful uprising?

[MSZ]

Giving up land to either Germany or Russia is pointless - who is to say that either of them would be satisfied? OTL Russia wasn't satidfied with getting all the land east of the Elbe, Germany wanted to get everything up to the Urals. So the idea of "give stuff to one enemy so they don't hate us" is pointless - they will be aggressive regardless what Poland gave them and even in a best case scenaro would have no reason to aid Poland against the other, while Poland not having the resources from those provinces it gave up would be easier prey.

Certainly pursuing a policy of friendship with one or at best both of the two giants around it would be a good thing, but Poland can hardly afford to give up resources and population in return for goodwill, which may not even be granted to it. OTL the policy of partitioning Posen and West Prussia to satissfy both sides, as well as dividing Belarus made sense - if either the German or Soviet leadership were sane. Pushing further east or west, trying to federalize it would just make a second Yugoslavia, which the Poles were right not to make.

So the policy pursued ought to be like OTL obtaining those territories which it could absorb, while also having a least-possible revisionist neighbours plus a system of alliances in Central europe rather than relying on France. Thus Poland ought to push for an alliance with the Whites - whichever seemed sane enough to recognize Poland - while also forming an alliance bloc in the region - like the OTL Warsaw Accord, only best extended by the Little Entante. The troubles with Tsesin could be resolved by either accepting its loss and pushing for it to be granted Transcarpathia-like autonomy within Czechoslovakia, or taking it by force before the state consolidates - they would not miss what they didn't have.

Lithuania is best to be left alone, while Vilnus allowed to be part of Poland. That city itself was worth more than the rest of Lithuania combined probably.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Tizoc

It's doubtful that giving away land would stop Revolutionary Russia from sooner or later goind to "liberate" Polish peasants & workers. And talking about giving away Greater Poland to Germany - you know that it liberated itself from Germany in 1919 in a succcesful uprising?

If both Russia and German is hostile to the existence of Poland, how does one reasonably expect it to end well? The Poles need to deal with reality, not some greater Polishwank fantasy world.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by MSZ

Giving up land to either Germany or Russia is pointless - who is to say that either of them would be satisfied? OTL Russia wasn't satidfied with getting all the land east of the Elbe, Germany wanted to get everything up to the Urals. So the idea of "give stuff to one enemy so they don't hate us" is pointless - they will be aggressive regardless what Poland gave them and even in a best case scenaro would have no reason to aid Poland against the other, while Poland not having the resources from those provinces it gave up would be easier prey.

Certainly pursuing a policy of friendship with one or at best both of the two giants around it would be a good thing, but Poland can hardly afford to give up resources and population in return for goodwill, which may not even be granted to it. OTL the policy of partitioning Posen and West Prussia to satissfy both sides, as well as dividing Belarus made sense - if either the German or Soviet leadership were sane. Pushing further east or west, trying to federalize it would just make a second Yugoslavia, which the Poles were right not to make.

So the policy pursued ought to be like OTL obtaining those territories which it could absorb, while also having a least-possible revisionist neighbours plus a system of alliances in Central europe rather than relying on France. Thus Poland ought to push for an alliance with the Whites - whichever seemed sane enough to recognize Poland - while also forming an alliance bloc in the region - like the OTL Warsaw Accord, only best extended by the Little Entante. The troubles with Tsesin could be resolved by either accepting its loss and pushing for it to be granted Transcarpathia-like autonomy within Czechoslovakia, or taking it by force before the state consolidates - they would not miss what they didn't have.

Lithuania is best to be left alone, while Vilnus allowed to be part of Poland. That city itself was worth more than the rest of Lithuania combined probably.

Giving up land to Hitler was pointless. Working out a compromise about 1925 is a different story. Poland HAS to seek a protective alliance with either Germany or USSR. Which one is the lesser evil in the early 1920's? When combined with other measures such as supporting Austrian unification with Germany, German rearmament, Germany not paying reparations, there is a viable path forward.

And you frame the question wrong. Without giving up some land, there can be no good will. The little Entente was too weak.

[Zaius]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

If both Russia and German is hostile to the existence of Poland, how does one reasonably expect it to end well? The Poles need to deal with reality, not some greater Polishwank fantasy world.

If one’s country has two enemies which temporarily cannot threaten it’s independence, it seems wise to preserve it for the time being. Once the situation becomes untenable, it will at least be capable of chosing which foe to submit to depending upon how the situation develops – and might even be able to offer some conditions. IMO it’s much better then a priori submitting to a chosen enemy.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Zaius

If one’s country has two enemies which temporarily cannot threaten it’s independence, it seems wise to preserve it for the time being. Once the situation becomes untenable, it will at least be capable of chosing which foe to submit to depending upon how the situation develops – and might even be able to offer some conditions. IMO it’s much better then a priori submitting to a chosen enemy.

No it will not get the choice. The problem is both states have been using Poland as the evil whipping boy for Propaganda. By the time it waits for Germany to rearm, it is too late.

[Zaius]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

No it will not get the choice. The problem is both states have been using Poland as the evil whipping boy for Propaganda.

I’m not sure if this is quite true for Germany. One of Hitler’s first acts in international politics was signing a non-aggression pact with Poland. And didn’t he keep the propaganda aimed specifically at Poland relatively muted until 1939 when he decided to invade it? Also, propaganda is not always the same as foreign policy.

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

By the time it waits for Germany to rearm, it is too late.

Why is it necessarily too late? Didn’t even Hitler consider an anti-Soviet alliance with Poland for a time? And what if Germany gets to rearm under someone more moderate?

And even if there is in fact no choice – why should acquiring independence now and keeping it for a time be a worse decision then abandoning it at once, just because it can’t be maintained indefinitely?

[Svetonius21]

In the case of white victory there is chance for agreement with Russia, especially if Wrangel led white movement-he seems to be more elastic in negotiations than Denikin. But there is no chance for agreement with Soviets-they had nothing to offer except for GULAG, Holodomor and red terror. Agreement with Germany depends for internal german political situation far more than border changes, Poland could agree for Danzig annexation or give up some land in Silesia to improve relations with Germany (but it's tiny chance for it), but definitely not whole Corridor (it should be discussed only in ASB section), and should accept german protection (hard to do ) . Second condition-Germany should be ruled by some resonable non-racist leader who would appreciate the gesture and would be satified enough with vassalized Poland, not Lebensraum. Then it might work as some kind of Mitteleuropa In this situation question of corridor will be irrelevant, as Germany de facto have whole Poland as their sphere of influence which is far more beneficent than having small strip of infertile land populated by hostile people. But for this scenario you need changes in both countries, and no Hitler.

[Zaius]

Originally Posted by Svetonius21

In the case of white victory there is chance for agreement with Russia, especially if Wrangel led white movement-he seems to be more elastic in negotiations than Denikin.

Agreed on Wrangel – but what were the chances of a Wrangel actually coming to power? IIRC a lot more of the important White leaders were stubborn people like Denikin who couldn’t accept an independent Poland at all, not to mention any border changes.

Originally Posted by Svetonius21

But there is no chance for agreement with Soviets-they had nothing to offer except for GULAG, Holodomor and red terror.

A scenario where the reds win has the advantage that, being red, they terrify most of Europe and are slightly less likely to find allies. (And, with the beneft of hindsight, we also know that there is a high probability of the rather cautious Stalin coming to power, although nobody in 1920 or so can know this).

Originally Posted by Svetonius21

Agreement with Germany depends for internal german political situation far more than border changes

Quite so.

[MSZ]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

Giving up land to Hitler was pointless. Working out a compromise about 1925 is a different story. Poland HAS to seek a protective alliance with either Germany or USSR. Which one is the lesser evil in the early 1920's? When combined with other measures such as supporting Austrian unification with Germany, German rearmament, Germany not paying reparations, there is a viable path forward.

And you frame the question wrong. Without giving up some land, there can be no good will. The little Entente was too weak.

Depends on your view. Giving up land - even in 1925 - brings back the same question: what later? What guarantees can one expect that giving up land to either will make them play nice? 1914 Germany wasn't satisfied with a 1914 eastern border - why would it be satisfied with less? And once given what it wants, why would it even want to aid Poland against anyone? Same problem goes with trying to find a compromise with Russia.

In my opinion what Poland could do is to keep those lands which would not cause some permanent, eternal feeling of german revanchism to have place, and simply wait a generation or two for those remembering those territories as being "a natural part of the Reich" to either die out or quit politics. Which Poland did OTL - didn't take east prussia, danzig, hardly any territories with a native (non-artificialy settled) german population. Kind of what happened after WW2 - by around 1970, most germans did not consider revisionism of eastern border to be super-important, nor were they willing to die for getting back Breslau. So simply stalling and hoping that normal, non-crazy minds will rule Germany are a sound policy - after all a world war would benefit no one, not Poland, not Germany, not the USSR. So it is very much in both Poland's and Germany's interest for it not to happen.

And in the east, the mistake Poland made was the assumption that a socialist Russia is just as bad as nationalist/tzarist/white Russia. While the expansionist goals of both cases certainly made any compromise in good faith impossible, the difference was that having nationalists as neighbours would be potentially more benefitial than the communists for reasons of ethnicity. Both Poland and Russia faced the problem of a Ukrainian natinal revival and a potential Belarussian/other East Slavic ones. Expansion furthereast for Poland or further west for Russia would just mean annexing more problematic or potentially problematic peoples. But nationalistic Russia is much more likely to recognize it as a problem (as it recognizes the existence of nationalisms) than a soviet Russia, which ignores it completly by ideology. In other words, white Russia is more likely to think twice about border revisionism, because its calculations of benefits/loses would be different, possibly to a point where they would realize that keeping the ukrainians divided will be benefitial for both parties, giving them an ally in the struggle.

[Zaius]

And to answer the OP:

Ukraine

Definitely not worth getting involved with if the whites are winning. Otherwise, under certain circumstances, it might be worth supporting - but I'm not sure which these might be, precisely, if they can happen at all. Whatever happens to Ukraine, it must not be bound to Poland in any sort of federation. IMO an autonomous East Galicia within Poland when no independent Ukraine exists is the closest to this sort of thing which does not make disaster highly probable. And if Ukraine is independent, Poland definitely shouldn’t take any of Volhynia, and nothing in Galicia east of Lvov and the oilfields. (Although even if there is no independent Ukraine, it would be a destabilizing factor anyway).

Lithuania

As far as Lithuania is concerned, OTL was probably the most stable solution. A loose federation of Poland and a Lithuania comprised of two cantons centered on Vilna and Kaunas may cause less quarrels, but would be awfully unstable; and directly puppetizing Lithuania or outright absorbing it would be even worse. Unless the ‘federation’ solution is implemented, from an entirely pragmatic point of view it doesn’t matter wether the Lithuanians are angry at not having Vilna – Lithuania is too weak to be a threat.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Magnificate

Involve itself in the Russian Civil War at all? Aim for the prolonging of conflict in Russia or decisively support one of the sides? Delay as much as possible? Hope for Western arbitration?
Prop up (in)dependent Ukraine or aim to annex it? Which borders? Perhaps work towards a federation? What to do about Lvov and the Ukrainian population?
How about Lithuania? Aim to restore PLC? What to do about Vilnius?

How to best achieve the selected goals? How to pursue diplomacy with the Entente regarding conflicts in the east?

At the very least it should not have invaded both Czechoslovakia and Russia, nor should it have collaborated with Germany to dismember Czechoslovakia to avenge its getting its ass kicked.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by Zaius

I’m not sure if this is quite true for Germany. One of Hitler’s first acts in international politics was signing a non-aggression pact with Poland. And didn’t he keep the propaganda aimed specifically at Poland relatively muted until 1939 when he decided to invade it? Also, propaganda is not always the same as foreign policy.

It wasn’t that Nazi anti-Polish propaganda was muted prior to 1939, it’s that there wasn’t any. Just the opposite, Poland was regularly praised by Der Sturmer and other Nazi propaganda papers and Hitler repeatedly praised the Poland’s General Pilsudshki in the Reichstag. All criticism of the situation in Danzig was directed at the treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations, not Poland.

Hitler’s first foreign policy act was to sign a non-aggression pact with Poland that normalised diplomatic relations and ended a highly damaging trade war. (Highly damaging for Poland, it had hardly affected Germany.) The Poles for their part welcomed the rise of Hitler, seeing an Austrian at the helm as an improvement over the previously Prussian dominated Conservative governments.

There is no mention of Poland in the November 1937 Fuhrer conference where Hitler spelled out his plans for the next several years. Austria and Czechoslovakia are mentioned, as are the Baltic States and Alsace – Lorraine, and ultimately Russia, but not Poland. During 1938 the Nazis kept the Polish government very well informed of their plans, briefing ambassador Lipski and foreign minister Beck in detail concerning the invasion plan of Czechoslovakia. It was Hitler’s mention of Polish and Hungarian territorial demands on the Czechs, and the fear that he would demand that they be included in the settlement that made Chamberlain rush the final settlement at Munich, lest these new, added demands proved to be the final straw to the Czechs.

The relationship only began to change after 1938 after the Poles had repeatedly rejected German offers of an alliance; Hitler grew frustrated and things went from there.

[Nietzsche]

Originally Posted by MSZ

Depends on your view. Giving up land - even in 1925 - brings back the same question: what later? What guarantees can one expect that giving up land to either will make them play nice? 1914 Germany wasn't satisfied with a 1914 eastern border - why would it be satisfied with less? And once given what it wants, why would it even want to aid Poland against anyone? Same problem goes with trying to find a compromise with Russia.

Look. If you fork over the corridor before the Nazis rise to prominence, you have a damned good chance of a friendly, helpful Germany.

Posen was never much of a sore spot, but West Prussia isn't going to just be left there. West Prussia might as well have been Germany's Posen. There's no negotiating it out. Either they get it by peace or take it by force.

Poland isn't getting a lasting peace with Germany without giving it up. ANY Germany is going to take it back. Socialist, Fascist, Monarchist, Republican, does-not-matter. Germany will re-arm, and when she does, Poland is either at her side or on her plate.

[MSZ]

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

Look. If you fork over the corridor before the Nazis rise to prominence, you have a damned good chance of a friendly, helpful Germany.

Posen was never much of a sore spot, but West Prussia isn't going to just be left there. West Prussia might as well have been Germany's Posen. There's no negotiating it out. Either they get it by peace or take it by force.

Poland isn't getting a lasting peace with Germany without giving it up. ANY Germany is going to take it back. Socialist, Fascist, Monarchist, Republican, does-not-matter. Germany will re-arm, and when she does, Poland is either at her side or on her plate.

And still this doesn't anwser the problem I'm showing - what next? Why would any Germany - Socialist, Fascist, Monarchist, Republican - be satisfied with just Pomeralia? What guarantees can it give that it will not try to push further -especially once it has Pomeralia and thus all the leverage it needs?

Seeing that a world war is not in Germany's interests, onemay very well state that it is better for Germany to give up those claims and pursue peaceful coexistence - Pomeralia hardly had any real value to the Germans. And seeing that present day German revisionist feeiling is nowhere near the one from 1939, I believe that time and a generation change might just lead to the Germans accepting the situation.

Plus - Soviet Russia is a threat to not only Poland but Germany as well. Keeping Poland as a viable buffer state is very much in Germany's benefit and worth much more than Pomeralia.

[Nietzsche]

Originally Posted by MSZ

And still this doesn't anwser the problem I'm showing - what next? Why would any Germany - Socialist, Fascist, Monarchist, Republican - be satisfied with just Pomeralia? What guarantees can it give that it will not try to push further -especially once it has Pomeralia and thus all the leverage it needs?

Seeing that a world war is not in Germany's interests, onemay very well state that it is better for Germany to give up those claims and pursue peaceful coexistence - Pomeralia hardly had any real value to the Germans. And seeing that present day German revisionist feeiling is nowhere near the one from 1939, I believe that time and a generation change might just lead to the Germans accepting the situation.

Plus - Soviet Russia is a threat to not only Poland but Germany as well. Keeping Poland as a viable buffer state is very much in Germany's benefit and worth much more than Pomeralia.

This is one of the few times one can have their cake & eat it too. Germany will stop at West Prussia because precisely what you said: A buffer state between them and Stalin. There will be a showdown of some sort between the Soviet Union and anyone who doesn't sing Moscow's song. Specifically, Europe.

Poland can't face that alone. If she wants German help, she has to give something up. That would be West Prussia. If she doesn't, Germany can just wait until Poland is too weak to resist, and take whatever it wants. This'll be much more than Posen, and Germany might be able to atleast hold the line after re-armament. She sure as all-hell stands a better chance of it than Poland.

As for the expansion of Poland, that will come with the war. Hell, the war could be started the same way it did in 1939, just a couple hundred miles to the east. False-flag operation to piss off the populace atleast in Germany & Poland and then the German-Polish alliance begins a war of annihilation against the SU. France & Britain will not care, and even stand a small chance of joining in.

The alternative is getting all buddy-buddy with the Soviets and likely losing all they gained during the 20s and such. The German path costs them the Corridor. The Soviet path costs them the swathes of Belarus & Ukraine that they took, and maybe incorporation into the SU proper.

Germany can't do that last one. Not on her own. Germany could beat Poland, but it couldn't annex all of it. It simply isn't feasible. The difference is that Germany will eventually hit an industrial and military ceiling. So will Poland. So will Russia. The difference is that Russia has a much higher ceiling than the other two.

Poland is making a deal with the devil either way she goes, it's unavoidable. Międzymorze and'Prometheism' is as impossible as Sealion.