What were German plans for poland if they won WW1

Okay so I'm going to dredge up an old post of mine because I think it is relevant
The problem is that much of what people “know” about the CP’s post-war plans is that they are filtered though Entente propaganda. Hence the September-Program went from being one proposal among many, by mostly private individuals, to the inevitable result of any German victory.
The truth is that German leadership didn’t have a coherent plan for what they would do after they won. Rather, it changed depending on the military situation, Germany’s internal political situation at the time, the group making the proposal, and how they were feeling that day.
 

Riain

Banned
it seems like the vast majority of parties in the Reichstag were against any major annexations in Poland at all.

The Reichstag 'Peace Resolution' of July 1917 called for no annexations and no indemnities. IIUC Brest Litovsk recognised Poland and the Baltics as independent rather than annexing them to Germany, and didn't ask for indemnities. In August 1918 the Soviets came to a cash settlement with Germany, not as an indemnity but as compensation for the German owned property and assets in Russia that the Soviets had nationalised.
 
The Reichstag 'Peace Resolution' of July 1917 called for no annexations and no indemnities. IIUC Brest Litovsk recognised Poland and the Baltics as independent rather than annexing them to Germany, and didn't ask for indemnities. In August 1918 the Soviets came to a cash settlement with Germany, not as an indemnity but as compensation for the German owned property and assets in Russia that the Soviets had nationalised.
Just as with longtimelurker's post above re: the Napkinprogramme, much of what's said about the Treaties of Brest-Litovsk are filtered through the lens of post-war propaganda.... and one has to do a LOT of Fischer-esque reading-between-the-lines to come to those same conclusions....
I even keep a downloaded copy of the full text of the Treaties (people forget there were two, the other being with Ukraine) handy, just in case people want to pick over the finer points of 'em :)
 

Riain

Banned
Just as with longtimelurker's post above re: the Napkinprogramme, much of what's said about the Treaties of Brest-Litovsk are filtered through the lens of post-war propaganda.... and one has to do a LOT of Fischer-esque reading-between-the-lines to come to those same conclusions....
I even keep a downloaded copy of the full text of the Treaties (people forget there were two, the other being with Ukraine) handy, just in case people want to pick over the finer points of 'em :)

IIUC B-L went through 3 phases; The first phase which eneded when the soviets walked out and the German resumed the offensive, the second phase that the Soviets accepted and the third phase in August which included the financial settlement and I think a few other changes.
 
The Reichstag 'Peace Resolution' of July 1917 called for no annexations and no indemnities. IIUC Brest Litovsk recognised Poland and the Baltics as independent rather than annexing them to Germany, and didn't ask for indemnities. In August 1918 the Soviets came to a cash settlement with Germany, not as an indemnity but as compensation for the German owned property and assets in Russia that the Soviets had nationalised.
... wait ...
Do you wanna argue the Brest Litovsk Treaties (the Treaty of peace 'proper' and the amending Treaty for the establishment of proper diplomatic relations as well as there was also the Treaty acknowledging the independant Ukraine and its amendmend for proper diplomatic relations) were ... LESS hard and than the Treaty of Versailles ???
... that the 6 billion Goldmarks demanded in B-L were - mathemagically - MOARRRE than the 269 billions demanded by the Entente powers 1920 ?
... that the Finns, Estonians, Latvians, Lithunians, Polands, Ukraininans, Georgians were - in truth - only differently named russians and and such would have been all too happy to stay under whatever russian ... 'protection' and 'welfare' ?
... that the no-intervention into rights of souvereignty - like control over waterways, railways, military in quality as well as quantity, patents, customs as came from the ToV - was just a perfideous way of ... 'humilitating' Russia even more (by ... enacting unawaited mildness ?) ?

Isn't it known to you - as it seems 'commion knowledge to probably the mayority on this board - that the ToV was ... 'mild' compared to B-L ?


... but I digress ...
 

Riain

Banned
... wait ...
Do you wanna argue the Brest Litovsk Treaties (the Treaty of peace 'proper' and the amending Treaty for the establishment of proper diplomatic relations as well as there was also the Treaty acknowledging the independant Ukraine and its amendmend for proper diplomatic relations) were ... LESS hard and than the Treaty of Versailles ???
... that the 6 billion Goldmarks demanded in B-L were - mathemagically - MOARRRE than the 269 billions demanded by the Entente powers 1920 ?
... that the Finns, Estonians, Latvians, Lithunians, Polands, Ukraininans, Georgians were - in truth - only differently named russians and and such would have been all too happy to stay under whatever russian ... 'protection' and 'welfare' ?
... that the no-intervention into rights of souvereignty - like control over waterways, railways, military in quality as well as quantity, patents, customs as came from the ToV - was just a perfideous way of ... 'humilitating' Russia even more (by ... enacting unawaited mildness ?) ?

Isn't it known to you - as it seems 'commion knowledge to probably the mayority on this board - that the ToV was ... 'mild' compared to B-L ?


... but I digress ...

Yes, something like that.

What was the starus of Ukraine to be in January 1918 before the Soviet walkout and German offensive? What was its status to be in the August revision of the actual treaty? IIUC that's the biggest change.
 
I think a big difference between Russia and Germany is that Prussians disdained Poles and didn't want to rule over them and assimilate them like the Russians tried. For Ludy this meant expulsion from the 30,000km strip he wanted to annex and for Hoffmann it meant minimal annexation to minimise the number of Poles in 'Germany'.

I suspect this lack of interest will suit the Poles, it will give them wriggle room they lacked under the Russians to develop as a nation.

It was exactly opposite-Germany really tried to assimilate their Poles, problem was that Poles fiercely opposed these attempts, not that there were no attempts. In Russian Poland OTO there was practiccally zero assimilation, local population didn't speak Russian even as second language (while in Germany Poles had to use German on daily basis). Simple Polish peasant in Russian Poland was not presecuted for being Pole, like Michał Drzymała was in Posen.
 

Riain

Banned
It was exactly opposite-Germany really tried to assimilate their Poles, problem was that Poles fiercely opposed these attempts, not that there were no attempts. In Russian Poland OTO there was practiccally zero assimilation, local population didn't speak Russian even as second language (while in Germany Poles had to use German on daily basis). Simple Polish peasant in Russian Poland was not presecuted for being Pole, like Michał Drzymała was in Posen.

IIUC Congress poland started out sort of semi independent but gradually russianised, which meant many or most organs of the state such as the Orthodox church were incompatible with polish society.

Prussia/Germany may have tried to assimilate poles but by WW1 many or most German leaders were over it and didn't want more poles in Germany in order to avoid further assimilation failures.

My guess is that the main difference being Russia controlled the Polish heartland whereas Germany controlled some peripheral areas, so the scope of the issue was vastly different.
 
IIUC Congress poland started out sort of semi independent but gradually russianised, which meant many or most organs of the state such as the Orthodox church were incompatible with polish society.

Prussia/Germany may have tried to assimilate poles but by WW1 many or most German leaders were over it and didn't want more poles in Germany in order to avoid further assimilation failures.

My guess is that the main difference being Russia controlled the Polish heartland whereas Germany controlled some peripheral areas, so the scope of the issue was vastly different.
Posen was not peripherial, it was just smaller than Congress Poland but it was part of Polish heartland. It was birthplace of both Polish statehood and modern Polish nationalism (that included all social classes, not just nobility).
 
It was exactly opposite-Germany really tried to assimilate their Poles, problem was that Poles fiercely opposed these attempts, not that there were no attempts. In Russian Poland OTO there was practiccally zero assimilation, local population didn't speak Russian even as second language (while in Germany Poles had to use German on daily basis). Simple Polish peasant in Russian Poland was not presecuted for being Pole, like Michał Drzymała was in Posen.
Life for Poles in the "Privislinsky Krai" wasn't exactly sunshine and roses, though:



Out of the three partitions, it seems that Galicia was by far the best place to be Polish prior to WWI...
 
Life for Poles in the "Privislinsky Krai" wasn't exactly sunshine and roses, though:



Out of the three partitions, it seems that Galicia was by far the best place to be Polish prior to WWI...

Consider one thing-Russian ethnic territory wasn't even touching Polish ethnic territory. There were Belarusians and Ukrainians living between (and Russia failed to assimilate even them, despite cultural proximity). There were more Germans than Russians living in Russian Poland. And Polish ethnic territory under Russian rule expanded (to Chełm land and Vilnius area).
 

ahmedali

Banned
Life for Poles in the "Privislinsky Krai" wasn't exactly sunshine and roses, though:



Out of the three partitions, it seems that Galicia was by far the best place to be Polish prior to WWI...
True, but the Russians are much easier than the Germans

When the Russians announced the mobilization, they were surprised that the Poles participated in large numbers (this alone shows you how bad the image of the Germans is).

I agree that the Austrians are the best towards Poland
 
Out of the three partitions, it seems that Galicia was by far the best place to be Polish prior to WWI...
Whether they would remain that way is an entirely open question
to quote from @Ltlconf from a different thread:
The local Ruthenians (Ukrainians) hate them, the local Jews same, the local Germans hate them too. So much so all three of the former groups have actually united their political parties just to screw over the Poles. Yeup. Ukrainians, Germans, and Jews hate someone enough to work together. That's a special kind of hate. Doesn't help things that the Poles are also exclusively the landowner class of Galicia and kept the Ruthenians in abject serfdom until Austria freed them just after Napoleon got kicked back out. The Poles, however, have been fighting emancipation tooth and nail (and harassing the Germans and lynching Jews) for a CENTURY and thus why everyone hates them. The Austria-Hungary bureaucrats constantly battle local Polish obstruction. It's a never ending headache.
Yeah, when I was doing research on pre war AU society and got to Galicia, it was just...weird. For someone raised in the post WW2 world and to see the Poles as heroic long suffering people...and then got this. Not one positive take on the Poles as a group. Nope. Individuals? Sure. But unfortunately even here it seems the Josef Pilsudski types, who respected non-Polish speaking non-Catholics were thin on the ground in Austrian territory. Russia got lucky there.
In Galicia the Poles as a group were so onerous and so damned determined to continue to treat everyone around them as a lesser class (and the Ukrainians as livestock to be worked to death even through famines) that, as said, they actually managed to unite Ukrainian peasants, German settlers, and Jewish towns folk into a genuine political and social alliance against them. I can count on one hand the sort of folk that has managed to pull off that special kind of hate!
UKRAINIANS, JEWS, AND GERMANS! TOGETHER! SINGING KUMBAYA!
Though to be fair the Austria-Hungarian bureaucrats tried to keep a lid on things, enforced the laws against the traditional forced labor requirements (even if it meant busting some heads), and in turn ensured no one burned down the landlord's house just because he wanted his rent on time (hey, I pay rent too, it sucks sometimes, but it is what it is). All in all, being sent to Galicia was seen as either purgatory or a way to show you could survive anything!
 

Riain

Banned
Had attitudes changed from the 1800s by WW1? It appeared that most players tried to bring the Poles they gained in the partitions to heel without success.

With the rise of nationalism as a thing assimilating the Polish will be even harder going forward. I suspect that the German powers that be knew this hence Ludy wanting to expel them from his big border strip and Hoffman wanting tiny border adjustments with few Poles as possible.

However control of Poland is important for German security in the long term and Germany has just fought and won a harrowing war to take control so they can't just let it go. I suspect that an alliance would be the most effective long term solution to Germanys problem with Poland.
 

Riain

Banned
Galizian Poles were the only ones who had reason to be pro-CP, Russian and Prussian Poles both wished Russia to win.

But Russia lost, in fact they got flogged. So given the fact of German victory, which looked likely as early as late 1915, what is the best deal they could realistically expect from the Germans? Not that they'd get it.
 
But Russia lost, in fact they got flogged. So given the fact of German victory, which looked likely as early as late 1915, what is the best deal they could realistically expect from the Germans? Not that they'd get it.

Piłsudski's camp stated after war, that Piłsudski predicted, that CP would defeat Russia but would lose in the West and that would be good moment to switch sides. Piłsudski indeed refused to fight on CP side to the bitter end and Germans started to look at Ukrainians as potential source of volunteers.
 

Riain

Banned
Piłsudski's camp stated after war, that Piłsudski predicted, that CP would defeat Russia but would lose in the West and that would be good moment to switch sides. Piłsudski indeed refused to fight on CP side to the bitter end and Germans started to look at Ukrainians as potential source of volunteers.

This is where things get strage. Pidulski thought that because of the course of the war IOTL, but presumably could think something different if ITTL the course of the war was different enough to get a CP victory.
 
Consider one thing-Russian ethnic territory wasn't even touching Polish ethnic territory. There were Belarusians and Ukrainians living between (and Russia failed to assimilate even them, despite cultural proximity). There were more Germans than Russians living in Russian Poland. And Polish ethnic territory under Russian rule expanded (to Chełm land and Vilnius area).
The idea that Russians were too far from Poland to Russify it is a bit silly given that Ukrainians and Belarusians weren't viewed as 100% Non-Russian but rather as a regional sub-group within a Pan-East Slavic country, hence the terminology of White/Little/Great Russians.
Kholm was separated from Congress Poland before WW1 which I think is indicative of Russians trying to assimilate the region into at least an Orthodox Ukrainian speaking community. Russification in places like Circassia, pontic Steppe, Bessarabia could be done through the settlement of Ukrainians as well.
Polish only expanded as a side-effect of anti-Catholic policies, this is like saying Germans were not persecuting Poles because a few German Catholics in Posen married Poles and assimilated into the Polish community because of the Kulturkampf.

Also I wouldn't say Russia failed to assimilate Ukrainians and Belarusians, to me it's self evident that if there was uninterrupted and direct Russian rule over the region there would be barely a secessionist movement today in most of Ukraine and Belarus, cities like Kiev and Odessa were majority Russian speaking at the time.
Ukrainian speakers extended into the Kuban, Belgorod and other border regions within Russia, but now very few people identify as Ukrainian or speak Ukrainian.
 
Last edited:
Top