1939 Poland as German Ally

I've read all the posts since my previous entry and I'm very grateful for all the input and insights, so many great additions that I can't follow my past practice of replying to each individually, but many thanks to all. You've taught me a lot on the subject.

I'd known that Poland, and I believe Hungry as well, joined Germany in feeding on the their neighbor's carcass, but I hadn't previously understood the circumstances. According to something I read by David Irving Poland practically started the war with Germany by trying to claim Slovenia during the late Spring of '39. .

Just a question, when did Poland ever lay claim to Slovenia? Surely you mean Slovakia? Or at least Silesia.
 
I've read all the posts since my previous entry and I'm very grateful for all the input and insights, so many great additions that I can't follow my past practice of replying to each individually, but many thanks to all. You've taught me a lot on the subject.

I'd known that Poland, and I believe Hungry as well, joined Germany in feeding on the their neighbor's carcass, but I hadn't previously understood the circumstances. According to something I read by David Irving Poland practically started the war with Germany by trying to claim Slovenia during the late Spring of '39. Actually, it may have been wise of Germany to cede the territory as it would have legitimized it's own earlier actions as well as extending the Polish buffer zone between itself and the USSR. But then one of the things Hitler wanted was his own border with the Soviets, which naturally was achieved in the pact with Stalin; except of course it started the war with Britain and the UK that he wanted to avoid. The crux of the problem is his failure to realize the western powers were not going to give him the quick decisive central or eastern European war he wanted. He seems to have been the only leader of a major power that failed to grasp this.

Assuming he somehow came to realize that vital fact, I think Germany's best course would have been continued peaceful relations with Poland -- with or without ceding Slovenia, or having Danzig ceded to themselves -- and postpones further aggressions for several years while consolidating two entire countries he'd added to the Reich from the Anschluss to the end of gorging on Czechoslovakia, much like a constrictor snake digesting a large meal.

That time would have ideally spent in adding to Germany's industry, scientific and military research without further actual expansion of it's armed forces. I think Britain and France would have quickly lost all sense of urgency along the way leaving Germany free to develop jet and rocket technology, along with that of other army and naval weaponry so that, by 1941 or 42, after two to three years of peaceful development the country would have been able to upgrade to the new weapons standards. Beyond a doubt France, and especially Britain would have been increasing their own preparedness incorporating more modern technology but they wouldn't be able to do so with a single-mindedness matching Germany's. I can't help but feel that by 1943 the Luftwaffe would have contained several jet fighter units along with replacements for the obsolescent Stuka, better tanks and in much greater numbers, along with V1 and V2 rockets (possibly for use against the Maginot Line), improved U-boats and probably a few Z-class capital ships.

The natural result, to me at least, would have been a much stronger Germany at the start of a later war, and a larger quality difference between the German military compared with those of Britain and France than had been the case in Sept 1939.

I totally agree with everything Cook said in the post pasted by Thon Taddeo. Diplomatically Ribbentrop was ridiculous -- with mistakes like his Nazi salute in London! Apparently he was a much more fanatical Nazi than the much more capable Constantine Neurath.

Then again, how much better than the historical record could any of Hitler's decisions have been considering the toddies he'd placed in so many key positions? And of course the same holds true of Mussolini, only more-so.

Many thanks to all, looking forward to reading much more.

Poland never laid claim to whole Slovakia (not Slovenia). In December 1938 Poland bullied Slovakia (autonomous at the time) to give up a small part of border region (about 220 km squared) but that was all. It is a first time I ever hear about Poland trying to claim Slovakia in spring 1939 and any theory that Poland started or provoked the war this way is IMO ridiculous. And frankly, I wouldn't consider David Irving, a known Nazi Germany apologetist, a good source.
Since late 1938 Poland was pressed by Germany to renounce its claims to Danzig/Gdańsk, to allow to build an extraterritorial highway and railway across the Corridor and to join the Anti-Comintern Pact. AFAIK it was actually Ribbentropp who mentioned Slovaka as a potential compensation for Poland and that "Black Sea is also a sea".
After Hitler occupied Czechoslovakia nobody trusted his word. That would make any Polish-German alliance more or less impossible, especially in light of Germans demands towards Poland. Poland was happy with Polish-German non aggression pact from 1934 and tried to balance between Germany and USSR.
Now, about Germany being stronger with a few years more to prepare.
1. I'm not sure German economy would have hold that long;
2. Many of the new weapons were based on experience gained during the war.
3. AFAIK first V-1s and V-2s started flying in 1944 IOTL; how come they are ready in 1943?
4. During the war Germany captured a lot of raw materials and industrial centers (Czechoslovakia, France!) which significantly improved their military abilites - without the war they would need to buy those resources and here we are back to point 1.
5. The western allies would surely monitor German arms program and prepare countermeasures with strong industry base behind them. They actually started to do it IOTL. Claiming that Germany would surely and widely technologically surpass Britain or France is, IMO, doubtful.
 
Yes, my error. I meant to write Slovakia.

As I said, this was something David Irving claimed. Since reading his Hitler's War 20 years ago, and then hearing he's a Holocaust denier (I've known actual survivors) I haven't put much faith in his claims, but this one struck me as possibly having credence as Poland did take some Czech territory as Hitler devoured the country. In one of Irving's videos on YouTube he states this case, making sound as though Poland's claims were aggressive due to Britain's assurance of backing it up in case it were attacked. I've never believed that was the situation, though Hitler attempted to pass off a Polish attack on German territory as grounds for his own invasion. I've never felt anyone believed any of that was for real.

This claim was also made by Pat Buchannon in his Unnecessary War book, which was widely criticized on many counts, but I think he's correct in that it was too late for British/French guarantees in Central and Eastern Europe after the Munich Conference, and such actions only made matters worse.

Irving says, in another video, that Hitler instructed his generals to grab as much of Poland as possible to put Germany in a better bargaining position when he was sure Britain and France would call a conference to decide the matter much as was done at Munich. But if that were the case, why would the Nazi-Soviet Pact for Poland's partition have been necessary?

-- The weapons development I conjectured on was based on those Germany was researching in 1939, when they had a flying jet aircraft prototype that was put on the back burner when the war started. From what I've read Goering and other high Luftwaffe officials before the war didn't think jets would make good fighter aircraft. The British were also delving into jet aircraft research as well, but Germany was ahead of them.

-- Rockets were also being researched, though not at the pace that was made after the war began turning on the Nazis. I'm conjecturing that real progress would have been made in this area with 3 -4 or 5 years of peace.

-- Yes, much of the actual weapons advances were made due to combat experience, but I believe Germany had enough of a pre-war edge to assure very superior weapons development during that same period of peace. The one area I'm not sure of is in heavy tanks. Without actually seeing Soviet KVs and T34s in action Germany might never have caught on to their weakness in that category. On the other hand they did develop prototypes of a heavy tank, two working models sent to Norway mainly for propaganda purposes; they showed no great combat success and I believe were already abandoned by 1940.

-- Instead of researching rockets to combat the Maginot Line a more likely development, and more consistent with Hitler's thinking would have been giant railway guns, which first saw use against Sevastopol.

I'll try to find the specific video or article by Irving I made earlier reference to; apologies for posting it before having the source to list.
 
Last edited:
(continued 1)

Good points about whether or not the German economy would have been sufficiently strengthened after absorbing Czechoslovakia to have continued as I laid out. I've heard it said that Germany went to war because the cost of so much increased military expenditure had make the country bankrupt, which Hitler intended to fix through plundering his neighbors. I don't know how true that claim is.

My belief is that after a few years of peace the economy would have been healed, and then expanded, allowing for increased research.

** Britain and France would certainly have been monitoring German military developments. Whether they'd have been able to close the gap is another matter. My feeling is both countries would have slipped back into complacency with the passing of several years without further German aggressions.
 
Last edited:
(continued 2)

Thanks for your posts, Enigmajones and Seraphim74. You both make good points and are correct to question some of those that I stated in my post from last night.

-- Something I forgot to say at that time I don't think Hitler would have held off for any length of time instead of invading Poland. Like Napoleon in 1812 he felt he was racing a clock and wanted to achieve his goals before he was too old to do so. Additionally, I'm sure he realized his medical condition was worsening and was in a rush to fight the USSR.

A further speculation is that, if allowed to negotiate after invading Poland, or if not forced into a war over the invasion, that instead of using the reprieve to strengthen during peacetime he'd have invaded the USSR as quickly as possible across their new border in the middle of former Poland, presumably Spring 1940. If that didn't result in war with Britain and France -- I don't think it would have in that case as they were not friendly with that country -- it seems possible to me that he might have been successful, though not in the one season campaign he imagined. It would still have been long and hard and a bloodbath, but allowed to go on for several years, who can say? Now, if we further conjecture that the conquered people would have been treated like human beings and turned against Stalin, as they already were, I think then Germany would have eventually won out.
 
Yes, my error. I meant to write Slovakia.
As I said, this was something David Irving claimed. Since reading his Hitler's War 20 years ago, and then hearing he's a Holocaust denier (I've known actual survivors) I haven't put much faith in his claims, but this one struck me as possibly having credence as Poland did take some Czech territory as Hitler devoured the country. In one of Irving's videos on YouTube he states this case, making sound as though Poland's claims were aggressive due to Britain's assurance of backing it up in case it were attacked. I've never believed that was the situation, though Hitler attempted to pass off a Polish attack on German territory as grounds for his own invasion. I've never felt anyone believed any of that was for real.

Poles were not aggressive. Well, not towards Germany or USSR. While Polish leaders weren't above bullying weaker nations, they generally wanted either relatively small pieces of land (Slovakia) or diplomatic relations (Lithuania). I do not approve many of their decisions, especially concerning Czechoslovakia. However, they were not suicidal - they knew perfectly well that a conflict with rapidly remilitarizing Germany would be a disaster and wanted to avoid it, although not at any cost.To be honest a country guaranteed support from 2 great powers, France and Britain, had many reasons to feel safer. Problem is nobody suspected Hitler and Stalin would become allies.

This claim was also made by Pat Buchannon in his Unnecessary War book, which was widely criticized on many counts, but I think he's correct in that it was too late for British/French guarantees in Central and Eastern Europe after the Munich Conference, and such actions only made matters worse.

Worse? How worse? Does he mean that without French and British support Poland would surrender without a fight? IMO it is doubtful. And even if he is right, hindsight is 20/20.

The weapons development I conjectured on was based on those Germany was researching in 1939, when they had a flying jet aircraft prototype that was put on the back burner when the war started. From what I've read Goering and other high Luftwaffe officials before the war didn't think jets would make good fighter aircraft. The British were also delving into jet aircraft research as well, but Germany was ahead of them.

So, before the war Goering didn't believe in jets. So without the war he still doesn't believe in them and the jest program progresses slowly, if at all.

- Rockets were also being researched, though not at the pace that was made after the war began turning on the Nazis. I'm conjecturing that real progress would have been made in this area with 3 -4 or 5 years of peace.

Again, you say that in time of peace the rocket research progressed much slower than during the war. So without the war....

Yes, much of the actual weapons advances were made due to combat experience, but I believe Germany had enough of a pre-war edge to assure very superior weapons development during that same period of peace. The one area I'm not sure of is in heavy tanks. Without actually seeing Soviet KVs and T34s in action Germany might never have caught on to their weakness in that category. On the other hand they did develop prototypes of a heavy tank, two working models sent to Norway mainly for propaganda purposes; they showed no great combat success and I believe were already abandoned by 1940.

Frankly I do not believe Germans weapons in early stage of war were that much superior than French or British. Me-109s had worthy adversaries in Spitfires or D.520 ; Germans tanks had problem fighting Mathilas at Arras. Germany did not have better weapons, they simply used them better. And I disagree with your opinion that Britain and France would be complacent with the peace - they would observe German technologicval advancement with increasing worry. Britain would be especially concerned with Kriegsmarine development.

My belief is that after a few years of peace the economy would have been healed, and then expanded, allowing for increased research.

German economy was in trouble exactly beacuse of rapid remilitarization. If Germans keep doing that, they go broke.

A further speculation is that, if allowed to negotiate after invading Poland, or if not forced into a war over the invasion, that instead of using the reprieve to strengthen during peacetime he'd have invaded the USSR as quickly as possible across their new border in the middle of former Poland, presumably Spring 1940. If that didn't result in war with Britain and France -- I don't think it would have in that case as they were not friendly with that country -- it seems possible to me that he might have been successful, though not in the one season campaign he imagined. It would still have been long and hard and a bloodbath, but allowed to go on for several years, who can say? Now, if we further conjecture that the conquered people would have been treated like human beings and turned against Stalin, as they already were, I think then Germany would have eventually won out.

No way. Germany would not be able to sustain a long war against USSR. IOTL Hitler had most of Europe's resources at his disposal, support from Finland, Romania, Hungary and Italy (weaker than Germans but still useful). And he still lost. Even if Britain and France refuse to declare war on Germany after invasion of Poland, Hitler still has economical problems and 2 powerful potential enemies behind his back when he goes after Stalin. Spring 1940? IMO the Soviets celebrate New Year in Berlin in 1942.
 
Poland never laid claim to whole Slovakia (not Slovenia). In December 1938 Poland bullied Slovakia (autonomous at the time) to give up a small part of border region (about 220 km squared) but that was all. It is a first time I ever hear about Poland trying to claim Slovakia in spring 1939 and any theory that Poland started or provoked the war this way is IMO ridiculous. And frankly, I wouldn't consider David Irving, a known Nazi Germany apologetist, a good source.
Since late 1938 Poland was pressed by Germany to renounce its claims to Danzig/Gdańsk, to allow to build an extraterritorial highway and railway across the Corridor and to join the Anti-Comintern Pact. AFAIK it was actually Ribbentropp who mentioned Slovaka as a potential compensation for Poland and that "Black Sea is also a sea".
After Hitler occupied Czechoslovakia nobody trusted his word. That would make any Polish-German alliance more or less impossible, especially in light of Germans demands towards Poland. Poland was happy with Polish-German non aggression pact from 1934 and tried to balance between Germany and USSR.
Now, about Germany being stronger with a few years more to prepare.
1. I'm not sure German economy would have hold that long;
2. Many of the new weapons were based on experience gained during the war.
3. AFAIK first V-1s and V-2s started flying in 1944 IOTL; how come they are ready in 1943?
4. During the war Germany captured a lot of raw materials and industrial centers (Czechoslovakia, France!) which significantly improved their military abilites - without the war they would need to buy those resources and here we are back to point 1.
5. The western allies would surely monitor German arms program and prepare countermeasures with strong industry base behind them. They actually started to do it IOTL. Claiming that Germany would surely and widely technologically surpass Britain or France is, IMO, doubtful.
Well there was strong propolish sentiment in parts of Slovak autonomous movement which even called for Czechoslovak Polish allience. Some of them even for Polish-Slovak union. In time of Munich they actually prized Poland for not comming with territorial demands against Slovakia. Before Munich there was even declaration of HSLS in which in case of conflict with Germany and likely defeat and break up of Czechoslovakia they requested Union with Poland! Declaration however didn’t reached Warsaw before Munich agreement was signed. Right after Munich I read Poland was supportive to Slovak independencd under Polish protectorate but autonomy and Slovak support for Czechoslovak dualism brought disappointment in Warsaw. Later after Munich when Poland came with its territorial demands Bratislava was shocked.

Edit: There is interesting POD. Let say declaration reach Warsaw before Munich. Polands quietly decide to support Prague to defend itself. Czechoslovakia is defeated, Germany is deeply weekened and Poland Slovak union become reality. But I guess it is already to late for that.
 
Question, assuming this does happen and Poland allies with Germany, what then becomes the reason for war with France and Britain? With Poland onside Hitler potentially has a land route to attack the Soviet Union for resources.

Assuming Poland is onside and agrees to an aggressive war with the Soviets or Germany somehow fabricates enough evidence of an eminent Soviet invasion to convince them what will the Allies do? France and Great Britain probably aren't going to be happy with a resurgent Germany, but they probably aren't going to be interested in defending the Soviet Union either. They don't really have casus belli for war since Poland is nominally a willing ally. This is of course assuming that most other events like the Munich agreement and annexation of the Sudetenland go OTL.

(Or is this too ASB because Poland's leadership would be far too cautious about poking the Russian Bear).

The alternative is Poland refuses to help Germany in an aggressive war or give the Germany Army transit through Poland. And in that case the Nazis probably would invade Poland anyways.
 
Last edited:

elkarlo

Banned
Not with the Nazis ruling Germany. The only people the Nazis hated more than the Poles were Jews. WWII started to give Germany Lebensraum in the East. At the direct expense of the Poles. The only way you're getting Germany and Poland to Ally in 1939 is if Skippy makes em do it.
Seems to be that Hitler actually toned DOWN his antisemitism, and wasn't that anti-slavic. No pact with the USSR, and he'd have to make a friend somewhere. Besides Poland cooperated in taking about Czechoslovakia, even getting a little chunk.
 
Why would Germans attack Soviet Union, if there is Poland between them and their 'Lebensraum' in the East? Polish-German alliance makes sense only if it is defensive pact, and Germany fears invasion (perhaps, there is French-Soviet alliance?).
 
When they came to power, the Nazis substantially reduced the Polonophobic measures of the Weimar government and where Weimar was gearing up for a war with Poland or at the very least was angling to bully the Poles into giving up the "rightful German territory" they held, the Nazis at first were indicating that they were willing to talk to the Poles like reasonable people.

You could read this in one of two ways:

1) Hitler really was open to positive relations with Poland, and brutalized Poland only because he thought doing so was convenient.
2) Hitler always hated the Poles but was willing to do and say anything to break the alliances between the countries surrounding Germany.

Either way, at the end of the day, Hitler is an opportunist, so even if he hated Poland, I think there's still a chance for a long term Polish-German alliance if it opens doors to things Hitler wants more.

I think the bigger question is whether Hitler would ever offer Poland an alliance on terms the Poles would accept. It is very unlikely that Nazi Germany would accept Poland keeping the Corridor, but for Poland, giving up the Corridor is basically the same as accepting to become a German vassal state.

I suppose if both Germany and Poland were feeling backed into a corner by some external threat (most likely the Soviets) they might swallow their pride and accept some compromise deal that allowed an alliance of necessity.

And of course, just because Hitler allied with Poland doesn't mean he won't brutalize it later.

fasquardon
 

Cook

Banned
This topic drew me to this site...

Not with the Nazis ruling Germany. The only people the Nazis hated more than the Poles were Jews.

That must be why Hitler didn’t isn’t even mentioned in Mein Kampf, while devoting an entire chapter to the South Tyrol; the Austrian Territory lost to Italy after the First World War. That must also be why Hitler’s very first foreign policy act upon becoming Chancellor was to end a highly damaging (for Poland, not Germany) tariff war with Warsaw and follow it up by signing the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact on January 26, 1934. He then spent the next five years praising Polish Marshal Piłsudski in numerous major speeches and lamenting the loss of a strong negotiating partner. Doubtless that is the reason Foreign Minister Ribbentrop made repeated efforts to entice the Poles into the Anticomintern Pact and, following the carve-up of Czechoslovakia in 1938, insisted that Prague surrender Těšín to the Polaes, a city of a quarter of a million people and at the time a major industrial and mining centre and a strategically important rail centre.

While the old Prussian Aristocracy hated the Poles, the Nazis, who were predominantly Bavarian, did not. It was only after the Poles had repeatedly refused to align themselves with him that Hitler turned on them; the wrath of a spurned lover.
 
Poland, with a lot of arm twisting and Nazi's not being Nazi's, might enter a defensive pact with Germany , its not going to enter an offensive one and that is a problem. Germany by 1939 is starting to run out of money, the bonanza of seized Jewish assets has been used up, IOU's have been issued in vast numbers and foreign exchange is almost exhausted. Hitler has to find a source of funds or the German economy will start to collapse. If Poland is a defensive ally only , then it virtually has to be war with France. Unfortunately for Hitler, the Generals would regard that as madness and almost certainly say No ( without a Polish campaign to boost Hitlers prestige his position is far weaker ).
Germany's only options then are to retrench military spending and try to turn the economy around, almost certainly undermining the Nazi's or stab Poland in the back. The second option being a lot more likely.
 
That must be why Hitler didn’t isn’t even mentioned in Mein Kampf, while devoting an entire chapter to the South Tyrol; the Austrian Territory lost to Italy after the First World War. That must also be why Hitler’s very first foreign policy act upon becoming Chancellor was to end a highly damaging (for Poland, not Germany) tariff war with Warsaw and follow it up by signing the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact on January 26, 1934. He then spent the next five years praising Polish Marshal Piłsudski in numerous major speeches and lamenting the loss of a strong negotiating partner. Doubtless that is the reason Foreign Minister Ribbentrop made repeated efforts to entice the Poles into the Anticomintern Pact and, following the carve-up of Czechoslovakia in 1938, insisted that Prague surrender Těšín to the Polaes, a city of a quarter of a million people and at the time a major industrial and mining centre and a strategically important rail centre.

While the old Prussian Aristocracy hated the Poles, the Nazis, who were predominantly Bavarian, did not. It was only after the Poles had repeatedly refused to align themselves with him that Hitler turned on them; the wrath of a spurned lover.


TBH Mein Kampf is a bit of a mess in terms of being a coherent policy document, and Hitler prewar sometimes made moves that would on the face of it belie his true long term intentions in order to serve short term goals. For example I doubt we'd look at the molotov ribbentrop pact as proof that Hitler was friendly with the Soviets, so I don't think we can describe the ending of the tariffs and German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact as proof of long term friendliness either. Rather more proof that Hitler knew he needed to ease trade and a few years of peace.

The corollary being once Italy went Fascist and Mussolini stated looking like an likely ally, well that chapter on the Tyrol kind of didn't lead to anything either.

If you look at Hitler's driving bugbears (German Lebensraum, aryan superiority, racial 'threats' & unfair versaille) there is no way Poland isn't in his sights as it ticks all four boxes.
 
Last edited:
Top