Independent Poland?

It was also Pilsudki's refusal to deal with the partition powers that led to Poland's only guarantee of independence being the ineffectual support of the UK and France. His xenophobia may have played well with the public, but led to the country being invaded by both Germany and the USSR instead of neither.

Actually Piłsudski, seeing that the west appeared unreliable, initiated a policy of rapprochement with Germany, one of the results being a non-aggression pact. He was certainly intent on avoiding a two-front war if possible. A non-aggression pact with the USSR was also signed at about the same time (IIRC it was 1932). He was not willing to make concessions happily, but saying that he ‘refused to deal’ with them is an oversimplification.

There must have been other Polish patriots out there who saw that an independent Poland could not immediately stand on it's own between two great powers and take an, if not aggressive at least contentious, stance toward both.

Of course there were, especially before 1918 when the simultaneous defeat of Germany and Russia made Poland independent by default. The National Democrats for instance, who would have been the dominant force in Polish politics had Piłsudski’s antics met with less success, hoped for increased autonomy for Poland within the Russian Empire, not true independence.
 
Piłsudski and Dmowski

If one reads the prewar books and New York Times, most Polish writers understood the difficulties in setting up a Poland. Many of them understood that compromises would be needed to have a free Poland.
Piłsudski was a kind of fantast-he was anachronist, he lived in a time of polish-lithuanian commonwealth-which was long death at time of "Marshal" (Piłsudski was known by that name in Poland) Dmowski was more realistic-but still the fantast! He knew that Ukrainians and Lithuanians would not voluntary join polish state. Both committed the same mistake-they belived that Poland can be fully independent-which was wrong-Poland can exist only as russian or german vassal. And being russian vassal was more profitable-because territories of Congress Poland was peripheial for Russia, unlike Posen and West Prussia-important provinces of Germany/Prussia. So Russia could give up claims to lands west of Bug river in the case of conflict with Germany or Austria if it would weaken Hohenzollern and Habsburg monarchies. Poland would srerve as buffer, protecting Russia from the west, while Empire would be focused on Turkish Straits-the true goal of Russia, far more important than Poland.
 
Piłsudski was a kind of fantast-he was anachronist, he lived in a time of polish-lithuanian commonwealth-which was long death at time of "Marshal" (Piłsudski was known by that name in Poland) Dmowski was more realistic-but still the fantast! He knew that Ukrainians and Lithuanians would not voluntary join polish state. Both committed the same mistake-they belived that Poland can be fully independent-which was wrong-Poland can exist only as russian or german vassal. And being russian vassal was more profitable-because territories of Congress Poland was peripheial for Russia, unlike Posen and West Prussia-important provinces of Germany/Prussia. So Russia could give up claims to lands west of Bug river in the case of conflict with Germany or Austria if it would weaken Hohenzollern and Habsburg monarchies. Poland would srerve as buffer, protecting Russia from the west, while Empire would be focused on Turkish Straits-the true goal of Russia, far more important than Poland.

Pilsudski's main idea was to create the Intermarium, a federation of smaller states that would balance Russian power.

Mapka_miedzymorza.png
 

JJohnson

Banned
Es Geloybte Aretz, Calbear's timeline, appears to be heading in the direction of free Poland without an outright war.

In regards to Germany's opinion of an independent Poland, overall, I think that the benefits definitely outweigh the costs. A free Poland, so long as West Prussia and Posen are German-controlled, cannot hope to be anything but a rump state. However, by giving the pretense of supporting Polish nationalism, and also through the dialing back of some repressive measures, Germany can use a rump Poland as a safety valve for Polish nationalists, akin to Russia simply exporting revolutionaries, nationalists, etc. to Siberia, where they won't be able to cause any harm. If the Germans place a very German-friendly king on the Polish throne (assuming we have a Polish kingdom), they've essentially offloaded all their nationalism problems onto independent Poland's shoulders. However, nationalism in Poland will almost certainly be less effective than nationalism in Germany, simply because there already exists a free Polish nation. In fact, if the Germans deign to unite Poland and Germany against Russia, perhaps by supplying the Polish Army, and unite Poland in general with Germany (through, say, a customs union, which will be necessary for the Polish economy anyways, and which can be a useful bargaining chip for Germany), they've essentially shut off Polish nationalism, and without any brutal repression.

That sounds like a pretty good idea for my timeline, where Prince Henry becomes Kaiser, since he was the oldest male. Let's say Germany goes for an independent Poland - what kind of chain of events do you see leading to that? Does WW1 and 2 still happen?
 
That sounds like a pretty good idea for my timeline, where Prince Henry becomes Kaiser, since he was the oldest male. Let's say Germany goes for an independent Poland - what kind of chain of events do you see leading to that? Does WW1 and 2 still happen?

I'm not sure, you maybe should ask Carlton Bach, who's writing that TL.
 
Top