The Polish Question

The one fly in the Czechoslovakian ointment is the historical record whereby Prague has faced invasion twice and dismemberment once since 1937 and in every case failed to use military force to resist.

Specifically 1938, 1968 and the separation of Slovakia. It becomes more difficult to justify using force to defend a nation whose record is to never defend itself.:(
 
To begin (& something I probably should have said at the outset...:(), I'm adopting the pre-Munich idea because it brings Hitler closer to his dream, attacking the Soviets.

Really, there was no need whatsoever to "fix/rig" referendums in Austria, Sudetenland, or Danzig/Upper Silesia

Noted. I recall there was interference OTL; just wanting to acknowledge I wouldn't change it, if any was done.

Now, a referendum in West Prussia might or might not need a rigging. It depends on whether the Kashubians decide to value their loose ethnolinguistic links with the Poles more, or get themselves lured by the economic and political success story that late 30s Germany was (economic appeal might be a more convincing argument against nationalism than love of democracy, in 30s Europe).

So be it, then. A lot of propaganda.

Indeed. TTL needs him to recognize that, after having given his word on the Munich settlment, he can't blatantly renege it without a really decent casus belli. OR the attention of Britain and France being distracted by something major elsewhere (say the Soviets misbahaving in Finland or Romania, or the Japanese in South East Asia).

I incline to Japan in SEA, but without war in Europe, maybe not. Finland or Romania might be more credible. Or maybe your scenario below obviates the need for annexation by force in favor of satellitization.

Would Poland left alone accept those terms, or choose to go out in a blaze of nationalistic kamikaze glory ? I honestly dunno.

That's an excellent question. I picture combined pressure from the 3 plus the implied threat of attack from Russia. Could be Hitler says, in effect, go along or you'll be left hanging. He might, in a moment of lucidity, offer Poland a variety of the Russo-German Non-Aggression Pact, with a view to gaining Polish co-operation (if not active aid) in attacking the SU later.

The big question is, would the bullheaded Poles submit to the strongarming ? Let's assume that a Munich II (for the reasons exposed above, I still prefer to go along with the assumption that this would follow Munich than replace it, since it's rather more plausible, but you are free to ignore my assumption if you really prefer) has Britain, France, Italy, and Germany agree on a settlement that would return Danzig, Upper Silesia, and West Prussia (possibly minus an extraterritorial Gdynia and a land connection to it) to Germany (possibly after some kind of referendum that according to the conditions agreed upon about the constituency, pre-war German electorate, exclusion of post-war Polish immigrants) Germany is going to win) as a fair deal. Let's also assume that savier Hitler goes along with the settlment, since he's fairly confident of being able to make post-settlement Poland a satellite through economic and political pressure.
...
The week after Poland has agreed to hand over German claims, you can expect Mr. Molotov to show up in Warshaw with maps of Eastern Poland and a nicely drawn ultimatum.

That reaction I'd count on. And I'd bet pretty heavily Hitler would tell the Poles to expect it, & that they'd be pretty sure they could.

Likewise, if Poland chooses the kamikaze way and fights alone, you can expect the Red Army to show up in Eastern Poland soon afterwards the Polish Army does not perform to its wildy exaggerated expectations.
...
So in all likelihood, both Britain and Germany acquiesce to Soviet demands, and if Poland did not fight with Germany, does likewise with USSR. This leaves a shocked, resentful rump Congress Poland which might acquiesce to becoming a German satellite.

Agreed, again. It's a toss-up, IMO, which result obtains: satellite or partition. I don't feature Hitler being too compliant to Stalin, but if he's smarter TTL, & aware (enough) of Wehrmacht weakness, he might be willing to delay.

In all likelihood, Hitler notes that Stalin, too, has entered an expansionistic cycle and steps up the military buildup preparations for Barbarossa, redoubling the efforts to pull Eastern European nations in its sphere of influence.
...
If Hitler falls victim to victory disease and misbehaves, annexing Czechia or making some move on Romania, he shall be singled out as the worse threat, and you can expect the same basic OTL scenario to unfold some months later, just with rump Czechia or Romania as the casus belli. If he does not, and quietely builds up a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, with economic and political "soft power", it's up to Stalin.
...
If both Hitler and Stalin mostly stay quiet and build armies up for their big showdown in a couple years, Britain buys popcorn and gets a good seat, making a committment to support the losing side as to avoid a total victory of either.
...
If he does not, and remains mindful of the limits of British goodwill, he has a paved way to prepare Barbarossa without interferences. if he is really smart, and Stalin's paranoia obliges him, he shall let Soviet expansionism push reluctant Romania in his camp anyway, and after that, rump Czechia shall follow (since they shall have no other outlets for their trade). Hungarians are already in the German camp by economic links. He just has to subsidy the modernization of their Army, and make promises that he shall support Hungarians claims on Slovakia and Transylvania when conditions are favourable.

It depends on what Stalin does to them. If he leaves them alone, they might try to keep on their philo-French stance, and then it depends on how much smart Hitler is. If he makes moves on Bessarabia, they may seek aid from Germany.

I've seen that thread (I think, or one very like it). Given Hitler's a bit smarter TTL, that's the way I see it going: Britain neutral/mildly anti-Soviet. I think both Hitler & Stalin would have to wait some small while (6mo? 1yr?) to get weaps production in gear enough, to mobilize manpower, so on. It's possible TTL would see "Barbarossa" with Pz2s & 3s facing BT-7s or T-26s, 109s against I-15s... I'm not sufficiently informed on the dates of introduction of Pz4, MiG-3, LaGG, T-34, & so on, to guess.

Your proposed outcome is very like the one I envisioned. Glad to see I wasn't on Mars.:D It's just possible it's sparked off by Nomonhan (OTL '39), under the Anti-Comintern Pact (or is it signed OTL yet?)... That being so, no Pacific War. Possibly U.S. aid to both sides,:p or at least no interference with aid to ROC. I'd love to see Chiang cut a deal with Japan (he'd have done it to get peace so he could destroy Mao/CCP) & join the war against the SU, but maybe that's a bit ASB.:p
 
I do wonder why everyone sees the Poles as supersoldiers, unlike the Czechs, Lithuanians, Romanians, etc. who did give up territory rather than certainly lose a war.

The Poles weren't supersoldiers. They simply would not cave in, even if and when that might have been the reasonable thing to do. It's not just in the history of WWII, but also in their previous history. Note that if people tend to think of the Polish government, Smigly-Rydz and Beck and Co., as nationalists, it is because they don't know the guys who were considered as rabid nationalists _by the Poles_. If Smigly-Rydz had tried to sell Danzig out, not to mention parts of truly national territory, he would have faced riots in the streets and assassination attempts against him personally, at least, when not a full-fledged coup.
The other ingredient beyond mere stubborn nationalism and sheer pride was the quite wrong concept of their own strength. It is recorded that on September 1, Polish cavalry officers made toasts to a ride into Berlin. While their commanders did not entertain such delusions, they certainly expected much more than what they eventually achieved.

Talking about strength, a comparison with Lithuania, or any of the Baltic states, is of course out of the question. Those states had a couple of divisions as their army, and they could not even dream of beating the Red Army.

A comparison with Romania might be more in order if one thinks about army strength. But by the time when Romania made its bitter choice, the overall outlook of the world had changed. If we assume the German attempt against Poland is made instead of Munich, then Germany is, at that time, a loose cannon in Europe (given the annexation of Austria and general looniness), but it is not the heaviest gorilla in the continent. A German-Soviet friendliness is still operation Unthinkable. The French are still powerful allies, even though clearly not enthusiast about going to war. Czechoslovakia still exists and can sell tanks. Poland itself still exists.
Conversely, when Romania caved in, its most important ally, France, was under the boot. The only neighboring countries it had been friendly with, Czechoslovakia and Poland, were gone. Hitler and Stalin were best pals. And Germany had just defeated half of Europe, and recruited other parts of it, making Hitler a man you didn't want to cross; it would have been extremely easy to lose _more_ of Transylvania to Hungary if Romania had irked Hitler.

Thus the comparison is between Poland and Czechoslovakia. Others have already dealt with it.

That said, while many countries have come to your mind that did not fight it out against very bad odds, it seems other names have not occurred to you: Finland, Belgium, Yugoslavia, Greece.
 
Evidently I wasn't clear enough.... I didn't mean following Munich, I meant instead of, but on the same model.



This fits closely with what I anticipated. I'm presuming he'd ask for a referendum, fix it/rig it or otherwise cheat, & get the Sudetenland anyhow.
I do question Hitler would stop short of annexing all of Czechoslovakia, but given TTL has him already showing more sense than OTL, grant that much.



I think you're overestimating the French willingness to go to Poland's aid... They made promises to Poland the French Army & government knew perfectly well couldn't be kept, & wouldn't be in the event; Poland was defeated before France moved.



Did I suggest it?



That may be the big question. I presume the Brits & French strongarm Poland into accepting satellite status. Does Stalin then see an opportunity, per Finland? Does this bring Britain to Poland's aid? Or give Hitler the excuse to attack the SU?

1. The dismemberment of Czechoslovakia came in two stages. First, Munich, which left a rump Czechoslovakia after the annexation of the Sudetenland to Germany and of other bits to Hungary and Poland. Then the birth of the Slovakian puppet, further gifts to Hungary, and the transformation of what remained into a German "protectorate". I assumed in proposal Hitler first achieves Munich, then leaves the rump Czechoslovakia alone and gose for Poland. If, instead, the idea is that Hitler goes for Danzig and the Corridor instead of for the Sudetenland, this is stillborn. First, it was one thing to strong-arm the Czechs into accepting Munich, but doing the same to the Poles is virtually impossible; they'd rather fight alone. Second, the very presence of a unharmed, still strong Czechoslovakia right into the German side radically changes the outlook. It is unlikely that it would join an anti-German war, even in the case that it is not just a German-Polish war but it sees the participation of France (remember the Czech and French were allied). But it would be a thoroughly hostile neutral, forcing the Germans to keep troops garrisoning the border. It would sells tanks to Poland, rather than giving them to Germany for free.
As to the ethnic issue, let's not forget that while the Sudeten Germans and the Silesian Germans were minorities within their country (Czechoslovakia and Poland), it's not as if those were uniform chunks of Germanhood into foreign countries; the Germans were, locally, a majority, not an entirety. There were Czechs in the Sudeten and Poles in Polish border regions.

2. Yes, the French did not do a lot for Poland in OTL. Yet they declared war and fought limited actions. They could very well do the same here, and, additionally, they would try to pressure the British into joining in if they have not already done that, and they would sure as hell make sure the still existing Czechoslovakia is a friendly neutral to them. Even a partial mobilization of the Czech armor, in this situation, makes the German general's hair turn white. The only possible route to not having the French declare war on Germany is to argue they wouldn't, because the British don't. I doubt that that can hold water. The French can see how Germany is growing more dangerous by the hour. Letting them take the Sudetenland, when the Czechs can be convinced to give it up, is one thing. Letting the Germans take Danzig, when the Poles tell you "we'll fight alone if we have to", is another thing.

3. You didn't suggest the German advance into Poland from Slovakia. So let's say they don't. Nor from the Protectorate. That shortens the front of some hundreds kilometers, and the length of frontage evidently helps the more mobile party. It is a frontage the Poles held with a mountain division, three mountain brigades, three infantry divisions and two reserve infantry divisions. The Germans advanced the whole 14. Army from that side, with four infantry, three mountain, one armored and one light (partially armored division). That thrust was instrumental, by crossing the San, in making the whole Vistula front insecure. Now the Germans will have to use that force elsewhere; probably at least the three mountain divisions and some of the infantry ones will simply be needed to guard the Czechs. Note that by not turning Slovakia into a puppet, they also have lost three Slovakian divisions they employed right here. In short, the chances of a quick German victory are suddenly much worse, just by this one detail.

4. I don't assume the Poles are strong-armed into yielding, because they will not. In any case, assuming the Germans win over the Poles, if Hitler then attacks the Soviet Union on the fly he's even more lunatic in this TL than in OTL. With the French still undefeated and uncommited in his back, not to mention the British? Mad.
 
TIf Smigly-Rydz had tried to sell Danzig out, not to mention parts of truly national territory, he would have faced riots in the streets and assassination attempts against him personally, at least, when not a full-fledged coup.


Sure, and so? This isnt' that different than what happened in Romania, or in Czechoslovakia.


If we assume the German attempt against Poland is made instead of Munich, then Germany is, at that time, a loose cannon in Europe (given the annexation of Austria and general looniness), but it is not the heaviest gorilla in the continent. A German-Soviet friendliness is still operation Unthinkable. The French are still powerful allies, even though clearly not enthusiast about going to war. Czechoslovakia still exists and can sell tanks. Poland itself still exists.

But if we're positing a munich situation, then France is not an ally, no?

Thus the comparison is between Poland and Czechoslovakia. Others have already dealt with it.

Actually, all I saw were some snide comments about Czechoslovakia in 1968 and a false comparison of the annexation of all of Czechoslovakia to the loss of the corridor.

That said, while many countries have come to your mind that did not fight it out against very bad odds, it seems other names have not occurred to you: Finland, Belgium, Yugoslavia, Greece.

Belgium: Bordering France and across the Channel, both who are already at war with germany.

Greece, who was only at war with the Italians at first, thanks to diplomatic bungling, and bordering the Mediterranean; and Finland, which did contemplate giving up territory (Mannerheim supported doing so), but also thought it would get more aid from the rest of Scandinavia than it did.

Yugoslavia among these is perhaps the best example as a counterpoint, but it is not as clearcut as you suggest.
 
Sure, and so? This isnt' that different than what happened in Romania, or in Czechoslovakia.

In Czechoslovakia it was nothing. In Romania it was a full-fledged attempted coup - and that in a thoroughly desperate situation as explained, and against the army. In Poland, the situation would not be as desperate, and not perceived as such, and the army would be in the coup.
[/quote]


But if we're positing a munich situation, then France is not an ally, no?

The issue is subtler than that. In OTL Munich, the French could save their face - it was the Czechs that had "decided" to cave in. But suppose the Czech don't cave in...




Belgium: Bordering France and across the Channel, both who are already at war with germany.

Greece, who was only at war with the Italians at first, thanks to diplomatic bungling, and bordering the Mediterranean; and Finland, which did contemplate giving up territory (Mannerheim supported doing so), but also thought it would get more aid from the rest of Scandinavia than it did.

Yugoslavia among these is perhaps the best example as a counterpoint, but it is not as clearcut as you suggest.

Everybody had hopes of receiving some help, including the Yugoslavians, just like the Poles in OTL and in this ATL. Yet in each and every one of the cases above the writing was on the wall, and guess what, things went as predictable in 75% of the cases, with Finland really being so exceptional that it surprised every military observer in the world. Note that even in the Belgian case, the "help" was still going to mean, in the best scenario, the war in the West being fought in Belgium, not exactly something to look forward to.
 
In Czechoslovakia it was nothing. In Romania it was a full-fledged attempted coup - and that in a thoroughly desperate situation as explained, and against the army. In Poland, the situation would not be as desperate, and not perceived as such, and the army would be in the coup.

Czechoslovakia ended up led by a general towards the end, with the slovakians maneuvering for independence..

The issue is subtler than that. In OTL Munich, the French could save their face - it was the Czechs that had "decided" to cave in. But suppose the Czech don't cave in...

But you have to ask why they then chose to cave in?

I can certainly see the French abandoning Poland; relations were very poor for much of the 1930s, and everyone from Reynaud to Briand (who was already dead, I'll grant) thought the Corridor had to be returned, and it was thought that if only Poland gaved, germany would moderate.
 

Susano

Banned
I find the formulation "sell Danzig out" funny anyways, as it presumes that Danzig had any interest in remaining "independant" (hah!), instead of the exact opposite...
 

General Zod

Banned
To begin (& something I probably should have said at the outset...:(), I'm adopting the pre-Munich idea because it brings Hitler closer to his dream, attacking the Soviets.

It's less than a year in difference, and as others too have pointed out, doing Munich first before going after Poland much betters the strategic (and economic) position of Germany. A confrontation with Poland, much less the Soviets is much safer if Czechoslovakia is neutralized. IMO it makes no difference in the long term (since the Wehrmacht needs a couple years buildup for Barbarossa anyway), so the difference pales, but post-Munich is much safer. I understand the urge to be orginal, but the pre-Munich scenario does not compute as good as the post-Munich one.

I incline to Japan in SEA, but without war in Europe, maybe not. Finland or Romania might be more credible. Or maybe your scenario below obviates the need for annexation by force in favor of satellitization.

Possibly. It depends on whether Stalin is pushed to caution or preemptive expansionism by British-German detente. As for annexation/satellitization, as long as the leadership of rump Czechia is willing to cooperate with Berlin, annexation is not really necessary, or may be postponed (since as a matter of fact, the economic benefits of annexations exists) till the right oppoirtunity. The Czech leadership was fairly cooperative with Germany after Munich, so a wiser Hitler has reason to wait for annexation.

That's an excellent question. I picture combined pressure from the 3 plus the implied threat of attack from Russia.

Indeed that would be the scenario at Munich II. It remains to be seen whether the Polish leadership would be rational enough to choose a cutting down of the country to its core rather than a combined German-Soviet invasion with no hope of help. IMO they would probably accept, but the interwar Polish leadership rivaled the Japanese generals in megalomanic nationalist stubborness, so it's not a safe thing.

He might, in a moment of lucidity, offer Poland a variety of the Russo-German Non-Aggression Pact, with a view to gaining Polish co-operation (if not active aid) in attacking the SU later.

He offered such IOTL, but they refused, because they could let go of their inexplicable fixation that loss of Danzig meant the end of Polish independence. Here they would not have any hope of Anglo-French help, and a two-front war on the horizon, so things would be different.

That reaction I'd count on. And I'd bet pretty heavily Hitler would tell the Poles to expect it, & that they'd be pretty sure they could.

Agreed, again. It's a toss-up, IMO, which result obtains: satellite or partition. I don't feature Hitler being too compliant to Stalin, but if he's smarter TTL, & aware (enough) of Wehrmacht weakness, he might be willing to delay.

It can safely assumed that he would, since IOTL he waited between 1940 and 1941 the necessary time to prepare Barbarossa, and here we are assuming ihe's smarter.

I've seen that thread (I think, or one very like it). Given Hitler's a bit smarter TTL, that's the way I see it going: Britain neutral/mildly anti-Soviet. I think both Hitler & Stalin would have to wait some small while (6mo? 1yr?) to get weaps production in gear enough, to mobilize manpower, so on. It's possible TTL would see "Barbarossa" with Pz2s & 3s facing BT-7s or T-26s, 109s against I-15s... I'm not sufficiently informed on the dates of introduction of Pz4, MiG-3, LaGG, T-34, & so on, to guess.

Gotta ask someone else for that, my expertise is on politics, not the military. But IMO 1-2 years is the absolute minimum necessary. Any earlier, and it means that Stalin forced the issue by invading Romania. Germany would answer with war to any Soviet threat to the Ploesti oilfields. Most likely even if the British are friendly and there is no threat of blockade.

Your proposed outcome is very like the one I envisioned. Glad to see I wasn't on Mars.:D

Great minds think alike. :D;)

It's just possible it's sparked off by Nomonhan (OTL '39), under the Anti-Comintern Pact (or is it signed OTL yet?)...

It was signed, but it was far, far, far from being a full alliance committment, more like a vague statement of a common agenda. You may mean the Tripartite Pact, but that was signed in 1940.

It is possible that Nomonhan may blossom to a full-fledged war, if the Japanese are more stubborn than OTL and seek a rematch, but IMO it is unlikely that Hitler would rush in a war with Stalin before he's half prepared, just because the Japanese are fighting on the side of the globe, the drawbacks from incomplete preparation outweight the benefits.

You may see a Russo-German war happen before its schedule, but you need a sparking point in Europe. Possibilities: the Winter War escalates, either the Swedes intervene and Finland collapses and Sweden itself is threatened with invasion (if Sweden iron is threatened, Hitler shall be forced to war), or the British choose intevention in the Winter War (if given the possibility of a British alliance, which Hitler coveted, he would accept a war before he's ready), or the Romanians choose to fight for Bessarabia and they collapse in the ensuing war (same reasons as Sweden, Hitler cannot accept the loss of the oilfields), if they hold out like the Finns it's possible that the Germans just send a lot of supplies and "volunteers", or again the British choose to help the Romanians.

That being so, no Pacific War.

Yup, not unless the Anglo-French look too distracted elsewhere (such as figthing a war with the USSR ;)).

Possibly U.S. aid to both sides,:p or at least no interference with aid to ROC.

Aid to Japan if they fight the Soviets ? Possible with another POTUS, not the Commie-loving Roosevelt.

I'd love to see Chiang cut a deal with Japan (he'd have done it to get peace so he could destroy Mao/CCP) & join the war against the SU, but maybe that's a bit ASB.:p

IF Chiang is willing to let the JP have Manchuria, and the war is faring badly for Japan, he might cut a deal with Japan to get them off his back and go back wiping the CCP. Of course, Stalin might well make an offer of their own to Chiang, and order the CCP to disappear in the woodwork (they might or might not obey). He might or might not offer Manchuria to Chiang in the peace deal. It's a toss up which side Chiang might choose, he has little claims vs. the Soviets either way.
 
But you have to ask why they then chose to cave in?

The fact that I put "decided" between "" should show I have asked that question and answered it.

The play goes down this way.

The French don't want to fight - nor do they want to look as if being their allies is worth nothing.

So they convince the ally to cave in. They do that by telling the ally, none too subtly, that if they don't, they're on their own.

Now if the ally is weak and knows it, is sensible and reasonable, the ally caves in. The French don't have to fight and save their face.

But what if the ally doesn't perceive its weakness, and actually thinks of itself as a good-sized power? What if the ally is not sensible and not reasonable? Well, the ally will tell the French: "we'll fight on our own if we have to".

What do the French do? Flagrantly abandon their ally? Thus showing the world that being allied with them is worthless, and that they now count for nothing? And at the same time letting Germany grow bigger and stronger a threat?

I can certainly see the French abandoning Poland; relations were very poor for much of the 1930s, and everyone from Reynaud to Briand (who was already dead, I'll grant) thought the Corridor had to be returned, and it was thought that if only Poland gaved, germany would moderate.

Yeah, and since Poland wouldn't cave in, my bet is that France will, very unwillingly and reluctantly, fight. Not because they love the Poles but because it is in their interest to fight - as long as a Drôle de guerre can be called fighting. That isn't based just on the attitude of one specific French politician, but rather on long-term geopolitical trends. All that useless chatter about Germany being mainly an anti-Soviet crusader might be swallowed in some English-speaking land, not in the land that had been wrestling with it over Alsace-Lorraine for decades and centuries.
 

General Zod

Banned
I am still utterly unconvinced that France would choose to fight a "real" war with Germany if Poland stubbornly refuses the Munich-like settlement that Germany and UK/France would agree upon. The UK would never go to war to reward Polish bullheadedness, and Paris cannot hope to win a separate war. If their erstwhile ally looks unreasonably trigger-happy in the eyes of the world, Paris suffers no loss of face if they let it suffer the consequences of its actions. However, even if they deem otherwise, they shall make a face-saving "drole de guerre" in Alsace-Lorraine for an handful months while Poland gets cut to ribbons by Germany and the USSR. Britain shall remain neutral, while in the meanwhile it activates diplomatic channels with Berlin and Paris, trying to broker a compromise peace.

Afterwards it's much up to Germany: if they do not go on the offesnive in the West and are willing to give defeated Poland a decent compromise peace (Germany annexes the 1914 territories and expels the Polish population thereof, Congress Poland is restored as an independent satellite state), Britain shall broker it, Paris can claim they did their show of solidarity but have to yield to military realities, and a Franco-German peace treaty is signed. Anglo-German detente blossoms and war in the West if defused. UK and France shall be benevolent neutrals in the coming Russo-German war (unless Stalin attacks first, then they shall help Germany).

If Germany goes on the offensive in the West and goes all Lebenstraum on POland, Britasin shall join the fray and everything proceeds as OTL.
 
Top