They had guaranteed the Polish western border, but not the eastern border, and Britain could have accepted the Curzon line as Poland's eastern border.
WI: Germany withdraws from Poland before the Allies declare war?
- Thread starter Go4theGusto
- Start date
Sure ?
IIRC he feared so IOTL after Munich ... only to be completly surprised by the reception he encountered on arrival, being championed as a preserver of peace by the public.
ITTL he "knew" in September, what Hitler was made about. Nevertheless, he could opt for accepting a german "retreat" for the price of Danzig with - as others have said already - keeping on/improving the own arsenal of war.
Maybe by the public once again, perhaps not as enthusiastical, seen as a preserver of (for the moment) necessary peace.
This ... IMO completly overestimates Hitlers mental "grab on things", especially such 'profanities' as money and economy. These are things he was very ... desinterested in, to put it mildly.
Attacking Poland was - for Hitler - all about finally, soo much by him expected, greeded for going to war, which was him denied in Tschechoslovakia. It was something "ideological" for him to start war.
Though Munich also shows, that - for whatever reason - he was able to temporary back away from his greed for war. Therefore I would still see a possibility for the OP.
As far as I understood even the secret appendix to the anglo-polish Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland did not guarantee any borders, only the existence and independence of Poland ... against Germany explicitly only.
Against your seemingly rather simple-minded, undifferentiated, hindsight-ladden opinion :
Yes !
In political and diplomatical terms the Nazi-goverment was most pro-polish german goverment since 1919.
- The first to even accept Poland as a partner of negotiations and agreements.
- The first ready to negotiate with Poland at all, about borders as well as nationality-issues as well as trade, customs economy.
- The first to refrain any possible "adjustment" of borders to NON-BELLIGERENT solutions (an exclusion virtually ever former Weimar goverment was NOT ready to give).
Yes, in 1939 it was totally "hindsight-ladden" for Poland to think that if it gave up Danzig, the Nazi thugs would come for them later. If only they meekly submitted the the Nazi jackboot, Europe would have had peace for another 3 months!!!
No need to go to war when "reasonable people" saw Hitler as "only wanting to right the wrongs of Versailles" and "better than Communists, despite his anti-Semitism, which by the way may be a good thing" and so are perfectly happy with the Jews and Poles being genocided as long as they don't have to make any sacrifices.
It seems to me that Hitler's "ideology" is rather incoherent (outside of a broad notion of "Aryans" = Good, Jews/Communists = Bad) and subject to his ever-changing whims.
e.g. "Is there a Slavic country that could be a German ally? Well, then they're not really Slavic Untermenschen, they're actually a lost tribe of Germanic Goths!"
With that in mind, is there any truth to the claim that 1930s Hitler would have settled for a subservient, vassalized Poland (rather than an exterminated, nonexistent Poland) as an anti-Soviet "ally"?
On the surface, it seems possible, but in this day-and-age, I'm a bit... cautious regarding any claims that could be construed as whitewashing Hitler.
e.g. "Is there a Slavic country that could be a German ally? Well, then they're not really Slavic Untermenschen, they're actually a lost tribe of Germanic Goths!"
With that in mind, is there any truth to the claim that 1930s Hitler would have settled for a subservient, vassalized Poland (rather than an exterminated, nonexistent Poland) as an anti-Soviet "ally"?
On the surface, it seems possible, but in this day-and-age, I'm a bit... cautious regarding any claims that could be construed as whitewashing Hitler.
Hitler? Rather not. Maybe Goering could do it (most polonophilic <read "least wiling to exterminate Poles"> imaginable nazi leader). He, being in charge would rather want to enjoy his wealth and position than to risk war with half of world.
As I said, fascinating.
You don't say! Who would have guessed that.
Unsubstantiated claims I did find. Look it up. The book quotes these alleged shootings. It never provides a note with a source, itself. And these events are only mentioned in relation with diplomatic dealings of Germany with other countries. Hitler is described as showing some purported telegrams, containing factually outlandish claims about these shootings of civilian passenger aircraft, to Ribbentrop, when the latter has had and shall have further contacts with foreign diplomats.
In short, it's German propaganda - exactly as any 14-year old would expect it to be.
And the author presents it as a fact. No wonder actual professional historians don't think much of this rubbish.
Probably what they did in OTL with the German attack, i.e., over-rate their capability, under-rate the enemy's capability (with greater reason in this case), declare war, and not do too much in practice.
But I don't think it's going to happen.
To be fair... No, not really any way to do that with Nazis, is there? Or to not be fair, I mean. Hard to underplay extermination. Now, if we had regular agerman nationalists or militarists in charge, they might be happy to keep a rump Poland around while taking back East Silesia, the coast, and perhaps Posen as well. Heck, they might be happy with just Danzig, followed by the Germans economically dominating everyone else. Hitler viewed having farmers as being one of the most important of things and that there HAD to be losers in the world. Something I think was common in old mercantilisr and colonial systems, perhaps in part due to the distance and expenses that required items transported to have low prices and extraction to make suitable profit margins.
As for Slavs, Hitler and others had evolving views on the matter. Depends on how much we trust Table Talks, since Martin Borman compiled them, followed by whoever got the original documents to translate them, while claiming at times that "it wasn't what he said but what he WOULD have said". I think there was something in there about Beethtoven having the head of a hun or something. But yes, it seems that Hitler looked upon Slavic speakers partially based on how they had historically helped Germans. Apparently he viewed the Czechs as having partially shunning and having historically been embarrassed by speaking Czech, with Himmler's data suddesting that Bohemia-Moravia had more "racially valuable" people than the Sudentland did. The Yugoslavs were originally to be left alone, but later the Croats who used a Latin alphabet and a leadership claiming descent of the Goths who once lived were accepted as Germanic (with musings about perhaps annexing them in the future, perhaps in part due to their history of serving as border guards for the Austrians. The same position went to the Bulgarians, who Hitler liked the leader of, thought the population was descended from Turks, that the country would act as buffer against Turkey, and apparently suggested they change their alphabet from Cyrillic to Latin. And then there was the stuff with Slovaks and Wends, whether or not the Poles were exterminated partially because they were too patriotic to Germanic, so on and so forth.
Hitler and the Nazis basically made things up as they went. Strong people got upgraded in the hierarchy. If you keep fighting against the Germans though, you had it like where Himmler was thinking of downgrading the status of working class Englishmen due to the U.K. Not dropping out of the war. also stuff with Hitler telling how they could claim land in Latin America due to old Germanic explorers and financiers... I suppose that at least he recognized how often he was making things up, though at the end he thought Germany had failed him so should go down in flames. I read somewhere that he said in his last months that the Russians had showed themselves as the superior race (also read before that Jews were to be exterminated partially because he thought them the only real cmoetitoin to Germany) but for both of these I would need to find good sources for, as it sounds partially like it was based on conjecture.
Tyr Anazasi
Banned
I don't have the book with me atm, however, I remember he had indeed sources. Still I was pretty much, well, reserved, as it were newspaper articles. However, if Der Spiegel confirms it AND historians did not attack him anywhere writing "alternative facts" but wrong conclusions, I can pretty much say, there were shootings, unless the contrast is proven.
I will have a look at this later this day.
Is this related to Operation Himmler by chance? If what you say is true, then I imagine that specific dates will be needed so we can differtiare the propaganda from the true events. We will also need to find WHERE the Germans were forced to leave their homes, as it might give us some further insight as to the reasons behind it. If it was beyond their ethnicity or nationality.
Huh, who wrote newspapers articles in Nazi Germany in 1939? Think about it.
It seems the book also relies on diplomatic documents of Nazi Germany - think about that - and on unpublished sources - ditto.
The German wiki page shows that, for an entirely different issue, this author, in this book, plays the usual three-shell game with alleged sources: he inaccurately quotes one obscure book, which in turn actually relies not on primary sources but on another book, which turns out to be stuff written by a former SS officer - and providing of course no actual reliable archival or documental source.
You doubt the conclusions but not the "facts"? Just don't trust the alleged "facts" of guys like these.
Actual academic historians with a reputation nowadays tend to just ignore this sort of stuff. They've learned from those who made the mistake of taking Bacque seriously, if only to show what he was, and from other similar pointless controversies. OTOH, actual academic historians have good things to say about valuable history books. Their silence on this thing is eloquent enough. Note how the wiki pages, in order to find a positive review, have to rely on the Junge Freiheit - enough said.
Well, you can say what you want, it's a free country. Just don't believe that this passes muster of a serious historiographic method.
Tyr Anazasi
Banned
At first he gives indeed sources, including official ones. The same facts he mentioned, were also repeated in other media, including very serious ones.
BTW, ignoring facts is the first step to miss the real picture of history. I mean, of course, true facts. Such an ignorance is showing only biased positions.
BTW, ignoring facts is the first step to miss the real picture of history. I mean, of course, true facts. Such an ignorance is showing only biased positions.
The author does not provide specific noted sources for supporting the notion that any of these alleged shootings actually took place. Just listing a few pages of bibliography does not support one specific detail. You do that by following the sentence you present it with by a note, that mentions a specific source and, heck, its page. Your author does not do that. I have checked that up.
BTW, actually, believing long-disproved lies of a regime which built its success on the big-lie theory is the first step to miss the real picture.
---
That said, let's suppose for a second that some of those alleged shots were actually fired - naturally always missing those slow-, straight- and incredibly-low-flying passenger aircraft.
Who says the shots were fired by the Poles?
You are aware that real shots were fired at Gleiwitz, too, right.
And at Mainila.
And real explosive went off at Mukden.
But, wait. If we dredge the dregs of Internet and of the self-published booklets by amateur authors, we can certainly find someone who will claim that real Polish troops attacked Gleiwitz. Or that some Finnish battery fired the seven rounds at Mainila. Or that it was the Chinese who set the charge at Mukden, a charge so weak it did not disable the rail line.
Last edited:
Yep, would agree with you ... by then, 1st week of December Europe and the world might see the beginning of the/a finnish-soviet-Winterwar ...
You're riding this word like a maniac a horse.
At the time we're speaking of the genocidial, industrial holocausting aspect of what the Nazis will do is far from being obvious. By then the jews have been expelled, are deprived of (almost) any rights and subject to - sometimes - public violence.
All this to a much lesser degree as the Nazi-communist streetfights of the Weimar-time, though often much more humiliating to its victims.
All this still much lesser as the progroms known from Poland, Russia and several other regions all over europe for actually centuries.
And yes, at the time we're speaking of there were many, though (probably) no majority of people all over the worls including Britain, including France, including the USA, who rendered Hitlers anti-semitism as well as a small price for his anti-communism as a -maybe- only too loud and a bit exaggerated proposed position they had against the jews themself.
I am far from somehow "relativating" the nazi-horrors and -madness, as they occured.
I would only please you to leave your position of hindsight and stay more with comtemporary perceptions.
Tyr Anazasi
Banned
I never said, his book was a very scientific one. However, he gives also official sources. And the events were also mentioned in other more credible sources. I think you would not argue with me about that, when I would have given you the Der Spiegel article. Having said this, you describe lies before you tell, why there were lies. We don't have to talk about the Nazis. They were liars. Indeed. However, that doesn't mean, they couldn't say the truth. Indeed in that times nobody was telling the truth. Stalin (Katyn for example), the Western Allies, etc. So indeed you need to verify the claims of the book. That has been done by other sources. If you say, this is still a lie, you can do so, but then you have to prove, why it is. And why exactly, with sources telling the opposite. You didn't do so. Please go to a library and look for a book telling the opposite. I did this. I could verify it with sources, credible sources. That may still be wrong. But if you can't disprove it, with your own sources, it has to be regarded as real events.
Oh, and if you're looking for such an article, please tell me, if there is one, where the facts, and not the conclusions given in that book, were disproved. I saw many sources condemning him, in some regards rightfully, but that was only to his not very scientific methods and his conclusions. The facts he had written, the events, were not attacked.
I started googling the alleged Polish shooting at a German aircraft, and came up with an actual period source, the Madera Tribune on August 24th 1939:
The same is reported in communications put out by the political department of the Auswärtiges Amt on the 23rd and 24th. Two attacks against aircraft were detailed, namely, D-APUP, "Typ Savoia" and D-AMYO, "Typ Ju 86", which the German authorities claim were shot at by Polish AA artillery apparently on the Hel peninsula as well as by a Polish cruiser allegedly 40 km off the coast.
I also found some bits of discussion about these claims, and apart from revisionists, people tend to see them as German propaganda connected with Operation Himmler. For one thing, it is said there was no Polish cruiser in the area at that time. Also, the make of D-APUP is wrong, as it should be a Ju 52 and not a Savoia plane (according to the German aircraft registry): an interesting mistake to make by the German authorities. To look at the issue about alleged (note that even the period paper uses the same word) AA fire from the Hel peninsula, it is probably pretty easy to find which AA units (if any) were on the peninsula at the time and did they have the range needed or were they even operational or actually manned those days, etc.
I am now going to bed, so maybe I'll look into this in the morning. But I think I will probably end up agreeing with @Michele above: even if these claims got some international attention, they likely were as much based on actual Polish actions as the Mainila artillery fire can be attributed to Finnish gunners.
EDIT: Upon looking further, I found out that the Hel peninsula had a reasonably strong AA battery at the time, six 75 mm guns (Schneider model 1922/1924) and eight 40 mm guns (Bofors model 1936). If the Polish sources are to be believed, it would be used to great effect during the Battle of Hel, shooting down over 40 German planes - despite the fact that the 75 mm guns were pretty much obsolete by WWII standards.
In fact I found a Polish site saying that the AA guns on Hel were used to fire warning shots near German (military) planes flying into a forbidden area (ie. violating Polish airspace) in the summer of 1939, and that on July 23rd one of the guns would have actually damaged a German plane. It is also said that Polish ships would have had to fire warning shots near German aircraft as well.
So, on the face of it, the AA battery on the Hel peninsula could have shot at German planes in late August. The question of course would be why it would do that to civilian planes flying along their regular, or at least planned and reported routes. One possibility would be that the German planes would have been ordered to "stray" into forbidden airspace, the Germans knowing that the Polish battery would likely resort to warning shots, and thus this could be spun into a "Polish aggression" narrative.
Last edited: