WI: Germany withdraws from Poland before the Allies declare war?

Tyr Anazasi

Banned
At first, I think, we can agree, that Polish flak fired upon German planes BEFORE even the preparations for the faked attack on Gleiwitz radio station started. A fact, Michele didn't acknowledge at all.

Then we don't know, why the flak fired. It is indeed a possibility that they fired upon a plane, which was on a wrong direction. Still, that doesn't justify the firing upon a civilian craft. Also it may be possible, that the planes were flying on a right course. As the air space over the Baltic in that days ended three nautical miles from the coast, it is very possible, that a landing plane, on course, can be fired at from Hela peninsula.

Thanks for your work.
 
At first, I think, we can agree, that Polish flak fired upon German planes BEFORE even the preparations for the faked attack on Gleiwitz radio station started. A fact, Michele didn't acknowledge at all.

Then we don't know, why the flak fired. It is indeed a possibility that they fired upon a plane, which was on a wrong direction. Still, that doesn't justify the firing upon a civilian craft. Also it may be possible, that the planes were flying on a right course. As the air space over the Baltic in that days ended three nautical miles from the coast, it is very possible, that a landing plane, on course, can be fired at from Hela peninsula.

Thanks for your work.

I don't think we can say that it is a "fact" at all that Polish AA guns fired upon a German civilian plane. What we have is German official reports of that happening (containing glaring mistakes, it seems), these reports being commented upon in the foreign press, and then the technical and organisational fact that there were functional and manned Polish AA guns on the Hel peninsula.

But we know that we can't really trust what the German government told the world those days and weeks, not by a longshot. And even if the Polish (unsourced) comment that Polish AA on Hel fired warning shots to the general direction of German (military?) planes earlier in the summer, due to them flying in Polish airspace (I assume over the sea), would be true, that merely means that the AA on Hel doing the same in August to German civilian planes is technically plausible, not that it actually happened.

What trips me up about this is intent. Why would the Polish AA battery on Hel fire upon German civilian aircraft apparently going away from it (en route from Danzig to Berlin), especially if we are talking about officially reported flights? Are they doing it just for the heck of it, to deliberately escalate the situation, or then because they need practice?

What we would need, IMHO, would be a better look at the Polish sources. This might be difficult online for different reasons, though.

EDIT: Found this French document:

No. 223 :
M. Leon Noel, French Ambassador in Warsaw, to M. Georges Bonnet, Minister for Foreign Affairs. Warsaw, August 24, 1939. 7 p.m.


(Received 1155 p.m.)

THE Polish Press today announces the following incidents:

(1) Arrest at the Silesian frontier of a Polish diplomatic courier. He is said to have been imprisoned at Breslau and is being detained, in spite of intervention by the Consulate and by the Embassy.

(2) Last night a three-engined German bomber flew over Bohumin. A Polish fighter went up after it and the bomber returned to German territory.

(3) The body of the Polish soldier killed on Danzig territory some days ago has been returned in a mutilated condition to the Polish authorities. This has aroused great indignation.

(4) The Polish Press publishes the following statements about the two German commercial aircraft which, according to the D.N.B., were shot at in the vicinity of Danzig: at eight o'clock in the morning, a German plane was seen flying over Polish territory, but no shot was fired. At four o'clock another plane flew over the forbidden zone of the Hel peninsula. After the Polish anti-aircraft batteries had fired three warning salvos the German plane turned back.

So: it appears that the German planes in question, whether they were civilian or military, flew over Polish territory, specifically a forbidden military area, and that was why the Polish AA guns fired "warning salvos", according to the Polish authorities.

If these were civilian (or any) planes en route from the Danzig airport to Berlin, they had no reason to fly over the Hel peninsula which, as we know, is directly due north from Danzig/Gdansk.

Why were these German planes over Polish territory on Hel? Was it an accident or was it deliberate? What comes to my mind is aerial reconnaissance of the Polish positions on Hel peninsula, and/or testing the Polish reaction to such overflights. In any case, the Polish would have had all the right to protect their airspace from intrusion.

EDIT2: In another French document, from August 25th, the French ambassador in Germany, Coulondre, details Hitler using these incidents as arguments against the Polish:

"At first," pursued Herr Hitler, "I forbade the Press of the Reich to publish accounts of the cruelties suffered by the Germans in Poland. But the situation has now become intolerable. Are you aware," he asked me emphatically, "that there have been cases of castration? That already there are more than 70,000 refugees in our camps? Yesterday seven Germans were killed by the police in Bielitz, and thirty German reservists were machine-gunned at Lodz. Our aeroplanes can no longer fly between Germany and East Prussia without being shot at; their route had been changed, but they are now even attacked over the sea. Thus, the plane which was carrying State Secretary Stuckart was fired at by Polish warships, a fresh incident which I was not yet in a position to bring to the notice of Sir Nevile Henderson this morning."

Raising his voice, Herr Hitler went on: "No nation worthy of the name can put up with such unbearable insults. France would not tolerate it any more than Germany. These things have gone on long enough, and I will reply by force to any further provocations. I want to state once again: I wish to avoid war with your country. I will not attack France, but if she joins in the conflict, I will see it through to the bitter end. As you are aware, I have just concluded a pact with Moscow that is not only theoretical, but, I may say, practical. I believe I shall win, and you believe you will win: what is certain is that above all French and German blood will flow, the blood of two equally courageous peoples. I say again, it is painful to me to think we might come to that. Please tell this to President Daladier on my behalf."

On the face of it, this all pretty much reeks of deliberate and concerted German provocations in preparation for the invasion. Hitler definitely is committed to make hay about the airplane incident at the highest political level. His claim how he "forbade" the German press to report "cruelties suffered by the Germans in Poland" is just precious.
 
Last edited:
Why were these German planes over Polish territory on Hel? Was it an accident or was it deliberate? What comes to my mind is aerial reconnaissance of the Polish positions on Hel peninsula, and/or testing the Polish reaction to such overflights. In any case, the Polish would have had all the right to protect their airspace from intrusion.

...

On the face of it, this all pretty much reeks of deliberate and concerted German provocations in preparation for the invasion. Hitler definitely is committed to make hay about the airplane incident at the highest political level.

What can I say, good job in documenting these instances of Nazi propaganda; what's depressing is that it's still being trotted out today as if it were believable.
Also, admirable patience on your part - I've run out of mine.
 
What can I say, good job in documenting these instances of Nazi propaganda; what's depressing is that it's still being trotted out today as if it were believable.
Also, admirable patience on your part - I've run out of mine.

Well, I tend to take a very hands-on approach to history, constantly trying to find out if particular arguments can be proven or refuted. I like checking claims and digging up sources. It's just what I do - both professionally and as a hobby.:) I work for a museum, and during the last years I have been increasingly involved in various exhibition projects, writing and translating texts for them. Given that in Finland museums are seen as the authority when it comes to history, the most trustworthy public source of historical information there is, we have a lot to answer for in terms of being able to back up what we are saying, with facts and sources.
 

Tyr Anazasi

Banned
What can I say, good job in documenting these instances of Nazi propaganda; what's depressing is that it's still being trotted out today as if it were believable.
Also, admirable patience on your part - I've run out of mine.

Well, it may be Nazi propaganda. But the point is, that it isn't disproved not to be true. The Poles themselves admitted firing on German planes. So there had to be tensions. And indeed there were. The mistake of the type of the plane is not really relevant as Savoia had also built planes with three motors like the Ju 52 m3. Being used by the propaganda is not meaning it didn't happen.

The question is, if there are also Polish sources. Or, even better, neutral ones.
 
Well, it may be Nazi propaganda. But the point is, that it isn't disproved not to be true. The Poles themselves admitted firing on German planes. So there had to be tensions. And indeed there were. The mistake of the type of the plane is not really relevant as Savoia had also built planes with three motors like the Ju 52 m3. Being used by the propaganda is not meaning it didn't happen.

The question is, if there are also Polish sources. Or, even better, neutral ones.

Note two points though: apparently the claim about a Polish Navy ship firing towards a German plane is a plain lie (as there arguably even was no such ship in the area), and then according to the French diplomatic correspondence the Poles only agreed firing "warning salvoes" with AA guns on Hel in the case of one plane flying over a military no-fly zone, over Polish territory. Such warning shots are traditionally shot deliberately wide.

We need to remember the context here: one nation actively preparing to invade another and programmatically making up reasons why it would be justified in doing so, an effort including deliberate lies (outrageously so) and false flag attacks. The other nation trying to protect itself and its sovereign territory in the face of this campaign, sometimes falling for the effort of provocation and acting in a way that can be used to put it in questionable light. In such a context, pretty much the last information we should believe is what comes out of German officialdom or (state-directed) press, and, on balance, official Polish comments and explanations should be, IMO, given preference - at least unless directly contradicted by a third side.

I agree that more sources would clear the situation. Actual Polish reports from the AA unit and the Hel fortification, the flight plans of the planes in question and the orders of their pilots (official and, as it may be, unofficial). But then, like I said, finding such information online might not be easy.
 
Last edited:

NoMommsen

Donor
So, there are german "sources" or reports as well as polish "sources" or reports of polish shooting at german planes.

@DrakonFin
Your search for sources and evidence is admirable.

And what there is after all :

The german listing of which or what kind of planes is/seems inconsistent. ... What might be also well due to uneducatedness of the civil servants collecting/arranging these data for the report (just to throw one other possible interpretation into the ring).

The polish sources i.e. claim the spotted airplanes to be militarily : "three-engined bomber" ... which could only be a Ju 53/3m plane or planes ... how could they distinguish from the bottom, if these were actually military planes or civilians ? ... given the fact, that Ju 52/3m's were an almost ubiquitous civilian airplane ?

So, IMO it is very likely, that actually polish Flak shot at german planes in the late summer of 1939, though determinig unanimously every incident exactly with day and time and participants is IMO impossible for us.

At that time there was a short-of-hot-war-yet situation between Germany and Poland, with both sides teasing and probing its opponent by doing "harm" to as parts/members of the opponent viewed objects and subjects. Germans did harm polish, polish did harm germans, if shooting at planes , expelling pole or germans, harrasing them in the border regions on both sides ...

no such detail IMO has any influence on the question asked in this thread.


However, What ... disturbs/annoys me is, that HERE on this forum/thread the appreciation of sources seems to be an quite biased :
- german sources are ofc not to be trusted at all
- polish - or allied - sources are ofc the pure truth
 
However, What ... disturbs/annoys me is, that HERE on this forum/thread the appreciation of sources seems to be an quite biased :
- german sources are ofc not to be trusted at all
- polish - or allied - sources are ofc the pure truth

Read the thread more carefully. One of the examples made is about a false flag operation, not unlike those carried out by Nazi Germany, but implemented by an Ally - the USSR. So don't throw around these unsubstantiated allegations.

What did Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union have in common? Well, little, apart from being totalitarian states that knew no freedom of the press. They (just like, guess who, Fascist Italy) had a Ministry of Propaganda, which is in itself quite a giveaway - for those who want to understand.

So, yes, Nazi newspapers tend to be not given much credibility. One wonders why, eh.
Maybe because they published what the Ministry of Propaganda told them to?
Maybe because according to German newspapers, the Gleiwitz stunt was a real Polish operation?
Maybe because on September 2, they published titles about the "counterattack" of Germany against Poland?

Yeah, for all those reasons. And trying to purport that everyone was as unreliable as Goebbel's mouthpieces quite spoils your game.
 

Tyr Anazasi

Banned
Read the thread more carefully. One of the examples made is about a false flag operation, not unlike those carried out by Nazi Germany, but implemented by an Ally - the USSR. So don't throw around these unsubstantiated allegations.

What did Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union have in common? Well, little, apart from being totalitarian states that knew no freedom of the press. They (just like, guess who, Fascist Italy) had a Ministry of Propaganda, which is in itself quite a giveaway - for those who want to understand.

So, yes, Nazi newspapers tend to be not given much credibility. One wonders why, eh.
Maybe because they published what the Ministry of Propaganda told them to?
Maybe because according to German newspapers, the Gleiwitz stunt was a real Polish operation?
Maybe because on September 2, they published titles about the "counterattack" of Germany against Poland?

Yeah, for all those reasons. And trying to purport that everyone was as unreliable as Goebbel's mouthpieces quite spoils your game.

That's way too short sighted. You need to be skeptic. Yes, indeed. But denying the credibility totally is as wrong as believing them totally. You need to check the sources. But that's true with EVERY source (to what degree is to be seen from case to case).
 

Deleted member 1487

However, What ... disturbs/annoys me is, that HERE on this forum/thread the appreciation of sources seems to be an quite biased :
- german sources are ofc not to be trusted at all
- polish - or allied - sources are ofc the pure truth
The Nazis tended to have a rather tenuous grasp on the truth in their PR material. The Allies were somewhat better. That said internal documents from the Germans were generally pretty accurate from what I've seen, at least no worse than that of the Allies.
 

Tyr Anazasi

Banned
Note two points though: apparently the claim about a Polish Navy ship firing towards a German plane is a plain lie (as there arguably even was no such ship in the area), and then according to the French diplomatic correspondence the Poles only agreed firing "warning salvoes" with AA guns on Hel in the case of one plane flying over a military no-fly zone, over Polish territory. Such warning shots are traditionally shot deliberately wide.

We need to remember the context here: one nation actively preparing to invade another and programmatically making up reasons why it would be justified in doing so, an effort including deliberate lies (outrageously so) and false flag attacks. The other nation trying to protect itself and its sovereign territory in the face of this campaign, sometimes falling for the effort of provocation and acting in a way that can be used to put it in questionable light. In such a context, pretty much the last information we should believe is what comes out of German officialdom or (state-directed) press, and, on balance, official Polish comments and explanations should be, IMO, given preference - at least unless directly contradicted by a third side.

I agree that more sources would clear the situation. Actual Polish reports from the AA unit and the Hel fortification, the flight plans of the planes in question and the orders of their pilots (official and, as it may be, unofficial). But then, like I said, finding such information online might not be easy.

The Ju-52 m3 was mostly used as transport, be it military or civilian. In 1939 the role of the bomber wasn't any longer the role of the plane.

Anyway, why can the Polish reports to the French be trusted? Would they really admit firing on German civilian planes? I think this part of history, the history of the Polish-German relationship 1938/39, and considering the facts of Polish attack plans on Germany in 1932/33 here as well, should be part of a better scientific research.
 

Tyr Anazasi

Banned
The Nazis tended to have a rather tenuous grasp on the truth in their PR material. The Allies were somewhat better. That said internal documents from the Germans were generally pretty accurate from what I've seen, at least no worse than that of the Allies.

Internal documents should show the real facts. Newspaper articles are a much different thing.
 
It would have to be a hasty withdrawal, could Hitler survive ? probably not. The French may have their confidence boosted by such a withdrawal and be more aggressive, possibly believing they have to stabilise Germany or put the leash on and occupy the Rhineland. It has to be the end or a good step towards the end for Hitler.

Will the Poles have it, the Army was over confident about their capability to fight the Germans, maybe they try to push on into Prussia, occupy Danzig, which would be interesting to think what the British would do if the Germans complied but the Poles continueed fighting.

Unlikely Stalin will invade Poland.
 
The Ju-52 m3 was mostly used as transport, be it military or civilian. In 1939 the role of the bomber wasn't any longer the role of the plane.

Anyway, why can the Polish reports to the French be trusted? Would they really admit firing on German civilian planes? I think this part of history, the history of the Polish-German relationship 1938/39, and considering the facts of Polish attack plans on Germany in 1932/33 here as well, should be part of a better scientific research.

The part about a bomber violating Polish airspace is in reference to another incident, like you can see in the French document.

Again, why would the Polish fire upon German civilian aircraft unless the situation is as the Polish reports say: an airspace violation in a military area, leading to warning shots being fired? Looking at the situation without "coloured glasses", that seems like the most plausible explanation. Can you explain why the Polish would fire upon civilian aircraft willy-nilly? The argument put forward in the French diplomatic document is the best presented so far, it at least explains the incident to a degree. We can certainly try to find more sources to give us alternate explanations.

Note that acknowledging the Polish report does not necessarily require us to say that the German plane in question flew over Hel deliberately - it might be a simple navigation error prompted by a decision to change the routes of civilian airliners due to the escalating political and military situation.

But also note that it is specifically the Germans who are using the incident to escalate tensions, not the Polish, even if the Polish could well do the same if they wanted to, in reference to the German violations of Polish airspace, etc. There is much more an agenda in play on the German side, one aiming to justify an invasion in the near future.
 
Last edited:

Tyr Anazasi

Banned
My point. The Nazis PR releases should be ignored, certainly more so than the Allied stuff pre-war.

Exactly. The point is, one has to figure out, what did really happen. To question every German source or to believe every Allied one is as wrong as the very opposite. That means, one has to doubt PR releases. Internal papers are much more credible, though. And yes, I think one should have a closer look on that time of 1938/39, with the factors leading to it.
 
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.

Sheer ignorance.

While with the Locarno Treaties Stresemann was careful not to grant any recognition to Poland's Western borders, those agreements included an Arbitration Treaty between Germany and Poland, Annex D to the Locarno Conference documents, 1925.
As to economic matters, look up the German-Polish Liquidation Agreement settling the issue of WWI damage payments, finally, in 1930. That was also in the framework of a broader plan involving more countries, but it was a deal in which Germany and Poland entered an international agreement prior to the rise to power of Nazism. It was strongly opposed in the Reichstag, true, but it passed, on March 12, 1930.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Sheer ignorance.
Questionable from who's side and of what documentary ...
While with the Locarno Treaties Stresemann was careful not to grant any recognition to Poland's Western borders, those agreements included an Arbitration Treaty between Germany and Poland, Annex D to the Locarno Conference documents, 1925.
This was (one of) the Toad(s) Stresemann had to swallow to get the "rest" of the Locarno-treaty, esp. the seat in the LoN.

However, as you said, he carefully watched, that even this appendix nowhere contained a recognition of the existing borders as well as the explicit waiver of other methods.

I would recommend to search the "Akten zur deutsche auswärtigen Politik", the about 30 volumes of the time between the ToV signing and 5-power-declaration of Nov 1932 (which I actually have read ... what took me some years, the other 10 + volumes I've only "searched" looking for specifics) or at least search the according parts relating to Poland. Then you would know, that this arbitration clause was not truly used, that the foreign office officials of every weimar goverment were almost ordered to sabotage it.


As to economic matters, look up the German-Polish Liquidation Agreement settling the issue of WWI damage payments, finally, in 1930. That was also in the framework of a broader plan involving more countries, but it was a deal in which Germany and Poland entered an international agreement prior to the rise to power of Nazism. It was strongly opposed in the Reichstag, true, but it passed, on March 12, 1930.
Actually ... I can't find anything like what you claim in the Reichstags protocols from 06.03.1930 until 19.03.1930.

... or do you mean the "Law regarding the Haague Conferenz of 1929/30", which was voted upon in the Reichstag on 12.03.1930 and became law on 13.03.1930 ? ... a law that contains NOTHING about Poland but about the conditions of the evacuation of allied troops from the occupied Rheinland, a memorandum and some other regulations about the german debts and a financial "agreement" with Belgium.

Actally I can't find ANY law or agreement the Reichstag decided upon regarding Poland in March 1930.

Would you be able to give a link with that agreement you mention ?
 
Actually ... I can't find anything like what you claim in the Reichstags protocols from 06.03.1930 until 19.03.1930.

... or do you mean the "Law regarding the Haague Conferenz of 1929/30", which was voted upon in the Reichstag on 12.03.1930 and became law on 13.03.1930 ? ... a law that contains NOTHING about Poland but about the conditions of the evacuation of allied troops from the occupied Rheinland, a memorandum and some other regulations about the german debts and a financial "agreement" with Belgium.

Actally I can't find ANY law or agreement the Reichstag decided upon regarding Poland in March 1930.

Would you be able to give a link with that agreement you mention ?

My German is very, very bad, but I believe this is the appropriate page from the Reichstag protocols, "140. Sitz. S. 43970,1) Liquidationsabkommen, Polenvertrag, Nr. 1621, III. B." (the right side of the page):

polenvertrag.jpg



Mentions of the German-Polish Liquidation Agreement are easy to find. Its passing in the Reichstag was apparently widely reported even in foreign papers. See here for the news in the San Bernardino Sun on March 13th 1930, for example.

sanbernardino.jpg


Here's an article handling the issue, "Economic Linkage in German-Polish Relations, 1918-1939", by Randall E. Newnham (pgs. 15-16, emphasis mine):

After May 1926, when Marshal Piłsudski assumed power, Poland was
gradually able to stabilize its economy, and a few more far-sighted Germans
began to realize that negative linkage was not working. Ulrich Rauscher, for
example, the German minister to Warsaw, who had backed pressure during the
1925-1926 economic crisis, now strongly favored an economic settlement. And
indeed, from 1926 to 1930 some efforts were made to break the negative cycle,
most notably the Liquidation Treaty (signed on October 31, 1929) and the Trade
Treaty (signed on March 17, 1930).65

The Liquidation Treaty was especially important, since it—unlike the
Trade Treaty—was actually ratified and put into effect. Thus it will be considered
a fourth case of economic linkage in the interwar years, and the second positive
case, although at the same time the broader German-Polish tariff war continued
unabated. The Liquidation Treaty shows what might have been possible if Germany
had followed a more positive economic policy in the Weimar years.

The basic terms of the agreement were as follows. Under the Versailles
treaty, Poland was entitled to liquidate some German property, that is, confiscate
it while paying just compensation. Since Warsaw was eager to eliminate German
influence, it rushed to take advantage of this opportunity. As Blanke notes,
liquidation had affected some 200,000 hectares of German-owned land in the
early 1920s. In all, about one-third of these lands were lost between 1919 and
1926.66 Since Poland often lacked funds, however, many landowners had not
been properly compensated. Additionally, Poland was pressing to extend liquidations
to many other Germans whose status was in dispute, such as the optants
and Germans who lived as tenants on former Prussian state lands.67 Under the
1929 liquidation agreement, Germany agreed to renounce claims for money due
for past Polish actions. In return, Warsaw agreed to halt the forced sale of many
other German properties which it was entitled to take.

The results of this agreement were quite positive. It helped both the Polish
economy and the German minority; as Rauscher stated, the agreement was
“the greatest service which the German government has been able to render to
her minority in Poland.”68 By halting the liquidations, it was estimated that Berlin
preserved up to 180,000 hectares of endangered German-owned land and 5
million RM in city properties while some 12,000 German families remained on
tenant farms.69 In return Germany renounced an estimated 538.7 million RM in
compensation for earlier liquidations, although it is unlikely that Poland could
have paid that sum in any case.

Another element of the agreement deserves to be mentioned, since it was
recognized by actors at the time. A key advantage of positive linkage is that it
tends to deepen the economic connections between countries, thus making
future linkage easier. Von Riekhoff quotes Rauscher as saying that the agreement
“normalized our relations with Poland and thereby provided us a free road for
the economic penetration of that country,” and he draws this conclusion: “The
opportunity of thus providing safeguards for the continued economic existence
of her minority group in Poland presented Germany with a political gain which
exceeded by far any possible financial sacrifices.”70

The ratification of the Liquidation Agreement was difficult, as extremists
in the Reichstag denounced it as a giveaway to the Poles. To help secure
ratification Berlin added another small dose of positive economic linkage. In an
exchange of diplomatic letters, it offered the Poles an increased quota of pork
exports in the trade treaty which was then being negotiated. In return the Poles
committed themselves to not use their right to buy back land from some German
settlers, which could have kept heirs from inheriting some lands. This helped to
reassure the Reichstag, which then approved the agreement by a vote of 236 to
217 on March 12, 1930.
71 A bilateral Trade Treaty was signed five days later.

The author quotes a book by Harald von Riekhoff, German-Polish Relations, 1918-1933, as his source.
 
Top