WI Hitler goes for Poland before Prague?

[raharris1973]

The Nazi occupation of Prague and dismemberment of rump Czechoslovakia was decisive in shifting British and French public opinion to accept a risk of war with Hitler.

What if Hitler did not occupy Prague and instead starting pressing Poland on the Danzig issue from early 1939. While he had promised at Munich that Sudetenland was Germany's last territorial demand in Europe, with Poland, he would have some claim to Danzig and the corridor demographically.

First off, I don't think Poland would get a western guarantee. The absence of the western guarantee eases the pressure to make any pact with Stalin.
I think, based on its reading of its own history, Poland would not give up anything without a fight. So, we could have a German-Polish war starting in April, May or June 1939.

Many Wehrmacht personalities would probably envision an outcome where Poland loses most of its western territory but a rump may be left, and they might consider a deal with the USSR allowing for them to make territorial gains also, but only the smallest common border permitted between the USSR and Germany.

Hitler I would think would have more radical goals, and use the idea that any rump Poland would just wait for revenge as his justification. Hitler I would also see preferring not to allow any westward expansion of the USSR and would probably find it desirable to occupy the Galician oilfields.

So, the question is, do the western allies stand by while the Germans conquer all of Poland, way beyond the corridor? Once the massive scope of German war aims is clear, do they start to mobilize, or do they just chalk the whole thing up to Polish stubbornness causing an unfortunate German over-reaction but hey what can you do?

Will the Soviets permit the Wehrmacht to march right up to the Polish-Soviet border, or will they intervene?

Also, militarily, how goes a German-Polish war that's a few months earlier and in which Poland might only be fighting on one-front?

 

[Karlos]

It gives Hitler the chance to attack USSR without war in the west front. With France still intact I doubt the western allies would help Stalin, and a german victory in the east is probable. Then, sometime about 1943 or 44, the stage is set for a war in the west. German chances of victory are higer in this TL than in OTL, IMHO.

 

[Wozza]

If Hitler just attacked out of the blue there would be just a strong a reaction as if he went for Prague.

In fact a Nazi defeat of the USSR was a big concern of the British government from 1938 onwards and would almost certainly bring some sort of reaction.

 

[jolo]

Guarantees were given to Poland before. And France (numerically superior to Germany, but tactically behind) believed it was strong enough to keep Germany from expanding - especially with English help. The French were still pretty wary of war, so they would probably have waited with a declaration of war until another country (GB or Russia) declares war on Germany.

An outright declaration of war against Poland would still very likely cause a large scale war even if done before any action against Czechoslovakia - Poland had much better connections to the west. Also, after unification of Austria and Germany, including the Germans of former Austrian territory was pretty logical, and also demanded by the locals. While the remaining rump-Czechoslovakia was simply too weak to be defensible. In Poland, those conditions didn't really apply.

But WI Germany had led sth. like a cold war against Poland, together with Russia - until Poland gives up the most disputed territories on both sides? Poland was landlocked between Germany and Russia after the annexation of Czechoslovakia, and it would probably have been possible to even close the shipping lanes through the baltics by declaring a shipping lane between Germany and Eastern Prussia German territory and mining it - that wouldn't have gone well with GB and France, but it probably wouldn't have been enough reason to declare war. After a few years of being under pressure, of loosing many "smugglers" to German and Russian authorities, of being pretty much excluded from the world market, and of many "needle-sting" operations by Germany and Russia, Poland would probably be willing to compromise more or less peacefully. In the meantime, Poland, GB and France would have to pay a high price economically for supporting Poland by air.

Or WI Germany in 1939, after something like the Molotov-Ribbentrop-Pact, doesn't attack Poland, waits until the Russians attack Finland (and Japan attacks Russia), and proposes a Union with Poland to fight against Russia? The Polish were even more Anti-Communist than the Germans, they wanted to free the Ukraine, and they'd sure have liked a peaceful solution with Germany which they consider to their advantage but which also fullfills many demands of the Germans - like open borders between Poland and Germany, so that Germans can move back to lands they left after WWI, and Poland gets a big economic boost. Problem with this solution is widespread anti-Polish feelings especially in Eastern Germany, a race ideology which considers Slavs inferior, and a low likeliness of the Russians starting a war until possible interventionist powers are busy with other wars.

 

[zoomar]

Also strategically and technically it would have been a big blunder. If one assumes that France and Britain would somehow "Munich-away" all of the concessions Germany would have claimed to want in Poland, 1939 will roll around with a powerful and well-armed, and well-fortified Czechosolvakia poised like a dagger into Germany. When Hitler turned his sights on Czechosolvakia, the west would no longer be in an appeasment mode, and the Czechs would be a significantly more dangerous enemy than the Poles. Plus, there would still be a rump Poland, presuambly, which the USSR might occupy immediately after the war begins. I suspect the entire course of the war might go differently.

I just re-read the basic POD and saw that it was after Munich. Oh well, nevermind.

 

[Matt]

I believe that the Poles had a mutual defense pact with Czechosolvakia, so the not incidental Czech army would be able to help out.

 

[luakel]

I think that the west would stay out, but the Soviets would invade from the east to try and grab land before the Germans could. Then Eastern Europe falls into two groups, pro-German and pro-Soviet, as the two powers build up foe a war against each other.

 

[George Carty]

Also strategically and technically it would have been a big blunder. If one assumes that France and Britain would somehow "Munich-away" all of the concessions Germany would have claimed to want in Poland, 1939 will roll around with a powerful and well-armed, and well-fortified Czechosolvakia poised like a dagger into Germany. When Hitler turned his sights on Czechosolvakia, the west would no longer be in an appeasment mode, and the Czechs would be a significantly more dangerous enemy than the Poles. Plus, there would still be a rump Poland, presuambly, which the USSR might occupy immediately after the war begins. I suspect the entire course of the war might go differently.

I just re-read the basic POD and saw that it was after Munich. Oh well, nevermind.

The West would STILL be in appeasement mode though unless Hitler either i) occupied the Polish heartland, or ii) did a deal with Stalin

 

[raharris1973]

Zoomar, while theoretically this Polish war

could have screwed Germany by mobilizing the west to back up the Little Entente and Balkan Entente, geography will screw this over.

Czechoslovakia wouldn't want to fight, even if it had western guarantees, if Germany is occupying all Poland. Czechoslovakia is no dagger in Germany's heart, its instead vulnerable along probably over 1,000 miles of frontier. Plus, they've just seen what Germany can do to Poland, which presumably was too stubborn to compromise. Nope after his victory over Poland, Germany will be like the guy in the prison yard who just picked a fight with the toughest acting dude and kicked his ass. In the prison yard of central europe, Hitler will have demonstrated his bad-assness and will earn some degree of preemptive submission from the rest of central and southeastern europe. When, after the Polish victory, he moves forces into position and offers Czechoslovakia "protection" and "alliance" in return for some border adjustments, the Czechs would submit. Because their geography is just so darn exposed, the Czechs will submit unless they have concrete demonstrations of allied willingness to fight from the very beginning of the war. This would require either western contingents or air units on their territory, or a Soviet policy of combining diplomatic support with mass mobiilization in the Kiev military district.

If the Soviets have a common frontier with Czechoslovakia, Prague may buck up, but if that common frontier is the product of a Soviet-German nonaggression pact, they will be utterly depressed and as submissive as Romania during the Vienna Award of 1940.

MBarry and Jolo:
I hadn't heard of a Polish-Czech pact persisting into 1938 or 1939. I would be under the impression that the German-Polish nonaggression pact invalidated all previous Polish alliance commitments or guarantees that could require fighting Germany.

Now the Czechs slamming into Silesia hard, right when the attack on Poland begins, could seriously screw over the Germans, but it would have been very bold of the Czechs to do.

Zoomar: To clarify. Actually if we're positing a Munich- small territorial concessions to Germany, then yes, it could have been a blunder. Hitler doesn't get what he craves if he settles for a Munich, he'll need to go back for the rest of Poland later to get a common border with the USSR. Luckily for him though, I'm pretty sure Poland won't concede any territory without a fight, even if diplomatically isolated.


Wozza: Hitler wouldn't exactly attack out of the blue, he would have a campaign of demands for awhile, and put the Poles in the position of rejecting German demands, and possibly even rejecting a settlement agreed to by the west.

 

[luakel]

Czechoslovakia wouldn't want to fight, even if it had western guarantees, if Germany is occupying all Poland. Czechoslovakia is no dagger in Germany's heart, its instead vulnerable along probably over 1,000 miles of frontier. Plus, they've just seen what Germany can do to Poland, which presumably was too stubborn to compromise. Nope after his victory over Poland, Germany will be like the guy in the prison yard who just picked a fight with the toughest acting dude and kicked his ass. In the prison yard of central europe, Hitler will have demonstrated his bad-assness and will earn some degree of preemptive submission from the rest of central and southeastern europe. When, after the Polish victory, he moves forces into position and offers Czechoslovakia "protection" and "alliance" in return for some border adjustments, the Czechs would submit. Because their geography is just so darn exposed, the Czechs will submit unless they have concrete demonstrations of allied willingness to fight from the very beginning of the war. This would require either western contingents or air units on their territory, or a Soviet policy of combining diplomatic support with mass mobiilization in the Kiev military district.

Well said.
I've always felt that the occupation of the rump state was idiotic anyway, as the Czecdhs were already in German orbit and would've been forced to toe the German line, so all it did was piss off the Allies.

 

[raharris1973]

Basically agree, but it did net the Germans some

cold hard cash as well from the Czech gold reserves. Another thread is having a big debate on the economic fragility/robustness of the Third Reich at this time, and some people have made the argument that Czech gold was decisive for subsequent German expansion.

 

[luakel]

cold hard cash as well from the Czech gold reserves. Another thread is having a big debate on the economic fragility/robustness of the Third Reich at this time, and some people have made the argument that Czech gold was decisive for subsequent German expansion.

Yes, but if Germany was in a war against the USSR, the Czechs would've become little more than a puppet, allowing the Germans use of their money.

 

[Glen]

This poll and discussion has interesting ramifications for the AH.com/OTL.com collaboration trying to come up with a timeline where the Weimar Republic survives to the present.

What if a Democratic Weimar Germany, that foisted through the League of Nations a referendum in Danzig and possibly the corridor, which Poland rejects, either bargains with the allies for upholding it before or even after launching troops into the corridor to uphold the referendum?

In this case, we have a Germany that had no Munich to galvanize Western opposition and reject appeasement. We have more legitimacy. And we have a government that actually WILL stop there (I'm postulating). So, could Weimar Germany pull it off? Given the way this poll is going, I'm starting to believe the answer really is yes.

Here is the link to the discussion, started before and revived as a collaborative project. We'd love your comments there.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=263447#post263447

Or at the very least, extrapolate here on how Weimar Germany does in this situation compared to Hitler's Nazis.

 

[wkwillis]

The West (France and Britain, basically) backed Hitler and the German right 110% up until the Molotov-Ribbontrop Pact. Since this is before the Pact, they would not have intervened.
But Russia would have intervened. A Russian-German World War II would have suited the Western conservatives very, very, well.
I wonder who would have got the bomb first?

 

[Glen]

The West (France and Britain, basically) backed Hitler and the German right 110% up until the Molotov-Ribbontrop Pact. Since this is before the Pact, they would not have intervened.

Right, I am positing a Weimar Government that would not enter into Faustian bargains with Stalin.

But Russia would have intervened. A Russian-German World War II would have suited the Western conservatives very, very, well.
I wonder who would have got the bomb first?

Well, depending on how much support the Germans get (which they will need in the early days to repulse a Soviet onslaught), it might be the Germans, without the severe anti-Semitism of the Nazis.

 

[wkwillis]

Right, I am positing a Weimar Government that would not enter into Faustian bargains with Stalin.



Well, depending on how much support the Germans get (which they will need in the early days to repulse a Soviet onslaught), it might be the Germans, without the severe anti-Semitism of the Nazis.

The Weimar Republic wouldn't be attacking anybody. Wars are unpopular with voters. Even attacking a pissant little country like Iraq (five million impoverished and friendless Sunni vs three hundred million Americans) is unpopular with voters, so you can imagine how much support the President would get for attacking Canada or Mexico. Which is sort of like what the Germans were contemplating with Czechoslovakia and Poland.

 

[luakel]

Given the way this poll is going, I'm starting to believe the answer really is yes.

Who do you think the West would support, a democratic Germany with historical claims on the area in question or the dictatorship that Poland was?

 

[Earling]

The Weimar Republic wouldn't be attacking anybody. Wars are unpopular with voters. Even attacking a pissant little country like Iraq (five million impoverished and friendless Sunni vs three hundred million Americans) is unpopular with voters, so you can imagine how much support the President would get for attacking Canada or Mexico. Which is sort of like what the Germans were contemplating with Czechoslovakia and Poland.

While that might be the case today, It should be remembered that the US did both over the 19th century. Given rather alot of German thought was aimed at overturning Versailles in one way or another I doubt people would be that much opposed to what could be rather easilly painted as a patriotic duty so long as it appeared a short and contained war.

It should also be remembered that even today wars are not that unpopular, there is often a very large and quiet majority who are accepting of war without getting involved. Those who are opposed tend to air their vews more loudly.

 

[JHPier]

The problem with this poll is that the options given are not mutually exclusive