WI Nazigermany and Poland ally?

BlondieBC

Banned
So, to make Poland ally with Germany I think we need 2 elements:
1. Hitler convinces Poles that he really doesn't bear ill will towards them and is ready to negotitate a compromise concerning Danzig and the Corridor - and after that there would be no attempts to change Polish-German border; I do not know if that would be possible, since it obviously didn't work IOTL - but see point 2.
2. Poland needs to feel threatened, to abandon its policy keeping balance between Germany and Russia. The only other country that might threaten Poland was USSR. Perhaps Stalin (or someone in his place) becomes more aggressive in his foreign policy? Let's say that instead of purging the Red Army in 1937 he decides to keep the officers busy and launches an invasion of Finland and Baltic States to "liberate" them.
The Red Army at the doorstep of East Prussia is not something Germany would have been happy about either - that might make Poles believe Hitler is sincere in his offer. I'm convinced that nothing binds allies better than a common threat.

You basically have one POD here, and it would seem to work. If you think in the pre-Munich days when Hitler is looking for Allies, then having a Poland feel threatened would be enough. A rational analysis of the interwar Polish situation is that either Germany or Russia has to be friendly for things to work out well for Poland. Work the POD where Poland see the benefits of working with Germany (ally + bigger slice of Czechoslovakia) in exchange for vote in Danzig plus transportation rights through West Prussia, and we have the basis for a deal. Hitler decided to waive Tyrol for and Italian alliance. He did not break this alliance. He made a deal with Stalin, which he broke. The corridor is not that hard to make work, if you want to. Sure, Germany may gain some land, but if you build an elevated track over portions of the path, you can leave Poland an uniterrupted transportation network. And with the distances involved, there is no real reason the rail corridor needs any stops in West Prussia.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
This would have been ... problematic.

1) The corridor (which was not the same as West Prussia, by the way) was irreplaceable - Poland's only means of accessing the sea, through which most of its imports and exports passed.

2) Some 90% of the population of the areas you mention was Polish.

3) Poland was happy with the status quo and had little interest in Soviet or Baltic territory. If it concluded that allying with Germany was the best option, it would probably try for influence there, because it could be better to have (for example) a Ukrainian satellite then not to have one. But there was simply nothing positive Germany could actually have offered Poland in order to motivate it to co-operate - just lesser evils.

4) Germany could have promised Poland the moon and stars - but Poland would have had no way of ensuring that Germany would fulfil its part of the bargain after Poland made its own concessions.

A Polish-German alliance of 'convenience' (in the sense that Poland bends because it finds it more convenient then being occupied the way it was IOTL) is the most you could get. Poland would have made concessions if, and only if, its leaders decided that the alternatives would have caused greater damage then complying with Germany. But even then it would take the expulsion of the Poles living there and many decades for any true alliance to be possible.

1) You build elevated tracks for a portion of the way for a RR or road. Fits in well with the Autobann system. You can also give the Poles extra funds to improve their transportation system as a purchase price for the land. Add in some provision that Poland can also send seal trains to Hamburg and some docks in Hamburg, and it probably seems like a pretty good deal. Or for example, just tariff free inspectable trains through Germany to other nations.

2) Your 90% figure is probably right for villages, but not for the whole area.

3) A rearmed Germany gives Poland a strong enough ally to deter the Soviet Union from taking back the land in the east. Danzig was mostly German. We are talking about losing less than 10% of West Prussia. Add in a good diplomatic effort to help calm fears in France and UK, and we have a workable deal that will appear to secure Poland's future.

4) The only possible way to ensure German does not attack is an alliance with Stalin which will cost land in the east. The only way to stop Stalin in the long-term is a deal with Germany. Poland took the third rail, which was to make sure both were hostile. It is a matter of the leadership of Poland attempting to find a path that works, instead of emotional decision making. This dilemma was clearly understood by 1915.
 
Originally posted by BlondieBC
1) You build elevated tracks for a portion of the way for a RR or road. Fits in well with the Autobann system. You can also give the Poles extra funds to improve their transportation system as a purchase price for the land. Add in some provision that Poland can also send seal trains to Hamburg and some docks in Hamburg, and it probably seems like a pretty good deal. Or for example, just tariff free inspectable trains through Germany to other nations.
Problem is tariffs paid by Germans for passing through Polish territory were a significant part of Poland's income. Its loss would have been a painful hit to Polish economy.

3) A rearmed Germany gives Poland a strong enough ally to deter the Soviet Union from taking back the land in the east. Danzig was mostly German. We are talking about losing less than 10% of West Prussia. Add in a good diplomatic effort to help calm fears in France and UK, and we have a workable deal that will appear to secure Poland's future.
And who will protect Poland from Germany if they decide to retake the land in the west? Loss of Danzig would have been somehow acceptable, if Germany guarantees freedom of Polish commerce there. And what do you mean loss of 10% of West Prussia? I thought the passage through corridor was supposed to be a big estacade? That wouldn't take 10% of the region. Or do you mean Danzig? But it was not part of Poland at the time.

4) The only possible way to ensure German does not attack is an alliance with Stalin which will cost land in the east. The only way to stop Stalin in the long-term is a deal with Germany. Poland took the third rail, which was to make sure both were hostile. It is a matter of the leadership of Poland attempting to find a path that works, instead of emotional decision making. This dilemma was clearly understood by 1915.
From Polish POV both sides were more or less hostile. And after the fall of Czechoslovakia nobody trusted Hitler's promises anymore. Theoretically Poles didn't choose so poorly. Nobody could have predicted that rabid anti-communist Hitler would ally with rabid anti-fascist Stalin - it was a complete surprise for everybody and the deal was made only few day before the war started, when it was too late to change the policy. In early 1939 Stalin wasn't considered that much of the threat, since he sat more or less quietly and even agreed to negotiate with western allies. Poland gained support of two European powers against Hitler so in Polish opinion chances to avoid the conflict altogether weren't that bad (which was what Poland wanted in first place).
And even in case of war, France and Britain promised quick help. Poles believed that they might be able to hold long enough to give their allies necessary time to mobilize and launch their offensive. They underestimated German Army and overestimated their own capabilites, but that mistake was repeatedly made until 1941 by virtually every country fighting the Germans. Had the Poles been able to resist longer and without Soviet invasion and had the allies launched their offensive as promised (falsely, but Poles couldn't have known that) the result of war might be very different.
 
Firstly, Poles are Slavs, but "Slav" isn't some unitary group, any more than "Germanic" is for Britain, Germany, and Norway or "Romance" is for Spain, Italy, and France. This sort of all-encompassing racial grouping doesn't really have any real-world application in the slightest except as a linguistic classification. With regards to Nazi ideology, well, as mentioned, Nazi ideology isn't the most consistent thing in the world.

Really, what's key here is what Polish leaders felt was best for Poland, and signing away the most economically valuable parts of Poland to Germany wasn't on that list.
 
1) You build elevated tracks for a portion of the way for a RR or road. Fits in well with the Autobann system. You can also give the Poles extra funds to improve their transportation system as a purchase price for the land. Add in some provision that Poland can also send seal trains to Hamburg and some docks in Hamburg, and it probably seems like a pretty good deal. Or for example, just tariff free inspectable trains through Germany to other nations.

If Germany could be counted upon not to obstruct Polish traffic in any way (a big if, and even if one regime could, there'd be no guarantee that its successors would be equally magnimous, but that's another discussion) the corridor would indeed have had no vital role at the time. But while not invaluable, it was certainly something very much worth keeping anyway. Because the time might have come again when Germany could not grab it - wether due to physical weakness, or distraction, or unwillingness to expend the blood and wealth required. Without the corridor Poland would still have been at Germany's mercy economically during such times, for even if Germany lost the stomach to attack, defending its own territory would have been quite another matter. But if Poland retained the corridor, it could have been used to gain a reprieve. Even a brief one could have done wonders. Ceding it only because it was of less use at the time then a road to Hamburg would have been extremely shortsighted. (Which is not to say that no good reasons could have existed - averting defeat, a fourth partition, and years of hostile German occupation would have been worth handing over such a long-term asset.)

2) Your 90% figure is probably right for villages, but not for the whole area.
3) A rearmed Germany gives Poland a strong enough ally to deter the Soviet Union from taking back the land in the east. Danzig was mostly German. We are talking about losing less than 10% of West Prussia. Add in a good diplomatic effort to help calm fears in France and UK, and we have a workable deal that will appear to secure Poland's future.

I was originally answering Simon Oliver Lockwood's suggestion that a return to 1914 borders with unspecified compensations for Poland in the east would have made a potential Polish-German alliance more palatable.

4) The only possible way to ensure German does not attack is an alliance with Stalin which will cost land in the east. The only way to stop Stalin in the long-term is a deal with Germany. Poland took the third rail, which was to make sure both were hostile. It is a matter of the leadership of Poland attempting to find a path that works, instead of emotional decision making. This dilemma was clearly understood by 1915.

Do you mean the specific situation which existed in OTL in 1939, or attempting to steer clear of both Germany and the USSR for as long as was practical in general?

(The Soviet option was not much of an option at all. The assumption that eastern Poland would have been enough to satisfy Stalin is questionable. In the short term - maybe. But if such a deal somehow did happen, the area between the Vistula and the Bug would become the new eastern Poland, and I guess Stalin would be watching it hungrily. There were very few Ukrainians or Belorussians, but Stalin didn't mind. The original version of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact divided Poland along the Vistula. It was later amended, but shows that Stalin was perfectly willing to expand west of the Curzon Line.)

From Polish POV both sides were more or less hostile. And after the fall of Czechoslovakia nobody trusted Hitler's promises anymore. Theoretically Poles didn't choose so poorly. Nobody could have predicted that rabid anti-communist Hitler would ally with rabid anti-fascist Stalin - it was a complete surprise for everybody and the deal was made only few day before the war started, when it was too late to change the policy. In early 1939 Stalin wasn't considered that much of the threat, since he sat more or less quietly and even agreed to negotiate with western allies. Poland gained support of two European powers against Hitler so in Polish opinion chances to avoid the conflict altogether weren't that bad (which was what Poland wanted in first place).
And even in case of war, France and Britain promised quick help. Poles believed that they might be able to hold long enough to give their allies necessary time to mobilize and launch their offensive. They underestimated German Army and overestimated their own capabilites, but that mistake was repeatedly made until 1941 by virtually every country fighting the Germans. Had the Poles been able to resist longer and without Soviet invasion and had the allies launched their offensive as promised (falsely, but Poles couldn't have known that) the result of war might be very different.

Yes, the Poles' error was their assumption that Hitler was an opportunist, and wouldn't have dared to attack anyone if this were to mean a war with France and Britain - and with this assumption their behavior did make a certain amount of sense. But while Hitler only conclusively disproved it in September 1939, I think the signs were there - Germany was still arming like mad and out on a huge annexation spree. Despite Hitler's magnificently unsubtle diplomacy, it would still have made sense to let Danzig go to Germany - the stakes were so high that giving him this one final chance would IMO have been warranted.
 
Last edited:

BlondieBC

Banned
Originally posted by BlondieBC
Problem is tariffs paid by Germans for passing through Polish territory were a significant part of Poland's income. Its loss would have been a painful hit to Polish economy.

And who will protect Poland from Germany if they decide to retake the land in the west? Loss of Danzig would have been somehow acceptable, if Germany guarantees freedom of Polish commerce there. And what do you mean loss of 10% of West Prussia? I thought the passage through corridor was supposed to be a big estacade? That wouldn't take 10% of the region. Or do you mean Danzig? But it was not part of Poland at the time.

From Polish POV both sides were more or less hostile. And after the fall of Czechoslovakia nobody trusted Hitler's promises anymore. Theoretically Poles didn't choose so poorly. Nobody could have predicted that rabid anti-communist Hitler would ally with rabid anti-fascist Stalin - it was a complete surprise for everybody and the deal was made only few day before the war started, when it was too late to change the policy. In early 1939 Stalin wasn't considered that much of the threat, since he sat more or less quietly and even agreed to negotiate with western allies. Poland gained support of two European powers against Hitler so in Polish opinion chances to avoid the conflict altogether weren't that bad (which was what Poland wanted in first place).
And even in case of war, France and Britain promised quick help. Poles believed that they might be able to hold long enough to give their allies necessary time to mobilize and launch their offensive. They underestimated German Army and overestimated their own capabilites, but that mistake was repeatedly made until 1941 by virtually every country fighting the Germans. Had the Poles been able to resist longer and without Soviet invasion and had the allies launched their offensive as promised (falsely, but Poles couldn't have known that) the result of war might be very different.

The loss is painful, but better than the alternative.

And you are missing Poland's dilemma. Poland had a very bad hand, as life sometimes deals people or nations. Poland has to have a strong ally to survive after WW1. There are only two choices that work. You either becomes Hitler friend, or become Stalin's friend.
 

Cook

Banned
Firstly, Poles are Slavs…
Hitler did not consider the Poles to be Slavs.

How many times does this same point have to be said? No-one else's opinion on the subject is even slightly relavent; they weren't staying up late at the Berchtesgaden debating the issue, Hitler decided something and that was that.
 
This would delay the start of World War II in Europe. Would the two allies follow Harry Turtledove's playbook and launch an attack on the Soviet Union in 1939? Would Hitler then attack Western Europe in 1940?If so I think Britain and France are better prepared. They were not obligated to defend the USSR, so there is no declaration of war. They would, however build up their defenses.
 
Originally posted by BlondieBC
And you are missing Poland's dilemma. Poland had a very bad hand, as life sometimes deals people or nations. Poland has to have a strong ally to survive after WW1. There are only two choices that work. You either becomes Hitler friend, or become Stalin's friend.

You mean you become Hitler's satelite or Stalin's satelite. Both options were unacceptable if you want to remain independent; the potential price was simply too high.
Anyway we know what happened now. But in 1920s and 1930s it wasn't that obvious. Germany was disarmed; USSR was watched carefully by the rest of the world; Polish situation wasn't that bad. After Hitler took over Germany became a real threat, but Poland had France and (later) Britain as allies. From Polish POV that seriosuly reduced that threat. They didn't predict that Hitler would want war.

Originally posted by Paul V McNutt
This would delay the start of World War II in Europe. Would the two allies follow Harry Turtledove's playbook and launch an attack on the Soviet Union in 1939? Would Hitler then attack Western Europe in 1940?If so I think Britain and France are better prepared. They were not obligated to defend the USSR, so there is no declaration of war. They would, however build up their defenses.
Poland had no intention of invading anyone who could seriously fight back. They used the opportunity of Munich to take some land from Czechoslovakia after almost 20 years of leaving it alone (grudgingly) despite some serious claims to the region. They bullied Lithuania into starting diplomatic relations, but seriously, Poland was much stronger than Lithuania and even then Poland did not think about conquering it. Why? Because Poles was more or less satisfied with what they had. Had there been some miraculous opportunity to grab some territory in Silesia and/or East Prussia, with significant Polish minority (and sometimes even majority) without any serious risk and at relatively small cost, they would have gone for it. But invading USSR? Nope, the risk too big, the cost too high, the gains not worth all that trouble.
Now, if Stalin had been more aggressive I can see Poland joining a defensive anti-Soviet alliance with Germany. But not aggressive one. And I can not imagine Poland turning against France for Germany.
 
Top