WI: Poland divided into two states after WW2

I'm going to go out on a limb and say: no.

WWIIEurope60.gif
Wait, what? The Soviets didn't occupy European Turkey! Fat chance of Stalin ever removing his tanks from Constantinople...
 
If (as is very unlikely) the Allies got that far East, I would think a unified (and larger-than-OTL) Germany would be a much more important consequence (for Europe and the world at large) than a divided Poland...
 
If (as is very unlikely) the Allies got that far East, I would think a unified (and larger-than-OTL) Germany would be a much more important consequence (for Europe and the world at large) than a divided Poland...
after two world wars, and Nazi Germany. 1 thing I am certain of is that Germany is not going to be as large as it was.
 
after two world wars, and Nazi Germany. 1 thing I am certain of is that Germany is not going to be as large as it was.

Not as large as it was before World War II, but larger than at present (and of course unified much earlier). For example, by themselves, the Western Allies would not have given the area between the Oder and the western Neisse to Poland, nor IMO would they have given Poland Stettin.
 
Maybe a 1943 D-Day and a somehow delayed Soviet counter-offensive could make it happen, but it's still a long way from Normandy to the Vistula.
 
Not as large as it was before World War II, but larger than at present (and of course unified much earlier). For example, by themselves, the Western Allies would not have given the area between the Oder and the western Neisse to Poland, nor IMO would they have given Poland Stettin.
I could by that. However if part of Poland is occupied by the Soviets at wars end, and Poland was much further to east, I am not certain the Soviets are going to willingly leave polish soil. Of course the wuestion is will they fight for it, in my made up scenario I don't think they would and would simply retreat to 1938 borders.

There would be lots of plebiscites some Germany would win others it would loose. The end result would be interesting if they kept Austria and some of the lands lost to Poland.

But, considering the amount of ethnic cleansing, mass murder and other things, I think Poland would get due compensation in some form other than east Prussia which should be in better shape.
 
I could by that. However if part of Poland is occupied by the Soviets at wars end, and Poland was much further to east, I am not certain the Soviets are going to willingly leave polish soil. Of course the wuestion is will they fight for it, in my made up scenario I don't think they would and would simply retreat to 1938 borders.

You mean 1939? I don't see any way Stalin would willingly leave its new acquisitions in the Kresy behind. Those lands were largely inhabited by Byelorussians and Ukrainians even before 1939, and Stalinist ethnic cleansing would only have solidified the ethnic situation.

There would be lots of plebiscites some Germany would win others it would loose. The end result would be interesting if they kept Austria and some of the lands lost to Poland.

But, considering the amount of ethnic cleansing, mass murder and other things, I think Poland would get due compensation in some form other than east Prussia which should be in better shape.

The Soviets weren't the only ones who wanted to weaken Germany - the Western Allies did too. I don't think they'd have accepted the Anschluss, and I could easily see the Allies moving some land over from Germany to Poland, though probably not as much as the USSR did in real life. By the way, where would Poland get compensation, if not East Prussia and the eastern regions of Germany? Czechoslovakia is not an option, and the USSR still holds everything to the east.
 
Not as large as it was before World War II, but larger than at present (and of course unified much earlier). For example, by themselves, the Western Allies would not have given the area between the Oder and the western Neisse to Poland, nor IMO would they have given Poland Stettin.
If it is Poland that is the Cold War frontline country, Germany likely would be weaker than otl not stronger, the occupation measures would be harder and denazification deeper.
 

oberdada

Gone Fishin'
Not that I don't think that the result is interesting, but I simply don't see a plausible timeline to get there.

You would need a much weaker Soviet Union, and with a much weaker Soviet Union there is no cold war...
 

Asami

Banned
If you stunted or had the Germans pull a mulligan in slowing or out-right at times, halting the Soviet advance in Eastern Europe in 1943 and 1944 -- you could theoretically see to it that the Wallies could reach Warsaw before the Russians do. Perhaps if Kursk was more of a stalemate than a decisive Soviet victory -- if the Axis maintain minor strategic offensive capacity, then the Soviet advance could be hindered long enough for the Wallies to gain.
 
The division of Europe was decided at the negotiating table, not on the battlefield. That's why the Soviets withdrew from Austria and didn't intervene in the Greek Civil War. Just because the allies get to the Vistula first doesn't mean Stalin's going to shrug and say "well played imperialist pigs!" Why does Stalin negotiate half of Poland and all of Germany away?
 
The division of Europe was decided at the negotiating table, not on the battlefield. That's why the Soviets withdrew from Austria and didn't intervene in the Greek Civil War. Just because the allies get to the Vistula first doesn't mean Stalin's going to shrug and say "well played imperialist pigs!" Why does Stalin negotiate half of Poland and all of Germany away?
True, but theoretically Poland was supposed to be an independent country didn it? that means that Polish government in exile instals itself in Poland, free elections are organized, allied forces stay there for some time... Soviet troops could be shipped to Germany but in relatively small numbers and with less equipment and would be less agressive towards Allies later leading to safer world. Imo in the situation of Allies reaching Vistula, Poland (and Czechoslovakia) would end finlandized and Germany still divided.
 
to achieve this pod things need to be different in 40-42 period. Again.. No lend lease, have the Soviets be viewed as aggressors who got stabbed by their partner. Have both hittler and Stalin out of the picture at different times, you might get some of this. If the allies are only interested in life support for the Soviets.

Much of eastern Poland at the time: in the south south east: Ukrainian and Belarusian
In the east: polish/Lithuanian-Belarusian
Note: Belarus is 80% of Lithuania just suffered more Russification.

However from a line around Mir and nezhvisch ( just south west of minsk ) you will find many polish estates.

Germany will be treated harshly as will Austria, but I think you could get that to stick. I'm confident east Prussia goes to Poland. Other areas would get a plebiscite and the Soviets wouldn't get much say in it.
 
If it is Poland that is the Cold War frontline country, Germany likely would be weaker than otl not stronger, the occupation measures would be harder and denazification deeper.

In OTL, the West was very reluctant to accept the Oder-western Neisse line--in fact the Soviets pretty much imposed it on them. I just cannot see the western allies *on their own initiative* depriving Germany of so much ethnic-German territory. Yes, of course, the West as well as Russia wanted Germany to be shrunk from its 1937 borders, but depriving Germany of everything east of the Oder (including East Prussia) would be quite enough. Why add to the refugee problem?
 
In OTL, the West was very reluctant to accept the Oder-western Neisse line--in fact the Soviets pretty much imposed it on them. I just cannot see the western allies *on their own initiative* depriving Germany of so much ethnic-German territory. Yes, of course, the West as well as Russia wanted Germany to be shrunk from its 1937 borders, but depriving Germany of everything east of the Oder (including East Prussia) would be quite enough. Why add to the refugee problem?
They were reluctant because they knew Poland would be a Soviet puppet. With Poland being western puppet or finlandized situation might be different.
 
Why would the Germans continue fighting in the East if Germany is occupied? The two sides were destined to meet roughly in the middle of Germany, should the W-allies advance faster the Germans would just send more people from East to West to fight changing the balance on both fronts which results in... both sides meeting roughly in the middle of Germany at the end.
well.. the western allies are not quite as angry as the hornets nest the germans created in the east. don't get me wrong, the Western allies wanted to punish Germany. but what the germans did in the east is another topic all together.

so maybe they would consider with saner leadership at the helm to "not really hold the west back too much" but keep fighting the soviets until the absolute end while trying to get the west to convince the soviets to halt. and the west might do this if they think they can keep a free western leaning Poland and the soviets contained... if the story plays out the way I have been talking.
 
well.. the western allies are not quite as angry as the hornets nest the germans created in the east. don't get me wrong, the Western allies wanted to punish Germany. but what the germans did in the east is another topic all together.

so maybe they would consider with saner leadership at the helm to "not really hold the west back too much" but keep fighting the soviets until the absolute end while trying to get the west to convince the soviets to halt. and the west might do this if they think they can keep a free western leaning Poland and the soviets contained... if the story plays out the way I have been talking.

It cant play out - if the factories making German weapons and ammo are captured and the rail lines cut in the West the East falters and the Soviets advance at full steam. To fight in the East they need to hold and defend the factories in the West, if the factories in the West are more threatened they'll divert forces to defend there thus weakening the defence in the East making the Soviets there advance faster, the outcome is always W-allies and Soviets meeting in the middle, except if you have some kind of deal where the W-allies try to screw with the Soviets and make a deal with the Germans - fat chance of that happening.
 
It cant play out - if the factories making German weapons and ammo are captured and the rail lines cut in the West the East falters and the Soviets advance at full steam. To fight in the East they need to hold and defend the factories in the West, if the factories in the West are more threatened they'll divert forces to defend there thus weakening the defence in the East making the Soviets there advance faster, the outcome is always W-allies and Soviets meeting in the middle, except if you have some kind of deal where the W-allies try to screw with the Soviets and make a deal with the Germans - fat chance of that happening.


this I realize .. except if you read some of the earlier posts, such as the soviets being deemed to be an aggressor state who invaded and occupied Poland and the Baltic states, who just happened to get bitten by the devil it made a deal with. So the west doesn't offer up the lend lease. I'm not saying its likely, but hell our own timeline is almost ASB when it comes to German success pre and the first parts of WW II.

plus the whole war was began with the invasion of Poland. western allies were pummeling german factories anyways. even in our timeline in the waning months of the war was that it was better to surrender to the british, French and American forces than to the soviets and to fight in the east at all costs as they new damn well the retribution that was coming.

again, I doubt the western powers could make the vistula myself baring some invasion of northern Poland itself to liberate Poland ( doubtful ). but if the peace is made and the west wishes to enforce it what would the soviets be able to do about it except accept the pre war borders of Poland or where ever their troops happen to be at? too me the only way to make this change starts with viewing the soviets as an early axis member at the start of the war and after they are turned on let them deal with the consequence of that action themselves ( or as much so as possible )

Germany would have as in OTL much of their forces in the east, they would have no choice as the front line stretches on forever, combined with occupation duties.

I agree though with what you are saying
 
Last edited:
Top