WI: The Polish Republic

[katipunero]

Nice...but I'm not sure if the communists could be so strong. Poles saw the communists at work and know prefectly well what to expect from them. Western communist parties in OTL were quite strong, because they had no idea what the communism in Soviet edition looked like. I think that the left wing of Polish political scene would be dominated by socialist PPS (Polish Socialist Party).

The main reason the PZPN failed in Poland was due to its subservience to Soviet-style communism. In this TL, the communists would have developed their own brand of communism that would suit to the "national peculiarities" of Poland; kinda like Titoism (BTW, Tito-not Stalin & his successors-is "the man" among the communist parties of the White Bloc).

Linking question: What do you think, in your opinion, would have served better as the model for the post-WWII constitution? The one in 1921, or the Marszalek's version in 1935?

 

[katipunero]

After the success of the Polish Peasant Party in 1946, a new constitution is promulgated that is similar to the 1925 constitution.

CORRECTION: It should have been the 1921 constitution.

 

[seraphim74]

Originally posted by katipunero

What do you think, in your opinion, would have served better as the model for the post-WWII constitution? The one in 1921, or the Marszalek's version in 1935?

The one from 1921 with some modifications. The constitution from 1935 wasn't democratic and the leading parties of post-war Poland were the opposition before the WW2 (PSL, PPS). The sanacy movement, which ruled Poland before the war and created the constitution in 1935, lost any public support because of the Polish defeat in 1939.
BTW, PZPN is for Polski Związek Piłki Nożnej (Polish Football Association). You meant PZPR - Polska Zjednoczona Partia Robotnicza (Polish United Workers' Party). That party was formed by union of socialist PPS (non entirely willing to do it) and communist PPR (in OTL very pro-Soviet party).

 

[katipunero]

BTW, PZPN is for Polski Związek Piłki Nożnej (Polish Football Association). You meant PZPR - Polska Zjednoczona Partia Robotnicza (Polish United Workers' Party).

Dziękuję za twój poprawka!

(If you find this sentence wrong, this was done using online translation software.)

 

[Tizoc]

WHAT HAPPENED TO:

POLAND


[...]Gen. Władysław Sikorski, who headed the Polish government-in-exile during the Second World War (and doesn't die in this TL), is reappointed president, while PSL leader Stanisław Mikołajczyk became Poland's first postwar prime minister.[...]

Wait. POD is in 1944. Gen. Sikorski was killed in 1943 - you cannot have him as president.

[...]this became more pronounced when the Polish communists came to power in 1965.[...]

Nope. Not gonna happen. Paid Pawns of Russia wouldn't come to power in Poland.

Quote:
What do you think, in your opinion, would have served better as the model for the post-WWII constitution? The one in 1921, or the Marszalek's version in 1935?

The one from 1921 with some modifications. The constitution from 1935 wasn't democratic and the leading parties of post-war Poland were the opposition before the WW2 (PSL, PPS). The sanacy movement, which ruled Poland before the war and created the constitution in 1935, lost any public support because of the Polish defeat in 1939.

Personally, I think that the new constitution would be build from scratch - the end result would be sth between 1921 and 1935 constitutions.

BTW, if 1935 constitution is so un-democratic, why was it the act that influenced the most the constitution of V Republic of France?

 

[katipunero]

Wait. POD is in 1944. Gen. Sikorski was killed in 1943 - you cannot have him as president.

Gen. Sikorski never died in this TL. The POD for noncommunist Poland is 1944; his decision not to board that plane in 1943 is his POD.

 

[seraphim74]

Originally posted by Tizoc

Personally, I think that the new constitution would be build from scratch - the end result would be sth between 1921 and 1935 constitutions.
BTW, if 1935 constitution is so un-democratic, why was it the act that influenced the most the constitution of V Republic of France?

I'm first to admit I know nothing about French constitution. However, Polish constitution in 1935 was NOT democratic. The president of Poland had enormous power. He could nominate or dismiss Prime Minister or ministers without asking the Parliament. He could veto any bill, and if Parliament wanted that bill to pass anyway, it needed the approval of 2/3 of the Senate. And 1/3 of the senators were not elected, but nominated by the President. If the President was not happy with the Parliament he had the right to dissolve it without giving any reason. He also had almost total control over the army, including the promotion of senior officers. According to 1935 constitution the President of Poland responded only to "God and history".
Also the new election law was far from being democratic. The Sejm (lower chamber of Polish Parliament) was reduced from 444 to 202 members; there were 101 constituencies, each elected 2 MOPs. That's quite OK - so far. The problem is, in each constituency there couldn't be more than 4 candidates, nominated by local representatives, usually loyal to the Piłsudski's camp. Candidates of opposition had small chances to gain such nominations. In other words, the people could ususally choose only between candidates approved by the goverment.
And the President of Poland nominated 1/3 of the senators - they weren't elected. Whole opposition, from nationalist ND to socialist PPS, was appalled and asked their supporters to boycot the next election. Many voters returned empty cards.
The 1935 constitution was created for one man - Piłsudski. It was created by his followers and the Parliament passed it when opposition MOPs were absent - they weren't informed about voting. The Marshal himself wasn't happy with the way it was made. He died a few weeks later.
Anyway, with so called "sanation" (Piłsudski's camp) compromised after 1939, the leading Polish parties were the Ppe-war opposition. They positively hated the 1935 constitution and there is no way they would accept even some parts of it. They would adapt the 1921 constitution or write a totally new one.

Now, about General Sikorski. Actually, in my scenario it is irrelevant if he died in 1943 or not. He could very well be alive. That would seriously strengthen the influence of Polish goverment-in-exile, but shouldn't change too much.
Only one tiny detail: Sikorski never was Polish President, so he couldn't be "reappointed". He was the Prime Minister, but the president-in-exile was Władysław Raczkiewicz.
And, my friend katipunero, I appreciate your efforts with trying to write in Polish, but I doubt there is any sofware at all that can translate correctly into Polish. Our language is complicated and often illogical - just like we are!
I am waiting to see what new ideas you have for my...no, our scenario.

Best Christmas (or whatever holiday you celebrate) wishes to you all!

 

[mycroft holmes]

There are a few basic premises in thisTL that I question.

One is that since the US developed atomic weapons earlier in the TL, we were in a much stronger position.

This is immaterial, we already were in a much, much stronger position than the Soviets in 1944/45 without atomic weapons. Logistically, they were showing signs of overstrain just as we had ramped up our sea forces, got full control of the Atlantic and had enough men and material to fight a two front war. Remember that scene in Patton where he advocates continuing the war against the Sovs? From a strictly military perspective he was absolutely right, the allies would have destroyed them. But FDR decided to give them everything they wanted at Postdam and Yalta, instead.

Another basic premise for this TL is that Stalin would voluntarily withdraw from Poland and other east Bloc nations, placing his trust in a resurgent Polish Communist party. I don't see this. Stalin, despite the fact that he was actually a Georgian and not Russian, was the most rabid Russian nationalist of all time. The Soviet Communist party never trusted East Bloc nations, it always had large reserves of Russian troops in those countries, and it never let anyone who wasn't a Great Russian (said so right on their travel permits) into any position of power in the Soviet Union. Why would he trust an independent Polish party outside KGB control? And this new TL would also leave all of germany, for 150 years Russia's most feared enemy, under Western control. Stalin would never have stood for that voluntarily.

 

[katipunero]

To seraphim74...

Just curious...

Is/are there any party/parties or movement(s) in your nation that advocate Sanacja or at least have a "special" veneration for the Marszałek?

 

[seraphim74]

Originally posted by katipunero

Is/are there any party/parties or movement(s) in your nation that advocate Sanacja or at least have a "special" veneration for the Marszałek?

In OTL? Well, most of the Poles still admire Piłsudski, however,we prefer to remeber him as the hero of 1920. His coup d'etat in 1926 is still controversial, and most historians are rather critical towards Sanacja. They made Poland an autoritarian country and weren't able to defend it in 1939. Besides, without Piłsudski, Sanacja was at loss, without clear vision for the future. They were only interested in keeping power.
Interesting thing is that PiS (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość - Law and Justice), the main party of our present goverment, won the election claiming the need of "moral revolution" "fight against corruption" to create the "Fourth Republic". Unfortunately, it doesn't work too well. That is, of course, my private opinion.
In TTL? As I had written before, the Sanacja was compromised in 1939 (also because goverment and Commander-in-chief left to Romania on 17th September 1939, when some Polish forces were still fighting). The goverment-in-exile was created by former opposition. I don't think the Sanacja would have had any chance in post-war free elections.

Originally posted by mycroft holmes

There are a few basic premises in thisTL that I question.
One is that since the US developed atomic weapons earlier in the TL, we were in a much stronger position.
This is immaterial, we already were in a much, much stronger position than the Soviets in 1944/45 without atomic weapons. Logistically, they were showing signs of overstrain just as we had ramped up our sea forces, got full control of the Atlantic and had enough men and material to fight a two front war. Remember that scene in Patton where he advocates continuing the war against the Sovs? From a strictly military perspective he was absolutely right, the allies would have destroyed them. But FDR decided to give them everything they wanted at Postdam and Yalta, instead.
Another basic premise for this TL is that Stalin would voluntarily withdraw from Poland and other east Bloc nations, placing his trust in a resurgent Polish Communist party. I don't see this. Stalin, despite the fact that he was actually a Georgian and not Russian, was the most rabid Russian nationalist of all time. The Soviet Communist party never trusted East Bloc nations, it always had large reserves of Russian troops in those countries, and it never let anyone who wasn't a Great Russian (said so right on their travel permits) into any position of power in the Soviet Union. Why would he trust an independent Polish party outside KGB control? And this new TL would also leave all of germany, for 150 years Russia's most feared enemy, under Western control. Stalin would never have stood for that voluntarily

I admit I stretched it a little, but perhaps not so much as you think. From the military point of view the Allies indeed were stronger than Soviets, but they didn't know about it. Stalin won the negotiations not because he had better cards, but because he managed to convince the Allies they had weaker hand. He also was an absolute ruler of USSR, while the western goverments had to listen to public opinion. It would have been hard to convince American people, that "Uncle Joe", praised by war propaganda, suddenly became a bad guy. Stalin would have simply ordered the Red Army to attack and nobody would have dared to oppose him.
Now, with atomic weapons and feeling they were the ones who finally brought Hitler down, the Allies FEEL stronger. They don't need the help of Red Army against Japan anymore.
In my scenario Stalin agreed to withdrew from Poland because of Allies' demands and because he believed that local communists would soon overthrow the non-communist goverment. Then he could gain Poland again and the West would have to accept it, because it would be Polish decision. The same goes for Czech Republic (liberated by the Americans). Stalin believed (falsely) that the PPR (Polish communists) with two Polish armies (controlled by communist or even Soviet officers) would be strong enough to achieve it. He miscalculated, the soldiers of those armies weren't willing to shoot their countrymen - especially with Polish army from the West coming home. There were some minor skirmishes, but not the revolution Stalin counted on. After free elections the communists gained some support, but became isolated in Parliament, because PPR was considered a Soviet puppet under the control of KGB (or rather NKVD).
As far as Germany goes, Stalin couldn't do much about it - the Allies and Soviets met at Oder. The river was supposed to be Polish western border, so the only piece of Germany Stalin could get was Eastern Prussia. The rest was already occupied.

 

[katipunero]

An important sub-TL before proceeding to the Bucharest Pact nations...

Beria's Russia

After the end of the Second World War, that amazing Victory March, and the important agreement that sealed forever the boundaries & fates of the countries of Europe, Josef Vissarionovich "Father of the People" "Shining Sun of Humanity" "Lifegiving Force of Socialism" Stalin set about a new round of purges in his regime, as well as overseeing an increase in his cult of personality. By the early '50s, an increasingly paranoid Stalin found himself the chief of a small clique in the Soviet administration consisting of loyal Communist Party members & KGB administrators; foremost among this small yet powerful group is NKVD (later KGB) chief Lavrenti Beria. In his later years, Stalin came upon depending on Beria to execute all of his orders; this resulted in Beria appointed to deputy secretary in the Politburo, second only to the "Man of Steel" himself. By the time of Stalin's death, Beria succeeds as General Secretary & embarks upon his own Great Purge, eliminating possible rivals such as Nikita Khrushchev while retaining "allies" such as Vyacheslav Molotov (who switches his allegiance to Beria). By the beginning of the second half of the '50s, Beria is essentially the supreme leader of the Soviet Union.

Under Beria's leadership, the old cult of personality that Stalin started began to include Beria as well; he was dubbed the "Great Successor", "Supreme Leader", "Commander of the Great Forces of Socialism", among others. In economic affairs, Beria enacted a new Five-Year Plan to rebuild the Soviet economy, damaged due to the war; one of the clauses of this plan include reducing the economies of the lesser Bucharest Pact nations to mere suppliers of raw materials to the Soviet Union. As a result, the Soviet economy fully recovered by the early '60s, while those of the other Bucharest Pact nations didn't.

In foreign affairs, Beria establishes the Mutual Pact for the Defense of Socialism, better known as the Bucharest Pact, in 1955 to "defend" its member nations (Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and North Greece as well as the USSR) against attack by the "capitalist invaders"; as a result, Soviet troops are stationed in these nations to help cement the Kremlin's control over them, the armies of these nations reduced to nothing more than providing auxiliaries. Overseas, the Soviet Union strengthens its control on Mongolia and establishes relations with the newly-established PRC and North Korea; during the so-called "independence decade" that is the '60s, it's the Soviet Union that first establishes relations with the newly-independent countries of Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. Beria also gave his support on various "national liberation" movements that quickly took power in several of the countries of the Middle East & Africa. In these countries, the Soviets "help" in retooling these countries to serve Soviet interests. At the time of his death in 1969, Lavrenti Pavlovich Beria led the Soviet Union in a dangerous Cold War against the United States.

 

[katipunero]

WHAT HAPPENED TO:

HELLENIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC

The EAE (the acronym of the Hellenic People's Republic in Greek) was established in Thessaloniki on the 14th of July, 1946, with Nikolaos Zachariadis as premier & general secretary of the KKE. A Stalinist, Zachariadis launched a massive purge of "nationalists" & "deviationists" in the party, with the help of Aris Velouchiotis, supreme commander of the People's Armed Forces of Greece (AEOE) & chief of its secret police (PAA); by the start of the '50s, Zachariadis & his loyalists were in full control of the country.

In 1950, the first Five-Year Plan was enacted, calling for the collectivization of agriculture & emphasis on heavy industry. Collectivization was met by strong hostility by small farmers; in 1954, over 300,000 farmers were forcibly expelled from their farms, some killed. The industrial sector was established with Soviet aid.

By the start of the '60s, the Soviet Union, under the leadership of Lavrentiy Beria, established the Mutual Economic Pact of Socialist Nations, serving as a way for the USSR to control the economies of the member countries for its benefit. Therefore, starting from the 1960 Five-Year Plan, the economy of North Greece (as it was popularly called) was geared to meet the needs of the Soviets. Collectives were ordered to plant important cash crops such as cotton, and industrial plants were "given" to managers originating from the Soviet Union. This phenomenon, which became common to other countries of the so-called "Outer Kremlin", led to the decline in the economic health of North Greece, so disastrous that the government, led since 1974 by Plato Gorgonopoulos, was forced to import grain from the USSR. This general decline in the economy was followed by a similar one in government & society, marked by stagnation in state services & the formation of a small dissident movement (ledes). This general decline continued into the '80s, when a so-called "underground railroad" led to the escape of over 700 people each year. Prior to the collapse of the communist regime in 2001, the EAE was in such a bad shape that a reform movement led by Dimitrios Kostas in 1996 only aggravated the inevitable collapse.

 

[Otis Tarda]

The main reason the PZPR failed in Poland was due to its subservience to Soviet-style communism. In this TL, the communists would have developed their own brand of communism that would suit to the "national peculiarities" of Poland; kinda like Titoism (BTW, Tito-not Stalin & his successors-is "the man" among the communist parties of the White Bloc).

It wouldn't change anything. Whatever had happened, communists would be still associated with Polish-SOviet War of 1920'. Moreover, there was strong socialist party (PPS), so there will be no reason to vote for any other "red" power.

IMHO, in this scenario there could be 4-5 parties on Polish political scene:

Polish Peasant Party (PSL)
National Democracy (ND)
Some remnants of Sanacja ("Non-partisan Block of Collaboration with the Government" - that was the name of main Sanacja's pre-war party), possibly under other name
PPS (Polish Socialist Party)
probably communist party, sponsored by Moscow.

Maybe some Ukrainian party, depending on circumstances (I find it doubtful, anyway).