I think it is possible as it solves the Cieszyn dispute which is Ethnically Pole in the first place and likely Poland gets Upper Silesia without the plebiscites.
WI: Unified Western Slavic state
- Thread starter krieger
- Start date
I think it is possible as it solves the Cieszyn dispute which is Ethnically Pole in the first place and likely Poland gets Upper Silesia without the plebiscites.
Let’s be clear, an international arrangement convenient for Poland was not going to be automatically acceptable for other side so in what you described “possible” actually means “good for Poland”, which is not the same.
Before Munich there could be a meaningful treaty of a mutual defense but I doubt that Czechoslovakia would be welcoming a closer arrangement that is going to pass parts of it territory to Poland. Would Poland welcome arrangement by which it would give away territories with non-Polish majorities? Say Danzig region and Western Ukraine. We know the answer.
Even less so Czechoslovakia would be interested in some kind of a confederation, both economically and politically, especially if this means territorial losses.
After WWII started the whole issue had been transferred in the same area as insistence of the Polish government-in-exile on preserving pre-war Eastern border: wishful thinking. Neither of two g-in-e was in a good position to make any post-war plans of their own (unlike Sikorsky, Benes understood this) and the Czechs were not even seriously interested in the idea. Taking into an account that none of the Big Three was endorsing it, it was not realistic anyway and the Czechs stopped even general discussions in the early 1943 when Uncle Joe’s position became clear.
So how would it be “possible”?
It is possible before 1939 before the conquest of Zaolzie and the two countries, Poland and Czechoslovakia dissolve to form a functionally one country....ala Switzerland.Let’s be clear, an international arrangement convenient for Poland was not going to be automatically acceptable for other side so in what you described “possible” actually means “good for Poland”, which is not the same.
Before Munich there could be a meaningful treaty of a mutual defense but I doubt that Czechoslovakia would be welcoming a closer arrangement that is going to pass parts of it territory to Poland. Would Poland welcome arrangement by which it would give away territories with non-Polish majorities? Say Danzig region and Western Ukraine. We know the answer.
Even less so Czechoslovakia would be interested in some kind of a confederation, both economically and politically, especially if this means territorial losses.
After WWII started the whole issue had been transferred in the same area as insistence of the Polish government-in-exile on preserving pre-war Eastern border: wishful thinking. Neither of two g-in-e was in a good position to make any post-war plans of their own (unlike Sikorsky, Benes understood this) and the Czechs were not even seriously interested in the idea. Taking into an account that none of the Big Three was endorsing it, it was not realistic anyway and the Czechs stopped even general discussions in the early 1943 when Uncle Joe’s position became clear.
So how would it be “possible”?
And why would Czechoslovakia want anything of the kind? It was one of the most developed and prosperous European countries and a democratic one. The 2nd Republic was a backward agricultural country that had been on bad terms with pretty much all its neighbors and, AFAIK, it had authoritarian regime. But it was bigger than Czechoslovakia so in a possible merge it was going to be dominating side. Where was the Czechs’ interest? Just so that they can give away Zaolzie and back up Poland financially? You can’t be serious.
BTW, “conquest of Zaolzie” was a very bad PR: not only did it left the Nazis gloating but it produced very negative reactions in Britain and France. Not to mention that possession lasted for only 11 months and after WWII the area ended up in the Czech hands.
Honestly, I don’t think that this would be sustainable: both sides has nationalist leaders with the ideas not necessarily compatible. Of course, I can be wrong.
krieger
Banned
Not only nobility - even Soviets in XXth century (after tsarist persecutions of Poles in Eastern Borderlands) created https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Дзержинский_польский_национальный_район for Poles? Would proletarian state (which early USSR tried to be) create something like this only for descendants of nobility? I wouldn't say so. And Ukrainian matter depends about which period of time you're talking about? In XVIIth century sure, Right-Bank Ukraine was quite populated region, but it cannot be said about XIVth and XVth centuries (which I was refering to). And Red Ruthenia wasn't even counted as Ukraine back then. Religious and linguistic split existed, but there were a few possibilities to milden it. For example, not letting Catholics peasants to convert to Orthodoxy would be a huge improvement. I slightly disagree with You. You forgot that there was at least one part of Bohemia, which annexion would give benefits to P-L stability. Silesia. Not only it's rich and developed, but inhabited mostly by Poles (even near Breslau/Wrocław Polish was widespread in XVIIIth century).
Before 19th century it would not be important what language are peasants using.
Cossacks OTOH would be troublemakers even as Catholics-proximity of steppe nomads shaped their lifestyle far more than religion, living in constant danger of Tatar raids they had to be militarised society. Still, more efficient Polish state would be able to deal with them (even PLC was able to respond to Cossack uprising quite brutally, within 3 decades after Khmielnitsky Uprising Right Bank Ukraine lost 90% of population, (although not only Poles, but also Cossacks, Tatars, Turks and Russians contributed to such heavy loses).
Russian Empire Ottoman Empire and Habsburg Empire were multiethnic too. They all disintegrated eventually but still existed during early 20th century.
Cossacks OTOH would be troublemakers even as Catholics-proximity of steppe nomads shaped their lifestyle far more than religion, living in constant danger of Tatar raids they had to be militarised society. Still, more efficient Polish state would be able to deal with them (even PLC was able to respond to Cossack uprising quite brutally, within 3 decades after Khmielnitsky Uprising Right Bank Ukraine lost 90% of population, (although not only Poles, but also Cossacks, Tatars, Turks and Russians contributed to such heavy loses).
Russian Empire Ottoman Empire and Habsburg Empire were multiethnic too. They all disintegrated eventually but still existed during early 20th century.
Of course not only nobility but in that region the Poles amounted to 49% of a population of 44,000. Hopefully, you agree that this was not too much by any standards.
Mot just Zailzie. Slovak nationalists were interested bit interested in confederation with Poland too but after 1938 occupation of parts of Orava, Kysuce and Spis areas pro Polish wing in Hlinka’s Slovak People Party was compromised and pushed to the side. Before that however confederation may have support in Slovakia.
krieger
Banned
Yes, but you should remember that in Belorussia national identity was kind of....undeveloped even in XXth century and in Polish censuses from Interwar period majority of population in Belorussia thought about themselves as just "locals" - they had no Great Russian or White Russian or any national identity. If it wasn't for long-lasting serfdom in Tsarist Russia and if it wasn't for internationalistic USSR, creating Belorussian Soviet Republic, these people would adopt the dominant national identity of the state they'd be living in.
I'm somewhat surprised that you are missing the point. Nobody is denying that a multi-ethnic state could exist. After all, the PLC did exist for centuries and it was not even exclusively Slavic state.
The point is that in OTL, just as was the case with the Ottomans, the Polish component of that state had been an overwhelming power. In that sense Poland had a certain advantage because vis a vis Lithuanian, Belorussian and Ukrainian lands it had not just military but also a cultural advantage which allowed polonization of the non-Polish territories.
Adding Czechia to this equation would be a clear chance of a power balance and it is anything but clear who and why the Czechs would agree to play a second fiddle to the Poles. Having these entities completely independent from each other makes notion of a "state" rather questionable and sustainability of such a state even more so.
Now, as far as your examples are involved, the Hapsburgs controlled Bohemia as a separate state within their multi-state domains and an attempt to establish the Hapsburg administration led (just as in the case of the Spanish Netherlands) to a war, which Austrian Hapsburg won only with the help of Spain and Catholic states of the HRE.
Unlike the Austrian Hapsburgs, the PLC did not have either "imperial legacy" or a "rich cousin" (Spain) and, unlike Austrian Hapsburgs who had only a limited territorial contact with the competing major European powers (and lost Silesia as soon as one of them developed a decent army), the PLC had been surrounded by the potential opponents. It was successful for a while in crashing the Cossack uprisings but as soon as they found an ally 1st in the Crimean Khanate and then in the Tsardom, the territorial losses extended beyond Ukraine. Who would be helping Polish side in the case of Bohemian uprising? Clearly, whoever is in charge of the HRE would try to bring it back under the HRE umbrella (I'm leaving aside the implications of the situation when a ruler of a "Slavic Empire" has a vote in the HRE elections).
Polish-Czech union could as well start another way-with Czech rulet gaining Poland. Something Wenceslaus II did and Luxembourgs tried. Differences between Poles and Czechs at the time were minimal (up to 16th century Czech and Polish were not seen as separate languages, Wilhelm of Rosenberg (Rožemberk) who was one of candidates to PLC's throne in second election was described by Poles as "man of our language". Bohemia was in decline in 16th century, but 13-14th century Bohemian Kingdom was stronger than Poland. If not ASBish amount of luck of Władysław Łokietek Czech rule would continue under Premyslids or Luxembourgs would restore it.
krieger
Banned
It could be averted by a simple trick. Ruler of Bohemia, Poland, Lithuania and Hungary could be elected HRE and then there is no conflict between these entities. And how did "imperial legacy" help Austrian Habsburg in, for example 30 Years War when majority of German princes stood against them?
It helped a lot (quite a few Protestants ended up on the Hapsburg side) and so did existence of the Spanish relatives. Taking into an account that Bothe Bohemia and Hungary were at that point predominantly Protestant, who would help the Catholic Poland?
krieger
Banned
They didn't end up on the Habsburg side because Habsburg was an Emperor, but because they had common interests with Austria. Spanish relatives helped a lot and I won't deny this. And regarding at least Hungary - it's protestantisation was caused by severe losses, which Hungarian Church suffered from Ottomans and by the most prominent persons of Hungarian clergy dying at Mohacs. If it didn't happen, than protestantism in Hungary would be much, much weaker than it was.
The Protestant princes and individuals like von Arnim could not care less about Austria but they had interests within the HRE of which Hapsburg was an emperor. And without Spanish help Austrian Hapsburgs would most probably lost on the initial stage of the 30YW. Ditto for the Catholic League and its Army.
Now, back to the relevant point, on whom the PLC could count upon in the similar situation? Surely, not on the HRE help because combination of Bohemia-PLC would be against the imperial (both emperor’s and the German princes) interests. As for Hungary and Monacs, the last two kings had been elected just because they were ready to be compliant with the wishes of the Hungarian magnates, destroying its army in a process. Which, of course, pretty much destroyed Hungarian ability to resist the Ottomans.
krieger
Banned
But Austrians had to fight the most prominent of Protestant princes before they switched (or not) sides- Electors of Brandenburg, Saxony and Palatinate (3 most important Protestants in HRE) stood against the Austrians at some point in 30 Years war. I agreed with you in the point of having rich cousins by Austrian Habsburgs. But you need to count that "PLC" (depends on POD that name may or not may be used) was larger and more populated than Austria proper and when governed in the suitable way it could be a significant military power in it's own right. As for Hungary, everything depends on POD leading to it's union with Poland, Lithuania and Bohemia. If it happened in XVth century (Jagiełło having Habsburgs luck and large brood of children with his first wife) than Varna crusade would not happen (Jagiellon king of Hungary not being a young adult at the time of getting crown would certainly help in not falling to Cesarini's plot and not launching Varna crusade) and Hungarian throne wouldn't become elective (it became after all lines of House of Anjou died out and no one had hereditary rights to Hungarian throne).
I think one of the butterflies would be an even more Germanic Holy Roman Empire, and a later conflict with the Western Slavs over influence in the Baltic Lands.
If we go with Hungary and the Eastern Roman Empire cooperating, this could also have big butterfiles, Orthodox Hungary? A less vulnerable Eastern Roman Empire with
an allied buffer state to the west?
If we go with Hungary and the Eastern Roman Empire cooperating, this could also have big butterfiles, Orthodox Hungary? A less vulnerable Eastern Roman Empire with
an allied buffer state to the west?