Did Pilsudski plan an alliance with Hitler against Stalin?

[ljadw]

If Mark Weber(you know : of the IHR ) writes approvingly :<the genuine memoirs of Otto Wagener"Hitler aus nächster Nähe" provides lenghtly and detailed insights into Hitler's thinking and private views>, I know enough .
Using these "memoirs" as a proof that Pilsudski wanted an alliance with Hitler against the SU,is a total waste of time .
I am curious about other proofs.

[michael mills]

Ljadw, you are entirely free to accept or reject whatever you like.

The historical realities are:

1. Both Hitler and PIlsudski saw Bolshevism and Russia as such as the main enemy of Germany and Poland respectively.

2. Neither viewed the country led by the other as a permanent enemy.

3. Each saw the other as a potential ally against the common main enemy.

Therefore, once Hitler came to power, the way was open for the development of a German-Polish de facto alliance directed against the Soviet Union.

Both Hitler and PIlsudski faced internal opposition from elements who saw Poland or Germany respectively as the main enemy of their country, and therefore tried to work against a German-Polish rapprochement. Hitler, due to his greater dictatorial powers, was more easily able to overcome that internal opposition from conservative nationalist groups, and even elements in his own party, than was PIlsudski, who always had to face opposition from the National Democrats who had a lot of influence over public opinion and support from the Church hierarchy. That was why Pilsudski had to move slowly and carefully in responding to German overtures for an alliance.

[michael mills]

But it is worth to remember that on the same month the Polish mission in Moscow was assessing possibility of a Polish-Soviet rapprochement, and as result a year later the Polish-Soviet non-aggression pact was signed.

The Polish-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 1932 was primarily a Soviet initiative, not a Polish one.

In that year, the Soviet Union concluded similar pacts with a number of countries apart from Poland; France, Latvia, Estonia, Finland. It also began to draw nearer to the Little Entente.

The reason for those Soviet initiatives, which were clearly aimed against Germany, was that the de facto co-operation of Germany and the Soviet Union against the Versailles System in Eastern Europe, based on the 1922 Treaty of Rapallo and the 1926 Treaty of Berlin, had started to break down after the initiation of the German "Presidential Cabinets" of Brüning and his successors in 1930. The failure of the German Government to renew the Treaty of Berlin in 1931, Brüning's close contacts with the British Government, and Papen's pro-French stance led Stalin to believe that Germany was moving to join the West against the Soviet Union.

Accordingly, Stalin began to prepare for an eventual rupture of the German-Soviet relationship (which finally came in 1933 with Hitler's assumption of power) by initiating pacts with neighbouring countries, including Poland.

Pilsudski was willing to respond to Soviet overtures for a non-aggression pact primarily because in the period 1930-33 Germany still maintained its hostility toward Poland, and continued the "trade war". But a pact with the Soviet Union was for him always a less-preferred alternative to an alliance with Germany, which is what he really desired.

Once Hitler came to power and declared his wish for a German-Polish rapprochement, opening the way for the German-Polish Declaration of Non-Aggression of 26 January 1934, the pact with the Soviet Union became essentially a dead letter for PIlsudski, although it was retained pro forma, perhaps so as not to antagonise the internal Polish opposition.

The fact is that Stalin, despite the existence of a Polish-Soviet pact, throughout the 1930s regarded Poland as deadly enemy of the Soviet Union, and Soviet military planning always assumed that Poland and Germany would be allied as its enemies. By contrast, so long as PIlsudski lived Hitler never regarded Poland as an enemy of Germany, nor did he fear a Polish-Soviet alliance against Germany. After the death of Pilsudski, Hitler considered that the friendly relationship with Poland could be maintained as long as the violently anti-German National Democrats did not return to power in that country.

[ljadw]

Ljadw, you are entirely free to accept or reject whatever you like.

The historical realities are:

1. Both Hitler and PIlsudski saw Bolshevism and Russia as such as the main enemy of Germany and Poland respectively.

2. Neither viewed the country led by the other as a permanent enemy.

3. Each saw the other as a potential ally against the common main enemy.

Therefore, once Hitler came to power, the way was open for the development of a German-Polish de facto alliance directed against the Soviet Union.

Both Hitler and PIlsudski faced internal opposition from elements who saw Poland or Germany respectively as the main enemy of their country, and therefore tried to work against a German-Polish rapprochement. Hitler, due to his greater dictatorial powers, was more easily able to overcome that internal opposition from conservative nationalist groups, and even elements in his own party, than was PIlsudski, who always had to face opposition from the National Democrats who had a lot of influence over public opinion and support from the Church hierarchy. That was why Pilsudski had to move slowly and carefully in responding to German overtures for an alliance.

These are not historical realities,but the projection of your desires
1)Pilsudski saw the SU and Germany as hostile neighbours,who were neutralizing each other,and who did not accept the frontiers of Poland:there was no difference between Germany and the SU :both refused the existing Polish frontiers,and the existence of Poland as an independant state (as you have written yourself:Hitler wanted to make Poland a jun ior ally,translation :a satellite)
2)The Polish attitude to Germany and to the SU never changed
3)The only thing that changed,was Germany's attitude to the SU :an open hostility
4)That does not mean that Hitler had abandoned his claims about Dantzig and the Corridor .
The survival of Poland did depend on the survival of the statu quo,Poland would never be that stupid to break the statu quo.Both the SU and Germany challenged the statu quo,but Hitler,not Stalin,attacked the statu quo.Thus,who was the mortal enemy of Poland ?
Last point :there are no proofs for the claim that Poland was willing to ally with Germany against the SU /

[Boby]

Conclusion :it would be very unwise to believe even one word what Wagener was saying/writing after the war .

It is the task of real historians to reconstruct history events. Wagener memoirs are mostly unknown, and that is surprising. Speer memoirs are well-known.

Both can't be entirely trusted nor rejected out of hand, because are important pieces in the puzzle.

Your post is totally BS.

[wm]

Wagener's Memoirs of A Confidant is well known and freely available. His I do not remember even a single occasion when Hitler gave any instructions that ran counter to the true Christian spirit and to humanness every neo-Nazi has over his bed. The problem is there is nothing there worth remembering let alone writing about so his book is mentioned sparingly in historical literature.
And as far as I know he never said that:

Pilsudski made an approach to Hitler in 1930, well before the latter came to power, proposing German-Polish co-operation against the Soviet Union.

[ljadw]

Conclusion :it would be very unwise to believe even one word what Wagener was saying/writing after the war .

It is the task of real historians to reconstruct history events. Wagener memoirs are mostly unknown, and that is surprising. Speer memoirs are well-known.

Both can't be entirely trusted nor rejected out of hand, because are important pieces in the puzzle.

Your post is totally BS.

1)If some one is writing in his memoires that Hitler said :love one another,these memoires must be rejected out of hand,because,the writer is a neo-nazi,or gaga.
2)The fact is that Speer was an important person in the history of the Third Reich,thus,his memoires can be an important piece in the puzzle,while Wagener was nothing,he was fired in june 1933,his influence was inexistant,thus,his memoires are no important piece in the puzzle.

[Boby]

1)If some one is writing in his memoires that Hitler said :love one another,these memoires must be rejected out of hand,because,the writer is a neo-nazi,or gaga.

Rubbish.

2)The fact is that Speer was an important person in the history of the Third Reich,thus,his memoires can be an important piece in the puzzle,while Wagener was nothing,he was fired in june 1933,his influence was inexistant,thus,his memoires are no important piece in the puzzle.

More BS. We are talking about the historic Hitler.

Hitler career began in 1919, not 1933. Wagener is a key person in the periode 1929-1933.

[ljadw]

1)If some one is writing in his memoires that Hitler said :love one another,these memoires must be rejected out of hand,because,the writer is a neo-nazi,or gaga.

Rubbish.

2)The fact is that Speer was an important person in the history of the Third Reich,thus,his memoires can be an important piece in the puzzle,while Wagener was nothing,he was fired in june 1933,his influence was inexistant,thus,his memoires are no important piece in the puzzle.

More BS. We are talking about the historic Hitler.

Hitler career began in 1919, not 1933. Wagener is a key person in the periode 1929-1933.

No,we are NOT talking about the historic Hitler,we are talking on the question:did Pilsudski plan an alliance with Hitler against Stalin.
Do not hyjack the thread

[Boby]

Well, if he remembers a meeting of HITLER with an envoy of Pilsudski in 1930. ¿What is the problem?

Do not hyjack the thread

Indeed. I am not the one who is writing "these memoires must be rejected out of hand,because,the writer is a neo-nazi,or gaga."

Boby,

[ljadw]

Well, if he remembers a meeting of HITLER with an envoy of Pilsudski in 1930. ¿What is the problem?

Do not hyjack the thread

Indeed. I am not the one who is writing "these memoires must be rejected out of hand,because,the writer is a neo-nazi,or gaga."

Boby,

The problem is that there is no proof for a meeting of Hitler with an envoy of Pilsudski in 1930,only the word of Wagener,and,knowing what rubbish Wagener was writing in his memoires,the value of the word of Wagener is ZERO.
Do you say that Wagener was not gaga/not a neo-nazi when he was writing his memoires ?

[Led125]

Just a few points on Michael's recent commnts on Pilsudski and his attitude towards the Soviet Union for a moment:

1) The fact that P. didn't support an aggressive camapign against Germany doesn't prove he was pro-German. In the historical world the sin Michael is committing here is called 'Reading stuff into your sources' and it is intellectually dishonest. In fact I understand P. also declined (twice) to make incursions against the Soviet Union.

2) Michael ignors the leading work on Polish Soviet Relations in the 1930's (which I have quoted earlier). Whilst the Soviet Union may have been the power that suggested the nonaggression pact, P. certainly grabbed it, and Poland didn't delibrately allow relations with the USSR to sour. P. was instrumental in bringing about a renaissance in Soviet-Polish relations.

3) P.'s private views on Bolshevism or the Soviet Union do not support the theory that he was willing to ally with Germany against her.

4) This point needs to be reemphasised: Michael's evidence is paper thin. So he has a quote from a person he has previously dismissed as unreliably and only now has he found corroboration. He hasn't provided any documents, memoranda or plans to suggest that this was anything other than an older than dirt diplomacy trick: to deliberately exaggerate and play upon the goals of the other party to make an agreement more attractive.

Finally, Michael's sneering insinuations as to the integrity of Polish historians are laughable coming from someone who, up until a year ago, was unaware that there had been an English language collection of Polish foreign policy documents published since 1940 and from someone who, at best, possesses a pedestrian understanding of interwar Poland.


BTW this:

it would be interesting to know who those Polish historians are. It is good to know that at least some Polish historians have rejected the apologetic, victimological interpretation of their nation's history, and have won through to the sensible realisation that its fate was not just something imposed on it by malevolent outsiders, but was a result of wrong decisions, based on delusions of grandeur, amde by the Polish leaders.

Represents a big logical fail on your part. Simply rejecting an alliance with Germany is not a justification for Germany invading Poland, and it is ridiculous to suggest that this means its fate was "the result of wrong decisions based on delusions of grandeur and made by Polish leaders" does not mean that Poland bore responsibility (moral or actual) for its invasion.

[Boby]

The problem is that there is no proof for a meeting of Hitler with an envoy of Pilsudski in 1930,only the word of Wagener

There is no proof because historians pay little attention to this meeting. There are a lot contemporary sources to almost clarify this, but I don't have access.

and,knowing what rubbish Wagener was writing in his memoires,the value of the word of Wagener is ZERO.

Non sequitur. Because you don't like what Wagener writes in his memoirs is not a proof of him lying abouth the 1930 meeting. Not only he remembers it in 1946, i.e, 16 years after the event. He also remembers it in 1960.

Do you say that Wagener was not gaga/not a neo-nazi when he was writing his memoires ?

Do you ever read the memoirs?

[wm]

The Polish-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 1932 was primarily a Soviet initiative, not a Polish one.

The fact is that the Polish mission in Moscow was feeling out the possibility of a Polish-Soviet rapprochement in 1930. Stalin responded to this in a no-nonsense manner, via the Soviet consul for Poland Vladimir Antonov-Ovseyenko, by making it clear that he was interested in a non-aggression pact, and Poles readily agreed for the talks. The main obstacle was the (naive and far fetched) Polish plans of creating a Central European federation. The impasse was overcome by Soviet's agreeing to hold separate talks with the anticipated members of the federation.

So it was a Polish initiative although the Soviets should be commended for their show of good faith especially, because the very long talks between Soviets and Romania were not successful.

[ljadw]

The problem is that there is no proof for a meeting of Hitler with an envoy of Pilsudski in 1930,only the word of Wagener

There is no proof because historians pay little attention to this meeting. There are a lot contemporary sources to almost clarify this, but I don't have access.

and,knowing what rubbish Wagener was writing in his memoires,the value of the word of Wagener is ZERO.

Non sequitur. Because you don't like what Wagener writes in his memoirs is not a proof of him lying abouth the 1930 meeting. Not only he remembers it in 1946, i.e, 16 years after the event. He also remembers it in 1960.

Do you say that Wagener was not gaga/not a neo-nazi when he was writing his memoires ?

Do you ever read the memoirs?

1)no historian should use memoires /diaries as a serious source:they are biased and unreliable
2)the memoires of the "big ones" are written to give a positive image of the author:the winner writes that victory was obtained because of him,the looser,that defeat was caused by some one else
3) the memoires/diaries of the "little ones" (Rauschning,Burckhardt,Wagener,P.Schmidt,etc) are best forgotten:their influence and knowledge was negligible,and the aim of their memoires is to give posterity the idea that they were important people .
4)about the memoires of Wegener:I have seen the review by the NYTimes,and,this is enough.Why should I waste my money and time by buying and reading the memoires of
a) an old fool,who was gaga when he did write his memoires(of course,you have the right to say that some one who is writing that Hitler said:Like Christ,we must preaching:you are all brothers,love each another, is writing sensible things .It is a free country.)
b) an unrepented nazi who said that "the instructions of Hitler could,in the hands of those who had to execute them,lead to consequences he never intented:translated :the holocaust was the fault of Himmler,Hitler was innocent
c)which the neo nazis of the IHR were saying that they were genuine .