Axis History Forum

This is an apolitical forum for discussions on the Axis nations, as well as the First and Second World Wars in general hosted by Marcus Wendel's Axis History Factbook in cooperation with Michael Miller's Axis Biographical Research and Christoph Awender's WW2 day by day.

Skip to content

Was Churchill a good friend to Poland?

Discussions on all aspects of Poland during the Second Polish Republic and the Second World War.
Hosted by Peter K

Re: Was Churchill a good friend to Poland?

Postby Pavel Novak on 27 Feb 2012 21:33

waldzee wrote:I've come to agree with Michael Mills- on this point. Poland should have pulled out of Danzig. They had a fast developing transit corridor to Romania -- & a new port in Glydia.
If Germany invaded, they couldn't hold the Corridor in any case. Danzig was in rapid decline.


Though there is a problem - you need some sort of negotiation to do that. And any negotiation with Hitler led only to: a) further Hitler's demands, or b) total violation of agreed setlement by Hitler just few months after signature. And that's apart that Hitler would be willing to accept some "fool postponing his parade in the capital of victim's country" to start that negotiation at all.

Bookmark and Share

Pavel Novak
Member
Czech Republic
 
Posts: 190
Joined: 20 Mar 2005 21:36
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Was Churchill a good friend to Poland?

Postby Gorque on 27 Feb 2012 21:33

The Chiefs of Staffs were asked on March 28, 1939 to assess the political implications of an Anglo-French guarantee to Poland and Rumania, whereby both Poland and Rumania were to be allies with the Soviet Union would be a friendly neutral and concluded about Poland:

We are not in position to assess the deterrent effect of such a Pact upon Germany, but an important military implication is that if such a Pact were to encourage an intransigient attitude on the part of Poland and Rumania it would thereby tend to precipitate a European war before our forces are in any way prepared for it, and such a war might be started by aggression against Danzig alone.
‘Military Implications of an Anglo-French Guarantee of Poland and Rumania’, draft report, n.d., COS 872 (CAB 53/47)

The Chiefs of Staff further emphasized that “Britain and France could give Poland no direct support” and would have to rely upon the Soviet Union for their armaments. The defeat and occupation of Poland would result in Germany and the Soviet Union facing off against each other along the former Polish border with Soviet claims on former Polish lands being a major detriment to relations between the 2 nations. The General Staff concluded that Poland’s value was not in her ability to defeat or resist the German Army, but in being able to tie-down German troops in a prolonged occupation, thereby denying the German Army their manpower for use in the West.

Bookmark and Share

User avatar
Gorque
Member
United States
 
Posts: 146
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

Re: Was Churchill a good friend to Poland?

Postby Led125 on 28 Feb 2012 01:01

waldzee wrote:++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I've come to agree with Michael Mills- on this point. Poland should have pulled out of Danzig. They had a fast developing transit corridor to Romania -- & a new port in Glydia.
If Germany invaded, they couldn't hold the Corridor in any case. Danzig was in rapid decline.



The situation on March 31st was this:
Germany had a nonaggression pact with Poland and was at a deadlock over Danzig
Poland had a guarantee from Britain that would only be effective if Germany committed an act of aggression against Poland

To avoid war, a reasonable German statesman (who could have avoided Britain giving the guarantee to Poland in the first place) would have continued negotiations, perhaps trying to work through a concert of Europe and played on the not inconsiderable sympathy in the west for the German position on Danzig.

In actuality, Hitler decided to deal with this by:
1) abrogating the nonaggression pact;
2) cutting off negotiations with Poland on the issue, refusing even to discuss them;
3) setting a deadline for war for around 1st September;
4) commencing a diplomatic campaign to isolate Poland, which included agreeing to partition the country with the USSR
4) invading Poland more or less on schedule with the belief that Poland would not be supported by the western powers.

None of the above has been refuted, and given that it is difficult to maintain that anyone other than Hitler was responsible for the Second World War.

Bookmark and Share

Led125
Member
United Kingdom
 
Posts: 235
Joined: 27 Jan 2010 11:31

Re: Was Churchill a good friend to Poland?

Postby Led125 on 28 Feb 2012 01:06

Gorque wrote:The Chiefs of Staffs were asked on March 28, 1939 to assess the political implications of an Anglo-French guarantee to Poland and Rumania, whereby both Poland and Rumania were to be allies with the Soviet Union would be a friendly neutral and concluded about Poland:

We are not in position to assess the deterrent effect of such a Pact upon Germany, but an important military implication is that if such a Pact were to encourage an intransigient attitude on the part of Poland and Rumania it would thereby tend to precipitate a European war before our forces are in any way prepared for it, and such a war might be started by aggression against Danzig alone.
‘Military Implications of an Anglo-French Guarantee of Poland and Rumania’, draft report, n.d., COS 872 (CAB 53/47)

The Chiefs of Staff further emphasized that “Britain and France could give Poland no direct support” and would have to rely upon the Soviet Union for their armaments. The defeat and occupation of Poland would result in Germany and the Soviet Union facing off against each other along the former Polish border with Soviet claims on former Polish lands being a major detriment to relations between the 2 nations. The General Staff concluded that Poland’s value was not in her ability to defeat or resist the German Army, but in being able to tie-down German troops in a prolonged occupation, thereby denying the German Army their manpower for use in the West.
[EMPHASIS ADDED]

That is certainly true. A point Gerhard Weinberg makes in his book on WW2 (the massive one volume study) is that Poland was viewed in a similar light as Serbia in WW1. She was going to be overrun, but would be reconsituted once Britain and France had defeated Germany.

It certainly wasn't a love of Poland that provoked the British guarantee. British public opinion, rightly or wrongly, regarded Poland as an authoritarian, quasi-fascist state which had collaborated with the Nazis in order to satisfy its grandoise ambitions and was quite willing to resort to threats to satisfy border disputes with its neighbours. This negative view carried over into some of the English language histories of the interwar period, particularly AJP Taylor's and EH Carr's works.

Bookmark and Share

Led125
Member
United Kingdom
 
Posts: 235
Joined: 27 Jan 2010 11:31

Re: Was Churchill a good friend to Poland?

Postby waldzee on 28 Feb 2012 01:23

Led125 wrote:
waldzee wrote:++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I've come to agree with Michael Mills- on this point. Poland should have pulled out of Danzig. They had a fast developing transit corridor to Romania -- & a new port in Glydia.
If Germany invaded, they couldn't hold the Corridor in any case. Danzig was in rapid decline.



The situation on March 31st was this:
Germany had a nonaggression pact with Poland and was at a deadlock over Danzig
Poland had a guarantee from Britain that would only be effective if Germany committed an act of aggression against Poland

To avoid war, a reasonable German statesman (who could have avoided Britain giving the guarantee to Poland in the first place) would have continued negotiations, perhaps trying to work through a concert of Europe and played on the not inconsiderable sympathy in the west for the German position on Danzig.

In actuality, Hitler decided to deal with this by:
1) abrogating the nonaggression pact;
2) cutting off negotiations with Poland on the issue, refusing even to discuss them;
3) setting a deadline for war for around 1st September;
4) commencing a diplomatic campaign to isolate Poland, which included agreeing to partition the country with the USSR
4) invading Poland more or less on schedule with the belief that Poland would not be supported by the western powers.

None of the above has been refuted, and given that it is difficult to maintain that anyone other than Hitler was responsible for the Second World War.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Nor proven- & M Mills has given a lot of posted references to the contrary!
Poland had diverted the bult of its trade to Glyndia,& Danzig wasn't necessary- or defensible. However, six month's tank & aircraft production was essential to Poland.

Bookmark and Share

User avatar
waldzee
Banned
Canada
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: 03 Feb 2012 03:44
Location: Calgary Alberta

Re: Was Churchill a good friend to Poland?

Postby Michael Kenny on 28 Feb 2012 02:21

waldzee wrote:
Nor proven- & M Mills has given a lot of posted references to the contrary!


It all depends what your initial leanings are and I think we have a dialogue of the deaf anyway.
There is plenty of wriggle room for the Hitler appologists.

Bookmark and Share

Michael Kenny
Member
United Kingdom
 
Posts: 2484
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Was Churchill a good friend to Poland?

Postby Gorque on 28 Feb 2012 02:58

In an emergency session of the Cabinet on March 30, 1939 Halifax expressed his views that he hoped that by declaring openly British support of Poland in the event of attack by Germany that it would accomplish two things:

First, the knowledge that we should take such action might cause the plan to be suspended and would thus react to the discredit of Herr Hitler in Army circles; secondly, when our statement became known it would help to educate public opinion in Germany as to the likelihood that Herr Hitler’s present course of action would result in Germany becoming engaged in war on two fronts.
(Cab. Minutes, March 30, 1939, CAB 23/98)

Halifax acknowledged several objections to his proposal. First,
we gave Colonel Beck what he wanted without obtaining any reciprocal undertaking from him”. Second, “there was the risk of upsetting the prospects of direct agreement between Germany and Poland. Negotiations were in progress but we did not know how they were proceeding.” Third, such a declaration would be very provocative to Germany, although he himself “had no particular objection to a provocative statement, provided that it did not land us in an unpleasant situation”. Fourth, Rumania was left out. Fifth, the declaration was “rather heroic action to take, on meager information available”. Sixth, it was undesirable to upset Franco-Italian negotiations which were now underway. Seventh, it was undesirable to upset the Franco-British approaches to Warsaw and Bucharest, which had been authorized the night before (29 March), setting in motion the negotiations for the second British initiative, the Anglo-French guarantee of a Polish-Rumanian Pact.
(Ibid)

Bookmark and Share

User avatar
Gorque
Member
United States
 
Posts: 146
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

Re: Was Churchill a good friend to Poland?

Postby Gorque on 28 Feb 2012 03:04

The British were of the opinion that the Poles, “would either willingly or under threat of force accede to German demands and therefore be lost to the anti-German that Britain was trying to pull together.” Roger Makins, of the Foreign Office Central Department, opined that

the latest information indicates that the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs at all events are prepared to go a very long way to meet the German demands. In principle a German-Polish deal over Danzig would suit us well enough, as Danzig is by no means a good casus belli, and we can hardly support Polish rights in Danzig, if she insists on maintaining these rights.

I should be surprised, however, if the Germans agreed to accept less than 99% of her demands without a quid pro quo, which would probably consist of a guarantee of neutrality by Poland. This is the sort of bargain which might possibly appeal to Colonel Beck, and the situation will need most careful watching.
(Minute by Makins, March 29, 1939, C4859/54/18 [FO 371/23016])

Makins further added that a “corrupt bargain would in the long run be highly disadvantageous to us: it would shake Polish morale, increase their vulnerability to German penetration, and so defeat the policy of forming a bloc against German expansion”. (Ibid)

Bookmark and Share

User avatar
Gorque
Member
United States
 
Posts: 146
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

Re: Was Churchill a good friend to Poland?

Postby Michael Kenny on 28 Feb 2012 03:19

All this assumes something that could never could be delivered, that Hitler would honour his deals. The men on the spot knew quite well that Hitler would promise anything and then break every pledge he made.
Who seriously believes he would have stopped at Danzig?

Bookmark and Share

Michael Kenny
Member
United Kingdom
 
Posts: 2484
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Was Churchill a good friend to Poland?

Postby michael mills on 28 Feb 2012 03:22

Poland had a guarantee from Britain that would only be effective if Germany committed an act of aggression against Poland


Yes, but what constituted an act of aggression against Poland?

The wording of the guarantee left it entirely to Poland to decide whether a particular act by another state (= clearly understood to be Germany) threatened its independence.

Again, the wording of the guarantee meant that the crucial factor that would impel Britain into war against Germany was not the nature of the act, but whether Poland sent its armed forces into action in response to that act.

Observers at the time, and historians subsequently, concluded that the guarantee had placed in the hands of the Polish Government the decision on whether Britain would make war on Germany.

From the very beginning it was understood by the British Government that the act by Germany which would impel Britain into war against Germany would occur in Danzig. The British political and military leaders did not think that the war would begin with a full-scale German assault on Poland; rather they thought that Poland would respond to an incident in Danzig, after which fighting between German and Polish forced would gradually escalate, culminating in a full-scale armed conflict that Poland would lose after a few months. That is the reason why the British military leaders thought that the German-Polish conflict would keep German forces tied down in the East for several months before Poland was finally overcome.

That an incident in Danzig rather than a German invasion of Poland was seen as the likely trigger for war is shown by Chamberlain's actions immediately after the issuing of the guarantee of 30 March. He arranged for "The Times" to publish an analysis of the guarantee in which it was stated that it did not apply to the territory of Danzig, only to sovereign territory of Poland itself. That was clearly an attempt by Chamberlain to limit the open-ended nature of the guarantee, to recall the "blank cheque", to prevent Britain being forced into war against Germany by an incident in Danzig; if he could succeed in excluding that possibility, a war with Germany would only ensue if Germany actually invaded Poland itself, which Chamberlain thought unlikely, since he considered that Hitler would not risk war with Britain.

Unfortunately, the "Times" article elicited a violent response from the War Party in the British political establishment, which demanded that the Government issue a statement that the guarantee applied to the territory of Danzig just as much as to the territory of Poland itself. In the face of the public storm whipped up by the War Party, Chamberlain did issue a statement confirming that the guarantee applied to Danzig.

What that meant was that the Danzig issue could not now be solved by a coup d'etat in Danzig, reuniting the Free City with the Reich, since that would trigger war if Poland resisted with the use of its armed forces. Hitler had thought that Beck, due to internal opposition from the National Democrats and other anti-Sanacja elements, could not be seen to agree to the German requests for the reuinfication of Danzig with the Reich, but that he would accept a reunification by coup, which would effectively remove the whole Danzig issue from the agenda. To that end, the Wehrmacht already had a plan for the occupation of Danzig only, the preparation of which Hitler had ordered on 28 November 1938, after the Polish and Soviet Governments had publicly reaffirmed their Non-Aggression Pact of 1932.

It was most probably the confirmation by the British Government that the guarantee of 30 March also applied to any German action in Danzig that caused Hitler to decide to order the preparation of a contingency plan for a full-scale attack on Poland to eliminate it as Britain's eastern front completing the encirclement of Germany.

It is highly significant that this new contingency plan, "Fall Weiss", did not replace the plan for the occupation of Danzig only; both plans continued in force, as laternatives to each other. That fact suggests that at the time the order for "Fall Weiss" was given, the beginning of April, Hitler had not yet definitely decided on a full-scale invasion of Poland, but was keeping his options open, with the option for an occupation of Danzig only still possible if Britain could be persuaded not to use such as occupation as a casus belli.

It is not clear when exactly Hitler made a definite decision to launch "Fall Weiss".

To avoid war, a reasonable German statesman (who could have avoided Britain giving the guarantee to Poland in the first place) would have continued negotiations, perhaps trying to work through a concert of Europe and played on the not inconsiderable sympathy in the west for the German position on Danzig.


That assumes that Poland was led by reasonable statesmen.

Unfortunately, the heirs of Pilsudski were weak and unable to resist the pressure from the anti-Pilsudkite opposition in Poland, which wanted war with Germany in order to seize the German territories east of the Oder-Neisse Line.

The right-wing Polish nationalists, in particular the National Democrats (Endecja) had been dissatisfied with the Treaty of Versailles, which had not given Poland all the German territory which they claimed on the basis that in the 10th Century it had formed part of the Piast state. Until Pilsudski's seizure of power in 1926, they constantly pressed for armed action to seize those territories, which would have been feasible since at that time the Polish armed forces were much stronger than the feeble forces allowed to Germany under the Treaty of Versailles. It was only the opposition of Britain that prevented Poland invading Germany under one excuse or another.

When French forces occupied the Ruhr in March 1923, on the pretext that Germany was not fulfilling its treaty obligations, the French Government actually invited Poland to invade from the East. However, firm opposition by Britain prevented such an action.

When Pilksudski seized power in 1926, he suppressed Endecja and other anti-German elements, and no invasion of Germany ensued. Particularly after Hitler came to power and initiated the policy of German-Polish detente, all anti-German activity in Poland was suppressed.

However, after Pilsudski's death in May 1935, there was a resurgence of the anti-German elements, which used the struggle for power between the rival heirs Beck and Rydz-Smigly to influence the Sanacja regime to adopt its policies. The anti-German elements once more began to call for war against Germany to seize its eastern territories; maps were published and widely circulated showing the Polish western frontier running just to the east of Berlin, and incorporating almost all the Baltic coast of Germany. (Interestingly, those maps also showed all of Czechia and Slovakia as Polish territory).

Of course, once Germany began rearming, it was no longer possible for Poland to conquer German territory on its own; that end could now only be achieved through a coalition war against Germany, in alliance with France and possibly also Britain. It was the British guarantee of 30 March, followed by the Anglo-British Agreement on Mutual Assistance of 6 April, that opened the clear possibility of such a coalition war against Germany and the conquest of German eastern territory.

It is significant that throughout the war hysteria that was whipped up in Poland in the summer of 1939 by oppositional elements, unhindered by the Polish Government, showed no sign of any fear that Poland was about to be invaded by a powerful enemy and needed to be defended by powerful friends. Rather, the public mood engendered by the war hysteria was that the time had come to crush Germany and seize its eastern territories; there were public calls by the leaders of the Polish opposition for the Polish Army to take the initiative and march into East Prussia and Silesia, and the Polish military leaders boasted that the Polish cavalry would ride into Berlin within a fortnight of the commencement of hostilities.

The Polish keaders were of course banking on a French offensive in the West that would crush Germany. That offensive never came, the Polish Army was crushed, the leaders of the sanacja regime fled into disgraced exile and were replaced by a Government-in-Exile consisting of members of the anti-Pilsudskite opposition.

It is significant that the Polish Government-in-Exile almost immediately raised with its British and French allies the proposal that the Oder-Neisse Line be recognised as the future Polish western border, and that German territories east of that line be ceded to Poland and the ethnic German population expelled. However, Britain did not accept that proposal until 1943.

Bookmark and Share

michael mills
Banned
Australia
 
Posts: 7574
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Canberra, Australia

Re: Was Churchill a good friend to Poland?

Postby Michael Kenny on 28 Feb 2012 04:36

michael mills wrote:
That assumes that Poland was led by reasonable statesmen.


You have to laugh at the myopia.
As if Germany had 'reasonable' demands and would be 'reasonable' if granted Danzig.
We have interminable sifting through endless opinions that fail to address the root of the problem. Hitler was set on war with the Soviets. Poland was on the road but not the destination.

Bookmark and Share

Michael Kenny
Member
United Kingdom
 
Posts: 2484
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Was Churchill a good friend to Poland?

Postby waldzee on 28 Feb 2012 05:34

Michael Kenny wrote:
waldzee wrote:
Nor proven- & M Mills has given a lot of posted references to the contrary!


It all depends what your initial leanings are and I think we have a dialogue of the deaf anyway.
There is plenty of wriggle room for the Hitler appologists.


That’s too funny. Do you need a sample of my Polish blood to test for DNA?
Danzig is not the Bohemian Protectorate - which was a pure power grab.
Danzig was being economically strangled.
However, THAT is not the point. Giving up the ‘Danzig Protectorate’ buys enough time to build more T7P tanks - & get the new monoplanes into the Polish Air Force. The Westerplatte was a waste of brave men.

Bookmark and Share

User avatar
waldzee
Banned
Canada
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: 03 Feb 2012 03:44
Location: Calgary Alberta

Re: Was Churchill a good friend to Poland?

Postby Michael Kenny on 28 Feb 2012 05:41

waldzee wrote:However, THAT is not the point. Giving up the ‘Danzig Protectorate’ buys enough time to build more T7P tanks - & get the new monoplanes into the Polish Air Force.


Ah so thats it. A few more tanks (you assume Hitler would not add to his forces in the same period?) would have made the Poles all powerful and able to repulse a German attack!

Bookmark and Share

Michael Kenny
Member
United Kingdom
 
Posts: 2484
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Was Churchill a good friend to Poland?

Postby waldzee on 28 Feb 2012 06:31

Michael Kenny wrote:
waldzee wrote:However, THAT is not the point. Giving up the ‘Danzig Protectorate’ buys enough time to build more T7P tanks - & get the new monoplanes into the Polish Air Force.


Ah so thats it. A few more tanks (you assume Hitler would not add to his forces in the same period?) would have made the Poles all powerful and able to repulse a German attack!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yepper- a few HUNDRED French tanks rumbling for the Rhine! :lol:

If you want to run around the site yelling that I am some sort of 'Hitler apologist', I reserve the right to ignore you... 8O

Bookmark and Share

User avatar
waldzee
Banned
Canada
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: 03 Feb 2012 03:44
Location: Calgary Alberta

Re: Was Churchill a good friend to Poland?

Postby Gorque on 28 Feb 2012 17:26

The Polish ambassador to Germany, Jozef Lipski, suggested to Hitler on September 22, 1938 about the possibility of concluding a “direct Polish-German treaty to stabilize the position of the Free City” (Documents and Materials Relating to the Eve of the Second World War (Moscow, 1948), I, no.23) Hitler deferred on the suggestion until after the conclusion of Czechoslovakian crisis. Ribbentrop met with Lipski on October 24, 1938 put forward the German proposals:

1. The Free State of Danzig would revert to the German Reich.

2. An extra-territorial Reichsautobahn belonging to Germany and likewise an extra-territorial, multiple-track railroad would be laid through the Corridor.

3. Similarly, Poland would receive in the Danzig area an extra-territorial road or Autobahn, a railroad, and a free port.

4. Poland would receive a guarantee of a market for her goods in the Danzig area.

5. The two nations would recognize their common boundaries (guarantee) or each other’s territories.

6. The German-Polish treaty would be extended 10 to 25 years.

7. Poland would accede to the Anti-Comintern Pact.

8. The two countries would add a consultation clause to their treaty.
(Record of Ribbentrop-Lipski conversation, Oct. 24, 1938 from Documents on German Foreign Policy v, no.81)

In regards to Ruthenia, the Germans were aware of the Polish desire to have a common boundary with Hungary and were therefor hoping to sweeten the deal of Hungarian occupation should negotiation between Poland and Germany be successful. As Ruthenia had a large Ukrainian population, much like Eastern Poland, the Poles were more worried about the rumored German plans for uniting all Ukrainians into a puppet state. (Lipski to Beck, September 20, 1938 from, Documents and Materials, I, no. 23)

Lipski, per Beck’s instructions, responded to Ribbentrop that Poland would never allow for the reincorporation of Danzig into the Reich and that any attempt at annexation “must inevitably lead to a conflict”. Beck considered the Danzig question as so serious that he was ready to “have final conversations personally with the governing circles of the Reich”. (Beck to Lipski, October 31, 1938, Polish White Book, no. 45)

Beck met with Hitler and Ribbentrop at the Berchtesgaden and Munich on January 5 and 6, 1939, where Hitler explained his designs on Danzig as being politically united with the Reich yet economically united with Poland as the city could not survive without Polish trade, while assuring Beck that the city would not be forcibly reincorporated. The following day Ribbentrop reiterated the German proposals of October 24, 1938 and added the prospect of future Soviet lands in exchange for Poland’s alignment with Germany, but Beck demurred.

At this time, the German attitude towards Poland still remained friendly as evidenced by Hitler’s speech to the Reichstag on January 30, 1939;
We have just celebrated the fifth anniversary of the conclusion of our non-aggression pact with Poland. There can scarcely be any difference of opinion today among the true friends of peace with regard to the value of this agreement.


Following the German occupation of Bohemia and Moravia on March 15, 1939 the German attitude to Poland changed as evidenced by Ribbentrop’s notes to a meeting he had with Lipski on March 21, 1939:

Poland must realize clearly that she could not take a middle course. Either Poland would remain a national State, working for a reasonable relationship with Germany and her Führer, or one day there would arise a Marxist Polish Government, which would then be absorbed by Bolshevist Russia.
(Memorandum by Ribbentrop, March 21, 1939, DGFP vi, no. 61)

Ribbentrop’s statement along with the annexation of Memel on March 22, 1939 resulted in a partial mobilization and the movement of troops in the Danzig area by Poland. The Treaty of Protection concluded with Slovakia on March 23rd added further to Poland’s unease, but these events did not bring about the hoped for accession to the German demands through their well-practiced methodology of ever-increasing pressure, but it did yield some results. Lipski, after consultation with Beck, informed Ribbentrop on March 26, 1939 that:

although Poland was prepared to further simplify the arrangements for German communication with East Prussia there could be no question of extra-territoriality. As for Danzig, he proposed a joint German-Polish guarantee of the Free City, since the League of Nations was no longer capable of fulfilling its own obligations in this respect. He added that Poland had ‘always considered Russia’s access to European politics a dangerous thing’.


In between these two meetings, Hitler cancelled the instructions from Ribbentrop to Moltke, the German Ambassador to Poland regarding a follow-up to the former’s demands, reasoning that Ribbentrop offered the Poles only a friend or foe decision as evidenced by his statement to von Brauchitsch of March 25, 1939;
The Führer does not wish to solve the Danzig question by force however. He does not wish to drive Poland into the arms of Britain by this.
(Hitler to Brauchitsch, March 25, 1939, DGFP vi, no.99)

Ribbentrop related to Lipski on March 27, 1939 “that he did not regard the Polish proposals as a basis for settlement” The following day, Beck informs Moltke
that if an attempt should be made by Germany to alter the status of the Free City unilaterally, Poland would regard this as a casus belli.
(Moltke to Ribbentrop, March 29, 1939, DGFP vi, no. 118) Arthur Greiser, President of the Danzig Senate and Viktor Böttcher, Director of Danzig’s Foreign Affairs Department met on March 29, 1939 with Ernst von Weizsäcker, State Secretary in the German Foreign Ministry, who advised them that there was

no cause to show the Polish Government a particularly accommodating attitude in the treatment of Danzig-Polish questions ... but that, on the other hand, I did not consider it advisable to provoke Poland in any way through Danzig. I thought it now possible toconduct a kind of policy of attrition towards Poland in order to make the Polish Government more disposed to the solution we aimed at for certain German-Polish questions, including also the Danzig question. Danzig should continue to behave just as during the few weeks and months.
(Memorandum by Weizsäcker, March 29, 1939, DGFP vi, no.124)

Bookmark and Share

User avatar
Gorque
Member
United States
 
Posts: 146
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

PreviousNext

Return to Poland 1919-1945

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests