Was the Polish alliance with the UK and France a mistake?

[Steve]

On May 3rd 1939 French and British Staff conversations took place and the French told the British what they intended doing in the event of war over Poland. “The French intention in the event of a war between Germany and Poland was to stand on the defensive on the Maginot Line”. Less than two weeks later a Polish military mission to France was told that the French would launch an offensive within fifteen days of war starting.

The Poles were under the impression that the British would commence bombing Germany. What the British intended doing was discussed at a Cabinet meeting on September 14th and then communicated to Roosevelt. He was told that “as long as we adhere to the bombing restrictions there is no way in which we could really effectively damage Germany”. Various bombing restrictions had been decided on as the British wanted to avoid retaliatory bombing of civilians. Another reason for not bombing Germany was the French, “General Gamelin has consistently restrained us”. The French had not completed mobilisation and the General did not want the Germans to start bombing French mobilisation centres and communications to the front.

Both the British and the French expected a long war and Poland had no place in their strategic planning. Poland was expendable and its fate would depend on the outcome of the war. Later Churchill also decided that Poland was expendable and would not be allowed to stand in the way of good relations with the USSR.

In 1939 attempts to form an eastern front against Germany did not succeed partly due to a Polish refusal to allow Soviet troops on its territory. If Poland and the USSR had joined an anti Hitler alliance with the UK and France war may have been prevented. Had the Poles been practitioners of realpolitik they would have tried for better relations with the Soviet Union. The entry of Soviet troops in peacetime was not negotiable but if war with Germany came a realistic appraisal of the situation should have told the Poles they were finished. Entry of Soviet troops when at war with Germany would be the only hope of maintaining some sort of independence perhaps similar to Finland's in 1945. The end result could well have been the same borders as now but a lot more Poles may have been alive. When the end of the war came the decision to ally itself with the western powers had availed Poland nothing.

[gebhk]

I don't think the alliances per se were a mistake. However I would agree that relying solely on these alliances as the guarantor of Poland's security was a huge mistake. Nevertheless, alliance with the USSR would have been an even bigger one I'm afraid. Firstly you are assuming that Stalin was in any way interested in a wartime alliance with an independent Poland. I cannot see any scenario where this would be the case. Secondly I would suggest that war was inevitable - Hitler wanted one and so did Stalin, even if their preferred scenarios varied somewhat. If Poland was in the Soviet camp when war between the Axis and the USSR broke out, chances are the same would have happened there as did in Bellarus, with even more dire consequences for the Polish population and land than the actual ones.

Poland's first priority should have been alliance with Czechoslovakia. And after that accommodation (however temporary) with Germany.

[Davey Boy]

Poland was in such an insane position, that even in hindsight it's very difficult to come up with a plan that would've limited all the damage it suffered.

France and the UK were certainly weak and dodgy allies, but I can't imagine Russia or Germany being more reliable. It was just a diabolical period of European history, and Poland probably occupied the worst real estate on earth at the time.

[Michael Kenny]

. When the end of the war came the decision to ally itself with the western powers had availed Poland nothing.

Not true. Poland still existed at the end of the war and was roughly the same size as in 1939.
The 1939 Polish border was itself artificial and the Poles did themselves no favours by taking a bit of Czechoslovakia for herself. Poland inter-war was a very right-wing country and was never going to be in the Soviet good books. The very fact Churchill was able to preserve a viable Poland was a victory in itself.

[wm]

The entry of Soviet troops in peacetime was not negotiable but if war with Germany came a realistic appraisal of the situation should have told the Poles they were finished. Entry of Soviet troops when at war with Germany would be the only hope of maintaining some sort of independence perhaps similar to Finland's in 1945.

The Soviets wanted their troops firmly in Poland before the war, not after.
And the worst-case scenario was Poland losing a war, but winning the world war because they would be in the winning camp at the end. Nobody right in his mind was prophesying the rapid collapse of France, without that Germany was doomed.

The end result could well have been the same borders as now but a lot more Poles may have been alive. When the end of the war came the decision to ally itself with the western powers had availed Poland nothing.

The worst nightmare expected was gas bombing of Polish cities and they more or less were prepared for that - not Auschwitz, Belzec, Treblinka, Sobibor. They couldn't plan for unknown unknowns and they couldn't plan for mad unknowns.

[gebhk]

Not true. Poland still existed at the end of the war and was roughly the same size as in 1939.

Actually it was 2/3 the size it was originally, far more importantly it was over 20% the population less. That it existed at all owed pretty much everything to Stalin concluding that Poland as a vassal buffer state was more useful to his empire than as a province of Russia - and very little if anything to Churchill's half-hearted efforts and even less to its pre-war alliances.

The 1939 Polish border was itself artificial and the Poles did themselves no favours by taking a bit of Czechoslovakia for herself.

Actually all continental borders are artificial. And while we may debate the rights and wrongs, lets lets the terminology right - Poland did not take a bit of Czechoslovakia - it took a bit of Poland back which Czechoslovakia took by force in 1919. Furthermore a piece which was offered freely by the Czechoslovak government as a peace offering.

As for Poland's right-wngedness - I rather doubt that it was more right-wing than say the UK - but let's leave that to the Social Scientists. From what I have seen, Stalin (and Hitler) seem to have had more issues with democracy than they did with the colour of domestic politics.

[Michael Kenny]

Poland did not take a bit of Czechoslovakia - it took a bit of Poland back which Czechoslovakia took by force in 1919. Furthermore a piece which was offered freely by the Czechoslovak government as a peace offering.

That is my point. The whole border situation in that area was mired in arguments over who's great great great great Grandfather grazed which sheep there for the past 500 years.
Why is Poland's claim to a bit of turf any better than the Russian claim?

Poland seems to have mastered the art of getting up the nose of all her neighbours at the same time. A situation only recently rectified!

[gebhk]

Poland seems to have mastered the art of getting up the nose of all her neighbours at the same time. A situation only recently rectified!

While presumably Czechoslovakia, Germany, Lithuania, the Soviet Union and Romania had excellent relationships with all their neighbours?

That is my point. The whole border situation in that area was mired in arguments over who's great great great great Grandfather grazed which sheep there for the past 500 years.
Why is Poland's claim to a bit of turf any better than the Russian claim?

I doubt you would be so superior if your next door neighbour decided that he was going to have your living room because your claim is no better than his However this is, I think, a debate for another thread as I am struggling to see a connection with the subject in hand.

[Michael Kenny]

I am struggling to see a connection with the subject in hand.

The subject seems (to me) to be Britain sold out/used Poland.
Terms like 'expendable' were used. I beg to differ. Given the situation in 1945 Poland was lucky to survive as a nation state.

[gebhk]

The subject seems (to me) to be Britain sold out/used Poland.

Sorry but it seems fairly clear to me that this thread is not about 1945 - or 1938 for that matter. My understanding is that this thread is about the usefulness or otherwise of the alliances Poland made in 1939 with France and Britain and an exploration of whether there were other, possibly better options. Steve has set his case out from the standpoint that neither France nor the UK gave their guarantees in good faith and certainly not in the spirit Poland thought they were being given - supporting his position with documentary evidence (a position, incidentally shared by most historians of the period). You are of course entitled to a different view and we would, I am sure, welcome any contemporary evidence you may have that France and the UK intended to support Poland militarily as soon as and whenever she was attacked.

However, the events of 1944/1945 were decided by Stalin, with the support of the US while Britain had little or no influence over them and France even less so. Furthermore Finland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria ended up in the same 'lucky' situation as Poland or better without the benefit of British guarantees at immensely lower cost. Therefore the argument that the happenstance of Poland's survival somehow proves UK's good faith in the matter of the guarantees given five years earlier, pax, I find entirely unconvincing.

Given the situation in 1945 Poland was lucky to survive as a nation state.

I really don't wish to cause offense and I fervently hope that that is not how you intend it, but are you aware just how offensive, patronising and arrogant that statement comes across to people who lost family, friends, home and a country they passionately cared for? It sounds just like those statements of surgeons I frequently have to deal with in medico-legal cases along the lines of: the patient should be happy to be alive. I don't know why he/she is complaining that I botched the operation, nearly let them die and left them unnecessarily scarred and crippled. Such statements are real case-losers.

Best wishes
K

[Michael Kenny]

You are of course entitled to a different view and we would, I am sure, welcome any contemporary evidence you may have that France and the UK intended to support Poland militarily as soon as and whenever she was attacked.

The object was to preserve Poland as a physical entity. This was accomplished. Poland survived.

Therefore the argument that the happenstance of Poland's survival somehow proves UK's good faith in the matter of the guarantees given five years earlier, pax, I find entirely unconvincing.

Perhaps you should consider the immense cost of the war on Britain and stop expecting others to fight all your battles for you.
Poland's situation in 1945 was moulded by her relations with the USSR in the inter-war years. You reap what you sow.

I really don't wish to cause offense and I fervently hope that that is not how you intend it, but are you aware just how offensive, patronising and arrogant that statement comes across to people who lost family, friends, home and a country they passionately cared for?

You seem to forget many died during the war. Britain bankrupted herself and whilst it was not all for your benefit you only survive as a state because of it.

[wm]

By the end of the forties Poland was for all intents and purposes a Soviet republic, with its army, security forces and government firmly controlled by the Soviet advisers and directly by orders from Moscow. So we shouldn't say that " Poland was lucky to survive as a nation state" because it wasn't true. At the end of the forties Poland was a state only on paper - ready to be absorbed by the USSR at any suitable time. And in the end Poland was saved by the collapse of the Stalinist ideology not because of the feeble British efforts.

[Michael Kenny]

not because of the feeble British efforts.

This is the attitude I was talking about earlier. The innate Polish ability to insult everyone and blame her misfortunes on the actions of others.

[wm]

It would be unreasonable to demand the UK wage the WW3 because of Poland, but supporting and legitimising Stalin's plans for Poland, and especially withdrawing recognition of the Polish government in exile, the democratic government which had full support of almost all Poles, was something entirely different. It was an overt betrayal of an ally, something unheard of in modern history.
Most probably it would be an empty gesture because of Stalin's overwhelming military might but Poland deserved that empty gesture.

[Rob Stuart]

not because of the feeble British efforts.

This is the attitude I was talking about earlier. The innate Polish ability to insult everyone and blame her misfortunes on the actions of others.

It is unfair to characterize wm's comments as insulting. It's perfectly true that the UK's efforts (and those of France) on Poland's behalf during the month of September 1939 were feeble. The UK's military actions that month were limited to moving a couple of divisions to France and making a few air attacks on German naval bases. They didn't, for instance, start moving the BEF to France in August, or move a few Hurricane squadrons to air bases near Warsaw, which would certainly have signalled to Hitler that there was something behind their guarantee.

Of course, by 1945 the UK had made a far from feeble effort, for its own benefit and that of its allies. No one can deny that. By the same token, Poland fought as hard as it could for its own protection (unlike the Czechs) and after September 1939 its forces in exile supported British operations. Polish pilots were for example the most numerous foreign pilots in the Battle of Britain, outnumbering the Canadians, the next largest group, by about 50, and Polish Army divisions fought in Italy and France, and a parachute brigade was at Arnhem. So the gratitude should flow in both directions. As a Canadian, I am thankful that 1st Canadian Army included Polish forces.

As for the original question, I think allying themselves with the UK and France was really to only thing the Poles could do. First, it might have deterred Hitler, and, second, French offensive action against Germany, or a German decision to attack first in the west (as they did in 1914), might have allowed Poland to hang on, assuming France did not fall. It was a lot better than allying with nobody.