What would have happened if Hitler seized Danzig and only Danzig?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
ljadw
Member
Posts: 9400
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: What would have happened if Hitler seized Danzig and only Danzig?

Post by ljadw » 04 Oct 2018 16:21

Stiltzkin wrote:
04 Oct 2018 15:46
Why should Hitler ''seize'' Danzig ?
Thats the original posters question. Hitler did only achieve the majority from a coaliation with the Zentrum (aka the church, ironic isn't it).
The fact is that the current situation (Danzig as not ''independent '' state could not last .
Well if that is true, then why not give Bremen or Rotterdam to the jurisdiction of other nations, or maybe Singapore to China, since it is a "lesser China".
There was no coalition in Danzig of the NSDAP and the Zentrum : Hitler got 38 seats, the others 29 seaths .The KPD was outlawed .
You don't get it : the situation in Danzig could not last : or there would be an Anschluss, or Danzig would become Polish .But,there was no urgency for the Anschluss,as Danzig was de facto already a part of Germany since 1933 .The Anschluss of Danzig could have happened before 1939, and Poland would not have intervened by force ,because Poland needed a strong Germany to prevent a Soviet attack . Only Hitler could prevent a Soviet invasion and only Stalin could prevent a German invasion . France was far away,weak and had no interest to fight for Poland, as it was not in the interest of France to fight for the Czechs,or,before WWI, to fight for the Russians .

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 968
Joined: 11 Apr 2016 12:29
Location: Germany

Re: What would have happened if Hitler seized Danzig and only Danzig?

Post by Stiltzkin » 04 Oct 2018 21:47

There was no coalition in Danzig of the NSDAP and the Zentrum
Not Danzig, his election. The interventions in Danzig are irrelevant, no matter what percentage. Could have been even 110.
Poland needed a strong Germany to prevent a Soviet attack
Poland was sandwiched by a Soviet-German collaboration, I do not think any alternatives would have been beneficial. The Soviets could have been fended off though.
France was far away,weak and had no interest to fight for Poland, as it was not in the interest of France to fight for the Czechs,or,before WWI, to fight for the Russians
Correct, France was weakened by WW1. The Baltics, Finland or Poland saw limited support.
Only Hitler could prevent a Soviet invasion and only Stalin could prevent a German invasion
Well, not completely. Only the Soviet-German relations enabled the division of further territories. The Bolsheviks were defeated in 1921 and contained in the Winter War, as long as they were isolated by a defensive alliance, significant territorial gains would have been impossible. Hitler is the reason why Stalin could grab deeper into European territory. His actions were causal for European instability and then he had to fight off the Soviets and Allies alone, dragging Europe and the World into chaos. Germany betrayed their potential Allies and then let the Soviets into Europe, a prototype of the UN/NATO or an EU would have never allowed the Soviets to set foot beyond Belorussian territory. Historically it was formed as an anti-Hitler coaltion, the USSR being part of it. A masterpiece of Soviet politics or a consequence of Hitler's hazardous diplomacy?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9400
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: What would have happened if Hitler seized Danzig and only Danzig?

Post by ljadw » 05 Oct 2018 09:40

I see it slightly different :
the rebirth of Poland was made possible by the defeat of AND Germany AND Russia in WWI;it was obvious that these two countries would not remain weak and would try to reconquer what they had lost .But this would be possible only by a deal/agreement between both .
Til 1933 the SU and Germany were too weak to constitute a big danger for Poland, thus what Reichswehr commander von Seeckt said '' that the existence of Poland was incompatible with the vital interests of Germany " was no reason to be anxious .
But everything changed when Hitler came: Germany became stronger and France ( Poland's only ally ) weaker .The positive point for Poland was that Hitler's anti-communism would prevent him to make a deal with the SU (as every one thought ) .The survival of Poland depended on the fact/ assumption/ possibility /wishful-thinking that Hitler''s anti-communism was greater than his nationalism .If it was not so, finis Poloniae .
What is correct is that Hitler changed the map of Europe, of the Europe of Versailles .In 1914 Germany started WWI because it was dissatisfied with the existing statu quo,Europe of the Conference of Vienna . In 1939, it started WWII because it did not accept the Europe of the Congress of Versailles .That in 1945 the Soviets had conquered Central Europe was not the fault of FDR, but the responsibility of Hitler: German nationalism and the Treaty of Versailles were incompatible .

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2151
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: What would have happened if Hitler seized Danzig and only Danzig?

Post by MarkN » 05 Oct 2018 10:33

ljadw wrote:
05 Oct 2018 09:40
I see it slightly different :
the rebirth of Poland was made possible by the defeat of AND Germany AND Russia in WWI;it was obvious that these two countries would not remain weak and would try to reconquer what they had lost .But this would be possible only by a deal/agreement between both .
Til 1933 the SU and Germany were too weak to constitute a big danger for Poland, thus what Reichswehr commander von Seeckt said '' that the existence of Poland was incompatible with the vital interests of Germany " was no reason to be anxious .
But everything changed when Hitler came: Germany became stronger and France ( Poland's only ally ) weaker .The positive point for Poland was that Hitler's anti-communism would prevent him to make a deal with the SU (as every one thought ) .The survival of Poland depended on the fact/ assumption/ possibility /wishful-thinking that Hitler''s anti-communism was greater than his nationalism .If it was not so, finis Poloniae .
What is correct is that Hitler changed the map of Europe, of the Europe of Versailles .In 1914 Germany started WWI because it was dissatisfied with the existing statu quo,Europe of the Conference of Vienna . In 1939, it started WWII because it did not accept the Europe of the Congress of Versailles .That in 1945 the Soviets had conquered Central Europe was not the fault of FDR, but the responsibility of Hitler: German nationalism and the Treaty of Versailles were incompatible .
I see. So today you have decided to troll posters as a Hitler and Nazi apologist.... :roll:

WW2 was NOT a result of legitimate German political thought and "dissatisfaction" with the Treaty of Versailles.

WW2 was the result of a criminal and insane (criminally insane) ideology held by Hitler and the Nazis. The ideology that they were superior beings who had the right to exterminate anybody they considered inferior and to steal wealth, property and territory as they sought fit to massage their own egos and delusions.

What's your next insight... The holocaust was the product of judaism being "incompatible" with German nationalism. !!!! :roll:

Please stop apologising for Hitler and the Nazis.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9400
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: What would have happened if Hitler seized Danzig and only Danzig?

Post by ljadw » 05 Oct 2018 14:45

Prove where I wrote 'legitimate German political thought ", if you can't, apologize.
You know nothing about the history of Central Europe : the reality is that WWII would happen, even if Hitler did not exist .
It is obvious that you never heard of general von Seeckt,who said, when Hitler was still an illustrious unknown ,that the existence of Poland was incompatible with the vital interests of Germany,or from Stresemann ,who wanted to annex the territories Germany had lost to the benefit of Poland . What Hitler did in 1939 was only the continuation of what had done Seeckt, Stresemann and other people .There was nothing new in Hitler's foreign policy .

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2151
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: What would have happened if Hitler seized Danzig and only Danzig?

Post by MarkN » 05 Oct 2018 15:08

ljadw wrote:
05 Oct 2018 14:45
You know nothing about the history of Central Europe : the reality is that WWII would happen, even if Hitler did not exist .
It is obvious that you never heard of general von Seeckt,who said, when Hitler was still an illustrious unknown ,that the existence of Poland was incompatible with the vital interests of Germany,or from Stresemann ,who wanted to annex the territories Germany had lost to the benefit of Poland . What Hitler did in 1939 was only the continuation of what had done Seeckt, Stresemann and other people .There was nothing new in Hitler's foreign policy .
Another attempt to apologise away the criminal and insane acts of Hitler and the Nazis as some sort of normality in German political thought and policy.

What's your next amazing insight that only you know about? The holocaust was the product of judaism being "incompatible" with German nationalism - a belief which was "only the continuation of what had [thought] Seeckt, Stresemann and other people". !!!! :roll:

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9400
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: What would have happened if Hitler seized Danzig and only Danzig?

Post by ljadw » 05 Oct 2018 15:52

From a British historian, who has forgotten more about this, than some people with their hysterical reactions ever will know .Albert Taylor ''The Origins of the Second World War '' :'' No German minister since 1918 had contemplated friendship with Poland,even of a temporary nature, ;the sore of Danzig and the Corridor cut too deep .(Chapter IV : The End of Versailles ).''
Hitler, OTOH , was more flexible : to obtain an alliance with Italy, he abandoned south Tirol .To have a Non-Aggression Pact with Poland, he was ready to accept the existing situation in Danzig :an independent city-state ruled by the Nazis .
To make France less hostile, he signed a treaty where Germany abandoned the Alsace .

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 6480
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: What would have happened if Hitler seized Danzig and only Danzig?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 05 Oct 2018 17:53

Hi ljadw,

You write of Hitler, "To have a Non-Aggression Pact with Poland, he was ready to accept the existing situation in Danzig: an independent city-state ruled by the Nazis." And yet he broke the Non-Aggression Pact five years before he could legally do so and attacked Poland without declaring war.

You were certainly right when you posted, "Hitler.....was more flexible!"

Sid.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9400
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: What would have happened if Hitler seized Danzig and only Danzig?

Post by ljadw » 05 Oct 2018 18:19

The fact remains that less than a year after he became Chancellor,he was negotiating a treaty with Poland that was considered as the main enemy of Germany by almost all German political parties, by the Reichswehr and by the majority of the public opinion .And some
historians argue that Poland took the initiative .
Whatever, on P 24 of '' A clean sweep ? The Politics of Ethnic cleansing in Western Poland .1945-1960 .'' one can read the following :
Hitler's regime brought about the first thaw in state-to-state relations between Poland and Germany since the end of the previous war .''
There are also no indications that at trhat moment, Hitler was thinking of breaking the pact as soon as possible .
That he attacked Poland without DoW is nothing special ,as in 1914 Germany invaded Belgium and Luxemburg without DoW and as they invaded France first and declared war afterwards.The reason for the invasion of Poland was invented (the Gleiwitz incident ) but the reason for the invasion of France in 1914 was also a lie (air attacks on German cities ) .

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 6480
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: What would have happened if Hitler seized Danzig and only Danzig?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 08 Oct 2018 09:54

Hi ljadw,

Hitler did not break his pact with Poland "as soon as possible". He broke it once it was practicable to do so - after he had had time to rearm.

Everything Hitler did was out of immediate expediency, and out of expediency he was later willing to reverse almost anything he had done. His contractual word meant nothing if it was expedient to ignore it. Of course, in 1934 Hitler had little track record in international affairs, so the Poles may perhaps be forgiven for their naivety.

Cheers,

Sid.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2151
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: What would have happened if Hitler seized Danzig and only Danzig?

Post by MarkN » 08 Oct 2018 15:48

Sid Guttridge wrote:
08 Oct 2018 09:54
Hitler did not break his pact with Poland "as soon as possible". He broke it once it was practicable to do so - after he had had time to rearm.

Everything Hitler did was out of immediate expediency, and out of expediency he was later willing to reverse almost anything he had done. His contractual word meant nothing if it was expedient to ignore it. Of course, in 1934 Hitler had little track record in international affairs, so the Poles may perhaps be forgiven for their naivety.
And, in your opinion, were each of these actions within the framework of a criminal and insane ideological dogma to eliminate any human 'species' not considered worthy of survival whilst raising the chosen few to a higher level, or actions within the framework of normal, longstanding German nationalist ideas of territorial consolidation of the German Volk and probable later colonial expansion for economic supremacy?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9400
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: What would have happened if Hitler seized Danzig and only Danzig?

Post by ljadw » 08 Oct 2018 20:39

Sid Guttridge wrote:
08 Oct 2018 09:54
Hi ljadw,

Hitler did not break his pact with Poland "as soon as possible". He broke it once it was practicable to do so - after he had had time to rearm.

Everything Hitler did was out of immediate expediency, and out of expediency he was later willing to reverse almost anything he had done. His contractual word meant nothing if it was expedient to ignore it. Of course, in 1934 Hitler had little track record in international affairs, so the Poles may perhaps be forgiven for their naivety.

Cheers,

Sid.
The Poles were not naive : Hitler was better than von Seeckt .
And treaties are not worth the paper where they are written on .
Hitler had a treaty with Japan,but sold weapons to the KMT,Mexico was very anti fascist but sold oil to Germany, the SU collaborated with SA of Apartheid,Kim met Trump,Czechoslovakia looked the other way when Hitler annexed Austria . Italy had a treaty with Germany but remained neutral til it was convinced that the Germans were winning,Nixon went to Peking, Britain left the coalition against France during the war of Spanish Succession,Mexico,very anti-fascist,sold oil to Italy and Germany,There were two things every one in Europe were convinced of,especially in Poland :
Hitler would never negotiate with Stalin and Stalin would never negotiate with Hitler .Poland believed this, not because the Polish leaders were naive, but because only the hostility between Germany and the SU assured the survival of Poland,as an independent state, or as a state tout court .

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 6480
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: What would have happened if Hitler seized Danzig and only Danzig?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 09 Oct 2018 13:16

Hi ljadw,

If all treaties were equally without value, nobody would bother agreeing them and they would cease to exist.

Your list of treaty violations seem mostly not to be so.

For example, what treaty did Mexico break by selling oil to Germany in 1938-39?

I am no fan of the the ridiculous Trump, but I am unaware of any treaty he broke by meeting Kim. Are you?

What was Czechoslovakia's treaty obligation to Austria in 1938?

What treaty did Hitler break by selling arms to the KMT in the mid 1930s?

What Treaty did Nixon break in going to Peking?

You seem to be describing acts of cynical realpolitik, but not actual treaty contraventions.

Cheers,

Sid.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9400
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: What would have happened if Hitler seized Danzig and only Danzig?

Post by ljadw » 09 Oct 2018 14:46

Sid Guttridge wrote:
09 Oct 2018 13:16
Hi ljadw,

If all treaties were equally without value, nobody would bother agreeing them and they would cease to exist.

Your list of treaty violations seem mostly not to be so.

For example, what treaty did Mexico break by selling oil to Germany in 1938-39?

I am no fan of the the ridiculous Trump, but I am unaware of any treaty he broke by meeting Kim. Are you?

What was Czechoslovakia's treaty obligation to Austria in 1938?

What treaty did Hitler break by selling arms to the KMT in the mid 1930s?

What Treaty did Nixon break in going to Peking?

You seem to be describing acts of cynical realpolitik, but not actual treaty contraventions.

Cheers,

Sid.
Hitler had a treaty with Japan ,and,Japan was not pleased with the German help to the KMT.
About treaties : these do not determine the policy of a country: Britain had no treaty with France/Belgium in 1914, but still declared war when Germany attacked these countries .The same for Poland in 1939 .Some people are saying that NATO preserved peace in Europe after WWII, this is not true : NATO started in 1949/1950, but there was no war before NATO ,between 1945 and 1949.US has no treaty obligations to Israel, but still Nixon gave nuclear alarm in 1973 when there was war between Israel and Egypt . US have no obligations to KSA , but there is no doubt that US would intervene /will intervene if/when Iran will attack KSA .Treaties are pieces of paper who are valid as long as it is in the interest of the concerning party/parties .
Take the alliance between Germany and AH : some people will be indignant,but the truth is that both signatories did in 1914 as if the alliance did not exist : Germany : when Russia mobilised 3 armies on the border with AH ,Berlin looked the other way . AH did not move when Germany ,saying that the Russian mobilisation threatened its security,declared war on Russia on August 1 : Vienna waited, til on August 5 it received a very stern letter from Berlin .
About NATO : if it is in the interest of the US, they will let down Europe, treaty or not, Alliance or not .
Italy changed camp in 1915, remained neutral in 1939 til it was convinced that Germany was winning and abandoned Germany when Germany was losing .
As Palmerstone said : Britain has no allies,only interests, and ,this applies to all countries .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9400
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: What would have happened if Hitler seized Danzig and only Danzig?

Post by ljadw » 09 Oct 2018 14:49

I forgot : about Nixon and Peking : there ,since 1955, a treaty between US and Taiwan .

Return to “What if”