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 » 03 Oct 2018 06:03

wm wrote:
02 Oct 2018 22:40
Strangely strong statements in that "symbolic" alliance.
The Franco-Russian Alliance Military Convention - August 18, 1892
[...]
1. If France is attacked by Germany, or by Italy supported by Germany, Russia shall employ all her available forces to attack Germany.
If Russia is attacked by Germany, or by Austria supported by Germany, France shall employ all her available forces to attack Germany.
2. In case the forces of the Triple Alliance, or of any one of the Powers belonging to it, should be mobilized, France and Russia, at the first news of this event and without previous agreement being necessary, shall mobilize immediately and simultaneously the whole of their forces, and shall transport them as far as possible to their frontiers.
3. The available forces to be employed against Germany shall be, on the part of France, 1,300,000 men, on the part of Russia, 700,000 or 800,000 men.

These forces shall engage to the full with such speed that Germany will have to fight simultaneously on the East and on the West.
4. The General Staffs of the Armies of the two countries shall cooperate with each other at all times in the preparation and facilitation of the execution of the measures mentioned above.
They shall communicate with each other, while there is still peace, all information relative to the armies of the Triple Alliance which is already in their possession or shall come into their possession.
1 Did not happen : Russia was attacked by Germany and France did nothing
2 : did not happen :France and Russia did not mobilize simultaneously and immediately the whole of their forces and did not transport them as far as possible to their frontiers :France mobilised later than Russia and its mobilisation was not related to the Russian one .
3 Did not happen : main Russian forces were concentrated against Austria
4 Did not happen and was also irrelevant .

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 4595
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

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

Post by wm » 03 Oct 2018 10:12

Please, that is an Orwellian revision of events.

The real history, France wasn't given a chance to declare war, mostly because of the slowness of contemporary communications:

30 July: French Prime Minister René Viviani sends a message to the Tsar: "France is determined to meet all the obligations of the alliance",
31 July: Russian mobilization decree is officially issued,
1 August: Emperor William proclaims Germany "in danger of war", declares war on Russia,
1 August: general mobilization of the French army,
2 August: Germany invades Luxembourg,
3 August: Germany declared war on France, the Russian general mobilization is still in progress.

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 » 03 Oct 2018 10:41

Viviani was French PM, thus , no one in Russia was believing him .
The French mobilisation was declared on August 1, but started on August 2 .
When on August 1 Germany attacked Russia, there was no reaction from France : no warning to Germany, no ultimatum,
France did not even declare war on Germany,when this invaded Belgium.
The reason for all this was that already before the legislative elections of 1914,which were won by the anti-army and anti-Tsar left parties, there was a general hostility in France against Russia,which was seen as an oppressive regime that was persecuting the workers, unions,etc.
The slogan of the elections in May was : not a sou for the military, not a man for the Tsar .The left wing parties preferred Germany to Russia, and they had won the elections .Til August 3 Isvolsky was staying at the Elysée,the Matignon, at the Pais Bourbon,asking everyone,even the cleaning ladies,what France would do, and France remained silent,that's why the declaration of a temporary French PM (all French PM's were temporary ) had no value at all .The arbiter of French politics was Jaures, and Viviani would do what was oprdening Jaures .

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 » 03 Oct 2018 10:48

If Hitler only seized Danzig and only Danzig then he would not have been Hitler. If so, then we would have a similar situation to the annexation of the Crimea by Russia.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 4595
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

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

Post by wm » 03 Oct 2018 11:02

ljadw wrote:
03 Oct 2018 10:41
Viviani was French PM, thus , no one in Russia was believing him .
Sunday, August 2, 1914
General mobilization of the French army. The order reached me by telegraph at two o'clock this morning.
So the die is cast! The part played by reason in the government of nations is so small that it has only taken a week to let loose world madness!
[...]
At three o'clock this afternoon I went to the Winter Palace where the Tsar was to issue a proclamation to his people, as ancient rites decree. As the representative of the allied power, I was the only foreigner admitted to this ceremony.
[...]
The Tsar asked me to stand opposite him as he desired, so he said, "to do public homage in this way to the loyalty of the French ally."
[...]
Suddenly the Grand Duke Nicholas, generalissimo of the Russian armies, hurled himself upon me with his usual impetuosity and embraced me till I was half crushed.
At this the cheers redoubled, and above all the din rose shouts of "Vive la France! ... Vive la France! ... "

An Ambassador's Memoirs. Last French Ambassador to the Russian Court by Maurice Paleologue
René Viviani was appointed Prime Minister on 13 June 1914, by President Poincaré.
On 30 July, when he sent his declaration both Poincaré and Viviani were on board a ship returning from an official visit in Russia which itself was something very unusual and significant.

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 » 03 Oct 2018 12:18

wm wrote:
03 Oct 2018 10:12
Please, that is an Orwellian revision of events.
After all this time have you not recognised that planet ljadw holds a completely different historical narrative than planet earth?

The ljadw narrative is based upon understanding drawn from impossible leaps of reasoning and logic, 'proven' through the introduction of straw men arguments and 'evidenced' by counterfactual inventions.

At least this round of his/her garbage is in the right part of the forum: the fantasy history 'what if' thread.

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 » 03 Oct 2018 14:24

More garbage, as would say MarkN, from J. Keiger, well-known collector of garbage following MarkN .

France and the Origins of the First World War :
P 160 : on 30th July, Poincaré and Viviani said in a telegram that " Russia should not immediately proceed to any mesure which might offer Germany a pretext for a total of partial mobilisation of her forces .''
And Keiger add that Poncaré and Viviani were exercising a restraining influence on Russia .
On P 164 ,Keiger writes that 5 days after the visit from Poincaré and Viviani to Russia,the Russian military attaché in Paris asked Joffre if France would mobilise if Germany mobilised against Russia .
All this proves that the Russians were uncertain what France would do, and happy when France mobilised, but there is no proof that France mobilised by loyalty to the alliance, there is also no proof that France would have gone farther than mobilisation,if Germany did not attack her .The Russians were deceiving themselves if they were thinking that the French mobilisation meant that France was on their side .We can also discard what Paléologue wrote in his memoirs as and Paléologue and memoirs in general are unreliable.People who write memoirs are giving a big role for themselves,which they don't have .
French mobilised because it had informations that the Schlieffen plan was activated, not because Germany mobilised against Russia .The French did not care about Russia and most were hostile to Russia .

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 » 03 Oct 2018 15:26

ljadw wrote:
03 Oct 2018 14:24
More garbage, as would say MarkN, from J. Keiger, well-known collector of garbage following MarkN .
Yep. Complete and utter garbage....

The words of Keiger, in their original contaxt are probably sound. The context in which you use the words is utter garbage.

Let's wind the clock back a wee bit.

In post #31 of this thread, wm provided a lengthy quote from Martin S. Alexander. The Republic in Danger: General Maurice Gamelin and the Politics of French Defence, 1933–1940.

Your response, post #36, "What Alexander said is not correct , .... usw.".

Then, in post #39 ...
ljadw wrote:
28 Sep 2018 20:21
He [Gamelin] did not blatantly misled the Poles : .... usw.
Then follows several pages where you first argue that Alexander was wrong to write "On the French side, these conversations were marked by a lack of candour, no little cynicism and a measure of deception that did no credit to the general staff, the air staff or the foreign minister, Georges Bonnet. ... As far as Gamelin was concerned, he had been blatantly misleading ..." because he was (a) not a Frenchman living at the time, (b) not stating anything that was not considered historical fact, and (c) being unfair.

That is followed by pages of your 'evidence', where 'evidence' consists of you repeatedly stating that the French "lack of candour", "cynicism", "deception" and "blatant misleading" of the Polish in 1939 was normal and rife.

More lately, your 'evidence' has now moved on to showing that French "lack of candour", "cynicism", "deception" and "blatant misleading" was normal and rife in 1914 too with the Russians.

Your post is garbage because you do not help your arguments that "What Alexander said is not correct , (post #36)", "He [Gamelin] did not blatantly misled the Poles, ... (post #39)" and "It is obvious that a British historian writing about France is biased, ...(post #46)" by following it with 'evidence' that he (Alexander) was completely accurate. It is even more bizarre that you shift your 'evidence' to an earlier period to show that not only was Alexander accurate, but also identifying a longstanding trait.

Your post is, posts are, garbage because they are evidencing the complete opposite of the argument you originally brought to the table!!!! :lol:

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 4595
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

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

Post by wm » 03 Oct 2018 15:47

The Germans attacked France because the Franco-Russian Alliance Military Convention was real, and they were (almost) certain France would keep her word.

Why France mobilized isn't really known as the accounts are contradictory, Bruno Cabanes in his August 1914: France, the Great War, and a Month That Changed the World Forever writes:
The decision to mobilize did indeed come from the president of the Republic and without any pressure, it seems, from the army.
i.e. not because the Schlieffen plan was activated. Especially they weren't aware of that at that time at all.

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 » 03 Oct 2018 18:28

wm wrote:
03 Oct 2018 15:47
The Germans attacked France because the Franco-Russian Alliance Military Convention was real, and they were (almost) certain France would keep her word.

Why France mobilized isn't really known as the accounts are contradictory, Bruno Cabanes in his August 1914: France, the Great War, and a Month That Changed the World Forever writes:
The decision to mobilize did indeed come from the president of the Republic and without any pressure, it seems, from the army.
i.e. not because the Schlieffen plan was activated. Especially they weren't aware of that at that time at all.
1 The Germans attacked France because the defeat of France would result in the German domination of the continent .
2 The Dutch knew that the Schlieffen PLan was activated .Thus also the French:the Schlieffen PLan was activated before the Austrian DOW on Serbia .
3 I like to see the proof that the French president had the authority to order the mobilisation .Poincaré signed the order, but there is no proof that he ordered the mobilisation .
4 What Cabanes said is not correct : on 30 and 31 July, Joffre demamded urgently the mobilisation, not to help Russia, but if France did not mobilize,he could not stop a Germam invasion .

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 » 04 Oct 2018 10:59

Danzig?

Sid

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 4595
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

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

Post by wm » 04 Oct 2018 14:06

Danzig shortly after the war:
danzig45.jpg
from Ruiny by Wiesław Gruszkowski
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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 » 04 Oct 2018 14:09

Sid Guttridge wrote:
04 Oct 2018 10:59
Danzig?
The Danzig boat sailed long ago. This thread is now just a place for an attention seeking troll to wind up others.

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 14:18

Stiltzkin wrote:
03 Oct 2018 10:48
If Hitler only seized Danzig and only Danzig then he would not have been Hitler. If so, then we would have a similar situation to the annexation of the Crimea by Russia.
Why should Hitler ''seize'' Danzig ? He was already the boss in Danzig since 1933 .In the 1933 local elections, he got 50,12 % of the votes, more than in Germany, in 1935 he got 59,34 % .And all parties agreed on the Anschluss of Danzig with Germany .The fact is that the current situation (Danzig as not ''independent '' state could not last .

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 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".

Return to “What if”