What was Poland's response to Nazi Germany's occupation of Czechia?

Discussions on all aspects of Poland during the Second Polish Republic and the Second World War. Hosted by Piotr Kapuscinski.
michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: What was Poland's response to Nazi Germany's occupation of Czechia?

#16

Post by michael mills » 31 Jul 2018, 06:12

It was this sort of history (Poland had active border disputes with all its many neighbours except Latvia and Romania) that led to a secret clause in the Anglo-French Guarantee to Poland in 1939 that specified it only applied against Germany and not Poland's other neighbours.

That clause was in the secret annex to the Anglo-Polish Alliance of 25 August 1939, but I do not think it was specifically stated in the British Guarantee of 31 March, or in the Agreement on Military Co-operation of 6 April. However, I think it reasonable to assume that the British Government always intended its guarantee of 31 March and the subsequent agreement of 6 April to apply only against Germany, since it was trying to draw the Soviet Union into an alliance against that country.

User avatar
Steve
Member
Posts: 982
Joined: 03 Aug 2002, 02:58
Location: United Kingdom

Re: What was Poland's response to Nazi Germany's occupation of Czechia?

#17

Post by Steve » 01 Aug 2018, 02:29

The only European power other than Germany that Poland felt threatened by was of course the USSR. In the Polish proposals for a secret protocol it says "In the event of an action as defined by the first or second articles of the Defence Agreement, on the part of a European power other than Germany, then the High Contracting Powers undertake to plan together the measures to be taken jointly". In the secret protocol signed on August 25 it says "In the event of an action within the meaning of Articles 1 or 2 by a European power other than Germany the contracting powers will consult together on the measures to be taken in common".

Planning joint measures and consulting on common measures are very different.


User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: What was Poland's response to Nazi Germany's occupation of Czechia?

#18

Post by wm » 11 Aug 2018, 23:56

Steve wrote:
21 Jul 2018, 02:55
In March 1939 Bohemia/Moravia was declared a German protectorate and Slovakia became independent. As the Czechoslovakian government in theory voluntarily agreed to this were its powers now legally transferred to the German protectorate? Who was the legal government after March could be the subject of an interesting discussion somewhere.
It's not that hard, from Axis Rule in Occupied Europe by Raphael Lemkin:
Decree of the Fuhrer and Reich Chancellor concerning the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, March 16, 1939

The Bohemian-Moravian countries belonged for a millennium to the living space of the German people. Violence and want of judgment have torn them arbitrarily from their old, historic environment and finally created, through their inclusion in the artificial structure of Czechoslovakia, a center of continuous unrest. Year after year the danger increased that out of this area as once before in the past—would arise a new, stupendous menace to European peace, hor the Czechoslovak State and its rulers had not succeeded in organizing in a reasonable manner the coexistence of the national groups arbitrarily comprised within it, and thus they failed to awaken and to preserve the interest of all concerned in the maintenance of the state common to them. Thereby this state has demonstrated its inherent inability to exist and therefore now has fallen into actual dissolution.

The German Reich cannot tolerate everlasting disturbances in these areas, areas so decisively essential not only to its own peace and security but also to the general welfare and the general peace. Sooner or later the German Reich would have had to suffer the most serious consequences because it is the power which is most vitally interested and concerned by history as well as by geographical position. It is therefore only an act of compliance with the law of self-preservation if the German Reich is resolved to take decisive action for the reestablishment of the foundations of a Central European Order based on reason and to resort to measures impelled by this aim. For the millennial historic past of the German Reich has proven that it alone is chosen by virtue of its greatness and the qualities of the German people to solve this problem.

Imbued with the earnest desire to serve the true interests of the nations settled in this living space, to safeguard the national life of the German and Czech nations, to promote peace and the social welfare of all, I therefore order, in the name of the German Reich, the following as foundations on which the inhabitants of these areas can live side by side in the future:

Article 1. (1) The territories of the erstwhile Czechoslovak Republic, occupied by the German Armies in March, 1939, are hereby incorporated into the territory of the Greater German Reich and are placed under its protection as the “Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.”

(2) In so far as the defense of the Reich requires it, the Fuhrer and Reich Chancellor may issue, for specified areas of these territories, orders at variance with these articles.

Article 2. (1) The residents of the Protectorate of German origin are hereby declared to be German nationals and German citizens, in accordance with the provisions of the Reich Nationality Code ( Reichsburgergesetz ) of September 15, 1935. Therefore, the provisions for the protection of German blood and German honor shall apply to them. They shall be subject to the jurisdiction of German courts.

(2) The other residents of Bohemia and Moravia are hereby declared to be citizens of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.

Article 3. (1) The Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia is declared to be autonomous and shall govern itself.

(2) It shall exercise the sovereign rights to which it is entitled within the framework of the Protectorate in conformity with the political, military, and economic interests of the Reich.

(3) The Protectorate shall exercise these sovereign rights through its own political agencies, authorities, and officials.

Article 4. The head of the autonomous administration of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia shall be entitled to the protection and the full honors of the head of a sovereign government. The head of the Protectorate must enjoy, in the exercise of his high office, the confidence of the Fuhrer and Reich Chancellor.

Article 5. (1) The Fiihrer and Reich Chancellor will appoint as a guardian of the interests of the Reich a “Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia.” His official residence shall be in Prague.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Reich Protector, as representative of the Fiihrer and Reich Chancellor* and as the agent of the Government of the Reich, to assure compliance with the political instructions issued by the Fiihrer and Reich Chancellor.

(3) The members of the government of the Protectorate shall hold office subject to confirmation by the Reich Protector. A confirmation made may be later revoked.

(4) The Reich Protector may demand information concerning all acts of the government of the Protectorate and may offer his counsel to the government. He may protest against measures which may be harmful to the Reich, and, in cases of emergency, may take all steps necessary to the common welfare.

(5) The publication of statutes, orders, and other general rules and regulations, and the enforcement of administrative measures and execution of judicial decisions which have become final, shall be suspended upon notice of protest given by the Reich Protector.

Article 6 . (1) The foreign affairs of the Protectorate, especially the protection of its citizens abroad, shall be entrusted to the Reich. The Reich shall take charge of the foreign affairs in such manner as shall conform with the common interest of both countries.

(2) The Protectorate shall have a representative with the Government of the Reich officially designated as Minister.

Article 7. (1) The Reich shall extend military protection to the Protectorate.

(2) For the purpose of extending such protection the Reich shall maintain garrisons and military establishments in the Protectorate.

(3) The Protectorate may establish its own units for the maintenance of home security and protection. The Government of the Reich shall determine the form of organization, the number of the forces, and the armament to be employed.

Article 8. The Reich shall directly supervise all traffic, posts, and telegraphs.

Article 9. The Protectorate shall form part of the German customs area and shall be subject to its customs authority.

Article 10. (1) In addition to the Reichsmark the Krone shall constitute legal tender until further notice.

(2) The rate of exchange for the two currencies shall be determined by the Government of the Reich.

Article 11. (1) The Reich may issue orders having the force of statutes for the Protectorate, in so far as required by the common welfare of both of them.

(2) In so far as there is a common need, the Reich may take over branches of the administrative services and may establish the necessary Reich agencies in their stead.

(3) The Government of the Reich may take all measures necessary for the maintenance of security and order.

Article 12. The laws and statutes presently in effect in Bohemia and Moravia shall remain in effect unless incompatible with the purposes of protection by the German Reich.

Article 13. The Reich Minister of the Interior shall, in agreement with the Reich ministers concerned, issue all rules and regulations, general and administrative, required for the enforcement and implementation of this decree.

Prague, March 16, 1939.
Adolf Hitler, Filhrer andd Reich Chancellor
Frick, Reich Minister of the Interior
von Ribbentrop, Reich Minister of Foreign Affairs
Dr. Lammers, Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: What was Poland's response to Nazi Germany's occupation of Czechia?

#19

Post by wm » 12 Aug 2018, 00:05

Steve wrote:
21 Jul 2018, 02:55
When on February 6 Szembeck said that “extraterritoriality was out of the question” he was not following the same policy from beginning to end. He was following the same policy as decided on in early January. On November 19 1938 Lipski told Ribbentrop when discussing an extra territorial highway “it might be possible to find a solution”. It could be argued that Lipski was expressing his own view but given the importance of the matter I think that unlikely.
I can't find such a statement in "Note from the conversation between the Ambassador in Berlin and the German Minister of Foreign Affairs" on 24 October 1938. But:
15 December. Report of the Ambassador in Berlin on his conversation with the German Minister of Foreign Affairs on the subject of Polish and German foreign policy
15 December 1938
Top Secret.

To the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Warsaw I had a conversation with the minister of foreign affairs of the Reich, von Ribbentrop, today, and proceeded to execute the instructions you gave me verbally yesterday in Warsaw. [...]
On his own volition, von Ribbentrop mentioned problems of immediate Polish-German relations, asking about the superhighway.
I remarked that this problem had been referred to you and that it is being discussed in Warsaw, but that, naturally, this matter can only be dealt with within the frame of der Gesamtlosung.
and:
31 October. Instruction of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Ambassador in Berlin: Position of the Polish government regarding German demands
Warsaw, 31 October 1938
Top Secret.
To Jozef Lipski
Ambassador of the Republic of Poland in BERLIN.

[...]
Taking all the foregoing factors into consideration, and desiring to achieve the stabilization of relations by way of a friendly understanding with the Government of the German Reich, the Polish Government proposes the replacement of the League of Nations guarantee and its prerogatives by a bilateral Polish-German Agreement.
This Agreement should guarantee the existence of the Free City of Danzig so as to assure freedom of national and cultural life to its German majority, and also should guarantee all Polish rights.
Notwithstanding the complications involved in such a system, the Polish Government must state that any other solution, and in particular any attempt to incorporate the Free City into the Reich, must inevitably lead to a conflict.
So from the beginning it was a bilateral Polish-German Agreement, and the fate of the superhighway depended on it.

When Pilsudski said that Danzig was the criteria for estimating Germany’s intention towards Poland he was right but he was stating the obvious. How any Polish leader could have thought that Germany would never try to alter the status of Danzig is a mystery.
Well, Hitler threw South Tyrol under the bus, full of perfectly good Germans, brutally de-Germanized by the Italians to boot. So why not, it was just a city in decline, ruled by Germans.

Did the Polish leadership go to war expecting to lose and be occupied?
The expected to be defeated, but expected the Allies would win the war eventually.

The country was a loser in WW2 not a winner.
To win is to achieve victory or stated objectives. As the war was unexpected and unplanned the only identifiable objective was to survive. And that happened.
Additionally, Poland gained valuable territories, a basically perfect access to the sea, and gracefully got rid of the Ukrainians, who would be a source of constant and insurmountable problems, much greater than those caused by the IRA.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: What was Poland's response to Nazi Germany's occupation of Czechia?

#20

Post by wm » 12 Aug 2018, 00:08

Sid Guttridge wrote:
27 Jul 2018, 07:05
Poland's response was to join in the carving up of Czechoslovakia by occuppying and annexing Tesin/Teschen in Moravia, some small enclaves in Slovakia and facilitating armed opposition to Prague in Ruthenia.
All those were Poland's long-term goals, so they shouldn't be regarded as a response.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

Re: What was Poland's response to Nazi Germany's occupation of Czechia?

#21

Post by Futurist » 12 Aug 2018, 02:34

wm wrote:
12 Aug 2018, 00:08
Sid Guttridge wrote:
27 Jul 2018, 07:05
Poland's response was to join in the carving up of Czechoslovakia by occuppying and annexing Tesin/Teschen in Moravia, some small enclaves in Slovakia and facilitating armed opposition to Prague in Ruthenia.
All those were Poland's long-term goals, so they shouldn't be regarded as a response.
Poland always wanted Hungary to control Ruthenia?

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

Re: What was Poland's response to Nazi Germany's occupation of Czechia?

#22

Post by Futurist » 12 Aug 2018, 02:38

wm wrote:
12 Aug 2018, 00:05
To win is to achieve victory or stated objectives. As the war was unexpected and unplanned the only identifiable objective was to survive. And that happened.
Additionally, Poland gained valuable territories, a basically perfect access to the sea, and gracefully got rid of the Ukrainians, who would be a source of constant and insurmountable problems, much greater than those caused by the IRA.
Poland did lose almost all of its Jewish population as well as de facto lose its independence for half a century, though.

Still, I do think that Poland should be praised for rejecting Hitler's overtures. Rather than participating in a project to try pushing the Soviet Union back behind the Urals, Poland stood its ground and maintained its neutrality--with certain very negative consequences for itself (though some positive ones as well)--and possibly increased the odds of the Soviet Union winning the upcoming war against Nazi Germany.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

Re: What was Poland's response to Nazi Germany's occupation of Czechia?

#23

Post by Futurist » 12 Aug 2018, 02:40

wm wrote:
12 Aug 2018, 00:05
Well, Hitler threw South Tyrol under the bus, full of perfectly good Germans, brutally de-Germanized by the Italians to boot. So why not, it was just a city in decline, ruled by Germans.
Yes, that's absolutely correct. Hitler didn't give a damn about national self-determination when it came to the South Tyrol Germans--nor did he give a damn about national self-determination when he occupied rump Czechia in March 1939. Thus, to claim that the situation in Danzig was so intolerable for Germany that it required war is ridiculous.

BTW, why didn't Poland make a move on Danzig in 1923? Was it because its President had recently been assassinated?

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: What was Poland's response to Nazi Germany's occupation of Czechia?

#24

Post by Sid Guttridge » 12 Aug 2018, 09:23

Hi wm,

Was South Tyrol "brutally de-Germanised by the Italians"?

I know it was subject to systematic Italianization in an authoritarian manner by the Italian Fascist between the wars, though ultimately not very effectively, but what brutality was involved? Were there also deaths, beatings, arrests, property confiscations, or mass expulsions?

Tell us more.

Sid.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: What was Poland's response to Nazi Germany's occupation of Czechia?

#25

Post by wm » 12 Aug 2018, 17:57

For example, Gerhard Wienberg in his introduction to Hitler's Second Book writes:
The German-speaking population of South Tyrol, in terms of its cultural life, was probably the most besieged in Europe at that time
It wasn't Soviet brutality, but by European standards, it was brutality. Especially when the Italian language was forced into all (including religious) education, which only thanks to the passivity of the population didn't result in violence.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: What was Poland's response to Nazi Germany's occupation of Czechia?

#26

Post by wm » 12 Aug 2018, 18:07

Futurist wrote:
12 Aug 2018, 02:38
Poland did lose almost all of its Jewish population as well as de facto lose its independence for half a century, though.
Russia lost up to 20,000,000, was subjected to communism for half a century too, and ended up a much smaller country than pre-ww2.
Were the Russians winners or losers?

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: What was Poland's response to Nazi Germany's occupation of Czechia?

#27

Post by wm » 12 Aug 2018, 18:43

Futurist wrote:
12 Aug 2018, 02:34
Poland always wanted Hungary to control Ruthenia?
The official position:
Circular of the Minister of Foreign Affairs on Poland's position with regard to the expected break-up of Czechoslovakia Warsaw,
14 March 1939
Cipher cable No. 39.

Our assessment of the situation in the Czech lands and in Slovakia is the following:
I. The Polish government has always seen the Czechoslovak state as provisional and its internal organisation as unstable.
II. Polish public opinion has always been well inclined towards the Slovak efforts for independence, and the Polish government has always taken the position that the Slovaks should be a subject in politics, not its object.
III. Poland's attitude towards the Slovak state will depend on the degree to which this state will be an expression of the normal development of the Slovak nation's autonomous political life.
IV. We have always felt that Carpathian Ruthenia's attachment to Czechoslovakia only burdened that country needlessly.
V. The Polish government is not bound by the decisions of the Munich Conference.
Beck

ISBN 978-83-89607-72-0. Polish Documents on Foreign Policy. 24 October 1938 – 30 September 1939
I don't think pre-1938 any detailed plan existed, it was mostly waiting for something to happen in a provisional and internally unstable country.

Futurist wrote:BTW, why didn't Poland make a move on Danzig in 1923? Was it because its President had recently been assassinated?
Poland was mostly doing politics by the book, especially in the 1920s. And such a naked aggression was quite a different thing from the post-WW1 chaotic border wars (over nonexistent borders) which had to be fought out.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

Re: What was Poland's response to Nazi Germany's occupation of Czechia?

#28

Post by Futurist » 13 Aug 2018, 02:49

wm wrote:
12 Aug 2018, 18:07
Futurist wrote:
12 Aug 2018, 02:38
Poland did lose almost all of its Jewish population as well as de facto lose its independence for half a century, though.
Russia lost up to 20,000,000, was subjected to communism for half a century too, and ended up a much smaller country than pre-ww2.
Were the Russians winners or losers?
Russia was already subjected to Communism even before the start of World War II. As for losing 20,000,000 lives, I would consider that preferable to being pushed back behind the Urals.

Indeed, I suspect that the U.S. would have been willing to accept similar casualties if the alternative would have been to push the US west of the Mississippi.

Also, interestingly enough, Germany aimed to push Russia behind the Urals and yet itself got pushed back behind the Oder and Western Neisse. That's karma for you!

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

Re: What was Poland's response to Nazi Germany's occupation of Czechia?

#29

Post by Futurist » 13 Aug 2018, 03:47

wm wrote:
12 Aug 2018, 18:43
Futurist wrote:
12 Aug 2018, 02:34
Poland always wanted Hungary to control Ruthenia?
The official position:
Circular of the Minister of Foreign Affairs on Poland's position with regard to the expected break-up of Czechoslovakia Warsaw,
14 March 1939
Cipher cable No. 39.

Our assessment of the situation in the Czech lands and in Slovakia is the following:
I. The Polish government has always seen the Czechoslovak state as provisional and its internal organisation as unstable.
II. Polish public opinion has always been well inclined towards the Slovak efforts for independence, and the Polish government has always taken the position that the Slovaks should be a subject in politics, not its object.
III. Poland's attitude towards the Slovak state will depend on the degree to which this state will be an expression of the normal development of the Slovak nation's autonomous political life.
IV. We have always felt that Carpathian Ruthenia's attachment to Czechoslovakia only burdened that country needlessly.
V. The Polish government is not bound by the decisions of the Munich Conference.
Beck

ISBN 978-83-89607-72-0. Polish Documents on Foreign Policy. 24 October 1938 – 30 September 1939
I don't think pre-1938 any detailed plan existed, it was mostly waiting for something to happen in a provisional and internally unstable country.
Thanks for this information!
Futurist wrote:BTW, why didn't Poland make a move on Danzig in 1923? Was it because its President had recently been assassinated?
Poland was mostly doing politics by the book, especially in the 1920s. And such a naked aggression was quite a different thing from the post-WW1 chaotic border wars (over nonexistent borders) which had to be fought out.
Why was Lithuania unwilling to do politics by the book in 1923 when it seized the Memelland, though?

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: What was Poland's response to Nazi Germany's occupation of Czechia?

#30

Post by michael mills » 13 Aug 2018, 08:59

From Beck's circular of 14 March 1939
V. The Polish government is not bound by the decisions of the Munich Conference.
What did Beck mean by that statement?

One of the decisions of the Munich Conference was to guarantee the new borders of the reformed Czecho-Slovak state, one the territorial claims against it of Poland and Hungary had been satisfied. Was Beck saying that Poland was not bound by that guarantee?

The date of the circular, 14 March 1939, is highly significant. As of that date, both Slovakia and Ruthenia had declared their independence from Czecho-Slovakia, after receiving the support of Germany, and the Prague Government had already moved to suppress that independence by military force, dissolving their autonomous governments and arresting Tiso, the head of the Slovak autonomous government.

It would appear from Beck's circular that Poland was joining Germany in supporting the independence of Slovakia, and thereby the dissolution of Czecho-Slovakia.

It should be noted that the attempt of the Czech military to suppress the secession of Slovakia and Ruthenia was the immediate cause of the German invasion of Czech territory on 15 March.

Post Reply

Return to “Poland 1919-1945”