Origins of War in Europe 1939

keg007 · Post by **keg007** » 25 Jun 2005 17:13

The reason for WWII is simple. Adolph Hitler wanted it.

michael mills · Post by **michael mills** » 27 Jun 2005 01:21

For TonyH:

In 1934, Hitler proposed to Pildsudski, the de facto dictator of Poland at that time, that Germany and Poland should jointly confront the Soviet Union and force it to cede a large amount of its western territory.

Germany would establish a protectorate over the Baltic States (which at that time were still independent), Soviet Belorussia, Soviet Ukraine east of the Dniepr river, the Kuban region, and the Caucasus region. Poland would annex Soviet Ukraine up to the Dniepr river.

That proposal was well-known at the time, and was reported in contemporary periodicals on foreign affairs in the United States.

Pilsudski was disposed to give favorable consideration to Hitler's proposal. Since the First World War he was known for his pro-German attitude, so much so that when he seized power in May 1926, the Polish nationalists in Western Poland, who belonged to the Dmowski faction and were virulently anti-German, considered separating from the Polish Republic, fearing that Pilsudski would hand the Posen Province back to Germany. Pilsudski was in favour of eastward expansion, and had no designs on Geramn territory.

Unfortunately, in 1935, Pilsudski suddenly died. His clique of "colonels" who succeeded him gradually came under the influence of the Dmowski faction (which had been suppressed by Pilsudski), and absorbed their anti-German attitude and their desire to seize German territories east of the Oder.

That is why the colonels, Beck and Smigly-Rydz, refused German requests to allow the reunification of Danzig with Germany, and why they jumped at the chance of a coalition war against Germany when offered to them by Britain in France from March 1939 onwards, seeing it as the chance to seize the German territories east of the Oder.

If Pilsudski had still been alive in 1939 (he would have been 72) he no doubt would have resolved the last remaining bone of contention between Germany and Poland by allowing the reunification of Danzig with the Reich, and then joined in a confrontation with the Soviet Union. In fact, if he had not died in 1935, the resolution of the Danzig issue and an anti-Soviet alliance with Germany would probably have come earlier than 1939. In any case there would have been no German invasion of Poland, and no casus belli for war with Britain.

Michael Emrys · Post by **Michael Emrys** » 27 Jun 2005 05:18

michael mills wrote:If Pilsudski had still been alive in 1939 (he would have been 72) he no doubt would have resolved the last remaining bone of contention between Germany and Poland by allowing the reunification of Danzig with the Reich, and then joined in a confrontation with the Soviet Union. In fact, if he had not died in 1935, the resolution of the Danzig issue and an anti-Soviet alliance with Germany would probably have come earlier than 1939. In any case there would have been no German invasion of Poland, and no casus belli for war with Britain.

Interesting take. But I wonder.... Even if things had worked out like that, I think Britain and France (and at least Roosevelt in the US) would have been alarmed by that turn of events. Rearmament would have gotten underway at about the same pace in Britain and France (but at perhaps a slower rate in the US). The peace would have been fragile. Chamberlain might even have held his nose and signed some kind of alliance with the USSR (France had had one earlier), which would have brought war as soon as Germany and Poland attacked the USSR.

Molobo · Post by **Molobo** » 27 Jun 2005 06:06

Germany couldn't become an ally of Poland.Anybody claiming so displays a shocking ignorance/or attempt to disinform/ as to cultural and political realites of both countries and societies.The claims of "Polish-German" friendly relations are simply silly-the friendliness of such relations amount to singing a simple non-agression treaty after a severe economic war waged by Germany against Poland.
Polish state pursued a policy of equal distance between both Germany and Soviet Union.While the two cooperated since 1920s and expressed their wish to see a German-Soviet border.
Furthermore the massive opression in Prussia, discrimination and status as second class cititzens of Poles combined with the attitude of treating polish people as lacking any culture and civilization by German nationalist was the source of immense dislike and fear of German state and nation in Poland.Nobody serious wanted an allience with Germans.
Any claims of such, especially in view of presenting fantasy scenarios belonging to alternative history are simply political fiction with bad research by the author.

the Polish nationalists in Western Poland, who belonged to the Dmowski faction and were virulently anti-German, considered separating from the Polish Republic, fearing that Pilsudski would hand the Posen Province back to Germany. Pilsudski was in favour of eastward expansion, and had no designs on Geramn territory.

Pilsudski was in favour of Miedzymorze Confederation with independent states of Ukraine, Belarus etc.As to Wielkopolska-it wasn't German territory.
Please Mills-name those nationalists who wanted to secede.Cite their strenght.How many military units they had ? What was their party ? When did they desired to secede from Poland ?Where was it published ? Why do you term them anti-German ? Is the same reason you cite anti-german in regards to every action opposing German agression ?

As to origins of the war-they were simple-Hitler and German nationalist wanted to restore German power by reconquering territories that would be used as Lebensraum.Because they were settled by people persecuted by Germany in the past, treated as barbarians and who now had a state they took pride in-the only solution for Germany was to use force.To claim the origin of the war lays on the invaded is just as right as accusing a men confronted by bandits that he started a fight by not giving in those who wanted to rob him.

WalterS · Post by **WalterS** » 27 Jun 2005 06:27

Michael Mills wrote:

In other words, if Hitler had had his choice, major war would not have started in September 1939, since he did not want a major war to break out that point in time.

What he wanted was to continue bringing Eastern Europe under German hegemony with a view to creating an economic unit that could challenge the imperial power of Britain, France, and ultimately the United States.

Britain and France had the choice of letting Germany continue to establish its hegemony over Eastern Europe, or of confronting it militarily to prevent that hegemony

Wow. I had no idea that Hitler was so benevolent. Damn those Brits for being so obtreperous and not allowing the benign Nazi government to establish "German hegemony" over Eastern Europe.

Off-topic part of post deleted by Andreas.

Andreas · Post by **Andreas** » 27 Jun 2005 08:03

All

I do understand that this topic is making some people hot under the collar. There are however scholarly books written on the topic discussing it calmly. Then there are diatribes written on it. Only one of those two levels of discussion has a place here, and it should not be difficult for anyone with two braincells to rub together to figure out which one it is.

Michael - I expect you will be able to document the claims you make in your previous post, because it does not make sense to me.

If you can not document your opinions, do NOT bother posting them here. I will also not tolerate personal attacks, or personal remarks unrelated to the topic and dicussion in this thread. That goes for all contributors to this thread.

All the best

Andreas

Molobo · Post by **Molobo** » 27 Jun 2005 10:26

Since the First World War he was known for his pro-German attitude

Pilsudski wasn't pro-German.He only cared for the interest of Poles and to some extent nationalites standing between Russia and Germany.During the 1933 he proposed a pre-emptive strike to stop Germany from falling into clutches of the Nazis.
It's a tragedy that France didn't agree.Milions of people murdered in gass chambers, children and innocent shot by Einsatzgruppen would be spared the madness of Nazi terror.

Andreas · Post by **Andreas** » 27 Jun 2005 10:55

An off-topic post by Erich Hartmann was split off into a new topic entitled "1933 Plan to prevent NSDAP takeover of Germany" here:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=80538

Everybody - stay on topic. As a reminder, the topic is the origin of war in Europe in 1939, not the supposed likes and dislikes of national leaders who had been dead for years at this stage.

All the best

Andreas

tonyh · Post by **tonyh** » 27 Jun 2005 12:05

michael mills wrote:For TonyH:

In 1934, Hitler proposed to Pildsudski, the de facto dictator of Poland at that time, that Germany and Poland should jointly confront the Soviet Union and force it to cede a large amount of its western territory.

Germany would establish a protectorate over the Baltic States (which at that time were still independent), Soviet Belorussia, Soviet Ukraine east of the Dniepr river, the Kuban region, and the Caucasus region. Poland would annex Soviet Ukraine up to the Dniepr river.

That proposal was well-known at the time, and was reported in contemporary periodicals on foreign affairs in the United States.

Pilsudski was disposed to give favorable consideration to Hitler's proposal. Since the First World War he was known for his pro-German attitude, so much so that when he seized power in May 1926, the Polish nationalists in Western Poland, who belonged to the Dmowski faction and were virulently anti-German, considered separating from the Polish Republic, fearing that Pilsudski would hand the Posen Province back to Germany. Pilsudski was in favour of eastward expansion, and had no designs on Geramn territory.

Unfortunately, in 1935, Pilsudski suddenly died. His clique of "colonels" who succeeded him gradually came under the influence of the Dmowski faction (which had been suppressed by Pilsudski), and absorbed their anti-German attitude and their desire to seize German territories east of the Oder.

That is why the colonels, Beck and Smigly-Rydz, refused German requests to allow the reunification of Danzig with Germany, and why they jumped at the chance of a coalition war against Germany when offered to them by Britain in France from March 1939 onwards, seeing it as the chance to seize the German territories east of the Oder.

If Pilsudski had still been alive in 1939 (he would have been 72) he no doubt would have resolved the last remaining bone of contention between Germany and Poland by allowing the reunification of Danzig with the Reich, and then joined in a confrontation with the Soviet Union. In fact, if he had not died in 1935, the resolution of the Danzig issue and an anti-Soviet alliance with Germany would probably have come earlier than 1939. In any case there would have been no German invasion of Poland, and no casus belli for war with Britain.

Hi Michael, I was somewhat aware of an approach by Hitler to the aging Pilsudski. Hitler also continued to contemplate further into the 30's about neutralising the "in the way" Poland by political means rather than war. Although I don't think that Pilsudski was "pro-German"...rather "anti-Russian". The enemy of my enemy etc. When the Poles refused Russia access through their territory in the proposed action against Germany during the Czech crisis, Hitler was further interested in approaching the Poles with a "deal" of some sort, but war got there first in 1939. I think though that by 39 Hitler was resolved to plan B, the easier option. Attack Poland on the way to Russia.

Its interesting to wonder how the war would pan out if Poland and Germany had actually signed some sort of non-aggression pact.

Theres an interesting book by a Polish chap, whos name and book title is next to my mind right now. It discusses soberly and in depth the political situation between Germany and Poland from 1933 up to 1939 and Britain's "guarantee". I think its called something like "Forward to Spring" or something. But I wouldn't bet the mortgage on my memory of the title

. I only skimmed through it several years ago when I borrowed a copy, but was impressed by the author's aloof and balanced writing.

Tony

tonyh · Post by **tonyh** » 27 Jun 2005 12:08

During the 1933 he proposed a pre-emptive strike to stop Germany from falling into clutches of the Nazis.

Hi Molobo, could you elaborate somewhat on that? It sounds interesting. I have not heard of it before.

Tony

Andreas · Post by **Andreas** » 27 Jun 2005 12:13

tonyh wrote: Its interesting to wonder how the war would pan out if Poland and Germany had actually signed some sort of non-aggression pact.

They did in 1934 - German-Polish agreement.

Germany withdrew from it 28 April 1939.

German memorandum to Polish Government

Andreas · Post by **Andreas** » 27 Jun 2005 12:15

tonyh wrote:
During the 1933 he proposed a pre-emptive strike to stop Germany from falling into clutches of the Nazis.
Hi Molobo, could you elaborate somewhat on that? It sounds interesting. I have not heard of it before.

Tony

tony - please conduct this discussion in this thread:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=80538

Any further posts on the matter in this thread will be deleted.

All the best

Andreas

tonyh · Post by **tonyh** » 27 Jun 2005 13:39

OK.

Tony

Hoolaman · Post by **Hoolaman** » 27 Jun 2005 14:58

Hi All,

I think the point here is that nobody wanted another European war, and both sides were hoping their diplomacy would avoid one.

Hitler wanted to continue playing his power politics to get France and more specifically Britain to back down from his challenge over Poland. When he secured the Soviet non aggression pact, he was overjoyed, judging that this was the advantage he needed to secure his domination over Poland without provoking a major war.

Britain had simply tired of Hitler's power politics, and was for the first time determined to back up talk with action. The fact that it was ideal to call Hitler's bluff in 1939 rather than in 1942 is quite irrelevant. If you are going to stand up to Germany, why not do it at a good time economically?

The point is that it was always Hitler who had the initiative. Britain could not provoke war directly, she could only respond to Hitler's aggression. I hardly think that pledging to defend a sovereign nation in case of direct attack is a provocation, even if it was only a diplomatic attempt to "head them off at the pass".

I personally think German territorial claims to the corridor and Danzig had validity, but this is irrelevant as to who really started the conflict.

henryk · Post by **henryk** » 27 Jun 2005 19:19

Michael Mills said:

That is why the colonels, Beck and Smigly-Rydz, refused German requests to allow the reunification of Danzig with Germany

Mills is ignoring the remainder of German demands: the Polish Corridor.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/ ... n_01.shtml

In this Hitler had outlined his demands for an immediate settlement to the question of the Free City of Danzig and the Polish corridor, and his horror at the thought of a war between Germany and Britain.
'... Hitler is bound by an agreement he signed with Poland in January 1934 ...'
This was the latest in a whole series of demands for a solution to the so-called 'Danzig Problem' that Hitler had made ever since the German invasion of Czechoslovakia in March.
Hitler's solution was that Danzig should be returned to Germany and that the Polish corridor should be cut in half by linking East Prussia and the rest of Germany with a band of territory.

Giving in to the demands would have resulted in Poland being cut off from the Baltic. Remember the refusal of Danzig to pass through war supplies during the Polish-Soviet war. Also the experience of Czechoslovakian acceptance of German demands made it clear germany could not be trusted.