Origins of War in Europe 1939

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Post by Andreas » 27 Jun 2005 19:51

Germany's demands, as stated in Hitler's Reichstag speech April 28th 1939:

Blue Book
Consequently, I have had the following proposal submitted to the Polish Government:-

(1) Danzig returns as a Free State into the framework of the German Reich.

(2) Germany receives a route through the Corridor and a railway line at her own disposal possessing the same extraterritorial status for Germany as the Corridor itself has for Poland.

In return, Germany is prepared:-

(1) To recognise all Polish economic rights in Danzig.

(2) To ensure for Poland a free harbour in Danzig of any size desired which would have completely free access to the sea.

(3) To accept at the same time the present boundaries between Germany and Poland and to regard them as ultimate.

(4) To conclude a twenty-five-year non-aggression treaty with Poland, a treaty therefore which would extend far beyond the duration of my own life.

(5) To guarantee the independence of the Slovak State by Germany, Poland and Hungary jointly-which means in practice the renunciation of any unilateral German hegemony in this territory.
The Polish memorandum of 5th May:

Blue Book
The Polish point of view was summarised in the following points:-

(a) The Polish Government propose a joint guarantee by Poland and Germany of the separate character of the Free City of Danzig, the existence of which was to be based on complete freedom of the local population in internal affairs and on the assurance of respect for Polish rights and interests.

(b) The Polish Government were prepared to examine together with the German Government any further simplifications for persons in transit as well as the technical facilitating of railway and motor transit between the German Reich and East Prussia. The Polish Government were inspired by the idea of giving every possible facility which would permit the citizens of the Reich to travel in transit across Polish territory, if possible without any hindrances. The Polish Government emphasised that their intention was to secure the most liberal treatment possible of the German desiderata in this respect with the sole reservation that Poland could not give up her sovereignty over the belt of territory through which the transit routes would run. Finally, the Polish Government indicated that their attitude in the question of facilitating communications across Pomerania depended on the attitude of the Reich regarding the Free City of Danzig.

In formulating the above proposals the Polish Government acted in the spirit of the Polish-German Declaration of 1934 which, by providing the direct exchanges of views on questions of interest to both countries, authorised each State to formulate its point of view in the course of negotiations.

The Polish Government received no formal reply to their counter-proposals for a month, and it was only on the 28th April, 1939, that they learnt from the Chancellor's speech and from the German Government's memorandum that the mere fact of the formulation of counter-proposals instead of the acceptance of the verbal German suggestions without alteration or reservation had been regarded by the Reich as a refusal of discussions.
As can be seen from this passage, the Polish government was prepared to negotiate, but was not prepared to cave in to any German demand just because Germany made them.

I can only again emphasise that the study of the Blue Book documents is extremely helpful in understanding the diplomatic process leading to the outbreak of war.

All the best

Andreas[/quote]

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8982
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 28 Jun 2005 00:07

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 discussion in this thread



Andreas,

I suggest you consult the journal "Foreign affairs : An American Quarterly Review" for 1935. If you insist, I will go back to the National Library of Australia, retrieve it from the storeroom and look up the exact number of the relevant volume. But you easily look up the article in the annual index.

The journal contains an obituary of Pilsudski, which refers to his germanophilia and the German suggestion of a division of Ukraine between Germany and Poland.

I also suggest that you do not simply accept at face value Polish nationalist myths, but subject them to critical analysis.

I am somewhat puzzled as to what the "personal attacks" or "personal remarks" may have been, unless you are referring to my negative opinions of certain long-dead Polish politicians.

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Post by Andreas » 28 Jun 2005 07:27

Michael

I am not interested in whether Pilsudski liked Germans, or whether he preferred fish for supper. I am talking about your claim that the Polish leadership who followed him had designs on German territory east of the Oder.

The critical analysis works both ways of course - how about you conduct a critical analysis of what would have happened had Poland given in to German demands for a corridor and re-unification? What would the impact on Polish access to the sea have been? What about the military and economic impact? What about the credibility of German assurances in the light of what had happened to the remaining Czecho-Slovakia in the same month that these demands were presented? What about the credibility of Hitler's claim that the Poles had rejected these terms outright?

The personal remarks were made by other posters and had been removed by me.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8982
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 28 Jun 2005 09:10

The personal remarks were made by other posters and had been removed by me.
Andreas,

I thank you for that clarification.

I would like to address the points you made, which I agree are quite valid.

What would have happened if Poland had acceded to German demands, which began to be made at the end of 1938, and agreed to the reunification of Danzig with Germany (which was the desire of the overwhelming majority of the city's people) and an extra-territorial road and rail link to East Prussia across the Corridor?

In the first place, the sole remaining bone of contention between Germany and Poland would have been removed, and there would have been no cause for conflict, at least on the German side. Germany would have continued the process of drawing Poland into an anti-Soviet alliance, in the same way as it drew Romania, Hungary, Slovakia and (briefly) Yugoslavia into such alliances without invading them (Yugoslavia was invaded in April 1941 only after the Government of the Regent Prince Paul was overthrown in a coup and a pro-Soviet regime installed).

Andreas, you need to realise that until March 1939, when Britain issued its "blank cheque" to Poland, Hitler did not regard Poland as an enemy. Rather he regarded it as a potential ally in a future confrontation with the Soviet Union, which was quite realistic, given the anti-Soviet posture of Pilsudski in particular. His preferred option was to make an ally of Poland, in which case its large army would be available to form part of the anti-Soviet coalition.

Hitler only decided to invade Poland when he realised that its army would not join him as an ally, but on the contrary would join an Anglo-French coalition against Germany.

Andreas, check out Soviet Government material produced in the mid-1930s. You will see that the view of the Soviet Government was that Poland, together with other countries such as Finland and Romania, would inevitably join Germany in an anti-Soviet war. Check out in particular the book "Hitler Over Russia" by the Comintern agent Ernst Henri (or Genri), dating from 1935, in which Henri describes a scenario of a German-Polish-Romanian invasion of the Soviet Union.

Henri was spot on in his assessment of the roles of Finland and Romania in making war on the Soviet Union. He even predicted with uncanny accuracy the military roles those two countries did in fact play.

He was only wrong about Poland. He assigned to the Polish army the role that was actually played by the German Army Group Centre in Barbarossa, ie the advance on Moscow.

However, at the time his prediction was entirely reasonable. Nobody could have predicted in 1935 that Poland would not join Germany in a war on the Soviet Union, but would to the contrary join Britain and France in an anti-German coalition and end up being invaded and crushed by Germany.

It must have been a matter of great satisfaction to Stalin that his clever diplomacy resulted in the large Polish army being destroyed by Germany rather than being deployed alongside Germany against him.

Andreas, you need to realise that Hitler's basic attitude toward Poland was entirely different to his attitude toward Czechoslovakia and the Czech nation.

He certainly regarded Czechoslovakia as a sworn enemy of Germany that needed to be eliminated. Like most German Austrians he had a very negative attitude of the Czech nation, regarding it as a rival to the German antion within the living space of the Habsburg Monarchy.

Check out the references to "Czechoslovakia" and "Czechs" in Mein Kampf, and compare them with the references to "Poland" and "Poles". You will find plenty of hostile references to Czechs, while Poles and Poland barely rate a mention.

Like most German Austrians, he had no particular hostility to Poles, who were not regarded as an ethnic threat within the Austrian lands. In fact, his conciliatory attitude toward Poland between 1933 and 1939, contrasting strongly with the "cold war" waged by the Weimar Republic, surprised many contemporary observers, and was expalined by them as due to his Austrian origin; he was pursuing a traditional Austrian policy toward Poland, as opposed to the Prussian policy of confrontation.

Furthermore, even in regard to Czechoslovakia, his enmity was reserved for the Czechs (and Jews), not the minority peoples who made up just on half the population of that country. In the Munich settlement in September 1938 he forced the Czech Government to grant autonomy to Slovakia and Ruthenia (the latter had been promised autonomy in the Versailles strtlement but it had been withheld by the Czechs), as well as ceding German- and Hungarian-inhabited lands.

In March 1939, he forced the final break up of Czecho-slovakia (the federal state which had replaced the unitary Czechoslovakia in the Munich settlement), establishing a protectorate over Czechia (which retained its existing government under President Hacha) and giving independence to Slovakia and Ruthenia (in the latter case only for a few days before it was annexed by Hungary).

The real change in Czechoslovakia came at Munich, not in March 1939. It was at Munich that the Benes regime was overthrown and puppet regimes under Hacha in Czechia and Tiso in Slovakia established. Both regimes continued after march 1939; the main change was the disbandement of the Czech army, still basically loyal to Benes and plotting to upset the Munich settlement by subverting Slovak autonomy.

It also needs to be remembered that Poland had supported Germany in the elimination of Czechoslovakia in September 1938, taking the disputed Cieszyn territory and hoping to partition Slovakia with Hungary.

What would have been the effect on Poland's access to the sea?

In the first place, Germany proposed that Poland would have designated crossing points over or under the extra-territorial German combined road and rail link to East Prussia, thereby maintaining access to its new port at Gdynia, which by 1939 had equalled Danzig in the volume of Polish overseas trade passing through it.

In other words, there would have been a German passage across Polish territory linking East Prussia to the main part of Germany, and a similar Polish passage across the German passage linking the port of Gdynia to the main part of Poland.

As far as Polish access to the port of Danzig was concerned, the model of Memel could have been followed.

In March 1939, Germany compelled Lithuania to return Memel and the surrounding territory to it. However, it entered into a treaty with Lithuania that gave the latter full access to the port of Memel without customs barriers. A similar arrangement could have been made with Poland in the case of a Danzig returned to German sovereignty.

The treaty allowing Lithuanian access to Memel remained in operation until the Soviet occupation of Lithuania in June 1940 and its subsequent annexation. At that pont Germany rescinded the treaty and access to Memel, arguing that such access had been granted to an independent Lithuania, not to the Soviet Union.

That caused conflict between Germany and the Soviet Union, which wanted to use the port of Memel as the inheritor of Lithuania's rights, a conflict that is fully documented in diplomatic exchanges between Germany and the Soviet Union at that time.

tonyh
Member
Posts: 2911
Joined: 19 Mar 2002 12:59
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Post by tonyh » 28 Jun 2005 11:08

Andreas wrote:
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
Hmmmm......yes, but one that lasted :)

Tony

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Post by Andreas » 10 Jul 2005 08:50

Michael - you still have not shown any sources for the Polish government or army's desire on German territory, a claim you made by stating:
michael mills wrote: 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.
Emphasis by me. Please document this claim.

Regarding German-Polish relations after the death of Pilsudski the last sentence in this quote from his speech of Jan 30 1939 is instructive (my emphasis):
"We have just celebrated the fifth anniversary of the conclusion of our non-aggression pact with Poland. There can scarcely be any difference of opinion to-day among the true friends of peace with regard to the value of this agreement. One only needs to ask oneself what might have happened to Europe if this agreement, which brought such relief, had not been entered into five years ago. In signing it, this great Polish marshal and patriot rendered his people just as great a service as the leaders of the National Socialist State rendered the German people. During the troubled months of the past year the friendship between Germany and Poland was one of the reassuring factors in the political life of Europe."
Blue Book
michael mills wrote: In the first place, the sole remaining bone of contention between Germany and Poland would have been removed, and there would have been no cause for conflict, at least on the German side. Germany would have continued the process of drawing Poland into an anti-Soviet alliance, in the same way as it drew Romania, Hungary, Slovakia and (briefly) Yugoslavia into such alliances without invading them (Yugoslavia was invaded in April 1941 only after the Government of the Regent Prince Paul was overthrown in a coup and a pro-Soviet regime installed).
Germany had no need to occupy any of the other three states you mention, because the removal of France and Poland made them wholly dependent on Germany. See e.g. Mark Axworthy's 'Third Axis, Fourth Ally' to understand Romania's situation. The situation is not comparable, and I do not agree with your conclusion.
michael mills wrote:Andreas, you need to realise that until March 1939, when Britain issued its "blank cheque" to Poland, Hitler did not regard Poland as an enemy. Rather he regarded it as a potential ally in a future confrontation with the Soviet Union, which was quite realistic, given the anti-Soviet posture of Pilsudski in particular. His preferred option was to make an ally of Poland, in which case its large army would be available to form part of the anti-Soviet coalition.
Maybe for the last part, and apparently for the first part, until he presented his demands for Danzig - those were certainly not the way to foster good relations between Germany and a potential ally. It must have been a bad surprise for him that the Polish did not agree to be bullied into being cut off from the sea, and the consequences of this were enormous.
michael mills wrote:Andreas, you need to realise that Hitler's basic attitude toward Poland was entirely different to his attitude toward Czechoslovakia and the Czech nation.
Does this explain why Poland had the highest number of civilians killed as a share of the population, and arguably the most murderous occupation regime of the central European countries?
michael mills wrote:It also needs to be remembered that Poland had supported Germany in the elimination of Czechoslovakia in September 1938, taking the disputed Cieszyn territory and hoping to partition Slovakia with Hungary.
Yes, but that is hardly the issue here.
michael mills wrote:In the first place, Germany proposed that Poland would have designated crossing points over or under the extra-territorial German combined road and rail link to East Prussia, thereby maintaining access to its new port at Gdynia, which by 1939 had equalled Danzig in the volume of Polish overseas trade passing through it.

In other words, there would have been a German passage across Polish territory linking East Prussia to the main part of Germany, and a similar Polish passage across the German passage linking the port of Gdynia to the main part of Poland.
I think it is worth bearing in mind that at this stage Hitler's diplomatic assurances were not nil, not to put too fine a point on it.

"Germany neither intends nor wishes to interfere in the internal affairs of Austria, to annex Austria, or to conclude an Anschluss."
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (May 21, 1935)

"I have no further interest in the Czecho-Slovakian State, that is guaranteed. We want no Czechs"...
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (September 26, 1938)

"First, we swear to yield to no force whatever in restoration of the honor of our people... Secondly, we pledge that now, more than ever, we shall strive for an understanding between the European peoples, especially for one with our Western neighbor nations... We have no territorial demands to make in Europe!... Germany will never break the peace!"
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (after Nazi troops had marched in the Rhineland in 1936)

http://www.angelfire.com/la/raeder/Germany3.html
Last edited by Andreas on 10 Jul 2005 10:42, edited 1 time in total.

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Post by Andreas » 10 Jul 2005 08:55

tonyh wrote:
Andreas wrote:
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
Hmmmm......yes, but one that lasted :)

Tony
It is self-evident that if the German government had decided not to withdraw from and not to break this agreement, there would have been no war with Poland in 1939. Anything beyond that belongs into the What-If section.

All the best

Andreas

szopen
Member
Posts: 814
Joined: 21 May 2004 15:31
Location: poznan, poland

Post by szopen » 11 Jul 2005 08:05

Andreas wrote: Maybe for the last part, and apparently for the first part, until he presented his demands for Danzig - those were certainly not the way to foster good relations between Germany and a potential ally. It must have been a bad surprise for him that the Polish did not agree to be bullied into being cut off from the sea, and the consequences of this were enormous.
It's worth to note that Pilsudski once said that Gdansk/Danzig question is a metric of Polish-German relations. He said, that as soon as Germans will demand Gdansk, war is around the corner. In such case Poland should try to ally himself with UK and France.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8982
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 11 Jul 2005 14:45

Michael - you still have not shown any sources for the Polish government or army's desire on German territory, a claim you made by stating:
What sort of documentation would satisfy you, Andreas?

The historical fact is that as soon as Poland was in a position to seize the German territories east of the Oder-Neisse line, ie when Germany had been defeated by the Soviet Union, it did not hesitate to do so.

And it was not only the Polish Communists allied with the Soviet Union that wanted to annex the German eastern territories. Throughout the war, the anti-Communist Polish Government-in-Exile, ie the successors of the pre-war Polish Government, made no secret of its claim to the German territories east of the Oder-Neisse Line. Those claims were pressed in wartime publications by British mouthpieces for the Government-in-Exile, in particular by a clergyman called Machray.

The claim to the German eastern territories was first raised by the pro-Russian Polish nationalist, Roman Dmowski, in 1909, in his book "La Question Polonaise".

At the beginning of the First World War, Dmowski was in St Petersburg. There he proposed to the Imperial Russian Government that a Polish state be formed in personal union with the Russian Empire, with the Tsar' as King of Poland. That state was to consist of Russian Poland, Austrian Poland, and all the German territories east of the Oder-Neisse Line, which Dmowski claimed had been Polish territory in the past. The envisaged territory bore a close resemblance to the Poland of today (except that part of Austrian Poland, East Galicia, is not today in Poland, but in Ukraine).

Unlike Pilsudski, Dmowski did not envisage an eastward expansion of a new Polish state.

Dmowski's proposal was accepted by the Imperial Russian Government, and was proclaimed as an official Russian war aim. However, it could not be achieved due to the German and Austrian conquest of Russian Poland in 1915.

Later in the war Dmowski went to France where he formed the Polish National Committee which was recognised by the Allies as the nascent government of a future Polish state.

In 1919, Dmowski, together with Paderewski, was the leader of the Polish delegation to the Paris Peace Conference. There he presented the claims of the Polish National Committee on German territory. Given the negative British attitude to Poland (especially on the part of Lloyd-George), those claims were more moderate than those enunciated in Dmowski's plan for a Polish state joined to the Russian Empire, but they included East and West Prussia, the Posen Province, Upper Silesia, Lower Silesia east of the Oder, and most of Pomerania.

Due to the British attitude, most of the Polish claims were rejected, being limited to the Posen Province (which had an ethnic Polish majority) and most of West Prussia, providing Poland with a sea-coast. Referenda were to be held in East Prussia and upper Silesia; Germany won both of them.

The Dmowski faction of Polish nationalism always maintained a claim to the German eastern territories, and called for the expulsion of ethnic Germans (and Jews) from Polish lands. However, while Pilsudski was in power, from 1926 to his death in 1935, the Dmowskists were excluded from power, and Dmowski himself went into exile. Pilsudski himself never had any designs on German territory, preferring eastward expansion into Lithuania, Belorussia and Ukraine (he was of Lithuanian origin himself).

After the death of Pilsudski, although his followers the "Colonels" retained power and the Dmowskists remained in opposition, much of the anti-German ideology of latter began to filter into government circles. After the outbreak of war, Dmowski's ideas of westward expansion at the expense of Germany were accepted in toto by the Polish Government-in-Exile, and claims on German territory were publicly proclaimed, being realised in 1945.

Some historians have commented that the shape of poat-war Poland represented the fulfilment of Dmowski's vision; a Poland enlarged by expansion to the west, allied to Russia, without ethnic minorities and swept clean of Jews.

Andreas, I suggest you do some research on all of the above. What you find will confirm what I have written.

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Post by Andreas » 11 Jul 2005 15:19

michael mills wrote:
Michael - you still have not shown any sources for the Polish government or army's desire on German territory, a claim you made by stating:
1) What sort of documentation would satisfy you, Andreas?

SNIP

2) Andreas, I suggest you do some research on all of the above. What you find will confirm what I have written.
1) Any that shows that this was Polish government policy, or even a prevailing attitude amongst the Polish government in the period leading up to the outbreak of war, following the death of Pilsudski - your post above does not contain any backup regarding this period, just more speculation and hardly relevant items on other time periods.

2) Michael, you have been around here longer than I have, I think. You should know what the policy is - you make a claim, you back it up. You can't back it up, that tells me and other readers all we need to know to judge the validity of the claim. The system is not - you make a claim, and then ask those questioning it to back it up for you. I am not going to do your research for you. Especially since I remain unconvinced that I would find anything, regardless of how long I looked for it. Seems like a wild goose chase or a fool's errand to me.

I would also like to point out that the Polish government was not involved to my knowledge at least in the determination of post-war borders. Maybe they wanted them, maybe not, but they were not in any position to do anything about it. And anyway, it has no relevance to this discussion.

All the best

Andreas
Last edited by Andreas on 11 Jul 2005 16:59, edited 1 time in total.

Molobo
Banned
Posts: 629
Joined: 14 Feb 2005 14:20
Location: Poland

Post by Molobo » 11 Jul 2005 16:39

. Referenda were to be held in East Prussia and upper Silesia; Germany won both of them.
Mills Germany didn't won the Silesian plebiscite-it manipulated to outcome by moving Germans and terrorising polish population.The plebiscite in question btw was much misguided and in territories desired by Poland , Poles had majority of votes for Poland.
Pilsudski himself never had any designs on German territory, preferring eastward expansion into Lithuania, Belorussia and Ukraine (he was of Lithuanian origin himself).
Pilsudski didn't want an expansion to those territories but creation of independent Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania united in Confederation to thwart aggression of Russia and Germany upon those countries.
being limited to the Posen Province (which had an ethnic Polish majority) and most of West Prussia
None of territories regained by Poland had a German majority.
The Dmowski faction of Polish nationalism always maintained a claim to the German eastern territories, and called for the expulsion of ethnic Germans (and Jews) from Polish lands
This is untrue.Dmowski didn't call for expulsion in his later period but for assimiliation.

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Post by Andreas » 11 Jul 2005 17:04

Molobo, Michael, stick to the topic please. Any further posts on referenda in the interwar area or the ethnic make-up of German and Polish areas east of the Oder-Neisse should be made in the forum they belong into, Inter-War Era:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewforum.php?f=53

The question here is quite simple - what led to the war in Europe, 1939. Michael made a claim that the Polish government following the death of Pilsudski developed a desire of seizing German territory east of the Oder-Neisse. He has not been able to back this claim up thus far. That is the point that matters. Post-1939 Polish policy, and books written by Polish writers in 1909, do not appear directly relevant.

I hope I have made this clear enough.

All the best

Andreas

User avatar
Steve
Member
Posts: 960
Joined: 03 Aug 2002 01:58
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Steve » 11 Jul 2005 23:03

Poland and Germany had good relations after the signing of the non aggression Pact of 1934, Germany never even made a fuss when in 1935? a Polish spy ring was detected in the defence ministry. The two countries collaborated over Czechoslovakia and when the French ambassador tried to get information out of the Poles over German troop movements he was told they could say little.

Though the Poles had offered to collaborate with the French in 1933 (covered elsewhere) after 1926 almost all their military planning till 1936 was based on a war against the USSR. Work started on a plan to confront Germany in 1936 and after numerous studies emerged as Plan Z the initial version being turned over to the General Staff in March 1939, there was no detailed plan in September 1939 and the one that existed was defensive. Any idea that the Poles were seriously planning to march on Berlin in collaboration with the French in 1939 is fantasy. The stationing of large numbers of troops in the corridor was because the Poles were worried that a German seizure of Danzig and the corridor and then asking for negotiations without major fighting may not have triggered the Anglo French guarantee.

The idea that the French and British were planning a two pronged attack with Poland on Germany is also fantasy and can easily be proved by looking at what the UK and French Military Staffs were reporting and the talks that took place between them. There was no intention of launching an offensive in 1939 and if the Poles wanted to believe that there was well they were welcome to that view seems to have been the attitude.

The guarantee was not asked for by the Poles but offered by the British on March 21st 1939. The reasons being that after the occupation of Prague the British wanted an eastern front in case of war with Germany but could not stomach the Soviets, there had been reports of German pressure on Poland and possible action over Danzig and they were worried the Poles could succumb to pressure and move into the German camp with futher implications for Rumania. The reports were false but Beck the Polish Foreign Minister never let the British know the true state of German Polish relations.

We know what Chamberlains thoughts on the guarantee were from his letters to his sister Hilda. They were that the guarantee could scare Hitler into dropping his demands as he could not get what he wanted without fighting, that the Poles would be reasonable and offer concessions and maybe Hitler would compromise if there was no humiliation. The British did not see the guarantee as bringing on war but as preventing war as their policy now would be one of the carrot and the stick. The carrot was concessions by the Poles and an economic agreement the stick was the possibility of war. The Poles did not intend to play ball over concessions that as they saw it threatened their independence. The wording of the guarantee from the British point of view was unfortunate as it seems to have decided Hitler on war and gave them no influence over the Poles.

The Poles regarded the guarantee as strengthening their negotiating position but were not keen on lining up with the the western democracies. On the 25 March 1939 Lipski the Polish Ambassador assured Ribbentrop that Poland remained committed to an anti Soviet policy. The Poles really believed they could reach a compromise with Hitler and Beck assured the British in April that he could reach an agreement. The Poles thought they had a good hand the British thought Hitler would not go to war over Danzig and the corridor and Hitler seems to have thought the democracies would cave in again.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8982
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 12 Jul 2005 00:42

The guarantee was not asked for by the Poles but offered by the British on March 21st 1939.
That is not quite correct.

The British proposed a Four-Power declaration of the inviolability of all existing borders in Eastern Europe, including a guarantee of action by the four powers against any violator of those borders. One of the four guarantor powers was to be the Soviet Union.

Poland rejected the concept of a Four-Power declaration, since it could provide a pretext for the Red Army to enter Poland.

Instead, Foreign Minister Beck proposed to Britain a bilateral agreement, involving a British guarantee to Poland. His feeling was that such a guarantee would place pressure on France to fully accept its obligations under the existence Franco-Polish Treaty.

The concept of a combined Franco-Polish offensive on Germany following an appropriate casus belli (such as German unilateral action to absorb Danzig) is not at all fantasy. The commander of the Polish armed forces went to France to have talks with General Gamelin on combined military action against Germany.

Gamelin promised that the French air force would immediately commence a bombing offensive on Germany as soon as war was declared (ie as soon as Poland took military action to oppose a so-called threat to its independence), and that French forces would launch a ground offensive within 10 days of the declaration of war. In the meantime, Poland was to fight a delaying action in the region of Danzig and the Polish Corridor.

It needs to be realised that neither Poland nor Britain and France foresaw a full-scale German invasion of Poland from all sides. What was envisaged was a limited German move to send troops into Danzig, followed by a Polish military reaction against those troops, which would be enough to trigger the provisions of the secret Anglo-Polish agreement of 6 April.

The Danzig intervention force which Poland had stationed in the Corridor was designed to move against German forces in Danzig, or even against pro-German paramilitaries. Under the terms of both the public guarantee of 31 March and the secret agreement of 6 April (which was formalised on 25 August), such a move would constitute Poland's using its military forces to oppose a "threat to its independence", and would trigger British intervention against Germany.

British Prime Minister Chamberlain personally abhorred the idea of going to war, but he was helpless against the pressure of the hawks in the Conservative Party, and the policy of Foreign Minister Lord Halifax, who supported the Polish position on Danzig.

I suggest consulting this book:

"Poland and the Western Powers 1938-1939: A Study in the Interdependence of Eastern and Western Europe", by Anna M. Cienciala (London, Routledge & K. Paul, Toronto, University of Toronto P., 1968).

The moderator will no doubt now demand from Steve full documentation for all his statements. But I am not holding my breath.

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Post by Andreas » 12 Jul 2005 08:18

michael mills wrote: The moderator will no doubt now demand from Steve full documentation for all his statements. But I am not holding my breath.
Michael

That is rich. You are in absolutely no position to make observations like that when I am still waiting for documentation of your claims. Instead of wasting typing space with pointless observations like that, I suggest you spend the time digging for some proof of your contentions regarding Polish policy towards German territories east of the Oder-Neisse.

With that out of the way:

Steve, thanks for the information. I would like to know a bit more about the sources that your post is based on. I noticed Chamberlain's letters, and I presume these have been published. What other sources would you suggest for the matter?

All the best

Andreas

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”