Return PolishForums LIVE
  PolishForums Archive :
Archives - 2005-2009 / History  % width 67

THEY WOULDN'T LISTEN TO WISE OLD PIŁSUDSKI!!!!


Polonius3 1,000 | 12,448  
5 Jul 2009 /  #1
Had Piłsudski's notion of a federation of Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine -- a throwback to the Rzezpospolita Obojga Naroidów -- been accepted, teh Soviet Union would have probably collapsed before it got going.

When Hitler came to power in Germany, Piłsudski proposed a pre-emptive attack on Germany to nip Naziism in the bud to Britian and France, but the cowardly Brits and Frogs turned it down.

Even one of those projects -- the tripartite confederation or pre-emptive strike -- would have surely changed the course of European if not world history. What do you think?
sjam 2 | 541  
5 Jul 2009 /  #2
Why didn't Poland go it alone? Hadn't Poland's army soundly defeated the Red Army in the 1920's?
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
5 Jul 2009 /  #3
Certain people wouldn't have allowed it, Pol3. Nip Nazism in the bud, LOL. Be realistic! It was a fait accompli.
OP Polonius3 1,000 | 12,448  
5 Jul 2009 /  #4
In 1933 Germany was still quite weak militarily. TheHuns didn't march into the Rhineland until a few years alter. By then it would have been too late. Piłsudski reportedly was ready to go it alone if only France and Britain provided moral and material support without actually contributing troops, but again they said 'no'.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
5 Jul 2009 /  #5
Still, he hadn't begun annexing all manner of territories in 1933. Non-aggression pacts were the spirit of those times until the predestined course unfolded.
sjam 2 | 541  
5 Jul 2009 /  #6
Nip Nazism in the bud,

How far back would you have to go?

See:
Paul Winkler: The Thousand-Year Conspiracy - Secret Germany Behind the Mask (historical roots of Nazism)
written in 1943 and available as download: ftrreading.blogspot.com/2006/01/thousand-year-conspiracy.html

The Thousand-Year Conspiracy - Secret Germany Behind the Mask (1943) is probably one of the biggest exposes of the historical roots of what later became known as Nazism. From the origins of German chauvinism to the ascent of the Teutonic Knights within Germanic society which ultimately spawned the Nazi movement, Winkler skillfully traces the enablers of the dark side of the German character. Labelling them "Prusso-Teutonics" he notices that in their pursuit of Pan-German goals they do not hesitate to deal in a cynical and ruthless manner with their own citizens if necessary. The author goes deep into the history of medieval knights and related secret societies which served as a base for both political and economic philosophies of the later Nazi movement.

Seanus 15 | 19,706  
5 Jul 2009 /  #7
Well, exactly. Hitler bought time with non-aggression pacts and he gave some justifications for what should have appeared as imperialism. Chamberlain wasn't looking for a war, Germany and Britain had been trading partners and WWI had only finished about 15 years prior to Hitler's meteoric rise.
sjam 2 | 541  
5 Jul 2009 /  #8
Non-aggression pacts were the spirit of those times until the predestined course unfolded.

Certainly was, as hadn't Poland signed agreements with Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and then later with Britain and France! This frenetic paper signing might suggest a failure of Polish foreign policy?
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
5 Jul 2009 /  #9
I wouldn't call it a failure. It was a token gesture that they wanted peace on all fronts to build up its identity and solidify.

International agreement was the standard mechanism to use but we all know that countries saw/see fit to abandon them.
Pan Kazimierz 1 | 195  
5 Jul 2009 /  #10
Certainly was, as hadn't Poland signed agreements with Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and then later with Britain and France! This frenetic paper signing might suggest a failure of Polish foreign policy?

Yes, it probably does. A much better foreign policy probably would indeed have been a pre-emptive invasion of Germany.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
5 Jul 2009 /  #11
Could it be attributed to romanticism? It's easy with the benefit of hindsight but they genuinely believed that Germany was nursing wounds and wasn't looking for a broader war. Maybe Poles didn't see the ovations that Hitler got and the sentiment he aroused as a palliative against Versailles.

Another salient point is that Piłsudksi was more concerned with Russia, having fought in the AK against them. Mustering support among French and Brits was never gonna be easy anyway.
Babinich 1 | 455  
5 Jul 2009 /  #12
Had Piłsudski's notion of a federation of Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine -- a throwback to the Rzezpospolita Obojga Naroidów -- been accepted, teh Soviet Union would have probably collapsed before it got going.

Possibly; but without a firm commitment from the West, especially the English (David Lloyd George, the English prime minister, who decided to lift the Royal Navy’s blockade of Russia just as the Civil War seemed to be turning against the Reds) the Soviets were granted new life.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
5 Jul 2009 /  #13
Pol3, on what basis would Poland have formed an alliance with France and Britain? Why do you think that they didn't opt for a more solid option to stop Hitler?
Sokrates 8 | 3,346  
5 Jul 2009 /  #14
Why didn't Poland go it alone? Hadn't Poland's army soundly defeated the Red Army in the 1920's?

Because no one in their right mind suspected what Germany would be capable of.

Maybe Poles didn't see the ovations that Hitler got and the sentiment he aroused as a palliative against Versailles.

Sean no one in their mind would expect something like that, its only with hindsight that we know of concentration camps, gas chambers etc, if you told this to a 1920s Pole or even a German he'd think you're nuts.

Decades later the same Pole was working in a concentration camp and the same German was cheering his idol wall painter.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
5 Jul 2009 /  #15
Sokrates, that was my point. Nobody really knew the extent of the evil that he posed as they were secretly hidden maps and plans. It began to get more apparent but no insiders leaked anything to outside intel so everyone was in the dark outside of Germany.
Nathan 18 | 1,363  
5 Jul 2009 /  #16
Nobody really knew the extent of the evil that he posed as they were secretly hidden maps and plans.

Absolutely, Poland even didn't know about Tcheckoslovakia invasion by Polish army and stealing their land. It was Germans who devised the plan in Berlin and only notified Poles at the last moment. "Hey, Poles, tomorrow you invade Tcheckoslovakia and don't forget to grab the land for yourself. Truly yours, Germans. 1939" Those Germans..., they always do evil things and poor Poles are somehow unaware of all that. Sh*t. Why don't you use Vatican counter-intelligance which was quite powerful at that moment?
OP Polonius3 1,000 | 12,448  
5 Jul 2009 /  #17
Brits and Frogs have long been known for their shopkeeper's mentality. To hell with ideals when there's a franc or pound to be made!!!
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
5 Jul 2009 /  #18
When you go beyond the mainstream accounts, you always find that it's much more complicated than that.

You still haven't provided solid evidence for Britain and France joining an alliance, Pol3.
Torq 28 | 2,768  
5 Jul 2009 /  #19
Absolutely, Poland even didn't know about Tcheckoslovakia invasion by Polish army and stealing their land. It

And I thought you were a smart fellow, Nathan :(

In 1938 Poland only took back what the Czechs stole from us when our army
was busy fighting red hordes in the Polish-Soviet war.

The rest of your post is just pure nonsense and sh*it stirring.
1jola 14 | 1,879  
5 Jul 2009 /  #20
Re: non-aggression pacts. Why do nations even sign these? It's like writing an agreement with your neighbour that you will not rape his wife.

Sean no one in their mind would expect something like that, its only with hindsight that we know of concentration camps, gas chambers etc, if you told this to a 1920s Pole or even a German he'd think you're nuts.

The extent of the agression would have been unknown, but had they paid attention to Mein Kampf, the design was laid out for all to study very early on.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
5 Jul 2009 /  #21
Piłsudski was overly buoyant too. January 1934 was a telling moment when he signed the non-aggression pact with Germany. His short-termism is what cost him dearly. French and British arrogance really didn't help. They blamed Poland for appeasement but that was carried through as far as 1938-39 anyway, they were guilty of that too.

They made a play for balance but it failed. Piłsudski didn't have the means to make Poland a great power as he failed to modernise. His romantic notions were badly exposed by Hitler and then we all know what happened.

Piłsudski just didn't have an answer but he knew there was trouble brewing. This was acknowledged by Prof Jędrzejewicz.
sjam 2 | 541  
5 Jul 2009 /  #22
Because no one in their right mind suspected what Germany would be capable of.

At the time Piłsudski proposed a pre-emptive attack on Germany surely it didn't matter one bit what Hitler and Germnay did or didn't do after 1939 as it hadn't happened when Piłsudski proposed a pre-emptive strike!

The fact that Piłsudski contemplated such a radical action meant that he must had have good reason to think this was a sensible course of action to be taken by Poland. Why wait for the British or French, or even more importantly why even ask them—given the post below?

the English (David Lloyd George, the English prime minister, who decided to lift the Royal Navy’s blockade of Russia just as the Civil War seemed to be turning against the Reds) the Soviets were granted new life.

The question is why did Poland not act alone given Polish army had seen off the Red Army? Was it because Poland hadn't actually got the financial reserves to pay for a unilateral war against Germany so needed support from others?

What was Piłsudski's plan for Germany if Poland, Briatin and France had of beaten Hitler's forces? Was he intending to carve up Germany between the three partners or just pull out and leave German to its own destiny again?
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
5 Jul 2009 /  #23
Poland didn't have the technology that the Nazis had. They had 1 tank to Germany's 10. Piłsudski didn't even take steps to create sth like the RAF or Luftwaffe. Where were the armoured units?

The Polish army was depleted after its encounter with The Red Army. Piłsudski assumed that what he had was effective against the Russians and he never gave the Germans much thought, seeing Hitler as an idiot to be placated for barking.
OP Polonius3 1,000 | 12,448  
5 Jul 2009 /  #24
Chronology is important here. The Polish-German non-aggression pact was signed in 1934, a year after Hitler had come to power. Seeing that the French and Brits could not be counted on for a joint coampaing, Piłsudski had no other choice. What he had in mind for Germany if Hitler could be toppled is unknown (at least to me). Probably he would have taken back long-lost Polish territories and had what was left consigned to protectorate status or at least eternal demilitarisation, with Poland, France and Britain as guarantors of Germany's its security against potnetial third-party aggressors. But this is all highly speculative. If the tripartite federation had come into existence in the east, the resultant Pax Polonica could have guaranteed peace and security to Europe for the next century. Through his brother, Piłsudski had good ties with Japan. The Japs could have been guarantors of stability on the eastern flank of a post-Soviet Russia.

Here is one link that may be of interest: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-German_non-aggression_pact
Agricola - | 6  
5 Jul 2009 /  #25
The Japs could have been guarantors of stability on the eastern flank of a post-Soviet Russia.

1930s Japanese foreign policy was one of expansionism, hardly a guarantor of stability.

Although avoiding a European war would be desireable in itself, would invasion and occupation of Germany be in the best interests of Europe? Especially a Germany that was already making huge leaps forward in economic output and where nationalistic feeling was rising. We may have been able to avoid Hitler in hindsight but there would have been a successor to him.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
5 Jul 2009 /  #26
The point is, Pol3, that Piłsudski largely ignored what the Germans were doing, being so focussed on Russia. Poland, in 1932, had bought some breathing space when they signed a non-aggression pact with Russia. It was just naivety and complacence more than anything else.
sjam 2 | 541  
6 Jul 2009 /  #27
Probably he would have taken back long-lost Polish territories

Maybe this was the real reason for Piłsudski wanting a pre-emptive strike while he perceived Germany in a weak position of transition under the Nazi take over of power—less to do with nipping Nazism in the bud but more to do with Piłsudski's ambitions of regaining long-lost territory and this maybe part of the reasons France and Britain were not willing to go along with Piłsudski?

Do you have the precise dates of Piłsudski's meeting(s) with British Ambassador or formal requests to British Government for assistance to go to war with Germany alongside Poland and France? I frequently visit the National Archives in London and would be interested one day to see what official documents there are in the government archives related to Piłsudski's plans.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346  
6 Jul 2009 /  #28
Maybe this was the real reason for Piłsudski wanting a pre-emptive strike while he perceived Germany

Or maybe not, Piłsudski was conscious of what Germany really is, he was concerned more about Russia because Russia was always bigger, stronger and a long term threat, Germany started a tytanic war but it lasted only 5 years, Russia started USSR and it lasted half a century.

in the bud but more to do with Piłsudski's ambitions of regaining long-lost territory and this maybe part of the reasons France and Britain were not willing to go along with Piłsudski?

Britain then as later was complacent in ignorance of what Germany is and those Brits who knew had their own goals to roll with it, UK was completely ready to sacrifice Poland over Germany, they only entered the war when they realized Germany would not allow them to retain their empire.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
7 Jul 2009 /  #29
Hitler called the bluff of the Brits. He relied on old partnerships in commerce and felt that they wouldn't detect their plans for lebensraum in such sinister fashion. I don't think the empire played much of a part here, Sokrates.

I agree on the German part.
Ironside 49 | 10,197  
7 Jul 2009 /  #30
And I thought you were a smart fellow, Nathan :(

really ? did you read his posts?

Archives - 2005-2009 / History / THEY WOULDN'T LISTEN TO WISE OLD PIŁSUDSKI!!!!Archived