How different would WW2 turned out if Poland accepted Hitler's offer

Good link which puts the national situation in perspective. The twists and turns that Harry prefers to take would make Houdini proud. The difference is (that) Houdini was able to escape his.

The facts are very simple: Poland agreed with Czechoslovakia what land belonged to Poland and what land belonged to Czechoslovakia. The two nations signed a treaty agreeing those borders. But then when Germany decided to invade and occupy parts of Czechoslovakia, Poland decided that it would join the Nazis and invade and occupy parts of Czechoslovakia, despite having just a decade and a half previously agreed that those lands were part of Czechoslovakia.

None of the insults thrown around here by supposed members of Polonia will ever change those simple facts.


And a similarity is that like me Houdini never stabbed his neighbours in the back and stole their houses. Unlike a certain CEE country in the interbellum period.

Sadly, no amount of links can change the reality - that Poland invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938.

Well nobody deny that and that wasn't what Chris has written in his post.

The so-called invasion affected about 250,000 people (correct me if I'm mistaken) and was not an invasion of Czechoslovakia which would include the whole country. Many Poles and those who thought of themselves as Poles in that area did not think of it as an invasion but as a liberation (back) to the homeland. In ironic fashion it could also be considered a defensive move to the overall military politics occurring during these frightful years of German buildup.

Does that make Katyn a 'so-called massacre' as it 'only' affected less than a tenth of that number of people? If you want to claim that, I'll have to disagree with you.


So I assume that you have no problems with the 'so-called' Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939: that all didn't include the whole of Poland. And millions of Poles suddenly realised that they were actually German, so presumably (by your logic) thought of the event as a liberation (back) to the homeland.

Ah yes, one of the most favorite subjects of Polonophobes :))) Punks forget that the whole thing happened already after the Munich and that part of that area was going to be taken over by the 3rd Reich. So much for cooperation with that mysterious nationa called Nazis :)))

There can be no other words - Poland invaded Czechoslovakia and kicked her hard in the face when the country was on its knees. Worth pointing out that most of those people didn't see themselves as Czech or Polish, but rather they identified with the local area. Still common, even today there.

The link is sadly biased - I quote -

Cieszyn was not the important rail junction - Bohumin is. It's also worth pointing out that there wasn't a clear Polish majority at all - these people identified with the local area, not the national cause (whatever it was).


Oh dear. The article completely glosses over the reality - that Czechoslovakia sent the troops in because Poland was breaking the interim agreement not to establish any national structures there.

That's only a small aspect of what is a terribly biased, nationalistic piece of work.


Better to let it be taken by the 3rd Reich and to have the moral upper hand than do anything to be associated with them.

For all the preaching about being the Christ of Nations, interbellum Poland was anything but.

You means something along the lines of "Poland's interbellum period: the Christ of Nations gone wild"?

Sounds like quite a good book!

I suspect Communism has much to do with the glorification of the 2nd Republic these days.

So further proof that Poland should have just taken Hitler's offer?

Well, the Polish government of 1938 was a lot more similar to the governments of Germany and the USSR than it was to those of France and the UK.

The difference is that people paid to watch Houdini perform, and people really wanted to see him.

Houdini didn't pay to be a member of a forum so he could disparage the country to which he emigrated and where he earned is fame and fortune.

Just because that was the overall strategy of British government at that time, led by a "gentleman" called Chamberlain, the most effective helper of Hitler and the mysterious nation called Nazis, it doesn't mean it was better.

Poland was stuck between a rock and a hard place, but her own diplomatic failings undoubtably didn't help things. I've said it before and I'll say it again - a Polish-Czechoslovak alliance backed by many countries that were neutral (such as Romania, Yugoslavia and the Baltic countries) would have presented a formidable foe against any aggressor. The almost total failure of Polish diplomacy lies at the door of Polish defeat, nothing else.


Why is it that so many people have problems understanding that you can criticise Polish history and yet still like Poland?

This nonsense view that criticising Polish history somehow makes you "Polonophobic" is nothing but the rantings of a deluded minority.

An alliance with Ukraine would certainly have helped too, if Poland hadn't sold independent Ukraine to the USSR anyway.

But then if France had stuck to her treaty with Czechoslovakia, the USSR would have done too and then Poland wouldn't have had much choice about which side to join.


In some ways it is not so surprising; I mean, we have problems understanding how they can claim they love Poland and want the best for Poland but at the same time they refuse to work for the good of Poland.

Certainly - who wouldn't want to have the UPA on their side? Bandera showed what they were willing to do for a Ukrainian state - they certainly would have been a useful ally. Still, I guess those roubles came in useful.

I think we can only call it "the curse of the faux-Polish patriot".

As LBJ observed about Hoover "It's probably better to have him inside the tent p*ssing out, than outside the tent p*ssing in".


I'm pretty sure that Poland didn't even manage to fully collect the payment that was agreed.


Faux-Polish Patriots: Hypocrisy gone wild.

Yes, that would have been the best, Poland was offering an alliance If Czechoslovakia decided to give back Polish populated areas, too bad it was turned down, too bad British leadership, instead of brokering a deal, was helping Nazis.

Too bad that Poland was willing to argue over areas that were neither here nor there rather than forming a military alliance that might have helped both countries. As I said, the II RP's diplomacy was absolutely dreadful - was 250,000 people really worth the consequences?

As for the British leadership, perhaps Poland should have taken the lead and never allowed Munich to happen in the first place?


Absolutely. I'd have fancied the Ukrainians against anyone in guerilla warfare.


And then they wonder why the Ukrainians were just ever so slightly ****** off.


Second part in a multi-volume Polish history collection?

You constantly miss the obvious. My comment about the "invasion of Czechoslovakia" was made to put it in perspective. It was not an invasion of the whole country as is implied. As to Katyn, call it what you want but as usual, you miss the reality because Katyn was not the only action taken against Poles by the Soviets or Nazis. Many more Poles died during the war. Curiously, you also compare or imply real Katyn deaths with the total Czech, Slovak, Polish population in that affected region. Read how you wrote it.

You make similar mistakes here:



You seem to lack logic when it comes to size, scope and population differences let alone reasons for the dissimilar actions. But that is your 'gift', dubious as it is.


Our anti Pole here has neither fame nor fortune. Perhaps that sad fact drives him to post the way he does.


Some were better and nastier Nazi guards than some Germans.....Initially, also greeted Nazis with open arms. ....

Joined? If you mean that they meet in conflict that you are right. But it wasn't some space Nazis but Germans, repeat Harry Germans.


Where is your country Harry? If you have none stop be jealous and talk smack about something you have no idea about.


Stop repeating that rubbish, how often your came backs are just sad and dry repetitions of already overused repertoire, you should learn as you go along and I'm sure that that qestion has been explained thoughtfully, only idiot or a person with malicious intent would saying things that he know to be untrue.


Such country never existed so couldn't have been sold. I see that you are up to your lies and trick.
Repeat after me Germans.


Criticizing? you are an ignorant but cheeky m***** who do know that much about Polish history and who do not understand history at all. The only one deluded is you.

We have two anti -Polish dudes in this thread. Anybody care to guess their names?[b][/b]

No, I mean that Poland and the Nazis both invaded parts of Czechoslovakia; there was no conflict in 1938 between the Nazis and Polish forces. Oh, and you may wish to note that the Nazi state at that point in time contained both Germany and Austria.


I have no idea what there is to be jealous about people taking pride in something which they had no control over whatsoever. I take pride in who I am and what I do.

Stop that anti-semitism.

Clser to Dolfuss's Austria though certain members of the pre-war government openly admired Italy.

In fact, all the facts should be put into perspective. Putting aside the question of Poland invading a part of Czechoslovakia, "the Nazis invading Czechoslovakia", as Harry puts it, is pure fantasy on the part of the latter. This action by the Nazis had nothing to do do with "invasion". It was a coordinated international action in which four parties: Britain, France, Italy and Germany agreed on what is so explicitly stated in the Munich Agreement of September 29, 1938:

Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Italy, taking into consideration the agreement, which has been already reached in principle for the cession to Germany of the Sudeten German territory, have agreed on the following terms and conditions governing the said cession and the measures consequent thereon [...]

I repeat, the text says of the cession of the part the territory of Czekoslovakia called 'the Sudeten German territory' agreed by the four contries, Britain infamously included, to Germany. What the hell does "cession" have to do with "invasion"?

In addition to that, Article 2 of the famous Agreement says: The United Kingdom, France and Italy agree that the evacuation of the territory shall be completed by 10th October, without any existing installations having been destroyed and that the Czechoslovak Government will be held responsible for carrying out the evacuation without damage to the said installations.

I know that signing the above agreement by the British Prime Minister may be an eternal shame for all the Anglo-Saxon race now and in the forseeable future, but I can see no reason why Harry incessantly hides the facts, constantly trying to take the blame off Britiain (world superpower of the time) by lying about the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia instead. Having read the Munich Agreement, one is obliged to conclude that the theory of "the invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Nazis", one of the most pompuous lies ever made by Harry on the PF, is wrong and misleading to all good people putting faith in it and putting faith in PF!

So if those parties agreed that the Sudeten territories would leave Czechoslovakia, where does Poland's invasion come in?

Trying to deflect the issue (that Poland annexed parts of Czechoslovakia) won't change the facts, will it?

Busy today but this poster unlike some here does put the Polish-Czech conflict in perspective:


nysun.com/comments/42437

If you are implying some kind of agreement between those two you are wrong.


trying to imply things and making big issue out of small border dispute is a clear sign that some trolls here are bored.
Fall of Czechoslovakia came in two stages, in the first stage Germans took The Sudetenland and Poland their Cieszyn.The Second stage seen de-integration of Czechoslovakia as a state and then when so called invasion had happened and Poland had no part in the stage two.

There is the thing, Poland paid Czechoslovakia tit for tat.
The Czechoslovakian government in pre-war times snubbed Poland many times believing themselves safe. They calculated that Poland is in danger from both Germany and Soviets, whereas Czechoslovakia seen only Germany as a potential danger and lulled themselves into false sense of security believing that have pretty sound and cordial relation with Soviets.

Also Czechoslovakian government for most part of the early XX century was a darling of western powers mainly France.They considered themselves being in a close and cordial alliance with France.

When out of the blue they have been sold down the river and they long standing ally though nothing of betraying them.
Here came part I don't understand. Seeing how so called western powers are treating their long standing and praised ally, how they disregard their oblivions how they easily exchanged honour for convenience without even as much as a bating an eyelid. How they could have take their empty promised as a face value and how they could have refuse Hitler's offers and overtures.

It is clear that it was the only rational course of action at the time.
what were they thinking?
That is the qestion.

Sadly that poster just lies about the conflict.


How strange that you think that such comments are to be recommended.


I see that you are lying again: Poland took territory that Poland had agreed was part of Czechoslovakia. The land that Poland took was not Polish, it was Czechoslovakian, as even the state of Poland had agreed when signing the international treaty confirming that fact.


Polish forces invaded Czech territory in 1918 and then Poland ignored the interim peace treaty. How is that tit for tat?!


Yet another lie from you: Britain had no alliance whatsoever with Czechoslovakia to honour when the Nazis and Poles decided they were going to invade Czechoslovakia and occupy Czechoslovakian territory.