The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered [2]  |  Archives [1] 
 
Witamy, Guest  |  Members
Home / History188

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


ZIMMY Activity: 7 / 1,607
Joined: 21 Feb 2009 ♂
 
14 May 2013  #91

Interbellum Poland had a policy of strict neutrality between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. The following author also soundly refutes the absurd claim by our trolls that Poland conspired to carve up Czechoslovakia:
Anna M. Cienciala, The Foreign Policy Of Józef Pi³sudski And Józef Beck, 1926-1939: Misconceptions And Interpretations

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.

Harry Activity: 67 / 12,868
Joined: 2 May 2007 ♂
 
14 May 2013  #92

The twists and turns that Harry prefers to take would make Houdini proud.

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.

The difference is (that) Houdini was able to escape his.

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.
delphiandomine Activity: 56 / 15,047
Joined: 25 Nov 2008 ♂
 
14 May 2013  #93

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.

Sadly, no amount of links can change the reality - that Poland invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938.
Ironside Activity: 42 / 7,677
Joined: 26 Feb 2009 ♂
 
14 May 2013  #94

Well nobody deny that and that wasn't what Chris has written in his post.
ZIMMY Activity: 7 / 1,607
Joined: 21 Feb 2009 ♂
 
14 May 2013  #95

Poland invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938.

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.
Harry Activity: 67 / 12,868
Joined: 2 May 2007 ♂
 
14 May 2013  #96

The so-called invasion affected about 250,000 people (correct me if I'm mistaken)

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.

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.

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.
Grzegorz_ Activity: 52 / 6,248
Joined: 16 Nov 2006 ♂
 
14 May 2013  #97

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 :)))
delphiandomine Activity: 56 / 15,047
Joined: 25 Nov 2008 ♂
 
14 May 2013  #98

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.

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 -

At that time, Zaolzie, covering two thirds of the western part of the Duchy, had a clear Polish majority, a fact recognized in the agreement concluded by local Polish and Czech councils to divide the area into Polish and Czech administrative regions. The Czechoslovak government, however, did not recognize the local agreement; it claimed Zaolzie as part of the historic lands of the Bohemian Crown. It also claimed that Czechoslovakia needed the region's Karvina coal mines, which provided high-grade coking coal for the steel and engineering industries of the region, as well as the town of Cieszyn because it was the key railway junction between Bohemia and Slovakia.

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).

Pi³sudski sent a special delegation to Prague to negotiate an agreement with the Czechoslovak government in December 1918, but the delegates found it unwilling to do so. In early 1919, just before elections to the Polish parliament, and while most Polish troops were fighting the Ukrainians over Eastern Galicia and resisting the Red Army elsewhere, Czech troops moved into the region and, after some bloodshed, took it over.

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.

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 :)))

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.
Harry Activity: 67 / 12,868
Joined: 2 May 2007 ♂
 
14 May 2013  #99

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"?
delphiandomine Activity: 56 / 15,047
Joined: 25 Nov 2008 ♂
 
14 May 2013  #100

Sounds like quite a good book!

I suspect Communism has much to do with the glorification of the 2nd Republic these days.
OP pierogi2000 Activity: 4 / 230
Joined: 2 May 2013 ♂
 
14 May 2013  #101

So further proof that Poland should have just taken Hitler's offer?
Harry Activity: 67 / 12,868
Joined: 2 May 2007 ♂
 
14 May 2013  #102

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.
Chris R Activity: 1 / 38
Joined: 9 Jul 2012 ♂
 
14 May 2013  #103

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 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.
Grzegorz_ Activity: 52 / 6,248
Joined: 16 Nov 2006 ♂
 
14 May 2013  #104

Better to let it be taken by the 3rd Reich

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.
delphiandomine Activity: 56 / 15,047
Joined: 25 Nov 2008 ♂
 
14 May 2013  #105

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

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.

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.

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.
Harry Activity: 67 / 12,868
Joined: 2 May 2007 ♂
 
14 May 2013  #106

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.

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.

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

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.
delphiandomine Activity: 56 / 15,047
Joined: 25 Nov 2008 ♂
 
14 May 2013  #107

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

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.

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.

I think we can only call it "the curse of the faux-Polish patriot".
Harry Activity: 67 / 12,868
Joined: 2 May 2007 ♂
 
14 May 2013  #108

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.

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".

Still, I guess those roubles came in useful.

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

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

Faux-Polish Patriots: Hypocrisy gone wild.
Grzegorz_ Activity: 52 / 6,248
Joined: 16 Nov 2006 ♂
 
14 May 2013  #109

a Polish-Czechoslovak alliance

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.
delphiandomine Activity: 56 / 15,047
Joined: 25 Nov 2008 ♂
 
14 May 2013  #110

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?

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".

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

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

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

Faux-Polish Patriots: Hypocrisy gone wild.

Second part in a multi-volume Polish history collection?
ZIMMY Activity: 7 / 1,607
Joined: 21 Feb 2009 ♂
 
15 May 2013  #111

Does that make Katyn a 'so-called massacre' as it 'only' affected less than a tenth of that number of people?

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:

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,

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.

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.

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

Ukrainians were just ever so slightly ****** off.

Some were better and nastier Nazi guards than some Germans.....Initially, also greeted Nazis with open arms. ....
Ironside Activity: 42 / 7,677
Joined: 26 Feb 2009 ♂
 
15 May 2013  #112

Either way, I note that not even you can bring yourself to deny that Poland joined with the Nazis in invading Czechoslovakia in 1938.

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.

Faux-Polish Patriots: Hypocrisy gone wild.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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]
Harry Activity: 67 / 12,868
Joined: 2 May 2007 ♂
 
15 May 2013  #113

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.

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.

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

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.
Grzegorz_ Activity: 52 / 6,248
Joined: 16 Nov 2006 ♂
 
15 May 2013  #114

No, I mean that Poland and the Nazis both invaded parts of Czechoslovakia

Stop that anti-semitism.
jon357 Activity: 55 / 10,763
Joined: 15 Mar 2012 ♂
 
15 May 2013  #115

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.

Indeed.

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.

Clser to Dolfuss's Austria though certain members of the pre-war government openly admired Italy.
Ziemowit Activity: 7 / 2,248
Joined: 8 May 2009 ♂
 
15 May 2013  #116

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

I mean that Poland and the Nazis both invaded parts of Czechoslovakia

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!
delphiandomine Activity: 56 / 15,047
Joined: 25 Nov 2008 ♂
 
15 May 2013  #117

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?
ZIMMY Activity: 7 / 1,607
Joined: 21 Feb 2009 ♂
 
15 May 2013  #118

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

Poland did not invade Czechoslovakia. When Hitler invaded Czecholovakia Poland took back the small area of Teschen Czechoslovakia grabbed from Poland when Poland was at war with Bolshevik Russia. They did this when Poland was extremely vulnerable and they did this by putting on the uniforms of World War II non-Czech Allied forces. Teschen is a mixed Polish-Czech enclave which split up naturally by the local population into a part which joined Czechoslovakia and the other which joined Poland. When the Czechs realized that the Polish area had natural resources they desired they invaded the Polish section of Teschen and forcefully annexed it. Poland could not counter as they were in a life and death struggle with the Soviet Union.

http://www.nysun.com/comments/42437
Ironside Activity: 42 / 7,677
Joined: 26 Feb 2009 ♂
 
15 May 2013  #119

No, I mean that Poland and the Nazis both invaded parts of Czechoslovakia;

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

Trying to deflect the issue

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.
Harry Activity: 67 / 12,868
Joined: 2 May 2007 ♂
 
15 May 2013  #120

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

Sadly that poster just lies about the conflict.

. When Hitler invaded Czecholovakia Poland took back the small area of Teschen Czechoslovakia grabbed from Poland when Poland was at war with Bolshevik Russia. .... When the Czechs realized that the Polish area had natural resources they desired they invaded the Polish section of Teschen and forcefully annexed it. Poland could not counter as they were in a life and death struggle with the Soviet Union.

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

Fall of Czechoslovakia came in two stages, in the first stage Germans took The Sudetenland and Poland their Cieszyn.

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.

There is the thing, Poland paid Czechoslovakia tit for tat.

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

Seeing how so called western powers are treating their long standing and praised ally,

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.




Home / History /
How different would WW2 turned out if Poland accepted Hitler's offer
Bold Italic [quote]
Click this icon to move up back to the quoted message. Polish letters:
 
To post as guest, enter a temporary and unique username or login and post as a member.