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


Ironside Activity: 42 / 7,677
Joined: 26 Feb 2009 ♂
 
18 May 2013  #151

Don't give me this quote crap... read between the lines, Hitler insinuates that the Germanic people are Aryan and not the "lower peoples" ...

Well you can read between the lines or even between pages if you want but the fact remain that there isn't any such quote in Hitler's book. You have been caught.

The fact is that Hitler classified people as lower or not according to his whims with an exception of Jews and Bolsheviks.

Why would Poland accept Hitler's agreement, when there is so much hostility towards East Prussia?

What are you talking about?

ust because there is no exact sentence to reference that, does not mean that the entirety of the book could not insinuate that.

Hitler wanted Poland in his camp. He wanted to use them to fight Soviets whom he seen as communist in his mind it equalled the world Jewry.

His beef with Poland and Poles came to be about the fact that Poland resisted him and fought hard against him. For Hitler they action were irrational as he offered Poland alliance.

I read it and although he didn't say sub human he detested Slavs

Yet he worked with Slovakia and Croatia all right. Even Czechs were not that badly treated as Poles. In fact they were doing all right in comparison.

Lenka Activity: 2 / 1,070
Joined: 17 Nov 2009 ♀
 
18 May 2013  #152

True but we can only wonder how it would look like if he won the war. From what I know he liked Polish creativity but hated the disorder. Well, either way I'm glad Poland wasn't Hitler's ally
Des Essientes Activity: 7 / 1,297
Joined: 6 Feb 2010 ♂
 
18 May 2013  #153

he detested Slavs and had big problems with them. One of his problems with Austria was that they allowed to many Slavs to live there.

Hitler was an Austrian that joined the German army, rather than the Austrian army, in WW1 because he didn't want to serve in an army containing such a high percentage of Slavs.

True but we can only wonder how it would look like if he won the war.

Indeed, threads like this one, that proport to give "answers" to questions involving massive counter-factuals, may be interesting to read but these answers have absolutely no historical value. History is about what actually happened and no one can claim to know the truth about how WW2 would've turned out if the titular counter-factual had actually happened.
Lenka Activity: 2 / 1,070
Joined: 17 Nov 2009 ♀
 
18 May 2013  #154

Indeed, threads like this one, that proport to give "answers" to questions involving massive counter-factuals, may be interesting to read but these answers have absolutely no historical value. History is about what actually happened and no one can claim to know the truth about how WW2 would've turned out if the titular counter-factual had actually happened.

True, it doesn't have any historical value but it can be fun :) Of course as long as everybody treats it exactly that why- as harmless entertainment :)
Harry Activity: 67 / 12,868
Joined: 2 May 2007 ♂
 
18 May 2013  #155

Wow. I actually agree with every word Des said!
Ironside Activity: 42 / 7,677
Joined: 26 Feb 2009 ♂
 
18 May 2013  #156

Hitler was an Austrian that joined the German army, rather than the Austrian army, in WW1 because he didn't want to serve in an army containing such a high percentage of Slavs.

Rather because he admired Prussic Empire.

Indeed, threads like this one, that proport to give "answers" to questions involving massive counter-factuals, may be interesting to read but these answers have absolutely no historical value. History is about what actually happened and no one can claim to know the truth about how WW2 would've turned out if the titular counter-factual had actually happened.

That is obviously what if qestion and none is pretending otherwise.
Although that could be interesting as a means to find out rationale behind Poland decision to refute German offer of alliance. So far it seems like a mistake.

It is even more pressing that you know as Poland at the moment is in fact German close "partner" not to say "younger partner". Question:

Was all those sacrifices and looses including lost of half of Polish territory and then 46 years of Soviet occupation were all for nought as Poland is back in the square one and in close relationship with Germany.

True but we can only wonder how it would look like if he won the war.

well would he won or would he just destroyed Soviets? that is the qestion for which there is no answer.
Only suggestion that given more time the western powers and the USA would have to really put their back into it and win the war in fact.
jon357 Activity: 55 / 10,763
Joined: 15 Mar 2012 ♂
 
18 May 2013  #157

Rather because he admired Prussic Empire.

This is true.

Was all those sacrifices and looses including lost of half of Polish territory and then 46 years of Soviet occupation were all for nought as Poland is back in the square one and in close relationship with Germany.

I remember decades ago, a Pole saying that Germany was bad for a few years but Russia was bad for a few hundred years.

Pilsudski always saw Poland's best interests as looking West rather than East.
MrAlbert Activity: 3 / 35
Joined: 13 May 2013 ♂
 
18 May 2013  #158

Here is a question. How different would it be if Stalin actually came to apolands aid from the east rather than partition Poland?
Ironside Activity: 42 / 7,677
Joined: 26 Feb 2009 ♂
 
18 May 2013  #159

ilsudski always saw Poland's best interests as looking West rather than East.

He was rather of the mind that Poland should best rely on her own policies and strengths.
jon357 Activity: 55 / 10,763
Joined: 15 Mar 2012 ♂
 
18 May 2013  #160

The two are not incompatible, nor did he see Poland as isolationist.
Chris R Activity: 1 / 38
Joined: 9 Jul 2012 ♂
 
18 May 2013  #161

Pilsudski always claimed that he was a Lithuanian, and he wanted to recreate the Commonwealth, which was more than only Poland.

It was the idiot Dmowski who had a small minded view of only Poland.

The events of WWII proved that Pilsudski was correct. He was a great man surrounded by idiots, and not only in Poland.
jon357 Activity: 55 / 10,763
Joined: 15 Mar 2012 ♂
 
18 May 2013  #162

It was the idiot Dmowski who had a small minded view of only Poland.

The events of WWII proved that Pilsudski was correct. He was a great man surrounded by idiots, and not only in Poland.

Absolutely spot on.

Have you read much about his brother? A very interesting and far-sighted guy in his own right.
Ironside Activity: 42 / 7,677
Joined: 26 Feb 2009 ♂
 
18 May 2013  #163

Pilsudski always claimed that he was a Lithuanian, and he wanted to recreate the Commonwealth, which was more than only Poland.

It was the idiot Dmowski who had a small minded view of only Poland.

The events of WWII proved that Pilsudski was correct. He was a great man surrounded by idiots, and not only in Poland.

Poland had no resources and necessary pull to destroy Bolsheviks as the Marshal policy translated.
call1n Activity: 2 / 73
Joined: 9 Nov 2012 ♂
 
19 May 2013  #164

Well you can read between the lines or even between pages if you want but the fact remain that there isn't any such quote in Hitler's book. You have been caught.
The fact is that Hitler classified people as lower or not according to his whims with an exception of Jews and Bolsheviks.

You are right (you caught me) but he viewed the Slavs as subject to Bolshevik rule because he viewed them as weaker...
This is implied and not directly stated.

What are you talking about?

Hitler's admiration for East Prussia, and Prussia in general did not look good in terms of any alliances or agreements with Poland.

Hitler wanted Poland in his camp. He wanted to use them to fight Soviets whom he seen as communist in his mind it equalled the world Jewry.
His beef with Poland and Poles came to be about the fact that Poland resisted him and fought hard against him. For Hitler they action were irrational as he offered Poland alliance.

It was not irrational because of East Prussia. Hitler invaded Poland to defend the Germans living there... almost like Russia invasion to defend its citizens living there.
Ozi Dan Activity: 26 / 569
Joined: 22 Nov 2007 ♂
 
24 May 2013  #165

He wanted to use them to fight Soviets whom he seen as communist in his mind it equalled the world Jewry.

Wasn't it the case mate that towards the end of the war he or Himmler tried to set up a Polish unit to fight the Soviets under Nazi auspices that went nowhere because only a few dozen Poles volunteered?
Ironside Activity: 42 / 7,677
Joined: 26 Feb 2009 ♂
 
24 May 2013  #166

Towards the end of the war they were looking for anybody to fight the Soviets (1943-1944). Fact is that the Nazis have been trying to approach Polish Underground and convince them to fight against Soviets. Details are little hazy but that proposition has been rejected, yet until the Warsaw Rising Germans kept that option open.

They captured general "Arrow" Rowecki the first commander of the Home Army and over a year were holding him and were trying to convince him to German option. when the rising started he was executed.
call1n Activity: 2 / 73
Joined: 9 Nov 2012 ♂
 
24 May 2013  #167

They captured general "Arrow" Rowecki the first commander of the Home Army and over a year were holding him and were trying to convince him to German option. when the rising started he was executed.

Looking at it in retrospect, how Britain and America screwed Poland, it seems like it would be obvious for Poland to fight the Soviets, that that would be the right decision, however before being stabbed in the back it is hard to know it. Germany did not have a very good policy towards Poland.
Ozi Dan Activity: 26 / 569
Joined: 22 Nov 2007 ♂
 
24 May 2013  #168

Looking at it in retrospect, how Britain and America screwed Poland,

Just because you got 'screwed over' by a friend doesn't mean you side with the Devil. What do you think?
sofijufka Activity: 2 / 191
Joined: 13 Mar 2012 ♀
 
24 May 2013  #169

general "Arrow" Rowecki the first commander of the Home Army

hmmmm.... "Grot" - in english should be rather "Spearhead" than "Arrow"
Ironside Activity: 42 / 7,677
Joined: 26 Feb 2009 ♂
 
24 May 2013  #170

Not really dear Madam.
sofijufka Activity: 2 / 191
Joined: 13 Mar 2012 ♀
 
24 May 2013  #171

OK - arrow-head is better?
Spearhead [grot} - : the sharp-pointed head of a spear
arrowhead [grot] - : a wedge-shaped piercing tip usually fixed to an arrow
in polish: grot - a tip, usually sharpened, added to an arrow or spear to make it more deadly or to fulfill some special purpose.
Ironside Activity: 42 / 7,677
Joined: 26 Feb 2009 ♂
 
24 May 2013  #172

OK - arrow-head is better?

It is better but it doesn't sound that good in English as an "Arrow" as a pseudonym. "Arrow-head" bring to mind "Butt-head" and being shafted.

"Arrow" sounds much better and is also meronym of the world "arrow-head".
Is that good enough for you Dear Madam?
Space Cadet Activity: 1 / 19
Joined: 18 Jan 2012 ♂
 
25 May 2013  #173

"Arrow", on the other hand, sounds like a direction pointing arrow. In translations you are using synonyms not meronyms. There are exceptions of course, but this is not one of them. It doesn't matter which translation sounds "good" in English. What matters is which one is closer in meaning to the true polish original, Mister.
Ironside Activity: 42 / 7,677
Joined: 26 Feb 2009 ♂
 
25 May 2013  #174

It doesn't matter which translation sounds "good" in English.

Of course it does, if all would be that simple as you say then Google translations would suffice.
Space Cadet Activity: 1 / 19
Joined: 18 Jan 2012 ♂
 
25 May 2013  #175

Wikii uses an interesting convention:
Stefan Pawe³ Rowecki (pseudonym: Grot, "Spearhead," hence the alternate name, Stefan Grot-Rowecki (...).
General Count Tadeusz Komorowski (...), better known by the name Bór-Komorowski (after one of his wartime code-names: Bór - "The Forest")

Original pseudo is used with only one translation in brackets. That's probably what we should do.

Out of the two ("sounds better" and "closer to the original") only the latter makes sense. We're not translating literature, only one word, not some text.

What sounds better is a question of taste and your taste is very original, to say the least.
Ironside Activity: 42 / 7,677
Joined: 26 Feb 2009 ♂
 
25 May 2013  #176

What sounds better is a question of taste and your taste is very original, to say the least.

Well, in my opinion "Arrow" is more suitable as a pseudonym of a commanding general. Also I wouldn't use "Grot" in this contexts because that word in the English langude means number of things and all of them unpleasant or gross.
call1n Activity: 2 / 73
Joined: 9 Nov 2012 ♂
 
3 Jun 2013  #177

You complain that my post about the Jews being not liable for their war crimes because they were classified as Soviets as being off topic. I don't think that it was because that topic was about memorial statues... Now I think your discussion here has nothing to do with the above topic.
pawian Activity: 127 / 6,582
Joined: 30 May 2008 ♂
 
19 Jun 2013  #178

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

Without going into details, if Poland had accepted it, our population losses during the war would have been much lower, I suppose.

But today we would live in a country of the size of Lithuania - only with central lands, without those in Western or easterns parts. And the Polish coastline would be still 145 km like before the war.
OP pierogi2000 Activity: 4 / 230
Joined: 2 May 2013 ♂
 
22 Jul 2013  #179

WW2 = Whites killing Whites

Look at so many Western/European cultures now
jon357 Activity: 55 / 10,763
Joined: 15 Mar 2012 ♂
 
22 Jul 2013  #180

More the evil of Nazism being destroyed once and for all at great human cost.




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.