Poland did reasonably well in land terms out of the postwar settlement

You see its not quite as simple as that, since the territory that the Poles took from the Czechs at the time (Zaolzie), had a Polish majority population which wanted to be part of the Polish state, the Czechs formed a minority in that piece of land. You can read about the history of the place here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaolzie

Furthermore the Czechs got this piece of land by very dubious means: " On 31 October 1918, at the dusk of World War I and the dissolution of Austria-Hungary, the majority of the area was taken over by local Polish authorities supported by armed forces.[18] The interim agreement of 2 November 1918 reflected the inability of the two national councils to come to final delimitation.[17] On 5 November 1918, the area was divided between Poland and Czechoslovakia by an interim agreement of two local self-government councils (Czech Zemský národní výbor pro Slezsko and Polish Rada Narodowa Księstwa Cieszyńskiego).[19] Before that, the majority of the area was taken over by Polish local authorities. In 1919 both councils were absorbed by the newly created and independent central governments in Prague and Warsaw. The former was not satisfied with this compromise and on 23 January 1919 invaded the area[20][21] while Poland was engaged in its war against the West Ukrainian National Republic."

And furthermore if the Poles left this bit of land with a Polish majority alone, then the Germans would have taken it anyway, and I am sure that the locals would have much preferred to be under Polish control.

hague1cmaeron


This may be correct, but the same can be said for the so-called "Sudetenland". The vast German majority is these lands - more that 3 million Germans - never wanted to be a part of the pan-Slavic Czechoslovakian state in which they were forced to live after 1918.

For Poland must be said that this annexion of territory was a kick in the teeth for the Western democracies like UK and France. In November 1938 Poland was completely isolated with regards to foreign affairs. The Brits said openly they are not willing to support a country any longer that helps to destroy neighbor states.

The British, along with the French, were the ones who allowed the destruction of Czechoslovakia. They played bigger role than the Poles, signed the Munich agreement and gave the Nazis free hand to carve up a quarter of Czechoslovakia's territory. You do assess them as 'good forces'?

You are always smarter afterwards, and I think now it's pretty obvious that the Munich Agreement was a big mistake. The western allies should have never allowed Germany, Hungary and also Poland to carve up Czechoslovakia, which was the only democratic state that was left in the area. If all democratic states would have cooperated there might have been a chance to isolate Nazi Germany and to prevent the Second World War.

Although I agree with "hague1cmaeron" that the problem of the Czechoslovak state was a very complex one, because there is no doubt that the inhabitants of the Olsa territory would have voted for unification with Poland, as well as the Sudeten Germans would have joined the German state and the Hungarian minority in Slovakia was yearning for re-unification with Hungary.

Nevertheless Poland alienated the only true allies it had: France and the UK. After the Munich agreement Poland was completely isolated. Hitler said afterwards: "Now there is Poland in the role I want to have it - completely isolated" and sentences like "My enemies are small worms. I saw them in Munich!".

Since I am a German referring about the time close before WWII in a Polish forum I want to make clear one thing: Please understand I do not point my finger at Poland, nore I intend to diminish the German primary debt regarding the beginning of WWII. It just attracted my attention that some posters in this forum postulated that Poles and Poland have higher ethical standards than others, which is not the case in my point of view. From a country with "higher moral values" I would have expected not to help to destroy a democratic neighbor state, even in tough times like in 1938.

Help ? In what way hep ? Czechoslovakia was doomed anyway, they even refused to defend themselves, Poland if anything was taking back what was stolen by the very same democratic country. In fact that plot of land has been taken from a grasping German hand!

Helping? Germany didn't need any help. They supposed to take only Sudetenland but they took all.

a) What exactly could the British have done to stop the Nazi invasion which would have followed the Munich conference if Hitler hadn't got what he wanted?

b) What exactly did the British owe to the Czechoslovaks? It wasn't Britain that signed a treaty with Czechoslovakia about Czechoslovakian borders and then invaded Czechoslovakia.


No, it was agreed by Poland that that territory belonged to Czechoslovakia. But as soon as a chance came to grab what had not been Poland for 600 years, Poland forgot all about her treaty obligations and grabbed the land.

Really? Since when you are keen on agreements ie British help for Poland in 1939.?
However there were no Czechoslovakia but German territory and Protectorate. In fact as Czechoslovakia no longer exist today they should give the rest of the Cieszyn back.


What about Lwów then ? Never been in Ukrainian hands at all.

I would leave the Polish borders were they are. Don't open Pandora's box again! Because I agree, that "Poland did reasonably well in land terms out of the postwar settlement".


This is what the English Wikipedia says "Lviv was founded in 1256 in Red Ruthenia by King Danylo Halytskyi of the Ruthenian principality of Halych-Volhynia, and named in honour of his son, Lev. Together with the rest of Red Ruthenia, Lviv was captured by the Kingdom of Poland in 1349 during the reign of Polish king Casimir III the Great. Lviv belonged to the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland 1349–1772, the Austrian Empire 1772–1918 and the Second Polish Republic 1918-1939."

Even if it's true that Lviv never was Ukrainian, it is Ukrainian since 1945. If you don't acknowledge that fact it would bring the Polish presence in that what some of you call "Recovered territories" in a dangerous position. Again: Don't open Pandora's box and leave the borders where they are!

Otherwise you would lose one of Poland's greatest assets: Having no border disputes with your neighbor countries!

As always at this point, I will now ask you to go into detail as to the ways in which Britain could have aided Poland pursuant to the Anglo-Polish treaty of August 1939 but failed to do. As always you will fail to answer the question and will most probably instead start throwing insults. That is because we all know the real answer to that question.


There are actually some Poles who are idiotic enough to think that Poland should have border disputes in order to get back 'lost' territory!

I don't care, agreement is agreement as your are quick to point out some real or imaginary Polish fault - n'est-ce pas?


Just saying - we are discussing stuff in here !


It is true ! It is Ukrainian since 1991, before that it was Soviet.


That is BS and disinformation.


Why would be that? What moral ground possible Germany could have to enter into such dispute? They have only themselves to blame for their eastern border.

The agreement was indeed an agreement, and Britain stuck very much to the terms of it.

So did Poland in case of Czechoslovakia.

No: in the Czechoslovak-Polish Treaty of 24 April 1925 Poland agreed that certain areas were part of Czechoslovakia and Czechoslovakia agreed that certain areas were part of Poland. Then in 1938 as part of the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia Poland invaded territory which on 24 April 1925 it had agreed were not part of Poland, i.e. it invaded and occupied what it had agreed to be Czechoslovak territory.

The illegitimacy of Polish actions in 1938 is reflect by the fact that the current border is the same as the one agreed in 1925.

No, there was no Czechoslovakia and no resistants the country resigned themselves to the German rule. Surly you cannot keep an agreement with a nonexistent country, can you ?

Please do not lie: in 1938 there was most certainly an independent country called Ceskoslovenska republika, the second Czechoslovak republic.

As for not keeping an agreement with a non-existent country, Britain certainly did with regard to the treaty it signed with Poland in August 1939.

Britain keep that part of an agreement which suited them and in he way it suited them.


Not really, that country was in a state of dismantle without fight, Polish government could hardly wait for Germans to announce the end of the Czechoslovakia.

Formalities aside in all practical matters Poland took her land back after Czechoslovakian state ceased to exists. Which was proven by thousands of Czech soldiers flocking to Poland.

You are, of course, most welcome to point out the parts of the treaty which Britain did not keep. But instead you will either repeat your utterly groundless statement or ignore this request or simply insult me, as usual.


When Poland invaded the land which it had the previous decade agreed to be part of Czechoslovakia, the Czechoslovak state was very much alive. The first Czechoslovak republic was replaced by the second Czechoslovak republic, after the Polish invasion, and lasted until the next year, which was of course the same year that the territory was taken from Poland by their Nazi former allies.

The population in Karvina, the land they took control of, was majority Polish (my grandfather was born there). Are you suggesting it would have been acceptable to have Poles living under German occupation in 1938?

No it was not: Poles accounted for about 36% of the quarter million population there.


You clearly think it entirely acceptable to have Czechs living under Polish occupation what Poland had the previous decade agreed to be part of Czechoslovakia.

Which offcourse explains why the Nazis went on to take the whole of Czech Rep and not only the Sudetenland. I don't recall the Brits ever saying that. However I would put it to you again that the Polish majority in Zaolzie would have preferred being under Polish administration then under the German one.

The so-called Sudetenland was annexed in October 1938, alongside with the Hungarian annexion of parts of Slovakia and the Carpatho-Ukraine as well as the Polish annexion of the Olsa Territory. The so-called "Rest-Tschechei" was annexed by Germany half a year later in March 1939. The Western Allies just protested against this clear break of the Munich Agreement because they feared to go to war.

Let's see. How about this: "England guarantees Polish borders", then "we guarantee borders but we did not say THE Borders.
Poland will have A border, will it not?"

Of course it depends what the meaning of the word "IS" is.

The answer to the thread question:

Poland got a terrible deal in any term, land included, in the postwar settlement. Just few facts:
for 90% of Poles the war ended in Poland in 1989,
just ask any Pole if they would rather have Wroclaw and Szczecin or Lwow and Wilno.

A terrible deal?

They managed to go from a divided multiethnic state with vast amounts of poor peasants to a state, although war-ravaged, also contained few minorities and had some very good connections. It might not have been the best deal ever, but it wasn't terrible.


Those with half a clue would say Szczecin and Wroclaw these days.

" How about this: "England guarantees Polish borders","
Text which, of course, is nowhere to be found in the treaty. Or perhaps you can tell me which article of the treaty it is in?

You are kidding, right?

Otherwise I tend to understand you said that Poland emerged from WWII with enhanced class of inteligentia, enriched materially?

btw, Poland was not as divided as you may have heard. Have you heard the joke about the left and right side of Israeli politics?

It goes like this:
"the Israeli left come form eastern Europe (Poland, Russia, whatever), and the right? They graduated from Polish gimnazjums."

You heard about Betar? There is a movie coming out.


You got me Harry. I cannot quote the article, but I believe it said that "western borders (or borders with Germany) were guaranteed",

do you agree with this? If yes, they still didn't keep the treaty, we did not get to keep borders with Germany.

How ridiculous it would be if we did, but even England could not insist on it however they tried, didn't they?

There must be a reason why 70 years (and counting) the British archives from WWII are sealed in Polish matters.
Do you agree it is related to the terrible deal that Poland got after WWII? I think so.

" . I cannot quote the article, but I believe it said that "western borders (or borders with Germany) were guaranteed", do you agree with this? If yes, they still didn't keep the treaty, we did not get to keep borders with Germany."

The treaty says no such thing, not even anything even close. Why not read the treaty?

Insulting you would be as pointless as satisfying. Your insinuations - as if I was insulting you on daily basis, your arguing that white is black.


Doesn't matter the treaty was to be understood in a way that France and Britain will attack Germany if Germany would attack Poland. They didn't deliver - what to discuss ?

Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland.-London, August 25, 1939

Article I:
(...) Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities (...) in consequence of aggression (...), the other Contracting Party will at once give (...) all the support and assistance in its power.

Aricle iV
The methods of applying the undertakings of mutual assistance provided for by the present Agreement are established between the competent naval, military and air authorities of the Contracting Parties.

Article V
Without prejudice (...) to give each other mutual support and assistance immediately on the outbreak of hostilities (...).

Again, you're right, there is nothing about borders, only immediate assistance that was 'established' and not given. I was not able to find the secret ammendment that named Germany. So this is how you want to defend English conscience? Wow! Or maybe you want to defend this part of proud British history:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time

Just open the Archives!!!!!! Or we need to wait 200 years?

Listen, what I write now is completely hypothetical, but as you said: We are just writing here. The vast majority of Germans made their peace with the Oder-Neisse-Border and there is no demographical basis in Germany to repopulate lost territories in the East. Our population is shrinking as is the Polish one, too, by the way.

But let's play an intellectual game: The EU collapses and national egoism returns into the European political agenda. Every man for himself, is the new motto! A new nationalistic government in Poland starts to make territorital claims to Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine and the Czech Republic. Germans get exacerbated about that fact and also vote a nationalistic leader, who reminds them at the glorious past of their nation in the territories East of Odra-Nysa, and then the German-Polish relations deteriote again. Then Germany finds an agreement with Russia and the Polish neighbor states, and then you would have a problem, because the Polish geo-strategical situation hasn't changed at all. Poland is a big, important nation, but Germany and Russia are bigger and more important!

And as far as the mass expulsion of Germans after 1945 is concerned: Morale is not an amplitude in cross-national jurisprudence. You will not find an international law that allows the disappropriation and mass expulsion of 8 millionen German civilians from the German eastern provinces. Therefore if the zeitgeist changes you never know what could be possible.

It would be better just to leave anything how it is, and the more Germany and Poland co-operate the less is the probability that there ever will be a war again between our nations. If you deny the right of Ukraine, Belarus and Luthuania to govern former Polish territories you corrupt the right of Poles to govern your western and northern provinces. Also, Poland would not find any allies in Europe that would support her territorital claims.


I won't argue that, as most of my countrymen wouldn't.