WWII Politics and Propaganda

[el cid again]

In the discussion of the invasion of Madagascar, I note (as usual) no trace of outrage. Nor have I EVER seen ANY objection to the Allied invasion of Norway (which sometimes gets mentioned). Germany actually jumped off AFTER the Allies did - and BECAUSE the Allies did - as a preemptive move - and got there first since they flew. But Norway was neutral. So was Madagascar. These are not the only anomolies of this sort: review the treatment of the King of Italy when he changed sides - Ike was so upset he refused to have anything to do with it. And the British made promises to both Arabs and Jews which could not both be kept about Palestine.

Another thing you rarely hear much about is the (false) thesis that this was a war of "democracies" against "dictatorships." Two dictators were on our side (Chiang and Stalin), and a future dictator also was (Mao). And Finland was a true democracy, but an Axis power. Thailand (newly renamed under a Fashist dictator) was a real Axis power, but we pretend it wasn't. [It occupied parts of Burma to which it had no claim, as well as parts of Malaya and Indochina probably wronly taken from it by France and Britain - but was forced to give them all back- irrespective of the merits of the claim - after the war.]

There is, however, a fairly new history by a Welsh academic named Clive Pointing, in which most of these things are treated even handedly: it is called Armageddon. Note that it isn't always wise to act as if we can break rules: when we moved to invade Norway we lost it! Arguments about international law have little force in Japan - because we were far too one sided about enforcing it - and because we let Class A war criminals off if they gave us information (the Unit 731 scientists) or things worth vast amounts of money (Noguchi). The forced repatriation of people to Russia was probably both inhumane and bad politics in term of convinceing the world we are serious about democratic rights.

The other thing that seems almost wholly absent from historical discussion of the era is the impact of colonialism on attitudes. It appears that it was fully intended to return to empire everywhere but the Philippines, which had been promised independence in 1935 (to take complete effect in 1945 - it happened instead in 1946). But even there we had fought a brutal war - until the locals decided that we were not going to stay very long and would not behave like the other Europeans they had met. Ironically, Japan wanted a 19th century colonial empire of its own - and in a sense was behaving very much in the pattern of the previous era. If you have no sense of irony, you will miss a lot of the humor in history.

[Skyros]

I always found it ironic that the French and British sold out Czechoslovakia, a democracy, yet went to war over Poland which was a military dictatorship.

[witpqs]

It's news to me about Poland being a dictatorship at that time, but I have found it ironic that Poland helped to carve up Czechoslovakia - actually invading a small part of it - along with Germany and some smaller players. I first learned about that from The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, which I read a couple of years ago. Very ironic. Of course, it was the greedy Polish leaders who made the decisions about Czechoslovakia, while the people did the suffering when it was Poland's turn...

[el cid again]

I always found it ironic that the French and British sold out Czechoslovakia, a democracy, yet went to war over Poland which was a military dictatorship.

The irony is deeper even than that. Poland had PARTICIPATED in the partition of Czechoslovakia - an actual ally of Britian and France - and POLAND had caused the crisis with Germany - by reniging on the deal!
They were supposed to give the Polish Corredor back to Germany - in exchange for ten times as much land in the Czech Republic. They TOOK the land and then refused to honor the deal - adding the insult "if you don't like it we will take Berlin!" Over this Britain and France started World War II.

The change happened because Chamberlin decided appeasment would not work. He died a few months later of flibitus - "executive's disease" - common among leaders who feel like failures.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Poland wasn't dictatorship at the time. Pilsudski left after his coup (1926) new constitution: a strong position of president like in USA. Do we call USA a dictatorship?

After the coup Pilsudski was proposed to be a new president. He refused, even more: he retired from political life.

The communist opposition was mostly imprisoned, but it's nothing new - look at USA during cold war when there were some acts to limit actions of communists (I forgot the name of senator: McSomething... McCarthy?)

There was also strong position of the army - nothing unusual for a country between two major powers which had claims to their territories, seems normal also when a lot of money is given to improve defences at the state of constant danger.

Re-annexation of Zaolzie which at the time belonged to Czechoslovakia, but inhabited by Poles , Czechs and mostly by people of mixed nationality, was a real fact, but it wasnt so clear on which side the truth was. Dont forget that these lands were taken by Czechs by force in 1919, Poland didnt oppose because of bloody Polish-Soviet fightings at the time. Entente ordered plebiscite, but again Czech military actions during Soviet Tukhachevskis offensive in Feb 1920 prevented the plebiscite. So, these lands were annexed by Czechs, later Poland annexed them again. Not sure at which side the truth was.

This cant be said about "Zeligowski's Incident" (annexation of Wilno/Vilnus) but its a different story.

[el cid again]

Tell us about the battle in the 1920s between Poland and the Red Army.

Also about why, when Hitler came to power, Poland was regarded as a major threat by the German Army?

[Monter_Trismegistos]

It was a threat to German Army? Only when Germany would have fought on two fronts. Polish Army was smaller, had few artillery, navy was almost non-existant and air force was totally obsolete. Also shape of borders worked on German side.

You could read here about: 'miracle of Vistula' - battle which changed situation during the war.
click here

Did you know that at some point Poland offered peace treaty to Soviets demanding no fewer than 2 Gangut BBs, ? Cruisers and 6 Novik destroyers and 6 Bars submarines (not mentioning about territory demands)?

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

It was a threat to German Army? Only when Germany would have fought on two fronts. Polish Army was smaller, had few artillery, navy was almost non-existant and air force was totally obsolete. Also shape of borders worked on German side.

I believe the statement was "When Hitler came to power". Which would be 1933, and the Polish Army was much larger than the 100,000 man Reichwehr at that time. And having East Prussia stuck out on it's lonesome on the far side of the "Polish Corridor" was not a great comfort to German planners.

[Skyros]

May 12 Death of Pilsudski. A ruling clique of Colonels led by Marshal Smigly-Rydz form a Camp of National Unity and continue to rule Poland. http://www.polandsholocaust.org/1917-1938.html

1935 On Pilsudski's death, a military regime held power under Marshal Smigly-Rydz.
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/ency ... oland.html

Polish people adopted a national constitution in 1921, but democratic government proved to be a challenge for the country. P
ki The Polish people adopted a national constitution in 1921, but democratic government proved to be a challenge for the country. Pilsudski launched a coup in 1926 and established a dictatorship, and ruled until his death in 1935. Marshal Smigly-Rydz continued the military dictatorship until 1939. launched a coup in 1926 and established a dictatorship, and ruled until his death in 1935. Marshal Smigly-Rydz continued the military dictatorship until 1939.

http://webdb.iu.edu/internationalprogra ... try=poland

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Poland wasn't dictatorship at the time. Pilsudski left after his coup (1926) new constitution: a strong position of president like in USA. Do we call USA a dictatorship?

After the coup Pilsudski was proposed to be a new president. He refused, even more: he retired from political life.

The communist opposition was mostly imprisoned, but it's nothing new - look at USA during cold war when there were some acts to limit actions of communists (I forgot the name of senator: McSomething... McCarthy?)

There was also strong position of the army - nothing unusual for a country between two major powers which had claims to their territories, seems normal also when a lot of money is given to improve defences at the state of constant danger.

Re-annexation of Zaolzie which at the time belonged to Czechoslovakia, but inhabited by Poles , Czechs and mostly by people of mixed nationality, was a real fact, but it wasnt so clear on which side the truth was. Dont forget that these lands were taken by Czechs by force in 1919, Poland didnt oppose because of bloody Polish-Soviet fightings at the time. Entente ordered plebiscite, but again Czech military actions during Soviet Tukhachevskis offensive in Feb 1920 prevented the plebiscite. So, these lands were annexed by Czechs, later Poland annexed them again. Not sure at which side the truth was.

This cant be said about "Zeligowski's Incident" (annexation of Wilno/Vilnus) but its a different story.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
I believe the statement was "When Hitler came to power". Which would be 1933, and the Polish Army was much larger than the 100,000 man Reichwehr at that time. And having East Prussia stuck out on it's lonesome on the far side of the "Polish Corridor" was not a great comfort to German planners.

East Prussia had no significance to economy of Germany, and it was not needed to defend them. Contrary it was quite close to Polish capital, so it was constant threat. Poland would have to keep strong force "away from main front on the west"

How many reserves Reichswehr had? Even at peace time it was organised into 28 divisions (officially 7 divisions but every division had subordinated such organisations as Infatry Command, Artillery Command, and one more command - which were in fact separate divisions - this was a way to walk around Versailles treaty). Poland nominally maintained at peace 30 divisions - with far fewer reserves - so not much advantage on Polish side. Note also that more than half of Poland's industry was in Slask (Silesia) - at the Polish-German border.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

ORIGINAL: Skyros
May 12 Death of Pilsudski. A ruling clique of Colonels led by Marshal Smigly-Rydz form a Camp of National Unity and continue to rule Poland.

1935 On Pilsudski's death, a military regime held power under Marshal Smigly-Rydz.

Polish people adopted a national constitution in 1921, but democratic government proved to be a challenge for the country. Pilsudski launched a coup in 1926 and established a dictatorship, and ruled until his death in 1935. Marshal Smigly-Rydz continued the military dictatorship until 1939.

Not true. Smigly-Rydz was only General Inspector of Armed Forces during peace and Superior Commander of Army in the event of war. So it had some presidential (according to todays standards) power. But nothing more. His power was nonexistant. Pilsudski after coup retreated from public life, he became more as an symbol for those who were actually ruling Poland. Smigly-Rydz position was too week to retain something which woluld be called as authoritarian dictature.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
I believe the statement was "When Hitler came to power". Which would be 1933, and the Polish Army was much larger than the 100,000 man Reichwehr at that time. And having East Prussia stuck out on it's lonesome on the far side of the "Polish Corridor" was not a great comfort to German planners.

East Prussia had no significance to economy of Germany, and it was not needed to defend them. Contrary it was quite close to Polish capital, so it was constant threat. Poland would have to keep strong force "away from main front on the west"

How many reserves Reichswehr had? Even at peace time it was organised into 28 divisions (officially 7 divisions but every division had subordinated such organisations as Infatry Command, Artillery Command, and one more command - which were in fact separate divisions - this was a way to walk around Versailles treaty). Poland nominally maintained at peace 30 divisions - with far fewer reserves - so not much advantage on Polish side. Note also that more than half of Poland's industry was in Slask (Silesia) - at the Polish-German border.

You can't have it both ways, Monter. If East Prussia needed no defense, then it was no threat to Warsaw and could be gobbled up by Polish second-line formations at leisure. And German Silesia was right across the border from Polish Silesia, and just as vulnerable.

The Reichwehr did not possess large reserves---you seem to have it confused with the "Krumper system" used py the Prussian Army in 1808-12. The Reichswehr was primarily a "holding pool" for talent in which it was planned that each man was able to step up a rank if and when conscription was allowed. That's why the Wehrmacht was able to expand rapidly in 1935. In 1933, Germany was vulnerable---which was the original statement.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

So you are generally saying that in 1933 German Army wasnt able to do what it did only two years later? Nonsense.

And Lower Silesia which was on German side was one of many industrial sites. Upper Silesian industry was almost only industry in Poland. That is tge differense. Betwen two wars there was plan to build some industry more far away from germans (Central Industry Region) but it generally failed.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

So you are generally saying that in 1933 German Army wasnt able to do what it did only two years later? Nonsense.

And Lower Silesia which was on German side was one of many industrial sites. Upper Silesian industry was almost only industry in Poland. That is tge differense. Betwen two wars there was plan to build some industry more far away from germans (Central Industry Region) but it generally failed.

NO. I said that the German Army of 1933 could not do what it did SIX years (and several classes of draftees) later in 1939.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

NO. You said about rapid expansion of Wehrmacht in 1935. Thats TWO years later.

[el cid again]

It was a threat to German Army? Only when Germany would have fought on two fronts. Polish Army was smaller, had few artillery, navy was almost non-existant and air force was totally obsolete. Also shape of borders worked on German side.

The German Army of 1933 was much smaller than Polands. I think you are confusing it with the German Army of 1939.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

NO. You said about rapid expansion of Wehrmacht in 1935. Thats TWO years later.

I said the Wehrmacht BEGAN it's rapid expansion in 1935. but doubling or even tripling (which would be very fast expansion) only makes it 2-300,000. You said I was saying "in 1933 German Army wasnt able to do what it did only two years later". TWO years later was 1935, and the German Army didn't DO anything in 1935 except try to train and grow and wait for new equipment.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

NO. You said about rapid expansion of Wehrmacht in 1935. Thats TWO years later.

The German Army tripled twice between 1933 and 1939. That gave it 63 regular divisions. The rest of the forces were reserve call-ups.