Military Review

Dreams of the past: the Third Reich and Poland against the USSR

Dreams of the past: the Third Reich and Poland against the USSR

The statement of the Russian ambassador to Poland, Sergey Andreev, of Warsaw’s partial responsibility for the catastrophe of World War II provoked an angry reaction from the Polish Foreign Ministry, where they considered that the words of the Russian ambassador were “unfair and untrue”. In fact, these words are a completely accurate reflection historical of reality.

Is it possible to imagine that the views of a man who, after Hitler came to power, called for an alliance with Nazi Germany, were popularized in Russia? Is it possible to imagine that Russian historians lament the geopolitical “blunder” of the Soviet Union, which, instead of conquering Europe together with Hitler, came out against Nazism?

In Poland, both are possible. There, for example, works of Vladislav Gisbert-Studnitsky and Adolf Bohensky, famous Polish authors of the interwar period, who welcomed the possible union of Warsaw and Hitler's Germany, are popularized.

Gisbert-Studnitsky was distinguished by his especially shrill Germanicism. In the 1934 year, that is, a year after the Nazis seized power, when arrests and executions took place all over Germany, he outlined in his book The Political System of Europe and Poland his views on the formation of the Polish-German alliance for joint control of Europe: "Poland and Germany, - wrote Gisbert-Studnitsky, - can become the basis of a huge Central European block, which will include Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Greece, Turkey and the Baltic countries ... It was not by chance that Hitler, whose main task was the liberation of Herman and from under the French government ... I began a rapprochement with Poland. "

Gisbert-Studnitsky considered the traditional orientation of Poland to Paris disastrous, because in his eyes it was equivalent to the encirclement of the Reich by France and the Soviet Union. Instead, he proposed to maximally facilitate Berlin access to East Prussia through the territory of Poland (the transport corridor Berlin-Warsaw-Konigsberg). Under Hitler, Prussia turned into a synonym for German militarism, but in the existence of this nest of international robbery at the Polish borders, Gisbert-Studnitsky saw only advantages. Impressed him and anti-Semitic theories of the Nazis.

Even when Germany occupied Poland, Gisbert-Studnitsky did not stop broadcasting about the need for a joint campaign against the USSR. The last note to Himmler on this topic was written by him 12 March 1945 of the year.

In 1948, the city of Gisbert-Studnitsky was going to act as a defense witness at the trial of Field Marshal Erich von Manstein. After the war, he wrote a book of memoirs “Why did I not become Polish Quisling?” (Vidkun Quisling - a Norwegian collaborationist who was shot by 1945 court sentence). In German translation, the book was published in 1951 year with the subtitle "The struggle for the Polish-German rapprochement" and under a different name - "Incorrect roads of Poland." The publisher Mechislav Grydzevsky insisted on renaming: he did not want to shock the reader with the revelations of the failed Polish Quisling.

Adolf Bohensky also reflected on the union of Warsaw and Berlin. In his understanding, the Third Reich was a ramming, relying on which Poland could achieve a change in the borders in Central and Eastern Europe, including through the military defeat and dismemberment of the USSR. He estimated the actions of Hitler as defensive, undertaken to ensure security at the eastern borders of the Reich. Bohensky, by the way, did not rule out the possibility of the emergence of the Polish-German-Galician alliance with the subsequent offensive of the forces of this alliance on Kiev and Moscow. In the interests of the implementation of this plan, he called for a dialogue between Poland and Ukrainian nationalists with the assistance of the Nazis.

In 1951, a censored ban was imposed on the works of Gisbert-Studnitsky, and his books were removed from libraries. Trudy A. Bohensky, too, not reprinted. But in modern ("post-communist") Poland, the ideas of Gisbert-Studnitsky and Bohensky are reinterpreted as an example of the "alternative" Polish geopolitical thought of the interwar period.

And these ideas have their admirers among the Polish educated class. In 2012, a professor at the University of Warsaw, Pavel Vechorkevich, lamented that Poland had not entered into an alliance with Hitler: “If in December 1941 the Germans did not have 4-5 divisions near Moscow, and 100-200 tanksthen the prepared Polish army could produce 60 such divisions and a thousand and a half tanks. It was a factor that would resolve the issue of war in the east. ”

The same Vechorkevich believes that Poland, as an ally of Hitler, would have had the opportunity to rule Ukraine, Belarus and part of Russia. However, Jozef Beck, who was Polish Foreign Minister in 1939, ignored, they say, the precepts of Piłsudski, who taught Polish politicians: to survive, Poland should not get involved in the war first and should not fight on its own territory. In an alliance with the Nazis, Professor Vechorkevich is convinced, Poland would have fought far to the east, having entered the war in second place after Germany.

In 2012, the book of the young Polish historian Peter Zykhovich “Ribbentrop - Beck Pact” was published. As the Poles, together with the Third Reich, could have defeated the Soviet Union. ” While Western historians and politicians do not regret black colors, condemning the Soviet Union for signing a non-aggression treaty with Germany in 1939, Zykhovich proposes to reflect on the unrealized possibility of the Ribbentrop-Beck pact. According to him, Warsaw should have given Gdansk to the Germans, agreed to the construction of a motorway from Germany through Polish Pomerania to East Prussia and send its divisions to 40 to help the Nazis on the Eastern Front. This, says Zykhovich, would have led to the defeat of the Red Army, would have saved Poland from the sixty-year Soviet “occupation” and would have allowed the Rzeczpospolita to be revived within the borders of the 18th century (Zykhovich is sure that the Fuhrer would present the Poles to the Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania).

It is not enough to say that Poland is partly responsible for the outbreak of the Second World War. The public climate in Poland is so poisoned by dreams of the unfulfilled that the theme of the “lost” union II of the Commonwealth with Hitler's Third Reich periodically pops up in the country as the theme of a public and scientific debate. Do the Poles understand well what it can lead to?
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Reptiloid
    Reptiloid 6 October 2015 10: 11
    Thanks to the author for the truthful article about the inconvenient story ++++++
    Characters of the article ---- Evil, insignificant, stupid trifle! It works continuously, works, gives rise to scum, stink and fertilizers
  2. Dezinto
    Dezinto 6 October 2015 10: 12
    Well ..... Poland. Who has a leash?
  3. renics
    renics 6 October 2015 10: 33
    Napoleon, as I recall in his army, fought all of Europe, to which this led obviously to everyone. And this despite the fact that the war was local European, not world, without the participation of the United States and other countries. Immediately after such a political demarche, in full rapprochement with Nazi Germany, England and France in the first place broke all relations and support with Poland. Then the United States and other countries would also adhere to this. Dumb-headed Poles always strive to be caught up by economically strong Western powers, using them for their own purposes. Such a policy is not new, at least for the example of modern Ukraine, which gained independence and then, without waiting after a quarter of a century, they drank it in exchange for the mythical and virtual promises of leading Western countries from the European Union
  4. Simon
    Simon 6 October 2015 10: 39
    Yes, Poland is a political European prostitute. Whoever gives more will go for that. At the moment, she does not have a single leash and two - these are the states and NATO.
    1. iury.vorgul
      iury.vorgul 6 October 2015 11: 51
      Quote: Simon
      At the moment, she does not have a single leash and two - these are the states and NATO.
      So it's the same thing.
  5. ImPerts
    ImPerts 6 October 2015 10: 48
    We must in every way resist the attempts to liberalize history, especially ours:
    1. Mareman Vasilich
      Mareman Vasilich 6 October 2015 10: 53
      Impunity breeds irresponsibility.
  6. ImPerts
    ImPerts 6 October 2015 10: 55
    Everyone buried in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and especially in its secret part (although the original is nowhere to be found). But they forget about the Munich agreement and about the Teshinsky region.
    Can restore the chronology?
    1. 1933 year. Pact of Four (Italy, Germany, England, France).
    The Pact of Four was an attempt to contrast the League of Nations with the “directory” of the four great powers, which sought to subjugate all of Europe to their hegemony. Ignoring the Soviet Union, the four powers tried to pursue a policy of isolating it, while at the same time eliminating other European states from participating in European affairs.

    The "Pact of Four" meant "a conspiracy of the British and French governments with German and Italian fascism, which did not even then hide its aggressive intentions. At the same time, this pact with the fascist states meant abandoning the policy of strengthening the united front of the peace-loving powers against aggressive states"

    But due to disagreement among participants and the discontent of other countries, the Pact of Four was never ratified.

    2. 1934 year. Pilsudski-Hitler Pact (Germany, Poland).
    Non-aggression pact between Germany and Poland. It was supplemented by an agreement on trade and shipping, separate agreements on issues of the press, cinema, broadcasting, theater, etc.
    It was envisaged that the pact would remain in force even if one of the contracting parties entered the war with third states.

    3. 1935 year. Anglo-German Maritime Agreement.
    The British government satisfied Hitler's demand that "the power of the German fleet be 35% in relation to the total power of the British Empire." The proportion of 35: 100 was to be applied both to the total tonnage of the fleet, and to each class of ships.

    With regard to submarine forces, Germany gained the right to equality with Britain, but pledged not to exceed 45% of the tonnage of British submarine forces. It was envisaged that in case of violation of this limit, Germany would inform the British government.
    Germany also pledged to comply with quality restrictions set by the Washington 1922 Treaty and the London 1930 Treaty.
    In fact, the Germans were given the opportunity to build 5 battleships, two aircraft carriers, the 21 cruiser and the 64 destroyer.
    The result of the agreement was the final elimination of all restrictions of the Treaty of Versailles. According to the permitted tonnage of the fleet, Germany was equalized with France and Italy - the victorious powers in the First World War.

    4. 1936 year. Anti-Mirkern Pact (Germany, Japan).
    The agreement between Germany and Japan, which issued (under the flag of the struggle against the Comintern) a bloc of these states in order to gain world domination.
    In November 1937, Italy joined the Anti-Comintern Pact, and later a number of other states.
    In 1939 — 40, the Pact was transformed into an open military alliance (see Berlin Pact).

    5. 1938 year. Munich agreement (England, France, Germany, Italy).
    The agreement concerned the transfer by Czechoslovakia of Germany to the Sudetenland ...
  7. Reptiloid
    Reptiloid 6 October 2015 11: 17
    Quote: ImPerts
    We must in every way resist the attempts to liberalize history, especially ours:

    THIS is what is called the "overtone window."
    Therefore, I am opposed if for something they scold the militia, residents of the LPR. I rejected the topic, I'm sorry.
  8. Basil50
    Basil50 6 October 2015 11: 29
    Poland is a product of black humor, a listing of the facts of the origin of Poland drives anyone except a Pole to shame: so what are the qualities that define a Pole? They are proud of the history of pre-war Poland and associate themselves with that country (the epithets are very different and not cautionary) is a special form of Polish self-consciousness. Why are all but the Poles themselves to blame for the Polish hops? Why are Poles accused of all neighbors in Polish politics? The tradition of looking for the guilty is already national * self-determination *, and most importantly, talking about neighbors mucks, hoping to protect the country of political PR. Then it was England now the USA.
  9. silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 7 October 2015 14: 47
    The Poles are unique and live in the past sincerely believing that it was they who were to become the unifiers of the Slavic tribes, this almost happened after the unification of Poland and Lithuania. Moscow prevented them (as usual). Since then, Russia has been their worst historical enemy.
    They still sincerely consider Poland to be the navel of the earth. And they remember all the little bit significant victories of Poland over Russia and are proud of them.
    Well, and the periodic disappearance of the country "Poland" from the world map, including thanks to Russia, no Pole will forget or forgive us. Although we saved them as the Kingdom of Poland with the Seim and laws (Germany and Austria-Hungary did not stand on ceremony like that) /

    What else is funny about the Poles is that many of them sincerely consider themselves the first and foremost of the Slavs. At the same time, every Pole considers himself a descendant of the gentry, which, as they believe, does not come from the "slaves" of the Slavs, but from the Sarmatians. The clinic in general. Hence the conclusion that the Pole is not a nationality or even a profession, but a diagnosis