From what point was Germany doomed during WWII?

[Lord Baal]

Let's not forget that Poland's eastern borders after September 1939 were also universally internationally accepted, evenby France and Britain - and, for that matter, the Polish government-in-exile, eventually) and still are to this day. Must mean that the USSR was legally within its rights to annex them.

 

[Domen]

Must mean that the USSR was legally within its rights to annex them.

No - it definitely doesn't mean that "the USSR was legally within its rights to annex them".

It simply means that the international reality was recognized, for the most important foundation of the institution of international recognition is the efficiency criterion, which is - in hitherto international practice - more significant than the legality criterion.

If the Soviet annexation was not legal, but Soviet rule over annexed territories was efficient (i.e. the reality was that those territories were under stabile & effective Soviet rule), then denying the international reality for a long time would be inappropriate and - more importantly - impractical for those who deny.

Of course there were examples of not recognicing efficient governments or efficient control over some territory by another state - just to mention lack of recognition for Rhodesia (before Zimbabwe was created) or lack of recognition for illegal Israeli occupation of Arab territories.

But those were not being recognized mainly due to political purposes and lack of legality was only an excuse to deny recognition.

On the other hand, the USSR was necessary to win the war against Nazi Germany and thus despite numerous violations of international law commited by the USSR, other Great Powers tacitly recognized its illegal actions because political purposes were more important for them than legal and moral purposes.

and, for that matter, the Polish government-in-exile, eventually

When did the Polish government-in-exile recognize the new Poland's eastern border?

=======================

Edit:

It should also be mentioned that initially when the USSR invaded Poland, all Western Allies firmly protested and judged that as illegal action.

The Soviet actions against Poland were eventually tacitly accepted by Western Allies but not until the period after 22 June of 1941.

During 1939, 1940 and first half of 1941 Soviet occupation of Poland was commonly recognized as illegal by other states, except for Germany and her allies.

This essentially makes every Polish uprising from 1795 to 1918 unjust.

Various Polish uprisings - like November Uprising or January Uprising - also received international acceptance and approval from some important states.

 

[LightSpectra]

Various Polish uprisings - like November Uprising or January Uprising - also received international acceptance and approval from some important states.

So did the Prussians, Austrians, Russians, Germans and Soviets. Basically the problem with your position is that it's morally relativistic, insofar that something is apparently acceptable if (enough?) other people think so. The Partitions of Poland were internationally criticized, but for the most part, foreign governments accepted them. The same goes for just about every abuse that happened to Poland since then. This is really not a firm basis in which to assert Polish rights.

And I'd like to let you know that I'm not criticizing your logic because I disagree with your position -- you'll scarcely find somebody more anti-Marxist or sympathetic to modern Poland than I -- it's because you need to make good arguments in order to win debates.

 

[Domen]

the Partitions of Poland are retroactively acceptable because all international powers accepted them?

No international power (apart from those which were directly involved in partitioning Poland - i.e. Russia, Prussia and Austria) accepted them directly (i.e. declared that "we accept the partitions of Poland, bla, bla, bla"). We can argue if any of international powers accepted them indirectly (implicitly).

And indeed there were arguments about this during the decades following the Polish regaining of independence in 1918.

In 1918 the Polish Supreme Court initiated a discussion about the character of the bond between the I Republic of Poland (pre-1795) and the II Republic of Poland (post-1918) in the context of Polish private property and estates confiscated after the January Uprising (1863).

The Polish Supreme Court stated, that Poland after the 3rd Partition continued to exist. It argued that:

- Poland collapsed by force, which was contrary to the international law.
- Western Powers never recognized the partitions of Poland.
- partitioning Poland was contrary to the right of self- determination of peoples.

In 1918 the Supreme Court announced the resumption of activities of state authorities of the Polish state, which had never ceased to exist.

In 1920s this position of the Polish Supreme Court was not questioned by anyone.

Also the Polish Constitution of March 1921 supported this position of the Supreme Court.

The preamble of the constitution of March 1921 says (translation):

In the name of Almighty God!
We, the Polish Nation, thanking Providence for liberating us from a hundred years long enslavement, remembering with gratitude the courage and perseverance of sacrificial struggle of generations, who their best efforts constantly devoted to the case of independence, referring to the great tradition of the memorable Constitution of May 3 - bearing in mind the welfare of the entire united and independent Mother Homeland, and desiring to reassure its independent existence, power and safety, as well as social order on everlasting principles of law and freedom, desiring also to ensure the development of its moral and material forces for the sake of entire renascent humanity, protecting equality, respect for labor, owing rights and special state care of all citizens of Rzeczpospolita - this here's Constitutional Act on the Legislative Sejm of Rzeczpospolita Polska resolve and proclaim.

However, in 1930s Polish experts of international law started a huge discussion about this issue.

Professor Hubert from Lviv and his followers claimed that II Republic of Poland and I Republic of Poland were the same state. Professor Berezowski from Warsaw and his followers claimed that the post-1918 II Republic of Poland was a brand new state.

The question of wartime occupation was raised. Was Poland between 1795 and 1918 only occupied, but still existed? Or maybe it was not occupied but simply ceased to exist? There are three basic factors characteristic for a state - territory, population and supreme authorities.

After the 3rd Partition, Poland lost its territory. But Polish population and Polish supreme authority continued to exist even after that date.

On 25 November of 1797 king Stanislav August Poniatowski officially abdicated - the supreme authority factor of the Polish statehood also ceased to exist.

Now only population of the Polish state (Polish nation) remained.

Professor Berezowski and his followers claimed that the Polish Supreme Court's statement that "Poland collapsed by force, which was contrary to the international law" was wrong, because at that time (18th century) war - practically - was not considered illegal and was one of instruments of international relations, also used to liquidate other states.

Prof. Berezowski claimed that also the right of self- determination of peoples was something completely unheard and unknown back then in 18th century.

In international law very large percentage of issues are related to recognition by other states. Did the abdication of the Polish king mean the end of the Polish statehood? De facto a lot depended on position of other states. There can be some "legal fictions" after all.

Then the Napoleonic wars came. Poland sided with Napoleon and was among the defeated states. At the Congress of Vienna the victorious powers - Austria, Russia, Prussia (so the three partitioning powers from 1795) and Great Britain - permitted the existence of Poland but in a very truncated form - the Kingdom of Poland (sometimes also called the Congress Kingdom of Poland).

According to prof. Berezowski decisions of the Congress of Vienna de facto meant another - fourth - partition of Poland. The partitions of Poland were sanctioned at the Congress of Vienna. However, this is not entirely true, because the truncated form of Poland remained as autonomous state (Kingdom of Poland).

Anyway - according to prof. Berezowski due to the decisions of the Congress of the Vienna it couldn't be stated, that "western states" did not recognize the partitions of Poland (as the Polish Supreme Court stated in 1918).

But - this is again - in my opinion - not entirely true. Out of all "western states", at the Congress of Vienna only Great Britain had any impact on decisions taken there. Apart from Great Britain, there were also the three partitioning powers of Poland - Prussia, Austria and Russia - and it was more than obvious that they would not accept the restoration of Poland in its pre-1795 borders.

===========================

However, then comes the Treaty of Versailles of 1919.

In this Treaty Germany act as the sovereign of territories which are ceded to Poland and - formally - Germany itself is waiving these territories. The same refers to territories regained by Poland from Austria in the Treaty of Trianon.

When it comes to recognizing the partitions of Poland by other states or not - it is obvious that Turkey (Ottoman Empire) never recognized the partitions of Poland. In 1923 Poland signed a treaty of friendship with Turkey, in which both states agreed on restoration of diplomatic relations between themselves.

Back to the Treaty of Versailles:

The Treaty of Versailles was very unfavorable for Poland. In that treaty Poland was considered partial successor of the German Reich due to cession of part of German territories. As the result Poland was burdened with the German debt from this treaty (the dept of the German Empire, the debt of the Kingdom of Prussia and the debpt of the dynasty of Hohenzollerns). Poland had to pay off its part of this debt on account of the Compensation Commission in Paris.

Poland participated in paying off the war reparations (for France and Great Briain mainly) imposed to Germany. Poland had to pay for the property of the Prussian state taken over by Poland - all post-German public buildings (buildings built before 1795 not included), all military barracks and all airfields - for all of this Poland had to pay. Money for this property was being payed by Poland on account of the Compensation Commission in Paris. There were only two exceptions from this rule:

- Poland did not have to pay for this part of German debts, which were being spend by Germany for the German colonization in Poland and related matters (for example buying Polish property in order to settle Germany colonists there).

- when it comes to payable takeover of post-Prussian property by Poland, property which belonged to Poland before the partitions was excluded (Poland did not have to pay for this property - I already wrote about this above).

Similar solutions were accepted in post-1918 Polish relations with Austria.

According to prof. Berezowski all of this indicated that "western powers" recognized the collapse of Poland. When did they do it? Hard to say exactly.

I think again that prof. Berezowski is not entirely correct. The last mentioned point ("- when it comes to payable takeover of post-Prussian property by Poland, property which belonged to Poland before the partitions was excluded") indicates that "western powers" acknowledged some connection between the pre-1795 Poland and the post-1918 Polish state as they recognized the property which belonged to Poland before 1795 as rightfully belonging to the new Polish state (without need of purchasing it - contrary to post-Prussian property) in 1918.

================================

In fact the entire conception of "sameness, continuity and succession of states" is a sort of fiction. But it is useful because it conduces to preserving certain rights and obligations of states.

But in this case there were no even any significant rights or obligations to maintain. Of course the pre-1795 Poland signed some treaties - for example the Polish-Prussian alliance of 1791 (which was - by the way - ingloriously violated by Prussia just a few years later in 1794).

So there were nothing to inherit by new Poland from old Poland in international law.

There was only the question of properties of January insurgents of 1863 and 1864. Their descendants were demanidng the return of their property. But that issue could be resolved simply by Polish Parliament.

 

[Domen]

This essentially makes every Polish uprising from 1795 to 1918 unjust.

The primary reason of the November Uprising (1830 - 1831) was that Tsar Nicholas I (who was also the King of Poland) violated the constitution of the Kingdom of Poland, which he himself had granted / "imposed" (oktroyieren / oktrojowa&#322 before.

So I guess this alone makes the uprising justified.

It was an uprising against the "Polish" king Nicholas I - tyrant who didn't respect the laws he himself had created before.

Another thing is that Poland with its small but very good army (at that time the Kingdom of Poland had its own army and during a dozen or so years of existence it was transformed from nothing into the elite of the armed forces of Russian Empire) could have won that uprising.

However, mistakes of commanders and lack of will to fight among top-important authorities of the Kingdom caused the defeat of the uprising.

The next uprising - the January Uprising of 1863 - already had no any slightest chance of succeeding.

 

[Serutan]

The point at which Germany was doomed was when, after starting the invasion of the
Soviet Union, they did not try to win over the people (and POWs) to their cause. Remember they
were initially welcomed, and the partisan movements only got going when it became (quickly)
apparent what German policy in the occupied territories was going to be like.

 

[say1988]

But the basis of the invasion was to remove the Slavs from the land. I don't think supporting the people would be possible under Hitler's leadership because of the basic views on Communists and Slavs. For this to occur a change of leadership would still be needed.

 

[Serutan]

But the basis of the invasion was to remove the Slavs from the land. I don't think supporting the people would be possible under Hitler's leadership because of the basic views on Communists and Slavs. For this to occur a change of leadership would still be needed.

Exactly. By invading on that basis, Germany's doom was sealed. On the other hand,
if they had gone in with the intention of setting up friendly puppet states, things
could have been much different.

 

[LightSpectra]

The primary reason of the November Uprising (1830 - 1831) was that Tsar Nicholas I (who was also the King of Poland) violated the constitution of the Kingdom of Poland, which he himself had granted / "imposed" (oktroyieren / oktrojowa&#322 before.

So what is the basis of the rights of nations? Is it international recognition, or is it constitutional integrity?

 

[Dachs]

So what is the basis of the rights of nations? Is it international recognition, or is it constitutional integrity?

Whichever is most convenient for Poles.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Whichever is most convenient for Poles.

Isn't this the truth.

 

[Lord Baal]

Exactly. By invading on that basis, Germany's doom was sealed. On the other hand,
if they had gone in with the intention of setting up friendly puppet states, things
could have been much different.

They did set up friendly puppet-states. It didn't work.

 

[Domen]

they did not try to win over the people (and POWs) to their cause.

It would be very hard considering that their cause actually was to persecute and kill THOSE people and POWs.

So what is the basis of the rights of nations? Is it international recognition, or is it constitutional integrity?

You just mixed the right of nations to be independent with the right of people to oppose tyranny in their own country.

The November Uprising was mainly because of tyranny of local authorities (that they were in fact Russian puppets or Russian is another thing).

Only later the declaration of independence from Russia announced by Poland was the by-product of Russian decision to crush the uprising by force (instead of negotiating with Polish leaders about joint pacification of the uprising - which was initially started by just a small group of "hot-headed guys").

 

[Zardnaar]

I think Germany was doomed from about Dec 41 onwards. Britain almost lost the war in 1940 as they were essentially bankrupt and at its height the 3rd reich controlled roughly the same amountof industry as the Allies. They way they utilised it however was ass backwards. Even Barbarossa could have turned out differently with some minor changes such as not redeploying Panzers from the Moscow thrust to Kiev where they arrived to late anyway and bought the USSR several weeks time.

 

[Tahuti]

Britain almost lost the war in 1940 as they were essentially bankrupt and at its height the 3rd reich controlled roughly the same amountof industry as the Allies.

Don't forget that Britain got significant financial aid from the Americans which ensured their ability to fight on. Besides, the Allies had superior GDP and manpower throughout the war.

 

[GamezRule]

I would say Germany basically had the same advantage that France did in the opening stages of the Franco-Prussian War.

 

[Communisto]

Don't forget that Britain got significant financial aid from the Americans which ensured their ability to fight on. Besides, the Allies had superior GDP and manpower throughout the war.

The 'financial aid' was inconsequential when contrasted against the efforts of the Commonwealth and Royal navies, without which Britain would have collapsed in on itself. Cant get the aid there without the boats, though I think there were a significant number of Americans who partook in protection of the shipping lines thanks to Roosevelt.

 

[Zardnaar]

Don't forget that Britain got significant financial aid from the Americans which ensured their ability to fight on. Besides, the Allies had superior GDP and manpower throughout the war.

Yes England was bankrupt in the months following the fall of France.. Germany had essentially lost the war. Thats why I said Germany was doomed from Dec 41 onwards. They were stopped a the gates of Moscow and couldn't do much to the continental USA. It wasn't an unreasonable expectation that Germany could knock out the USSR in WW2 as they defeated Rusia in WW1. I think the post war Germany was doomed regardless and Britain would fight on regardless idea is mostly a myth. Theres some foreign office papers that can be accessed in 2016 that deal with 1940 and theres hints in dairy's and the like that Britian was contemplating a peace deal with Germany. Churchill was saying different things in private. Britain decided to fight on for 3 more months until the money ran out as the German economy despite its problems was better off than the British one. American came to the rescue and the rest is history.

 

[Leifmk]

They did set up friendly puppet-states. It didn't work.

The Third Reich was really quite bad at being an empire, they even managed to alienate ethnic Germans living in occupied territories. The more I've read about this period in history the more amazed I become that it made it as far as it did and had to be put down with hard-fought violence instead of metaphorically collapsing and choking on its own vomit on the way to the bathroom (incompetence and idiocy also being widespread among its opponents helps to explain it, though.)

 

[North King]

What are you doing, trying to talk about the fall of Germany in a Poland thread?