sillygoose
Well-known member
Polish revolt of 1905 succeeds
- Thread starter sillygoose
- Start date
Batrix2070
RON/PLC was a wonderful country.
Pilsudski's men and not nationalists they were against. But what will happen?
Certainly a headache for Europe and a toy for the Central Powers who thus took away more than 1/3 of Russia's power.
There was no less chance of this happening, and the effects on Poland would have been worse in the long run because it would have had to take part in WWI.
sillygoose
Well-known member
Not exactly sure what you mean here. Are you saying Pilsudski wasn't a nationalist?
Yes, question is how big of war would it cause at the time. If it prevents WW1 though it's worth it.
Poland did take part in WW1 and was a major battleground in 1914-15 with lots of bloodshed. Being on the German side could end up sparing them considerably destruction and prevent the 1919-1921 fighting, which was also quite destructive. And if that prevents WW2 Poland suffers vastly less.
Last edited:
Batrix2070
RON/PLC was a wonderful country.
Yes, according to what is assessed in Poland, Pilsudski was a Polish patriot but not a nationalist. Nationalists were in contrast to him and had a completely different approach to an identical goal.
Ba, nationalist circles hate him so much to this day that they can specifically do anything to make him despised by ordinary people.
Yes, but we would be forced to stand up to one side and bear the cost whether we want to or not. The chances that in such a scenario there would be a repeat of such a profound collapse of all three partitioners are really slim.
If we sided with the Entente, we would become a waltz for the Central Powers to eventually lose and fight abroad and then return to the devastated country and rebuild it.
If we had been on the side of the Center, not only would we have been on the losing side, but the Entente could have kicked us out like other member states under the Versailles Treaty, for example, by artificially maintaining the division into Galicia and Congress Poland, or by leaving Greater Poland or Pomerania with Germany.
And WWII can be avoided in a more protracted way, either further strengthening Poland so that it would have more strength to withstand the three months, or unleashing it in 1938 when Hitler is in a much weaker position, the WH is rather better trained Red Army than a machine to destroy everything.
There are many other things besides, though the easiest way is to simply review Hitler's bluff at the very beginning.
From the Polish point of view, avoiding WWI is not worth sacrificing Polish interest. It is in the Polish interest for this war to break out and so devastate Europe that the Polish partitioners will fall.
Only if such a sequence of events occurs that the Poles manage to snatch what is Polish from the hands of the remaining partitioners, after they regain their independence in the next decades. Then we can talk about avoiding WWI.
Last edited:
What if the Lodz portion of revolution spreads and Polish nationalists are able to break Congress Poland off of the Russian empire during the 1905 Russian Revolution? How does the rest of Europe respond and what happens going forward? Will Polish nationalist movements break off the Austrian and Prussian parts of Poland to join the rest of it?Revolution in the Kingdom of Poland (1905–1907) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
In this TL, I could actually see Germany striking a devil's bargain with the Russians: As in, we'll help you crush this Polish separatist uprising if you'll terminate the Franco-Russian alliance and ally with us and A-H instead. If you'll refuse, however, then we'll aggressively support Polish independence and perhaps even Polish expansion at Russia's expense sooner or later to the hilt.
But of course there is a third option here: A-H tells Germany that it is prepared to hand over Galicia to Poland (and Bukovina to Romania) in exchange for Poland agreeing to a Hapsburg King and to a military alliance with Germany and A-H (and Italy). If that's the case, then Germany will likely automatically support Polish independence to the hilt since it certainly wouldn't want to throw its own ally under the bus. Poland would definitively need to renounce any territorial claims that it has on German territory, though.
@sillygoose What was Germany's logic in continuing to hold onto Poznan/Posen? Its strategic value?
Otto von Bismarck, on January 28, 1886:
Otto von Bismarck, on January 28, 1886:
1.No,Piłsudzki was first socialist,and then A-H and Japan agent.Maybe german,too.
During WW1 he tried to start anti-russian uprising - which would end Poland,if he succed.
2.Russia would massacre us on their own,with France blessing.Nothing change for world,but we would be considered as german allies.
3.Being on german side mean supporting losers.No independent Poland as a result,Poland was win in Versaile by Dmowski,who was nationalist,and army from France and GreatPoland,both supporting nationalists.
You changed nothing,except throwing Poland under bus.
sillygoose
Well-known member
I mean he clearly took money from at least the Austrians, but he was his own man, as the goal was to get an independent Poland. He refused to cooperate with the Germans during WW1 after Congress Poland was liberated.
How so?
During the Russian revolution? And potentially with Austrian and German support?
If Poland were onside Germany might win, as was said before in 1905 Poland was 1/3rd of the Russian economy.
Batrix2070
RON/PLC was a wonderful country.
Only that OLT also won with Russia to lose the war. What's more, the successful revolution of 1905 is bound to cause a fray that will be the impetus for a sharper reform of Russia, which the OLT was, but weaker and yet Russia's development was astounding.
Especially since Congress Poland benefited greatly from the connection with Russia and access to Russian raw materials. The sudden cutoff will hurt both Russia and Poland but Poland more(OTL took place after the Polish-Bolshevik war, it took at least a decade for Poland to compensate for the loss)
sillygoose
Well-known member
Russia loses quicker and can't tie down German troops as much means the Entente loses before US entry. After all if those two German corps weren't diverted from the western front in 1914 during the Marne the Entente may lose in 1914 or 1915.
Batrix2070
RON/PLC was a wonderful country.
It's just your assumption that Russia loses faster. Just as well that by 1914 Russia could, due to losses, develop not only faster but also more profoundly as a reaction to a successful revolution.
Or the Entente, seeing the blow, will put effort on preparations for war in an attempt to compensate for the weakening of Russia. In fact, it is not certain.
sillygoose
Well-known member
How would they do nearly as well without 1/3rd of their economy for 9 years before the war and then during it, having the Polish army fight them rather than be onside during the war, plus having to invade Poland to even be able to threaten the CPs? Austria and Germany could support them on the flanks much easier with the Russians having to divert units to Congress Poland rather than Galicia and Prussia, Germany and Austria have a greater ability to deal with Serbia and France in 1914 (Serbia getting knocked out probably brings Bulgaria and the Ottomans in sooner and keep Italy out and allows for more forces to be moved to the eastern front), etc. Virtuous circle for the CPs, negative circle for the Russians.
Batrix2070
RON/PLC was a wonderful country.
I remember reading somewhere (it was a history forum) that Poland was more accurately responsible for 1/3 of the industrial production in the Russian Empire and its collapse during WWI was a significant economic disaster for Russia, especially since the factories there were an important part of the light industry.
Although, if I'm not mistaken, after the reforms after 1905, Russia's rate of development was so astounding that most likely by the end of the second decade of the 20th century, it would have become a thing of the past. Maybe even as early as on the eve of the war, this 1/3 already affected only a few industries.
1.He cooperated till 1916,after that he was "imprisoned" in comfy house with german servant.And,in 1918 german militart let him go and send to Warsaw.Where he becomed boss,and never started anything which hurt germans.
2.If we start anti-russian uprising in 1914,russians would at worst case made peace with germans letting them win war,in best case massacred us another time - and,after 1918,nobody would support polish state.
No Poland in both cases.
3.Yes.They had army with artillery,when PPS who fought them had Browning pistols.Good for killing policemans,but not for winning battles.
And,if german come,they would come to do the same they did in parts stolen from Poland - beat polish children for speaking polish.
4.No,becouse Russia collapsed only becouse they tried to attack without enough ammo.If they lost polish territories,they would keep on defending themselves - and,in that case,there probably would be no Revolution.
And no Poland after Allied victory.
I thought that logistics would have still prevented a quick CP victory in the West either way, with the main possible difference being that the trenches and front lines will be set at the Marne instead of at the Aisne on the Western Front in this TL? So, no retreat from the Marne to the Aisne in September 1914?
Even with an independent Poland, Russia can presumably still attack East Prussia in 1914, no?
Germany might even be less paranoid about Franco-Russian encirclement in this TL if Russia is not going to be building strategic railroads near its borders with Germany and Austria-Hungary. Thus, Germany might be less willing to risk war in 1914 in this TL than it was in real life.
Buba
A total creep
Do a search for a map showing railroads - and Russian gubernia borders - in the area. That will answer your question.