On this day in 1939, the German Army invaded Poland. Operation Fall Weiß (Case White), as it was code-named, sent more than 60 German divisions storming into Poland. It came a day after the Gleiwitz incident, one part of Operation Himmler. The latter had German troops dressed in Polish uniforms attacking German emplacements along the border in order to give a casus belli. At Gleiwitz, for example, an SS unit so dressed attacked a German radio transmitter and then retreated, leaving behind dead bodies also dressed in Polish uniforms. The bodies–those of concentration camp inmates–were called Konserve, or “Canned Goods.”
Operation Himmler served as the official German pretext for the invasion of Poland. Needless to say, the invasion was actually long-planned, and came at the end of a whole series of aggressive moves by the Nazi government, including the remilitarization of the Rhine, the forced reunification of Austria–the Anschluss–and the absorption of Czechoslovakia (with the connivance of Britain and France). The British and French had finally drawn a line in the sand when Hitler turned to Poland, but it was a line drawn next to the Baltic Sea, where those western powers were essentially helpless.
Molotov signing, with Stalin behind him |
The only power that might have intervened to back Germany down was the Soviet Union but on 1 September they were Hitler’s allies, not enemies. Perhaps Hitler’s greatest diplomatic triumph, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 23 August 1939, had rewritten the balance of power in Eastern Europe. Its public clauses were expressions of friendship and mutual defense against third party attacks. Its secret clauses handed the Baltic States to the USSR and split Poland between the two countries. Even though they were secret, the clauses danced around the issue in an oddly passive voice: “In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party,” read the first secret clause. “In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San. The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish States and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments. In any event both Governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement,” read the second. “In the event of”? What, was Poland going to slip in the shower and accidentally rearrange itself territorially? In any case, the Pact set up the invasion nicely for the Germans. It meant that they need not worry about Soviet intervention against them.
The invasion represented two experiments on the part of the Nazis. First, Hitler (as he had been for so long) continued pushing the western powers to see how much he could expand in Central Europe without them pushing back. He had taken Austria and Czechoslovakia with either little protest or active cooperation. Poland was obviously a much larger gamble as a full-scale military invasion. The second experiment was with something of a new form of warfare. The German Army had spent much of the interwar years arguing furiously about how to deal with the static mess that had been the Western Front. Unlike the French, who essentially decided on the pre-built trench system of the Maginot line, the Germans looked to mobility to break the stalemate. This was not universally loved within the German high command, but there was enough support that the Germans began creating divisions of tanks and mechanized infantry, supported by mobile artillery and ground attack aircraft. When the war started in September 1939, the number of those divisions was still relatively low but they served as the spearheads as the German Army launched itself into the Polish defenses. This operational method was not fully developed in Poland, nor was it truly a break from the past German practices. It was, in many ways, a great trial run of a German way of war that had existed since Frederick the Great and before, reinvented for mass industrial war.
The Poles, unfortunately for them, had played into the German hands (as the Soviets would two years later). Their defense pushed right up to the Polish border and aimed only to grudgingly give ground, while waiting for the British and French to come to their aid by attacking Germany in the west. That put an large number of Polish units into the Poznan salient along the western border, ripe for German plucking. Poland’s overall strategic situation was dire, but this disposition of forces was, to put it mildly, not optimal.
In any case, at 4:45 am on that day, the ancient German battleship Schleswig-Holstein opened fire on the Polish fortifications in Westerplatte and German units surged across the border from Prussia, northern Germany, and southern Germany. Twenty years earlier, the negotiators in Paris had been writing a treaty that they hoped would avert another catastrophe like the Great War. The sound of the guns on September 1 was a sign of their most signal failure.
—
Map from United States Military Academy Department of History.
38 comments
September 1, 2009 at 5:50 pm
ekogan
So you don’t believe that it’s all the Poles fault? After all, Kremlin knows best.
September 1, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Jay C
Yeah, and apparently, the Poles aren’t so pleased, either .
70 years on, and WWII issues are still being squabbled over….
September 1, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Vance
a German way of war that had existed since Frederick the Great and before
Do people broadly speak in these terms? That is, is it generally useful to think in terms of a continuous Germanness through Frederick to unification and the interwar period?
September 1, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Erik Lund
It’s an argument associated with Robert Citino, which puts a fair weight behind it even if it sets some folks’ teeth on edge. And as grand historical abstractions go, it’s as least as good as proposing a French way of warfare turning on fortress networks, or a British way focussing on combined operations.
Fortunately, Citino locates continuity in the strategic situation, not in special pathes to modernity or “national character.”
But if I can throw in a defence of Polish mobilisation plans, an army really has little choice but to mobilise where the reservists are, unless it is prepared to wait for a million men to hitch-hiike to their armoury.
September 1, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Linkmeister
Possibly the most damning sentence I’ve ever read about WW II was written by Shirer in “Rise and Fall,” when he led off a chapter with “France did not fight.”
Obviously a little hyperbolic, but it sure made the case well. Nobody could have said that about the Poles; did I hear correctly on the radio that the ~180 soldiers at Gleiwitz held out for a week?
September 2, 2009 at 12:57 am
dave
“…as least as good as proposing a French way of warfare turning on fortress networks…”
Napoleon, of course, not being a real Frenchman…
September 2, 2009 at 3:27 am
silbey
@Vance, what Erik L. said. I find Citino’s stuff reasonably convincing particularly (as Erik said) because he’s not looking for some sort of innate Germanness but very specifically locating the ‘German Way of War’ in the tradition and doctrine of the German officer corps and (to a certain extent) the aristocracy. I’m not sure (and I’m going a bit from memory here) that he handles the Napoleonic era well here and there’s a danger that it might be a bit of an invented tradition, but the German officers of the interwar years saw what they were developing as fitting nicely into a longer paradigm.
But if I can throw in a defence of Polish mobilisation plans, an army really has little choice but to mobilise where the reservists are, unless it is prepared to wait for a million men to hitch-hiike to their armoury.
The Poles didn’t have trains?
And note that a number of Polish generals were arguing for defense based on river lines back into Poland, so they certainly thought it was possible.
Having said that the two defenses of the Polish system I’ve seen were 1) Eastern Silesia on the border was the site of most of Poland’s heavy industry, which they needed for war, and 2) they didn’t want the Germans to cut off a chunk of Poland and then reach a negotiated peace with Britain and France that included that chunk.
September 2, 2009 at 4:56 am
Jason B.
Their defense pushed right up to the Polish border and aimed only to grudgingly give ground, while waiting for the British and French to come to their aid by attacking Germany in the west.
Apparently they hadn’t noticed how that worked out for Czechoslovakia.
September 2, 2009 at 5:33 am
Jay C
[Hitler] had taken Austria and Czechoslovakia with either little protest or active cooperation.
Although generally true in the case of Austria (there were a lot of protests in Austria; but the Nazis dealt with them in their usual manner) – the case of Czechoslovakia. was, I had thought, a tad more complicated.
IIRC, Hitler’s territorial grabs up til the 1938 Munich Conference had been based mostly on the Grossdeutschland theory: “re-uniting” all “Germans” under Nazi rule. Which the results of Munich were intended to sanction by giving Hitler the German-speaking Sudetenland. That illusion was shattered, however, after the Nazis occupied the whole of Czechoslovakia in May of 1939 and dismembered it (mollifying the Slovaks with a semi-autonomous puppet “state” of their own). The conventional interpretation is that the British and French were so incensed (if belatedly) by Nazi perfidy, that they decided to “draw the line” in Poland.
The rest, as they say, is history….
September 2, 2009 at 6:38 am
kid bitzer
can i just point out that if this were a *real* history blog, i.e. with posters and commenters who were *real* historians, then we wouldn’t be debating crap like “invented traditions” and “innate germanness”.
instead, people would focus right in on what matters: hardware.
is that sdkfz really vintage 1939? what about those panzers in the background: are they from the right division to be in that invasion? are they pzkw iis or iiis?
and then we’d descend into an increasingly geeky discussion of glacis-angles, transmission-covers, and entrenching tools.
but no–not a real historian on the whole damned blog. this day in cultural studies, more like it.
September 2, 2009 at 6:54 am
Vance
“Germanness” was over the top (to deploy a dead metaphor more reminiscent of the previous post). Thanks, Erik and silbey — interesting.
September 2, 2009 at 7:01 am
Anderson
Bitzer failed to notice that it’s obviously not Stalin, but Pancho Villa, in that photo.
September 2, 2009 at 7:11 am
PorJ
Another terrific post, thanks for this. I’d just like to supplement your picture of military strategy/history with something from Auden’s September 1, 1939, a poem reflective (I think) of what most people around the world with access to the news were thinking upon hearing it:
The rest is pretty amazing stuff.
September 2, 2009 at 7:19 am
kid bitzer
while i appreciate the effort, anderson, and i did consider checking the kerning on molotov’s signature, i think you are still too stuck in the “great man” paradigm of history.
stalin? pancho villa? history is not about “great men”. history is about hardware.
preferably with numbers and abbreviations.
September 2, 2009 at 7:47 am
Anderson
More with the Auden. I am not a fan.
September 2, 2009 at 7:56 am
silbey
instead, people would focus right in on what matters: hardware.
is that sdkfz really vintage 1939? what about those panzers in the background: are they from the right division to be in that invasion? are they pzkw iis or iiis?
and then we’d descend into an increasingly geeky discussion of glacis-angles, transmission-covers, and entrenching tools.
but no–not a real historian on the whole damned blog. this day in cultural studies, more like it.
Don’t start me off, kb, I’ll have a geeky hardware discussion with the best of them.
September 2, 2009 at 9:57 am
Josh
That is, is it generally useful to think in terms of a continuous Germanness through Frederick to unification and the interwar period?
Erik and silbey have already responded to this, but I’d also mention Gordon Craig’s The Politics of the Prussian Army: 1640-1945, which isn’t quite the same thing, but related.
I have no idea how the book is currently viewed, though, given that it’s now 45 years old.
September 2, 2009 at 10:02 am
Josh
is that sdkfz really vintage 1939? what about those panzers in the background: are they from the right division to be in that invasion? are they pzkw iis or iiis?
And what about the tank-like thing in the background of this pic?
September 2, 2009 at 10:39 am
AaLD
Ok, I admit I’m not a “real historian” of any sort (geek/hardware style or the other kind), but when I read about the “reunification” with Austria, I’m wracking my brain trying to figure out when Austria and Germany were ever unified to begin with. I know a little about the Holy Roman Empire, but “unified” is not high on the list of terms I would use to describe it.
Was that just a harkening back to a mythical past, like those Americans who long for the “good old days” when we all lived in Mayberry, RFD?
September 2, 2009 at 11:26 am
Jay C
@ AaLD:
Well, I’m not a “real historian”, either, but the historical answer to the question …”when Austria and Germany were ever unified to begin with”? is, of course… never. But naturally, mere facts never stopped Hitler from pursuing his goals: Nazi theory (and practice) tapped right into an already-existing vein of Pan-Germanist sentiment – i.e. the notion that all “Germans” – everywhere – ought to have a single, unified government to go with their “uniform” culture: which Hitler, in the form of the Third Reich, just happened to have handy….
But, given the long history of German (political) disunity, Pan-Germanism has always seemed to be not so much “harkening back to a mythical past” as a “harkening forward to a Utopian future”. SSDD.
September 2, 2009 at 11:29 am
silbey
Gordon Craig’s The Politics of the Prussian Army: 1640-1945,
Still regarded very well. A classic in the positive sense of the word.
but when I read about the “reunification” with Austria, I’m wracking my brain trying to figure out when Austria and Germany were ever unified to begin with
Fair point; Hitler talked about it as a reunification and I may have been channeling him.
And what about the tank-like thing in the background of this pic?
I love the intertubes.
September 2, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Anderson
Hitler talked about it as a reunification and I may have been channeling him.
Shit, first Pat Buchanan, now you. Schwein flu?
September 2, 2009 at 1:04 pm
silbey
Schwein flu?
And we have the thread winner!
September 2, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Anderson
Oh, I think that was Bitzer.
But I’d definitely get that checked out, Silbey, before you start wondering in public “As of March 1939, Hitler did not even have a border with Russia. How then could he invade Russia?”
September 2, 2009 at 3:03 pm
David Weman
“but when I read about the “reunification” with Austria, I’m wracking my brain trying to figure out when Austria and Germany were ever unified to begin”
Austria was part of the kingdom of Germany, which was always decentalized, but unambigiously a state for most of its existence.
September 2, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Matt
The “sphere of influence” language in the treaty is important, perhaps, for modern debates on history going on in Russia now. The official history books (which it may soon become a crime to criticize- really), say that the second world war started when Germany “invaded” Western Poland, and that in response the Soviet Union “expanded its sphere of influence” into the Baltics and eastern Poland. Calling it an invasion will get you in a lot of trouble and, perhaps soon, prosecuted. It’s this sort of thing that makes people in Eastern Europe nervous when Russia today talks about its rightful “sphere of influence”, especially those places that have felt a bit of the expansion in the near past.
September 2, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Matt L.
Molotov ribbentrop pact… (mego)
Gordon Craig’s The Politics of the Prussian Army: 1640-1945 (Historikerstreit anyone?)
is that sdkfz really vintage 1939? what about those panzers in the background: are they from the right division to be in that invasion? are they pzkw iis or iiis? (yawn, there are the Osprey books for that)
@k.b. & sibley; with all the talk of Germany vs. Poland in 1939, this has turned into a real sausage party… I’m headed over to Historiann’s place and Tenured Radical to see what the women are up to.
September 2, 2009 at 3:24 pm
kid bitzer
i hope buchanan will follow that up by debunking the scurrilous slanders about japan “invading” china, korea, and the philipines, with none of which it had a border.
and this nonsense about pearl harbor? all lies. where’s the japanese/hawaii border?
September 2, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Erik Lund
For “reunification,” there is now a huge literature that makes Das Heilige Roemisches Reiches Deutches Nation into a precursor of the modern Federal Republic. (Here’s a new book that I want to read when I have some time: http://de.groups.yahoo.com/group/recht-und-wirklichkeit/message/1413)
In this model, Austria, and more problematically, the Czech lands, the Burgundian Circle, and Italy are part of a grand federal-imperial structure. There’s parallels with the old Grossdeutsch historiography, but the repudiation of nationalism requires a new understanding of what the “German Nation” might be. Still working on that bit, although there are some glimmerings of a new approach to “imperial history” in various corners. (Can’t think of a monograph to cite for Germany apart from the obvious ((Karl Otmar von Aretin, Volker Press, Wheatcroft, Heer)) but this for Qing China is all kinds of cool: http://www.amazon.ca/Translucent-Mirror-Identity-Imperial-Ideology/dp/0520234243/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251929493&sr=8-13
And to continue my defence of the Polish mobilisation plan, there are obvious alternatives. You can recall conscripts to arsenals in the interior and wait for them to get there before mobilisation, or, more practically, you can mobilise march battalions in populous frontier towns and designate a concentration point in the interior. The question is, are the Germans going to give you the time or room for this?
Arguably, you can’t count on it. So you had best form march battalions in the interior and advance to the reinforcement of units mobilising on the frontier. In practice, the de facto concentration will be at the point of contact and some advanced formations will be overrun as they mobilise. As long as the Poles had a massive cavalry and air advantage, I think that you could at least argue that the outcome would be for the best on balance. That, of course, changed quite rapidly in the late 1930s.
September 2, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Vance
I don’t know what to make of that Auden poem. Maybe one of these years I’ll get over my uneasy sense that it’s glib — either by finding the non-glibness in it, or by mastering the unease and articulating that sense — and do a post. In the meantime, Anderson’s points (linked above) are sound.
September 2, 2009 at 3:43 pm
silbey
there are obvious alternatives
Right, like figuring out how to use the natural defensive features that God has given you and not getting sucked in to defending every last square inch of territory.
You’re going to defend the Soviet defensive plan when I do something on Barbarossa, aren’t you?
September 2, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Anderson
where’s the japanese/hawaii border?
All’s I know is, Obama was born on the wrong side of it.
September 2, 2009 at 4:57 pm
zz
Simon Jenkins responded to your post, Silbey:
“We are awash in history. This week the Poles again climb on stage, as they do each time anniversary journalism returns to the second world war. It is 70 years since German ships bombarded the fort of Gdansk, then known as the free city of Danzig, while Polish lancers turned their horses to face Hitler’s Panzers in the most romantic and idiotic act of suicide of modern war. Last month we heard the fell tones of Chamberlain announcing: “We are at war with Germany.” Next spring we shall be back in Dunkirk.
“Meanwhile we must also take time off to record the 40th anniversary of Gadaffi of Libya, the 30th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the fifth of the Beslan massacre. While gazing at the calendar we might recall the 40th anniversary of vasectomy, the 50th of the M1 motorway, the 60th of the chairmanship of Mao, the 80th of the traffic light and the centenary of the force-feeding of suffragettes. There is no end to the trough of history at which hungry readers can feed.”
September 2, 2009 at 5:11 pm
silbey
@zz, that’s an awesomely British column, and I agree almost entirely with it.
(The part about Polish cavalry charging German tanks just isn’t true, though, apparently.)
September 2, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Erik Lund
First off, pretty sure I meant “Reich,” not Reiches. Stupid Germans, making their grammar too hard for me.
Second
“Right, like figuring out how to use the natural defensive features that God has given you and not getting sucked in to defending every last square inch of territory.
You’re going to defend the Soviet defensive plan when I do something on Barbarossa, aren’t you?”
Surprisingly enough, I don’t have a horse in that race. Though I do a Maginot Line apology to die for! (I may even talk about Janis Langins when you do that post, which will be as much fun as all your posts are, Silbey.)
I do want us to think about mobilisation as a process that occurs in the real world, with all its constraints, and to defend the Polish General Staff. Just because it isn’t done doesn’t mean that it is impossible, whereas the agenda of the critics is as predictable as it is dispiriting. (Per Wikipedia: “Although the second plan was more militarily sound, political considerations outweighed them, as Polish politicians were concerned….[blah blah stupid politicians smart generals fishcakes].”)
(Hyperbole alert) Bear in mind that for a day in the second week of September, it look like the Polish plan was good enough to win the Second World War before it started! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bzura
And also, it looks to me like the Germans made the mistake of relying on the Bzura river to cover their flanks.
September 2, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Vance
Das Heilige Römische Reich Deutscher Nation. (One rule here is that of the items — article and adjective — preceding the noun Reich, only the first should signal the gender.)
September 3, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Kevin Gurney
The Poles didn’t have trains?
Actually, when Poland was reconstituted in 1918, its railroad system had three different track gauges, inherited from the German, Austrian and Russian empires.
I don’t know what the situation was in 1939, but it is entirely possible that quick traversal of the country by hundreds of thousands (?) of military personnel was simply not possible, and therefore, not worth planning for.
That said, I think the bigger reason for the “frontier defense” was political and nationalistic, not necessarily military, and Erik (quoting Wikipedia) describes.
September 4, 2009 at 7:10 pm
TF Smith
Other than the Vistula and the Carpathians (and the Baltic, I suppose; they were safe from the Swedes), what “natural defensive features” did the Poles have?
The Italians and Swiss have natural defensive features; so do the French and Germans – and the British have the greatest anti-tank obstacle in Europe.
But the Poles facing the Germans would be in sort of the same position as, I dunno, the Louisiana NG facing the Texas NG…the only real geographic obstacle is spang in the middle of what is being “defended”…
I think the Poles did about as well as could be expected…