Did the post WW2 border changes benefit Poland in the long run?

[GoTW Kubee]

With my above statements in mind, I find your use of "re-covered" and "re-acquisitioned" surprising, all the more in light of your otherwise very balanced post. The territory of today's Poland has seen so many different owners over the past millenium (and for a long time, owners were German or at least Prussian), I think that one could safely drop the "re-".

Well, I used suffix 're' because all of those territories had belonged to a Polish state at some point. Gdansk, Elblag and Olsztyn, which remained part of Germany/were made independent cities after WW1 had been part of the Commonwealth for over 300 years when they were annexed by Prussia in the late 18th century, whereas Western Pomerania and Silesia had been part of Poland at times during the Middle Ages. I didn't mean anything political by that. Besides, I believe those provinces are refereed to in Polish as the 'recovered territories' regardless.

Otherwise, I would mostly agree with you, although as others have pointed out, the advantages of the "more developed" former German provinces might not have been so great after all. One of the reasons that the GDR had a much rougher start than the FRG was the large-scale Soviet dismantling of German industrial capacities, and apparently this happened there as well.

This is true, but nevertheless, the infrastructure was far more advanced in the formerly German provinces and Silesia does contain a lot of important natural resources, as mentioned by Shockblast. Don't forget that the Eastern part of Poland had been very badly devastated too.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Obviously the cost and the huge problems faced when resettling the Western provinces would have taken away a lot from any advantages, but I don't think you can discount that they were/are far better developed than the Eastern provinces lost. Besides, didn't the Germans destroy a lot of industry in Poland when they were retreating from the Red Army?

Also, it's not really further away from the Russian sphere of influence, with Belorussia being a state of the USSR and now a puppet state of Russia.

Still, Poland is physically further away from Russia. Yes, there is a border between the 2 countries in East Prussia and Belarus and Ukraine are indeed Russia's , but longer distance does make it harder to have any influence over the country.

I think you overestimate the importance of size and population. Rather, it seems to me that smaller countries often do comparatively better, and have therefore a stronger international influence than larger ones.

Well, I agree that it easier to run a smaller country, which is why there is often a positive correlation between smaller countries and wealth. Then again, you don't see Denmark, Belgium or Holland bossing other countries around on the International Stage. I would argue that a country with a population of 50 million and 50000 km^2 area is always going to be more important than the same country if it had a pop. of 30 million and 30000 km^2 area, assuming all other factors are equal. This is largely down to psychology if anything.

Similarly, a loss in influence over Easter Europe? Seems rather not the case, because even with pre-WWII borders, any influence would be marginal at best, given the immense size and resources of Russia (not contradicting my former statement here, because when the sizes are so dramatically different, it makes a difference). Less diversity also is a negative point for me, but given the fragile situation in 1945 and 1989, it might have been a boon instead.

True, until 1989 Poland was indeed a Russian satellite, so any 'influence' it would not have had any sort of influence regardless. But right now, for example, a Poland which included Galicia and Volhynia may have had more weight in trying to sway Ukraine towards the EU than it currently has.

As for diversity, that's a point I covered in the positives too. As I said, a combination of Communist and UPA propaganda and centuries of being peasants under Polish rule had caused many Ukrainians to be deeply anti-Polish.

@Dromikaites

Also, as Eisenkopf has pointed out, the industry of the German part of Silesia annexed by Poland had been previously stripped bare by the Soviets. So what the Poles did get from Stalin was just land, devastated houses and a population of 8 million Germans to kick out. So we are left to ponder which solution would have been better: to expel 8 million Germans or ~ 6 million Ukrainians and Belorussians? Because in terms of industry the gains were negligible.

Poland's government was nowhere near strong or organised enough to undertake an ethnic cleansing of this magnitude, not to mention the condemnation it would have caused in the West and its dubious morality. Besides, where would they have deported them to? The USSR?

[QUOTE]In terms of coastline, the main Polish ports on the Baltic are still Gdansk and Gdynia and the main resort is Sopot, so there wasn't much to be gained by moving the border Westwards. A long coastline isn't worth much unless there are good places to build ports on that coastline.[QUOTE]

Gdansk was a free city during the interwar period (i.e. not part of Poland), and I believe Szczecin is quite a prosperous port as well.

We now come to the "closer to the West" argument. Poland is "closer to the West" only because nowadays it is separated from Russia by Ukraine and Belarus. Had the Russian Civil War unfolded differently we might have seen an independent Ukraine and an independent Belarus back in 1921 instead of 1991. In that case the pre-war Poland would have been just as "close to the West" as it is today, except with Lvov and Wilno as Polish cities and Sttetin and Breslau part of Germany.

Many now consider Poland to be a Central European country now, whereas 80 years ago it was very much Eastern Europe. The geographical shift West makes trade easier and changes the whole perception of the country when people look at a map.

P.S. please don't think I'm saying that the border shift was good for Poland; I'm just defending the validity of some of my points on both sides of the argument here. In fact, I think that an ideal solution would have been for Poland to retain its Eastern borders as well as annexing parts of Germany as compensation for what the country and its people endured during WW2, along with being allowed to have a non-commie gov't. But all of this is moot anyway, since Stalin would hardly have allowed it and the number of ethnic Poles left in Eastern Europe at the time was too low to effectively populate both the Western and Eastern territories.

[Kitsunegari]

This is the electoral map i referenced earlier. Largely congruous with the old German-Russian border.:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[ShockBlast]

The blow received by Germany`s loss of Silesia was huge, while the infrastructure was devastated and the industry itself was gone, those where short term problems.

Silesia, Ruhr and Bohemia where the engines of the Nazi warmachine.Silesia alone, let`s not talk about the other parts of Germany given to Poland, is worth like 4 or 5 times,if not more, in resources then the entire land recovered by the Soviet Union.

Pitty, a Germany with the Weimar borders would be quite strong, economically speaking.Oh well, the past is the past.

[Stavroforos]

Yeah, the last thing we'd want is an economically strong Germany...

[ShockBlast]

Yeah, the last thing we'd want is an economically strong Germany...

That is exactly what we need.Germany is the heart of Europe, the stronger Germany is, the stronger EU is.

[Stavroforos]

I suppose my sarcasm was hard to convey in post form, or what I was being sarcastic about, but Germany is plenty strong as is.

[ShockBlast]

I suppose my sarcasm was hard to convey in post form, or what I was being sarcastic about, but Germany is plenty strong as is.

It was, you do have a history of bashing Germany.

Tbh, Germany is a shell of it`s former self, even economically.The loss of so much land, the Silesian resources and their unwillingness to address their negative population growth is hampering Germany`s growth.They could have had 4 trillions with ease,if not more, if today`s Germany had the territory of the second Reich and they would be the proud people they where in the past.

Now back to the thread, I am confident that Poland will develop itself and use all those silesian resources well.

[Kitsunegari]

Germany doesn't need population growth, it's overpopulated as it is.

[Stavroforos]

Perhaps they just need some space, for living.

[GoTW Kubee]

Perhaps they just need some space, for living.

Lmao.

[eisenkopf]

(...)
Obviously the cost and the huge problems faced when resettling the Western provinces would have taken away a lot from any advantages, but I don't think you can discount that they were/are far better developed than the Eastern provinces lost. Besides, didn't the Germans destroy a lot of industry in Poland when they were retreating from the Red Army?

I don't have sources at hand, but IIRC, the Wehrmacht lacked capacity to engage in widespread Scorched Earth operations. They mostly blew up transport infrastructure to slow down Red Army Advance.

True, until 1989 Poland was indeed a Russian satellite, so any 'influence' it would not have had any sort of influence regardless. But right now, for example, a Poland which included Galicia and Volhynia may have had more weight in trying to sway Ukraine towards the EU than it currently has.

That's an interesting point, with a more "Eastern" Poland, there could be more support and incentive for the Ukraine.

Germany doesn't need population growth, it's overpopulated as it is.

Hear the expert talking! Yes, we are all living in high-risers, noone's living in detached houses anymore, the Eastern Länder are especially heavily populated, and the demographics indicate that there are too many teens who will soon become adults and swamp the job market and create even more little Germans.

[ShockBlast]

Germany doesn't need population growth, it's overpopulated as it is.

You know what overpopulation means?

[CiviC]

That's an interesting point, with a more "Eastern" Poland, there could be more support and incentive for the Ukraine.

Actually, without Western Ukraine, most of it formerly part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth/Austrian Galicia/Interbellum Polish Republic it wouldn't be a Nationalistic Ukraine to fight Russia. In a way Russia by demanding for Ukraine the Western Parts (in the Soviet times, Ribbetrop-Molotov Pact and so on) undermined its own position, making Ukraine a fragile position for Russia. If Ukraine was mostly the Eastern parts and Soutern parts the Rusophone and Rusophile parts there would be no challange for Moscow influence.

[GoTW Kubee]

I don't have sources at hand, but IIRC, the Wehrmacht lacked capacity to engage in widespread Scorched Earth operations. They mostly blew up transport infrastructure to slow down Red Army Advance.

I don't have any sources at hand either apart from what I remember reading, but wouldn't the complete and utter devastation of Warsaw in 1944 be an example of destruction of industry (well, along with all the other buildings in the city) and an indicator that the Wehrmacht was still able to carry out large scale scorched earth operations (or at least in major cities)? Obviously the reason behind wiping out the city was to crush the Warsaw Uprising rather than to dent Polish industrial capacity for the future, but I also seem to remember reading that the Wehrmacht planned to raze Krakow to the ground as well, only for the Red Army to arrive just in the nick of time.

@Civic

Actually, without Western Ukraine, most of it formerly part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth/Austrian Galicia/Interbellum Polish Republic it wouldn't be a Nationalistic Ukraine to fight Russia. In a way Russia by demanding for Ukraine the Western Parts (in the Soviet times, Ribbetrop-Molotov Pact and so on) undermined its own position, making Ukraine a fragile position for Russia. If Ukraine was mostly the Eastern parts and Soutern parts the Rusophone and Rusophile parts there would be no challange for Moscow influence.

That's an interesting point. The situation in Western Ukraine at the end of WW2 (due to this) was such that there were far fewer Poles remaining in the area, and the ones that were left could hardly be expected to live alongside the Ukrainians in peace. So, if Poland had kept its Eastern provinces, they would either have had to deport the Ukrainians living there to the USSR or faced massive problems with unrest.

Also, it is very true that the vast majority of Ukrainian ultra nationalists (i.e. ones who idolise scum like Bandera and co. and think that there is a huge Jewish conspiracy to overthrow Ukraine, along with other similar nonsense) today are from those areas annexed from Poland in 1945. So Ukraine today is far more nationalist for having incorporated those areas, which is a negative for Russia. However, the USSR (along with the UPA) wanted to remove all traces of Polish presence and rule in the area to give itself undisputed power over Eastern Europe, and the only way of doing that was deporting by all Poles from areas which weren't undeniably ethnically Polish and Sovietising the indigenous population. The fact that Poland had ruled over large chunks of Ukraine until 1792 did however come in handy for Communist propaganda and official textbooks for portraying the Poles as occupiers and slave drivers etc.

[Kitsunegari]

You know what overpopulation means?

Yes, 80 million (?) crammed in area maybe half the size of the American state of Texas.

[intel]

What an idiotic response. Texas is less populated than Poland and Poland is relatively less urbanised, lacks great cities etc and still has more population density than Texas. I've been to Germany many times and to call it overpopulated is stupid, nothing else.

[Kitsunegari]

What's idiotic is your methodology, a more appropriate comparison for Germany would be S Korea or Japan (though still problematic). These countries probably exceeded their ideal capacity in the late 20th century and can stand for a decline as long as it is not very prolonged. Poland OTOH has a near ideal balance of demography and geography with evenly distributed population and sufficient agricultural land.

[GoTW Kubee]

Do you mean Germany's overpopulated in the sense that there is physically not enough room in the country to fit in all its people, or that the country's resources, healthcare system, food production etc aren't sufficient to support the population? Whilst I can't comment on the latter, I haven't found any evidence of Germany being overcrowded when I've been there. Berlin for example feels really spacious with its wide roads, open spaces and green areas.

[intel]

What's idiotic is your methodology, a more appropriate comparison for Germany would be S Korea or Japan (though still problematic). These countries probably exceeded their ideal capacity in the late 20th century and can stand for a decline as long as it is not very prolonged. Poland OTOH has a near ideal balance of demography and geography with evenly distributed population and sufficient agricultural land.

Japan population density: 337.1/km²
S. Korea population density: 501.1/km²
Germany population density: 225/km²

This comparison was spot on! I'd also like to know your criteria of "ideal capacity" when it comes to population.

[eisenkopf]

Japan population density: 337.1/km² S. Korea population density: 501.1/km² Germany population density: 225/km² This comparison was spot on! I'd also like to know your criteria of "ideal capacity" when it comes to population.

I wouldn't feed the troll and derail the thread. He has obviously not a clue about methodologies and models for determining carrying capacity and actual population density on habitable land, and thus completely talks out of his arse.

I don't have any sources at hand either apart from what I remember reading, but wouldn't the complete and utter devastation of Warsaw in 1944 be an example of destruction of industry (well, along with all the other buildings in the city) and an indicator that the Wehrmacht was still able to carry out large scale scorched earth operations (or at least in major cities)? Obviously the reason behind wiping out the city was to crush the Warsaw Uprising rather than to dent Polish industrial capacity for the future, but I also seem to remember reading that the Wehrmacht planned to raze Krakow to the ground as well, only for the Red Army to arrive just in the nick of time.

The Wehrmacht wrought widespread destruction during the retreat in the USSR, but when the front line reached Germany, it was too exhausted. Besides, any Scorched Earth strategy seems to have been mostly sabotaged by Speer. Again, I don't have any good sources at hand (my library is out of reach until Christmas...), but Wikipedia matches what I have read elsewhere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero_Decree.