31 August 1939: Poles preempt
A possible solution to this could be the complete destruction of all those areas Germany wanted and retreating their army untouched to a much smaller border. Provided all supplies would have to be transported by a non-exsisting road and rail system, Germany would have to make a significant effort to occupy all those areas. This could possibly give time for the French and British to take action against the Western Front. This would also mean, that the time Germans need to take over the deserted areas, and the men needed to take over, would be missed from the Western Front.......Molobo wrote:Becaue the polish areas left would be occupied by Germany-Gdansk, Pomorze(Pomerania) and Greater Poland.but still, why did they plan to defend the borders if the waterways behind their positions would prove much better in defence?
For Germans that would be victory and they would gain everything they wanted.
I know this sound stupid.. but given we all know what historicly happen and that indeed half Poland was completely destroyed, it would be a possible solution for me at least had I the chance to go back in time and decide...
Some polish generals thought that their troops would reach Berlin within 3 weeks, some even 3 days!
They didn`t know so much about war, especially not about the blitzkrieg!
Yes, they could effectively have attacked, by foolishness! In that case, it is unlikely that the west would have declared war.
The Germans would have defeated them.
The question is...
Would the soviets still have taken eastern Poland?
Would the western allies declared war to Germany as it attacked the CCCP the following year?
They didn`t know so much about war, especially not about the blitzkrieg!
Yes, they could effectively have attacked, by foolishness! In that case, it is unlikely that the west would have declared war.
The Germans would have defeated them.
The question is...
Would the soviets still have taken eastern Poland?
Would the western allies declared war to Germany as it attacked the CCCP the following year?
-
20/20 vision
- Member
- Posts: 96
- Joined: 14 Sep 2004, 23:37
- Location: england
dont see how the western allies would have declared war on germany if poland had attacked germany.
surely they had only guaranteed poland borders if attacked by germany not the other way round.
germany would now have a ligitimate reason to go to war with poland without fear of intervention from the west.
the russians would wait to see the result of the conflict, if germany were (which is most probable) throw off any polish attack and carry on with an invasion of poland the red army would roll in from the east as before.
result poland obliterated as before by germany and ussr but no war with britain and france.
surely they had only guaranteed poland borders if attacked by germany not the other way round.
germany would now have a ligitimate reason to go to war with poland without fear of intervention from the west.
the russians would wait to see the result of the conflict, if germany were (which is most probable) throw off any polish attack and carry on with an invasion of poland the red army would roll in from the east as before.
result poland obliterated as before by germany and ussr but no war with britain and france.
-
Paul in Saudi
- Member
- Posts: 28
- Joined: 11 Apr 2005, 18:05
- Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
It is difficult any scenario in which the Poles could have won. Indeed, it is hard to think of ways they could have done much better than they actually did. The correlation of forces was simply too skewed to favor the Germans.
All in all, they might have done better to have declared themselves a Socialist Republic and invited the Soviets in in about '38, or declared themselves to be National Socialist whatever and invited the Germans in. I do not think either would have worked, but it could not have turned out much worse than it actually did.
All in all, they might have done better to have declared themselves a Socialist Republic and invited the Soviets in in about '38, or declared themselves to be National Socialist whatever and invited the Germans in. I do not think either would have worked, but it could not have turned out much worse than it actually did.
Actually being NS they couldn't gain anything as Germans considered them Untermensch. On the other hand, Russians wouldn't want them as they would cause a war with Germany much sooner over disputed "former Polish" areas -Dunzig etc-. In the later case, Poland would be simply ruined like in real history only this time because of the fighting contacted in their own land... I think the best chance would be to give the Germans all they initially wanted and call the rest of the country neutral... but even this wouldn't save them once Germany would decide to move eastwards.... not to mention the pride of these nation wouldn't allow this to be true ever..Paul in Saudi wrote:It is difficult any scenario in which the Poles could have won. Indeed, it is hard to think of ways they could have done much better than they actually did. The correlation of forces was simply too skewed to favor the Germans.
All in all, they might have done better to have declared themselves a Socialist Republic and invited the Soviets in in about '38, or declared themselves to be National Socialist whatever and invited the Germans in. I do not think either would have worked, but it could not have turned out much worse than it actually did.
-
Paul in Saudi
- Member
- Posts: 28
- Joined: 11 Apr 2005, 18:05
- Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
-
Von Schadewald
- Member
- Posts: 2065
- Joined: 17 Nov 2004, 00:17
- Location: Israel
From the point of view of metahistory, even more than conquering the Poles, Hitler wanted to destroy the 3 million Polish Jews. Even more than enslaving the Soviet untermensch, Hitler wanted to destroy the 3 million Soviet Jews. That was his real driving goal, from which he would not, could not be turned, delayed or reasoned with.
Well they could be hand them over to become "German" citizens for a couple of years as an educational vacation to Nazi Germany..Von Schadewald wrote:From the point of view of metahistory, even more than conquering the Poles, Hitler wanted to destroy the 3 million Polish Jews. Even more than enslaving the Soviet untermensch, Hitler wanted to destroy the 3 million Soviet Jews. That was his real driving goal, from which he would not, could not be turned, delayed or reasoned with.
I think this would be pleasant to both Stalin as he wouldn't bother and both russians and poles could also keep the loot!!
Damn, sometimes I have a very sick imagination.....
If Poland had invaded Germany I think it could have completely changed the course and outcome of the war. Britain & France would have no reason to declare war on Germany although I think war with them was inevitable at some stage but the extra time that Hitler would have gained could have allowed for an earlier and better planned "Barborossa" as well as more troops being available because of a quiet Western Front. This could have meant the defeat of the USSR and possibly an eventual victory for the Germans in the entire war.
-
Kurt_Steiner
- Member
- Posts: 3980
- Joined: 14 Feb 2004, 14:52
- Location: Barcelona, Catalunya
Once Poland defeated, if France and England didn't declare war, would Hitler still attack, Norway, Denmark and France in 1940? I think so, as Hitelr need to cover the northern flank and to get rid of France. But perhaps the attack against France would be easier, as there would be no BEF, if the UK hadn't declare war. Supposing that all goes at its historical pace (how long would last this new Poland campaign? Longer of course, but how much), would Germany still be capable of attacking Norway when they did historically? Then, of course the UK and France would declare war to Germany. Between that moment and May 1940, would be the BEF deployed and ready for battle? I don't think so.
My single doubt is, if the Poland campaign is longer and with more casualties, if Germany wouild be capable of attacking in the West in 1940. I dunno why, but I doubt it.
My single doubt is, if the Poland campaign is longer and with more casualties, if Germany wouild be capable of attacking in the West in 1940. I dunno why, but I doubt it.
I don't think that the poles are folish enough to think that they can beat germany heads up. If they attack Germany, I don't think that France and England would possibly support them. Politically, it is pretty shakey. France and england are only committed to defending Poland. In that case, I don't think anyone suspects Poland could actually attack. If the poles where smart, a very public, and extensive general mobilization, and diging in would be a good idea. Disperse the aircraft, and fight a delaying action. The Germans where going to beat Poland no matter what, but they where able to do it very rapidly due to the Luftwaffe attacks on induction centers, and disrupting rail transport, limiting the poles oppurntunity to concentrate their forces. If the Poles can concnetrate, and at least have some field fortifications built, then it limits the effectiveness of the light german armor, and gives them a chance. The Germans are still an infantry army, and one with no combat experience. It takes Germany a while to get going on the attack, and that would give france a chance to attack. We known that the Franch have little inclination to try to do this, but it really is the only hope the Poles have. We also know historically, that any effort exerted by France would meet with no resisteence, and that even a token force could reach the rhein and beyond. If the Rhur is taken, there is not that much that Germany can do.
Kurt, the Wehrmacht suffered more casualties in men and material against Poland than against France and Britain together when Germany invaded France and the BeNeLux. The point is that France and the United Kingdom would have no political reason to support Poland if the latter was the aggressor. The treaty said that they would protect Polands western border, but they would have a hard time trying to justify entering a war where Germany was fighting on her own soil. If the Wehrmacht started to drive the Poles back again, they could start treatening Hitler with an invasion, but even then it'd be hard.
If I remember correctly, the British weren't too keen on entering yet another war, but did when they finally saw that Hitler had to be stopped that way. However, in this case the Poles attack first and thus the case would be a completely other. If Britain decided to watch what happened instead of attacking Germany too, France wouldn't have entered the war either.
Not to mention that the Poles could hardly expect to achieve a surprise attack. There were enough ethnic Germans in Poland who would report troop movements. I would imagine that the Wehrmacht would leave the attack to the Poles and wait in prepared positions. Once the attack was stopped, armored formations would breakt through the Polish units, possibly capturing a lot of them in pockets. A polish attack might have made this invasion even shorter.
If I remember correctly, the British weren't too keen on entering yet another war, but did when they finally saw that Hitler had to be stopped that way. However, in this case the Poles attack first and thus the case would be a completely other. If Britain decided to watch what happened instead of attacking Germany too, France wouldn't have entered the war either.
Not to mention that the Poles could hardly expect to achieve a surprise attack. There were enough ethnic Germans in Poland who would report troop movements. I would imagine that the Wehrmacht would leave the attack to the Poles and wait in prepared positions. Once the attack was stopped, armored formations would breakt through the Polish units, possibly capturing a lot of them in pockets. A polish attack might have made this invasion even shorter.
Baltasar,
France was by no means as committed to a peaceful course of action as was Britain. If Poland attacked Germany in the summer of '39 it would be very difficult for Britian and especially France to stay out of it. The Poles could declare that they were going to war because Germany had invade Czechia some months before and had also withdrawn from a nonaggression pact with Poland. The public in France and Britain would unquestionably have felt the Poles to be in the right and be quite ashamed of their own governments if they stayed out.
One can say that the treaty would not have "obligated" Britain or France to go to war if Poland attacked - but they had recently guaranteed the Czech's new borders and certainly failed to act on their obligations. The only possible reason for Britain and France to go to war in 1939 was that failure to do so would have meant the fall of their govenments in the next election (possibly even sooner).
There is another dimension to an invasion of Germany. So far this discussion has ommitted the feelings of the German general staff towards the Nazi Party. There is a good chance that the generals would have used an invasion (by anyone) as their chance to get rid of Hitler. They may even have kept a front at a standstill inside of the German borders until they could negotiate a proper settlement with all the parties involved.
Would invading Germany have helped even if the above didn't pan out? I believe it might have been very beneficial - especially if we recall that this thread was started under the assumption that Poland had obtained the complete German plans. Given that they would have known troop dispositions and been able to direct their attacks against the most vulnerable German units - they could also have likely destroyed many German aircraft on the ground and even sunk a few ships before Germany could react. Considering that the battle of the Bzura saw a relatively successful Polish advance I see no reason that a number of simultaneous Polish offensives, made with full knowledge of German plans, would be any less successful.
What would happen in the long run? If Poland invaded the front would have stayed out of Polish territory long enough for Poland to mobilize all of her reserves. The initial offensives would have captured some arms so that these reservists would be a bit better equipped but more importantly Poland could have begun digging in near their border in anticipation of German counteroffensives. The Germans would have to follow pretty much their original routes in these attacks. (Not a lot of good transport routes in Poland.) In this case a Polish defense would have been much stronger than was the case on September 1. If no-one else came to Poland's aid, and Germany experienced no internal political meltdown/coup, Poland would certainly have lost the war but the cost the Germany would have been much higher - perhaps high enough that Germany would not invade France and the West.
If Poland was able to keep hold back the Germans for only an extra few weeks the autumn rains would have taken effect. This would have had similar effects on the German army as it did in the fall of '41 when it very much delayed the Germans on their march towards Moscow. It might have taken the Germans until early 1940 to conquer Poland. If the war lasted that long it would almost certainly had a negative effect on the equipment situation of Germany rather than a positive effect. (Germany captured a lot of arms in Poland, much of which could be used by the Heer.)
As with everything in this "What if" this is all a bit speculative. We can also ask - what would Stalin do? I have assumed, purely for arguments sake, that he decided to sit back and wait until Germany surrounded Warsaw before invading. There are many other factors which could also make things turn out very differently. In the long run I think the biggest effect would have been on how Germany fought future campaigns - if there were any.
Rick Seppala
France was by no means as committed to a peaceful course of action as was Britain. If Poland attacked Germany in the summer of '39 it would be very difficult for Britian and especially France to stay out of it. The Poles could declare that they were going to war because Germany had invade Czechia some months before and had also withdrawn from a nonaggression pact with Poland. The public in France and Britain would unquestionably have felt the Poles to be in the right and be quite ashamed of their own governments if they stayed out.
One can say that the treaty would not have "obligated" Britain or France to go to war if Poland attacked - but they had recently guaranteed the Czech's new borders and certainly failed to act on their obligations. The only possible reason for Britain and France to go to war in 1939 was that failure to do so would have meant the fall of their govenments in the next election (possibly even sooner).
There is another dimension to an invasion of Germany. So far this discussion has ommitted the feelings of the German general staff towards the Nazi Party. There is a good chance that the generals would have used an invasion (by anyone) as their chance to get rid of Hitler. They may even have kept a front at a standstill inside of the German borders until they could negotiate a proper settlement with all the parties involved.
Would invading Germany have helped even if the above didn't pan out? I believe it might have been very beneficial - especially if we recall that this thread was started under the assumption that Poland had obtained the complete German plans. Given that they would have known troop dispositions and been able to direct their attacks against the most vulnerable German units - they could also have likely destroyed many German aircraft on the ground and even sunk a few ships before Germany could react. Considering that the battle of the Bzura saw a relatively successful Polish advance I see no reason that a number of simultaneous Polish offensives, made with full knowledge of German plans, would be any less successful.
What would happen in the long run? If Poland invaded the front would have stayed out of Polish territory long enough for Poland to mobilize all of her reserves. The initial offensives would have captured some arms so that these reservists would be a bit better equipped but more importantly Poland could have begun digging in near their border in anticipation of German counteroffensives. The Germans would have to follow pretty much their original routes in these attacks. (Not a lot of good transport routes in Poland.) In this case a Polish defense would have been much stronger than was the case on September 1. If no-one else came to Poland's aid, and Germany experienced no internal political meltdown/coup, Poland would certainly have lost the war but the cost the Germany would have been much higher - perhaps high enough that Germany would not invade France and the West.
If Poland was able to keep hold back the Germans for only an extra few weeks the autumn rains would have taken effect. This would have had similar effects on the German army as it did in the fall of '41 when it very much delayed the Germans on their march towards Moscow. It might have taken the Germans until early 1940 to conquer Poland. If the war lasted that long it would almost certainly had a negative effect on the equipment situation of Germany rather than a positive effect. (Germany captured a lot of arms in Poland, much of which could be used by the Heer.)
As with everything in this "What if" this is all a bit speculative. We can also ask - what would Stalin do? I have assumed, purely for arguments sake, that he decided to sit back and wait until Germany surrounded Warsaw before invading. There are many other factors which could also make things turn out very differently. In the long run I think the biggest effect would have been on how Germany fought future campaigns - if there were any.
Rick Seppala