The ideal Axis strategy

[Aida1]

How did the Soviet invasion of Eastern Poland help Germany ?
This invasion was a result of the German invasion of Western and Central Poland .
Imagine the opposite : the SU invades Poland on September 1 1939 .Do you think that Germany would remain idle while the Soviets were marching to its borders and occupied Posen and West Preussen ?
Germany would have done what the Soviets did : recuperate the territories they had lost in 1918 .

You are conveniently “forgetting” that Germany explicitly asked the the USSR on september 3 1939 to occupy its sphere of influence in Poland and the USSR only waited because it did not want to appear as the agressor(Der Angriff auf die Sowjetunion Hoffmann,etc.. Fischer 1991 p 115)

[Aida1]

Hi Ijadw.
Not sure what point you are making in the last entry.

The question was whether the Germans had allies in 1939. They clearly did even if their agreement with the USSR was not, arguably, a formal alliance.

How did the Soviet Invasion of eastern Poland help Germany? By ending the campaign substantially more quickly than it would have continued otherwise, thus saving the Germans many casualties and expenditure. One could, with equal reasonableness, ask how did the invasion of Normandy in 1944 by the Western Allies help the Soviet Union. However I would also point out that my reference to helping was not the invasion which came later (17 September when the Soviet Union began predominantly 'helping itself') but the minor assistance it gave such as the provision of navigation beacons.

What Germany may or may not have done in some alternative history is immaterial. The question relates only to what the Soviet Union (and Slovakia plus, arguably, Lithuania) actually did.

The USSR waited until it was almost over so it did not help Germany to the extent that Germany asked.

[ljadw]

Hi Ijadw.
Not sure what point you are making in the last entry.

The question was whether the Germans had allies in 1939. They clearly did even if their agreement with the USSR was not, arguably, a formal alliance.

How did the Soviet Invasion of eastern Poland help Germany? By ending the campaign substantially more quickly than it would have continued otherwise, thus saving the Germans many casualties and expenditure. One could, with equal reasonableness, ask how did the invasion of Normandy in 1944 by the Western Allies help the Soviet Union. However I would also point out that my reference to helping was not the invasion which came later (17 September when the Soviet Union began predominantly 'helping itself') but the minor assistance it gave such as the provision of navigation beacons.

What Germany may or may not have done in some alternative history is immaterial. The question relates only to what the Soviet Union (and Slovakia plus, arguably, Lithuania) actually did.

Germany had no allies in 1939 : selling war/raw materials to countries at war is not a proof of an alliance : Germany sold weapons to the KMT and US sold oil to Japan, but Germany was not an ally of China neither were the US allies of Japan .
The Soviet invasion of Eastern Poland and its occupation of the Baltics were not proofs of a German-Soviet alliance .
Germany attacked the statu quo in September 1939 and enabled the SU to take back the territories it had lost in 1918 . Without the German attack, the SU would not be able to invade Poland and the Baltics .
Slovakia was a German satellite and not an independent country , while Lithuania took back what it lost on Poland ( Vilnius ) while OTOH 15000 Jewish Poles found refuge in Lithuania .And, AFAICS, Britain and France did not declare war on Slovakia, while there was no DOW of Poland to Lithuania .
For having allies, an alliance is needed .And I remember no alliance between Germany and Slovakia . Germany started to have allies in 1940 .

[ljadw]

Navigation beacons are not a proof of alliance :Ireland agreed to the use of British aircraft of its air space, German POWs who escaped from Northern Ireland to the South were send back to the North, Britain used a radar installation in Ireland against the LW, etc, etc, but no one will say that Ireland was an ally of Britain .

[ljadw]

How did the Soviet invasion of Eastern Poland help Germany ?
This invasion was a result of the German invasion of Western and Central Poland .
Imagine the opposite : the SU invades Poland on September 1 1939 .Do you think that Germany would remain idle while the Soviets were marching to its borders and occupied Posen and West Preussen ?
Germany would have done what the Soviets did : recuperate the territories they had lost in 1918 .

You are conveniently “forgetting” that Germany explicitly asked the the USSR on september 3 1939 to occupy its sphere of influence in Poland and the USSR only waited because it did not want to appear as the agressor(Der Angriff auf die Sowjetunion Hoffmann,etc.. Fischer 1991 p 115)

Hoffmann is a suspicious revisionist .
And it is nonsense to say that if the SU had invaded Poland on September 3 it would be considered as the agressor (besides, the SU would not care about what Britain and France said ) but that it would not be considered as the agressor if it attacked on September 17 : the Soviets waited til September 17 for two reasons
1 On September 17 it was obvious that Poland had lost,while it was not so on September 3 ,Mussolini also waited til he was convinced that Germany had won
2 The Soviets were not ready on September 3 .

[Aida1]

How did the Soviet invasion of Eastern Poland help Germany ?
This invasion was a result of the German invasion of Western and Central Poland .
Imagine the opposite : the SU invades Poland on September 1 1939 .Do you think that Germany would remain idle while the Soviets were marching to its borders and occupied Posen and West Preussen ?
Germany would have done what the Soviets did : recuperate the territories they had lost in 1918 .

You are conveniently “forgetting” that Germany explicitly asked the the USSR on september 3 1939 to occupy its sphere of influence in Poland and the USSR only waited because it did not want to appear as the agressor(Der Angriff auf die Sowjetunion Hoffmann,etc.. Fischer 1991 p 115)

Hoffmann is a suspicious revisionist .
And it is nonsense to say that if the SU had invaded Poland on September 3 it would be considered as the agressor (besides, the SU would not care about what Britain and France said ) but that it would not be considered as the agressor if it attacked on September 17 : the Soviets waited til September 17 for two reasons
1 On September 17 it was obvious that Poland had lost,while it was not so on September 3 ,Mussolini also waited til he was convinced that Germany had won
2 The Soviets were not ready on September 3 .

The typical gimmick of personal attack against a historian instead of proving anything with sources. What Hoffmann writes is based on communications between the the German foreign ministery and Schulenburg. On 10 september Molotov told Schulenburg that he was convinced Germany was going to conclude a cease fire with Poland which would embarass the USSR as it wanted to use the german advance to declare that Poland was breaking up and it needed to come to the aid of ukranians and white Russians. Ribbentrop communicated on 13 september to Molotov that there could be no question of a cease fireand therefore the USSR would have the opportunity to intervene and play out its special motivation for this(Der Angriff auf die Sowjetunion Boog/Forster/Hoffmann etc.. Fischer 1991 p 115)

[ljadw]

Your historian Hoffmann said also that Stalin planned an attack on Germany,and one of his sources was the charlatan Suvorov .
Your historian Hoffmann denied also that 5/6 million Jews perished in the Holocaust .
Sources ?
Google Hoffmann .

[Aida1]

Your historian Hoffmann said also that Stalin planned an attack on Germany,and one of his sources was the charlatan Suvorov .
Your historian Hoffmann denied also that 5/6 million Jews perished in the Holocaust .
Sources ?
Google Hoffmann .

A perfect case of evasion as you not even try to adress the communications between the German foreign ministry and Molotov. Hoffmann is not my historian. He is a historian that writes something you do not like and therefore you deliver a personal attack instead of refuting what he writes. Also, he did not deny the Holocaust. And he has the perfect right to think that the USSR also planned an attack on Germany. Anyway,has nothing to do with what he quotes from communications between Germany and the USSR about Poland in 1939. It is a typical lawyers trick to discredit somebody instead of refuting on substance.A sign of weakness on substance.

[gebhk]

For having allies, an alliance is needed

With respect, this is academic sophistry. As far as I am concerned if your troops invade a sovereign country along with others to a pre-arranged plan then you are allies.

On September 17 it was obvious that Poland had lost, while it was not so on September 3

I would suggest that, specifically, they wanted to know if the French offensive would take place.

[ljadw]

There was no pre-arranged plan between Germany and the SU that Germany would attack Poland on September 1 and the SU on September 17 .
About the French offensive : there was a French offensive and notwithstanding this, the Soviets attacked .
And ,while there was a state of war between Germany and Poland, there was no such thing between Poland and the SU .
The SU did the same as CZ that occupied in 1920 Teszin,while the Soviets were at a few miles from Warsaw and as Poland that in November 1938 (after Munich ) reoccupied Teszin because otherwise Germany would occupy it .
No one will say that in 1920 CZ was the ally of the SU and that in 1938 Poland was the ally of Germany, thus I do not see why on September 17 1939 the SU suddenly would be the ally of Germany .
Germany sent military advisers to China and sold weapons to the KMT, but that does not prove that Germany was an ally of China .
USA sold weapons to Iraq and to Iran during their war, but US was not an ally of Iraq and Iran .
While British troops were fighting in Korea against the ROC forces, at the same time Britain was trading with China via Hongkong .
After the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, Carter blocked grain deliveries to the SU, but Reagan lifted the ban, because the Argentine generals and Canada took US place and were selling their food to the SU, but,at the same time, Reagan funded the Afghans who fought against the SU .
Noone will say that Reagan was an ally of the SU ,he did as are doing most governments : do not let the left hand know what the right hand is doing .

[ljadw]

Your historian Hoffmann said also that Stalin planned an attack on Germany,and one of his sources was the charlatan Suvorov .
Your historian Hoffmann denied also that 5/6 million Jews perished in the Holocaust .
Sources ?
Google Hoffmann .

A perfect case of evasion as you not even try to adress the communications between the German foreign ministry and Molotov. Hoffmann is not my historian. He is a historian that writes something you do not like and therefore you deliver a personal attack instead of refuting what he writes. Also, he did not deny the Holocaust. And he has the perfect right to think that the USSR also planned an attack on Germany. Anyway,has nothing to do with what he quotes from communications between Germany and the USSR about Poland in 1939. It is a typical lawyers trick to discredit somebody instead of refuting on substance.A sign of weakness on substance.

Hoffmann has disqualified himself by using as source Suvorov .
Thus, look for better .
Besides, Stalin had for one and a half year the time to attack Germany ,when the WM was busy in the West, but, he didn't do it .As Stalin did not attack Germany in May 1940, there is no reason to think that he would do it in July 1940 .
Only German apologists are saying that Barbarossa was a preventive attack .It was not : the reports from FHO indicated that there was no Soviet danger in the Summer of 1941 .

[Kelvin]

Book " paying for Hitler's war " on USSR section mentions USSR material were poured into the Third Reich only after the collapse of France. Actually, Stalin was scared of Hitler's army more than friendships. Stalin tended to take Advantage of situtation to his own Benefit, like occupied part of Poland, Lithuania, Latavia, Estonia, Bessarabia and Karelia. Should Hitler and the Anglo-French powers exhausted each other was Stalin most favoured scenairo.

[Aida1]

Your historian Hoffmann said also that Stalin planned an attack on Germany,and one of his sources was the charlatan Suvorov .
Your historian Hoffmann denied also that 5/6 million Jews perished in the Holocaust .
Sources ?
Google Hoffmann .

A perfect case of evasion as you not even try to adress the communications between the German foreign ministry and Molotov. Hoffmann is not my historian. He is a historian that writes something you do not like and therefore you deliver a personal attack instead of refuting what he writes. Also, he did not deny the Holocaust. And he has the perfect right to think that the USSR also planned an attack on Germany. Anyway,has nothing to do with what he quotes from communications between Germany and the USSR about Poland in 1939. It is a typical lawyers trick to discredit somebody instead of refuting on substance.A sign of weakness on substance.

Hoffmann has disqualified himself by using as source Suvorov .
Thus, look for better .
Besides, Stalin had for one and a half year the time to attack Germany ,when the WM was busy in the West, but, he didn't do it .As Stalin did not attack Germany in May 1940, there is no reason to think that he would do it in July 1940 .
Only German apologists are saying that Barbarossa was a preventive attack .It was not : the reports from FHO indicated that there was no Soviet danger in the Summer of 1941 .

Evasion as usual. Hoffmann does not express an opinion. He quotes communications which prove without a doubt the collusion between Germany and the USSR concerning the division of Poland. Disqualifying anything a historian says because you disagree with him on a particular subject is an obvious gimmick to avoid discussing the substance. It is a sign of weakness.

[Aida1]

There was no pre-arranged plan between Germany and the SU that Germany would attack Poland on September 1 and the SU on September 17 .

Fact is that Germany asked the USSR to occupy its shrere of influence in Poland and the USSR did using the pretext they had already given to Germany. Can be read from communications that took place as already mentioned.

[gebhk]

There was no pre-arranged plan between Germany and the SU that Germany would attack Poland on September 1 and the SU on September 17.

There was a prearranged plan how the spoils were to be carved up and there was an evident urging by one side to participate and participation by the other in response to this. If there is a plan by two criminals A and B to rob C and A stabs C in the back while C is engaged with A to the front, no amount of sophistry can change the fact that they were clearly acting in concert (ie were allies in their endeavour) - even if the stabbing by B occurred after A engaged C from the front and even if the exact timing of the stabbing was not pre-arranged.