Question of the Day #5
- Thread starter Bootie
- Start date
Not sure I understood all what You meant - as I said earlier talking and hearing english isn´t on the good side yet. But in general You ask our opinion of a ficticious situation and how it would have turned out if France immediately had go to war after the declaration of Britain and France, as I have understand it.
in short
- if only France responded immediately the Soviets would reign about Europe today
- if Britain and France together or in rapid succession had went to war Germany wouldn´t exist anymore as country and the soviets would reign former Poland, the Balkans and at least parts of former Germany
- for the second thesis: depending on how far the Soviets would have been come the scandinavian countries would have had lost their sovereignity - not only Finland
- Finland would have fallen much earlier
If France on it´s own had went to war the Third Reich had had a two frontiers war from the very start on. That would have meant Germany hadn´t military attacked the USSR in September and the USSR would have been able to finish the purge of the soviet army and politics. That had them enabled to do an orderly attack of their own. The "Red Flood" had swept through Poland, may have get stopped for a while there or in Germany and finally met the french army. After a short setback, because of the more advanced armour of the French concerning the obsolete T-26s and similar, the T-34 would have wiped out the french tanks. The airforce of the Reds would have been similar successful and in a similar way as the tanks. I don´t want mention the soviet artillery. Russian would be our all language today.
If France and Britain had answered immediately Poland wouldn´t have conquered by the Wehrmacht or only by so high losses nobody would talk of a victory anymore. In best case all participating forces would have stayed combat ready and the advancing Red Army would have met them together. Germans would have turned into allies of France and Britain since the Communism would have been the new/old devil. Because of the pure force/mass of the soviet forces the allies had to retreat step by step. I assume it would have come to a halt on the french borders. Spain would have gotten an ally as well but certainly not until the danger had stood before the "door" - means France again. The french communists had started revolution following orders of Moscow. To the same time russian paratroopers and special forces had landed in by communists secured areas and started a new front. One shouldn´t forget Russians had one of the mightiest if not the mightiest air landing forces to that time. Italy and Spain would have errupted with riots or even revolution since the Soviets were near and Moscow could order the communists of the concerned countries to do preparings and guerilla things to weaken the opponents. The following advance of war would have depended on who of and how the remaining countries of Europe had decided to act. In worst case see above - if only France had went to war! In best case most or all remaining countries had closed ranks. Finland would have been lost since Denmark would have gotten ovverrun and threat would have been established to Sweden and Norway. Germany is already lost to that time. So no support from the mentioned countries for Finland. Since the british Expedition Corps is almost all what is combat ready on british side and it had to retreat with the other allies there would have been no real support from there neither. Finland on its own had fought bravely but in the end had to give up. Given the defense of the allies had held on the french borders - the question would have been how USA would have acted then. And if that would have been in time if in favour for the allies. I assume in that situation USSR had overrun Iceland to get a independent support "harbour" from where UK would have been "encircled" now. Means Sweden, Norway are in soviet hands and UK can get attacked from several directions. Since the Expedition Corps fight for dear life in France nobody is there who can really stop the Red Flood. So the new borders of USSR would have drawn on the french borders. If the allied defense wouldn´t have held or USA decided to get ally with USSR Europe would have lost.
That for now!
Greetings
in short
- if only France responded immediately the Soviets would reign about Europe today
- if Britain and France together or in rapid succession had went to war Germany wouldn´t exist anymore as country and the soviets would reign former Poland, the Balkans and at least parts of former Germany
- for the second thesis: depending on how far the Soviets would have been come the scandinavian countries would have had lost their sovereignity - not only Finland
- Finland would have fallen much earlier
If France on it´s own had went to war the Third Reich had had a two frontiers war from the very start on. That would have meant Germany hadn´t military attacked the USSR in September and the USSR would have been able to finish the purge of the soviet army and politics. That had them enabled to do an orderly attack of their own. The "Red Flood" had swept through Poland, may have get stopped for a while there or in Germany and finally met the french army. After a short setback, because of the more advanced armour of the French concerning the obsolete T-26s and similar, the T-34 would have wiped out the french tanks. The airforce of the Reds would have been similar successful and in a similar way as the tanks. I don´t want mention the soviet artillery. Russian would be our all language today.
If France and Britain had answered immediately Poland wouldn´t have conquered by the Wehrmacht or only by so high losses nobody would talk of a victory anymore. In best case all participating forces would have stayed combat ready and the advancing Red Army would have met them together. Germans would have turned into allies of France and Britain since the Communism would have been the new/old devil. Because of the pure force/mass of the soviet forces the allies had to retreat step by step. I assume it would have come to a halt on the french borders. Spain would have gotten an ally as well but certainly not until the danger had stood before the "door" - means France again. The french communists had started revolution following orders of Moscow. To the same time russian paratroopers and special forces had landed in by communists secured areas and started a new front. One shouldn´t forget Russians had one of the mightiest if not the mightiest air landing forces to that time. Italy and Spain would have errupted with riots or even revolution since the Soviets were near and Moscow could order the communists of the concerned countries to do preparings and guerilla things to weaken the opponents. The following advance of war would have depended on who of and how the remaining countries of Europe had decided to act. In worst case see above - if only France had went to war! In best case most or all remaining countries had closed ranks. Finland would have been lost since Denmark would have gotten ovverrun and threat would have been established to Sweden and Norway. Germany is already lost to that time. So no support from the mentioned countries for Finland. Since the british Expedition Corps is almost all what is combat ready on british side and it had to retreat with the other allies there would have been no real support from there neither. Finland on its own had fought bravely but in the end had to give up. Given the defense of the allies had held on the french borders - the question would have been how USA would have acted then. And if that would have been in time if in favour for the allies. I assume in that situation USSR had overrun Iceland to get a independent support "harbour" from where UK would have been "encircled" now. Means Sweden, Norway are in soviet hands and UK can get attacked from several directions. Since the Expedition Corps fight for dear life in France nobody is there who can really stop the Red Flood. So the new borders of USSR would have drawn on the french borders. If the allied defense wouldn´t have held or USA decided to get ally with USSR Europe would have lost.
That for now!
Greetings
Excellent excellent response and yeah... you got the meaning correct. So to summarize... by not attacking Germany immediately, France saved us from all speaking Russian. Great angle to go from and bound to elicit further discussion. Thankyou!!
Sempai makes his points well but his outcome presumes a high degree of preparedness of Russia for war in 1939 which I don't think actually existed. However, that's one way it could have played. Given the following timetable, France and Britian would have needed to respond quickly and in force.
Germany attacks Poland 1 September 1939
Britian and France declare war on Germany 3 September 1939
Russia attacks Poland 17 September 1939
Poland surrenders 27 September 1939
According to URL = http://history.stackexchange.com/qu...ance-and-uk-invade-germany-september-3rd-1939
However, the French advantages were mostly on paper. Most French artillery was in storage and needed time to be prepped, shipped, and assembled at the front. French doctrine portioned out planes and tanks equally among all the separate army corps and most units would have needed time to drive eastwards.
This hypothetical, more than most, boils down to a matter of "will to win". I suspect no one would have committed to total and ruthless penetration operations. Hitler's mystique for successful bluffing would have ended. He would have lost the ability to dazzle the General Staff with easy wins any more. A determined France ground force with effective British air support continuing their Saarland attacks would have successfully advanced deeper into Western Germany. If the Germans reacted to an invasion of the Fatherland, their Polish advances would have stopped. The Polish Army would have been positioned watch the Germans halt before shifting, either to counter-attack Germans or confront Russia with more and better forces. Russia would have had to force Poland on its own. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was still secret. Russia could have decided to actually aid their Slavic brethren (as many initially supposed) and attack Germany. Nazism would have faltered. The war-weary memories of WW1 would have supported the earliest possible cease fire and return to normalcy. Russia would then loom as the greater threat . The world was still in an economic depression. War fever would have ebbed and a different kind of Cold War unfold (affirming most of Sempai's point).
Germany attacks Poland 1 September 1939
Britian and France declare war on Germany 3 September 1939
Russia attacks Poland 17 September 1939
Poland surrenders 27 September 1939
According to URL = http://history.stackexchange.com/qu...ance-and-uk-invade-germany-september-3rd-1939
Hitler had only 23 divisions on Western front, while the allies had 110 divisions. The West German divisions were the more poorly equipped. The French had 4 to 1 advantage in artillery, 80 to 1 advantage in tanks and the Germans hardly had any planes there. During Nurnberg trial general Alfred Jodl admitted that the Germany would easily be defeated in 1939 if the allies helped the Poles. Hitler gambled and concentrated the bulk of manpower, as well as nearly all mechanised units and Luftwaffe on Poland. And it's not like it was just a logistical challenge of transfering those resources to the Western front in case of allied offensive - the Poles managed to destroy much of that equipment and that's the reason why Wehrmacht generals asked Hitler to postpone the invasion of France for next year. A direct attack on Germany in the northwest was not possible without violating the neutrality of Belgium and the Netherlands; in the south, the French army did invade the Saarland on September 7 to fulfill France's treaty obligation, but did not advance far into Germany, stopping short of the Siegfried Line fortifications.
However, the French advantages were mostly on paper. Most French artillery was in storage and needed time to be prepped, shipped, and assembled at the front. French doctrine portioned out planes and tanks equally among all the separate army corps and most units would have needed time to drive eastwards.
This hypothetical, more than most, boils down to a matter of "will to win". I suspect no one would have committed to total and ruthless penetration operations. Hitler's mystique for successful bluffing would have ended. He would have lost the ability to dazzle the General Staff with easy wins any more. A determined France ground force with effective British air support continuing their Saarland attacks would have successfully advanced deeper into Western Germany. If the Germans reacted to an invasion of the Fatherland, their Polish advances would have stopped. The Polish Army would have been positioned watch the Germans halt before shifting, either to counter-attack Germans or confront Russia with more and better forces. Russia would have had to force Poland on its own. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was still secret. Russia could have decided to actually aid their Slavic brethren (as many initially supposed) and attack Germany. Nazism would have faltered. The war-weary memories of WW1 would have supported the earliest possible cease fire and return to normalcy. Russia would then loom as the greater threat . The world was still in an economic depression. War fever would have ebbed and a different kind of Cold War unfold (affirming most of Sempai's point).
Depends on the topic! But in general - Yes! Good idea. Even better would be a short written form of the question added to the video, at least for me, so I could fill in the things I don´t understand in video´s audio. And I would have some practice in understanding the vocal part of English.
@Badger73: I have to mention the Russians were prepared for that onslaught. The only setback was the purge and the restructuring what delayed an orderly attack. There are several reports of german soldiers concerning the masses of equipment what stayed on the front as the Wehrmacht broke through. And we shouldn´t forget the masses of prisoners the Germans made during the early war. So, yes, they were prepared. And if the purge would have been done earlier or a good deal later it wouldn´t have been the Germans who attacked but the Soviets. If I remember me right there were even russian sources who confirmed that situation. Even the Poles would have come into play. Poland under dictator Pilsudski was very aggressive and war eager. The KOP (Korpus Ochrony Pogranicza), the polish border guards, were an elite formation what constantly fought on the borders and did a good deal of provocation, killing and arresting soviet bandits and bandits of other nations. So a soviet attack had to be prepared carefully and in great scale to become successful - since after dealing with the KOP there would have been at least 2 further armies one had to calculate with - the Wehrmacht and the french army. Even if paper is patient - such armies have to get beaten first. That is nothing one does by arguing. And the Russians were/aren´t no idiots. They were prepared! That You can bet.
Greetings
@Badger73: I have to mention the Russians were prepared for that onslaught. The only setback was the purge and the restructuring what delayed an orderly attack. There are several reports of german soldiers concerning the masses of equipment what stayed on the front as the Wehrmacht broke through. And we shouldn´t forget the masses of prisoners the Germans made during the early war. So, yes, they were prepared. And if the purge would have been done earlier or a good deal later it wouldn´t have been the Germans who attacked but the Soviets. If I remember me right there were even russian sources who confirmed that situation. Even the Poles would have come into play. Poland under dictator Pilsudski was very aggressive and war eager. The KOP (Korpus Ochrony Pogranicza), the polish border guards, were an elite formation what constantly fought on the borders and did a good deal of provocation, killing and arresting soviet bandits and bandits of other nations. So a soviet attack had to be prepared carefully and in great scale to become successful - since after dealing with the KOP there would have been at least 2 further armies one had to calculate with - the Wehrmacht and the french army. Even if paper is patient - such armies have to get beaten first. That is nothing one does by arguing. And the Russians were/aren´t no idiots. They were prepared! That You can bet.
Greetings
S
Strelok
Guest
I have to argue with both of you gentlemen.
I think you overestimate Soviets. Yes, they had a very powerful forces, but they lacked doctrine, commanders and trained troops. As Winter War and operation Barbarossa proved, Russians hadn't beed prepared properely. Of course, we can argue, that if Soviet Union had launched their invasion on The Reich before Barbarossa, the history would be different, but it's just speculations. It was Cold War times, when CCCP was really influential and was a danger for a whole Europe, but it had happened because Churchill and Roosevelt allowed it, and because they de facto conquested Eastern Europe.
Interesting ideas, though they again seems like post-war anti-communist warnings or nazi excuses which presented them in a favourable light. They consider communist riots, but don't consider French, German and Polish resistance. The same with powerful RAF and Royal Navy, economical support from US etc. In 1939 Russians had over 2 mln soldiers, their mobilisation plans anticipated recruiting another 4 mln, and some of them had to guard Far East. At the same time French had over 2 mln soldiers in Europe itself, English had 900 thousands Tommies before mobilisation, Poland had 1 mln, Finland 1 mln. Additionally, Belgium and Netherlands had almost 1 mln soldiers together, not mentioning Italy, Spain, USA, Scandinavian, Baltic and Balkan countries which would fought too if Russia would have gone for a war with the Europe. Number of soldiers is not everything of course, but again, commanding, equipement and training wasn't Red Army's strong points too.
Where did you get those informations? Poland didn't surrender for a whole war, nothing special happened at 27 September. Maybe you ment surrender of Warsaw, but it was at 28 September, and Polish regular forces fought a little longer, until 5 October.
In fact it's very unlikely, that there would be any war with Russia in 1939. Stalin didn't waited until 17 September with the invasion of Poland because he feared Poland or because of Slavic sentiment, but because of England and France. When he saw, that they betrayed Poland, he just seized an opportunity and took Kresy. Soviet help would be even less likely, especially because Poland wouldn't accepted it - if Russians would come into Poland, they wouldn't leave.
By 1939 Piłsudski was dead for 4 years. The KOP was indeed elite formation hated by Soviets, though they were just border guards. There was only 20 thousands of them, with very little heavy equipement. Poland would need whole army to stop or delay Soviets as they had done in 1920. And whole army were located on the West, where German invasion was about to begin.
To sum up, I think if France and UK would go for a war in 1939, there wouldn't be Second World War, just another big European war. I don't know what would happen to Germany and how tension with Soviets would be defused. There would be probalby some kind of Cold War, but half of Europe wouldn't be communist as after 1945. It would be better anyway. Not mentioning moral and cultural impact of such decision - unlike the reality, Eastern Europe countries would trust alliances with the West. And a treason seems a bit unfair anyway, don't you think ?
Greetings good men.
I think you overestimate Soviets. Yes, they had a very powerful forces, but they lacked doctrine, commanders and trained troops. As Winter War and operation Barbarossa proved, Russians hadn't beed prepared properely. Of course, we can argue, that if Soviet Union had launched their invasion on The Reich before Barbarossa, the history would be different, but it's just speculations. It was Cold War times, when CCCP was really influential and was a danger for a whole Europe, but it had happened because Churchill and Roosevelt allowed it, and because they de facto conquested Eastern Europe.
Interesting ideas, though they again seems like post-war anti-communist warnings or nazi excuses which presented them in a favourable light. They consider communist riots, but don't consider French, German and Polish resistance. The same with powerful RAF and Royal Navy, economical support from US etc. In 1939 Russians had over 2 mln soldiers, their mobilisation plans anticipated recruiting another 4 mln, and some of them had to guard Far East. At the same time French had over 2 mln soldiers in Europe itself, English had 900 thousands Tommies before mobilisation, Poland had 1 mln, Finland 1 mln. Additionally, Belgium and Netherlands had almost 1 mln soldiers together, not mentioning Italy, Spain, USA, Scandinavian, Baltic and Balkan countries which would fought too if Russia would have gone for a war with the Europe. Number of soldiers is not everything of course, but again, commanding, equipement and training wasn't Red Army's strong points too.
Where did you get those informations? Poland didn't surrender for a whole war, nothing special happened at 27 September. Maybe you ment surrender of Warsaw, but it was at 28 September, and Polish regular forces fought a little longer, until 5 October.
In fact it's very unlikely, that there would be any war with Russia in 1939. Stalin didn't waited until 17 September with the invasion of Poland because he feared Poland or because of Slavic sentiment, but because of England and France. When he saw, that they betrayed Poland, he just seized an opportunity and took Kresy. Soviet help would be even less likely, especially because Poland wouldn't accepted it - if Russians would come into Poland, they wouldn't leave.
By 1939 Piłsudski was dead for 4 years. The KOP was indeed elite formation hated by Soviets, though they were just border guards. There was only 20 thousands of them, with very little heavy equipement. Poland would need whole army to stop or delay Soviets as they had done in 1920. And whole army were located on the West, where German invasion was about to begin.
To sum up, I think if France and UK would go for a war in 1939, there wouldn't be Second World War, just another big European war. I don't know what would happen to Germany and how tension with Soviets would be defused. There would be probalby some kind of Cold War, but half of Europe wouldn't be communist as after 1945. It would be better anyway
. Not mentioning moral and cultural impact of such decision - unlike the reality, Eastern Europe countries would trust alliances with the West. And a treason seems a bit unfair anyway, don't you think ?Greetings good men.
Hello Strelok,
Nice summery! Even if I´m a bit disappointed about the "post-war anti-communist warnings" and "nazi excuses". That is always such a thought-terminating cliché with what one can stall every discussion in no time.
But to Your statements! I think, I don´t overestimate the Soviets. I think they were often underestimated in history and so many opponents, including the Germans, had to learn it the hard way. And didn´t I say that they lacked a proper military leadership because of the purge in the ranks of their officers and politicians? And sure my thoughts are speculative - that was the idea of Bootie´s question as I had understand it.
Concerning the powerful RAF and Navy: So far as I know, and You can gladly correct me if I´m wrong, was the british empire, according to british statements, not prepared for war as Poland was invaded. The mighty Navy scattered around the globe and RAF still cutted back from after WW1. First in Dec 1939 the RAF started the BCATP (British Commonwealth Air Training Plan). There the polish campaign was already over. For a speculative situation as mentioned in the original question one could take it that at least 6 months more were needed to get the first results of the plan. And that they might have been not even enough to stall immediately the threat of the Red Airforce. The resistance of the by You mentioned countries wouldn´t have started immediately as well and, most important, would have been uncoordianted for a longer time. Furthermore history showed the comabt value of Belgium and Netherlands for example was not much. Not because they couldn´t fight or such nonsense - no, because they were unprepared for an onslaught of that scale. The Finns had the advantages of terrain and weather plus the lack of experience of many of the russian officers after the experienced ones were almost completely annihilated by the purge. So I would say if the russians had enough time to orderly deploy their troops and start an orderly attack into Europe they would have much more successful as the small Wehrmacht. Spain had shown it´s reserve concerning a participation in a war. It had not acted before the threat for the own country was immediate. That I took into account as I wrote Spain would follow the other europe nations as ally but not before the war was on it´s own door. USA was a real unpredictable factor to that time. The folks there didn´t want participating in another war what wasn´t theirs. First the faked unannounced war start of Japan and the raid on Pearl Harbour turned the tide. And that raid was in the far future concerning the given question. And concerning Pilsudskis death: 4 years is no time in such a scale. The influence of him and the measures he provoked still worked on. And I have to contradict the "just border guards" concerning the KOP. It isn´t essentiel how You name a unit or formation. We had the 6th Border Guard Coast in East Germany. That were not only border guards. After combat divers and paratroopers and the Long Range Recon units they were a well trained elite formation as well. Of course only in their field of activity. The KOP was constantly in combat. And a division or two of combat veterans on the right place can stall an entire army. So the Soviets had to calculate with a strong defense by the KOP. And they had learned due to their failures at Finland. Tank crews of the Soviets trained with the german crews at the german secret facility for tank crew training at Russia. Same counts for infantry. Russians and Germans worked much together before WW2 started. So doctrines couldn´t be so bad as You think. But the purge set all that back against better knowing.
But to come to an end: Your sum up says all in all what I said concering if UK and France together immediately would have went to war with Germany after Poland was attacked. Or misunderstand I something?
Greetings
Nice summery! Even if I´m a bit disappointed about the "post-war anti-communist warnings" and "nazi excuses". That is always such a thought-terminating cliché with what one can stall every discussion in no time.
But to Your statements! I think, I don´t overestimate the Soviets. I think they were often underestimated in history and so many opponents, including the Germans, had to learn it the hard way. And didn´t I say that they lacked a proper military leadership because of the purge in the ranks of their officers and politicians? And sure my thoughts are speculative - that was the idea of Bootie´s question as I had understand it.
Concerning the powerful RAF and Navy: So far as I know, and You can gladly correct me if I´m wrong, was the british empire, according to british statements, not prepared for war as Poland was invaded. The mighty Navy scattered around the globe and RAF still cutted back from after WW1. First in Dec 1939 the RAF started the BCATP (British Commonwealth Air Training Plan). There the polish campaign was already over. For a speculative situation as mentioned in the original question one could take it that at least 6 months more were needed to get the first results of the plan. And that they might have been not even enough to stall immediately the threat of the Red Airforce. The resistance of the by You mentioned countries wouldn´t have started immediately as well and, most important, would have been uncoordianted for a longer time. Furthermore history showed the comabt value of Belgium and Netherlands for example was not much. Not because they couldn´t fight or such nonsense - no, because they were unprepared for an onslaught of that scale. The Finns had the advantages of terrain and weather plus the lack of experience of many of the russian officers after the experienced ones were almost completely annihilated by the purge. So I would say if the russians had enough time to orderly deploy their troops and start an orderly attack into Europe they would have much more successful as the small Wehrmacht. Spain had shown it´s reserve concerning a participation in a war. It had not acted before the threat for the own country was immediate. That I took into account as I wrote Spain would follow the other europe nations as ally but not before the war was on it´s own door. USA was a real unpredictable factor to that time. The folks there didn´t want participating in another war what wasn´t theirs. First the faked unannounced war start of Japan and the raid on Pearl Harbour turned the tide. And that raid was in the far future concerning the given question. And concerning Pilsudskis death: 4 years is no time in such a scale. The influence of him and the measures he provoked still worked on. And I have to contradict the "just border guards" concerning the KOP. It isn´t essentiel how You name a unit or formation. We had the 6th Border Guard Coast in East Germany. That were not only border guards. After combat divers and paratroopers and the Long Range Recon units they were a well trained elite formation as well. Of course only in their field of activity. The KOP was constantly in combat. And a division or two of combat veterans on the right place can stall an entire army. So the Soviets had to calculate with a strong defense by the KOP. And they had learned due to their failures at Finland. Tank crews of the Soviets trained with the german crews at the german secret facility for tank crew training at Russia. Same counts for infantry. Russians and Germans worked much together before WW2 started. So doctrines couldn´t be so bad as You think. But the purge set all that back against better knowing.
But to come to an end: Your sum up says all in all what I said concering if UK and France together immediately would have went to war with Germany after Poland was attacked. Or misunderstand I something?
Greetings
S
Strelok
Guest
Nice summery! Even if I´m a bit disappointed about the "post-war anti-communist warnings" and "nazi excuses". That is always such a thought-terminating cliché with what one can stall every discussion in no time.
After reading my post again I indeed should apologise You for what I've written, it sounded too aggressive and didn't mean what I had wanted to say. I just associated Your words with a few articles, ideas and speeches. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to accuse You of justifying nazis or being gullible.
I cannot argue with underestimating Russians by many; let's say our history of wars with them wasn't the streak of success too. I don't even argue with Your earlier statement, that they might have the most powerful land forces in 1939. But still it's very unlikely that they would conquer the whole Europe by themselves. Their leadership could be better because they would recover from 1937 purge, but in 1941 another purge was about to begin, and it would have been probably as bloody as the previous one if Barbarossa didn't happened.
And about speculations - I ment only that we shouldn't discuss at lenght "what would have happened if the Soviets had attacked before Barbarossa", because it's a topic for another "Question of the Day". Nothing bad in speculations of course, what else we all do in here, right
.About His Majesty's Planes and Ships, if I understood it correctly, You states that UK wouldn't be ready for Great Red Invasion. This is correct under circumstances:
1. Soviets would start their offensive in IX 1939;
2. They would advance with average speed of at least 8 km per day (to rush through a Europe to French border in about half a year).
If Stalin would launch his attack in 1939, it would mean he would attack also The Reich and Germans would then probably make peace with the West and Stalin would have to face Wermacht too. No, I think Stalin would only grab Baltic states, maybe Finland or part of Romania, and wait for Europe to blood. It wouldn't be great for him too though - just after the war (probably ended up with The Reich beaten) all economies of Europe would be geared for war production, all forces would be mobilised and politics would expect Russian invasion.
Also such speed of advance is unlikely. Such speed was archived by Soviets for example during operation "Bargation", but it couldn't last for long. Even though they had great advantage in everything, troops, tanks, planes, had a good plan and quite an experience already, they just attacked too fast for their logistics to keep up with their troops. And it would be much harder for them to rush through a Europe in 1939, since they didn't have all those fancy American land-leased trucks and already operating logistic system. 1500 km from western Soviet border to eastern French border is a lot of space, especially if it's well defended.
Lack of coordination could be Soviets greatest hope, especially if Germans would change sides and recently enemies would become allies. Still, even if it would provide Soviets few easy victories, the more punches a Europe would get, the more united it would be.
USA - indeed, they probably wouldn't go for a war by themselves (at least not right away), but would support English and French with supplies for sure. And they wouldn't support CCCP. All American factories could win the war, even if none Yankee soldier would stand on European land.
About Piłsudski and Sanacja (Piłsudski's party, still ruling in 1939) - true, he wasn't the most peace-loving figure of history, but the Second World War wasn't his idea. Even if another party would be ruling Poland Germany would attack it. Maybe some weaker personalities would accept German request to hand over Gdańsk and Pomerania, but it wouldn't prevent war. We would end up like Czechoslovakia and Hitler would look for another country to take it over without a fight.
And about KOP... well, KOP fought Soviets in September/October 1939. It was able to beat a few Soviet units, stall an offensive of some armoured corps for one or two days, but nothing more.
Greetings good people.
No need for an excusion, Strelok! If I had thought it offending I had written so. I´m only weary about hearing all the time the Nazi "cudgel" if it comes to politic or historic discussions. Especially here at Germany You can´t discuss freely since all what isn´t political correct is evil. But I think political correctness is one of the greatest evils of all times since it is a form of dictatorship. My personal opinion. So, thanks for Your kind words! But they weren´t necessary! I didn´t take any offense.
Maybe I´m too naive what the success of the russians at the early war time concerns. I have only to say a few things yet. 1st - I think, the economical part of USA for CCCP in the early stage is overstimated by You. 2nd - I´m not sure all countries of Europe had fought together against the Soviets. 3rd - I don´t wanted say Pilsuldski would have been the actual intiator of WW2/Polish Campaign. 4th - I´m not sure Hitler had attacked Poland if Gdansk etc. would have been handed over. 5th - So far as I know KOP fought not really against the Soviets because they were ordered not to do so. The result if they had got permission would have been much different, I think.
to 1st - CCCP already had masses of war equipment and men on the borders. Given they had only skipped the first purge even experienced officers would have been available. So orderly attack and great success was a strong possibilty. Such officers had also known the logistic problems. They had dealt with that problem all their life - not only in war. Furthermore the Soviets were used to get along with Panje Wagons and simialrs in a manner no European could imagine anymore - until he had to - as the german Landsers had to in the later stages of the WW2. Deliverings by USA for France and UK had had to deal with long support ways as well and that over the ocean yet. So if comparing a long support way on land with one on sea I would always think the land way the quicker and more secure one. But I can err - I´m no military. Following my considerations I would estimate the Russians in advantage.
Furthermore if they could properly prepare the attack they would have all their forces together contrary to the allies who would have been more scattered - at least in the first time. That would mean the temporary superiority of the Russians, in material and men, would be much greater as on the paper. And during following battles the allies had it much tougher to focus their forces as the Soviets had.
to 2nd - Already WW1 showed the great splitting of the european countries. And for WW2 it wasn´t much different - only the mix of countries what build a party/side could have been different. It is and was all about who saw what advantages if the one or other side would win.
to 3rd - I wanted only to say Poland had it´s good share on starting the war. As well as all other countries who could have acted in a different way to avoid such a war. And as Hitler annexed Czechoslovakia Poland and Hungary took part on it. So Czechoslovakia would have forced to fight a 3-borders-war against 3 countries of whom 2 were in a good military state. I think I had handed over Czechoslovakia as well under that conditions. And if only to wait for a better situation for an armed liberation war. I think, it had changed the history much as well if Poland and Hungary for example hadn´t taken their bit out of Czechoslovakia. Maybe the armed conflict between Germany and Czechoslovakia would have even been enough to hinder the Third Reich to attack Poland. But that would lead too far now. Only a consideration.
to 4th - If Hitler had gotten his will getting the former areas back he had lacked a "reason" to attack. Even if he had demanded further to fight against Poland he would have had it much more diffcult to get that backed up by the folk. What a main part of the Germans really wanted was revenge for WW1, the following contract of Versaille and the permanent ill-handling of the Germans. That topic was already discussed at length so I spare that here. I´m sure if the conditions after WW1 would have been fairer Hitler not had come to power or if he did he would not have the base for what followed historical.
to 5th - I don´t know anymore where I read or saw that. But KOP was ordered not to fight but to retreat from the advancing Soviets. Only a few "little skirmishes" were carried out since orders arrived to late. Is that right or I´m mistaken there? If right, it wasn´t the failure of KOP not to beat the Soviets more, and taking Your own words into account, I could imagine KOP would have been able to entangle greater soviet forces in a fierce fight. At least a war of attrition and of delay would have been possible.
Greetings
Maybe I´m too naive what the success of the russians at the early war time concerns. I have only to say a few things yet. 1st - I think, the economical part of USA for CCCP in the early stage is overstimated by You. 2nd - I´m not sure all countries of Europe had fought together against the Soviets. 3rd - I don´t wanted say Pilsuldski would have been the actual intiator of WW2/Polish Campaign. 4th - I´m not sure Hitler had attacked Poland if Gdansk etc. would have been handed over. 5th - So far as I know KOP fought not really against the Soviets because they were ordered not to do so. The result if they had got permission would have been much different, I think.
to 1st - CCCP already had masses of war equipment and men on the borders. Given they had only skipped the first purge even experienced officers would have been available. So orderly attack and great success was a strong possibilty. Such officers had also known the logistic problems. They had dealt with that problem all their life - not only in war. Furthermore the Soviets were used to get along with Panje Wagons and simialrs in a manner no European could imagine anymore - until he had to - as the german Landsers had to in the later stages of the WW2. Deliverings by USA for France and UK had had to deal with long support ways as well and that over the ocean yet. So if comparing a long support way on land with one on sea I would always think the land way the quicker and more secure one. But I can err - I´m no military. Following my considerations I would estimate the Russians in advantage.
Furthermore if they could properly prepare the attack they would have all their forces together contrary to the allies who would have been more scattered - at least in the first time. That would mean the temporary superiority of the Russians, in material and men, would be much greater as on the paper. And during following battles the allies had it much tougher to focus their forces as the Soviets had.
to 2nd - Already WW1 showed the great splitting of the european countries. And for WW2 it wasn´t much different - only the mix of countries what build a party/side could have been different. It is and was all about who saw what advantages if the one or other side would win.
to 3rd - I wanted only to say Poland had it´s good share on starting the war. As well as all other countries who could have acted in a different way to avoid such a war. And as Hitler annexed Czechoslovakia Poland and Hungary took part on it. So Czechoslovakia would have forced to fight a 3-borders-war against 3 countries of whom 2 were in a good military state. I think I had handed over Czechoslovakia as well under that conditions. And if only to wait for a better situation for an armed liberation war. I think, it had changed the history much as well if Poland and Hungary for example hadn´t taken their bit out of Czechoslovakia. Maybe the armed conflict between Germany and Czechoslovakia would have even been enough to hinder the Third Reich to attack Poland. But that would lead too far now. Only a consideration.
to 4th - If Hitler had gotten his will getting the former areas back he had lacked a "reason" to attack. Even if he had demanded further to fight against Poland he would have had it much more diffcult to get that backed up by the folk. What a main part of the Germans really wanted was revenge for WW1, the following contract of Versaille and the permanent ill-handling of the Germans. That topic was already discussed at length so I spare that here. I´m sure if the conditions after WW1 would have been fairer Hitler not had come to power or if he did he would not have the base for what followed historical.
to 5th - I don´t know anymore where I read or saw that. But KOP was ordered not to fight but to retreat from the advancing Soviets. Only a few "little skirmishes" were carried out since orders arrived to late. Is that right or I´m mistaken there? If right, it wasn´t the failure of KOP not to beat the Soviets more, and taking Your own words into account, I could imagine KOP would have been able to entangle greater soviet forces in a fierce fight. At least a war of attrition and of delay would have been possible.
Greetings
S
Strelok
Guest
About political correctness - we are on the same side of barricade .
1st - don't arguing with Soviet power and Europe's miscoordination as I mentioned. But again, what scenario are we talking about - it seems You're talking about Soviet attack in 1939, but on the whole Europe instead of Poland. If so I think Red Army would be stalled for long, if not defeated, in Germany by still existing Wermacht supported by allies. In other situation - there is already a lot of war equipement in the western countries too.
Consodering supply lines of Soviets and allies, they would have different nature. Offensives are not stalled by the distance itself. To simplify this - at the beginning of operation "Bargation" Soviets had storehouses just behind their lines. Storehouses were supplied by many trains and were full of stuff. To move this stuff to units, some trucks were used. But when operation begun, troops started to move away from storages. And it wasn't trains which cannot kept up with offensive, but those few trucks and carts. And before the next offensive, those storehouses had to be moved closer to frontline. That's why logistics are usually easier for defender.
2nd - I don't argue, it would be Soviets big hope.
3rd & 4th - There wouldn't be any Czech-German war since the West accepted Munich Agreement. End even if there would be, Polish and Hungarian wouldn't support Germans for sure - their actions were just results of Munich Agreement. I don't say that Polish and Hungarian acted rightfully, it's another topic. Those situations were more complicated then it seems, if you want to know more read something more about the Fist Vienna Award and Zaolzie. And come on, don't shift the blame on to someone else, Germany made that war and that's all. Germans could feel unwell after Versailles but, well, they had lost a war. They were not the first beaten country, and they are not justified just because they still dreamt of Reich hegemony. I forgive and even understand them (I would feel awful too), but I don't justify them.
And about "reason", there always would be a reason. If not Gdańsk, it would be Greater Poland, Silesia or finally Gleiwitz incident or something. Hitler and Germans with him wanted the Great Germany, not some Pomerania. And finally Germany had no right to deliver Poland such ultimatum, it would be cowardice and approval for breaking international law if Poland would accept it.
5th - indeed, there was an order for all Polish troops to avoid fighting with Soviets, but fight if Soviets would attack. In practice, since Soviets were attacking, nobody cares, especially KOP. The biggest problem for Poles was misinformation as many units lost their contact with headquarters and didn't know about invasion. And that cost a lot, since about 200 000 soldiers just bumped into Soviets and were taken prisoners or thought Soviets were coming with help (same result). KOP soldiers (mostly) knew what's going on, but, well, there were like one KOP brigade per one Soviet corp.
Greetings good people.
.1st - don't arguing with Soviet power and Europe's miscoordination as I mentioned. But again, what scenario are we talking about - it seems You're talking about Soviet attack in 1939, but on the whole Europe instead of Poland. If so I think Red Army would be stalled for long, if not defeated, in Germany by still existing Wermacht supported by allies. In other situation - there is already a lot of war equipement in the western countries too.
Consodering supply lines of Soviets and allies, they would have different nature. Offensives are not stalled by the distance itself. To simplify this - at the beginning of operation "Bargation" Soviets had storehouses just behind their lines. Storehouses were supplied by many trains and were full of stuff. To move this stuff to units, some trucks were used. But when operation begun, troops started to move away from storages. And it wasn't trains which cannot kept up with offensive, but those few trucks and carts. And before the next offensive, those storehouses had to be moved closer to frontline. That's why logistics are usually easier for defender.
2nd - I don't argue, it would be Soviets big hope.
3rd & 4th - There wouldn't be any Czech-German war since the West accepted Munich Agreement. End even if there would be, Polish and Hungarian wouldn't support Germans for sure - their actions were just results of Munich Agreement. I don't say that Polish and Hungarian acted rightfully, it's another topic. Those situations were more complicated then it seems, if you want to know more read something more about the Fist Vienna Award and Zaolzie. And come on, don't shift the blame on to someone else, Germany made that war and that's all. Germans could feel unwell after Versailles but, well, they had lost a war. They were not the first beaten country, and they are not justified just because they still dreamt of Reich hegemony. I forgive and even understand them (I would feel awful too), but I don't justify them.
And about "reason", there always would be a reason. If not Gdańsk, it would be Greater Poland, Silesia or finally Gleiwitz incident or something. Hitler and Germans with him wanted the Great Germany, not some Pomerania. And finally Germany had no right to deliver Poland such ultimatum, it would be cowardice and approval for breaking international law if Poland would accept it.
5th - indeed, there was an order for all Polish troops to avoid fighting with Soviets, but fight if Soviets would attack. In practice, since Soviets were attacking, nobody cares, especially KOP. The biggest problem for Poles was misinformation as many units lost their contact with headquarters and didn't know about invasion. And that cost a lot, since about 200 000 soldiers just bumped into Soviets and were taken prisoners or thought Soviets were coming with help (same result). KOP soldiers (mostly) knew what's going on, but, well, there were like one KOP brigade per one Soviet corp.
Greetings good people.
to 1st - Maybe You are right! But I can´t imagine that a prepared Red Army with experienced leaders would be so stupid to have no solution for a problem they had to deal their entire life with. And concerning stalling and defeating: As I said - I think temporarily the Red Army would have more superiority yet as on the paper. And the rush of the Red Army would come to an halt about the french borders. The "few" divisions of Poland and Germany would only be able to hold the Reds at bay for a time. My "hope" would have layed on the KOP as the most experienced large-scale formation and the Legion Condor members. But even they couldn´t do the war alone for a longer time. And what shouldn´t be forgotten the Soviets had their war economic already started, T-34 prototypes were ready in January 1940 (what is only 3 months after the war had started) and new fighters and bombers were in development as well. Mass production would have started short after. Of course, all that only if assumed the purge (at least the first one) wouldn´t have taken place. The masses of the western equipment You mentioned was mostly outdated in comparison to the T-34. I think to this time no other country of the world had such a "monster" in its arsenal.
to 3rd & 4th - Exact! That is what I mean. A bunch of other countries decided about Czechoslovakia, and what a surprise, without inviting a delegation of the concerned country. A mass of countries Czechoslovakia had to face military or economical if it had fought Germany, Poland or Hungary. And defintely that is a very complicated topic. I see it as the forerunner, the test phase, for what was following with Germany then. Only Germany wasn´t beaten as easy as planned.
And I don´t shift the blame as You call it! But Germany didn´t start the war all on it´s own. That is definitely not true. The war started much earlier then Germany fell in at Poland. Germany did the first official military action - that is sadly true! But the encouragement and "unconditional support" (I can´t find a translation for "Freifahrtsschein/Persilschein") of France and UK for Poland in case of war with Germany didn´t help it either to avoid the war. Churchill even admitted/made the statement that "we" could have hindered the war but "we" didn´t want that. Churchill did his great bit to push the war. As did France as well. I don´t say Germany had no guilt - but to say it was it´s guilt alone or even started the war is wrong. And what helped Hitler to come to power and to lead the Germans to a revenge had it´s origins in a long history before. If one wanted to be really exact one even would have to implement historical events already before WW1. But that leads too far again.
Concerning the hegemony - Poland dreamt of it as well. As did every other country/nation/leadership - whatever. That is nothing what is a specific thing of the Third Reich. Even today states do that. Nobody would blame USA or Russia therefor. At least not as one does in general concerning the Third Reich.
Concerning Great Germany: I´m not sure if You mean what You wrote since there was "Großdeutschland" (as unification of Germany and Austria), "Großdeutsches Reich" and "Großdeutsche Lösung". All three could be translated as "Great Germany" if one wouldn´t be too precise. I take it You mean the first one? That would in translation come closest.
Furthermore I wrote "reason" intentionally into "...". I wanted to express that of course there could be other so called reasons to start a war. But Hitler would have it much more difficult to convince the Germans to go to war if the main issue would have resolved. The Germans were war tired after WW1. Only the continuous mishandling of them by the Allies made the ground for the likes as Hitlers, Churchills, Stalins and Roosevelts who lead folks into war. And what ultimatum You speak of exactly?
to 5th - Thanks for clarification!
Greetings
to 3rd & 4th - Exact! That is what I mean. A bunch of other countries decided about Czechoslovakia, and what a surprise, without inviting a delegation of the concerned country. A mass of countries Czechoslovakia had to face military or economical if it had fought Germany, Poland or Hungary. And defintely that is a very complicated topic. I see it as the forerunner, the test phase, for what was following with Germany then. Only Germany wasn´t beaten as easy as planned.
And I don´t shift the blame as You call it! But Germany didn´t start the war all on it´s own. That is definitely not true. The war started much earlier then Germany fell in at Poland. Germany did the first official military action - that is sadly true! But the encouragement and "unconditional support" (I can´t find a translation for "Freifahrtsschein/Persilschein") of France and UK for Poland in case of war with Germany didn´t help it either to avoid the war. Churchill even admitted/made the statement that "we" could have hindered the war but "we" didn´t want that. Churchill did his great bit to push the war. As did France as well. I don´t say Germany had no guilt - but to say it was it´s guilt alone or even started the war is wrong. And what helped Hitler to come to power and to lead the Germans to a revenge had it´s origins in a long history before. If one wanted to be really exact one even would have to implement historical events already before WW1. But that leads too far again.
Concerning the hegemony - Poland dreamt of it as well. As did every other country/nation/leadership - whatever. That is nothing what is a specific thing of the Third Reich. Even today states do that. Nobody would blame USA or Russia therefor. At least not as one does in general concerning the Third Reich.
Concerning Great Germany: I´m not sure if You mean what You wrote since there was "Großdeutschland" (as unification of Germany and Austria), "Großdeutsches Reich" and "Großdeutsche Lösung". All three could be translated as "Great Germany" if one wouldn´t be too precise. I take it You mean the first one? That would in translation come closest.
Furthermore I wrote "reason" intentionally into "...". I wanted to express that of course there could be other so called reasons to start a war. But Hitler would have it much more difficult to convince the Germans to go to war if the main issue would have resolved. The Germans were war tired after WW1. Only the continuous mishandling of them by the Allies made the ground for the likes as Hitlers, Churchills, Stalins and Roosevelts who lead folks into war. And what ultimatum You speak of exactly?
to 5th - Thanks for clarification!
Greetings
S
Strelok
Guest
1st - I don't say Soviet logistic was in bad shape, but it would stall them just like it would stall any other army. It was impossible to permanently attack. I wanted to mention it only to show, that Europe would be prepared for Reds when they would knock to, for example, French borders. European economy would be geared for war too. And Russian technology didn't give them victories at the beginning of the war. Construction of T-34 was great indeed, but it entered production too early and had many defects. By the way, 1940 production of this tank was just a little higher than one hundred. Russian planes during WWII weren't masterpieces too. And their doctrine wasn't really good enough, just to mention lack of radio transmitters in tanks. Soldiers mostly weren't elite too, even during peacetime some of them got only seventy-two hours training.
3rd & 4th - Hungary and Poland wouldn't fight Czechoslovakia. Maybe they would take what they wanted, but wouldn't go further. The problem of Czechoslovakia was that, it was left alone by the West. But who knows what would happened if they tried... well, let's not start another topic. And about guilt, well, I don't have enough wisdom to concern every subject of the problem and I don't want to say that Germans had no reasons to fight, but I know some facts. I know that they unfairly took Austria and Czechoslovakia, and that they invaded Poland and many other countries. That means something, especially since they didn't have to, they had enough bread and butter to have a normal life.
My "Great Germany" ment "Großdeutschland", but it doesn't matters (since I can't see a difference ). I just wanted it to express some dreamed country.
Considering reasons, what this main issue was? Treaty of Versailles? Germans didn't care about it by 1939. Lost territories? They had no right to some of them and, well, Austria and Czechoslovakia hadn't ever been their to loose.
I was talking about German ultimatum to Poland from 31 August 1939, but that sentence can as well refers to German propositions from October 1938 and later months. Main part remained the same, giving Free City of Danzig for The Reich, cutting Pomerania with exteritorial highway and closing relations with Germany. And later Hitler added the plebiscite in Pomerania.
To sum up my all disquisitions, I don't want to say that French (and maybe English) offensive against Third Reich in September 1939 wouldn't bring any evil. But I want to say that it would end up better than this pathetic phoney war that happened in reality. I also don't want to say, that defeating Soviets would be a piece of cake for European countries, but they would eventually win. Of course there is a probablility that everything would screw up, but just a little I'd say (little probability, not little screwed up ). What Western "allies" done was neither wise nor just.
Greetings good people.
3rd & 4th - Hungary and Poland wouldn't fight Czechoslovakia. Maybe they would take what they wanted, but wouldn't go further. The problem of Czechoslovakia was that, it was left alone by the West. But who knows what would happened if they tried... well, let's not start another topic. And about guilt, well, I don't have enough wisdom to concern every subject of the problem and I don't want to say that Germans had no reasons to fight, but I know some facts. I know that they unfairly took Austria and Czechoslovakia, and that they invaded Poland and many other countries. That means something, especially since they didn't have to, they had enough bread and butter to have a normal life.
My "Great Germany" ment "Großdeutschland", but it doesn't matters (since I can't see a difference
). I just wanted it to express some dreamed country.Considering reasons, what this main issue was? Treaty of Versailles? Germans didn't care about it by 1939. Lost territories? They had no right to some of them and, well, Austria and Czechoslovakia hadn't ever been their to loose.
I was talking about German ultimatum to Poland from 31 August 1939, but that sentence can as well refers to German propositions from October 1938 and later months. Main part remained the same, giving Free City of Danzig for The Reich, cutting Pomerania with exteritorial highway and closing relations with Germany. And later Hitler added the plebiscite in Pomerania.
To sum up my all disquisitions, I don't want to say that French (and maybe English) offensive against Third Reich in September 1939 wouldn't bring any evil. But I want to say that it would end up better than this pathetic phoney war that happened in reality. I also don't want to say, that defeating Soviets would be a piece of cake for European countries, but they would eventually win. Of course there is a probablility that everything would screw up, but just a little I'd say (little probability, not little screwed up
). What Western "allies" done was neither wise nor just.Greetings good people.
So I would say - all in all we are in the same direction what an early involvement of UK and France and a possible early invasion by Russia concerns. Only in the specifics we can´t, as it seems, get to a common/mutual result. Even though there as well we aren´t so wide afar if one looks a bit more closely. What isn´t that bad. I have to say I´m pleased we could have a fair comparing of thoughts. And as last, without being a wisenheimer: There is indeed a difference between the three german terms one could translate with "Great Germany". Loosely/Broadly spoken "Großdeutschland" (Great Germany) was a term used in the sense of including all countries what are during and were before WW2 part of Germany. "Großdeutsches Reich" (Great German Empire) was used for the expansion of the Third Reich beyond it´s borders of 1939. "Großdeutsche Frage" or "Großdeutsche Lösung" (Great German Solution) had to do with the combining of all the small german princedoms to one national state - long before WW1. In it´s origin the "Großdeutsche Lösung" envisaged Austria as the leader of that national federal state. But because Austria didn´t agree to participate (since only the german speaking part should get implemented and that had meant a dividing of Austria) the "Kleindeutsche Lösung" instead was used. That only for the difference of the three terms.
Greetings
I have to say I´m pleased we could have a fair comparing of thoughts. And as last, without being a wisenheimer: There is indeed a difference between the three german terms one could translate with "Great Germany". Loosely/Broadly spoken "Großdeutschland" (Great Germany) was a term used in the sense of including all countries what are during and were before WW2 part of Germany. "Großdeutsches Reich" (Great German Empire) was used for the expansion of the Third Reich beyond it´s borders of 1939. "Großdeutsche Frage" or "Großdeutsche Lösung" (Great German Solution) had to do with the combining of all the small german princedoms to one national state - long before WW1. In it´s origin the "Großdeutsche Lösung" envisaged Austria as the leader of that national federal state. But because Austria didn´t agree to participate (since only the german speaking part should get implemented and that had meant a dividing of Austria) the "Kleindeutsche Lösung" instead was used. That only for the difference of the three terms. Greetings
S
Strelok
Guest
Thanks for explaining those terms, I like all those little differences in one language with makes big differences in another. And indeed, it's always good to have a classy disagreement .
Greetings good people.
. Greetings good people.
Well done.