Strong Poland 1939

[kubaPolak]

With what POD could Poland in 1939 be strong enough to crush the German Blitzkrieg?

[loughery111]

If they had joined with the Whites and other forces in the Russian Civil War to crush the Reds, they would almost certainly have succeeded, which would have given them three things: some extra land, a huge trading partner, and a valuable ally. Between the three, I'd say they could have made a go at becoming a much more stable republic even with the Great Depression, and that (coupled with a stronger economy from trade and the support of a major ally) would have let them respond to the German arms buildup with either an intervention or an arms buildup of their own.

Up until 1937 IOTL, they were at a rough parity with the Germans when you considered what the Germans had to leave deployed guarding the French border. That trend could have continued had they decided to throw some actual money at their armed forces. Of course, they still could have screwed up and done what France did; build the wrong d*mn army. But they probably wouldn't have surrendered if it took six weeks for the Germans to get to Warsaw, and the British and French may have managed an intervention in that time.

Additionally, their taking the German threat seriously means that they would probably not have allowed the Czechs to fall, which would have provoked the war in 1938. Germany would have been unable to pull off the Blitzkrieg for lack of armor, and the Luftwaffe in particular would have been woefully unprepared. The UK and France would be virtually untouched and able to build up the forces to enter the Rhine and Ruhr and devastate German industry, while the Germans break their teeth on Polish and Czech defenses.

[seraphim74]

Originally posted by loughery111
If they had joined with the Whites and other forces in the Russian Civil War to crush the Reds, they would almost certainly have succeeded, which would have given them three things: some extra land, a huge trading partner, and a valuable ally.

It takes two to tango. The Whites made it clear they were not interested in an independent Poland - all they were ready to offer was a wide autonomy. Needless to say Poles were not impressed with that. But let's assume Poles helped the Whites (which Whites, BTW? they were not united) and they in turn agreed to Polish independence.
1. There will be no extra land for Poland - the Whites wouldn't have agreed to loose western Belarus, Lithuania with Vilnius and Wolhynia. All the Poles could have counted in the east was the Congress Poland. Lemberg/Lwów was Austrian pre WWI, so Poles might get it. Nothing more.
2. Huge trading partner. Possibly, but there is a serious danger of Russian economic dominance over Poland. Besides, Russian economy was in very bad shape.
3. Valuable ally? Sure, but who will protect Poland against that ally? Against the Soviet Poles could have counted on some help (like in 1920), since western allies did not want the communism to spread. They wouldn't have helped against Russia.

That trend could have continued had they decided to throw some actual money at their armed forces.

Poland actually used a lot of its money to build an army - problem is Poles didn't have that much to spend. After WWI Polish territory was devastated, not to mention the fact that it was very hard to integrate territories that before the war belonged to 3 different states, with different administration, law system, economy and in Russia's case, different railway tracks. Custom war with Germany did not help either.

But they probably wouldn't have surrendered if it took six weeks for the Germans to get to Warsaw, and the British and French may have managed an intervention in that time.

Poland never surrendered. It was conquered, but there was never a formal surrender, like in France.

[Hörnla]

and the British and French may have managed an intervention in that time.

I wouldn't bet on that. AFAIK, France was woefully unprepared for any offensive action. The longer the Polish hold, the better the excuse for inactivity.

IMHO, this is the decisive problem. To save Poland, you need France to become active. Poland, as a rather agrarian state which is not on the forefront of technological progress either, is absolutely unable, even with the best intentions, to muster many more or much better equipped forces than it had in OTL. It is as if you expected Mexico to sustain an army which could succesfully parry a full-scale US invasion.

To change the history of 1939, you need to enable France to hit Germany
hard enough that the conquest of Poland isn't worth the losses in the West. To accomplish this, you would need to do a lot of changes to French politics and to its military. In fact, it would be close to ASB - but it would not be unthinkable. A Polish defense (especially in a two-front-war), would be unthinkable.

[Dilvish]

I wouldn't bet on that. AFAIK, France was woefully unprepared for any offensive action. The longer the Polish hold, the better the excuse for inactivity.

IMHO, this is the decisive problem. To save Poland, you need France to become active. Poland, as a rather agrarian state which is not on the forefront of technological progress either, is absolutely unable, even with the best intentions, to muster many more or much better equipped forces than it had in OTL. It is as if you expected Mexico to sustain an army which could succesfully parry a full-scale US invasion.

To change the history of 1939, you need to enable France to hit Germany
hard enough that the conquest of Poland isn't worth the losses in the West. To accomplish this, you would need to do a lot of changes to French politics and to its military. In fact, it would be close to ASB - but it would not be unthinkable. A Polish defense (especially in a two-front-war), would be unthinkable.

Hmm, if Hitler believed that France and Britain could and would take effective offensive action, what forces would he leave on the French border? Would that be enough for Poland to hold out longer? Plus, if the Poles do better, does Stalin move into eastern Poland on the historic schedule?

[Monty Burns]

Hmm, if Hitler believed that France and Britain could and would take effective offensive action, what forces would he leave on the French border?

I think Hitler would vastly overestimate the ability of the Westwall in defence. Second, Hitler would likely underestimate the willing of France and Britain to go into offensive action. Finally, Hitler always was willing to take a gamble. To conclude, I think the troops deployed in the Western front would be too small.


Would that be enough for Poland to hold out longer? Plus, if the Poles do better, does Stalin move into eastern Poland on the historic schedule?

Why not? The Soviet Union is kind of an international Pariah anyway. And Poland would still be rather easy prey. And the Western Allies wouldn'T consider fighting the Nazis and the Soviets at the same time.

[I Blame Communism]

Why not? The Soviet Union is kind of an international Pariah anyway. And Poland would still be rather easy prey. And the Western Allies wouldn'T consider fighting the Nazis and the Soviets at the same time.

The Soviets didn't move into Poland until it was already a-goner (they actually moved forward their original plans due to unexpected German success, IIRC) because they didn't want a declared war with the Entente; and not only was Stalin paranoid, but the Entente certainly did consider it. The Frenhc general staff, according to De Gaulle, spent more time worrying about bombing Baku than about the actual, y'know, Germans; and Britain was no better.

[imperialaquila]

If they had joined with the Whites and other forces in the Russian Civil War to crush the Reds, they would almost certainly have succeeded, which would have given them three things: some extra land, a huge trading partner, and a valuable ally. Between the three, I'd say they could have made a go at becoming a much more stable republic even with the Great Depression, and that (coupled with a stronger economy from trade and the support of a major ally) would have let them respond to the German arms buildup with either an intervention or an arms buildup of their own.

Up until 1937 IOTL, they were at a rough parity with the Germans when you considered what the Germans had to leave deployed guarding the French border. That trend could have continued had they decided to throw some actual money at their armed forces. Of course, they still could have screwed up and done what France did; build the wrong d*mn army. But they probably wouldn't have surrendered if it took six weeks for the Germans to get to Warsaw, and the British and French may have managed an intervention in that time.

Additionally, their taking the German threat seriously means that they would probably not have allowed the Czechs to fall, which would have provoked the war in 1938. Germany would have been unable to pull off the Blitzkrieg for lack of armor, and the Luftwaffe in particular would have been woefully unprepared. The UK and France would be virtually untouched and able to build up the forces to enter the Rhine and Ruhr and devastate German industry, while the Germans break their teeth on Polish and Czech defenses.

Ahem. Where do I start?

First off, the Poles did intervene in the Russian Civil War. It's called the Polish-Soviet War. Notice how well it turned out for the Poles. They barely managed to eke out a victory; if not for the Miracle on the Vistula, they would have been the Polish SSR.

Assuming that they manage to intervene early (very hard, since they were fighting for their independence at the time) and get a White Russia, there will likely be no Hitler. the Nazis came to power on anti-Communism; if there is no Big Bad Red Russia threatening, Hitler will likely not come to power. The destruction of the Soviet Union early on will have enormous effects than just Poland gettting an ally and trade partner (which is dubious, as has been said already).

See seraphim74's post for more issues.

As for the original question, there is no way that Poland will be strong enough to defeat Germany given the OTL level of support from the Western powers. The only way to do this is for the Western allies to attack the Rhineland as soon as Hitler's armies cross the borders.

Maybe you could give the French a bit more backbone in 1936 and resist the German remilitarization of the Rhineland. That could head off the road to WW2. There is no way to have the OTL attack in 1939 and have Poland successfully resist it.

[wormyguy]

The question here is not really so much "how do you strengthen Poland" as "how do you weaken Germany?"

[RGB]

The question here is not really so much "how do you strengthen Poland" as "how do you weaken Germany?"

France making some noise about helping Stalin defend the Czechs could have easily done it. On the other hand, that might either put Poland on the wrong side of the war (not that likely but not impossible) or remove the possibility of a Polish invasion altogether.

[loughery111]

Having read the comments and done a little outside reading, I'm forced to withdraw most of what I said earlier because it's just too ASB. However, one thing is likely true; if Hitler were forced to attack in 1938 to try to take the Sudetenland, Poland probably would have stood with the Czechs, and the Germans weren't equipped to take on both of those as well as the support they would get in a shooting war from the Western powers and possibly the Soviet Union or Russia or whatever. In 1938 or earlier, Germany simply couldn't have done what they did in 1939. It would have turned into WWI all over again, probably like the Western Front (trenches with heavy use of armor to try to break them), or maybe the Eastern Front (loose lines of infantry with cavalry(armor) support advancing slowly but still in a war of movement).

[usertron2020]

Having read the comments and done a little outside reading, I'm forced to withdraw most of what I said earlier because it's just too ASB. However, one thing is likely true; if Hitler were forced to attack in 1938 to try to take the Sudetenland, Poland probably would have stood with the Czechs, and the Germans weren't equipped to take on both of those as well as the support they would get in a shooting war from the Western powers and possibly the Soviet Union or Russia or whatever. In 1938 or earlier, Germany simply couldn't have done what they did in 1939. It would have turned into WWI all over again, probably like the Western Front (trenches with heavy use of armor to try to break them), or maybe the Eastern Front (loose lines of infantry with cavalry(armor) support advancing slowly but still in a war of movement).

Loughery, have you checked out "Hitler's War"? It's an ATL novel (PT.2 on the way) about this very scenario with one huge change. The author obviously recognized that a formula of the Third Reich versus Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, the British Empire, and the Soviet Union:eek:, would equal Nazi roadkill.:p:D Since he wanted to grind out a couple of sequels or ten, he screwed up the politics to put the POLES and the NAZIS:confused::confused::confused: on the same side. I'm not going to bore you with the details. They are too silly.:cool:

[loughery111]

Loughery, have you checked out "Hitler's War"? It's an ATL novel (PT.2 on the way) about this very scenario with one huge change. The author obviously recognized that a formula of the Third Reich versus Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, the British Empire, and the Soviet Union:eek:, would equal Nazi roadkill.:p:D Since he wanted to grind out a couple of sequels or ten, he screwed up the politics to put the POLES and the NAZIS:confused::confused::confused: on the same side. I'm not going to bore you with the details. They are too silly.:cool:

:rolleyes: Riiiiiight. That's likely. Would be interesting to see how convoluted the poltics got.

Anyway, in 1938, the Poles, Czechs, French, and British working in concert pretty much can't lose the war without even worse stupidity than that displayed by France in the OTL war. Unless France and the UK both literally sit there for the two years it would take for Germany to take out the Czechs and Poles without building much of anything militarily useful, they would all be in an immensely better position when 1939 rolls around.

[usertron2020]

As people here have written, the agrarian nature of Poland's economy, their poverty, and the fact that the big powers were already buying up every available piece of major military hardware, made it impossible to prepare the country for facing the Germans. It would have taken so many changes to French, British, Polish, and Soviet politics as to be ASB en toto.

Lemme tell ya people, I own the computer version of SPI's old War In Europe. You allow free deployment and field fortifications for all countries EXCEPT Germany? Poland is STILL the third easiest roadkill in Europe (Behind only Luxembourg and Denmark, who don't HAVE a rated military force, and surrender upon entry). The Netherlands hold out longer! I realize this is not IOTL, but it represents the hopeless position the Poles were in.

[loughery111]

As people here have written, the agrarian nature of Poland's economy, their poverty, and the fact that the big powers were already buying up every available piece of major military hardware, made it impossible to prepare the country for facing the Germans. It would have taken so many changes to French, British, Polish, and Soviet politics as to be ASB en toto.

Lemme tell ya people, I own the computer version of SPI's old War In Europe. You allow free deployment and field fortifications for all countries EXCEPT Germany? Poland is STILL the third easiest roadkill in Europe (Behind only Luxembourg and Denmark, who don't HAVE a rated military force, and surrender upon entry). The Netherlands hold out longer! I realize this is not IOTL, but it represents the hopeless position the Poles were in.

It's more a matter of maneuvering Germany into a situation where it isn't using its full industrial potential before it declares war, i.e. having it do so in 1938 or earlier. Then the Polish Army can stand off (probably) the limited armor at their disposal, with industrial support from the Czechs' moderately-sized and high-quality manufacturing base. I agree there is no practical way to make the Poles as powerful as Germany, though with the proper economic policies in the early 20's they could cover part of the gap...

[usertron2020]

:rolleyes: Riiiiiight. That's likely. Would be interesting to see how convoluted the poltics got.

Anyway, in 1938, the Poles, Czechs, French, and British working in concert pretty much can't lose the war without even worse stupidity than that displayed by France in the OTL war. Unless France and the UK both literally sit there for the two years it would take for Germany to take out the Czechs and Poles without building much of anything militarily useful, they would all be in an immensely better position when 1939 rolls around.
Hey! I didn't say it made sense!:( The politics of it were that Chamberlain goes to Munich, pulls a "Truman", and tells Hitler to go to hell (politely, of course) and Europe goes up in flames. Problem: No Molotov:Ribbentrop Pact. So Stalin, impressed by the West, is rarin' to go, except the Poles also pull a "Truman" and tell Stalin to go to hell, even for passage rights. So he makes his feelings known, publicly, and martially. The Sovs do well at first, but the effects of the (very) recent purges make themselves felt. The Luftwaffe, and later the Heer, come to Poland's aid as a holding action only.

France's lethargy is as IOTL, and Czechoslovakia falls. But at VERY high military and economic cost. Blasting thru the Bohemian Frontier fortress line has left the Germans with almost NO armor. Also, they can't use the Czech's armor (used up in combat, destroyed to prevent capture, or never built). And the industries the Germans were looking to capture have also (mostly) been destroyed (including the all important Skoda Tank Works). All during the "phony war", except the inaction, going on while the "Czech" war was going on with Germany all far more even lines than IOTL against Poland. The Czechs had industry, terrain, hardened defenses, even a good air force and armor.


The political effects in the West are mostly a continuing rise for Churchill (But Chamberlain backed the winning horse this time, so he's doing OK, too:D), and rumblings in the French government about the inaction of their army. The only real change for the French Army is an allout drive to start organizing more independent Armor Corps. The first book ends with a "Miracle on the Marne" for the French, led by, of course, Charles De Gaulle.;)

[usertron2020]

It's more a matter of maneuvering Germany into a situation where it isn't using its full industrial potential before it declares war, i.e. having it do so in 1938 or earlier. Then the Polish Army can stand off (probably) the limited armor at their disposal, with industrial support from the Czechs' moderately-sized and high-quality manufacturing base. I agree there is no practical way to make the Poles as powerful as Germany, though with the proper economic policies in the early 20's they could cover part of the gap...

You are 100% right. I feel badly that I didn't point out that in that old SPI game it STARTS at Sep.1939. March, 1938? Hitler is roadkill. An independent Czechoslovakia is a knight's lance goring Germany's midsection. But it is going to require leadership that France and Britain have, but mostly in the "lower decks" for now. Without Russia, the Allies are looking at a long war of attrition, which could threaten bankruptcy (no Lend-Lease with France still in the game).

[loughery111]

You are 100% right. I feel badly that I didn't point out that in that old SPI game it STARTS at Sep.1939. March, 1938? Hitler is roadkill. An independent Czechoslovakia is a knight's lance goring Germany's midsection. But it is going to require leadership that France and Britain have, but mostly in the "lower decks" for now. Without Russia, the Allies are looking at a long war of attrition, which could threaten bankruptcy (no Lend-Lease with France still in the game).

I doubt the Brits can get more bankrupt than they are already at this point. Anyhow, it seems to me like Germany in 1937-8 can do ONE of the following: crush and occupy Poland, crush and occupy Czechoslovakia, or defend all of its frontiers against France, Poland, and Czechoslovakia while making very limited advances. Knowing Hitler, he'll go for Option D: try to do A and B while half-*ssing C, to the point where even the French High Command sees that they can take the Rhineland and Ruhr with minimal casualties, especially with British support. Additionally, at this point the UK can pretty much sweep the seas clear of U-boats and Kriegsmarine vessels, which opens up some interesting possibilities about landing troops in Poland in direct support, if they have the balls for it. Someone in a position of power in France or the UK at that point has to have a few brain cells to rub together.

[loughery111]

Hey! I didn't say it made sense!:( The politics of it were that Chamberlain goes to Munich, pulls a "Truman", and tells Hitler to go to hell (politely, of course) and Europe goes up in flames. Problem: No Molotov:Ribbentrop Pact. So Stalin, impressed by the West, is rarin' to go, except the Poles also pull a "Truman" and tell Stalin to go to hell, even for passage rights. So he makes his feelings known, publicly, and martially. The Sovs do well at first, but the effects of the (very) recent purges make themselves felt. The Luftwaffe, and later the Heer, come to Poland's aid as a holding action only.

France's lethargy is as IOTL, and Czechoslovakia falls. But at VERY high military and economic cost. Blasting thru the Bohemian Frontier fortress line has left the Germans with almost NO armor. Also, they can't use the Czech's armor (used up in combat, destroyed to prevent capture, or never built). And the industries the Germans were looking to capture have also (mostly) been destroyed (including the all important Skoda Tank Works). All during the "phony war", except the inaction, going on while the "Czech" war was going on with Germany all far more even lines than IOTL against Poland. The Czechs had industry, terrain, hardened defenses, even a good air force and armor.


The political effects in the West are mostly a continuing rise for Churchill (But Chamberlain backed the winning horse this time, so he's doing OK, too:D), and rumblings in the French government about the inaction of their army. The only real change for the French Army is an allout drive to start organizing more independent Armor Corps. The first book ends with a "Miracle on the Marne" for the French, led by, of course, Charles De Gaulle.;)

Don't worry, I wasn't accusing you of being responsible for this. Though I must admit, it sounds interesting from a military standpoint

[Jeremak]

http://translate.google.pl/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=pl&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historycy.org%2Findex.php%3Fsho wtopic%3D55465&sl=pl&tl=en
Here is a long (49... pages) topic on polish historical forum about this problem. Of course link is to version translated by google, so don't be suprised. And maybe some ideas may be interesting.

[Markus]

I doubt the Brits can get more bankrupt than they are already at this point. Anyhow, it seems to me like Germany in 1937-8 can do ONE of the following: crush and occupy Poland, crush and occupy Czechoslovakia, or defend all of its frontiers against France, Poland, and Czechoslovakia while making very limited advances. Knowing Hitler, he'll go for Option D: try to do A and B while half-*ssing C, to the point where even the French High Command sees that they can take the Rhineland and Ruhr with minimal casualties, especially with British support.


At that time Germany could not even defend itself, much less conquer any other nations besides say Luxembourg. Tanks, planes and subs were barely in production or not at all or only in inferior quality. E.i. the Me109. It had a 700hp Jumo engine and could not even make 300mph. France, Czechoslovakia and the UK had large numbers of 250mph fighters and in case of the UK a 300mph fighter. Tanks like the Pz.III and IV fall into the "not available at all" category. It should also be note that the Germans did not just take over the Czech tanks, they took everything: rifles, machine guns, AT-, AA-, artillery guns...it all went into the german arsenal.

[Hörnla]

Hmm, if Hitler believed that France and Britain could and would take effective offensive action, what forces would he leave on the French border?

Well, actually Germany would hardly be prepared for a proper two-front war. Hitler would gamble and trust that the German forces are able to
knock out one front in time, similar to 1914. This would be the Eastern Front, this time around, not the Western.

I agree that Hitler was a gambler in nature. He confessed that himself at one point. ("Ich habe immer Va Banque gespielt!")

Plus, if the Poles do better, does Stalin move into eastern Poland on the historic schedule?

Hard to say. I am divided on this question. Others have put forward the cons and pros of this question.
Stalin would however not help the Poles.

the Nazis came to power on anti-Communism; if there is no Big Bad Red Russia threatening, Hitler will likely not come to power.

Well, probably no. That was part of the package, and I am always glad to see ways to avoid the Hitler-desaster....but I assume that general revanchism
against Versailles and the desparate situation during the Great Depression really were more crucial to the NSDAP's appeal. We also have to consider
whether there might still be a German Communist Party even without the Sovjet Union surviving the Civil War.

There is no way to have the OTL attack in 1939 and have Poland successfully resist it.

But I absolutely agree on that.

The question here is not really so much "how do you strengthen Poland" as "how do you weaken Germany?

Sure, you could do that. But how? With the Nazis in power?

As the Sudenten-crisis showed, in the late 30s, the German military was still quite ready to remove Hitler if Germany would be sent into a war they knew
they could not win. Weakening Germany to a point where it could not beat Poland would qualify.

[usertron2020]

I doubt the Brits can get more bankrupt than they are already at this point. Anyhow, it seems to me like Germany in 1937-8 can do ONE of the following: crush and occupy Poland, crush and occupy Czechoslovakia, or defend all of its frontiers against France, Poland, and Czechoslovakia while making very limited advances. Knowing Hitler, he'll go for Option D: try to do A and B while half-*ssing C, to the point where even the French High Command sees that they can take the Rhineland and Ruhr with minimal casualties, especially with British support. Additionally, at this point the UK can pretty much sweep the seas clear of U-boats and Kriegsmarine vessels, which opens up some interesting possibilities about landing troops in Poland in direct support, if they have the balls for it. Someone in a position of power in France or the UK at that point has to have a few brain cells to rub together.


Personally, as I see it, Czechoslovakia represents a fulcrum that levers Germany into submission. How can the limited 1938 Heer envelop a country as big as Poland while holding the line against the Bohemian forts AND the Maginot Line? If Hitler deliberately orders an invasion of Czechoslakia and Poland those two countries ALONE in 1938 could fight Germany to a standstill.

Remember, one of the reasons for the war in the West being so "phony" was because the Poles were overrun before the French could scarcely mobilize. If Poland and Czechoslovakia are desparately holding on, the political pressure could build to overwhelming levels. Especially at the more responsible levels of government and the military. After all, there was no comparing the "West Wall" with the "Maginot Line". The French could afford to take risks the Germans could not.