WI Britain told Poland in 1939 "You're on your own." ?

King Thomas

Banned
And encouraged Hitler to go East in the hope that the two foul dictatorships of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia tear each other's guts out without harming the democracies. Would that keep the war and the horrors of the Holocaust away from the Western democracies? (who could allways attack Hitler if he was clearly losing to the Soviet Union, or else concentrate on inventing the nuclear bomb, either to use it on Nazi Germany or to have a Cold War with the Reich.)
 

LOTLOF

Take away British support and the Poles are going to be a whole lot more accommodating about Danzig and the Corridor. Originally German demands were for Danzig to be restored to the Reich, for a new highway and railroad to be built through the Corridor with extraterritorial rights, and for Poland to join the Anti-Comintern Pact.

Knowing they had a British guarantee Beck and his fellow colonels felt secure enough to take a hard line stance and flat out reject all demands. Take that away and they probably give in to them instead.

Up until the Poles began playing hard ball Hitler likely saw them as useful puppets. He would have made more demands but allowed them to keep their nominal independence so long as they did as they were told. If the British, and under them the French, decide to be accomodating then Hitler will likely go to war with the USSR with Poland, Italy, Hungary, and perhaps Rumania at his side. The rest of the world would stand aside and let them fight. The war would likely begin in 1941 or '42.

With no pact between them Stalin will not be lulled and not be surprised. The German Army is also going to be much weaker without the resources of Norway, Belgium, France, and he rest of Western Europe to draw upon. They will also have much less combat experience.

Likely it is a long bloody war where the Germans and their allies don't achieve near as much as in OTL. The Soviets would triumph but won't be allowed to overrun Germany and Europe, the British would likely moderate a peace where they swallow up the Baltic states and some of Poland, East Prussia, and possibly Rumania.
 

LongVin

Pretty much as Lotlof said.

Poland was only doing the chest beating routine because they thought the Brits and French were going to back them up. This is despite the fact that they had no actual way to support them in a war. Without them giving their support Poland will probably surrender the corridor with certain concessions to the port(which Hitler was willing to give) and might even join in a war against the east.
 

Tizoc

I find it fascinating that so many ppl keep insisting that Poland without western support will give so-called-Corridor to Germany.

Bullshit.

While there was a possible compromise over Gdansk/Danzig and extraterritorial motorway, giving the Polish territory that coincidentaly was also the export trade route is plain ASB.
 

Armored Diplomacy

Jiraiyathegallant said:
Can the Soviet Union really defeat Germany, Poland, Italy, Hungary, and Romania on their own with no Lend Lease?
Click to expand...

The Soviet Union was an emerging superpower. It had the resources to ultimately smash an invasion. If they all invaded without Lend-Lease, the Red Army would initially be sent reeling, and Moscow might even fall. However, the Red Army would probably ultimately reorganize from its pre-war state, when it was suffering from a purged officer corps, and end up on the gates of Berlin, Bucharest, Budapest, and Rome. The process could take a lot longer than it did in OTL, but there are too many obstacles (winter, vast land, scorched-earth, numbers of Soviets, etc) to let the Axis win.

If the Soviets take too many casualties, however, they could conceivably lose the war. But that's the only way.

Now, the Red Army attacking them without going through the reorganization that came with war (basically in its pre-Barbarossa state). The Red Army could easily stomp over Italy, Hungary, and Romania. They could conceivably conquer Germany, but only after years of bitter fighting and reorganization. However, the Wehrmacht would likely mow down Soviet troops and destroy their military equipment in such large numbers and the Red Army would likely gain so little that the Soviets might just give up before being able to overrun the country and settle on whatever gains they've made.
 

Eurofed

Banned
A stalemate on the 1939/1941 border in this kind of Axis-Soviet war is quite likely, and the *realistic* potential final outcomes may range from a Brest-Litovsk peace to an USSR controlling everything east of the pre-WWII eastern German-Czech-Italian border. A total Soviet victory, with a conquest of Germany and Italy, is an ASBish Sovietwank. The Axis won't have a second front, and shall have full access to world markets, while the Soviets won't have Lend-Lease. Not to mention that Britain and France would freak out and intervene for the Axis if their total defeat seemed likely, since the Red Army on the Rhine would be an existential threat for the Entente.
 
Last edited:
BELFAST

BELFAST

LOTLOF said:
Take away British support and the Poles are going to be a whole lot more accommodating about Danzig and the Corridor. Originally German demands were for Danzig to be restored to the Reich, for a new highway and railroad to be built through the Corridor with extraterritorial rights, and for Poland to join the Anti-Comintern Pact.

Knowing they had a British guarantee Beck and his fellow colonels felt secure enough to take a hard line stance and flat out reject all demands. Take that away and they probably give in to them instead.

Up until the Poles began playing hard ball Hitler likely saw them as useful puppets. He would have made more demands but allowed them to keep their nominal independence so long as they did as they were told. If the British, and under them the French, decide to be accomodating then Hitler will likely go to war with the USSR with Poland, Italy, Hungary, and perhaps Rumania at his side. The rest of the world would stand aside and let them fight. The war would likely begin in 1941 or '42.

With no pact between them Stalin will not be lulled and not be surprised. The German Army is also going to be much weaker without the resources of Norway, Belgium, France, and he rest of Western Europe to draw upon. They will also have much less combat experience.

Likely it is a long bloody war where the Germans and their allies don't achieve near as much as in OTL. The Soviets would triumph but won't be allowed to overrun Germany and Europe, the British would likely moderate a peace where they swallow up the Baltic states and some of Poland, East Prussia, and possibly Rumania.
Click to expand...

I agree the German army would be in a weaker position with the resource for France etc. Germany's air force would be stronger without the loses in the battle of France and Britain and not need to defend against bombing raids on Germany. Russian logistis would not be as good with all the lead lease truck they got form the Americans.

Germany might have had more tanks without the need to build uboats for blocking Britain.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Joyeux said:
But if they never gave their word in the first place...;)
Click to expand...

Yep. Up to April '39, Britain owed Poland nothing.

IIRC, in 1938 the UK Cabinet seriously discussed to declare that British security interests in continental Europe stopped at the Rhine (of course, not including the Turkish Straits and the like).
 

Danth

Eurofed said:
Yep. Up to April '39, Britain owed Poland nothing.

IIRC, in 1938 the UK Cabinet seriously discussed to declare that British security interests in continental Europe stopped at the Rhine (of course, not including the Turkish Straits and the like).
Click to expand...

Yeah as long as the Commonwealth wasn't threatened or western Europe Britain didn't care.
In 1933 remember Britain feared the USA as it's greatest threat
It was only hitlers saver rattling that diverted our attention

If we didn't make a pact with Poland then we most likely would of helped Germany against the soviet union which we had feared ever since the glasgow insident
 

Jan Olbracht

Britain granted guarantess to Poland to be sure that Poland would not join Hitler (although Poland would fight even without guarantess-war was inevitable at that point). It was good move from british perspective-Hitler's invasion was directed at Poland first, giving UK and France more time to prepare for war. War between UK and Third Reich was inevitable-Britain would never let ANY power to completely dominate Europe, it is basis of british policy-balance of power.
 

nbcman

Donor
Danth said:
Yeah as long as the Commonwealth wasn't threatened or western Europe Britain didn't care.
In 1933 remember Britain feared the USA as it's greatest threat
It was only hitlers saver rattling that diverted our attention

If we didn't make a pact with Poland then we most likely would of helped Germany against the soviet union which we had feared ever since the glasgow insident
Click to expand...

Do you have a source to justify that statement?
 

Eurofed

Banned
Svetonius21 said:
Britain granted guarantess to Poland to be sure that Poland would not join Hitler (although Poland would fight even without guarantess-war was inevitable at that point). It was good move from british perspective-Hitler's invasion was directed at Poland first, giving UK and France more time to prepare for war. War between UK and Third Reich was inevitable-Britain would never let ANY power to completely dominate Europe, it is basis of british policy-balance of power.
Click to expand...

As long as France stands unconquered, a German sphere of influence in Eastern Europe does not mean a German total domination of Europe, by any means. Nor it does an Axis-Soviet attrition war which most likely ends in a stalemate.
 
Last edited:

Nietzsche

Banned
nbcman said:
Do you have a source to justify that statement?
Click to expand...
I believe his date is a little off. The British did see the USA as a rival post WW1. The Washington Naval Treaty is what helped relations. Otherwise, you'd likely have an Anglo-American arms race.

Now, them go to out & out war? Highly unlikely. Trade conflicts, sphere of influence clashes? Absolutely. It'd be like the US/USSR cold war, but from the 20s onward.
 
Maponus

Maponus

Svetonius21 said:
War between UK and Third Reich was inevitable-Britain would never let ANY power to completely dominate Europe, it is basis of british policy-balance of power.
Click to expand...

This assumes we British are a monolithic entity mindlessly droning 'we must maintain the balance of power'. It wouldn't be hard to have PoD that would result in a few determined politicians staging a parliamentary coup that would keep Britain out of the war indefinitely.
 

Danth

nbcman said:
Do you have a source to justify that statement?
Click to expand...

Yeah
America not joining the league of nations
Theirs the Canadian plan to invade the US
Theirs the American plan red
And others
America and Britain only became friends during WW2
And this continued due to the fear of communism
 

Nietzsche

Banned
Danth said:
Yeah
America not joining the league of nations
Theirs the Canadian plan to invade the US
Theirs the American plan red
And others
America and Britain only became friends during WW2
And this continued due to the fear of communism
Click to expand...
Dude. Every country on earth has plans to invade their neighbor should the situation, however unlikely, arise. Fucking Switzerland has them.

Having plans to invade places is not a sign of hostility, it's a sign of forward thinking. Fuck, alot of the time, the two states will stage a war-game and cooperate, testing their tactics & strategy, again, just in case.

Jesus christ, the US had a 'War Plan Emerald'(I believe that was the name) to invade IRELAND. Not the whole UK. Just IRELAND. There were plans for the rest of the UK & Commonwealth, but I'm trying to show you what those plans really mean. It's like volcano insurance. You're probably never, ever gonna need it, but you're damned happy you do should it become relevant.

About the only way to make the UK and US into with a PoD after WW1 is what I stated. Naval arms race, Anglo-American coldwar from the 20s to whenever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top