Could Poland Be Saved?
- Thread starter Andres
- Start date
In my opinion yes, see my signature.
However if the Soviets invade from the East it is game over. No way can Poland survive such a scenario. The scenario gambles entirely on Stalin being cautious and that point is very much a subject of heated debate.
However if the Soviets invade from the East it is game over. No way can Poland survive such a scenario. The scenario gambles entirely on Stalin being cautious and that point is very much a subject of heated debate.
Liddell-Hart discusses this briefly in his 'History of the Second World War'. The short version is that the British and French were not capable of saving Poland without the cooperation of the Soviet Union (whom they had alienated). Whether Poland would have accepted help from the USSR is another matter, but without it there was no way the British and French could get any useful force there in time to materially alter the outcome of a German attack. In a scenario where the Russians are part of the invading force, I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell of saving Poland.
The obvious option for the French and British is an attack across Germany's western border, trying to divert their attention (and troops) back from Poland. Without looking at a map and the respective TO&Es I can't say for sure what this would have achieved, but I don't rate their chances very highly. For one thing it's obvious to the Germans as well, and I seem to recall they had done something in the way of preparing defences in that area. For another, the art of attack was somewhat lacking in the allied forces at this stage of the war (witness how long it took the British to achieve a decisive offensive victory in the desert). And on the gripping hand, whatever they do has to take effect quickly otherwise it'll be too late to save Poland. In 1939, I don't think any of the allies would have been able to conduct an effective large-scale attack without weeks of preparation... by which time, Poland is likely defeated.
A less obvious option is to try to exert indirect pressure on Germany by shutting down her economy, perhaps by means of dropping mines in the canal and river networks. Strategic bombing was a pretty inaccurate instrument at that stage of the war, but the Germans were also less ready to cope with it's effects so this might have upset things for them quite badly. Sadly, this probably won't help Poland - the relevant armies and their supplies are already in the field, and while air-defence assets might be diverted away by such an offensive the Poles probably couldn't capitalise on that.
So the short answer is: no. I can't see any way for Poland to be saved by the British and French on their own.
The obvious option for the French and British is an attack across Germany's western border, trying to divert their attention (and troops) back from Poland. Without looking at a map and the respective TO&Es I can't say for sure what this would have achieved, but I don't rate their chances very highly. For one thing it's obvious to the Germans as well, and I seem to recall they had done something in the way of preparing defences in that area. For another, the art of attack was somewhat lacking in the allied forces at this stage of the war (witness how long it took the British to achieve a decisive offensive victory in the desert). And on the gripping hand, whatever they do has to take effect quickly otherwise it'll be too late to save Poland. In 1939, I don't think any of the allies would have been able to conduct an effective large-scale attack without weeks of preparation... by which time, Poland is likely defeated.
A less obvious option is to try to exert indirect pressure on Germany by shutting down her economy, perhaps by means of dropping mines in the canal and river networks. Strategic bombing was a pretty inaccurate instrument at that stage of the war, but the Germans were also less ready to cope with it's effects so this might have upset things for them quite badly. Sadly, this probably won't help Poland - the relevant armies and their supplies are already in the field, and while air-defence assets might be diverted away by such an offensive the Poles probably couldn't capitalise on that.
So the short answer is: no. I can't see any way for Poland to be saved by the British and French on their own.
In September 1938 France back up Czechoslovakia and calls Poland to help, if not they will not guarantee their borders against Germany and USSR. Poland is saved.
Or they go all Turtledove and jump in the boat with the Nazis.
I haven't looked very deeply into it but how plausible was Poland's pre-war strategy of retreating to the southern hill country and turning it into a fortress supplied via Romania? Obviously this wouldn't work if Stalin jumps in but against Germany alone is it still doomed or could it have worked?
The key to saving Poland is actually Belgium. As long as Belgium stays neutral, they do two things for Germany. First, they shield most of the potential front lines for the Germans. Second, they make a deep Allied attack on the remainder of the front very risky.
The French nightmare scenario in Sept 1939 was that the Germans would respond to a French attack into the Saar by wheeling through Belgium while the best of the French army was tied up in the Saar offensive.
If you want Poland to survive, you really need a different king in Belgium, one who is smart enough to realize that Belgium is going to be a battlefield no matter what a piece of paper says. The prior king (Albert) would have probably reached that conclusion if he hadn't died in a freak accident. Leopold III's brother Charles might have done so if Leopold III had stepped in front of a bus prior to his father's death.
In any case, let's say that the Belgian government realized that German guarantees were worthless after the Germans took over the rump of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. At that point, they start looking for an opportunity to invite the French in.
When the Germans attack Poland, Belgium takes advantage of German preoccupation in the east to invite French troops into the country. Suddenly the West Wall is irrelevant because the French are moving into the best attack routes between the two countries, bypassing German defenses. The Germans either let France establish itself in Belgium while the Germans finish off Poland, or they scramble to move troops from the eastern to the western front. I'm guessing they would move their most mobile troops to the west, while trying to finish off Poland with what was left. That gives Poland a chance to survive until the fall rainy season made mechanized warfare more difficult. That might get them through until winter and allow some of the war material the Allies had on the way to get through.
There wasn't a lot of heavy weapons in the pipeline for Poland though. I believe that Britain was sending a few Hurricanes and a few Fairy Battles. The French were sending some R35 tanks, of which 50 actually made it to Poland and the Poles had a little over a hundred French MS406 fighters on order. That's not enough to keep Poland from being overrun if the Germans were able to concentrate their forces there, and it might not even be enough to deal with second-string German forces.
Not sure how this would play out long-term. There is also the question of whether any Belgian government would play the game of inviting France in when that meant inevitably getting involved in a war. That would take a degree of courage on the part of the Belgian government.
The French nightmare scenario in Sept 1939 was that the Germans would respond to a French attack into the Saar by wheeling through Belgium while the best of the French army was tied up in the Saar offensive.
If you want Poland to survive, you really need a different king in Belgium, one who is smart enough to realize that Belgium is going to be a battlefield no matter what a piece of paper says. The prior king (Albert) would have probably reached that conclusion if he hadn't died in a freak accident. Leopold III's brother Charles might have done so if Leopold III had stepped in front of a bus prior to his father's death.
In any case, let's say that the Belgian government realized that German guarantees were worthless after the Germans took over the rump of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. At that point, they start looking for an opportunity to invite the French in.
When the Germans attack Poland, Belgium takes advantage of German preoccupation in the east to invite French troops into the country. Suddenly the West Wall is irrelevant because the French are moving into the best attack routes between the two countries, bypassing German defenses. The Germans either let France establish itself in Belgium while the Germans finish off Poland, or they scramble to move troops from the eastern to the western front. I'm guessing they would move their most mobile troops to the west, while trying to finish off Poland with what was left. That gives Poland a chance to survive until the fall rainy season made mechanized warfare more difficult. That might get them through until winter and allow some of the war material the Allies had on the way to get through.
There wasn't a lot of heavy weapons in the pipeline for Poland though. I believe that Britain was sending a few Hurricanes and a few Fairy Battles. The French were sending some R35 tanks, of which 50 actually made it to Poland and the Poles had a little over a hundred French MS406 fighters on order. That's not enough to keep Poland from being overrun if the Germans were able to concentrate their forces there, and it might not even be enough to deal with second-string German forces.
Not sure how this would play out long-term. There is also the question of whether any Belgian government would play the game of inviting France in when that meant inevitably getting involved in a war. That would take a degree of courage on the part of the Belgian government.
Post-Czech, I also believe Poland was doomed.
Despite the guarantees from Chamberlain, without a friendly Russia, there was no way either France or Britain could do much.
Saving Poland might have been achieved IF USSR had been invited to Munich. But Chamberlain was anti-soviet in the extreme so that was a dead duck.
When Barthou was French minister of foreign affairs, he had a "dream" (1934) of a grand alliance: Poland, Czech, Rumania, Yoguslavia, Britain, France and USSR). That had a short life.
I see that as one of the earliest attempts of stopping Hitler (and saving Poland).
Laval had an agreement wth USSR, but that was a bit "luke-warm".
The Rhineland showed to the world (and to Stalin) that there was a gulf between political commitments and military commitments.
Beck visited London in April 1939, but nothing really came out of it.
Lloud George asked in parliament (4 April) why all those big obligations had been made without securing anything from Poland.
Stalin's speech (10 March) was also telling (chestnuts out of the fire).
Poland itself was not interested in Soviet assistance. The saying was: "Germany might take our freedom, but USSR will take our soul".
I think the conclusion is: Poland was doomed to German occupation in this scenario.
NOW: Let us look at: IF Beck accept Soviet assistance
1) We can base it on the last real proposal: April: Straight Anglo-Franco-Soviet alliance, also to protect countries bordering USSR.
2) Beck accepting Soviet forces crossing into Poland
Going by how Staling just gobled up the Baltic statres, Poland is again doomed.
I simply cannot see any scenario where Poland is not doomed whatever the developments.
Ivan
Despite the guarantees from Chamberlain, without a friendly Russia, there was no way either France or Britain could do much.
Saving Poland might have been achieved IF USSR had been invited to Munich. But Chamberlain was anti-soviet in the extreme so that was a dead duck.
When Barthou was French minister of foreign affairs, he had a "dream" (1934) of a grand alliance: Poland, Czech, Rumania, Yoguslavia, Britain, France and USSR). That had a short life.
I see that as one of the earliest attempts of stopping Hitler (and saving Poland).
Laval had an agreement wth USSR, but that was a bit "luke-warm".
The Rhineland showed to the world (and to Stalin) that there was a gulf between political commitments and military commitments.
Beck visited London in April 1939, but nothing really came out of it.
Lloud George asked in parliament (4 April) why all those big obligations had been made without securing anything from Poland.
Stalin's speech (10 March) was also telling (chestnuts out of the fire).
Poland itself was not interested in Soviet assistance. The saying was: "Germany might take our freedom, but USSR will take our soul".
I think the conclusion is: Poland was doomed to German occupation in this scenario.
NOW: Let us look at: IF Beck accept Soviet assistance
1) We can base it on the last real proposal: April: Straight Anglo-Franco-Soviet alliance, also to protect countries bordering USSR.
2) Beck accepting Soviet forces crossing into Poland
Going by how Staling just gobled up the Baltic statres, Poland is again doomed.
I simply cannot see any scenario where Poland is not doomed whatever the developments.
Ivan
The British do not issue their guarantee in 1939, which firmly brought Poland into the Franco-British alliance system and revitalized the Franco-Polish alliance. Either that, or the Poles realize that Hitler is insane and that an alliance with France and Britain won't deter him from attacking. With nothing to deter Hitler (the USSR was not an option), they accept his demands of Danzig and an exterritorial road to East Prussia, and hope for the best.
With Poland neutralized, Hitler proceeds to attack France, and is promptly defeated.
Probably not quite what the OP meant, but this gives Poland a chance to survive with a PoD in 1939. At least for a time.
I think that, if a quick attack in September 1939 were to work, it would have required more extensive preparations on the French part, requiring a divergence well before 1939.
With Poland neutralized, Hitler proceeds to attack France, and is promptly defeated.
Probably not quite what the OP meant, but this gives Poland a chance to survive with a PoD in 1939. At least for a time.
I think that, if a quick attack in September 1939 were to work, it would have required more extensive preparations on the French part, requiring a divergence well before 1939.
France was not happy about the British guarantee. They believed they were forced into it.
The thing is, Hitler wanted a war. He felt cheated with Czech and was determined that Poland was going to be the battle field, come hell or high water.
If Beck had given in to any and all of the German demands, they would still have been domed.
Let us just imagine: Danzig, the corridor, half of Poland and so on is given to Germany in another Czech or Munich scenario.
Doubt if USSR is just lookig on, but leave that for a moment.
Hitler would have carried on with demands until Poland is gone.
What is France to do? Mobilise? that might just be the reason for a German attack in 1939.
Not mobilise? and German attacks in November 1939 (that woudl be a bit of a surprise).
The sentence that Germany will promptly be defeated I do not believe in. There was too much momentum in Germany.
However, the lessons learned from Poland would not have been implemented and might have caused some hiccups.
Would it have been a Schlieffen V 2.0? Or Manstein move?
That can of course be debated, but it would not have saved Poland.
Hitler had wanted to invade France in November 1939 after the Polish war. The generals nearly had kittens on that account.
If there was no Polish war, Hitler's troops would still be a bit "green" but maybe more numerous (tank losses were a problem after Poland).
It could be fun to take it further: WI Poland decides to fold and accept German occupation a la Czech:
1) Germany is now havng a border with USSR without the RM agreement.
2) Hitler is still not having a war
3) The British guarantees are useles as there was no war
1) Hitler could turn on USSR in 1940, but would he be prepared?
2) Hitler could turn on France in 1940, but would Stalin feel tempted despite the purges and general un-readines?
The Finnish "problem" also comes into play, I think
Ivan
The thing is, Hitler wanted a war. He felt cheated with Czech and was determined that Poland was going to be the battle field, come hell or high water.
If Beck had given in to any and all of the German demands, they would still have been domed.
Let us just imagine: Danzig, the corridor, half of Poland and so on is given to Germany in another Czech or Munich scenario.
Doubt if USSR is just lookig on, but leave that for a moment.
Hitler would have carried on with demands until Poland is gone.
What is France to do? Mobilise? that might just be the reason for a German attack in 1939.
Not mobilise? and German attacks in November 1939 (that woudl be a bit of a surprise).
The sentence that Germany will promptly be defeated I do not believe in. There was too much momentum in Germany.
However, the lessons learned from Poland would not have been implemented and might have caused some hiccups.
Would it have been a Schlieffen V 2.0? Or Manstein move?
That can of course be debated, but it would not have saved Poland.
Hitler had wanted to invade France in November 1939 after the Polish war. The generals nearly had kittens on that account.
If there was no Polish war, Hitler's troops would still be a bit "green" but maybe more numerous (tank losses were a problem after Poland).
It could be fun to take it further: WI Poland decides to fold and accept German occupation a la Czech:
1) Germany is now havng a border with USSR without the RM agreement.
2) Hitler is still not having a war
3) The British guarantees are useles as there was no war
1) Hitler could turn on USSR in 1940, but would he be prepared?
2) Hitler could turn on France in 1940, but would Stalin feel tempted despite the purges and general un-readines?
The Finnish "problem" also comes into play, I think
Ivan
I was aware that Hitler wanted a war soon, but it's the first time I hear he decided immediately after Munich that it had to be a war with Poland, and nothing else would do. What is your source?
This is difficult to predict. Hitler may decide to wait with farther territorial demands until France is safely down, or even until the USSR is dealt with, assuming those demands are inevitable.
It doesn't have to be very soon. An OTL-like debacle in Finland can discourage him from trying anything funny, but the more time it lasts the more likely Stalin is to do so.
There's yet another option, but this one is even less probable. France is defeated and Poland then takes part in the invasion of the USSR. The USSR is subsequently beaten so badly that Britain and the USA end up having to do most of the work defeating Germany. Stalin has to rely on Allied goodwill for postwar borders because he can't possibly occupy more then they'd promise him anyway. If Poland is fortunate it may lose what the Soviets occupied in 1939 IOTL, but but get away without being occupied by the USSR in its entirety.
If a stalemate ensues on the western front, Stalin will definitely be more then happy to attack.
Nitpick: if the war ends with the Red Army occupying the bulk of Poland, "saving" is not really the right word to use.
I forgot to add: this means a belligerent France earlier on. Unless France's big change of attitude comes in just the right time period, it causes France to act against Germany in an earlier crisis. So the German attack on Poland is butterflied away.
It would have improved the situation if Belgium had remained an ally of France and Britain (in OTL they gave up that alliance after France failed to react to Hitler's remilitarizing the Rhineland).
But this would not have allowed the Allies to bypass the Westwall, which covered the whole of the Belgian border and even the Dutch border to the point where it meets the Rhine.
Admittedly the Westwall was not complete and even if completed, far weaker than the Maginot Line. But an incomplete Westwall opposite the French border scared the Allies out of any significant offensive during Hitler's invasion in Poland OTL.
An incomplete Westwall opposite the Belgian border (as existed OTL) would also have scared them in an alternate timeline, if no other important changes take place than the ones you suggest.
BlondieBC
Banned
It is viable in the same way that Saddam Hussein strategy of taking Kuwait was viable.
1939 amphibious operations? I am not sure Britain/France had the capacity for anything massive in that department.
A massive naval expedition into the Baltics in 1939 to save Poland would be a different thing altogether. I think it wouold have settled the war (with the victory parade down the Mall by Hitler).
The Danish straits are excellent choke points.
RN fighting their way to the Baltics through the Kiel Canal I could not fathom.
Saving Poland may have to go back to 1920 and do something better there.
After the March Czech invasion, Poland was surrounded on three sides by Germany and that was more or less it.
If we look at anything political, we could and should perhaps have Chamberlain to fly off to see Stalin and get the pact going in from March and onwards.
That, I thnk, was the only realistic solution.
Ivan
A massive naval expedition into the Baltics in 1939 to save Poland would be a different thing altogether. I think it wouold have settled the war (with the victory parade down the Mall by Hitler).
The Danish straits are excellent choke points.
RN fighting their way to the Baltics through the Kiel Canal I could not fathom.
Saving Poland may have to go back to 1920 and do something better there.
After the March Czech invasion, Poland was surrounded on three sides by Germany and that was more or less it.
If we look at anything political, we could and should perhaps have Chamberlain to fly off to see Stalin and get the pact going in from March and onwards.
That, I thnk, was the only realistic solution.
Ivan
At the very least, any scenario that could somehow save Poland would require:
1) Britain, France, and Poland begin immediate war planning after the Polish guarantee is made. Both sides know exactly what is required of them in the event of a German attack. Poland is assurred that its territorial integrity is confirmed and that it is not necessary to fight the Germans everywhere since a lack of fighting in the corridor won't cause the Allies to not support Polish claims there. The idea is for Poland to hold out for six months to give Britain and France enough time to build forces and invade Germany to compel an immediate end of the war.
2) France commits, as part of war planning, to invade Germany no later than 24 or 48 hours after German troops cross the border into Poland. Units to carry out the invasion are designated and will be prepared to do so.
3) Polish strategy is not to fight the Germans at the border, but to deploy the bulk of their forces behind natural defenses like the Vistula River. Polish units west of that line will fight a delaying action, but the intention is that Vistula will be the main line of resistance where the Germans can be stopped, and as alast resort the Romanian Bridgehead.
4) The Polish government emphasizes the danger that German aggression holds for Poland, and properly instructs the population on what to do if attack comes. Above all, they need to make sure that refugees don't clog the roads so that the army can move.
5) In order to give the Poles adequate air defense, and with the belief that Poland can hold out, Britain and France transfer some fight squadrons to Poland with their British and French crews, in order to make sure the Polish Air Force can hold out and do significant damage to the Luftwaffe.
6) Britain, being unable to raise sufficient land forces for a ground invasion, prepares for an aerial attack against military targets in the west.
7) When the war begins, the Allied offensive goes as planned. While the Germans make strong headway into Poland, French forces move into Saar. As the Germans beging encountering strong resistance near the Vistula, French commanders realize that the Westwall is a hollow shell and that France can advance to the Rhine and beyond.
8) As the Allied offensive develops, the German generals panic and begin stripping the German units in Poland in order to build a true defense in Germany. German offensive in Poland stalls.
9) Stalin, seeing that the Allies are putting up significant resistance, decides it is too risky to activate the secret protocals of the M-R Pact.
10) As the French offensive continues to move, the German generals realize the war is hopeless. They send secret messages to the Allies that they will overthrow Hitler in exchange for the borders pre-Munich. The Allies agree.
11) German generals execute a coup-de-tat and kill Hitler and other senior Nazi leaders.
12) Peace is made, and Poland comes out of it intact.
The above is perhaps barely plausible, but it requires the leaders of Britain, France, and Poland to be a much higher caliber than they were and to understand the situation a lot better than they actually did. Even if the above outlines were followed, it's possible that any number of steps needed to get the final result simply fail.
So while I think a defense of Poland is feasible, I don't think it very realistic. The leaders of Britain and France in particular were unwilling to recognize the true danger they were in and that strong collective defense was their only option.
1) Britain, France, and Poland begin immediate war planning after the Polish guarantee is made. Both sides know exactly what is required of them in the event of a German attack. Poland is assurred that its territorial integrity is confirmed and that it is not necessary to fight the Germans everywhere since a lack of fighting in the corridor won't cause the Allies to not support Polish claims there. The idea is for Poland to hold out for six months to give Britain and France enough time to build forces and invade Germany to compel an immediate end of the war.
2) France commits, as part of war planning, to invade Germany no later than 24 or 48 hours after German troops cross the border into Poland. Units to carry out the invasion are designated and will be prepared to do so.
3) Polish strategy is not to fight the Germans at the border, but to deploy the bulk of their forces behind natural defenses like the Vistula River. Polish units west of that line will fight a delaying action, but the intention is that Vistula will be the main line of resistance where the Germans can be stopped, and as alast resort the Romanian Bridgehead.
4) The Polish government emphasizes the danger that German aggression holds for Poland, and properly instructs the population on what to do if attack comes. Above all, they need to make sure that refugees don't clog the roads so that the army can move.
5) In order to give the Poles adequate air defense, and with the belief that Poland can hold out, Britain and France transfer some fight squadrons to Poland with their British and French crews, in order to make sure the Polish Air Force can hold out and do significant damage to the Luftwaffe.
6) Britain, being unable to raise sufficient land forces for a ground invasion, prepares for an aerial attack against military targets in the west.
7) When the war begins, the Allied offensive goes as planned. While the Germans make strong headway into Poland, French forces move into Saar. As the Germans beging encountering strong resistance near the Vistula, French commanders realize that the Westwall is a hollow shell and that France can advance to the Rhine and beyond.
8) As the Allied offensive develops, the German generals panic and begin stripping the German units in Poland in order to build a true defense in Germany. German offensive in Poland stalls.
9) Stalin, seeing that the Allies are putting up significant resistance, decides it is too risky to activate the secret protocals of the M-R Pact.
10) As the French offensive continues to move, the German generals realize the war is hopeless. They send secret messages to the Allies that they will overthrow Hitler in exchange for the borders pre-Munich. The Allies agree.
11) German generals execute a coup-de-tat and kill Hitler and other senior Nazi leaders.
12) Peace is made, and Poland comes out of it intact.
The above is perhaps barely plausible, but it requires the leaders of Britain, France, and Poland to be a much higher caliber than they were and to understand the situation a lot better than they actually did. Even if the above outlines were followed, it's possible that any number of steps needed to get the final result simply fail.
So while I think a defense of Poland is feasible, I don't think it very realistic. The leaders of Britain and France in particular were unwilling to recognize the true danger they were in and that strong collective defense was their only option.
Robert
Banned
If Czechoslovakia had not fallen, and the Soviet Union not invaded from the East, the yes, it would have been possibld. The Poles would have had a shorter front with defend, and the Germans would have not have had the Czech tanks to bolster their invasion force. At worst the Poles could have held out long enough for France to launch a more threatening counter-offensive in the West, causing the Germans to redeploy forces from Poland.