WI. British and French Troops in Poland.

Very simple question.

What could happen if Britain and France sent some, say some 10,000 in all, with armour, and aircraft to Poland in the summer of 1939? They would be there for 'exercises and training' of course and nothing to do with threats by Germany.

Over to you.

I think it's a pretty small force to be able to change Hitler's calculations in any meaningful way - i.e. that is was folly for Britain and France to fight for Danzig and that they would hesitate. Having half a division in a position to be surrounded by German troops really does nothing in a military sense.

What might be interesting is if this force effectively takes command over the various remnants of Polish units still around in the southern sector and begins advancing towards Romania - will the Soviets try and stop them?

Due to logistical and manpower concerns, they'll be more likely to send the equipment to Poland. If they did send armour, the British would be out of armoured divisions unless they produce extras and/or send the tanks, but the British need to find the tanks first. The tanks are too important to France and the troops weren't mobilized until 23 August 1939 otl.
By the way, if the British and French did this, Poland will still fall after a week or so later than otl. And, once the Soviets invade Eastern Poland, the divisions will face having to confront the Soviets and bring them to the Axis [formally]. After the Polish Campaign, the Allies are short the armour sent to Poland.
Before August 1939, any training excuse only gives more impetus for Nazi Germany to attack earlier, especially if they send more than 1 armoured division and the divisions don't return to France by 31 August.
And, it's more likely the French troops and tanks get destroyed covering the Polish retreat, probably before the Germans reach Warsaw. Even during the retreat to the Romanian bridgehead, the same occurs to the French tanks while the Poles last a week or so longer due to German distraction and not much difference is produced compared to otl as well. Plus, the Germans still have several reserves that could compensate for the panzers fighting French tanks.

tallthinkev said:

Very simple question.

What could happen if Britain and France sent some, say some 10,000 in all, with armour, and aircraft to Poland in the summer of 1939? They would be there for 'exercises and training' of course and nothing to do with threats by Germany.

Over to you.

Click to expand...

It means they intend to fight for Poland, and are therefore almost certainly planning an immediate offensive on the western front if war breaks out. 10 000 men is not enough to make a difference against nearly 2 million enemy soldiers, but the very fact that Britain and France are more belligerent likely means that Poland mobilizes in time for the attack, significantly increasing the strength of its army. The question is, will Britain and France also manage to draw Stalin into the war on their side or not. Assuming they do go ahead with the attack on Germany, Stalin might decide to join ... or wait, with the expectation that both sides bleed each other out.

Militarily it will not make the difference, but I seriously doubt if Hitler will attack Poland. Judged from the reaction of Hitler and his closest they were truely chocked by the British and French DoW - they seriously thought they could pull another Rhineland/Anschluss/Munich and Germany was ill prepared for a major war.

The pressure for offensive French and British action will be greater, but I can't say if it will work. After all the French and British weren't that well prepared too.

I guess that might also be the reason why troops never were dispatched to Poland, AFAIK it wasn't even considered. They knew they were not ready for offensive action until 1941. With my 20/20 hindsight I of course think they should have anyway, but that is not how it is to be decisionmaker in the midst of things.

Redbeard said:

Militarily it will not make the difference, but I seriously doubt if Hitler will attack Poland. Judged from the reaction of Hitler and his closest they were truely chocked by the British and French DoW - they seriously thought they could pull another Rhineland/Anschluss/Munich and Germany was ill prepared for a major war.
I guess that might also be the reason why troops never were dispatched to Poland, AFAIK it wasn't even considered. They knew they were not ready for offensive action until 1941. With my 20/20 hindsight I of course think they should have anyway, but that is not how it is to be decisionmaker in the midst of things.

Click to expand...

Increasing conscription, utilizing reserve troops and/or delaying the Polish Campaign by a month or so may do the trick. Of course, the Poles mobilize their forces accordingly and the Germans may be in Warsaw by November 1939, although unable to advance further due to weather concerns and leaving the Romanian bridgehead open.
Of course, losing an armoured division, especially if British, will have dire consequences. If the Battle for Western Europe in May 1940 goes as per otl, even the initial stages, which is possible unless war plans are changed, the British will be down an infantry division as well as the armoured division due to butterflies. Of course, in desperate circumstances that the British still have chances for evacuation from Dunkirk, they prioritize their troops and everything remains as per otl initially. However, losing the armoured division, if it does not result in earlier formations of armoured divisions and/or faster tank construction, results in the Italian 10th Army saving some of its troops, if Operation Compass could still be considered. Of course, wrecking one or two divisions at the same time as the Italian 10th Army won't bring much difference, but the North Africa Campaign is prolonged.

It might make the war last 2 weeks longer, but it totally changes France. In all likelihood the Germans would outflank and surround the Allied force, and fast forward to the sicklecut (presuming that it is not butterflied away), the Allies will be much more keen to the dangers of committing their reserves and getting everyone surrounded.

I think the real threat of or an actual attack (if the Germans did invade Poland) into Western Germany from France would be the better choice and be a far more meaningful deterrence IMO.

The French Army and what ever BEF units were available at the time would be better supplied with secure lines of Communication to the French Border.

The 'might' be enough to give the German High command (Hitler) pause and in the case of an actual invasion - possibility of Hitler losing control ??

We know today that the French Army was not very good when it came to defending against Blitzkrieg but then - no one was in 1939/40

They were however capable of attacking in their own right - the French army may not have been the most modern but it was still an established one.

OP isn't about deterrence exactly. They are just there training.

pattersonautobody said:

OP isn't about deterrence exactly. They are just there training.

Click to expand...

But can you really separate the 2 things ? No mater what is said (or even belived by GB/FR) they are still a significant force sat in the middle of the fighting.

JSB

jsb said:

But can you really separate the 2 things ? No mater what is said (or even belived by GB/FR) they are still a significant force sat in the middle of the fighting.

JSB

Click to expand...

It's worth noting that the presence of high-ranking German military advisers certainly didn't dissuade Japan from starting a war in China.

I would say that what might really make a difference is the British and French having any kind of air defense in Poland, Blitzkrieg is a nigh unworkable doctrine without overwhelming air superiority from what I understand.

If it makes clear that Britain WILL declare war, then it might alter the whole strategic reality.

If Hitler calls their bluff (again) and loses the gamble (again) then it might have an effect vis-a-vis Britain's relationship with the USSR, and could lead to a Western declaration of war, or de facto state of war, with the USSR

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

eliphas8 said:

I would say that what might really make a difference is the British and French having any kind of air defense in Poland, Blitzkrieg is a nigh unworkable doctrine without overwhelming air superiority from what I understand.

Click to expand...

A lot depends on how the British and French air forces compare to that of Germany in 1939 - and perhaps more importantly, how the British and French percieved that relation.

I'm not sure this would affect Hitler, because 10,000 men is only a tripwire and the Brits and French had already said they'd declare war if Germany invaded Poland.

I'm much more interested in how this might affect Stalin's decisions. If the USSR still invaded eastern Poland and this resulted in conflict between Allied and Soviet forces, this could radically alter the dynamic for the rest of the war. Britain and France would probably declare war on the USSR, making a grand alliance between the Britain and the Soviets less likely, assuming Hitler still invades the USSR.

zoomar said:

I'm not sure this would affect Hitler, because 10,000 men is only a tripwire and the Brits and French had already said they'd declare war if Germany invaded Poland.

I'm much more interested in how this might affect Stalin's decisions. If the USSR still invaded eastern Poland and this resulted in conflict between Allied and Soviet forces, this could radically alter the dynamic for the rest of the war. Britain and France would probably declare war on the USSR, making a grand alliance between the Britain and the Soviets less likely, assuming Hitler still invades the USSR.

Click to expand...

Right, but Hitler may not have taken the words of Britain and France seriously. By them sending troops to Poland, he knows they're committed to the fight.

As for Stalin, he might not move against the Poles, fearing (probably rightly) a declaration of war by the British and French. He'd much rather let the two sides fight it out amongst themselves than actually fight in the war. This would also mean the Polish campaign is going to be more brutal for the Germans, since the Poles can commit entirely to that front.

jsb said:

But can you really separate the 2 things ? No mater what is said (or even belived by GB/FR) they are still a significant force sat in the middle of the fighting.

JSB

Click to expand...

A little. They can have a large force training, but not have a general conscription of reserves and thereby the actual force to invade right away in Sept 1939.

zoomar said:

I'm much more interested in how this might affect Stalin's decisions. If the USSR still invaded eastern Poland and this resulted in conflict between Allied and Soviet forces, this could radically alter the dynamic for the rest of the war. Britain and France would probably declare war on the USSR, making a grand alliance between the Britain and the Soviets less likely, assuming Hitler still invades the USSR.

Click to expand...

Good point, hadn't thought of that. Stalin likely would have avoided engaging them though.

In such a situation I doubt Hitler invades unless Stalin invades at the same time.

Hashoosh said:

Right, but Hitler may not have taken the words of Britain and France seriously. By them sending troops to Poland, he knows they're committed to the fight.

Click to expand...

If I had to bet my money, I'd say that yes, he might know that. Then again he also surely "knows" that the French are degenerate cowards, that the British have no quarrel with Germany and will see the light, and that the Germans are superior, and lots of other such "knowledge". He also knows what he wants, and he has a way of convincing himself that what he wants will come to pass successfully. Destiny is with him.
So he invades.