Could the West have liberated Poland in WW2

Depriving people of the franchise is one thing, but what is wrong with not permitting education in Russian?
Try to tell it to Quebecers and you would know what is wrong. Or, more precisely, your blooded remains would :)

Again, to see things in perspective, the whole "Munich" thingy is sometimes (and, I believe, even in this thread, I'm just too lazy to check it) legitimized by statement that Germans had legitimate grievances, as far as situation of German minority in Czechoslovakia is concerned, and that German invasion was legitimate tool to right injustices. Well, Germans in Czechoslovakia did have franchise and school system in German, and they were much less than third of population.
 
Ironically it was Stalin who left Finland no choice but to turn to Hitler, first with his unprovoked aggression in 1939, then by blocking a proposed alliance between Finland and Sweden. As Sweden had no grudges against the USSR and would have been the dominant partner, this would have improved the Soviet strategic position. Stalin decided Finland with Germany as the only possible partner was better than Finland held back by Sweden.

Nor should we forget that had Stalin not gutted the Red Army's officer corps and then displayed the new incompetence against Finland Hitler might well have been more wary come 1941.



CanadianGoose, your defense of Stalin's aggression against Finland is laughable. Finland was not offered peace but issued an ultimatum with the Soviets even inventing a 'government' for Finland. In return for surrendering their only defense line, such as it was, vital economic interests, a tenth of Finland's total population to be lost or stripped of everything and Finland's second largest city they would have gotten nothing of importance.

If tomorrow Bush demanded that Canada hand over Albertan oil, Vancouver and that area of British Columbia plus Montreal while gutting the Canadian national defense, but offered a portion of nearly worthless territory twice the size to be surrendered would you blame Canada for rejecting the ultimatum?

As for the Baltic States, you may disagree with any number of inconvenient facts but given that the Russians, many of them colonial settlers arriving literally over the dead bodies of native Balts, have made clear where their loyalties lie, they can hardly be surprised when declarations of not being loyal to Estonia or Latvia or Lithuania and refusal to in any way adapt to the nations they actually live in might be responded to.

In comparision to the Soviet post-WWII pattern of ethnic cleansing most minorites the behavior of the Baltic States doesn't look nearly so bad. And no one but Russia can be blamed for this issue becoming more heated since Moscow started handing out Russian passports wholesale and inventing territorial disputes and 'independence' movements in regions like Georgia.
 
Guys

Getting back to the issue. As a couple of people have said, to have a free Poland you need a very early western allied victory, the SU doing much worse than OTL or some crisis that leads to an early WWIII and the defeat of the Soviet empire. Otherwise the Soviets will get to Poland 1st and without being willing to fight them they will never allow the Poles any independence. Especially given their behaviour in 1939-41 in their occupation zone. All the 2 options are fairly unlikely. [As Tuhachevskey himself pointed out, the 1st may also fall foul of Stalin back-stabbing his ally as soon as Germany starts to falter and conquering the rest of Poland anyway. In which case would the Anglo-French, after a bitter war with the Germans have the strength and willpower to liberate Poland?]

Possibly the best bet might be if the British especially were less friendly to Stalin. Rather than a massive propaganda campaign supporting 'our gallant Soviets colleagues' in the campaign against the fascists, they tell their population the truth. That Stalin is a thuggish dictator who got back-stabbed by his ally and we're supporting him because he's the lesser of two evils. This means we're less generous with L-L especially after the Japanese attack and Britain is on the rack so much. Possibly cut it off altogether after the Germans expose the Katyin massacres. [That gives a good excuse and by that time the eastern front is secure].

Britain is important because an early stance on this will also affect opinion in the US. Also since much of the L-L went via British ships and through British controlled territory it would cut that to a minimum. True I think the majority went via Vladivostok but I believe that ramped up later in the war. Also under those conditions the US might be less helpful anyway.

In that case the Soviets will be in a weaker position. If their still deep into Soviet territory properly and having suffered higher casualties there might be the chance of some defeat for Nazi Germany that prevents any of Europe other than probably the Baltic’s coming under the Soviet dictatorship. This would still need probably the cancelling of the unconditional surrender declaration. Making clear to the Germans that they can surrender under terms that will see them demilitarised and fully de-Nazify coupled with allied controlled war crimes trials. But they would have an acceptance that they would be occupied by western troops and no mass expulsions from areas inhabited by Germans prior to Sept-39.

Its still a long shot but it might have worked. Basically you need a US ready and willing to stand up to the Soviets in 44-45, at least diplomatically/economically and with a possible military threat if attacked. This is the only non-ASB way I can see of getting anything like that barring Stalin taking a leaf out of Hitler's book and doing something to really piss the US off.

Steve
 
I feel that an early Allied victory is the most plausible PoD here. If the Allies get all the luck the Germans had IOTL and the Germans stick with their original invasion plans you could see a crushing Axis defeat in 1940. At this stage Statin is still very cautious so it may just be possible to extract Poland from his grasp, particularly if lucky French victories can be spun as evidence of competence.
 
The Winter War was unnecessary I concede, but the Finns had a history of co-operating with the Germans militarily during the Russian Civil war against the Finnish Red Guards & Russian troops. They also had pretty good relations with Nazi Germany, so some concern over their neutrally was legitimate they may not have attacked the U.S.S.R themselves but their borders would have made a good staging area for a German attack.:)

Finland was in a bit of a bind as were the Soviets.

You mean the Finns proceeded to oppose the Finnish Reds and Russian occupiers? I am shocked.

Pretty good relations w/ Nazi Germany, BTW, is a bit of a misnomer; the military had ties to them, but most military equipment was bought elsewhere and the nation's leaders were enthusiastically trying to promote Nordic neutrality.
 

General Zod

Banned
Possibly the best bet might be if the British especially were less friendly to Stalin. Rather than a massive propaganda campaign supporting 'our gallant Soviets colleagues' in the campaign against the fascists, they tell their population the truth. That Stalin is a thuggish dictator who got back-stabbed by his ally and we're supporting him because he's the lesser of two evils. This means we're less generous with L-L especially after the Japanese attack and Britain is on the rack so much. Possibly cut it off altogether after the Germans expose the Katyin massacres. [That gives a good excuse and by that time the eastern front is secure].

Britain is important because an early stance on this will also affect opinion in the US. Also since much of the L-L went via British ships and through British controlled territory it would cut that to a minimum. True I think the majority went via Vladivostok but I believe that ramped up later in the war. Also under those conditions the US might be less helpful anyway.

In that case the Soviets will be in a weaker position. If their still deep into Soviet territory properly and having suffered higher casualties there might be the chance of some defeat for Nazi Germany that prevents any of Europe other than probably the Baltic’s coming under the Soviet dictatorship. This would still need probably the cancelling of the unconditional surrender declaration. Making clear to the Germans that they can surrender under terms that will see them demilitarised and fully de-Nazify coupled with allied controlled war crimes trials. But they would have an acceptance that they would be occupied by western troops and no mass expulsions from areas inhabited by Germans prior to Sept-39.

Its still a long shot but it might have worked. Basically you need a US ready and willing to stand up to the Soviets in 44-45, at least diplomatically/economically and with a possible military threat if attacked. This is the only non-ASB way I can see of getting anything like that barring Stalin taking a leaf out of Hitler's book and doing something to really piss the US off.

Indeed this is IMO the best non-ASB chance that Eastern Europe has of being saved, but I reiterate, you need to get rid of the pro-Commie Roosevelt administration since 1940 or let something occur that makes a Soviet appeasement policy totally unacceptable to the American people, so as to force Roosevelt's hand. You also need to butterfly the unconditional surrender away, so the generals can coup Hitler before Bagration optimally before Winter '43-'44 Ukraine offensive, so German surrender can happen when the Red Army is still somewhat deep within Soviet territory and far from Eastern Europe.
 
Of course, if there is such a hostile view of Stalin doesn't this incentivize the OTL Soviet-German peace talks?
 

General Zod

Banned
Of course, if there is such a hostile view of Stalin doesn't this incentivize the OTL Soviet-German peace talks?

Oh, sure. Those, too. Of course, committment to unconditional surrender is not a political problem for the USSR. Then again, the anti-Nazi coup needs to happen early enough, with the Wehrmacht still deep in Soviet territory, and still putting a defensive resistance good enough that Stalin would see the merit in a peace deal which restores the 1941 borders but denies him Central and Eastern Europe. Probably it would best require a coup before Zitadelle (OTL, there were peace feelers between Germany the Soviets up to then), or at least before the Soviet Ukraine Winter 43-44 offensive. Before Bagration as an absolute minimum.
 
Assume, perhaps with less lend lease, Soviet forces were 1000 kilometers East of where they were in OTL at the time of D-Day what would the "butcher's bill" have been for the Western Allies essentially winning the war?

(By the way I do not see how the Atomic bomb could have been used unless and until there was pretty near total air supremacy.)
 
Of course, if there is such a hostile view of Stalin doesn't this incentivize the OTL Soviet-German peace talks?

Oh, sure. Those, too. Of course, committment to unconditional surrender is not a political problem for the USSR. Then again, the anti-Nazi coup needs to happen early enough, with the Wehrmacht still deep in Soviet territory, and still putting a defensive resistance good enough that Stalin would see the merit in a peace deal which restores the 1941 borders but denies him Central and Eastern Europe. Probably it would best require a coup before Zitadelle (OTL, there were peace feelers between Germany the Soviets up to then), or at least before the Soviet Ukraine Winter 43-44 offensive. Before Bagration as an absolute minimum.
I have a feeling Faeelin is thinking of a separate German-Soviet peace that leaves the western allies to fight a much more powerful Germany, still dominating much of Europe, on their own. This is a danger but not a great one I believe. To get any peace that both Hitler and Stalin would agree to you would have to have it very late in the war when even most of the Nazis realised they were losing. Alternatively getting rid of Hitler but then, given the grip that he had on much of the Nazis and German system, would only be available later in the war. Difficult to see this happening much earlier than the historical plot, especially if the Germans are doing better in the east because of the reduced L-L to the Soviets.

Steve
 
Assume, perhaps with less lend lease, Soviet forces were 1000 kilometers East of where they were in OTL at the time of D-Day what would the "butcher's bill" have been for the Western Allies essentially winning the war?

(By the way I do not see how the Atomic bomb could have been used unless and until there was pretty near total air supremacy.)

Derek

1000k is rather excessive as that leaves them somewhere east on Moscow at the start of 44. Would not expect major changes until after say Stalingrad as the west would still support the Soviets fully until then, by my scenario. After that they would reduce support as the Soviets would no longer be in danger of clear defeat and the resources could be more profitably used elsewhere.

The big reduction in logistics supplies would probably be the main impact. Especially if the US also drastically cut supplies after saw the Katyin massacres were made public. That would make the deep Soviet advances more difficult and costly, even with Hitler's stand orders and should enable more German forces to escape encirclements.

The allies had pretty much total air superiority by the end of 44. Using a nuclear weapon against Germany has some risk of failure but not a massive amount.

Steve
 
The only plausible ways for the Western Allies to liberate Poland require either the USSR never entering the war, even in the final stages when Stalin would have seen easy gains available, or the USSR being not only forced to terms by Hitler but hurt so badly that again Stalin doesn't seize the chance to take back what was stripped from him

Any ideas how the Western Allies can defeat the Axis without the Red Army and without burning the continent down with nukes in order to save it?
 

General Zod

Banned
Alternatively getting rid of Hitler but then, given the grip that he had on much of the Nazis and German system, would only be available later in the war. Difficult to see this happening much earlier than the historical plot, especially if the Germans are doing better in the east because of the reduced L-L to the Soviets.

There were several major attempts by the military German Resistance to assassinate Hitler and then coup the Nazi regime well before July 20, 1944. Some of these attempts occurred on March 13, 1943 and on March 21, 1943, and only failed because of minor random butterflies (the same kind who had saved Hitler on November 8, 1939 and shall save him again July 20, 1944). The early 1943 attempts were especially noteworthy for out PoD.

They occur at a time when the military situation on the Eastern Frornt was such that Stalin would be highly receptive to a reasonable separate peace offer that would leave Central and Eastern Europe free from Communist control (OTL there still were peace feelers between Germany and the USSR).

Restoration of 1941 borders is certainly achievable, possibly something substantially more (IIRC OTL pre-Zitadelle peace talks were about German requests for a border on the Dvina-Dneiper, while the Soviets asked the resotation of the 1941 borders) especially if something like the discovery and confirmation of Soviet responsibility for the Katyn massacre causes the L-L to USSR to be drastically dropped and/or the post-Nazi military junta fully adopts Manstein's elastic defense strategies on the Eastern Front.

With either or both events, it is quite reasonable to assume that the Spring-Summer 1943 would lead to a bloody stalemate on the Eastern Front which leads to a separate peace (depending on how the spring-summer fightings went, it might be the Dvina-Dneiper, the 1939 borders, or the 1941 ones). Now, the Western Allies are facing a rather bad confidence crisis about their "unconditional surrender" policy. Their only perspective about enforcing it are several years of a terribly high "butchers' bill" and possibly bloody failures at landing in mainland Europe, while they wait for the success of Project Manhattan.

It's rather unlikely that the Congress, the British Parliament, and the Anglo-American public are willing to face the costs, now that the Nazi regime went down (the main and minimum war aim for the Western Allies), especially if the German government goes public with a negotiated peace offer after the German-Soviet armistice. No doubt the German military junta asks for garantees of German national unity, territorial integrity in their ethnic 1939 borders, plus the 1914 borders with Poland and a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, and offer to withdraw from Western Europe. The WA ask for a thorough denazification, demilitarization, and occupation of Germany by the Anglo-Americans. Negotiations stalemate and break down temporarily, but are reopened when the landings in Italy show up to be a bloody failure and/or the Italian front bogs down in a bloody stalemate.

Renewed negotations agree on the following terms: Germany evacuates Western Europe and maintains temporary occupation of Eastern Europe until Anglo-American troops can take their place on the Soviet border. Allies can supervise the denazification effort and the democratization process in Germany, as well as manage the trials for Nazi war criminals (the ones that the Junta has not yet executed, that is). German troops withdraw within their borders and make a gradual demilitarization. Germany keeps Austria, Sudetenland, Danzig, Upper Silesia, and West Prussia. Italy signs a similar peace deal and evacuates everything it occupied since 1939 (but keeps her post-WWI eastern borders).

By November 20, 1943 WWII in Europe has come to an end. Czechoslovakia (minus Sudetenland), Poland (minus the Corridor and Upper Silesia), Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, and Greece are occupied by the Anglo-Americans and gradually restored to independence and democratic governments. Depending on how good the negotiations with the Soviets went, the Baltic states, Moldavia, and Eastern Poland may or may not be within the liberated zone, too. Some unpleasantess occurs in Yugoslavia and Greece when the WA put down Communist insurgencies by force. Stalin is quite annoyed at having the Americans on his border (and possibly about being denied his previous 1939-41 conquests), so he puts the Cold War apparatus into full gear. He shifts his troops into the Far East and attacks Japan. More limited Communist insurgencies occur in Italy and France, which the WA put down by force. Germany and Italy undergo supervised democratization and demilitarization: both elect Parliaments with a Democratic Cristian and Socialist prevalence.

In Asia, the Red Army invades and occupies Korea, Manchuria, and Northern China. America shifts here the vast majority of her military potential (minus the necessary for the occupation armies in Europe and to man the Soviet border) and by the end of 1944 is able to conquer Japan with a series of successful yet quite bloody landings. Plenty of American support goes to Nationalist China to oust the Japanese and the Chinese Communist from Southern China. Mainland China gets effectively divided into a Communist North and a Capitalist South. American troops cooperate with the British, the French, and the Dutch to put down Communist insurgencies in SouthEast Asia, then these countries are put a controlled decolonization path as part of the Western Sphere of influence.
 
To be frank with you, I would be willing to beat gold coins against eggshells that something is "overcooked" in the statement. 1st, the very absence of source for such serious accusation. 2nd, the structure of statement. Sub base in Polyarny (true, it have been there since at least 1941, the place is very convenient), biggest arms storage in the world later in history (serious bullshit, but I suspect that was a honest mistake of author of this urban tale; Polyarny could have been the biggest sub base in the world, and innocent exaggregation of "biggest sub base" into "biggest arms storage" is so typical of Baltic and Polish Russophobe propagandists that one can't blame them for it, it just have to be taken into account) and then unproven accusation of Nazi subs using it against Allies. Typical propaganda job - take two true fact and use them to buttress a lie.

Yes, I agree with you 100% as far as explanation why post-WWI system was set up the way it was, but I happen to believe that France could restraint itself from acting on primal rage and fear and allow creating of less disastrous and himiliating system. Once Versailles system felt in place, some major revanchist attempt on Germany's side was almost inevitable. Attempts of Western powers to direct said revanchism against communism were natural realpolitic consequence.

Fighting your way through mountains is pure nightmare. You almost need to turn WWII into three-way battle (Angol-Americans vs. Germany, USSR vs. Germany, very cold peace bordering on Cold War between USSR and Anglo-Americans, a la Soviet-Japanese relationships of the day) to give Allies enough time to fight their way from Italy or Greece.

So, basically allow Old Bulldog to run the show and rely on his so far unblemished Russophobic and Anticommunist resume? Yes, it could be something workable.

The use of a makeshift replenishment base in Soviet territory, near Murmansk, is no propaganda, it is a well established fact. The Soviet supplies to Germany of critical strategic raw materials, from oil to foodstuffs to manganese, also is. There's a ton of Soviet-German correspondence about it, no need to look at user-compiled stuff.
 
The only plausible ways for the Western Allies to liberate Poland require either the USSR never entering the war, even in the final stages when Stalin would have seen easy gains available, or the USSR being not only forced to terms by Hitler but hurt so badly that again Stalin doesn't seize the chance to take back what was stripped from him

Any ideas how the Western Allies can defeat the Axis without the Red Army and without burning the continent down with nukes in order to save it?

If they are ready to lose 8-12 million of men-they could do it to the year 1949 or?
 
Last edited:
Ironically it was Stalin who left Finland no choice but to turn to Hitler, first with his unprovoked aggression in 1939, then by blocking a proposed alliance between Finland and Sweden.
I'm not convinced about Swedish ability to restrain Finns. Our friend Drakon Fin is in no doubt that Finnish union with Nazis was a sure thing. And very idea of an alliance... To tell you the truth, I haven't heard of it as viable alternative before (not that I'm pretending to be an expert, but I have more than casual interest to the period). Perhaps you would be so kind to give me some reading about said alliance...

Nor should we forget that had Stalin not gutted the Red Army's officer corps and then displayed the new incompetence against Finland Hitler might well have been more wary come 1941.
May be yes, may be no. Even the said "gutting" as being absolutely detrimental to army is debated in Russia (and no, not all "defenders" of purge are goggly-eyed Stalinists, it is just that a lot of purged commanders were more-or-less guerilla commanders of Civil War, unfit to command modern army units). All in all, I would be vary to use one-liners like yours.

CanadianGoose, your defense of Stalin's aggression against Finland is laughable. Finland was not offered peace but issued an ultimatum with the Soviets even inventing a 'government' for Finland. In return for surrendering their only defense line, such as it was, vital economic interests, a tenth of Finland's total population to be lost or stripped of everything and Finland's second largest city they would have gotten nothing of importance.
Realpolitik, buddy, realpolitik. I didn't say that the war was a good thing, didn't I? However, would you try to look at the problem the way USSR see it, it becomes less clear cut. Having a regime which never failed to be sympathetic toward any Anti-Soviet alliance, being able to prepare for war within cannon shot from your second-largest industrial city and main fleet base isn't comforting. Imagine Castro's Cuba ISOTed circa 1970 to where Long Island is (but give it a good long land border with CT and NY) to get some feeling how comfortable Soviet leaders felt.

If tomorrow Bush demanded that Canada hand over Albertan oil, Vancouver and that area of British Columbia plus Montreal while gutting the Canadian national defense, but offered a portion of nearly worthless territory twice the size to be surrendered would you blame Canada for rejecting the ultimatum?
Oh, that's an easy one. Would an alternative be to bring Bin Laden and his murderous brethen in, I would blame Canada madly.

As for the Baltic States, you may disagree with any number of inconvenient facts
What facts did I disagree with? It is you who chose to ignore facts I posted about treatment of Russian minorities bordering on apartheid and far exceeding anything Israeli Arabs are forced to endure, while you continue to drone the same song.

the Russians, many of them colonial settlers arriving literally over the dead bodies of native Balts
Your logic just gave to Mugabe the right to oppress white Zimbabweans, as blacks in the country suffered infinitely more from white settlers than Balts ever did from communism (even leaving poisonous practice of blaming a single ethnic group for crimes of system, which is known as Anti-Semitism if directed against Jews, aside). So, if Balts have right to oppress Russian minority there, Mugabe has right to screw his whites much harder.

have made clear where their loyalties lie, they can hardly be surprised when declarations of not being loyal to Estonia or Latvia or Lithuania and refusal to in any way adapt to the nations they actually live in might be responded to.
You are seriously lacking knowledge of very basic facts. Virtually whole leadership of Russophone community in Baltic countries consists of veterans of Peoples' Fronts (popular anti-Communist organizations of Perestroika period) and they actively worked toward liberation of Baltic countries from commie oppression.

In comparision to the Soviet post-WWII pattern of ethnic cleansing most minorites the behavior of the Baltic States doesn't look nearly so bad. And no one but Russia can be blamed for this issue becoming more heated since Moscow started handing out Russian passports wholesale and inventing territorial disputes and 'independence' movements in regions like Georgia.
Issue did not become more heated in 2000s, Baltic system had been cast in stone and concrete in 1990s, when Russia was in latrine and her influence was non-existent. And, BTW, Ossetian and Abkhaz independence movements are very real. But, if you want to discuss them it should be done separately.

Assume, perhaps with less lend lease, Soviet forces were 1000 kilometers East of where they were in OTL at the time of D-Day what would the "butcher's bill" have been for the Western Allies essentially winning the war?
Millions. Allies need to conquer Germany to save Poland and without "Commie Hordes" bogeyman they'll bear the brunt of German war machine.

1000k is rather excessive as that leaves them somewhere east on Moscow at the start of 44.
Moscow to Polish border is 900+ km, as far as highway goes (and it goes pretty straight :) ) So, let's say, 800 to 1000 km, depending on the area.

The big reduction in logistics supplies would probably be the main impact. Especially if the US also drastically cut supplies after saw the Katyin massacres were made public.
I have a gnawing suspicion that you guys severely overestimate an effect of something like Katyn on Western public opinion in itself, without massive propaganda campaign to use it (i.e. equation should be "Katyn is used to renege on helping USSR", as opposed to "Help to USSR is reduced on the wave of outrage generated by Katyn"). After all, Western societies utterly failed to act on Holocaust, which produced dozens of Katyns monthly, year after year, as far as number of victims is concerned, and tragedy of Soviet POVs in German captivity is leisurely ignored even today.

The only plausible ways for the Western Allies to liberate Poland require either the USSR never entering the war, even in the final stages when Stalin would have seen easy gains available, or the USSR being not only forced to terms by Hitler but hurt so badly that again Stalin doesn't seize the chance to take back what was stripped from him
Agree.
 
CanadianGoose, I wouldn't have much trouble with Mugabe if he had simply tried to correct the pre-independence acquisition of farmland by the white minority, the problem with him is that the overwhelming majority of the grief he inflicts is going towards the Africans of Zimbabwe.

As for Sweden restraining Finland in an alliance it seems unlikely that it would have made matters worse for the Soviets.

And the size of Finland's army in 1939, with less than 100 obsolete planes and less than a battalion of tanks hardly seemed likely to menace the USSR's many thousands of better tanks and aircraft.

And if Cuba under Castro had appeared off of Long Island circa 1970 I'm afraid the whole country might have been mugged.:D


With that resolved...

...we all agree that the key to the Anglo-American liberation of Poland was the development of thousands of invisible bulletproof dirigibles which landed 85 armored and motorized divisions in the heartland of the Reich while the Wehrmacht was foolishly lined up on beaches and defense lines, yes?
 
Top