They get Islas Malvinas, of course.And the Spanish?
They get Islas Malvinas, of course.And the Spanish?
No, the Poles didn't exactly have a great reckoning of their position, or the positions of it's allies.Did the Wallies tell Poland this? Poland was counting on the Wallies to take the German pressure off and overrun Western Germany.
Name | Date Formed | Type of Unit | Landwehr Name |
75.Infanterie-Div | 26 Aug. 1939 | Fully Trained Reservists | |
209.Infanterie-Div | 26 Aug. 1939 | Reserve and Landwehr Divisions | 34.Landwehr-Div. |
214.Infanterie-Div | 26 Aug. 1939 | Reserve and Landwehr Divisions | 11.Landwehr-Div. |
223.Infanterie-Div | 26 Aug. 1939 | Reserve and Landwehr Divisions | 41.Landwehr-Div. |
231.Infanterie-Div | 26 Aug. 1939 | Reserve and Landwehr Divisions | 37.Landwehr-Div. |
246.Infanterie-Div | 26 Aug. 1939 | Reserve and Landwehr Divisions | 26.Landwehr-Div. |
79.Infanterie-Div | 26 Aug. 1939 | Fully Trained Reservists | |
34.Infanterie-Div | 01 Apr.1936 | Active (Peacetime) Divisions | |
15.Infanterie-Div | 15 Oct.1935 | Active (Peacetime) Divisions | |
52.Infanterie-Div | 26 Aug. 1939 | Fully Trained Reservists | |
6.Infanterie-Div | 15 Oct.1935 | Active (Peacetime) Divisions | |
36.Infanterie-Div | 01 Oct.1936 | Active (Peacetime) Divisions | |
9.Infanterie-Div | 15 Oct.1935 | Active (Peacetime) Divisions |
Name | Date Formed | Type of Unit | Landwehr Name |
78.Infanterie-Div | 26 Aug. 1939 | Fully Trained Reservists | |
212.Infanterie-Div | 26 Aug. 1939 | Reserve and Landwehr Divisions | 97.Landwehr-Div. |
215.Infanterie-Div | 26 Aug. 1939 | Reserve and Landwehr Divisions | 45.Landwehr-Div. |
14.Landwehr-Div. | 26 Aug. 1939 | Reserve and Landwehr Divisions | 14.Landwehr-Div. |
35.Infanterie-Div | 01 Oct.1936 | Active (Peacetime) Divisions | |
5.Infanterie-Div | 15 Oct.1935 | Active (Peacetime) Divisions |
This was the fundamental flaw of the whole 1919 settlement. The French were expecting the East European nations to be a substitute for their former Russian alliance, IOW to give her the support she needed. In fact, however, those states couldn't even preserve themselves w/o *her* support. They were at cross-purposes from day one, hence the events of 1938/9.Did the Wallies tell Poland this? Poland was counting on the Wallies to take the German pressure off and overrun Western Germany.
It's rather about the fact that France gradually stopped caring about them and as such lost their trust. Therefore, each of them started pursuing its own policies.This was the fundamental flaw of the whole 1919 settlement. The French were expecting the East European nations to be a substitute for their former Russian alliance, IOW to give her the support she needed. In fact, however, those states couldn't even preserve themselves w/o *her* support. They were at cross-purposes from day one, hence the events of 1938/9.
Doesn't that follow on from what I said?It's rather about the fact that France gradually stopped caring about them and as such lost their trust. Therefore, each of them started pursuing its own policies.
Maginot's point wasn't about being a cure-all impenetrable defense, it was about making a war manageable by channeling the Germans through Belgium or (less likely) Switzerland, in particular the North Swiss plain, where a war of material at 2v1 could be fought.Doesn't that follow on from what I said?
If France saw the smaller states as a means to prop *her* up, rather than vice versa, then once she had, in her Maginot Line a defence which (she supposed) was good enough to make them surplus to requirements, then it was natural that she would be l;less concerned about supporting *them*.,
Don't get me wrong, there were indeed the hostilities between Czechoslovakia and Poland right after ww1, and for that reason France could assume that there's no use of them, and so we got the Treaty of Locarno in 1925. But nevertheless, up to Locarno both Czechoslovakia and Poland trusted the French, and afterwards both Czechoslovakia and Poland had to accustom themselves to the consciousness of the french help not being so certain anymore. Poland chose to capitalize on Hitler's adoration for the polish victory over the Soviets, whereas Czechoslovakia chose to call the Soviets for help, even if that help meant the red army rampaging through other countries to reach its czechoslovak ally in the first place.Doesn't that follow on from what I said?
If France saw the smaller states as a means to prop *her* up, rather than vice versa, then once she had, in her Maginot Line a defence which (she supposed) was good enough to make them surplus to requirements, then it was natural that she would be l;less concerned about supporting *them*.,
If the Czechs had resisted, the military planned to stage a coup.Don't get me wrong, there were indeed the hostilities between Czechoslovakia and Poland right after ww1, and for that reason France could assume that there's no use of them, and so we got the Treaty of Locarno in 1925. But nevertheless, up to Locarno both Czechoslovakia and Poland trusted the French, and afterwards both Czechoslovakia and Poland had to accustom themselves to the consciousness of the french help not being so certain anymore. Poland chose to capitalize on Hitler's adoration for the polish victory over the Soviets, whereas Czechoslovakia chose to call the Soviets for help, even if that help meant the red army rampaging through other countries to reach its czechoslovak ally in the first place.
I think that the alliance between France and the eastern countries could work, if France had pressured for harsher Versailles. I had mentioned in before, so I'll repeat: if Poland gets more lands at the cost of Germany, then Czechoslovakia won't treat Poland as someone who won't survive "and thus should be replaced by the Soviets". Some persons mentioned in this thread that the harsher Versailles would cause France to lose the support of Britain, but maybe in the long run it would be beneficial. A significant factor in OTL was the fact that France felt safe due to having Britain. If there's no british support for France, then the French will know that they can't afford for any neglections, and thus France would treat supporting its new eastern allies more seriously. This means no Locarno, or at least not limiting it to securing exclusively the west. And so we would have the franco-polish-czechoslovak alliance whose members would trust each other. There would be no Britain of course, but one determined western ally would be more useful than two hesitating ones.
Thank Britain for that. And btw, it was Czechoslovakia who bullied Poland first when it was fighting the Soviets, Poles then returned the favor. It could have been solved at the Versailles, likely greatly improving the future relations between those countries, but Britain did all they could to weaken Poland (as that weakened France in turn)I would say that we also need Poland to see Czechoslovakia as an ally, not a weak neighbor to be bullied in order to taking Czech land. Something that happened in OTL and surely had some weight in the failure of the Little Entente: why support two idiots who are going to fight each other at the minimum?
Balance of Power, Lord Palmerston "We (Britain) have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."Thank Britain for that. And btw, it was Czechoslovakia who bullied Poland first when it was fighting the Soviets, Poles then returned the favor. It could have been solved at the Versailles, likely greatly improving the future relations between those countries, but Britain did all they could to weaken Poland (as that weakened France in turn)
Strange, I cant see any where on the globe by that nameThey get Islas Malvinas, of course.
Strange, I cant see any where on the globe by that name