Would the west stay out?

b12ox

Banned
Stalin would have required a brain transplant to take such a bait, which has been remarked on several times in this thread.
most likely, but don't underestimate the shroudness with which the Nazis were going about their buissnes in 1940. They might have coocked up stuff on the Russian-Polish border, the more so that the Poles had ambitions too.
 
most likely, but don't underestimate the shroudness with which the Nazis were going about their buissnes in 1940. They might have coocked up stuff on the Russian-Polish border, the more so that the Poles had ambitions too.

The Polish-Soviet border saw frequent skirmishes during the interwar period. The Germans would have had to pull off something spectacular for it to be noticed, let alone interpreted as a hostile action.

All serious ambitions on territories to the east which Poland had were, to the best of my knowledge, abandoned about 1920.
 
Guys

I can see a possible way of keeping the western powers out, [perhaps] but it needs a slightly different POD.

I.e. Germany doesn't occupy the rump of Bohemia in spring 39. That was the thing that really killed appeasement in Britain. Instead it starts making moderate demands on Poland, i.e. Danzig and a right of passage through W Prussia to E Prussia. Possibly even Hitler asking his 'friend' Chamberlain to act as mediator. ;)

Presuming Poland refuses to compromise Hitler has an excuse to invade. [Although then explaining his continued occupation of all Poland would be awkward without alienating the western powers]. Hitler would still have to garrison the western front to secure against an attack and would lack the loot from the west but this might give a chance of getting an eastern war only. Plus it would enable Germany to start further east, although a lot would depend on Stalin's reaction.

Alternatively Poland concedes the land, in which case either it must be overtly attacked, alienating the west. Or possibly the Polish leadership are persuaded that the western powers will desert them and take the partially less repulsive option [to the Poles at the time] of allying with Germany rather than the Soviets.

Rather an unlikely set of options but might with a small change give what the poster is after, i.e. a broad front Nazi-Soviet war without western involvement. Also if the Germans tried this and it didn't work I can't see they actually lose anything.

Steve
Steve, Nazis needed Czechoslovak gold in spring 1939. 80 tons of gold exactly. hey got app. Half of it if Im not mistaken plus armaments for. Around 40 divisons. 250 LT-35 and150 LT-38 tanks plus factories to manufacture them.
 

b12ox

Banned
so why do you think Hitler was so desperate not to invade Poland and he did so only after all hopes of a settlement went down the drain. The English knew what was at stake with Poland peacfully falling in Hitlers hands and with it the dumbest goverment on the planet. Hitler would have had a plethora of options to choose from if he had Poles as puppets to mastermind his eternal dream of all european crusade against Bolshevism.
 
so why do you think Hitler was so desperate not to invade Poland and he did so only after all hopes of a settlement went down the drain. The English knew what was at stake with Poland peacfully falling in Hitlers hands and with it the dumbest goverment on the planet. Hitler would have had a plethora of options to choose from if he had Poles as puppets to mastermind his eternal dream of all european crusade against Bolshevism.

The 'dumbest' government on the planet at least knew that it is contrary to Polish interests to become a battlefield for Germany and USSR to square on. They would never accept to willingly become one. They gambled (and lost) on Germany not being willing to risk full out war with France and UK.
 
Alot the posts make some good point, some not as much ( but, hey, this is what it's all about :)). The way it now looks to me is that Hitler has to give something to Poland, or push Poland into doing what he wants, or invade. If he could get away with giving them something what could it be? One or more of the Baltic states, some part of land that was and one point Polish? It has been pointed out that money would be a problem. If he didn't go west how much could he have saved? Another point made was about French ports, why would Germany need them if the west stayed out? Also I said if he had waited, until 41, to build up all the 'stuff' needed to make war and have Germany on a higher war footing and higher production for the armed forces. To put it another way, did Poland and the west 'fear' Germany more than Russia?

P.S. I am writting this very early in the morning and my brain is less awake than my body.
 
Steve, Nazis needed Czechoslovak gold in spring 1939. 80 tons of gold exactly. hey got app. Half of it if Im not mistaken plus armaments for. Around 40 divisons. 250 LT-35 and150 LT-38 tanks plus factories to manufacture them.

KACKO

I agree it would be bloody difficult for the Germans, but the only way I could see the OP getting what I think he desires. I.e. a Nazi-Soviet war without western involvement. The Germans would be a lot weaker economically and militarily but might still make something like a viable attack. Although highly likely to lose eventually even without western involvement in the conflict.

Steve
 
b12ox

There are a huge number of claimants for the 'dumbest government on the planet' in this period, although most people will agree that ultimately it came down to a close race between Berlin and Tokyo.

Given what the Nazis planned for Poland and that Hitler made no secret about it, while the Polish government made a number of bad mistake, standing up to the Nazis wasn't one of them. Even if the Poles had somehow backed down over Danzig he would have gone on to attack them and then treated them like the sub-humans he and the Nazis viewed them as. The failure for the Poles was that the western powers let them down and Stalin's betrayal.

Steve
 
Alot the posts make some good point, some not as much ( but, hey, this is what it's all about :)). The way it now looks to me is that Hitler has to give something to Poland, or push Poland into doing what he wants, or invade. If he could get away with giving them something what could it be? One or more of the Baltic states, some part of land that was and one point Polish?

No Baltics. The last German offer on the Polish table, albeit not put down in writing in so many words but rather hinted at, was a compensation to the SW. The Poles had Lwow (Lviv) with plenty of Ukrainians in and around it, but out there in the Ukraine SSR there was Kiev (Kyiv) with some Poles in and around it. That's what Goering (I think the last round of negotiations involved him) put forth.

The Poles would need to lose Pomerania and let Danzig (Gdansk) move from free city in which they had some rights to German territory. But what's more, they'd become a German satellite.

It has been pointed out that money would be a problem. If he didn't go west how much could he have saved?

None. Quite the contrary. The West was a big-risk, big-yield gamble. The Germans bagged hundreds of thousands of tons of fuel from the French, Belgian and Dutch strategic reserves. And if you look up a detailed German OoB for Barbarossa, you'll notice how many of those divisions come with small asterisks that tell you "French trucks", "Dutch armored cars", "Belgian artillery" etc.

Also I said if he had waited, until 41, to build up all the 'stuff' needed to make war and have Germany on a higher war footing and higher production for the armed forces.

Time is not on Germany's side. Germany has rearmed at breakneck pace because it did so at unreasonable costs, while everybody else was trying to keep reasonable budgets. So it has an initial advantage over everyone else. But now everyone else is quickly rearming too.

To put it another way, did Poland and the west 'fear' Germany more than Russia?

You mean the Soviet Union. Yes, everybody feared Germany more. Obviously. Look at the track record of Germany. Cheating on treaties. Breaking treaties. Remilitarizing the Rhineland. Annexing Austria. Annexing the Sudeten. Meddling with the Spanish civil war. Dismembering what remained of Czechoslovakia and turning it into a protectorate - the sort of regime that was used at the time for non-Europeans "developing countries" - and a satellite. Annexing Klaipeda. I'm probably forgetting something. The USSR had a bad reputation because Communist and because it supported Communists abroad, but the rabid dog was Germany.
 
When you research the battles. you will find that an avarage soviet tank would have been very lucky to shoot down german panzer. ratio was very uneven. Even if you stack a soviet T35 or T26 against german tanks one on one, both in combat strenght, German wins. Better optics, radios,reliability, etc. iam talking one on one, without tacktical advantage or lack of fuel or major mechanical defects.

Had the Soviets decided to keep the old weapons they would have had to keep them combat ready and in good condition for larger scale operations, which in turn would require hundreds of additional things to be produced, trained, supplied, planned. That's the Catch 22. The Soviets would do that only if they can correctly quess the outcome of a Germans attack, It doeas not matter whether they are surprised on JULY 22 or not. it would require more than full combat alert to stall Germans.Surprise was a bonus. The Germans could take out even more of these tanks later on, when they got the hang of it.

Researching the battles and saying the Nazis used panzers to destroy panzers is a funny assertion because they really did nothing of the sort. They used anti-tank weaponry for those purposes and preferred to avoid armor-on-armor confrontations whenever remotely possible. The Nazis preferred 88 mm guns, and the concept of their initiating massed armored clashes is one that has truth only later in the war when they were running out of options, and even then it would be improvised battles initiated by the Soviets, not by the Nazis.
 
Anything short of a PzIII only has mobility (better engines) as an advantage. Uncoordinated Soviet tactics is what lost them their mechanized formations over and over again, and Luftwaffe did most of the tank-killing. When tanks actually met tanks, the Germans only had a slight edge even with their better training. You can research the battles yourself.

Basically, I'm not saying Soviets won't have problems, they will. I'm saying their problem isn't their tanks, they are adequate for the tank vs. tank operations of the time. The problem is the commanders won't place them where they would give the Germans trouble, and that they cannot be repaired, and hat they run out of ammo because there's inadequate logistics.

Tactically, they're still mostly split among OTBs at the time, and the mechanised divisions only believe in travelling over roads, hello Luftwaffe. But the tanks themselves aren't in any desperate need for an upgrade and would benefit far more from having enough AT shells and tank tractors to drag them out of the inevitable mud.

Not just the LW, Anti-Armor weaponry like 88 mms were preferred whenever possible. The Germans knew very well that their armor was not always suited for massed clashes of tank formations, it's why they sought to avoid them.
 
Not just the LW, Anti-Armor weaponry like 88 mms were preferred whenever possible. The Germans knew very well that their armor was not always suited for massed clashes of tank formations, it's why they sought to avoid them.

Quite right. I'm saying that a hypothetical army with good organisation and logistic situation could have comfortably used "masses" of BT-7/T-26 in '41 and won over Germany provided they used them right.

The quality of the tank didn't matter as much overall tactics, training and supply. T-34 was a great tank but no panacea, Red Army lost tonnes of them. The KV/IS was almost untouchable by anything the Germans had, but still suffered large operational losses.

The Germans also happily operated almost any machinery they captured provided there were parts for it, often with success.

It really is how you use it.
 
Quite right. I'm saying that a hypothetical army with good organisation and logistic situation could have comfortably used "masses" of BT-7/T-26 in '41 and won over Germany provided they used them right.

The quality of the tank didn't matter as much overall tactics, training and supply. T-34 was a great tank but no panacea, Red Army lost tonnes of them. The KV/IS was almost untouchable by anything the Germans had, but still suffered large operational losses.

The Germans also happily operated almost any machinery they captured provided there were parts for it, often with success.

It really is how you use it.

Exactly. And in this case at least a part of this was the combination of the Soviet defensive plan being 1) a bad one, and 2) incomplete, leading to 3) poor force structure for inexperienced generals to work with and through against a very experienced army at the peak of its wartime strength. However Germany having to attack with just what it can do without a good sized chunk of Europe enslaved to augment its strength is in a far more fragile situation than IOTL, no matter when it attacks the USSR.
 

b12ox

Banned
Quite right. I'm saying that a hypothetical army with good organisation and logistic situation could have comfortably used "masses" of BT-7/T-26 in '41 and won over Germany provided they used them right.
It would require a very detailed POD to see if the Red Army that decides to keep the old equipment is able to hold off the strenght of 1941 Werhmacht. What outcome such military doctrine would have on the war further down the road if it was not enough to hold off the German assault, let alone tearing through to Berlin.The Winter War had a very big impact on what should be done to make the Red Army competitive. Heads started rolling not without a reason a few years prior to Barbarossa in the Soviet head command. Perhaps they could have held at the Molotov Line had the Molotov line been completeed in time, or they could have lead offensives had the old equipment receieved proper logistic treatment. They might have done just that had they been convinced Hitler wouldn't let them wait to reorganise. Sheer speculations. They could still keep the old weapons at full compat alert, all well greased, while slowly upgrading. That way they are covered on both sides.

The Germans also happily operated almost any machinery they captured provided there were parts for it, often with success.
BT-7/T-26s were used to pacify locals in besieged teritories or used to contrive some make shift weapon, but hardly ever they were deployed on the front, unlke t-34's or KV-1''s, which kind of is telling.
 
BT-7/T-26s were used to pacify locals in besieged teritories or used to contrive some make shift weapon, but hardly ever they were deployed on the front, unlke t-34's or KV-1''s, which kind of is telling.
Maybe because they had mess in collecting and repairing of demaged and abandoned Soviets armor. They could used it for themself and their allies. For example Romanians and Hungarians would very probably put good use even to BT-7 and T-26s. Others are Slovaks and Croats or Finland. Finland used some what they captured. Germans could provide more.
As to T-34, according to http://www.achtungpanzer.com, only around 300 were used by German Panzer Divisions plus some as pillboxes etc. So this is waste of resources either. If somebody got better numbers for use of t-34 by Germany (and I do not mean GDR :D) i will be more then happy to see them.
 
Last edited:

b12ox

Banned
Maybe because they had mess in collecting and repairing of demaged and abandoned Soviets armor. They could used it for themself and their allies. For example Romanians and Hungarians would very probably put good use even to BT-7 and T-26s. Others are Slovaks and Croats or Finland. Finland used some what they captured. Germans could provide more.
yea, the finns dug them into the ground and used as stationary canons
 
Top