What if Poland had defeated the Blitz?

[General Bolt]

I'm sick and tired of all these hypothetical questions :mad: :

What if Jerry had won Stalingrad, Kursk, etc? What if Feyberg had screwed up Crete worse and the Falschrimmers were still a viable fighting force?

All I hear is: Friggin Go Herman Go.

How about: What if the Aussies broke out of Tobruk and captured Rommel?

What if the Panzies were turned loose on D-Day and the 8thAF wiped them out by June 7. Then Caen fell on June 10? Geez, we'd never hear the end of it from Monty.

What if? What if? What if? :eek:

Ya'll sound like Vince Scully the LA Dodger announcer: [nasally whine]If the season ended tomorrow...[/nasally whine]

Well it ain't gonna end tomorrow unless there is a strike then its over. :eek:

Ya'll sound like my nine year old daughter - I don't stiffle her cause kids are supposed to be full of wonder and imagination.

Ya'll even sound like me every time I buy a friggin Lottery ticket. What would I do with $44millionUS?

AND the Krauts ain't gonna win Kursk, stop Operation Bagradation, take Moscow instead of the Kiev pocket, continue to attack the Brit airfields instead of the bombing London, nor will they invent the A-bomb.

So back to the topic: What if Poland had defeated the Blitz? :confused: Huh? :confused: You arm chair generals got any answers to this one?

BRB-I gotta go get another beer.

[Tero]

Originally posted by General Colt:

So back to the topic: What if Poland had defeated the Blitz? :confused: Huh? :confused:

For starters:

They would have been caught up by surprise when the Red Army attacks from their rear. Before they can reorient the Red Army takes half (or more) of the country. The Red Army winds up further West than they hoped for.

With the German war machine recovering from the disaster Stalin can squelch or brush aside the deglarations of war by the British and the French. He replaces Hitler with a communist leader in the NSDAP, the communists (or NSDAP which is socialist in name) win the elections, Nazi rule is replaced with a pro-communist rule, the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty is still in force, he gives the Germans all the equipment they need and sends the Germans off to the liberate the proletariat in the west. The French forces quit from the get go and the British retire to their island.

[David I]

Oh dear...

DavidI

[Zalgiris 1410]

No way the Poles could have stopped the Blitzkrieg even if the Soviets didn't also invade for some Uncle Joe reason. The only way the Germans could have been stopped in Poland was if the French and probably others had attcked Germany strongly enough to distract them and coase them to divert their forces before they had overrun the whole of Poland. Not that that was going to happen either.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Zalgiris 1410:

No way the Poles could have stopped the Blitzkrieg even if the Soviets didn't also invade for some Uncle Joe reason. The only way the Germans could have been stopped in Poland was if the French and probably others had attcked Germany strongly enough to distract them and coase them to divert their forces before they had overrun the whole of Poland. Not that that was going to happen either.

Early Polish mobilization would have made a world of difference.

[Tiredboots]

Everybody pile up on the west coast of france & carried by their momentum fall in the atlantic & drown. So there.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Zalgiris 1410:

No way the Poles could have stopped the Blitzkrieg even if the Soviets didn't also invade for some Uncle Joe reason. The only way the Germans could have been stopped in Poland was if the French and probably others had attcked Germany strongly enough to distract them and coase them to divert their forces before they had overrun the whole of Poland. Not that that was going to happen either.

The campaign in Poland was a near-run thing. Had the Polish defended behind natural obstacles like river lines, German supply shortages would have been acute in short order. Germany had not fully prepared for war in 1939.

[roqf77]

but i still doubt poland had the strength to hold of a concerted effort from germany for too long.

[Tero]

What is "too long" in this context ? The Winter War lasted 105 days when conservative pre-game estimates thought 105 hours would be too generous for the Finns.

[simovitch]

What if... Spartacus had a Piper Cub?

[Zalgiris 1410]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

The campaign in Poland was a near-run thing. Had the Polish defended behind natural obstacles like river lines, German supply shortages would have been acute in short order. Germany had not fully prepared for war in 1939.

Admittedly that is where the Germans feared the Poles might have set up or would try to withdraw to and what they planned against with a strategic double envelopement. The Poles were not strong enough IMHO to have held the San-Vistula-Narew river based line for longer than a week at most. It would have involved giving up all of Western Poland while the Germans could have consentraited against key break over areas like in the West in May 40 with full air superiority.

In terms of running out of supplies I think it would have been more a case of the Poles running out before the Germans. The Finns received supplies, volenteers and equipment through and from Sweden if they didn't they wouldn't have held out for 105 days. For Poland who was going to supply them, Stalin? Her main souces for equipment and supply had been the disolved Czechoslovakia, France and Sweden, the latter two she was immediately cut off from. Rumania, Lithuania and Latvia were all too scared to have allowed transit to Poland and again the latter two Baltic Countries could have been blockaded immediately by the Kreigsmarine.

The Germans had the Protectorite and the direction the Wehrmacht was attacking in was well endowed with roads and RR, AGS lanching its invasion from the area of Silesia, a very good communications base for supply transit.

The best way to consider the question of how the Poles might have held out for longer if they had of held the river lines is to analyse how they performed when they were defending from behind them with concrete fortifications.

I haven't read anything that indecates that the Germans had major problems conducting river assaults against the Poles (or anyone else really for that matter; the Battle of the Bulge excepted) and for instance Guderian's XIX Korps took only 2 and a half days 8-10/9 to assault, bridge and break beyond the Narew against reasonable Polish resistance and concrete fortifications destroying the opposition in the process. That was achieved after fighting through the Polish corridor (across two defended rivers incidently) and travelling through East Prussia and approaching the area of the Narew under the threat of an exposed left flank. It advanced fighting a number of encounters including the capture of the 18th Inf Div and to destroy a Polish tank unit in the process of getting off trains and fought a pitched battle against the strong garrison of the Breast-Litovsk citadel 14-16/9 which it surrounded and was captured on the 17th.

While apparently there was a large amount of supplies left in both Breat-Litovsk and Lvov to be abandoned to the Russians according to the treaty, the only major production centre East of the Vistula AFAIK was Lublin. I don't think the Poles had enough to last for very long especially as cut off as they found themselves and bear in mind the effect that the Luftwaffe would have imposed on both troop movements and supply transportation.

In one way you might be right to express concerns over German supply levels and problems, apparently the West Wall garrison was both under equipt and short on supply. If the French and may be Belgium had of fully attacked them then there might have been a catastrophe in the area of German supplies in Poland.

That said trying to compare the Polish campaigne with the Russo-Finnish Winter War is like looking at apples and oranges. In Poland there were to be sure forrests, mountain areas marshes and rivers but there was enough open terrain and roads and RR for Wehrmacht movement and fighting, also that Summer of 39 was a hot, dry and a clear sky one, though very dusty on the dirt roads of Poland. The Winter War took place in completely different kinds of conditions, obviously, but more importantly than the weather was geography. The main avenue of the invasion assualt (attack is not strong enough) was the Karelin isthmus from the Leningrad district via the important port of Viipuri to Helsinki and the Finns quickly ran out of artillery ammunition there and troop replacements and relieving re-inforcements, too much was being held up surrounding their motti across the northern areas. That was where the real life and death battle of the Winter War was in the fortified Mannerheim Line.

The Poles had no where that could play such a role, also had many concrete fortifications taken by German assualts and they were being invaded by the competent Germans from three sides with the Luftwaffe filling the skies and not just by the Russian steamroller.

[ August 21, 2005, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

[stoat]

The Winter War, while well and nobly fought, did not save Finland from the Soviets. Likewise, were the Polish campaign to stretch out for longer than expected, it would not have saved Poland from the Soviets.

Defense on two fronts had been tried before, against the Prussians and Russians, and did not turn out too well for the Poles. (but America got Pulaski) There was no way to defend against German tanks and planes along with Soviet masses with only courage and cavalry.

What if Jerry had won Stalingrad, Kursk, etc? What if Feyberg had screwed up Crete worse and the Falschrimmers were still a viable fighting force? What if the Aussies broke out of Tobruk and captured Rommel? What if the Panzies were turned loose on D-Day and the 8thAF wiped them out by June 7. Then Caen fell on June 10? What if? What if? What if?

And if your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.

[General Bolt]

Originally posted by stoat:

......And if your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.

My point exactly

[Tero]

Originally posted by stoat:

The Winter War, while well and nobly fought, did not save Finland from the Soviets.

Really ? Why is it then it was London, Moscow and Helsinki were the only capitals in Europe which were not occupied AT ANY POINT by enemy troops during or after the war ?

Likewise, were the Polish campaign to stretch out for longer than expected, it would not have saved Poland from the Soviets.

True. But the Soviets would have ended up at war with the British and the French.

There was no way to defend against German tanks and planes along with Soviet masses with only courage and cavalry.

You are forgetting that the success was due to the Poles not being mobilized and properly deployed more than the Germans and the Soviets having vastly superior equipment.

And if your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.

That does not mean that things would or could not be different in such a case.

[stoat]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by stoat:

The Winter War, while well and nobly fought, did not save Finland from the Soviets.

Really ? Why is it then it was London, Moscow and Helsinki were the only capitals in Europe which were not occupied AT ANY POINT by enemy troops during or after the war ?

I did not clearly state what I meant, and I should have. What I did mean was that the Winter War only delayed the inevitable of Soviet control.

Although the Soviets did not capture Finland entirely, did they not aquire large tracts of it through imposed treaty? Helsinki is not all of Finland, and the Soviets were the Finn's allies at the end of the war, so their troops would not be considered "enemy".

[Tero]

Originally posted by stoat:

I did not clearly state what I meant, and I should have. What I did mean was that the Winter War only delayed the inevitable of Soviet control.

What is your source on Finland being controlled by the Soviets at any point ?

Although the Soviets did not capture Finland entirely, did they not aquire large tracts of it through imposed treaty?

If the treaty was imposed then how is it possible the Finnish retained the pre-war cabinet and indeed the form of government ? Remember what happened to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania on whom the Soviets really imposed the treaties.

Helsinki is not all of Finland, and the Soviets were the Finn's allies at the end of the war, so their troops would not be considered "enemy".

So when did they enter and occupy Helsinki or the rest of the non-ceded areas ?

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Tero:

So when did they enter and occupy Helsinki or the rest of the non-ceded areas ?

They certainly occupied Hotel Torni in 1944.

[General Bolt]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by stoat:

And if your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.

That does not mean that things would or could not be different in such a case.

All things are possible with modern surgery.

[Zalgiris 1410]

Originally posted by Tero:

You are forgetting that the success was due to the Poles not being mobilized and properly deployed more than the Germans and the Soviets having vastly superior equipment.

It is definately true that the Poles were not fully mobilised by 1/9/39 and that it made things that much harder for them and easier for the Germans as they had hoped for with their Blitzkrieg. But there is no way that if they were fully mobilised that they would have performed all that much better in drawing out the campaigne into October.

In terms of the Poles being more properly deployed by either strengthening and fortifying their forces around the boarder of bettween it and the Vistula would only have meant the battle for Poland running ruffly according to how it did. If they had of set up their fully mobilised forces along the river line with fortifications it still stood not much more of a chance because of what I indicated above - the Germans would have broken across them similarly to instances when they did so during that campaigne.

In terms of saying that the Germans did not have vastly superior equipment over the Poles you would have to be joking! :confused: While they did have a few hundred tanks these were all obsolete sardine tin cans, mostly machine-gun carriers compared to the T-35s, T-38s, PzIIIs and PzIVs not to mention the position of the small and totally obsolete Polish Air Force up against the Luftwaffe. They pretty much had the same 37mm ATG as the 37mm PAK 35/36 the Germans had though probably accounted for them selves against the lighter Panzers apparently. In Artillery the Poles had 65mm mountain guns the Germans 75mm and 105mm mountain guns, no Infantry guns, same sized medium mortar at 81mm, 75mm/105mm/120mm field guns, a few 100mm and 155mm howitzers. The Germans had 105mm field guns (at least a few) and 105mm/150mm howitzers. All these advantages with better communications equipment and techniques.

The Poles had 3 items in their arsenal inventory that the Germans didn't have; the tungten AP round for their 7.92mm ATRs, AFAIK produced in Rodom which is West of the Vistula, though the Germans had plenty of the same calibered 7.92mm Panzerbuchse with AP rounds of course anyway. They had 40mm AAGs comparable to German 37mm AAGs and not enough of them to dent the Luftwaffe menace. They also had flat top mounted 75mm AAGs but again too few of them and they were outclassed by the 88s, which were themselves the improved decendant of the WWI 77mm flat top mounted BAK. (Balloon-Abwehr-Kannone IIRC.)

...and then the Russians hordes were to come!

[ August 21, 2005, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Zalgiris 1410:

But there is no way that if they were fully mobilised that they would have performed all that much better in drawing out the campaigne into October.

Militarily, that is possible. Then again, who knows how their hardware would have stacked up against the German hardware (which was by no means all that better than the Polish, technically speaking).

The political and diplomatic repercussions of a longer campaign are harder to determine. The British and the French would have had more time to live up to their deglaration of war and promises.

In terms of the Poles being more properly deployed by either strengthening and fortifying their forces around the boarder of bettween it and the Vistula would only have meant the battle for Poland running ruffly according to how it did. If they had of set up their fully mobilised forces along the river line with fortifications it still stood not much more of a chance because of what I indicated above - the Germans would have broken across them similarly to instances when they did so during that campaigne.

That is possible. But with what kind of casualties ? How long would the Germans had been able to sustain the drive with higher casualty rates ?

In terms of saying that the Germans did not have vastly superior equipment over the Poles you would have to be joking! :confused: While they did have a few hundred tanks these were all obsolete sardine tin cans, mostly machine-gun carriers compared to the T-35s, T-38s, PzIIIs and PzIVs

Have you taken a look at the failure rates of these "superior" tanks ?

not to mention the position of the small and totally obsolete Polish Air Force up against the Luftwaffe.

This is true. But then again how well would the Stukas worked against entrenched forces with more concentrated and coordinated AAA as opposed to formations in transit among droves of refugees ?

They pretty much had the same 37mm ATG as the 37mm PAK 35/36 the Germans had though probably accounted for them selves against the lighter Panzers apparently.

The Bofors 37mm was no pea shooter at the time.

In Artillery the Poles had 65mm mountain guns the Germans 75mm and 105mm mountain guns, no Infantry guns, same sized medium mortar at 81mm, 75mm/105mm/120mm field guns, a few 100mm and 155mm howitzers. The Germans had 105mm field guns (at least a few) and 105mm/150mm howitzers. All these advantages with better communications equipment and techniques.

Which would have worked how well against a prepared defence ?

They had 40mm AAGs comparable to German 37mm AAGs and not enough of them to dent the Luftwaffe menace.

As per historical events, yes. Would they have been enough with the army fully deployed and entrenched ?

They also had flat top mounted 75mm AAGs but again too few of them and they were outclassed by the 88s, which were themselves the improved decendant of the WWI 77mm flat top mounted BAK. (Balloon-Abwehr-Kannone IIRC.)

I can not see this comparison as being relevant to the case. The fight would have been 75mm AAG vs LW aircraft and not vs LW FLAK units.

..and then the Russians hordes were to come!

Yes. But had the British and the French acted the way they did with Finland would Stalin have been prudent enough to abstain for fear of winding up in war with the Western Allies at this early stage ?

[Andreas]

AIUI the Wehrmacht was becoming quite short of ammunition at the end of the campaign. I am not sure what the impact of this would have been if there had been a prolonged campaign in Poland with heavy ammunition expenditure in assaulting well-defended and entrenched positions.

[Sergei]

What was the original Soviet plan regarding the Polish campaign? Did they have a preliminary entry date, or did they intend to wait for the Germans to reach certain goals?

[Tero]

Originally posted by Sergei:

What was the original Soviet plan regarding the Polish campaign? Did they have a preliminary entry date, or did they intend to wait for the Germans to reach certain goals?

AFAIK they were taken by surprise when the Polish defences fell apart so rapidly. Consequently they had to for all intents and purposes trump up a force rather quickly with minimal planning so as not to let the Germans advance too far East.

[Sergei]

Which partly explains why they fared so poorly against the Polish border troops, I guess...

[von Churov]

Poles were doomed the very moment Engaland and France omited to intervene.

They were enveloped from three sides by the enemy superior in everything (exept maybe in motivation), and they had a hostile rear (the Soviets). Not even a stronger military country could resist in such circumstances.

Concearning the retreat...In fact, with ongoing Soviet intervenion they had nowhere to retreat. Had they retreated behind the Vistula and Narew, Germans could still make a lethal blow from East Prussia down to the south, or from Slovakia up to the North.

Poles had to many approaches to defend. Had they retreated behind they would have shortened the front line, but the fronline would have been shortened for Germans too, making even easier for Germans to conduct the mass concentration of arms, which was the art they were best at.

Add a Soviet stab in the back...

Add a lack of military support by Allys...

They were done.

All that Poles could have achieved was a prolongation of a bitter end that was sure to come, since they were left behind by their allies.