What if Poland had defeated the Blitz?

[Bigduke6]

Zalgiris 1410,

I finally dug up that old paper I wrote. The incident about the Czech head of the general staff pleading with Benes to fight comes from Benes' own memoirs. The general in question was a guy named Syrovy.

I also reread the paper, and now I don't know what to think about German chances against Czechoslovakia in 1938. Here's a list of what I decided the Czechoslovak advantages were, besides the stuff I listed before:

1. The Czechs had a real qualitative armor advantage. Half the Czech tanks were invulnerable to German tanks of any kind at long ranges, and even to half the German tanks at any range.

2. The Germans had all their AT guns on the West front. None went into Czechoslovakia.

3. The Czechs planned to keep a reserve and the terrain (mountains, hills, woods) supported keeping a reserve. Further, about 1/3 of the Czech main line troops were "fast divisions", effectively motorized formations.

4. Czech artillery outnumbered German artillery, and by some standards outweighed it as well. It was extremely modern - the oldest pieces dated back to 1925. Some sources give the Czech numerical advantage at 2-1.

The Skoda works were world class and the Czechs also had rr guns, long range cannon, etc. The Czechs lead the world in automatic cannon and tungsten core ammunition.

5. Sudetans in the Czechoslovakian army were 5 per cent of ranks, none of officers.

6. Czechoslovakia outnumbered the German army (attacking Czechoslovakia) in MGs almost 2-1.

7. Military pros both Brits and Germans figured the Czech fortification system and reserves could have held up the Germans for 2-3 months.

All that's footnoted. There's even a break down of divisions and numbers mobilized if any one's interested.

Originally posted by Zalgiris 1410:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bigduke6:

There's a famous story about the top Czech general begging Benes for orders to fight the Germans even after the British sold the Czechs down the river, but Benes nixed the idea as disastrous for the Czech nation.

I hadn't heard that one before 6 could you elaborate upon this or post the story in greater detail when you find your paper (if or when you do so) thanks, that'd be great. :cool: </font>

[roqf77]

Dieslel taylor.

Good point, funnly enough i could read that post perfectly lol!

Plus another piont to add to big duke's post, is if britain and france backed checkoslovakia then they would have got the support of russia too.

This could have possiby secured poland.

It definatly took the production pressure of briatain, allowing for production of such things as 6 pounder anti tank guns and 17 pounders much sooner. Spitfire's hurricanes etc also.

[Zalgiris 1410]

Thanks BigDuke6 that's what I wanted the Czech Generals name Syrovy, bewdy mate, and from Benes' memoirs no less, however does it come across that Benes had come around to this General's suggestion in the end or not?

Originally posted by sturmowik:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I've read from quite a few sources, admittedly mostly in brief passages, but consistent enough, that basically share this view.

can you give some examples?

little Poznan based Army intended to march the 60 miles on to Berlin!

?????????

This "little" Poznan army consists 14th, 17 th, 25 th & 26 th Infantry Divisions and two cavalry brigades (Wielkopolska and Podolska) plus. Also never heard about a march towards Berlin (smells like propaganda also), Army Poznan and remains of army Pomorze were falling back on Warsaw were challenged by German 8th Army, which tried to bar retreat (retreat towards Berlin?).In Such situation General Kutrzeba decided to lunch attack on left flank of advancing Germans troops. The result was hard fought "Battle of the Bzura". The Polish troops succeeded in capturing bridges across Buzra river and hit & drove back the German 30th Inf division. There was vicious fighting around Lowicz and Sochaczew before the Poles pulled back caught from the flank by Army group North diverted from Warsaw direction on Hitlers order. </font>

[Bigduke6]

Originally posted by Zalgiris 1410:

[QB] Thanks BigDuke6 that's what I wanted the Czech Generals name Syrovy, bewdy mate, and from Benes' memoirs no less, however does it come across that Benes had come around to this General's suggestion in the end or not?

Nope. Benes writes that Czechoslovakia might have been able to hold out against Germany for a while, but without French and British intervention Czechoslovakia was doomed. He saw Syrovy as patriotic but willing to sacrifice the Czechoslovak nation to military honor.

The thing I concluded from my paper was that that prediction assumed Germany had the will to prosecute a trench war in Bohemia and Moravia. I was positive at the time, and I am still pretty convinced today, that the Germans could not have blitzkrieged Czechoslovakia. Wrong terrain, the Wehrmacht wasn't up to speed, the Czech army was qualitatively superior to the Wehrmacht in more than a few ways, etc. A German attack probably would have succeeded eventually, but it would have been neither pretty nor quick.

Given what we know now about Hitler's command style, it seems (to me anyway) whether Germany 1938 might have proved unwilling to push a longer war against Czechoslovakia, as (at least theoretically) the longer the Czechs held out, the more chances the British and French might intervene in some way: mobilize in the West, partial blockade of Germany, etc.

It was a sine quan non with Chamberlain and Benes that Czechoslovakia had no chances against Germany, that the Werhmacht would have rolled over Czechslovakia like a title wave. If you look at the military balance, however, it doesn't look like that result is anything close to inevitable - which makes you wonder why the Allied leaders thought it was.

I concluded they had been duped by German propoganda, both before the event, and after the event when Blitzkrieg was a working German military option. So I put Hitler's success in Czechoslovakia to an Allied intelligence failure. My professor was dubious, but rereading the arguments a decade and change later I don't see any big holes in the logic.

[Zalgiris 1410]

And Benes was prepared to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for what - peanuts!

I'm with you BigDuke6 on these issues, though I must admit I had not previously suspected as much about the case before your postings, thanks.

I had previously been coming at it from the assumption that the Czechs would have give them a really good fight, but not as much of a one as I do now. My other main concern with the Munich Treaty was that it ended up both giving Hitler the Czech military industrial complex and armourments & ordinance without a fight while depriving such Countries as Rumania, Yugoslavia, Poland and some of the Baltic States of a major arms supplier. AIUI it ultimately led to being a major factor assisting the conversion of Rumania into joining the Axis, its total lack of foreign military supplies gave Hitler his biggest barginning chip on top of her isolation.

[dieseltaylor]

Very interesting thread and excellent posts. The whole what-if for the Second World War seems to have a vary solid base to start from.!

[roqf77]

just to point out it was not just churchill who opposed appeasement.

This is from page 40 of guess what?

Frank mcdonough's Hitler, Chamberlain and appeasement.

Foot note 3.4

A critical view of appeasement: clement Attlee, the labour leader 1938.

"The labour movement has warned the country since 1932 that yeilding to aggression in one part of the world means an increase in aggression in another. We are now paying in anxiety for a wrong foreign policy assumed since labour was thrown out of office (in 1931). i pray to heaven that we will not have to pay in blood."

Source: The Times, 19 september 1938.