The spark that started the war ?

Morlar

This is from todays Irish Independent;

By Adrian Blomfield in St Petersburg

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/russia-accuses-poland-of-sparking-world-war-1762626.html

Russia accuses Poland of sparking world war

Friday June 05 2009

Russia has accused Poland of provoking the outbreak of the Second World War by refusing to accede to the "very modest" demands of Nazi Germany.

The Russian defence ministry posted a potentially inflammatory essay on its website, claiming that Poland resisted Germany's ultimatums in 1939 only because it "wanted to obtain the status of a great power".

The lengthy diatribe also lashed out at Britain and France for giving the Poles "delusions of grandeur" by promising to intercede if the Nazis invaded.

"Anyone who has been minded to study the history of the Second World War knows it started because of Poland's refusal to meet Germany's requests," the statement written by Colonel Sergei Kovalev, a senior researcher at the ministry, read.

"The German demands were very modest."

Appearing to take Germany's demands at face value, the defence ministry insisted that the Nazis were interested only in building transport links across the Polish Corridor to East Prussia and assuming control of Gdansk, which had been designated a free city.

Western historians largely recognise that Poland would have lost its independence had it acceded to the demands, pointing to Hitler's policies of Lebensbraum and the creation of a "Greater Germany" as evidence. Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, prompting Britain and France to declare war.

Poland's foreign ministry said it would summon the Russian ambassador to Warsaw to demand an explanation, as the allegations showed signs of triggering a row between the two countries. (© Daily Telegraph, London)

- Adrian Blomfield in St Petersburg

_______________

Maybe it is my ignorance but I find it an unusual for a russian military assessment on the causes of WWII.

I would not say I would be fully in agreement with it but it does pose an question I would be interested in.

a)
Had britain and france not given Poland such assurances would the Poles (rightly or wrongly) have been as likely to have refused German demands ?


b)
Had Poland acceded to German demands what are the (or are there any) indicators that a europe wide war would still have been inevitable ? I dont mean ignorant guesses or hollywood generalisations - but in reality what would the likely outcome have been specific to Poland & German relations.

ejmaztec

I think that, as Germany lost a lot of territory after WW1, they would have wanted it all back. Gdansk, or Danzig as was, was part of that territory. The war might have been delayed for a short time, but I think that it was still inevitable. After the Munich agreement, the Czechoslovaks were forced into handing over the Sudetenland, but this didn't stop the Germans grabbing the rest a few months later.

http://www.ww1-propaganda-cards.com/lost_territories.html


And after WW2, the Germans lost another big chunk, mostly to Poland.

Morlar

I would think that is a good point. If Poland had acceded to the German demands it could have been interpreted as a sign of weakness depending on how it was handled. I do agree that if that had happened eventually Germany would have wanted their territory back but the question is would this have led to a europe wide war had it not been for British/French assurances. Also could Poland and Germany have avoided conflict by Polish accession to the Germans demands and then additionally to any later demands for return of territory >? Could both sides have lived with that without third party involvement or was (as the Russian military assessment above indicates) a factor in this Polish determination "wanted to obtain the status of a great power".

Tony EH

The "spark" for war came long before the Polish intransigence over German wishes for Danzig.

It came from the Allies unfairly blaming Germany for the First World War and placing the incredibly harsh Versailles treaty on her head. Such a measure was directly responsible for Hitler getting to power and the subsequent grievances Germans felt over whole situation.

No Versailles, No Hitler, No war.

Morlar

Tony EH wrote: »

The "spark" for war came long before the Polish intransigence over German wishes for Danzig.

It came from the Allies unfairly blaming Germany for the First World War and placing the incredibly harsh Versailles treaty on her head. Such a measure was directly responsible for Hitler getting to power and the subsequent grievances Germans felt over whole situation.

No Versailles, No Hitler, No war.

I agree totally that Versailles played a huge part and can not be underestimated, and it was (in my opinion) massively unfair to assign ALL of the blame on Germany. Not just the clean card the allies gave themselves and the fact that the entire blame for the conlict's beginning, but also it's continuation throughout the entirety. Despite the fact that Germany repeatedly tried to end the war amicably. Also the punitive measurements in terms of loss of territory, restrictions and reparations caused untold hardships among the people and did create the political vacum required for National socialism to come to power. Even though it could just as easily have been the bolsheviks who filled that gap and the end result would also have been terrible for europe.

I would assign a lot of the responsibility for Versailles to the french who sought revenge for their defeat in the franco-prussian war, & sought to cripple their nearest & most powerful neighbour for a generation.

This also seems to have been a factor with the Germans who reminded the french of this when they insisted on using the same railway carriage later on. At least the americans seemed to be more willing to listen to the German side until they were effectively shot down by their french and british allies during the lead up to Versailles.

However given that versailles had been effected in 1919 - and that by 1939 Hitler had for the most part undermined & discarded it the question about the immediate pre-war Polish /German relations would be the one I am more curious about. Not least because this is an area which gets very little coverage in terms of general understanding of the causes & the myriad factors leading up to WWII. To be honest it is an area I know little about so that is why I think it would be good to find out more & given the Polish population in Ireland it would be good to get some of their views on this (as well as everyone else's of course).

Tony EH

As far as I'm aware, the Poles were open to discussion with the Germans over the issue of Danzig and the so called Polish Corridor to begin with. That was until the British performed their stunning "about-face", as Liddel Hart called it and offered their "guarantee" to Poland. One which it had absolutely no way of honouring even if they really were intent to do so.

How fruitful talks between the two Nations would have been, if Britain had not stuck her oar in, is anyones guess though.

Would it have averted war?

No, I don't believe so. At least not the war between the two main protagonists in Europe. Hitler admired, feared, loathed and distrusted Bolshevik Russia and as long as that remained, there was going to be a war between the two Nations at some point or other. With that in mind, both Czechoslovakia and especially Poland would have to be "out of the way", so to speak, if he was to deal with them. How that was to come about, I don't think Hitler had fully worked out. Perhaps Hitler may have tried to get the Poles on side in a war against Russia. There was certainly enough animosity between them and Hitler knew that Edward Smigly, C'n'C of Poland's armed forces, was virulently anti-Russian.

As it transpired, when the British, who up to that point I'd say were happy to see Hitler's eyes turned East rather than West, offered their "guarantee", it only served to allow the Poles to completely switch off any potential negotiations that may have been on the cards and thus made war inevitable. It allowed Moscicki's government to snub their noses over what most of Europe (including Britain) saw as quite reasonable German requests.

The British "guarantee" was one of two serious gambles the British took in the latter half of 1939, the other being the declarion of war in September. Both of which Hitler called their bluff on.

Fratton Fred

I think that is looking at it too simply. Danzig was under the protection of the League of Nations and by annexing it, Hitler was directly challenging the league.

Britian and france gave assurances to poland, but i think the fact it was Poland was coincidental, enough was enough and someone had to stand up to Hitler.

citizen_p

i9 think this is russia trying to take some blame away from itself... lets not forget the invaded poland as well.

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Britian and france gave assurances to poland, but i think the fact it was Poland was coincidental, enough was enough and someone had to stand up to Hitler.

Do you think those assurances caused any change in Polish German relations ?

I would say that on the Polish side they shifted the psychological balance of power more to be in their favour.

Britain was in no position to back those assurances up in any kind of meaningful way & Poland suffered because of decisions made (more than likely) on the basis of those assurances.

Would a conflict have been inevitable between Poland and Germany without those British/French assurances ?

Tony EH

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think that is looking at it too simply. Danzig was under the protection of the League of Nations and by annexing it, Hitler was directly challenging the league.

Britian and france gave assurances to poland, but i think the fact it was Poland was coincidental, enough was enough and someone had to stand up to Hitler.

Ummmm, actually, I'd say that was looking at it in far simpler terms.

Britain's "assurances" were nothing of the sort. She had neither the power or the will to follow through on the bluff and it was clear to see. It came of as Britain sticking her nose into European affairs again. So, it was a foolish endeavor and they were gambling with Poland's future.

Such a move, after effectively saying to Hitler that they weren't interested in Eastern Europe when they abandoned Czechoslovakia was bound to cause problems. It's my opinion that the Chamberlain cabinet didn't desire war, but if that war was to come, they preferred it to remain in Eastern Europe and not involved them. It was no secret that Germany and Russia's political outlook were polar opposites and the possibility of some sort of showdown was quite real and I'd say that there would have been quite a few who would have been happy (in a private capacity of course) to see the Fatherland and the Motherland go head to head. It was Communist Russia that was viewed as the pariah to most European states in the 1930's, not Nazi Germany and America's distrust of Russia has always been clear.

However, at some point during March 1939, the British changed direction and believed that trying to get Hitler to negotiate was a better alternative. Unfortunately, they blundered their way into this method by offering a silly "guarantee" that they couldn't possibly stand by and also, they picked the wrong time to do it.

The correct time to "stand up" to Hitler was over Czechoslovakia, in 1938. Hitler already showed that he would pull back if a threat was on the cards, but when Britain, France, Poland and Russia all faltered (in part due to their own political mistrust of each other), Hitler viewed these threatening moves from the West as mere face saving bluster. He was proven correct when his troops marched into Czechoslovakia and Britain etc did absolutely nothing. Thus, he had ample "proof" that Britain neither cared about those Eastern European states in his way, nor were they going to do anything about it if he decided to carry out whatever plan he had in mind for them.

Not only did Hitler believe that Britain didn't give a damn about Poland, but Count Edward Racynski, the Polish ambassador in London told his government the month before that "...the whole of Eastern Europe was considered by British politicians to be outside the scope of British concerns."

Fratton Fred

So what is your point? Britain should or should not have gotten involved in WWII?

Britain has been dragged into the first world war and wanted to keep out of what was rapidly looking like the second. Chamberlain was following a policy of appeasement but finally enough was enough and Britain decided to draw a line in the sand (Along with France). I don't really see how this was an about face.

Are you saying they should or shouldn't have done that?

It sounds scarily like you have been reading Patrick Buchanan's "Churchill and the unnecesary war".

Do you also follow his belief that Auschwitz was a myth?

Fratton Fred

Morlar wrote: »

Do you think those assurances caused any change in Polish German relations ?

I would say that on the Polish side they shifted the psychological balance of power more to be in their favour.

Britain was in no position to back those assurances up in any kind of meaningful way & Poland suffered because of decisions made (more than likely) on the basis of those assurances.

Would a conflict have been inevitable between Poland and Germany without those British/French assurances ?

Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.

However, hitler never hid his desire to spread east and Russia was always in his sights. now, if you are German and plan on expanding eastwards towards Russia, it looks pretty much like you are going through Poland.

poland was always going to be invaded imho.

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

now, if you are German and plan on expanding eastwards towards Russia, it looks pretty much like you are going through Poland.

Well either through or with is possibly more accurate.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

poland was always going to be invaded imho.

I agree, but by who ? Considering what russia did to Poland when it invaded initially, then invaded later and stayed till the late 1980's who is to say that they could not have been better options for both Poland and Germany ?

This is not a 'blame england' thread (as I see it) its more about how a very isolated period in pre-war relations between Germany and Poland would likely have turned out had it not been for 3rd party involvement. The fact that both the colonial powers of britain & france were the 3rd parties in question is more or less irrelevant.

Tony EH

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So what is your point? Britain should or should not have gotten involved in WWII?

Britain has been dragged into the first world war and wanted to keep out of what was rapidly looking like the second. Chamberlain was following a policy of appeasement but finally enough was enough and Britain decided to draw a line in the sand (Along with France). I don't really see how this was an about face.

Are you saying they should or shouldn't have done that?

It sounds scarily like you have been reading Patrick Buchanan's "Churchill and the unnecesary war".

Do you also follow his belief that Auschwitz was a myth?

:rolleyes:

Little bit hysterical there, don't you think?

As for Britain being "dragged" anywhere...it was Britain that dragged herself into both world wars and for her own reasons. She wasn't "dragged" anywhere against her own free will.

My point is, events may have been very, very different, if Britain hadn't performed her about-face on policy in 1939. And it was very much an about-face from the position she previously held. The war, in Europe, could have been minimised to a conflict between Germany and Russia.

Fratton Fred

How were the German's going to get to Russia, Ryanair?

It's not hysterical, it's frustration. Britain had a policy of appeasement, peace in our time, remember that? It didn't work so they drew a line in the sand. Britain did not want war, France did not want war, but where was it going to stop?

Fratton Fred

Morlar wrote: »

Well either through or with is possibly more accurate.



I agree, but by who ? Considering what russia did to Poland when it invaded initially, then invaded later and stayed till the late 1980's who is to say that they could not have been better options for both Poland and Germany ?

This is not a 'blame england' thread (as I see it) its more about how a very isolated period in pre-war relations between Germany and Poland would likely have turned out had it not been for 3rd party involvement. The fact that both the colonial powers of britain & france were the 3rd parties in question is more or less irrelevant.

Britain and France were always going to get sucked into the war, just as Norway and Holland were. What were they going to do, stand and watch as the rest of europe was consumed by Germany and Italy? Was Hitler and Mussolini going to take over one third of the worlds land mass and leave Belgium, the Netherlamds, France and Britain independant?

Poland was toast from day one imho. There is no way that Hitler was going to take back Danzig, Gdansk and the corridor and leave the rest of poland as was, especially considering they were smack in the way of his biggest prize.

Tony EH

Your un-necessary remark about Auschwitz was hysterical. Completely OTT in a discussion of this sort.

As for "peace in our time", that's probably one of the reasons Chamberlain altered his direction on Germany. He was absolutely humiliated by Hitler after he came home clutching his little bit of paper and ridiculed terribly in Parliament.

Up until that point the Chamberlain group had been aloof from German and European affairs in this particular regard. "Appeasment" was almost encouragement. In fact, many of the Tories admired Hitler's firm stance against Communism. It was certainly no secret that the British political classes hated and feared Communism and what that represented to their particular world view. The main problem was that there just wasn't any clear actual policy regarding Hitler, Germany and Eastern Europe and that was something that was desperately needed long before March 1938.

This muddy stance led Hitler to believe that Britain had given him a "green light" as it were to persue his goals in Eastern Europe (whatever they were). But once Czechoslovakia fell apart and Hacha relented to Hitler's demand to make her a protectorate, Chamberlain felt that Hitler had snubbed him and he and his cabinet then made the very rash and nervous decision to "guarantee" Poland's independence. Much to the horror of the British military forces, I may add, who believed the move to incredibly stupid. They knew that they had absolutely no way of honouring that silly promise. They couldn't possibly aid Poland in any shape or form. Chamberlain and his ilk merely believed that Britain was in the position to call the shots and the mere threat of British interference would be enough to make Hitler think twice, simply because Britain was the only superpower in the world then had the natural right to stick their oar into other Nation's affairs.

Of course, Hitler, while surprised at the British move, believed it simply to be a face saving device. Of course the british couldn't be seen to actually "approve" of German demands over Danzig, even though they really believed that Germany had a legitimate claim to a city that had a 90% german population.

You say that Britain didn't want war and France didn't want war. That's true. But Hitler didn't want a war with those two Nations either, especially not with Britain. Hitler's eyes were at all times turned eastwards, torwards Russia and I've often wondered, if Chamberlain and the Cabinet were in on those plans for aggression against Russia, would they have recklessly offered their "guarantee" to Poland? I would hazzard the guess that they would not and they'd content themselves with remaining on the sideline while the two great Nations slugged it out and weakened themselves in the process. WWII in Europe would have played out very, very differently.

Tony EH

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Britain and France were always going to get sucked into the war, just as Norway and Holland were. What were they going to do, stand and watch as the rest of europe was consumed by Germany and Italy? Was Hitler and Mussolini going to take over one third of the worlds land mass and leave Belgium, the Netherlamds, France and Britain independant?

Poland was toast from day one imho. There is no way that Hitler was going to take back Danzig, Gdansk and the corridor and leave the rest of poland as was, especially considering they were smack in the way of his biggest prize.

I know this is a reply to Morlar, but you are entirely incorrect about Countries being "sucked" into war. Britain and France took themselves to war by choice, not by mere accident. They could have avoided it, if they wished.

As for Holland, she wouldn't have been involved in the war at all but for the British declaration of war on September 3rd 1939. Likewise for Norway, who, Hitler preferred as a neutral.

Norway, in fact, had been allowing Sweden to ship iron ore from Narvik to Germany during the winter months as it was the only ice free port. Britain wanted to stop that and had plans to mine those Norwegian ports.

None of the Western countries that suffered war after September 1st 1939, would have done so with British interference.

Perhaps Poland was doomed as you say. But, perhaps Poland may have even come into a war against Russia on Germany's side. As I said earlier, they two Nations shared and equal hatred of the Soviet Union. Poland's generals especially were right wing in their political outlook and it's not inconceivable that Germany and Poland could have struck a deal regarding a carve up of Russia...just like they did over Czechoslovakia. The Poles were very quick to seize the Teschen region when the Czechoslovak amalgamation fell apart. They might be equally quick to take parts of a conquered Ukraine too.

Fratton Fred

now, if I understand you fully, you are saying that if britain and France had not given the gaurantee to Poland, they would have conceded the territory Hitler was after and that was it, there would have been no WWII?

Norway, Sweden, Britain, France and the low countries would have been the only countries in Europe not under German or Russian influence, that is until Germany launched its offensive against Russia earlier and beter equpped than had happened.

How long exactly would this situation have remained, bearing in mind the German's saw Norway as their ethnic birthplace and Alsace Lorraine as a symbol of their defeat in WWII. Sweden was the producer of Iron Ore that Germany desperately needed and it was shipped through the strategically important port of Narvic in Norway.

Maybe you could explain your point and what you would have had Britain and France do.

ejmaztec

There is no way that the Germans would have sided with the Poles without the Poles handing back all of the territory lost to the Germans after WW1, and there's no way that the Poles would have given it up at the drop of a hat. The territory was still largely populated by ethnic Germans, who for the most part, were treated as hated second class citizens by their Polish neighbours. The same treatment was meted out to all of the various groups of ethnic Germans who resided in areas like the Sudetenland and other predominantly German speaking territories, the left-overs from the defunct Austro-Hungarian Empire.

If you look at the link on my previous post, you will see a list of all of the countries that had a piece of German territory handed to them after WW1. Hitler saw himself as protector of all Germans, wherever they were, and wanted all of them and the land on which they lived, back in the fold.

Anyone thinking that WW2 was avoidable is as naive as Neville Chamberlain.

Morlar

I am not so sure that a europe wide conflict as happened was inevitable. Certainly there was going to be conflict (due in a large part to Versailles also German fear and mistrust of bolshevik/Communist aspirations) but that does not mean that the conflict would have had to be europe wide.

All of which doesn't really address the question (which has evolved a bit from the start of the thread).

The first part would be of the worth of the assurances given by Britain and France to Poland (which B/F were possibly not in a position to backup) ?

What alteration did those assurances make regarding Polish & German relations ?

Could Poland and Germany have avoided conflict with each other - had those assurances not been present ? I think without them both Poland and Germany would have had more options and flexibility to withdraw from the public rhetoric, but I am starting to think that there was a major role played by the B/F assurances which gave the germans fewer options and gave poland no chance at all.

Black Swan

There were several sparks before Poland, just none of them caught fire. The French occupation of the Ruhr between 1923 and 1924? The Germans rearmed contrary to the Treaty of Versailles? The German occupation of Austria, followed by the occupation of Czechoslovakia? Hitler had plans for world conquest, and what happened in Poland was just a pretext?

Fratton Fred

There was nothing that Poland had that Hitler could not take by force, so why should he enter into any sort of negotiations with them?

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There was nothing that Poland had that Hitler could not take by force, so why should he enter into any sort of negotiations with them?

If you mean 'why did he' it appears that there was at least a superficial attempt to avoid conflict at least at that early stage.

After entering negotiations britain/France stepped in with an assurance which arguably sabotaged those efforts at the expense of the Poles (considering britain and france were not capable of backing it up).

The assurance put a wedge between the two countries & one of the questions on this thread is ; was that assurance worth anything (considering subsequent events) & did that assurance have an effect which was negative ?

Could it be that it became an obstacle to peaceful dialogue/concessions between Germany and Poland ?

Fratton Fred

the French had backed Poland for longer than the 1939 agreement, their relationship with poland went back to the Polish-Soviet war, so Poland already had assurances.

Why did Hitler negotiate? who knows, he had signed a non aggression pact five years previous recognising their borders, so why the change of mind all of a sudden? Why the staged invasion?

A negotiation is a two way thing. "Hand over the keys or we'll kick the door in" isn't a negotiation.

Tony EH

Fratton Fred wrote: »

now, if I understand you fully, you are saying that if britain and France had not given the gaurantee to Poland, they would have conceded the territory Hitler was after and that was it, there would have been no WWII?

No, not necessarily. You're not reading the posts Fred. I'm saying that without the so-called "guarantee", which was absolute nonsense lets not forget that, there is the possibility that Poland and Germany could come to some arrangement over Danzig and transit through the corridor. BTW, Germany was looking for a ceding of territory in Poland. They were looking for the return of Danzig to German rule. Poland could still have access to the port and all that that entailed. Before the British offer, that was the way things looked to be going. After the British offer, the Poles (who had an incredibly inflated opinion of their military strength) simply shut down the barriers. This was not what Britain was after in any way shape or form. The "guarantee" backfired with spectacular results.

I'm not saying there would have been no "WWII" as it were. But the case is certainly there to be made that the war in Europe would have been minimised to a struggle between Germany (and her allies, Romania and Finland etc) and Russia. Thus many, many Countries that were devastated by the actual war, wouldn't have been.

Norway, Sweden, Britain, France and the low countries would have been the only countries in Europe not under German or Russian influence, that is until Germany launched its offensive against Russia earlier and beter equpped than had happened.

Well, actually, without Britain's foolishness, Norway, Holland, Belgium, France, Yugoslavia, Greece and Britain herself would have been spared the ravages of war. There would be no battle of the Atlantic and no North African campaign either, as Mussolini only got the balls to open his account there after the stunning success in France by the Wehrmacht.

Millions of people would have remained out of the war, even with a German attack on Russia. I'm of the opinion that an attack by either Country is probably on the cards, seeing how much each loathed the other. But even so, the vast majority of Europe is spared.

How long exactly would this situation have remained, bearing in mind the German's saw Norway as their ethnic birthplace and Alsace Lorraine as a symbol of their defeat in WWII.

While the Nazi's (those who were into that nonsense) saw the Norwegian’s as there close relatives. They did not see the Country as the forbearers of the Germans. Besides, the whole "Nordic" "Aryan" rubbish has been blown way out of proportion. Few party members truly bought into it. Himmler was probably its biggest proponent, but even Hitler thought most of the ideas were preposterous. Either way, while Nazi Germany was most definitely a racist state, that "master race" angle is more of a US propaganda shtick. Such things were rarely talked about in reality.

Hitler had also written off the territories that the West claimed after WWI. He certainly wasn't going to go to war with France and Britain over Alsace-Lorraine. So that's neither here nor there. While he was prepared to go to war with Poland over Danzig (because there were much higher rewards on offer, ie Russia), he wasn't willing to risk and re-run of WWI in the West.

Sweden was the producer of Iron Ore that Germany desperately needed and it was shipped through the strategically important port of Narvic in Norway.

Ummmm....Yeh, I know. I just said that in my last post.

Maybe you could explain your point and what you would have had Britain and France do.

My point has been quite clear. The Chamberlain group did not desire a new European (or world) war, but if that was to occur, it was preferable that it should go east, rather than west. It was no secret that Hitler hated the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union hated Germany. But his actions in March 1939, foolishly taken from a sense of damaged pride and panic and aimed at forcing negotiation between Germany and Poland, precipitated the very war he wished to avoid.


As for what they (Britain primailly) should have done...Noam Chomsky once stated that states can do one of three things in times of potential conflict. They can (a) Make things Better, (b) Make things worse and (c) Do nothing.

It's up the individual to decide which letter the British action falls under.

Tony EH

Morlar wrote: »

The first part would be of the worth of the assurances given by Britain and France to Poland (which B/F were possibly not in a position to backup) ?

Given the point that it was absolutely impossible to back up the "guarantee", I'd say that it was worthless. Besides, Chamberlain's move was made not to threaten war per se, but to attempt to make sure that Germany and the Poles remain at the negotiation table. Unfortunately, it was just the completely wrong move to make, at the completely wrong time too and almost guaranteed a conflict. The Polish Government, who were musing over the German proposals for Danzig (much to the ire of general Beck), then decided to shut up shop because they believed that that the British and French would come crashing down on Germany, if Hitler made a move. Some Polish Generals even had fantasies of a glorious march on Berlin with their troops!

What alteration did those assurances make regarding Polish & German relations ?

As mentioned before, it made the Poles simply close the door to further negotiations. General Josef beck, who was always against the idea of negotiating over Danzig, was actually becoming marginalised in the Moscicki government. He absolutely refused to consider negotiation over Danzig just as he point blank refused Soviet Russia transit through Poland to help with France's proposal to neutralise Germany during the Czech crisis, which BTW made many in the French cabinet, including Deladier and Bonet, wonder why the hell they were dealing with the Poles in the first place. In fact, Poland stated publicly that they "...would not honour their alliance with France, if France were swept into war on account of Czechoslovakia". Other Polish ministers too, viewed him as a liability.

But, once Britain had drawn a line in the sand so deep, the Poles felt that they could simply snub Germany and get away with it, because they believed they had British (and subsequently French) might on there side.

ejmaztec

Tony EH wrote: »

Given the point that it was absolutely impossible to back up the "guarantee", I'd say that it was worthless. Besides, Chamberlain's move was made not to threaten war per se, but to attempt to make sure that Germany and the Poles remain at the negotiation table.

Didn't the negotiations with the Germans break down some weeks before the Anglo-French assurance, and didn't the assurance come into being as a result of the invasion of Czechoslovakia, along with Hitler's demand for the return of Danzig to German control?

No the Poles were still "talking";)

prinz

Simple really, any understanding of the Hossbach Memorandum, or the role of von Ribbentrop in German-Polish relations (v. Ribbentrop actually frustrated German - Polish negotiations on transport links and Danzig because he was afraid that the Polish might actually acquiesce to German demands, thereby removing grounds for a localised war) answers the whole lot. Poland's destruction was assured with or without Franco-British assurances, followed by most of the rest of central and eastern Europe. A line had to be drawn, if it wasn't Poland it would have been another country.

Tony EH

ejmaztec wrote: »

Didn't the negotiations with the Germans break down some weeks before the Anglo-French assurance, and didn't the assurance come into being as a result of the invasion of Czechoslovakia, along with Hitler's demand for the return of Danzig to German control?

No the Poles were still "talking";)

Talks had been up and down continuously. The March 1939 negotiations were inconclusive, but they hadn't broken down to the point where either side saw no possibility of a favorable conclusion, or at least continuation.

Britain too, had offered to act as a mediator between the two states and AFAIR, that met with great approval on the German side and general approval on the Polish side pre March 1939. There were, of course a number of Poles, like the aforementioned Beck, who would always be in the "no" camp, even if the population remained strongly pro-Nazi. In fact, in the late 30's Danzig offered one of the strongest Nazi support bases.

But once the British and subsequently the French (although I wonder whether their heart was truly in it) offered the guarantee, all bets were off as far as the Poles were concerned. Thus Chamberlain, in an incredibly foolish move, placed the immediate future in the hands of the Poles, whom Chamberlain counted on continuing the negotiation course.

As far as Czechoslovakia was concerned (and its far more complicated than is usually made out), Chamberlain had made it known quite clearly that he had "seen merit" in Germany's position on the Sudetenland and was supportive of her claims to the territory. In fact, Chamberlain, since he got to power in 1937 had been quite supportive of Hitler in general. He sent Viscount Runciman to Czechoslovakia in August to discuss terms for ceding the Sudetenland back to Germany. Hitler, quite naturally, saw this as positive encouragement from Britain and an endorsement of his opinion.

Later in September 1938, Hitler was becoming impatient with the Czech prevarication and things were coming to head over the Sudetenland. Chamberlain flew to personally meet Hitler and discuss matters. He met with the Fuhrer at Berchtesgaden and was assured by him that the Sudetenland was all that he desired from the Czechs. Chamberlain, in turn went to the French and the Czechs and made his views on the matter clear. The Czechs stalled for time, as Benes knew that ceding the Sudetenland to Germany meant losing valuable industrial resources and also a buffer zone between Czech territory proper and Germany. The French, were worried about sparking a conflict over “…a bunch of Sudeten Germans who wished to be German.” Also, they had debated vigorously over the point about their past decision to “stand by” Czechoslovakia….without a solid conclusion. Despite the political rhetoric, there really was no will to follow through on what had been “assured” before. France, at this point was more concerned with her own affairs and Deladier’s “caretaker” government was under serious pressure to concentrate on matters at home, rather than waste time worrying about a Czech problem. Deladier and Bonnet therefore left the matter in Chamberlain’s hands.

Eventually, Benes agreed to Hitler’s demands after it was made clear to him that Britain and France couldn’t come to the Czechs aid, if Hitler decided to do things militarily. Chamberlain pointed out, however, that the Russians were ready to come to Czechoslovakia’s “aid” though. For Benes, who was more fearful of the Soviets than he was of the Nazis decided on the “lesser of two evils” and ceded the territory.

Hitler then decided that he wanted the territory to be handed over immediately and this threw events into a new phase with culminated with the famous meeting at Munich and the Germans moved into the Sudetenland on October 10 1938. The Poles and Hungarians also got their slice of land and Benes was left with a large slice of humble pie. He was later forced to resign.

Of course, after Munich, the Slovak people began demanding more autonomy, as did the people of Ruthenia. This was the catalyst for Hitler’s cynical plan in March 1939 to then pressurise Hacha (who had succeeded Benes) to allow the whole of the Czech state to become a “protectorate” of Germany and divided into Bohemia and Moravia, while allowing Solovakia to become independent and Hungary invaded the Carpatho-Ukraine, thus effectively destroying the entire 1918 Czechoslovakian entity.

Most of the political classes in Britain and France couldn’t have cared less. The majority consensus was that Czechoslovakia was an artificial creation (born from the destroyed Austro/Hungarian Empire) and doomed to failure somewhere along the line. Besides, the rulers were all of Czech origin and this was seen as a cause of very real tensions within the peoples of the other persuasions. Czechoslovakia was nowhere near the “democratic” bastion that had been envisaged at the end of WWI.

It was Hitler’s cynical opportunism that thwarted Chamberlain and made him look like a chump in the eyes of the world. After the events in Czechoslovakia, which it has to be said Hitler did not plan, Chamberlain came under extreme pressure from the Commons in London. It was under this pressure and in a state of high anxiety that he issued the fatal “guarantee” to Poland at the end of March 1939.

Fratton Fred

there are many many assumptions in your post Tony.

Tell us, how would you see the political landscape of europe today if Britain and France hadn't made the treaties they did with Poland?

If things had panned out the way you say, we would either have a Nazi government controlling everything from Germany eastwards, a Fascist government controlling Italy, Greece, Albania and northern Africa and a Fascist dictator in Spain.

I wonder how a Nazi Europe would have gotten on trading with the arabs for oil, or would they have just marched in and taken it??

Failing that, those countries would all be under communist rule.

There is also the small matter of the Japanese controlling all of the far east.

Damn those British and their war mongering ways.:rolleyes:

marcsignal

Great Thread Morlar

I haven't had time to take the arguments and points raised in detail, but I would just like to throw in my twopence worth.

@42 now, I've been interesated in WW2 all my life. My interest waned, kind of, for a period in my mid to late teens. However I became more interested in the whole subject again after the fall of the former Soviet Union, because so much new information started coming out. This new perspective compelled me to start questioning much of the 'version' of the war I had believed to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth up to that point.

Looking back I can see now, how much the Russian contribution to WW2 was downplayed, and in some cases, bearly mentioned at all, in history books, documentaries, and movies. This was largely due to the fact of the Cold War relationship between the US the UK and The Soviet Union.

I believe I can also understand now, why 'revisionism' is such a dirty word in the west, and is lumped into the same catagory as Holocaust denial, because it stifles and hampers, the sniffing around that might unearth facts embarrassing to the West.

I have completely stopped examining WW2 from an emotional perspective, as a result, and examine everything now with a more pragmatic outlook, and try to remain cognisant of the importance of empathy.

Wars are shit, people die, victors take the spoils, and write the history, and for this reason I fully welcome any alternative view coming from Russian sources. They did, after all, suffer more than any other Nation or Race, during WW2, and up to very recently have not had the chance, or freedom to say their piece. In my opinion, their viewpoint should be logged and given credible consideration, especially evidence from witnesses, before they are conveniently all dead, and the issues fall into the area of 'hearsay' or 'anecdotal evidence'

They may continue to ruffle a few feathers in the west yet, with regard to ALL of the aspects and events of WW2, and in my opinion, the best is yet to come, because the Russian approach is largely uncontaminated by the type of Political Correctness we have in the west, which makes certain aspects of the war 'taboo' and beyond scrutiny, for people like you and me.

Tony EH

there are many many assumptions in your post Tony.

Mmmm...I'm not assuming anything in that particular post Fred. They are the events as they panned out during 1938 and 1939.

Tell us, how would you see the political landscape of europe today if Britain and France hadn't made the treaties they did with Poland?

If things had panned out the way you say, we would either have a Nazi government controlling everything from Germany eastwards, a Fascist government controlling Italy, Greece, Albania and northern Africa and a Fascist dictator in Spain.

It’s impossible to know, for sure, how the political landscape of Europe would have panned out in the event of a minimised war in Europe. However, I would be of the firm belief that the Soviet Union would still have beaten Germany eventually, perhaps in a more prolonged struggle. But many countries are untouched by the war. Either way, Eastern Europe STILL ends up under Soviet domination for much of the 20th Century. So, there’s not much change there and Fascist Italy probably still carries on until Mussolini’s death, much in the same way as Franco’s Spain did. But there would be no moves by Mussolini into the Mediterranean, without Germany’s victories in France. El Duce only saw the benefit in that move after the French (and BEF) defeat and during the Battle of Britain. He simply wouldn’t have dared move without those actions first. Italy’s invasion of Abyssinia and Albania before WWII, was more about “getting into Africa” (at least that part) before somebody else did, rather than Empire and besides, Italy certainly cannot be condemned alone for colonial moves into Africa. Either way, the Abyssinian move met with such vigorous (not to mention extremely hypocritical) condemnation from other European nations that many in Italy’s government were loath to repeat the exercise. In any event, before the German conquest of France, Italy’s ambitions abroad were more about consolidating pre-existing colonial plans rather than engaging in a sweep of the Mediterranean.

I wonder how a Nazi Europe would have gotten on trading with the arabs for oil, or would they have just marched in and taken it??

What, like America, you mean?

There is also the small matter of the Japanese controlling all of the far east.

The Japanese would still be defeated, in much the same way as actually happened. In fact, without being involved in the war in Europe, The British and Americans have far more resources at their disposal to deal with the Japanese. There is quite possibly a swifter conclusion in that theatre. Either way. there is no conceivable Japanese victory in any scenario.

Damn those British and their war mongering ways.

Damn all Countries and their war mongering ways.

Fratton Fred

There are several assumptions in your theory. the first is that hitler would have been happy jsy conquering everything east of the ruhr and wouldhave had no interest in heading west.

You also assume that italy, despite all the talk by Mussolini, would not have invaded greece or Albania.

Then, lastly, you also presume that Russia would have won. I'm not so convinced about that. If Germany had attacked earlier, which they would have without the battle of Britain then they would have been far more likely to have succeeded. The russians were very close to collapse before winter kicked in, so with a stronger German army and a stronger Luftwaffe, an extra few months of summer and without the supplies reaching Russia via the Arctic convoys it could very easily have been a different story.

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There are several assumptions in your theory. the first is that hitler would have been happy jsy conquering everything east of the ruhr and wouldhave had no interest in heading west.

What is the evidence to the contrary ?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You also assume that italy, despite all the talk by Mussolini, would not have invaded greece or Albania.

I would have very little doubt about Mussolini's pure opportunism.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Then, lastly, you also presume that Russia would have won. I'm not so convinced about that. If Germany had attacked earlier, which they would have without the battle of Britain then they would have been far more likely to have succeeded. The russians were very close to collapse before winter kicked in, so with a stronger German army and a stronger Luftwaffe, an extra few months of summer and without the supplies reaching Russia via the Arctic convoys it could very easily have been a different story.

I would generally agree with that take on things. Assuming britain, france, USA etc all stayed out of it then the russian armies would have not have lasted long against the wehrmacht fighting on a single front for a single cause. The germans would have had widespread support in places like lithuania/latvia by the suppressed christians/catholics there. It is concievable that many Poles would also have joined the fight against bolshevism too. What would have happened after bolshevism fell is another matter. I would say one likely outcome is a huge swathe of land would have been 'germanised' - russians either downgraded to 2nd class citizens & kept for labour or simply forced east and a new border drawn. The russians themselves are unlikely to have been germanised in the way many Poles (in at least one Gau) were. Due to the scale of russia a full indefinite german occupation would always have been problematic.

Fratton Fred

The only evidence there is, is what actually happened tbh, it is all supposition.

I find it hard to believe that a victorious Adolf hitler would not have turned his attention, at some point, to the country which to many Germans opitimised the humiliation of Versaille more than any other. The country that not only insisted on the hardest elements of the treaty, but also still occupied an area with a mainly German population. Germany goes inot France, it is goodnight Belgium and Holland.

If, as tony says, Britain is dragged off to the far east fighting Japan, is that not not opportunity enough for Mussolini to invade greece etc?

Of course Poland was the spark that started the war, but I believe war was inevitable anyway.

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The only evidence there is, is what actually happened tbh, it is all supposition.

I suppose that works both ways. There is no evidence to the contrary either, only information which we can all use to form the basis for a slightly more informed, historically neutral opinion.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that a victorious Adolf hitler would not have turned his attention, at some point, to the country which to many Germans opitimised the humiliation of Versaille more than any other. The country that not only insisted on the hardest elements of the treaty, but also still occupied an area with a mainly German population. Germany goes inot France, it is goodnight Belgium and Holland.

There is a difference between taking back territory and invading and occupying a country the size of France. I am not convinced Germany would have invaded and occuppied France. Throughout the rise to power and while in power Hitler regularly railed against Versailles which (rightly in my view) he held to be extremely unfair on Germany. He did not talk of punishing the british or french for it as much as he did about redressing the inequities of that treaty. Belgium and Holland were not even factors without an all out Franco-German war which france indirectly precipitated by it's treaty with britain to give an assurance to Poland.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If, as tony says, Britain is dragged off to the far east fighting Japan, is that not not opportunity enough for Mussolini to invade greece etc?

Mussolini & Hitler did not get along until such point as Mussolini needed Hitler and Hitler needed Mussolini. Without a wider european war they would not have needed each other and therefore Mussolini on his own would not have gone very far. If he did the likelihood of Mussolini's Italy being successful or holding onto new territory is slim in my view.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Of course Poland was the spark that started the war, but I believe war was inevitable anyway.

A war may have been inevitable - that does not mean it would have been as widespread and damaging to europe. It would have been more limited and more damaging to communism than to europe in my view. You mentioned earlier the Buchannan book - to be honest I have not read that but it is on my shopping list going by some of the reviews I have seen. This is an interesting area and not very often written about due to the various sacred cows related to the subject (primarily on what sort of a human being churchill was). From an Irish perspective churchill is not so much of a sacred cow and that book (like Irivings one) looks like it could be worth checking out.

Tony EH

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There are several assumptions in your theory. the first is that hitler would have been happy jsy conquering everything east of the ruhr and wouldhave had no interest in heading west.

No "assumption" there at all Fred, that's incontrovertible fact I'm afraid. Hitler, "the man", was very much a product of the tragedy of WWI. The absolutely last thing Hitler wanted was a repeat of the First World War, as he knew that it would simply end in disaster for Germany again. In additition, Hitler wanted nothing from Britain. Not a single thing, except perhaps an alliance against Russia. From France, he wanted nothing either. Although Hitler believed (probably correctly) that France would always side against Germany in any situation. But conflict with France would mean conflict with Britain, so that was to be avoided. Likewise, Hitler never expressed anything about any other Western Country until war broke out. His eyes were always firmly fixed towards what he believed to be Europe's "natural enemy", Russia. That country was the be all/end all of Hitler's war. The campaign in the West was an unwanted distracton.

You also assume that italy, despite all the talk by Mussolini, would not have invaded greece or Albania.

I didn't say anything about Mussolini not invading Albania, in fact I've said the opposite. I do see him moving into the African countries he did in fact move into in the 30's. But that's neither here no there. Mussolini was simply consolidating pre-existing Italian interests in those areas and nobody was going to go to war with him over that. But, without the conquest of France, Mussolini would never have contemplated a move into the Mediterranean. Not in a million years. It was Hitler's blunting of France and Britain that opened up the door for Mussolini's aspirations in those areas. A move, by the way, that absolutely astounded Hitler. There's no assumptions there either. the pre-cursor for those actions was the fact that France had been severely weakened and Britain was busy with Germany in Europe. To Musolini, that left North Africa (and subsequently the med) open for business. With a strong France and Britain, he just wouldn't have dared.

Then, lastly, you also presume that Russia would have won. I'm not so convinced about that. If Germany had attacked earlier, which they would have without the battle of Britain then they would have been far more likely to have succeeded. The russians were very close to collapse before winter kicked in, so with a stronger German army and a stronger Luftwaffe, an extra few months of summer and without the supplies reaching Russia via the Arctic convoys it could very easily have been a different story.

Now, here's where you are "assuming" things. All of the above are simply myths, that are unproven by the facts of the matter.

Firstly. At no point in the war was Russia "close to collapse". Sure, the endured some incredible hardships (the most of any nation in the war), but they were never at a point of no return. Even after the great German advances of 1941 and 1942. Once Russia had moved her industrial base east, out of the range of Luftwaffe bombers she could take comfort in the fact that she could always out produce Germany in tanks and aircraft. Also, her man power resources absolutely dwarfed Germany's. So, Russia fell back on her old strategy...they would give up territory and buy time. Which is exactly what they did and that's exactly what they would have done if Germany had attacked in 1940. Even if the German's could draw upon the resources that they were forced to waste in Western Europe and North Africa, it still would only have been a mere fraction of what they would have actually needed in order to beat Russia.

Secondly. Even if Germany had attacked in 1940 (which was something that Germany was unprepared to do BTW and simply would not have happened), the Russians would still have been able to absorb the losses and eventually push the Germans back. Hitler hadn't envisaged a war with Russia until at least 1942. The Germans wouldn't have been any stronger in 1940, than they were in 1941.

Thirdly. The "General Winter" idea is pure myth. Winter favors no army and while the Wehrmacht may have suffered proportionately higher than the Russians in the winter of 1941, The Red Army had troubles of its own dealing with -40 degree temperatures. the Russian winter ground both armies to a virtual halt. But the main factor that blunted the German advance in 1941 was the fact that they out stretched their supply lines and that would have happened regardless of weather. The Gerries simply advanced too quickly.

And fourthly, you're assuming that "lend lease" made a real difference in the early years. It didn't. Not in 1941, not in 1942 and not in 1943. Lend lease's biggest impact was in Bagration in 1944 and that was because the Red Army utilised the superb trucks that the U.S. had sent them, but the war was over to all intents and purposes then. The battles of 1941 and 1942 were won (and lost) with Russian equipment and Russian blood. Lend Lease constituted less than 15% of the total equipment used by the Russians in WWII and the vast majority of the war material was second line equipment. In addition, the Soviet production of their own material was immense, once the factories had been moved east. The Uralmash factory complex alone produced 23,000 T-34's! Germany couldn't hope to come remotely close to that figure. In any case, the most important items the Russians received from Lend Lease in the early years was telephone wire and in the later years, those Dodge's I mentioned earlier. But neither was a war winning transformation.

ejmaztec

I think that Admiral Canaris, the anti-Hitler head of German intelligence, can be assigned some of the blame for the war not being restricted to the east. He was involved in several attempts to get rid of Hitler, a couple of these taking place even before the war started. It suited his aims, and those of other anti-Nazis, to get Britain involved in sweeping Hitler under the carpet.

In January 1939 he stirred things up in the British camp by leaking information that Holland would be invaded the following February. Dutch airfields were going to be used to launch destructive bombing raids on England.

If Britain wasn't particularly interested in Hitler's European plans before this "leak", they certainly were afterwards. If you study the British cabinet papers for the time, a war seemed certain, with France being the first recipient of British troops. It's interesting to read the details of how much the deployment was going to cost, and the amount of money the British government was going to have to borrow to carry it out. I think that the financial undertones were not those of a country awash with cash, but those of a country reluctantly giving in to the inevitable.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/themes/defence-policy-1933-1939.htm#Army%20plans

I think that the Polish guarantee simply brought the war forward.

Fratton Fred

Tony EH wrote: »

No "assumption" there at all Fred, that's incontrovertible fact I'm afraid. Hitler, "the man", was very much a product of the tragedy of WWI. The absolutely last thing Hitler wanted was a repeat of the First World War, as he knew that it would simply end in disaster for Germany again. In additition, Hitler wanted nothing from Britain. Not a single thing, except perhaps an alliance against Russia. From France, he wanted nothing either. Although Hitler believed (probably correctly) that France would always side against Germany in any situation. But conflict with France would mean conflict with Britain, so that was to be avoided. Likewise, Hitler never expressed anything about any other Western Country until war broke out. His eyes were always firmly fixed towards what he believed to be Europe's "natural enemy", Russia. That country was the be all/end all of Hitler's war. The campaign in the West was an unwanted distracton.

by rights, France should have gone to war with Germany over the Sudatenland. There was a Franco-Czech alliance in place. That did not appear to bother Hitler. Nor did it bother him that despite signing and agreement with Britain and France that he would not go to war with them, he still ignored the Munich agreement and the Anglo/French alliance with Poland.

Hitler was only interested in the Sudatenland, yet he somehow managed to invade all of Czecheslovakia, I am pretty sure the Polish negotiators had that firmly in their minds when discussing Danzig with the Germans.

I may be a bit of a traditionalist, but the reason for WWII was Hitler invading countries willy nilly. Hitler was the bad guy in all this, not some poor unfortunate soul misrepresented by history.

Tony EH

Perhaps. As I said earlier, it was during the Czech situation that major threat of military action should have been issued. However, Britain's political focus was extremely muddled and France had her own internal turmoil to deal with. France only really had what was considered a "caretaker" government after the collapse of the Popular Front. Like Germany, there were running battles on the streets between Communists and members of Rightist organisations. In fact this was true of a number of European countries in the 30's. Daladier later banned the French Communist Party. Beside's Daladier's government didn't really give a hoot about the Czechs. Their "obligation" to "defend" them was simply a method of containing Germany and a poorly thought out one at that.

However, the major sticking point for mobilisation against Germany at the time was not Britain, or France. It was Poland. The Poles refused to allow Russian troops transit rights across her territory and into Germany and that was key to any move against Germany. The idea being of course that Russia attack from the East and Britain and France attack from the West. The Poles feared, not without considerable merit, that once the Russians set foot on Polish territory, they wouldn't actually leave. But without Russia, Britain and France were unprepared to move.

The Polish reaction and her seizing of Czech territory had a large effect on the French attitude to the Poles, with some saying they should simply abandon the agreements they had with them. In fact, Daladier's government nearly didn't join Britain in declaring war in September 1939 and debated vigorously about it for some time after the British declaration. However, the French knew that any war between the British and the Germans would probably end up on French soil anyway and resolved themselves to believing, like Chamberlain, that the combined strength of Anglo-French might would force Hitler to reconsider his actions.

Unfortunately, when one digs a little deeper into history, they find that traditionalist views are usually bunkum and deliberately simplified to present a particular point of view. Hitler may be "the bad guy", but the responsibility for the outbreak of the second World War does not rest on his shoulders alone. War was precipitated by a great many factors.

Fratton Fred

Tony EH wrote: »

Unfortunately, when one digs a little deeper into history, they find that traditionalist views are usually bunkum and deliberately simplified to present a particular point of view. Hitler may be "the bad guy", but the responsibility for the outbreak of the second World War does not rest on his shoulders alone. War was precipitated by a great many factors.

On that, we agree.

Hookey

Tony EH wrote: »

Firstly. At no point in the war was Russia "close to collapse". Sure, the endured some incredible hardships (the most of any nation in the war), but they were never at a point of no return. Even after the great German advances of 1941 and 1942. Once Russia had moved her industrial base east, out of the range of Luftwaffe bombers she could take comfort in the fact that she could always out produce Germany in tanks and aircraft. Also, her man power resources absolutely dwarfed Germany's. So, Russia fell back on her old strategy...they would give up territory and buy time. Which is exactly what they did and that's exactly what they would have done if Germany had attacked in 1940. Even if the German's could draw upon the resources that they were forced to waste in Western Europe and North Africa, it still would only have been a mere fraction of what they would have actually needed in order to beat Russia.

This fails to consider the effect on German output of sustained allied bombing and assumes the Germans would simply have gained the benefit of "freeing up" assets in the West. If Germany was at peace in the West there's every chance they would have had access to western markets, and access to oil in particular. Whilst you're correct there was always a manpower gap between Germany and the Soviets, there was also a massive difference in casualty ratios, particularly before Stalingrad (which, by the way probably wouldn't have happened if Western oil was available). As for whether Russia was close to collapse, on paper no, but you're failing to consider human factors, and Stalin's position in particular if Moscow had fallen (not to mention Moscow's strategic importance as the railway hub in western Russia).

Tony EH wrote: »

Secondly. Even if Germany had attacked in 1940 (which was something that Germany was unprepared to do BTW and simply would not have happened), the Russians would still have been able to absorb the losses and eventually push the Germans back. Hitler hadn't envisaged a war with Russia until at least 1942. The Germans wouldn't have been any stronger in 1940, than they were in 1941.

Germany never had intention of attacking in 1940, so the point is moot, but if they had gotten underway in March or April '41 instead of June, they would have had a dramatically increased chance of achieving their objectives.

Tony EH wrote: »

Thirdly. The "General Winter" idea is pure myth. Winter favors no army and while the Wehrmacht may have suffered proportionately higher than the Russians in the winter of 1941, The Red Army had troubles of its own dealing with -40 degree temperatures. the Russian winter ground both armies to a virtual halt. But the main factor that blunted the German advance in 1941 was the fact that they out stretched their supply lines and that would have happened regardless of weather. The Gerries simply advanced too quickly.

I'm sorry but this is nonsense, "General Winter" can and did favour the Soviets. The Germans were unprepared for winter (because they started late, see above), whilst an impasse in winter favoured the defenders, allowing them to resupply and move trained troops from the east - you said yourself, the Soviets traded time and space, winter let them do this far more effectively than if they'd have been withdrawing production east in good weather.

Tony EH wrote: »

And fourthly, you're assuming that "lend lease" made a real difference in the early years. It didn't. Not in 1941, not in 1942 and not in 1943. Lend lease's biggest impact was in Bagration in 1944 and that was because the Red Army utilised the superb trucks that the U.S. had sent them, but the war was over to all intents and purposes then. The battles of 1941 and 1942 were won (and lost) with Russian equipment and Russian blood. Lend Lease constituted less than 15% of the total equipment used by the Russians in WWII and the vast majority of the war material was second line equipment. In addition, the Soviet production of their own material was immense, once the factories had been moved east. The Uralmash factory complex alone produced 23,000 T-34's! Germany couldn't hope to come remotely close to that figure. In any case, the most important items the Russians received from Lend Lease in the early years was telephone wire and in the later years, those Dodge's I mentioned earlier. But neither was a war winning transformation.

Once again you're making the assumption of "all other things being equal". Lend lease was indeed less important to the Soviets than the British, but it doesn't mean it was irrelevant, and if you lose that 15%, whilst at the same time the Germans gain production benefits by having open trading links in their rear, the percentage shift gets even more perilous for the Soviets.

Getting back to the original article, it seems somewhat specious of a Russian officer to criticize Poland when his country was quite happy to share the spoils with Germany. If he wants to look to the true cause of his country's woes in WWII, he should look to Stalin, who refused to believe repeated intelligence that the Germans were about to attack.

As for whether an "Eastern war" would have been a better thing for Europe; in the short-term, of course, but in the long run, absolutely not. You'd either have a Nazi-dominated east with even more thorough genocides than the one we had, and undoubtedly a shift to the right amongst the other Western European nations (everyone loves a winner, and the French and Brits already had more than a few Hitler-fans in their higher echelons), a continued British and French empire (maybe not by now, the economics of overseas empires suck in the long run) but de-colonisation would have undoubtedly been slower and even more bloody. Or, the Soviets win, trundle all the way up to the Rhine, and a disunited western Europe (no NATO, no Americans) has to deal with a threat that very much is interested in looking west in the interests of world communism (a stated aim).

Tony EH

Hookey wrote: »

This fails to consider the effect on German output of sustained allied bombing and assumes the Germans would simply have gained the benefit of "freeing up" assets in the West. If Germany was at peace in the West there's every chance they would have had access to western markets, and access to oil in particular. Whilst you're correct there was always a manpower gap between Germany and the Soviets, there was also a massive difference in casualty ratios, particularly before Stalingrad (which, by the way probably wouldn't have happened if Western oil was available). As for whether Russia was close to collapse, on paper no, but you're failing to consider human factors, and Stalin's position in particular if Moscow had fallen (not to mention Moscow's strategic importance as the railway hub in western Russia).

The effects of allied bombing on German output was little more than a nuisance for most of the war. Besides, it only really got going in 1943, by which time the Soviets had the Germans on the back foot so to speak. After July 1943, there were no more major victories in the East for the Germans. The effects of bombing only really began to bite in 1944 and only had a very serious effect when Germany’s oil targets were being hit. Without the bombing, the Germans would be able to have a freer hand, no doubt. But it still isn’t enough to defeat Russia.

Access to foreign oil markets would have had a positive effect, but even so, it still wouldn’t have been enough for a German victory in Russia either. Besides, whose to say, foreign nations wouldn’t have put an embargo on oil to Germany, like the Americans did with Japan?

Yes, there was a difference in casualty ratios, but the important factor to remember was that the Russian’s could absorb them. The German’s couldn’t. In the war of attrition, the Russian’s were always going to be the winners, no matter what scenario is conjured up.

In addition, Hitler was always interested in a campaign in the Caucasus. In fact, his original aims for 1941, was not to strike at Moscow (which he had little interest in), but to concentrate on Army Group South’s thrust to cut of Soviet access to natural resources. It was his General’s who convinced him that a move on Moscow was the more prudent idea.

Moscow’s importance has been vastly over rated. Soviet Russia would still have continued even with its collapse, which was simply never going to happen anyway. The German’s simply out ran their supply lines and it made no difference what weather that happened in.

Hookey wrote: »

Germany never had intention of attacking in 1940, so the point is moot, but if they had gotten underway in March or April '41 instead of June, they would have had a dramatically increased chance of achieving their objectives.

I agree absolutely. But I disagree with the old canard of a more successful conclusion if they attacked in April or May. There’s simply no reason to believe that if Hitler launched Barbarossa two months before that the situation would have been that different. Again, the Germans out ran their supply lines. The simply advanced too quickly. Much of the Soviet losses would have been the same as they were, but once their factories had been moved out of the range of the Luftwaffe and as long as there was substantial territory under Soviet control, they was always enough for a counter.

Anyway, Hitler’s original date for Barbarossa was mid May. Only a month before the actual launch date. So, there was no intention there to attack that much earlier. Also, without the western interference, he wouldn’t have attacked Russia in 1941 either.

So, an attack in April / May 1941 in moot too.

Besides, the Germans didn’t have things all their own way in 1941. They endured some substantial losses themselves which seriously blunted their chance of success and those losses would probably still have been pretty much the same. For instance, after a month of fighting the Luftwaffe lost 774 aircraft. That’s roughly 60% of the combat aircraft they started Barbarossa with. The Soviets lost around 7,000. That was about 70% of the frontline aircraft they started out with. So, while the numbers are indeed hugely different. The percentages are not that far apart. The major difference is that the Soviets could (and did) make up the losses far easier than the Germans could and that was without allied strategic bombing.

Hookey wrote: »

I'm sorry but this is nonsense, "General Winter" can and did favour the Soviets. The Germans were unprepared for winter (because they started late, see above), whilst an impasse in winter favoured the defenders, allowing them to resupply and move trained troops from the east - you said yourself, the Soviets traded time and space, winter let them do this far more effectively than if they'd have been withdrawing production east in good weather.

Yes, the Germans were unprepared and not because “they started late”, but simply because it was overlooked and yes suffered proportionately higher, as I already said. They wouldn't have been any more "prepared" if Hitler did launch Barbarossa in May 1941. But it wasn’t the winter that stopped the Wehrmacht advance. It was the inability of the Germans to adequately supply the Army and the severe underestimation of Soviet strength. Logistics and bad planning were the primary reasons that Typhoon failed. Not the weather.

Ping Chow Chi

Tony EH wrote: »

Besides, the Germans didn’t have things all their own way in 1941. They endured some substantial losses themselves which seriously blunted their chance of success and those losses would probably still have been pretty much the same. For instance, after a month of fighting the Luftwaffe lost 774 aircraft. That’s roughly 60% of the combat aircraft they started Barbarossa with. The Soviets lost around 7,000. That was about 70% of the frontline aircraft they started out with. So, while the numbers are indeed hugely different. The percentages are not that far apart. The major difference is that the Soviets could (and did) make up the losses far easier than the Germans could and that was without allied strategic bombing.

They would have had a lot more aircraft to play with if they had not have had a 'battle of britain'. Though I doubt that Hitler and his allies would have won even if they did not have a western front to fight, it is hard to be certain there are too many variables.

Tony EH

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

They would have had a lot more aircraft to play with if they had not have had a 'battle of britain'. Though I doubt that Hitler and his allies would have won even if they did not have a western front to fight, it is hard to be certain there are too many variables.

True, they would have had double the amout they started Barbarossa with on the frontline. However, the Soviets still had about 8,000 aircraft in reserve in the East, if we stick to the same timeline and vastly more, if Hitler launches Barbarossa in 1942, plus they would be of greater quality.

In fact, launching Barabarossa in mid 1942 would have been an absolute disaster for Germany from the get go and I seriously doubt they would have gained as much ground as they did in 1941.

arnhem44

Poland would be the obvious place to start but there was so much more going on that did not involve military action that should be addressed,the failure of the Versallie Treaty and League of nations,the depression of the late twenties,poor political judgements and also shrewd political leaders,lend lease was alot more important for the Americans reasons for entering the war as was oil.Greed,revenge and hatred were also factors,things that were born out of WW1.One queston,why was war not declared on Russia when they invaded Poland on the 16th,two weeks after Germany,Once again I think the answer lies to the west

marcsignal

arnhem44 wrote: »

One queston,why was war not declared on Russia when they invaded Poland on the 16th,two weeks after Germany

i have always wondered about this too

Morlar

marcsignal wrote: »

i have always wondered about this too

Equally shameful is the fact that the allies tolerated communist atrocities against the Poles such as Katyn. Even though the Polish government in exile asked akward questions of the communists they recieved little assistance from either the british or american govt/s in this.

This might interest some here, it is the Stalin Telegram to the Polish govt in exile where he broke official relations claiming they were hitlerite stooges on the basis of their Katyn questions. The cynical hypocrisy of this is staggering considering we now know Stalin/Beria directly ordered the massacres and had full knowledge.

April 21, 1943

The recent conduct of the Polish Government towards the Soviet Union is regarded by the Soviet Government as absolutely abnormal and contrary to all rules and standards governing relations between allied countries.
The campaign of calumny against the Soviet Union, initiated by the German fascists regarding the Polish officers they themselves slaughtered in the Smolensk area, on German-occupied territory, was immediately taken up by the Sikorski government and inflated in every possible way by the official Polish press. The Sikorski government, far from taking a stand against the vile fascist slander of the Soviet Union, did not even see fit to ask the Soviet government for information or explanations.
The Hitlerite authorities, after perpetrating an atrocious crime against the Polish officers, are now engaged upon an investigation farce for the staging of which they have enlisted the help of certain pro-fascist Polish elements picked up by them in occupied Poland, where everything is under Hitler's heel and where honest Poles dare not lift their voices in public.
The governments of Sikorski and Hitler have involved in these "investigations" the International Red Cross which is compelled to take part under conditions of a terroristic regime with its gallows and mass extermination of a peaceful population, in this investigation farce, under the stage management of Hitler. It should be clear that such "investigations," carried out, moreover, behind the Soviet Government's back, cannot inspire confidence in persons of any integrity.
The fact that this campaign against the Soviet Union was launched simultaneously in the German and Polish press, and is being conducted along similar lines, does not leave any room for doubt that there is contact and collusion between Hitler, the enemy of the Allies, and the Sikorski government in the conduct of the campaign.
At a time when the people of the Soviet Union are shedding their blood in the bitter struggle against Hitlerite Germany and straining every effort to rout the common foe of all liberty-loving democratic countries, the government of Mr. Sikorski, pandering to Hitler's tyranny, is dealing a treacherous blow to the Soviet Union.
All these circumstances force the Soviet Government to infer that the present government of Poland, having fallen into the path of collusion with the Hitler government, has actually discontinued relations of alliance with the USSR and assumed a hostile attitude toward the Soviet Union.
In view of these circumstances the Soviet Government has come to the conclusion of the necessity for breaking relations with the present Polish government.
I deem it necessary to inform you of the above and trust that the Government of the United States will realize the inevitability of the step which the Soviet Government has been compelled to take.
END OF STALIN MESSAGE

Tony EH

marcsignal wrote: »

i have always wondered about this too

Because, after shooting their mouths of about a "guarantee" and upping the ante to unexpected results (Germany invading Poland), they quite rightly assumed that declaring war on the Soviets too would be an absolute disaster and could only end in a very bad way.

So they quietly neglected to declare war on Russia.

The guarantee was bogus anyway, so why make matters worse than they already had?

Fratton Fred

Tony EH wrote: »

Because, after shooting their mouths of about a "guarantee" and upping the ante to unexpected results (Germany invading Poland), they quite rightly assumed that declaring war on the Soviets too would be an absolute disaster and could only end in a very bad way.

So they quietly neglected to declare war on Russia.

The guarantee was bogus anyway, so why make matters worse than they already had?

I think the gaurantee was quite specific in it's wording and did only mention Germany.

How was it bogus? Britain, France and Australia all declared war on Germany. it sounds pretty un-bogus to me.