1939: France Neutral. Britain & USSR Support Poland

Assume for the moment France is even more reluctant to enter war in 1939. The (secret) decision is made to avoid it at all costs until the rearmament program is completed in 1942. Britian & the USSR desperatly form a last minute alliance to support Poland, and in the first week of September 1939 are at war with Germany.

The Poles would detest Soviet support, but would they refuse meaningfull assistance? Or would the Soviet army simply march west whatever the Poles did?

How does this change Germanys military situation? What are the long range stratigic implications?

 

Not so sure that the Poles would deteste Russian support afterall they did live better under the Russian Empire and Soviet rule then under German.

Not really sure as to what Great Britain might have actually been capable of doing on the ground, maybe attack Germany from France or try to sneak in some supplies in from the air or sea?

As for Poland getting support from Russia, little more tricky. I cant imagine things going very well for Poland or Russia..... Russia was not ready for war with Germany in 1939, supplies were a problem, weapons were absolete, tactics etc. And about Finland?

But then again the Germans were not the same either, these were not the same men that had just conquered Europe....

With all that said, I am still going to put Germany with an advantage and probably conquering all of Poland. Afterwards however, there are just way too many variables in play here to even start to guess.

 

When I was in Poland in 2001 a friend of mine who had been studying Russian, figured he could speak to the Poles in Russian since until 1990 or so it was mandatory to learn Russian in Polish schools. As soon as he uttered one phrase in Russian people would stop acknowledging his presence. Another friend was trying the same thing with German and no one cared and would chat with him in German, of course much less people knew German.

Historically the Russians along with the Germans have been the Poles major enemy. In 1939 I doubt they would have been happy to seen Soviet forces even if it was ostensibly to save them from German forces.

 

The Poles just recently had their 'full' independence and were not about to give it away by trusting the Russians. The Western allies did in fact attempt to bring Russia in to support the Poles if Germany invaded but the Poles would hear non of it. So, I believe that the Russians would have marched into Poland regardless of what the Poles thought.

Now, how does this change the military situation? Hitler knew (or thought so) that the Western allies would do nothing if he invaded Poland just like they did nothing during the occupation of the Rhineland etc.

His only worry was the USSR. He did not know how they would react which is why he sent Ribbentrop to close the Russo-German Pact. So, I would think that Hitler would have proceeded with the invasion of Poland with contingencies to continue Eastward if the USSR intervened. Had this happened, Hitler would have had a two front war a lot sooner.

Question would be, how would the Western Allies respond with Hitler busy in the East fighting the Russians? Would they still sit out the war (sitzkrieg) or actually invade Germany while her back was turned?

 

Relations with Russia have been strained in recent years which would explain your friends experience this is of no surprise to me. The current Polish Governement isn helping to worses the relations, with Russia and Germany. What I am not sure of is.. does Poland not see Russia boiling, and I wonder with all of these current strategical political moves which Poland is making, what it will do when Russia finishes the Gas pipeline that it is building with Germany around Poland and then just turns of the switch to the country as a way of rewarding it for its policies?

While the relations have been rocky, there have also been good times.. In the 15th century, the Russians helped Poland defeat the Tuetonic knights at the battle of Grunwald.

 

Unfortunately not when the MIGHTY SOVIET UNION was eyeing off the possibility of annexing Byelorussian and Ukrainian Poland, Poland was doomed, and you answered your own question the MIGHTY SOVIET UNION would have done what it did no matter what the Poles did. Stalin was as hungry to expand the MIGHTY SOVIET UNION as much as Adolf Hitler.

 

Interesting. The British without the French or the battle for France possed little threat to Germany. It could not land troops to fight anywhere, nor could it cross over nutral Belgium, Holand, or France to Bomb Germany.

The Poles did not like the Russians. They fought a war in 1921 (??) and had had disputes in the following years. Now Germany in 39 did not have many Panzer III or IV, which did most of the fighting in 41.

Slonik is right this subject will require more thought.

 

Roddoss, it seems that you are giong out of your way to show everyone in this forum your hatred for the Soviet Union, this is by all means your right. But when doing so could you at least show us your knowledge of historical events and relationships between these countries and people living in them, instead of making ridiculous claims based on your dislike for the Russians?

 

i don't think that the Polish would welcome the Soviets. Didn't poland and the Soviets fight during the 20's ? The Poles had as much distrust of the soviets as the Germans. And if memory serves me right the soviet high command thought a german -polish alliance was their main threat pre 1939. They war gamed it extensively.

 

Which could explain why they signed the Russo-German nonagression pact.

 

The British have historically been primarily concerned with keeping their trade in Belgium and the Netherlands (and from there the rest of the continent) open and free. If the German's didn't need to invade France, they wouldn't need to go through the Benelux countries. And the UK wouldn't get as involved either with German focus in the East. The 1939-1940 phony war would have continues until either Churchill was ousted in an election or the British could Muster a landing. Probably in Lower Saxony. Hamburg would be a good place to start since the town was very red and suffered greatly under the Nazis.

More interestingly, with the French and British firmly in control of North Africa where would the Italians focus their Imperial ambitions? Turkey? Morrocco? Arabia? Or would the Italians still try for the Suez?

 

The kicker here is that both Great Britain and France pledged their support to Poland in an effort to deter Hitler from invading. Now in the scenario presented, the USSR is now in on the side of the Western Allies. So, with Hitler invading, the USSR would 'actually' be entering Poland to save their 'fellow' slavic comarades.

As for Italy. The only reason Mussolini entered the war was watching his Facist subordinate (Hitler) taking over most of Europe so he jumped in so as not to be left behind even though he knew Italy was not prepared for a long drawn out war. So,,,,,I do not believe he would have jumped in just yet with hitler taking on 3 countries. He would have pulled a Franco and sat this one out.

 

Which leads to the bizarre situation that Mussolini could have stayed in power until the 1970s too?

 

I don't hate the Russians or for that matter any ethnic group that was within the old Soviet Union, it is just i hated the Communist Regime i liken it to me loving Germans but i detested the Nazi Regime and i despised Adolf Hitler and his henchmen. But historically you know the Soviet Union had its eyes on Poland as you know Poand was part of Imperial Russia prior to WWI and never forgave the League of Nations for giving Poland it's independence. Also Supreme Soviet Joseph Stalin was as expansion hungry as Fuhrer Adolf Hitler in my assumption they were as bad as each other in their brutality and ferver for pograms for ethnic cleansing, they are the facts.

 

Italy would most concentrate their Imperial ambitions in the Balkans.

 

While the Nazi dogma was Libensraum. The Italian dogma was Mare Nostra. I think sooner or later they'd be interested in the Southern shores of the Mediterranean.

 

Interesting observation by all.

The point was made several times that without France in the war Britian is restricted in how it can affect events. Of course historically in 1939 Britian was helpless to effectively aid the Poles even with France in the war. My thought is during the first winter Britian can do no more than it did historically. Blockade Germany and wage general economic warfare; make some ineffectual air raids on German naval bases; hunt German submarines; plan a invasion of Norway for the summer of 1940. All things Britian did anyway. What it could not do is send a army to nuetral France. While Britian could expand its army it is unlikely such would be accepted on Soviet territory, unless there were a serious emergency. But, British supplies would be welcome. Perhaps some Britsh bombers would be allowed to raid from Soviet airbases as well?

For the USSR a large difference between this war & the historical events of 1941 would be lack of suprise. Instead of a army caught in its barracks, without its war plans implimented the RKKA would be well mobilized wth its ready reserves activated and backing up the frontier armys. The airforce would not be caught at dawn on its airfields either. While this does not mean the Soviet military of 1939 is equal to the German it does mean the German has a tougher time from the start.

Years ago some friends & I wargamed this general scenario & found the Germans could not attack straight through in the USSR in 1939. Aside from the Wehrmacht being far smaller than in 1941, and the Soviet forces better mobilized there was a problem of supply. There simply was nt enough fuel, fodder for the horses (something like 1,000,000+ horses used by the Wehrmacht in 1939), artillery ammunition, trucks, or spares to carry a sustained attack much past Warsaw on the ground or past September on the calendar. It appeared the German military had to revert over to the defense sometime in October so that industry could catch up with a full blown war.

Poland may not like the wave of Red Army men rolling across its border, but its only viable option is to accept it for whatever salvation there might be. In this case a portion of the Polish army has the possibility of falling back to the east and joining with the Soviet RRKA to attempt a new defense line to the east. Perhaps as many as half a million armed Polish soldiers might be saved from the initial defeat and a equal or larger number of military age men brought into the USSR to be armed and organized.

I am assuming here that the entry of significant Soviet ground forces into Poland begains too late to save any territory west of Warsaw. that the Wehrmacht is able to destroy any Polish or Soviet military units in the western half of Poland and at least capture Warsaw. Even if the USSR gets several hundred thousand men far enough west to help defend Warsaw I'd guess the Wehrmacht could still drive them & the Poles back, but with heavier losses than historically.

What happens as winter closes in is anyones guess. Both sides would feel the need to heavily reinforce their armys in Poland. Both would be frantic to either accquire or keep air superiority. Both would see a serious need to move vast quantities of supply forward from the factories to the Polish Front. The USSR would have an advantage in material in its military depots but I suspect its rail tranport to Poland would a problem, and sea transport would be interdicted by German mines, warships, and the Luftwaffe. For the Wehrmacht supply transport as far as Warsaw would be less of a problem.

Unlike the historical situation continued fighting after September, and on a larger scale would interfere with expanding the Luftwaffe & Wehrmacht. The lack of real fighting from October 1939 to April 1940 allowed the Wehrmacht to exapand to over 120 divsions and the Luftwaffe to nearly 3000 aircraft. Unless Hitler orders a expanded mobilization and production of weapons/ammunition the German combat power will be less than historically in 1940 due to sustained losses.

So whatever else happens I see both sides as facing many critical stratigic choices as the fighting continues through October 1939.

 

Churchill did not become Prime Minister until the late Spring of 1940. Neville Chamberlain held that post until the Norway debacle. In April he was physically & mentally exhausted and steped aside at the request of the key leaders of Britian. Churchill quickly won the struggle for leadership and was appointed PM just as things were going down the drain in the west.

In this scenario it is not certain Germany will beat Britian in a invasion of Norway, or that Norway would even become a battlefield in te spring of 1940. So while Chamberlains personal and political strength was fading its not certain Churchill would replace him. There were others who would have had a better shot at the PM were there no crisis.

My best guess is Mussolini might try a shot at a war with Yugoslavia or Greece while the other players were distracted. The Italian military had long prepared for a limited war with Yugoslavia to gain some border territory Italy claimed ect... France and Britian, although not Allies in this scenario would still see keeping the Italian nuetral and quiet as desireable, so they would seperately be pressuring and bribing Italy to keep its army at home and not to sell the Germans anything of military value. Italys best course would be to keep its military at home and sell the Germans all they could for cash. But, that was not Mussolinis style.

 

Discussing this elsewhere someone pointed out that Britian was more likely to sit out the start of the war than France. They claimed that Chamberlain was still attempting backdoor negotiations with Germany after January 1939; That the British negotiators were the largest obstacle in the three way discussions between the USSR, France, and Britian in early 1939; And that a significant minority in the British Parliment were opposed to declaring war on Germany in September 1939.

So, turning around my original question: Assume Britian drops out of the alliance negotiations in early 1939, but that Stalin decides to support France rather than Germany. So, in the first week of September 1939 France and the USSR both declare war on Germany and announce military aid to Poland. Assume also:

A. That as part of the agreement a promise is wrung out of the French politicians that France will begain significant offensive operations not later than sixty days after the start of mobilization. The French General Gemelin & the head of the airforce Vullimen are directed to alter mobilization plans accordingly (or to resign).

B. German gov. becomes aware of this alliance some months before the attack on Poland. Appropriate plans could be made to deal with the situation.

C. The USSR begains secretly preperatory mobilization a couple weeks before the shooting starts.

How does this alter the situation for each side and what are the likely short term military outcomes in 1939-1940?

How much longer might Britian sit out the war?