Could Poland have defeated Soviet Union in any scenarios....

[DoomBunny]

That's not the point. The point is that a lot of these observations made were unreliable, and even those ones not made for ulterior reasons (to increase German reputation, discredit the Soviets, act as a post-war CV) were made without access to the inner workings of the Soviet military.

Whilst some of the conclusions drawn may have been correct, it is a mistake to grant so much weight to these accounts.

 

[yerm]

The problem is that - like in most of life - too much weight was given to outcome rather than actual skill or ability when making judgment. When the USSR is being rapidly pushed back their leadership is incompetent. When they hold the line they're suddenly decent. When they counterattack well now they're skilled and talented. That's faulty logic. The soviets were caught by surprise and lacked as much experience as the German leaders, so some of this is an absolute given... but the degree to which it gets presented is really overblown.

 

[Maq]

it is a mistake to grant so much weight to these accounts.

Perhaps. Historians should take ALL resources carefully.
But in general, I believe in 1941, the Russians were first of all still learning, re-organizing, belatedly mobilizing their actual capacity. Millions of dead and POW and loss of vast territory are facts.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

Hitler made a blunder when he occupied Prague. That was what pissed the British, they replied hastily with providing guarantee to Poland, and Poland got stubborn towards German demands.

I think you are right in that. Had Germany sticked to the letter of the agreements and only annexed the "Sudetenland" instead of going for Prague, then the UK might have looked more favourable on the german-polish negotiations about Danzig. Hitler sacrificed his credibility when he went beyond reuniting areas with german majorities with Germany.

Hitler could easily subjugate Czechoslovakia the way he did with Slovakia, Hungary, Romania. If he asked president Hacha in March 1939 to submit Czech industry to German control, he would have surely got it.
The question is, what would exactly happen IF Hitler did not do that mistake. The war was inevitable anyway, of that I have no doubt. But what exactly would be the next steps, that is unclear. I believe it was NOT Hitler's intention to go to war with the West. He actually resigned on building a navy strong enough to challenge the British,

I have my doubts about that. Sure the anglo-german naval agreement limited german naval size to a size far less than WW1 Imperial Germany’s navy. But the reason for that is mainly: 1) Germany’s navy after WW1 was tiny and obsolete and it would have taken YEARS to actually build it up to the limit of that agreement. So effectively the limit was not really limiting. 2) In the documents about the conferences in Germany Hitler assured the navy that a war was not intended before 1940 to be able to build up the navy to the intended size.
So my guess is that he intended to build up to the limit and use the agreement as some first step to get on the good side of the UK in his imagination to get a free hand for his dreams of war in the east.

and he knew perfectly well that he cannot defeat Britain without it. I believe he was genuine in his numerous attempts to appease Britain. His aim was the East, and he wanted to avoid two-front war.

Agree.

 

[Cavalry]

Hitler made a blunder when he occupied Prague.That was what pissed the British, they replied hastily with providing guarantee to Poland, and Poland got stubborn towards German demands.
Hitler could easily subjugate Czechoslovakia the way he did with Slovakia, Hungary, Romania. If he asked president Hacha in March 1939 to submit Czech industry to German control, he would have surely got it.
The question is, what would exactly happen IF Hitler did not do that mistake. The war was inevitable anyway, of that I have no doubt. But what exactly would be the next steps, that is unclear. I believe it was NOT Hitler's intention to go to war with the West. He actually resigned on building a navy strong enough to challenge the British, and he knew perfectly well that he cannot defeat Britain without it. I believe he was genuine in his numerous attempts to appease Britain. His aim was the East, and he wanted to avoid two-front war.

It is not only Hitler to be the bad guy at Czech. It is the West too that didn't do anything to protect it. Other small countries see the worst of the West and have to side with Hitler for profit or for security. Before that Czech will not side with Hitler, they are ally of France in Treaty of Alliance and Friendship from 1924!

Yes Hitler probably didn't want war with the West, but he may intend to bag half of Europe before attack the Soviet! The Czech weapon industry is very good and helped the Germans immensely in the invasion of Poland and France.
It were some good guys in British Parliament that force a declare of war, even with that the British didn't fight much until Churchill take the lead.

 

[CruelDwarf]

So, as long as they say "the Russians performed poorly in summer 1941", they are wrong, and once they admit "they fought bravely and with great skill in 1943", they are correct?
How would you, then, explain the difference between 1941 and 1943?

Firstly, Soviets actually fought better in summer 1941 then in autumn 1941. So again Purges or whatver have actually very little to do with Soviet performance.
Secondly, the difference is of course mostly mobilization state and force ratio between Germany and USSR. In the summer 1941 Germans had literal numerical superiority at the front lines. In 1943 - not so much.

 

[Kovax]

I think you are right in that. Had Germany sticked to the letter of the agreements and only annexed the "Sudetenland" instead of going for Prague, then the UK might have looked more favourable on the german-polish negotiations about Danzig. Hitler sacrificed his credibility when he went beyond reuniting areas with german majorities with Germany.

I have my doubts about that. Sure the anglo-german naval agreement limited german naval size to a size far less than WW1 Imperial Germany’s navy. But the reason for that is mainly: 1) Germany’s navy after WW1 was tiny and obsolete and it would have taken YEARS to actually build it up to the limit of that agreement. So effectively the limit was not really limiting. 2) In the documents about the conferences in Germany Hitler assured the navy that a war was not intended before 1940 to be able to build up the navy to the intended size.
So my guess is that he intended to build up to the limit and use the agreement as some first step to get on the good side of the UK in his imagination to get a free hand for his dreams of war in the east.

Agree.

Supposedly the plan was not to launch a war until at least '42 or '43, and the naval buildup plan (unrealistic as it was) was designed to give Germany a credible navy by that point. The only significant sticking point in the treaty (which was probably part of Versailles, not the naval treaty) was on gun size, where Germany definitely abandoned the restriction on guns less than 12" in caliber. Up until Bismark, all of its ships had been limited to 11" guns or smaller.

Czechoslovakia had already become a problem, and Hitler's insistence on re-integrating portions of it with a significant German majority were likely viewed as just exchanging one train wreck for another....not that anyone outside of Germany or the Sudeten WANTED Hitler to have it. The later First Vienna land grab, which incidentally was joined by both Poland and Hungry (each of which had historical claims), definitely put Germany over the edge from "potentially dangerous" into the "out of control" category in the eyes of many. Unfortunately for Hitler, he needed Czechoslovakia's bank reserves to remain solvent, and getting the Sudetenland wasn't going to solve the bigger problem of spending more money on a military buildup than the country had. Having the Czechs back down over Munich was very possibly a disappointment to him.

 

[SorelusImperion]

That's actually what happened after the WW2, with the USSR replacing Germany. Not much difference...

Quite a bit of difference because German domination would not go hand in hand with the imposition of Communism. It would not require mass executions or any of the purges the Stalinist USSR conducted to cement ist rule.

Why? Much of people and elites would have been the same. If Poland joined the Nazis when it was proposed I suppose that scenario would had been plausible either.

Only on the surface. Nazi Ideology was far more radical, agressive and uncompromising than Imperial Germany ever was.

 

[CruelDwarf]

Quite a bit of difference because German domination would not go hand in hand with the imposition of Communism. It would not require mass executions or any of the purges the Stalinist USSR conducted to cement ist rule.

I always ask this question in such situations:
How many Poles were killed by Nazis in 6 years? How many Poles were killed by Soviets in 50?

 

[Okcydent]

How many Poles were killed by Nazis in 6 years? How many Poles were killed by Soviets in 50?

The Soviet occupation of Poland did not last 50 years. At least not by military means but political ones. This time was further limited by German invasion. As a result we get the period from 17th September of 1939 to June/July of '41 and from '44 till '46.
Soviets achieved big successes like Katyń (20k of officers, policemen, officials etc. also prisoners), mass deportations (300k to Kazakhstan/Siberia), slave labour in GULAG camps and so on. Even before the war happend "The Polish Operation of the NKVD (1937–38)" with at least 100k casualties. Second occupation was more peaceful when compared to years '39-'41. Most of persecuted persons were from Polish Underground (like Trial of the Sixteen - staged trial of Polish Underground leaders).
It's not like nothing has happened because we killed only few hundred thousands, they killed few millions.

 

[SorelusImperion]

I always ask this question in such situations:
How many Poles were killed by Nazis in 6 years? How many Poles were killed by Soviets in 50?

Keep in mind that the Scenario here is not actual Nazi rule but hypothetical German domination along the lines of what the Weimar Republic might have done.

 

[CruelDwarf]

It's not like nothing has happened because we killed only few hundred thousands, they killed few millions.

I never told that 'nothing was happened'. My position that the comparison is silly because under Nazies there would be no Poles anymore in a decade. Soviets were ruthless in establishing their dominance but they weren't interestend in destroying nations.

 

[Okcydent]

I never told that 'nothing was happened'. My position that the comparison is silly because under Nazies there would be no Poles anymore in a decade. Soviets were ruthless in establishing their dominance but they weren't interestend in destroying nations.

Soviets killing not to erase a nation but to subjugate. I can comply with that. As to the Germans, their behaviour would be different if Poland had chosen to ally Hitler and not to oppose him. Few years ago in Poland started discussion about the decisions that were made during and before the war. The Revisionist* conclude that the historical outcome was the worst possible eventuality. Out of every 1000 Polish citizens 220 lost their lives (in France 15, in Netherlands 22). The response from their opponents (so called Romantics**) contains words and phrases like: honor, building national ethos, sacrifice on the altar, shared responsibility for the fate of Jews and being bombarded by the British.
As for Revisionist claims:
- Danzig/Gdańsk was German, Poles had Gdynia.
- Germans started planning attack only after the British had announced their guarantees
- Nothings support the idea that Hitler hated Poland before 1939
- During the rule of Hitler, Poland had the best opinion in German press
- Hitler attended the funeral mass after the death of Piłsudski in 1935. There was even a national mourning in Germany because of that.

Fun fact: In 1932 Ksawery Pruszyński wrote a book titled "Sarajewo 1914, Szanghaj 1932, Gdańsk 193?"


*Pakt Ribbentrop-Beck. Czyli jak Polacy mogli u boku III Rzeszy pokonać Związek Sowiecki - Piotr Zychowicz - 2012
(Ribbentrop-Beck pact. How Poles with III Reich at the side could defeat Soviet Union)
*Obłęd '44. Czyli jak Polacy zrobili prezent Stalinowi, wywołując powstanie warszawskie - Piotr Zychowicz - 2013
(Madness '44. How Poles made a gift to Stalin by starting Warsaw Uprising)
*Opcja niemiecka. Czyli jak polscy antykomuniści próbowali porozumieć się z okupantem - Piotr Zychowicz - 2014
(German option. How Polish anticommunists tried to come to an agreement with the occupier)
* Jakie piękne samobójstwo - Rafał A. Ziemkiewicz - 2014
(What a beautiful suicide)
**Obłęd 1944 czy 2013 - Sławomir Cenckiewicz, Piotr Gontarczyk and others - 2013
(Madness 1944 or 2013?)

 

[CruelDwarf]

"You can promise them anything. We just hang all of them later". Allegedly attributed to Hitler before Munich.

 

[Okcydent]

"The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them."

 

[Arilou]

The Revisionist* conclude that the historical outcome was the worst possible eventuality.

It pretty much is. Short of a nazi victory it's hard to imagine a worse outcome.

 

[Cavalry]

As for Revisionist claims:
- Danzig/Gdańsk was German, Poles had Gdynia.
- Germans started planning attack only after the British had announced their guarantees
- Nothings support the idea that Hitler hated Poland before 1939
- During the rule of Hitler's Poland had the best opinion in German press
- Hitler attended the funeral mass after the death of Piłsudski in 1935. There was even a national mourning in Germany because of that.

Don't go too far in this. Danzig is a fresh new demand just days before the invasion, to make sure Poland didn't accept! And there will be Silesia too if Poland accepted! In England the Revisionist may want to build a statue for Chamberlain too! He had tried his best to avoid war with Hitler but a few British has ruined the plan!

Let's see the actual land Hitler want: (the blue part)

 

[Director]

Be very - very - careful when talking about civilian casualties. Read the forum guidelines.

 

[Okcydent]

Be very - very - careful when talking about civilian casualties. Read the forum guidelines.

Thank you. I'll do it immediately.

Don't go too far in this. Danzig is a fresh new demand just days before the invasion, to make sure Poland didn't accept! And there will be Silesia too if Poland accepted! In England the Revisionist may want to build a statue for Chamberlain too! He had tried his best to avoid war with Hitler but a few British has ruined the plan!

Let's see the actual land Hitler want:

Those are not German claims. This supposedly is a map that shows partitioning of Poland between Germans and Soviets. Area around Lublin is exchanged for Lithuania. Author made little mistakes. Danzig\Gdańsk included to Poland. Area around Suwalki was annexed by German Reich not by USSR. Also the subset of cities marked on this map is very peculiar ... Those were not necessarily administration centres ...
If anything you could have used map of pre 1914 Germany. It would better serve the purpose.
I gave the example of book written in 1932, "Sarajewo 1914, Szanghaj 1932, Gdańsk 193?". This proves that there were people aware what can become the cause of future war.

 

[Cavalry]

Those are not German claims. This supposedly is a map that shows partitioning of Poland between Germans and Soviets..

No, of course it is not German claims before the war and show to the world to see. The blue is roughly what Hitler secretly wanted and actual got for Germany, not just Danzig!