Should France And Britain Have Attacked Germany In 1939

[Dinsdale]

Originally posted by Siggi
Well the evidence of French and British combined supremacy over German forces in numbers and quality of equipment in September 1939 you may easily find in any historical site in net. If you can understand Polish I may give you a link to interesting Polish site.
Just French, without England, had more powerfull army than Germans . Surely numbers and quality of equipment are not the only factor of supremacy, but it is a quite important one.
We may discuss about it, why not.

Yes, on paper the French army was stronger than the German army. The BEF, on paper, should have been a valid contribution.

During their one and only combined offensive, France and Britain attempted to secure Narvik from Germany. On paper, they had superior forces there too, but then no one expected British naval power to be so harmless in the face of air superiority.

France and Britain were unable to defeat German troops on any front; Norwar, Sedan, Greece, or N Africa until 1942. So while that paper might have looked good in 1939, paper does not fight battles.

Your mention of Strategic Bombing is also false. Britain did not want to begin terror bombing. The targets Germany bombed in Poland were defended by troops, thus legitimate military targets. Paris was not declared an open city for nothing in 1940, but to prevent it from suffering the same fate as Warsaw, and later Berlin, when troops defend a city. For Britain or France to launch air raids on Berlin would have been to radically escalate a war which Chamberlin still hoped would be settled diplomatically.

Poland was fighting a total war of survival in September 1939. So too were Britain and France, the difference is that neither Britain nor France understood just how brutal, or how far the conflict would escalate.

To draw a modern analagy, it's a little like Kuwait claiming they were betrayed by the US because the US waited 6 months to build up their forces before launching an invasion.

Britain and France fully expected to beat the Germans by fighting a defensive war, they did not realize what was about to hit them.

 

[unmerged(13570)]

Originally posted by Dinsdale
Yes, on paper the French army was stronger than the German army. The BEF, on paper, should have been a valid contribution.

During their one and only combined offensive, France and Britain attempted to secure Narvik from Germany. On paper, they had superior forces there too, but then no one expected British naval power to be so harmless in the face of air superiority.

France and Britain were unable to defeat German troops on any front; Norwar, Sedan, Greece, or N Africa until 1942. So while that paper might have looked good in 1939, paper does not fight battles.

Your mention of Strategic Bombing is also false. Britain did not want to begin terror bombing. The targets Germany bombed in Poland were defended by troops, thus legitimate military targets. Paris was not declared an open city for nothing in 1940, but to prevent it from suffering the same fate as Warsaw, and later Berlin, when troops defend a city. For Britain or France to launch air raids on Berlin would have been to radically escalate a war which Chamberlin still hoped would be settled diplomatically.

Poland was fighting a total war of survival in September 1939. So too were Britain and France, the difference is that neither Britain nor France understood just how brutal, or how far the conflict would escalate.

To draw a modern analagy, it's a little like Kuwait claiming they were betrayed by the US because the US waited 6 months to build up their forces before launching an invasion.

Britain and France fully expected to beat the Germans by fighting a defensive war, they did not realize what was about to hit them.

1. Surely no one would guarantee, that combined attack GB-French forces in 1939 to help Poland, would be a guarantee of success. That is not sure, but I still consider it most probable. The situation in 1939 you can not compare to Norway, Greece, North Africa etc. I mean the situation when almost all strong German forces were involved in battles in Poland. I think that advantage in numbers of land, air and naval forces on GB-France side might had been very important factor. Think, only 16 reserve German divisions on French border, and 3 mililon of French soldiers mobilized on German border plus equivalent to all German forces number of tanks and planes. Plus the same number of planes on GB side, and superior GB navy. In numbers in September 1939 GB-French forces on German border were aprox. 10 times superior to German forces defending their border. It was quite enough to make big offensive in Germany, and most probably succesful one. Ok, they did not have enough motivation to perform it, so you still may question my point of view.

2, I did not mention of strategic bombing, I mentioned about air raids on German military positions, thus legitimate targets. During 1939 war in Poland from the first days of fights the most important factor of German success was their air supremacy. I think it was quite possible for GB and France to send some air forces to help Polish troops. The government of Poland from 1st of September desperatly begged GB and French governments for such aid.

3. You sould not not compare 1939 war to Kuwait vs Iraq war. Just compare the size of Kuwait v/s Iraq and Poland v/s Germany, the number of forces of Kuwait v/s Iraq and Pol. v/s Germany the distance between France and Poland, and USA and Kuwait, etc.
The most important difference is that USA finally launched the attack against Iraq, and liberated Kuwait. Really no any match for comparison.

4. I can not really understand how anyone can expect to win any war using only defensive strategy. I think it is a kind of a fairy tale.

Regards

 

[Dinsdale]

Re: Re: Should France And Britain Have Attacked Germany In 1939

Originally posted by Sigi
1. Surely no one would guarantee, that combined attack GB-French forces in 1939 to help Poland, would be a guarantee of success. That is not sure, but I still consider it most probable

But this means that France and Britain have to conquer Germany before Poland falls and/or Germany redeploys troops west.

One must also give them the knowledge of exactly what German opposition is in front of them; ie that almost the entire German army is east. Even as late as 1944 intelligence was not great, hence dropping paras on top of panzers.

I think it was quite possible for GB and France to send some air forces to help Polish troops. The government of Poland from 1st of September desperatly begged GB and French governments for such aid.

I agree, deployment of air assets would have made sense.

c.
The most important difference is that USA finally launched the attack against Iraq, and liberated Kuwait. Really no any match for comparison.

Well, so too did Britain and the remnants of the French army. They helped invade, and liberate western Europe in 1944. Poland had already been "liberated" by USSR, and the political climate was now completely different. However, the war which Britain and France entered on the pretext of defending Poland was the same war which ended in 1945.

4. I can not really understand how anyone can expect to win any war using only defensive strategy. I think it is a kind of a fairy tale.

I agree, but then again we have the benefit of hindsight. In 1939 the idea of offense conjured up visions of Somme, Pashendale and Verdun. France and Britain wanted Germany to bleed on their defences, arrange a blockade and re-run 1918. It did not work, was a terrible idea, but in order to change the outcome, planning would have been required in the early 30's, not a foolhardy charge in 1939.

My comments about Poland or Czechoslovakia pre-empting a German invasion are not entirely irrelevant. After all, early enough, and with enough hindsite a Czech-Polish alliance would have been more effective for the sovereignty of those nations than relying on Britain and France. So why should the responsibility for the defense of Poland be abdicated into blame for both Britain and France? Hadn't Poland already suffered the results of partition once before, what on earth would have convinced the Polish government that the same would not happen in 1939?

 

[unmerged(13535)]

Weighing In ....

A couple of points ...

I don't see how any air force help could have been sent to Poland. How would it have gotten there? Denamark wouldn't have allowed passage and Italy wasn't a belligerent yet but it certainly wouldn't have been helpful to the Allies.

Poland was doomed by its position, not by the Allies lack of help.

Given their strategic position, in that the only avenue of attack was directly into the teeth of German defenses on a narrow front, I don't see how they could have possibly made another decision.

Remeber the French and English had tanks and even had better ones but their ideas of offense still revolved around wave attacks with solid artilery support. They had no idea what hit them when the Germans sliced into their rear.

Let's look at what may have happened if they had attacked.

They couldn't possibly have attack before Septermber 21, 1939. The Germans had months to plan the offensive into Poland and had set all of their troops accordingly. The French and English are being asked to attack when their troops are on the wrong side of France. We have to give them a minimum of three weeks to come up with some offensive plan and move troops into position.

By this time the Germans were wrapping up the conquest of Poland.

So the French and English launch a combined offensive into Germany on Sept. 21. The artillery prep would have started the night before and would have alerted the Germans to the strike. Then infantry, supported by tanks, would have begun to crawl behind the barrage into the German positions. The Germans are dug in and fortified and the Allies immediately start taking heavy casualties but make minor headway.

The Luftwaffe certainly could have been almost entirely transfered to the Western border in a matter of hours. On September 22 the Luftwaffe arrives in force. The English Gladiators, MS.406s, and Potez 631s are no match for the veteran German aces in ME109s, especially when the 109 is freed from the constaints of its short range. The Hurricanes and Curtiss H-75s are in woefully short supply and are soon eaten up by attrition. The French and English airforces would have been swept from the skies in a matter of days.

Having acheived air superiority if not total domination, the German tactical bombers began devestating the Allied offensive. Caught out in the open, which they must be to fire and advance, the artillery and tanks are sumarrily destroyed. As more and more equipemnt is transferred to the Western front, the Allied offensive bogs down and is then thrown back on the Maginot line.

The Allies will have lost the greater part of their airforce and thousands of casualties for not having achieved one noticeable piece of ground held. They would have blunted thier own ability to wage war and not damaged the German ability at all.

This isn't pie in the sky .... its real. The allies had no choice but to wait ... they could have waited better I admit .... but they had to wait.

Poland was doomed by its position and the speed of the German advance, not by Allied inactivity.

 

[King of Men]

Remember that in 1944, when the US had come in and was pouring men and industry into the war; when German troops had been been broken in Normandie and driven out of France in a helter-skelter rout; when the problem for the Allies was not shooting Germans but fuelling their tanks - the advance still stopped on the Rhine and stuck there for several months.
Could the Allies do better in 1939? I doubt it.

 

[unmerged(13535)]

Supplies ....

With all due respect, that argument makes no sense even though it bolsters my claim.

The situations are completely different. The Allies in 44 were driving through enemy held lands. They had to bring their fuel in from Antwerp and the Channel ports. In '39 the Allies would have simply taken their fule from the most convienent dump. They would have been operating out of their homeland, i.e. France.

I'm not sure fuel would have been the issue, especially with so many troops not being mechanized. I still think their impossible strategic position and their pyshcological bent prevented them from attacking and further aided in their defeat.

 

[unmerged(10704)]

Re: Re: Re: Should France And Britain Have Attacked Germany In 1939

Originally posted by Dinsdale
But this means that France and Britain have to conquer Germany before Poland falls and/or Germany redeploys troops west.

You forget about psychology... Hitler was _really_ afraid of UK and France entering war. On 3rd Sept. when allies declared war he thought game was over, but as we know - he was a gambler (anschluss, Czech annexation etc). He decided to carry on until the end hoping that French won't attack and he won. You must admit that if war had been declared 1st or early 2nd sept and IMMEDIATELY after that action had been taken and offensive had begun - Hitler would have thought about accepting unconditional peace. You must admit that there was such chance. We dont know how big this chance was but it existed and was really the last one to stop Hitler. This is not military argument but simply psychological argument, we know now that blizkrieg was very succesfull and French doctrine sucked when it came to fight, but during first week of war - Hitler couldnt know that. IMO he still looked at French and UK's armies as on even match for his troops. One single message: "Fueher, dozens of french divisions are crossing our border!" could stop war as Hitler haven't had hindsight that we have today. As i said... we can't be 100% sure that this would have happened but IMO there still was a chance. It was only a matter of taking risk.

 

[boehm]

In advance I will exuse myself because I cant remember the exact sources ...but a few years ago I wrote a paper on the security politics of England in the 1930s...

At the time just before the Munich agreement England/France estimated the German ground forces were about equal to their own combined ground forces. However they estimated that it would be all but impossible for them save Czekoslovakia in case of a German attack. This assumption was based on the fact that the french army basically had no offensive doctrine to speak off, furthermore they believed that the only chance to save Czekoslovakia basically rested on persuading the USSR to send its airforce to Czekoslovakia to help them break the otherwise expected total German air supremecy there...I believe the English and French actually enquired if the Poles would allow USSR formations to pass through their territory but the Poles would not go for that, so England and France faced with a situation where a succesful outcome not only demanded that USSR could be counted on to help but where if she did her forces would very probably be forced to fight their way through Poland to reach Czekoslovakia.....and allthough Austrian Anschluss the USSR had actually offered to to organize talks with France and England to ensure nothing simular would happen to Czekoslovakia, England and France distrusted the USSR fearing that they were just trying to lure them into war with Germany so the USSR could sit back and come in and collect the shattered pieces.....Anyway...the situation had hardly improved in 1939 with the German army and airforce much stronger whereas England had only just started to produce arms of good quantities (having spend 37/38 basically retooling)....

thats just my 2 cents.

 

[unmerged(13535)]

Guys, Guys, Guys ....

I don't know if any of you have ever served in the armed forces. If you have you may have some idea of the operational complexities of moving armies around. It would help more if you had served on a Division or higher staff.

It was simply impossible for the French and British to launch an immediate attack into Germany. Their entire strategic focus was Belgium. Their forces were deployed on a line running along the Belgian border. Their forces were largely un-mechanized or motorized. You simply don't trun an army around, especially one with a defensive mindset around and launch an invasion in a week.

Patton is famous for his major swing north in three days during the battle of the Bulge. However, there were notable differences. He didn't switch his entire Army only a portion. His army was already in an offensive mode and had a very offensive general. His army was operating in an heterogeneous atmosphere in complete air superiority.

France and England had none of these things. Their tactics called for set piece battle with lots of artillery and good positions. They may have been able to launch a multi-division attack but that would have been highly ineffective.

It also is a pipe dream that Hitler would have freaked if the Allies had been able to attack in strength. First of all, Hitler did not have complete control of the OKW until after France. They wouldn't have panicked. Secondly the Allies were incapable of advancing at the kind of pace that the Wermacht was capable of. Finally, Hitler had a well known disdain for the fighting qualities of the men made soft by democracy. WOuld things have been different ... sure. Would the war have ended because Hitler was scared ...NO.

 

[unmerged(6964)]

Indeed. Plus I have to say, points about Hitler being freaked out are clearly points made with 20/20 hindsight and therefore of little worth. I have to say, the idea that it was not only feasible but right and proper that the Anglo-French forces should have stormed into the rescue of Poland is an argument that I've only ever heard put forward by Poles. Which is probably understandable, though not terribly realistic.

 

[Dinsdale]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Should France And Britain Have Attacked Germany In 1939

Originally posted by comrade
You forget about psychology... Hitler was _really_ afraid of UK and France entering war. On 3rd Sept. when allies declared war he thought game was over, but as we know - he was a gambler (anschluss, Czech annexation etc). He decided to carry on until the end hoping that French won't attack and he won. You must admit that if war had been declared 1st or early 2nd sept and IMMEDIATELY after that action had been taken and offensive had begun - Hitler would have thought about accepting unconditional peace. You must admit that there was such chance. We dont know how big this chance was but it existed and was really the last one to stop Hitler. This is not military argument but simply psychological argument, we know now that blizkrieg was very succesfull and French doctrine sucked when it came to fight, but during first week of war - Hitler couldnt know that. IMO he still looked at French and UK's armies as on even match for his troops. One single message: "Fueher, dozens of french divisions are crossing our border!" could stop war as Hitler haven't had hindsight that we have today. As i said... we can't be 100% sure that this would have happened but IMO there still was a chance. It was only a matter of taking risk.

How many mobilized French and British divisions could begin a war on September 3rd? What were the British supposed to do parachute in?

Why don't you take a re-read of shrike00's post, it sums up the situation perfectly.

Why won't any of the "France/Britain betrayed Poland" crew comment on why Poland should be relying on Britain and France. Why not a slavic alliance, a balkan alliance, an alliance with Soviets? Why should Britain and France be responsible for your borders? Apply hindsight equally, or not at all.

 

[unmerged(345)]

i think the fact that Poland and Czech. rep. failed into creating a little entente was a key point in Hitler feeling confident enough to take risks.
i would like to know the reasons of this failure, in particular after the Teschen boundary problem was more or less solved.
any books/sites on this subject?

well, for many reasons IMHO a Poland-USSR alliance in the 1930's was a non-starter.

 

[Gezeder]

I think the points made thus far are pretty clear - perhaps this discussion is more about
"COULD France and Britain attacked Germany in September"

September being the only time possible to "Save" Poland. The aguments put foward saying this was an unrealistic time schedual seem fairly reasonable to me. shrike00 sounds right - and it sits well with common knowledge, that major invasions are not planned, put into place, and launched in under 3 days!

Gezeder

 

[unmerged(13535)]

Problems ....

The problems with all our points of view are of course typical. Hindsight is 20/20 as we know. We also have the benefit of knowing the dispositions of all the forces involved.

We often look at a situation and ask why someone didn't do something obvious when that person had a fraction of the information we have currently.

I think we have demonstrated that the Aliies couldn't have helped Poland. The Poles may have hoped for it as their country was being overrun but realistically they couldn't expect it.

The Allies were not only burdened by their poor strategic position but were also hampered by a lack of information. They had no idea how many divisions the Germans had where. All they knew for sure was that the Germans were slicing through the Poles like they weren't even there. It is asking too much for them to have done much more than they did.

It is interesting to me that the only ones arguing the point are from Poland (at least accoding to their flag). As stated before, I suppose this is understandable. I wonder if the look objectively at the strategic situation and the operational hurdles faced by the Allies would they change their minds?

The Allies could ahve certainly conducted a better defense of France but I'm am almost positive they could have done nothing to save Poland.

 

[unmerged(13570)]

Originally posted by boehm
In advance I will exuse myself because I cant remember the exact sources ...but a few years ago I wrote a paper on the security politics of England in the 1930s...

At the time just before the Munich agreement England/France estimated the German ground forces were about equal to their own combined ground forces. However they estimated that it would be all but impossible for them save Czekoslovakia in case of a German attack. This assumption was based on the fact that the french army basically had no offensive doctrine to speak off, furthermore they believed that the only chance to save Czekoslovakia basically rested on persuading the USSR to send its airforce to Czekoslovakia to help them break the otherwise expected total German air supremecy there...I believe the English and French actually enquired if the Poles would allow USSR formations to pass through their territory but the Poles would not go for that, so England and France faced with a situation where a succesful outcome not only demanded that USSR could be counted on to help but where if she did her forces would very probably be forced to fight their way through Poland to reach Czekoslovakia.....and allthough Austrian Anschluss the USSR had actually offered to to organize talks with France and England to ensure nothing simular would happen to Czekoslovakia, England and France distrusted the USSR fearing that they were just trying to lure them into war with Germany so the USSR could sit back and come in and collect the shattered pieces.....Anyway...the situation had hardly improved in 1939 with the German army and airforce much stronger whereas England had only just started to produce arms of good quantities (having spend 37/38 basically retooling)....

thats just my 2 cents.

With all respect, but I would suggest, that you check the numbers in reliable sources, and then think again your position.

 

[boehm]

Originally posted by Sigi
With all respect, but I would suggest, that you check the numbers in reliable sources, and then think again your position.

which numbers? I dont recall mentioning any spc numbers...WHAT I DID SAY...was that from the sources I read it was stated that in 38 England and France ESTIMATED that the German army was roughly equal in strenght to the combined English/French army.

 

[unmerged(13570)]

Re: Problems ....

Originally posted by shrike00



The Allies were not only burdened by their poor strategic position but were also hampered by a lack of information. They had no idea how many divisions the Germans had where. All they knew for sure was that the Germans were slicing through the Poles like they weren't even there. It is asking too much for them to have done much more than they did.


The Allies could ahve certainly conducted a better defense of France but I'm am almost positive they could have done nothing to save Poland.

1. The funny thing was, that GB/France they knew quite precisely the number of German soldiers who defended French border, because their Polish allies discoversd the secter of Enigma, the secret code they used for military information. BTW the success of Polish scientists in that field was misipreted by GB, so the most of British are convenient that it was the success of British scientists.

2. You will never be sure if GB/France could have done anything to help Poland because they did not try to do anything. You may be sure one thing, that they did not fulfill their obligations according to the military treaty they entered with Poland.

 

[unmerged(13570)]

Originally posted by boehm
which numbers? I dont recall mentioning any spc numbers...WHAT I DID SAY...was that from the sources I read it was stated that in 38 England and France ESTIMATED that the German army was roughly equal in strenght to the combined English/French army.

Well, let me explain, in numbers just the French army in 1938 without British one was stronger than German one. Just imagine 5 mln French soldiers v/s aprox 2 mln German soldiers, moreover they had more and better tanks (including Char B, which was almost unbaetable for German tanks, to destroy it they had to use anti air 88 mm gun), and almost equivalent air force. I do not know how about navy, but I can bet, that French navy was also stronger than German one, except submarines.

 

[unmerged(12251)]

Military Targets?

Germans (Noble gentlemen?) only bomb cities with troops defending them? What kind of fairy tale is that? Ask the good citizens of Amsterdam and Rotterdam and Spain about Nazi morality? Talk about an oxymoron. A3

 

[unmerged(6964)]

Sigi, I think you've got a serious bee in your bonnet and you need to get over it. If the British and French KNEW or even THOUGHT they could beat the Germans in September 1939 why the hell didn't they do it? I suppose they didn't just to spite the Poles did they? I'm afraid your interpretation of history simply doesn't exist outside Poland. Certainly not in the moral, "we were betrayed!" terms that you seem to take on.