-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Poland wouldn't collapse in just 4 weeks without Soviet involvement. Even IRL or later almost twice as long with some regular units continuing to fight into the winter. Without Uncle Joe the campaign would drag well into 1940 which would put the western allies on different footing. And that would be only if Hitler actually attacked at all, which is doubtful at best.
Besides, calling Poland an enemy is downward crazy. Poland wasn't hostile, Poland deeply mistrusted the USSR. It was the USSR that was the hostile one that kept sending saboteurs, spies and send armed bands to raid towns on the Polish side of the border. There wouldn't be any enmity of the Soviets behaved like a peaceful and civilized nation.
Why would the campaign last more than 1-2 weeks longer than it did historically? If the Germans had continued pushing, eastwards, would there have been anything that they could not have conquered within another 2-3 weeks? It's not like Poland had any more industrial and urban centers east of Warsaw and Lwow. And all their armies were already facing west on 01.09.1939. Some troops could have hid in the Belorussian swamps and the Galician mountains, or escaped across the Romanian border, but how would the Poles have resisted the Wehrmacht after Warsaw fell?
The Soviets certainly had the capacity to declare war on Germany and advance west (either with or without the acceptance of the Polish government). I doubt Germany would have the resources to take out France in this case, rather she would be squeezed in a vise.
I don't know how that would prolong the war. Red Army started to enter Poland after 17 days of German attack. At that point, Polish Army was already in complete disarray. With or without Soviets, Germans would have finished off Poland within few weeks. Yes, it may have required additional 1-2 weeks to sweep soviet-promised areas but that's all.
Poland lost against Germany within 4 weeks not because of Soviets. They lost because Germans fought with better doctrine. France also had the same thing happened.
Purge was already ended in 1939. Soviets were in process of reorganizing and expanding their military at this time.
Lwów marked the farthest point of the German ability to advance. Germans reached the city on September 12th and stalled there for two weeks unable even to surround it. At the time of the Soviet invasion Germans were also nearing an exhaustion, with lacks of ammunition and transport means being critical. About the time the Soviets invaded, about two thirds of Polish territory was still in Polish hands. Even assuming lack of any counteraction from the Poles, Germans would need weeks to refit and resupply before they would be able to continue their advance. That would mean delay until November, perhaps even longer. And winter 1939/40 happened to be the coldest one in the entire decade, with temperatures reaching -40 on sunny days. Good luck attacking in such conditions.
After the defeat in the battle of Bzura, Polish high command implemented the so called Romanian Bridgehead plan. The general idea was to withdraw as much men, materiel and supplies as possible to the southeastern corner of Poland, dig in and resist as long as possible. The idea was heavily ridiculed during the communist era. This was in line with the general justification of the Soviet invasion. The official version was that the Soviets intervened only after Poland collapsed. The truth is however much different, as recent scholarship showed. By September 17th Poland had already concentrated almost 300 thousands soldiers in the Romanian bridgehead. Out of these,about 70 thousands held frontline positions in the general Lwow area, while the rest was being formed /refitted /resupplied in non combat situation. Furthermore, substantial forces (estimated on at least additional 200 thousands) was in the process of moving into the area, either in fighting retreat or in transport. Among the forces concentrated was about half of Polish armored units, including an entire coherent motorized brigade. The supply situation was adequate, with much of the Polish army's stockpiles being successful moved, which was a huge feat in itself. The Romanian bridgehead had the industrial support in Stanisławów, which was the third largest city in then eastern Poland, behind only Lwow and Wilno. Stanisławów was particularly the center of Polish petroleum industry, however skeletons of COP armament factories were also moved there.
In short, the idea that Poland was finished even before the Soviets attacked is about as true like the idea that the Soviets themselves were all but finished by the time the Germans approached Moscow. Poland indeed collapsed, but mostly due to shock of the second invasion, which threw the Polish leadership into despair, culminating in that crazy order not to resist the Soviets.
Erm..maybe because the city was deep into the Soviet interests zone and there was absolutely no reason trying to go further?
If the polish army was that strong, why did it not even try to resist the Soviets? Surely if the Finns managed to beat the Russians back, über-Polish army would beat them easily?
Sorry, but how these sorry germans managed to succesfully attack France then? French army was stronger than polish and french had larger territory, but they still were kicked out of war in less than two months. Without any soviet help.
Brześć, Zamość, Grodno and even right bank Warsaw were also in the Soviet sphere and Germans did not mind attacking them. According to original R-M pact, the so called spheres of influence were divided by the Vistula river. They stalled at Lwów because they couldn't go any further not because of some considerations for the pact. After all they tried to take Lwów, only failed.
I already wrote that. The psychologic effect. The Soviet aggression was an utter shock to everyone* and sent the Polish leadership into dissaray. We must also remember that the Polish army was facing westward with her rear exposed. In this case the Soviet invasion was really a stab in the back. This only deepened the chaos and despair among the Polish command. An analogous situation would be a hostile army suddenly appearing on the rear of the Red Army during the height of the late 1941 crisis.
In the overall chaos the moronic order not to resist the Soviets issued. The joke is that in those few isolated cases in which the Poles actually resisted, the fights were actually pretty successful.
*IIRC just two days before the invasion Poland sent a mission to sign an arms trade deal with USSR. A deal that was negotiated throughout September. That's how the Soviets behaved.
Last edited:
I find all of that very hard to believe. The Molotov.Ribbentrop pact was public knowledge a few days before the invasion, surely the only reason the Polish government found it surprising that Stalin invaded from the east was that they were too stressed and desperate to take five minutes of thinking on the matter.
Also, which army formations exactly could have resisted the Soviets even if they had been ordered to do so?? A few elderly men who guarded the empty barracks? The local police? AFAIK the only Polish army elements in the eastern regions were those that had fled there from the German advance. On 1/9/1939 the entire Polish army was facing west, with no reserves at all in the east. What good would it have done to order resistance? Except to throw away the last chance of benign treatment at the hands of the Soviet occupation forces.
(Well they got no benign treatment in any case, but at the time they couldn't have known yet that Stalin was going to brutalize the eastern regions as viciously as he did, so I don't see what rationale could have motived them to order resistance, at the time.)
Also, which army formations exactly could have resisted the Soviets even if they had been ordered to do so?? A few elderly men who guarded the empty barracks? The local police? AFAIK the only Polish army elements in the eastern regions were those that had fled there from the German advance. On 1/9/1939 the entire Polish army was facing west, with no reserves at all in the east. What good would it have done to order resistance? Except to throw away the last chance of benign treatment at the hands of the Soviet occupation forces.
(Well they got no benign treatment in any case, but at the time they couldn't have known yet that Stalin was going to brutalize the eastern regions as viciously as he did, so I don't see what rationale could have motived them to order resistance, at the time.)
The pact was a public knowledge. It's secret protocol was not.
I have read the press from the period. No one suspected the division of Europe.
25 battalions of KOP for starters could offer more than a token resistance. However never did I say that Poland was able to stop the Soviets. I argue that Poland was able to hold off the Germans for months if the Soviets didn't invade
There was KOP which moved nowhere. That's even more untrue statement of we take into account situation as of September 17th. Like I said half of Polish armor and almost three hundred thousand men was already in southeastern Poland. More was incoming.
This was actually done to death in Polish modern historiography. Resisting the Soviets would put the Soviets on completely different standing according to international law. Poland and USSR would be in the state of war and thus trigger appropriate clauses in Poland's alliance treaties with UK and France. This would put Poland in completely different bargaining position in Autumn 1941 when relationship with USSR was reestablished.
The decision not to engage the Soviets is perhaps the worst decision of the Polish government in the entire 20th century.
Last edited:
France and Britain together weren't able to hold off the Germans for a single month really. Belgium and Netherlands folded in week or so. Norway too. But Poland was so strong so it could do what no one else in Europe could?
I think it is illusion of national grandeur.
For God's sake. I don't argue that Poland was stronger than France. I argue Poland 1) was far from disintegration like USSR apologists love to claim 2) could have resisted far longer than she historically did if the Soviets didn't attack.
Poland's situation was incomparable with that of France. France simply surrendered when it was obvious that she could not win. Polish leadership's calculations were completely different. It was obvious that Poland can't beat Germany. Instead Polish objective from the start was to prolong the campaign for as long as possible and pin down as many German forces as possible. That was from the start intended to ease the Western Allies' successful resolution of the conflict.
Poland's situation was incomparable with that of France. France simply surrendered when it was obvious that she could not win. Polish leadership's calculations were completely different. It was obvious that Poland can't beat Germany. Instead Polish objective from the start was to prolong the campaign for as long as possible and pin down as many German forces as possible. That was from the start intended to ease the Western Allies' successful resolution of the conflict.
Again, both french and british armies (alongside with their Low Countries allies) were almost entirely destroyed during three weeks of fighting. And after little pause germans smashed all leftovers aside. French capitulated because they just didn't have a real army anymore.
It is really the same situation as was in Poland. All combat-worthy polish troops were either on the western border with Germany or were busy blockading East Prussia.
The germans even started to relocate their forces to the french border at the end of the second week of the fighting.
Well, the French fell in 42 days and the Poles fell in 35 suggesting that Poland wasn't as weak as you make it out. I suspect that having to have a large portion deployed to cover their western front when they were invading Poland could explain a good part of that. They had 3.35 million to invade France and only 1.5 million to invade Poland (with .3 and .5 Italian and Soviet coming in latter).
In fact it does not suggest anything at all. The entire Polish territory was occupied by Oct.6th and this is merely the date of the capitulation of the last troops in the marshes. By this account France has never fallen at all.
Given the person just in front of me claimed that French armies were "almost entirely destroyed in the fighting" I think it is a fair comparison.