Winner said:
Sorry, but if you're saying that the Polish army lost because it was numerically inferior, it's an illusion.
No, I didn't. But if you look close enough you will see that it was the case in the situations when Wehrmacht won.
Besides often it didn't have to fight at all to achieve some results - the border was too long and reserves were delayed so there were numerous weak spots.
Most of polish armies were not crushed by overwhelming numbers of Germans, they were outmaneuvered and cut off by a very small force comprised of German armoured and motorized formations.
Too much Guderian, too little ... Only XIXth corps can actually claim something like this, but the problem was it fought against basically just two infantry divisions for almost the entire campaign. Even the famous attack on Brest was against three battalions of infantry.
Besides very small is somehow... strange to say - compared to what ? Their opponents ? Or the entire size of the entire Polish army and the entire Wehrmacht.
That is a difference, pretty large actually.
Polish military was large, but it lacked this kind of mobility.
Yes, it lacked mobility - motorized and armoured forces are very costly, but that is not the point here anyway.
Poland had no real armored force which could have been deployed as mobile reserve.
Not true. There were two brigades. Five overall were planned. Polish armoured forces were 7th largest in the world actually.
Of course you are referring to the number of none existent armoured divisions, but that is
not a proper response.
It is not a bidding competition who has more tanks, but what is the army for.
Poland didn't need more than 5 mechanized brigades which were according to the plans and the developed doctrine flexible enough to counter any enemy mobile forces - remember that cavalry units were essential to fight the Soviets and didn't require so much fuel.
IN 1939 the only problem was that in the key area of Army Łódź and Army Prusy existing anti-tank units were partially wasted and partially not sufficient while the plan to deploy a mixed mobile corps in the Czestochowa gap was not implemented in time.
Of course there were no sufficient forces to actually attack enemy Panzer divisions head on, but that was never the idea which could be used.
Delaying actions were the key and were actually pretty well performed in the real life. However the key problems were the existence of the gap in Czestochowa area and the defeat of reserve army Prusy which opened some areas to the penetration of German mobile forces.
It relied on masses of infantry, which were wrongly deployed on the border with Germany, thus making it even easier for the Germans to encircle them.
Poland wasn't a 1st WW army. Static defence was never the case. Manouver was important, however you are forgetting the most important factor - the politics.
Munich 2 was as much realistic option as a local coup in Danzig.
The leadership had to take that into the consideration as it did - otherwise we would as well lose Pomerelia, Greater Poland and Silesia without a single shot.
The only clear mistake is the situation of Army Pomorze with 9th Infantry Division too much to the north and 27th infantry div. still regrouping, but that was due to the possible Danzig scenario which actually was discussed in Germany too.
9th division was destroyed after 3 days while 27th suffered heavy losses (number or rail transports was limited and they were caught moving or preparing to move), but that is about it.
If you look closer you will notice that only two divisions were destroyed in first 3 days (9th in Pomerelia and 7th in the Czestochowa gap) - the rest usually regrouped and fought for a long time, exception can be attributed to the situation with southern group of Army Prusy, but it was not mobilised and its units (parts of the divisions which were moving to the area) often fought somewhere else
Poland had no chance - it was isolated, encircled by enemies and outgunned.
It is not true. You are using hindsight and the present knowledge instead of analysing the real life options which were known at that time.
Noone expected the Soviets to attack - probably except the French, but they didn't share the knowledge. Noone expected that the war will be marked with betrayal so much as it was. Noone expected that the UK and France literally would commit suicide acting to the best interests of the enemy.
Ironically French reluctance to do anything was fuelled by the M-R Pact they knew while Soviet invason was inspired mainly by the French reluctance they learnt about...
Neither is something Poland could see - it had no knowledge about those.
Still the failure of the French was seen as highly possible, however ultimate victory was always the case and worth fighting for.
Resistance, though brave, has eventually costed Poland millions of dead people, the highest per capita casualties suffered by any European country.
No it didn't. Nazi and Soviet genocide campaigns did. Do you think that it would be different ?
Inhuman and barbarous standards were not expected by anyone.
Their people were forcibly expelled from the western parts of their country, their elites were murdered by the Russians and Germans alike, their capital city was leveled and razed to the ground. That's the price they had to pay for their symbolic resistance. As one of my teachers used to say, "you can find plenty of heroes at cemetaries".
It implies that standing and doing nothing is the best option which is not true, because you are left at the mercy of the enemy.
Czechs are not like that, they're survivalists and cynical realists, while the Poles are romantic idealists
Czechs cannot try to risk, Poles can, should and would - that is a difference between relying on someone or doing something yourself.
The price to have influence and don't have it.
It can pay to play safe as long as the enemy respects this lack of resistence, plays according to the rules etc, but attributing the kind of thinking to others is not too wise.
It is neither a universal rule or something available and profitable to everyone.
The brutal truth is the key would be the size - we can afford losing, Czechs cannot so
noone should blame them or criticise us.
It is not that Warsaw would be saved if it wasn't defended, it is far from certain as examples from the 2nd WW show a number of times.
Besides...
realistically fighting was the best option.
Present me alternative scenarios and you will see that it was the ONLY option available.
It could end much, much, much worse.
Examples -
allying with Hitler - Poland ends as two times smaller and paying compensation to the Soviet Union, not to name other 'attractions'.
If Hitler won this of course would be even worse in the hell of Nazi Europe.
allying with Stalin - Poland ends as a wasteland as the battleground for the most time of the war + a communist dictatorship with far worse economic conditions than now. In addition most likely smaller than now and with a larger part of society in Gulags and such since there would be no army in the exile in the West while there would be some anti-communist pro-German collaboration forces established during the war in the wake of popular dissent against the Soviets.
It could result in Poland being a part of the SU - and that would be something
really horrible.
The relative freedom (compared to the SU, not the democratic West) would not be the case while a large Russian minority might suddenly appear and be used as a political tool later. For sure there would be 2-3 anti-Soviet national uprisings from 1945 to 1990 too.
I cannot even name all the consequences of Soviet influence for whole decades - far into the XXIst century if the communism would end to that time.
giving up in 1939 - Poland fights anyway because neutrality couldn't be an option with all the destruction it suffered anyway and most likely some additional territorial losses.
Other options ?
None, not really....
People from that period didn't expect anything worse than during the 1st WW - try to remember that.
You don't expect Germans to behave like barbarians and Soviet style deportations and massacres aren't something you consider possible if you don't know they will actually attack.
Alternative results is another thing to think about - I repeat it could be much worse.
Quite personal, but in fact I am quite sure I would be dead by now if some of those scenarios would actually happen. Quite selfish, I admit that, but it is hardly something I see as a happy ending.
