It's 1933, and you're the leader of Poland.
How do you ensure the long-term survival of Poland?
>>422998
For starters, I'd do whatever I could to replace the world's best cavalry with some fucking tanks. Beyond that, I don't know anything about Poland at the time. Any good sources?
Completely reform the army. Turn it into a Huge hezbollah style urban infantry group. Like, when the germans enter a city, they can expect to be shot at from 10 different areas. Also spend more money on anti aircraft I guess. Then I would create a seperate force good for forest insurgency. Lastly, I would create a force of 5k to 10k brave who would sneak inside the german borders and use insurgency tactics/backstab soldiers moving past towns. Also to recruit anti nazis in those areas.
>>423006
>cavalry
-1/10
>>422998
STRIKE FIRST, BABY. But really, though, I would just try to pre-emptively do whatever I could and maybe try to make a deal with mother bear.
>>423006
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7TP
Forget the French, secure a pact with Hitler, grant him the Danzig corridor and attack the USSR together. Compensate territorial loss with acquiring Soviet shit.
Mind you in the mid 30s the USSR was a retard level peasant shithole, not the behemoth it was in '42. Might as well be two different countries.
>>422998
manufacture millions of rifles and billions of rounds of ammo.
arm the whole male population.
teach them how to shoot.
basically the Hezbollah thing suggested earlier.
also focus on building fighters for the air-force.
>>422998
Keep being friends with Hitler
There's even a what if novel about Poland being an axis country
>>422998
I would have coerced Czechoslovakia to not give up their most defended regions.
Then, I would have attacked Germany whilst the Wehrmacht was getting hacked to pieces in the Sudetenland.
>>422998
>>423038
>STRIKE FIRST, BABY.
Not actually a terrible idea. Work with Czechoslovakia, buy whatever tanks Skoda pitches you, they actually had a good military. Poland's air force was decent for the 30s. Threaten to go to war to defend czechoslovakia when Hitler threatens the sudetenland in 1938. That should get Italy on your side (Mussolini disliked Nazi Germany), even if France and the UK pussy out. In 1938 Czechoslovakia and Poalnd combined should probably be enough to hold off the Germans.
>>423031
I forget how young some 4chaners are. Fuck im old
Start a massive military buildup and secure a treaty with Russia and let Poland become a Soviet satellite state.
Bail to the United States in 1938.
Join alliance with Hitler, waiting for his fall at Barbarossa and attack his rear, occupying Berlin, open the gate for Allied, then side with US attack the Soviet. . Become one of the permanent members of UN, Soviet BTFO
>>423116
Czechoslovakia's entire war doctrine was built around defending the fortifications in Sudetenland, it was almost as sophisticated as the Maginot line. They had neither the capacity nor strategy to wage an offensive war.
>>423125
>Czechoslovakia's entire war doctrine was built around defending the fortifications in Sudetenland
They had a thriving tank industry and a reasonably modern army, more than enough to defend themselves.
>They had neither the capacity nor strategy to wage an offensive war.
No need for an offensive war, as long as Hitler isn't allowed to expand, the economy won't hold together. He'll either have to listen to schacht and liberalize the economy or the whole thing will fall under him.
>>423116
>Mussolini disliked the nazi's
>So obviously he decided to work with them
Actually it's probably better he did. If Italy was on the side of the Allies, they would have lost
>>423147
DId you forget everything that happeend in the 30s between the USSR, Germany the Anglo-French alliance and Italy, or do you just know nothing about it? Mussolini was one of the first to condemn Hitler's first attempts at annexing Austria with Dolfuss' assassination and actually threatened military action, and tried to convince the UK and France to join against him. He only sided with the Germans after France and the UK sanctioned him over the invasion of Ethiopia in 1936.
>>423117
Its sure as hell better than facing germans in open combat on a battlefield!!
>>423143
>as long as Hitler isn't allowed to expand, the economy won't hold together
Well that's the thing, Hitler would've taken Czechoslovakia anyway if they actually bothered going to war over Sudetenland. The entire strategy wasn't based on defending themselves until Germans get exhausted and collapse, but on the premise that they will hold long enough until France mobilizes and strikes from the west. After Munich agreement, that plan became bullshit.
Also, Poland and Czechoslovakia were pretty much enemies due to the territorial disputes over Zaolzie, Orava and Spis. Poles hated them as much as they hated Germans if not even more.
>>423117
It's not age, it's just low intelligence. I mean look at his name, it's obvious he came here from /int/ which is retard central.
>>423125
>Well that's the thing, Hitler would've taken Czechoslovakia anyway if they actually bothered going to war over Sudetenland.
You overestimate the Germans and underestimate the French. In 1938 Czechoslovakia could put 44 divisions onto the field, with tanks that could rival the Germans and fairly modern equipment, and airfields that could accommodate the soviets (should they be willing to take part, as they did prior to munich). At this time Gamelin and the French military leadership were practically begging the civilian leadership and the UK to act in defense of Czechoslovakia (though his appraisal of the czechoslovakians were as overoptimistic as Chamberlain's were pessimistic). An outbreak of war would force France into direct conflict, and even if not Czechoslovakia could most likely hold.
>Also, Poland and Czechoslovakia were pretty much enemies due to the territorial disputes over Zaolzie, Orava and Spis. Poles hated them as much as they hated Germans if not even more.
Sure, but Soviets and Germans were hated each other, while Soviets and Poles hated each other as well, but they were more than capable of working together if the situation really demanded it. No matter who Poland worked with, it would be with somebody they hated anyway, whether they be Hitler or the Soviets.
>>423182
Also I should quote source:
>http://www.scribd.com/doc/94022481/Czechoslovakia-as-a-military-factor-in-British-considerations-of-1938
>>423182
>You overestimate the Germans and underestimate the French.
Not at all to the former. I estimate them correctly, Czechoslovak military leadership knew they would fold if Hitler decided to chimp out before late '39 / early '40 (which he did) when the fortifications were supposed to be finished. Austrian anschluss and Hungary buddying up with Germany was also a major game changer.
>>423213
>Czechoslovak military leadership knew they would fold if Hitler decided to chimp out before late '39 / early '40 (which he did) when the fortifications were supposed to be finished.
They did not, and argued quite the opposite, that by a fighting retreat into Moravia and Slovakia they could hold nearly indefinitely.
>Austrian anschluss and Hungary buddying up with Germany was also a major game changer.
Not sufficiently as far as Czech and French leadership was concerned. Had Czechoslovakia resisted France would have been more than willing to intervened. With Poland even simply as force in being, Germany would not be able overwhelm Czechoslovakia for at least several months at a time when Germany's military was generally ill-disposed towards a war in the first place.
>>423219
>into Slovakia
Why are you assuming the Germans wouldn't push into Slovakia too, from Austrian and Hungarian territories?
>>423226
Because Slovakia's terrain is very defensible. From the source I quoted in >>423199
>"In the summer of 1938, our army was, despite all its shortcomings I became very well aware of during the days of Munich, one of the best in Europe. Its morale, equipment, as demonstrated during the two mobilizations, in May and September 1938, were up to the standard." -Edvard Ben[spoiler]e[/spoiler]š, Czech President
>"The British Military Attache in Prague, Lt. Col. Stronge wrote in his summary note on the prospects of Czech defences, dated 6 October 1937, that...in the event of a German attack, the Czechs would resist teh enemy from the outset behind the fortifications and then withdraw by stages to the Moravian plateau since the countryside offered, as he put it, 'what must almost be a unique succession of natural rearguard positions right into Slovakia - still the last and least accessible stronghold'.48
>Shortly after the occupation of Austria Stronge met several Czech General Staff officers who...were, however, confident that with the aid of France and Russia, and possibly Britain, they would regain their land intact in the end.
>>422998
By making an alliance with Brits and France.
>>423239
>>423226
>Almost 350 [Czech tanks] were of the standard model 'LT 34' and 'LT 35', superior in guns and armour to any of the available German types 'Mk I' and 'Mk II'
>The supreme test for the reliability of the minority soldiers in Czechoslovakia's armed forces was the general mobilisation which was announced by radio in the night of 23 September 1938. Although there is no reliable statistical evidence, most of the observers were unanimous that as far as the Czechs were concerned the response to the call-up was spontaneous and enthusiastic.
>>[Gamelin] had no intention of sitting behind the Maginot line and waiting for a German offensive but wanted to advance immediately into Germany in view of the Germans only having eight divisions on their western frontier. >...Since the French and Czechoslovak armies were the only forces ready to fight, it was necessary not to let Czechoslovakia down and make her fight in isolation without assistance. Finally, Gamelin addressed an urgent appeal for direct British support on the Continent. Even a small contingent to start with, he inssited, would have a tremendous moral effect on the French Army.
>General Faucher, the Head of the French Military Mission in Czechoslovakia, shared Stronge's views, though he attributed an even greater power of resistance to the Czech fortifications.
Given, the poor relations between Czechoslovakia and Poland after 1934 and the rise of Nazi Germany ruined any hopes of an alliance. But it's 1933 and I'm the leader of Poland. I'm also apparently very close to a miltiary dictator if Piłsudski is any indication. I'll gladly hand over a few patches of Polish clay, citizens be damned, if it's what it takes to make friends with Czechoslovakia and preserve Poland's sovereignty.
>>423084
Have fun losing to the USSR then
>>423289
>I didn't read the last line
If I'm in charge of Poland in 1933, that's means I obviously have access to time travel. I use my time machine to acquire advanced future tech to fast-track Poland's industrial base to atomic-punk Fallout-style future levels. And you know what, fuck it, I'll go back in time and acquire some dinosaurs to clone because I want the Polish cavalry to ride raptors into glorious melee combat. Armed with missiles and energy weapons and unmanned drones and EMPs and WiFi and cell phones and shit, the Polish Technocracy will march out to meet the Third Cvck in honorable combat. We'll hammer the krauts with laser fire and cyborg punches, feed Hitler to a T-rex for the hell of it, liberate the Jews in the inadvertently racist belief that they can make us money, and then conquer the rest of the world through a combination of advanced warfare and rampant consumerism by making countries dependent on us for obvious bullshit like IT support, Internet coverage, and new iPads because fuck it, why not.
Those poor fucks won't know what hit them.
And fuck you OP for leaving such an obvious flaw in your thought experiment.
Pic related, an artist's rendition of my glorious leadership.
>>423336
tbf Germany was a lot weaker in the mid 1930s than they were in 1941 either. It'd still pretty much balance out.
>>423341
>that's means I obviously have access to time travel
No, a wizard inserted you there.
>>423341
reddit: the post
>>423341
>If I'm in charge of Poland in 1933, that's means I obviously have access to time travel.
You're making a huge assumption there. Just because you have accessed it once doesn't mean you will always have access to it or know how to access it. Hell, someone could have put you through the experience without you having any knowledge or choice in the matter; if they can fuck around with time they can force you into a time machine.
>>423376
Huzzah
>>422998
The same thing they actually did. They came out smelling like a rose with more territory and less Jews.
Maybe ally Hitler to put of the war, go more Switzerland than Switzerland
Give danzig like a little bitch in 1939
On second thought, that wouldn't help me either
But with that much prep time and knowledge of the future I'd probably let hitler be assassinated back then
>>423038
>STRIKE FIRST, BABY.
This is really the only practical solution to Poland’s situation, because during the run-up to WWII in the original timeline, Poland spared no expense for its military (25+% of the GDP was going to the military) but simply didn’t have the resources or economy to do more then it did.
And beginning in 1933, Piłsudski tried to get the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys and Perfidious Albion to join Poland in a preemptive invasion of Nazi Germany but the French were hung up on their experience in WWI and had gone full-defensive mode and the British were down right pro-German in their foreign policy and of course nothing came of it.
Short of Alien Space Bats magically providing Poland with advanced weaponry, there isn’t much the Poles can do beyond what they did in the original timeline; carry out a fight retreat to the Romanian Bridgehead and hope the French and British honor their agreement to invade Germany, and we all know how that worked out…
>>423162
Every Estonian i've met on the internet was a 12 year old retard who typed the exact same as you.
>>422998
Look for allies. Hungary will be an useful ally.
>>423147
>If Italy was on the side of the Allies, they would have lost
as opposed to how they won on the Axis side?
>>423341
cuck is unfiltered now
>>425594
You just want to fight like that because its relevant and glorified. I am doing whats effective with what I would have and you call me a 12 year old? Fine.
>>425798
It isn't.
See: cuck.
>>423108
Title?
>>422998
carry on doing what Poland did but sign that anti-Comintern pact
Accept the offer to form a military alliance with Germany, preferably not die before the deal is completed (like Pilsudski did in 35), return Danzig to German control, but maintain hold on the corridor (the Germans can build an autobahn directly to Danzig, build up my military for the inevitable war with the Soviet Union, and invest in tanks and anti-tank weaponry. Build a defensive lone stretching the length of my eastern and southern borders
>>425867
>returning a free city
>>425873
>Semi-autonomous
>Free city
Pick one
>>425860
not him but he probably means 'the ribbentrop-beck pact'
>>425885
if Poland ruled over it then why did they build a huge port city right next to it from a fishing village?
>>423006
>le "poles charged panzers with horses" meme
Three important things
1)In 19393, all armies of Europe had cavalries. If anything, Germany had more horses than any other European country
2)The Polish cavalry never charged tanks. Their lancers used anti-tank rifles and did a lot of damages with them
3)It's not easy to build an entire army of tank. Hitler barely did it, how could Poland have ?
>>425860
>Title?
While probably interesting and worth a read, (though I don’t believe it’s available in English) “Pakt Ribbentrop-Beck" disregards the fundamental nature of Hitler and the Nazis, who would never have accepted an independent Slavic Polish state within the Aryan Nazi German empire, especially if they ended up defeating the Soviets and containing the British.
>>422998
>How do you ensure the long-term survival of Poland?
Stay on Germany's good side and invade Russia the moment the Soviets get bogged down in Finland. If they offer a large chunk of clay in exchange for peace sometime starting around mid '41 into '42 then take it and use that as an excuse to begin distancing yourself from the Germans. Because if you're still allied with Germany once they have clearly lost the war then instead of getting spit-roasted between the Nazis and Soviets it'll be between the US and the Soviets.
Make no mistake, even with the Soviet union completely out of the picture there is still absolutely zero chance that the Axis wins the war or even successfully invades Britain.
>>425743
>Look for allies. Hungary will be an useful ally.
Except Hungary was looking to regain territory it had lost after WWI to Romania, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia and it wouldn't get that by allying with Poland against Germany.
>>425743
>Hungary
>the European nation least prepared for war (apart from maybe Romania) and which doesn't even share a land border with you
>>425858
cuck
>>426102
>probably interesting and worth a read
It's absolute bullcrap.
>>426192
baka desu senpai
>>426206
cuck is none of those baka desu senpai
>>426213
that's some real favoritism shit there, why does cuck get a pass?
in all honesty the Polish probably did as much as they could do, Secure alliances with Britain and France to come to their defense should they be attacked.
But when Poland did this, they expected a military campaign against them to last 2 months and at least have time to react, no one could've accounted for a 2 week campaign that obliterates Poland before any of their allies can even react to it.
Poland was doomed no matter what they did, but securing help from Britain and France to ensure that Poland will at least be a nation after the war. If not for Allied pressure from the agreements with Poland, it might as well have become a Soviet Social Republic instead of a Warsaw Pact satellite.
>>426224
i believe hiro is a fan of netorare
Secure an alliance with Czechs, Hungary and Romania, while maintaining close relations with French. Try to dissipate the tensions rising in the east, perhaps give Ukrainians and Byelorussians some autonomy. Pursue the idea of a Slavic confederation to destabilize the USSR, but don't take it too far and scare the Czechs. The moment Hitler tries to take the Sudetenland, strike along with Czechoslovakia and (if that's possible) France, claiming you are defending the Versailles Treaty. After Hitler's defeat, you are set up to be Europe's poster boy against the Soviet menace.
>>422998
Don't fucking trust the lying bastards that are the French and British
>>422998
literally nothing they could do once France and perfidious albion refused the preemptive strike idea.
>>426257
>If not for Allied pressure from the agreements with Poland, it might as well have become a Soviet Social Republic instead of a Warsaw Pact satellite.
Stalin's proposals for post-war Polish borders were consistently better for the Poles than anything the Brits or Americans proposed, mate.
>>426262
> Secure an alliance with Czechs, Hungary and Romania, while maintaining close relations with French.
France had no intention of saving Poland, most of her officer corp were fascists and had nothing but respect for Hitler and hoped to implement the same policies in France, plus WWI had convinced them that offensive operations wouldn’t work and defense was the best policy.
As I mentioned, Hungary wanted to regain lands lost to the Czechoslovaks and Romanians after WWI, which they’d only get by allying with Germany (despite maintaining their traditional friendship with Poland)
Right up until the panzers crossed their frontier, the Czechs maintained the delusion that they could avoid war by remaining neutral and there was also bad blood between them and the Poles over incidents during the Russian Revolution and Polish-Soviet War and they were openly pro-Soviet, to the point of purposely sticking it in Poland’s face (i.e. trying to sign a defense agreement with the U.S.S.R. where the Soviets would have to roll thru Poland to help the Czechs).
Romania was an ally of Poland (they were quite rightly scared of the Soviets) but this honestly wasn’t worth all that much, especially if the French and British hung Poland out to dry (as they did).
cont.
>>426393
> Try to dissipate the tensions rising in the east, perhaps give Ukrainians and Byelorussians some autonomy.
This will get Poland nothing, the Soviets had every intention of swallowing up Poland regardless of its relations with ethnic Ukrainians.
> Pursue the idea of a Slavic confederation to destabilize the USSR, but don't take it too far and scare the Czechs.
If anything, the Czechs would be up for this but any union with the U.S.S.R. could only result in total domination by the Soviets (as happened after the war).
> The moment Hitler tries to take the Sudetenland, strike along with Czechoslovakia and (if that's possible) France, claiming you are defending the Versailles Treaty. After Hitler's defeat, you are set up to be Europe's poster boy against the Soviet menace.
Good idea, except the French and British will fuck you over just as they fucked over the Czechoslovaks and Poles in the original timeline, both thought this could all be contained in Central / Eastern Europe and they could watch safely from the side-lines.
FIN
(is it possible to get the word count for /his/ increased from 2000 to 3000 per post, or at least 2500? This is a history board after all, not a shitposting meme board.)
I was playing online Risk once, it was country-based, I randomly drew Poland. There was an element of negotiation to it and I had to sit there and miserably watch Germany and Russia grow stronger as all I could do was build up some meager defense and try to diplomatically weasel my way out of dying off early.
It's 1933, and Germany has weak defenses. I'm not too terribly off. After Hitler takes power and a hostile party is clearly running Germany, I have some bargaining chips. I make a deal with the Soviets for some industrial help, maybe some manpower assistance in an alliance, as well as with anyone around who can help.
France and the UK were wary of the Nazis so it's also possible I can get them on my side. Anything helps.
After a favorable period and a strong build-up of troops and weaponry (including the integration of mechanized divisions), I strike first, deep, take some territory, and if resistance persists I topple Berlin and take out the Nazis.
This would require a lot of favorable fortunes as Poland is truly cursed.
>>426402
What I meant was to stir up an ethnic uprising in western USSR or just build support for Polish troops in eventual war. Generaly speaking, I believe that at the end of my scenario, Hitler is still in power, albeit much weaker and cooperating with western powers, while everyone prepares for war with Soviets.
>>422998
-Get assurance from Chamberlain that everything will be ok
-Disband military
-open boarders
-sit back, relax, enjoy decades of peace
use all of my governmental powers to get the jewish population safe refuge in Great Britain and North America
>>426691
>-Get assurance from Chamberlain that everything will be ok
>-Disband military
>-open boarders
>-sit back, relax, enjoy getting sent up the chimney after the Nazis finish off the Jews
>>426745
>not understanding basic jokes
>>423031
>let's fight the Germans as urban guerrillas
>>426393
>Right up until the panzers crossed their frontier, the Czechs maintained the delusion that they could avoid war by remaining neutral
They were quite ready to fight in 1938, which is what matters.
> and there was also bad blood between them and the Poles over incidents during the Russian Revolution and Polish-Soviet War and they were openly pro-Soviet, to the point of purposely sticking it in Poland’s face
Because Poland signed a nonagression pact with Hitler. In 1934. It's 1933. We can change that.
>Good idea, except the French and British will fuck you over just as they fucked over the Czechoslovaks and Poles in the original timeline, both thought this could all be contained in Central / Eastern Europe and they could watch safely from the side-lines.
The Brits fucked them over. See >>423279
>[Gamelin] had no intention of sitting behind the Maginot line and waiting for a German offensive but wanted to advance immediately into Germany in view of the Germans only having eight divisions on their western frontier.
>...Since the French and Czechoslovak armies were the only forces ready to fight, it was necessary not to let Czechoslovakia down and make her fight in isolation without assistance. Finally, Gamelin addressed an urgent appeal for direct British support on the Continent. Even a small contingent to start with, he insisted, would have a tremendous moral effect on the French Army.
The French were begging the Brits to let them go. If Poland joined in the war (having allied with them already since 1921) on Czechoslovakia's side in 1938 they would probably be willing to go at it even without the brits.
>>427487
> They were quite ready to fight in 1938, which is what matters.
Except they didn’t fight, which is what matters and prior to this, had refused any alliance with Poland and instead looked to the Soviets, which guaranteed both the Czechs and Poles would be fucked.
>>427487
> Because Poland signed a nonagression pact with Hitler. In 1934.
The Poland–Czechoslovakia war, also known mostly in Czech sources as the Seven-day war (Czech: Sedmidenní válka) was a military confrontation between Czechoslovakia and Poland over the territory of Cieszyn Silesia in 1919.
The Czechoslovak government in Prague requested that the Poles cease their preparations for elections to the Polish Sejm in the area that had been designated Polish in the interim agreement as no sovereign rule was to be executed in the disputed areas. The Polish government declined and Czechoslovak units attacked the Polish part of Cieszyn Silesia to prevent the elections in the contested territory.[1] The attack was halted under pressure from the Entente. The result of the war was the new demarcation line, which expanded the territory controlled by Czechoslovakia. It led to the division of the region of Cieszyn Silesia in July 1920, and left a substantial Polish minority in Czechoslovakia in the region later called Zaolzie.
Polish 5th Siberian Rifle Division.The Czechs were better equipped and strong enough to later fight their way through Kansk to Irkutsk where in conference with the Allies and the new Soviet they were allowed to withdraw without further destruction of the railway (17 February 1920). However the Polish Legion had no choice but to negotiate with the Red Army and asked to be allowed to return to Poland through Russia, but the Bolsheviks demanded that they surrender. The Poles were interned at the Viona Gorodock P.O.W camp at Krasnoyarsk, where many subsequently died in the typhus epidemic that was devastating Siberia at that time. The Soviet authorities put them to work clearing the railway yards of refuse. Others were marched off to perish in forced labour in the mines.[2] Those that survived were later repatriated under the terms of the Treaty of Riga in March 1921.
>>427487
> The Brits fucked them over.
> The French were begging the Brits to let them go.
When war was declared in 1939, Gamelin was France's commander in chief. France saw little action during the Phoney War, apart from a few French divisions crossing the German border in the Saar Offensive, who travelled a mere 8km (5.0mi).
They stopped even before reaching Germany's unfinished Siegfried Line. According to General Siegfried Westphal, a German staff officer on the Western Front, if France had attacked in September 1939 German forces could not have held out for more than one or two weeks. Gamelin ordered his troops back behind the Maginot Line, but only after telling France's ally, Poland, that France had broken the Siegfried Line and that help was on its way. Gamelin's long-term strategy was to wait until France had fully rearmed and for the British and French armies to build up their forces, even though this would mean waiting until 1941. He prohibited any bombing of the industrial areas of the Ruhr, in case the Germans retaliated.
Gamelin's vision for France's defence was based upon a static defense along the Franco-German border, which was reinforced by the Maginot Line.
Adopt communism.
>>428626
>Except they didn’t fight, which is what matters
It doesn't, because the circumstances in 1938 would be different in this situation.
>>428628
>
The Poland–Czechoslovakia war, also known mostly in Czech sources as the Seven-day war (Czech: Sedmidenní válka) was a military confrontation between Czechoslovakia and Poland over the territory of Cieszyn Silesia in 1919.
From >>423199
>>In a secret memorandum prepared in 1933 the Czech General Staff stated explicitly: 'It is our fundamental demand that from the first day of the war, all states of Central Europe, which Germany with her allies could finish off individually one after another, should politically and strategically DEFEND THEMSELVES JOINTLY' (emphasis in the original).34" The authors were drafting the memorandum with Poland on their minds in the first place.
>>The fronts between Prague and Warsaw polarized after Hitler's seizure of power in Germany, when the two governments decided to settle their strategies single-handed. Thus, the Polish-American Non-Aggression Treaty of January 1934 was seen in Prague as an anti-Czech conspiracy, 36 and the Soviet-Czechoslovak Treaty of May 1935 must have been inevitably regarded in Warsaw as part of a sinister anti-Polish design. From then onwards Czech-Polish relations deteriorated with irresistable logic.
Czechoslovakian and Polish intelligence continued cooperation until 1936.
>The Poland–Czechoslovakia war, also known mostly in Czech sources as the Seven-day war (Czech: Sedmidenní válka) was a military confrontation between Czechoslovakia and Poland over the territory of Cieszyn Silesia in 1919.
Wow, it's almost as if, being the ruler of Poland, I would be able to resolve this whole issue by ceding that territory to Czechoslovakia, given that the Polish already had de facto control of the area.
cont'd.
>>428630
>When war was declared in 1939, Gamelin was France's commander in chief. France saw little action during the Phoney War, apart from a few French divisions crossing the German border in the Saar Offensive, who travelled a mere 8km (5.0mi).
1938 and 1939 are two completely different situations. In 1939-1940 French intelligence gave incorrect estimates, stating that there were 90 German Divisions no the Western Front alone (source: http://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/977623/1/Parker_MA_F2013.pdf). In 1938 Gamelin and the French High Command correct assessed that the Germans only had nine divisions on the western front (source is the same as my quotes in >>428753).
>all that crap about the siegfried line
Again, French and British intelligence had badly overestimated the strength of German divisions in 1939. In 1938 the British had underestimated the strength of the Czechs (predicting the ability to muster only 22 divisions at best--in 1938 the Czechs quickly mustered double that number).
COnt'd.
>>428717
Yes, but firstly the Polish white reaction will have you assassinated, for being a communist, restoring the initial problem set.
And if you survive long enough Stalin will have you purged, much like the heros of Spain, for being a communist.
>>428630
>Gamelin's vision for France's defence was based upon a static defense along the Franco-German border, which was reinforced by the Maginot Line.
More evidence you have no clue what you're talking about. The Maginot line was designed with the explicit intention of allowing France's poorly-trained 1-year conscripts to defend a large stretch of territory and free up the standing army to engage in offensive operations and war of maneuver in the most obvious area where the Germans would invade, Belgium. From
>Yet neither Weygand nor Gamelin aspired to hide the French army in a troglodyte world deep beneath the concrete and steel of the Maginot Line. Neither was so out of touch as to think that even security of a defensive kind was
to be achieved by a wholly defensive arming and training of their troops. ‘Gamelin was,’ in the assessment of Paul-Marie de La Gorce, ‘undoubtedly one of the French generals most favourably disposed to the offensive organization of the army through the use of mechanical power.’57
Source: http://en.booksee.org/book/1179868 (the link is free to download.)
Trying to draw a parallel between a situation where Gamelin had in fact overestimated the strength of the Czechoslovakian military (he believed there were over 50 divisions) and a situation where Gamelin had overestimated the strength of the Germans is disingenuous, and your characterization of French doctrine is inherently incorrect.
>>428753
>I would be able to resolve this whole issue by ceding that territory to Czechoslovakia, given that the Polish already had de facto control of the area.
not in 1933...
>>428811
>not in 1933...
My mistake, given that the CZECHS already had de facto control of the area. I would be displacing no polish civilians and moving no divisions signing away a piece of property that wasn't under Polish control.
People going on about joining up with the Czechs - would France and Britain have looked favorably on such a development?
They were ready to throw Czechoslovakia under the bus if it had acted militarily during the Munich crisis.
>>428825
>People going on about joining up with the Czechs - would France and Britain have looked favorably on such a development?
France would have loved it, being allies with both.
>They were ready to throw Czechoslovakia under the bus if it had acted militarily during the Munich crisis.
For the last time in the thread, "They" weren't. Britain was, because British intelligence gave a poor assessment of the Czech's total strength (they underestimated their divisional strength by about half) and their attache did not arrive in time to report. The French under Gamelin were ready to go because they were (correctly) aware that only nine German divisions were on the Western Front, and also because Gamelin had overestimated the strength of the Czechs. See
>>423279
and its quoted post for citation.
Ultimately the British rejected France's request, even as Gamelin argued
>Even a small contingent to start with, he inssited, would have a tremendous moral effect on the French Army.
If the entirety of the nation of Poland stood by Czechoslovakia I doubt the French would have stood by.
>>428825
More quotes (sorry, I've been forgetting to include the page)
>Gamelin said that the Czechs could mobilise about 54 divisions - obviously too optimistic a forecast (p. 199)
>When questioned, the French general reiterated his opinion that the Czech army was a good one, had a good personnel and efficient command, and an excellent morale considering it was an army of people fighting for their lives. (p. 199)
>Furthermore, he attached immense importance to the attitude of Poland and her possible advance into Silesia - hardly ever considered by the British as a serious military option. Even Polish neutrality, he maintained, would be a very definite asset. (200)
The fact that even in actual history Gamelin put a great deal of importance on Poland's belligerence further supports my assertion that a public decision by the Polish to unequivocally stand beside the Czechs would have further strengthened the French resolve to involve itself in the war and potentially involve the Soviet Union, above any of the complaints of the Polish Public.
>>428832
>The French under Gamelin were ready to go because they were (correctly) aware that only nine German divisions were on the Western Front, and also because Gamelin had overestimated the strength of the Czechs. See
But Georges Bonnet himself explicitly told the Czechs that France would not go to war over the Czechoslovak border regions. And Daladier, despite his misgivings, ultimately agreed with the British on a plan of non-action.
>>428846
>But Georges Bonnet himself explicitly told the Czechs that France would not go to war over the Czechoslovak border regions. And Daladier, despite his misgivings, ultimately agreed with the British on a plan of non-action.
See >>428844 for the impact of Poland's views on the subject. As a French military ally, a Polish stand would put a lot of pressure on the French. Even with horribly overpessimistic intelligence reports on German might, France still went to war when Poland was threatened in 1939. Why would it not if both its allies in the region stood together against an old enemy?
>>428846
Moreover, it's also equally questionable whether French support would even be necessary for a purely defensive action if Poland and Czechoslovakia both fought. Even if the Polish land forces stood on the German border and did literally nothing, Germany would have to divert a significant portion of its military to counter the possibility of a Polish offensive. While Germany's tank advantage sees huge, these were all panzer Is and IIs in 1938, inferior both in arms and armament to Czech tanks of the time, and inferior in firepower to Poland's 7TP. Combined with Czechoslovakia's partially-finished modern fortifications (German's few attacks against the Maginot Line failed miserably, breakthrough came through the destruction of its mobile force in Belgium and the Ardennes), it's questionable whether Germany would even attempt an attack in the first place, even without French involvement.
>>428862
For the record, compared to >>428770
Poland had roughly 30 divisions in the Russo-Polish War of 1920, so it could field at least that much and at most 39 divisions, as it fielded in 1939, along with roughly 300 planes, though many were nearing obsolescence. In 1939 it fielded 226 "modern" tanks (the 7TP modification of the British Vickers 6-ton, Vickers 6-tons, and French R35 and H35 tanks, all armed with 37mm guns), 574 tankettes, 102 Renault FTs (World War I relics) and 100 armored cars. However, even tankettes could easily compare with the Panzer I and II, which were armed with machine guns or 20mm guns. Assuming an alliance with Czechoslovakia was present, it would likely be in possession of the Skoda LT-35, better known in German use as the Panzer 35(t). With up to 35mm armor on the front (more than the 30mm on the Panzer III and IV present in small numbers in 1939), it was tougher, better-armed and just as fast as the Panzer I and IIs.
>>428862
just wanted to chime just how much partial were the CZ fortifications
basically no part of the line of heavy forts in the western and southern part of the country was ready
it would have been infantry pillboxes and the like - and even those were only like 2/3 complete - not something comparable to the maginot line
>>422998
Invade Russia.
>>428879
>just wanted to chime just how much partial were the CZ fortifications
The Siegfried line was still capable of deterring the French in 1939 and was in an even more embryonic stage of completion.
>not something comparable to the maginot line
From the same old source:
>One week thereafter Stronge, with the permission of the Czech military authorities inspected the entire northern sector. He gained the impression that the frontier defences cwould be completed by the autumn...He was impressed by the architectural arrangements, grouping of weapons, good tactical siting and regarded the whole system as an improved Maginot Line.
>it would have been infantry pillboxes and the like - and even those were only like 2/3 complete - not something comparable to the maginot line
The northern part was significantly better defended and constructed, however.
>With regard to the weakest sector on the Austrian frontier, Stronge reflected that 'most of the works which are not yet complete are already defensible up to a point by bringing in weapons and every month henceforth will see marked progress in this respect...' (p. 206)
>>428900
well that might be stronges opinion but the numbers dont lie - only 250 of 1300 heavy forts built, majority of them between odra and labe rivers (the north-east part of the czech republic) - and more importantly only four individual areas of these were ready and equipped, not a continuous line -, 10k out of 15k pillboxes with no AT capabilities built - but not all of them finished or equipped, 0 (zero) heavy gun forts ready, no anti aircraft capabilities
to imagine the sheer scale of just the construction works necessary, these were supposed to continue well into the 40s, and that is just the building part, not equipping and arming
light blue - heavy forts
green dots - less durable and poorly constructed mk 36 mg pillboxes
black dots - mk 37 mg pillboxes, better than the above
>>428943
>well that might be stronges opinion
As a military attache I would argue that he is way more qualified to assess the nature of the fortifications than you are.
>10k out of 15k pillboxes with no AT capabilities built
you're overestimating the tanks of 1938. A Panzer I is basically a thinly-armored pillbox with a machine gun. Hell, with 13mm of armor at its strongest it could probably be penetrated by heavy machine guns to begin with.
>these were supposed to continue well into the 40s
The Czechs had been rushing them for years, they were predicted to be finished within a year.
>>428958
he is certainly more qualified than me but the entirety of the czechoslovak general staff and historians do not seem to agree with him
>they were predicted to be finished within a year.
just... no... just the first phase (of FOUR) was to be ready in winter of 41-42 at the earliest, with number 4 only ready in 1951 (!!!)
>>428958
>The Czechs had been rushing them for years
you also do not seem to realize that the vast majority of the fortification constrution works have only begun in 1938, after several versions of the defense plans were evaluated and scrapped and a much toned down version only agreed on in late nov 37
>>428966
>>428981
>just... no... just the first phase (of FOUR) was to be ready in winter of 41-42 at the earliest, with number 4 only ready in 1951 (!!!)
>The Czechs had been rushing them for years
And yet the Wehrmacht, the force planning to attack those lines, had a much more grim vision of the lines.
>The Czechs had originally planned to complete their fortifications in 1942, but Hitler's aggressive intentions forced them to cut down on the schedule, as if they were building, according to the judgement by a German expert Col. Biermann, 'a retaining dam before an oncoming flood'. Given another 12 months, however, the fortifications could have been 100 per cent ready, and in that case 'the Czech soldiers would never have abandoned their line of fortifications without fighting...even if their allies had not at once come to their assistance.' 57 (p.206)
Either way, however, the Siegfried line was just as, if not more unfinished in 1939 and was still sufficient in deterring a French offensive.
>>428989
>Given another 12 months, however, the fortifications could have been 100 per cent ready
where does he get these ideas when it was the czech side itself that utterly contradicts him? unless by 100 per cent ready he means that the army would have made use of whatever fortifications had been built at the point, which is fairly obvious, but still only about a quarter of the heavy forts and two thirds of the pillbox lines
(not to mention the fact that even then he assumes the germans wait for a full year and leave the border defences unmolested and let czechoslovakia keep building them)
>Either way, however, the Siegfried line was just as, if not more unfinished in 1939 and was still sufficient in deterring a French offensive.
but was it solely the line which deterred the french offensive, or was it allied planning which was all based on funnelling the germans north of the maginot line and meeting them in circumstances of the allies choosing?
>>429021
>where does he get these ideas when it was the czech side itself that utterly contradicts him?
Probably the same way the French and British attaches assessed it.
>unless by 100 per cent ready he means that the army would have made use of whatever fortifications had been built at the point, which is fairly obvious
which would also be more than sufficient
>(not to mention the fact that even then he assumes the germans wait for a full year and leave the border defences unmolested and let czechoslovakia keep building them)
Again, it's questionable whether the Germans would be willing to attack in 1938 in the first place if Poland was also committed to joining the war with its 39 divisions, air force and armor, given that the Soviet Union and France were both hostile towards him at the time.
>but was it solely the line which deterred the french offensive, or was it allied planning which was all based on funnelling the germans north of the maginot line and meeting them in circumstances of the allies choosing?
you're right, part of it was also French overestimation of German forces available. But I would not say that the fortifications as they were remained utterly useless either, nor that Czechoslovakia would not be able to hold in the absence of France if Poland was also committed.
>>429039
>Probably the same way the French and British attaches assessed it.
i find it unlikely the attaches would have thought the entire fortifications project could be completed "in 12 months" seeing as it was planned for _14 YEARS_, i suspect there is some sort of a shortcut or misunderstanding going on in that work, like perhaps meaning that the half of the planned forts that was built at that point would have been battle ready after those twelve months - but obviously not the entire defense plan
>which would also be more than sufficient
i dont have a time machine so i cant really properly venture into the what would have been sufficient territory, but remember the state of the forts at the time - >>428957 - those are like three quarters of the relevant borders protected by variously thick or thin or deep lines of light mg pillboxes - that is not the big, interconnected forts with guns, designed to withstand artillery barrages, i have a hard time imagining the german army not effecting a breakthrough at some point, especially with their air superiority, most probably the southern plain
i also cant really imagine what a joint polish/czech involvement would be like, the above points about the forts apply to the real timeline - though to be fair i dont see how an alternate history as described itt would change these things, that the forts werent finished, some of those that were werent equipped, and they had their shortcomings
>>422998
1. make alliance with strong European powers without claim on Polish clay
2. build arms industry and army like crazy
you know, the stuff Poland actually did
just for reference this is what a mk 37 bunker looked like - these were individual bunkers (as in not connected by tunnels or anything) manned by a handful of men - about two to six - and sporting one or two machineguns, and its basic model was designed to withstand 105mm artillery, with fortified models capable of resisting 155mm - but these being rarer
This board ought to be renamed /rev/ for Revisionist History…
> The Czechs were raring for a fight with Germany!
The Czechs don’t even fire a shot, immediately laid down their arms and none of their troops evacuated into Poland.
> The Czechs totally wanted an alliance with Poland!
No steps were taken to do so, instead the Czechs spend the inter-war period sucking Stalin’s cock and flipping-off Poland.
> The French were ready to conquer Germany!
Entire French post-WWI strategy is based on defensive operations.
> Gamelin was a hard-charging cowboy!
Advances 5 miles then promptly turns around and goes back home.
>>429132
>The Czechs don’t even fire a shot, immediately laid down their arms and none of their troops evacuated into Poland.
In fall 1938, after Munich and it had been clear France and Great Britain were not going to assist
> The Czechs totally wanted an alliance with Poland!
Nobody said that. What IS sourced and proven since 1978 (See the original article) was that the Czechs considered the possibility of allying with Poland, and that the differences between Czechoslovakia and Poland could be resolved if someone with knowledge of the events leading up to and following second world war was the leader of Poland in 1933, as OP stated.
>Entire French post-WWI strategy is based on defensive operations.
see >>428770 and >>428789
I've listed my sources, all are cited and the papers are peer-reviewed. Consider reading them (they're all freely available) before spouting whatever myths you misremember from high school.
>>429132
>Entire French post-WWI strategy is based on defensive operations.
Which would be why the French Army and BEF were defeated in Belgium, right?
>>429153
i think their strategy can easily be described as a defensive one
remember a defensive strategy is not literally "staying and waiting", it includes attacks and counterattacks
an offensive plan would see them take the fight to germany - but their plan was for germany to take the fight to them and work from there
>>429132
>The Czechs don’t even fire a shot, immediately laid down their arms and none of their troops evacuated into Poland.
but this is literally untrue
there was some fighting (extremely isolated incidents but sitll) but more importantly thousands of troops have left the country, a large number of them evacuated exactly to poland, including the majority of pilots who would go on to form the expat raf squadrons
>>422998
Just give the krauts Danzig
they won't attack then r-right?
>>429210
I agree, appeasing them will definitely work as evidenced in Austria and then Bohemia!
>>423084
>grant him the Danzig corridor
Which is the heartland of the 1000 year Kingdom of Poland.
>and attack the USSR together
To conquer land full of foreigners who don't like the Polish so you end up being sandwiched between German lands. How about that corridor? You can't expect Germans to take the long way around Poland...
Retarded plan.
One reason why Poland refused to deal with Germany was because the Germans were in the habit of just breaking promises and agreements the second they had nothing more to gain by keeping them.
>arguments from hindsight
wew lads...
>le strike the germans first yam yam
Gee, being the aggressor couldn't go wrong, right? Just ask the Germans.
Not to mention, given the nature of the Polish-Soviet war earlier on, Stalin might use the circumstances to attack Eastern Europe.
>allying with Stalin against Hitler
You might as well bend over and spread 'em for the incoming Red Army. The outcome would be the same as what occurred towards the end of WW2.
>I'll double cross Stalin by later siding with the West
Anybody who thinks they can side with the US after being a commie faggot also ought to get their head checked, because only Churchill argued for a second war against the Soviets after WW2... FDR practically was an appeaser to Stalin's demands at the Yalta conferences, including throwing Poland under the bus. The British were also marginalized by American decisions towards the end of the war.
Danzig was also not Poland's to mess around with, it was technically under the care of the League of Nations, which Poland also (like Germany) subverted for its own interests.
Poland should have joined the Anti-Comintern Pact, so even if it 'lost Danzig' it could be compensated with Lvov and other areas in the East, and if the Germans won against the Soviets, they'd be in a good position to diplomatically effect the outcome with the support of the Western Allies, a far better position than being swarmed over by the Red Khaganate.
>inb4 muh sovereignity
You're going to lose it anyway if you continue to be obstinate retards, you would have had a better chance in this scenario.
>inb4 muh treaty obligations
This excuse has run its course, Poland also was a greedy land grabber at this point in history, ask the Czechs, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, etc.. they were far from innocent when they occupied Vilnius, Zaolzie, or Western Ukraine.
>its okay when we do it / not when you do it
>>429251
>a thread about changing things in 1933, being posted in 2015
>WOW WHY ARE YOU GUYS ARGUING FROM HINDSIGHT
Are you retarded?
>Gee, being the aggressor couldn't go wrong, right? Just ask the Germans.
I think "strike the Germans first" in this case appears to indicate any kind of war against Germany before 1939. Most people seem to be arguing that publically allying with Czechoslovakia in February 1938 would either force Hitler to declare war on Poland as well, or not to declare war at all.
>Stalin might use the circumstances to attack Eastern Europe.
Stalin at the time was much more worried about Hitler than about Poles.
>>429187
> their plan was for germany to take the fight to them and work from there
Exactly, the French post-WWI strategy and expectation was for the Germans to repeatedly bang their heads against the Maginot Line, allowing French mech/mobile units to form up and outflank them, defeating the German forces in the field.
But there was no French plan to invade and conquer Germany and take them out of the fight, the goal was always for the Germans to bleed themselves out against French fixed defenses along the border until they gave up, at which point some kinda political agreement would be made ending the war.
And that’s exactly how the French behaved in Sept.1939 but unfortunately for them, the Germans weren’t going to play that game in May 1940 and meanwhile, half of Europe was handed over to the Nazis and Soviets.
>>429251
>Poland should have joined the Anti-Comintern Pact
Better Red then Dead.
The Soviets wanted to incorporate a puppet Poland into their empire but at least the Poles would still be alive, (most of them) as we saw happen in the original timeline. The Nazis on the other hand, intended to literally exterminate the Poles and repopulate the lands with ethnic Germans.
There is no possibility of a Polish-Nazi alliance that doesn’t end up with the extinction of the Poles. The fundamental philosophy of Lebensraum was the elimination of the native Polish population (as well as Ukrainians, Russians, etc.) and its replacement with Germans.
>>430762
>Exactly, the French post-WWI strategy and expectation was for the Germans to repeatedly bang their heads against the Maginot Line,
No.
>>426297
Pollack /pol/lacks are the worst.
Maybe after Germans.
>hitler hates slavs and sees them as second most inferior ethnic group
>lel guys lets ally with germany and attack dem bad soviets together
/his/ confirmed for being full of americans with no knowledge of european history
>>429251
this is a silly post
>>430762
>Exactly, the French post-WWI strategy and expectation was for the Germans to repeatedly bang their heads against the Maginot Line
No, it really wasn't. You could argue that the war of maneuver in Belgium was defensive in intention, perhaps, but nobody expected the Nazis to throw themselves against the Maginot in any real sense.
The Maginot line in the first place was a crystallization of the French High Command's distrust in its one-year-conscripts (the one-year conscription period was established in 1928; the French high command had argued for at least three years), and intended to allow citizen-soldiers in which the French had no faith to hold territory so that the "true" military, the Standing Army, could defeat the Germans in mobile warfare.
>>431121
Hitler hated slavs, but he wasn't a complete idiot either. He was willing to let Romania and Hungary exist so long as they served him. It's still a fucking stupid idea to ally with a guy known for not listening to treaties, but at a time when Nazi Germany had few friends it's unlikely Germany would have stabbed Poland in the back until its borders were secure.
>>422998
>the long-term survival of Poland?
Impossible, Poles managed to defeat Soviet Russia in 1920, maybe it could be possible to stop the 3rd Reich, but Germans+Soviets? Never.
>>432245
>Romania
>Hungary
>slavs
Way to prove his point.
What would happen if you armed your whole population to the teeth?
>>423006
Poland had more and better tanks than Germans did in 1939, as did France and Czechia.
The Germans just knew how to use theirs better.
>>423031
Poles engaged in one of the most widespread guerilla campaigns of WW2 from day 1. The German soldiers were paranoid as fuck from early on, believing that Poles would shoot them from all windows and nooks when they occupied the country. The home army had 400 000 soldiers in 1943. Poles were fourth largest allied army in Europe, in front of France and Italians (who made up around 300 000 to 350 000 in the dying days of the war).
There's a reason why 20%
![Dumping+_9d91240771321e1c808fc9264a004c75[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/KeUu79G.jpg "Dumping+_9d91240771321e1c808fc9264a004c75[1].jpg")
>>422998
You don't.
>>423147
In 1934, Italy send an ultimatum to Germany in regards to the Austrian question. Would Vienna be annexed, Italian army would invade then unprepared Germany.
Only after diplomatic castration following invasion of Ethiopia was Italy pushed to Germany's lap.
>>428781
A worthy sacrifice if Poland survives and stays shitty,because nobody wants a powerful Poland.
>>422998
move the entirety of poland to south america and set up shop there
>>434165
actually, there were attempts at coloniing there.
>>433993
>Poland had more and better tanks than Germans did in 1939
No, in Sept.1939 Poland had approximately;
450 - TK/TKS tankettes
160 - 7TP / Vickers E type
55 - French FT-17
50 - Renault R35
90 - armored cars
Meanwhile the Germans had;
1493 - Panzer I
1247 - Panzer II
369 - Czech 35/38
277 - PzKpfw III
256 - Panzer IV
232 - half-tracks
1210 - armored cars
>>435457
Can I get a source for the number of tanks and other vehicles Germany had in 1939?
>>436295
"Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two"
Chamberlain, Doyle, Jentz - 1978
>>422998
Build nukes.
>Be the north korea of europe.
Party like it's 1933
>>422998
Simple, agree to the Soviet proposal to station troops to station its army on the border to check any chance of a German invasion.
