If the SU hadn't invaded alongside and the Poles had sufficient forewarning, how differently would the ensuing conflict had gone?
>>949592
Not gonna lie, dude. This is a retarded question. Germany was a war economy, and was preparing for war; no matter the cost. Poland would still get buttfucked, End of discussion.
>>949607
Which is why it took them over a month.
Also note that I specified that the Poles could get fully mobilised and it wasn't a surprise. Considering Germany lost 25% of it's initial attack force in the first few days...
the Heer was hella overrated, you can't disagree with that.
>>949607
People tend to brush over the war in Poland but there was significant resistance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_M%C5%82awa
>>949592
Afaik Poland had virtually no air force so that's a factor. I guess they would have switched to gorilla warfare pretty early. Poland is quite big and you got woods and swamps and stuff.
>abbreviating USSR as "SU"
This triggers me
>>949592
Poland would still be crushed, remember the USSR only invaded on the 17th, about 2 weeks after the Germans had attacked. By that point, all 5 of the armies Poland arrayed against Germany were heavily mauled, and the Germans were starting their investiture of Warsaw.
About the biggest thing the Soviets robbed the Poles of was a chance to intern a lot of their forces in then neutral Romania, and hoping to use them to rebuild some kind of polish resistance or army in exile under the British.
>>949592
Poland still gets ROFLstomped, just slower
Germany loses more men but gains more lands, gets that much closer to Moscow
The eastern front would go a little differently, but it's impossible to say how exactly. Considering the biggest issue for Germany was getting to Moscow, not being outnumbered (which they were anyway), I'd say it would have slightly helped the Germans.
The real aspect of escalation was biritsh carte blanche support for the Poles which influenced how they chose to respond since there was no good faith to deescalate on their behalf.
>>949787
Wouldn't the German advance die down rather quickly as they lacked the large quantities of oil and such they had received form the Soviet Union as a part of the pact?
>>949849
I was assuming the pact was still in effect and that the USSR simply didn't invade Poland.
>>949855
I understand, though that do put the whole scenario at its head. One of the reasons Stalin signed the pact with Hitler was that he was afraid of Hitlers expansion and wanted to safeguard land for himself, why would he let Hitler come so close to Moscow as he would in this scenario?
>>949592
Well, Germany would have lost more men. The pols did put up some defense, but it generally didn't go well.
The USSR only took Poland so there would be a buffer zone between the Nazis and Moscow. They also made sure Romania would become part of them, so the Pols would not be able to retaliate by staying in Romania.
So if the USSR had not fought, the Pols would still have lost all of Poland, but they would have been able to escape to Romania, where they might have been able to put up a backup army.
Overall, things wouldn't be much different. Germany would still have gotten it's butt kicked after sinking that American cruiser.
Now a question really worth asking is what would have happened if Germany had not sank that American Cruiser, and America had NOT joined the war. The first thing I can think of at the top of my head would be the American economy. It would not have been as strong as it was when it joined the war.
>>949881
Sure, it's a ridiculous scenario. The USSR was always going to buttfuck poland. I'm just saying if SOMEHOW it had transpired that way, that would be my guess as to the result.
>>949895
without America in it to win it, Germany get pushed back to somewhere in Poland by the Russkies two or three years after 1945, the front stabilizes, and peace is reached. Britain and Germany remain at war for another few years until one or the other nukes the other one and then some kind of peace is reached there. Germany deals with growing rebellions in France, Poland, Norway, and Southern Europe for the next two decades at least and ends up losing to a resurgent USSR sometime in the 1980s in a small-scale nuclear conflict. Fin.
>>949925
>Germany deals with growing rebellions in France, Poland, Norway, and Southern Europe for the next two decades at least and ends up losing to a resurgent USSR sometime in the 1980s in a small-scale nuclear conflict. Fin.
Couple points. If Germany would get it's act together, it would make the economy boom. It would not make sense for Russia to go and try to get Northern and Central Europe. They do not offer the seas. Russia has frozen waters, they need warm waters. Why do you think they went into Afghanistan? And if Germany increases the economy, there would be no reason for the rest of Europe to fight back.
As for Britain, remember that Germany was bombing LONDON!!! If they had managed to reach London, I think Britain would have either surrendered, or been taken over. I think surrendering would be a more likely scenario.
>>949592
>If the SU hadn't invaded alongside and the Poles had sufficient forewarning, how differently would the ensuing conflict had gone?
Not all that much different.
The Poles were outnumbered and outgunned in every conceivable category while being outflanked on three sides and at best, they could have held onto the Romanian Bridgehead for a couple of weeks longer into mid-October, only to be pounded by German air and artillery attacks until it too collapsed, as the French and British had no intention of actually honoring their pact with Poland and invading Germany.
>>949624
>Considering Germany lost 25% of it's initial attack force in the first few days...
the Heer was hella overrated, you can't disagree with that.
Going to need a source for that, but even so, that's hardly surprising in an offensive war with an untested army. Any army's going to take a few knocks on its first time out as their doctrine gets tested on the actual battlefield.
>>950051
I would also be curious as to how much of that was operational losses vs irrevocable losses. It's one thing if 25% of your tanks are knocked out, but if 4/5 of them will be back up and running with some time in the repair shops, it's another thing entirely.
>>949971
I have some rejoinders for you to think on:
a booming economy does not eliminate nationalistic resistance, especially when the conqueror has a nasty habit of executing large numbers of your neighbors for politics and race.
the USSR embarked on a campaign to communize the world after WWII. Why would it not do this if Germany owned Europe? Arguably it would feel even more compelled to do so!
Germany was bombing london? so what, that didn't stop the germans though they were heavily bombed all through the later stages of the war. Britain would have determinedly resisted German efforts to defeat it for years. They might have even managed to hold on to the Suez. Germany's immense submarine gambit wasn't going to be a war winner in the long run, due to British advances in convoy tactics and antisubmarine warfare technologies, and operation sea lion would have been an immense failure.
>>950122
>executing large numbers of your neighbors for politics and race.
>the USSR embarked on a campaign to communize the world after WWII.
Germans only killed did genocide against the Jews. It was Stalin who killed millions, no matter who they were. That being said, you are right that a good GDP does not kill all resistance. However, a good GDP means that Germany might have been able to control those resistances.
The USSR only embarked on the campaign when Germany had surrendered, and Europe was in a big mess. If Europe was united under Germany, it would not have been in such a big mess. Again, with the good GDP, Germany would also have been able to defend itself. And besides, the USSR only really wanted warm waters. That basically means Ukraine and Greece. If Germany would be able to reach a deal where they surrender those lands, I don't think the USSR would fight them.
>Germany was bombing london?
>so what, that didn't stop the germans though they were heavily bombed all through the later stages of the war.
The more I think about it, I think you are right. I think Britain would have likely just reached a deal with Germany. Remember, if Germany controlled most of Europe, it would have been able to spend money on more than just submarines.
>>949592
Jodl said that if France helped Poland in 1939 the war would be over.
Poland was outnumbered, outgunned and outtechd.
Germans also killed captives, brutally murdered civilians and targeted the country's elites since day one. They would lose anyway.
They still did better than France though lol.
>>950363
Also. Poland and Poles need to bend their head because of British propaganda at the end of the WW2.
Poland was sold to Eastern block and despite their efforts and fights at every possible front of WW2, their contribution was hidden and removed by British, American and French media/gov.
Instead of learning about Polish resistance which was a real resistance even after WW2, we learn about French """""resistance""""
Which is laughable.
Poland is the most underrated country in the Europe. It was always this way.
>>950363
>>950375
Also, Germans after humiliation they felt at Battle of Mokra started a propaganda about "Dumb fucking Polacken attacking tanks with horses" meme and the world gulped it.
t. Polishboo
>>950363
>They still did better than France though lol.
Anybody did better than France. When the Germans neared Paris, the French surrendered because they thought the Germans would destroy their "beautiful" Paris.
>>949787
>not being outnumbered (which they were anyway),
The Soviets were the ones outnumbered during Barbarossa.
>>949592
It's sad that nation that just regained the independence by fighting off the Bolshevik hordes and has an actual future and good prognosis gets thrown under another hell in no time.
>>949666
> About the biggest thing the Soviets robbed the Poles of was a chance to intern a lot of their forces in then neutral Romania,
AFAIK Soviets didn't stop Poles from retreating to Romania.
> and hoping to use them to rebuild some kind of polish resistance or army in exile under the British.
Except, Polish army in exile got rebuilt. That simply happened in USSR, not in pro-Nazi Romania.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders'_Army
Those guys went from Soviets to Brits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berling_Army
Those guys stayed with Soviets (and participated in the siege of Berlin).
There was also Polish Second Army (also Soviet) but it was formed only in 1944.
>>950213
>Germans only killed did genocide against the Jews.
and the retards
and the catholics, sometimes,
and the gypsies
and the communists
and the slavs, sometimes
it's time for you to reread your history.
The lands Germany inherited from her conquests were wracked by war and resistance, especially poland, and for the entire time the germans would have been trying to improve their fleet numbers through production, the allies would have been doing the same. There was little chance of Germany upending British naval dominance on the surface, especially given their poor attitude toward aircraft carriers, reflecting an outmoded naval mindset.
>>950428
in toto or only at the battlefield?
>>950463
There was also the Polish corps in France, which was formed out of dudes who either escaped from occupied Poland, or from internment in Romania or Hungary.
Some of those dudes then got to Britain, others fought with the French resistance.
>>950375
>Instead of learning about Polish resistance which was a real resistance even after WW2, we learn about French """""resistance""""
>Which is laughable.
While the Polish Underground State was big, active, and pretty well-organized (no joke, the ex-SS underground that smuggled Nazis to Argentina was patterned after the Polish underground), it still pales in comparison to Soviet and especially Yugoslavian partisan forces. The Yugos especially managed to free their country by themselves and then be independent from Russia.
t. actual Pole.
>>950489
> in toto
IIRC Germany + allies (Italy, Romania, Vishy France, the whole lot) had more population that USSR, if that's what you are asking.
>>950213
>Germans only killed did genocide against the Jews
They weren't touched up to 1942.
The main target were Poles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Prosecution_Book-Poland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tannenberg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligenzaktion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_AB-Aktion_in_Poland
Jews collaborated all the way. Polish survivors of the camps tell the stories about Jewish guards and Jewish nazi police.
>>950499
>The Yugos especially managed to free their country by themselves and then be independent from Russia.
They were a small fish compared to the Poland.
Yugoslavia didn't lay in the crashzone between Germany and Russia. Poland did.
>>950536
> They weren't touched up to 1942.
Eh. No.
Soviets got invaded in 1941 and Nazis begun massacres immediately: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babi_Yar
>>949592
Poland would have lingered on for at least two more months, perhaps up to spring 1940 if they are lucky.
Germany had severe logistical problems by 14th September and Poland began transforming all available forces into the Romanian Bridgehead which was intended to become a last redoubt.
>>950536
That's the medal for the Lodz ghetto, which was a special case, as the elders thought collaboration would save the inhabitants.
They didn't do it out of greed or bad will, they genuinely thought the Germans were rational and if the Jews made themselves useful they'd be left alive.
otoh there obviously were collaborators who did it for selfish reasons.
>>950548
There were more people in the Yugoslavian underground, 800 thousand compared to 650 in Poland, including Home Army and all its allies. The Yugoslavians were united too.
Now obviously the Poles had a much worse situation politically and logistically, but there's no arguing that Yugoslavian partisans were both bigger and more effective militarily.
>>950548
There was no crashzone. Poland had retards in charge.
Any sensible politician would've accepted defensive pact with the Soviets, so as to have them help against Reich, should it attack. Such a threat alone would've prevented WWII.
But - no. "We will not deal with Soviets, we will trust England utterly, and we will make outrageous demands to Germans".
Result? Germans are pissed, England secretly negotiate with Germans, Soviets lose patience and say "Fuck it. Half of Poland as a buffer is better than German Poland or Anglo-German Anti-Soviet alliance".
>>950788
>outrageous demands to Germans
>pact with Soviets
I think you played too much /gsg/
>>950815
Read some history books, FFS.
>>950825
>wait the fuck up while we actually get another port running before 'giving' you 'back' a city governed by the UN
>unreasonable demands
i bet you think the serbian response to the ultimatum before ww1 was unreasonable too
>>950788
>defensive pact with the Soviets
Did that ever work out for anyone except those who already embraced communism?
>>950825
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Rapallo_(1922)
Trusting Russians is the biggest mistake you can make.
>>950856
> Danzig was Polish
No.
Also, how did extraterritorial road to Prussia became unreasonable?
But I'm glad that we agreed on Polish government being retarded about USSR.
>>950928
US and UK didn't complain after WWII, as far as I remember.
>>950928
Nope, not even for the commies.
t. born in Czechoslovakia
>>950933
>But I'm glad that we agreed on Polish government being retarded about USSR.
we didn't agree on shit because that never happened
'''''Danzig''''' was UN and the deal was that once Gdynia was complete Germany could take it
if you had a brain you'd realize he didn't give a single shit about any deals, he just wanted war
>>950463
Romania wasnt pro-Nazi in 1939. I smell commie all over your post
>>950965
> '''''Danzig''''' was UN and the deal was that once Gdynia was complete Germany could take it
> UN
There was no UN in 1939.
Also, what deal are you even speaking about?
> January 6th, 1939
> German Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop met with the Polish Foreign Minister Josef Beck
> Beck replied: "... Particularly in the matter of Danzig I see 'no possibility of cooperation.'"
This position did not chage. Poles were simply refusing to discuss the matter until the start of the war: last sheduled negotiations in August 30 got cancelled by Poles (despite Englang's insistance) and Polish ambassador was explicitily forbidden to make any promises to Germans about Danzig in August 31.
>>950992
Romania forbade Polish government to function on its territory, becuase it had agreements with Reich. If that's not pro-Nazi, I don't know what is.
Also.
> commie
>>951038
I think he's alluding to the fact that 120,00 polish soldiers escaped through romania to end up fighting with the western powers for the rest of the war. That wasn't a very pro-nazi move on Romania's part.
>>951122
> I think he's alluding to the fact that 120,00 polish soldiers
Wasn't it 20.000? Polish troops in the West also got 75.000 from the Anders' Army, but those were from the USSR.
> That wasn't a very pro-nazi move on Romania's part.
Not really. IIRC troops surrendered their weapons and were not allowed to regroup or stay on Romania's territory.
Short of effectively declaring war on Poland (via arresting Poles for no reason, for example) Romania had done everything to support Reich.
>>949846
yeah this
>>949971
>Russia has frozen waters, they need warm waters. Why do you think they went into Afghanistan?
No , they went into Afghanistan to support the local communist Regime. Going further than that would bring them face to face to US allied Pakistan, and they could easily have avoided Afghanistan to take Iran if they wanted warm water port.
Which they had, in the Baltics.
>>949846
And how was it even possible for them to deescalate without giving land to a country that had proven to broke its earlier promises on not going further?
>>950788
>Any sensible politician would've accepted defensive pact with the Soviets,
Yeah, just like the Baltic states did, right?
>>950213
>Germans only killed did genocide against the Jews. It was Stalin who killed millions,
Meh, Stalin's killing are overrated.
>>951647
Soviets were offering Poland to send troops if Germans attacked, not to station troops inside their borders.
Baltics on the other hand fucked up economically and agreed to get Soviet bases inside their borders in exchange for favorable trade treaties.
>>951704
>Soviets were offering Poland to send troops if Germans attacked, not to station troops inside their borders.
Russians never leave.
>>951757
More like Germans don't attack
>>951704
where the fuck did you read that ? Last time I checked it was an ultimatum - "You either let us in or we just invite ourselves in with tanks n'shit."
>>951811
When did Soviets threaten to invade Poland?
>>950061
I think something like half the German tank losses were due to mechanical failure.
>>949592
Poles were fucked.
>>951038
Under international supervision, you knew damn well what he meant. The Poles were already constructing a port at Gdynia along with a railway network to keep the Polish corridor alive before they wanted to renegotiate Gdansk's position but Hitler made up a bunch of dumb excuses and invaded anyway.
I can never understand this whole Polish mentality of thinking that posting one minor delaying action by the Polish military means that the invaders faced "great resistance". Don't forget that at the same time, friends, across the entire rest of the war theatre the Germans were advancing at lightning speed and occupying the whole country at a relatively rapid rate for the time. Poland got absolutely fucking annihilated, no matter what way you put it, and probably still would have had only Germany been the invader.
>>953644
It was mostly due to three things.
First Polish military junta was full of retarded faggots.
Second Polish HQ didn't expect full grown war. That is why mobilisation wasn't finished fully and why best Polish army sit in Posen. They thing that Germany will do quick attack on corridor take it and call truce.
Third and main thing it that Polish HQ refuse to fight in cities to spare civilian population. It was great mistake as defence of Lwov and Warsaw show.
There is many other things like great German advantage in artillery and air superiority. Or extremely dry Fall.
Thing is that Poles were expected to keep fighting by 3 weeks alone and so France could smash Germany. Instead USSR liberate Poland from behind.
Also Germany was in problematic situation as their ammo supplies was almost completely used in campaign.
If France do their move and Soviets not invade it could be another story.
>>953755
>Second Polish HQ didn't expect full grown war. That is why mobilisation wasn't finished fully
Mobilisation was delayed because of British political pressure, actually.
>First Polish military junta was full of retarded faggots.
Not really. They fully knew the only option to fight with Germans was to make a defense barrier on the Vistula River.
However, they suspected that in that case, the Germans would occupy everything west of Vistula, and then will call for negotiations with France and England. Which would undoubtly exchange half of Poland for not going to war with Germany (Munich experience).
So they knew they had to make the blood offering along the borders, so that London and Paris could not wriggle out of the alliance.
>>949592
Oh look, it's one of these threads AGAIN.
>>953755
>Posen
>>951038
>>951207
>Not really. IIRC troops surrendered their weapons and were not allowed to regroup or stay on Romania's territory.
>Short of effectively declaring war on Poland (via arresting Poles for no reason, for example) Romania had done everything to support Reich.
As per the Hague convention of 1907 a neutral country is required to intern any combatant troops who enter its territory
Same thing happened, to, say, German pilots or ship crews who crashed in Spain or Ireland.
There was a chance if only battle at bzura would go better and france didnt fuck around
>>950788
> Any sensible politician would've accepted defensive pact with the Soviets
Any possible defense pact with the Soviets would have resulted in a Soviet take-over of the country, (as happened after the war) or are you forgetting the Poles and Soviets went to war in 1920? And throughout the inter-war period, the Poles had to deal with constant Soviet incursions, (both by air and land) to the point they created a combined-arms border defense corps.
Poland simply could not cut a deal with either the Germans or the Soviets that wouldn’t result in them being completely swallowed up.
Unfortunately, there would also be no mutual self-defense alliance of Central / Eastern European states, as each nation had issues with their neighbors and all thought they could somehow sit out the coming war.
Poland was fucked no matter what happened, their only course or action was fighting as hard as they could for as long as they could hold out and hope France and the UK would eventually defeat the Germans or Soviets, and we all know how that worked out…
>>951038
>Romania forbade Polish government to function on its territory, becuase it had agreements with Reich.
True, but the Romanians (and Hungarians) were staring down the barrel of a gun and at least turned a blind eye to Polish troops evacuating thru Romania to the West.
>>953755
>Second Polish HQ didn't expect full grown war. That is why mobilisation wasn't finished fully
The Poles delayed their mobilization under pressure from the French and British but wisely didn't halt it, as they had seen what that had gotten the Czechoslovaks...
>>949925
>>949895
HUrr durr burr. John Smith shut the fuck up.
America did jack shit military-wise in WWII.
(except shooting and bombing couple of underarmed ratfaced japs)
Only notable thing US did in the war was being piece of backstabbing shit (from Nazi point of view)
>Oh guys I am totally neutral xDDD
>oh btw Britain I got those cruisers, planes, ammo and other shit ready to send out ok? ;)
tl;dr FUCK US FOREIGN POLICY
>>949646
>abbreviating USA as "US"
This triggers me
