Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BRITAIN AND FRANCE DECIDE TO DEFEND POLAND (3/31/39)
Microfiche-New York Times archives, McHenry Library, U.C. Santa Cruz | 3/31/39 | Ferdinand Kuhn Jr.

Posted on 03/31/2009 4:55:00 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson

Photobucket

1 of 2

Photobucket

2 of 2

Photobucket

Photobucket

EDITORIAL

Photobucket



TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: realtime
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last
If you would like to be added to or deleted from the Real Time +/- 70 Years ping list, send me a freepmail. You can also search for these articles by the keyword realtime, going back to the first one on January 27, 2008. These articles are posted on the 70th anniversary of their original publication date. See my profile for additional information.
1 posted on 03/31/2009 4:55:00 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Homer_J_Simpson
On March 31, sixteen days after Hitler entered Prague, the Prime Minister told the House of Commons:

In the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty's Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power. They have given the Polish Government an assurance to this effect. I may add that the French Government have authorized me to make it plain that they stand in the same position in this matter.

The turn of Poland had come.

William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich

. . . Chamberlain's change of heart did not stop at words. The next "small State" on Hitler's list was Poland. When the gravity of the decision and all those who had to be consulted are borne in mind, the period must have been busy. Within a fortnight (March 31) the Prime Minister said in Parliament:

I now have to inform the House that... in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty's Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power. They have given the Polish Government an assurance to this effect.

I may add that the French Government have authorised me to make it plain that they stand in the same position in this matter as do His Majesty's Government. . . . [And later] The Dominions have been kept fully informed.

This was no time for recriminations about the past. The guarantee to Poland was supported by the leaders of all parties and groups in the House. "God helping, we can do no other," was what I said. At the point we had reached it was a necessary action. But no one who understood the situation could doubt that it meant in all human probability a major war, in which we should be involved.

Winston S. Churchill, The Gathering Storm

2 posted on 03/31/2009 4:57:59 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson ("Every nation has the government that it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fredhead; r9etb; PzLdr; dfwgator; Paisan; From many - one.; rockinqsranch; GRRRRR; 2banana; ...

Ping. More information at #2.


3 posted on 03/31/2009 4:59:14 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson ("Every nation has the government that it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Homer_J_Simpson

Sadly, they never did defend Poland.


4 posted on 03/31/2009 5:05:59 AM PDT by SampleMan (Socialism and Liberty are mutually exclusive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

By the time the bureaucrats “decided” it was over.
Looks like Zero is doing the Blitzkrieg on America, reviving communism and trying to succeed where Hitler and Stalin failed.


5 posted on 03/31/2009 5:35:46 AM PDT by Leo Carpathian (fffffFRrrreeeeepppeeee-ssed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

And how, pray tell, could they have defended Poland?


6 posted on 03/31/2009 7:21:32 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9
And how, pray tell, could they have defended Poland?

France could have used its airforce, tanks, troops, and navy (along with RAF and RN assets) to attack the Germans. Not only did they have more of all of the above, but the Germans had left their border defenses with France almost totally empty.

Had the French attacked in force, the Germans would have had to pull a major portion of their troops out of the Polish campaign to stem the attack.

What good is an alliance, when the allies won't fight when you yourself are under attack.

7 posted on 03/31/2009 7:30:03 AM PDT by SampleMan (Socialism and Liberty are mutually exclusive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

The navy was fighting the Germans on the high seas, but would not have been able to intervene to help Poland directly. Geography rules otherwise. Attempting to force the Baltic would have been risky in extremis, and maintaining a fleet there incredibly difficult.

The combined air forces of Britain and France would have been no match for the Luftwaffe at that stage of the war. Even if they had attacked, most of the aircraft were recce or fighter planes. There were very few bombers.

It takes time for the armies to be mobilised. Britain and France did not declare war until the Germans had actually attacked Poland, and the speed and ferocity of the Nazi attack took everyone by surprise, even the Germans themselves. The campaign was over in three weeks - far too soon for the allies to have made any progress even if they had been ready.

The western allies were counting on the threat of war to make Hitler back down. The fact that they actually declared war when it was clear that he wouldnt was a moral support of Poland that fulfilled their treaty obligations beyond any capability they had. What really doomed Poland was the about-face by the USSR when it signed a non-aggression pact with the Nazis. That left Poland isolated, surrounded and outnumbered.


8 posted on 03/31/2009 7:51:04 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9
The navy was fighting the Germans on the high seas, but would not have been able to intervene to help Poland directly. Geography rules otherwise. Attempting to force the Baltic would have been risky in extremis, and maintaining a fleet there incredibly difficult.

1. They were doing very little on the high seas.
2. Forcing the Baltic in 1939 would not have been all that impossible. The Germans did not control the low countries and thus they could not control the straights. Further, they had very few submarines and were hopelessly outclassed. The German's only real defense would have been via the Luftwaffe, which no doubt would have had some success, but was by no means near its late 1940 strength. Plus, 95% of it was fighting in Poland.

The combined air forces of Britain and France would have been no match for the Luftwaffe at that stage of the war.

Not true. The RAF and and French had just as many modern fighters as the Germans did in September of 1939 and far more attack aircraft. And again, the Luftwaffe wasn't around. It was in the East.

Even if they had attacked, most of the aircraft were recce or fighter planes. There were very few bombers.

Again, not true. The French had a very large number of attack aircraft. Yes, these were not four engine strategic bombers, but they didn't need to be to rip into a sizable chunk of Germany.

It takes time for the armies to be mobilised. Britain and France did not declare war until the Germans had actually attacked Poland, and the speed and ferocity of the Nazi attack took everyone by surprise, even the Germans themselves. The campaign was over in three weeks - far too soon for the allies to have made any progress even if they had been ready.

France shares a common border with Germany and had most all of its standing army along that border. A border that was left virtually unprotected by the Germans. Even a few probing attacks by some of the hundreds of French tanks would have forced the Germans to pull a significant number of troops out of Poland to defend their homeland. The French need not have marched to Berlin to have helped the Poles.

The western allies were counting on the threat of war to make Hitler back down. The fact that they actually declared war when it was clear that he wouldn't was a moral support of Poland that fulfilled their treaty obligations beyond any capability they had.

Just silliness. The Poles got zero support and the French and British sat by to see if a new settlement couldn't be reached. Sad but true. Read the historical accounts of just exactly what the Poles thought in reference to the West's "moral support".

What really doomed Poland was the about-face by the USSR when it signed a non-aggression pact with the Nazis. That left Poland isolated, surrounded and outnumbered.

Poland was left alone to fight Germany. The USSR moved in, but met little resistance as the Poles were all fighting the Germans. Its at least debatable whether the USSR would have moved in if the Germans had suddenly found themselves fighting a real two front war and slowing their advance in Poland. I doubt that Poland would have been saved, but the honor of France and Britain might have been.

It takes time for the armies to be mobilised. Britain and France did not declare war until the Germans had actually attacked Poland, and the speed and ferocity of the Nazi attack took everyone by surprise, even the Germans themselves. The campaign was over in three weeks - far too soon for the allies to have made any progress even if they had been ready.

Again you fail to take notice of the fact that France and Britain had standing armies. The French tanks were not operated by the reserves. The point is not that the Germans could have been defeated in 1939, but rather that they could have been forced to pay a much higher price, the invasion of Poland could have been slowed, and the credibility of France and Britain could have been saved. Its hard to argue that hiding behind the Maginot Line worked out well.

Take a look at the "standing forces" of France compared to Germany at the time that the invasion of Poland began. The time to attack is when you have the greatest advantage, not the greatest strength. For France the time of greatest advantage was during September of 1939.

9 posted on 03/31/2009 8:31:05 AM PDT by SampleMan (Socialism and Liberty are mutually exclusive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan; Vanders9; BroJoeK
The sidebar article shows where American thinking was on the problem of Hitler at this point. The more the European situation deteriorates the more isolationist we become.

The consensus was that any program of cooperation among France, Great Britain and Poland that might tend toward an eventual showdown between the European democracies and the totalitarian countries would stiffen opposition in the Senate to the granting of any greater discretionary powers to President Roosevelt in matters affecting the neutrality of this country.

Some Senators had expressed the belief that the tension in Europe was lessening and the prospects of a general war receding. They probably would revise their opinion if an announcement such as the British Prime Minister is reported to be contemplating is made, and their determination to prevent changes in the neutrality laws to make it easier for the United States to become involved in a European war would be strengthened.

10 posted on 03/31/2009 9:14:19 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson ("Every nation has the government that it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan; Vanders9

I think it goes without saying that the western powers could have and should have done more. Remember General Gamelin initiated “Operation Saar” on September 7th in which he sent 3 French armies into Germany on the western front. Unfortunately, he didn’t push against the some 10 stripped down German divisions that were in the west mostly because the German propaganda machine orchastrated the reporting on the Polish front to make ther German army seem superhuman. If I remember right the French only went about 5 miles into Germany before they turned back to hide behind their Magenot Line (which in the end Hitler would bypass all together).


11 posted on 03/31/2009 10:29:51 AM PDT by CougarGA7 (Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CougarGA7; Vanders9

The French probe into the Saar was almost surreal. They push forward, but seemed hesitant to continue because of the total lack of resistance. They had the right idea, but simply didn’t consider the possibility of success. A 50 mile push into Germany would certainly have gotten Hitler’s attention.

And as for the Luftwaffe’s fabled superiority during this period, on 8 September, the French took down 27 German planes at a cost of 8 of their own.


12 posted on 03/31/2009 1:01:00 PM PDT by SampleMan (Socialism and Liberty are mutually exclusive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

“1. They were doing very little on the high seas.”

In the first months of the war the RN swept the seas clear of German shipping.

“2. Forcing the Baltic in 1939 would not have been all that impossible. The Germans did not control the low countries and thus they could not control the straights.”

No, but it would have been easy to seize Denmark (as they subsequently did). What happens then? How do you maintain the fleet in the Baltic? How do you run supplies to them? There are no bases. Where do you get fuel? Food? Ammunition?

“Further, they had very few submarines and were hopelessly outclassed.”

They had 50+ including the coastal types that would have been able to operate there. Large ships dont do well in confined waters.

“The RAF and and French had just as many modern fighters as the Germans did in September of 1939 and far more attack aircraft. And again, the Luftwaffe wasn’t around. It was in the East.”

Well, in the first place the German planes were still superior in just about every aspect. The Me109 was faster, more maneouverable and more heavily armed than any allied fighter. There were no spitfires in France. The Germans
were also more experienced pilots and had much better tactics.

“Even a few probing attacks by some of the hundreds of French tanks would have forced the Germans to pull a significant number of troops out of Poland to defend their homeland. The French need not have marched to Berlin to have helped the Poles.”

No one was in a hurry to rush to war.

“Just silliness. The Poles got zero support and the French and British sat by to see if a new settlement couldn’t be reached. Sad but true.”

Utter BS. The Poles got support in that Britain (and later France) actually declared war, even though they were not ready for it and even though they had little to gain (and a great deal to lose) by it.

“Read the historical accounts of just exactly what the Poles thought in reference to the West’s “moral support”.”

I know what the Poles thought. I don’t blame them for feeling bitter. But they’re wrong.

“Again you fail to take notice of the fact that France and Britain had standing armies.”

And you fail to take notice of the fact that those standing armies were not fully mobilised. Nobody expected Poland would fold as quickly as she did. In retrospect, given german tank doctrine, blitzkrieg and so on, its all very obvious.

“The French tanks were not operated by the reserves.”

The French tanks weren’t operated en masse as coordinated offensive instruments either.

“The point is not that the Germans could have been defeated in 1939, but rather that they could have been forced to pay a much higher price, the invasion of Poland could have been slowed.”

You mean it might have taken four weeks rather than three? If the Russians came in (and they would have come in) Poland was doomed anyway. If the Germans had been forced to withdraw forces from the east, all it would have meant was that the USSR would have gotten a larger slice of Polish territory.

“and the credibility of France and Britain could have been saved”

The credibility of France and Britain was saved by the fact that they intervened in the first place. Its easy to condemn acts of aggression with timely diplomatic notes. Its much harder to actually go to war over it, particularly when the act of aggression in itself does not directly threaten your own interests. That’s a moral stand.


13 posted on 04/01/2009 3:18:40 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

The French army was wedded to the idea of defence. Hardly surprising given the horrific losses of WW1. Of course technology had advanced since then, but the nations of the world interpreted the effects of that technology differently. The French thought that defence was more powerful then ever. In short, they “backed the wrong horse”.


14 posted on 04/01/2009 3:21:06 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9
In the first months of the war the RN swept the seas clear of German shipping.

And/or the Germans swept themselves off the high seas. As the Germans picked the timing of the war, they also well knew the consequences at sea and had already accepted them. Thus, German merchants and warships ran immediately and the vast majority made it to safety. Of course they were denied the free use of the oceans, but they knew that would be a likely outcome before they went to war, so it hardly acted as a deterrent. Especially, as the British and French had given Hitler every reason to believe that they would ultimately back down and accept the status quo, making the issue more of a temporary inconvenience.

No, but it would have been easy to seize Denmark (as they subsequently did). What happens then? How do you maintain the fleet in the Baltic? How do you run supplies to them? There are no bases. Where do you get fuel? Food? Ammunition?

Seize Denmark with what? You are forgetting that the German military in the West was an empty shell. The whole idea of attack in the Baltic would have been to force them to divide their forces. When the Germans did eventually attack in the West, they did it with nearly 100% of their military, extensive planning and the element of surprise. There is no way they could have accomplished anything similar in the late summer of 1939. Further, taking Denmark would necessitate the withdrawal of naval forces, not trap them. The Germans would need time to position forces to close the straights. There is absolutely nothing the Germans could have done in September to stop the naval bombardment of their coast and the destruction of what naval forces they had. Indeed, the RN and France could have even provided support to the Poles along the coastline.

They had 50+ including the coastal types that would have been able to operate there. Large ships dont do well in confined waters.

They had 53 submarines, about 40 of which could have put to sea with torpedoes (of which as they found out later, most didn't work). This sound impressive, but its not. The U-boats would have been at a great disadvantage against the swarms of destroyers that would have accompanied the fleet. The 31 U-boats that were sent to support the Scandinavian campaign later, had very limited effect. Throughout the war, submarines did poorly against fleets in operation, only scoring occasional victories inside of destroyer screens.

I'm not saying it would have been a cake walk, but again it was the period of greatest advantage and the large French fleet could have actually made an impact on the war and the defense of France.

Large ships do fine in confined waters when the dominate the battlespace. Look at all of the large ships in the English Channel on June 6th.

Think of all the ships that the RN lost in the first two years of the war to German raiders and U-boats and wonder if they would not have been better lost destroying the German fleet, U-boats and accompanying support facilities during the first month of the war.

Well, in the first place the German planes were still superior in just about every aspect. The Me109 was faster, more maneouverable and more heavily armed than any allied fighter. There were no spitfires in France. The Germans were also more experienced pilots and had much better tactics.

In September 1939 the Luftwaffe's strength was only 25% of what is was by April of 1940, and the ME-109 was not the same model at the front line in 1940. The Luftwaffe had about 200 E models on Sept. 1. The rest were C and D models with 600-700 HP engines. Additionally, the E model (Emil) was produced in nine variants. The more powerful E-4 and later seen during the Battle of Britain had yet to be fielded.

The RAF had 19 squadrons of Hurricane MkI fighters at the outbreak, or about equal to total German strength of 109s (which would have had to be divided between East and West. The Hurricane wasn't on par with the later 109Es, but neither was it dangerously outclassed. The Hurricane held its own during the Battle of Britain against even better models of the Emil.

Were Luftwaffe pilots superior? A few (very few) had experience in Spain, most had no experience in combat at all. The RAF pilots at the beginning of the war probably had just as much, but likely more experience in their aircraft than the Germans did on Sept. 1, 1939.

No one was in a hurry to rush to war.

Nice statement of fact, but it rather supports my argument. They didn't help Poland because they were reluctant to commit to a real war. Its not for nothing that the following period is referred to as the Phony War.

Utter BS. The Poles got support in that Britain (and later France) actually declared war, even though they were not ready for it and even though they had little to gain (and a great deal to lose) by it.

Let's assume that you are getting the tar beaten out of you by someone. While this is going on your buddy watches and writes up a document stating that from that time on he was going to consider himself in a state of conflict with the fellow who is knocking out your teeth and kicking in your ribs. On a level of 1-10 with 1 being pathetic, where would you rate his support?

I know what the Poles thought. I don’t blame them for feeling bitter. But they’re wrong.

Being the ones getting their teeth knocked out and ribs kicked in probably diminished their ability to guage the real value of that Anglo-French support through a written statement of intent. Stupid Poles.

And you fail to take notice of the fact that those standing armies were not fully mobilised. Nobody expected Poland would fold as quickly as she did. In retrospect, given german tank doctrine, blitzkrieg and so on, its all very obvious.

The French pushed into the Saar almost immediately, met no resistance and then went home. Your endless excuses for innaction are bewildering. The French would have only had to push another 10-20 miles to force the Germans to respond, something they could have only done by pulling troops out of Poland.

The French weren't incapable of fighting, they were unwilling.

You mean it might have taken four weeks rather than three? If the Russians came in (and they would have come in) Poland was doomed anyway. If the Germans had been forced to withdraw forces from the east, all it would have meant was that the USSR would have gotten a larger slice of Polish territory.

Stalin came in to form a buffer against Germany. He may or may not have come in if the Germans got bogged down. He almost certainly would have delayed the USSR's entry if the French were 50 miles into Germany and the Anglo-French fleet was reducing the German coastal cities to rubble. Indeed, he might have joined in attacking Germany at that point.

In any event, they would have helped if not saved Poland and they would have been much better off than they were a year later, when Germany's war production had already kicked in (their's had yet to) and Germany could turn its entire force against them.

The credibility of France and Britain was saved by the fact that they intervened in the first place. Its easy to condemn acts of aggression with timely diplomatic notes. Its much harder to actually go to war over it, particularly when the act of aggression in itself does not directly threaten your own interests. That’s a moral stand.

"Actually going to war" isn't done with a declaration of war. It is done with troops, planes and ships. I take you back to the Phony War. You say they intervened, yet they didn't intervene, they fortified and waited. Right up to the invasion of France they were still dropping leaflets not bombs and hoping for a peaceful outcome.

15 posted on 04/01/2009 7:11:18 AM PDT by SampleMan (Socialism and Liberty are mutually exclusive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
The French probe into the Saar was almost surreal

It really was. There is a good article on the event written by Kevin Austra here www.historynet.com

16 posted on 04/01/2009 7:49:37 AM PDT by CougarGA7 (Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CougarGA7; SampleMan

I guess it was so easy they must have thought it was some kind of trap.


17 posted on 04/02/2009 3:59:53 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

“Seize Denmark with what? You are forgetting that the German military in the West was an empty shell.”

I’m not forgetting that the majority of their forces were deployed eastwards. The point is that Denmark was vulnerable to attack, and pretty quickly vulnerable given the fast collapse of Poland. Once the entrance to the Baltic, a natural chokepoint, is under threat, the fleet would have had to be withdrawn. Even if it wasnt threatedned, how does the fleet maintain itself in the Baltic? Where does it operate from? Danzig? That fell in the first week.

“The Germans would need time to position forces to close the straights.”

AND SO WOULD THE ALLIES! You continually suggest that somehow Britain, France and Poland move their military faster than Germany. In actual fact the reverse is the case.

“Indeed, the RN and France could have even provided support to the Poles along the coastline.”

You’re dreaming. Naval gunfire support never helps that much. Especially as the “Polish corridor” would have fallen by the time the fleet got there.

“They had 53 submarines, about 40 of which could have put to sea with torpedoes (of which as they found out later, most didn’t work). This sound impressive, but its not. The U-boats would have been at a great disadvantage against the swarms of destroyers that would have accompanied the fleet. The 31 U-boats that were sent to support the Scandinavian campaign later, had very limited effect. Throughout the war, submarines did poorly against fleets in operation, only scoring occasional victories inside of destroyer screens.”

All very true - but no one knew that in 1939. And suppose the Germans mined the entrances? German minelayers were numerous, active and very effective.

“Large ships do fine in confined waters when the dominate the battlespace. Look at all of the large ships in the English Channel on June 6th.”

What a pity we wouldnt have dominated the Baltic in the same way. We wouldnt have as many ships, there would have been no friendly ports to repair, and there would have been no air support beyond the few fighters carried by aircraft carriers.

“Were Luftwaffe pilots superior?”

Yes. Few certainly had experience in Spain, but they had passed on the lessons of that experience to the others. Their tactics (finger four formations etc) were way ahead of what the allies were using. The RAF pilots had no such experience.

“They didn’t help Poland because they were reluctant to commit to a real war. Its not for nothing that the following period is referred to as the Phony War.”

Sure no one was in a hurry to commit to a full scale war - why shouldnt they be? Britain took a million casualties in WWI, France even more. No one was keen to repeat the experience. But to say that their unpreparedness and lack of commitment was solely the reason more was not done in the opening months of WW2 is way, way too harsh. I think they didnt help Poland because there was nothing they could directly do to help. Putting a fleet into the Baltic would have been very, very risky. Incidentally, there was a plan to do such a thing in WWI. It got rejected.

Could they have helped indirectly by pressing from the west? Theoretically maybe, but they were counting on Poland being able to hold out for quite a while, so a sudden hasty offensive was not regarded as a priority option. By the time it was realised that Poland was going under fast, any offensive move would have been too late. We are only talking a matter of days here.

“Let’s assume that you are getting the tar beaten out of you by someone. While this is going on your buddy watches and writes up a document stating that from that time on he was going to consider himself in a state of conflict with the fellow who is knocking out your teeth and kicking in your ribs. On a level of 1-10 with 1 being pathetic, where would you rate his support?”

You’re being disingenous. I would rate it at 2, rather ahead of the 1 assigned to Russia, Italy, and the US who did the same without the commitment to conflict, I would rate France at about 4, for actually going to war over the issue, and Britain rather higher, for going to war, and seeing it through even against her own self-interest.

“Being the ones getting their teeth knocked out and ribs kicked in probably diminished their ability to guage the real value of that Anglo-French support through AN ACTUAL DECLRATION OF WAR”.

Fixed it for you.

“Stalin came in to form a buffer against Germany.”

Nonsense. Stalin came in because he’d signed an agreement with the Nazi’s to dismember Poland. Hatred of Poland was the one thing that the commies and the Nazis agreed on.

“He may or may not have come in if the Germans got bogged down. He almost certainly would have delayed the USSR’s entry if the French were 50 miles into Germany and the Anglo-French fleet was reducing the German coastal cities to rubble.”

OTOH, he might have helped them take the fleet apart.

“You say they intervened, yet they didn’t intervene, they fortified and waited. Right up to the invasion of France they were still dropping leaflets not bombs and hoping for a peaceful outcome.”

No, I’m saying they didn’t intervene largely because there wasnt an awful lot they could have done. I dont deny they werent ready for what WW2 became, I dont deny they were not keen to fight another world war, I dont deny that militarily they werent very effective. But helping Poland, after Germany had gotten that non-aggression pace with Russia, and actually attacked, was pretty much impossible.


18 posted on 04/02/2009 4:48:32 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9
I’m not forgetting that the majority of their forces were deployed eastwards. The point is that Denmark was vulnerable to attack, and pretty quickly vulnerable given the fast collapse of Poland.

How is it that you can see Denmark as vulnerable in Sept. 1939, but you can't see the vulnerability of Germany's Western front? The lightning fast Blitzkrieg in Poland went about 300 mile in 3 weeks at the blistering average speed of .5 mph. They had all of their tanks in Poland and all but a few of their troops and aircraft. So you argue that France could not possibly have capitalized on its Saar offensive by rolling forward another 30 miles, but the emaciated German military in the East could have quickly devised a plan and quickly taken Denmark without the benefit of the Luftwaffe, tanks, or even two divisions of troops. AND they could have done this while meeting a French attack in the Saar.

I dare say that you need to put down the Joseph Goebbels press releases and start looking at the facts on the ground.

Once the entrance to the Baltic, a natural chokepoint, is under threat, the fleet would have had to be withdrawn. Even if it wasnt threatedned, how does the fleet maintain itself in the Baltic? Where does it operate from? Danzig? That fell in the first week.

They would operate from Scapa Flow. Look at a map. Ships with designed ranges of 10-12,000 miles would not be pressed to conduct operations in the Baltic. And you are completely missing the point that a solid one week foray along the German coast would have completely destroyed the Kreigsmarine, destroyed a lot of their naval infrastructure, and put the populace to demanding protection. A real ambitious plan would have been to put the BEF into Denmark vice France, if the Germans began an invasion with a token force.

There is also the whole matter that a good deal of German coastline is along the North Sea. What is your excuse for not going after that?

AND SO WOULD THE ALLIES! You continually suggest that somehow Britain, France and Poland move their military faster than Germany. In actual fact the reverse is the case.

The allies had a surface navy and the Germans didn't, and navies don't have to be mobilized, they are by nature mobilized. The RN could have put a fleet into the Baltic at any time on 24 hours notice.

The French Army that you claim couldn't possibly mobilize in time actually did. They moved into the SAAR with four army groups. But facing virtually no resistance they stopped and waited and never went further than five miles. This completely refutes your notion that they just weren't capable.

As for the BEF, they went to France in short order. They could have gone to Denmark if it were invaded.

You’re dreaming. Naval gunfire support never helps that much. Especially as the “Polish corridor” would have fallen by the time the fleet got there.

According to you, attacking the Germans in any way was out of the question and pointless. This pretty much mirrors the view of the French and British commanders at the time. And that plan worked out so well for them in 1940.

You are insistent on imbuing the Germans with super human capability, when in fact they were operating on a shoe string in Poland and they had left the back door completely open in a mixture of bluff and arrogance.

You need to reread the historical facts of 1939. You have completely bought into the propaganda put out by the Germans AND the Allies concerning that period. After the fall of France, it was easier to look at the Germans as unstoppable than the allies as incompetent or worse cowardly.

The British and French had enormous naval capability in 1939. The French had the capability to move forward and they proved it in their Saar campaign. The French also had a huge airforce which would have been pitted against against just a handful of German aircraft had they only been used. In such a situation obsolescence hardly matters.

Yet you continue to defend their CHOICE to wait until the Germans could secure in the East, marshal all of their forces in the West, received 100-500% more equipment, and pick the time and place of their attack. Its not like we don't know how that worked out.

All very true - but no one knew that in 1939. And suppose the Germans mined the entrances? German minelayers were numerous, active and very effective.

German mine layers would have been blown out of the water by the swarming DDs. The reason they could mine later was because they controlled Denmark and controlled the air. The beautiful thing about going on the offense is that you take away the enemy's ability to preempt you. Those minelayers would have been bottled up or destroyed in port upon the fleets arrival, and the Germans didn't have that many mines in Sept. 1939 to begin with.

You appear to have no understanding of just how ill equipped the Germans were in 1939 for a general war. Their production plans called for war in 1946 and their armament flow had barely started. A fair percentage of the tanks in Poland were Czech tanks because the Germans simply didn't have that many.

What a pity we wouldnt have dominated the Baltic in the same way. We wouldnt have as many ships, there would have been no friendly ports to repair, and there would have been no air support beyond the few fighters carried by aircraft carriers.

Take out a map. Look at the proximity of the Baltic to the UK and France. No port in the Baltic is required. You are acting as if we're talking about operations in the Sea of Japan. They would have dominated because the Germans were so weak and ill positioned at that point. The Royal Navy combined with the French Navy had tremendous capability in 1939 and had more combined strength than the Royal Navy would acquire on its own until 1944.

Had the Germans attacked Denmark with the pitifully weak forces that they had available it would have been a blessing. Denmark would have entered the war and likely repelled the unsupported and weak German infantry, while Belgium and the Netherlands would have likely agreed to allow in the French and British.

Your entire argument rests on the idea that Britain and France benefited by delaying the fight. Historical facts are just that facts. The unquestionable great beneficiary of delaying the fight was Hitler.

The time to take on a bully is while he is fighting your friend, not after he's finished your friend, rested up, and picked up a bigger club.

Yes. Few certainly had experience in Spain, but they had passed on the lessons of that experience to the others. Their tactics (finger four formations etc) were way ahead of what the allies were using. The RAF pilots had no such experience.

And this changed for the better for the allies in 1940 exactly how?

You’re being disingenous. I would rate it at 2, rather ahead of the 1 assigned to Russia, Italy, and the US who did the same without the commitment to conflict, I would rate France at about 4, for actually going to war over the issue, and Britain rather higher, for going to war, and seeing it through even against her own self-interest.

The U.S. never implied any alliance or protection, thus the guilt you imply is misplaced. As for this constantly repeated notion that the UK and France went to war with "no self-interest involved" that's just silliness. When someone is moving house to house ruffing up your neighbors and growing stronger with every victory, it is in your obvious self-interest to join the fight at your neighbor's house and not wait.

AN ACTUAL DECLRATION OF WAR”.Fixed it for you.

Wow! Did they capitalize everything on it too? If they did, that was really a big help to the Poles. No doubt true solace to the millions that died. Paper words are meaningless without action. Meaningless.

Nonsense. Stalin came in because he’d signed an agreement with the Nazi’s to dismember Poland. Hatred of Poland was the one thing that the commies and the Nazis agreed on.

So he preplanned the buffer, doesn't change a thing. And this endless defeatism that you show in support of France and Britain doing nothing is really nauseating.

OTOH, he might have helped them take the fleet apart.

Historical facts again completely spoil your statements. Stalin had zero intent of fighting Germany, France or the UK, even up to 1941. He actively sought to stay out of it. His now well known strategy was to allow the West to fight a long war like WWI, which he believed would leave all parties exhausted and weak.

No, I’m saying they didn’t intervene largely because there wasnt an awful lot they could have done. I dont deny they werent ready for what WW2 became, I dont deny they were not keen to fight another world war, I dont deny that militarily they werent very effective. But helping Poland, after Germany had gotten that non-aggression pace with Russia, and actually attacked, was pretty much impossible.

Facts:
1. They had a vastly superior force in place against a shell of German defenses, and their situation only got worse with every passing day after Poland's defeat.
2. The French demonstrated an ability to attack in force, but were unwilling to pursue success (see Saar offensive). The Germans had absolutely nothing to in place to stop them and would have been forced to immediately pull at least 50% of their forces out of Poland to defend Germany.
3. The French and UK had total naval dominance, but were unwilling to use it offensively.
4. Waiting proved to be a cataclysmic failure. The Germans were able to grow enormously stronger and focus entirely on them, while their strength barely increased at all.
5. The Germans were allowed to leave their defenses nearly unmanned and reposition unmolested to carry out a highly orchestrated attack that required 100% of their tanks and planes.

Had the French lost their entire fleet in the Baltic and 700,000 men with all of their tanks and planes attacking into Germany in 1939, they still would have been no worse off. Given that there were so few German soldiers in Germany at that time, it is impossible to see what would have stood between them and Berlin. Are you at all aware of just how anxious the German staff was about just that possibility?

The Polish campaign was not lightning fast. The Poles put up a very stiff resistance and the rate of German advance was far slower than it was in France a year later. Had the Germans been forced to split their forces in two around Sept. 10th it is a very real possibility that the Poles could have stabilized their front and that Stalin would have waited to see what happened next. But we do know for sure just how waiting worked out for the French.

It is often said that hindsight is 20/20, but rarely is it argued that hindsight is blind.

19 posted on 04/02/2009 6:48:18 AM PDT by SampleMan (Socialism and Liberty are mutually exclusive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9; CougarGA7
I guess it was so easy they must have thought it was some kind of trap.

Well gosh, if the Germans might be setting traps, that certainly does sound dangerous. Somebody could get hurt.

I don't see how the Poles could have expected them to push forward in the face of such stiff non-resistance.

And you're still sticking with the argument that the French were incapable vice unwilling.

20 posted on 04/02/2009 6:55:29 AM PDT by SampleMan (Socialism and Liberty are mutually exclusive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson