1938/1939, USA, England, France - Would Have? Could Have? Should Have?

[Admiral Beez]

I will not address the domestic American politics of this. I will only say that as an independent American voter who pays attention to world issues, I like supporting any people fighting for their own freedom, if it's a matter of defending a democracy. That this war is really the frontispiece of a greater clash, I see it in terms of 1940-41 -- avoid war where we may, but stand up and support like-minded folk.

Agreed. And it's been a while since we all had a just war to get behind - I'm hopeful that we're done smacking Islamists in the desert. Imagine if Poland got this level of support in Sept 1939. Of course the British and French forces were light and the US had little interest or materials on hand.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Agreed. And it's been a while since we all had a just war to get behind - I'm hopeful that we're done smacking Islamists in the desert. Imagine if Poland got this level of support in Sept 1939. Of course the British and French forces were light and the US had little interest or materials on hand.

Yeah, America unable, the Europeans unwilling, the Poles screwed. Thankfully we've learnt something since then.

 

[Warspite63]

Agreed. And it's been a while since we all had a just war to get behind - I'm hopeful that we're done smacking Islamists in the desert. Imagine if Poland got this level of support in Sept 1939. Of course the British and French forces were light and the US had little interest or materials on hand.

...although you could argue that Poland DID get some serious support... 48 hours after the German invasion, Great Britain and France declared war on Germany........

 

[MiTasol]

Not too little but far too late

 

[GrauGeist]

...although you could argue that Poland DID get some serious support... 48 hours after the German invasion, Great Britain and France declared war on Germany........

Just imagine, though, how the course of history would have been altered if Britain and France did come to Poland's aid in the first weeks of German/Soviet Union offensive.

 

[buffnut453]

Just imagine, though, how the course of history would have been altered if Britain and France did come to Poland's aid in the first weeks of German/Soviet Union offensive.

With what forces, exactly? What forces could Britain have put into Poland that would have done anything to alter the outcome of the combined German/Soviet invasion?

On 1 Sep 1939, Fighter Command still had 4 squadrons flying Gladiators and only 15 squadrons of Hurricanes and 6 fully operational Spitfire squadrons. Another squadron of Hurricanes plus a further 4 squadrons of Spitfires were on work-up having recently converted from biplanes but they weren't combat ready.

Even if we throw all the squadrons that historically went to France into Poland, would it have made a blind bit of difference? Bear in mind the logistical challenge of sustaining forces in Poland is a LOT harder than it was in France...and that was hard enough. If it was tough to get fighter squadrons to Poland, imagine the difficulties of getting a sizeable ground force into the country. They'd be arriving piecemeal and would have been thrown into battle in a disorganized fashion. Any British Army contribution wouldn't have been even a speed bump for the Wehrmacht advances...and, by the way, it's tough to maintain operable airfields when they're being overrun by the enemy's ground forces. AFAIK, there was no plan ever to deploy British forces to Poland. You can't deploy large numbers of men and equipment without some prior planning. A September 1939 pick-up game in Poland would have been an absolute debacle, losing precious forces for zero benefit.

Let's run through the scenario where Britain deploys its forces to France and they attack Germany from the south. Ok, that might distract German forces from operations in Poland but it does nothing to dissuade the USSR. So you end up with Poland occupied by Stalin's team, while Germany locks horns with Britain and France when the latter, again, weren't even ready for the fight. Given the poor response in May 1940, would they have done any better in September 1939? We can "Monday morning quarterback" the campaign and suggest that the French and British forces go on the offensive...but the French were firmly wedded to a defensive fight behind the Maginot line while the Brits would be facing the same challenge of not having a substantial British Army presence on the Continent for many weeks. Even in the historical scenario, it took until 3 October 1939 before the British Army started taking over front-line positions from the French...and the French wouldn't attack on their own. The fighting in Poland would be over before Britain and France could do anything.

It's easy to blame the British and French for not doing more to come to Poland's aid but, in reality, there was precious little they COULD do that would make any appreciable difference.

 

[GrauGeist]

With what forces, exactly? What forces could Britain have put into Poland that would have done anything to alter the outcome of the combined German/Soviet invasion?

On 1 Sep 1939, Fighter Command still had 4 squadrons flying Gladiators and only 15 squadrons of Hurricanes and 6 fully operational Spitfire squadrons. Another squadron of Hurricanes plus a further 4 squadrons of Spitfires were on work-up having recently converted from biplanes but they weren't combat ready.

Even if we throw all the squadrons that historically went to France into Poland, would it have made a blind bit of difference? Bear in mind the logistical challenge of sustaining forces in Poland is a LOT harder than it was in France...and that was hard enough. If it was tough to get fighter squadrons to Poland, imagine the difficulties of getting a sizeable ground force into the country. They'd be arriving piecemeal and would have been thrown into battle in a disorganized fashion. Any British Army contribution wouldn't have been even a speed bump for the Wehrmacht advances...and, by the way, it's tough to maintain operable airfields when they're being overrun by the enemy's ground forces. AFAIK, there was no plan ever to deploy British forces to Poland. You can't deploy large numbers of men and equipment without some prior planning. A September 1939 pick-up game in Poland would have been an absolute debacle, losing precious forces for zero benefit.

Let's run through the scenario where Britain deploys its forces to France and they attack Germany from the south. Ok, that might distract German forces from operations in Poland but it does nothing to dissuade the USSR. So you end up with Poland occupied by Stalin's team, while Germany locks horns with Britain and France when the latter, again, weren't even ready for the fight. Given the poor response in May 1940, would they have done any better in September 1939? We can "Monday morning quarterback" the campaign and suggest that the French and British forces go on the offensive...but the French were firmly wedded to a defensive fight behind the Maginot line while the Brits would be facing the same challenge of not having a substantial British Army presence on the Continent for many weeks. Even in the historical scenario, it took until 3 October 1939 before the British Army started taking over front-line positions from the French...and the French wouldn't attack on their own. The fighting in Poland would be over before Britain and France could do anything.

It's easy to blame the British and French for not doing more to come to Poland's aid but, in reality, there was precious little they COULD do that would make any appreciable difference.

Poland put up one hell of a defense with what they had, even under a non-mobilized situation.

Allied elements arriving "piecemeal" and regardless of age, would have still complicated the Germans' plans.

Bear in mind that even though the RAF had "obsolete" aircraft, the Polish Air Force was still behind the curve and still bled the Luftwaffe. Add to this, the limited numbers of aircraft the Luftwaffe had available at the time.

Now toss in the French airforce's numbers and you have just out-matched what the Germans had committed.

As far as Allied ground units are concerned the numbers were there, it was do-able.

 

[buffnut453]

Poland put up one hell of a defense with what they had, even under a non-mobilized situation.

Allied elements arriving "piecemeal" and regardless of age, would have still complicated the Germans' plans.

Bear in mind that even though the RAF had "obsolete" aircraft, the Polish Air Force was still behind the curve and still bled the Luftwaffe. Add to this, the limited numbers of aircraft the Luftwaffe had available at the time.

Now toss in the French airforce's numbers and you have just out-matched what the Germans had committed.

As far as Allied ground units are concerned the numbers were there, it was do-able.

You say "the numbers were there" but getting those ground forces into Poland is a very different question. The major port facilities of Gdansk, Gdynia and Stettin are very close to either Germany or the USSR and you'd have to travel past Germany's Baltic coastline to get any ships even close to a Polish port. And that's before we consider how we get military vessels into the Baltic in the first place given Danish neutrality.

Yes, the Poles did a phenomenal job with the limited resources available. However, tossing in a few squadrons of Hurricanes with zero early warning would not have altered the outcome one jot.

Again, you can't pull of an operation like that if you haven't planned for it. The only chance of success would be if Britain and France started providing forces in, say, May 1939. However, at that time the fighter strength is even worse than it was in September, with far more squadrons of Gladiators and even Gauntlets still in service. It also requires considerable foresight to know when Germany was going to attack.

 

[MiTasol]

You say "the numbers were there" but getting those ground forces into Poland is a very different question. The major port facilities of Gdansk, Gdynia and Stettin are very close to either Germany or the USSR and you'd have to travel past Germany's Baltic coastline to get any ships even close to a Polish port. And that's before we consider how we get military vessels into the Baltic in the first place given Danish neutrality.

Yes, the Poles did a phenomenal job with the limited resources available. However, tossing in a few squadrons of Hurricanes with zero early warning would not have altered the outcome one jot.

Again, you can't pull of an operation like that if you haven't planned for it. The only chance of success would be if Britain and France started providing forces in, say, May 1939. However, at that time the fighter strength is even worse than it was in September, with far more squadrons of Gladiators and even Gauntlets still in service. It also requires considerable foresight to know when Germany was going to attack.

Add to that the British First Sea Lord (Churchill) had was creating disasters of his own around that time

 

[Admiral Beez]

...although you could argue that Poland DID get some serious support... 48 hours after the German invasion, Great Britain and France declared war on Germany........

A lot of good that did the Poles at Yalta when Britain gave the nation they'd gone to war to protect to the Soviet Union - one of Poland's two invaders in 1939. But it goes back to before Yalta. Western betrayal - Wikipedia. For example, at Tehran in 1943, neither Britain (or the US) demanded that the Polish government in exile be present when Poland's borders were being carved up. If I'm Zelenskyy I would be very wary of any "hard and fast" promises from the West re. post-war negotiations. Ukrainians know what happened to the Poles when the fighting ended and they lost their country in the peace.

Again, you can't pull of an operation like that if you haven't planned for it.

Agreed. A rapid rearmament of Poland should have begun upon the Anschluss in March 1938. But it goes back to my post above, Britain and France have little to send and the US has even less combined with no interest. Look at Ukraine; the time to advance rapid rearmament was ideally before but absolutely immediately after the 2014 invasion of Crimea and the Donbas, not to wait until Russia returns eight years later for the killer blow. But instead the West let the country stand on its own weakened legs whilst we built up Russia's economy and military through fossil fuel buys, foreign investment and technology transfers.

All while we wasted our political capital, treasure, attention and powder in an useless and aimless twenty-year occupation of Afghanistan, where the moment the West departed the locals returned Afghanistan to its natural brutal-anarchial-islamist, poverty-stricken state. The initial invasion of Afghanistan immediately after 9/11 was inevitable and arguably necessary (though a SOPS strike might have been effective and cheaper), but imagine if after Bin Laden was dead in 2011 in Pakistan (not Afghanistan - so why the occupation?), all the military expenditure and kit that went into Afghanistan thereon instead went into rearming Ukraine. Unlike the Afghans, the Ukrainians would be hugging us in the streets and Europe would be safer and our own lads wouldn't be in harm's way.

 

[JDCAVE]

Yeah, America unable, the Europeans unwilling, the Poles screwed. Thankfully we've learnt something since then.

I would state it the other way around "...America unwilling, the Europeans unable...
In a few short months, the Europeans had lost and America still unwilling.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I would state it the other way around "...America unwilling, the Europeans unable...
In a few short months, the Europeans had lost and America still unwilling.

How might America have helped Poland militarily in 1939? A grossly unprepared and inept Army, and the Air corps with P-36s and B-10s it cannot send -- and, to be fair, a public opinion devoted to isolationism. After Munich, isolationism in America got a big shot in the arm.

On the other hand, the French had 100 divisions sitting across the border from Germany, while the RN had the largest fleet in the world at that time. They had some means of saving Poland, and much more interest in seeing Germany struck down, but did little to do so.

And in a few short months, you'd see first cash-and-carry, and then later Lend-Lease.

 

[Admiral Beez]

How might America have helped Poland militarily in 1939? A grossly unprepared Army and Air corps

Indeed. I think people forget how tiny the US military capability was in the 1930s, especially outside of the USN. It was Franklin Roosevelt in his "Arsenal of Democracy" speech, delivered on December 29, 1940, and beginning with FDR's earlier 1937 meeting with industry leaders, namely Myron Taylor of US Steel, William Knudsen of GM, and the president of the largest railway (for expertise in resources, manufacturing and logistics) that non-naval rearmament finally got under way. The US had nothing to give Poland, though a USN battlefleet sailing into Danzig would give pause.

 

[WARSPITER]

The real blame for Poland being invaded goes to the invaders. Easy to sit back now and say what should have happened but
the fact remains Hitler finally showed he could not be trusted to stick to agreements made which, in other countries where
people with more advanced views lived, was expected.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

[...] though a USN battlefleet sailing into Danzig would give pause.

With the RN so much closer to both the action and its own bases?

Blaming America for not forestalling Hitler (which J JDCAVE seems to be suggesting) when France and Britain refused to allow the Czechs to even sit in on the conference dismembering their own nation, followed by a formal guarantee of Poland's security, followed by doing in essence nothing once war broke out, strikes me as an unrealistic reading of the history.

 

[SaparotRob]

Still, it'd look cool.

 

[buffnut453]

With the RN so much closer to both the action and its own bases?

Blaming America for not forestalling Hitler (which J JDCAVE seems to be suggesting) when France and Britain refused to allow the Czechs to even sit in on the conference dismembering their own nation, followed by a formal guarantee of Poland's security, followed by doing in essence nothing once war broke out, strikes me as an unrealistic reading of the history.

I'm not sure that Britain provided a formal guarantee of Poland's security. My reading of the agreement is that Britain agreed to do "all in their power" in the event of Poland being attacked by an unnamed European power. Note the actual guarantee was for Poland's independence and not its territorial integrity. Again, it comes back to the question of exactly what Britain could have done that was "in their power"?

Sending the RN into the Baltic isn't going to stop the Wehrmacht rolling all over the Polish countryside. Given the size and concentration of the Kriegsmarine's U-boat fleet, such a move would make the RN vessels more of a target than a threat.

As for Czechoslovakia, that state had only been in existence for 20 years. I don't recall much of a bruhaha in recent years when Sudan split in two. Why would the global powers care overly about a state that was about a third of the age of most politicians of the time? I hate to sound callous but it's not like there was a long history for Czechoslovakia as an independent nation, indeed the country itself decided to split up in 1992 which strongly suggests there was never much in the way of glue holding the nation together.

The alliances between France and Poland, and Britain and Poland, were inherently defensive in nature. Suggesting that such defensive alliances should have prompted France to invade Germany seems rather optimistic. It would be rather like expecting NATO to invade Russia because of the latter's attack on Ukraine.

There have been lots of posts that Britain and France should have done "something" but I've yet to see a tangible recommendation for what that "something" should be.

 

[J_P_C]

I'm not sure that Britain provided a formal guarantee of Poland's security. My reading of the agreement is that Britain agreed to do "all in their power" in the event of Poland being attacked by an unnamed European power. Note the actual guarantee was for Poland's independence and not its territorial integrity. Again, it comes back to the question of exactly what Britain could have done that was "in their power"?

Sending the RN into the Baltic isn't going to stop the Wehrmacht rolling all over the Polish countryside. Given the size and concentration of the Kriegsmarine's U-boat fleet, such a move would make the RN vessels more of a target than a threat.

As for Czechoslovakia, that state had only been in existence for 20 years. I don't recall much of a bruhaha in recent years when Sudan split in two. Why would the global powers care overly about a state that was about a third of the age of most politicians of the time? I hate to sound callous but it's not like there was a long history for Czechoslovakia as an independent nation, indeed the country itself decided to split up in 1992 which strongly suggests there was never much in the way of glue holding the nation together.

The alliances between France and Poland, and Britain and Poland, were inherently defensive in nature. Suggesting that such defensive alliances should have prompted France to invade Germany seems rather optimistic. It would be rather like expecting NATO to invade Russia because of the latter's attack on Ukraine.

There have been lots of posts that Britain and France should have done "something" but I've yet to see a tangible recommendation for what that "something" should be.

most of the participants of this discussion is forgetting that German invasion was just beginning - September 17th Soviets invaded Poland from the east - i it may put any intervening allies in direct clash with both Russia and Germany - but discussion like this is pure divagation about alternative version of history....

 

[Admiral Beez]

most of the participants of this discussion is forgetting that German invasion was just beginning - September 17th Soviets invaded Poland from the east - i it may put any intervening allies in direct clash with both Russia and Germany - but discussion like this is pure divagation about alternative version of history....

I wonder what Britain and France would have done if Germany waited for the USSR to invade Poland first. That would have been the smarter move on Hitler's part.... unless the Russians raced to the German border.

 

[JDCAVE]

With the RN so much closer to both the action and its own bases?

Blaming America for not forestalling Hitler (which J JDCAVE seems to be suggesting) when France and Britain refused to allow the Czechs to even sit in on the conference dismembering their own nation, followed by a formal guarantee of Poland's security, followed by doing in essence nothing once war broke out, strikes me as an unrealistic reading of the history.

There is a difference between attaching blame's (which I did not) and unwilling, which America clearly was… "Unwilling" because the political sentiment in the US was decidedly against any involvement in WWII during the first two years of the war. Surely I don't need to remind you of the "America First Committee" and outspoken advocates such as Charles Lindbergh. So yes, I am suggesting it. There were errors by all member allies during the lead up to the war.