If italy Joined the allies World War 2

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Not together with the Germans, but after the Germans : on September 17 .
The Poles had the choice : the whole of Poland occupied by Germany, or a partition of Poland .

The Poles had no choice at all. They were invaded by a foreign army on two different sides. I think your view of history is a bit off.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Doesn't have to.
Declaration of war and full mobilisation should do it.

Then German planners are facing a war without allies and on 2 fronts

How would Halder and Brauchitsch deal with that? Ur facing ww1 the second round and that's not good.

The Germans were not stupid. They would know the Italians are just going to sit on their border. They don't have to mass troops on the border to defend it. Italy was in no position to do anything.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

..and all the assets Italy sent to the Soviet Front would be lost to Germany. At absolute worst, were Italy to join the Allies, the Axis would be no better off than it was historically. More likely, the loss of the Italian Forces would significantly weaken the Axis.

I disagree. The loss of Italy is one less thing for Germany to worry about. They don't have to waste resources bailing them out all over the world.

 

[ljadw]

The Poles had no choice at all. They were invaded by a foreign army on two different sides. I think your view of history is a bit off.

They could chose,and they did : they said no to Hitler,and when he was defeated, Stalin was in Warsaw .
If they said yes to Hitler,and he lost, Stalin would still be at Warsaw. If Hitler won ,Warsaw would no exist today ,and one can doubt that there would still be Poles in Poland .

 

[ljadw]

The Polish state in 1939 had existed less than 20 years, being created from the ashes of the collapsed German, Austrian and Russian empires. Both Germany and the Soviet Union were eager to reassert their territorial claims. While not formally allied, the non-aggression pact had clauses which recognized the territorial ambitions of both parties. Plus Germany and the Soviet Union had been conducting secret military and economic cooperation for years.

The cooperation stopped in 1933 and was not long remaining secret .

 

[ljadw]

Still does not make them neutral. They had an agreement with Germany to split up Poland. Attacking another country is the exact opposite of neutral.

Let's ask our Polish members here if they had a preference over being occupied by Germany or Russia in 1939.

One can remain neutral and attacking an other country : Japan was fighting in China but remained neutral till Pearl Harbour .
The USSR was not at war with France and Britain,thus it was neutral til June 22 1941 .
Besides : when on September 17 1939 the USSR invaded Poland, Poland did not declare war on the USSR,thus the USSR was neutral .
The Soviets invaded Poland to prevent Hitler from occupying the eastern regions of Poland,which was a big danger for the Kremlin .

 

[Greg Boeser]

One can remain neutral and attacking an other country : Japan was fighting in China but remained neutral till Pearl Harbour .
The USSR was not at war with France and Britain,thus it was neutral til June 22 1941 .
Besides : when on September 17 1939 the USSR invaded Poland, Poland did not declare war on the USSR,thus the USSR was neutral .
The Soviets invaded Poland to prevent Hitler from occupying the eastern regions of Poland,which was a big danger for the Kremlin .

How exactly is invading another country remaining neutral? The Soviets and Germans had a non-aggression pact that divided up the spoils of eastern Europe. Tell the Poles, Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians and Finns that the Soviet occupation of their land was to protect them from Nazi aggression. While not formally allied, the Soviets were definitely not neutral. What is true is that the western powers did not declare war on the Soviet Union when they occupied the eastern half of Poland, nor did they attempt to interfere with the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states, other to send a bit of war material to Finland, when they resisted the Soviet ultimatum.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

One can remain neutral and attacking an other country : Japan was fighting in China but remained neutral till Pearl Harbour .
The USSR was not at war with France and Britain,thus it was neutral til June 22 1941 .
Besides : when on September 17 1939 the USSR invaded Poland, Poland did not declare war on the USSR,thus the USSR was neutral .
The Soviets invaded Poland to prevent Hitler from occupying the eastern regions of Poland,which was a big danger for the Kremlin .

Ummm no. I think you need to brush up on your definition of neutrality. You can justify the Soviet aggression all you want, it does not make you right.

 

[pbehn]

Ummm no. I think you need to brush up on your definition of neutrality. You can justify the Soviet aggression all you want, it does not make you right.

Bearing in mind Russia was the leading member of the Soviet Union that borders Europe the far east and India I dont see how it could ever be a "neutral country" as defined in international law.

 

[swampyankee]

The USSR was neutral regarding WWII in the Pacific, at least until near the end of the war, and Japan did not attack Soviet-flagged merchant ships and the USSR interned American aircraft which landed there (there may also have been Lend-Lease material going to the Soviet Front, where the USSR was an active ally) Why this is the case, I have no idea, as there was certainly no love lost between the USSR (or czarist Russia) and Japan. During WWI, the US remained neutral vis a vis the Ottoman Empire.

As to the USSR and Poland? Since the USSR invaded Poland roughly simultaneously, and possibly cooperatively, with Germany, it's really straining credulity to consider the USSR to be neutral in that conflict.

 

[ljadw]

How exactly is invading another country remaining neutral? The Soviets and Germans had a non-aggression pact that divided up the spoils of eastern Europe. Tell the Poles, Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians and Finns that the Soviet occupation of their land was to protect them from Nazi aggression. While not formally allied, the Soviets were definitely not neutral. What is true is that the western powers did not declare war on the Soviet Union when they occupied the eastern half of Poland, nor did they attempt to interfere with the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states, other to send a bit of war material to Finland, when they resisted the Soviet ultimatum.

The Soviets did nothing else than the Poles a year before,who ,not long after Munich,occupied a part of CZ that they had lost in 1920 to the Czechs and hat they still claimed, for valid/non valid,reasons as a part of Poland = Teschen .
They did it to prevent the Germans from taking it .
After Munich and after Prague 1939, the Hungarians also ( re ) occupied parts of CZ,that they claimed were belonging to Hungary .
No one said that Poland and Hungary were not neutral . If they were neutral, so was the USSR .
If no one was whining about the Poles and the Hungarians, there was no reason to whine about the USSR .
After the fall of France, Spain occupied Tanger,no one said that Spain was not neutral .
The Baltics were not occupied to protect them from the Germans, neither was it for the small part of Finland .

Ummm no. I think you need to brush up on your definition of neutrality. You can justify the Soviet aggression all you want, it does not make you right.

I do not justify what the Soviets did : there is no justification needed in international politics

 

[ljadw]

The USSR was neutral regarding WWII in the Pacific, at least until near the end of the war, and Japan did not attack Soviet-flagged merchant ships and the USSR interned American aircraft which landed there (there may also have been Lend-Lease material going to the Soviet Front, where the USSR was an active ally) Why this is the case, I have no idea, as there was certainly no love lost between the USSR (or czarist Russia) and Japan. During WWI, the US remained neutral vis a vis the Ottoman Empire.

As to the USSR and Poland? Since the USSR invaded Poland roughly simultaneously, and possibly cooperatively, with Germany, it's really straining credulity to consider the USSR to be neutral in that conflict.

17 days is not simultaneously ,besides, as Churchill and several French military said : it was better for Britain and France if Poland was divided than if Poland was occupied by the Germans .
And, as the war was not about Poland ( no one cared about Poland ) but about /against Germany ,the fact that a part of Poland was not occupied by the Germans but by the Soviets,was not hindering the Wallies .
The existence of Poland prevented a possible alliance between the Wallies and the Soviets .

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

They could chose,and they did : they said no to Hitler,and when he was defeated, Stalin was in Warsaw .
If they said yes to Hitler,and he lost, Stalin would still be at Warsaw. If Hitler won ,Warsaw would no exist today ,and one can doubt that there would still be Poles in Poland .

The unspoken premise in your post is that the Poles knew the Soviets planned to invade. If they did not know that, they could not, speaking logically, have made a choice between one occupier and two. Did the Poles have foreknowledge of Soviet plans to invade on the 17th?

It seems to me that the Poles only had the choice of defending against the Germans, or rolling over and submitting. I think we here will all agree that that is no real choice at all.

The only choice the Poles made regarding the presence of Soviet troops on their territory, to my knowledge, was to categorically reject that avenue of assistance when the pact with UK and France was being hammered out and the Brits (iirc) floated the idea as one way of addressing the German threat. That's according to Shirer, but I don't have the book handy and can't give the page number.

 

[pbehn]

17 days is not simultaneously ,besides, as Churchill and several French military said : it was better for Britain and France if Poland was divided than if Poland was occupied by the Germans .
And, as the war was not about Poland ( no one cared about Poland ) but about /against Germany ,the fact that a part of Poland was not occupied by the Germans but by the Soviets,was not hindering the Wallies .
The existence of Poland prevented a possible alliance between the Wallies and the Soviets .

If they attacked on the same date that would be coordinated, in military and historical terms it is simultaneous because it resulted in Poland fighting the Soviet Union and Germany SIMULTANEOUSLY.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

If they attacked on the same date that would be coordinated, in military and historical terms it is simultaneous because it resulted in Poland fighting the Soviet Union and Germany SIMULTANEOUSLY.

That sounds like the defense was simultaneous for part of the time. That does not sound like the attacks were simultaneous.

 

[pbehn]

That sounds like the defense was simultaneous for part of the time. That does not sound like the attacks were simultaneous.

How long do you estimate the Russians would need to mount an attack on Poland if the German attack on Poland was as much of a surprise to them as it was to Poland itself? Tosdig and WilliaM in 1066 coordinated their attacks. The Battle of Stamford Bridge near York was on 25th September (they landed weeks before) while the battle of Hastings was on 14 October. That is a coordinated attack, Stalin going into Poland was opportunism and real politik. Why should he accept any German army to camp on his border, he just moved the border further away.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

How long do you estimate the Russians would need to mount an attack on Poland if the German attack on Poland was as much of a surprise to them as it was to Poland itself? Tosdig and WilliaM in 1066 coordinated their attacks. The Battle of Stamford Bridge near York was on 25th September (they landed weeks before) while the battle of Hastings was on 14 October. That is a coordinated attack, Stalin going into Poland was opportunism and real politik. Why should he accept any German army to camp on his border, he just moved the border further away.

You'd earlier said that the attacks were "simultaneous". They weren't. The Japanese fought the Americans for almost four years; they fought the Soviets for less than four weeks. Were the Soviet and American attacks upon Japan therefore "simultaneous"? No.

You're now moving on to Stalin's motivations, without addressing the point that the attacks were not, in fact, simultaneous. That renders your points here, such as they are, a red-herring, irrelevant to the discussion at hand but clearly an entirely different point.

The attacks were not simultaneous. Nor were they coordinated. While the Germans and the Soviets had divvied up Eastern Europe in the M-R Pact, neither side informed the other of its actions before the war, neither side planned any actions together, and they were separated in time by over two weeks. Calling them either "simultaneous" or "coordinated" simply doesn't describe the facts accurately at all.

A reference to something eleven hundred years ago does not change that. We're not discussing the Norman invasion.

Your point about Stalin's opportunism is the best point in your post. Opportunism is unplanned, usually.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Simultaneous? Opportunistic? No. No. Coordinated, yes. The Molotov - Ribbentrop Pact specified what parts of Poland would go to Germany and which parts would go to the Soviet Union. German troops pursuing the Polish Army withdrew from territory claimed by Stalin and turned over Polish prisoners to the Soviets when the Soviets invaded.

 

[pops-paolo]

Depends on which country you are comparing Italy with. Against Balkan and Aegean states, not so much, but against Germany and Britain in 1940, very much so. This is a picture of a CR.42 that was shot down over Britain in November 1940 and is on display at the RAF Museum.

View attachment 625230RAFM 119


At the time the CR.42 was the most numerous fighter in the Italian Air Force, although Fiat G.50s and Macchi MC.200s were also available, but when Italy entered the war in 1940, numbers of serviceable aircraft were in double figures only (less than 100 each) for both types, whereas the CR.42 was into the triple figures, with over 300 constructed. Aside from the numbers, compared to contemporary aircraft of dominant combatant countries in Europe, these aircraft definitely had their advantages, but they were under-armed and possessed poorer performance, to say nothing for the accumulated experience the Germans and the British airmen had earned through battling it out over British and French skies through May to October.

At the RAF Museum, there are four aircraft arranged in a circle in the main hall, all of which carried out combat operations over Britain in 1940, including the CR.42. They make a stark contrast to the CR.42 and illustrate what the Italians were up against.

View attachment 625231RAFM 122

View attachment 625232RAFM 109

View attachment 625233RAFM 113

By the time Italy enters the war, the Spitfire and the Bf 109 are arguably the best fighters in service, being flown by the most experienced combat pilots in the world.

This situation has Italy declare war in sept 1939
the spitfires were not in large numbers during the battle of Britain let alone battle of france
and the Italian c.200 and g.50 were comparable to the hurricanes
cr.42 and 32 would have been ok in defending the airspace too

 

[pops-paolo]

Which gets you were? And what numbers? The entire fleet is not made up of these aircraft. Even the RAF was not mustering up much of an offensive air operation.

612 sparievo bombers to bomb Munich or to be used as tactical bombing