No M/R Pact - could the Wallies have intervened militarily in Poland?

JennyB

At first glance Molotov-Ribbentrop looks ASB, but Stalin needed it with much of his army still in the East, and Hitler wasn't averse to making promises he had no intention of keeping.

But, suppose Stalin was convinced that Britain and France were determined to defend Poland, and had made it clear to them privately that he would not intervene, hoping that a Nazi/Wallies war will prove damaging to both? (He's not going to want, for example a permanent RN base in Szczein or Danzig).

Hitler invades Poland as OTL. What is the best Wallies strategy? A second front in the Ruhr?
 

Carl Schwamberger

The French strategy was to open a second front in the Saar region. They did not expect to reach the Ruhr until much later. Mobilization schedules meant the main offensive could not start until October, after the 'A" Series units were ready. The limited attack made in September was to clear the German outposts on the border and close up to the main defense zone.

Its often forgotten here that no one, including most German leaders, thought Poland would collapse in three weeks. Gamelin & his staff, and other military leaders thought it would be at the very least twelve weeks and most likely 20 weeks. To start a serious offensive in September France would have had to start mobilization a month earlier, in late July. Thats before the Polish Crisis emerged. Germany started a concealed mobilization far earlier that France or Poland.
 

JennyB

Carl Schwamberger said:
The French strategy was to open a second front in the Saar region. They did not expect to reach the Ruhr until much later. Mobilization schedules meant the main offensive could not start until October, after the 'A" Series units were ready. The limited attack made in September was to clear the German outposts on the border and close up to the main defense zone.

Its often forgotten here that no one, including most German leaders, thought Poland would collapse in three weeks. Gamelin & his staff, and other military leaders thought it would be at the very least twelve weeks and most likely 20 weeks. To start a serious offensive in September France would have had to start mobilization a month earlier, in late July. Thats before the Polish Crisis emerged. Germany started a concealed mobilization far earlier that France or Poland.
Click to expand...

So:
  1. Without the Soviet invasion, could the Romanian Bridgehead have held until the French mobilised?
  2. What else could the Wallies have done in the meantime?
  3. Without the MR pact, would the Nazis still have invaded, and could the Soviets have afforded not to? I take it there's no way they would have come in openly in support of Poland - memories of the aftermath of WW1 were too recent.
  4. Given a 'neutral' Russia, how does the war develop?
 

seraphim74

JennyB said:
So:
  1. Without the Soviet invasion, could the Romanian Bridgehead have held until the French mobilised?
  2. What else could the Wallies have done in the meantime?
  3. Without the MR pact, would the Nazis still have invaded, and could the Soviets have afforded not to? I take it there's no way they would have come in openly in support of Poland - memories of the aftermath of WW1 were too recent.
  4. Given a 'neutral' Russia, how does the war develop?
Click to expand...

1. I think Poles could have hold for some time. But not forever.
IOTL about 60 000 - 70 000 Polish soldiers crossed the border to Romania and Hungary (not to mention many more civilian refugees); ITTL that number would be significantly bigger, since many soldiers trying to break south were stopped by the Soviets; also some units might decide to march to Romanian border, like Independent Operation Group "Polesie" led by general Kleeberg with 18 000 men (Originally Kleeberg was ordered exactly to go to the bridgehead, but after Soviet invasion and some fight with the Red Army he decided it was impossible to get there and turned towards Warsaw). There were also units defending Lwów. IMO Poles could have easily gathered 150 000 soldiers there, possibly more.
Potential problems
Supplies. I doubt the Allies would have been able to organize a supply line to the Poles form Romanian ports - remember, that Romania was formally neutral; add to that a time Allied ships would need to reach Romania. However, many transports with weapons, ammunition and other equipment from garrisons in eastern Poland were directed to the bridgehead. IOTL many of them were captured by the Soviets, ITTL at least some of them might reach their destination. I believe that those supplies might allow the Poles to hold at least for 3-4 weeks, possibly longer. IOTL Germans also had logistical problems - not as much about lack of supplies (although I heard they have some problems with fuel) but with getting them to the frontline. ITTL their supply lines would be even longer and lead to the less devloped part of Poland with fewer roads and railways.
The main problem would be organization of the Polish defense. Polish command would need to very quickly reorganized available units into a force capable of stopping the Germans; I think there were enough officers to do that (hey, Polish General Staff and Command in Chief were there), but it might be a serious problem. It is possible that defence of Lwow (vital communication hub, among other things) might have given Poles some time.
2. Start bombing Germany for real, insted of leaflets; send the supply ships anyway, at least some of them might arrive in time. And continue that Saar offensive
3. That is debatable; even Hitler was worried about British and French actions, and an alliance with Stalin gave him a strong confidence boost. Not to mention Germany would need to prepare for a possibility of a Soviet action against them. Not very propable, but possible.
4. Poorly for Germany, I think, even if they eventually crush the bridgehead and Soviets decide to remain neutral. First, the campaign in Poland would be at least a few weeks longer and somewhat bloodier. Second, they would need a much larger force in Poland for occupation purposes and to keep an eye on the Soviets. And most important: IOTL the Soviets provided Hitler with thousands of tons of food, strategic raw materials and oil in exchange for German technology. I doubt it would happen ITTL with both Soviets and Germans at least very suspicious about each other. Hitler would not give Stalin his newest toys; Stalin would not give his resources for free. And Hitler had no cash to pay for it. Add to that allied blokade and German economical problems would be enormous.
 

raharris1973

JennyB said:
At first glance Molotov-Ribbentrop looks ASB, but Stalin needed it with much of his army still in the East, and Hitler wasn't averse to making promises he had no intention of keeping.

But, suppose Stalin was convinced that Britain and France were determined to defend Poland, and had made it clear to them privately that he would not intervene, hoping that a Nazi/Wallies war will prove damaging to both? (He's not going to want, for example a permanent RN base in Szczein or Danzig).

Hitler invades Poland as OTL. What is the best Wallies strategy? A second front in the Ruhr?
Click to expand...

Yes that is the best strategy, and it is the one the Wallies will go for, but on a slow schedule. Too slow to save Poland or achieve much in 1939 before the Germans can reinforce in the west.

But in the long-run, the Allies can be building for a push in 1940 and 1941. In the meantime, with maximum success for the "Romanian bridgehead" the Nazis will still be occupying Poland, all of it, by the earliest months of 1940. However, Romania is probably a belligerent on the Franco-British-Polish side, and is hosting substantial numbers of retreated Polish troops in addition to mobilizing their own troops. Meanwhile, the British and French have probably have liaison staff officers and others helping try to keep an "east" front alive from Bucharest. If Romania demands concrete western commitments in return for being supportive of Poland's fighting retreat, the British and French may think it is worth it to send some colonial troops from "East of Suez", ie India, Indochina, Syria to join with Romanian forces to show the flag and solidarity.

Poland still goes through a hellish occupation, but likely the extra costs imposed on the Germans will make German offensives in the west on the scale of OTL (IE, securing capitulation and occupation of France) impossible. The Germans are more constrained in a two-front war with the British and French mobilizing their empires, the Romanians mobilizing and the Soviets beefing up as a precaution, and probably coming around to selling more of their exports to the deeper-pocketed Allies than to the Germans.

Germany will find this fight starting to resemble WWI too much for its taste. But so too will the Allies. It's a long, painful slog for them to drive the Germans back. Transylvania and Belgium and Netherlands might be temporarily lost as the fight goes on.
 

sloreck

Absent the Soviet attack, the Poles will do better and hold out longer against the Germans. At a minimum this means the Germans expend more materiel and men to achieve their goals. There is also the probability that more Polish soldiers go west via Romania or Hungary to join the western Allies. This could very well have an effect on the subsequent battles in the west, and may also have an effect on the Allied morale - the Germans will look less like "supermen". Even if everything goes the same in the west (which I doubt), now when the Germans start Barbarossa they will get a little head start.
 

raharris1973

sloreck said:
there is also the probability that more Polish soldiers go west via Romania or Hungary to join the western Allies.
Click to expand...

Is the only endgame for the Poles retreat through Romania and going west? Might there be a possibility of the Poles and Romanians maintaining a southeastern allied front from Romanian territory. Romania was a recipient was a WAllied guarantee like Poland. Especially if Romanian support for Polish personnel is much greater than OTL, might Bucharest not have to expect Germany would direct its ire next at Romania?
 

JennyB

I must admit this is not really my period. I asked the question because it seemed to me that the Phoney War came about less through indifference to Poland's fate than to lack of viable options, and the more I read the more understandable the M/R pact seems. Evil, but understandable.
Probably the scenario I described could never have arisen, since it requires Stalin to be more convinced than Hitler that Britain and France will intervene. But suppose it happens anyway. Perpaps Trotsky is in charge, more intent of spreading revolution than on Socialism in One Country.
It's in Russia's interest that the Germans keep fighting, which means that the Romanians do not abandon the Poles. But neither Poland or Romania are natural Soviet alllies and both are difficult to support from the West. What response can the West make to encourage them to hold on until a second front is opened? If Romania has the onfidence to resist, then perhaps Italy and Yugoslavia will stand to?
Meanwhile, the Russians are offering 'humanitarian aid' and covert support to any politically acceptable resistance while taking the official line that this is a Capitalist War and the Wallies are not to be trusted.
Could be a much shorter war in which the Americans do not get involved, and the line between East and West ends up - where?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top