Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by Brenus:
“The Holocaust would have probably been quietly halted and covered up.”
Yeap, but what to do? To stop the convoys (which would be use much better for reinforcing the Eastern lines) would be easy, but what with the millions of deportees? A lot of war industries were using the forced labour…
What about the survivors of the Death Camps? To finish them off wouldn't be possible without the Allies to know, to release them wouldn’t help in gaining sympathy to Germany, even not in not any more Hitlerian one.
Just trying to resolve this would be a logistical nightmare, just to stop the deportees to stop dying of typhus or Cholera, or hunger. How to increase their daily rations in a besieged Germany? What to do with them? And if the Generals were not aware of this, it would make their task even harder...
“Peace (alliance) with the Western Allies”
Why the Allies would accept a Peace that would save Germany, and under which conditions?
As the debate on Versailles showed, a too lenient and soft Treaty just fuelled the next war…
So even in a will to save what left of Europe out of Communism, would Churchill and Roosevelt (as De Gaulle was still not in full control of France at this moment) would have accepted the risk of a confrontation with Stalin (which Roosevelt trusted) in order to save a Germany they were fighting with the help of the Soviets?
Even if the 2 leaders had no real idea of the scale of the holocaust, they knew what the Nazis were doing.
As the German population, they couldn’t imagine the reality of it. To know and to accept the reality of it is different. I am one of think the Germans knew of the deportation, I ma not sure they were aware of the physical reality…
More, as we know, Roosevelt always distrust De Gaulle as he was a general and he wasn’t elected… How and why he would have trust putchist German Generals?
As mentioned, there is no more a political credible German opposition thanks to the efficient Gestapo.
Now, if we look at the maps in July 1944, the Russian are deep in Europe.
They can decide to halt THEIR offensive in the East, giving the Germans time to regroup and to stop the Allies offensive.
They have in their ranks a political alternative to Nazism as they have a “German Communist Government” in Exile.
In case of a successful coup, they could claim the throne…
And considering the difficult logistic faced by the Allies in 1944, I am far to believe that the Allies would have been victorious in front of the Russians…
And I don’t want to start again a comparison between Sherman and T 34 or JS, Patton against Zukov, Koniev or Vatutine.
Defeating Bagration would have been indeed a difficult task but I am not sure that the British soldiers would have been so happy to fight the Russian even if they would be able to reach this front…
As for the French Army fighting during Anvil operation, I quite sure that they wouldn’t.
“The full extent of the Holocaust and its cultural and historical significance emerged after the war.” Agree, but only for the civilian population. I interviewed during my research a Leclerc 2DB veteran and he was still horrified by what he saw in some trains in an abandoned railways station…
So, the Allied soldiers who would have to see this kind of things would not fight to save Germany from Communism, as the horrors of communism became apparent even latter in history than the ones from Nazism…
All good points, especially about the difficulty in figuring out how to repatriate a population you were previously systematically killing. “The Holocaust would have probably been quietly halted and covered up.”
Yeap, but what to do? To stop the convoys (which would be use much better for reinforcing the Eastern lines) would be easy, but what with the millions of deportees? A lot of war industries were using the forced labour…
What about the survivors of the Death Camps? To finish them off wouldn't be possible without the Allies to know, to release them wouldn’t help in gaining sympathy to Germany, even not in not any more Hitlerian one.
Just trying to resolve this would be a logistical nightmare, just to stop the deportees to stop dying of typhus or Cholera, or hunger. How to increase their daily rations in a besieged Germany? What to do with them? And if the Generals were not aware of this, it would make their task even harder...
“Peace (alliance) with the Western Allies”
Why the Allies would accept a Peace that would save Germany, and under which conditions?
As the debate on Versailles showed, a too lenient and soft Treaty just fuelled the next war…
So even in a will to save what left of Europe out of Communism, would Churchill and Roosevelt (as De Gaulle was still not in full control of France at this moment) would have accepted the risk of a confrontation with Stalin (which Roosevelt trusted) in order to save a Germany they were fighting with the help of the Soviets?
Even if the 2 leaders had no real idea of the scale of the holocaust, they knew what the Nazis were doing.
As the German population, they couldn’t imagine the reality of it. To know and to accept the reality of it is different. I am one of think the Germans knew of the deportation, I ma not sure they were aware of the physical reality…
More, as we know, Roosevelt always distrust De Gaulle as he was a general and he wasn’t elected… How and why he would have trust putchist German Generals?
As mentioned, there is no more a political credible German opposition thanks to the efficient Gestapo.
Now, if we look at the maps in July 1944, the Russian are deep in Europe.
They can decide to halt THEIR offensive in the East, giving the Germans time to regroup and to stop the Allies offensive.
They have in their ranks a political alternative to Nazism as they have a “German Communist Government” in Exile.
In case of a successful coup, they could claim the throne…
And considering the difficult logistic faced by the Allies in 1944, I am far to believe that the Allies would have been victorious in front of the Russians…
And I don’t want to start again a comparison between Sherman and T 34 or JS, Patton against Zukov, Koniev or Vatutine.
Defeating Bagration would have been indeed a difficult task but I am not sure that the British soldiers would have been so happy to fight the Russian even if they would be able to reach this front…
As for the French Army fighting during Anvil operation, I quite sure that they wouldn’t.
“The full extent of the Holocaust and its cultural and historical significance emerged after the war.” Agree, but only for the civilian population. I interviewed during my research a Leclerc 2DB veteran and he was still horrified by what he saw in some trains in an abandoned railways station…
So, the Allied soldiers who would have to see this kind of things would not fight to save Germany from Communism, as the horrors of communism became apparent even latter in history than the ones from Nazism…
Essentially, my whole scenario hinges on the Allies viewing the assassination of Hitler as a dramatic change in German leadership and intentions and swallowing their moral and historical issues with Germany in the preservation of their own self interest, as they did when allying with the Soviet Union.
Originally Posted by Tincow:
You seem to be assuming that the USSR/West split had already occurred in July of 1944. That's simply not true. The Western Allies didn't begin to re-align themselves against the Soviets until early 1945, and even then the Cold War didn't really start until 1947. Despite the 'what-if' posturing a lot of people like to make, with numerous cites to Patton, there was essentially no chance whatsoever that the US and UK were going to turn on the USSR, even in 1945. The US, UK, and USSR were all extremelly committed to supporting each other against Germany in July of 1944. Unconditional surrender was first discussed at Casablanca in January of 1943, and it was all but accepted by Tehran in November of 1943. That's long, long before the events of Overlord and July 20th. Unconditional surrender was a near-certainty by that point. The Soviets had also demanded that Poland's borders be redrawn at Tehran... they would not have accepted an end to the war that left Poland in Germany's hands.
Even at their most congenial, the West and the Russians were extremely suspicious of each other. Read Churchill's opinions on Stalin and communism as a good example. Their alliance was one of necessity, and while I agree with you wholeheartedly that there was no way the two would turn on each other as long as their common enemy, Nazi Germany, existed, the proposed scenario changes everything. With Hitler dead and the Nazis (presumably) out of power, Germany suddenly becomes the lesser of two evils/threatsYou seem to be assuming that the USSR/West split had already occurred in July of 1944. That's simply not true. The Western Allies didn't begin to re-align themselves against the Soviets until early 1945, and even then the Cold War didn't really start until 1947. Despite the 'what-if' posturing a lot of people like to make, with numerous cites to Patton, there was essentially no chance whatsoever that the US and UK were going to turn on the USSR, even in 1945. The US, UK, and USSR were all extremelly committed to supporting each other against Germany in July of 1944. Unconditional surrender was first discussed at Casablanca in January of 1943, and it was all but accepted by Tehran in November of 1943. That's long, long before the events of Overlord and July 20th. Unconditional surrender was a near-certainty by that point. The Soviets had also demanded that Poland's borders be redrawn at Tehran... they would not have accepted an end to the war that left Poland in Germany's hands.
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
Even at their most congenial, the West and the Russians were extremely suspicious of each other. Read Churchill's opinions on Stalin and communism as a good example. Their alliance was one of necessity, and while I agree with you wholeheartedly that there was no way the two would turn on each other as long as their common enemy, Nazi Germany, existed, the proposed scenario changes everything. With Hitler dead and the Nazis (presumably) out of power, Germany suddenly becomes the lesser of two evils/threats
I see what you're getting at, but I have difficulty believing that the US or UK would truly believe that Germany had been de-Nazified while it continued fighting and particularly while it continued to occupy foreign nations, such as Poland. Just look at the reaction Patton got when he tried to keep the civil servants around. If Patton, of all people, could be politically tarred and feathered over retaining that relatively minor amount of 'Nazism,' I cannot see the US or UK accepting a simple leadership purge as a good enough reason to completely cease hostilities. Perhaps if the Germans had engaged in massive, open, and public de-Nazification there might have been something to build upon, but such a drastic purge of Germany would have so seriously damanged their ability to wage the war that Germany would have been defeated even more quickly in the East.Even at their most congenial, the West and the Russians were extremely suspicious of each other. Read Churchill's opinions on Stalin and communism as a good example. Their alliance was one of necessity, and while I agree with you wholeheartedly that there was no way the two would turn on each other as long as their common enemy, Nazi Germany, existed, the proposed scenario changes everything. With Hitler dead and the Nazis (presumably) out of power, Germany suddenly becomes the lesser of two evils/threats
I've spent many years studying WW2 history, particularly the very entertaining 'what if' scenarios. While they are fun, there are honestly very few scenarios in which Germany could have won WW2 without deviating so signficantly from reality that the scenario becomes more fantasy than history. IMHO, Germany's only serious, realistic chance of victory was at Dunkirk. Had things occurred differently, and had the diplomacy been handled properly, peace with the UK could have been had then and there. That would have prevented the US from entering the war and would have let Germany fight the Soviets without one hand tied behind its back. After Dunkirk, the odds of a UK withdrawal from the war was negligible and the US entry was inevitable, even without Japan.
Originally Posted by drone:
Beck was slated to take over in the plot, but this assumes that the post-hit coup was successful. Himmler was not going to go down easily.
As far as I'm aware, even with all the delays, the major operation behind the coup was running under rails until the Commander of the Reserve Army was called by Goebels, which was surrounded by the German reserve army in his ministry of propaganda, and Goebels put the Commander to speak with Hitler, which changed his alliegance immediatly. Other high military commanders were being ordered by the conspirators to arrest key SS members and commanders stationed in the same area of operations as themselves. Without Hitler being alive, the reserve army would continue doing it's job, and Himmler resisting would only lend credibility to the conspirators. It would be a case of "Damned if you do, damned if you don't."; I'm not sure what a chance Himmler would have at directing any resistance efforts if the whole SS and Nazi leaders were arrested in a couple of days.Beck was slated to take over in the plot, but this assumes that the post-hit coup was successful. Himmler was not going to go down easily.
1. Hitler's death was not enough. To succeed the coup had to kill or neutralize Hitler, Himmler, Goering, Borman, and Goebbels.
Assume that they did.
2. Germany is now headed by a half-military/half-civilian junta. The Holocaust is happening on autopilot until countermanded. The Soviets are attacking. The Western Allies have taken Rome and are established in a bridgehead in Normandy. Germany sues for peace.
The Russians say no and continue -- which they will do regardless. They have no interest in stopping short of the Elbe and probably would have preferred to get to the Rhine. The Western Allies honor their alliance with the Soviets -- however grudgingly. The War continues and we end up with the same partition (though the Holocaust is quickly curtailed and some of the stupider "hold and die" orders are never given.
But suppose the West did make a separate peace (however unlikely).
3. The Russians get to the Rhine. Sorry PJ, but der Wermacht is a shell of what it was by this point. It is the Soviets who are punching holes with armored spearheads while the Germans use hastily trained conscripts and kampfgruppe "fire brigades" to stop them as best they can. German industry, revamped by Speer, is up to the task (especially if the Western Allies are not involved anymore) but the Germans simply do not have the time to train people or enough experienced cadre to use all the new wonders that had been cooked up. Moreover, the remaining elite formations are very likely being broken up by the new German government which cannot afford groups of SS troops or Luftwaffe troops of dubious loyalty to the new government. So maybe JV-44 sets an all time record for kills and we see that in competent hands the Jadgtiger really could knock out a JS-III, but it is still too little too late. The Soviets bleed a lot more, but they still get to the Rhine (or to the split line between them and the West).
Assume that they did.
2. Germany is now headed by a half-military/half-civilian junta. The Holocaust is happening on autopilot until countermanded. The Soviets are attacking. The Western Allies have taken Rome and are established in a bridgehead in Normandy. Germany sues for peace.
The Russians say no and continue -- which they will do regardless. They have no interest in stopping short of the Elbe and probably would have preferred to get to the Rhine. The Western Allies honor their alliance with the Soviets -- however grudgingly. The War continues and we end up with the same partition (though the Holocaust is quickly curtailed and some of the stupider "hold and die" orders are never given.
But suppose the West did make a separate peace (however unlikely).
3. The Russians get to the Rhine. Sorry PJ, but der Wermacht is a shell of what it was by this point. It is the Soviets who are punching holes with armored spearheads while the Germans use hastily trained conscripts and kampfgruppe "fire brigades" to stop them as best they can. German industry, revamped by Speer, is up to the task (especially if the Western Allies are not involved anymore) but the Germans simply do not have the time to train people or enough experienced cadre to use all the new wonders that had been cooked up. Moreover, the remaining elite formations are very likely being broken up by the new German government which cannot afford groups of SS troops or Luftwaffe troops of dubious loyalty to the new government. So maybe JV-44 sets an all time record for kills and we see that in competent hands the Jadgtiger really could knock out a JS-III, but it is still too little too late. The Soviets bleed a lot more, but they still get to the Rhine (or to the split line between them and the West).
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
German industry, revamped by Speer, is up to the task (especially if the Western Allies are not involved anymore)
With the west out, German industry will collapse immediately. The millions of slaves must be released. There can be no more plunder either. The wholesale transfer of money, resources, products will come to a halt.German industry, revamped by Speer, is up to the task (especially if the Western Allies are not involved anymore)
Nazi Germany economically had come to fully rely on a pyramid schemes of conquest, plunder, and bills being pushed ahead.
One must not forget the depths of depravity of Nazi Germany. How would a seperate Western peace work anyway? Would they check German factories to ensure Western slaves have been released, and just leave those of its former allies? Only leave the Russians?
Would there be Western inspectors to check the rape camps the Germans had set up for their troops, leave the Czech girls and liberate the Belgian ones?
What of Western reparations (or 'greedy and duplicitous punitive measures' for those who think reparations are not precisley that when it concerns Germany)? Would the West make a peace that leaves the plundered goods and money in Germany, only for the Russians to destroy and collect it to satisfy their claims? Or would the West prevent that and rapidly collect their restitutions themselves, with the immediate collapse of Nazi Germany's plunder economy?
What of the looted art, antiques, valuables, much in the hands of millions of ordinary Germans? For banal plunder, mere thuggery, from the lowest to the highest rank, was the largest economical sector of Germany behind the military. The Nazis had the morality of a street corner gang of thugs, including their little 'cool' gestures, identification marks, uniforms, honour codes and utter disregard for their victims.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
With the west out, German industry will collapse immediately. The millions of slaves must be released.
I fully agree with you. However, Speer would simply begin using German women ask a workforce for the industry. It was his original plan anyway. The other plan was use foreign forced labour (If I'm not mistaken, proposed by Himmler). The adopted plan was the second one.With the west out, German industry will collapse immediately. The millions of slaves must be released.
Part of the problem for any July 20th scenario is simply that the Germans had already been broken by that point, on both fronts. In the west, the entire defense of Normandy collapsed within two weeks and Paris was liberated only a month later. On the eastern front, Germany was in full-scale retreat and had essentially been completely kicked out of the USSR:
I honestly think that by that point it was too late for Germany to recover, no matter what happened domestically. Hypothetical German victory scenarios need to be based upon changes in the war that occurred much, much earlier.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I honestly think that by that point it was too late for Germany to recover, no matter what happened domestically. Hypothetical German victory scenarios need to be based upon changes in the war that occurred much, much earlier.
was it ever known what the would be assassins intent was? were they hoping to attempt some diplomacy? did they simply want to conduct the war on their own terms? killing the chief is just a step, is their ultimate goal known?
Originally Posted by The Lurker Below:
was it ever known what the would be assassins intent was? were they hoping to attempt some diplomacy? did they simply want to conduct the war on their own terms? killing the chief is just a step, is their ultimate goal known?
Hitler was called a criminal by the conspirators and by Erwin Rommel. They sought to end his criminal regime, and take control of Germany themselves. Or, that's what it seems like. Either way it'd be better than Hitler in charge.was it ever known what the would be assassins intent was? were they hoping to attempt some diplomacy? did they simply want to conduct the war on their own terms? killing the chief is just a step, is their ultimate goal known?
Elections in Poland occupy vast part of my spare time, but since I am already here (didn't log in for two weeks - I think) I will quickly refute some ideas which emerged in this thread.
About the subject.
Hitler's termination would create shockwaves in Eastern Europe provided that no replacement was quickly found - which frankly was impossible.
I'd say a sort of I WW scenario could be replayed, but with whole nations quickly changing sides.
Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria are prime suspects in this case - I highly dout that it would be possible to occupy Hungary as it historically happened.
That would leave entire armies stranded in the south-east.
In Poland I am quite certain that the Uprising in 1944 would be successful.
It is nice that some people learnt there was any, but should be aware of the size of the entire movement - in addition to Warsaw Home Army launched over 20 similar actions in other places and majority was successful from military point of view e.g. Wilno (Vilnius), Lublin, Lwów (L'viv) were controlled by the Home Army for some time - and red Army launched no actions against those forces, NKVD did.
Anyway that was eastern half of Poland so what about western? Home Army numbered over 200 000 soldiers in this area and with Germany out of action in a way it would be a force with some combat value, especially considering it would be supported by civilian administration which was quickly recreated in 'our' history so it would be in this timeline.
I am talking about legal government taking power> Legal, recognised, supported by ALL political parties in Poland from right-wing nationalists to socialists and Jewish Bund and by the people of Poland.
So called 'Lublin commitee' was a rough collection of spooks, exiled comunists who survived Stalins liquidation of the communist party (small already) and various opportunists and ordinary traitors.
Really - I made extensive research recently from about 50 high commanders in Soviet controlled Polish Army only 3-4 were Poles from Poland with no incriminating past unlike for example future marschal of Poland Michał Rola-Żymierski who was discharged from the Polish Army after a corruption scandal and in 1932 became a NKVD agent attempting to provide information about Poland's defensive plans against the SU.
In other words - government supported by the people vs. bunch of guys noone knows or recognises transported in suitcases and ready to sign anything - just like they didn't protest in 1939 in any way.
The key moves would be political. Soviet offensive strenght was mostly spent in July in Poland after they suffered defeat close to Rembertów (to the east of Warsaw) and if the Allies acted quickly area to the west of the Vistula would be easily secured.
Frankly there were three divisions already there in a form of Hungarian corps including elite 1st Hussar Division who historically attempted to prepare an agreement with the Allies to join the Poles in 1944 as so called 'Legion of st. Stephen' and who for many reasons would be a great asset in the area.
If Polish government in exile would show its presence in Poland quickly - in a form of some notable character travelling through German airspace for example, this together with strong presence of the Home Army and united smaller organisations, Hungarians, and civilian administration should be enough to secure this area.
I strongly doubt that Stalin would dare to advance more than to the great natural obstacle which is the Vistula river. In any case from logistical reasons it would be possible only in a limited manner and rather not worth not trying to go for something else instead - e.g. Romanian oil.
After that?
Eastern Prussia would be divided since destruction of Prussia was one of goals which would be easy to achive, wouldn't hurt Germany so much, would be perceived as important to secure future peace and because the Soviets would be able to advance out there.
Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia - occupied and annexed. Finland - not sure, maybe would be annexed to save some wounded pride.
Norway - maybe northern part would be annexed as well - after all if you can create Moldavians in a month, so much you can do with 'Soviet Norwegians' - why not?
Romania - tricky, but Stalin would like it and there was alread an army concentrating and ready to attack.
Bulgaria - probably sovietised because the British would be busy in Greece, but maybe they could count on a form of 'finlandisation' - after all they were not even at war with the Soviet Union.
Hungary - most likely saved.
Yugoslavia - Tito in power, but most likely more moderate. Albania - maybe as a part of Yugoslavia or a UN protectorate for a time - if the UN would be formed.
Czechoslovakia - probably spared sovietisation, but certainly would lose Ruthenia. In worst case scenario part of Slovakia might be grabbed and made a 'socialist' state as well.
Poland - two state solution.
One Poland with the capital in Warsaw with Upper Silesia, Greater Poland and (obviously) Danzig + maybe something else Poles could grab quickly e.g. coastal towns such as Słupsk and silesian Opole - Breslau was too large and too far away, and noone really wanted it.
Eastern with capital in Lublin or Lwów (L'viv) - Stalin really didn't care much about the nonsense with the Curzon line and he would need something to give this annoying creation - Lwów and Grodno would be perfect. Przemyśl would be cleansed from Ukrainians, so would Volhynia and Wilno (Vilnius) from Poles which would be 'given' Ukraine and Lithuania.
Borders - really similar to R-M Pact according to the agreement in August 1939 (so along the river), maybe 'eastern Poland' would get some ex-German port e.g. Elbig because Koenigsberg would be too important for any suprisses such as III WW.
Would be eastern Poland 'independent' or annexed? I'd say the first after all it was still in theory only allied country unlike 'aggressors' such Romania or Finland. besides we have the entire German case as an example we can use.
Unification? Maybe in 1989 after the fall of border wall dividing western and eastern Warsaw?
@Brenus
I'd leave the entire moral/immoral thing to a different discussion or at all because there is no morality which allowed something like this. After all trucks were used, but to transport arrested AK soldiers in eastern Warsaw while western fought.
Even Soviet fighters didn't show up untill late September.
In general - leave it because it is impossible to defend Stalins actions on any rational and moral grounds.
First of all there was noone you could even call a dictator. Piłsudski died in 1935 so BEFORE the war started, besides calling him a dictator is problematic a bit.
Second - not anti-communist but not communist. That the communist tend to treat everyone else as enemy is really noone fault.
Communist party hovewer posed some danger to the security of the state and its existence - politically it was the ONLY entity which opposed independence of Poland, fought on Soviet side in 1919-20 and even managed to organise a series of terrorist attacks in later years such as the campaign of bombings in 1923.
It really is difficult to have a conversation with people who are attempting to ruin everything.
Nevertheless the party was allowed to exist and in fact was liquidated by Stalin himself, with a vast majority of their members (those high ranking characters who survived were usually in prisons in Poland such as Gomułka).
Third.
Not the authorites, but also a vast majority of population supported Franco which considering the big blob in the east is no suprise, BUT here is a suprise for you - Poland was the second largest arms supplier to the Republic after the Soviet Union!
I can give you numbers if you need them e.g. majority of hand granades used in the war on this side was from Poland, overall there was enough equipment for 10 full divisions.
Of course no political support and no volunteers - but to neither side while 90% of sold equipment exported by Poland was sold to the Republic.
For profit of course which greatly helped in modernization of the Polish Army, but a fact is still something which counts.
Poles in International Brigades mainly came from Polish community - mainly coal miners in France who BTW later joined the Podhalan Brigade fighting in Norway in 1940 whch was supposed to fight the Soviets in Finland.
Those guys actually learnt a thing or two about Soviet commisars and NKVD in Spain so were quite keeon on kicking Soviet asses in Finland.
I know that he knew who Poles are - he actaully had some reasonable (completelly immoral and inhuman, but still) ideas in 1920 which were overruled.
There are several examples that he was capable of rational desicions in this matter e.g. didn't decide to place a red star over the white eagle, change the anthem or similar opposing various ideas presented by his lapdogs so he had to understand that his inaction and actions during the Uprising would backfire.
Next he annexes the eastern territories of Poland (sorry no bullshit about 'former Russian territories would hold here). Later he orders the Katyn 'solution'.
And after that he suddenly moves to create a rifle division from Poles to be sent to occupied territories of Poland - in early 1941.
I'd call his approach flexible with no obvious long term goal, even despite he openly hated Poles (several example in 'the Court of the red Tzar') and knew history well.
About territories - he actually opposed ideas to move Ukrainian SRR's border to the San river (so including mainly Ukrainian Przemyśl he got in 1939) or annexing Białystok with its sizable Belorussian minority claimed Russian by Lenin in 1918
For later 45 years it was another recent minefield which required considerable resources and would backfire if Poland was not sandwitched in some way.
No danger of German revanchism + Katyn and the failure of the Uprising = anger directed at Moscow and 'saddling the cow' was as Uncle Joe already said impossible.
More clever would be to use Czechoslovakian scenario - after all German occupation was not a sunny day in a park so there would be some ground to built some support for the Soviets in the future.
That would be more clever and from my point of view more dangerous.
I guess he either overestimated Poles or underestimated them.
Recently I've read interesting interview with a Russian historian from Memorial organisation who explained Katyn as extermination of elite which in Stalin's eyes would be a seed of Poland whenever they came so whatever it would be - Siberia, Poland or Venus.
In this light not supporting Warsaw was a bit a gamble - he might think that let's say 1/4 was eliminated in Katyn, 1/4 is in London (more in Scotland actually) and Italy with Anders, 1/4 removed Germans and 1/4 is there in Warsaw.
Maybe together with loyal reports about 'thousands' of communist fighters ready to strike (indeed there were thousands - 300 in Warsaw, c. 6-18 000 overall compared to 600 000+ in the Underground) he thought it is almost there and everything is done...
But allowing a million large capital to be literally completely destroyed is something people tend to remember.
The world where everyone is conspiring against you, where multilayered paranoia supports certain decision and the state aparatus provides proofs that Switzerland is imparialist power trying to overthrow Soviet government.
Why? Because some 'duce' somewhere said so and any agent's report, any confession which didn't support it could end up badly for the agent or the persecutor.
So according to this world view it is indeed clever, but fails in reality which doesn't realise it should behave as some guy wrote in his report.
And now - really guys, this view is already obsolate. August can be explained, but September cannot - while complete lack of any other support or allowing such is just impossible to defend.
I wish I could imagine German troops defending Warsaw in August-September 1944, but I cannot.
@Pannonian
Not in September when eastern Warsaw was occupied quickly.
In any case even in August it was still possible because similar operations were launched later during the war in Slovakia and Hungary because political decisions were different.
Hard, but possible to link with the capital or endanger German positions out there with later success in mind.
@Panzerjeager
The Red Army was simply created large too quickly (so for example 80% of tanks would have to be replaced in 1942-43) and never came over numerous problems such as terrible technical support of fast divisions,
In short:
- Soviet paratroopers were numerous, but lacked proper transports, support to continue fighting for longer time and were poorly trained,
- Soviet armor had poor technical support resulting in numerous technical breakdowns in a matter of 24 hours,
- its logistic were very poor, especially fuel was running short very quickly because it was not delievered in time,
- Soviet soldiers were afraid to fight at night resulting in numerous incidents between different divisions camped close to each other identifying their neighbours as enemies with predictable results,
- poor recon of all branches of the military,
- poor training of important personell such as drivers or pilots,
- design flaws of equipment and poor reliability of mass produced weapons especially the tanks which suffered from very poor visibility,
And finally egomaniacs in power. How can you comment Tukhachevsky's plan to invade Poland with 150 000 tanks and 80 000 airplanes presented by him around 1932?
No, the numbers are all ok - he thought it is all all right and reasonable and there were similar 'great minds' everywhere making Stalin rather positively sensible.
And so on and so forth...
Definetely one of top three, but frankly speaking competition isn't too hard... because who else could compete?
Top 8 in 1939 would include Germany, France, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, Japan, Italy, Poland, United States (because of the navy) probably in that order.
Top 12 in 1938 would also include Czechoslovakia (after Poland), Romania, Yugoslavia, Nationalist China - in no particular order.
Hitler's termination would create shockwaves in Eastern Europe provided that no replacement was quickly found - which frankly was impossible.
I'd say a sort of I WW scenario could be replayed, but with whole nations quickly changing sides.
Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria are prime suspects in this case - I highly dout that it would be possible to occupy Hungary as it historically happened.
That would leave entire armies stranded in the south-east.
In Poland I am quite certain that the Uprising in 1944 would be successful.
It is nice that some people learnt there was any, but should be aware of the size of the entire movement - in addition to Warsaw Home Army launched over 20 similar actions in other places and majority was successful from military point of view e.g. Wilno (Vilnius), Lublin, Lwów (L'viv) were controlled by the Home Army for some time - and red Army launched no actions against those forces, NKVD did.
Anyway that was eastern half of Poland so what about western? Home Army numbered over 200 000 soldiers in this area and with Germany out of action in a way it would be a force with some combat value, especially considering it would be supported by civilian administration which was quickly recreated in 'our' history so it would be in this timeline.
I am talking about legal government taking power> Legal, recognised, supported by ALL political parties in Poland from right-wing nationalists to socialists and Jewish Bund and by the people of Poland.
So called 'Lublin commitee' was a rough collection of spooks, exiled comunists who survived Stalins liquidation of the communist party (small already) and various opportunists and ordinary traitors.
Really - I made extensive research recently from about 50 high commanders in Soviet controlled Polish Army only 3-4 were Poles from Poland with no incriminating past unlike for example future marschal of Poland Michał Rola-Żymierski who was discharged from the Polish Army after a corruption scandal and in 1932 became a NKVD agent attempting to provide information about Poland's defensive plans against the SU.
In other words - government supported by the people vs. bunch of guys noone knows or recognises transported in suitcases and ready to sign anything - just like they didn't protest in 1939 in any way.
The key moves would be political. Soviet offensive strenght was mostly spent in July in Poland after they suffered defeat close to Rembertów (to the east of Warsaw) and if the Allies acted quickly area to the west of the Vistula would be easily secured.
Frankly there were three divisions already there in a form of Hungarian corps including elite 1st Hussar Division who historically attempted to prepare an agreement with the Allies to join the Poles in 1944 as so called 'Legion of st. Stephen' and who for many reasons would be a great asset in the area.
If Polish government in exile would show its presence in Poland quickly - in a form of some notable character travelling through German airspace for example, this together with strong presence of the Home Army and united smaller organisations, Hungarians, and civilian administration should be enough to secure this area.
I strongly doubt that Stalin would dare to advance more than to the great natural obstacle which is the Vistula river. In any case from logistical reasons it would be possible only in a limited manner and rather not worth not trying to go for something else instead - e.g. Romanian oil.
After that?
Eastern Prussia would be divided since destruction of Prussia was one of goals which would be easy to achive, wouldn't hurt Germany so much, would be perceived as important to secure future peace and because the Soviets would be able to advance out there.
Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia - occupied and annexed. Finland - not sure, maybe would be annexed to save some wounded pride.
Norway - maybe northern part would be annexed as well - after all if you can create Moldavians in a month, so much you can do with 'Soviet Norwegians' - why not?
Romania - tricky, but Stalin would like it and there was alread an army concentrating and ready to attack.
Bulgaria - probably sovietised because the British would be busy in Greece, but maybe they could count on a form of 'finlandisation' - after all they were not even at war with the Soviet Union.
Hungary - most likely saved.
Yugoslavia - Tito in power, but most likely more moderate. Albania - maybe as a part of Yugoslavia or a UN protectorate for a time - if the UN would be formed.
Czechoslovakia - probably spared sovietisation, but certainly would lose Ruthenia. In worst case scenario part of Slovakia might be grabbed and made a 'socialist' state as well.
Poland - two state solution.
One Poland with the capital in Warsaw with Upper Silesia, Greater Poland and (obviously) Danzig + maybe something else Poles could grab quickly e.g. coastal towns such as Słupsk and silesian Opole - Breslau was too large and too far away, and noone really wanted it.
Eastern with capital in Lublin or Lwów (L'viv) - Stalin really didn't care much about the nonsense with the Curzon line and he would need something to give this annoying creation - Lwów and Grodno would be perfect. Przemyśl would be cleansed from Ukrainians, so would Volhynia and Wilno (Vilnius) from Poles which would be 'given' Ukraine and Lithuania.
Borders - really similar to R-M Pact according to the agreement in August 1939 (so along the river), maybe 'eastern Poland' would get some ex-German port e.g. Elbig because Koenigsberg would be too important for any suprisses such as III WW.
Would be eastern Poland 'independent' or annexed? I'd say the first after all it was still in theory only allied country unlike 'aggressors' such Romania or Finland. besides we have the entire German case as an example we can use.
Unification? Maybe in 1989 after the fall of border wall dividing western and eastern Warsaw?
@Brenus
Originally Posted by :
Well, you put a moral judgement on a political decision.
Was Stalin cynical? Most probably, however the decision to halt (if it was a decision as the Russian claim they were at their logistical chain end so they couldn’t push forward –this wouldn’t explain the lack of support in ammunition and weapons/air support) was a pure political –perhaps immoral- decision.
Well, you put a moral judgement on a political decision.
Was Stalin cynical? Most probably, however the decision to halt (if it was a decision as the Russian claim they were at their logistical chain end so they couldn’t push forward –this wouldn’t explain the lack of support in ammunition and weapons/air support) was a pure political –perhaps immoral- decision.
I'd leave the entire moral/immoral thing to a different discussion or at all because there is no morality which allowed something like this. After all trucks were used, but to transport arrested AK soldiers in eastern Warsaw while western fought.
Even Soviet fighters didn't show up untill late September.
In general - leave it because it is impossible to defend Stalins actions on any rational and moral grounds.
Originally Posted by :
From the Russian point of view, Poland was always an enemy.
Soviet in this case - Russia is not the Soviet Union which included also Georgia, Ukraine, Belorus etc.From the Russian point of view, Poland was always an enemy.
Originally Posted by :
From the Communist point of view, same: The Polish Dictator in charge prior 1939 was openly anti-communist and even supported Germany policy during the Spanish Civil War.
Eeeee.... Not really.From the Communist point of view, same: The Polish Dictator in charge prior 1939 was openly anti-communist and even supported Germany policy during the Spanish Civil War.
First of all there was noone you could even call a dictator. Piłsudski died in 1935 so BEFORE the war started, besides calling him a dictator is problematic a bit.
Second - not anti-communist but not communist. That the communist tend to treat everyone else as enemy is really noone fault.
Communist party hovewer posed some danger to the security of the state and its existence - politically it was the ONLY entity which opposed independence of Poland, fought on Soviet side in 1919-20 and even managed to organise a series of terrorist attacks in later years such as the campaign of bombings in 1923.
It really is difficult to have a conversation with people who are attempting to ruin everything.
Nevertheless the party was allowed to exist and in fact was liquidated by Stalin himself, with a vast majority of their members (those high ranking characters who survived were usually in prisons in Poland such as Gomułka).
Third.
Not the authorites, but also a vast majority of population supported Franco which considering the big blob in the east is no suprise, BUT here is a suprise for you - Poland was the second largest arms supplier to the Republic after the Soviet Union!
I can give you numbers if you need them e.g. majority of hand granades used in the war on this side was from Poland, overall there was enough equipment for 10 full divisions.
Of course no political support and no volunteers - but to neither side while 90% of sold equipment exported by Poland was sold to the Republic.
For profit of course which greatly helped in modernization of the Polish Army, but a fact is still something which counts.
Poles in International Brigades mainly came from Polish community - mainly coal miners in France who BTW later joined the Podhalan Brigade fighting in Norway in 1940 whch was supposed to fight the Soviets in Finland.
Those guys actually learnt a thing or two about Soviet commisars and NKVD in Spain so were quite keeon on kicking Soviet asses in Finland.
Originally Posted by :
So Poland was anti-Stalin before Katyn (reason why Katyn happened, somewhere).
That is true, but so was Finland and everyone else for that matter. Stalin simply chose one option which was not rational anyway.So Poland was anti-Stalin before Katyn (reason why Katyn happened, somewhere).
I know that he knew who Poles are - he actaully had some reasonable (completelly immoral and inhuman, but still) ideas in 1920 which were overruled.
There are several examples that he was capable of rational desicions in this matter e.g. didn't decide to place a red star over the white eagle, change the anthem or similar opposing various ideas presented by his lapdogs so he had to understand that his inaction and actions during the Uprising would backfire.
Originally Posted by :
In term of politic and post war politic, and Stalin knew the war was won just didn’t know how much lands he would be able to do.
There is no single approach Stalin followed during the war. First he openly refused Hitler to establish any form of 'rump state' under the name of Poland.In term of politic and post war politic, and Stalin knew the war was won just didn’t know how much lands he would be able to do.
Next he annexes the eastern territories of Poland (sorry no bullshit about 'former Russian territories would hold here). Later he orders the Katyn 'solution'.
And after that he suddenly moves to create a rifle division from Poles to be sent to occupied territories of Poland - in early 1941.
I'd call his approach flexible with no obvious long term goal, even despite he openly hated Poles (several example in 'the Court of the red Tzar') and knew history well.
About territories - he actually opposed ideas to move Ukrainian SRR's border to the San river (so including mainly Ukrainian Przemyśl he got in 1939) or annexing Białystok with its sizable Belorussian minority claimed Russian by Lenin in 1918
Originally Posted by :
So resolving the Polish political future in letting the Germans to eradicate part of the Polish elite and in the same time denying to the anti-communist Partisan a propaganda victory in liberating their Capital was a typical communist decision.
That is definetely true, but also typically stupid. So resolving the Polish political future in letting the Germans to eradicate part of the Polish elite and in the same time denying to the anti-communist Partisan a propaganda victory in liberating their Capital was a typical communist decision.
For later 45 years it was another recent minefield which required considerable resources and would backfire if Poland was not sandwitched in some way.
No danger of German revanchism + Katyn and the failure of the Uprising = anger directed at Moscow and 'saddling the cow' was as Uncle Joe already said impossible.
More clever would be to use Czechoslovakian scenario - after all German occupation was not a sunny day in a park so there would be some ground to built some support for the Soviets in the future.
That would be more clever and from my point of view more dangerous.
I guess he either overestimated Poles or underestimated them.
Recently I've read interesting interview with a Russian historian from Memorial organisation who explained Katyn as extermination of elite which in Stalin's eyes would be a seed of Poland whenever they came so whatever it would be - Siberia, Poland or Venus.
In this light not supporting Warsaw was a bit a gamble - he might think that let's say 1/4 was eliminated in Katyn, 1/4 is in London (more in Scotland actually) and Italy with Anders, 1/4 removed Germans and 1/4 is there in Warsaw.
Maybe together with loyal reports about 'thousands' of communist fighters ready to strike (indeed there were thousands - 300 in Warsaw, c. 6-18 000 overall compared to 600 000+ in the Underground) he thought it is almost there and everything is done...
But allowing a million large capital to be literally completely destroyed is something people tend to remember.
Originally Posted by :
What I learned in studying another Communist war (Indochina) is the Communists always favour the political (long term) effect even in a war. If a defeat gave them upper hand in the propaganda/media war, they will scarify men in order to achieve it.
If you judge Stalin’s decision from this, this decision makes sense.
Not a cynical decision but a plain battle field full of sense decision.
Only if we take into account the world they were living in.What I learned in studying another Communist war (Indochina) is the Communists always favour the political (long term) effect even in a war. If a defeat gave them upper hand in the propaganda/media war, they will scarify men in order to achieve it.
If you judge Stalin’s decision from this, this decision makes sense.
Not a cynical decision but a plain battle field full of sense decision.
The world where everyone is conspiring against you, where multilayered paranoia supports certain decision and the state aparatus provides proofs that Switzerland is imparialist power trying to overthrow Soviet government.
Why? Because some 'duce' somewhere said so and any agent's report, any confession which didn't support it could end up badly for the agent or the persecutor.
So according to this world view it is indeed clever, but fails in reality which doesn't realise it should behave as some guy wrote in his report.
And now - really guys, this view is already obsolate. August can be explained, but September cannot - while complete lack of any other support or allowing such is just impossible to defend.
Originally Posted by :
@Sarmatian
So basically, what Stalin did in Poland was not different to what Allies did in Italy, and according to Glantz, Red Army was indeed at the end of their logistical supply and was unable to mount a huge operation of capturing a huge city such as Warsaw at such short notice...
Capture from whom?@Sarmatian
So basically, what Stalin did in Poland was not different to what Allies did in Italy, and according to Glantz, Red Army was indeed at the end of their logistical supply and was unable to mount a huge operation of capturing a huge city such as Warsaw at such short notice...
I wish I could imagine German troops defending Warsaw in August-September 1944, but I cannot.
@Pannonian
Originally Posted by :
According to Montefiore, Stalin was worried about the reaction of his allies, and pressed his generals (ie. Rokossovsky) to make that extra push, but was told it wasn't possible. Stopping short of Warsaw was a military decision, not a politically-based one.
In July and August.According to Montefiore, Stalin was worried about the reaction of his allies, and pressed his generals (ie. Rokossovsky) to make that extra push, but was told it wasn't possible. Stopping short of Warsaw was a military decision, not a politically-based one.
Not in September when eastern Warsaw was occupied quickly.
In any case even in August it was still possible because similar operations were launched later during the war in Slovakia and Hungary because political decisions were different.
Hard, but possible to link with the capital or endanger German positions out there with later success in mind.
@Panzerjeager
Originally Posted by :
Stalin had the largest army in Europe. He had far greater quantities of armor, artillery and airplanes than Germany. He had brilliant military minds and a sound doctrine. Despite Western historiography, the Soviet military was second only to the Wehrmacht in quality, even in 1941. Due to his intelligent decisions, his brilliant officer corps was systematically murdered by their own leader directly before the war and the vast majority of this force was destroyed by the Germans in the first year of the war, having to be rebuilt from scratch. Stalin's best decision was when he decided to stop making decisions and leave it to the professionals.
My sources aren't Western and they portrait a different picture using Russian data I am afraid.Stalin had the largest army in Europe. He had far greater quantities of armor, artillery and airplanes than Germany. He had brilliant military minds and a sound doctrine. Despite Western historiography, the Soviet military was second only to the Wehrmacht in quality, even in 1941. Due to his intelligent decisions, his brilliant officer corps was systematically murdered by their own leader directly before the war and the vast majority of this force was destroyed by the Germans in the first year of the war, having to be rebuilt from scratch. Stalin's best decision was when he decided to stop making decisions and leave it to the professionals.
The Red Army was simply created large too quickly (so for example 80% of tanks would have to be replaced in 1942-43) and never came over numerous problems such as terrible technical support of fast divisions,
In short:
- Soviet paratroopers were numerous, but lacked proper transports, support to continue fighting for longer time and were poorly trained,
- Soviet armor had poor technical support resulting in numerous technical breakdowns in a matter of 24 hours,
- its logistic were very poor, especially fuel was running short very quickly because it was not delievered in time,
- Soviet soldiers were afraid to fight at night resulting in numerous incidents between different divisions camped close to each other identifying their neighbours as enemies with predictable results,
- poor recon of all branches of the military,
- poor training of important personell such as drivers or pilots,
- design flaws of equipment and poor reliability of mass produced weapons especially the tanks which suffered from very poor visibility,
And finally egomaniacs in power. How can you comment Tukhachevsky's plan to invade Poland with 150 000 tanks and 80 000 airplanes presented by him around 1932?
No, the numbers are all ok - he thought it is all all right and reasonable and there were similar 'great minds' everywhere making Stalin rather positively sensible.
And so on and so forth...
Definetely one of top three, but frankly speaking competition isn't too hard... because who else could compete?
Top 8 in 1939 would include Germany, France, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, Japan, Italy, Poland, United States (because of the navy) probably in that order.
Top 12 in 1938 would also include Czechoslovakia (after Poland), Romania, Yugoslavia, Nationalist China - in no particular order.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO