Warzaw again, more civilized please

[Kalle]

If talked about without hatred and overnationalistic feelings the battle of Warzaw 1920 certanly is a valid topic I think. Krook gets some support from J.F.C. Fuller (1878-1966). He lists this battle as one of the worlds most important in his "Decisive battles of the western world". Fuller was both a soldier (one of the fathers and thinkers of armoured warfare) and a historian.

Maybe the russian army alone could not have conquered europe had they won this battle but with the help of a victory most certanly Poland was gone and central europe (germany for instance) would be open to propaganda, influence and revolution (this was very likely to happen) that very possible would not have stopped until it hit the atlantic.

Kalle

[KARTLOS]

i really dont think a russian victory would have been particularly signifcant. i dont think they would have been able t oadvance much further and they certainly wouldnt have made a dent on germany.

however if it had been surely that would have been a good thing? anything that would have supressed the germans would have been helpful. if they had been under the russian yoke they would have never been able to start the second world war and the holocaust.

[Franconicus]

... anything that would have supressed the germans would have been helpful. ...

Thank you!
Even though some may say, that the surpression of Germany supported the raise of the Nazi.


One issue of the formerdicussion had been the strength of the armies. German Wiki (not the most credible source, I know, but anyway) says the the Poles had about 48,000 men, the Soviets 114,000. So the ratio was between 2 and 3. English Wiki says that the Poles had 113,000 - 123,000, the Soviets 104,000 - 140,000.

The other issue is the effect of a Polish defeat.
I think it is obvious that Poland would have lost territory in the east. Additionally, it would have had a communist governemt.
Harder to estimate are the effects on the rest of Europe. If you look at Germany, you see that the country was in disorder. There had been revolution, military putsch, strike, Freikorps etc.. I believe that a Soviet victory would have led to a new revolution at Germany. With the support of Russian weapons and soliders the left could have won. However, a communist Germany did not have to be completly in line with Moscov. A successful revolution at Germany would propably thrown the spark to France too.

Another theatre would have been the Balkans, where everybody was fighting against everybody. I strong Soviet army could have changed the political map there.

Finally, some propaganda (from a historical view):
Soviet Propaganda:"This is how the landsowner ideas end"

"Beat the Bolshevik":

[Furious Mental]

Poland would have been conquered by Bolshevik Russia? That happened only 25 years later. I don't see what major difference it made to history. In the long term the Soviet Union proved to be too weak and dysfunctional to hold together its client states and they all abandoned it eventually, even if they remained communist (Yugoslavia, Albania). But at least in 1945 the Soviet Union was about to become a superpower. In 1920 it was a wartorn, chaotic mess at war with itself. If it had taken on the burden of conquering all of eastern Europe in 1920 it would have just collapsed even faster than it did.

[The Stranger]

only a country in chaos like russia could never have waged that war... as soon as the leaders were off fighting the country would rebel again.... certainly if the war went bad... im not very sure but didnt russia got into a violent civil war during the 20's or did it just ended.

[cegorach]

One issue of the formerdicussion had been the strength of the armies. German Wiki (not the most credible source, I know, but anyway) says the the Poles had about 48,000 men, the Soviets 114,000. So the ratio was between 2 and 3. English Wiki says that the Poles had 113,000 - 123,000, the Soviets 104,000 - 140,000.

It is hard to say, because those numbers are not reliable anyway. Lets also remember that the frontline was from Eastern Prussia to Romanian border so quite a long distance. In addition a number of Red units was delayed or came after the battle to support the reforming army in Nemel area which was defeated in September.

The other issue is the effect of a Polish defeat.
I think it is obvious that Poland would have lost territory in the east. Additionally, it would have had a communist governemt.

Actually so called Polish communists didn't even see any need for independent Poland at all - they claimed that such country cannot survive because its economy is linked to Russia or Germany to much, besides this sect (these people were really isolated from the real world) claimed that for example 'german' territories should be returned to them and Poland in any shape should be a soviet republic - nothing more than Ukraine or Belorus.
The problem this government would face is total lack of support to their case - the 'polish government' which was transported from Russia and for few weeks had its capital in Bialystok complained that noone is supporting them at all, but they had Feliks Dzierzynski father of CzK to deal with counterrevolution and sabotage after all...
About the rest of the entire central-eastern europe it was DOOMED this way - Baltic states would be easily defeated, Finland might be or not because it wasn't the priority anywa, but Romania and the Balkans would be under serious pressure - I doubt they would hold.

Harder to estimate are the effects on the rest of Europe. If you look at Germany, you see that the country was in disorder. There had been revolution, military putsch, strike, Freikorps etc.. I believe that a Soviet victory would have led to a new revolution at Germany. With the support of Russian weapons and soliders the left could have won. However, a communist Germany did not have to be completly in line with Moscov. A successful revolution at Germany would propably thrown the spark to France too.

I think some sort of earlier Eastern Germany would be formed somehow, though the easternmost German territories were very conservative and might be rather difficult to take so perhaps a stalemate in re-armed Germany would be the case ?
Probably the frontline would stay roughly on pre-1st WW border, maybe somewhere else.
German generals were rather happy with the demise of Poland, but letting the Reds to come knocking to your door is a different thing.

France - I think it would be in chaos of political struggle for years unless some sort of conservative, maybe even authoritarian government was formed.

From military pont of view the struggle would continue in Germany I am quite sure and it would be Germany which would have to stop the Reds - France and the UK would have to supply them and denounce the treaty in Versailles in the end.

Czechoslovakia actually at the time of the battle managed to take contested Zaolzie region from Poland (which in reality poisoned the relations between Poland and Czechoslovakia for a long time) and its authorities never seen any danger in Soviets. Benes even thought he can buy them off by giving them ruthenian territories biven by entente some time earlier.
There is a question if Czechoslovakia was strong enough to hold the line - they had sizable communist movement, but I won't bet if that was large enough.

Hungary was only recently a soviet republic so it might be a good target for an invasion.
Romania was definetely too weak after 1st WW.
Bulgaria lost the war so there might be enough tension to explore by the Reds.

Yugoslavia - quite difficult - perhaps to unstable and still not really formed into a single country - its army had much respect, but was in not the best shape after all.
Greece was still fighting Turkey - can't say anything here.

Italy might be an interesting case - strong socialist movement so maybe Mussolinie would lead revolutionaries under Red banner there ?

Victory at Warsaw and the later destruction of Poland ( includes defeat of its Ukrainian allies) would create many opportunities so its hard what would be its consequence, but one thing for sure - the world would become a very grim place - authoritarian or radical left governments with a string of wars to follow.



The mportance of this war is that it gave the 'breathing time'for a dozen of nations, entire generations were brought up which was later exploited during the 1989+ revolutions in Europe and elsewhere - for numerous nations it was the time when they built their national identity in newly acquired or re-acquired independent countries.





Another thing I would want to ask you is what would happen if Poland actually managed to win the victory it would like to achive ? Europe with independent Ukraine and autonomous Belorus + perhaps a number of independent states as Georgia, Armenia etc.
That would seriosly undermine power of the Soviet Union, what do you think ??

[Randarkmaan]

I actually think a "victory" would put way too much strain on the Soviet Union, as you said they would probably have incorporated Poland into the USSR, because of their civil war, War Communism, economic mismanagement in this period and later, bad harvests, genocides and famines because of the forced colectivization. Annexing Poland or more countries, would just be one expense too many considering the costs of running a communist country with all the bureaucracy and the fact that a number of Poles would probably continue to fight them for years after the occupation.

I think this would have led to the (very violent and catastrophic) collapse of the Soviet Union and much, much chaos. So either with your version of Soviet Totalitarian rule over much of Europe or my version with total chaos in Eastern Europe and many of the territories of the Soviet Union. Probably many of the Soviet governors would become rulers of several small states and you would have "warlords" fighting each other and vying for control.

Another thing I would want to ask you is what would happen if Poland actually managed to win the victory it would like to achive ? Europe with independent Ukraine and autonomous Belorus + perhaps a number of independent states as Georgia, Armenia etc.
That would seriosly undermine power of the Soviet Union, what do you think ??

Maybe Stalin would become King of Georgia or something instead...

Actually I think one of the scariest alternative histories is a scenario where Hitler does not break his agreement with Stalin but they both enter an alliance instead, I'm not too sure if the UK and the US would have been able to halt that in the end.

[Conradus]

It
Italy might be an interesting case - strong socialist movement so maybe Mussolinie would lead revolutionaries under Red banner there ?

I don't think there was any chance of that happening. Mussolini was a rightwinger, no doubt about that. He loathed communism. And though there were quite a lot of communists in Italy (in entire Europ at that time), Italy was a special case. It's catholic, and was still loyal to the king. The Pope had still a sizeable amount of influence there, so I don't believe they could ever have turned into a communist nation.

The mportance of this war is that it gave the 'breathing time'for a dozen of nations, entire generations were brought up which was later exploited during the 1989+ revolutions in Europe and elsewhere - for numerous nations it was the time when they built their national identity in newly acquired or re-acquired independent countries.

Perhaps it was better had they never built that national identity. We certainly didn't.
Anyhow, had the Russians won, I don't think it would've made much difference. Russia was still a wartorn country. It had lost millions of men in WWI, was torn apart between Communists and loyalists of the Tsars and had some foreign expedition corpses in their country, not that long before. They were overstrechted already. I don't think they could've gone beyond Poland.

Another thing I would want to ask you is what would happen if Poland actually managed to win the victory it would like to achive ? Europe with independent Ukraine and autonomous Belorus + perhaps a number of independent states as Georgia, Armenia etc.
That would seriosly undermine power of the Soviet Union, what do you think ??

I for one, don't think they ever had a chance of winning their desired victory. Imo they're lucky enough to have survived till 1939. Even if the Ukraine and Belarus managed to get their independence, I doubt they could've sustained it. Russia would probably had time to reorganise and with less ground to control, it might have been easier.

[Randarkmaan]

I don't think there was any chance of that happening. Mussolini was a rightwinger, no doubt about that. He loathed communism. And though there were quite a lot of communists in Italy (in entire Europ at that time), Italy was a special case. It's catholic, and was still loyal to the king. The Pope had still a sizeable amount of influence there, so I don't believe they could ever have turned into a communist nation.

Mussolini could easily have been a communist, as long as it would get him into power and he could be nationalist and militaristic. He started out as a socialist you know, then he left that party. The fascists were at the beginning quite socialist (at least in their economic thinking) until Mussolini realized that he could get the support of a great part of the middle class and some of the lower class who were afraid of communism, then he got popular because the fascists seemed like the only ones strong enough to resist the communist.

I think Mussolini was once asked "What is the political agenda of the Fascists?", his answer "We are going to rule Italy!"

[cegorach]

I don't think there was any chance of that happening. Mussolini was a rightwinger, no doubt about that. He loathed communism. And though there were quite a lot of communists in Italy (in entire Europ at that time), Italy was a special case. It's catholic, and was still loyal to the king. The Pope had still a sizeable amount of influence there, so I don't believe they could ever have turned into a communist nation.

Mybe northern Italy at least. Besides as written above Mussolini was a socialist - he even published in a socialist newpaper if I remember correctly.

Perhaps it was better had they never built that national identity. We certainly didn't.

I meant Latvians, Estonians and the likes whom did you ??

I for one, don't think they ever had a chance of winning their desired victory. Imo they're lucky enough to have survived till 1939. Even if the Ukraine and Belarus managed to get their independence, I doubt they could've sustained it. Russia would probably had time to reorganise and with less ground to control, it might have been easier.

I think you think in too fixed, linear way remember that such victory actually changes a number of other events:

1. Without Ukraine the bread basket of Russia is lost, so are large iron ore and coal resorces which would affect industrialisation.

2. Defeat would encourage other factions in Russia to fight for longer leaving more devastation in their wake.

3. A string of independent countries arises from the former Russian empire - I mean Polish PROMETHEISM and its consequences. I suggest to check even Wikipedia about this subject this might give you some ideas and perhaps change your mind a little.

4. Poland actually do not need the alliance with France so much neither is willing to wait for French support in some cases.
I mean the plan for preventive war against Germany in 1933-34...

I think it would be much harder for Germany or Soviet Union (if that survived) to act so aggresively.

The scary consequence is that Germany could forge a very close alliance with the Soviet Union which wouldn't fall apart and the world would see this kind of gigantic Axis far more difficult to beat.


But the question is how probable that would be - I think those two countries were too ambitious to stay together. :