In fact - they did. In one of the more overlooked interesting historical “what-ifs,” the French Army conducted what amounted too a large probing attack into Germany, through the Maginot Line and took a sizable amount of German territory…
But one must consider that the French had severe doctrinal limitations, and the large collection of reactionary asshats commanding their army.
The French “superiority” in armored vehicles is largelly illusionary - since they had no real idea how tanks should be employed and still followed the fatally flawed “infantry tank” vs. “cavalry tank” model of both design and and theory. Therefore, their armor was thinly spread throughout the front with only one hastily forming true armored division to speak of with any real potential for modern, mobile warfare along that battle of maneuver lines.
However, the French did seem to have good tactical success with this operation. But lacking a combined arms approach to warfare, we can argue for eternity if the French continuing and even expanding this attack could have changed the outcome for of the Battle of France…
In any case, it was too late for Poland, being crushed between two totalitarian aggressors, for the Brits or French to do anything substantial…
Actually the germans retreated deliberatly and the french had a problem, cause they didn’t really know what do to with that open front ahead. They were very afraid to run into a trap. They wanted to meet the germans on the maginot line, this had been their entire world of planning for 20 years. They were just completely unprepared for anything which looks remotly like modern maneuvre warfare at the time.
Well let’s admit you right.
So WHY then the French and Britains had Lied for the Poles - according the Polish-Franch treaty the France was OBLIGATED to began the active combat offencive in the Western fron no late 14 days since the beginning of war?
Why they “bring guaranties” for the Poles if they were not able to do anything?
If you you said they Frenchs captured the “sizable amount of German territory” - why in this way the GErmans 20 divisions not even entered to the active combats near the French bother?
In any case, it was too late for Poland, being crushed between two totalitarian aggressors, for the Brits or French to do anything substantial…
Hey wait , wait a little.
Focuse please in this question.
Why did so happend that two “Mortal totalitarian agressors” who openly hated each other untill 1939 and never made a mystery of inevitable war between them- could signed a non-agression pact?
What was a reason?
It seems for me you mistake ydstare/
in the 1939 nobody in Germany thought about Total war ( i.e war on two fronts).
The GErmans hight militarty comand FEARED it a much . Hitler only dreamed about Eastern Lands ( i.e the war in the East).
And only when he signed a pact withe the USSR he had thought about war in the West.
The RAF on the other hand, were originally prevented from bombing factories and the like on the grounds they were private property.
The Germans were much better prepared, drilled and equipped at the time (even with the much vaunted all mech Army of the British) than any other nation in Europe.
Sorry It seems for me again - you tangled.
he Germans army in the 1939 was not like in mid of 1941 when the Hitler captured whole western continental Europe and its resources.
In the 1939 the GErmans survived the enought hard military company in Poland and according the Germans they won only coz the Frace did nothing.
In fact in this moment ( the company in Poland) the Reich was MOST WEAK in the Western front.
ALL nations had slept whilst the Germans reequipped and remobilised a huge force.
Really all nations;)
I think ONLY the British and French govenments ha slept.
The other actively prepeared for the new war ( they choosed the which side to join;))
The Civil War in Spain frankly showed the close perspectives of the Europe.
Well i could understand why they slept?
The Further promised the new war in the East - so they were calm.
According its plans- the Next target in the 1940 for Germany would be the USSR.
I’ve never seen the wording of the treaty. Can you provide a link?
Germany was quite a bit ahead of the other European states in theory and conceptualization of warfare. The French strategy was essentially defensive attrition using the Maginot Line as the first line of defense (eventually, the French started believing their own “impregnable” propaganda, and it became essentially the center piece of their strategy), not armored vehicles, or even infantry. Since the French male birthrate was essentially half that of Germany’s, the French knew they could never fight an extended Franco-German war suffering the same level of casualties as the Germans did without capitulation, which is why they essentially put all their eggs in one basket hoping for a cataclysmic battle in which they severally blooded the Wehrmacht in Belgium…
Secondly, you’re acting as if the French and British could have even mobilized and put air wings on station within the time that Germany and the USSR carved into Poland. The battle was over in a month, no? How were they to get reserves trained up and send any sort of expeditionary force? Britain’s Army was small and there was no effective land bridge to Poland. I think the British and the French were thinking the War was going to take months, not weeks…
And as for the RAF, they suffered horrendous casualties flying tactical air support in the Battle for France largely because their main light strike bomber, the Fairey Battle (3 out of 8 were shot down - see the Wiki link), was obsolete and completely outclassed by Luftwaffe fighters and Wehrmacht AAA. What could they have done when deployed to Poland? Maybe given them to the Russians when they invaded the east on a “hostile preemptive lend lease program?” I don’t think the Red Air Force wanted them man…
The Polish-British pact is here http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/bluebook/blbk19.htm
However there is no the text of the addendum where were described the conditiond of the military asistence.
In a secret protocol of the pact, the United Kingdom only actually offered assistance in the case of an attack on Poland specifically by Germany, though both the United Kingdom and Poland were bound not to enter agreements with any other third countries which were a threat to the other.
Secondly, you’re acting as if the French and British could have even mobilized and put air wings on station within the time that Germany and the USSR carved into Poland. The battle was over in a month, no? How were they to get reserves trained up and send any sort of expeditionary force? Britain’s Army was small and there was no effective land bridge to Poland. I think the British and the French were thinking the War was going to take months, not weeks…
They WERE OBLIGATED to mobilaze and bagan the comat activity throught few week( france - though 15 days).
If had no any ability to attack the GErmans as you tell - then we could conclude that they Bluffed and lied to Poles.
And as for the RAF, they suffered horrendous casualties flying tactical air support in the Battle for France largely because their main light strike bomber, the Fairey Battle (3 out of 8 were shot down - see the Wiki link), was obsolete and completely outclassed by Luftwaffe fighters and Wehrmacht AAA. What could they have done when deployed to Poland?
Why they need to be deployed in Poland Nick?
They WERE OBLIGATED to begin the attack from the West where they still had the great quantity superiority.
Indeed as it was proved - Poland could hold the GErmans enought time ( at least whole month) However the allies did nothing to neitralize the GErmansy in the west.
Maybe given them to the Russians when they invaded the east on a “hostile preemptive lend lease program?” I don’t think the Red Air Force wanted them man…
Well i/m too do not think the RAF pilots really wanted to fight and die for the Poles;)
Oh, so it was a secret protocol, eh?
And as I expected, the “protocol” only addresses “aid” to the Poles, not military offensives to be launched in favor of them. Of course, such a provision would be reminiscent of one of the fundamental causes WWI.
Why they need to be deployed in Poland Nick?
They WERE OBLIGATED to begin the attack from the West where they still had the great quantity superiority.
Indeed as it was proved - Poland could hold the GErmans enought time ( at least whole month) However the allies did nothing to neitralize the GErmansy in the west.
Well i/m too do not think the RAF pilots really wanted to fight and die for the Poles;)
Again, you’re massively oversimplifying things. Neither the French nor British Armies were in any position to begin an attack within two-weeks (supposedly) or even a month…
But since they did declare war on the Germans, and fought Germany even while no one else did, apparently the RAF, and those civilians and military officers that commanded them, were indeed willing to fight and die. They just simply were unable to do much in 1939.
And you’re again assuming the French and British had real-time intelligence as too German order of battle and of the entire situation in Sept. 1939, which they clearly did not. And the Polish Army, by weight of numbers alone, was not considered to be a push over. What would make you think the Allies were not leery about the apparent German military capabilities? Even if they had mobilized in time to launch an offensive in the West…
P.S. - And mind you, I’m as critical of anybody of the French for not taking the offensive against the Germans in 1939-1940. But there were reasons why they didn’t that were consistent with why they lost the Battle for France, and it had nothing to do with indifference to the suffering of the Poles or not meeting treaty obligations as you seem to want to wrongly imply…
You have said many words and presented many reasons for defence of the England and France. You attempted to show that there were reasons for what they did, how they did and when they did. As well as what they did not do, how they did not do and when they did not do.
All this make sense! I really mean it. I do see the point in your words when you say that there were actually existing objective grounds for the UK/French actions and methods to approach the situation.
My question now to all of you is
Why do not you see any objective grounds for USSR to act the way it did in 1939?
Any at all?
Why is that everything that USSR did was done out of supernatural evilness, whereas when UK/France do something there is always a reasonable explanation for that?
I imagine that the Soviets joining in the war against Poland pretty much scared the UK and France. I also think that France and the UK not attacking Germany in 1939 was a mistake. To declare war on the USSR was a step that they just couldnt countenance I suppose. Although in hindsight, maybe they should have.
To declare the War to the USSR was inpossible for the both France and Britain.
Coz in this way the USSR fall to be the ally of the Germany.
If the GErmany ALONE conquered of the Whole continenlal Europe - it they has got the resources of the USSR and Red Army as ally - Neither USA nor the GOD did not saved the Britain from the full defeat
As the resault the Axis with USSR could easy later win the war with USA.
This clearly understood both Hitler and Stalin ( like and Chamerlian and Deladie).
Thus the Poland IMO has bacome the victim of several importaint things: the British/French lie “guaranties”, the Hitler expansion plans to the East , and the Soviet wishes to eliminate the old polish enemy since the 1920 and return back the capturing by poles territories.
Well almost forget.
And the first reason of couse - the Naivety ( that limits with stopidity) of the polish gov who refuse the all attempts of Stalin to creat France-Polish-Soviet system of collective anti-german defence.
The chances are that there would not be need for war with USA.
Ones UK is defeated the British Empier would colapse releasing large areas into the open to be grabbed by others (USA) or locals.
USA could had just settled for the new world order trying to normalize the relationship with both Germany and USSR. I think it is a very likelly “what if” scenario.
I understand that the USSR had intrinsic motivations for their actions that had much to do about national survival. But it’s hard to be sympathetic about a Soviet invasion of Poland, synchronized with the Nazi Germans, and the resulting massacres of Polish Army officers and the intelligentsia. While I’ve no doubt Stalin felt he was acting in the Soviet’s best interests, its invasion of Poland in hardly comparable to the supposed failure of France and Britain to act against the Nazi regime in 1939.
And the first reason of couse - the Naivety ( that limits with stopidity) of the polish gov who refuse the all attempts of Stalin to creat France-Polish-Soviet system of collective anti-german defence.
Yeah, I guess they had it coming then, didn’t they?!
Nick, You do not need to be sympathetic. Simple understanding of the historical events is enough.
It is not a “supposed failure”. It was not failure at all. One has to deserve to fail. They did not even try. And guess what! I do understand them very well!!! I do not think it was moral, nice nor polite how they acted. But I do undestand them.
As well as I do understand Poland that did not want to cooperate with USSR in 1939. But that is the whole point that shows the tragedy of this fallen world - you think you do good whereas you in reallity make a great mistake. But we can (if we can at all) see it only in retroperspective.
It is like most people that supported (except maybe the US govement) the invasion into Iraq were thinking they were doing a good thing - as a result by far more people died in Iraq since then than during the whole Saddam’s rule.
Katyn is a absolutely separate case. It was clearly a crime. But I am sure they did not plan it in September 1939. The reunification of West Ukraine and West Belorussia do not nesessary had to lead to Katyn. These are two separate tragedies.
Lets look at what might have happened if Poland had cooperated with the Soviets: Polish soldiers rounded up and murdered, a Polish puppet government, Soviet troops in Poland until at least 1991.
This thread is reopened, but it is not here to discuss the merits versus the controversy of the Soviet invasion, or perhaps counter-invasion, of Poland in 1939. Start another thread for that…
But since the 1999 here has come the American NATO.
So now you should be happy right?
Lets look for what might have happend - Polish external dept is over 100 billions and continie increase, polish puppet govenment ready to realise any wish of Wasington ( even to send the trops to Iraq) getting the political damage.
And americans planned to instal the ecologically danger AA-Rockets to aim that the intercepted the Nuclear rockets of Iran will fall to the territory Poland ( to save the western Europe of it).
And yes…That’s what actually today going on:)
