Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
German invasion of Poland
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Tuesday, 21st February 2006
Britain and France had agreement with Poland to defend their cause - but when the Germans invaded Poland we both did nothing - what would have been the outcome if - when Germany invaded Poland - the French army (one of the largest in the world and i believe - fully mobilised) had invaded Germany - would the war have then been over ??
opinions please -
Message 2
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Tuesday, 21st February 2006
Hi - it might have been very interesting indeed - if thirty or so divisions from the French army along with whatever we could have sent over at short notice plus whatever air support we could have mustered then I don't think the German army manning the Seigfried line Would have had much of a chance surely - all the good units with the best equipment were all in Poland and we would have been sending fresh troops and equipment. However the Germans would have been to a limited extent prepared for such an operation and could have hammered any troop concentrations if we couldn't have provided air superiority (but I think we would have had) - a definately interesting what-if.
Could I also add what do you think would have happened if we'd happened to have had "naval exercises" going on it the Baltic at the same time (maybe a landing of troops on September 1st/2nd with tanks and artillery in German terriotry)- at least some moral support to the Poles would have been on the scene and we could have feasabily attack Konigsberg or maybe Kiel.
I think what we should have done though is striahgt away launch air attacks on key industrial facilities.
Feel free to shoot this down in flames... -
Message 3
Posted by Gaz1968 (U3284982) on Tuesday, 21st February 2006
I believe the outcome would have been the same but at a later date then the previous surrender.
Sure it would have given Hitler the biggest scare of his life but considering how much better German tactics were at that stage of the conflicts and the superb leadership they had in there Generals I would wager a German victory despite decent allied inroads into German soil.
I think the USSR would also move into Poland earlier to allow Germany to free troops to move west but wether Stalin would use this to bargain for more land who knows?
I believe its one of the great what ifs which could lead you to say would Hitler be so hacked off by the attack that he would become more determined to cross the channel then he would have been? -
Message 4
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Tuesday, 21st February 2006
Re: Post 3
Do you think therefore the same could have been said if we'd say attacked in 1936 into the Rhineland - that German tactics and leadership would have won the day or that the Generals would have turned on Hitler?
But what about if we'd sent the fleet to attack Northern Germany along with an amphibious invasion on the North Freisian coastline? Still Germany to defeat Poland while minds were concentrated elsewhere?
Maybe Stalin would have sent Red Army units into Poland earlier as we all know what he wanted was a buffer state and not Polish freedom - maybe then an alliance between Germany and the USSR (unlikely but it is a what if) against "western intervention" and then when the inevitable came in 1941 we said no we are not helping you - back to you... -
Message 5
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Tuesday, 21st February 2006
good point - the intervention may have consolidated a russian german alliance - just as an aside - i would like to know how the british army wouuld have performed on the russian front - anyone ??
-
Message 6
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Tuesday, 21st February 2006
Hi,
Probably very poorly - we didn't exactly set the world alight in Norway did we barring a few exceptions - but picture the scene - we've landed the British Eastern Expeditionary Force on the Polish Baltic coast and allied with Polish forces hold the central area of Poland and the coastal beacheads and one or two ports - the Russo-German Army holds the Western and Eastern border zones by this time - France has realised that it shoul;d be involved and is knocking on the door of the Siegfried Line and the Finns are beginning to realise that their negotiations with the Russians are going nowhere and they enlist our help - in a round about way we manage to move aviation units via ships (in flat pack form to rebuild in Finland) to support the Finns and therefore meaning when the Winter War starts the secondary build-up of Soviet forces can be attacked behing the borders of the USSR...also we have decided to guarentee the borders of the Baltic republics in the same way we had Poland. -
Message 7
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Tuesday, 21st February 2006
my uneducated opinion is-
if the french army was aggressive (ie like the wehrmacht) they would have smashed the remains of the german army left at home and it would have ended the war - but why didnt we do it ?? - we could have replaced the french troops with the bef!!
opions especially AA and steelers x -
Message 8
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Tuesday, 21st February 2006
I think pretty much the same for sure - if a massed armoured thrust using French forces supported by the RAF and whatever units we hadn't sent (theoretically in my earlier post to Poland) would have been a pretty hefty punch to throw and if we had used the BEF as well it would have been an almighty blow - I wonder though what might have happened if Hitler had decided to leave the rest of Czechoslovakia alone so we would have had a base there and could have sent aircraft from S. France across then neutral Italy to Czechoslovakia and then used them to support the Polish Airforce - imagine the carnage a couple of squadrons of Spitfires or even hurricanes could have inflicted upon the German Ground Attach squadrons flying Ju-87's and HS-123's. Maybe enough damage to blunt the aerial hammer the German forces used against France - but this would be an amazing what-if.
-
Message 9
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Tuesday, 21st February 2006
not even sure if it needed a blitzkried assault - if the french sent 30-40 divisions when the germans were in poland with their best army - surely France would have been on top ??
-
Message 10
Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Tuesday, 21st February 2006
What you seem to be forgetting is that the French High Command was very defensive in mentality and the tank was very much subordinate to the infantry and was there purely to help the infantry break through difficult enemy positions. Their idea of mobile warfare was to advance at infantry pace with all the supporting arms regulated to the speed of the slowest unit, and the French infantry was still heavily reliant on the horse.
Regarding the BEF, first of all it consisted of only 160,000 men and included only one armoured division so it was hardly strong enough to go invading Germany by itself, and besides it was intrinsically linked to acting in co-operation with the French army.
As to the idea mentioned in this thread somewhere about Britain carrying out naval manoeuvres in the Baltic at the begining of September 1939, there's only two problems with that:
1. It would have required prior knowledge of the attack on Poland.
2. The Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe would in all probability have sunk every single ship involved. -
Message 11
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 21st February 2006
Re: message 4.
Falcon,
before I answer in full I want to make a survey of France before 1936.
January 1922. Britain and France made an agreement with Briand for France to let Germany time to pay its war debts. But president Millerand says to Briand that he can not agree without consentment of the president and the parliament. The press is against Briand and insults him with his pacifist attitude during the war. In the parliament Briand defends its project but fails. He resigns. 15 january 1922 Poincaré is nominated by Millerand.
10 January 1923 Poincaré announces the occupation of the Rhineland together with the Belgians. Resistance in Germany, sabotage and assaults. In May, June free fall of the worth of the Reichsmark. In September Millerand wants to form an alliance coal-steel with Germany as the later alliance of the Six after WWII. But Poincaré refuses.
I think there was a chance for peace and prosperity had the augures have been better. In my humble opinion.
January 1924 financial crisis in France too. In view of the election cartel of leftists and radicals. The election of the Senate gives a turn to the left. The Pound Sterling is nearly 130 French Francs. Poincaré increases the taxes and severe fiscal controls. Triumph of the left cartel and they ask the demission of Millerand. Juin 1924 Millerand resigns. But the Left decreases and Gaston Doumergue becomes president. From then on trouble. Many governments.
Poincaré saves the republic and in January 1927 all is better again. August 1927 pact Briand-Kellog. Difficulties with the crash in the US. May 1932 Albert Lebrun president with much power for the Socialists.
September 1933 Germany requires the same rights for armement. France refuses. France deeps into the abyss. In 1934 Cabinet Daladier with a majority for the Socialists. Demonstrations with caualties. Formation of the "front populaire" (Communists and Socialists).
Doumergue forms a "cabinet" of national unity. June 1934 clashes with ultra-right "croix de feu". March 1935 military service from 18 months up to 24 months. Paul Reynaud decides the construction of tanks as preconised by de Gaulle. Pierre Laval as minister of Foreign Affairs refuses and says that the Maginot line is enough.
Hitler starts the obligatory military service again in 1935. After another crisis in the government Pierre Laval forms a cabinet of centre-left. After some troubles the "social peace", but the capitalists leave the country.
7 March Hitler enters the Rhineland. The French government of Sarraut is too feeble to react and turns to the League of Nations. This announces a moral condamnation of Germany.
Have to check it, but the dead line is nearing. I think France consulted Britain and Britain wanted also not to react. Will confirm it tomorrow.
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 12
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Wednesday, 22nd February 2006
Hi there,
I do appreciate it would have meant a forewarning of the attack - ever wonder why though instead of letting troops sit around in th Winter of '39 we didn't use some of those troops to mount an amphibious assault on the North German coast?
Would minefields/Beach defences have caused problems? After all at this time we could have used our fleet and we would have had lots of aircraft at our disposal - even if the attack had have been a hasty affair, the Poland campaign took 4-6 weeks and this surely would have been enough time to do something.
Regards
NewcFalcon -
Message 13
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 22nd February 2006
did we have no idea that Poland was to be invaded ??
were there any French troops in the rhineland when it was reoccupied ?
apart from the siegfried line was there still a large German force available to resist any allied assault on germany when Poland was invaded ? -
Message 14
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Wednesday, 22nd February 2006
Hi,
there were no troops in the Rhineland becaus it was demilitarised zone although the German police forces there had by all accounts "para-military" style training - as previous posters pointed out I guess the French didn't fancy it (but I think that was short-sighted (but that's hindsight for you)).
As your point regarding intelligenc I've no idea - would be a shame if we had had such info and done nothing with it.
I do know that the USSR attack into Poland was met by only Polish border guards because that was a suprise assault and all the other Polish forces were enagaed against the Wehrmacht forces in the West. -
Message 15
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 22nd February 2006
did read somewhere that a German armoured division needed 50 miles of road space which makes me wonder how
they managed to invade poland unnoticed
they invaded through the ardennes on a single road ?? -
Message 16
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Wednesday, 22nd February 2006
Hi there,
I guess our photo-recon aircraft probably didn't reach that far and as we know Czechoslovakia by that time couldn't provide any independant recon as they were entirely under German control and the other countries around the area all had something to gain by Poland being smashed.
I guess if the same thing happened now it would be different what with satelites etc.
I don't think the Panzers that came through the Ardennes were expected and the French only had a couple of armoured divisions placed there - mostly with light tanks and low grade infantry - which once the Ground Attack squadrons of the Luftwaffe had been at them weren't much of a match.
In all this time before the war breaking out on 1/9/39 you would have thought the Poles having a lot at stake in the matter might have sent a few fast recon planes over Eastern Germany or even over East Prussia or Bohemia-Moravia (as to have an alibi) to see what the German Army was doing.
Just a thought... -
Message 17
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Thursday, 23rd February 2006
Britain and France had agreement with Poland to defend their cause - but when the Germans invaded Poland we both did nothing - what would have been the outcome if - when Germany invaded Poland - the French army (one of the largest in the world and i believe - fully mobilised) had invaded Germany - would the war have then been over ??
Ìý
Yes. For the French, and rather quickly.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 18
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 23rd February 2006
Yes. For the French, and rather quickly.
Cheers, Matt.Ìý
i see you have a high regard for our near neighbour -
Message 19
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 23rd February 2006
Re: Message 14.
Falcon and Stateriisok,
I think you have to do first a study of what were the circumstances before starting the several "what if's". It aren't critics, but only to ask what was realistic at the time and what was possible with the possibilities from each date of the year, because the circumstances were rapidly changing if you start to ask, when was the best time to tackle the Germans in the interbellum, but that is perhaps another question. But it is sparked by your references to 1936.
See also the message from Gaz and Steeler.
BTW. Hitler entered the Rhineland with his troops on 7 March 1936 in violation of the Locarno Pact. see my message 11. forgot to put the year 1936 after it.
I translated my message 11 from a good site: "Histoire de France". I am reading now for the second time after some years: "The Collapse of the Third Republic" from William L. Shirer in English for the equivalent period I described in my French history (excuse for my summary in bad English).
I think the best moment was the re-occupation of the Rhineland by the French and the Belgians in 1923 to tackle the Germans. And then Czecho-Slovakia in 1938. Poland was too little too late and by then the German army was already too stark especially with coordination between the three weapons and a good command in the German Army.
But I am not sure and come back on it tomorrow. Have to leave in a hurry to drive my wife to the hairdresher.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 20
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 23rd February 2006
Re: Message 14.
Falcon and Stateriisok,
I think you have to do first a study of what were the circumstances before starting the several "what if's". It aren't critics, but only to ask what was realistic at the time and what was possible with the possibilities from each date of the year, because the circumstances were
Paul.Ìý
the one reason i post and not research is that I like to get expert advice from people who have studied the period and know what they are talking about
i have read lots but always come out with the opinions of the author - and having no military training have lots of questions to ask
thanks for ur opinions though ! -
Message 21
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Thursday, 23rd February 2006
Matt
If the French would have the guts to attack the Rheinland while the Wermacht attacked Poland.
Would the German army crumble the Sigfrid line was then a joke.
The fact is tha Germany wasnt ready for war 1939.
It was planned to start 1942.
Hitler was was again bluffing in the attac on Poland and was very surprised when the allies declared war on him.
Hitler was very good at bluffing,when marching in the Rhineland had for example the Luftwaffe just 12 Me-109 in flying condition with default on their guns.
The syncronisation bullets airscrew wasnt functioning.
Same with the sellout of Checkoslovakia,the Checks wouldnt need much help to beat the Germans then.
No Adolph was a good bluffer and build fast,good oficers with new tactics and a superb nucleus of officers and NCO,s from the supperbly trained 100.000 men army.
Trained but not equiped uptill 1935 had the gunners of this small army train with wooden quackers as artillery etc etc.
The German superiority of material leading to the fall of France is a myth.Both in numbers and quite often in quality had the allies the edge.
Y friend
Hasse -
Message 22
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Thursday, 23rd February 2006
Hi Hasse,
It’s good to see you posting again, I guess you are all into the Eskimo games at the moment. I pretty much agree with what you have said. My opinion is the French have been lacking in fortitude since Verdun. As you know during WW1, their concept was aggressive attack. Needless to tell you that never worked. With the magianot line it was as if they came with a defense mind set. When Germany attacked Poland it was superior equipment and tactics that beat the Poles. The average Pole was and is a courageous soldier, but when charging tanks with cavalry courage is not enough. Had Germany gone into a holding posture on the Polish front and turned on the French I believe they would have rolled them up with little problem. The French were better armed but in my opinion they lacked leadership and training of quality.
Bye for now,
Matt. -
Message 23
Posted by Revolutionary1 : EXILED (U2792187) on Thursday, 23rd February 2006
Anybody know the closing time of this board?
-
Message 24
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Friday, 24th February 2006
Hiya Matt
Have just seen the Swedish icehockey team goes to the final.
We will end up with just a gold or two less than US,not bad considering their goes about 30 yanks on every Swede.
I quite agree with you that after the great mutiny of the french army in WWI,was their doctrine to take no chanses.
A thing that as surerly ultimatly lead to disaster,as always jump a chanse whatewer the odds.
But and this is a big but they had,caught their courage and attacked when Germany marched against Poland would the war just be an episode in Europa.
Y friend
Hasse
P.S.Put on your 5 gallon hat and have a ride on the bronco
. -
Message 25
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 24th February 2006
Britain and France had agreement with Poland to defend their cause - but when the Germans invaded Poland we both did nothing - what would have been the outcome if - when Germany invaded Poland - the French army (one of the largest in the world and i believe - fully mobilised) had invaded Germany - would the war have then been over ??
opinions pleaseÌý
stalteriiosk, thanks for your kind words (later on asking for my opinion).
Well, Generals Halder, Keitel and Jodl were of the opinion that a French advance would have caused the Germans no end of trouble and they were in a position to know. An attack by France would have no doubt stiffened the Polish resistance (if that's possible) and possibly have given Stalin second thoughts about his agreement with Hitler to carve up Poland.
A couple of things though. The French army was not fully mobilised, General Mobilisation had been declared on the 1st September. General Gamelin answered in reply to a question from Colonel Jaklincz (Deputy Chief of the Polish General Staff) that only 35 to 38 French Divisions would be available for a major offensive against 23 (according to Jodl) German Divisions. (Although the French could field approximately 100 Divisions).
By the time the French had mobilised the reserve the fighting in Poland was almost over. Now although the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe needed time to re-equip and reorganise the Divisions and squadrons after Poland later war experience was to prove that the Wehrmacht in particular could improvise a fighting formation with incredible skill. I have no reason to doubt that the Wehrmacht could have done similiar if they'd have needed to in 1939.
So, I suspect that it wouldn't have been easy. One thought does occur to me, if the French had attacked, could things have turned out worse? Probably not.
(I'm not counting the BEF in these calculations, militarily speaking the contribution they could have made would have been negligible compared to the available French forces).
Cheers AA. -
Message 26
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 24th February 2006
Would the German army crumble the Sigfrid line was then a joke.
The fact is tha Germany wasnt ready for war 1939.
It was planned to start 1942.
HasseÌý
Is this true ?? why was he rushed into war in 1939 - as it was his decision to invade Poland that actually started the whole thing off (source - Fawlty towers - the Germans :O))
werent we at that time rearming and would have been in a better state than in 1939?? -
Message 27
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 24th February 2006
Is this true ?? why was he rushed into war in 1939 - as it was his decision to invade Poland that actually started the whole thing off (source - Fawlty towers - the Germans :O))
werent we at that time rearming and would have been in a better state than in 1939??Ìý
stalteriiosk,
Errm, yes and no. Although the British and French had started to rearm and thankfully the powers that be had seen that the RAF needed better fighter planes than they had then I can't see that if Hitler had waited until 1942 then the British and French would have been in a much better position. The Germans had already laid down the plans and started to produce the tanks, machine guns and small arms needed to fight, the British and French designs were, well, awful. Plus, given an extra three years of the Soviet / German trade agreements then a lot of raw material problems of the Germans could have been reduced.
It is probably a Canaris and Doenitz opinion (correctly) of the Kreigsmarine that they needed another three years before they could hope to challenge the Royal Navy. One of the things about miltary strategy is that you need to study geography and there is a small, but, interesting bit of water to cross to get to the UK.
So, if the European WW2 starts in 1942 then the Germans are in a much better position, however this ignores the Japanese.
Cheers AA. -
Message 28
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Friday, 24th February 2006
Britain and France had agreement with Poland to defend their cause - but when the Germans invaded Poland we both did nothing - what would have been the outcome if - when Germany invaded Poland - the French army (one of the largest in the world and i believe - fully mobilised) had invaded Germany - would the war have then been over ??
opinions pleaseÌý
there was a period of several months where we could have ended the war in '39 or '40 (phoney war), but we were too defensive. if we had marched into germany we'd have been in berlin by the time the german armed forces could be marshalled to face us -
Message 29
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 24th February 2006
<quote user='marduk_report' userid='2258525'><quote user='stalteriisok' userid='3212540'>
there was a period of several months where we could have ended the war in '39 or '40 (phoney war), but we were too defensive. if we had marched into germany we'd have been in berlin by the time the german armed forces could be marshalled to face us</quote>
I have always thought this myself - but as usual - i think - my views are too simplistic i feel - several posters have indicated that it wasnt as simple as that
always think that until the horrors of WWI that is what we or the french would have done - BUT we were democracies and Germany was ruled by a psychopath - which gave them an advatage -
Message 30
Posted by Lt_Henson (U2436367) on Friday, 24th February 2006
I don't think anyones actually mentioned the biggest problemo here. RUSSIA.
If we attack their allies ( for that time) would history change as rusia fights with german crushing the allies before barberoosa or even a final domination of the world between the two countries? -
Message 31
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Friday, 24th February 2006
i think that the upper echelons of the allied command were somewhat scared by how quickly the germans smashed the polish military (although if videos ive seen of cuirassiers attackin panzers are real im not surprised), and feared taht if they launched an attack they could get caught on the off balance by a sudden german counter attack. the needn't worry cos the german army wast of berlin wasnt in any semblance of a state to put up resistence. then again, the french couldve stopped the war several years before it started by moving into the demilitaries zone to force the germans out (if i remeber my gcse right they didnt have more than a dozen rounds each-the germans that is)
-
Message 32
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Friday, 24th February 2006
I don't think anyones actually mentioned the biggest problemo here. RUSSIA.
If we attack their allies ( for that time) would history change as rusia fights with german crushing the allies before barberoosa or even a final domination of the world between the two countries?Ìý
theirs a difference between non agrresion and alliance you know... -
Message 33
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 24th February 2006
there was a period of several months where we could have ended the war in '39 or '40 (phoney war), but we were too defensive. if we had marched into germany we'd have been in berlin by the time the german armed forces could be marshalled to face usÌý
Not in my opinion marduk. The chance had been lost with the Munich agreement.
To be fair, it was going to be the French who had to bear the brunt of the fighting and they could see little profit in fighting the Germans.
Cheers AA. (And where is the defender of the French?). -
Message 34
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Friday, 24th February 2006
of couse im egging it a bit....
but i do believe the war would have been shorter, and far less brutal, as the germans may have been scared into surrender by monsieur francais and jonny english doing the march in columns (vive le'emperuer!)riflemans march (over the hills and far away..)through munich. -
Message 35
Posted by Lt_Henson (U2436367) on Friday, 24th February 2006
I don't think anyones actually mentioned the biggest problemo here. RUSSIA.
If we attack their allies ( for that time) would history change as rusia fights with german crushing the allies before barberoosa or even a final domination of the world between the two countries?Ìý
theirs a difference between non agrresion and alliance you know...Ìý
Maybe so but they did stay ' mutual' or whatever only until hitler broke it ( it was only a matter of time though) which proves they did '''respect''' one another. -
Message 36
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Friday, 24th February 2006
nope, they hated eachother, they just didnt want the other to backstab em to early
-
Message 37
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 24th February 2006
of couse im egging it a bit....
but i do believe the war would have been shorter, and far less brutal, as the germans may have been scared into surrender by monsieur francais and jonny english doing the march in columns (vive le'emperuer!)riflemans march (over the hills and far away..)through munich.Ìý
Good response marduk_report,
and the Japanese? (Seeing as this has turned into bizzaro land).
Cheers AA. -
Message 38
Posted by Lt_Henson (U2436367) on Friday, 24th February 2006
yeah, you have a fair point but I still think they respected each other- you know a heatly respect for a owerful enemy thing
-
Message 39
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Friday, 24th February 2006
that'd be a good ol' fashioned imperial war, and with the germans being forced to play backgammon with our recent friend the monsieur, we'd be able to trounce em (in theory), theyd probly even make a zulu-ish movie bout it, all the japs banzai charging, and micheal caine would be like "first rank,...FIRE!" and so forth
-
Message 40
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Friday, 24th February 2006
arnald-i really read sharpe too much dont i?
-
Message 41
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Friday, 24th February 2006
Well, there goes the neighborhood.
-
Message 42
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Friday, 24th February 2006
-
Message 43
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Friday, 24th February 2006
-
Message 44
Posted by Lt_Henson (U2436367) on Friday, 24th February 2006
the neighbourhood? I thought I lived alone in my village anyway...
-
Message 45
Posted by Jozef (U1330965) on Friday, 24th February 2006
Now tell me chaps, which are the more shameful statistics?
1 September – 6 October 1939 (37 days)
Poland vs. Germany, Slovakia & Soviet Union
The Polish forces
39 divisions, 16 brigades
1 million soldiers
4,300 guns
880 tanks
400 aircraft
The German forces
56 divisions, 4 brigades
1.8 million soldiers
10,000 guns
2,700 tanks
1,300 aircraft
Polish losses
66,000 dead
133,700 wounded
694,000 captured
German losses
16,343 dead
27,280 wounded
320 missing
May 10 1940 - June 22 1940 (42 days)
Allies (France, Britain, Canada, Poland, Belgium, Netherlands) vs. Germany & Italy
Allied forces
144 divisions
13,974 guns
3,384 tanks
3,099 aircraft
German forces
141 divisions
7,378 guns
2,445 tanks
5,446 aircraft
Allied losses
360,000 dead or wounded
1,900,000 French captured
German loses
45,000 dead
110,000 wounded -
Message 46
Posted by Lt_Henson (U2436367) on Friday, 24th February 2006
Can I go 50-50 please Mr Tarrent?
-
Message 47
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 24th February 2006
Re: message 33.
Arnald,
"and where is the defender of the French?" Wait a bit, with my backlog and seeking for ammunition (not real one).
See you in some days. One of your admirers (OOps, now I find in my dictionary: man who finds a woman attractive (big laugh) I rather meant: person, who admires).
With esteem and warm regards,
Paul. (co-chemist (smile)) -
Message 48
Posted by Jozef (U1330965) on Friday, 24th February 2006
so what about the tank and aircraft ratios? And bear in mind what little tanks and aircraft the Poles had were pretty obsolete. Also look at the maps: unlike the Allies in 1940, Polish forces were completely surrounded and firghting on all fronts by 17 Sept.
-
Message 49
Posted by Lt_Henson (U2436367) on Friday, 24th February 2006
shouldn't have picked crappy france as an ally then... at least they fought back unlike the danish or people in paris.
-
Message 50
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Friday, 24th February 2006
your surprised the french didnt fight back? come on, thyve spent their entire history and before even that getting trounced by foreigners, theyre used to it, dont faze 'em anymore
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.