• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Had Germany waited to invade Poland

Jredbaron96 said:
Both these statements are misleading. German losses were in fact irreplaceable to a degree. The Germans were as early as November reinforcing their forward units with rear echelon troops. German veterans reported that their ranks were being filled with cooks, clerks, and truck drivers rather than trained riflemen. The Germany infantry corps in fact never recovered from it's losses in Barbarossa, as evident by the fact that the assault on Stalingrad was led by engineers, not combat infantry. The Germans had amassed almost 3.5 million men but had only ~350,000 men in reserve at home, versus the Soviets 14,000,000 military reserves at the onset of the conflict.

Germany was in fact losing from the moment they lost at the gates of Moscow, because it locked the Germans into a war of attrition that they were doomed to loose because of limited manpower reserves. The German response to this was to basically repeat their mistakes. In Case Blue and Operational Citadel they basically did the same thing as Barbarossa; launch a major strategic offensive with under strength forces against an enemy that was larger and more powerful than they realized. In all three instances, the result was catastrophic failure.
Click to expand...

Couldnt have said it any better, thanks.

The reason the allies broke out of Normandy were because the Germans had nothing left. The best troops the Nazis had lay dead in Russia.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Why not? Doesn't it make sense to have the people trained to handle booby traps and heavy fortifications go in first and clear as many of those as possible out of the way first rather than sending in the regular troops who will likely get pinned down by them?
Click to expand...

Because Stalingrad was not just a city filled with mines with the gates open, the entire battle was shaped by the Kotluban Operations outside the city.

And the Hungarians and Romanians admittedly don't seem to have been capable of fighting their way out of a paper bag, though I heard the Italians were brave enough with their usual mishmash of troop quality and often downright obsolete equipment.
Click to expand...

The problem with this all is it points out the manpower shortages the Germans were facing at this point. Germany was a very top heavy population with a large number of adults but preciously few children reaching military age annually compared to it's opponents.
 
shrubnose said:
The only way that you can change history is with a time machine (Which doesn't exist yet.).You're entitled to express your opinion but my opinion is that this is yet another time-wasting thread which accomplishes nothing.

"Just sayin'."
Click to expand...

fc6.png
 
Making predictions, even about the past, is an uncertain game. One which we can all play but never win.

But I think I can fairly sure that in your scenario my parents and I would have had 3 or 4 more years in Paris. Instead of fleeing in June 1940 with the Wehrmacht in pursuit. And, or course, we would not have been bombed and rocketed at in London.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Why not? Doesn't it make sense to have the people trained to handle booby traps and heavy fortifications go in first and clear as many of those as possible out of the way first rather than sending in the regular troops who will likely get pinned down by them?
Click to expand...
One needs to remember that this wasn't an issue of going in and removing some booby traps, it was a fierce fight from the beginning. Much of it house to house and even floor to floor with both sides pouring in reinforcements, the Russian from across the river. Booby traps were only part of it, engineers had no way of getting to those without troops, they'd have been slaughtered. Despite Stalingrad having been reduced to rubble by the Lufwaffe and artillery, Soviet resistance remained fierce all the time. And where the Germans finally managed to drive the defenders to the Western bank of the river (Volga), it had taken them over 3 months and at great loss of lives on own side. But failing to secure the river itself and thus failing to stop Russian reinforcements and supplies. By that time the Russians attacked with fresh troops from outside, overrunning the German flanks and effectively cutting the 6th army off from any further supplies and other help. Encircling everybody, Russian defenders or what was left of them as well, except for the river route which the Germans had never managed to break.

Til the end fighting for the Germans was a two front issue even there
And the Hungarians and Romanians admittedly don't seem to have been capable of fighting their way out of a paper bag, though I heard the Italians were brave enough with their usual mishmash of troop quality and often downright obsolete equipment.
Click to expand...
Mythology in both cases, none of them stood a chance against overwhelming odds when the Russians launched their counter-offensive. They were also appallingly under-equipped in all fields, better weaponry being reserved for the Germans fighting in the city.
 
PoS said:
Couldnt have said it any better, thanks.

The reason the allies broke out of Normandy were because the Germans had nothing left. The best troops the Nazis had lay dead in Russia.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Many factors contributed towards German defeat, from lend/lease to the Normandy invasion, but the death blow was at Stalingrad.

Death blow as in Five-Point-Palm Exploding-Heart-Technique.;)

They could still walk but not very far any more.
 
Chagos said:
Indeed.

Many factors contributed towards German defeat, from lend/lease to the Normandy invasion, but the death blow was at Stalingrad.

Death blow as in Five-Point-Palm Exploding-Heart-Technique.;)

They could still walk but not very far any more.
Click to expand...

I agree the death blow was at Stalingrad- but I believe the turning point was the battle for Moscow, The Germans got close to parity in numbers with the Red Army in that area but the Russians didnt collapse like the French did, many units kept on fighting, even counterattacking. The Germans were exhausted by the time they reached the outskirts of the capital and they had to stop.

Hitler himself admitted months later that if he had known about the true number of tanks the Russians had, he would not have attacked. The Soviets had already relocated their tank factories behind the Urals, an area that Germany could never reach, and they were building tens of thousands of tanks.

Meanwhile the Russians wouldnt achieve full mobilization until 1943, and then they just rolled the Germans back with massive numbers of new armies.
 
Jesse Booth said:
Well, people are having fun discussing alternate history. What makes you think this kind of fun is a waste of time?
Click to expand...

Right. It's always fun discussing "what if?" scenarios. They are quite interesting to talk about.
 
PoS said:
Indeed. After the Russians beat them the Japanese were terrified and would never dared to attack again (of course they made an equally big mistake in attacking America, but thats another story). Hitler didnt learn his lesson until it was too late.
Click to expand...

No, not really.

The 1932-1939 border war was not one that Japan ever wanted. It was Manchuko (Mongolia) that started that war, they just had to join in because they were allies. The Japanese never fought that conflict very seriously. If they had diverted more troops from China they could have made a huge difference in that conflict.

But why? There was nothing up there they wanted. And it ultimately made no difference at all.
 
shrubnose said:
It accomplishes nothing.Germany and Japan shouldn't have started WWII.
Click to expand...

Most fun things accomplish nothing. This pastime, however, allows for in-depth analysis of military strategy, mental excercise, and facilitates good relations between forum members through the medium of a non-partisan subject. Perhaps intellectual pursuits just don't suit you? Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.
 
Oozlefinch said:
No, not really.

The 1932-1939 border war was not one that Japan ever wanted. It was Manchuko (Mongolia) that started that war, they just had to join in because they were allies. The Japanese never fought that conflict very seriously. If they had diverted more troops from China they could have made a huge difference in that conflict.

But why? There was nothing up there they wanted. And it ultimately made no difference at all.
Click to expand...

Japan always had plans for Siberia. They occupied parts of it during WW1, and they knew about its mineral resources, thats why the Northern Strike Group wanted it. The Japanese Army in Manchuoko was a power on itself and they acted without even consulting Tokyo which led to the battle of Khalkin Ghol.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantokuen
https://www.rbth.com/blogs/2013/05/...khalkhin-gol_changed_the_course_of_wwii_24603
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol#Japanese_assessment_and_reforms

the policy of the North Strike Group favored by the Army, which wanted to seize Siberia for its resources as far as Lake Baikal.
Click to expand...
 
Bodhisattva said:
What if Germany had waited to invade Poland and gone after Russia through Romania, Hungary and Czechoslovakia instead? Avoid a two front war. Bypass Poland and take out Russia and then prepare to deal with France and England. Take Poland then. France would still not have been ready to deal with Germany although England would have been, but in their isolation if Germany could have still defeated France not much would have changed... EXCEPT Russia would have bee out.
Click to expand...

While it has probably been thoroughly covered, your alternative does not seem realistic nor plausible.

First, the Marck's plan for the invasion of Russia (one of the early studies) noted the serious lack of roads and rail in Hungry and Romania and concluded: "Neither the political situation in the Balkans nor the rail or road communications in Hungary and Rumania will allow the deployment of large German forces before the war begins. Only an attack from Galicia and southern Poland toward Kiev and the middle Dnepr can be undertaken [in the south] with safety"{15}.

Second, Hitler and the Generals focused mostly on Moscow as the primary objective to force victory. A southern strategy with very limited access, in that context, would have been pointless.

Third, the invasion of Poland was a choice for immediate benefit, the securing of additional territory for lebensraum and the removal of the Soviet Union as a near-term threat.

Last, the war would not be limited to the Southern front, as East Prussia would also be subjected to Soviet offensives, through the baltic states.


THAT SAID, there was a plan that might have worked with some luck - offer Poland a treaty of alliance. Were Hitler more imaginative (and rational) he could have offered to militarily support Poland's territorial grievances (and aspirations) in the east in return for returning Danzig to German control and German building of secure autobahn and rail links to Prussia.

Subsequently, with a Polish alliance against Bolshevism, the combined forces with Romania (and later Hungry) might have secured a victory.
 
Germany desperately wanted to avoid a two-front war as it had had to endure in WWI. Since Poland, France and England were in an alliance, attacking the Soviet Union would have been disastrous had the Germans not neutralised Poland and France first.

Ribbentrop's success at secretly pulling the Soviets out of their entente with France meant that only Poland and France were immediate problems. In the aftermath of the Czechoslovakian crises both Poland and France were rapidly rearming and building up their military inventories and also modernising their weapons. This gave the Germans a limited window until their adversaries were too strong to attack and defeat. Poland was the weaker of these two powerful military powers and so it made sense that Germany endeavour to eliminate the Poles before tackling France and by extension Britain. The USSR was a target for much later.

Remember that the defeats at the hands of the Finns during the Winter War of 1939-1940 had not yet shown to the world that the giant Soviet Army was a disorganised mess, post purges and so Hitler and the OKH feared Stalin's military strength at the start of the war. It would have been madness to provoke the USSR into war with Germany while there still existed a hostile Poland, France and Britain still intacted.

Poland was the natural first step on the road to the conquest of Grossedeutschland and the USSR was the logical final step.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
PoS said:
Japan always had plans for Siberia. They occupied parts of it during WW1, and they knew about its mineral resources, thats why the Northern Strike Group wanted it. The Japanese Army in Manchuoko was a power on itself and they acted without even consulting Tokyo which led to the battle of Khalkin Ghol.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantokuen
https://www.rbth.com/blogs/2013/05/...khalkhin-gol_changed_the_course_of_wwii_24603
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol#Japanese_assessment_and_reforms
Click to expand...

All they wanted was the seaports, they could not have cared less for the rest of the area. And remember, they in many ways took a page from the Roman Empire on how they wanted to rule Asia.

Their concept was never to directly rule, but to set up puppet Governments (like Manchuko), which would largely be autonomous members of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. At least in their minds, they wanted to remove the influence of the European leaders in Moscow, and let the people of Siberia rule themselves (under their influence of course). And the entire idea of the GEACPS was as a fight against European Colonialism.
 
Roads were lacking all over Eastern Europe. Moscow thru Romania was as feesible as thru Poland.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Roads were lacking all over Eastern Europe. Moscow thru Romania was as feesible as thru Poland.
Click to expand...

Not really. At least with Poland you have the benefit of the Northern European Plain.
 
calamity said:
Can't really mount a sustained attack on Russia without staging it from Poland. His mistake, IMO, was not charging straight to Moscow, instead of wasting years and millions of lives going after Leningrad and Stalingrad.
Click to expand...



That is the same opinion of many historians and was also stressed by the German High Command. The Soviets had a low morale, were driven by fear and were very centralized so taking Moscow would have "cut off the head" so to speak thereby causing the collapse of the Soviet military. IMHO
The Germans were welcomed as "liberators" an many parts of the USSR who had suffered the Holodomor & were tired of Stalins reign of Terror.

Additionally, over 2 million non-German Slavs, Frenchmen, Turks, Jews, Arabs, Frenchmen served in Germany's armed forces(1)

(1) "Adolf Hitler’s Armed Forces: A Triumph for Diversity?"
Veronica Clark
https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/1/3/3102
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom