• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Could Poland Been an WWII Antagonist?

TedShatner10

TedShatner10

Commodore
Commodore
Could Poland been as dangerous as Germany was in WWII if things have proceeded differently between 1918 and 1939? I doubt it in most scenarios, since Poland was somewhat industrially callow and while militant, they never had as big an axe to grind as Germany, culturally speaking.

The most plausible scenario I can think of is that Germany has Communist taken over much of the collapsed country, with the Prussian military establishment having to swallow their pride and invite the Polish military over to help restor order. But in the process Poland takes over Germany's provincial government, with the plan of using Germany to boost its position against the Soviet Unio.

But Poland never had the hunger that Germany had, so to speak, and has no quarrel against France, but I wonder how the scenario plays out.
 
Did Poland have the political and military capital to pull off such a hypothetical?
 
No.

You'd need to change Poland long before 1918 to ever have created something akin to Nazi Germany and the military power it wielded.
 
Tachyon Shield said:
Poland loses, regardless of how History might have played out differently
Click to expand...

If Russia doesn't stab Poland in the back, September of 1939, Poland can last quite a while.

Add in a French mobilization and thrust into the Ruhr in October and, all of a sudden, things don't look so good for the Reich.

A lot of ifs, but hardly "regardless".
 
I think Poland should have thought through locating itself between the USSR and Nazi Germany a little more thoroughly if it wanted to become an effective antagonist.
 
You know, in the European front, it was the Russians that ultimately defeated Germany. People seem to forget just how many people Russia lost fighting the Germans.
 
TedShatner10 said:
Could Poland Been an WWII Antagonist?
Click to expand...
No. Poland's days as a power of any real significance were more than two and a half centuries behind them by the time they were reconstituted as an independent nation in 1918 (Poland had disappeared from the map entirely by 1795, divided between the Austrian Empire, Prussia and Russia.) For them to have become an antagonist in only two decades starting on that footing would have been an achievement far overshadowing Germany's recovery from WWI and redevelopment into a major power.
 
ShamelessMcBundy said:
You know, in the European front, it was the Russians that ultimately defeated Germany. People seem to forget just how many people Russia lost fighting the Germans.
Click to expand...


Thank you..

I'm given up being amazed at the ignorance of the western population on this subject. The largest battle on the Western Front in WW2 (the Normandy Invasion) is not even in the the top ten in terms of size. The Western front was the most important SECOND front in the ETO but it was not what won the war.
The Western Front was there to stop the Soviet forces from coming all the way to the English Channel.
 
^^
I agree with that, but the counter-argument is, that the western Allies provided invaluable help to the Soviet Union on the Eastern Front with their strategic bombing campaign on Germany and lend-lease deliveries.

And I think there might be some 20/20 hindsight in play when you more or less claim that the invasion in the Normandy was a cakewalk. At least from what I've read the British and American commanders were very worried about the chances of success of that operation.
 
Oh the Western Allies' help was indeed invaluable, but Russia had a large reserve of troops that it could and did send up against the Germans and it was that that wore them down. Remember, it was the Russians that liberated most of the concentration camps and took Berlin.
 
Roger Wilco said:
^^
And I think there might be some 20/20 hindsight in play when you more or less claim that the invasion in the Normandy was a cakewalk. At least from what I've read the British and American commanders were very worried about the chances of success of that operation.
Click to expand...

Sorry, never meant to imply it was a cakewalk as it was not. The invasion nearly was a failure if not for the fortunes of war - Hitler did not release the panzers; Omaha beach was taken, Montgomery's failure to move inland was not a major impediment; the scattering of airborne units confused the Germans, etc..

All I meant was that in sheer numbers it was not the huge battle that the Western nations made it out to be. Sizewise, it paled in comparison to Kursk (likewise Kursk was arguably a more important battle); Logistically the invasion of Saipan or Okinawa was a greater accomplishment.

If the Normandy invasion had failed the Soviets would have still defeated Germany. It would have taken longer because the Germans could have freed up more troops and armor, but the outcome was set after Kursk and Stalingrad. The greatest effect of the failure would have been a Soviet sphere Western Europe. Italy and Southern France would have been under the western umbrella but the Netherlands, norther France and much of Scandinavia would have been under Soviet control.

The soviets would have likely won the war before the western allies could have tried a second landing.

So yes, the Normandy invasion was important but moreso to the post-WW2 world scene than to the actual defeat of Germany. I find it ironic that Stanlin weakened his own future by insisting the western powers open a second front.

Alternative history can be interesting, if not so frustrating.
 
He wanted the Western Allies to take some of the heat off his own army. At the battle of Stalingrad, for instance, reports say that more than 1 million people died. He needed something to take the heat off. The invasion of Sicily and the Italian main land, while it did open up a second front, was not as large as Stalin would have liked.
 
^

Oh I understand the reasons he stated he wanted a second front. I'd just like to know what he was really thinking, Stalin was devious in ways we don't always acknowledge.

I wonder if he actually thought the western landings would fail and essentially remove their ground forces from the war. The strategic bombings would go on weakening the German ability to produce most war material. That would make his ground campaign easier.

The second front had very limited impact on the number of Soviet deaths if you look at the battle casualties. The Soviets were losing soldiers in larger numbers tan the Germans right up to the end when Germany lost 200,000 killed in the battle for Berlin while the USSR casualties numbered 600,000.

A failure at Normandy would have almost insured the USSR taking the whole of Europe (save Italy, Switzerland, and the Iberian peninsula).
 
You know, i never looked at it that way. That's an interesting theory. It's kinda funny though. All the Western countries do is talk about Normandy, and yes, it was an amazing feat to accomplish, but you don't see people talk much about the Eastern Front, the Battle of Stalingrad, considered to be the turning point of the war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top