I know we're all tired of constant WW2 threads, but here's one I've been curious about for a while. What exactly caused Poland to lose so quickly in 1939? Sorry if the answer is obvious but there's a ton of literature talking about how the blitzkrieg beat France but I fail to find any on Poland. So yeah, what caused it? Please ignore the Soviets, I'm focusing on the first 17 days here
I know we're all tired of constant WW2 threads, but here's one I've been curious about for a while...
Aaron Evans
Noah Nelson
>Ignore the Soviets
Motherfucking why? That's like saying "explain why Germany lost WW1 but ignore the eastern front."
Jacob Bailey
First off, organizational failure. The Poles' military was organized in such a way that commands were hard to get across. Secondly, apathy and lack of skill among an officer class who were basically the lackies of the Beck continuation of the Pilsudski government more than soldiers. Equipment and numbers also played a role- the Germans had 11 armored divisions, while the Poles had 1 understrength one. What's more, the Poles couldn't get their planes in the air quickly, leading to German air superiority. What's worse is that the Germans had 800,000 more soldiers than the Poles period.
Gavin Carter
They saw what happened at Munich and weren't entirely sure of France and the UK backing them up if it came to a war. The most defensible setup against an invasion from Germany is to dig in tight around the Vistula; but if you do that, Germany overruns a good chunk of the country unopposed, and there was a very real worry that if they tried that, Germany would gobble up the western third or so of the country, and then negotiate another "peace in our times", grabbing a good slice with no real fighting.
The idea then, was to guard heavily at the border, and as long as there was active fighting going on, that would drag Britain and France in, who could really defeat Germany. However, defending at the border gives up the natural river lines, and just the way the geography is, those forces in Weilpolaska can be easily flanked. Add in the Germans displaying a burst speed through mechanized breakthrough elements that were nowhere seen before, and they got pocketed and swallowed up real fast.
This might be a good read for you.ibiblio.org
Not OP, but the Polish forces were already pretty much crushed by the time the Soviets entered the war.
Juan Jackson
The poles had a shitty army, I think they used old cavalry in the war so...
Hunter Harris
I don't think it's possible to ignore the soviets.
For the Poles, the Soviets were the mortal enemies during the interwar period. Germany, until right before the war, was disarmed. Stalin feared an alliance between the Germans and Poles; the French even feared Polish recalcitrance to focus on the Germans, leading to the proposed Franco-Soviet defense pact. You know, the one that let Hitler militarize the Rhineland with zero repercussions.
Basically, aside from protecting Danzig, they really weren't ready for an attack from the West; Pilsudski and Hitler were on relatively friendly terms.
Carter Torres
This is not borne out by Polish army deployments on the eve of war.
Daniel Lee
This is a myth I want to see die. The Poles, like every early-war army in Europe except for the British used horses for logistics. There simply hadn't been enough time between the wars to fully motorize and mechanize the logistical trains of the armies of Europe. German propagandists saw ambushed Polish baggage trains and twisted it into stories about lancers charging tanks. It's German propaganda, and complete and utter bullshit.
Pic related. Oh, look, it's a German "cavalryman" in 1944! Gee, it's almost like without a heavy industrial base like the US or UK it's incredibly hard to mechanize an army!
Chase Myers
Not him, and while the "cavalry charging tanks" thing is bullshit, the poles did field cavalry, and at an extremely high proportion to the rates of their other forces.
Again citing
ibiblio.org
They had 12 cavalry brigades to 30 infantry divisions and 1 armored brigade. The Germans were fielding 1 cavalry brigade to 60 infantry divisions.
Jose Johnson
>heavy industrial base
You need ample supplies of oil and rubber also.
Jackson Campbell
The thing is that this is incredibly understandable for the Poles, since they had used cavalry to extremely good effect during the Polish-Soviet War, particularly in the Battle of Komarów. Cavalry, as it turns out, is incredibly good at disrupting and slowing down infantry who don't have emplaced or mobile machine guns. They were using cavalry to avoid what killed the German advance during Operation Michael, ie to be able to follow up a successful infantry push and catch up to retreating enemy forces.
So while yes, they did have cavalry, it wasn't for 1914 style cuirassier charges against MG08 nests, nor was it for charging German tanks. It was a thought out strategic choice.
Hunter Walker
(OP here) well as far as I can tell, Poland would have lost regardless of Soviet involvement, right before the USSR invaded they were already getting pretty badly BTFO, although there are some cool stories of individual bravery I highly doubt that Poland could be survived if it had just been Germany.
Thanks guys, and I'll definitely check out that link it looks interesting. First time posting on Veeky Forums (although I've lurked for a long time) and I'm really impressed, thanks for your effort and all that
Xavier Mitchell
Oh, to be sure, and I did not mean it in any sort of condemnatory fashion. But the previous user claimed that Poland did not in fact field cavalry and the horses were purely logistical in nature, which is simply false.
Caleb Wilson
Fighting on 4 fronts.
Ian Walker
>Americans in charge of knowing anything about anything.
Nicholas Hernandez
Great contribution, you obsessed retard.
Jayden Gutierrez
>Amerilard defending the honor of his "intellectuals".
OP wants facts, not burger bullshit.
Grayson Campbell
>obsessed retard shitposting because his anti-American bias triggers his autism
Where are your "facts"?
Jacob Jenkins
>Secondly, apathy and lack of skill among an officer class who were basically the lackies of the Beck continuation of the Pilsudski government more than soldiers.
Jonathan Jackson
"Though patently the best military mind in Poland, General Sikorski had been stripped of his authority before the war during one of the weird excesses of the Pilsudski-Beck regime. His position was filled by many men whose incompetence hastened the German and Soviet victory. At the outbreak of hostilities, he offered his services to the government. He was cooly rejected." -The Rape of Poland: Patterns of Soviet Aggression, Stanislaw Mikolajczyk
Luke Wood
>What exactly caused Poland to lose so quickly in 1939?
The Poles were outnumbered and outmatched in every conceivable category and even if the Germans hadn’t had the technological and tactical advantages they possessed in 1939, the Poles would have still lost and to top it off, as you can see from the map you posted, their position was wholly indefensible to begin with.
Jack Nelson
Even the Poles had Alexander the Great in command, they still would have lost.
Chase Hernandez
What I'm saying is that of course the Germans would've still won. In sheer terms of tanks available the Poles were fucked, let alone bringing geography into it. However, the notion that the Poles were well-led in most cases is absurd. The Beck government used its military as a political tool, not as a capable fighting force.
Nathan Morris
Great link, you are still a deep operation retard though.
Elijah Perez
Idk about COMPLETELY indefensible. I think if they had the time(which I know they didn't), they theoretically could've pulled back to the Carpathian Mts. and fought a guerrilla war.