How would you have given France a chance during WW2?

No, I'm saying that Stalin had very capable spies in almost all of the important countries. He got the information from them that UK won't allow France to launch any offensive and that Poland is on "her" own. That's when he decided to invade.

And that is retarded, because the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact recognized Eastern Poland as Soviet territory and the Soviets started massing troops to grab it BEFORE the French decided that they weren't going to immediately invade.

The decision for the Soviets to invade was made before the French made their own decision to have a tight button hole defense. So unless "Stalin's spies" can time travel, your theory is patent idiocy.

Here have that article that was bing translated from polish to english. you would get a real knowledge from this article

microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?to=en&r=true&a=http://www.newsweek.pl/wiedza/historia/ii-wojna-swiatowa-produkcja-wojenna-i-zaopatrzenie,artykuly,417920,1.html

in case ur polish here is the normal link

newsweek.pl/wiedza/historia/ii-wojna-swiatowa-produkcja-wojenna-i-zaopatrzenie,artykuly,417920,1.html

Also, I forgot to mention that Stalin was telling Hitler that he isn't ready up to 17th Sept when he got the information from his spies that Allies abandoned Poland.

Sorry, that was important.
Stalin wouldn't honour MR if France and Uk actually comitted.

Stalin only move his forces when Germans announce(too early) that they taken Warsaw.

Yeah and so what?
Soviets delayed their attack making Germany sole aggressor.
They would just do not attack if French moved.
Hell they could even call UK and join allies at that point.

Well, it seems to have a lot of patent idiocy, such as "taking Speer at his word".

In any case, the actual claim of the article is that eventually (immediately talking after the Ardennes offensive near the end of the war), German stock losses reached 50%, and then goes in to talking about Gerke when he took command in january 1940. There is nothing there claiming that Germany had suffered 50% losses in logistical infrastructure over 1939, and nothing to suggest that rail wasn't the main transporter of supplies and troops.

I suggest you read less Newsweek and more actual military publication. This is a good one on the campaign in Poland. ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Germany/DA-Poland/DA-Poland.html#4

You will note that the U.S. army rates the Polish as essentially defeated by the end of September 8th, well before any offensive, even if the French had been willing to embark on one, could possibly have been launched.

You might want to read this too.

>They would just do not attack if French moved.
[citation seriously needed]

This is just stupid. France needed time to mobilize and to launch an offensive. The Saar offensive began september 7, by that time, the german troops were already in front of Warsaw, it was too late, Poland was already defeated. If France had invaded Germany, they might have gained some territories, but they would take causalities due to the siegfried line, and the advantage given by the maginot line would be nullified. In the end, the french troops would be in complete inferiority once Poland is completly defeated and the german troops are back. Waiting was the right solution.

>it was too late, Poland was already defeated
Poland had means to rebuild entire army in the east.

Don't forget the enormously rapid and ongoing German mobilizations that could have flooded the Saar area with troops if it was seriously threatened.

Reverse Schleiffen- attack germany through belgium

Really? What means? Show me the concentrations of industry and recruitable population "In the east". Don't forget that the Germans actually historically overran their half of the MR line and actually forked over territory to the Soviets; which means that in practice, the Germans could have gone further. Are you really suggesting that they would have reconstituted from the roughly 6-700,000 losses they took?

Reconnaissance planes actually spotted the giant fucking traffic jam in the ardennes and reported it to high command, but the reports were dismissed because that was "impossible"

Germans lack weapons and what is more important they lacked artillery ammo.
Stalin was suppose to attack Poland the same time as Hitler. Still he did not give order to move until he was sure that Polish resistance ended(he was fooled by German announcing taking Warsaw when city repel them and resist 2 weeks more).
Germany get flak for that when France and UK honored guarantee and declare war on it.
When Soviets move nobody know on which side they are on. Brits hoped they moved against Germany, Poles were thorn into confusion as they know that UK tried to convince USSR to join on their side and maybe they did.
To be honest if French moved with success - USSR could easily back stab Germany and join allies as they were not at war with them at that point.
Poles were beaten hard but they still have means to resist and not all their units were destroyed - some evacuated to Romania on command. You also seriously give too much credit at Germans logistic capability at this point.

>Germans lack weapons and what is more important they lacked artillery ammo.
Really? That's distinct from your previous claims. Please cite it.

>Stalin was suppose to attack Poland the same time as Hitler.
No he wasn't. There is nothing from the Soviets agreeing to such.

>Poles were beaten hard but they still have means to resist and not all their units were destroyed
There was not a single Polish corps with a line of communication to another corps by the 13th. They were destroyed user.

>You also seriously give too much credit at Germans logistic capability at this point.
You don't even understand what logistical capability means. There was no open resistance outside of a few fortified encampments and cities by the end of the second week of the invasion. Ammunition is the biggest component of logistical expenditure by weight, and if there's no fighting, the troops travel light. Germany could have and would have simply walked into the rest of Poland if the Soviets hadn't shown up, and their largely horse drawn (like everyone else's, I might remind you) rialhead movement system means very little on the defense.

>No he wasn't. There is nothing from the Soviets agreeing to such.
Is that why Hitler was so anxious and pressured Stalin to invade? Stalin was saying they weren't ready up to 17th sept.

Oh, and I forgot to add in, you hugely goalpost shifted. You claimed back here that "Poland had means to rebuild the entire army in the East". German logistical limitations, even if they actually existed to the extent that they couldn't advance much past what they historically grabbed, don't change the fact that you have virtually no heavy industry and a small minority of the population living in the half that the Soviets grabbed. What are these "means" for the Polish to rebuild their army out there?

>Is that why Hitler was so anxious and pressured Stalin to invade?
Mostly for diplomatic cover. Look at the border positioning of the Polish armies pre-war. i1.wp.com/ww2-weapons.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Poland-1939-px800.jpg?resize=800,605&ssl=1

Even if Stalin invades in Day 1, the Germans are going to be the ones actually fighting the Poles.

By trying to convince them around 1930 that static warfare was pretty much dead and that mechanized mobility was the future.

That guy was not me user.
I would need to dig for that but Germans after 2 expended most of their artillery ammunition. And if they had enough weapons they would already mobilized some division on West as they leave there a skeleton crew.
>There was not a single Polish corps with a line of communication
That its true. Polish HQ was a garbage.
Still they have means to fight.
Almost 80k troops evacuated into Baltic/Hungary and Romania in order and 230k surrendered to USSR. Its still over 300k troops that could fight if USSR not moved.
I not argue that Germans would crush them but we are talking what would happen if French moved early.
>French move early
>USSR not invade
>Poles continue fighting(maybe not a lot but still enough to tie some Germans)
>Germany expand rest of their arty ammo as they lack stockpile
>Germany are cut from Soviets supplies - rare resources and food that they get from USSR allow them supply their 1940 campaigns.
Situation is different.
Who knows if situation become dire enough for Germans USSR join war on the Allies side instead of messing with Finland.

>2 weeks of war

>Still they have means to fight.
Which are what exactly?

>Almost 80k troops evacuated into Baltic/Hungary and Romania in order and 230k surrendered to USSR. Its still over 300k troops that could fight if USSR not moved.
You mean, a little less than half that were already obliterated on the invasion? That's not much.

>Long chain of assumptions.
And what if literally any one of them are wrong? What if the Soviets invade despite the French attacking? What if (as is very likely) the French attack is a disaster? And how the fuck are the Poles going to cut off the Soviet-German trade? They have railroads through Romania, user, so unless the Poles are willing and able to invade and overrun a neutral country while getting the shit kicked out of them, I don't see this "cut off" happening. Nor is there any particular reason why the Soviets would be able or willing to reverse course (again) after ditching France and Britain for Germany.

starting in the early 30's, the low countries begin full military cooperation with france

how does this affect the prospect of an eventual world war?

We are discussing hypothetical scenarios user. Of course it full of if.
>implying that Romanians would not cut it by themselves if they see that Germans gonna burn(not like they did not switch sides later)
>implying that Stalin would send more supplies if decide that switching sides would be maybe more profitable
Also its still 300k+ troops in more favorable terrain. Also city fighting could be pretty dreadful.
Polish starting position were worst in the whole war.
I would say that at some point Polish resistance crumbled because of Soviet attack and no Allied assistance on Western front.

Tell the 1934 guys to just do their goddamn coup instead of chickening out. That would fix most of the factors that led to France’s defeat.

...

Hypothetical scnearios should still be grounded in reality user. There's no real point in saying "What if random German soldier turns into a super-sayin and blows away the Poles with energy beams", and while the suppositions I've seen aren't that level of ridiculous, they rely on several very low probability events all occurring in exactly the right order and interpreted the exactly right way.

Also, the Romanians didn't "switch sides" until Soviets overran half their country.

In any case, even if it does "work", the Poles sitting around in the southeast are going to get slaughtered the first time they try to move into the open. At best, they'll form a nucleus of a revived Polish state when other powers defeat Germany. At worst, they'll simply sit there in the world's largest PoW camp, and the real "alt-his" comes from differing actions of the USSR.

>talk about hypothetical scenarios
>complain that they are rely on low probability events
user are you mentally challenged?
Either we talk about things that could happen(and that could happen even if with low chance) or we talk about things that happen.
USSR is the key but France is the trigger.

user, there are multiple levels of low probability. Someone making a decision that they historically didn't might be "low probability", but it's still enormously more likely than requiring long successive chains of events, each of which is itself unlikely. You run to a point where the odds are too close to 0 to matter: even when dumping a lot of weight on poor probability

>[citation needed]

Its only hit zero chance from your point of view.

put Charles De Gaul in charge of the military.

You're the one making the case, you provide the citations.
What makes you think a French were even capable of attacking?
What makes you think that such an attack would be successful?
What makes you think an attack (does this hinge upon the attack being successful?) would make the soviets withdraw, or even attack the Germans?
What makes you think any of this would be happening quickly enough to save the Poles? Let's not forget that the overwhelming number of troops that got away were the ones that didn't face contact with the Germans in the first place.
What makes you think that the Romanians would cut off access between Germany and the USSR?
For that matter, what makes you think the Germans wouldn't establish a rail corridor?
Or ship stuff across the Baltic Sea?

Please provide citations for all of this. Or hell, any of this.

>thread about France
>Poles start chimping out again
I hate you guys so fucking much

French launching offensive could cause panic in similar way Russians advancing in Prussia in great War caused Germans to relocate units from West Front to Prussia. There was no need and Russians were beaten but damage was done.
At this point it do not even be successful but serious enough to make Stalin reconsider invading and Hitler sending some of troops back to save Rhineland thus letting remnants of Polish army a break.
Stalin was careful geopolitical player and you can see that all his moves were done only if he expect success(with no risks). It was the same after war. At the time he secured German cooperation but also was negotiating with UK. Complete opposite of Hitler(who made pretty risky moves and alienate himself on geopolitical stage) Stalin secured alliances and made sure that things not escalate beyond his control(of course he fail to predict Hitler gambling moves).
So with French launching offensive and UK launching air offensive immediately(like Russians launching offensive in Prussia in 1st WW) even if unprepared could shaken German leadership(maybe even to the point of coup).
Do not forget that Stalin give order were he was sure that Warsaw was taken and Germany announced that and that Polish army was crushed.
If he get news that French advance into Germany he could reconsider this or maybe even struck deal with UK(at the Poles&Baltic expenses probably). Then goes how Germans react to that. If they panic and start shuffling units that could further affect Stalin decision.
At this point Poles would probably keep resisting(much harder then they did) as they still have more than 300k troops and cities like Warsaw or Lviw would keep fighting(if France moved and USSR not invade) as they would see sense in resisting and suffering casualties.
Sending supplies by sea of Romania was of-course possible but less effective and if Hitler situation were far from going well - I doubt that USSR would keep supplying losing side.

>ywn live in a alternate reality where france gets its shit sorted together before the war and kicks germanys ass making fascism the laughingstock of europe

None of that is a citation, just your own personal speculation. Please provide some actual evidence to support your suppositions.

Of course they are. Are you retarded or just Amerifat?
Where you think you are?
Do you seriously think that I would go and dig sources or citations for some faggot that refuse to play pretend game? I could but that would be wasted effort.

Just about the only thing that could have saved France from Germany would have been to declare war on the United Kingdom and the United States in 1939 and bomb London and New York. Thus forcing the Allied US/UK forces to prematurely occupy France. Then no German Invasion would have been viable.

Its absurd. But nothing else would have kept Germany out.

Ok then, you're wrong. And no, don't ask me to justify my position. None of the consequences you're asserting are likely, and some are simply nonsensical. (Why would the Russians and Germans trade by sea through the Black and Romania instead of simply sailing the Baltic?)

Good day, butthurt Pole.

what if france got its shit together like 10 years before the war? especially its divided people

>and a few am radio stations

Top fucking kek

>implying that you can justify anything

*It was by sea(Baltic) or Romania was not that effective especially considering volume of supplies. Not Black sea.

Good night mutt.

One of their air patrols spots the madmen German tank columns advancing alone through muddy roads in the forested hills.
The air battle that would ensue would probably ground much of the French air force but even 1 successful bombing rid would've severely undercut the Ardennes offensive.

FORCE belgium to agree to a joint defensive line. That's it.
All the memes about going full blitzkrieg as well are stupid.

>wait till most of the german forces are in the forest
>firebomb entire forest with incendiary bombs
>burn entire german army to a cinder, along with the forest
>plant a new victory forest on the burnt out remains of an invader

Intervene in 1936 after remilitarization of the Rhineland

...

there's a problem with that though, they're called the low countries for a reason, Belgium's water table makes building forts like the Maginot Line impossible.

So you don't have a maginot line level of fortification. You "only" entrench to the level of WW1 field fortifications along the Dyle and Maas rivers. Now you have a shorter line facing the Germans, and one that is still very formidable, and that locks down mobility and gives more play to your artillery advantages.