No declaration of war on the Soviet Union

>declaring war on Germany and the USSR
>giving your two most powerful enemies a reason to ally against you
Yeah, that sounds like a really fucking stupid idea.

It's almost like Germany had repeatedly invaded other countries after saying that they wouldn't and so agreements were drawn up with the exception of them doing it again...

>that's also what I'm suggesting, they weren't led by principles but by opportunism and the whole "we saved the world from the nazis" is a load of bullcrap.
What you just wrote is a load of bullcrap. Do you even know what is opportunism? It's about exploiting opportunities, not picking lesser evils.

>In fact, they didn't declare war on the soviet union because it was a Jewish enterprise just like the UK and the US
You couldn't find a louder way to scream "I'm a retard", could you?

Pragmatism and realpolitik. It's the same reason why Hitler gave half of Poland, one of the most anti-communist states in Europe, to the Soviets along with the rest of Eastern Europe in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

To be fair, I think "The Greatest Story Never Told" pretty much glosses over those parts (hence the "never told")

what about the fact that all these countries got some parts of Germany after WW1? They all got a junk of Germany with German people and they treated them like shit. Totally legit to take it back.

>Pragmatism and realpolitik.
I'm not so sure, if the people of France and the UK actaully benefitted from declaring war on Germany

That has zero relation to what you quoted. The governments of France and the UK declared war on Germany because they had an alliance with Poland that protected specifically against a German attack, and they didn't do the same to the USSR because being at war with both of them would be utter retardation.

>annexes Austria
Okay, that's fine
>takes the Sudetenland
Still fair, no problem with that
>invades Czechoslovakia
For what purpose? They're not even fucking Germans.
>invades Poland
STAHP
>invades Denmark, Norway, the USSR, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg
WTF are you doing?

>they treated them like shit
[Citation needed]

>>takes the Sudetenland
>Still fair, no problem with that
>>invades Czechoslovakia
>For what purpose? They're not even fucking Germans.
so you think it is possible to take the sudetenland from them without conquering them wholly?

>Poland
same

>what about the fact that all these countries got some parts of Germany after WW1?
France and Poland? Germans in France lived better than Germans in Germany and in the case of Poland Germans composed less than 3% of Polish population.

>so you think it is possible to take the sudetenland from them without conquering them wholly?
That's literally what they did

>Poland
>same
Danzig didn't even belong to Poland

I mean, they did, the Munich Crisis didn't sit well with the Czechs but it's not like they were going to fight to the death soley for the sudetenland.

>That's literally what they did

Which timeline you live in? Munich agreement lasted single month before Hitler broke his word.

>Munich agreement lasted single month before Hitler broke his word.
I know. See . Hitler already had the Sudetanland, if he was just trying to "protect the German people" then he wouldn't have broke his word and invaded the rest of the country for no reason.

What the fuck are you talking about? Munich was in September 1938, Hitler didn't take over all of Czechoslovakia until March 1939

Because of realpolitik you stupid fucking ollack, treaties are all just scraps of paper at the end of the day and the only real reason to obey them is that it tends to piss people off if you dont.

Germany couldve attacked anyone in 1939 and france and the uk would have declared war

Attacking the soviet union might have been an obligaton according to some peice of paper but also wouldve been fucking stupid

ibiblio.org/pha/bb/bb-078.html#19

Those are all the documents. Nothing about Germany specifically. UK and France declared war on September 3rd which meant that they had to help Poland by September 17th (because 2 weeks of mobilization) on September 12th they decided not to do anything so they broke their part of the deal even before the Soviets. If it wasn't for that the war would've ended in 1939 or 1940 so they fucked up.

>France and Poland? Germans in France lived better than Germans in Germany and in the case of Poland Germans composed less than 3% of Polish population.
Germans in France weren't sucked dry by the Allies because of the enormous reparations Germany had to pay.

>Czechslovakia
Slovakia wanted to join Germany, so the Czech just were in the way. it was logical to take them over

Are you sure about France? I think I read somewhere that in order to attack the USSR Hitler said Germany would have to conquer in the west to protect their back before going for the east.

Honestly? Maybe some Slovak would have to confirm because it sounds like some /pol/ bullshit.

>poland government flees, army capitulates
>ussr then steps in

No one had problems with the US invading a german defeated france.

At the very least he didn't want to fight on two fronts. That's why before he invaded Poland he actually wanted Poland as his ally. Or at the very least to be neutral in case of war with France.

Whose army capitulated?

>the enormous reparations Germany had to pay
the greatest meme of all time
>Slovakia wanted to join Germany
This is the level of historical knowledge the average stormfag possesses

Really...Poland? Wasnt that he was all about? Lebensraum Ost and all that?

>Slovakia wanted to join Germany
Ah I see, so that explains why the USSR occupied east Germany, because the Germans wanted to join them.

If he had Poland as his ally it would basically mean he had the entire country as his vassal. All without firing a round. For lebensraum USSR was his main goal.

We didn't want to join Germany, we just wanted our own country and we wanted Germany to free us from the Czech yoke.
t. Slovak

>Slovakia wanted to join Germany
Slovakia was never even annexed to Germany you stupid /pol/tard, it became a nominally independent puppet state

>I've read somewhere that the defensive alliance with Poland only 'covered' attacks by Germany. However, I haven't found reliable sources yet.

Literally google "British-Polish Treaty 1939 Secret Protocol" and you'll find numerous links with images of the treaty, Britain specifically stated that "an european power" should be understood as Germany.

You can read the entire treaty here

archive.org/details/1944MemorandumOnTheAngloPolishAgreementWithSecretProtocol

And why didn't they attack the USSR is because Germany was the bigger threat and war against them would've ruined the UK or France, leaving them wide open for the Nazis.

>Germans in France weren't sucked dry by the Allies because of the enormous reparations Germany had to pay.
And because France is just plain better.

>Slovakia wanted to join Germany
Nope, only the handful of Germans residing there wanted si. What you meant to say that 30% of Slovakia demanded autonomy/indpendence.

Apparently there's some secret protocol that specifies Germany but I couldn't find anything.

Ok I don't know if anyone mentioned it already but here's the truth.
This guy knew of the content of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact including all the innformal details.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Herwarth

So the British, Americans and everybody knew. So on September 12th in Abbeville France and Great Britain decided to betray their allies dooming Europe for another couple years of war.

>He actually thinks a bigger Saar offensive could have worked

>but I couldn't find anything

Are you goddamn blind just click the damn link and the "search inside" button, I even put an image showing you the secret protocol.

I know this is a "see Allies were just as bad :(((((" thread but for fucks sake at least try.

Against weakly defended western border of Germany? Even German generals were certain of it. No need to defend political fuck up of the mighty Anglo and their French buddies.

Where's secret protocol? Historically the British decided to cheat their way out of the deal 5 days before Soviet invasion.

>Against weakly defended western border of Germany?
No
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siegfried_Line

>Apparently there's some secret protocol that specifies Germany but I couldn't find anything.
Are you a bot? He literally just spoonfed it to you.

90 Allied division against 34 German divisions.

>Even German generals were certain of it
People believing the worthless post-war statements of German generals must be the single largest source of myths about WWII. These purely self-serving apologetics should not be regarded as uncontested facts

Statements that in 1939 Germany was in no position to fight the war on two fronts with so much effort being put on a campaign in Poland is hardly self-serving. It's something they tried to avoid from the very beginning and decided to invade Poland because they didn't believe Allies would honor their agreement with Poland.

>In fact, they didn't declare war on the soviet union because it was a Jewish enterprise just like the UK and the US
Come on, user, be a bit more subtle next time. You're supposed to lead us on a bit first, not immediately skip to complete retardation.

So? In order to invade Germany from France you have to go through a narrow passage between Luxembourg and the Rhine, which you cannot possibly move 90 divisions through simultaneously. And outnumbered defenders can certainly hold out when they were well-fortified. There is a reason the Germans had to go around the Maginot line: attacking heavily fortified areas head on is retarded

Also we'd have to take into consideration possible blockades and problems with supply lines, basically repeating German problems from 1918. And no real allies in Europe at the time as Soviets were still waiting for securing peace with Japan. Yeah Germans got lucky.

It's almost like Germany had repeatedly invaded other countries after being told not to, and had been explicitly told that invading Poland would result in war, while Russia had not.
Ignoring of course that Operation Pike was being planned before the battle of France caused all available resources to be redeployed.

Even if those symbolic western defenses fought like madmen who would be first to run out of ammo?

What caused UK and France to "alter" their deal with Poland 5 days before Soviets attacked? The fact that a German diplomat told them about Ribbentrop-Molotov pact or because they didn't feel like fighting with Germany and they were hoping that the conflict will be local?

Because if it's the former then it suggests that the only thing preventing the British and the French to take action was the fear from being involved with a war with USSR. Of course we have no idea if Stalin would even invade Poland in that case.

It wouldn't reach that point, because the Germans would be able to reinforce with forces from Poland relatively quickly. Keep in mind that to fully mobilize all their forces to launch a full-scale invasion of Germany would take the French until at least 12-14 September, by which point all of Poland west of the Vistula had already fallen and the Soviets were already preparing to come in, so the Germans would have been able to comfortably move forces to the West before the Allied offensive was able to punch that deep into Germany

>90 Allied division
[citation very badly needed]

Please indicate how the mostly reservist armies of France would be in any way, shape, or form up to making determined assualts on a fortified line. And let's not forget the rapid German mobilization, which would be flooding in with divisions by the day the longer this offensive lasts.

Hitler's "many peace offers" revisionists like to remind us were not worth the paper they were written on given his track record, and Winston Churchill, unlike Joseph Stalin, did not fall for them. Stalin did, and how did history reward him for trusting Hitler? Operation Barbarossa, the largest motorized land invasion in the history of mankind that ended up costing over 20 million Soviet lives

Well if Soviets postponed their invasion to see how things unfold not wanting to risk a war with the West Poland would've fought longer and the second week of the invasion was the time of the beginning of their one and only counter-offensive. So if French and the British started a real offensives together with naval blockade and all that then sure Germany would've moved a portion of its army westwards but it would've been sluggish and their progress in Poland would've been likewise slow even if they would win in the end anyway. Maybe the war wouldn't end before Christmas but it's not something they would've won in the long run.

That mobilization was already somewhere else at that time.
My mistake it wasn't the Allies who had 90 divisions it was just the French lead by Alphonse Georges.

>Well if Soviets postponed their invasion to see how things unfold
What if they don't?

>Poland would've fought longer and the second week of the invasion
Poland DID fight longer. Not particularly effectively, but they did fight. How exactly could they have done better once the war already started?

>So if French and the British started a real offensives
With the reservists they're calling up, no forward supply dumps, against a line of fortifications over a river in autumn? What could POSSIBLY go wrong?

>together with naval blockade
They did do a naval blockade.

> Germany would've moved a portion of its army westwards
Why would they do this instead of just using their freshly mobilized troops to handle the defensive duties?

>but it would've been sluggish and their progress in Poland would've been likewise slow even if they would win in the end anyway.
No, it wouldn't be. Literally the earliest possible that the Western Aklies could attack was the 16th, and even that turned out to be optimistic, with the French mobilization taking almost a week longer than expected. By September 17th, even without the Soviets, the Polish army is completely shattered, with not a single division with a lateral line of communication to another division in the field. They were reduced to defending fortified strongholds, and losing them one by one by one. And that's IF everything goes the way you predict, which is ridiculously unlikely.

>My mistake it wasn't the Allies who had 90 divisions it was just the French lead by Alphonse Georges.
[citation still needed]
I want to see what 90 divisions he had ready (by when) and what the state of their readiness was, how able were these troops to conduct an offensive?

Well it would've taken longer than until Christmas but the initiative would've still been on the Allied side. They would've also be aided with additional 85 thousand of Polish troops escaping Poland. Most likely way more if Soviets wouldn't invade.

To Lose a Battle. You can read the fascinating tale of the French mobilization in 1939 if you want.

>ell it would've taken longer than until Christmas but the initiative would've still been on the Allied side.
No it fucking wouldn't. You'd have at best a likely failure of a meatgrinder assault on the Sigfried line, which is continually being reinforced by Welles 4-10. In a worst case scenario, the Germans are able to do something fancy with the limited maneuverability they do have and pocket and obliterate a large portion of these attacking forces. There would be no shift in initiative unless things go implausibly well on this attack.

>they would've also be aided with additional 85 thousand of Polish troops escaping Poland.
First off, you've offered nothing, not even bizarre speculation as to how 85,000 troops would escape Poland. Secondly, when Fall Gelb gets thrown down late next spring, each of the armies is about 3.3 million. 85,000 Polish troops is a blip.

But most of all
>Most likely way more if Soviets wouldn't invade.
You've offered nothing to substantiate this.

>Lose a Battle.
That's not a citation, that's the name of a book. What is the information, what is contained in it, and what sources is Alistair Horne drawing upon to come up with the state of readiness?

I could just as easily (and stupidly) say that no, they could not have attacked successfully, read Adam Tooze's Wages of Destruction. There, don't you feel enlightened?

>You've offered nothing to substantiate this.
Stalin not wanting to risk fighting with France and UK in 1939? It's rather obvious he would rather avoid this that's who he was. He didn't even invade Poland before he was sure the invasion was nearly over and French and British didn't intervene.
And I see no reason to assume that in 1939 was so unbeatable that even having most of its forces in Poland it would be able to defeat the invasion from France and Great Britain. If only Hitler knew about this perhaps he could've done it sooner than May 1940?

Read a book nigga.
Or tell me how many divisions the French had at their disposal in 1939. I'm interested in the number. Anywhere I look I see the number of over 90 but I want to kno the truth.

forum.axishistory.com//viewtopic.php?t=179947

??

>Stalin not wanting to risk fighting with France and UK in 1939
What makes you think he would be undertaking such a risk? A failed assault into Germany isn't going to deter him.

>And I see no reason to assume that in 1939 was so unbeatable that even having most of its forces in Poland
Attacking.Fortified.Positions.Is.Both.Hard.And.Slow. The. German.Mobilization.Will.Continue.While.You. Attack. They. Will.Add.To.The.Defenses.You.Are.Stupid.

I wouldn't overestimate the Fortress Germany. Of course you could say that German engineering > French engineering and the Siegfried Line was no Maginot Line but it doesn't strike me like the Great Chinese Wall either especially at a numeral disatvantage.
What are some works by people who claim that it was a good decision for the British and French to wait until they got buttfucked by fresh and resupplied German army in 1940? Honestly. Experts on strategy, military historians. Anyone. I'm interested in reading more about that.

If I recall, France wanted an immediate declaration but they couldn't get Britain to agree on it. Russia is notoriously simple to blockade, but one requires ships to do so.

>NO ONE INVADES POLAND ON OUR WATCH

>uhhh heheh uhh I mean o-o-of c-course you can go ahead and invade Mr. Soviet Union uhh heheh we just meant Germany uhh heheh

3 days is still not the worst response time. I'm surprised it came from the French though.
But what if against all odds, no fighting spirit in France, lack of a large standing army in Great Britain and time necessary to bring in all the troops or soldiers from the colonies and shit.
If a large attack was launched from the start what would Stalin do? He was paranoid and careful as fuck. Maybe he would've moved in to take the Baltic states and some eastern Poland but still carefully as he didn't want to fight against the entire Europe especially with that shitty Soviet army that he had in 1939. And with larger Allied attack from the very beginning there would be no Barbarossa as well.

Britain and France planned to attack the Soviet Union too, but the German invasion of France prevented it
Operation Pike

Is it because of Finland? I thought I read something like that but it seems weird as Finland was the ally of Germany but I remember something about this.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-British_plans_for_intervention_in_the_Winter_War

Well look at that. They wanted to do it but were prevented by Hitler yet again. Sometimes I think Hitler might've been Stalin's inside man.

>The entirety of Veeky Forums BTFO by a single /pol/poster yet again

Why does this happen every WWII thread

Who's the /pol/ster in this scenario?

You're missing the point, a-fucking-gain. Germany was mobilizing extremely rapidly throughout September and October. The French and British, even if they do attack, might start with a numerical advantage, but they won't keep it. And the existence of the Sigfried line means they can't just sweep away in a sudden rush, even if they were doctrinally set up for that.

> Honestly. Experts on strategy, military historians. Anyone. I'm interested in reading more about that.
I would recommend Liddel Hart's History of the Second World War, especially if you want to get to the level of French mobilization and the counterpart German mobilization.

>Sept 17th: Soviet Union attacks Poland from the east, but there is no declaration of war on the Soviet Union. Why?
because the defensive treaty the brits had with poles said it was only against German aggression

Welp I guess there's one thing to add to the "things Hitler did wrong" list. That he didn't realize he was able to handle fighting three countries at once on both sides of the border and win the war. All without empires and shit. Jodl was a shit.

Are you stupid, or trying (badly) to make a point? Attacking is generally harder than defending. You need colossal resources to overcome dug in defenders, even with just field fortifications (and more than that existed on both sides of the border). You need to have a supply network that not only exists, but has the mobile capacity to keep up with advancing troops; if you're sitting and defending it's much easier both to keep your supply dumps closer to your troops, and to use higher quantity of lower speed transport to move them.

Just because Germany is capable of repelling an assault over a narrow front doesn't mean that they can attack the other way. To even suggest it is ridiculous.

Also, I found a TO&E of army Group C in september 1st, 1939; and don't forget it was being reinforced constantly.

niehorster.org/011_germany/39-oob/c/_ag_c.html

Jodl IS a shit, becuase there's a lot more than 23 divisions there. I count 48, plus some other assorted smaller attachments, of which 32 are Welle 1-3 units.

Then what happens? Germans win in Poland in early-mid October. so they're able to send more troops (already fighting for over a month) to the west making things more even numerically. How long until the British send more of their expeditionary forces? How long until colonial units are deployed? Until the blockade takes effect? Who blinks first who runs out of gas, ammo or food?

Different user here. Not necessarily disagreeing with you, just bringing up a possible counterpoint.

Weren't the Germans alarmingly short on supplies immediately after the invasion of Poland? I remember reading something about part of the reason for the Phony War was that the Germans had to resupply everyone because things like ammunition, shells, and bombs were in dangerously short supply.

Let's say there's a reason why Hitler desperately wanted to avoid having to fight on both fronts. Especially before the situation with the Soviet Union became clear. During Spring of 1940 he had what he wanted. Fresh soldiers, resupplied and ready, French tired after mobilization, almost no British in sight and above all the fact that he was the attacking side.

No, what happens is that the newly raised troops repel the offensive, and Germany continues full mobilization, and you get an attack on France through the low countries more or less as historically, only now France has thrown a bunch of troops into the meatgrinder for no real gain.

> How long until the British send more of their expeditionary forces?
You are now aware that Britain only sent 10 divisions over historically at the height of their deployment. They only HAD 28 divisions as of September 1940, a year into the war. What "more of their expeditionary forces" are there to send?

>Until the blockade takes effect?
Judging by history, never. Germany's economic setup was pretty much confined to the continent as is.

>Weren't the Germans alarmingly short on supplies immediately after the invasion of Poland?
They were low, and most of the war production between October and about Februrary of 1940 was to build more ammunition, which was a huge proportion of the steel budget that it would never again take (more because the Germans were producing more of other stuff, they weren't stinting on ammo later). But it's not like the Anglo-Allies were in much better shape. Germany had been running a de facto war economy for some time prior to the war, whereas Britain and France's military spending was far less.

Why make stupid Reddit posts user

>They only HAD 28 divisions as of September 1940, a year into the war
Right and where were they fighting at that time? Assuming those small forces on the unfinished Siegfried Line managed to hold their ground until the veterans from Poland arrived how would any army, assuming they're not dealing with some backwater country, managed to at the same time fight and establish and occupation regime in one country, defend itself from the other side and actually turn into a counter-offensive all without a single break and before Britain managed to mobilize more troops or send in colonial forces. Why wasn't Hitler aware that he had such a juggernaut and was afraid of fighting Europe all at once? This is all a hypothetical scenario in which Great Britain follows the treaty with Poland to the letter and France doesn't make itself such an easy target due to horrible leadership. 1939 wasn't even height of German military power. Making a move in 1939 would've been a much better decision than just waiting for Germany until Spring of 1940.

Because Eastern Poland is the Soviet rightfull clay.

Oh stfu/

>my shitty medieval borders are relevant in the real world

Who controlled the top bit of Estonia at that time?

>History is irrelevant to modern times

>medieval
t. retard
Sweden.

There would be no need to pull troops back from the Polish offensive, as I've pointed out like 5 times. When the Germans would switch to the offensive, they would do something more or less what they did historically, an attack through the low countries when the weather is better, not an immediate attack into the teeth of the Maginot line in bad weather. Your "hypothetical scenario" makes no sense and you are stupid. I strongly recommend suicide.

In the time of nation-states? Yeah pretty much