Who was the most useless nation during WWII?

Why would Stalin even want to stand up to Hitler? Stalin was busy with his "socialism in one country" and trying to kill anyone who he thought was his enemy. It made fair more sense to make a deal with Hitler and gain half of Poland than to attack him for the other half. If you think Stalin should have stood up to Hitler because of moral reasons then remember than Stalin was a mass-murderer too.

Click to expand...

Why? Simply because Stalin and the Soviet Union had more to gain in the long run. Look at what happened. Stalin took the deal and got half of Poland easily in 1939. A few years later the Germans over-ran all of what was once Poland and large chunks of the Soviet Union to boot. It took a
huge sacrifice of Russian people and military (as well as help in the form of US Lend Lease) just for Russia to survive the German onslaught.

It was not in Russia's best interest to give Hitler half of Poland and a safe back to take out France. All that did was set Hitler up to attack Stalin.

Now, I ask again, if Stalin had told Hitler that a German invasion of Poland meant war with the USSR, what course do you think WWII would have taken?

When I answered that question I voted the USSR as most useless nation.

Originally posted by donsig


Now, I ask again, if Stalin had told Hitler that a German invasion of Poland meant war with the USSR, what course do you think WWII would have taken?

Click to expand...

I think Hitler would have overran Poland and then drilled right through the USSR, while the western Allies would have stayed out of the whole thing altogether (setting up the same situation in reverse).

The Soviet army was in horrible shape in 1939 as evidenced by poor efforts against Finland, and after Stalin's purges nearly every General. The extra two years of preparation he bought himself probably saved Moscow.

Plus, Stalin was offered far more than half of Poland. He also was ceded the Baltic states and part of Romania. Additionally, he was offered free reign to go after India, etc...

Even as late as early 1941 Hitler was negotiating with Stalin to bring him in on the side of the Axis, but when Mussolini's army drew him into a macedonian conflict, the Russians became unwilling to negotiate, and Hitler decided to follow through on his attack plans.

The reason Britain and France didn't stand up to Hitler till Poland was because they were trying to avoid a world war.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know. However, their efforts not only did not prevent the war they made it worse by giving Hitler more time. (Exactly the same thing Stalin did in Poland.) I have the luxury of hindsight, they didn't. Perhaps no one knew in 1938 or 1939 what Hitler was capable of.

Well, donsig, however contemptible the allied behaviour was (hey, France!), they were also holding back from standing up to the Nazis to give themselves time to build up their defences.

R.III

Hitler told his diplomat in the USSR to give into every demand Stalin made to get the Ribbentrop-Molotove Pact signed. he knew he could not invade Poland until the USSR was guaranteed to not get involved. He also knew that he would eventually take back whatever gains the USSR made in Eastern Europe once he hasd defeated the West. The British at the same time were wooing the USSR but the Poles absolutely rejected the idea that Soviet Troops would come into their territory to defend against the Germans - to them the greater evil was the USSR and not Germany. Of course, we all know Poland got the wonderful treatment of getting attacked from BOTH sides by Germany and the USSR.

As to the poll, well Chechoslovakia did not exust in September of 1939 so you cannot list them at all, so I will have to go with Poland because they were annihilated in less than a month, although the German commanders did learn a lot of their blitzkrieg tactics when they invaded Poland and refined them for when they needed to be extra effective - in the invasion of France in 1940.

Originally posted by Magnus
As to the poll, well Chechoslovakia did not exust in September of 1939 so you cannot list them at all, so I will have to go with Poland because they were annihilated in less than a month, although the German commanders did learn a lot of their blitzkrieg tactics when they invaded Poland and refined them for when they needed to be extra effective - in the invasion of France in 1940.

Click to expand...

I've always felt that the Poles fought quite well. They had a badly outdated army, they had a horrible stategic position, outflanked on all sides, and worse still, their economically vital areas were all forward near the German frontier. Meaning they were even more suceptable to encirclement.

Nevertheless, they held out about as long as France did.

Well, donsig, however contemptible the allied behaviour was (hey, France!), they were also holding back from standing up to the Nazis to give themselves time to build up their defences.

Click to expand...

I did not mean to suggest that not standing up to Hitler was 'contempible'. It was 'unfortunate' though, in that much horror that we know as WW II might have been avoided had someone opposed Hitler earlier. He got as far as he did by picking off countries one by one. (Let's remember here that Great Britain was the first he couldn't pick off!)

I'm reminded of something I read in a US history by Isaac Asimov. He was writing about the pre-Civil War period in US history, specifically, Buchanan's administration. Buchanan did nothing to stop the southern states from leaving the union after Lincoln was elected. Asimov wondered how much grief the US would have been spared had Buchanan been more like Andrew Jackson. It's the same type of thinking that leads me to wonder what might have happened had someone blocked Hitler earlier.

I think Hitler would have overran Poland and then drilled right through the USSR, while the western Allies would have stayed out of the whole thing altogether (setting up the same situation in reverse).

Click to expand...

I doubt Hitler would have attacked Poland without the Russian agreement. I really doubt he would have attacked Poland if that meant was with the USSR as well. Not with France on his back. Hitler knew full well not to involve Germany in a two front war. In 1939 France had the (supposed) biggest and best army in Europe. Let's say you're right and hitler attacks Poland and the USSR first. Hitler would have had Stalin on the ropes. By then France and Britain would cetainly have gone to war with Germany, since neither could afford that powerful a Germany. (The same reason they did go to war for in 1939.)

I doubt that in this scenario the USSR would have been worse off than it was in actual history. And in the more likely scenario that Hitler backed off on attacking Poland (if that meant immediate war with USSR) then the USSR could have come out better still.

Of course this is all speculation. Preventing Hitler from taking
Poland in 1939 might have prevented WWII all together - leaving Hitler in power for who knows how long!

Originally posted by donsig

Of course this is all speculation. Preventing Hitler from taking
Poland in 1939 might have prevented WWII all together - leaving Hitler in power for who knows how long!

Click to expand...

Disagree on this point. Hitler was actually upset that he didn't have the opportunity to invade Czechoslovakia in 1938/39 - he wanted war, he wanted to 'pay back' the French for Versailles, he wanted to destroy the USSR. If the French and English (and Poland) had somehow got together with Stalin and provided a united front, Hitler may have backed down - but only to bide his time until he saw enough cracks to again attack their weaknesses. He was going to have his war one way or the other.

There was actually discussion about an attempt of a c'oup de tat among many of the High Command around the time Hitler was attempting to gain the Sudetenland, the German commanders had told the British they would seize control of Berlin once the French and British made Hitler back down (remember, the Army was still 'old guard' in Germany), because up to that point he had succeeded in everything and this would be his first failure. Unfortunately, the French and British backed down, (and the Brits found the messages dubious) so the army commanders had nothing upon which to move ahead with their plan. If this HAD had happened, then WW2 may indeed have been avoided, although a particularly nasty German civil war could have been a likely outcome.

You know, I've been trying late in life to avoid saying people are idiots, or contemptible, or whatever. But with both hindsight and the foresight available at the time, Magnus has pointed out perfectly why I (ME) beleive that British and French behavior WAS contemptible. The Rhineland? Austria? Confused cases. But selling out the Czechs was a despicable act. On par with the UN not bothering to defend Sbernitza (sic) or Goradze. The czechs were relying on the allies, and what did they do? Sell them out, because they could. If only they'd said no THEN, and there wasn't much excuse not to at that point.

Sounds like a civfanatics diplomacy game I know...

To me the very thing that makes this sort of speculation and discussion worthwhile is the possibility of learning from the mistakes of those who have gone before us.

It is a shame that the United Nations is not a more meaningful thing. I regret that part of the reason it isn't lies with my own country, the USA. I sincerely hope we do not have to have another world war to teach us that a useful and workable United Nations is a benefit and not a threat to us.

Magnus wrote:

Disagree on this point. Hitler was actually upset that he didn't have the opportunity to invade Czechoslovakia in 1938/39 - he wanted war, he wanted to 'pay back' the French for Versailles, he wanted to destroy the USSR. If the French and English (and Poland) had somehow got together with Stalin and provided a united front, Hitler may have backed down - but only to bide his time until he saw enough cracks to again attack their weaknesses. He was going to have his war one way or the other.

Hitler did indeed have a maniacal hatred for the "bastards of Versailles" (Czechoslovakia, Poland) and would not rest until both were destroyed. Poland in particular earned his wrath because of the failed League of Nations' plebiscite in Silesia in 1920 and the Corridor. The Czechs (in Hitler's warped mind) had been "Aryanized" somewhat through their long association with the Holy Roman Empire and therefore deserved some modicum of limited existance in the Reich (as peasants) but the Poles deserved no quarter and got exactly that.

Sensing a new danger, in early 1933 Marshall Pilsudski approached the French with a plan for a preventive strike against Germany (at a time when Polish-French forces were at an advantage to Germany's numerically), but Paris refused. There had been throughout Europe a growing sympathy for the Germans since 1930, with American Secretaries of State, French foreign ministers and British bankers reaching to realize the dead Stresemann's dreams of mitigating Versailles for Depression-ravaged Germany, so it's no wonder the French refused. Pilsudski died in 1935 and his successors - the fools of 1939 - were militarily incompetent as events would eventually bear out. It's not known whether Pilsudski was serious about the strike in 1933, or whether he was just testing the French alliance. (The French were unreliable partners, having allowed their Little Entente alliance to whither and Pilsudski had just cause for concern.) Pilsudski however was quite competent militarily, having defeated the Soviets in 1920, so one must wonder whether a more determined French response in 1933 might have relegated Hitler to the sidelines of history. Perhaps another German nationalist would have come to power anyway in Germany, or perhaps a military coup would have resulted, but even if World War II still managed to break out without Hitler I think it would have been a somewhat less bloody affair.

Magnus wrote:

As to the poll, well Chechoslovakia did not exust in September of 1939 so you cannot list them at all, so I will have to go with Poland because they were annihilated in less than a month, although the German commanders did learn a lot of their blitzkrieg tactics when they invaded Poland and refined them for when they needed to be extra effective - in the invasion of France in 1940.

Magnus, check out my post at the beginning of this thread on Poland (1st post on page 2). It was in many ways more effective an ally than France and the low Countries for the Allies.

Very interesting Vrylakas. I guess I underestimated Polish mettle during the war (too bad I can't change my vote!). However, is it not plausible to think that the Germans were perhaps more cautious against the Poles than the French and Low Countries as they really hadn't perfected the blitzkrieg like they would use it in 1940?

I think the entire war hinged on the fact that the 1940 blitz was TOO effective. So when Hitler pulled the reigns in on Guderain's tanks, allowing the BEF to escape at Dunkirk (he feared they would be over-extended, which turned out not to be the case), it gave England cause to carry on. If the BEF HAD been captured/destroyed I think the Brits might have tried to make a separate peace with the Germans. Just a thought.

And about the Czech question - can you believe that Chamberlain allowed the Germans to mop up the rest of Czech lands (Bohemia and Moravia) because since Slovakia had declared indpendence (on German nudging) the day before the Germans marched in, then Czechosolvakia nominally ceased to exist and any guarantees the british had applied only to Czechoslvakia and not its remnants! Talk about a raw deal! But he eventually realized he was acting like a pansy and this is what made England and France finally 'draw the line' in Poland.

I guess I underestimated Polish mettle during the war

Click to expand...

As an Englishman I never understimate Polish mettle. During the battle of Britain (arguely the battle that saved Britain) the Polish pilots were among the best. For all the nationalities invovled the Poles killed more Germans per man. For that I thank them.

I think the entire war hinged on the fact that the 1940 blitz was TOO effective.

Click to expand...

The blitz was anything but effective. Hitler had a pretty good plan of bombing the English air fields of Southern England and so securing German air superoity. This worked very well to the extent that fighter command was in serious danger of breaking. However Churchill ordered the bombing of Berlin (the bombs didn't do any serious damage and landed on the outskirts) which Hitler had said would never happen. So Hitler ordered the bombing of London and other British cities. This gave fighter command a chance to recover which it duly did. So when the Germans sent over an air-borne amanda, the like of which the world had never seen, they were very surprised at the amount of British fighters there to meet them (it caused major morale problems for the German airforce).

Originally posted by MrPresident
The blitz was anything but effective.

Click to expand...

Um, I think Magnus was referring to the blitzkrieg in France, 1940, not the battles over Britain.

I think it's true that many German commanders did not expect the success of the French campaign. It's one thing to train and develop a doctrine, it's quite another to see it succeed as it did.
There was definitely a sense of "things are going TOO well" in the high command. It's interesting that incredible success can breed as much fear and concern as terrible disaster.

/bruce

I think it's true that many German commanders did not expect the success of the French campaign. It's one thing to train and develop a doctrine, it's quite another to see it succeed as it did.

Click to expand...

I agree. That's why I think Hitler would not have attacked the Soviet Union as long as France was viable. My main reason for voting 'other' (Soviet Union) was that Stalin brought on the war as it was because he threw his lot in with Hitler in the Polish deal. Had Stalin not cut that deal with Hitler things would have taken a different course. As someone pointed out earlier, Hitler did want war and war he would have gotten.

BUT by dividing Poland Stalin merely gave Hitler a safe back to strike France. It is probably good that France fell so fast. That gave the Germans confidence that they could beat everyone. That they tried and finally fell to the Allies.

As someone pointed out earlier, Hitler did want war and war he would have gotten.

Click to expand...

There is no doubt that Hitler wanted war but he wanted it around 1943-45. As he thought that would be the period German would have completed its rearmanament and the Allies would still be completing theirs. The war did actually surprise Hitler when it came so early. He thought the Allies would do as that had done before when he attacked Poland. However for their own reasons the Allies decided enough was enough and declared war. Hitler had left his western side fairly undefended due partly to war in Poland and the limited resources at his disposal. So if the France had attacked on the declaration of war then Germany would have fallen and WWII would never had become a world war. This is not the first time that France could have stopped Hitler, remember when he marched in the demilitarised Rhineland.

Just spent a few minutes reading STALIN by Edvard Radzinsky. I read a few pages about the events leading up to the war between Germany and the Soviet Union.

Radzinsky wrote that Stalin went along with Hitler on dividing Poland because

1) it got the Soviets the Baltics states and parts of Poland, Finland and Rumania (which has already been pointed ut in this thread)

2) Stalin realized Hitler was pushing for war and Stalin wanted to be sure Germany's next push was away from the Soviet Union

and most importantly

3) Stalin planned to attack Germany later anyway, with the idea of occupying the Nazi conquests (most of Europe).

It is very intriguing reading. Radzinsky (I think rightly) points out that whether Stalin allied with Hitler or the capitalists of the west he would be allying with an enemy. Hence a planned backstab by Stalin makes sense.

Radzinsky goes on to say that Stalin was surprised by Hitler's attack. Though Stalin was preparing a surprise attack on Germany, Hitler saw it coming and attacked the Soviets before Germany was fully prepared to do so (hoping to repeat the blitzkrieg victories). The key here was Rumania's oil. If Stalin was allowed to strike first and cut Germany off from that oil...

... makes me wish we had a WW II scenario for Civ III.

I read a great series of books by Viktor Suvorov, (The Icebreaker, Last Republic, Day M) in which he convingly proves that Stalin did plan to attack Germany and that's why he signed the non-aggression pact, so that to turn Germany's attention to the West, while Stalin prepares his armies to backstab Germany.

As Suvorov claims, Hitler attacked Soviet Union while the Red Army was still being unloaded from trains in the west of the country, without any defenses and very disorganised, and hence the early defeats.

I very much agree with this theory because it explains why the world's largest army with 20,000 tanks and 8000 planes (compared to Hitler's 3300 and 2000 respectively) was practically completely destroyed within a matter of months.

Suvorov also proves that the Soviet equipment at the time was not really inferior to German equipment, it was only suited for an aggressive blitzkrieg but useless for a defensive war.

I haven't read Suvarov, and hadn't planned too as I'd heard his theories had been pretty well discredited by the publishing of communist archives after the fall of the USSR.

Anyone have any comment on this?

/bruce