No Greater Ally, a book review

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi:

Here is another book review of a recent historical title. The book is “No Greater Ally” by Kenneth Koskodan (Osprey Publishing 2009). The author is not a trained historian per se, but he does paint a long neglected picture of Poland’s contribution to the allied victory in WWII.
Believe it or not, the Poles were the fourth largest Allied military force of the war. Mr. Koskodan shows that while Poland fell quickly, it was not from lack of plans, courage or determination. The old myth that Polish cavalry attacked German tanks with lances is dispelled (it was an inspired piece of German propaganda aided and abetted by Italian journalists). The Polish air force was not in fact mainly destroyed on the ground (most planes were dispersed to primitive airstrips and fought as best they could.
What hurt Poland the most was the Russian attack that caught a great deal of her army that was trying to re-group in the eastern part of the nation. Poland had so pinned her hopes on French and British intervention that her war plans were hold on for about three weeks and let her allies take the pressure off of her. In this instance Poland was to learn that a French promise is nothing more than words as opposed to action.
With the double invasion, Poland was doomed. Yet a great deal of her military was able to either escape to Romania (her closest ally) or even to France. The French re-formed Polish soldiers into effective formations and had no trouble letting them get bled white covering the withdrawal of larger French formations. Despite being badly used, a large number of Poles managed to make it to Britain including a lot very experienced fighter pilots.
The exploits of Polish fighter squadrons attached to the RAF during the Battle of Britain are perhaps the best known contributions of the Polish military. Believe it or not, the highest scoring fighter squadron in the battle was the Polish 303 squadron with 110 confirmed kills. German pilots themselves credited the Poles with being deadly aerial opponents and the British copied their methods.
The Poles suffered possibly worse at the hands of the Russians than the Germans. Polish POWs and civilians were used as slave labor by the Russians and literally worked to death by the thousands. And then to aid insult to injury, the Russians formed the survivors into regiments to fight the Germans once they were invaded. It speaks volumes for Polish courage and determination that they willingly went to battle against their other hated foe in hopes of eventually liberating Poland.
Poland made perhaps its greatest contribution in the Italian campaign. The capture of Monte Cassino is one of the war’s greatest battles and the price paid was fearsome. Polish forces in France during the Normandy campaign would also give an excellent account of themselves. But it would be during Operation Market Garden, that poorly planned and executed airborne battle that would define the sacrifice and courage of these brave soldiers. The efforts made by the Polish Parachute Brigade to try and reinforce the British airborne troops are heartbreaking to read.
The account of the Warsaw uprising is well handled and the obvious Russian betrayal is demonstrated convincingly. The fact that the Germans devoted so much time and men to crush the rebellion speaks volumes for their fear of the Polish soldiers.
If this book has a flaw it is that the author is passionately trying to defend Poland. His descriptions at times are repetitive and based primarily on secondary sources (mainly personal memoirs of surviving Polish veterans). I don’t want to say he has an agenda, but he certainly makes it sound as if every time Polish forces fought, they turned the tide of battle unless betrayed by their so-called allies. A good editor might have modified this approach.
The descriptions of the final political maneuvers that doomed an independent Poland are a rightful indictment against the Allies. They chose political expediency over justice and let Stalin claim Poland practically as a trophy of war. It does make one ask what pressure Soviet Russia was putting on the other Allies. Were they threatening to stop fighting the Germans? One doubts that, although recent history has shown that Stalin was willing to let Hitler keep the Ukraine in exchange for an end of hostilities in late 1942. By late 1944 this was no longer the case. Stalin’s refusal to allow British or American aircraft to use airbases in support of the Warsaw uprising are damnation enough. The facetious “free elections” that Stalin rigged to get his communist government installed are about as bad as anything one can find in a so-called Third World democracy.
While Mr. Koskodan is not a trained historian, he and Osprey Books have given us a badly needed look at a gallant peoples struggle and final eventual triumph over tyranny and oppression. May we learn a lesson when it is our turn to fight the good fight.

[old_pop2000]

.... great deal of her army that was trying to re-group in the eastern part of the nation. Poland had so pinned her hopes on French and British intervention that her war plans were hold on for about three weeks and let her allies take the pressure off of her. In this instance Poland was to learn that a French promise is nothing more than words as opposed to action.
With the double invasion, Poland was doomed. Yet a great deal of her military was able to either escape to Romania (her closest ally) or even to France. ......

Hi Ed:
Thanks for taking time to review a book.

I believe that this is an attempt to salvage some historical pride that was lost by the Poles in WWII and the subsequent Cold War. The Polish problem in WWII wasn't just relying on her Allies, it was geographical. When the Munich crisis occurred, and the German's gained access through Czechoslovakia, it essentially negated any fixed defenses the Poles had. Now they had to spread out their army. So, the fourth largest army was now guarding a frontier for which it had never had plans or men to cover. If you don't believe me, look at the frontier with the Germans, then add the Czech border. The frontier is about 289 miles from Danzig to the Czech border. It's difficult with current maps, I'am using Google earth. Now, add in the Czech border. Conservatively, you've added another 416 miles, with the bends and curves, its over 500. So you've doubled your border and outflanked your fixed fortifications. Yes, there were terrain differences, but nothing that would stop a modern mechanized army like the German's.

I assume he doesn't bring up the fact that the German rearmament came as a result of the German-Polish Pact of 1934. Does he mention the failure to develop an Eastern European pact with France included to defend Poland against any possible German aggression or the fact that the Soviets wanted some kind of agreements with the Poles in the summer of 1939 but never got it. How about Poland's stand and treachery against Czecho-slovakia which gave the Germans access to Southern Poland. The Pilsudski government isolated the Poles making defense almost impossible. The Poles believed that they never needed any real fix fortifications because their army was designed for maneuver. That was hogwash, and they knew it. The Poles should have used the north running rivers like the Vistula, Bug and San Rivers as natural defensive positions. However, there were no fortifications on those rivers and drought lowered the river levels. Manpower at the front was only about 1 million men total, they held off on mobilization so as to prevent the Germans from having an excuse to attack. That failed. The Germans had already mobilized 1.5 million men but some were on the western front. Bottom line was that the Polish army was a hollow shell with a conglomeration of artillery and other vital equipment.

Their own diplomatic and strategic stupidity caused the loss of their freedom for the next half century.:(

[JMS]

Good review Ed, but I agree with Dennis, by 1939 the Polish position was hopeless by their own making.

[old_pop2000]

Good review Ed, but I agree with Dennis, by 1939 the Polish position was hopeless by their own making.

Hi JMS:
One of the issues, that isn't spoken or analysed much is a comparison of divisional strengths. We tend to compare the number of divisions, not their compositions.

Example: Polish Infantry division versus German Infantry division as of 1 Sept. 1939. Polish first, then German in the columns.

12,000 vs 15,000 men and officers
5 motor vehicles vs 1067
5110 Rifles vs 11,606
24 105 How. vs 36
45 hvy mortars vs 54
50 hvy MGs vs 100
0 lgt mortars vs 81
750 lgt MGs vs 342

There is much more, but the purpose is to show that the Polish division was short on men, motor vehicles and fire power, everything you needed for mechanized warfare. If you are in a defensive mode and have few motor transports, you are not going to be able to move troops around to deal with breakthroughs. This was the essential problem for the Polish Army. Once a breakthrough had occurred, they could not move quick enough to reposition the armies.

[john964]

Lets not forget that Poland was the country that had partialy or had cracked the Enigma code of the Germans before the war and sent off what they had to England and gave the GCHQ a leg up in there efforts to crack the code.

[old_pop2000]

Lets not forget that Poland was the country that had partialy or had cracked the Enigma code of the Germans before the war and sent off what they had to England and gave the GCHQ a leg up in there efforts to crack the code.

Hi John:
That was an important factor in the Allied victory, however, examining the campaign and preliminary diplomacy indicates that the government did not use that information and codebreaking does not win battles, campaigns or wars. It can give you information that can give you advantages and help place weapons in the right position, but it does not win the victories. It certainly didn't in Poland. Even in the BOB, BOA and Africa, it did not win the battles, it simply gave the Allies a look into German strategy and tactics. This maybe the difference between England and Poland. The British took the information seriously and developed a system to interpret the raw data and create vital information, the Poles never did. Neither did the French.

[asnrobert]

The Polish Navy also contributed to the war. They sent three of their four destroyers to England on the eve of war, and Polish sailors manned a number of British vessels. I recall reading about one submarine that had escaped to Lithuania, only to have their charts and navigational equipment seized by the Lithuanian government, who wanted to intern the vessel. The crew of the submarine decided they would rather escape, and were able to navigate the Baltic sea and make it to England despite having no way to find their position.

[clacton2]

The Polish Navy also contributed to the war. They sent three of their four destroyers to England on the eve of war, and Polish sailors manned a number of British vessels. I recall reading about one submarine that had escaped to Lithuania, only to have their charts and navigational equipment seized by the Lithuanian government, who wanted to intern the vessel. The crew of the submarine decided they would rather escape, and were able to navigate the Baltic sea and make it to England despite having no way to find their position.

Hi Robert,
The submarine was the Orzel, and she escaped from Tallin in Estonia, sailed to Britain and fought with the RN. She sank the German transport ship Rio de Janeiro at the start of the Norwegian campaign, but then disappeared in May 1940, her fate is still unknown.

Jon

[Mike Malanaphy]

The Polish Navy also contributed to the war. They sent three of their four destroyers to England on the eve of war, and Polish sailors manned a number of British vessels. I recall reading about one submarine that had escaped to Lithuania, only to have their charts and navigational equipment seized by the Lithuanian government, who wanted to intern the vessel. The crew of the submarine decided they would rather escape, and were able to navigate the Baltic sea and make it to England despite having no way to find their position.

Hi Robert,

The Poles provided a lot of support to the British during the war on sea, land, and air. Norway also provided manpower to the RAF and RN woth pilots and ships' crews.

The Poles were virtually doomed from the start with the Soviets and Germans on both borders. With French help, they repulsed a Soviet invasion in 1921. The Danzig corridor seperating highly irritated Germany. Whatever their diplomatic foibles, the Poles no one who could effectively help them against these two implacable foes. After 6 years of German occupation, one can see how the Soviets were embraced.

[old_pop2000]

Hi Robert,

The Poles provided a lot of support to the British during the war on sea, land, and air. Norway also provided manpower to the RAF and RN woth pilots and ships' crews.

The Poles were virtually doomed from the start with the Soviets and Germans on both borders. With French help, they repulsed a Soviet invasion in 1921. The Danzig corridor seperating highly irritated Germany. Whatever their diplomatic foibles, the Poles no one who could effectively help them against these two implacable foes. After 6 years of German occupation, one can see how the Soviets were embraced.

Hi Mike:

I don't agree that they were doomed from the start. They made no attempts at diplomacy with other Eastern and Central European states to develop a mutual defense pact. If they had attempted that in 1934, they might have saved 35 divisions that were forced to move from the border of Germany to the Polish-Czech border. Those could have been a mobile reserve on the rivers to give the rest of the army time for their retrograd maneuvers. They must have realized that their Allies could not really help them or did not have the wherewithal to try. I will agree that the French deceived them into believing that they would advance into Germany, however, their defense rested on their shoulders, not those of their Allies. The Easter defense pact would have been the best way of at least keeping the Soviets at bay for a while.

BTW, some figures might be interesting. Over 500,000 Poles fought for the Soviet Army in WWII, 200,000 went to the west. 6 million were killed by the Germans, 2.5 million were deported to Germany to work. 500,000 went to the Soviet Union. Seems that the Poles paid a heavy price for their actions prior to the war. The Poles made some unforgiveable strategic errors by focusing on one enemy and failing to understand how technology had advanced.

[ksbearski]

Although the Poles made diplomatic blunders, I doubt they had enough coinage in the treasury to even come close to upgrading and outfitting their units to anywhere near the levels of either the Wehrmacht or the Red Army, much less build an extensive network of fortifications. No money, no bullets, it's that simple.... I think you miss the point of this book and a number of others that detail the Polish contribution to ultimate victory. The message is, they didn't accept defeat, they fought valiantly and well and were a major contributor to victory. Does the failures of the prewar government and military really diminish that contribution? .... And really, short of possessing nuclear weapons and a delivery system for them do you think they could have really stopped the Red Army and the Germans for any length of time, no matter how good of weapons they had or better mobility than what they had? They aligned themselves with France and the British Empire, the superpowers of the day, allegedly, and you consider that "dumb"? Do you really think that a coalition of poor Eastern European nations formed into a NATO like mutual defense organization would have given Hitler or Stalin pause? Hungary, Romania, Poland, the Czechs? Really? Barry aka ksbearski

[old_pop2000]

Although the Poles made diplomatic blunders, I doubt they had enough coinage in the treasury to even come close to upgrading and outfitting their units to anywhere near the levels of either the Wehrmacht or the Red Army, much less build an extensive network of fortifications. No money, no bullets, it's that simple.... I think you miss the point of this book and a number of others that detail the Polish contribution to ultimate victory. The message is, they didn't accept defeat, they fought valiantly and well and were a major contributor to victory. Does the failures of the prewar government and military really diminish that contribution? .... And really, short of possessing nuclear weapons and a delivery system for them do you think they could have really stopped the Red Army and the Germans for any length of time, no matter how good of weapons they had or better mobility than what they had? They aligned themselves with France and the British Empire, the superpowers of the day, allegedly, and you consider that "dumb"? Do you really think that a coalition of poor Eastern European nations formed into a NATO like mutual defense organization would have given Hitler or Stalin pause? Hungary, Romania, Poland, the Czechs? Really? Barry aka ksbearski

Tell that to the 8.5 million Poles killed or deported during the occupation, they might have a different opinion about the cost of the failures in the prewar government. BTW, the prewar government manage to get their families to the US or Britain, what about the others?

I don't consider it 'dumb' to align yourself with Britain and France, but I do believe that smarter and more realistic diplomacy and defensive preparation could have made the job of defending the country easier and more costly to your opponents. I do believe that an Eastern Alliance could have help both economically and militarily. It certainly couldn't have hurt the situation, a group of vulnerable nations attempting to stand together to defend itself. I thought that is what NATO was all about and the European Union.

Sorry, I don't give free passes for valiant attempts, no matter how noble they might seem; not when the fate of millions of people are at stake and the sovereignty of my country.

[ksbearski]

Do you think NATO works without US participation? I very seriously doubt that a NATO composed of only European Powers would have been enough to stop the Russians anymore than a bloc of minor European powers could have stopped Hitler.... If you are talking about forming an eastern bloc alliance in the 30's, given the world economic situation, do you really think that a bloc of minor eastern europen powers would have generated enough of an economic benefit through an alliance be able to afford upgrading armaments and restructure their armed forces to stop or even slow down the Red Army or Wehrmacht? Build strong enough fortifications? Appeasement didn't work, ask GB and fortifications and a large military didn't work either, ask France.... I am not disputing that a bloc of nations forming an alliance does not have tangible benefits, but in 1939 I find it highly improbable that two dictators bent on at a minimum European domination and really, more bent on world wide domination, find an alliance of minor powers more than a speed bump in the road. If the Poles had resisted stronger and really extracted a heavy toll on either party, you think the Germans and Russian would have stopped at 8.5 million Poles for extracting a pound of flesh for putting up resistance? Given the Nazi proclivity for exterminating anyone not classed as an Aryan, or more properly, as a subhuman Slav, exactly what realistic course of action could the Polish government have taken to prevent what happened, given a limited economy and being surrounded by two expansion minded, very large neighbors with much larger economies? Read up on the Katyn Forest if you don't think the Red's were any less prone to evening the score.... It is unfortunate that 8.5 million Poles suffered, it is unfortunate that perhaps their government didn't adequately prepare their nation's armed forces. Surely the Polish policy of defending every square inch handcuffed the armed forces and didn't allow them to consolidate positions more conducive to a stronger defense, but the Maginot line didn't help the French any, neither did their more modern armor, better aircraft and larger navy anymore than a Polish army under equipped, with lesser technology can be blamed for not staving off the inevitable. As it was, a much smaller Polish nation fought the Germans about as long as France fought, with British help. And yes, their government went into exile and took their families with them, but MacArthur did the same thing, so don't be so quick to excoriate a government that evacuated but lived to organize and keep fighting.... The significant thing that the book illustrates is that the Poles did not accept their fate, they fought on and eventually won their country back and reformed it in the image they wanted. Talk to Lech Walesa about that victory and the liberation of the eastern bloc.... Barry...aka ksbearski

[old_pop2000]

Do you think NATO works without US participation? I very seriously doubt that a NATO composed of only European Powers would have been enough to stop the Russians anymore than a bloc of minor European powers could have stopped Hitler.... If you are talking about forming an eastern bloc alliance in the 30's, given the world economic situation, do you really think that a bloc of minor eastern europen powers would have generated enough of an economic benefit through an alliance be able to afford upgrading armaments and restructure their armed forces to stop or even slow down the Red Army or Wehrmacht? Build strong enough fortifications? Appeasement didn't work, ask GB and fortifications and a large military didn't work either, ask France.... I am not disputing that a bloc of nations forming an alliance does not have tangible benefits, but in 1939 I find it highly improbable that two dictators bent on at a minimum European domination and really, more bent on world wide domination, find an alliance of minor powers more than a speed bump in the road. If the Poles had resisted stronger and really extracted a heavy toll on either party, you think the Germans and Russian would have stopped at 8.5 million Poles for extracting a pound of flesh for putting up resistance? Given the Nazi proclivity for exterminating anyone not classed as an Aryan, or more properly, as a subhuman Slav, exactly what realistic course of action could the Polish government have taken to prevent what happened, given a limited economy and being surrounded by two expansion minded, very large neighbors with much larger economies? Read up on the Katyn Forest if you don't think the Red's were any less prone to evening the score.... It is unfortunate that 8.5 million Poles suffered, it is unfortunate that perhaps their government didn't adequately prepare their nation's armed forces. Surely the Polish policy of defending every square inch handcuffed the armed forces and didn't allow them to consolidate positions more conducive to a stronger defense, but the Maginot line didn't help the French any, neither did their more modern armor, better aircraft and larger navy anymore than a Polish army under equipped, with lesser technology can be blamed for not staving off the inevitable. As it was, a much smaller Polish nation fought the Germans about as long as France fought, with British help. And yes, their government went into exile and took their families with them, but MacArthur did the same thing, so don't be so quick to excoriate a government that evacuated but lived to organize and keep fighting.... The significant thing that the book illustrates is that the Poles did not accept their fate, they fought on and eventually won their country back and reformed it in the image they wanted. Talk to Lech Walesa about that victory and the liberation of the eastern bloc.... Barry...aka ksbearski

First, NATO initially required US participation, but later, we began to draw down our participation. I believe that a united front offered by a defensive alliance could have had an effect on the internal politics of the 3rd Reich. By allowing themselves to be picked off individually, the Eastern bloc countries made the job of the two dictators much easier. The defensive strategy should have included multiple defensive positions using the rivers and modest field fortifications to delay the enemy. If you read and examine the Polish campaign, you see that the well oiled Wehrmacht wasn't, in the Polish campaign. It's tank infantry coordination was poor as was their equipment. The land-air coordination was the same. It only succeeded due to the poor Polish Air Force and the strategic blunders of the Polish High command who made the job look easy. BTW, the French campaign took 42 days, the Polish campaign took 35.

Second, MacArthur was ordered by his president to leave against his wishes. The difference between MacArthur and the pre-war Polish cabinet is far different situations.

Third, the Maginot line actually performed its function well. The problem was the forward movement of the armies along the Franco-Belgian border who left previously prepared positions that were strong, to move toward the Dyle River. This movement is the basic cause of the French loss. This along with poor battlefield management and many other failures. The Maginot line just seems to have failed due to the other failures, but it performed its function. The German's never really penetrated it, although they tried.

As far as the Poles taking back their country after WWII, that did not occur until Gorbachev and failure of the Soviet economy. The Poles simply took advantage of the weakening of the grip by the Soviet government.

[JMS]

Do you think NATO works without US participation? I very seriously doubt that a NATO composed of only European Powers would have been enough to stop the Russians anymore than a bloc of minor European powers could have stopped Hitler....

Actually, NATO was created by Europeans in the form of the Western European Union, without it, the US would have remained aloof from what went on in Europe, and don't forget that Greece did not fall on the wrong side of the Iron curtain because it got British help initially, American afterwards. Czechoslovakia was slower in realising the threat and they had the Red Army as guest so it fell on the other side.




The significant thing that the book illustrates is that the Poles did not accept their fate, they fought on and eventually won their country back and reformed it in the image they wanted. Talk to Lech Walesa about that victory and the liberation of the eastern bloc.... Barry...aka ksbearski

Hardly, there's no relationship at all between Solidarity and the government in exile or its heritage. Solidarity rose not because it demanded democracy or a return to the form of the 30s but as an spontaneous worker union demanding better wages and lower prices.

[JMS]

As far as the Poles taking back their country after WWII, that did not occur until Gorbachev and failure of the Soviet economy. The Poles simply took advantage of the weakening of the grip by the Soviet government.

Actually, the Poles took back Poland with Gomulka back in the '50s. And from then on it proved to be a headache for the Soviets although they managed to keep (barely) within the confines of what was acceptable for the USSR.

[old_pop2000]

Actually, the Poles took back Poland with Gomulka back in the '50s. And from then on it proved to be a headache for the Soviets although they managed to keep (barely) within the confines of what was acceptable for the USSR.

Gomulka was a communist but not a Stalinist. He agreed with Khrushchev about the Stalinist era. Khrushchev allowed him some free reign in Poland. He only collectivised 10% of the farms in the country. But it was still a communist country and no free elections. Sorry, but he did not win back Poland, he only succeeded after Stalin died.

[ksbearski]

Wasn't the river system flanked by Prussia, for the most part? Plus, Prussia isn't that far from Warsaw... Granted, some kind of alliance might have benefited Poland in the short term, but I really don't think the Polish economy could support a huge modernization program whether in an alliance or not. Plus, Poland was aligned with and had British and French pledges of support and that didn't stop Germany... What would have have been of greater benefit to Polish survival would have been if the French massed on the German border in August, 1939. A threat in being is still a threat and the Germans would have respected it. The question then becomes, would Russia have unilaterally invaded Poland?...I am not being argumentative for arguments sake, most books like this on the subject chronicle the Polish contribution, not dwell on the mistakes of the government pre-war. Did they have a flawed strategy, yes, probably. Could conflict been avoided, no. As it was, if you consider the equipment and manpower differentials, I'd say the Poles did a fair job of acquitting themselves against two larger adversaries, especially if one looks at France in 1940 and the Eastern Front the next June.... As for the Maginot Line, yes, I suppose it served a purpose. The problem is that the French didn't have enough money to finish it and the French military establishment, although imbued with large amounts of manpower and armor, had even less of an idea how to conduct maneuver warfare than the Polish Army and certainly did not have the doctrine or leadership to conduct mobile warfare in northern France. I mean, the Blitzkrieg was a new incarnation of warfare, you know, combined arms warfare and early in WW2 who could stand up to it. Poland couldn't, France and Britain couldn't and neither could Russia , whom traded space for time and won because ungodly human sacrifice by the Red Army soldierly to stem the German tide.

[ksbearski]

Actually, NATO was created by Europeans in the form of the Western European Union, without it, the US would have remained aloof from what went on in Europe, and don't forget that Greece did not fall on the wrong side of the Iron curtain because it got British help initially, American afterwards. Czechoslovakia was slower in realising the threat and they had the Red Army as guest so it fell on the other side.




Hardly, there's no relationship at all between Solidarity and the government in exile or its heritage. Solidarity rose not because it demanded democracy or a return to the form of the 30s but as an spontaneous worker union demanding better wages and lower prices.

Thanks for correcting me. However, I think Solidarity had more of an impact on the downfall of the Warsaw Pact than you think. If Poland was always the "problem" child for the Soviets, how is that not an extension of what the government in exile carried overseas in 1939? Therefore, how can we not trace the "fight for Polish" freedom lineage from Walesa backwards? The Poles have always fought for and valued freedom, they've had to take their country back a number of times. So I'm not seeing how the Polish fight to throw off the Russian oppression isn't related to throwing off the Germans or the Russians in the '20's or the Austria-Hungarian Empire and on and on...my view is simplistic, but the Poles have displayed the tenacity to pursue their freedom at long odds for centuries...

[old_pop2000]

Wasn't the river system flanked by Prussia, for the most part? Plus, Prussia isn't that far from Warsaw... Granted, some kind of alliance might have benefited Poland in the short term, but I really don't think the Polish economy could support a huge modernization program whether in an alliance or not. Plus, Poland was aligned with and had British and French pledges of support and that didn't stop Germany... What would have have been of greater benefit to Polish survival would have been if the French massed on the German border in August, 1939. A threat in being is still a threat and the Germans would have respected it. The question then becomes, would Russia have unilaterally invaded Poland?...I am not being argumentative for arguments sake, most books like this on the subject chronicle the Polish contribution, not dwell on the mistakes of the government pre-war. Did they have a flawed strategy, yes, probably. Could conflict been avoided, no. As it was, if you consider the equipment and manpower differentials, I'd say the Poles did a fair job of acquitting themselves against two larger adversaries, especially if one looks at France in 1940 and the Eastern Front the next June.... As for the Maginot Line, yes, I suppose it served a purpose. The problem is that the French didn't have enough money to finish it and the French military establishment, although imbued with large amounts of manpower and armor, had even less of an idea how to conduct maneuver warfare than the Polish Army and certainly did not have the doctrine or leadership to conduct mobile warfare in northern France. I mean, the Blitzkrieg was a new incarnation of warfare, you know, combined arms warfare and early in WW2 who could stand up to it. Poland couldn't, France and Britain couldn't and neither could Russia , whom traded space for time and won because ungodly human sacrifice by the Red Army soldierly to stem the German tide.

If you look at a map of the Poland, Kuechler's Third army was facing the Poles from East Prussia, but the main thrust by Von Kluge's XIX panzer was across the Danzig corridor and through East Prussian and down behind Warsaw. The direct threat to Warsaw came from upper Silesia and Czechoslovakia.

Here is a good system of maps from the USMA. I hope they help.

http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/ww2%20europe/WWIIEuropeIndex.html

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Ed:
Thanks for taking time to review a book.

I believe that this is an attempt to salvage some historical pride that was lost by the Poles in WWII and the subsequent Cold War. The Polish problem in WWII wasn't just relying on her Allies, it was geographical. When the Munich crisis occurred, and the German's gained access through Czechoslovakia, it essentially negated any fixed defenses the Poles had. Now they had to spread out their army. So, the fourth largest army was now guarding a frontier for which it had never had plans or men to cover. If you don't believe me, look at the frontier with the Germans, then add the Czech border. The frontier is about 289 miles from Danzig to the Czech border. It's difficult with current maps, I'am using Google earth. Now, add in the Czech border. Conservatively, you've added another 416 miles, with the bends and curves, its over 500. So you've doubled your border and outflanked your fixed fortifications. Yes, there were terrain differences, but nothing that would stop a modern mechanized army like the German's.

I assume he doesn't bring up the fact that the German rearmament came as a result of the German-Polish Pact of 1934. Does he mention the failure to develop an Eastern European pact with France included to defend Poland against any possible German aggression or the fact that the Soviets wanted some kind of agreements with the Poles in the summer of 1939 but never got it. How about Poland's stand and treachery against Czecho-slovakia which gave the Germans access to Southern Poland. The Pilsudski government isolated the Poles making defense almost impossible. The Poles believed that they never needed any real fix fortifications because their army was designed for maneuver. That was hogwash, and they knew it. The Poles should have used the north running rivers like the Vistula, Bug and San Rivers as natural defensive positions. However, there were no fortifications on those rivers and drought lowered the river levels. Manpower at the front was only about 1 million men total, they held off on mobilization so as to prevent the Germans from having an excuse to attack. That failed. The Germans had already mobilized 1.5 million men but some were on the western front. Bottom line was that the Polish army was a hollow shell with a conglomeration of artillery and other vital equipment.

Their own diplomatic and strategic stupidity caused the loss of their freedom for the next half century.:(

Dennis:

You raise some very good points and are obviously well versed in the pre-war political situation. That's an area that I would someday like to study at the graduate level. Poland's political naivete really comes down to the fact that after WWI, she had to effectively rebuild her nationhood. Her government was at times almost totalitarian. She had fought a desperate brief war against the Russians and won a a brief respite to try and recover. One can find some similarities to the US after winning the war for independence, it had to forge a nation and then fend off its former ally France in the undeclared war and then fight Britain again in the war of 1812. A much more mature US was able to preven Britain from siding with the Confederacy after the Trent Affair during the Civil War. I would not judge Poland too harshly on her conduct of political affairs.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Although the Poles made diplomatic blunders, I doubt they had enough coinage in the treasury to even come close to upgrading and outfitting their units to anywhere near the levels of either the Wehrmacht or the Red Army, much less build an extensive network of fortifications. No money, no bullets, it's that simple.... I think you miss the point of this book and a number of others that detail the Polish contribution to ultimate victory. The message is, they didn't accept defeat, they fought valiantly and well and were a major contributor to victory. Does the failures of the prewar government and military really diminish that contribution? .... And really, short of possessing nuclear weapons and a delivery system for them do you think they could have really stopped the Red Army and the Germans for any length of time, no matter how good of weapons they had or better mobility than what they had? They aligned themselves with France and the British Empire, the superpowers of the day, allegedly, and you consider that "dumb"? Do you really think that a coalition of poor Eastern European nations formed into a NATO like mutual defense organization would have given Hitler or Stalin pause? Hungary, Romania, Poland, the Czechs? Really? Barry aka ksbearski

Barry:

Good points! I personally have no need to defend Poland, I just foudn tyhe book to be informative on a part of the war that has been ignored for a long time.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

You raise some very good points and are obviously well versed in the pre-war political situation. That's an area that I would someday like to study at the graduate level. Poland's political naivete really comes down to the fact that after WWI, she had to effectively rebuild her nationhood. Her government was at times almost totalitarian. She had fought a desperate brief war against the Russians and won a a brief respite to try and recover. One can find some similarities to the US after winning the war for independence, it had to forge a nation and then fend off its former ally France in the undeclared war and then fight Britain again in the war of 1812. A much more mature US was able to preven Britain from siding with the Confederacy after the Trent Affair during the Civil War. I would not judge Poland too harshly on her conduct of political affairs.

Hi Ed:
I think if we examine the record, the Poles were playing both sides against the middle. While in discussions with France about a treaty for mutual defense, they were secretly discussing with Germany about a Polish German Non-aggression pact. It would seem that they were well versed on the diplomatic side of this equation. The Poles were not as naive as we think. They understood what Germany was doing and probably knew that Danzig would be one of Hitlers first targets. You cannot compare our situation in the late 19th century after the Revolution with the Poles.

I judge all the nations for what happened in 1939 including the US. I judge Dupont, Standard Oil of Ohio, Ford, GM, Union Carbide and many others. Bankers such as Union bank, who had a very tight relationship with the Steel magnate Thyssen. They knew they were helping Germany rearm and were making money in the process. The industrialist liked the Nazis solution to the depression; Keynesian economics of state supported stimulus plans to increase demands. This was the depression era globalization. For Germany, it was consumer goods but more importantly, military hardware. Many industrialist like the head of Texaco admired Hitler openly. Henry Ford was another. The synthetic oil and fuel for Germany's war machine came from work by I.G.Farben and Standard Oil. Note that on 26 June 1940, in the Waldorf-Astoria a celebration was held with US industrialist attending. It was celebrating the German Victory in France. There was another hosted by Texaco with Edsel Ford and others in attendance. As we see now, the industrialist with US government approval, made money both before, during and after war. The Poles were not alone in this, French, British industrialist were doing the same thing.

BTW. Reportedly, Henry Ford sent Adolf Hitler a monetary birthday gift every April 20th...until 1944.

Don't think the Japanese were any different. Japanese tank engines were Ford flat head V8s, props were Hamilton standard. Just to name a few. Engines in the Zero were based on US engines purchased under an agreement with the US government. The difference was that we continued development, improving them, plus we had Ethyl to increase the octane rating of our gas. The Japanese didn't. We cut off all foreign purchasing of raw materials except the japanese including oil. Had the Japanese not invaded southern indo-china, we would not have embargoed the oil.

The Cold War is over, we can now examine the historical record dispassionately and really record what transpired to attempt to prevent such reoccurrances.

[ksbearski]

If you look at a map of the Poland, Kuechler's Third army was facing the Poles from East Prussia, but the main thrust by Von Kluge's XIX panzer was across the Danzig corridor and through East Prussian and down behind Warsaw. The direct threat to Warsaw came from upper Silesia and Czechoslovakia.

Here is a good system of maps from the USMA. I hope they help.

http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/ww2%20europe/WWIIEuropeIndex.html

Dennis, Thanks for the reminder of where the main threat came from. I'll pull my copy of Kennedy's study PAM 20-255 of the shelf and re-look at it.

Thank you for pointing out the Poles were also pursuing a non-aggression pact with Germany, but I think that was a long shot at best. Hitler showed his true colors with the Czechs and my opinion is, if he'd thumbed his nose at the British Lion, he would do the same to the Polish Eagle.

Barry

[old_pop2000]

Dennis, Thanks for the reminder of where the main threat came from. I'll pull my copy of Kennedy's study PAM 20-255 of the shelf and re-look at it.

Thank you for pointing out the Poles were also pursuing a non-aggression pact with Germany, but I think that was a long shot at best. Hitler showed his true colors with the Czechs and my opinion is, if he'd thumbed his nose at the British Lion, he would do the same to the Polish Eagle.

Barry

Hi Barry:

Here is the Hyperwar copy of Kennedy's PAM 20-255 if this helps.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/DAP-Poland/index.html

There is also a Combined Arms Research Library PDF available in the obsolete manuals section.

As to the Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact, it was signed on January 26th, 1934. So much for Polish diplomacy.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Hi Ed:
I think if we examine the record, the Poles were playing both sides against the middle. While in discussions with France about a treaty for mutual defense, they were secretly discussing with Germany about a Polish German Non-aggression pact. It would seem that they were well versed on the diplomatic side of this equation. The Poles were not as naive as we think. They understood what Germany was doing and probably knew that Danzig would be one of Hitlers first targets. You cannot compare our situation in the late 19th century after the Revolution with the Poles.

I judge all the nations for what happened in 1939 including the US. I judge Dupont, Standard Oil of Ohio, Ford, GM, Union Carbide and many others. Bankers such as Union bank, who had a very tight relationship with the Steel magnate Thyssen. They knew they were helping Germany rearm and were making money in the process. The industrialist liked the Nazis solution to the depression; Keynesian economics of state supported stimulus plans to increase demands. This was the depression era globalization. For Germany, it was consumer goods but more importantly, military hardware. Many industrialist like the head of Texaco admired Hitler openly. Henry Ford was another. The synthetic oil and fuel for Germany's war machine came from work by I.G.Farben and Standard Oil. Note that on 26 June 1940, in the Waldorf-Astoria a celebration was held with US industrialist attending. It was celebrating the German Victory in France. There was another hosted by Texaco with Edsel Ford and others in attendance. As we see now, the industrialist with US government approval, made money both before, during and after war. The Poles were not alone in this, French, British industrialist were doing the same thing.

BTW. Reportedly, Henry Ford sent Adolf Hitler a monetary birthday gift every April 20th...until 1944.

Don't think the Japanese were any different. Japanese tank engines were Ford flat head V8s, props were Hamilton standard. Just to name a few. Engines in the Zero were based on US engines purchased under an agreement with the US government. The difference was that we continued development, improving them, plus we had Ethyl to increase the octane rating of our gas. The Japanese didn't. We cut off all foreign purchasing of raw materials except the japanese including oil. Had the Japanese not invaded southern indo-china, we would not have embargoed the oil.

The Cold War is over, we can now examine the historical record dispassionately and really record what transpired to attempt to prevent such reoccurrances.

Hi Dennis,

Definitely chilling, but in the chaos of the 20s and 30s, Mussolini and Hitler were role models to many in Europe and America. It also provided a palatible totalitarian alternative to Communism. Few had any real ideas about them beyond the newsreels of flashy ceremonies seen in the theaters once a week. There were only hints about what was really going on though by June, 1940...you would have thought US industrialists would have wised up. But I guess you could argue that in the US where segregation was seen as the norm, making Jews wear yellow stars seems pretty tame. To many in the west post war, Stalin and Khruschev didn't seem like bad guys either.

It's a difficult tightrope to walk even today. Phil Knight and Nike did what General Westmoreland and the US military couldn't. It's hard to ignore a regime as Red China, but short of war, we need connections with them. Part of it is people not caring to knowing even when the information is in front of them. Red China, North Korea, Iran, and some others truly have the power to make the lives of billions miserable, but military solutions are very limited. It's dishearteing to see Mao and Che Guevera images all over fashion, but not that brave soul from Tiananmen Square or hearing well to do, presumably educated, people praising Chave and Castro.

One can only hope that building middle classes in these countries will lead to moderation in their governments.

[old_pop2000]

Definitely chilling, but in the chaos of the 20s and 30s, Mussolini and Hitler were role models to many in Europe and America. It also provided a palatible totalitarian alternative to Communism. Few had any real ideas about them beyond the newsreels of flashy ceremonies seen in the theaters once a week. There were only hints about what was really going on though by June, 1940...you would have thought US industrialists would have wised up. But I guess you could argue that in the US where segregation was seen as the norm, making Jews wear yellow stars seems pretty tame. To many in the west post war, Stalin and Khruschev didn't seem like bad guys either.

It's a difficult tightrope to walk even today. Phil Knight and Nike did what General Westmoreland and the US military couldn't. It's hard to ignore a regime as Red China, but short of war, we need connections with them. Part of it is people not caring to knowing even when the information is in front of them. Red China, North Korea, Iran, and some others truly have the power to make the lives of billions miserable, but military solutions are very limited. It's dishearteing to see Mao and Che Guevera images all over fashion, but not that brave soul from Tiananmen Square or hearing well to do, presumably educated, people praising Chave and Castro.

One can only hope that building middle classes in these countries will lead to moderation in their governments.

Hi Mike:
I agree with all that you have said to a certain degree. The effects of the carnage of WWI and then the worldwide depression did have people wondering if the capitalist system was really the best system. Dictators like Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin seemed to have the answers to struggling democracies. However, as is the case normally, most people forget that you must weigh what you gain, by what you lose. The people of Europe were looking for simple answers and got WWII, death camps and a total loss of over 3 to 4% of the total worlds population. Poland, as a percentage of its 1939 population, lost well over 16.1%, only 240,000 were lost in combat. That is even higher than the Soviet Union in percentages. They lost 14% of their total 1939 population. Germany lost somewhere between 13% and 20%, depending on how you work the numbers. In fact, as a percentage, the Poles were the highest in the world.

As to the industrialists, all the industrialists were at fault, both in WWI and WWII. Amazingly, the industrialists like Ford, GM and others that assisted Germany in rebuilding, could not bring their profits out of the country. So in fact, the US never got the benefit of the investment. If you place stock price and profits over social responsibility, WWI and II are the result. In WWI, the British Army was using the Krupp fuse for their artillery. After the war, the British would have been required to pay Krupp a 1 shilling and six pence for each shell fired. Hard to believe, but it is true. In case of war, Krupp would be profiting by the death of German soldiers. The US Harvey United Steel was a sham, it was actually owned by Albert Vickers. All steel manufacturers decided pool information on hardening of steel for armor and were required to pay Krupp $45 per pound of armor produced by that new method pioneered by Krupp. If you are interested in the subject read books like "The Arms of Krupp", "Crimes and Punishment of I.G.Farben" or the 1934 book, "Merchants of Death".

Remember the Mig-15? That engine was a copy of a British engine, that they gave to the Soviets. I wonder how our pilots felt in Korea and Vietnam when they found out.

I say again, if we don't examine this record with an eye on realistic appraisal of what happened and why, we can never solve the issues. I believe that the globalization of the worlds economies may be the best solution to world wars. You don't go to war with the country that owns your debt or is your best customer. The pre-war situation with Japan was very different. They had no real exports, just imports of raw materials and oil. As we found out at Pearl Harbor, that is a dangerous situation when confronted by a militaristic government. The world is a dangerous place.

[JMS]

Hi Dennis,

Definitely chilling, but in the chaos of the 20s and 30s, Mussolini and Hitler were role models to many in Europe and America. It also provided a palatible totalitarian alternative to Communism. Few had any real ideas about them beyond the newsreels of flashy ceremonies seen in the theaters once a week. There were only hints about what was really going on though by June, 1940...you would have thought US industrialists would have wised up. But I guess you could argue that in the US where segregation was seen as the norm, making Jews wear yellow stars seems pretty tame. To many in the west post war, Stalin and Khruschev didn't seem like bad guys either.

Moreover, in 1939 Hitler was just a violent anti-semite, but Mussolini was just a tinpot dictator that trampled over the primitive Ethiopia. Anti-communism was in some cases just as virulent. Franco's armies were fueled with Texaco's fuel, and not because he could pay it...

[Campy]

Mussolini made the trains run on time. He took a down and out country and promised to bring back it's former glory. Hitler professed to be anti-Communist. Isn't that enough to want to help them out, and kind of look the other way when, um, certain other things happen.......? I mean, every government has it' little problems, doesn't it?...doesn't it?

Frank

[old_pop2000]

... Isn't that enough to want to help them out, and kind of look the other way when, um, certain other things happen.......? I mean, every government has it' little problems, doesn't it?...doesn't it?



I wonder if 78 million lives out of about 2 billion is ok then. Just the price of doing business. That's what looking the other way cost the world. Let's see, 6.697 billion people times 4% is 267,890,161.64 people based on the current world population.

Anyway, we might be getting political in this thread. Probably should settle it down.

[Campy]

I hope you realize I was being facetious. However, some of the support for Hitler did come from his anti-communist statements. His Non-aggression pact with Stalin blunted at least some of the public support.

Of course we never seem to add the fallout of the postwar collapse of the colonial empires to the cost of the war. India/Pakistan, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, etc. Still paying the bill for many of these.

Frank

[Ed Rotondaro]

I hope you realize I was being facetious. However, some of the support for Hitler did come from his anti-communist statements. His Non-aggression pact with Stalin blunted at least some of the public support.

Of course we never seem to add the fallout of the postwar collapse of the colonial empires to the cost of the war. India/Pakistan, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, etc. Still paying the bill for many of these.

Frank

Campy, Dennis, Mike et al:

The expression "Politics makes for strange bedfellows" was as true in the inter war period as it was in Renaissance Italy and the current day. An enemy can become at least a trading partner if not a temporary ally if circumstances allow. All conflict is economically based and with large multi-national corporations, anything can happen. Remember the golden rule: However has the gold makes the rules. And also history is written by the victors.

[ksbearski]

Hi Barry:

As to the Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact, it was signed on January 26th, 1934. So much for Polish diplomacy.

Which kind of illustrates the Polish dilemma. Deal with the devil and get screwed or don't deal with the devil and still get screwed.

[old_pop2000]

Which kind of illustrates the Polish dilemma. Deal with the devil and get screwed or don't deal with the devil and still get screwed.

Hi Barry:
I am not certain what the Poles were trying to accomplish by dealing with the Germans behind the French backs. I guess they were covering all bases.

[ksbearski]

Yes, I think that's what they were trying to do,grasping at any straw. As you pointed out, maybe another thing they could have tried was allying with several other European countries, but you know, once Hitler figured out that France and Britain really weren't ready to stand up to him...or just wouldn't, all of Europe wasn't safe, alliances or no alliances.

[old_pop2000]

Yes, I think that's what they were trying to do,grasping at any straw. As you pointed out, maybe another thing they could have tried was allying with several other European countries, but you know, once Hitler figured out that France and Britain really weren't ready to stand up to him...or just wouldn't, all of Europe wasn't safe, alliances or no alliances.

I don't believe that Hitler knew for certain, the Allies were not going to initiate combat operations. I believe his intelligence was adequate enough to gauge how far along their mobilization efforts had progressed. However, there was still enough French forces on alert, to move into German held territory. We know that they actually did, and the results.

I do believe that an eastern European alliance of nations, with Stalin included might have changed the Hitler's mind. Stalin could have used that alliance as a buffer against German attack. Poor grand strategy on the part of the Soviets and the eastern Europeans.

[ksbearski]

Yes, I agree with you to an extent. But it seems to me that the Germans and Soviets worked closely immediately after WW1 to get around the terms of the Armistice, didn't they? I mean, didn't the Russians allow Germans to conduct armored warfare maneuvers in the Sov Union, as well as allow Luftwaffe training to be conducted there as well, through the 20's, up until the Spanish Civil War? Also, weren't many of the Soviet generals that were purged had trained and worked with the Germans?

[old_pop2000]

Yes, I agree with you to an extent. But it seems to me that the Germans and Soviets worked closely immediately after WW1 to get around the terms of the Armistice, didn't they? I mean, didn't the Russians allow Germans to conduct armored warfare maneuvers in the Sov Union, as well as allow Luftwaffe training to be conducted there as well, through the 20's, up until the Spanish Civil War? Also, weren't many of the Soviet generals that were purged had trained and worked with the Germans?

There was a German-Soviet rapproachement established after Hitler became chancelllor in 1933. Ostensibly this was pursued to cover Germany's back while it rearmed and to circumvent the Versaille treaty limitations. It was also helpful to the Soviets who were struggling with one of their frequent five year plans. It was a marriage of convenients for both.

Many books on this period of diplomacy use the term "collapse of the European system of diplomacy". I suspect this was a referral not only to the diplomacy but to the economic system. The collapse of the monarchies, resembling the post-napoleonic period with Metternich and the Congress of Vienna left a decided political hole. New democracies under economic pressure from the expanding industrial revolution were challenged by communism, fascism and other systems of government that seem to be better at managing the workings of government. The failure in 1914 of alliances to stop the great war probably was still fresh in government and diplomatic minds. I suspect this is why we did not see more alliances between the eastern European countries. Probably distrust of the western Europeans whom they feel created the mess in 1914. So, why not play both sides and hedge your bets.

I believe that the failure of the western governments to deal with the aftermath of the Great War both politically and economically, as we did after WWII was a contributing cause to what occurred in the pre-war period.