 |
| Free City of Danzig police and custom officials reenact the removal of the Polish border crossing in Sopot on September 1, 1939 (Source) |
On this date, 81 years ago, the forces of Nazi Germany crossed the Polish border in the first combat in Europe which would eventually lead to World War II. Note that I said "eventually lead." Many historians cite 01 September 1939 as the date that World War II began, I do not.
By mid-September, only five countries were at war in Europe: Germany, Poland, the Soviet Union, Britain, and France. Britain and France were only "at war" on paper as they undertook no serious action against Germany though they were committed by treaty to aid Poland in the event of a German attack. This they did by declaring war. They made no serious moves to fight the Germans and perhaps relieve the pressure on the Poles. There are many who argue that the French and the British, "weren't ready." Poppycock, they should have pitched in, it probably would have saved France from the agony (and ignominy) of 1940.
Why do so many historians call this the beginning of the Second World War? Perhaps because Japan, involved in a war with China and in a brief skirmish with Russia, were titular allies of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. In truth, fighting would not truly be global until the United States was attacked by Japan on the 7th of December 1941. Prior to that date there were, in reality, two wars being fought, one in Europe and one in China.
Maybe it's just me, but I consider the attack on Pearl Harbor as the real beginning of World War II. You're welcome to attempt to change my mind.
The following is a pretty fair summary of the Nazi-Soviet invasion of Poland.
Incidentally, Putin and the Russian government would prefer if you didn't mention that whole "the Soviet Union invaded Poland in September of 1939" thing. No, really, read this. Ukrainian propaganda or truth? I dunno, how much do you trust Russia? (More than Red China, that's for sure...)
About that opening picture...
For years I had assumed that those were men of the German Army on the day of the invasion of Poland, ripping down that border crossing from the "Free City of Danzig" (known today as Gdansk) into the Polish town of Sobot. Then I read the Wikipedia Commons caption (which I used as a source) and scoffed. Until I did some research. The guys in what appear to be German Army uniforms are actually the Free City of Danzig Police, or the Schutzpolizei as they were known to the German residents of Danzig. Yeah, cops.
If you look closely at their uniforms, there is no Nazi eagle above the right breast pocket of the tunic, the epaulets are not Army-style, and the insignia on their helmets doesn't match that of the German Army. Surprised me it did.
Also, it didn't occur on the 1st of September, they reenacted it for the cameras. Probably better that way with no pesky Poles trying to kill them.
So yeah, I learned something today. It happens!
I'm still not ready to dive back into my novel of World War II. This promises to be a busy week at the paying gig if Monday is anything to go by, which means that I don't much care to spend a whole lot of time at a keyboard after work. Having spent much of the day at same.
But the brain is working in the background at what's going to happen next to our cast of characters, I foresee some casualties in the near future. Things have been "too clean" up until now. It remains to be seen who falls and who continues. It is inevitable that people die in wartime, why should fiction be any different?
Anyhoo, that's all for today.
Oh, before I forget, let's hope that whoever is responsible for the Fast Forward button presses that for Juvat's sake. I know he wants into that new house, I'm betting primarily so that he can say the move is over and done with!
I know that feeling...
.jpg#/media/File:Danzig_Police_at_Polish_Border_(1939-09-01).jpg){kind=link}
The World War Two channel starts off with a similar attitude:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b7GY4BSUmU&list=PLsIk0qF0R1j77INta3qgtHtXo3NZsrbIR
"...and the Polish-German war of 1939 begins!"
I like that guy, I've seen some of his other videos. I first saw him on Sabaton History. Said band doing a lot of historical stuff which I enjoy.
DeleteFunny you mention Sabaton, I was thinking 40:1 when I saw the post.
DeleteGood song!
DeleteUuuhhh....careful Sarge, watch where you buy your tea now eh? And when it's not a rainy day be watchful for anyone carrying an umbrella. Remember.... once KGB ALWAYS KGB.
ReplyDeleteOr NKVD, depending on the era. Bloody Chekists!
DeleteThe names may change but the organization stays the same. The FSB isn't all sunshine and roses, and people still 'disappear' in the middle of the night (and sometimes in the middle of the day) for saying bad things about Putin.
DeleteGood old Czar Vlad and his unholy minions. But who are we to cast stones, we have the FBI.
DeleteI have always thought of the Marco Polo Bridge incident as the start of the proceedings.
ReplyDeleteThat was the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War. In reality the Second World War didn't become a world war until December of 1941, which tied the war in Europe to the war in Asia via American participation.
DeleteSarge, I had a Military History professor that referred to it simply as The Great War, Parts I and II. He saw - I think as most do - that the WW II was a direct extension of the policies and situations that ended WW I.
ReplyDeleteI suspect the Russians would also not like to discuss the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, or the Russo-Finish War. Both create problems with the narrative.
Interestingly enough, I just picked up Achtung-Panzer by Heinz Guderian, written in 1937 and (apparently) the guidebook which created the idea of Blitzkrieg using armor and men. I am looking forward to the theories.
Your military history professor was a smart man!
DeleteLet me know if the book is worth picking up. I've never read it.
It should be World War ( Act II ).
DeleteWhat about the Seven Years War? Some historians consider that the first world war. Fighting occurred in Europe, North America, and India.
Delete1914 to 1945 was a mess in Europe.
Yeah, I bet the Soviets eventually regretted training the Nazi armor corps. Oops.
DeleteAs to more earlier than WWII parts of WWII, there's always Italy's invasion of Ethiopia on October 3, 1935, which lead directly to Italy's invasion of North Africa, which led to Germany's bucking up Italy...
Then there's the Spanish Civil War, which turned into a proxy fight by both International Socialists (in this corner, representing Socialists International is the USSR (boo-hiss) and National Socialists (and in the other corner representing Socialists Nationale is Nazi Germany (hiss-boo) that kicked off July 17, 1936, and where both Socialist states got to try out their shiny new toys amongst a nasty hate-fight between two nasty factions of one failed nation.
The US was involved in little banana wars and consolidation fights over both puppet states (the banana wars) and protectorates (the Philippines) and so we weren't exactly clean and nice either, but we were cleaner and nicer than some other nations.
China was busy killing itself between Nationalists and International Socialists and warlords galore (of one flavor or another, closely resembling 'Germany' during the 30 Years War before Imperial Japan stepped into it.
And Russia (represented by the Soviet Union) was always at a low-grade pissing match with Imperial Japan over Manchuria, which IJ 'acquired' starting Sept. 18th, 1931, which predated the actual invasion of China (July 7, 1937) by almost 6 years.
There's way too much evidence that the 'peace' years were just a nasty time of rearmament and stupidity, not really peaceful at all.
Military leaders were freaking out all over, watching and planning what to do if things went suddenly hot (which, of course, is what leaders are supposed to do, but it's funny that the US wargamed Pearl Harbor years before Pearl Harbor actually happened, and the eventual Pacific Campaigns were all wargamed in the 30's, weird, huh?)
And politicians were doing what politicians do. Screwing up by the Numbers.
Nothings changed much, has it?
Not even a little.
DeleteMore's the pity.
Reading Albert Speer’s memoirs confirm some thing that I had long suspected.
ReplyDeleteThat Hitler did not expect Britain and France to declare war on him for invading Poland.
And his reasons were understandable.
They did nothing when he annexed Austria or the Sudenland.
For that matter with his then minuscule force did nothing when he marched across the Rhine in 1936.
According to Albert Speer he was in a depression for a week when they declared war
The French and British seemed all too willing to lay down to Hitler's demands. Invading Poland was taking it one step too far.
DeleteFrance and Britain's refusal to acknowledge treaties with Finland also eventually spelled doom to that poor country. What a spectacular switcheroo, USSR invades with Nazi Germany's concent, gets ass handed to it spectacularly, Finland gets minimal support from it's 'allies,' then a few years later, USSR invades again and the only place Finland can turn to for help is... Nazi Germany.
DeleteWorld Politics? More like Whirled Politics. Makes my head dizzy.
Politics is human greed and graft writ large.
DeleteOne thing I am finding fascinated in this book on the first world war. I thought from the very beginning that it was static, with the trenches going 460 miles from the Swiss border to the North Sea
ReplyDeleteIt didn’t start out like that.
like world war two, the Germans came through Belgium attacking France.
And if they had stayed with the full Von Schlieffen plan, they would have been in Paris in a matter of weeks
And the French generals, rather than confronting this main invasion, remembered 1870 war and wanted to take back Alsace Lorraine
Conversely they could’ve stop the Germans in their tracks and avoided all of that carnage of millions of men. And they only forgotten Alsace-Lorraine and took their main force to confront the invading Germans.
And the German general who took over from von Schlieffen diluted his force with other actions.
von Schlieffen died in 1913
It’s fascinating playing historical “what if“, and of course pointless
That’s so far this book is well worth reading
Since I am laying in bed in the dark with one of my bouts of insomnia I can get the title later if anyone’s interested
Many argue that "if only they had stuck to the Schlieffen Plan!" Unfortunately the Germans didn't have the troop strength, like most plans, Schlieffen's fell apart as soon as the war started. The Russians had mobilized far faster than expected by anyone (even the Russians themselves I suspect).
DeleteMany in Europe respected Belgium's neutrality, except, of course, the Germans. French figured the Germans wouldn't violate Belgium as that would bring Britain into the war. The Germans didn't really care.
Germans railroad-shipped 2 entire corps from Western front to stop marauding Russians in Ostpreussen - which they did splednidly at Tannenberg under certain older chap called Hindenburg. This has left them a little low on troops on Marne, but not sure they would be enough. French 75mm modelle 1897 was just too ubiquitous and deadly firepower, apart from Paris taxis ferryinmg entire army to the frontline.
DeleteOnly way Germans could have won would be to keep Brits neutral. Had they kept from naval arms race, thus explicitily not threatening the Empire, they could have signalled localized ambitions, restricted to keeping France and Russia in check, which UK could live with. Thus they could have possibly got away with Belgium shortcut, and saved themselves crusial stops at Mons and everywhere Brits delayed them. Even if their first blitzkrieg failed, France alone would be far easier to defeat than with UK support.
Quick war, even with small-scale defeat would also possibly saved Romanovs and made Russian history completely different, possibly becoming republiic later, or maybe parliamentary monarchy, but saving them horrors of Bolshevism.
Poland could have ended up as German protectorate, spending later years trying to get full indepenmdence like they did against Soviets post-ww2...
US would remain fully neutral. Possibly never going full superpower. Depending on if/when defeated powers got to WW2...
So many what ifs...
Problematic about Britain not coming in over Belgian neutrality.
DeleteThey almost did not come even in our timeline, after excessive hand-wringing in the Cabinet...
DeleteThat's how the British Cabinet has always seemed to roll, much hand-wringing, wailing, gnashing of teeth, etc.
DeleteIf instead of taking troops from the right wing to reinforce the left wing, Helmuth von Moltke the Lesser had had the guts to have the left wing gradually retreat in front the 'irrestible' attaque à outrance of the French right, they could've lured the French 50 more miles deeper into Germany before making their equally irresistible stand with many machine guns and (for the time) very powerful corps heavy artillery. That would really take nerves, but no more than leaving Prussia defended by only by the 8th Army. What it would've done is focus French attention even more on the "successful" battle on the their right and leave those units that much farther into German territory with that much farther to march back to railheads to be redeployed the emergency developing on their left. A bit like Hannibal suckering Gaius Ternto Varro into driving farther and farther into trying to break Hannibal's center while only putting his legions deeper and deeper into a trap. Schieffen really would've liked to have pulled off a double envelopment like Cannae, but knew he had nowhere near the troops to pull that off. Moltke the Fool seemed to think he might, and when the French had battered themselves senseless against German firepower, he acceded to the demands of his left wing commanders to be let off the leash. Whereupon they battered themselves bloody against the France's many excellent soixante-quinze field guns.
DeleteThe two corps the Germans shipped to Prussia arrived too late to take part in the Battle of Tannenburg, so there was really no military point to taking them off the right wing. It was mostly political due to many Prussian Junker's estates going up in flames and the 8th Army's commander, the useless Prittwitz sowing panic.
Now do I think the Schlieffen "Plan" could've worked? Probably not. The Germans simply encountered too much 'friction' in Belgium, both from the Belgians and the British. By the Battle of the Marne, exhausted German troops were often literally falling asleep on their feet from exhaustion. And yet, when the German commander on the spot realized he was facing superior numbers of fresh French troops massing for an attack, he concluded that their only possible means of winning was immediately attacking. And so they did. And despite everything, they were actually advancing in this huge spoiling attack. It required a much tougher and daring commander than Moltke. Someone who could ride herd on his very alpha male army commanders and force them to his vision instead of acceding to theirs and letting 1st and 2nd armies separate, for example. With additional troops, they could've covered those gaps and still been threatening to outflank the French. Sir John French, the stereotypical British cavalryman was already eying his retreat to the Channel ports as it was. Had the German right been stronger, he just might have taken it. If he had, the froggy French would've been up a creek that fall. Instead of the Germans falling back after the Marne, it might've been the French. Would've been enough for them to ask for terms? I doubt it, but the German territorial bargaining position would've been much stronger.
However, Kaiser Wilhelm II was the real problem. All of Germany's real issues stemmed from him and his decisions, from firing Bismarck, naval arms race with Britain, appointing Moltke, and many others. The man really was a blustering fool far too much of the time. Had his brother lived, the entire history of the 20th Century might well be very different. Had Tsar Nicholas II never been because his elder brother lived, it might well be better, but Kaiser Wilhelm II really was the turd in the punchbowl.
Ah, the what-ifs of history, always fun to speculate and wonder...
DeleteIn my book the war started when all the declarations of war happened, December 1941 was the start of another chapter of it.
ReplyDeleteWhich declarations of war? Britain and France on Germany on the 3rd of September 1939? When the USA declared war on Japan on the 8th of December 1941? When Hitler declared war on the USA on 11th December 1941? We're not talking about just a war, but a global war, i.e. a world war. When the fight went global, that's when it became a world war.
DeleteJust to argue, war became technically global with Canada and Australia declaring war on Germany. While at the moment it was even more symbilic than uk and france, both Dominions really pulled their weight in following years.
ReplyDeleteYou could make that argument. But I consider the location of fighting, not the location of the combatants. But yes, Canada and Australia punched well above their weight class in that war.
DeleteWell, Australia was already 'at war' in Europe before Australia was at war with Japan. Same with New Zealand.
DeleteYou know, once you toss in Asia in all it's glory, the war situation really gets messed up. I mean, look at India. You have the British-semi-controlled India which supports somewhat the British, but at the same time there's a low-grade struggle against the British and then there's the rebellion and guerilla war financed by Nazi Germany on one side and the rebellion and guerilla war financed by the USSR on the other side and where were we exactly?
And, of course, whose side are the Persians on? And the Arabs? And the nominal Turks? Errr...
I mean, it seems so nice and neat from a 3 page section of a history textbook, but once you go down the rabbit-hole of RISK - WWII Edition, yikes!
I think the only thing that didn't happen was Nazi Germany financing Mexican Bandits. Though I suspect there was some of that by our wonderful ally, the USSR...
The Nazis tried that in WWI, Zimmermann Telegram and all that, didn't work out so well for the Huns.
DeleteCanada and Australia punched well above their weight class in both parts of the Great War.
DeleteThey did indeed.
DeleteLest we all look at that nasty little ambiguous law passed in Russia that allows the state to charge whatever it wants regarding a subject, well...
ReplyDeleteWe here in the Free USA have 'hate crime legislation' which directly attacks the freedom of speech of one side of the political spectrum's fruits and nuts, while not being used against the other side of the political spectrum's fruits and nuts that do and say basically the exact same thing that the other side's Fs&Ns do and say.
And that's not even getting into the whole Facebook and Twitter and other social media attacks against one side of the political spectrum's normals, while fully supporting such things as terrorism, murder-for-hire, socialism, yadayadayada.
Sometimes I look at what's happening and just shake my head.
Too many progressives in dire need of an ass kicking...
DeleteOne of the things I do admire about George W. Bush is his refusal to back down and support hate crime legislation in Texas in the aftermath of the dragging death of James Byrd, Jr. After all, two of the three men guilty were executed and the other sentenced to death. "What more do you want?" There are a lot fewer governors today with those cojones. Kristi Noem of South Dakota seems to have more balls than nearly all of them. I've lost a lot of respect for Greg Abbot (R-TX) because of his support for statewide lockdowns and restrictions due to Covid19. He may be in a "medical"/"science" bubble regarding the true threat (even being admitted by the CDC now, several weeks after it was no longer 'epidemic' status in the US), but that doesn't excuse his letting himself exist in such a bubble. His background isn't medicine or epidemiology by any means, but, "Come one, man!" to quote Joe of the "Slow Joe and the Hoe" 2020 campaign...
DeleteI think most politicians suck, regardless of their party affiliation. They may start out with good intentions but the perks of office tend to make them think that they are actually special and above their constituents.
DeleteThey're not.
Someone suggested in an historical "what if" - had Britain and France then invaded Germany on e the bulk of her forces were in Poland - how would it have ended? I was surprised how much the Nazis relied on horse and cart in their "Blitzkrieg".
ReplyDeleteAs someone who grew up during the cold war to hear the communists they never had a pact with Hitler; never invaded Poland.
One thing which Commies are good at, in fact one of the few things (other than theft and murder) they're good at, is lying.
DeleteHad France and Britain invaded Germany from the west in 1939, all bets would have been off, but I doubt Germany, nor Hitler, would have survived that.
Keitel post bellum recollected that in 1939 they left 20-odd reserve divisions with barely any air cover and literally zero tanks guarding half-finished Westwall.
DeleteHad French moved in even half-mobilized Ruhrgebiet would be overran in 2 weeks, and German generals would have finished Hitler.
Then Stalin would probably held off his invasion of Poland...
Or bandwagoned against crumbling Germans.
Yup.
DeleteThe Soviets would've grabbed every bit allowed of them by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty before Germany "seriously, convincingly gave up." Which would've been at the very least, every bit as much as the treaty allowed and then as much more as the Soviets could hold onto in the talks afterward. Why would anyone think that Stalin, of all people, would've settled for anything less than he could've grabbed? At the very least, he'd have held on to at least what he'd agreed with with Hitler....
DeleteWhen does any Commie steal less than he/she can?
Delete