• Alaskaball [comrade/them]
    ·
    2 years ago

    "Had to take on both the nazis and the Soviet union" is reactionary polish revisionism.

    The second "Republic" of Poland, after collaborating with nazi Germany to carve up Czech and Slovakian lands, was assured that there would be future collaboration with the nazis against the asiatic Red hordes in the east. The fascists grabbed them by the ear and started kicking them in the ass so bad through a surprise invasion the legal polish government fled out of the country so fast it was impossible to get a hold of them to communicate any orders to the Polish State.

    When the Soviets stepped into "Polish" lands, it was a lawless land with no government authority. With little resistance from the people, the Soviet Union reclaimed Western Ukraine and Western Byelorus that had been torn from the Ukrainian and Byelorussian Socialist Republics by the German Kaiserreich in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

    Asserting that the Soviet Union invaded Poland is a cold war lie on behalf of American imperialism.

  • hexaflexagonbear [he/him]
    ·
    2 years ago

    I'm not sure I agree with the assessment on France. I might be mistaken, but I was under the impression they had a reasonable strategy for regrouping after the Nazis decided to give up on going through the Maginot line. The issue was that they misjudged the pace at which the Nazis would make it through the Ardennes. And if I'm not mistaken, the reason for that misjudgement was they didn't expect that amphetamine fueled soldiers would be able to work the hours they did.

    I think the battle of France kind of came down to luck on the timing more than either tactics or the "unstoppable German War machine".

    • Alaskaball [comrade/them]
      ·
      2 years ago

      I also recall hearing that there were fascist collaborators among the French bougeoise that helped call for the capitulation of the French state instead of trying to reorganize the military to fight the fascist invaders. But I need to research that more so concider it hearsay and not fact.

      • Diogenes_Barrel [love/loves]
        ·
        2 years ago

        the improvement to allied affairs would be pretty limited after a capture of Paris, Brits were out and the remainder of the army were gonna get smashed. a steadfastly allied French fleet woudda helped but clearly wasn't actually necessary for victory. maybe non-Vichy algeria would've put the screws to the italians but imo its equally likely they'd pathetically fold :shrug-outta-hecks:

    • Diogenes_Barrel [love/loves]
      ·
      2 years ago

      the French staff literally thought a substantial armored force couldn't go through the Ardennes. they ignored intelligence giving them advanced warning because it was not a possibility and the scouts mustve been mistaken. they could've moved more troops to counter, attacked them aerially/conventionally in the forest, but their rigid understanding of the combat theater blinded them until it was too late.

      i wouldn't necessarily call it an 'outdated command structure' but poor leadership & strategic inflexibility in spades

  • Mike_Penis [any]
    ·
    2 years ago

    it wasn't exactly easy for the ussr. by the end of the war they had to extend the age range for conscription because they were running out of people.