| WI Britain Throws Poland Under the Bus in 1939 | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jul 6 2012, 10:54 PM (350 Views) | |
| Basil Fawlty | Jul 6 2012, 10:54 PM Post #1 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
What if the British decide that they need more time to rearm before they confront Germany? Is it probable for them to let the Germans take over Poland, go all out on defense spending, and prepare for a war sometime between 1941 and 1943? |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Jul 6 2012, 10:56 PM Post #2 |
|
Haha, well its a question that I have been sort of wondering about myself the past while. Hitchens has some interesting viewpoints on it. http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2012/07/we-won-the-war-or-did-we.html |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Aug 12 2012, 04:24 AM Post #3 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Coming a bit late to this, but there wasn't really a lot of political room to move with regard to Poland. A stand had to be taken, or British guarantees would be worth nothing. A later war certainly puts France and Britain in a far better position - plenty of naval tonnage was due by 1942, plus thousands of aeroplanes and arms sufficient for a large British Army on the Continent. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Aug 12 2012, 05:25 PM Post #4 |
|
The idea wasn't to not honour the guarantee (as that is just not done) but not guaranteeing in the first place, at that time. I don't think its fair to characterise it as "throwing them under the bus" as that assume they are under your protection, in your "arms" in the first place, which would not be the case. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Aug 14 2012, 12:21 AM Post #5 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
It's just an expression not to be taken too seriously. The question is whether it is possible not to guarantee Poland after the disaster with Czechoslovakia. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Aug 14 2012, 02:25 AM Post #6 |
|
I recall reading somewhere, I forget where but I assume it was Churchill's series, that they actually did not think Poland would be next but thought it would be Roumania, due to their resources, their oil, and what have you. If that is the case, though I'd have to do actual research to determine it, we never guaranteed Roumania, from what I recall, but, instead Poland, which was actually seen more as a sort of symbolic thing at the time. With that in mind, though symbolic things are not always bad, its certainly less difficult to not do. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Alternate History · Next Topic » |






8:40 AM Jul 11