The English and French decide that as there is no real help they can give the Poles they are better off biding their time, strenghthening, and letting Hitler have Poland. what happens next? where does Hitler go after next? will the entire course of the war change drastically?

Um, can't see it does really.

Germany still needs to avoid a two front war. That means either coming to an arrangement with the USSR, and taking out France (historical situation), or possibly cutting some kind of deal with the French and the British, and going after the Russians. For the latter to happen France would probably have to go fascist on its own or something.

I'm not sure really. I'd guess the Germans would push their luck again by invading Denmark, Holland and Belgium, but I think if the threat of war wasn't coming from the Brits/French, they would have focused their war effort on Barbarossa, but about a year earlier.

If Britain and France did not declare war, then I think Hitler would have gone
after Russia spring 1940. IIRC he wasn't gung ho on a war with England, and IMO he
would have let France wait until he had Russia.

After Hitler splits Poland up with the Soviets, who knows? If France and Britain stay out of the Polish fight, they might still appear a threat to the Hitler, and the Germans might still eventually invade the Netherlands, Belgium and France.

My scenario...
Short term, the Soviets take on Finland historically... the Germans invade Denmark and Norway historically (since he does need Sweden's resources regardless). I think these can be counted on to happen.

The problem...
The France invasion? I don't know. According to plan, France was the next target, but with France backing down and refusing to declare war, will he move on the French like he did with Poland, Denmark, and Norway, or will he turn his sights to Yugoslavia, Slovakia and Hungary first?

Finally, will he break the non-agression pact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact) with the Soviet Union without France destroyed first? The Soviet-German cooperation against Poland was quite a shock. I think the west could see the writing on the wall even if they had tried to back away from war.

I can't see France and Britain getting away with staying out of conflict with Germany. Hitler's goal was all or nothing.

i think britain would have been able to stay out, hitler did say he had no ambitions on britain or its empire, to stay out britain would have had to pretty much forsake everyone else though, i dont think the french could have avoided war there was too much bad blood between france and germany

Germany annexes the German parts of poland (pre-WWI borders) and the war is avoided.

Hitler was insane and wouldn't be content with that. It might happen, if the german generals found the resolve to do away with him. But then how would the get rid of such a successful political leader, one who had just managed to recover the lost Prussian land? And those were mostly prussian generals from the old aristocracy.

Anyway, he had already split Poland with the USSR, so Germany wouldn't take only the former german parts. What would the poles do after getting occupied again?

Damn, It might happen! Too bad a scenario for me to contemplate any further.

Saying Hitler was insane and the world was doomed anyway is too easy. Hes still just one person and needed others to tag along. He needed to push legitimate German claims and have someone push back to start a war. If Poland would have folded he would have held all of the original Germany + Austria and Czechia and could have sat back proclaiming victory. Who knows, maybe there would have been no need to even blame the Jews any further.

Saying Hitler was insane and the world was doomed anyway is too easy. Hes still just one person and needed others to tag along. He needed to push legitimate German claims and have someone push back to start a war. If Poland would have folded he would have held all of the original Germany + Austria and Czechia and could have sat back proclaiming victory. Who knows, maybe there would have been no need to even blame the Jews any further.
But then Germany would still go bankrupt in a couple of years.

The Nazi state was geared towards war not just ideologically, but because the impressive economic build-up was financed by money borrowed abroad. War allowed it to default on repaying this. With no war, Germany goes bust. The plan was to rearm like crazy, and then start the war around 1941-1942 afaik.

So war there would have been. The Nazis were literally banking on that option.

Saying Hitler was insane and the world was doomed anyway is too easy. Hes still just one person and needed others to tag along. He needed to push legitimate German claims and have someone push back to start a war. If Poland would have folded he would have held all of the original Germany + Austria and Czechia and could have sat back proclaiming victory. Who knows, maybe there would have been no need to even blame the Jews any further.

You forget Mein Kampf and Hitler's dreams of Lebensraum for the German people.

He would have invaded the Soviet Union at some point.. that much is certain.

But then Germany would still go bankrupt in a couple of years.

The Nazi state was geared towards war not just ideologically, but because the impressive economic build-up was financed by money borrowed abroad. War allowed it to default on repaying this. With no war, Germany goes bust. The plan was to rearm like crazy, and then start the war around 1941-1942 afaik.

If its that or total collapse they could just default anyways? Or say we will pay when able. Starting a war for the sole sake of having a legitimate reason to not pay back a loan seems slightly unreasonable.

So war there would have been. The Nazis were literally banking on that option.

War over what? With whom? :) With France and Britain over Elsass-Lothringen? All out war with two great powers over a strip of land that wasn't even in the original Germany? War with the Soviet Union solely because of clashing ideologies, risking France falling them in the back as in WWI?

It doesn't seem as obvious anymore.

You forget Mein Kampf and Hitler's dreams of Lebensraum for the German people.

He would have invaded the Soviet Union at some point.. that much is certain.

Mein Kampf was described his ideal world, doesn't mean he would invade at any cost. Churchill might have thought it would be better if all the English-speaking world flew the Union Jack, maybe that was his ideal. Doesn't mean he will wage the USA war for the sake of that dream.

It is obvious.

Why can't you understand the concept that the Nazis wanted war and planed for it (see the Z plan)?

Are you trying to argue it would of been better if there had been no WW2?

The English and French decide that as there is no real help they can give the Poles they are better off biding their time, strenghthening, and letting Hitler have Poland. what happens next? where does Hitler go after next? will the entire course of the war change drastically?

England and France didn't help out Poland anyway. The war would've stayed the same. The winter war would still happen, Italy would want french northern africa and the balkans, and France and England were still a threat to Germany.

England and France didn't help out Poland anyway. The war would've stayed the same. The winter war would still happen, Italy would want french northern africa and the balkans, and France and England were still a threat to Germany.

It could not have stzayed the same. The UK and France didnt help Poland, true, but by declaring war when they did (pretty unhprepared for it) they allowed hitler to quickly knock France out of the war and gave him an excuse to invade Norway. Without these actions the war would have taken a different course

It is obvious.

Why so?

Why can't you understand the concept that the Nazis wanted war and planed for it (see the Z plan)?

They seem to have been mostly concerned with regaining what they lost in WWI and so restoring a sense of national pride, the scenario here as far as I understand it is that they would have gotten it all back without a fight. So I repeat, with who and over what would they then fight?

Are you trying to argue it would of been better if there had been no WW2?

Better for some, worse for some no doubt. Overall better or worse, who can say. Less dead seems likely though.

The English and French decide that as there is no real help they can give the Poles they are better off biding their time, strenghthening, and letting Hitler have Poland. what happens next? where does Hitler go after next? will the entire course of the war change drastically?
You mean, what if they did the same as what they did? Probably same result then

Well, Britain swerving away from war was one of the reasons Hitler kept pushing and escalating his territorial claims. If Britain and France walk away from Poland too I don't see this changing. The question then becomes, which way will Germany go next? Will it continue annexing relatively small countries (perhaps belgium, definitely Norway ect?) or will she strike out against other great powers, like France or the USSR?

You mean, what if they did the same as what they did? Probably same result then

Its not the same at all Steph. with more time to prepare for war with Germany, the French and Brits could have held out longer, delayed Germany by months or even a year, all of which would have made the eastern front quite a different war. the Brits might have had the chance to build up a decent army to put on the continenet and the French might have at least bolstered their western defences. Norway would have had British troops in it before the Germans got there.

The French and British may have declared war, but they did nothing serious during months, just preparing for later. It's the Germans who attacked the 10th of May 1940, not the allies.

The French and British may have declared war, but they did nothing serious during months, just preparing for later. It's the Germans who attacked the 10th of May 1940, not the allies.

Yeah bit whos to say the Germans would have done that if a state of war didnt exist? the actual fighting could have started later, earlier etc... the allies could have brought Norway into the alliance, maybe even Belgium and placed a decent defensive force in those countries. Germeny would have had a pretty hard time getting panzers through the ardennes with a delay of a few motnhs, so the offensive would likely have been put off until summer 41. Puts a whole different face on the entire war

Case 1:
France and Britain do not declare war, but mobilize. Germany still see them as a threat, and attack the 10th of May 1940. France and Britain have no reason to be more prepared than they were with a state of war.

Case 2:
France and Britain de not declare war, and do not mobilize. They are even less ready to defend themselves than they were if the Germans attack.

Or

Norway, seeing Germany as an obvious threat but not yet seeing them as inevitable winners on the coming european war, accept British troops to guarantee their borders against the Nazis and the USSR. the Brits, realising this will make the Germsn security of iron ore from Sweden significantly threatened, send some of the BEF to Norway, preventing Germany from invading.


now is that completely far fetched?

And so Germany attacks France without British support ?

Or do you think the BEF would have been more efficient in Norway than it has been in Belgium?

And so Germany attacks France without British support ?

Or do you think the BEF would have been more efficient in Norway than it has been in Belgium?

Quite possibly, yes, seeing as the Germans invasion of Norway almost failed, its not hard to see it completely failing with part of the BEF there.

Also its not 100% guaranteed Germany would attack France that spring. If they felt that the western allies were going to give them a free hand in the east then they may well have looked that way first. for one thing, Steph, in this scenario there is no guarantee churchill would even come to power. I'm sure you know how he did and it was by no means a foregone conclusion that he would.

The problemn with your scenario is you assume Hitler would not go for Belgium/France if he thinks the allies give him a free hand in the east, but then it would suppose the allies do NOT prepare for war at all.

I can't see you how you can think "the allies don't declare war, but prepare for war, more than they did when being at war, and the Germans would not notice and not act".

This part of your reasonning is stupid.

It would be a better argument to change the hypothesis, and say for instance
"Britain and France declare war, but the BEF is sent to Norway, instead of France/Belgium".

This would make more sense.

Well Steph if you look back at history thats exactly wehat the allies did. didnt declare war on the numerous occasions when they had cause to, but instead prepared. Look at 1936, 38 etc... this is just one step further. why does this one seem so impossible to you when this is exactly what they did over the Rhineland, Sudentenland, and the rest of Czechoslovakia?

Remember the Germans still held out hopes of coming to an arrangemtn with Britain right up until the start of the war. It is unlikely thyey would have attacked them unless they were forced (dont look on this as an endorsement of Hitler, but tis true). they would have been quite happy not to attack the UK if it was at all possible.

Well Steph if you look back at history thats exactly wehat the allies did. didnt declare war on the numerous occasions when they had cause to, but instead prepared. Look at 1936, 38 etc... this is just one step further. why does this one seem so impossible to you when this is exactly what they did over the Rhineland, Sudentenland, and the rest of Czechoslovakia?

A simple question, how could Britain or France prepared MORE when not being at war than they could when being at war?

A simple question, how could Britain or France prepared MORE when not being at war than they could when being at war?

They would have had more time to mobilise their defences. Wasnt the French mobolisation chaotic? I could be wrong, but wasnt there a big delay because soldiers were told to report their home barracks instead o their nearest ones and this caused chaos? Its pretty rare that a mobilisation will not go better when you have more time to organise it.

Anyway you havent addressed my other point. Germany was not actively seeking confrontation with the UK in the late 30s, they didnt want it. If they could have dealth with France or the USSR (or even the balkans) without going to war with the UK they would have been quite happy to. there is no guarantee Churchill comes to power when the circumstances change.

They would have had more time to mobilise their defences. Wasnt the French mobolisation chaotic? I could be wrong, but wasnt there a big delay because soldiers were told to report their home barracks instead o their nearest ones and this caused chaos? Its pretty rare that a mobilisation will not go better when you have more time to organise it.

WHY? How would they have more time to mobilize their defense while NOT officially being at war? When Germany finally attacked, the French had been at war for months. How not being at war would have made the mobilization faster :confused:


Anyway you havent addressed my other point. Germany was not actively seeking confrontation with the UK in the late 30s, they didnt want it. If they could have dealth with France or the USSR (or even the balkans) without going to war with the UK they would have been quite happy to. there is no guarantee Churchill comes to power when the circumstances change.
Perhaps, but that's not the point. Your point is trying to prove that without a war declaration, the allies would have been in a better position to counter Germany. I disagree.

WHY? How would they have more time to mobilize their defense while NOT officially being at war? When Germany finally attacked, the French had been at war for months. How not being at war would have made the mobilization faster :confused:

I dont know how you dont understand this. the French would have known after Poland that eventually a German attack was coming. there is absolutely no reason to say for sure that Germany would have attacked France in May 1940 without a previous declaration of war by the French, they had other priorities. If they thought that they could get away with it (and in this scenario that would have been a reasonable assumption) they would probably have gone east first, if not agains the USSR then probably towards the balkans to secure the Romanian oil, so likely targets would have been Yugoslavia or Greece.

what we are disagreeing about steph is that you think a German attack on France in May 40 was inevitable no matter what France did, I contend it wasnt, in which case France would have had more time to bolster defences. If the Germans could have been allowed to deal with the USSR without having to fight France and the UK similtaneously I believe they would have taken it.

what we are disagreeing about steph is that you think a German attack on France in May 40 was inevitable no matter what France did, I contend it wasnt, in which case France would have had more time to bolster defences. If the Germans could have been allowed to deal with the USSR without having to fight France and the UK similtaneously I believe they would have taken it.
No. What I say is if France bolster its defences, the Germans would have consider it dangerous and attack anyway.
To avoid this, France would have to avoid mobilization, so the Germans may have gone east, happy to let the French alone, but then the French would not have been stronger.

If Britain & France had backed down over Poland then Hitler would have had time to consolidate and prepare for the attack on the USSR. The Nazis coveted the massive natural resources of the there, the Ukraine (the breadbasket of the USSR), the Caucasus with there abundant Oil reserves and the access it gave to the Middle and Far East. War between Nazi Germany and the Soviets was way more inevitable that between Germany and the UK.

Also, without the UK at war with them no invasion of Denmark or Norway is needed as there would be no threat to German access to Sweden from the Royal Navy, although I am sure that Denmark would have been forced into the Reich the same way as Austria (probably Luxembourg as well). It is extremely doubtful that the UK & France would have come to the direct aid of the soviets quickly. And without the huge amount of supplies from the USA would the USSR have survived or would a Russian fascist puppet state have been created?

What would have happened to Italy? They tried and failed to even defeat Albania. If they had imparked on there campaign east, and dragged Germany into the Balkans, that would have directly threatened British interests in the Mediterranean, an area that the British would not tolerate anyone interfering in.

And also, what of Japans expansionist interests? The USA and the British Empire are still huge threats. The American Philippines, British East Asia & India, Dutch East Indies, French Indo-china and Siberia are still huge prizes. Do they attack the USA first?? Does Germany honour its treaty and also declare war? Does Britain, France and the Netherlands (now mobilised as a direct result of the war between Germany & the USSR) join a war against Germany in support of the USA? And how long could the Axis powers stand up to the Allies if the USA was mobilised and at war from the beginning………

I think that most probably would be take control (in any way) of Balkan and after it attack on Soviet union or try support opposition(nations in ussr) without declaring war. I dont think that they would move interest on north/west.
If they wouldnt do it soon, Soviet Union would take possibility when they will be ready.
With Britain and France standing on wrong side there would probably some more states become fascist.

I am not sure, what plans the Nazis really had, but I suppose one of these scenarios is possible:

1) Hitler continues in his previous strategy (getting influence in central and eastern Europe, annexing weaker states) until a later "enough" moment happens. Maybe Switzerland get occupied, pro-nazi regimes or direct protectorates arise in Scandinavia, almost full extent of former austro-hungarian monarchy becomes occupied or controlled by the Reich before full-scale war begins. Axis influence in Africa increases too. A WW2 still comes with same outcome, but takes a longer time.

2) Hitler decides to attack Soviet Union without declaring war to Britain and France. These countries build up their military, but do not directly enter the war and do not really mind that much, if Stalin gets a beating.
Then it depends on who is winning.
2a) I suppose the initial German push would be stronger reaching at least Urals and controlling most of european Russia without having to worry about western and Balkans front. On the east, war deteriorates into a vietnamlike partisan war in Siberia. Western powers support russian guerillas because the Soviet Union is not a threat now and it weakens Germany.
Germany actually wins (including all expected atrocities) and a new stage of conflict begins. Middle East is contested and first nuclear weapons developed. German ones are demonstrated on resisting populace in Russia. A cold war of a sort begins between Allies and the Axis. America is more neutral and more interested in the Pacific. Britain and Axis use proxy wars to fight for the Middle East, Africa and influence in post-soviet Russian East.
If a nuclear WW3 does not begin, Nazi Germany would slowly crumble as Soviet Union did or maybe experience a slow and careful political shift like today's China.
2b) Stalin still manages to stop German attack and turns the tide of war. Allies do not enter war on Russian or German side, but grow more nervous as Soviet troops come closer and closer to French border. After a longer and comparably bloody war, Stalin takes control of most of Europe including Germany itself. Before this happens, German generals overthrow Hitler and try to declare neutrality, but are crushed by Soviet war machinery and political influence in the bankrupted German state. Allies may enter war at this stage prefering Germany to stay unoccupied.
If they do not, Stalin moves towards France sooner or later and WW3 begins, probably including strong American support for Britain. If they do, war in Europe continues in a more WW2-like manner, with US also not entering it directly but supporting France and Britain. War ends in 1950s with Soviets being defeated but all participants exhausted, including a limited nuclear exchange (if Britain is bombed first, US enter the war). Because of this european exhaustion (including Soviet Union), US slowly become a sole superpower.

German war aims were not entirely dissimilar to those of WW1: economic domination of the continent (the old 'Customs Union' idea from the 1900's), removal of threats to east and west, curtailing British continental influence and corralling it into a trans-oceanic role, and access to key resources.

Certainly 'lebensraum' added a spurious intellectual justification for conquest to the east, but the major drivers were still about access to markets and resources, and threat mitigation - indeed if you look at current German foreign policy they still are, albeit pursued by purely peaceful means.

I think it is very conceivable that Germany would have concentrated on the integration of Hungary and Romania (already facist states) into the German sphere, perhaps the conquest of Denmark so that the straits (and thus Swedish ore) can be controlled, covert pressure on the dutch to become more accepting of German domination, all leading to an invasion of the Soviet Union with Baku and the oilfields as the primary objective.

Such an invasion would be more likely to succeed due to being a single front battle (no immediate fight v France & England would avoid propping up the Italians in Libya, Greece, as well as no need for a Balkan campaign) and, more importantly, no restriction on purchasing and shipping supplies from other parts of the world (US, South America, SE Asia, etc) to support it logistically

However, I don't think Germany could have stopped at this point.

German panzers in Baku would be a direct threat to the Persian oilfields that were strategic for the British Empire as well as crucial for French supply. Had France and Britain backed off from war in '39 it is inconceivable to me that re-armament would not have proceeded.

In addition they would have had a chance to see blitzkrieg in action on the Russian steppes before themselves having to face it. Even a successful campaign in Russia would have cost Germany dearly in men and material, and given France and Britain 2 or three years to prepare for a similar onslaught. Technically they would have been able to review mobile warfare strategies adn the tactics to defend against it, build up defensive forces (fighter aircraft and pilots, etc), establish more flexible defensive lines and repair the gap in defense arising on the Belgian frontier.

More pertinent would be the psychology of the situation - if Germany had beaten Russia into submission - taken Moscow and Leningrad, seized the Caucasian oilfields, and accepted an armistice based on long-term control of the whole western part of Russia) would France and Britain have the appetite to fight such a successful opponent?

My guess is that it would depend on how hard Hitler pushed for subordination of the French and British to Germany - I'd further guess that if the deal on offer was some economic subordination and disarmament from France, and some agreement on trade access to British Empire markets for German goods (and reciprocal access to European markets for British goods) it would have been accepted as better than all-out war on a single front against a highly effective opponent, as long as the security of Persia and India was guaranteed.

That is the only definitive trigger point I can see, but I suspect that would be the one issue that could not be overcome.

War over Iraq and Iran? Probably, and I'd not bank on Britain and France to win...

BFR

I cannot believe Hitler would not invade France as soon as he fealt able. France was the great devil of WW I, which was Hitler's personal war.

J

Saying Hitler was insane and the world was doomed anyway is too easy. Hes still just one person and needed others to tag along. He needed to push legitimate German claims and have someone push back to start a war. If Poland would have folded he would have held all of the original Germany + Austria and Czechia and could have sat back proclaiming victory. Who knows, maybe there would have been no need to even blame the Jews any further.

There is a book Hitler wrote that you need to get acquianted with: It's called Mein Kampf.

War over Iraq and Iran? Probably, and I'd not bank on Britain and France to win...

BFR

Try war over Alsace and Lorraine.

War over Iraq and Iran? Probably, and I'd not bank on Britain and France to win...

BFR

Try war over Alsace and Lorraine.

I'm not convinced - I'm not sure France would go to war with a rampantly successful Germany, especially over Alsace, and I'm even less sure that Britain would have stood behind France in defending an area which was not of stretegic interest. As long as Germany's demands were not entirely unreasonable - a plebiscite, for instance, for each of the the three regions (Alsace, Lorraine and Luxembourg), merger of those in agreement with the Reich and merger into a customs union of the dissenting areas but as a adminsitrative units separate from France - I can certainly see Britain refusing to support French armed resistance in a war it would expect to lose.

Whereas loss of the Iraq/Iran oil fields would have been a devastating blow to British industrial strength and resilience - yes we still would have held the Burmese oil fields, but allowing Germany to threaten territory with such resources and which stand on the overland route from Egypt to the crown jewel - India - would have mattered far more to Britain than Alsace.

It's quite an interesting counter-factual though, with quite a few potential twists and turns...

BFR

Don't underestimate the century old French doctrine to try to reach the "natural borders", Pyrenées, Alps, Rhine.

Don't underestimate the century old French doctrine to try to reach the "natural borders", Pyrenées, Alps, Rhine.

Fair enough - from a French perspective there may be compelling reasons to do battle at that point, even if the odds are poor. I'm just not convinced of British support for a French stand as long as Hitler's demands weren't too unreasonable.

Not that this would have been a wise move on Britain's part - I know he was a pretty contradictory and rambling person in his pronouncements, but Hitler was pretty clear that his long-term war aim was to conquer Britain and make use of French, British and Italian naval power along with German to take war across the Atlantic. To do that he had to gain control over Britain's armed forces, so an attack on Britain was certainly coming in due course. The only matters for debate were timing and prioritisation of targets.

Ron - thats not true at all, Hitler didnt want war with the UK, on the contrARY HE wanted an alliance of sorts with them. He often stated that he wanted to be given a free hand in the east by the brits and he would leave the empire to them

I'm not convinced - I'm not sure France would go to war with a rampantly successful Germany, especially over Alsace, and I'm even less sure that Britain would have stood behind France in defending an area which was not of stretegic interest.
The last time France lost Alsace, they didn't forget about it for forty years, constantly pissed and moaned about the whole thing, and eventually went to war with that very region as a main objective and a rallying cry. As to strategic interest, Alsace has the Briey iron fields, one of the main reasons that the EEC was eventually created.
As long as Germany's demands were not entirely unreasonable - a plebiscite, for instance, for each of the the three regions (Alsace, Lorraine and Luxembourg), merger of those in agreement with the Reich and merger into a customs union of the dissenting areas but as a adminsitrative units separate from France - I can certainly see Britain refusing to support French armed resistance in a war it would expect to lose.
They'd lose plebiscites in Alsace and Lorraine, because most of the Germans left after the First World War. And France wasn't one to support lose-lose situations with those plebiscites; if they don't vote for Germany, why ought France lose them?

Ron - thats not true at all, Hitler didnt want war with the UK, on the contrARY HE wanted an alliance of sorts with them. He often stated that he wanted to be given a free hand in the east by the brits and he would leave the empire to them

Yes, Hitler publically said he didn't want war with Britain, saw them as allies, etc, on a number of occasions, but he also had many conversations within the Reich that concerned the need to subjugate Britain and gain access to its industrial resources, naval power and key colonies.

You can prove almost anything by looking at individual utterances from Hitler as he was by no means consistent and also skilled at telling people externally what they wanted to hear, but IIRC the balance of internal documentation suggest an order of attack which went 1 France, 2 Soviet Union, 3 UK.

Bear in mind Hitler in '38 had outline plans encompassing as far as invasions of Switzerland, annexation of Sweden, the Caucases and Persian oil fields, and preparations to attack the US (in concert with the Japanese) from British naval bases in Nova Scotia, Bermuda and the Bahamas.

These may have been delusions of grandeur, but there can't really be doubt that a Hitler victorious over the SU and France would then turn on anything but the most abjectly supportive UK.

All IMHO of course...

BFR

Its not the same at all Steph. with more time to prepare for war with Germany, the French and Brits could have held out longer, delayed Germany by months or even a year, all of which would have made the eastern front quite a different war. the Brits might have had the chance to build up a decent army to put on the continenet and the French might have at least bolstered their western defences. Norway would have had British troops in it before the Germans got there.

Only problem with this is that the Germans were gaining all the time. Besides, what defences could they strengthen? The Maginot line? The Germans bypassed that.. And it was not like

1. It would be proper to extend the line along Belgiums Frontier or
2. The Belgians would even let them in. So they could not dig in there.

The defeat in 1940 was because of a brilliant plan by Germany, and an underestimation of the German tank. They figured by the time it took tanks to get through the Ardennes, they could have troops their to resist them. Even a well prepared army would surrender when badly cut off by the enemy.
If anything, it would have been better for the Germans to attack in 39 (For the allies that is) as the plan to trap the British and French in Belgium was formed that winter. Ron - thats not true at all, Hitler didnt want war with the UK, on the contrARY HE wanted an alliance of sorts with them. He often stated that he wanted to be given a free hand in the east by the brits and he would leave the empire to them

Again, once Churchill was in the Cabinet, Hitler knew the war was on. Besides, who are we to be taking Hitler at his word? I personally see Romania and the Balkans next, which WOULD have meant war as Romania was seen as Hitlers next target after Czechoslovakia, and Britain tried hard to get POLAND to guarantee the Romanians independence along with Britain and France.

The essemtial problem of Germany industrialising but having no access to a forign market remains. In CIV terms, France and the UK are running mercintalism, and the only buyer for German industry is the German military. The more the krauts piss of the entente the more they work to keep em out of the markets under their sphere, the more the Nazi's have to keep buying arms to keep the economy afloat.

The issue is could the thing be strung out until the German economy implodes, al la Russia.

He would have invaded East as described in Mien Kamph, He wanted his Leibenstraum.

He would have invaded East as described in Mien Kamph, He wanted his Leibenstraum.

Every German word in this sentence is misspelled.

Anyway, the German economy was utterly dependent on getting a proper war started, sooner rather than later. They'd been running with increasing deficits every year since the Nazis took over; by 1939 the deficit was fifteen percent of the GNP, a certain recipe for economic doom. The German state couldn't have kept that up for another year without going bankrupt, probably not even half a year.

[QUOTE=Leifmk;7045779]Every German word in this sentence is misspelled.

QUOTE]

Thanks for pointing that out, I misspell English words too.. stay tuned

One thing that needs to be taken into consideration is that France and Britain were considered military power in 1939-40 - while Soviet Union (and in fact United States) weren't. Nobody knew how weak France was and how strong Soviet Union would grow. A more appeasing France would not have prevented a war as France would still have been the number one threat to Hitler.

The invasion of Soviet Union was for spoils, not for keeping Germany safe. The invasion of France was.

Very interesting reading. I think that if the UK and France had backed down on Poland then Hitler would have continued with the successful game of demanding or taking what he wanted. I think his next major goal would have been the Soviet Union. To that end he would have wanted to extend his influence towards the oil in Romania. He may also have sought to exert some control over Denmark to ensure Swedish iron ore as some have suggested in this thread.

Major war would have come eventually (perhaps to shore up the German economy as also pointed out in this thread) but would that war have to include France and the UK is the question. It would surely have put Germany at war with the Soviets. Hitler did enjoy taking revenge on France and may well have worried about the French military might at his back if he faced Russia. But would he have sought to push France into war before attacking Russia? I don't know. I don't see the attack on Poland as an effort to sucker France into war.

I doubt Hitler viewed the UK as he did France. I read an intriguing book that suggested Hitler hoped the UK would confine itself to its overseas empire and allow Hitler to expand into Central Europe and Russia. In this hypothesis Hitler just wanted to be left alone by France and the UK so he could attack Stalin. Given Churchill's anti-communism it's a wonder Hitler didn't get his way here.

For the sake of argument I'll assume Hitler gets Poland and France and England stay out of the way. Hitler in a year or so attacks the Soviets. Being able to concentrate solely on the east I'd have to give the Germans the edge. All the while the UK would surely move to protect the middle eastern oil supplies. Perhaps France would build it's defensive strength.

I don't see the U.S. drawn into this war - but these ramblings (as well as many other posts in this thread) ignore Japan and the Pacific. Japan would still be on a collision course with the British and U.S. With Germany, France, Great Britain and the U.S. all at peace and Hitler's war against Stalin going well, would Germany side with the historical allies against Japan? Maybe no German declaration of war against Japan but perhaps a Germany sympathetic to the UK/US against Japan in return for UK/US sympathy for Germany against the Soviet Union? I guess that would all depend on the relative timing and progress of the German attack on Russia versus the brewing Japanese/Anglo-American conflict.

In this hypothesis Hitler just wanted to be left alone by France and the UK so he could attack Stalin. Given Churchill's anti-communism it's a wonder Hitler didn't get his way here.


Churchill would never have been propped into the office of PM if we wasn't willing to fight Hitler. He was the right man for that task, the most convincing leader to direct the british into war. The appeasement strategy was judged a failure, Germany was becoming too powerful, and Britain was set for war, when Churchill "came" into office.

Churchill would never have been propped into the office of PM if we wasn't willing to fight Hitler. He was the right man for that task, the most convincing leader to direct the british into war. The appeasement strategy was judged a failure, Germany was becoming too powerful, and Britain was set for war, when Churchill "came" into office.

Yes, I understand Churchill became prime minister because of his desire to fight Germany. But he became prime minister in May 1940, long after Poland (and long before Russia) was attacked. The gist of the hypothesis I referred to was that Hitler wanted peace with Britain after France fell so Germany would be safe to attack the Soviet Union. My musing was related to this hypothesis. If Hitler made peace overtures in 1940 and made clear his intention to attack Russia, then why didn't Winnie make peace? It could be that the hypothesis is just plain wrong. :dunno:

For purposes of the posed question though I guess we'd really have to discount Churchill. If the UK and France had decided not to back Poland (and thus had not declared war on Germany in 1939) then Hitler would not have seen it as necessary to occupy Norway. It was this that propelled Churchill to his leadership of Britain. Still, if Germany had been left free to invade Russia and had started winning, perhaps Churchill would still have become PM due to fears of Germany's growing power. I think it's clear that Hitler wanted to trounce the Soviets while Churchill wanted the power of both Germany and Russia diminished.

The UK had always played a game of balancing the other european powers, keeping them busy but making sure that no single continental power emerged. The reason they ignored Hitler's aggression for so long was their desperate wish to avoid a new World War - the British Empire could not survive it, they knew. Once it became clear that Hitler was going to start one, he had to be stopped.

The UK's government had to choose: try to contain Germany early (they didn't knew it was already too late) and reduce the damage, or let a continental war play out, and risk having to face a single continental power once the dust settled. They went for the first option, but it was already too late.

Germany would have build secret weapons and won the war

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdjWfw9Za64

Don't underestimate the century old French doctrine to try to reach the "natural borders", Pyrenées, Alps, Rhine.

Achtung!!!
French arrogance in sight!!!

Care to elaborate?

Care to elaborate?

Rarely people have the gift to see own faults, eh?

I don't see how stating some historical facts can lead to "French arrogance on sight"

I don't see how stating some historical facts can lead to "French arrogance on sight"

:lol:

Maybe because you are french

Well, so far you have displayed far more arrogance and contempt than me it seems.

Hitler was insane and wouldn't be content with that. It might happen, if the german generals found the resolve to do away with him. But then how would the get rid of such a successful political leader, one who had just managed to recover the lost Prussian land? And those were mostly prussian generals from the old aristocracy.

Hitler still had to justify his wars in 1939. Poland was in contol of a good swath of pre 1918 German territory STILL full of Germans, so it was an easy sell, and the same was the case with the bulk of his expansion prior to that. If the British and French didn't declare war (or better yet the Poles gave him Danzig without a fight) Germany attacking France/England offensively would be unthinkable. As it was the West declared war on Germany while reclaiming what was rightfully German, now the Germans had no choice but to fight the West. A very big difference.

Well, so far you have displayed far more arrogance and contempt than me it seems.

Well you aren't either intelligent and funny here.

Well you aren't either intelligent and funny here.
At least he was correct.

There has been this almost mystical idea in France about its "natural borders", "the Hexagon", for which the French were historically conditioned to go to war and put up with all sorts of crap.

Which is a matter of historical record.

For someone to cry "French arrogance" at that is, well, at least something in the eyes of the beholder.:)

Germany annexes the German parts of poland (pre-WWI borders) and the war is avoided.
Someone is really ignorant here. German parts of Poland? DOn't you know that those lands were inhaitated by Poles - in the end of XVIII century Poland was partitioned by Germany, Russia and Austria - those lands were Polish in political and ethnic sense for almost 1000 years. What an ignorant!

Someone is really ignorant here. German parts of Poland? DOn't you know that those lands were inhaitated by Poles - in the end of XVIII century Poland was partitioned by Germany, Russia and Austria - those lands were Polish in political and ethnic sense for almost 1000 years. What an ignorant!

But german tribes, as Goths, lived in Poland before them.

LDeska:
He was clearly referring to areas that were recently "German" in the sense that they were part of the German Empire. It was not an attempt to belittle the poles, just over 20 years before the time in question that land was German.

LDeska:
He was clearly referring to areas that were recently "German" in the sense that they were part of the German Empire. It was not an attempt to belittle the poles, just over 20 years before the time in question that land was German.
Parts of it were, yes. But not East Prussia, Silesia, or extreme West Prussia/Pomerania. And Danzig had been ethnically German since the fifteenth century. By the 1930s, too, the Germanization had had a major impact on the area that became the Polish Corridor such that it was almost wholly German in the northern reaches (along the Baltic coast) extending probably twenty to fifty miles inland (can't check maps, am on vacation w/o atlases). So yeah, Posen doesn't count, but Poland still controlled regions with upwards of a million ethnic Germans.

Hitler's original plan was to go to war with the West in 1944 and was building up to that. because they declared war over Poland, Hitler was less prepared than he would have preferred. If they hadn't declared war then, Hitler would still have invaded them but a few years later and with a far worse result for the allies. as for justification, perhaps Alsace-Lorraine-whatever he said the people would have followed out of fear if not belief. As for Russia, he would probably invade sometime in the early 40s, but again far more prepared. The truth is that it was actually lucky Britain and France declared war when they did instead of later, and a shame they didn't stop him in Czechoslovakia.

If Hitler invaded the Soviets before the West, it would have been very bad for him.
Like Germany in WWI, Hitler's Germany couldn't win a two front war (North Africa and Italy were sideshows compared to a major Western Front). If Germany was at war with the Soviets, France/Britain would have joined as soon as the troops were available.

Also I am not sure who would have benefited the most from the time. If the war with Japan proceeds as it historically did, this would put the British, French, and the Dutch on full war footing, and put the US firmly in the Western Allies camp at the start of hostilities. The Soviets would have benefited the most from any delay, though.
And without taking Finland, Sweden (and its resources) would be vulnerable to the Allies.

Germany annexes the German parts of poland (pre-WWI borders) and the war is avoided.

there were no "german" parts of Poland, and Hitler's ambitions were much more than pre-ww1 borders for Germany

there were no "german" parts of Poland, and Hitler's ambitions were much more than pre-ww1 borders for Germany

Fine. The German parts of Germany currently held by the Poles then.

Basically the parts which held German majority.

Let me add that Japan already annexed Korea and Manchuria and was invading China by 1937. Put it this way- East Asia would have looked a lot different.

WWII was a horrible event, but thank God for small mercies.

But german tribes, as Goths, lived in Poland before them.

They only moved from Scandinavia to Ukraine through the territory of Poland, and even that isn't completely sure - it's one of hypothesis.

Fine. The German parts of Germany currently held by the Poles then.


:rolleyes:


Basically the parts which held German majority.

there were no "parts" having a german majority, just a couple of isolated cities and villages scattered around.

:rolleyes:

To everyone but the Poles it was German until it was ethnically cleansed after WWII :). Of course to you even Berlin is rightfully Polish, right?

there were no "parts" having a german majority, just a couple of isolated cities and villages scattered around.

Hardly. Didn't you yourself post a map showing this not long ago.

The two or so districts with slight german majority in Pommerania (West Prussia) were due to the cities of Bydgoszcz and Torun lying there. The rural areas were majorly polish.

It´s not Poland that decided to clear the once-polish and after-ww2 polish area out of Germans, but the Allies. Ukraine and part of Lithuania and Belarus were cleared of Poles instead.