Don't underestimate the century old French doctrine to try to reach the "natural borders", Pyrenées, Alps, Rhine.
Sept 1939: no war
- Thread starter RedRalph
- Start date
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.
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.
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?bigfatron said:
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
GeneralMatt
Emperor
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.
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.
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
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.
The issue is could the thing be strung out until the German economy implodes, al la Russia.
sabo
My Ancestors were Vikings
He would have invaded East as described in Mien Kamph, He wanted his Leibenstraum.
Leifmk
Deity
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.
sabo
My Ancestors were Vikings
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.
The invasion of Soviet Union was for spoils, not for keeping Germany safe. The invasion of France was.
donsig
Low level intermediary
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.
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.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,387
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.
donsig
Low level intermediary
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.
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.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,387
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.
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.
alcal
surfin'
alcal
surfin'
Care to elaborate?
alcal
surfin'
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"
Similar threads
- Poll
