What if Hitler did NOT invade Poland in 1939? (invaded, France, Russians)

[Ummagumma]

Originally Posted by jbgusa

If that had happened the U.S. would have been in the war a lot faster. The U.S. would never let the mother country go under. Except maybe under Obama.

The US would likely not attempt an invasion of Britain had the Germans successfully invaded and occupied it.

But this is the stuff of fairy tales. Germany simply could not launch an invasion. They had no means to cross the Channel while fighting off the Royal Navy.

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by Ummagumma

The US would likely not attempt an invasion of Britain had the Germans successfully invaded and occupied it.

But this is the stuff of fairy tales. Germany simply could not launch an invasion. They had no means to cross the Channel while fighting off the Royal Navy.

My point is that such an invasion would have had warnings and would have taken time. The U.S. would have gotten involved long before it fell under Nazi control.

[Ummagumma]

Originally Posted by jbgusa

My point is that such an invasion would have had warnings and would have taken time. The U.S. would have gotten involved long before it fell under Nazi control.

Perhaps. Or perhaps not. There was still strong isolationist feeling in the US. It took Pearl Harbor to make people angry enough to support the war effort. And a large part of this was wounded national pride richly mixed with racism. Taking this kind of abuse from some "barbaric" Asians without a major retaliation, at whatever cost, was inconceivable.

Picking up a fight with Nazi Germany to help the Brits, especially without the rise of patriotic / militaristic fervor after Pearl Harbor ? A lot of people would rather pass. Besides, Germany was rather popular in some circles. Hitler really helped FDR by declaring war on the US.

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by Ummagumma

Picking up a fight with Nazi Germany to help the Brits, especially without the rise of patriotic / militaristic fervor after Pearl Harbor ? A lot of people would rather pass. Besides, Germany was rather popular in some circles. Hitler really helped FDR by declaring war on the US.

I disagree. Britain was and is too close for that. Much the way Canada is. Their leadership had the ability to go over the leaders' heads, much the way it happened when the U.S. got involved in WW I against a much less objectionable Kaiser.

[easthome]

Originally Posted by TheWiseWino

Ah, no after all that Norwegian campaign was such a success.

Seriously, what was the objective of the British expeditionary force? As I recall it was to a, defend Poland and b. to defend France and the rest of western Europe, it failed. In my book that is a defeat, not a stalemate, because Germany was free to pursue it main objective, an attack against eastern Europe.

While Britain's defense of fortress Britannia... here comes that American in me... had the U.S. not covertly and then overtly enter the war, Great Britain would have never been capable of playing a major role in Germany's defeat.

OK fair enough but how about this too 'had Britain not defeated the Nazis in the battle of Britain then fought on alone then the US would have never been capable of playing a major role in Germany's defeat' works both ways don't you think.

[Tonyafd]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

Hitler believed that Britain and France would not go to war over Poland. When they did, it trapped him in the exact scenario he had sworn to avoid, a two-front war in which Germany could not hope to prevail on either front due to being drained of men and resources. As it turned out, invading Poland might have been Hitler's biggest blunder.

So, what if Hitler had not invaded Poland in 1939? Delaying the start of the war two or more years might have been an advantage for Hitler, allowing more time for rebuilding Germany's military forces, far from complete in 1939, and for further extending Germany's technological lead (tanks, submarines, jets, rockets, etc.). On the other hand, France, Britain, and Russia might also have been better prepared for war.

Germany might also have been more secure from invasion in the east if Poland had been retained as a buffer state. It is even possible that Germany could have made a defensive alliance with Poland against Russia, allowing an offensive war in the west, while defending in the east. On the other hand, any war against Germany started by Stalin would likely be without assistance from France and Britain, allowing an offensive war in the east, while defending in the west.

If Corporal Paper Hanger had trusted his generals he might have won the war. The ME-262 was being designed before the War. Hitler kept sending it back to the drawing board. Even with limited deployment, this jet claimed 542 allied kills. That's impressive.

One on one I think that Germany could have beat anyone except for the US which is not close enough for a land power to beat

[cpg35223]

Originally Posted by easthome

Are you suggesting that for 2 years the British sat and did nothing!!! How very 'American'.

The fact that he proved so ignorant about the various armor employed by the Germans, French, British, and Russians during the first three years of the war tells me a great deal about this poster.

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by TheWiseWino

Seriously, what was the objective of the British expeditionary force? As I recall it was to a, defend Poland and b. to defend France and the rest of western Europe, it failed. In my book that is a defeat, not a stalemate, because Germany was free to pursue it main objective, an attack against eastern Europe.

The BEF was the core of the professional British army and man-for-man was probably the best equipped and most advanced fighting force on Earth in 1940. The issue was that the BEF was designed as a force multiplier to serve alongside the armies of other nations. The BEF was grossly mismanaged as were the French DLM units (which were every bit equivalent to a German panzer division), which made them a non-factor in the battle for France.

Originally Posted by M3 Mitch

My own opinion on what really lost the war for the Axis, was the invasion of Russia. Apparently Hitler failed to read up on, or failed to comprehend, the record of what happened when Napoleon did that. General Winter kicked Napoleon's butt, a little logic would indicate that a modern mechanized army would probably fare worse, not better. And the Russian invasion was strictly an option for Germany, if they let the Ribbentrop treaty stand, no doubt Stalin would have let it stand too, as noted in other posts he had enough other troubles.

Well, "General Winter" is one of the larger myths that gets propagated. Napoleon's Grande Armee was destroyed by disease during the march to Moscow in the summer. The winter was no picnic, but by the time Napoleon reached Moscow his army had already lost 75% of its strength,

In the case of Germany "General Mud" was the far greater enemy. The German advance broke down on the way to Moscow due in large part to the heavy rains that turned everything into a sea of mud. That made it nearly impossible for the panzer units to execute their encirclement and allowed the Russian defenses to stiffen and provide a real obstacle. The onset of winter, while brutal on the under-equipped troops, actually allowed the German army to start moving again, but the Russians had already massed for a counter-attack.

Originally Posted by TheWiseWino

This is where the only major alt-history possibility that I've ever read comes into play. It wasn't the delay for invading Poland it was the delay for launching Barbarossa due to Hitler coming to the aid of Mussolini in Greece/Balkans. The two month span between the actions in Greece and the invasion of the Soviet Union might have won a victory at Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad or all them before winter set it. That delay is a worthy matter of historical conjecture.

The diversion of units to the Balkans ultimately had ZERO impact on the timetable for Barbarossa. This is one of those oft-repeated myths, but it does have a grain of truth. Barbarossa was scheduled to initiate on May 15th. Some units from the southern front of Barbarossa were sent to assist in the Balkan's campaign. However, these units had already returned to their Barbarossa launch positions by early May. Once the main fighting was done reserve divisions were deployed in the Balkans. The biggest impact was to the armor units of the southern army group which did suffer some wear and tear during the Balkans campaign which had an impact on their effectiveness in Barbarossa.

Ultimately it was the weather that delayed Barbarossa. The spring rains were especially heavy and the rivers that the Germans needed to cross were all well above flood stage. The OKW advised delaying operations until June 15th at the earliest in order to allow weather conditions to improve. So, Balkans or not, there was no way the invasion was being launched on May 15th.

It's just a matter of happenstance that the Germans picked 1941 which happened to have late spring rains and early fall rains, which gave them the narrowest operational window possible.

Originally Posted by Ummagumma

Picking up a fight with Nazi Germany to help the Brits, especially without the rise of patriotic / militaristic fervor after Pearl Harbor ? A lot of people would rather pass. Besides, Germany was rather popular in some circles. Hitler really helped FDR by declaring war on the US.

There was a strong element that also supported intervention. Had there been a more realistic threat to Britains very existence, then I think the US would have taken action to intervene on their behalf and become involved in the war. Of course, the ability of the US to actually do anything prior to 1943 was pretty much non-existent.

Originally Posted by easthome

OK fair enough but how about this too 'had Britain not defeated the Nazis in the battle of Britain then fought on alone then the US would have never been capable of playing a major role in Germany's defeat' works both ways don't you think.

It was most certainly a symbiotic relationship. The US and Britain needed each other to be successful. It was a true partnership.

Originally Posted by Tonyafd

If Corporal Paper Hanger had trusted his generals he might have won the war.

They may have prolonged it a bit, but once the Russians didn't roll over and play dead at the gates of Moscow, Germany had no hope of actually winning. Their best option at that point was a stalemate.

The ME-262 was being designed before the War. Hitler kept sending it back to the drawing board. Even with limited deployment, this jet claimed 542 allied kills. That's impressive.

The 262 was in development before the war, but there were a lot of issues to work out with the new engines and the air frame. Ultimately it was Messerchmitt and Goering who sidelined the project and insisted more effort be put into traditional piston aircraft to supply Germany with what it needed. Hitler didn't really get involved with 262 development until 1943 when Germany started looking for "wonder weapons" to help turn the tide.

Ultimately the 262 was successful in its limited role as a bomber interceptor. Since the bombing campaign had little impact until very late in the war, it is doubtful the 262 would have been a "game changer" any earlier in the war.

One on one I think that Germany could have beat anyone except for the US which is not close enough for a land power to beat

If you really look at the situation and the timeline of major battles, you will realize that Germany versus the Soviet Union was pretty much a one-on-one fight...the Russians won.

[Linda_d]

Originally Posted by FrankMiller

Yes, if Hitler hadn't overreached, he might've built a sustainable 3rd Reich. If he hadn't abused the Jews America might not have finished the atomic bomb before Germany, and Nazi Germany might've been the first country in space. But of course, if Hitler didn't do those things, he wouldn't have been Hitler.

Game. Set. Match. Neither Hitler nor his sycophants seriously considered that anything could go wrong.

[Coseau]

Hitler was prepared and not afraid to go to war vs France and England over Poland because he believed France and England did not actually militarily defeat Germany in WWI but the German military was stabbed in the back by German politicians. Hitler even told Neville Chamberlain on the eve of WWII did he think the Germans were greatly expanding their military forces just for the purpose to throw fancy grand military parades in Germany when Neville was trying to deter Germany with the threat of war with Great Britain if Germany invaded Poland. With the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact signed with the Soviet Union, Hitler didn't have to worry about a two front war dividing German military resources. He was going avenge Germany's humiliation at the Versaille Conference from the hands of France first then once that was accomplished worry about German Lebensraum at the expense of the Soviet Union later. He darned near accomplished all his goals because he was days away defeating the Royal Air Force had he continued a war of attrition instead of switching to a mass bombing campaign of Britain's population centers. The Royal Navy would have been very vulnerable to defeat had the Luftwaffe had complete control of the skies and the British army could not have stopped the German Wehrmacht if it established a beach head on the English shores. With Britain subdued the Soviet Union would've had to faced the full force of German military might while the Red Army were still suffering from the after effects of Stalin's purges of its best officers up and down the ranks and consequent change of military doctrine back to a mass land force of WWI era tactics and doctrine.