Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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.
One of the problems with that ahistorical theory is that Britain and the U.S. were beginning to rearm as well. Contemporary news coverage did not believe Hitler would be satisfied with Czechoslovakia. Further aggressive moves by Hitler were pretty much a given. Hitler moved, I believe, since he knew that the Allies wouldn't just "sit there" forever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey
I'm not assuming it would have been advantageous for Germany. We do know what did happen from invading when they did, however - they got stuck in a no-win two-front predicament that ended very badly for them.
The more plausible ahistorical event would have involved Hitler and Stalin living up to the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. Russia would have had no problem with continued German aggression on the Western front, and Hitler would have had fewer problems with "General Winter."
Of course, Germany lost the battle of the Atlantic because Britain developed better technology faster. Germany never really understood naval warfare and it wasn't a priority. As to the two front war, that didn't actually happen until 21 months after Britain and France declared war and a year after the fall of France
The fundamental problem for Germany in terms of industrial readiness was that they did not convert to a war economy until February 1942. That was the source of the resource conflict. Britain converted earlier and faster which gave them an advantage notably in aircraft and naval technology.
Or they failed to take advantage of the window for success that they did have, before it closed, by simply having too few submarines. Yes, "Britain developed better technology faster", but largely under the pressure of impending or actual war. If the start of the war had been delayed, that pressure might also have slackened.
As to war production, from 1939 to 1944, Germany increased its production of munitions by a factor of 7. However the Soviet Union, Britain, and the United States increased their production by factors of 10, 22, and 140, respectively (https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/e...8postprint.pdf).
A main constraining factor on Germany was the supply of fuels. Even though the production of crude oil had tripled and synthetic oil soared by 1939, it was nowhere near enough to feed Germany's war machine:
Quote:
Despite all those measures, though, there simply was not enough oil available in Europe to satisfy the huge requirements of a mechanized force in the service of a country with expansionist aims. A panzer division typically consumed 1,000 gallons (approx. 30 barrels) of fuel per mile travelled. Thus, despite the Draconian measures practiced by the Wehrmacht, it quickly became clear that optimum German tactics would have to be modified to operate within the limits of available resources. That, as much as any other practical or theoretical factors, led to the conception and practice of the Blitzkrieg.
In fact, it is difficult to really overstate the gap that existed between German army fuel needs and the available supplies. The images of panzers rolling across Poland, the Low Countries and France are etched in our minds as characteristics of the new style of warfare Nazi Germany had created. It is easy to forget those panzers made up only a small part of the entire force, and that the German army was far from fully mechanized.
Though it varied from campaign to campaign and unit to unit, as much as 70 percent of German supply transport remained horse-drawn throughout the war. There were 5,375 horses assigned to each infantry division. In fact, as the war dragged on and petroleum became even more critical, horses became more important to the German war effort rather than less.
One theory as to why Hitler's panzers halted short of Dunkirk is that they simply had reached the end of their string (or supply line). It would not be the only time Germany came up short in the war - it was pretty much the story of all of their campaigns. Part of the problem, of course, was they hadn't actually planned to go to war in 1939, since Hitler and his top echelon firmly believed that Britain and France were bluffing.
The Reich's finances were at the breaking point in 1939, so that a war with tons of war-loot was immediately required. Part of the reason for the 1938 violence against the Jewish minority and synagogues ("Reichskristallnacht") was to extract as much money as possible to keep the Reich afloat for the time. By 1939 the money had run out again and now it was Poland's turn to provide as much cash as possible in the fastest time. Under peaceful terms the German rearmament would have come to crashing halt in 1939. No time to waste.
No doubt. The Russians were developing the T-34. France fell due to an out-moded static war strategy, so don't see that changing, even with better armaments. As far as Britain is concerned, they might not have got their troops out of Dunkirk, after the French front collapsed. A critical factor would be the availability of more and better submarines to the Kriegsmarine.
On the other hand, delaying the war might have allowed Germany to develop an effective strategic bomber, the lack of which was a major weakness against both Britain and Russia. Delaying the invasion of Russia for a year or more would have avoided a worse than normal winter.
In 1939, Germany had an advantage, the Soviets were up to their ears in the midst of a very major and very messy / disruptive reorganization of their entire military structure and rearmament, the British were just frantically starting to ramp up their war production, the French were running in circles trying to figure out their war strategy and armament. Poland also started to rearm, although there's little chance it would make enough progress to make a difference three years later. Germany was the only country whose military was in their best state of organization, training and equipment - for that moment. Waiting any longer would only serve to reduce their advantage.
I agree that the biggest mistake was to start the whole war in first place. After the Anschluss and taking of Czech lands Germany should have concentrated on strengthening their new found empire economically and politically. But Hitler had to have his dream.
The problem with your hypothesis is that you are only thinking in terms of what Germany could have done and not what other countries might have also done with the extra time.
The most critical of which would have been the U.S.'s development of the atomic bomb. While the Manhattan project was not begun in earnest until 1942 the conception of the project dated back as early as 1939.
Of course, if the threat of war lessened and seemed less imminent, then funding for projects such as the Manhattan project might also have fallen off. While the Spitfire, T-34, B-17, etc., were being developed prior to 1939, full-production didn't start until well after the start of the war. If the war was delayed, so might have the ramping up of war production. The western economies were still trying to crawl out of the Depression - the slackening of the war threat likely would have brought out the budget-cutters.
The critical issue was that Germany could not hope to win a drawn-out war of attrition, due to resource and population constraints. Their only hope was to leverage and extend their technological/tactical lead to deliver knock-out blows, before the Americans could enter the fray. As it was, they were able to knock out Poland and France, but not Britain or the Soviet Union.
Of course, if the threat of war lessened and seemed less imminent, then funding for projects such as the Manhattan project might also have fallen off. While the Spitfire, T-34, B-17, etc., were being developed prior to 1939, full-production didn't start until well after the start of the war.
Since we are dealing with hypotheticals, German's increase war production likely wouldn't have gone unnoticed and both Britain and France would have done so as well. Although considering the isolationist attitude of the U.S. in general you are probably correct in arguing that in the case of the U.S. Roosevelt would have had great difficulty in ramping up war production, of course that would require Japan abandoning or delaying its attack on the U.S. But since Japan did nothing to indicate their plans with the Germans, that is highly unlikely. In that case, I'll stick with my argument.
Since we are dealing with hypotheticals, German's increase war production likely wouldn't have gone unnoticed and both Britain and France would have done so as well. Although considering the isolationist attitude of the U.S. in general you are probably correct in arguing that in the case of the U.S. Roosevelt would have had great difficulty in ramping up war production, of course that would require Japan abandoning or delaying its attack on the U.S. But since Japan did nothing to indicate their plans with the Germans, that is highly unlikely. In that case, I'll stick with my argument.
Average expenditures on munitions production from 1935 to 1939 was $500,000 for the U.K. vs. $2.4 million for Germany, but $3.5 million vs. $6 million, respectfully, in 1940.
Quote:
...rearmament [for Germany] was initiated in an underemployed economy, so that increases in military spending merely took up slack and did not require the resources employed for war to be first withdrawn from other commitments...
Until March 1938 British defence preparations had to be carried on within the limits of the doctrine that “the course of normal trade should not be impeded”. Strict financial constraints were soon rationalized in military policy, in the theory of a “war of limited liability”, ruling out the need for any major reconditioning of the ground forces. The perspective of a limited war outlived the financial limitation of defence spending by one year, being abandoned only in March 1939 with the fall of Prague.
Thus, before 1939, Britain rearmed only at a low level, seeking to regulate Germany’s behaviour primarily through negotiation; in 1938 defence spending still claimed only 7 per cent of the national income. French preparations were similarly limited, both in absolute terms and in relation to the size of the French economy.
While the U.K. was undoubtedly investing in military R&D prior to the war, the first Spitfires weren't delivered, in relatively small numbers, until the second half of 1938. Overall military production was not ramped up until after war already seemed imminent, despite Germany having ramped up its production well before that.
I agree that the biggest mistake was to start the whole war in first place. After the Anschluss and taking of Czech lands Germany should have concentrated on strengthening their new found empire economically and politically. But Hitler had to have his dream.
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.
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.
Invading Poland did not trap Hitler into the scenario he sought to avoid. It was invading the USSR later on.
People- especially the Russian Fan Club here- always forget the invasion of Poland was a joint German-Soviet invasion with a bifurcated Poland the result. After 3 weeks, the soon to be Eastern Front was quiet.
But the USSR (Russian for Lebensraum) was the big prize. Invading them, failing to subdue the UK, and inviting the USA to join the fight is the Trifecta that doomed him. Man has got to know his limitations.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
