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.
Even with the Blitzkrieg fully exposed it didn't matter one bit on the eastern front as Hitler's forces blitzkrieged their behinds to the gates of Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad. As for German armor, nothing on either side was a match for German tanks during the onset of the war.
As for more robust supply lines, and stockpiles of fuel... well you can't have robust supply lines until you've sent your army into combat and established those supply lines as it advanced. That really isn't something that you can do before hand. You have the same problem with fuel stockpiles, you can't stockpile that which you don't have to begin with. It wasn't for the lack of armor, mechanization or air cover that stopped the Germans.
And they still came up short, practically everywhere.
When the war started, while the panzer divisions were mechanized, their supply lines were not, often relying on horses to supply tanks, mobile artillery, etc.
This was the German's main tank at the start of the war:
The Germans did stockpile fuel before the war. Given more time, they could have stockpiled much more. At the beginning of the war, Germany was producing 4.5 million barrels of crude oil annually. By 1941, they were producing 31 million barrels of synthetic fuel annually.
One of the problems they had was that their tanks and trucks used gasoline, while the Russians used diesel, so capturing fuel dumps did them little good. They had to capture oil fields and convert them from diesel to gasoline production.
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 I remember right, Hitler did back down at one time. That was back in May 1938 when Hitler first threatened Czechoslovakia and he was warned off by Britain, France and the Soviet Union. This delayed Hitler's plans for a while.
However with Poland, the Soviet Union had signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact so it was just Britain and France. Under a rational leader, that should have been enough. The idea of fighting both the British and French Empires, not to mention the Dominions and Poland, would have frightened any sane rational person but apparently Hitler was not one of them!
Had Hitler backed down in 1939, possible but unlikely, WW2 would probably would have delayed but because Hitler was so reckless, war was coming sooner or later.
And they still came up short, practically everywhere.
Except for the fact that he defeated both Britain, France and everybody else in western Europe for that matter and since it was the invasion of Poland that brought France and Britain into war in the first place how waiting would have effected the defeat that Hitler handed them when he didn't wait is a bizarre argument.
The question properly posed isn't whether he should have delayed invading Poland but rather should he have waited before invading the Soviet Union. Hitler could have sat on that portion of Poland that he occupied until hell or Stalingrad froze over (metaphorically speaking) since every credible force to the west had been defeated. At least defeated until he made the greatest unplanned blunder, declaring war on the U.S.
If he had waited in western Poland until he was "ready" to take on the Soviets and had not declared war on the US it is plausible to try and argue that Hitler would have been victorious, but it wouldn't be an argument that would win over many historians and most of the more knowledgable folks on this forum.
However with Poland, the Soviet Union had signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact so it was just Britain and France. Under a rational leader, that should have been enough. The idea of fighting both the British and French Empires, not to mention the Dominions and Poland, would have frightened any sane rational person but apparently Hitler was not one of them!
The idea wasn't insane, he had the tactics and strategy to defeat France, Britain's forces in France were not significant enough to avert the fall of France and Poland's army was prehistoric in comparison. The insanity was abrogate the Nazi-Soviet Pact by invading the Soviet Union.
Except for the fact that he defeated both Britain, France and everybody else in western Europe for that matter and since it was the invasion of Poland that brought France and Britain into war in the first place how waiting would have effected the defeat that Hitler handed them when he didn't wait is a bizarre argument.
The question properly posed isn't whether he should have delayed invading Poland but rather should he have waited before invading the Soviet Union. Hitler could have sat on that portion of Poland that he occupied until hell or Stalingrad froze over (metaphorically speaking) since every credible force to the west had been defeated. At least defeated until he made the greatest unplanned blunder, declaring war on the U.S.
If he had waited in western Poland until he was "ready" to take on the Soviets and had not declared war on the US it is plausible to try and argue that Hitler would have been victorious, but it wouldn't be an argument that would win over many historians and most of the more knowledgable folks on this forum.
He didn't defeat Britain though??, Britain stood alone for two years, it was impossible for Hitler to defeat the British, it was simply impossible for him to invade, if he had then perhaps the outcome after the war would have been different (no Dday invasion from the West), the Berlin wall would have been built at Calais, there is an argument that if he had defeated the British then the war was lost but I believe that the Russians would have still beaten him, though it would have taken a lot longer and millions more Russians would have died without the Allies to the West.
A lot of points already covered. The main impetus for attacking in 1939 was that the Nazi economic house of cards was about to come tumbling down. They needed to act fast before the German economy imploded. Hitler's bold decisions (Anschluss, Sudetenland, Rhineland, etc.) had bought him the support of the German people, but only the tacit support of the German military who still distrusted him. The longer Hitler waited and the worse the economy got, the more support he would lose.
It is also very true that the Western Allies and then the Soviet Union were only growing stronger as time went on. Hitler didn't want war with France and Britain, which was ultimately the "dice roll" he undertook with the invasion of Poland. If they had let him have it, war with the Soviet Union would have happened even sooner. As it was the Germans expended their strength in 1939 on Poland. They then reorganized and went after France in 1940. They then rebuilt and went after Russia (the real target all along) in 1941.
The Soviets had begun a massive rebuilding of their military beginning in 1938/9 on a five year plan set to culminate in 1943. That is the year Stalin felt war with Germany might happen. Every month that went by, the Soviet Union got stronger while Germany remained at relative peak strength from 1939-1941. Every delay meant that the conquest of the Soviet Union got harder and harder.
He didn't defeat Britain though??, Britain stood alone for two years, it was impossible for Hitler to defeat the British, it was simply impossible for him to invade, if he had then perhaps the outcome after the war would have been different (no Dday invasion from the West), the Berlin wall would have been built at Calais, there is an argument that if he had defeated the British then the war was lost but I believe that the Russians would have still beaten him, though it would have taken a lot longer and millions more Russians would have died without the Allies to the West.
When I say, defeat, I mean in the sense that Britain didn't pose a military threat to Germany of any significance on the continent.
Except for the fact that he defeated both Britain, France and everybody else in western Europe for that matter and since it was the invasion of Poland that brought France and Britain into war in the first place how waiting would have effected the defeat that Hitler handed them when he didn't wait is a bizarre argument.
The question properly posed isn't whether he should have delayed invading Poland but rather should he have waited before invading the Soviet Union. Hitler could have sat on that portion of Poland that he occupied until hell or Stalingrad froze over (metaphorically speaking) since every credible force to the west had been defeated. At least defeated until he made the greatest unplanned blunder, declaring war on the U.S.
If he had waited in western Poland until he was "ready" to take on the Soviets and had not declared war on the US it is plausible to try and argue that Hitler would have been victorious, but it wouldn't be an argument that would win over many historians and most of the more knowledgable folks on this forum.
They did not defeat Britain. Not even in Europe, considering Dunkirk. Failing to do so, left them exposed to raids, strategic bombing, and invasion from the west, and meant they could not invade the USSR, Hitler's real aim, without getting stuck in something Hitler had always sworn to avoid, a two-front war. The real question is whether delaying the start of the war could have increased their chances of defeating or neutralizing Britain. Claiming that it is not a legitimate question does not answer it.
Except for the fact that he defeated both Britain, France and everybody else in western Europe for that matter and since it was the invasion of Poland that brought France and Britain into war in the first place how waiting would have effected the defeat that Hitler handed them when he didn't wait is a bizarre argument.
The question properly posed isn't whether he should have delayed invading Poland but rather should he have waited before invading the Soviet Union. Hitler could have sat on that portion of Poland that he occupied until hell or Stalingrad froze over (metaphorically speaking) since every credible force to the west had been defeated. At least defeated until he made the greatest unplanned blunder, declaring war on the U.S.
If he had waited in western Poland until he was "ready" to take on the Soviets and had not declared war on the US it is plausible to try and argue that Hitler would have been victorious, but it wouldn't be an argument that would win over many historians and most of the more knowledgable folks on this forum.
Hitler was never going to be more ready or in a better position relative to the Soviet Union than he was when he historically launched the invasion. Even better for Hitler would have been an invasion of the Soviet Union in 1939 or 1940, but that was impossible due to either not having a shared border or being faced with more immediate threats. Germany's combat strength peaked from 1939-1941, they were never so powerful as they were at that time. Their opponents were not at their combat strength peak, but one of them, the Soviet Union, was getting stronger with every passing month. If Hitler waited another year, they may have never even made it passed Smolensk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWiseWino
1. The idea wasn't insane, he had the tactics and strategy to defeat France, Britain's forces in France were not significant enough to avert the fall of France and Poland's army was prehistoric in comparison.
2.The insanity was abrogate the Nazi-Soviet Pact by invading the Soviet Union.
1. He never wanted to fight France and Britain and his best military minds felt that the best Germany could hope for was a stalemate with France. Hitler got lucky when he rolled the dice on a novel strategy that was either going to result in a huge win or a catastrophic loss. Hitler got lucky in the west. It is one of the most war-gamed scenarios and it takes a great deal of incompetence on the part of the allies to let the Germans win the Battle of France in 1940.
2. The insanity would be believing that the Pact was anything more than a matter of convenience and way to buy time. The Soviet Union would have never allowed Germany to take all of Poland and Hitler lacked a border with the Soviet Union to attack it directly. Had France and Britain not declared war, Hitler's panzers would have rolled into the Soviet Union in 1940 and possibly had greater success.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey
They did not defeat Britain. Not even in Europe, considering Dunkirk. Failing to do so, left them exposed to raids, strategic bombing, and invasion from the west, and meant they could not invade the USSR, Hitler's real aim, without getting stuck in something Hitler had always sworn to avoid, a two-front war. The real question is whether delaying the start of the war could have increased their chances of defeating or neutralizing Britain. Claiming that it is not a legitimate question does not answer it.
Britain was certainly contained in that they did not pose a true threat to continental Europe. Britain's ability to upset the Italian's plans in North Africa and conduct the occasional raid or bombing mission was annoying, but not game changing. Germany still managed to launch the largest invasion in history while at war with Britain. So, we could at least consider Britain "neutered" for those first couple of years of the war.
However, the question was "defeat/neutralize" Britain. In order to do that you have to get through the Royal Navy, which at the time was the greatest naval power on Earth. If one cannot effectively blockade the Isles and control the ocean, then Britain cannot be either neutralized or defeated. Centuries of British grand strategy were based on this simple truth. So, it really becomes a question of how long would it have taken Germany to build a navy to rival Britains and could they even do it. The answer to the first part is...decades. It would have taken the Germans decades to reach naval parity with Britain, who would never sit by idly while Germany built dozens of new warships. To the second part, I'm not sure they really had the resources either. Navy's require massive fuel supplies and Germany's limited navy never really had enough fuel to operate effectively. That isn't even getting into things like manpower resources where you would need to effectively increase the size of the German navy by over a factor of 10...Germany doesn't exactly have a great naval tradition and a ready supply of experienced sailors.
The answer is that Germany couldn't ever defeat or neutralize Britain as long as the British had the will to fight. War with Britain was on British terms, not German.
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.
.jpg)
What if Hitler did NOT invade Poland in 1939?
