What if Hitler did NOT invade Poland in 1939? (WWII, England, Asians)
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.
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.
I never suggested that Hitler wanted to fight France and Britain, but that was the natural result of invading Poland. As for invading Poland as the OP suggests, again, was as you point out a necessity in order to attack the Soviet Union. When it comes to these hypothetical what-ifs, I have to keep to what facts there were otherwise we could just change all the parables including Hitler learning to live with Jews and becoming happy to just become a great power within Germany's borders.
Britain most certainly wasn't defeated, it was a stalemate - Germany owned the Western part of Continental Europe and Brits couldn't get them there, while the British Aisles and most of the British Empire were outside of Germany's reach.
One interesting question is, what if Japan, Russia, USSR, USA stay out of this completely, and it's the British empire (including Canada and Australia and NZ) vs Third Reich. Did BE have enough unused resources in colonies to win the war all by itself ? Certainly the numbers and the access to raw materials were in their favor, but it seems that militarily they were not as good, especially in 1940.
Britain most certainly wasn't defeated, it was a stalemate - Germany owned the Western part of Continental Europe and Brits couldn't get them there, while the British Aisles and most of the British Empire were outside of Germany's reach.
One interesting question is, what if Japan, Russia, USSR, USA stay out of this completely, and it's the British empire (including Canada and Australia and NZ) vs Third Reich. Did BE have enough unused resources in colonies to win the war all by itself ? Certainly the numbers and the access to raw materials were in their favor, but it seems that militarily they were not as good, especially in 1940.
Re: the interesting question.
As you say, in 1940 it was stalemate. Germany could not achieve sufficient air and naval supremacy for an invasion of the UK to be successful. The Battle of Britain was fought and lost by Germany before any of the other players could intervene.
Even with all the resources of the Empire, militarily, Britain could not beat Germany. Not because, militarily, they were not as good - in 1940, the BEF was very small and could not compensate for France's military shortcoming - but because Britain simply did not have the numbers. Certainly, the Empire was very big but mostly it was militarily useless in terms of fighting a European war.
So you would have stalemate which, ultimately, would have led to a political rather than a military solution. But this assumes that Hitler could contain his military and expansionist urges which is very unlikely. Hitler's hold on power was partially cemented by foreign policy and military success. A sustained period of peace would have required a focus on economic and industrial development. And, because Britain effectively controlled the sea lanes that Germany needed for exports and imports, that would have tipped the political balance of a future settlement in Britain's favour.
Are you suggesting that for 2 years the British sat and did nothing!!! How very 'American'.
What he said is that for two years Britain did not pose any major threat to Germany on the continent.
This to me does not mean "doing nothing". This means "whatever the British were doing, was not seen as an existential threat by the Nazis". Which is an accurate statement.
Are you suggesting that for 2 years the British sat and did nothing!!! How very 'American'.
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.
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.
Hard to say, though, if serious work on the Manhattan project would have ever happened if (assuming no invasion of Poland) the US didn't enter the war. Of course US involvement hinged more on Pearl Harbor. But, not to thread-jack, but remember Germany declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor. What if, after Pearl Harbor, the Germans had just told Japan "Interesting fight you have picked there, good luck with it!"? I don't think there would have been great political support in the US, having just been more or less forced into a war with Japan, to go on at their own option and declare war on Germany too. In 1942 it seemed that the US had their hands more than full with just Japan.
But once you assume no invasion of Poland, and logically Britain stays out of the war at least a while, the US maybe stays out of Europe entirely, you are so far away from what actually happened, that it's hard to say how things might have gone down. Perhaps you are left with an enlarged Germany that covers most all of France, Austria, and Czechoslovakia, with Spain more or less an ally - Britain does not like it, but if the Germans had let things stand as they were just before the Polish invasion, I'm maybe missing something, but don't see who would attack the Third Reich, if they laid low for a while.
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.
Everything falls apart. It's one thing pose what-ifs about tactical issues, maybe even some of a strategic nature, but to trying to guess around THE pivotal event that underpins everything else is... it isn't even a case of orgasmic mental masturbation.
Quote:
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.
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.
...
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, Napoleon was fighting a very different kind of war, where most losses were from disease and starvation and not battles. Even though Borodino was the single bloodiest battle in history to date.
What killed Napoleon's army was that he allowed himself to be goaded into having to return from Russia by the same road he took in - and in those times, the invading army had to feed off the land. Can't eat the same chicken twice.
But the main problem there was not winter. It was a major issue, sure, and one of the major contributors to attrition. But this was not why Napoleon turned back. He was unable to destroy the Russian willingness to fight by taking Moscow, and he probably realized he'd be unable to destroy them even if he could take St Petersburg. They would draw him further and further inside their country, watching his army melt like a snowball from disease and hunger and desertion. His biggest problem here was not the winter, as bad as it impacted him, it was the distances involved and the fact that the Russians refused to give up the fight. If the summer was twice as long, he'd been drawn twice as far with still much more room to go. Russia is just too large.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWiseWino
Everything falls apart. It's one thing pose what-ifs about tactical issues, maybe even some of a strategic nature, but to trying to guess around THE pivotal event that underpins everything else is... it isn't even a case of orgasmic mental masturbation.
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.
While winter certainly made things worse, it was not the winter that stopped Germans at Moscow and Stalingrad, but the stiff Soviet resistance. Barbarossa was most of time running behind schedule even when taking June 22 as the start date. And the initial difference was not two months, but more like a month and a week - it was originally scheduled for May 15th, before the Balkans.
If anything, winter probably made it easier to transport supplies. As I understand, in fall and spring Russian roads tended to turn into a sea of deep mud. At least back then they did. Winter will at least freeze that mud.
Here's a modern photo of a road in Siberia after some rain. I can only assume that back in 1941, a whole lot of roads in the European part of the country looked very similar in fall and spring:
Last edited by Ummagumma; 01-14-2016 at 08:57 PM..
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.
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.
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.
