What if Hitler did NOT invade Poland in 1939? (Washington, Japan, USSR)
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.
I don't have a problem with that argument nor would I disagree with it. But for brevity sake that was as far as I wanted to take the argument. The fact that by applying better tactics also implies that German tanks were not overwhelmed by an technical superiority.
It was the quasi-personal attack that got you the Oh, Please..
My point is and remains regardless of the details of the argument is that these alt-history threads rely on such a rewrite of history that they become pointless.
Oh, I get it. You can be snide to another poster on this thread, but you can't handle it when you get a whiff of grapeshot. In other words, you can dish it out but not take it, right?
It was a simple statement on your part:
"As for German armor, nothing on either side was a match for German tanks during the onset of the war."
Not German tactics or German armor, but German tanks. And it's pretty much an insupportable statement.
"As for German armor, nothing on either side was a match for German tanks during the onset of the war."
Not German tactics or German armor, but German tanks. And it's pretty much an insupportable statement.
My own theory is that aggressors and parties that really want to win always have a big advantage. Parties that only want to sue for peace; not so much.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
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.
.
The Germans in 1939 had no idea they would so easily defeat France. As NJGoat says, Hitler got lucky in 1940. The German offense worked as well as planned but it could have gone the other way. Then it would have become a stalemate in which Germany alone, without any allies, would have faced The British Empire, the Commonwealth and the French Empire for years possibly.
And theoretically with the bulk of the German Army facing France, there was nothing to stop Stalin from eventually stabbing Hitler in the back.
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.
Here the theme is not for history. God alone knows how could unfold. so delusional theme
Winston Churchill: "The only thing that ever really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril."
Karl Donitz estimated he needed 300 U-boats to force Britain into submission. The estimate was based on 100 boats in port (repair, maintenance, crew rest, etc.), 100 in transit to or from areas of operation, and 100 operating in combat areas.
When war broke out, Donitz had 26 on patrol. The number of U-boats on patrol didn't hit 100 until August 1942. If he had had 100 on patrol in 1940, for instance, could that have forced the British to accept terms? I don't think anyone can say for a certainty. If they had failed to get the bulk of their troops out of Dunkirk, would they have been more open to an offer of terms short of surrender?
Neutralizing Britain need not have meant invasion and occupation. Terms could have included scrapping offensive weapons, such as their strategic bomber and submarine fleets, along with any manufacturing plants and equipment, for instance.
We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, never, never. Winston Churchill
I don't believe that Churchill would EVER have been 'more open to an offer of terms' thought I do believe that is what Hitler expected.
We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, never, never. Winston Churchill
I don't believe that Churchill would EVER have been 'more open to an offer of terms' thought I do believe that is what Hitler expected.
I'm just pointing out that neutralizing Britain need not have involved complete defeat (invasion and occupation). Terms could have left them their sovereignty, and their navy (the surface fleet, at least), untouched. Regardless, it wouldn't have been up to just Churchill - he wasn't a dictator.
I don't know if that scenario would have worked out or not. With sufficient submarines, Donitz believed it would. Churchill, himself, wrote that it was the only thing that really frightened him - personally, I see no reason to not take him at his word.
If a delay of the start of the war extended the reach of blitzkrieg, so that the British troops did not escape from Dunkirk, and allowed Donitz sufficient submarines to cut the lifeline between Britain and America, it would obviously have been a much more perilous situation.
Note also that if the war in the Pacific had proceeded on schedule, with a delay of the war in Europe, they could also have been confronted about the same time with the surrender to the Japanese at Singapore (Feb. 1942), as well as the loss of the Prince of Wales battleship and the Repulse battlecruiser in the South China Sea (Dec. 1941).
We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, never, never. Winston Churchill
I don't believe that Churchill would EVER have been 'more open to an offer of terms' thought I do believe that is what Hitler expected.
That speech was made in June of 1940. Fast forward to June 1943 and imagine that Germany has not invaded Russia and the USA is at war with Japan but not with Germany. The war in western Europe is in a stalemate. Britain is secure from invasion but does not have the means to invade France and defeat Germany on her own.
At this point you might start getting political pressure to find an accommodation with Germany. Churchill might oppose that and might prevail. Or he might lose the support of Parliament and be forced to resign as Prime Minister just as Chamberlain had to.
The Germans in 1939 had no idea they would so easily defeat France.
Let's review how we got here.
Hypothetical #1
Quote:
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.).
That fact is Hitler won, so to delay an invasion that would bring Britain and France into the war no matter when it began in order to be better prepared for a victory that was won by design, luck or divine intervention is immaterial if not oxymoronic (no offense intended).
That fact is Hitler won, so to delay an invasion that would bring Britain and France into the war no matter when it began in order to be better prepared for a victory that was won by design, luck or divine intervention is immaterial if not oxymoronic (no offense intended).
Please provide a source for your contention (at least I took it to be so) that Britain began to ramp up war production well before the start of the war. I provided a source that supported the contrary, which gives credence to the idea that if the war had been delayed, so would have been Britain's preparations for war.
Also, please explain how you can maintain "Hitler won", when Britain, supported by America, remained a strategic threat (resulting in a crushing bombing campaign and invasion), and he was never able to defeat the Soviets. Poland, France, and Norway were his only victories. He lost everywhere else.
Now, it might very well be true that, with a delay of the war, his chances might have been no better, or even worse. I'm simply claiming uncertainty on that score, leaving it as an open question. Are you claiming that you "know" otherwise?
I don't have a problem with that argument nor would I disagree with it. But for brevity sake that was as far as I wanted to take the argument. The fact that by applying better tactics also implies that German tanks were not overwhelmed by an technical superiority.
It was the quasi-personal attack that got you the Oh, Please..
My point is and remains regardless of the details of the argument is that these alt-history threads rely on such a rewrite of history that they become pointless.
The German tanks, due to superior tactics, did not usually face these technically superior tanks in the field.
They went around them & cut their supply lines and let the artillery deal with them.
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.
