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.
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.
These alt-histories, at least to me, are unfathomable because... well they are just so implausible.
Anyway you cut it, the invasion of Poland brings about the second world war, and Hitler had to invade Poland in order to attack the Soviet Union. There simply wasn't a way around it. Poland wasn't going to agree to a pact with Germany against the Soviets, and France and Great Britain weren't going to tolerate an invasion of Poland. As for waiting two or three years... well he certainly didn't need the time to defeat France and Great Britain and Stalin certainly wasn't sitting on his zhopa while he and Hitler pretended to be friends. So the only blunder that I can think of was taking the Sudetenland and calling it a day.
The scenario is about not invading Poland in 1939. It doesn't exclude invading later, however. Even just a one-year delay could have added significantly to Germany's military capabilities. With a delay, for instance, would Germany have developed a strategic bomber? Would they have increased the size of their U-Boat fleet?
Also, since Hitler believed that Britain and France would not declare war over Poland, that they did was clearly not part of Hitler's plan. If he had known they would declare war, would he still have invaded Poland in 1939?
The scenario is about not invading Poland in 1939. It doesn't exclude invading later, however. Even just a one-year delay could have added significantly to Germany's military capabilities. With a delay, for instance, would Germany have developed a strategic bomber? Would they have increased the size of their U-Boat fleet?
Also, since Hitler believed that Britain and France would not declare war over Poland, that they did was clearly not part of Hitler's plan. If he had known they would declare war, would he still have invaded Poland in 1939?
Don't forget that Britain and France were playing catch-up with Germany in terms of rearmament. An extra year would have benefited them more than Germany.
Don't forget that Britain and France were playing catch-up with Germany in terms of rearmament. An extra year would have benefited them more than Germany.
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.
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.
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. For example, Britain would have time to build more Spitfires which outmatched the German fighters. That might have disrupted the German offensive in the west. Russia would have more time to fix the problems in the Red Army that the Finnish war identified and could have put up a stronger resistance on the Eastern Front. And Germany didn't develop a strategic bomber during the war where the Allies did. Why would an extra year have made a difference? And without bases in France, more submarines would not have solved the problem of actually getting them out into the Atlantic.
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. For example, Britain would have time to build more Spitfires which outmatched the German fighters. That might have disrupted the German offensive in the west. Russia would have more time to fix the problems in the Red Army that the Finnish war identified and could have put up a stronger resistance on the Eastern Front. And Germany didn't develop a strategic bomber during the war where the Allies did. Why would an extra year have made a difference? And without bases in France, more submarines would not have solved the problem of actually getting them out into the Atlantic.
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. A year or two later, everyone would have advanced their capabilities - the question is who would have advanced the furthest. We do know that the Germans had advanced weapons in their pipeline that they failed to implement, due to resource conflicts, until it was too late.
If you read my previous post, you'll see that I still assume the fall of France - they were still stuck with an out-moded static war strategy that wouldn't have stood up to an even more heavily armored Blitzkrieg. And with more Spitfires, maybe the Battle of Britain never happens, with the emphasis switching to the Battle of the Atlantic, instead.
The Germans did develop strategic bomber prototypes, but diverted resources from their development due to other war demands. The same thing with their jet program. I'm not assuming only a one-year delay - could be longer.
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. A year or two later, everyone would have advanced their capabilities - the question is who would have advanced the furthest. We do know that the Germans had advanced weapons in their pipeline that they failed to implement, due to resource conflicts, until it was too late.
If you read my previous post, you'll see that I still assume the fall of France - they were still stuck with an out-moded static war strategy that wouldn't have stood up to an even more heavily armored Blitzkrieg. And with more Spitfires, maybe the Battle of Britain never happens, with the emphasis switching to the Battle of the Atlantic, instead.
The Germans did develop strategic bomber prototypes, but diverted resources from their development due to other war demands. The same thing with their jet program. I'm not assuming only a one-year delay - could be longer.
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.
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.
Still "The Man in the High Castle"?
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.
