Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

If France and Britain never delcared war on Germany for attacking Poland, what would have been Germa

Discussion in 'Alternate History' started by ww2fan, Oct 6, 2011.

  1. ww2fan

    ww2fan Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    1
    Would Hitler consildiate and build up his army in a faster scale next to invade the USSR in 1940 or 1941 given that this would be the best time to attack the USSR before it becomes a more formidable opponent in the future or would Hitler surely just have behaved just as he did and just when did? That is to say in the spring and summer of 1940 Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, and France would've been invaded and conquered to establish the preconditions needed for the conflagration in the East.
     
  2. DangerousBob

    DangerousBob New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    11
    I am going to repost something I wrote earlier only because I spent 20 minutes typing it to end up on page 35 of a topic.

    This is one of those "how could Germany have won the war questions." And I feel this answers your question.

    The defeat of France is the greatest military achievement in warfare. Two World Powers of about equal strength on paper - and the one conquers the other with almost no casualties. This "miracle" allowed Germany to acquire much need infrastructural. It allowed them to fight 3 World Powers simultaneously.
    Its argued that Germany did not want to go to war with England and France in 1939. That they were still "gathering their amrs" so to speak. They thought they would call the bluff of France and the UK with Poland. The idea was Germany would, one by one, take its neighboring nations and build up its forces. Probably to start their "war" in the late 40s or so. I forget who it was, but a high ranking German Official admitted after the war that if the UK or France had attacked them while they were in Poland, they could have defeated Germany relatively quickly..

    I love using Starcraft as an example. Everyone starts off with a Command Center and no fighting troops. The first thing you do is build workers; SCVs. The SCVs gather minerals and gas. The more SCVs you build, the more minerals and gas you have, the more soldier and tanks you can make to fight. You eventually get enough minerals to build another Command Center, where you can get more minerals and gas etc..

    So in the beginning of the game the player has to make a gamble.

    Option 1: Do I make a lot of SCVs and try to expand to another Command Center first?
    or
    Option 2: Do I immediately put all my resources into building combat units as fast I can?

    The disadvantage of the first option is that you are open to attack early, but the advantage is that you have a powerful economy ready to mass produce equipment for the "late game". The advantage of the second option is that you can "Blitz" other players who have not built up armies or defenses. However, the disadvantage of opinion 2 is that if you don't win with your Blitz, you don't have the economy to carry a long match in the "late game".

    Basically when the UK and France declared war on Germany after Poland, they forced Germany into going with option number 2 above... This Blitz was very successful at first against France. But the German economy and military was still not set up to fight a long war against the economic monster that is the United States (supplying the UK & USSR). Thus, Germany turned to its hated, but resource rich, foe - Russia.

    If Germany could push Russia out of Europe and take their resources, then would Hitler have an infrastructure to defeat the Western Allies.

    Germany's biggest enemy was its lack of resources to fuel her war.

    The attack on Russia could not wait. Russia was just recovering from the Winter war and the Purge. This is the weakest point to hit Russia. Waiting would only allow the Russians to get stronger as they industrialized. Hitler and Stalin knew they would eventually fight each other, so it was a race against the clock.

    The rest is history. So my friend, you see Germany in a way actually did the best that they could given the cards handed to them. The fact that they defeated France is pretty mind blowing really. From the start, Hitler thought France would actually be where most of the fighting would commence!

    My opinion using the power of hindsight would be if Germany could have somehow mastered a plan to get Russia and the Allies to fight each other. Or have gotten another World Power as an ally (who, I am not sure). The most realistic option that "might" have helped change things would have been to get Japan to invade the USSR. But it really did depend on them defeating Russia. And Hitler knew it. Which is why they "couldn't give up" on the Eastern Front. And why immediately after Stalingrad they desperately pushed into Kursk.

    The logic was:
    No beating Russia = No beating America.

    Once Kursk failed and the Allies landed on Normandy the following year, Germany was faced with a two front war. Its fear from the beginning. All this and that doesn't even get into dealing with the American development of the Bomb that Germany would eventually have to face no matter what she did in Europe.
     
  3. Carronade

    Carronade Ace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    3,306
    Likes Received:
    860
    Hitler's fundamental goal was to expand eastwards and seize living space and resources for the German Reich. From his point of view, fighting in the west was a diversion from the real objective. There was some satisfaction in paying France back for 1918, but he always hoped to reach an accommodation with Britain on the basis of respecting each other's sphere of influence. So if he felt confident that the western allies would not intervene, he would focus on the east.

    Securing the coal, oil, farmland, industries etc. of western Russia would put him in a stronger position to deal with Britain or France if they did become hostile at some point in the future.

    Does your scenario mean that Britain and France never give their guarantee of protection to Poland? Or just that they wimp out when the time comes to act? If they were not committed to protecting Poland, Hitler might not feel the need to counter them with the non-aggression pact with the USSR. That pact also involved dividing up Poland and much of eastern Europe. Without the pact, Hitler would presumably plan to take all of Poland, which might bring a reaction from the Soviets. If Germany and Russia did not drift into conflict immediately, there would likely be a period of increasing tensions and competition for influence in the Baltic states and Balkans - but before too long there would be open war between Hitler and Stalin.
     
  4. von_noobie

    von_noobie Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,079
    Likes Received:
    73
    Interesting and based off of this WI possible that UK, France and Germany could end up fighting beside one another against Russia.

    Assuming the only changes in history are that France and the UK don't declare war then I still see Stalin going after the Baltic states and Finland. The UK and France and even Italy were all prepared to help Finland but with the UK and France being at war against Germany made any meaningful help virtually impossible. With no war against Germany the UK and French fleets may be able to enter the Baltic with little worry beyond that of the Russian fleet or even more easily land a force at Petsamo or/and Murmansk.

    Should the conflict between Russia and the UK/French/Finnish last is another matter, Could force Stalin into a stale mate or could end up with the Finnish gaining territory. Weather they join the Germans in future against Russia is another matter.

    As for Germany against Russia, Ideally most of the generals would probably prefer to wait till they are stronger or till Hitler carks it. That would mean 1945 or later and would depend entirely on Germany's tank development, Unless they switch it to Pz IV's at the least then they would be in a bad position with Russia having re equipped their forces with fleets of KV-1's and T-34's.

    Assuming on the equipment level they can go one on one then they should have a better chance, Germany's training tended to be better and not having a complete blockade of international resources would aid their industry.
     
  5. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237


    If Germany could push Russia out of Europe and take their resources, then would Hitler have an infrastructure to defeat the Western Allies.



    Once Kursk failed and the Allies landed on Normandy the following year, Germany was faced with a two front war. Its fear from the beginning. All this and that doesn't even get into dealing with the American development of the Bomb that Germany would eventually have to face no matter what she did in Europe.



    REPLY:

    The first one is more than questionable,because,it would take Germany at least 10 years and enormous investments,wgich it could not afford,to have the first returns from the SU.

    The second one :may I observe that Germany was already faced with a virtual two front war even before Barbarossa .
     
  6. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    Indeed Germany might have a significant problem digesting the part of the former Soviet Union that it planned to conquer had that operation gone successfully. Hitler's tendency to base his economy on a massive Ponzy scheme would eventually come home to roost.
     
  7. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    It's very likely that Germany would never have gone to Scandinavia without a western war, all documents point the decision was made because Hitler believed the British would not respect neutrality and the Norwegians were too "weak" to enforce respect, historically the German invasion "trumped" an allied one by a handful of hours. Stalin going for Bessarabia without the Germans busy in France was nearly sure to trigger the war, Bessarabia is way too close to Ploetsi for confort, it's also likely that without Allied intervention the Germans would have gotten the share of the Baltics defined in the original pact putting them some 200Km closer to Leningrad. (I assume the OP leaves the Ribbentrop Molotov pact in place.

    Barring something happening in the Balkans, the historical "powderkeg off Europe", war with the USSR in 1940 or 1941, is my guess with the Germans lacking the French loot, and the combat experience they got gained in France, and the Soviets not having learned the lessons of the winter war, if it starts in winter, possibly as a reaction to Soviet demands on Finland, we are not likely to see the historical blitzkrieg.
     
  8. dude_really

    dude_really Doesn't Play Well With Others

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2014
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    3
    at first I thought this makes sense...if FR and Uk wld say ; sure take and split Poland but leave us in peace. ..and that that would be enough to save the Benelux and west scandinavia.

    But , had Hitler put full aggression attention on Russia, he STILL would have felt the danger of France with all its armour SO CLOSE to his Ruhr area.
    And with all the historic misery feelings towards france and vice versa...I don't think it is realistic to assume Hitler would have continued preparing (a year) for war against Stalin (which takes a year or two , even in optimistic german planning) and having france and britain in his back.
    France had to fall, one way or the other. And it was not just Hitler that thought like that...all of the Wehrmacht top brass adhered to this thought.
     
  9. von_noobie

    von_noobie Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,079
    Likes Received:
    73
    Yes and No, Need to take into account possible outcomes in French-British / USSR relations assuming the Winter War still takes place. With no conflict with Germany then France and the UK are all be able to freely move troops and supplies into Finland thus creating greater anger towards each other. The British-French would have to decide if they do attack

    1. attack when Germany is most vulnerable but then risking Russia becoming stronger or
    2. sit aside and possibly have Germany defeat Russia or
    3. do they wait and build up their forces until both Russia and Germany are in bad positions and try and take both out?
     
  10. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    6,162
    Likes Received:
    915
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    Without a victorious war in the West, Germany is in something of a dilemma. Even assuming there will be no war in the West, without the economic capacity (reduced some) of France and the other nations under German control they don't have the economic strength to attack Russia and win. It was largely captured materials that allowed the Wehrmacht to expand sufficiently to make an invasion of Russia viable. The Germans captured hundreds of thousands of motor vehicles for example. Without those the Wehrmacht was on its way to de-motorization because the German auto industry alone couldn't keep up with attrition, let alone expand military vehicle production enough to supply the Wehrmacht what they needed.
    French artillery, tanks, machineguns, and other weapons made up a substantial portion of many German infantry divisions in the months after France fell. The Dutch Philips company was supplying Germany almost a third of their vacuum tubes for electronic equipment. Without control of the Netherlands this could potentially be a major problem if they cut off exports.
    All of this, and more, are going to be major problems the Germans face in trying to go into Russia.
     
  11. Leif

    Leif New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hitler never wanted war in the West.
     
  12. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    Which was very generous of him .
     
  13. Leif

    Leif New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    0
    True. The UK and France committed suicide as world powers by backing Stalin's invasion of Poland in 1939.
     
  14. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    584
    Or not.
     
  15. Leif

    Leif New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    0
    The British and French empires were destroyed by World War II.
     
  16. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    584
    Or not.
     
  17. ShrekaldTrump

    ShrekaldTrump New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2016
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nah British empire finally collapsed in on itself after WW2 during suez crisis as ww2 had taken toll on resources and rationing was still taking place. I doubt however that the uk would join forces with Germany in Finland as there was still the feeling of dislike by the British public by a certain event 30 years ago.
     
  18. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    26,462
    Likes Received:
    2,208
    Hitler was more or less unsure to attack east until the Winter War. After that he believed it was a piece of cake.In some books he even thought he coud start 1940...After victory in the west he sure went berserk.
     
  19. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    45
    After Munich, you would think when Germany invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia, that England and France would lay down the hammer. Hitler claimed "no more territorial gains" and then sent his army in to occupy the rest of Czechoslovakia in brash violation of the agreement. Why was violating the Munich agreement alright, but not Poland?
     
  20. OhneGewehr

    OhneGewehr New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2016
    Messages:
    411
    Likes Received:
    28
    Location:
    Germany
    No, Mannerheim would have never joined Barbarossa if it was too risky. The soviet stamina was a surprise to everybody.
     

Share This Page