Can Germany be stopped early on?

[Sleight of Hand]

How feasible will it be to stop Germany before the world goes to war? Is it possible for the political will to be there?

At each point before Danzig -- re-entering the Rhineland, annexing the Sudetenland, the Anschluss with Austria -- will it be possible for France or the British to intervene? For example, given that the game is quite 'sandboxy' I love the idea of France staging a limited invasion of Germany when Hitler orders troops into the Rhineland, which (I believe) was the first 'open' breach of the terms of Versailles. The outcome could then force a coup in Berlin, as a humiliated, defeated Nazi government would perhaps be less likely to maintain the political good will of either the population or the non-Nazi ruling elite.

A Germany then reverting to a quasi-democratic, slightly more centrist government could eventually come to terms with the French and oppose the Soviet Union. Perhaps there could even be the possibility of an imperial restoration?

Either way, I hope scenarios such as this will be possible, as I like the idea of removing the Nazis from power at their first attempt at expansion. Surely it must be possible, even if politically unpopular?

 

[Denkt]

Germany at the start of the game (1936) is very weak. However world tension should block the democracies from attacking it early on. If you can attack Germany in the 30s it is probably a good idea to do so.

 

[tazaaron]

While I'm sure it's possible but rather unlikely this is a war game of Ww2 so I don't think you will see it happen often or at all.

 

[Tasmosunt]

France was in no condition to intervene in 1936, if the game does allow for it to be done it should have major consequences.

 

[neusaap]

What denkt said, France wouldn't be able to intervene unless something else happened, (The Soviets however...)

 

[Shade205]

As you said its a sand box game so I am hoping that France and or Great Britain can step in and declare war for Germany when it violates the Versailles. HOWEVER the sooner they do this the more punishing it should be for the allies. Needs to be some incentive to waiting and some punishment for not waiting otherwise in multiplayer it will be war everytime the Rhineland is reoccupied

 

[Sleight of Hand]

Yeah, I mean obviously I think this outcome should be the exception rather than the rule, but I do think it should be possible. It's very unlikely that Great Britain should ever want to intervene until Germany declares war on one of its larger neighbors, such as France or Poland, but I do think that France - assuming certain domestic conditions are in place - should be able to rebuke Germany once they tear up the Treaty of Versailles and start openly re-arming and mobilizing en masse.

 

[Krask]

Why would French opposition to the reoccupation of the Rhineland cause the Nazis to lose support, if anything it would strengthen the German popular opinion that the Anglo-French Imperialists were intent on keeping Germany down.

If anything it would increase the chance of a coup in France as at the time the army weren't really that enthusiastic about declaring an aggressive war so soon after the horrors of the first, especially over something as belligerant as trying to deny Germany's rights to self determination. (as was also the case with the sudetenland, austria and the Danzig corridoor).

As evidenced by your statement about German 'expansionism' you forget that 90% of what Hitler 'conquered' was part of the German empire only 20 years prior and 'stolen' by the treaty of Versailles.

 

[BBBD316]

Well I think that with France's instability with the Popular Front such an act may cause someone like Georges Bonnet to take over the Premiership, this would have meant France accepting Western Europe as their sphere and allowing Germany to have Central and Eastern Europe.

Also the French would not try to get in an arms race with Germany, without the French the Brits would not have got involved on the continent, well unless the Russians got into bed with them.

 

[Caesar15]

I am sure the allies can intervene early on, but the consequences get higher the earlier it is. So France for example can intervene in Rheinland, but they would suffer a lot of national unity loss/party popularity loss. Or maybe France and/or Britian can guarantee Czechoslovakia's independence and stop anything there. Or maybe the Soviet's will side with the allies. Lots of options here.

 

[TheCrimsonMajor]

I believe it was SMEP for HoI2 that offered event chains at each stage of German expansion with the historical option and an alternative. The AI had something like a 1%-5% chance of selecting the alternative option each time, but it would occasionally result in situations like Czechoslovakia refusing to give up the Sudetenland, and fighting, sometimes with support from Poland and the rest of the Allies. I found it very interesting.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

I am sure the allies can intervene early on, but the consequences get higher the earlier it is. So France for example can intervene in Rheinland, but they would suffer a lot of national unity loss/party popularity loss. Or maybe France and/or Britian can guarantee Czechoslovakia's independence and stop anything there. Or maybe the Soviet's will side with the allies. Lots of options here.

The problem with this in earlier games was that Czechoslovakia was handled by events rather than an actual war, and so an Allied guarantee on her was useless.

 

[BBBD316]

Yeah a couple of HOI3 mods gave the Czechs the option to fight. Was most annoying when you have moved your forces to face Poland to have the Czechs just start towards Berlin.

 

[MajorHeartfire]

There should be a way for the Allies to intervene militarily, but I doubt France attacking after Germany re-armed the Rhineland would be nearly as effective at gathering international support (such as from the United States - eventually) as it would be with France attacking after Germany invades Poland. I don't know all of the opinions well enough, but didn't a few of the world leaders believe that German reoccupation of the Rhineland was inevitable anyway? Even in the modern world, various nations announce disgust at certain things that they knew would happen - then they move on and make sure that if the pattern of aggression continues, they have a backup plan.

As much as this is a history game (even for such a small period of time), there should always be the ability to explore the other possibilities. If Paradox doesn't do it, I am absolutely positive one of the many amazing modders of these games will - looking at you Historical Plausibility Project!

 

[Adonnus]

Why would French opposition to the reoccupation of the Rhineland cause the Nazis to lose support, if anything it would strengthen the German popular opinion that the Anglo-French Imperialists were intent on keeping Germany down.

Because one of the whole premises of Hitler's rise to power is he promises to reverse Germany's WW1 fortunes, make them strong again and undo Versailles. By failing in the Rhineland he is seen as a weak and useless leader who can't deliver any of that. If France made it clear that, in some way, their action was clearly because a dictatorial government had reoccupied the Rhineland instead of the Weimar, and that they would accept the latter with consultation and end Versailles, the Nazi downfall would be even faster with a few choice words as Germans sought to unburden themselves of a useless government. Or at the very least the generals did not want another war to break out. Besides it's not like even Hitler himself was sure of the outcome, I remember him saying something along the lines of "The 48 hours after we entered the Rhineland were the most terrifying of my life. If France had decided to enter the area and force us out we would have had no choice but to withdraw"

 

[Krask]

Because one of the whole premises of Hitler's rise to power is he promises to reverse Germany's WW1 fortunes, make them strong again and undo Versailles. By failing in the Rhineland he is seen as a weak and useless leader who can't deliver any of that. If France made it clear that, in some way, their action was clearly because a dictatorial government had reoccupied the Rhineland instead of the Weimar, and that they would accept the latter with consultation and end Versailles, the Nazi downfall would be even faster with a few choice words as Germans sought to unburden themselves of a useless government. Or at the very least the generals did not want another war to break out. Besides it's not like even Hitler himself was sure of the outcome, I remember him saying something along the lines of "The 48 hours after we entered the Rhineland were the most terrifying of my life. If France had decided to enter the area and force us out we would have had no choice but to withdraw"

If there was no coup when Germany invaded Poland and was thus declared war upon by France and the whole commonwealth then there would be even less of a backlash if hostilities were caused by something as supported by the people as retaking control of Germany's own Rhineland. Hell he even declared war on the Soviet Union AND the USA and there was no successful ousting.

As was already said, nobody really wanted war, especially not France, not over something as petty as the Rhineland. France was dealing with serious internal issues and starting an offensive war on Germany as opposed to the 'Defensive' war after Danzig would have caused a revolution in France, not Germany. Bare in mind most of the world was still feeling the great depression.

You also think the French army would willingly be thrown into another war of aggression after the damage the first war had caused? That kind of decision making caused a communist revolution in Russia only 20 years prior...

I'd say anything before Czechoslovakia's total annexation wouldn't be justifiable to Frances population as a reason to waste millions of lives and indebt an already struggling nation and so any declaration of war would be met with a swift ousting of the clearly unhinged leadership.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

If there was no coup when Germany invaded Poland and was thus declared war upon by France and the whole commonwealth then there would be even less of a backlash if hostilities were caused by something as supported by the people as retaking control of Germany's own Rhineland. Hell he even declared war on the Soviet Union AND the USA and there was no successful ousting.

Apples and oranges, surely?

The invasion of Poland was a major - and very rapid - success, as were the subsequent invasions of France, Belgium and the Netherlands. When France - Germany's nemesis, lest we forget - capitulated after six weeks, Hitler and his generals couldn't believe their luck, and the general populace in Germany must surely have felt the same. This was seen very much as Hitler's gamble (many of his generals thought an attack on France that early on was suicidal) and it was during this period that he was seen as a brilliant (or at least very lucky) military strategist, and so the generals lacked the political will to challenge him directly -- something that arguably proved Germany's downfall later. However, at this time (1940-41) Hitler is viewed as the man behind Germany's huge military successes, which have been achieved with minimal losses. There's no way anyone is going to mount a coup against him.

Likewise, the initial invasion of the Soviet Union was judged to be a huge success and the Soviets nearly folded. The momentum was very much with the Germans at that point.

But in 1936? The Nazis were unpopular, untested and, as others have mentioned, utterly unsure as to how the Allies would respond to Hitler's increasingly rash demands. Everything was a gamble, and it was nothing short of a miracle that Hitler managed to achieve everything he did before September '39 without Germany being dragged into a major war.

So, if the Rhineland is re-militarized and the Germans are rebuffed and sent packing back to Berlin, do you really think the Nazis would have been able to remain in power for long? The Nazi state in 1936 was not what it was in, say, 1944. If Hitler's first attempt at standing up to the authors of Versailles is judged a complete failure, then that has to have a knock-on effect. Nothing that came after it can still happen.

Honestly, I think that if (and I accept it is a big if, given the mood in Europe at the time) the Allies has stood up to Hitler at the very start and 'nipped it in the bud' then the Nazis would have been toast in the long run.

 

[adam_grif]

If there was no coup when Germany invaded Poland and was thus declared war upon by France and the whole commonwealth then there would be even less of a backlash if hostilities were caused by something as supported by the people as retaking control of Germany's own Rhineland. Hell he even declared war on the Soviet Union AND the USA and there was no successful ousting.

Various members of the military were plotting to have Hitler removed/killed to prevent war. It failed, but there was opposition. The reason people say that it would be worse earlier was because Hitler's reputation and support was much higher in 1939 than in 1936. By September '39 Hitler had demonstrated that he was a world class statesman with balls of steel and had done the following:

• Successfully waved his dick in the face of the former Entente powers by rearming openly and remilitarizing the Rhineland
• Achieved the long held pan-Germanic dream of Greater Germany by union with Austria
• Negotiated a settlement with France and the UK granting the Germans the Sudetenland
• Subsequently ignored that settlement and just annexed the rest of the Czech lands / set up a puppet state in Slovakia, without provoking a military response

His stock in '39 was huge, and even then there were factions wanting to oust him to prevent war. In 1936 he had achieved nearly nothing of note beyond siezing power in Germany itself. If the French pushed back hard against the token force reoccupying the Rhineland, and Hitler was forced to back down, he would look very weak. It is not guaranteed that he would have been "taken care of", but it is somewhat likely that he would have fallen victim to internal politicking after suffering a humiliation and having his bluff called.

 

[Adonnus]

If there was no coup when Germany invaded Poland and was thus declared war upon by France and the whole commonwealth then there would be even less of a backlash if hostilities were caused by something as supported by the people as retaking control of Germany's own Rhineland. Hell he even declared war on the Soviet Union AND the USA and there was no successful ousting.

As was already said, nobody really wanted war

That's the thing though. The German people don't want another war: they just see Hitler's gambles and successes as "proof" that an expansionist foreign policy can work. They aren't aggressively nationalist, clamouring for war. You are thinking of 1871 Germany here. Most of the negative effects of Versailles have already been long gone, and the reparations were pretty much a non-issue up to 1929 when the Weimar economy was still doing well. Everyone still remembers WW1 and practically everyone knows someone who lost a relative or themselves had a relative who was killed.

The only way Germans, including generals, are willing to tolerate an expansionist new-old foreign policy is if it goes swimmingly well for them. Which, until 1941, it did. I understand your logic but the thing about 1939 was that "Grossdeutschland" had already spent years in the making and the German people were well aware of Germany's new military might. In 1941 they had something close to continental hegemony and belief had long ago been suspended in 1940 by the stunning German feat of arms there.

In 1936 though, there is no possibility of Germany winning against France in any war. You assume several times that this act would start a war, but the reality is that the German army wasn't strong enough to win - not large enough, not enough equipment, even in 1938 the Wehrmacht could be considered disorganised and unprepared for war let alone two years before that. Nobody really cares about undoing Versailles enough to want an actual shooting war so they get rid of Hitler. Elsewise Hitler backs down and is seen as a loser. Either way the Nazis lose.

Saying that there would be a "revolution" in France over this kind of military action - a pretty minor move in the grand scheme of things designed to enforce Versailles is just overstating possibilities. Can you imagine many people wanting a revolution to protect Nazi Germany and stop France from enforcing its dominance? Sure, nobody wants a war - but everyone knows there won't be one and that 1936 Germany is just a crippled little boy. You also underestimate the lengths governments can go to of their own accord with military action with few consequences for public opinion - remember Iraq, that thing with millions of protesters against? There sure wouldn't have been millions of protesters against a French intervention in the Rhineland, but people bit their nails and held their breath with Iraq and waited years for results. No revolutions.

So, if the Rhineland is re-militarized and the Germans are rebuffed and sent packing back to Berlin, do you really think the Nazis would have been able to remain in power for long? The Nazi state in 1936 was not what it was in, say, 1944. If Hitler's first attempt at standing up to the authors of Versailles is judged a complete failure, then that has to have a knock-on effect. Nothing that came after it can still happen.

Honestly, I think that if (and I accept it is a big if, given the mood in Europe at the time) the Allies has stood up to Hitler at the very start and 'nipped it in the bud' then the Nazis would have been toast in the long run.

Nailed it.

 

[benice1234]

I doubt the UK would ever, in any scenario starting in 1936, intervene after the remilitarization of the Rhineland. The Commons didn't really give a hoot about the whole affair. A lot of Brits didn't even know the Rhein was demilitarized.