Danzing or War: Danzing ? Should this be possible?

[EmperorTojo]

That's right what I'm talking about. Germany adopted some programs of getting ready for a future war by 1943 and after the WW2 was rendered a super evil warmonger. All the others did the same in no less extent and somehow (by winning the war, apparently) became the peacekeepers.

No one really wanted WW2, I think that is sort of what the appeasement policy constructed by Britain was all about. Arguably though, world would have been better off with a pre-emptive strike at Germany as early as 1933 (Poland approached France about this, but they weren't really feeling it at the time.)

 

[DicRoNero]

No one really wanted WW2, I think that is sort of what the appeasement policy constructed by Britain was all about. Arguably though, world would have been better off with a pre-emptive strike at Germany as early as 1933 (Poland approached France about this, but they weren't really feeling it at the time.)

Yeah, like the world gained much from a pre-emptive strike at Iraq just few years ago. I see no difference whatsoever.

 

[Porkman]

So, Porkman, what if bancruptcy would just make your officers run away excpect like NU/2% (the diehard loyals) or so? Would that be severe enough to make majors avoid it and at the same time not cripple china (on div-count steroids when compared to 3) so much that it becomes a insta-walkover?

I mean, wasnt every government corrupt and china just not in the position to afford it? I mean, it would kind of model corruption and disloyalty (due to lack of prize for commitment).

But you can't have China's NU be so low that China surrenders. This is the other problem with the concept of NU, China had very little, but they still refused to surrender.

 

[Porkman]

Yeah, like the world gained much from a pre-emptive strike at Iraq just few years ago. I see no difference whatsoever.

Different case. That said, a pre emptive strike on Germany in 1933 or 1937 would have been wrong. If German atrocities are prevented, then how are the atrocities associated with any war justifiable. It's shooting the suspect before they pull a gun.

Also, it must be hard to be have dual citizenship in Russia and Hitler's @!$︿＃＠％＆　at the same time.

 

[adam_grif]

No one really wanted WW2, I think that is sort of what the appeasement policy constructed by Britain was all about. Arguably though, world would have been better off with a pre-emptive strike at Germany as early as 1933 (Poland approached France about this, but they weren't really feeling it at the time.)

Nobody wanted a "World War", true enough. But Hitler did want a free hand to conquer in the East, which they were unwilling to grant. So instead, he sought to pacify the East temporarily to eliminate the principal obstacle to his expansion plans. The great irony being that war against the British Empire with the looming threat of American support made the economic limitations of the Axis abundantly clear, driving them to accelerate their drive eastwards to secure what they needed for self sufficiency.

That's right what I'm talking about. Germany adopted some programs of getting ready for a future war by 1943 and after the WW2 was rendered a super evil warmonger. All the others did the same in no less extent and somehow (by winning the war, apparently) became the peacekeepers.

Saying that economy of National Socialist Germany would have collapsed without the war is like saying that massive increase of German wealth by 1938 happened because of the Germans having produced some tanks and planes, as if those are bread and butter. Neither makes sense. The economy would collapse only in case of blockade, since Germany itself had very little share of the resources required to run its factories, the rest was brought from the outside.

The economy of Germany was being geared towards the waging of an imminent war (circa 1938-1939). They were burning through stockpiles at an alarming rate during those years with no way of securing what they needed to maintain those production levels even with external trade. Orders continued to increase and if war was not declared in that general time-frame, the only rational decision would be to reduce armaments production substantially to achieve something resembling sustainability. Even knowing nothing about the political or diplomatic situation of the pre-war era, the industrial activity of the Reich meant the writing was on the wall. Initial plans may have called for war readiness by 1943 or 1945 (from the naval perspective) but plans can and did change in the lead-up to the historical outbreak of the war.

 

[guillec87]

Nobody wanted a "World War", true enough. But Hitler did want a free hand to conquer in the East, which they were unwilling to grant. So instead, he sought to pacify the East temporarily to eliminate the principal obstacle to his expansion plans. The great irony being that war against the British Empire with the looming threat of American support made the economic limitations of the Axis abundantly clear, driving them to accelerate their drive eastwards to secure what they needed for self sufficiency.





The economy of Germany was being geared towards the waging of an imminent war (circa 1938-1939). They were burning through stockpiles at an alarming rate during those years with no way of securing what they needed to maintain those production levels even with external trade. Orders continued to increase and if war was not declared in that general time-frame, the only rational decision would be to reduce armaments production substantially to achieve something resembling sustainability. Even knowing nothing about the political or diplomatic situation of the pre-war era, the industrial activity of the Reich meant the writing was on the wall. Initial plans may have called for war readiness by 1943 or 1945 (from the naval perspective) but plans can and did change in the lead-up to the historical outbreak of the war.

True, but some autors argue that Hitler wanted the war in 1938 when they still had an edge in numbers and technology or then wait until 1943, I remember reading Göring's responce to the declaration of war in 1939 something like 'are you all happy? now Ribbentrop will have the war he wanted so much'... and in that moment Göring was heard by the Führer and he was still clean from his adictions

 

[Oliver Twopence]

This thread reminds me of a recent quarrel between Peter Hitchens and a couple of posters on his blog, a summary of which (from Hitchens point of view) was posted by him today.

I could not possibly comment on the issue, due to my severely limited knowledge of the interwar period, but I feel the argument that Hitler would have settled for territorial gains in the east and left France (and Britain) alone, has real strength to it.

In any case, Mr. Hitchens is not a historian, so I take this with a few grains of salt - as I do all his opinions.

 

[lordvagrant]

Some options at 'Danzig or War' for Poland
95% Refuse (Historic->War). There should also be a chance for Great Britain to not honour guarantee. IF GB also offers Finland aid against USSR and fails to deliver, France may quit allies in fear/disgust and just hand over Alsace-Lorraine and hope Germany turns back east (this may give Germany the opportunity to go after Switzerland).
4% Concede Danzig. German troops move in to occupy corridor, and 'happen' to occupy additional parts of former Prussia (Torun? - the area Germany gets given cores on in game). 4-6 months later Germany forces/rigs a plebicite for Polish Silesia. At this time USSR can demand Belorussia.
1% Concede, and request Alliance. If Germany accepts, give up Danzig. 4-6 months later rigged plebicite for other Prussian areas, but get to keep Silesia. If Alliance rejected, as above.
AI chance levels could be weighted by threat levels/confidence in guarantees.

After Polish Crisis, Germany moves it's diplomatic campaign west to other areas with German speakers.

To throw another firecracker into the mix, nationalism in British India could be flared up, distracting GB from having the will to confront Germany at the same time.

 

[v1989]

To throw another firecracker into the mix, nationalism in British India could be flared up, distracting GB from having the will to confront Germany at the same time.

The earlier decolonization of Africa would be more fun.

 

[Minodrin]

First of all, I believe that Paradox should add in multiple routes to war, that lead to different alliances and scenarios. Quite honestly, if someone wants WW2 as it is, there's the 1939 bookmark for that. The 1936 bookmark has always been about alternate history.

Here are some scenarios that I see as somewhat probable.
1a & 1b - The Allies declare war on Germany when it attempts to destroy Czechoslovakia, either before or after the Sudetenland-transfer.
2a - The Allies declare war on Germany when it invades Poland with Danzig as the Casus Belli
2b - Same as 2a, except this time Germany and the USSR, leaders of two opposing world ideologies, sign a non-aggression pact and aid each other (unrealistic, yes I know).
2c - If Poland caves in over Danzig, Allies declare war when Germany tries to puppet Poland six months later.
3a - Allies declare war on the USSR if the Winter War lasts too long.
3b - Same as 3a, except this time the Allies and Germany sign a non-aggression pact and aid each other in attacking the USSR (Poland might be a German puppet at this time).
4 - Having taken everything else that is German (except South-Tirol), war between the Allies and Germany starts when Germany demands the Lothringen.
5 - If Germany and the Allies are at war, and the year is after 1942, the USSR invades Germany.
6 - A random war erupts over something stupid in the Balkans.

 

[sgt.stickybomb]

6 - A random war erupts over something stupid in the Balkans.

ridiculous that has never happened before

 

[v1989]

6 - A random war erupts over something stupid in the Balkans.

ridiculous that has never happened before

Perhaps Third Balkan War? Turkey remained neutral during the war, but what if they wanted to recreated Ottoman Empire?

 

[Suaske666]

There would still be war, mein kampf and Molotov-ribentropt pact are undeniable proofs.

Edit: mein kampf as proof because hitler describes war and goals about future of poland, which are impossible to attain without war.

You've not read mein kampf

 

[Jazumir]

But you can't have China's NU be so low that China surrenders. This is the other problem with the concept of NU, China had very little, but they still refused to surrender.

Maybe, there should be special war-goals, (this is gonna be sort of borderline PI-policies) for the germans against the soviets and the japanese against the chinese, that require more than the usual ´vp´ (if those are still - i´d prefer them be replaced with tangible assets, like factories, MP etc.) share for a surrender or even outright make surrendering impossible. I´d really not like going into depth as for the reasons for that - they should be pretty obvious to most members of this forum, anyways.

 

[Secret Master]

And unless Paradox announces the inclusion of unmentionables in the game, we won't be discussing them. Let's make sure we avoid these discussions.

 

[Jazumir]

I´d like to point out that my above proposal is one, that could be implemented into the game without much mention of such things. They could just be wargoals with such outragiously high territorial demands, that no-one, under any circumstances, would agree to those, even when thouroughly beaten ; without any mention of other reasons, as to why surrendering to these war-goals is impossible. Simply call them ´total conquest´ or somesuch.

In EU-terms, they´d be wargoals with a 101%WS requirement - a game-breaker for EU, but workable (and even plausible) for HoI.

 

[DPKdebator]

Caving in was broken in HOI3, instead of giving Poland the corridor, it just gives the very very skinny Danzig province to Germany, and it doesn't look pretty.

 

[v1989]

Caving in was broken in HOI3, instead of giving Poland the corridor, it just gives the very very skinny Danzig province to Germany, and it doesn't look pretty.

Are you sure? I think it gives four/five provinces.

 

[EmperorTojo]

Caving in was broken in HOI3, instead of giving Poland the corridor, it just gives the very very skinny Danzig province to Germany, and it doesn't look pretty.

If true it could always be modded. Not that I ever saw them cave in.

 

[frolix42]

No serious historian uses Mein Kampf as evidence, as it is not written by Hitler (he dictated it) and it is not edited by him, and it is made as propaganda book made to win votes.

You don't need Mein Kampf as evidence, the bizarre and belligerent history of Germany 1933-1945 is proof enough, but it wouldn't be wrong to take note of it. Ironically given his other flaws, Hitler was a rare politician who followed through with promises and Hitler's stated vision for Germany, outlined in Mein Kampf, was "expand or die". Equally obvious in retrospect is that it was a flawed and morally wrong vision.

There would not have been war in 1939 had Poland given Danzig to Germany, Germany did not want war in 1939 and both Germany and Soviet Union wanted strong Poland between them to slow down enemy attack. And remember Molotov-Rippentrop pact never was agreement that would split Poland between SU and Germany, it was agreement to put Poland under their Sphere of Influence. But things went differently.

You're right that the German leadership did not want war with UK or France in 1939, but if Poland had given Danzig to Germany war would only have been postponed until sometime in the 1940s. It depends if Paradox wants to script events for a short-sighted and pacifistic Great Britain and France.

This idea that Germany would've left Poland to the Poles if only they had given up the Danzig corridor is very misguided. The programs Germany implemented in the early 1940s for expansion to the east are profoundly disturbing and would fall under forbidden topics on this forum. But whatever they were, they weren't improvised after 01 SEP 1939.

Adam Tooze's "The Wages of Destruction"

Probably the most illuminating book on World War 2 I've ever read.

Germany in 1939 had 99% employment and its industrial output became 2-nd largest in the world slightly behind USA( in 1933 it was 8 places below).

This is not so remarkable with German economic planners, with the power and control of a police state, overheating the national economy in preparation for an imminent war.

Its military machine was gearing, with German High command projection of optimal time to develop army will need to wait until 1943.

By the time of the Molotov-Ribbentop Pact, Germany had to go to war (or partially De-mobilize which is rather unthinkable) or it's infrastructure would've fractured not long into the 1940s. Hence the initiation of Operation Barbarossa in June 1941 while the British Commonwealth was still alive and a threat.

Today ,under expertise that is, is a home movie filmed by Eva Braun in 1939 that seems to show the moment Hitler received diplomatic reply from British that they will not allow Danzig to be returned to Germany.
Hitler was furious. Movie is silent, but lips-reading experts discovered he said something like: "Idiots, do they understand this means Disaster for all." This will imply Hitler at least at the time of Danzig was not ready to start war.

I can't speak to the truth of this specific anecdote, but it seems to me to indicate that Hitler wanted to avoid fighting the Western powers for as long as possible in order to fight and defeat an isolated Soviet Union first.

To get away from the name calling, what do you guys think realistically would need to have happened for Germany to make a deal with poland and invite them into axis? If continuing to beat the war drum against communism could they perhaps tried different expansion routes?

The Nazi Party being overthrown. To use an EU4 analogy, asking the Nazis to abandon Lebensraum in Poland would be like asking under what circumstances Spain abandons colonization of the New World.