How would Germany react

[Sunforged General]

In game if the French go with the French-Soviet alliance, Germany doesn't bat an eye and goes on about its business as usual and attacks Poland, creating a border with the Soviets from which the Soviets can help France once Germany eventually attacks France. But this doesn't seem like a correct reaction.

Assuming everything in Germany stays the same, how would Hitler react to the French and Soviets reaffirming their Alliance to each other in 1939? Would Germany still attack Poland? Or maybe Belgium first to get at France while the Soviets are on the other side of Poland Still (though this would inevitably get the British involved too since they historically guaranteed Belgium's independence since the 1800s.)

Do you think maybe Germany would simply avoid the war all together, not wanting to fight France, the British Empire, and the Soviet Union all at once?

 

[Gondwana]

Poland may give Danzig

 

[Zeprion]

Hitler, being Hitler, had the ultimate goal of more living space for Germans aka territory conquest. So staying passive would be out of the question. He would need to act in some way, but just like in real life, he would act carefully testing the reactions of the Allies first.

He annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia because the Allies allowed it, he also expected the Allies to not declare war over Poland.

In the event of a Soviet-French Alliance the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact would be out of the question, that's for certain. You don't make deals with the friends of your enemies. Russia would have to be attacked, that was always the plan. As such, I assume Hitler would go on a 2 front war with France and Russia, just like World War I.

With the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact out of the question and seeing himself cornered, he would probably gurantee Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania as well as look to secure an alliance with Finland, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria.

Finland and Romania are tricky ones that also depend on other factors. If USSR doesn't have aggressive intentions towards Finland there's no reason for Finland to join the Axis.

If Romania doesn't lose Northern Transylvania to Hungary and Southern Dobruja to Bulgaria at Hitler's order there's no reason not to continue their neutrality with guarantees from France and Britain, the monarchy won't fall and there won't be Ion Antonescu's coup. Even more so. If Romania loses Northern Transylvania to Hungary and Southern Dobruja to Bulgaria at Hitler's order, but doesn't lose Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina to USSR, the most obvious choice for Romania would be to join the Allies / Comintern in order to take back Northern Transylvania and Hungary and Southern Dobruja. If everyone takes a piece just like in real life, but I think France would object, and USSR being France's ally would likely leave Romania alone, but if that would happen, it's also doubtful that Romania would join the Axis, given that Ion Antonescu's decision to join the Axis was based on his certainity that the Axis would win, with a French-Soviet alliance in sight that doesn't seem so clear anymore. The only case where Romania would certainly join the Axis is if USSR take Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina but Germany leave Northern Transylvania and Southern Dobruja as part of Romania.

Are the British excluded from this French - Soviet alliance? If yes, then Hitler could also try to sway the British to their side, or at least convince them to stay neutral. After all, communism was an equal threat to democracy in that time. The only reason the USSR and the Allies allied was pure convenience, they had a common enemy and their interests aligned, not some ideological closeness or friendship to one another. In fact, the most popular theory in the interwar was that USSR would start another great war.

Basically, Hitler's strategy could be summed up to: manouver and attack. This is what he tried to do in real life. This is what he would try to do in this timeline as well.

 

[Gondwana]

Hitler, being Hitler, had the ultimate goal of more living space for Germans aka territory conquest. So staying passive would be out of the question. He would need to act in some way, but just like in real life, he would act carefully testing the reactions of the Allies first.

He annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia because the Allies allowed it, he also expected the Allies to not declare war over Poland.

In the event of a Soviet-French Alliance the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact would be out of the question, that's for certain. You don't make deals with the friends of your enemies. Russia would have to be attacked, that was always the plan. As such, I assume Hitler would go on a 2 front war with France and Russia, just like World War I.

With the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact out of the question and seeing himself cornered, he would probably gurantee Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania as well as look to secure an alliance with Finland, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria.

Finland and Romania are tricky ones that also depend on other factors. If USSR doesn't have aggressive intentions towards Finland there's no reason for Finland to join the Axis.

If Romania doesn't lose Northern Transylvania to Hungary and Southern Dobruja to Bulgaria at Hitler's order there's no reason not to continue their neutrality with guarantees from France and Britain, the monarchy won't fall and there won't be Ion Antonescu's coup. Even more so. If Romania loses Northern Transylvania to Hungary and Southern Dobruja to Bulgaria at Hitler's order, but doesn't lose Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina to USSR, the most obvious choice for Romania would be to join the Allies / Comintern in order to take back Northern Transylvania and Hungary and Southern Dobruja. If everyone takes a piece just like in real life, but I think France would object, and USSR being France's ally would likely leave Romania alone, but if that would happen, it's also doubtful that Romania would join the Axis, given that Ion Antonescu's decision to join the Axis was based on his certainity that the Axis would win, with a French-Soviet alliance in sight that doesn't seem so clear anymore. The only case where Romania would certainly join the Axis is if USSR take Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina but Germany leave Northern Transylvania and Southern Dobruja as part of Romania.

Are the British excluded from this French - Soviet alliance? If yes, then Hitler could also try to sway the British to their side, or at least convince them to stay neutral. After all, communism was an equal threat to democracy in that time. The only reason the USSR and the Allies allied was pure convenience, they had a common enemy and their interests aligned, not some ideological closeness or friendship to one another. In fact, the most popular theory in the interwar was that USSR would start another great war.

Basically, Hitler's strategy could be summed up to: manouver and attack. This is what he tried to do in real life. This is what he would try to do in this timeline as well.

 

[kettyo]

Nothing changed much i think. Germany would still do the MR-Pact with the Soviets before attacking Poland. Stalin hated Poland much more than Germany so would have accepted. Then there's the sitzkrieg with Britain, probably all the same until the occupation of Norway.

After this point Germany probably wouldn't launch Barbarossa as they are surrounded plus Britain is also at war.

Stalin probably also didn't dare to attack a healthy Germany.

So sitzkrieg continues. British blockade would be largely ineffective as Germany can trade with both the Soviets and France in this scenario.

Maybe the sitzkrieg ends in some kind of conditional peace between Britain and Germany but i have no idea how they could get to such an agreement.

Probably with France in their pocket and Germany cornered the Soviets would be more aggressive with their own expansionism so the British situation would be very difficult in this scenario.

 

[Sunforged General]

Hitler, being Hitler, had the ultimate goal of more living space for Germans aka territory conquest. So staying passive would be out of the question. He would need to act in some way, but just like in real life, he would act carefully testing the reactions of the Allies first.

He annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia because the Allies allowed it, he also expected the Allies to not declare war over Poland.

In the event of a Soviet-French Alliance the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact would be out of the question, that's for certain. You don't make deals with the friends of your enemies. Russia would have to be attacked, that was always the plan. As such, I assume Hitler would go on a 2 front war with France and Russia, just like World War I.

With the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact out of the question and seeing himself cornered, he would probably gurantee Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania as well as look to secure an alliance with Finland, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria.

Finland and Romania are tricky ones that also depend on other factors. If USSR doesn't have aggressive intentions towards Finland there's no reason for Finland to join the Axis.

If Romania doesn't lose Northern Transylvania to Hungary and Southern Dobruja to Bulgaria at Hitler's order there's no reason not to continue their neutrality with guarantees from France and Britain, the monarchy won't fall and there won't be Ion Antonescu's coup. Even more so. If Romania loses Northern Transylvania to Hungary and Southern Dobruja to Bulgaria at Hitler's order, but doesn't lose Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina to USSR, the most obvious choice for Romania would be to join the Allies / Comintern in order to take back Northern Transylvania and Hungary and Southern Dobruja. If everyone takes a piece just like in real life, but I think France would object, and USSR being France's ally would likely leave Romania alone, but if that would happen, it's also doubtful that Romania would join the Axis, given that Ion Antonescu's decision to join the Axis was based on his certainity that the Axis would win, with a French-Soviet alliance in sight that doesn't seem so clear anymore. The only case where Romania would certainly join the Axis is if USSR take Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina but Germany leave Northern Transylvania and Southern Dobruja as part of Romania.

Are the British excluded from this French - Soviet alliance? If yes, then Hitler could also try to sway the British to their side, or at least convince them to stay neutral. After all, communism was an equal threat to democracy in that time. The only reason the USSR and the Allies allied was pure convenience, they had a common enemy and their interests aligned, not some ideological closeness or friendship to one another. In fact, the most popular theory in the interwar was that USSR would start another great war.

Basically, Hitler's strategy could be summed up to: manouver and attack. This is what he tried to do in real life. This is what he would try to do in this timeline as well.

In theory, Britain would have to be in France's camp, because if Germany ever attacks France, they have to go through Belgium to avoid the Maginot Line, but Belgium is under British protection (treaty of London 1839).
So if Germany attacks France and the USSR, Britain would be likely to join France. Either that or the Germans attack the Maginot line head on or try to attack through Switzerland, in either of those cases the German offensive probably fails.

 

[squid_hills]

Hitler would have gone to war with Poland and then France and Russia at the same time, strategic concerns be damned, because he needed to go to war to hide the fact that the Germany economy was built on a pillar of lies. The MEFO bills allowed him to rebuild the German military, but they destabilized the economy by hanging a millstone around its neck. In game, paying off the MEFO bills in 1936 is a minor inconvenience. In real life, it could very well have collapsed the economy. Because of how the bills were set up and how they interacted with the economy, Hitler needed a war to delay payment. He wanted a war over Austria, but didn't get it. He wanted a war over Czechoslovakia, but didn't get it. He wanted a war over Poland, and finally got it. If he had to wait another year or two to get his war, those bills would have blown up right in his face. The MEFO bills were a Ponzi scheme writ large, and as anyone can tell you, when the investors in a Ponzi scheme come looking for their money all at once, the whole thing falls apart immediately.

 

[Volodio]

Germany needed the war for economical reason. The country had been preparing for war since 1933, it couldn't back down now without economic and potential political collapse. So peace wasn't an option. Negotiations with both Britain and Poland might be possible though. Poland hated the Soviets and were completely opposed to the Red Army crossing the borders, even if it's to help against the Germans. France was even open to the possibility of letting the USSR invade Poland. So Poland might decide to simply negotiate with Hitler. Britain being so opposed to communism, getting their adhesion to the Anti-Soviet Pact or at least their neutrality would have probably been something Hitler would've tried to achieve. But their decisions would also depend on which diplomat Germany sent (if it's Ribbentrop, they would have certainly refused) and the situation in France. Whether the decision of the Soviet alliance is coming from a right government afraid for its national sovereignty or the Front Populaire actually agreeing with the Soviet ideology would greatly affect the British position. But Hitler was a big gambler, he might have decided to attack even if the odds were not in his favor, hoping that the world would stay neutral like they did before.

 

[Ffire]

Poland was playing a tricky diplomatic game, trying to preserve balance between soviet and german influence over themselves, and relying on the French + UK garantee to avoid a full scale war against those 2 majors.
If France, let say after a leftish win in an election, decided to ally with SU, Poland would not be protected anymore against SU, and would had no other choices than seek Germany's garanty, against probably territorial concessions and military access. Poland would de facto became a satellite of the Reich. That would be logical, the 2nd reich during WW1 already recreated a polish state, and Poland was very afraid of SU after the 1920's war with them.

Hitler would gain a border against SU, without triggering a war against UK, and a decent ally as Poland. France, with its defensive doctrine, had no chance to threaten Germany through the Siegfried line. Germany could start its push earlier, without having suffered any casualties, against the same Red army who miserably failed against Finland during the winter war (that winter war would have been btw a nice casus belli). Starting from polish eastern border, the werhmacht would have 300km less to walk through before reaching moscow.
Hitler would have conquer its lebensraum and who know what after.
I don't think that's a very great scenario for USSR.

 

[DukofDeth]

Don't forget that the Soviets were in the middle of their purges.

 

[Zauberelefant]

In game if the French go with the French-Soviet alliance, Germany doesn't bat an eye and goes on about its business as usual and attacks Poland, creating a border with the Soviets from which the Soviets can help France once Germany eventually attacks France. But this doesn't seem like a correct reaction.

Assuming everything in Germany stays the same, how would Hitler react to the French and Soviets reaffirming their Alliance to each other in 1939? Would Germany still attack Poland? Or maybe Belgium first to get at France while the Soviets are on the other side of Poland Still (though this would inevitably get the British involved too since they historically guaranteed Belgium's independence since the 1800s.)

Do you think maybe Germany would simply avoid the war all together, not wanting to fight France, the British Empire, and the Soviet Union all at once?

I don't think Stalin would have taken that alliance seriously, until a communist coup in France happened. His priority was to get rid of poland. A newly communist France might have been more of a burden than a capable ally against Germany. So, in any case, either with burgeoise france or commie France, he is stuck with an unreliable ally.
I think he would have jumped at the MR, because there it was clear who gains what.

 

[Sunforged General]

I don't think Stalin would have taken that alliance seriously, until a communist coup in France happened. His priority was to get rid of poland. A newly communist France might have been more of a burden than a capable ally against Germany. So, in any case, either with burgeoise france or commie France, he is stuck with an unreliable ally.
I think he would have jumped at the MR, because there it was clear who gains what.

Considering Stalin spent all of WW2 whining and begging for a second front vs Germany, that would be a reason to take this alliance seriously. France did have one of the finest land armies in the world, they especially with the British, would make an excellent second front vs Germany.

The reasons I listed are the exact reason why the USSR signed this alliance, If Stalin had put his greed in the sideline for a second and remembered that Germany was an existential threat to the USSRs existence, and a non aggression pact with Germany would be uterly worthless since Germany had already proven she never honors her agreements or word, he would have kept the alliance with France.

 

[Sunforged General]

Poland was playing a tricky diplomatic game, trying to preserve balance between soviet and german influence over themselves, and relying on the French + UK garantee to avoid a full scale war against those 2 majors.
If France, let say after a leftish win in an election, decided to ally with SU, Poland would not be protected anymore against SU, and would had no other choices than seek Germany's garanty, against probably territorial concessions and military access. Poland would de facto became a satellite of the Reich. That would be logical, the 2nd reich during WW1 already recreated a polish state, and Poland was very afraid of SU after the 1920's war with them.

Hitler would gain a border against SU, without triggering a war against UK, and a decent ally as Poland. France, with its defensive doctrine, had no chance to threaten Germany through the Siegfried line. Germany could start its push earlier, without having suffered any casualties, against the same Red army who miserably failed against Finland during the winter war (that winter war would have been btw a nice casus belli). Starting from polish eastern border, the werhmacht would have 300km less to walk through before reaching moscow.
Hitler would have conquer its lebensraum and who know what after.
I don't think that's a very great scenario for USSR.

This is absurd, the French army is nearly as powerful as the German army. And the Siegfried line was very weak, if Germany attacks the USSR full force and ignores France, the French would eventually punch through the weak Siegfried line.

 

[him_15]

Germany is doomed if a French-Soviet alliance is happened no matter what.

 

[Zauberelefant]

Considering Stalin spent all of WW2 whining and begging for a second front vs Germany, that would be a reason to take this alliance seriously. France did have one of the finest land armies in the world, they especially with the British, would make an excellent second front vs Germany.

The reasons I listed are the exact reason why the USSR signed this alliance, If Stalin had put his greed in the sideline for a second and remembered that Germany was an existential threat to the USSRs existence, and a non aggression pact with Germany would be uterly worthless since Germany had already proven she never honors her agreements or word, he would have kept the alliance with France.

Well, you asked, I gave my 5 cents.

 

[Ffire]

This is absurd, the French army is nearly as powerful as the German army. And the Siegfried line was very weak, if Germany attacks the USSR full force and ignores France, the French would eventually punch through the weak Siegfried line.

Maybe that's not what you want to believe, but that's exactly what happened historically during the operation against Poland : France attacked with 40 divisions, and stop when they reached the first bunkers because they wanted to fight defensively only.

 

[Zauberelefant]

I might add that a communist french army might not even achieve that.

 

[squid_hills]

Maybe that's not what you want to believe, but that's exactly what happened historically during the operation against Poland : France attacked with 40 divisions, and stop when they reached the first bunkers because they wanted to fight defensively only.

100% this. Their army was based around fighting defensively, and assumed all supplies would be brought up to the front line by train, just as it was in the First World War. When they penetrated into Germany they realized their trains couldn't reach them, which meant they would quickly run out of ammunition, fuel, and food if they ran into a German counter-attack. It was a side effect of assuming WW2 would be a static trench war like WW1 had been, but everybody expects the next war to play out exactly like the previous one, after all.

 

[sekelsenmat]

In game if the French go with the French-Soviet alliance, Germany doesn't bat an eye and goes on about its business as usual and attacks Poland, creating a border with the Soviets from which the Soviets can help France once Germany eventually attacks France. But this doesn't seem like a correct reaction.

Assuming everything in Germany stays the same, how would Hitler react to the French and Soviets reaffirming their Alliance to each other in 1939? Would Germany still attack Poland? Or maybe Belgium first to get at France while the Soviets are on the other side of Poland Still (though this would inevitably get the British involved too since they historically guaranteed Belgium's independence since the 1800s.)

Do you think maybe Germany would simply avoid the war all together, not wanting to fight France, the British Empire, and the Soviet Union all at once?

In the game guarantees are absolute for the AI. It always honors them.

In the real world guarantees were never absolute, for example the UK and France refused Poland's request that they declare war on the USSR when they were invaded by it. Despite written documents stating France would defend Poland if invaded by anyone. In the game they omit this part of history, which I think is sad. There was a Soviet invasion of Poland.

I don't buy the explanation that "Germany's economy needed it", I bet the economy of North Korea badly needs a war, it is extremely shaky. Still the regime survives just fine, despite the economy being awful. It is clearly possible to survive bad economy. Venezuela today is another example. Instead I think that Hitler was addicted to taking risks and gambling.

So Hitler was a risk taker and would risk it all, gambling on the united front against him not being honored.

Next there are 2 options, either:

1-> The United Front dissipates once war starts, i.e. the soviets don't honor their guarantees because they have nothing to gain, so we are back to the original timeline.

2-> The United Front happens, and then a monarchist putsch is attempted in Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oster_conspiracy

I guess the putsch would probably fail, but who knows... I think it sort of exists in game, if Germany fails to take the Czechslovakia after X months some civil war happens.

If the putsch succeeds, I still don't think the allies would just forget it all and offer peace, it is just as likely that they would want to see Germany crushed. The main problem is that the Soviets don't see any gain from this. France and the UK gain their biggest rival being crushed. The Soviets would only go along if the allies gave them something, like at least Poland or Romania. They wouldn't do heavy work for the capitalists for free. So the question is: Would they throw Poland and/or Romania under the bus just to see Germany crushed? They surely did that the our real timeline, so I see them doing this again in this alternate history.

 

[Zauberelefant]

In the game guarantees are absolute for the AI. It always honors them.

In the real world guarantees were never absolute, for example the UK and France refused Poland's request that they declare war on the USSR when they were invaded by it. Despite written documents stating France would defend Poland if invaded by anyone. In the game they omit this part of history, which I think is sad. There was a Soviet invasion of Poland.

I don't buy the explanation that "Germany's economy needed it", I bet the economy of North Korea badly needs a war, it is extremely shaky. Still the regime survives just fine, despite the economy being awful. It is clearly possible to survive bad economy. Venezuela today is another example. Instead I think that Hitler was addicted to taking risks and gambling.

So Hitler was a risk taker and would risk it all, gambling on the united front against him not being honored.

Next there are 2 options, either:

1-> The United Front dissipates once war starts, i.e. the soviets don't honor their guarantees because they have nothing to gain, so we are back to the original timeline.

2-> The United Front happens, and then a monarchist putsch is attempted in Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oster_conspiracy

I guess the putsch would probably fail, but who knows... I think it sort of exists in game, if Germany fails to take the Czechslovakia after X months some civil war happens.

If the putsch succeeds, I still don't think the allies would just forget it all and offer peace, it is just as likely that they would want to see Germany crushed. The main problem is that the Soviets don't see any gain from this. France and the UK gain their biggest rival being crushed. The Soviets would only go along if the allies gave them something, like at least Poland or Romania. They wouldn't do heavy work for the capitalists for free. So the question is: Would they throw Poland and/or Romania under the bus just to see Germany crushed? They surely did that the our real timeline, so I see them doing this again in this alternate history.

German economy wasn't socialist, so if government Bonds to private Corporations failed, the economical miracle of "the good Hitler years" would have crumbled, rendering the country unable to avoid economic catastrophe.