How would Germany react

[sekelsenmat]

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.

You probably don't know about Venezuela. Their economy did in fact collapse. People were crossing over to Brazil to beg for food and medicine. Still, too many soldiers loyal to the regime defend it, so economic catastrophe is not always equal to regime change. Yes, often it is, but there are examples showing that it is not an absolute rule. Hitler had plenty of paramilitary to defend him.

 

[Zauberelefant]

You probably don't know about Venezuela. Their economy did in fact collapse. People were crossing over to Brazil to beg for food and medicine. Still, too many soldiers loyal to the regime defend it, so economic catastrophe is not always equal to regime change. Yes, often it is, but there are examples showing that it is not an absolute rule. Hitler had plenty of paramilitary to defend him.

I do know about Venezuela.

Remember when Venezuela crushed Columbia, defeated Peru and then went on to attack brazil while simultaneously fighting Argentina and the US for 5 years?

Me neither.
So much for the possibility of waging war while your economy is in shatters.

 

[kettyo]

Instead I think that Hitler was addicted to taking risks and gambling.

100% this. He practically invented brinkmanship and did it quite successfully for a few years but eventually he failed to see the red line with Poland.

I think too that notions about Hitler actually wanting a world war have no ground in reality.

The economy might indeed have fallen into crisis anyway but i'm unconvinced that the German leadership actually had a sense for economic processes. I haven't got any meaningful knowledge about the German economy in the 30's so i can't have an opinion about the extent of the dangers they have really faced.

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

The Soviets wouldn't even ally Poland in any way. Poland was seen as an enemy to be eradicated.

 

[Zauberelefant]

100% this. He practically invented brinkmanship and did it quite successfully for a few years but eventually he failed to see the red line with Poland.

I think too that notions about Hitler actually wanting a world war have no ground in reality.

The economy might indeed have fallen into crisis anyway but i'm unconvinced that the German leadership actually had a sense for economic processes. I haven't got any meaningful knowledge about the German economy in the 30's so i can't have an opinion about the extent of the dangers they have really faced.



The Soviets wouldn't even ally Poland in any way. Poland was seen as an enemy to be eradicated.

Hitler was consistent in wanting to make war, and he even attacked the soviet union without a good reason.

 

[DicRoNero]

Hitler was consistent in wanting to make war, and he even attacked the soviet union without a good reason.

He stated his multiple reasons quite clear in his famous letter to Mussolini just before the invasion.

It's now up to posterity to consider these reasons valid or invalid, but he surely had some very good ones as he saw it.

 

[kettyo]

Hitler was consistent in wanting to make war, and he even attacked the soviet union without a good reason.

Barbarossa is different as he was already at war.

I've read in some historic memoir how big a f.ck moment was it for them when Britain and France actually declared war.

They thought the defensive alliance with Poland is a bluff.

 

[Zauberelefant]

Barbarossa is different as he was already at war.

I've read in some historic memoir how big a f.ck moment was it for them when Britain and France actually declared war.

They thought the defensive alliance with Poland is a bluff.

Well, there is also the report that he was disappointed that the Sudeten crisis was resolved peacefully.
Regardless of the minutiae, he wanted war. That was clearly stated since 1925 in his book.
Wsr against the west? Not so much, but in the end, it was all the same due to his conspiracy complex.

 

[kettyo]

Well, there is also the report that he was disappointed that the Sudeten crisis was resolved peacefully.

I didn't see that but i'll be glad if i find it.

Regardless of the minutiae, he wanted war. That was clearly stated since 1925 in his book.

Maybe revanchist sentiment stemming from the marginal losing of WW1 and the harsh consequences it had on Germany?

But i'm pretty sure after WW1 no one, not even Hitler wanted a similar meatgrind. That's in contrast with the sentiment before WW1 where many actually wanted a major war in the assumption that wars will be swift and decisive.

 

[Sunforged General]

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.

According to the German generals had France presses the attack they would pierce the westwall. Von Runstedt went to the westwall in 1939 and laughed and said it was still a building site.

As for supplies some people bring up the French reliance on trains, but, this ignores the fact that France had more trucks than the Germans.

They didn't help Poland immediately, nor would they help the USSR immediately in this scenario, but they would attack eventually. The French were planning a invasion into Germany in 1941 OTL once they had the built up force to do so.

 

[Ffire]

According to the German generals had France presses the attack they would pierce the westwall. Von Runstedt went to the westwall in 1939 and laughed and said it was still a building site.

As for supplies some people bring up the French reliance on trains, but, this ignores the fact that France had more trucks than the Germans.

They didn't help Poland immediately, nor would they help the USSR immediately in this scenario, but they would attack eventually. The French were planning a invasion into Germany in 1941 OTL once they had the built up force to do so.

Agreed to that. But I don't believe that, in 39, short time after the purges, without winter war experience, the red army would stand very long. The wehrmacht, assisted by the polish army that was well trained, and quite big for a minor country, could start its campaign at a choosen moment (so probably in may right after the spring mud season), 300km closer from moscow. It is much more advantaged than during the real 41 campaign. My bet is that they would have conquer Moscow and Leningrad during their first campaign, too soon for the french to attack with enough force.
Another thing about France : they really mobilize their industry quite late. Their was a big difference in quantity of equipment between september 39 and may 40 for the french army. They also purchase a lot of equipment, especially planes, from the USA. Not sure the US or UK would have sell that kind of weapon to a communist country. and USSR, facing the german onslaught would probably not sell anything too.

 

[Zauberelefant]

I didn't see that but i'll be glad if i find it.



Maybe revanchist sentiment stemming from the marginal losing of WW1 and the harsh consequences it had on Germany?

But i'm pretty sure after WW1 no one, not even Hitler wanted a similar meatgrind. That's in contrast with the sentiment before WW1 where many actually wanted a major war in the assumption that wars will be swift and decisive.

That's another topic altogether. Hitler's Lebensraum policy meant that war with poland and USSR was the goal of his politics.
He assumed that the allies would not back up their guarantees and even so, britain would agree to terms after Fall of France.
His Barbarossa gamble was that - a desperate dash to soviet resources in order to end the war or have a stalemate.

 

[kettyo]

That's another topic altogether. Hitler's Lebensraum policy meant that war with poland and USSR was the goal of his politics.
He assumed that the allies would not back up their guarantees and even so, britain would agree to terms after Fall of France.
His Barbarossa gamble was that - a desperate dash to soviet resources in order to end the war or have a stalemate.

Certainly true. But i'm sure they didn't plan it as a world war but more like local wars.

But in the other hand it's true that Hitler's actions didn't exactly strengthened the prospects of peace unlike let's say Chamberlain's who really did every possible efforts to avoid a world war.

 

[Zauberelefant]

Certainly true. But i'm sure they didn't plan it as a world war but more like local wars.

But in the other hand it's true that Hitler's actions didn't exactly strengthened the prospects of peace unlike let's say Chamberlain's who really did every possible efforts to avoid a world war.

I concur with those who argue that Chamberlain wanted to delay the war until the Empire would be ready. Because in 1938, there was precious little to stop the Germans from just taking what they wanted.

 

[Vlad123]

The MEFOs, realistically, Hitler began to pay them 20 million a year from 39 to 44. So even if the war went badly, he managed to pay the 20 million Reichsmarks of the MEFOs I don't think the economy would have collapsed. . I want to point out that the famous new deal was effective only with the total mobilization of the USA for the war: If all your companies, even civilian ones, start producing weapons, and also need weapons for your allies, you hire people. unemployment goes down, people get paid, these people spend, merchants make profits and spend from other merchants. Money starts spinning in larger and larger quantities and in addition to inflation, it also creates economic growth. (I made it simple). Anyone who says that MEFOs are stupid, a ponzi scheme, understand nothing about economics! Mephos are like ordinary treasury bonds, which I can use as hard cash to pay for bread at the baker, for example. About the topic of the post. According to some sources, Hitler wanted war, but against the USSR, once peace had been secured with the "Allies", when this was not successful, he tried the risk. I remember (and there is also in a tooltip of the game when it loads) in France it was said";why die for Danzic?";. So dying for Danzic was considered as stupid as dying for Serbia in ww1.

 

[kettyo]

I concur with those who argue that Chamberlain wanted to delay the war until the Empire would be ready. Because in 1938, there was precious little to stop the Germans from just taking what they wanted.

He actually wanted to avoid it whenever possible. If couldn't avoid it altogether of course delaying is a good secondary goal. If you look back at all the losses you can understand Chamberlain's position. He was a very intelligent man and knew exactly what will happen.

 

[DystopianAlphaOmega]

Well a Franco-Soviet alliance would be premised on Soviet demands for military access through Poland and Romania. Poland refused this because they (with some justification) believed the Soviets, once let in, would never leave. If France insists, a decent chance Poland feels it was sold down the river and cuts a deal with Germany. Poland already benefitted from previous German land grabs , getting Zaolozie from Czechoslovakia and forcing Lithuania to drop its territorial claims. Churchill thought they were behaving like vultures. They’re also pretty anti-communist and somewhat authoritarian, so an alliance might be possible, maybe with ceding a rail corridor to Germany at Danzig.

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.

The Anglo-French guarantees on Poland were actually only directed towards Germany. Each had secret protocols attached to their alliance/guarantee with Poland that made it clear they would not support Poland against the Soviets. Not publically saying this was just a bluff/PR move.

As for strategic implications, both the Allies (appeasement) and the USSR (M-R Pact) were trying to get Germany to fight the other. This was expected to be a long-run WWI-style war which would leave both sides bled white for little gain. The side that stayed out could then swoop in and pick up the pieces from its mutually devastated rivals. France with the Soviets changes this calculus, with only one war scenario really likely, perhaps leading to a more aggressive stance/expansion from the Russians.

 

[Dlin369]

I think Hitler would’ve tried and failed to make an alliance with UK - from what I understand Hitler really overestimated the British’s opinion of him and Germany.

More practically he’d be forced to basically play defense and try gathering allies, so the Balkans and Eastern Europe would’ve been a great game for influence

 

[Vlad123]

Historically, the UK never accepted peace with Germany (proposed 35/37 times) because churchill thought he would win even in 40, immediately after the French capitulation, probably, he would have continued to talk about the victory, even if suez had fallen, all the Middle East and maybe even if India had fallen! Churchill (I know the comparison may seem ugly) was like Hitler: he would never surrender; even if the other had had troops in front of the house.

 

[Sunforged General]

Well, you asked, I gave my 5 cents.

I asked how Germany would react, not on whether the soviets would honor the alliance with France or not. Even in a scenario where the soviets aren't going to honor the pact, but still officially support the alliance, it may still prevent Germany from attacking either party to avoid a risk of 2 front war.

 

[Zauberelefant]

I asked how Germany would react, not on whether the soviets would honor the alliance with France or not. Even in a scenario where the soviets aren't going to honor the pact, but still officially support the alliance, it may still prevent Germany from attacking either party to avoid a risk of 2 front war.

I spell it out for you: little would change. Hitler would expect France to not be allied with britain, consider the "weakness of marxism", decide he can take on France, offer guarantees to USSR via MR, get on with it. Maybe start Barbarossa in 1940, because of the winter war results.