Let's say under the influence of an alien mind modifying beam (insert whatever reasons here) the Western Allies accept the German peace proposal in October 1939. Was there an exit strategy for Nazis to consolidate their holds, or they have to seek another conflict to keep the overheated economy running further?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Were there any mid term plans what to do with Poland/the Wehrmacht/German economy in case a peace broke out?
First of all, Hitlers "Peace proposal" was never ment to be a serious offer. Hitler never expected the Allies to accept it. The Allies had nor reason to accept it, since, well, they had beaten Germany in 1918, so they could surely beat them again.
But, ok, the Allies made Peace in October 1939. Hitler would have continued to expand his military, and would have invaded the Soviet Union at about the same time as historically. I doubt that the Allies would just have watched. They would have joined in in 1941 or 1942. Nazi Germany was forced to keep expanding because of economic reasons. the military buildup was straining the german economy. Therefore, there was no chance for lasting peace.
But as said, there was never a chance of the proposal being accepted, nor was it a serious proposal.
But, ok, the Allies made Peace in October 1939. Hitler would have continued to expand his military, and would have invaded the Soviet Union at about the same time as historically. I doubt that the Allies would just have watched. They would have joined in in 1941 or 1942. Nazi Germany was forced to keep expanding because of economic reasons. the military buildup was straining the german economy. Therefore, there was no chance for lasting peace.
But as said, there was never a chance of the proposal being accepted, nor was it a serious proposal.
That peace would be worth the paper used earlier to write down the Munich Agreement.
Hitler would have attacked anyway in 1940.
Hitler would have attacked anyway in 1940.
I don't think so. He wouldn't have waged the war he unwanted then.
It seems like AH wanted the war, he just didn't want or expect it for another year or two until he felt everything would be ready. Problem for him was, another year or two and the Allies and Soviets would also be a lot more ready.
Germany's economy could not survive a protracted peace at this point, they went too all in for the military. They probably have a couple years before collapse but at some point they have to either pillage someone or succumb to their economic momentum failing.
Meanwhile, while I know you admit it, and are just asking for economy argument sake, making peace in late 39 is a shaky idea. Does Germany get colonies back? I think a slightly better premise might be a what-if where the Allies just don't defend Poland.
Meanwhile, while I know you admit it, and are just asking for economy argument sake, making peace in late 39 is a shaky idea. Does Germany get colonies back? I think a slightly better premise might be a what-if where the Allies just don't defend Poland.
You are correct that any peace proposal signed by Hitler was not worth jack squat.
But Hitler could not turn his back on France and moved against Russia without direct and tacit assurances from Britain and France that they blessed the invasion as a way to rid the continent of Communism.
The problem is Britain and France would never allow Germany that much free expansion and the chance to take and consolidate everything from POland to the Urals, particulary when Adolph Hitler, the crown prince of treachery, is involved in the deal.
This. When Germany invaded France in 1940 it was after raising their military spending to just over 1/4 of the government budget. This meant that the entire civil economy was geared towards building a military which needed to be used, lest the economy collapse. However without this, the German economy will naturally stagnate as a result of poor export capacity.
Every month Hitler waits is a month that the Anglo-French militaries become stronger.
Yes that probably works even better. So Poland conquered and there is peace, was the Nazi leadership prepared for such a situation? Or like with IRL they just plan for immediately following step and see what comes then?
Hitler wasn't really interested in getting the colonies back. He was intent on colonising the SU instead (in a way his program was a continuation of old German pipe dreams, with Western Europe being a secondary target that mostly had to be dealt with to avoid a second front).
He would have wanted Alsace-Lorraine back though.
And he didn't want war with the western allies at this point of time. He went into a hissy fit over the UK declaring war.
I suspect if he could force another back down from the allies he would simply make another demand (and another and another), perhaps Alsace-Lorraine or maybe the right for the German army to 'assist' the Danes with their clearly expressed (in German propaganda) wish to join the 1000 year Reich with their Germanic brethren. He would keep doing this until someone stops him. Peace in 1939 just means the war starts for real in 1940 or 1941.
Absolutely. After the Allies back down in Munich, Hitler tells Ribbentropp says to not worry, the war is still coming. He is going to find a provocation, sooner or later.
Appeasement was a beautiful lie, nothing more.
After the Allies backed down in Munich, Hitler had the Czech treasury to loot for another year or so of continued military spending before the economy implodes. If the Allies refuse to defend Poland, he then has that to loot, and no reason to pull the troops out of Poland as quickly as possible to deal with the West. In fact, there would be no pressing reason to honor the M-R Pact (it wouldn't be his first broken agreement), and with the troops already there in the East, no reason to stop at the Soviet border. With about 2 less years to build up before Barbarossa, the Soviets might not fare anywhere near as well as they did historically. Hitler would get his single-front war against Bolshevism, and I don't see the UK or France going so far as to declare war on Germany to defend Communism from Fascism.
I find that statement odd. Yes, Hitler knew that his nation was not ideally ready for war yet, but for someone who "didn't want war," he sure was willing to risk it.
Hitler made almost all of his early gains by playing the brinksmanship game. That's not a game you play unless you DO want war. If Hitler felt confident enough to make demand after demand of the western allies, part of that might be a high roller attitude, but you don't take an attitude like that on the international stage unless you honestly think you have the resources to at least try to live up to that threat.
I could easily imagine that his generals did NOT want a war and filled Hitler's inbox with assessments that the Wehrmacht wasn't ready, but Hitler had to know that his tactics would eventually lead to an armed conflict with France, the USSR, or both. At most maybe he hoped he could keep England out, but he knew that if he kept following through with his diplomatic tactics, he'd have to meet those two great powers (France and the USSR) on the battlefield at the very least, and the idea did not deter him.
No, he thought the Allies dont have the stomach for it. He thought he will get away like earlier. He did want war with the Soviets of course but a few years later when Germany was prepared.
I don't think I agree with that. At the very least, Britain would interfere. They might not mind Communism fighting Facism, but do NOT want the outcome of a unified power with the combined strength of both. Which is the only outcome either Hitler or Stalin would settle for.
At the very least I fully expect Britain to renew a partial blockade against Germany. perhaps only restricting it to fuel, steel and military goods, to slow Hitler down and give Stalin a chance to achieve an equilibrium. Maintaining that equilibrium would become a major goal of British foreign policy, to prevent either side from gaining victory and pooling their resources, and hoping that at least one of the two toxic regimes broke under the strain and they could swoop in and prevent the war from becoming winner-take-all
I also suspect Mussolini would play a waiting game as well, and keep Italy out of a war like this if he could, for fear of combined British/French naval power. He dragged his feet as it was in the Battle of France, only formally joining the war well after the French lines were broken at the Ardennes.
End result would be Germany and her immediate neighbors facing Russia alone, and England and France being a bit uncertain who to cheer for. I kind of suspect the Western allies would support different sides. France has always been a bit more susceptible to Socialism and has no love for Germany, while the British were much less sympathetic to Socialism and might take a more pragmatic approach, remaining neutral at first and then building up the weaker side to maintain equilibrium. The result of France supporting the Soviets while Britain supported Germany might wind up happening in that case.
And in a war like this, there is a -100% chance the isolationist USA is interested in stepping into it for as long as Japan can keep it in their pants. The war in the Pacific and the rivalry with Japan is the only real danger America can see as long as the Western Allies are not directly fighting, and I could actually see the US ignoring Europe entirely to focus on the rising power in Asia, and depending on events, possibly 2 parallel wars (US v Japan, USSR v Reich) rather than a true world war.