What if Germany liberated Poland after keeping Danzig and it's earlier boundaries?

[safe-keeper]

I have wondered about this, too, except in my head, the question is what if Germany defeated France and just went "gg, we're gonna keep Danzig and Alsac-Lorraine, we might even give back the Czech their lands, just give us peace and maybe some reparations".

Probably wouldn't be feasible for Hitler anyway since German economy depended on expansion to secure new territory, AFAIK, but what would the Allies have said? Just a flat out refusal, or would there be a tiny chance of Churchill agreeing?

 

[hkrommel]

Probably wouldn't be feasible for Hitler anyway since German economy depended on expansion to secure new territory, AFAIK, but what would the Allies have said? Just a flat out refusal, or would there be a tiny chance of Churchill agreeing?

Flat out refusal, especially after the Germans bombed London. As long as Germany was blockaded they got weaker, not stronger. If they defeated the USSR too then maybe, but the US would be involved by then too so there's little reason for the Allies to cave, especially with the Manhattan Project up their sleeve.

 

[Sunforged General]

Hitler was undoubtedly a flawed and impaired politician, but if Germany was a stronger state than France and Britain in Europe, who wouldn't have acted like Hitler did? Germany disarmed after the First World War, but it was a stronger nation than France then. France and Britain were in no position to enforce terms on Germany militarily. The Germans saw this, and realised what their own political leaders were about. Hitler seemed the only sensible leader in a way, and perhaps he was politically unopposed by anyone else. The Allies bluff was exposed by Hitler. After Sudetenland was annexed by Germany, how important was the rest of what had been Czechoslovakia to the Allies? What was to happen to it?

Germany was not a more powerful state than France, The French navy was always superior to the German navy, the French global colonial empire provided France with vast resources Germany could never have, and her army was more powerful than Germany for all of the 1920s and most of the 1930s. Even in 1940, the French had more Tanks, trucks, artillery, and in some cases, this equipment was superior to the German equipment, like the tanks, Char B1 and Somua S35 were superior to any German tank in armor firepower etc. France could have imposed her will on Germany, if the French had a strong enough will, and if the British didnt hold them back for the sake of Germany.

When the French occupied the Rhineland over the Germans not paying reparations, Germany had no hope of removing them by force. It was Britain who forced France out of the Rhineland with trade pressure. Had the French been allowed to stay, and dig in, fortify the west bank of the Rhine river, and perhaps even build the Maginot line inside Germany along the Rhine river, not even Hitler could have removed them.

 

[Secret Master]

That's why Hitler went to war in the first place. Lebensraum was an attempt to, among other ideological things, create enough of an internal market for the German economy to match the United States.

No kidding.

So much of the economic planning for the lead up and the war itself was predicated on winning before the US could either join the war or contribute enough material to swing things against Germany.

And then there's the content of the infamous "Second Book" not published during his lifetime. Hitler almost viewed the United States as the Raid Boss of world domination. It's almost farcical to think of Hitler viewing the world in ideological and economic terms that match how some people play video games.

 

[hkrommel]

No kidding.

So much of the economic planning for the lead up and the war itself was predicated on winning before the US could either join the war or contribute enough material to swing things against Germany.

And then there's the content of the infamous "Second Book" not published during his lifetime. Hitler almost viewed the United States as the Raid Boss of world domination. It's almost farcical to think of Hitler viewing the world in ideological and economic terms that match how some people play video games.

I mean he wasn't wrong about the US being the nation to "beat," but he was wrong about how to do it. The thing is, the Germans all throughout the 20s had been courting the US and had developed close diplomatic and financial ties. There were tons of joint ventures between US and German companies, a substantial portion of German debt was held by Americans, etc. Hitler defaulted on all of that to fund rearmament, creating an enemy that Germany had absolutely no chance of defeating.

The US would have definitely come down on the Allied side anyways once Germany got down to invading everything and such, but it's just strange how he threw a decade of shrewd diplomacy out the window so flagrantly.

 

[egslim]

AFAIK, but what would the Allies have said? Just a flat out refusal, or would there be a tiny chance of Churchill agreeing?

Churchill would never have agreed, but he could have been removed from power.

If, instead of creating Vichy France, the Germans would have offered to take only Alsace and Lorraine, and released the Low countries, then I can see Britain negotiate for peace.

Of course Hitler being Hitler, and the German economy being in need of plunder, that was never gonna happen.

 

[hkrommel]

Churchill would never have agreed, but he could have been removed from power.

Removed by whom? Public opinion was completely against peace with Germany. The prospect of Britain making peace with Germany (even on relatively favorable terms) was limited to a few of Chamberlain's leftover cronies and is really being overblown compared to what it was historically.

 

[kettyo]

The prospect of Britain making peace with Germany (even on relatively favorable terms) was limited to a few of Chamberlain's leftover cronies and is really being overblown compared to what it was historically.

As far as i know Chamberlain himself didn't support peace anytime after the war broke out. He was determined to fight until ultimate victory just like Churchill.

 

[kettyo]

Hitler defaulted on all of that to fund rearmament, creating an enemy that Germany had absolutely no chance of defeating.

I think it's more like the USA was a role model of Hitler. The USA became a big and powerful country by taking the lands of native indians and Mexico by force. Hitler thought is perfectly fine for himself to do the same.

 

[egslim]

Removed by whom? Public opinion was completely against peace with Germany. The prospect of Britain making peace with Germany (even on relatively favorable terms) was limited to a few of Chamberlain's leftover cronies and is really being overblown compared to what it was historically.

Removed by Parliament.

In the summer of 1940, before the Battle of Britain, British public opinion could have gone either way.
Churchill followed the old adage 'if you repeat a lie often enough eventually it becomes truth' with his 'fight on the beaches' and other speeches.
After the dismemberment of France and as the Battle of Britain began public opinion gradually galvanized and his lie became truth.

 

[hkrommel]

In the summer of 1940, before the Battle of Britain, British public opinion could have gone either way.

Except it couldn't. The British people were angry at Germany for starting another World War, for aggression, for raiding the British coast, etc. The "peace contingent" was a few politicians, and certainly not nearly enough of parliament for a vote of no confidence. This is covered in multiple books, documentaries, etc. Please stop repeating historical falsehoods.

 

[Vlad123]

Except it couldn't. The British people were angry at Germany for starting another World War, for aggression, for raiding the British coast, etc. The "peace contingent" was a few politicians, and certainly not nearly enough of parliament for a vote of no confidence. This is covered in multiple books, documentaries, etc. Please stop repeating historical falsehoods.

I think if Allies gains More shock (exemple BEF destroyed, Malta captured,suez captured) UK can get down to compromise. I remember i have read can before the war Exist a idea "All angaist URSS!"

 

[Millefleurs]

I don't think that it would have made any difference. Hitler made an armistice and released parts of France back then and it didn't change anything. Maybe if he won the air battle over Britain so the Royal Navy would have been vulnerable to the german airforce he could get them to the table. With the german air force fully occupied over Britain we a) don't know if it would have been enough to win and b) I doubt there would be Barbarossa without air support leading to more time for the SU to build up or even launch their own surprise Invasion of germany.

Hitlers mistake were made when he annexed Czechoslovakia and demanded Memel by threating with force while he promised after the Munich agreement to stop claiming further territory. Already getting away with that was just pure luck that the SU troops were denied access to Czechoslovakia by Poland and Romania. Maybe Hitler thought Poland isolated itself from the western allies enough by taking Zaolzie so he could get away again and planned to attack them later but got surprised by British guarantees for Poland after taking what was left of Czechoslovakia ruining his plans to go further east.
Also I doubt there were ever an option for him to not invade Poland. He were extremly hostile against hungarian demands to get the carpatho-ukraine so that Poland would share a common border with Hungary again. He wanted that area for bis slovakian puppet to invade from there. He was angered when Hungary occupied it when he annexed the Czech areas and released slovakia. Due to the good polish hungarian relations he was denied military access for his invasion.

 

[kettyo]

Hitlers mistake were made when he annexed Czechoslovakia and demanded Memel by threating with force while he promised after the Munich agreement to stop claiming further territory.

This is the answer basically.

 

[balmung60]

Maybe if he won the air battle over Britain so the Royal Navy would have been vulnerable to the german airforce he could get them to the table.

That, it bears mentioning, is a very big IF - the Luftwaffe was bleeding planes and pilots faster than the RAF even in the darkest days of the Battle of Britain, while the RAF was actually increasing its reserves of planes and pilots the whole time. Even when they were targeting airfields, the RAF was routinely able to get the airfields back in the fight within hours.

 

[JonS]

I doubt there would be Barbarossa without air support leading to more time for the SU to build up or even launch their own surprise Invasion of Germany.

Be aware that this sounds suspiciously like a vote in favour of Suvarov's absurd 'Icebreaker' fantasy.

 

[safe-keeper]

. It's almost farcical to think of Hitler viewing the world in ideological and economic terms that match how some people play video games.

He was a farcial character. We tend to forget what a clown he was like because of what he did, but he was a laughing stock demonstrating all the signs of being unfit for power.

https://www.google.no/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/hitler-incompetent-lazy-nazi-government-clown-show-opinion-1408136?amp=1

 

[DystopianAlphaOmega]

Germany was not a more powerful state than France, The French navy was always superior to the German navy, the French global colonial empire provided France with vast resources Germany could never have, and her army was more powerful than Germany for all of the 1920s and most of the 1930s. Even in 1940, the French had more Tanks, trucks, artillery, and in some cases, this equipment was superior to the German equipment, like the tanks, Char B1 and Somua S35 were superior to any German tank in armor firepower etc. France could have imposed her will on Germany, if the French had a strong enough will, and if the British didnt hold them back for the sake of Germany.

When the French occupied the Rhineland over the Germans not paying reparations, Germany had no hope of removing them by force. It was Britain who forced France out of the Rhineland with trade pressure. Had the French been allowed to stay, and dig in, fortify the west bank of the Rhine river, and perhaps even build the Maginot line inside Germany along the Rhine river, not even Hitler could have removed them.

That was a heavily demilitarized Germany, so it’s not much of a comparison. In a 1v1 scenario, even without a dramatic collapse like in WWII, German industry and manpower would prevail over France. This is why France was so focused on making sure the UK would be on its side again (even if it meant abandoning their Eastern European Allies). It’s also part of why the French were so keen on the Maginot fortifications - forcing Germany through the Low Countries all but ensured UK intervention. Not to mention that France was rather behind in airforce and tactics/leadership.

 

[Feeblezak]

This scenario requires the Nazis not to be in power.

The east was the whole point of the war as far as Germany is concerned. A war with the Western Allies was not desired and the target was always Poland and the Soviet Union. Particularly Ukraine and the Caucasus. The war in the west was a result of circumstance and the total ineptitude of the German Foreign Ministry.

Indeed Danzig was just an excuse for a war with Poland. The intention was to conquer and “Germanise” Poland, not simply reunite with Danzig.

 

[Sunforged General]

That was a heavily demilitarized Germany, so it’s not much of a comparison. In a 1v1 scenario, even without a dramatic collapse like in WWII, German industry and manpower would prevail over France. This is why France was so focused on making sure the UK would be on its side again (even if it meant abandoning their Eastern European Allies). It’s also part of why the French were so keen on the Maginot fortifications - forcing Germany through the Low Countries all but ensured UK intervention. Not to mention that France was rather behind in airforce and tactics/leadership.

In a long war, despite Germany's bigger industry, they would be in a disadvantage vs France (The Germans them selves understood this, its why they invented Blitzkrieg, they knew in a long war, they'd lose.), as France actually had the natural resources to sustain a long war. If the USSR doesnt give Germany MASSIVE shipments of grain, oil, rubber, not to mention the massive iron ore shipments from Sweden that were also essential, if these countries dont supply Germany, or if the Superior French Navy blockades Germany, 1vs1 in a long war, France wins. The colonial Empire of France can supply nearly everything France needs in abundance, and they can buy all the oil they need from anywhere, while the superior French navy prevents Germany from shipping in Oil.

I reiterate again, for the people in the back, without the USSR giving Germany immense amounts of grain, oil, rubber etc..Germany would have stood NO chance vs France in 1940, even if Britain was absent. No fuel, no food, no blitzkrieg (Germany is not self sufficient on food, without huge grain shipments, millions of Germans would starve, their only seller was the Soviets, as no one else in Europe had a surplus, and they couldn't import it from overseas as the superior French and British navies blockaded them). All they'd have left is human wave attacks against the Maginot line.

Even the loss of just Swedish iron ore would collapse Germany. Grand Admiral Raeder, head of the German navy, declared that it would be "utterly impossible to make war should the navy not be able to secure the supplies of iron-ore from Sweden".