Would Germany done better if

[unmerged(2833)]

I don't think Interwar Poland needed any kind of 'irredentist claim' to wage war against the Soviet Union. The only thing that stopped them was the utter impossibility of victory in such a war.

What for? By 1933 any idea of aliied/puppet/whatever Ukraine was long dead, so there was no reason for war against SU. Unless you mean some anti-communist crusade, but that applies to ton of countries and would be considered a crackpot territory anyway.

 

[pithorr]

I don't think Interwar Poland needed any kind of 'irredentist claim' to wage war against the Soviet Union. The only thing that stopped them was the utter impossibility of victory in such a war.

Oh, yes. So why wasn't Lithuania wiped out despite the lack of such "utter impossibility" with much stronger "irredensit claim" by Poland?

 

[Amallric]

Unless you mean some anti-communist crusade, but that applies to ton of countries

Well to some more than to some others.

Oh, yes. So why wasn't Lithuania wiped out despite the lack of such "utter impossibility" with much stronger "irredensit claim" by Poland?

I wouldn't claim interwar Poland was a rabid dog only waiting to jump at the neck of every neighbour(although it tried VERY hard to look exactly like that). What I said applies specifically to the relation with the Soviet Union. And claims can be easily fabricated if needs be. Hello Upper Silesia, hello Miedzymorze, hello Pomerania....

 

[krieger11b]

I wouldn't claim interwar Poland was a rabid dog only waiting to jump at the neck of every neighbour(although it tried VERY hard to look exactly like that). What I said applies specifically to the relation with the Soviet Union. And claims can be easily fabricated if needs be. Hello Upper Silesia, hello Miedzymorze, hello Pomerania....

You reminded me of Enter Elysiums LPs on EUIV there

Anyways, what about a Polish-Soviet Continuation War? There were still a million Polish people on the Soviet side of the border being heavily persecuted. Though I would guess by 1939 they were all either dead or were one of the many victims of forced relocation so loved by Stalin.

The big Elephant in the room as far as an alliance would be Danzig, and Selsia. I doubt Poland would give it up in exhange for other Baltic ports. Also the idea of Hitler being fine with a big Poland between himself and any Soviet terratory is not in his personality. Even allowing the existance of Poland is antithetical to his personality.

 

[trybald]

I wouldn't claim interwar Poland was a rabid dog only waiting to jump at the neck of every neighbour(although it tried VERY hard to look exactly like that). What I said applies specifically to the relation with the Soviet Union. And claims can be easily fabricated if needs be. Hello Upper Silesia, hello Miedzymorze, hello Pomerania....

Both Upper Silesia and Pomerania ("the Corridor") had Polish-speaking majorities and somewaht strong pro-Polish sentiments. Silesians after all took up arms thrice, while Pomerania would have her own uprising hadn't it been transferred to Poland. Miedzymorze was a concept of a political alliance of CE states, so that's not a territorial claim and it was long dead by 1930s.

Despite some persistent Russian beliefs about evil Poles just waiting to go for the innocent virgin Russia's neck, interwar Poland had no intent to go to war with USSR. The reason was that Poland found red Russia far more palatable than the only alternative, white Russia. Red Russia was aggressive and irredentist. White Russia would be aggressive, irredentist and would have the support of Great Powers, who would just love to see their old ally back. So, Poland toppling the Bolsheviks (assuming that's possible) would just dig her own grave.

Anyways, what about a Polish-Soviet Continuation War? There were still a million Polish people on the Soviet side of the border being heavily persecuted. Though I would guess by 1939 they were all either dead or were one of the many victims of forced relocation so loved by Stalin.

That's exactly the case. Soviet Poles causality rates were proportionally among the highest during the Great Terror. Aside from "normal" purges, Poles were targeted by the Polish Operation of the NKVD

 

[hyeondrugs]

You're all missing the point. None of the germans would be on board attacking people who had nothing to do with the Versailles treaty; especially because their "enemies" still existed. The treaty of versailles was their lifeblood. More importantly, what does germany stand to gain and how much could they even gain?

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

You're all missing the point. None of the germans would be on board attacking people who had nothing to do with the Versailles treaty; especially because their "enemies" still existed. The treaty of versailles was their lifeblood. More importantly, what does germany stand to gain and how much could they even gain?

Against popular myth Hitler wast that keen on a war with France and especially the British Empire nor the USA or Italy. He was however keen on a war with the Soviets. Versailles has no meaning anymore in 1939.

 

[Pellaken]

Would Germany done better if

No.

...They never would have gotten to war with the west (WW2) and would have been able to invade Soviet Union in 1939? Their army would have been equipped with obsolete tanks, they would lack experience, but Soviet Union would have been marginally weaker too and Germany could have used 100% of her forces against Soviet Union due to lack of 2 front war. Even many flak regiments could have been dispanded and sent to the front as Luftwaffe infantry, which would have had time to be trained as proper infantry unit, if that would have ever even been necessary!
I can`t say which one would have been better for them, either way there would be major weaknesses, but without war with the western nations(including Poland) Germany would have done more mistakes in eastern front where they could not afford it- expect without massive area to occupy they might have been able to afford it. And German tactics would have become as a surprise in 1939, historically Soviets had plan (that failed) to defend against German blitzkrieg, 3 lines of defense (strategically, tactically that would be thousands of lines) where first Germans would be slowed down, then halted and then driven back. Like in Kursk. But Germany may not have had experience in weaponry and/or tactics which not only managed to match extreme odds, but also to beat them. Becouse on paper Germany should have lost in 1939, already at 2 front war, smaller numbers and worse tanks, and only experience and time could improve that, their aggressive doctorine based on suprise + concentration of forces could only take them so far...
Well, i think nothing what i just said came as suprise to most of you, so i am just going to stop repeating not only myself but to many documentaries about WW2 So, would Germany have done better in WW2 without early wars against Poland and France? Without those wars, Tiger tanks would not have been developed (at least as early as they were) and German tanks would have done even worse against T34s - altough it was not yet in service in 1939, but masses of Soviet light tanks would have been almost equal to German Panzer 2s and 3s.

Also no.
Well "better" I don't know, but defeating the USSR wasn't going to happen.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Against popular myth Hitler wast that keen on a war with France and especially the British Empire nor the USA or Italy. He was however keen on a war with the Soviets. Versailles has no meaning anymore in 1939.

Yes, exactly. And Hitler was shocked and stunned when the Western Coalition declared war against Germany during the Poland campaign. If the French had done anything besides sit behind their fortified line eating cheese, one wonders how aggressively the little corporal would have pursued the Western Campaign instead of having free reign to organize his troops anyway he wanted before blitzing the Ardennes.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Yes, exactly. And Hitler was shocked and stunned when the Western Coalition declared war against Germany during the Poland campaign. If the French had done anything besides sit behind their fortified line eating cheese, one wonders how aggressively the little corporal would have pursued the Western Campaign instead of having free reign to organize his troops anyway he wanted before blitzing the Ardennes.

I find the French strategic situation at this point a bit difficult and cetainly not a no brainer.What if you bleed your army dry against the German trenches ? Better let the Germans do that.In hindsight they should have attacked of course.
Personaly I think the Maginot line removed to many options from them. Like the Schliefen plan removed to many options from Germany a few years earlier.A smilar psychological trap so to speak.

 

[trybald]

It wasn't Maginot line, but the French general unwiligness for war. The French just didn't want to go to war. Their guarantees given to Poland were designed to deter Hitler, not to fight him. When Hitler attacked nevetheless, France tried to weasel back by proposing some "last chance talks" on September 2nd. They were pretty much draggedn into war by UK.

 

[Amallric]

Any country would be "unwilling" about throwing itself into an all-out world war(well judging by your post, maybe any except Poland). France accomplished all of it's engagements to the best of their capability. The Germans overcame them, but not for lack of "willingness to fight", they just happened to be more powerful.

 

[trybald]

I am not judging the French. Their sentiment after the bloodbath and shock of WW1 is understandable. I am just citing the reason why France was passive. Because of massive unpopularity of war in general and any dangerous action in particular.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

I meant strategic options. How to explain a bloody and "unecessary" assault when you have a superduper defensive line ? Or why ? Thats why I compared it with the Schliefen plan from WW1

 

[pithorr]

I meant strategic options. How to explain a bloody and "unecessary" assault when you have a superduper defensive line ? Or why ? Thats why I compared it with the Schliefen plan from WW1

Well, just to catch Germany in two-front war again, when it was still, at least theoretically, possible.

 

[keynes2.0]

Then people would be asking why France was so stupid as to waste it's manpower assaulting fixed defensive positions and leave themselves defenseless in the north. Why didn't they learn the lessons of WWI?

There is a saying in sports, no team looks good losing, no team looks bad winning.

 

[Amallric]

It was made impossible by the rapid defeat of Poland, not by the passivity of the French. By the time the French army mobilised and was ready to move, it was already game over in the East. In this situation the only sensible thing to do was to wait for the enemy to come.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Then people would be asking why France was so stupid as to waste it's manpower assaulting fixed defensive positions and leave themselves defenseless in the north. Why didn't they learn the lessons of WWI?

There is a saying in sports, no team looks good losing, no team looks bad winning.

Yes its this kind of stuff I mean.

 

[justin6477]

It was made impossible by the rapid defeat of Poland, not by the passivity of the French. By the time the French army mobilised and was ready to move, it was already game over in the East. In this situation the only sensible thing to do was to wait for the enemy to come.

So, a question, let's imagine Hitler were to suddenly die... let's say January of '41 and someone more practical takes over. Now, let's say that individual doesn't invade Yugoslavia, the USSR, or Greece. What are the opinions of Nazi Germany's ability to hold the Eastern front against the (almost) inevitable war with the Soviets? Maybe push their borders a bit, but mostly trying to hold that line. No major manpower losses like Stalingrad, Moscow, and Kursk; and most importantly, they don't have to spend all that fuel on a botched mission.

I'm curious as this was basically my HoI3 strategy and I'll be trying it in HoI4.

 

[Henry IX]

Even if the Germans were able to get a friendly/puppet/conquered Poland some how they still have a basic problem - the army is in no way capable of the sustained long ranged opperations required to conquer the Soviet Union. In 1939 this problem is much worse than in 1941. There were numerous supply and logistical issues in both Poland and France, which were jury rigged through, largely due to the relative shortness of supply lines. In the USSR none of this apples. In addition the relative technical superiority of the German army was much smaller. The T-34 and KV-1 tanks were only available in relatively small numbers in 1941, with the majority of Soviet tanks being thinks like the BT-10. These are the same tanks that the Germans would have faced in 1939, but with PzI and PzII rather than upgunned versions of PzIII and PzIV. The Soviet army was in the early stages of a massive upgrade and refit of equipment in 1941. In 1939 that same equipment was distinctly less obsolete.

The German army also relied heavily on French trucks to supply the motorised sections of army in 1941. This was not an option without conquering Framce and looting its trucks. On the up side the Germans had a lot less motorised forces to supply in 1939 so the 'missing' trucks would not be noticed. On the downside this makes blizkreig on a lage scale more or less impossible.

So in answer to the basic question in the OP, no. Germany was not capable of conquering the Soviet Union in 1939. Or 1940. Or 1941. There was no major power in the mid 20th century capable of beating the Soviet Union in a war of conquest on its own. The only forces capable of this sort of a victory would have been a grand alliance of two or more great powers.