Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30

Thread: Hitler dies in 1939, just after the annexation of the Czech Republic, but months before the invasion of Poland.

  1. #1
    IrishBlood's Avatar GIVE THEM BLIZZARDS!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hibernia
    Posts
    3,687

    Default Hitler dies in 1939, just after the annexation of the Czech Republic, but months before the invasion of Poland.

    Hitler has died. It doesn't particularly matter how or why, (people die all the time!) but let's say he stepped on a rusty nail and died from a severe bout of Tetanus.

    It is March 1939, Germany is gearing up for war and has just annexed the Czech Republic (map below for reference)



    Germany has now vastly increased it's territory and wants more, but with Hitler suddenly dead, will an invasion of Poland still happen?

    My real question is; was there enough fanatical, nationalistic fervor at this stage that war would have been inevitable even without Hitler? Who would have replaced him?

    Some other questions in no particular order;

    (i) If Hitlers successor decided against invading Poland, would the war based German economy begin to fail?

    (ii) Would Stalin still invade Poland and if an invasion did occur, would Germany then support Poland against the Russians as they did in Finland during the Winter war? Also, would Britain and France's pledge to defend Poland still apply against Russia?

    (iii) Mussolini's invasion of Albania in April 1939 would almost certainly have occurred regardless of Hitlers death, but would he still go on to invade Greece in the Spring of 1940? Chances are the Greeks would still have won anyway, but would the UK still intervene on their side or would they treat it as a local war and thus none of their business?

    (iv) If WW2 as we know it did not break out, would Japan still have the confidence to launch their audacious attack on south-east Asia if they had had to face the full combined might of the French and British navies as well as the American fleet, now unhindered by Nazi Germany?

    (v) If Hitlers successor(s) decided to invade Poland anyway, would the initial stages of the war gone better or worse? To my knowledge (and please correct me if I am wrong), but the Ardennes offensive/surprise attack which was a stunning success and essentially led to the fall of France, was mainly Hitlers idea. Many of Hitlers generals were skeptical of the plan, so if the war broke out after Hitlers death, would German generals have taken a more tried and tested method and not attempted something as risky as the Ardennes offensive, thus leading to a more static war similar to WW1 which likely would have gone in the favor of the more numerous British and French forces.

    I know Hitlers death is a major what if, but all humans die, how and when is often a matter of complete chance and bad luck, so I think it's something worth discussing!

  2. #2
    Hoplite of Ilis's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    2,121

    Default Re: Hitler dies in 1939, just after the annexation of the Czech Republic, but months before the invasion of Poland.

    Marvel or DC?

  3. #3

    Default Re: Hitler dies in 1939, just after the annexation of the Czech Republic, but months before the invasion of Poland.

    With Hitler dead it is highly unlikely the Nazis would manage to retain power. Quite likely the leaders would have been at each other's throats within the first week, prompting the army to intervene and eliminate them.

    Even if the army would have chosen to back one of the Nazi leaders (say Goering who was a WW1 hero) instead of removing all of them, that leader would be under no pressure to "liberate" Danzig. His first year in office would have to be spent eliminating the other political rivals inside the party and putting his own men in the key positions.

    With no war against Poland starting in 1939 it is quite unlikely the Soviet invasion of Finland would have happened. Without that episode the Red Army would have looked more threatening than it did once the high casualties of the Winter War became known.

    At the beginning of 1940 Danzig would look even less interesting. The new German leader would be hard pressed to address the problems of the economy at home, which would be quickly deteriorating.

    Given virtually no generals believed Germany could win a war against the West, attacking Poland over Danzig after the Poles had received the Western guarantees would look like a very stupid idea, especially with a domestic economy in recession.

    No war between Germany and the West would mean Stalin would stay put as well.

    Japan might be forced to attack due to the oil embargo killing her economy, but the war in the Pacific would be considerably shorter even in the event of a successful attack on Pearl Harbor. The French, the British and the Dutch would have their fleets ready and free to intervene.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MareNostrum

  4. #4
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Hitler dies in 1939, just after the annexation of the Czech Republic, but months before the invasion of Poland.

    Hit, nail, head Drom, very hard to argue with that.

    Hitler kept his subordinates split and fighting, and his 2IC was Goering whose leadership abilities were not outstanding. Very likely Himmler would save the Germans the trouble of trials by slaughtering his rivals in coup before he went down before the guns of the Wehrmacht who hated him.

    The German army picked the Chancellor in 1933 and would likely do so again in 1940.

    An interesting point Drom makes about the Winter War: the Soviet forces underwent a reorg in light of the experiences in Finland but there was also a longer term rebuild in the wake of the 1937 show trials, timed to mature in 1942. Whether this would have made much difference if it had played out is a moot point (I think it unlikely the Soviet forces could have been improved that much except by the trial by fire they experienced IRL), but Stalin was confident his forces were improved (as proved by his confidence moving into Finland). Improved enough to pull Poland apart?

    While Stalin was certainly making theoretical preparations for war vs Hitler, if Hitler dies that doesn't mean Stalin puts the plans away. Whether the much discussed staff exercises concerning a Soviet "first strike" against Poland were ever more than a little contingency planning, I think with Hitler dead the opportunities presented by Germany's confusion would be very tempting indeed.

    We might see the "European crusade" Hitler had proposed, and with his evil nature concealed by the non-ripening of genocide we might have seen the WAllies looking on benevolently as the Soviets discovered their war machine was not really a match for the enlarged Wehrmacht.

    Then again Stalin was pretty cautious, and sensed keenly German plans to lure the Soviets into attack (whether real or imagined). I think it just as likely he would sit behind his guns and wait for border incidents in the Balkans to make openings for advances. A war with the soviets was in the air form the 1920's, it was the cloak under which Hitler justified his illegal takeover of Germany and why he was grudgingly allowed to get away with it.

    Wit that in mind I do think a war with the Soviets would start sometime before 1950. It really was part of the zeitgeist.

    Elements of the British press had been calling for the Royal navy to be sent East the settle the Japanese threat out: if Germany presents a calmer face its pretty likely the WAllied intervention would cause the Japanese to pull their horns in, or kick off their suicidal death spiral even sooner. either way it would be over quick smart.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  5. #5
    IrishBlood's Avatar GIVE THEM BLIZZARDS!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hibernia
    Posts
    3,687

    Default Re: Hitler dies in 1939, just after the annexation of the Czech Republic, but months before the invasion of Poland.

    So you guys both believe that end of Hitler is the end of Nazi ambitions?

    I don't disagree necessarily, but was Nazi ideology not so well established after six years that it would have forced Hitlers successor to go to war regardless? The entire nation had been gearing up for a war and was full of nationalist fervor, so I think Hitlers replacement (regardless of who it might be) would be under a lot of pressure to follow through with Hitlers well known plans for the east.

    A nice war has always been a handy unifying tool to help weak leaders to distract the population, particularly when the economy was sure to flounder without a war to justify such a heavy manufacturing based industry as was prevalent in Germany.

    Good point about Finland too, but would Stalin really just leave Finland and the Baltic states alone if the threat of Nazism never crossed the Polish border? I don't think it would take much provocation, even the slightest border incident could provoke something, for Stalin to flex his military muscles.

    What about Italy and the Balkans though? Without Germany to knock out France for him, I doubt Mussolini would be insane enough to fight either Britain or France in the Mediterranean, which would leave Albania/Greece as Italy's only avenue for expansion. I doubt the WAllies would intervene on Greece's behalf, but I can imagine them arming and supplying Greece, which would almost certainly lead to an even greater Greek victory than what was achieved in the actual war.

    Also, what do you think about Hitlers generalship? Was the Ardennes attack his brainchild and would anything like it have happened without him if Germany went ahead with the war plans?

  6. #6
    KEA's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,104

    Default Re: Hitler dies in 1939, just after the annexation of the Czech Republic, but months before the invasion of Poland.

    Quote Originally Posted by IrishBlood View Post
    So you guys both believe that end of Hitler is the end of Nazi ambitions?
    The end of Hitler very much would have been the end of the Nazis at all. The Nazi movement was completely focused on a charismatic leader, and none of Hitler's paladins did come even close to his popularity. I would lay my bets on some kind of conservatives coupe d'etas backed up by the Wehrmacht in case of Hitler's death in 1939; with Goebbels, Himmler, Göring and the like finding themselves in prison and dead soon thereafter.

    A nice war has always been a handy unifying tool to help weak leaders to distract the population, particularly when the economy was sure to flounder without a war to justify such a heavy manufacturing based industry as was prevalent in Germany.
    The military leadership first of all was worrying about Hitler's war plans, in particular when they involved a war against the western allies. I seriously doubt that anyone else would have taken that risk in 1940 for a small gain like Danzig.

    One problem a new German government would had have to solve was the serious financial crisis caused by the massive rearmament. In fact, one reason for the Nazis to start a war in 1939 was that otherwise the state was facing bankruptcy.

    What about Italy and the Balkans though? Without Germany to knock out France for him, I doubt Mussolini would be insane enough to fight either Britain or France in the Mediterranean, which would leave Albania/Greece as Italy's only avenue for expansion. I doubt the WAllies would intervene on Greece's behalf, but I can imagine them arming and supplying Greece, which would almost certainly lead to an even greater Greek victory than what was achieved in the actual war.
    Greece was very well able to look after herself against Mussolini. I doubt that he would had made it until 1945 without Hitler's support.

    Also, what do you think about Hitlers generalship? Was the Ardennes attack his brainchild and would anything like it have happened without him if Germany went ahead with the war plans?
    The Sichelschnitt-Plan was created by Manstein. Hitler just picked it up when the original plan accidentally became known to the Allies.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Hitler dies in 1939, just after the annexation of the Czech Republic, but months before the invasion of Poland.

    Quote Originally Posted by IrishBlood View Post
    So you guys both believe that end of Hitler is the end of Nazi ambitions?

    I don't disagree necessarily, but was Nazi ideology not so well established after six years that it would have forced Hitlers successor to go to war regardless? The entire nation had been gearing up for a war and was full of nationalist fervor, so I think Hitlers replacement (regardless of who it might be) would be under a lot of pressure to follow through with Hitlers well known plans for the east.

    A nice war has always been a handy unifying tool to help weak leaders to distract the population, particularly when the economy was sure to flounder without a war to justify such a heavy manufacturing based industry as was prevalent in Germany.

    Good point about Finland too, but would Stalin really just leave Finland and the Baltic states alone if the threat of Nazism never crossed the Polish border? I don't think it would take much provocation, even the slightest border incident could provoke something, for Stalin to flex his military muscles.

    What about Italy and the Balkans though? Without Germany to knock out France for him, I doubt Mussolini would be insane enough to fight either Britain or France in the Mediterranean, which would leave Albania/Greece as Italy's only avenue for expansion. I doubt the WAllies would intervene on Greece's behalf, but I can imagine them arming and supplying Greece, which would almost certainly lead to an even greater Greek victory than what was achieved in the actual war.

    Also, what do you think about Hitlers generalship? Was the Ardennes attack his brainchild and would anything like it have happened without him if Germany went ahead with the war plans?
    The Ardennes was Mansteins brainchild, not Hitlers. Manstein was simply lucky enough to get an audience with hitler right after the original plans for operations in the west fell into allied hands. Plans which were, when it came down to it, just the Schlieffen Plan all over again. It could be argued that right up until the fall of France Germany wasn't really putting its heart in the war.

    Please rep me for my posts, not for the fact that i have a Pony as an Avatar.


  8. #8
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Hitler dies in 1939, just after the annexation of the Czech Republic, but months before the invasion of Poland.

    Quote Originally Posted by TWWolfe View Post
    The Ardennes was Mansteins brainchild, not Hitlers. Manstein was simply lucky enough to get an audience with hitler right after the original plans for operations in the west fell into allied hands. Plans which were, when it came down to it, just the Schlieffen Plan all over again. It could be argued that right up until the fall of France Germany wasn't really putting its heart in the war.
    Indeed. There's a lot of revisionism about Hitler's plans. In 1939 he thought he was peeling off another slice of adjacent territory for "re-Germanising" (as it was seen in the Nazi mind) not kicking off a world war.

    It is well known the Wehrmacht leadership did not want another war in the west (it was thought another WWI would ensue and could not be won). War with the Soviets seemed inevitable, and the Army went along with Hitler's expansion because the West seemed complacent and the resources and positions to be gained would strengthen Germany for the fight with Stalin.

    When The French and British declared war it seemed like the death knell for Germany: WWI would start in the West and the Soviets would roll in from the east, not immediately because of the Molotov pact but eventually. I imagine the position was if Germany showed some fight the WAllies would back down and accept Poland as a fait accompli rather than fight WWI again: this was probably the best case to be hoped for.

    The clever victories in Norway did a bit for moral but the six week triumph over France confirmed all the propaganda and made Hitler a god in his peoples eyes. He could now lay out plans for invading England (dropped after they were found to be pipesmoke) and Russia (accepted even thought hey were pipesmoke) and the army had to go along.

    You make a good point about Manstein: there's an argument about whether Fall Gelb and variants were the silver bullet that defeated France or not. I'd argue any hard strike from Germany would have kicked the door in. French military moral was incredibly low. The republics political establishment was a shambles, divided and squabbling, and had failed to show any leadership in Europe as the head of the cordon sanitaire that failed to contain endless German expansionism or even settle matters in their Spanish backyard.

    While the original spoiling attack plan was probably a dud this was recognised by many senior leaders and IIRC Runsdedt and Guderian were already working on aggressive variants when they were shown Manstein's plan. Whatever the plan its likely Germany was going to hit hard with their new tactical setup that the French and British had never seen before.

    While very few people foresaw a complete French collapse the Prussian tradition embodied by the Wehrmacht demanded an aggressive mobile response and Hitler was likely to approve the aggressive option over a spoiling attack. Given the doctrinal advantages the German forces had over their opponents a French defeat was quite likely in hindsight, but at the time it was a complete shock for almost all players. As I said, I think the German were hoping for a points victory in Belgium and the French backing down once their northern industrial sector fell.

    In the event victory opened new horizons of disaster for Germany to charge into.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  9. #9
    RedGuard's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Telmachian mountain range
    Posts
    4,350

    Default Re: Hitler dies in 1939, just after the annexation of the Czech Republic, but months before the invasion of Poland.

    this also begs the question, say Hitler had completed everything he hoped to achieve- subjugation of Russia, ceasefire with England and America staying neutral, would Hitler's empire have ended up like Alexander's did after he croaked? Who do you think Hitler would have named his heir if he had ever lived that long? Seems unlikely that the Nazi Empire lasts more than 10 years from imploding in on itself without anyone left to fight, even with Hitler.
    Last edited by RedGuard; May 15, 2016 at 07:23 PM.

  10. #10
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Hitler dies in 1939, just after the annexation of the Czech Republic, but months before the invasion of Poland.

    Quote Originally Posted by RedGuard View Post
    this also begs the question, say Hitler had completed everything he hoped to achieve- subjugation of Russia, ceasefire with England and America staying neutral, would Hitler's empire have ended up like Alexander's did after he croaked? Who do you think Hitler would have named his heir if he had ever lived that long? Seems unlikely that the Nazi Empire lasts more than 10 years from imploding in on itself without anyone left to fight, even with Hitler.
    Hermann Goering was 2IC, but he and Himmler (nominally 3IC) were passed over in favour of Doenitz in Hitler's final order. This gives a clue to the disunity and lack of qualifications in Hitler's inner circle.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  11. #11

    Default Re: Hitler dies in 1939, just after the annexation of the Czech Republic, but months before the invasion of Poland.

    Quote Originally Posted by RedGuard View Post
    this also begs the question, say Hitler had completed everything he hoped to achieve- subjugation of Russia, ceasefire with England and America staying neutral, would Hitler's empire have ended up like Alexander's did after he croaked? Who do you think Hitler would have named his heir if he had ever lived that long? Seems unlikely that the Nazi Empire lasts more than 10 years from imploding in on itself without anyone left to fight, even with Hitler.
    Add at least 30-40% more soldier german casualties for a Nazi Germany victory. Country would be without manpower and on verge of colapse, even if fancy imperial borders.
    It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

    -George Orwell

  12. #12
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Hitler dies in 1939, just after the annexation of the Czech Republic, but months before the invasion of Poland.

    The Nazis get overthrown because Goebbels, Goering, Himmler, Bormann and Rosenberg try to seize power from each other.
    The leftist/socialist elements of the party and the right wing elements of the party would fight each other. At this point I think the Communists and Social Democrats had been suppressed and were spending their time in the gulag so unless someone let them out then I doubt they would play a major role.

    Goering might try to use his influence within the military and as a national hero to take over the party and the state.
    Various checks and offices that the above guys and Hitler made to keep the army in line become useless and the military overthrows the Nazis possibly instituting some kind of oligarchy or plutocratic state, unless they recreate the monarchy.
    Various groups, state offices and military offices support different generals and operations making the war effort a shambles.
    They may still invade Poland as the Polish question was a massive issue in Germany at the time. Though as the generals would probably go back to traditionalist thinking then they might have a harder time in the invasion of Poland. They are also less likely to accept a simultaneous Soviet invasion/assistance so the capitulation of Poland would take longer. Though there is the likelihood that they would not fight Poland for fear of a coalition against them (France, Poland, Britain, maybe USSR).

    Assuming they don't all soil their points at the thought of fighting France then the invasion of France would have basically been a repeat of the WW1 plan. This last one is basically a fact since we know that the generals did exactly that when Hitler asked them to make a plan to defeat France, which the British and French had anticipated. Had it not been for that German airplane carrying the plans being captured by the Allies then Hitler would not have had an excuse to change the plan and experiment with an Ardennes plan.

    These generals were so against this line of thought that they continued to pester Hitler to give up any ideas about a massive thrust in the Ardennes. Coincidentally Erich von Manstein was also advocating a very similar plan and the generals had him moved from his post to minor garrison duty in the east specifically so that he could not tell Hitler to pursue an Ardennes thrust. Luckily for Manstein another officer invited him to a dinner with Hitler and der Fuhrer was very pleased to hear that a former chief of operations agreed with his point of view. This convinced Hitler that an Ardennes thrust was indeed correct, he instated Manstein as Rundstedt's chief of staff at the front. He also upgraded his plan from a large thrust in the Ardennes to the major thrust being in the Ardennes and had the OKH draw up the operational plans, basically flaunting it in front of the other generals' faces by having himself, Keitel and Jodl create the operational and strategic plan (notably Brauchitsch and Halder were offended and Jodl was seen as an outsider or an usurper by the other generals, a contention that would happen with many other generals as well).

    So in short Germany would be in a slug match in Poland, probably win by 1940 then get owned in France. Assuming the leadership doesn't start dropping like flies one by one before then and the Germans don't just outright surrender or avoid a war at all costs. Not that they would be able to fight a war if civil strife breaks out between various groups from the party and the military.
    Last edited by Lord Oda Nobunaga; May 18, 2016 at 10:09 PM.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  13. #13

    Default Re: Hitler dies in 1939, just after the annexation of the Czech Republic, but months before the invasion of Poland.

    Stalin's plan required Germany to be at war with the Western powers. That war was expected to result in both Germany and the Western Allies grinding down each other, in destroying the economy and in bringing the civilians on the brink of another communist uprising like it had been the case in late 1918 and early 1919.

    Once that happened the Red Army would intervene and "liberate the working class" all over continental Europe. I doubt Stalin believed the Soviet Union had the possibility to also "liberate" Britain because he didn't invest much in developing a Soviet fleet.

    In the absence of a war in the West there was no point in antagonizing the Westerners, even though now we know the Red Army of 1941 had more tanks, more canons and more planes than all the Western armies + Japan combined. He was aware the Soviet industry has been pushed to its limits building that arsenal, while the Soviet Union was still behind in industrial capacity compared to the West.

    An invasion of Poland or Finland in the absence of a war in the West would have resulted in the West including the USA, Japan and Germany uniting against the Soviet Union. The Soviet initial superiority in materiel would have probably meant the Red Army could advance into Central Europe and into the Eastern part of Germany but Stalin understood that would have been pretty much all such a surprise attack would have achieved.

    After that the superior Western industrial base and manpower would have prevailed. The Western allies would have been in control of the sea, able to land anywhere on the Black Sea coast. They would have been also able to open new fronts in Caucasus, Central Asia and Siberia, etc.

    If Germany would descend into chaos due to a combination of post-Hitler power struggle and the inevitable economic collapse it is quite likely Stalin would send massive help to the communists, like he had already done in Spain.

    Judging from how the West had reacted to the Spanish Civil War it's highly unlikely we would see a more coordinated Western response in the case of Germany, in the absence of a direct Soviet aggression.

    Given the short maritime supply lines over the Baltic and the fact Leningrad has one of the largest heavy tank factories, Stalin's best course of action would be to simply pump materiel and "volunteers" into the German civil war. The leftist Western volunteers would flock to the front just like they did in Spain (and like the radicalized Western Muslims flock to Syria nowadays).

    Unlike in Spain, where the left was fractured into many small factions, Germany had only 2 left wing parties. Each of them would try to rebuild its paramilitaries but given the massive Soviet support and the short supply lines it is highly likely the Social Democrats would be crushed quickly. Therefore if the German generals are unable to prevent the civil war, very early on there would be only two sides left fighting: the Nazi and the Communists.

    The massive German arsenal built by Hitler for the invasion of Poland would be used against the German communists and the Soviet "volunteers". We know today that arsenal was inferior to the Soviet one. Therefore if the Communists manage to capture a Baltic port and beat back the initial Nazi attacks, they have good chance to win the Civil War.

    If that happens sometimes around 1942 Stalin would be very happy.

    I cannot tell for sure if the German Civil War would result in France and Britain being better prepared for a showdown with Soviet Republic of Germany and the Soviet Union.

    It would take communist Germany some 5 to 10 years to recover. North Korea, which had a very feeble industrial base after WW2 (the Japanese-built factories and railways which had survived the war) invaded the pretty much rural South in 1950. That seems to indicate that in the case of a Communist invasion of the West, there would be at least a 5 year rebuilding period before that happens.

    Given nobody in 1940 had expected France to collapse so quickly, there is a high probability Stalin and Thälmann would believe France to be stronger than it proved to be. That is why while poorly industrialized South Korea was attacked after 5 years of post-WW2 recovery, in 1942 the two commie leaders would prefer to wait until around 1952 before "liberating the Western working class".

    That doesn't mean they would do nothing else in the mean time. A lot of effort would be put in starting revolutions in Central and Eastern Europe. The local right and far-right governments would surely put up a vigorous fight. Seeing what has happened in Germany might prompt the British, the French and the Italians to increase their presence in those countries.

    The Italians would quite likely be the ones contributing most of the troops. While we might be ready to dismiss the effectiveness of the Italians based on their track record in WW2, there are instances in which the Italian troops fought well.

    In Spain, a conflict which would be relevant in assessing the impact of an Italian intervention in Central and Eastern Europe, the Italians did OK-ish. After some initial setbacks they managed to win key battles in spite of being seriously outgunned and using mostly obsolete equipment. Given they fought against much better armed Republicans, the success was quite likely due to having professional officers, more disciplined troops and local support (by that time the Republicans were hated by most of the rural Spanish population). And unlike later on in WW2, in Spain the Italians who fought were volunteers, not conscripts, so their morale and motivation was considerably higher.

    With the exception of Hungary, communism was highly unpopular in Central and Eastern Europe of the time. That makes the situation similar to Spain, but with an additional twist in favor of the anti-communist side: after the fall of Germany, quite likely Britain and France would be more than happy to arm both the Italians and the East Europeans. If the Italians (and maybe the Spaniards) would be willing to play the cannon fodder part, the rest of the West would certainly help.

    Irrespective how the "revolutions" in Eastern Europe would pan out, it is quite likely the West would develop nukes before the Soviets. Which means that come the '50s a war with the West becomes impossible. That in turn means Stalin must settle for a Cold War.

    This alternate Cold War would differ from the original one in several details:

    1) There would be less countries in the Communist Camp;

    2) There would be more Fascist-like governments in Europe. Quite likely everything East of Italy would run a local version of Mussolini's regime;

    3) There would be no Holocaust and quite likely no anti-colonial wars either. The colonial empires would quite likely evolve into something similar to what is now France with her "Departements d'Outre-Mer" (overseas departments);

    4) There would be 3 or 4 Chinese states: a Communist one in the North West, Manchuko in the North East, a capitalist state run by the Kuomintang in the South and South West and some sort of Japanese puppet state on the East Coast if the Japanese don't "unite" it to Manchuko. The Korean peninsula and Taiwan would be Japanese provinces. The important development in the Far East would be that in the absence of a European War and in the presence of a serious Communist threat Japan would quite likely bow to the Western pressure and would work some sort of an agreement with Nationalist China.
    Last edited by Dromikaites; May 19, 2016 at 03:53 AM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MareNostrum

  14. #14
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Hitler dies in 1939, just after the annexation of the Czech Republic, but months before the invasion of Poland.

    I still can't see a good military alternative with Hitler gone. People seem to think that Manstein, Rommel, Guderian, Model, Kesselring would have all promoted themselves.
    Guys like Brauchitsch and Halder would have kept them on a short leash and would have advocated for stupid plans like their versions of the 1939 Polish war or the 1940 rehash of the WW1 Schlieffen Plan.

    Operation Barbarossa was more advanced than what they would have come up with but honestly the plan for Operation Barbarossa was very much traditional in the strategic sense. It was the operations and tactics that gave it a sort of modern spin. But Operation Barbarossa and the following Operation Typhoon were very simple in their outlook. When the guys like the ones I mentioned above had a hard time grasping those "advanced" concepts of operations and battle tactics I don't have faith that they could succeed strategically at all. Stalin would have melted them if just because of sheer mass.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  15. #15

    Default Re: Hitler dies in 1939, just after the annexation of the Czech Republic, but months before the invasion of Poland.

    Indeed, if Germany spirals into civil war after Hitler dies, Stalin has a much higher chance to "bring socialism" to Germany than he had in Spain. France and Britain would fumble for too long while Italy's assistance would prove insufficient.

    The thing is Germany after a civil war would be pretty much a wasteland, so Stalin would need to rebuild it before attacking the West. That would take some 10 years at least. On the other hand, a Soviet Republic of Germany would force Britain and France (and America) to wake up. So those 10 years would quite likely be put to good use by the Westerners as well. Among other things, those 10 years would be enough to get the atomic bomb, just like in the original timeline. After that we would have another variant of the Cold War.

    While I stay behind my previous scenario in the West, I figured out another possible development in the Far East.

    Since Stalin plans to export "revolution" to the rest of Central and Eastern Europe and since after the fall of Germany the West is quite likely to prop up the authoritarian regimes there, the Soviet leader needs to open a second front somewhere else. Far East is his best option, just like it happened in history.

    So he pulls the same trick as he did in the West, with the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. A Ribbentrop-Matsuoka Pact offers Japan the oils she needs, so that the Western embargo + the Western navies do not force Japan to stop the war in China. In exchange for that assistance the Japanese agree to divide China between them and the Soviets.

    That move might look sub-optimal because in such scenario Japan doesn't go at war anymore with the West but instead fights a proxy war with them in China. However for Stalin it is better to have a long proxy war instead of a short war Japan would most likely lose if both the British and the French fleets are available in the Far East. Not only the Japanese would grind themselves in China, they would also help in starting an anti-colonial uprising in Asia, further diverting Western assets away from Central and Eastern Europe.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MareNostrum

  16. #16
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Hitler dies in 1939, just after the annexation of the Czech Republic, but months before the invasion of Poland.

    Well I mean Lenin basically invented that long proxy war move. It was Lenin who said that the Kuomintang had to win in China to remove the foreign element. But that the Communists had to infiltrate the KMT and overthrow it to institute a Communist regime. This basically became the policy regarding China which is why the Soviets supported the KMT first.

    Stalin said the same thing about Hitler, he was the enabler of the revolution in Europe. Meaning that what Hitler did was necessary to remove the powerful independent minded elements and Europe but then be replaced by Communism. So in Stalin's mind Hitler was basically the result of the bourgeoisie rising up to claim power in a desperate attempt to stop the revolution. But because of the Marxist perspective of history it was a cyclical process and Hitler's attempts were destined to fail.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  17. #17
    IrishBlood's Avatar GIVE THEM BLIZZARDS!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hibernia
    Posts
    3,687

    Default Re: Hitler dies in 1939, just after the annexation of the Czech Republic, but months before the invasion of Poland.

    I'm not so sure about the certainty of Germany devolving into a civil war.

    I can see there being a military coup, perhaps even having the monarchy restored, but a civil war is a bit of a stretch considering Hitler had essentially stamped out virtually all opposition and has already been mentioned; the socialists/communists were imprisoned for the most part.

    The suggested scenario of a Spanish Civil War 2.0 would be convincing only if Germany was much more politically divided or had a direct border with the USSR. The Baltic sea is all well and good for transporting aid to from the Soviets to German rebels, but you're forgetting that the Kreigsmarine would be unlikely to idly sit by and let that happen. So unless the vast majority of the German navy turn red, the Soviets will have a tough time getting supplies to Germany.

    A more likely scenario is a sort of awkward detante, where by German doesn't pursue any further claims against Poland. At some stage war between the Soviets and/or Baltic states will likely break out. If/when that happens Germany will almost certainly support Poland, either by directly DoW on the USSR or via 'Volunteer' legions.

    There will still almost certainly be conflict between Italy and Greece and/or Yugoslavia, where a Hitler-less Germany could still find itself involved, either supporting Italy as their ally, or opposing them to curb their ambitions.

  18. #18

    Default Re: Hitler dies in 1939, just after the annexation of the Czech Republic, but months before the invasion of Poland.

    The German Civil War could be triggered by the very likely collapse of the German economy. In 1918 the German revolution started with the mutiny in the German navy. The same could happen in 1940, making it easy for the Soviet Union to supply the communist forces.

    While it is true that Hitler had killed or locked up lots of communists they were not completely eliminated even in the original timeline.

    If Hitler dies and the Nazi leaders start fighting for power, the army steps in and removes them, after which quite likely the generals would try to restore the Parliament. They might press for a president from among them but chances are they won't imitate Spain. This means the communist leaders would return both to the parliament and to the streets, greatly increasing the likelihood of another revolution once the economy capsizes.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MareNostrum

  19. #19
    bigdaddy1204's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dar al-Islam
    Posts
    1,896

    Default Re: Hitler dies in 1939, just after the annexation of the Czech Republic, but months before the invasion of Poland.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    In the event victory opened new horizons of disaster for Germany to charge into.
    This is a very perceptive post.

    The initial surprise German victories in WW2 have blinded later generations to just how much of a failure September 1939 was for the Germans: when the British and French Empires both declared war on Germany, Hitler opened Germany to huge risks and put the country in an unfavourable position, from which it was near-impossible to come out. Some historians have argued that the losses of aircraft, especially transport planes, the Luftwaffe suffered during 1940 in battles over France, Norway and Holland fatally doomed the Wehrmacht, because in 1942 it was a shortage of transport planes that led to the defeat of the Sixth army at Stalingrad.

    Some stats: during Operation Weserübung (9 April - 10 June 1940), the Luftwaffe lost 260 aircraft, of which 86 were transports. During the invasion of the Netherlands in May 1940, the RAF and Dutch anti-aircraft fire inflicted heavy losses on the German transport planes. On 10 May alone, 278 were downed or disabled. Thus, almost an entire year's production was lost in one day in the Netherlands. The subsequent battle for France cost the Luftwaffe another 28% of its front line strength, some 1,428 aircraft destroyed. It is arguable that Germany's transport fleet never recovered from these losses. Had all those planes been available at Stalingrad two years later, the Luftwaffe might have been able to supply the trapped Sixth army, and potentially change the course of the war.


    Last edited by bigdaddy1204; May 21, 2016 at 05:52 AM.

  20. #20

    Default Re: Hitler dies in 1939, just after the annexation of the Czech Republic, but months before the invasion of Poland.

    I want to expand on the last post in which I said the German generals would quite likely restore the parliament after deposing the Nazis:

    1) The generals were convinced Germany cannot win the war (and history proved them right). So they needed a form of government which would make the war less likely;

    2) In WW1 the parliament had enthusiastically voted for war, so a parliament by itself would not be a guarantee. Worse, the WW1 parliament had been dominated by the Social-Democrats who were pacifist in theory but nevertheless voted for war. However they did so out of fear autocratic Russia which had just started mobilizing would crush democratic Germany otherwise. Given now Poland acted as a buffer state between Russia and Germany, it was highly unlikely a parliament would be bent on war, except for the case some war-mongering party could win the elections;

    3) The only war-mongering party were the Nazis. Even among the Nazi leaders only very few did actually share Hitler's desire for war, most of them being much more interested in simply keeping their positions of power internally. The infighting would have most likely resulted in the party splitting into several pieces, each hating the guts of the others. Having some of the leaders arrested would have further weakened them. While quite likely the German general public dazzled by Hitler's "achievements" would have voted for the Nazis more than it did in 1932 (last free and fair elections), those votes would have been spread among smaller parties unwilling to cooperate. As a result a parliament would have greatly reduced the likelihood of a war;

    4) The army could insist keeping the office of the president as a second safety measure. Under the "Weimar constitution" the president of Germany was very powerful. He could dissolve the parliament, he could fire the chancellor (prime minister), he could appoint a prime minister without needing the vote of the parliament, he could temporarily suspend the civil liberties, etc. Hitler had manipulated the last German president into doing his bidding precisely because the president could legally do so. By having one of their own as president, the generals could make sure they would have the last word in German politics.

    While we now have come to believe the Nazi grip on power was irreversible, at the time even the Nazis felt under enormous pressure to cater to the public opinion. That is why they stop killing the mentally handicapped under public pressure, kept the Holocaust secret and postponed putting the German economy into war gear (thus hurting the standards of living) until mid-war.

    As such, reverting to parlamentarism would have looked rather normal to the public ("civil liberties were suspended till the Fuehrer got us out of crisis, now that we're out of the woods, civil liberties return").

    That the economy would be soon spinning into recession would be hard to imagine for the average Hans.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MareNostrum

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •