Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 30 of 30

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

  1. #21
    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 don't know that groups like the Social Democrats and Communists would be a factor in Germany. Hitler had them locked up in the gulag by this point.
    However the National Socialists had socialist/leftists and right wing elements within the party. They had a hard time getting along within the party but Hitler held them together by appealing to both sides. With him gone the party would literally collapse into militant right wing bourgeoisie conservatives and populist left wing. This would certainly create an issue within the state.

    As for war mongering I would say that the lack of sabre rattling on the part of the old aristocratic generals was due to sheer fear. They would have gladly given Poland a smack down if given the chance but they were deadly afraid of fighting the French, British and Soviets or any combination of these.
    Last edited by Lord Oda Nobunaga; May 21, 2016 at 03:00 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

  2. #22

    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 Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    However the National Socialists had socialist/leftists and right wing elements within the party. They had a hard time getting along within the party but Hitler held them together by appealing to both sides. With him gone the party would literally collapse into militant right wing bourgeoisie conservatives and populist left wing. This would certainly create an issue within the state.
    You're spot on! The general public is not aware the Nazis were ideologically internally divided between what we would call "socialism" and "capitalism". That would have been yet another reason for the party to break up, personal rivalries aside.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    I don't know that groups like the Social Democrats and Communists would be a factor in Germany. Hitler had them locked up in the gulag by this point.
    While a lot of leaders and rank and file were locked up, they were still alive in 1939 when Hitler dies. The military leadership can only gain by freeing them, because a fragmented parliament makes it easier for them to run the country via the office of the president of the republic.

    Even in Hitler's mind in 1945 the republican structures were still alive, hence he appointed Doeniz president not chancellor (=prime minister). That would have been more so the case in the German psyche in 1939. Given the constitutional powers of the German president, it's obvious the military would be extremely interested in reinstating the office and putting one of its leaders in charge.

    It is worth noting the relation between the army and the Social Democrats has been good in the past. They got more votes than the Communists in the last free elections and given everybody expects the economy to tank, it's best for the army to prop up a moderate left in the parliament instead of relying on the volatile Nazi left.

    Also judging by the Spanish experience, at that time fresh in everybody's minds, it would be better to have a "managed" parliamentarian political life as a means of a "safety valve" instead of allowing a free political competition which would be likely to result in political violence like it did in Spain.

    This is why I expect the military to keep it simple: secure the president office, restore the political parties as a "safety valve" while stomping any attempt at organizing paramilitaries irrespective of those being left wing or right wing.

    There's also another aspect to be considered. Both the Social Democrats and the Communists had lots of members and sympathizers still free. In the original timeline they formed various underground organizations in the German Resistance.

    Therefore in the unlikely case the generals do not release those imprisoned by Hitler, there are still enough people able to start an insurrection once the economy goes south.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    As for war mongering I would say that the lack of sabre rattling on the part of the old aristocratic generals was due to sheer fear. They would have gladly given Poland a smack down if given the chance but they were deadly afraid of fighting the French, British and Soviets or any combination of these.
    Well, it was also in their interest to keep Poland as a bulwark against the Soviets.

    Given the economists and businessmen of that time were aware bad times were ahead, the smartest move for Germany would have been to use the existing and the newly acquired industrial bases in Austria and the Protectorate to sell industrialized goods to Eastern Europe.

    Those countries were in the process of building their own industries and German capital goods were highly appreciated.

    In the original timeline in 1938 the Romanian king sent an economic delegation to London to ask the British to invest in developing the Romanian industry. The delegation pointed out that if the British would refuse, Romania would be forced to turn to Germany for assistance.

    The British refused. In the '90s the British documents were de-classified so we know the reasons why. The main reason was at the time the European market was highly fragmented due to protectionism and therefore the British investors were skeptical the Romanian industrialized goods would find a large enough market for their investment to be recuperated. The second important reason was at the time only 3 hard currencies mattered: the pound sterling, the French franc and the US dollar. It was highly unlikely the Romanian exports would generate high amounts of payment in any of those high currencies, therefore it was highly unlikely the dividends of the British-Romanian companies would be convertible in pounds sterling. The third reason for refusal was because developing a Romanian industry would reduce the exports of the British industrialized goods to Romania. At the time the main Romanian source of pounds sterling was oil exports and those pound sterling were used to import British goods.

    In the original timeline the Germans took a different approach than the British: they were willing to provide capital goods in exchange for the Romanian oil and grain and were also willing to invest in developing the local industry.

    The German rationale was that given the gap between Germany and Romania, there was a lot of money to be made by building the less developed country up while owning a large piece of that country's companies in the process.

    There was no need for the German investors to worry about payments in pounds, francs or dollars because the German plan was to turn Central and Eastern Europe into a single market where the trade was done in Reichmarks. The richer that single market became, the better for the German economy and for the German political standing. The British and the French by locking up the markets of their colonial empires were pushing the Central and Eastern Europeans, Turkey, China and South America into Germany's wide open arms.

    In this context the Polish market was extremely valuable for Germany therefore I seriously doubt with the exception of Hitler and a handful of like-minded loonies there was anybody else interested in alienating the Poles.

    The Poles themselves, being unable to export freely to the British, French, Italian, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish or Japanese colonial empires had only Germany and Central and Eastern Europe left to trade with. Given the Reichsmark was the only valuable currency of the area it would not have taken long for the Poles to join the single market Germany was building in the region.
    Last edited by Dromikaites; May 22, 2016 at 06:11 AM. Reason: Typos
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MareNostrum

  3. #23
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dromikaites View Post
    You're spot on! The general public is not aware the Nazis were ideologically internally divided between what we would call "socialism" and "capitalism". That would have been yet another reason for the party to break up, personal rivalries aside.



    While a lot of leaders and rank and file were locked up, they were still alive in 1939 when Hitler dies. The military leadership can only gain by freeing them, because a fragmented parliament makes it easier for them to run the country via the office of the president of the republic.

    Even in Hitler's mind in 1945 the republican structures were still alive, hence he appointed Doeniz president not chancellor (=prime minister). That would have been more so the case in the German psyche in 1939. Given the constitutional powers of the German president, it's obvious the military would be extremely interested in reinstating the office and putting one of its leaders in charge.

    It is worth noting the relation between the army and the Social Democrats has been good in the past. They got more votes than the Communists in the last free elections and given everybody expects the economy to tank, it's best for the army to prop up a moderate left in the parliament instead of relying on the volatile Nazi left.

    Also judging by the Spanish experience, at that time fresh in everybody's minds, it would be better to have a "managed" parliamentarian political life as a means of a "safety valve" instead of allowing a free political competition which would be likely to result in political violence like it did in Spain.

    This is why I expect the military to keep it simple: secure the president office, restore the political parties as a "safety valve" while stomping any attempt at organizing paramilitaries irrespective of those being left wing or right wing.

    There's also another aspect to be considered. Both the Social Democrats and the Communists had lots of members and sympathizers still free. In the original timeline they formed various underground organizations in the German Resistance.

    Therefore in the unlikely case the generals do not release those imprisoned by Hitler, there are still enough people able to start an insurrection once the economy goes south.

    Well, it was also in their interest to keep Poland as a bulwark against the Soviets.

    Given the economists and businessmen of that time were aware bad times were ahead, the smartest move for Germany would have been to use the existing and the newly acquired industrial bases in Austria and the Protectorate to sell industrialized goods to Eastern Europe.

    Those countries were in the process of building their own industries and German capital goods were highly appreciated.

    In the original timeline in 1938 the Romanian king sent an economic delegation to London to ask the British to invest in developing the Romanian industry. The delegation pointed out that if the British would refuse, Romania would be forced to turn to Germany for assistance.

    The British refused. In the '90s the British documents were de-classified so we know the reasons why. The main reason was at the time the European market was highly fragmented due to protectionism and therefore the British investors were skeptical the Romanian industrialized goods would find a large enough market for their investment to be recuperated. The second important reason was at the time only 3 hard currencies mattered: the pound sterling, the French franc and the US dollar. It was highly unlikely the Romanian exports would generate high amounts of payment in any of those high currencies, therefore it was highly unlikely the dividends of the British-Romanian companies would be convertible in pounds sterling. The third reason for refusal was because developing a Romanian industry would reduce the exports of the British industrialized goods to Romania. At the time the main Romanian source of pounds sterling was oil exports and those pound sterling were used to import British goods.

    In the original timeline the Germans took a different approach than the British: they were willing to provide capital goods in exchange for the Romanian oil and grain and were also willing to invest in developing the local industry.

    The German rationale was that given the gap between Germany and Romania, there was a lot of money to be made by building the less developed country up while owning a large piece of that country's companies in the process.

    There was no need for the German investors to worry about payments in pounds, francs or dollars because the German plan was to turn Central and Eastern Europe into a single market where the trade was done in Reichmarks. The richer that single market became, the better for the German economy and for the German political standing. The British and the French by locking up the markets of their colonial empires were pushing the Central and Eastern Europeans, Turkey, China and South America into Germany's wide open arms.

    In this context the Polish market was extremely valuable for Germany therefore I seriously doubt with the exception of Hitler and a handful of like-minded loonies there was anybody else interested in alienating the Poles.

    The Poles themselves, being unable to export freely to the British, French, Italian, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish or Japanese colonial empires had only Germany and Central and Eastern Europe left to trade with. Given the Reichsmark was the only valuable currency of the area it would not have taken long for the Poles to join the single market Germany was building in the region.
    So what you are saying is, that there might not necessarily have been an economic collapse in Germany if war had not broken out?

    What I am getting from your post is that a now greater Germany would have used its extensive manufacturing industry to develop the Balkans and Eastern Europe, essentially cornering the markets there to the point where a single currency is made.

    It would take a long time to do, but if that was the case then I doubt the Germany economy would crash to the point where a civil war breaks out.

  4. #24

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

    The collapse would have happened precisely because forming the common market would have taken years.

    However the German military and business elites had only that option to attempt to avoid a crisis and to compensate for the lack of colonies.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MareNostrum

  5. #25
    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.

    IIRC the German economy was on the cliff edge in 1939, having paid for the re-armament in borrowed money and mandated 50% future bonds. There were no more cookies in the jar and plunder from Poland was needed to fund Fall Gelb, and the French strategic reserves fuelled (literally and figuratively) Barbarossa, Fall Blau and Zitadelle.

    One unsuccessful campaign, e3specially without the sweetener of a victory in Poland or France would see Germany seize up economically with general strikes, starvation and anarchy.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  6. #26

    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
    IIRC the German economy was on the cliff edge in 1939, having paid for the re-armament in borrowed money and mandated 50% future bonds. There were no more cookies in the jar and plunder from Poland was needed to fund Fall Gelb, and the French strategic reserves fuelled (literally and figuratively) Barbarossa, Fall Blau and Zitadelle.

    One unsuccessful campaign, e3specially without the sweetener of a victory in Poland or France would see Germany seize up economically with general strikes, starvation and anarchy.
    Yes, this is why I think the social turmoil is unavoidable even though on paper building a Central and Eastern European common market looks like a solution to the economic problems.

    The thing is the generals are convinced the war will be lost so once Hitler is gone (and the Nazi party breaks into pieces) there's nobody able to push them to invade Poland.

    So their mental model at the time must be something like: "let's prevent the anarchy and let's push for the common market".
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MareNostrum

  7. #27
    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.

    But it's not like the Germans didn't support Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and hell even Yugoslavia to an extent.
    There was a powerful anti-Polish sentiment in Germany and especially among the military. I mean after the Polish army was established by the Germans it turned on them in WW1 and the losses in the treaties and revised treaties to Poland, so the sentiment stems from that far back and you also have the Silesian uprisings not long after. The German army and especially the older officers would have liked to resolve their past enmity and give Poland a savage beating.

    Also there is the issue that though Pilsudski and Hitler seem to have been cut from the same cloth they didn't necessarily see eye to eye because they were both strongly nationalistic and the nationalistic issues overlapped. Maybe if the Soviet Union made threatening moves against the Poles then Pilsudski would have rushed over to Hitler's side. Problem here is now that Pilsudski had been steadily losing power throughout the 1930's until his death and some of the other potentates in Poland were strongly anti-German and were in an awkward position between Germany and the USSR.
    Pilsudski's successor seems to have been more anti-German than Pilsudski and even in agreements of convenience he seems to have been less likely to budge. The Poles also did not want to fall within Germany's economic influence, they strongly resisted any attempts to accept payments in Reichs Marks and only accepted British Pounds or else only extremely high amounts of Reichs Marks which is kind of a scam I would say.

    I mean the only reasons Germany had to not beat the ever loving out of Poland were to not piss off the western powers and to not throw Poland into the loving arms of Stalin. Valid reasons of course but influencing Poland would always be an ordeal.

    As for the German state at the time. Hitler seized power by saying that he had to contain the Communist threat. Perhaps after a long time of dictatorial rule the populace would become complacent and acclimatized or forget about the temporary power that the Fuhrer had. However the fact that Hitler split up his power on his death and appointed a president, a prime minister and a supreme military commander and then more or less purged some of the stronger elements of the NSDAP leadership seems to indicate that he would in fact revert to a Republic type of system. However he was very adamant about having a one party state and he never made any plan for how elections would have worked. He most likely would have avoided direct democracy, or hell any democracy at all costs. The President might well be elected by the Party or regional representatives of the state (kind of like how the USSR and the PRC did/still do) or appointed by the previous leader. It is impossible to know however.

    I would also take the time to point out how many admirals ruled countries in this time. Doenitz ruled Germany, Horthy ruled Hungary and Aleksandr Kolchak tried to rule Russia; all these countries were not known for having particularly strong navies... which is absolutely hilarious
    Last edited by Lord Oda Nobunaga; May 27, 2016 at 04:25 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

  8. #28

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

    Indeed, the Germans tried to build the CEE common market also in the OTL (original time line). This is why I believe that in this AH scenario they would see the common market as a way out of the upcoming economic crisis. Therefore I expect the military and business elites to push for that even though it is highly unlikely they would avert the crisis by doing that.

    The Polish elite's attitude towards Germany was more dominated by Polish interests than some ideology. In 1934 Poland had signed a 10 year non-aggression pact with Germany immediately followed by a trade treaty which ended the previous customs war between the two countries. This shows the Poles were very much interested in trading with Germany, even though they preferred pounds sterling to Reichsmarks.

    The reason why they shunned the Reichsmarks was similar to the reasons why nowadays the Chinese RMB isn't a very popular currency in the international trade. Businesspeople at the time were fully aware of the structural problems of the German economy, just like they are aware of China's.

    And that attitude wasn't restricted to the Poles. The Romanians had a very comprehensive economic agreement with Germany, which went beyond trade. Nevertheless the Reichsmark was not accepted for payment of the Romanian goods (mostly oil and grain). The Germans had to pay in gold, industrial or military equipment. And the Germans did pay in a combination of all these.

    While gold was scarce, the Germans had plenty of industrial and military equipment and would have been happy to trade it for raw materials, food or low-processed goods from Poland, just like the Poles would have been happy to get those in exchange.

    The Germans and the Poles would have been equally happy to have mixed German-Polish firms in which the German capital would consist of machine tools and other industrial equipment.

    It would have also been natural for such companies to accept Reichsmarks as payment for their exports to Germany since that would have simplified paying the dividends to the German investors. The thing is that would mean the Polish investors in those mixed companies would also end up indirectly holding a sizable amount of Reichsmarks.

    Replicate the same situation all over Central and Eastern Europe and soon all those countries would agree to use the Reichsmark for at least a portion of the regional foreign trade.

    This is why if somehow the anarchy is averted, and especially if Hitler dies before April 28th 1939 (before unilaterally denouncing the German-Polish nonaggression pact) there is no reason why Poland would stubbornly refuse to join a common CEE market.

    What would be the alternative for the Poles? The colonial empires' and American markets were closed, the other countries' hard currency reserves were too meager for those countries to spend them on Polish goods instead of British, French or American ones.

    Even though joining a common market based on the Reichsmark was actually irrevocably tying Poland and all the other countries to Germany, the German deal was much better than the Western Allies' deal.

    The Western Allies were offering only military protection. If Germany would have stopped encroaching on the CEE borders, Germany would have ceased to be a threat to the CEE while in the same time offering a very attractive economic package and additional protection against the Soviet Union. Add to that all the remaining CEE countries were run by authoritarian regimes at the time, which greatly simplified the decision making process.

    I am saying all that in order to give a better picture of how the World would have looked like to those involved. Of course the economic crisis, the civil war and the victory of the communists in Germany would have been more likely than Germany succeeding in building the CEE common market.

    However given the lack of appetite for a World War was dominant among the German generals and businessmen, building a CEE common market would have been the most popular option among them.
    Last edited by Dromikaites; May 28, 2016 at 01:59 AM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MareNostrum

  9. #29
    ShockBlast's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    European Union , Romania , Constanta
    Posts
    4,496

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

    Sorry for poking the thread months later.

    Now that is a good analysis,Dromi. Things could have gone south with a civil war or Germany could have formed a CEE of sorts. The economic collapse is still in the cards but if USSR doesn`t collapse with a far bigger build up I doubt that Germany will, of course, they will have to slow down and focus on repaying some of the debt.

    What is still a huge pain in the general mind of the German people is that Prussia is NOT linked with the rest of Germany. I don`t see Germany offering to defend Poland in the 40s even if trade would be initiated and USSR would have made the biggest investment blunder in the history of the 20th century if they just stood on that gargantuan stockpile of weapons.

    Indeed, Stalin was not a moron, he needed some kind of understanding with Germany at the very least. The western powers didn`t have any good land connection with USSR so if USSR would want to take Poland`s Ukrainian and Belarusian lands the west could do very little.

    A plan could be drown in which USSR takes the Ukrainian and Belarusian lands and Germany gets the Corridor for blocking the Western Powers from using Germany as a staging point.
    I don`t think that Germany would allow USSR to take all Poland, that would trigger an anti USSR crusade with Germany leading the charge followed by France, Italy and UK.

    If both parties keep to their understanding, USSR only getting the Ukrainian and Belarusian lands and Germany blocking the Western Power in interfering but than offering "offering" to back Poland against the USSR in exchange for the Corridor could be seen as small enough to pass.

    With Austria, Sudetenland and a Corridor to Prussia, Germany would have been sated and it could turn to it`s favourite activity - a European common market.

    Or course, Stalin might not risk it and Germany is felt with no opportunity to get the Corridor, maybe a deal with Poland granting extraterritoriality and letting Germany build a highway and thus linking Germany proper with Prussia by land could be worked. Germany already has Austria and Sudetenland.

    I don`t see any chance for Germany, without Hitler, being interested in negotiating a deal in allowing USSR to get the Baltics or Bessarabia and I think that USSR would have been far more interested in Slavic land.

    All in all a Hitler-less Germany is more attractive.

  10. #30

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

    It would just be like the premise of Command & Conquer: Red Alert.

    Stalin believed in the idea of worldwide communism and without Hitler, there still would be a WW2, it's just the Soviet Union would be the main antagonist instead of Germany. He wasn't building up the biggest military in the world on the Polish border without reason.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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