Earlier or Later WWII: Better or Worse?

Emperor Julian

I am sure that there have been numerous threads related to this subject, probably more specific (such as "WI: WWII began in 1938"), but I decided to ask this here in any case. The tensions that began the Second World War did not materialize in 1939 or 1941, but a few different decisions by Hitler, the Japanese, and the European powers could have easily changed history.

- If World War Two began earlier in Europe, would it go worse for the Allies or Germany? Who needed the extra time to re-arm more?
- If World War Two began later in Europe, would Germany or the Allies have re-armed more? When would the German economy have begun to run into severe problems?
-If Germany invaded the Soviet Union earlier, would the USSR be weaker due to having less time to recover from Stalin's purges?
-In the same vein, would a later invasion of the USSR result in a weaker Soviet Union, or would it give Germany more time to prepare for a better attack?
-If Japan and the United States came into conflict earlier or later, would the United States have an easier or more difficult time in defeating Japan? Earlier I can see the US having recovered from the Depression less and be marginally less capable for fighting.

Of course, I suppose that answers to any of these could be that it would not really matter, and the war would go approximately the same as OTL.
 

Deleted member 1487

Emperor Julian said:
I am sure that there have been numerous threads related to this subject, probably more specific (such as "WI: WWII began in 1938"), but I decided to ask this here in any case. The tensions that began the Second World War did not materialize in 1939 or 1941, but a few different decisions by Hitler, the Japanese, and the European powers could have easily changed history.

- If World War Two began earlier in Europe, would it go worse for the Allies or Germany? Who needed the extra time to re-arm more?
- If World War Two began later in Europe, would Germany or the Allies have re-armed more? When would the German economy have begun to run into severe problems?
-If Germany invaded the Soviet Union earlier, would the USSR be weaker due to having less time to recover from Stalin's purges?
-In the same vein, would a later invasion of the USSR result in a weaker Soviet Union, or would it give Germany more time to prepare for a better attack?
-If Japan and the United States came into conflict earlier or later, would the United States have an easier or more difficult time in defeating Japan? Earlier I can see the US having recovered from the Depression less and be marginally less capable for fighting.

Of course, I suppose that answers to any of these could be that it would not really matter, and the war would go approximately the same as OTL.
Click to expand...
A later WW2 benefits the Allies and virtually guarantees Germany and Japan don't get nearly as far.

Earlier can be a toss up. Say in 1938; does Poland keep to the non-aggression pact when Germany invades Czechoslovakia? Does it stay neutral as Germany moves into France? Does Germany have enough resources in the earlier war scenario without the money it got in looting Bohemia and having the British turn over foreign holdings of money that were used to buy fuel and other things.

Mostly it goes against Germany any time before or later, but there potentially could be a benefit for Germany to start a war in late 1938. However there is the Oster Conspiracy if a war starts earlier than 1939. Basically by 1939 there is no viable coup plans left due to the failure of the West to act when the German resistance felt it had a chance, but prior (1936-38) had the Allies fought or at least pushed back, then there was going to be a coup. Really the best thing that could have happened to the world would be a coup from an earlier war and the entire decent into WW2 is arrested by 1938 or even 1936.
 

PyrrhusVictorius

Why would a somewhat later start be so damaging to Germany, would the extra time to produce more tanks and other mechanized equipment not have benefited the effectiveness of the campaign? I know everyone else would be doing the same, but Germany already head the head-start so waiting until spring/summer 1940 lets say might have at least made the Polish campaign go even easier, maybe the war against France as well. Maybe if Hitler had decided to negotiate for a German take-over of Danzig or pushed a desperate Chamberlain for a piece of the Polish Corridor, the war could have postponed and launched from better position the following year (much beyond that I think would be disadvantageous).

Another somewhat less consequential effect of delaying the war would be that the 1939 Nuremberg Rally would still be held (exactly 75 years ago today), it was to be the "Rally of Peace", and would have most likely been the greatest spectacle of Nazi pageantry ever put on.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
PyrrhusVictorius said:
Why would a somewhat later start be so damaging to Germany, would the extra time to produce more tanks and other mechanized equipment not have benefited the effectiveness of the campaign?
Click to expand...
Nope. The Allies had gone to crash production mode around Munich and were accelerating fast. Basically, if the Germans go a year earlier then they don't have the capability for Sickle-Cut, and if they go a few months earlier they don't get the Sitzkrieg period to rapidly crash-produce their own munitions. Meanwhile, if they go a year later the W.Allies are pulling inexorably ahead in heavy equipment.
 

Emperor Julian

Saphroneth said:
Nope. The Allies had gone to crash production mode around Munich and were accelerating fast. Basically, if the Germans go a year earlier then they don't have the capability for Sickle-Cut, and if they go a few months earlier they don't get the Sitzkrieg period to rapidly crash-produce their own munitions. Meanwhile, if they go a year later the W.Allies are pulling inexorably ahead in heavy equipment.
Click to expand...
So basically you are saying that the war just so happened to start at the very exact time that Nazi Germany was strongest?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Emperor Julian said:
So basically you are saying that the war just so happened to start at the very exact time that Nazi Germany was strongest?
Click to expand...
Pretty much, yes.
Why should this be surprising? We're talking about a country which had had a tiny military until the mid 1930s having defeated Poland and France in rapid succession - of course they got lucky somewhere, especially because the French and British economies were each in the ballpark of the size of Germany. (Read Tooze - it makes it very clear that the German economy was lucky not to have imploded by 1939.)
 

hipper

Banned
Emperor Julian said:
So basically you are saying that the war just so happened to start at the very exact time that Nazi Germany was strongest?
Click to expand...

Er the war did not "just happen to start" Nazi Germany decided that 1939 was a good time to invade Poland and that no one would dare stop them.

cheers Hipper
 

Emperor Julian

hipper said:
Er the war did not "just happen to start" Nazi Germany decided that 1939 was a good time to invade Poland and that no one would dare stop them.

cheers Hipper
Click to expand...
But Britain and France could have intervened in Czechoslovakia, or they could have allowed Germany to take Poland and wait for Hitler to do something else before they started the war.

Everyone who has been on this forum knows that the Nazis got very lucky in World War Two, and that they vastly overperformed what it looks like they should have been able to accomplish. It just seems to be a bit deterministic to say that we are living in the one universe where Hitler happened to decide to attack Poland and the Allies happened to decide to finally draw the line in the one small window of opportunity that the Nazis needed to have their OTL lucky streak.
 

ObssesedNuker

Well, Hitler did invade Poland precisely because he knew that time favored Britain, France, and the USSR. This was a matter of strategy and the German High Command was actually even worse at strategy than Hitler. Hitler for all his flaws (which were legion by war's end) could still sometimes recognize a brilliant plan, or come up with an original concept himself. The German military strategists were almost all devoid of even this imagination.

The German military has a deserved reputation for tactical and operational brilliance, but on the strategic level it had serious flaws which would dog it throughout the war, and doom it once it failed to quickly dispatch the USSR. Some people assume Hitler didn't know the risks he was taking in declaring war on the West and Russia. The evidence is that he did, he just realized that Germany would never be stronger vis a vis her rivals than she was in the late 30's/early 40's. His decision to wage a genocidal war came at the point where Germany had the greatest chance of winning it, something he identified yet surprisingly few others in the German military establishment did (and of those who did, they drew the opposite conclusion from Hitler - that war should be avoided - since they weren't amoral megalomaniacs). Part of Hitler's disdain for so many around him was due to the fact that very often he was right, when so many others who surrounded him were wrong.

Ultimately Hitler's style of leadership became counterproductive once the Nazis were losing, but the fact that they even got as far as they did was because of him.
 
Last edited:

AdA

Germany started from a very small army, limited navy and no airforce in 1934, so it would always need time to rearm. Since the German AF had been preparing for expansion since 1919, they expanded rapidly. For a while France and Britain relied on their lead and only started rearming rapidly later. 1939 is the year they began to catch up. Having absorbed the Czech equipment and defence industry Germany really grew in 1939, and had a significant advantage in modern aircraft numbers. From 1940 on French forces modernisation would make life a lot harder for the Germans. The French were not trying to match the German numbers, but their army was equipping with substantially heavier equipment. They had 47mm ST and Tank guns vs 37mm, for example, and were about to introduce a 75mm AT gun roughly in the same class as the later PAK40. The British Army was getting large numbers of tanks, and the RAF would be vastly expanding its modern fighter force. Regarding training organisation and doctrine they where also catching up fast.
So a delay of one year in starting the war, if all remains as OTL, would make a victory in BoF much harder.
The USSR is a special case. In 1936/7 Russia had the biggest tank force in the world, probably more tanks active than the rest of the world armies combined. It took a devastating blow with the purges,and would get back to shape soon. So a delay of one year and a miracle 1941 win in France sends Germany into Russia in 1942, and the soviets would improve a lot in that extra year. (More than the Germans would)
On top of that, Germany was going broke, and couldn't pay for rearming at the pace it was forcing its economy to pay. They had spent their money, Austria's money and Czechoslovakia money and would have to slow down.
Time was running against Germany.

An earlier war would have caught everyone off guard. In 1938 there were few Bf109s, but even fewer allied modern fighters. The allies had the French army, and with Czechoslovakia in the fight, there would be more of them if Poland joined them.

So Germany can do nearly as well in 38 or worst depending on who fights who when, and in 1940 Germany would do worst.
Before 1938 Germany can only fight Poland or Italy, and only one at a time.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
You're going to find the consensus is that anytime earlier or later means the Germans get less far and don't last as long. Anytime earlier or later and Japan does worse against the British Commonwealth and US. Conceivably the China front could go better for Japan if that war went full-scale earlier in the 1930s.

One other factor is that a later war might result in FDR not getting a third term. There's a chance for a committed non-interventionist (not Wendell Willkie) to end up in the White House if the war is starting later.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Emperor Julian said:
But Britain and France could have intervened in Czechoslovakia, or they could have allowed Germany to take Poland and wait for Hitler to do something else before they started the war.

Everyone who has been on this forum knows that the Nazis got very lucky in World War Two, and that they vastly overperformed what it looks like they should have been able to accomplish. It just seems to be a bit deterministic to say that we are living in the one universe where Hitler happened to decide to attack Poland and the Allies happened to decide to finally draw the line in the one small window of opportunity that the Nazis needed to have their OTL lucky streak.
Click to expand...

It's entirely possible we're living in one of the relatively few universes where the Allies had their heads screwed on wrongly enough to not leave a f*cking reserve force for an entire army group.

raharris1973 said:
You're going to find the consensus is that anytime earlier or later means the Germans get less far and don't last as long. Anytime earlier or later and Japan does worse against the British Commonwealth and US. Conceivably the China front could go better for Japan if that war went full-scale earlier in the 1930s.

One other factor is that a later war might result in FDR not getting a third term. There's a chance for a committed non-interventionist (not Wendell Willkie) to end up in the White House if the war is starting later.
Click to expand...

We often forget that Japan attacked, almost literally, the moment they had a fleet with parity with the USN (in carriers, at least) - two of the Pearl strike force were so new the paint was still damp ;)
 

Cryhavoc101

Saphroneth said:
It's entirely possible we're living in one of the relatively few universes where the Allies had their heads screwed on wrongly enough to not leave a f*cking reserve force for an entire army group.



We often forget that Japan attacked, almost literally, the moment they had a fleet with parity with the USN (in carriers, at least) - two of the Pearl strike force were so new the paint was still damp ;)
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that we are living in a Nazi Germany WW2 Wank ATL :eek:

Like other on here I agree that Germany had a 18 month Window of opportunity where she was strong and France and Britain were relatively weak

Britian was tripling the size of her Army every year from 1938 and France was already in early 1940 the 2nd largest builder of tanks (with Britian already making the excellent but slow Matilda II and starting to make designs such as the A22 Churchill and Valentine) - and these tanks were superior to those used by Germany.

So by May 1941 you are looking at 25 -30 Mechinised British Divisions with a lot more Matilda II Tanks and a much greater number of the Better French Tanks.

Also it give sthe French Army a further year working with the British to shake of the lethargy that had inflicted it during the interwar years

The BF109 in 1940 was a superb fighter plane but then so where the British Hurricane and Spitfire as well as the French D.520 (which given time would have become a match for the German Aircraft) and together with US types such as the P40 then entering French Service would have presented the German Airforce with a massive problem in 1941 - especially as they were all being built in such vast numbers.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
strangeland said:
Well, for one thing, the longer the war is delayed, the higher the probability that it will end in a nuclear exchange, or at least that nuclear weapons will see heavier/more use in the conflict.
Click to expand...

...ahahaaa. It is to laugh.
Nazi Germany getting hold of a nuclear weapon is incredibly unlikely for all kinds of reasons - one of them that they considered nuclear physics "Jewish science" that would have to be supplanted by "German Physics".
Same but for different reasons for Italy and Japan.
Also, of course, there's that the German economy would have collapsed in fairly short order if they'd kept up their OTL spending without gobbling up countries on schedule, while the Allies were not so constrained - so a LATER WW2 would be rather shorter and sharper.
 

AdA

Saphroneth said:
More like an Alliedscrew, but pretty close. In all honesty, the early parts at minimum of Blunted Sickle seems more like it should happen than what really DID.
Click to expand...


Anyone who had studied EvF plan for the first battle of Ypres could have antecipated the german move.
Hell, in WW1 the french plan accounted for the possibility of swinging north after the expected breakthrough to trap the German forces that had rushed into Belgium.

The allied response was:

The Germans are moving into Belgium.
All of them?
Can't tell, seems like only one Army Group.
Do we know where the German Armoured divisions are and what they are doing?
Not really. A few of them are in Belgium and the Netherlands but we don't know where the others are or what they are up to. Maybe they are taking up defensive positions in Poland...
OK, it's decided. Let's move all our best forces into Belgium, make no plans for any other options and most of all let's not leave any armoured units in reserve because you know how lazy they get when you leave them in reserve.
 

MattII

strangeland said:
Well, for one thing, the longer the war is delayed, the higher the probability that it will end in a nuclear exchange, or at least that nuclear weapons will see heavier/more use in the conflict.
Click to expand...
Weighed out by the fact that the Germans will likely be unable to force the allies completely off the continent, and thus reduce the amount of time it takes to beat the Germans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top