If Chamberlain had allowed Hitler to carve up Poland in half with Stalin, would Hitler have been content with finally retaking the land that was once Prussia and connecting the main German reich with East Prussia? Would WW2 have been ultimately averted?
If Chamberlain hadn't declared war, would Hitler have stopped with Poland?
- Thread starter peterpandude85
- Start date
Yes. It certainly won't be the majority view, but I think he would. If he'd wanted all of Poland, the M-R Pact wouldn't have given half of it to the USSR. There would be something of a standoff in the East, since Hitler does want Ukraine and the Caucasus, but isn't really ready for war. He won't really have a pretext for Barbarossa unless a war is already underway; he may attempt to do so on his own timetable, but he may delay things long enough that they actually don't happen. Unlike most, I don't think Hitler was so committed to his long-term ideological goals that he was willing to risk everything, at any cost, to get Lebensraum. I think he sincerely thought he could bluff the West over Poland again, and I think he was disappointed when war was declared.
This applies only to Hitler's ambitions, not with events beyond his control. Stalin may have something to say about the new western border, and a preemptive war by either the USSR or Germany is entirely possible, though I don't think Hitler wants it before June 1941. Another possibility is that Chamberlain's government falls, and the new one declares war. The Nazis are still going to commit the same atrocities in Poland that they did IOTL, if not more, so that may cause war. The likelihood of Hitler actually getting away with keeping his half of Poland until his natural death is practically zero. But I do think his ambitions ended there -- it's just that they were already too far-reaching for peace.
This applies only to Hitler's ambitions, not with events beyond his control. Stalin may have something to say about the new western border, and a preemptive war by either the USSR or Germany is entirely possible, though I don't think Hitler wants it before June 1941. Another possibility is that Chamberlain's government falls, and the new one declares war. The Nazis are still going to commit the same atrocities in Poland that they did IOTL, if not more, so that may cause war. The likelihood of Hitler actually getting away with keeping his half of Poland until his natural death is practically zero. But I do think his ambitions ended there -- it's just that they were already too far-reaching for peace.
BigBlueBox
Banned
You need to explain your scenario. Are you proposing a scenario in which Britain never guaranteed Poland or it did but then refused to honor its commitments? If the former, it’s possible that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is never agreed to in the first place. Hitler will also interpret the lack of a guarantee to mean that Britain is giving him a green light to conquer the whole continent. He then immediately goes to war against France (or is already at war with France if France declares war against Germany). Once France is finished the whole continent bows down to Germany. Even the USSR will try appeasing Germany, which will fail. Germany wins this alt-WWII.
If you mean the latter, in which Chamberlain dishonors his promise to Poland, then he is removed by a vote of no confidence and his successor likely declares war.
If you mean the latter, in which Chamberlain dishonors his promise to Poland, then he is removed by a vote of no confidence and his successor likely declares war.
@BigBlueBox , I agree about the "green light" -- that certainly is how Hitler would interpret it. And he may overstep. I also agree about the no-confidence vote; maybe that means a PoD before the M-R Pact and the Anglo-Polish Agreement is necessary for Chamberlain to survive.
He'd pause, probably, to digest Poland, and, if France had still guaranteed Poland's sovereignty, to begin the process of battling France next. The Soviet Union would be next, surely, and there's no reason not to think he won't launch that attack soon after anyway.
What Britain does next is of significant importance, I think, to what Hitler does.
What Britain does next is of significant importance, I think, to what Hitler does.
Garrison
Donor
If Chamberlain had tried that in anything like an OTL 1939 situation he would probably have faced a vote of no confidence and been out of office that much sooner. Either you are proposing a radically different situation, or this really can't happen. assuming the former you really need to fill in details.
As to the original question of course Hitler wouldn't have stopped, Poland was simply one more box to be ticked off en route to his ultimate goal of Lebensraum in the east and of course destroying the French as a threat to secure Germany's western flank and avenge 1918 is also on the list so its entirely like the attack on France goes off pretty much on the OTL schedule.
I agree with Big Blue Box and some of the other commentators. Once the guarantee is made, Chamberlain has to honor it and his government would collapse if he extended a guarantee to Poland, the Poles refused to deal with Germany because they had a guarantee, Germany invaded Poland and the British and French did nothing.
Its worth remembering at the time that most people (not everyone) expected Poland to hold out long enough against Germany for the French to mobilize and attack into Germany before the Germans had finished with Poland. So the guarantee, though it was criticized by people such as Lloyd George as the wrong place to draw a line in the sand, was not meaningless. This also explains the French failure to mount a serious attack in September 1939, though thought they had more time and could mobilize first.
This means we are probably dealing with a situation where the POD has to come before the Nazi Soviet Pact. There is either no guarantee, or the British and French convince the Poles that they have to give in to the German demands (which if I remember correctly were not that extensive) and they do. Germany now has a land connection to East Prussia and no excuse for war with Poland. Poland is also larger than Czechoslovakia and has a larger army and air force, so this isn't the Czech situation where the Germans can just reneg and walk into Prague.
ITTL there is no Nazi-Soviet Pact. Hitler still wants to take over Russian territory and build a continental German empire. He has gained another bloodless propaganda victory and more territory. Also the British and French governments have given him everything he wants twice. They also keep removing excuses to go to war. And he can't just attack the Soviet Union because there is no common border and Germany hasn't been able to plunder France, Poland, and the Low Countries.
So my guess is the focus of German diplomacy is enlisting the British and French into an alliance to take down the Soviet Union. Remember there is no Nazi-Soviet Pact but German diplomatic relations with Britain and France are not actually that bad. They might try to build on the Japanese alliance more but I never have understood what they were trying to do with this.
Britain and France both have right wing and anti-communist governments, but they gave in to Hitler's demands more to preserve the peace then to clear the way for a western version of the Nazi Soviet Pact. Third Republic governments were never that stable, and Chamberlain faces an election in 1940 where he will face criticism by Labour and internal criticism from some Conservatives for having given into Hitler twice.
Its worth remembering at the time that most people (not everyone) expected Poland to hold out long enough against Germany for the French to mobilize and attack into Germany before the Germans had finished with Poland. So the guarantee, though it was criticized by people such as Lloyd George as the wrong place to draw a line in the sand, was not meaningless. This also explains the French failure to mount a serious attack in September 1939, though thought they had more time and could mobilize first.
This means we are probably dealing with a situation where the POD has to come before the Nazi Soviet Pact. There is either no guarantee, or the British and French convince the Poles that they have to give in to the German demands (which if I remember correctly were not that extensive) and they do. Germany now has a land connection to East Prussia and no excuse for war with Poland. Poland is also larger than Czechoslovakia and has a larger army and air force, so this isn't the Czech situation where the Germans can just reneg and walk into Prague.
ITTL there is no Nazi-Soviet Pact. Hitler still wants to take over Russian territory and build a continental German empire. He has gained another bloodless propaganda victory and more territory. Also the British and French governments have given him everything he wants twice. They also keep removing excuses to go to war. And he can't just attack the Soviet Union because there is no common border and Germany hasn't been able to plunder France, Poland, and the Low Countries.
So my guess is the focus of German diplomacy is enlisting the British and French into an alliance to take down the Soviet Union. Remember there is no Nazi-Soviet Pact but German diplomatic relations with Britain and France are not actually that bad. They might try to build on the Japanese alliance more but I never have understood what they were trying to do with this.
Britain and France both have right wing and anti-communist governments, but they gave in to Hitler's demands more to preserve the peace then to clear the way for a western version of the Nazi Soviet Pact. Third Republic governments were never that stable, and Chamberlain faces an election in 1940 where he will face criticism by Labour and internal criticism from some Conservatives for having given into Hitler twice.
Geon
Donor
Hitler had two objectives in this war. First, he eventually wanted Russia for the purpose of his Lebensraum. He also wanted a measure of revenge against the French and to a lesser extent the British for the humiliating treaty of Versailles. Chamberlain's refusal to guarantee Poland's independence gives Hitler the green light to first build up and better prepare for an invasion of Russia. This time however he has not burdened with the dangers of a second front. And once Russia is defeated Hitler will turn his attention westward. Hitler was a conqueror, with a conqueror's mindset. After successfully bluffing the Allies and taking Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland, I don't see Hitler simply stopping.
This assumes that Stalin doesn't move to recover the Baltic States.
BlackDragon98
Banned
it might play out with a Soviet invasion of Nazi Germany, and the Germans eventually winning and counterattacking into the Soviet Union
German defensive battles on the Ostfront cost the Soviet plenty, even when they were losing.
And given Germany never invades France, they will have more forces left and more time to improve the quality of their equipment
German defensive battles on the Ostfront cost the Soviet plenty, even when they were losing.
And given Germany never invades France, they will have more forces left and more time to improve the quality of their equipment
nbcman
Donor
Sorry, no. Without the plunder from the West, the Germans will have less equipment. Without the lessons learned, less impetus to improve their equipment or doctrines.
BlackDragon98
Banned
That is true, though the Red Army was completely messed up from the Purges. And most of their stuff in 1941 was pretty useless compare to what the Germans had.
But if the Germans survived the first blow, there might be more motivation to make better stuff. Which means things like the Panzerfaust might be in service earlier.
Once the Germans start having logistics problems, quality doesn't matter though, and they have a lot less trucks and other logistics vehicles without invading France
BlackDragon98
Banned
But in this case, they are defending mostly. Maybe they will make more use of captured Soviet tanks than OTL. And there would be lots of captured Soviet trucks and other weapons and gear.
Would be a decent cassus belli for Hitler to strike East in 1940: encroaching Bolshevism. Add the struggles of a crap general staff, few T-34s, and a Germany able to focus ALL their attention on them easily counters the German military's state at the time. It also sees a Hitler not overly intoxicated with the quick victories in Denmark, the Low Countries, and France leaving him open to his commanders' views (and able to use paratroopers with no Crete).
Last edited:
I thought Soviet tanks were superior to German ones at first, which is why they introduced the Tiger I.
I think he would have seen GB and France as completely weak and either move west at once towards France or decide that he can deal with Russia now , not having to worry about weak France and GB until he destroys the Russian.
If the UK and France have failed to guarantee Poland's borders, then possibly Poland decides that it is better off voluntarily joining the Reich, on something approaching it's own terms, than being invaded - in which case there is no Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, because Hitler gets all of Poland without a Panzer trundling into offensive action.
This gives Stalin no end of stuff to worry about, mind you, since the Third Reich is now butting up against his own empire's borders, and those Poles who showed that they didn't like Russia much in the Polish-Soviet war are now part of the armies of Adolf Hitler who has said all sorts of interesting thing about Jewish-Bolshevist conspiracies and 'living space' in books and delivered speeches.
The point brought up about the Baltic States earlier was a good one. The problem here is that without the Nazi-Soviet Pact, Stalin probably leaves the Baltic States alone. Hitler could get involved in the Russo-Finnish War but I don't think that happens without the Nazi-Soviet Pact either.
Hitler at this point really needs to get an anti-communist crusade going to get his war with the USSR, and he needs Britain and France to at least be sympathetically neutral and he needs an ally that borders the USSR and that German forces can go assist (ruling out Japan). If he and RIbbentrop can't get that he is stuck. He could try attacking France anyway but that would be a good way for the conspirators in the German high command to actually attempt a coup.
Hitler at this point really needs to get an anti-communist crusade going to get his war with the USSR, and he needs Britain and France to at least be sympathetically neutral and he needs an ally that borders the USSR and that German forces can go assist (ruling out Japan). If he and RIbbentrop can't get that he is stuck. He could try attacking France anyway but that would be a good way for the conspirators in the German high command to actually attempt a coup.