Appeasement Continues
- Thread starter Stephen
- Start date
France would still declare war, and if the Brits don't join in when the French declare war in September '39 they will when the Germans invade Western Europe in early '40 (heck, it just gives them more reason to attack).
Sounds insane at first, but actually no uninteresting thought when it comes to Hitler's and Stalin's actions.
A German-Polish war resolved in three weeks, IVth partition... Would Hitler, without a war in the west, assume that France and Britain would not intervene in case of a crusade against Communism and short-cut to Barbarossa in 1940?
Would Stalin, without Britain and France at war with Germany, dare to attack Finland in later 1939?
A German-Polish war resolved in three weeks, IVth partition... Would Hitler, without a war in the west, assume that France and Britain would not intervene in case of a crusade against Communism and short-cut to Barbarossa in 1940?
Would Stalin, without Britain and France at war with Germany, dare to attack Finland in later 1939?
Well, the temptation to throw Poland under the bus is there. Poland did grab a piece of Czechloslovkia, and the UK had at one point intended to try to negotiate German demands on Poland.
What might work is if Poland somehow is viewed to attack Germany. The false flag operation obviously didn't work, but perhaps Danzig can be further exploited until Poland winds up DoWing Germany. And if that happens, the Allies have quite a mess on their hands.
Their window is narrow and if the Soviets also join in, the Allies probably won't do anything.
So, you'd have PM Atlee to try to contain any further German aggression. However, Hitler may very well drive East after taking down Poland, which is likely to lead to the Allies starting an opportunistic war instead of being forced into one.
What might work is if Poland somehow is viewed to attack Germany. The false flag operation obviously didn't work, but perhaps Danzig can be further exploited until Poland winds up DoWing Germany. And if that happens, the Allies have quite a mess on their hands.
Their window is narrow and if the Soviets also join in, the Allies probably won't do anything.
So, you'd have PM Atlee to try to contain any further German aggression. However, Hitler may very well drive East after taking down Poland, which is likely to lead to the Allies starting an opportunistic war instead of being forced into one.
Might be good news for Finland. If Germany and the western powers are still at peace, will Stalin risk attacking her? Or will he assume that Europe will take the opportunity to gang up on him?
Conversely, seeing Poland fall without objection, it seems logical that neutral Finland won't receive western support either. Only, Stalin attacks Finland and is soon proven wrong.
Though with no western guarantees the strategies of the polish armies should differ greatly from OTL (not concentrating that much troops at the polish corridor, earlier mobilization etc.) so that while Poland might still lose against Germany it could take quite a while.
And politics could also change. With no foreign backup having Germany and the Soviet Union as hostile neighbors is quite the predicament for Poland.
Reconciliation with Hitler is extremely unlikely but some arrangement with Stalin might become palpable in this scenario.
And politics could also change. With no foreign backup having Germany and the Soviet Union as hostile neighbors is quite the predicament for Poland.
Reconciliation with Hitler is extremely unlikely but some arrangement with Stalin might become palpable in this scenario.
Actually, I think the opposite is just as likely. Poland was to all intents a Fascist state itself and found common cause with Nazi Germany in the dismemberment of Czechslovakia, and I believe there were other times when Germany thought Poland might be a useful ally against the USSR. Poland would probably have to be willing to cede the corridor and some other western territory to Germany it exchange for some future territory carved from the USSR or Baltic States, but given the alternatives they might go for it.
1) Poland was not fascist. It was an authoritarian 2/3s-dictatorship (whos creation was supported by a sizeable part of the moderate left and opposed by sizeable parts of the right). But it lacked many basic characteristics of fascism (Trotzki called it bonapartist).
2) The problem with Poland allying with Germany or the USSR is that Poland didn't trust any of the two (and had good reasons for that).
An alliance would only be possible in an absolutly desperate situation.
So Poland gets chucked under the bus; would Stalin still invade Finland? (Maybe)
Well with Poland gone, and presumably Chamberlain is still PM by some means, might a gurantee of of Finland's security by Britain and France be likely?
or
Chamberlain is defeated in 39-40 election, replaced by Churchill as PM. Churchill vows to keep one of last democracies in europe alive (Finland), so he informs europe that Finland's independence is now guranteed by the United Kingdom, and the French Republic, and that anyone who violates Finland's sovergnty will be at war with England/France. This could be followed up with Sweden and Norway offering aid to their fellow Scandinavian brothers.
Wishing you well, his majesty,
The Scandinavian Emperor
Well with Poland gone, and presumably Chamberlain is still PM by some means, might a gurantee of of Finland's security by Britain and France be likely?
or
Chamberlain is defeated in 39-40 election, replaced by Churchill as PM. Churchill vows to keep one of last democracies in europe alive (Finland), so he informs europe that Finland's independence is now guranteed by the United Kingdom, and the French Republic, and that anyone who violates Finland's sovergnty will be at war with England/France. This could be followed up with Sweden and Norway offering aid to their fellow Scandinavian brothers.
Wishing you well, his majesty,
The Scandinavian Emperor
If France and Great Britain leave Poland alone, using a false flag operation who nobody buy it as excuse it's irrilevant who is in charge in London, nobody in the continet will take their promise seriusly.
Basically with Poland gone and the allies don't lift a finger about it, make all the nation of Europe see that Germany is new leader of the continent and Paris and London are too weak and too scared to do something about it and too unreliable to have some use as allies, so they simply align themself with Berlin so to survive
France is not going to war with Germany without Britain. The two must stand together.
If the West does not go to war, then Hitler wins yet another high risk gamble. Germany and the Soviet Union basically partitioned Eastern Europe through the M-R Pact. Stalin is probably disappointed that Germany is not at war with Britain and France, but he has a very good deal with Hitler. Will Stalin go to war against Finland and move against the Baltics? Hard question. Certainly Stalin would like to do so, but with Britain and France not at war with Germany, such a move carries a risk that the West may decide on war to help defend Finland. Stalin was usually reluctant to make such blatant moves alone. He liked to do so when other great powers were distracted (with Germany and West at war), or in collusion with them (the agreement with Germany or his gains at the end of WWII with compliance of the West). It all depends on how adventurous Stalin is. I personally think Stalin will attempt to win some sort of advantage, but not risk a situation where war would happen. Instead, he would hope to place himself well for a future time when the West and Germany would be at war.
Hitler and Mussolini planned for a general war by 1942. After 1943, the West would be sufficiently rearmed to not give a relative advantage to Germany. But 1939 was considered too soon. So likely World War II will start in either 1941-1942. In any case, the longer the delay the more advantage it is to the Allies.
I expect Hitler still intends to settle matters with Britain and France first - the ones he thinks are of a greater threat than the Soviet Union. I don't see him attacking Stalin first.
An invasion of France one or two years after it did IOTL will turn out differently. British and France will both have far better defences they did in May 1940. France will have brand new frontline fighters, Britain will have lots of Spitfires and radar all over the place. Likewise they'll have better tanks, although their doctrine will still be inferior. But without the exact circumstances of the "sickle cut" through the Ardennes (still always possible), it's hard to say how things will turn out. However, given time the West might have enough time to learn from the German experience in Poland. Probably not enough time for real reforms to be made
With the conquest of Poland, it's possible that Belgium (or even both Belgium and Netherlands) will attempt an integrated defense of Western Europe. It's very hard to say how the politics will turn out if anti-appeasers win a general election in Britain (which must be done by November 1940 at latest). A no confidence motion may even bring down Chamberlain earlier. No one in Europe will follow Britain as long as Chamberlain remains in power. And any new leader will need to be bold to fashion an anti-Hitler front in the West (Eastern Europe will already have have adopted pro-Germany positions).
In any case, Churchill is unlikely to be the new PM as the Conservatives won't win the election. Labor will form the new government. Churchill might be given a cabinet position if a wartime coalition forms.
If the West does not go to war, then Hitler wins yet another high risk gamble. Germany and the Soviet Union basically partitioned Eastern Europe through the M-R Pact. Stalin is probably disappointed that Germany is not at war with Britain and France, but he has a very good deal with Hitler. Will Stalin go to war against Finland and move against the Baltics? Hard question. Certainly Stalin would like to do so, but with Britain and France not at war with Germany, such a move carries a risk that the West may decide on war to help defend Finland. Stalin was usually reluctant to make such blatant moves alone. He liked to do so when other great powers were distracted (with Germany and West at war), or in collusion with them (the agreement with Germany or his gains at the end of WWII with compliance of the West). It all depends on how adventurous Stalin is. I personally think Stalin will attempt to win some sort of advantage, but not risk a situation where war would happen. Instead, he would hope to place himself well for a future time when the West and Germany would be at war.
Hitler and Mussolini planned for a general war by 1942. After 1943, the West would be sufficiently rearmed to not give a relative advantage to Germany. But 1939 was considered too soon. So likely World War II will start in either 1941-1942. In any case, the longer the delay the more advantage it is to the Allies.
I expect Hitler still intends to settle matters with Britain and France first - the ones he thinks are of a greater threat than the Soviet Union. I don't see him attacking Stalin first.
An invasion of France one or two years after it did IOTL will turn out differently. British and France will both have far better defences they did in May 1940. France will have brand new frontline fighters, Britain will have lots of Spitfires and radar all over the place. Likewise they'll have better tanks, although their doctrine will still be inferior. But without the exact circumstances of the "sickle cut" through the Ardennes (still always possible), it's hard to say how things will turn out. However, given time the West might have enough time to learn from the German experience in Poland. Probably not enough time for real reforms to be made
With the conquest of Poland, it's possible that Belgium (or even both Belgium and Netherlands) will attempt an integrated defense of Western Europe. It's very hard to say how the politics will turn out if anti-appeasers win a general election in Britain (which must be done by November 1940 at latest). A no confidence motion may even bring down Chamberlain earlier. No one in Europe will follow Britain as long as Chamberlain remains in power. And any new leader will need to be bold to fashion an anti-Hitler front in the West (Eastern Europe will already have have adopted pro-Germany positions).
In any case, Churchill is unlikely to be the new PM as the Conservatives won't win the election. Labor will form the new government. Churchill might be given a cabinet position if a wartime coalition forms.
That takes into account too much logic and not enough of Hitler's own views that the Communists should be crushed first before the rest.
Add to that Hitler's possible interpretation that Britain abandonded its interest in Europe to concentrate on its empire (exactly what a Master Race should do in his eyes) and that France is simply irrelevant without London, it might work out.
Another thought which came to my mind are possible appeasements of the "Memel"-kind. Similar to the Southeastern-European states, might some other Neutrals try to acknowledge German hegemony and gain a good footing with Berlin? Belgium might offer a plebisicte on Eupen? Denmark returns Nord-Schleswig? Yugoslavia negotiates a re-drawing of the border in the Alps?
What will be the assessment of the situation from Washington's point of view?
Last thoughts.....I assume that Germany will crush the Polish nation as mercilessly as in OTL. How would these news be taken in the West?
Interesting.And that's exactly why Chamberlain did honor the commitment to Poland. He could argue that he and the French really did have some hope Hitler would keep his word regarding Czechoslovakia--that getting possession of Sudentenland and with the ouster and exile of President Benes, he would then leave the rump of Czechoslovakia alone as he promised to do. He was of course in a position to break his word with impunity and that is what he chose to do--but that's why the Allies had to keep their next commitments to Hitler's next victims, no matter what.
British policy was always to seek to limit the gains and check the advances of whoever looked to dominate the Continent; in risking and losing Czechoslovakia they clearly had let Hitler get too strong already; to do other than to resist Hitler's further designs would indeed have been to concede the Continent to him. Which may have appeared to be a viable option to some in Britain; certainly a quid pro quo deal whereby in return for a free hand in Europe Hitler would back off from any direct threat to the British Empire was an offer Hitler hoped the British would take. But to take that road would have been to turn their back on hundreds of years of established policy, policy that had led British forces into bloody messes before, but few in Britain would have wanted to face the alternatives.
Obviously if Britain had betrayed a second eastern Slavic nation, or just refrained from making any promises to Poland at all, no one in the east would have been able to take any British offers of support at such a long range past the north German coast very seriously; the British would have to go very far to demonstrate that this time they meant it--like dispatching large naval forces carrying substantial numbers of British troops and aircraft to base in whichever Baltic states they hoped to protect. And those states would have to think twice before accepting any such aid since it would be quite likely to provoke the Germans into immediate attack; given the range of German land-based aircraft it seems likely that even a major British naval expedition would be shot up and sunk in the Baltic. How well could Britain protect Denmark for instance? (Norway would be more defensible--if the Norwegians didn't determine they had best stay scrupulously neutral).