Best alternative outcome for the Danzig crisis

[Eurofed]

Let's assume that for whatever reason, to declare war to Nazi Germany alone is not an option that Britain and France may deem politically and strategically acceptable during the 1939 Poland crisis.

They may either remain neutral in the German/Soviet-Polish war (e.g. Germany successfully tricks Poland into attacking first, or the British government doesn't deem Poland worth a world war and gives Warsaw no military guarantee, or they still regard the final goal of the appeasement strategy -let Germany and the USSR tear each other and watch by the sidelines- the best choice), or go for broke, declaring war to Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia both and acting on their OTL plans to bomb Baku (i.e. they still think totalitarian aggression need be fought, but they regard the M-R Pact as a de facto alliance, and Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia just as serious a threat).

Which outcome would you regard as best for Europe and the world ?

Some constraints for the scenario:

a) if Britain and France remain neutral, Hitler leaves Western Europe alone and goes to fight the Soviet Union. The Western powers remain neutral in the Nazi-Soviet fight, at most giving the apparently losing side enough support to keep the war as closest as possible to a balanced war of attrition up to mutual exhaustion. They only intervene if either side threatens a decisive victory (e.g. the Germans go beyond Belarus and Ukraine, the Soviets go beyond Poland and Romania).

b) If Britain and France go at war against both the totalitarian powers, America is brought in the war by means similar to OTL, Germany and the USSR eventually turn on each other, making the conflict a true three-way war. The Western Allies do not make any alliance of convenience with the fascists or the communists, but fight them both.

 

[vultan]

Kill the two maniac dictators in one fell sweep: fascism and communism both dead in the cradle. Can't get better than that.

 

[Xgentis]

If Britain and France stay neutral over the Danzig crisis they would have lost any credibillity. Nobody would want an alliance with unreliable partner.

 

[Bored Accountant]

Kill the two maniac dictators in one fell sweep: fascism and communism both dead in the cradle. Can't get better than that.

I tend to agree but on the other hand this probably means (as France falls as per OTL) any sort of Operation Overlord is impossible. The only likely solution is a nuke or two on Berlin and Moscow...

 

[The Red]

The first gives time to continue to become stronger and a possibility that both would turn on each other. The second is suicide.

 

[KyleB]

The second is suicide.

How so? Britain will never be successfully invaded, and the USSR will be a lot weaker without US military aid. The Americans won't let the British fall. An invasion of occupied Europe is probably ASB but once the US develops the atom bomb, it's over.

 

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

How so? Britain will never be successfully invaded, and the USSR will be a lot weaker without US military aid. The Americans won't let the British fall. An invasion of occupied Europe is probably ASB but once the US develops the atom bomb, it's over.

The Soviets got from Lend-Lease aid replacement for a lot of the things the Germans took early in the war, like their explosives manufacturing sites in Ukraine and Leningrad, we don't know how this ATL Barbarossa is going to turn it out. More than likely the second choice pushes the Soviets and the Germans into an alliance of convenience. Remember, if it's in 1939, the Soviets and Germans are in a reasonable position to actually work together for the time being, hell the Soviet Union might even be accepted into the Axis. The Germans will now be fed by both Soviet and Romanian oil, along with Soviet grain while they take what is likely to be the brunt of the attack (the British and French are not stupid enough to attack the Soviet Union without a decent launch pad, and no Finland is not that launch pad).

In short, Britain and France have thrown everything they have into a war with nations that they will not win and one that all but assures what is likely to be a short-term Allied-screw and a long-term Soviet-wank (there is no damn way Stalin will not take advantage of a battered, anemic Germany that becomes increasingly dependent on Soviet goodwill to survive).

Britain doesn't have to be successfully conquered for it to lose WWII, it just has to lose every single power bar the United States that is in a significant position to help. And yes, even with US support, a Nazi-Soviet alliance is a formidable mountain. You know why that failed miserably OTL? Because Hitler was too stupid to forget about his boyish dreams of conquering the Soviet Union. You know what Britain and France just did? They gave him every last reason to work with the Soviet Union on a silver platter.

US at that point could win a limited victory and would likely do it against Germany, with her attentions distracted by Japan, even the US is in a bad position for a victory.

As for nuclear weapons well, they'd have to glass the better part of the entirety of everything east of France, even with no understanding of radioactive fallout, it's an action that the US probably won't go through with.

 

[nien nunb]

I'd think whichever power eventually emerged from the titanic Nazi-Soviet showdown, while exhausted, would also be THE dominant power in Europe and there'd be nothing stopping them(especially if it's the Nazis) from seeking to then dominate Western Europe, especially since in this scenario the U.S. would still be isolationist.


That's why the "buck-passing" strategy(which is what this is, hoping another power deals with a threat) is such a dangerous gamble. If it fails, you're left with an even STRONGER threat which might now come after you.

In '39, Nazi Germany was the bigger threat. The USSR only became a larger threat through the Nazis in the first place.

The UK and France would've had to willingly abandon any influence or credibility in Europe to continue to appease Germany by late '39.

 

[Hrvatskiwi]

The UK and France would not win a war with the Soviets and Nazis. France would be conquered like OTL. The Axis would consist of Germany, the USSR, Japan, Italy, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia and probably Turkey and Greece. The Russians and Japanese may invade Alaska, but can't go much further. The Allies may have some successes in the Pacific, but they will eventually make peace due to exhaustion. The USSR would be able to focus less on land forces and more on submarines for interdiction. They'll also occupy Persia, India and the Allied Middle East. Even if they tried to hold on, the British would be exhausted by the bombardment. The Nazis would bear the brunt of the counter-bombardment. After 'winning' the war, Stalin would defeat the Nazis. Its gonna be like freakin' Red Alert people, just without the Japs in Leningrad.

 

[Van555]

These sound like terrible options

 

[I Blame Communism]

Kill the two maniac dictators in one fell sweep: fascism and communism both dead in the cradle. Can't get better than that.

And Hans Landser and Ivan Frontovik. We really hate those bastards.

 

[informationfan]

How so? Britain will never be successfully invaded, and the USSR will be a lot weaker without US military aid. The Americans won't let the British fall. An invasion of occupied Europe is probably ASB but once the US develops the atom bomb, it's over.

Sorry... with russia and germany at war with france and great britain the russians will crush the brits in india, france will fall, germany can not be disturbed by allied bombers, they have unlimited supply in fuel, strategic materials (so better german weapons, esp. tungsten ammo for anti-tank-guns, prepare for 42mm-antitank-guns with the punch of the 75mm-gun, just light... so you get fast and well armored german tanks with great antitank capacity... german fighters will be build around the Jumo 222-Engine, so the advantage of the allies in engineproduction has gone...
no partisan war...

hell, the germans will outproduce the brits in any circumstances, cause their army need no big size...

africa will be a big problem for the brits, not because the germans invade it, they and the russians simply ask the turks to let em through - these will very very happily agree... also say goodbye to gibraltar... with germany and russia in the same boat Franco will be very nice to the germans, really nice.

So you have lost africa, the persian oil is really in danger (how will england stop the russian and german army?) and india isn´t safe too.

In the air the brits will loose BIG, so no heavy bombarding, instead german - and russian bombers visit british islands.

no, this would be ended very early, UK rolls on the back and beg for peace, BEFORE it lost india

 

[Eurofed]

In '39, Nazi Germany was the bigger threat. The USSR only became a larger threat through the Nazis in the first place.

These sound like terrible options

For whatever reason, the "everyone gangs up on Germany" OTL option isn't available at all in this scenario (blame the OP's Germanophile bleeding heart if nothing else ). And in '39, relative Soviet weakness was a transient thing, the inefficiency of the Red Army would not last forever.

The Western powers have either the option to take the political high ground by fighting all the aggressive totalitarian powers at once, no matter how difficult it seems (if the Nazis and the Soviets still come to blows it is a winnable war when America joins the fray, if Hitler and Stalin grow a brain and they stick together I agree it cannot be won even by America short of glassing Europe, which may not be that easy with an intact Axis air defence; this is why I put those constraints in the scenario), or do the cynical but clever thing and let them tear apart and exhaust each other, unless the Western powers are directly attacked, and to hell with Eastern Europe, the Nazi-Soviet pincer means Britain and France could not save it anyway.

 

[JJDXB]

snip

Its not in Hitler's interest to allow the USSR to become so powerful, regardless of their pact.

 

[Sumeragi]

If the Allies did declare on USSR, it's really a question of what Hitler might have done. Would he have been willing to let Poland go (temporarily) to form an "alliance" against the USSR while breaking its treaty? This would probably be less of a ASB than the Big Switch is.

 

[The Red]

How so? Britain will never be successfully invaded.

Perhaps not immediately but with the full weight of the Axis and the Soviet Union it could be brought to it's knees through bombing and blockade, not to mention the loss of large parts of the empire. That could force a surrender.

The USSR will be a lot weaker without US military aid.

It will more than make up for that presuming there isn't an Eastern Front.

The Americans won't let the British fall.

They might find it harder to get involved, alliance with the Soviet Union might lead to the Germans abandoning Japan.

An invasion of occupied Europe is probably ASB but once the US develops the atom bomb, it's over.

Of course with much more resources to play with, the Axis might develop a bomb much sooner.

 

[Eurofed]

I'd think whichever power eventually emerged from the titanic Nazi-Soviet showdown, while exhausted, would also be THE dominant power in Europe and there'd be nothing stopping them(especially if it's the Nazis) from seeking to then dominate Western Europe, especially since in this scenario the U.S. would still be isolationist.

Perhaps, but not if Britain and France indirectly intervene in the fight to ensure that the victor gains a partial victory at best and the loser keeps the core of its strength (Germany at worst in 1914 borders; the USSR at worst in Brest-Litovsk borders).

That's why the "buck-passing" strategy(which is what this is, hoping another power deals with a threat) is such a dangerous gamble. If it fails, you're left with an even STRONGER threat which might now come after you.

As OTL ultimately showed, the only real choices were either a well-armed defense on the eastern border of the free world (the Rhine, in this case), and deem Eastern Europe a lost cause, or to try and summon America's might to an all-out fight to defeat all the totalitarian powers at once, if Eastern Europe was really that important.

The UK and France would've had to willingly abandon any influence or credibility in Europe to continue to appease Germany by late '39.

Influence and credibility, with whom ? Fascist Italy shall stick with Nazi Germany and Franco's Spain shall be an unsympathetic neutral at the very best unless the Allies are clearly winning, revanchist minors like Hungary and Bulgaria cannot be relied upon, the Benelux and Norway shall stick with France and Britain doing armed defence at the Rhine, the resurgence of Germany and Russia and the M-R Pact mean that the pro-Entente Eastern European states created or propped up by Versailles (Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia, Finland, the Baltic states) are dead men walking no matter what, Denmark and Sweden cannot really defy Germany and Russia together.

 

[nien nunb]

Perhaps, but not if Britain and France indirectly intervene in the fight to ensure that the victor gains a partial victory at best and the loser keeps the core of its strength (Germany at worst in 1914 borders; the USSR at worst in Brest-Litovsk borders).



As OTL ultimately showed, the only real choices were either a well-armed defense on the eastern border of the free world (the Rhine, in this case), and deem Eastern Europe a lost cause, or to try and summon America's might to an all-out fight to defeat all the totalitarian powers at once, if Eastern Europe was really that important.



Influence and credibility, with whom ? Fascist Italy shall stick with Nazi Germany and Franco's Spain shall be an unsympathetic neutral at the very best unless the Allies are clearly winning, revanchist minors like Hungary and Bulgaria cannot be relied upon, the Benelux and Norway shall stick with France and Britain doing armed defence at the Rhine, the resurgence of Germany and Russia and the M-R Pact mean that the pro-Entente Eastern European states created or propped up by Versailles (Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia, Finland, the Baltic states) are dead men walking no matter what, Denmark and Sweden cannot really defy Germany and Russia together.

I guess I just don't think that events can be manipulated with that sort of exact cleverness. Short of direct military intervention at the point when either Germany or USSR is on the verge of defeat, in what way can UK or France ensure that the victory isn't a total one?

And again, if it's the Nazis, Hitler always intended to deal with the Western Powers at some point. Costly victory or not, if he somehow manages to defeat the USSR, he's going to come after the UK and France.

To me, best option short of ASB and having Britain and France abandon appeasement altogether in the mid-thirties, is an alliance with the USSR to deal with Germany. Better an alliance with a smaller threat to deal with a larger one.

 

[Eurofed]

I guess I just don't think that events can be manipulated with that sort of exact cleverness. Short of direct military intervention at the point when either Germany or USSR is on the verge of defeat, in what way can UK or France ensure that the victory isn't a total one?

Well, the fight between Germany and Russia is going to be pretty farily balanced since the former won't have any surprise factor and the latter won't have any US Lend-Lease. I would expect that Britain and France may be able to influence the balance of the war by giving the losing side their own version of the Lend-lease, and shutting it off it the reversal is excessive. And yes, they may still play the extreme card of direct intervention if either side threatens a total victory.

And again, if it's the Nazis, Hitler always intended to deal with the Western Powers at some point. Costly victory or not, if he somehow manages to defeat the USSR, he's going to come after the UK and France.

Not at all. We have a fiarly extensive amount of info about Hitler's plans, and as much as the man managed to have some coherent ones, everything points out to the fact that he meant to leave the Western powers alone if they had left him alone to do his thing in Eastern Europe.

To me, best option short of ASB and having Britain and France abandon appeasement altogether in the mid-thirties, is an alliance with the USSR to deal with Germany. Better an alliance with a smaller threat to deal with a larger one.

Well, I heartily disagree with the premise that the USSR was the smaller threat, except as it concers geographic proximity. IMO the choice between Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia was like the one between a serial killer that cuts the throats of his victims and another that poisons them.

 

[I Blame Communism]

Perhaps, but not if Britain and France indirectly intervene in the fight to ensure that the victor gains a partial victory at best and the loser keeps the core of its strength (Germany at worst in 1914 borders; the USSR at worst in Brest-Litovsk borders).

I find it interesting that whereas for Germany 'the core of its strength' includes all its annexations plus some more, the 'core of strength' of the Soviets involves carving off vast slabs of the country including parts of its agricultural and industrial heartlands. Apparently a Germany in the posture that they went to war with IOTL - militarised, with the Rhine, Austria, Czechia, and having nutted Poland - and a USSR controlling much less than it did in 1945 is acceptable to the Entente, whereas a Germany that has carved out a huge colonial empire in Europe and crippled the USSR is... also acceptable.

But that's by the by. The big question is: how is an 'indirect intervention' actually done?

As OTL ultimately showed, the only real choices were either a well-armed defense on the eastern border of the free world (the Rhine, in this case), and deem Eastern Europe a lost cause, or to try and summon America's might to an all-out fight to defeat all the totalitarian powers at once, if Eastern Europe was really that important.

Given that neither of these things was done, this is evidently not true. You appear to be relying on the premise that the Nazi and Soviet regimes were in all respects, in terms of both their nature and of great-power politics, the same. Here's a tip: they weren't. It also relies on the Entente powers not only sharing your opinions, but also scrying the future in search of vindication for them.

Influence and credibility, with whom ?

Well, in Britain's case, you can start with the back-benches.