Hitler goes east

What if Hitler was much more anti-communist and only attacked Russia?:D

Do you think France and Great Britian would got invovled?:confused:

and if they did would they haved helped Hitler or Stalin?:(

(my first thread so go easy on the insults please:))
 
Um, man, it's only been 7 minutes.

...My two bits is he could probably get half the west onside if he played up the anti-Bolshevism aspect.
 
How does he do it? He'd probably have to make an alliance of some kind with Poland to allow troop movements through to the Soviet-Polish border...this would actually be a brillaint ploy by Hitler, if he could pull it off logistically...
 
yeah i was thinking that Hitler and Stalin make an agreement (secretly acourse) to invade Poland on a certain date but Hilter doesnt invade so he can attack the Soviet Union without seeming like a madman trying to get as much land in the ATL

Also i think if Hitler uses blitzkrieg on the bumbfounded Russians he can get as far as Minsk or Kiev without futher Russia counter offensives
 
The geography doesn't work. Germany would need friends to ship troops through to reach the Soviet Union. Poland has a long history of being mistreated by Germany, so they are going to refuse. The Baltic States have a more recent history of the same kind of crap happening (United Baltic Duchy and such) so they would use the finger that Poland would. This Leaves Romania, which is strongly pro-allied and would want to avoid a war with the Soviets if possible. (they were chummy with the Soviets UNTIL the soviets grabbed a part of their territory.)

Further away, we have Finland--which is possible: Finland does have claims on Karelia and some kind of arrangement could be worked out. On the other Side, Turkey would like a piece of Armenia (without the Armenians if it can arranged.) Conceivably, these nations might accept some kind of German buildup.

But even with this going on, this whole thing is a shoestring of the highest sort. The Soviets really would just bulldoze any attempt at a buildup, which would be impossible to hide and very, very blatantly anti-Soviet.

The initiative fails for a lack of friends.
 
Good point Max. Is there any way Germany could improve relations with Poland enough to make it possible down the road? Say, in the mid-40's?
 
Part of the Problem is that Poland has very little to gain from a war with the Soviet Union. Indeed, the peace deal signed between Poland and the Soviet Union didn't surrender as much land as the Soviets were prepared to lose. In the East at least, Poland was a satisfied power. So this makes very little sense even if German-Polish relations were very solid.

And consider that the Soviets would go to war with anyone would offered Transit rights for Germany. Poland's got too much to lose and too little to gain from this kind of matchup. Even limited transit rights would lead to major fighting on Polish soil, which Poland could never accept. And without a territorial claim or some kind of unresolved grievance, this is a not a possible war.

Let's not kid ourselves. War is a very grave thing and thousands if not millions die as a consequence. And the Soviet Union isn't Iraq--no one is going to accept some weaksauce argument for a war against what is clearly a major power. Despite its recent origins Poland's leadership is simply too sane to ever attempt this, and I think most of Europe would follow a similar pattern. Finland and Turkey have historical reasons for a scrap, but that's as far as it goes.
 
Part of the Problem is that Poland has very little to gain from a war with the Soviet Union. Indeed, the peace deal signed between Poland and the Soviet Union didn't surrender as much land as the Soviets were prepared to lose. In the East at least, Poland was a satisfied power. So this makes very little sense even if German-Polish relations were very solid.

And consider that the Soviets would go to war with anyone would offered Transit rights for Germany. Poland's got too much to lose and too little to gain from this kind of matchup. Even limited transit rights would lead to major fighting on Polish soil, which Poland could never accept. And without a territorial claim or some kind of unresolved grievance, this is a not a possible war.

Let's not kid ourselves. War is a very grave thing and thousands if not millions die as a consequence. And the Soviet Union isn't Iraq--no one is going to accept some weaksauce argument for a war against what is clearly a major power. Despite its recent origins Poland's leadership is simply too sane to ever attempt this, and I think most of Europe would follow a similar pattern. Finland and Turkey have historical reasons for a scrap, but that's as far as it goes.

Excellent points Max, especially on the issue of the dangers for Poland relative to the gains. The only ones who would want to war with the Soviets if they don't have to woudl be, uh, crazy racist bastards? ;)

Personally, I think if Germany wanted more land, power, and riches, it should have made defensive alliances in the East and warred solely in the West. The German city of Paris, anyone?:D
 
Excellent points Max, especially on the issue of the dangers for Poland relative to the gains. The only ones who would want to war with the Soviets if they don't have to woudl be, uh, crazy racist bastards? ;)

Personally, I think if Germany wanted more land, power, and riches, it should have made defensive alliances in the East and warred solely in the West. The German city of Paris, anyone?:D

Except the steppe at least looks mostly empty. The West is packed solid with people. Unless Hitler wants to ethnic-cleanse the French, it doesn't seem like a good place to go for living-room.
 
Except the steppe at least looks mostly empty. The West is packed solid with people. Unless Hitler wants to ethnic-cleanse the French, it doesn't seem like a good place to go for living-room.

Yup. He'd have to ethnicnally cleanse France. I'm sure there'd be just TONS of 1930's-era Germans who would hate to do that... ;)

EDIT: European Russia, which is what Hitler wanted, is just as crowded. The only difference is that there's a place to send them overland (to Siberia). But it's workable either way...just shove the French on boats headed towards Quebec after you've pummelled Britain.
 
Although that post might have been intended in Jest, it seems to me that Germany did want to revise its borders at French, Dutch and Belgian expense. I recall that part of France and Belgium was to become German.

Now OTL, this was just a small nibble at their territories. If nothing else, Taking Paris from France is unforgivable--Paris is very much the "Heart" of France, what it means to be French. An expanded Germany would probably go no further than the Seine, unless Germany wants a massive partisan problem in Former France.

So Germany could get some "Living Space" at France's Expense, but I think expelling all Frenchmen from mainland France is just overkill and too difficult to work out. Try a smaller slice instead.
 
Although that post might have been intended in Jest, it seems to me that Germany did want to revise its borders at French, Dutch and Belgian expense. I recall that part of France and Belgium was to become German.

Now OTL, this was just a small nibble at their territories. If nothing else, Taking Paris from France is unforgivable--Paris is very much the "Heart" of France, what it means to be French. An expanded Germany would probably go no further than the Seine, unless Germany wants a massive partisan problem in Former France.

So Germany could get some "Living Space" at France's Expense, but I think expelling all Frenchmen from mainland France is just overkill and too difficult to work out. Try a smaller slice instead.

Well, look at it this way: speaking as an American, if in 1919 Mexico had taken back Texas and New Mexico/Arizona and extracted huge reparations and a guilt clause from us, plus occupied California for an extended period, and did all this based on a "victory" that was thanks to Russian meddling on their side in a war that didn't concern them (and yes, I know that couldn't possibly happen, bear with me), I would be strongly motivated to take over the entire country of Mexico, shove all the Mexicans on boats to El Salvador or wherever, and boo-hoo about the suffering it cause them.

I'm amazed if the Germans wouldn't (or didn't) feel the same way. A partisan problem only lasts so long as there are still Frenchies around. Shove em all out, and there's really no partisan problem. Yes, it's an unrealistic goal, but personally I think much less so than Hitler's, and yes it would be plauged with difficulties, but stranger things have happened. If a German leader came to power in '33 who made that the major military and strategic goal he was after, and prepared for it for 10 years or more, it would happen. And Britain would probably be grievously wounded in the affair, because said leader would have to take British meddling into account.

At that point in German history, I'm amazed that the leader who came to power didn't make grinding France into dust and spreading its people out across the seas his number one strategic goal.

And let's not even bother discussing the prospect that Germany might get the bomb first in a scenario where war isn't even contemplated until 1943 or or '44....
 
Part of the Problem is that Poland has very little to gain from a war with the Soviet Union. Indeed, the peace deal signed between Poland and the Soviet Union didn't surrender as much land as the Soviets were prepared to lose. In the East at least, Poland was a satisfied power. So this makes very little sense even if German-Polish relations were very solid.
This is not entirely correct. Unofficial (but really popular) view was that Poland should be "from sea to sea", meaning from Baltic to Black sea, and officially pre-war Poland considered itself successor state of the Rzeczpospolita. Therefore Poland had a lot to gain from joining Germans.

And consider that the Soviets would go to war with anyone would offered Transit rights for Germany. Poland's got too much to lose and too little to gain from this kind of matchup. Even limited transit rights would lead to major fighting on Polish soil, which Poland could never accept.
Threat of Soviets going into war could actually push Poles toward Hitler. Both Poland and USSR were pretty paranoid in their pre-war dealings with each other and mere possibility of Soviet Union having enough forces to attack Poland (not any actual Soviet plan to do it) could (and nearly did) drive Poles into arms of Satan himself, not just his aspiring underling Hitler. I would go as far as to say that without guarantees from England and France Polish-German alliance against USSR becomes inevitable.

Finland and Turkey have historical reasons for a scrap, but that's as far as it goes.
Finland is almost as convenient route to invade USSR as Alaska is to invade Continental USA and Turks could not do anything against Russians unless outnumber them 1:10 for a good century before WWII (in 1917 only Russian Revolution saved Istanbul from falling to Russian hands and in 1878 Russian stopped in Istanbul's suburbs under threat from British Navy). That leaves deep scar on nation's desire to enter a war. OTL Turks were only willing to pick up spoils once Soviet Union crumble post-Barbarossa, but didn't have smallest desire to do anything before that.
 
Top