Hitler is more patient.

What if Hitler had been more patient,and had started the WW-II September 1 1944?
(why 1944?
because in 1939 Hitler and Ribbentrop had told to Mussolini and Ciano that the Germany would not started wars until that year;indeed Italy,trusting of nazis, prepared the world fair for 1942 and the olimpics games for 1944).
 
Last edited:
Where does he get the money to keep his armaments industry running until then? Or is the scenario that he rearms more slowly?

It's going to look bad for him either way - if he rearms as per OTL, hell be broke before he can get the tanks rolling and the enemies will have geared up for war, and if he rearms more slowly, the democracies will find it easier to match his arms buildup.
 
It's going to look bad for him either way - if he rearms as per OTL, hell be broke before he can get the tanks rolling and the enemies will have geared up for war, and if he rearms more slowly, the democracies will find it easier to match his arms buildup.

If he manages to keep down tensions the democracies will actually have tougher time catching up German re-armament. This is because during early 1940's France, UK and to lesser extent, USA, will face block obsolescense issues in respect of their navies, France also on her land armaments. In this respect the ideal time to strike might be late 1940's. A clever Hitler might use the period to build up automotive etc. industries to boost German economy and to have more diverse economic base instead of engaging on a kamikaze rearmament until about three years before start of the conflict.
 

Typo

Banned
Germany were running out of hard currency historically by 1938, and solved the problem through taking territory, in this situation the build up of the army is going to wreck the German economics eventually, espeically since Germany will be needing hard currency to buy imports that drives production.

The USSR will probably be able to take on Germany, and win, on its own in 1944, having fully recovered from the purges, on the other hand Stalin might decide to do something else insane to wreck his country before then. But then again short of a full-scale civil war it's actually probably not going to be much worse than 1939 USSR.

The western democracies might be somewhat better off, precisely how much depdending on the road to war in this scenerio.
 
Assume that Hitler decide to wait untill 1944.
A clever Hitler might use the period to build up automotive etc. industries to boost German economy
Germany and Italy now,in 1944, are ready
but
if he rearms more slowly, the democracies will find it easier to match his arms buildup.
and
The USSR will probably be able to take on Germany, and win, on its own in 1944, having fully recovered from the purges
Now i ask in this situation is possible an stalemate an equilibrium of fear that make impossible (or improbable) the war?
 
The USSR will probably be able to take on Germany, and win, on its own in 1944, having fully recovered from the purges, on the other hand Stalin might decide to do something else insane to wreck his country before then. But then again short of a full-scale civil war it's actually probably not going to be much worse than 1939 USSR.

Soviet arms production actually declined because of the purges and forced collectivization, despite the investments in heavy industries. One must remember that Soviet Union, in this TL, has had to rearm twice, once during early 1930's and second time during 1940's, with a significant cost. Also, if the later Soviet behaviour is of any guidance, they will keep all those T-26's et al in "unproductive" units just as they kept T-55's until the end of the Cold War.

This means that Soviet Army in ATL 1944 will not be like OTL 1944 Soviet Army but will have a large proportion of totally outdated units. One must also remember that without Lend Lease a larger proportion of production must be diverted to produce trucks, radios etc. than OTL.

There is also the Stalin's big fleet program to use significant portion of military resources. Historically this program was rather quickly cancelled after the outbreak of the Second World War, but in this ATL much of the resources used for land and air armaments will be spent building up impressive battleships et al.
 

Typo

Banned
True, but the German army of TTL 1944 will not be the Germany army 1944 OTL either.
 
Soviet arms production actually declined because of the purges and forced collectivization, despite the investments in heavy industries. One must remember that Soviet Union, in this TL, has had to rearm twice, once during early 1930's and second time during 1940's, with a significant cost. Also, if the later Soviet behaviour is of any guidance, they will keep all those T-26's et al in "unproductive" units just as they kept T-55's until the end of the Cold War.

I believe a lot of old stuff was on it's way out in 1941 which caused all sorts of problems. No new spares produced and new stuff coming in so no logistical foundation yet. Given enough time old stuff is out, replaced by new stuff. As for T-55s SU didn't have enough modern tanks to replace them on 1:1 basis (or soemthing close to it).

Now, to the OP. It would alrgely depend on when and why this decission is made. It would have to be soon enough not to p/o democracies and but not soon enough to avoid getting Austria and Sudets. So Munich is accepted as is and rest of Czechoslovakia not taken however I believe Hitler was hell-bent on war then so any change would have to be caused by some radical thing and even that doesn't guarantee democracies woun't start rearming anyway. Maybe not with such speed but once started they can do it easier than Germany.

However by OTL outbreak of war Germany was loosing arms race, they stayed ahead because they started racing sooner than others and could win early victories due to other factors as well.
 
Top