Hitler only goes East?

Hitler only annex the chezk republic, and doesn't go after Poland right a way. Could that give the Germans an extra year before going to war with England?
 
Ok, first of all, Germany never annexed the Czech Republic--it was made into a protectorate, Bohemia-Moravia. I suppose the difference matters little, but what this means is that there are a bunch of Czechs living in Germany.

Actually, I think without Germany doing anything else to provoke a war, Germany can sit on what they have and play solitaire until the world stops caring. Hitler has won a great prize without effort and now he is a legitimate German Hero without any major sacrifices.
 
I'm not an expert on this, but I've learned quite a bit just by being on this board...and I believe that delaying a year may have possibly hurt Hitler, or at least not help, since it was after Munich that the French and British really pumped up their war production. Of course, your scenario provides for the possibility of a surprise attack of France before touching Poland, which could have some interesting effects...
 
Ok, first of all, Germany never annexed the Czech Republic--it was made into a protectorate, Bohemia-Moravia. I suppose the difference matters little, but what this means is that there are a bunch of Czechs living in Germany.

Really, what difference was there, other than terminology? An Nazi goon (Heydrich) ruled this area. In, say, Prussia, a Nazi goon (Goering, mostly through subordinates I imagine) ruled the area. Not a huge difference, effectively speaking...but now I'm quibbling about your quibble. Suffice it to say, whatever the Czechs' former nation or co-nation was, it's now full-fledge Nazi-land.

Actually, I think without Germany doing anything else to provoke a war, Germany can sit on what they have and play solitaire until the world stops caring. Hitler has won a great prize without effort and now he is a legitimate German Hero without any major sacrifices.

I think Euroman was saying a delay in the war, not an absence of it. Or were you implying a war coming later, too? Although that presents an interesting ATL...a Germany that can exploit the Czechs and maintain the coherence of its scientific and engineering elite, rather than seeing them stolen this way and that by allied powers. Germany becomes an economic superpower, has enough military resources to challenge anybody that pisses it off, and the alot of Germans go on to lead productive lives instead of being placeholders for Russian bullets. Of course, that scenario involves Hitler suddenly doing a mental 180..
 
I'm not sure Hitler could wait too long with starting the war. Fast remilitarization of the country was expensive and Germany was dangerously close to bakrupcy. Also, by conquering Czechoslovakia, Hitler lost credibility in Europe and in the world.
 
I'm not sure Hitler could wait too long with starting the war. Fast remilitarization of the country was expensive and Germany was dangerously close to bakrupcy. Also, by conquering Czechoslovakia, Hitler lost credibility in Europe and in the world.

Yup. If Hitler had slowed down remilitarizatio to more sustainable levels after Munich, and waited until '45 (when his generals estimated they'd actually be ready to wage a modern, mechanized war:eek:), things might have been interesting indeed...
 
In fact, Hitler did as good as he could until 1941. Had he invaded Poland sooner, he would not have been ready. Had he done it later, France and UK would have been much more war ready and the germans great victory, against France, would not have been.
It's only after the fall of France that the germans could have gained more by staying on the defensive. Avoid the BoB, defeat the british on land everywhere you can (Egipt), develop new weapons (planes, subs) and keep an eye on the soviets.
 
In fact, Hitler did as good as he could until 1941. Had he invaded Poland sooner, he would not have been ready. Had he done it later, France and UK would have been much more war ready and the germans great victory, against France, would not have been.
It's only after the fall of France that the germans could have gained more by staying on the defensive. Avoid the BoB, defeat the british on land everywhere you can (Egipt), develop new weapons (planes, subs) and keep an eye on the soviets.

But lucky for Us, Hitler was an idiot. Had he left war to the Generals there would been a Nazi Superstate in Europe today!

/Fred
 

Redbeard

Banned
By 1938-39 Hitler's success and his legitemacy among the German population was for bringing order, employment and pride to the Germans. But most of that was achieved by dramatically increasing public spending and in short this couldn't go on without new conquests to exploit and/or war to legitemize harder times for the common German.

Besides the rearmament in both UK, France and USSR were accelerating and a year more probably would have made the OTL successes of OTL 1940-41 impossible.

IMHO the French would have won if Hitler would have attacked a month or two later and by mid 1942 the Red Army would have had 500 Divisions ready and welll equipped.

No doubt Hitler had a firm grip on power in 1939, but what must not be forgotten is that his main power boost only came after the stunning military successes from 1939-41 - which to a large degree were done after Hitler insisting on not follwing the recommendations of his leading Generals - and without German economy really going on warstance yet. Not only Hitler himself. but also most of his generals actually started to believe Hitler was a genious - much more than most would admit later.

So without these military showcases (considering the experience in WWI, the victory over France in 1940 can hardly be overestimated) Hitler will only be a shadow of his OTL version - and Hitler would be vulnerable to a economical crisis, like when shortage of foreign currency closes down imports, or a diplomatic crisis, where his gambling doesn't work.

IMHO the OTL events of 1939-40 happened inside a very narrow window of opportunity. Earlier the German rearmament would have been too little advanced, and a little later, the allied, especially the French, would have been too strong - on top of all the internal factors from German economy.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
It all depends on who's in charge and how they handle the economic system. Another sort of leader, as ballsy as Hitler but also more patient, might have rearmed at a more sustainable rate and then gone to war later, with more success, and with allied countries unprepared since, for instance, he wouldn't have taken Czechoslovakia after his version of Munich, and instead simply rearmed at a slower, but still impressive, pace. Also, as for the economic successes and difficulties, the major reason Germany was coming into hard times was rapid rearmament, most of the economic policies Hitler enacted (actually, they were Schatt's) were quite good, from an internal position, it's only the rapid rearmament that caused it.

Also, I think France, being a war-weary country mainly situated on static, front line defense, would have fallen to the Blitzkrieg whatever time it occured. It was simply to favorable a set up for the Germans.
 

Redbeard

Banned
main part of the
Also, I think France, being a war-weary country mainly situated on static, front line defense, would have fallen to the Blitzkrieg whatever time it occured. It was simply to favorable a set up for the Germans.

I'm not sure France was that much more war weary than most other nations at that time, and her defences certainly weren't just based on static front line defence.

The Magiont line was intended to cover the main part of the French border in order to leave the main part of the French Army a manoeuvre room (in Belgium and into Germany).

So far the strategic plan worked OK, but the problems showed up at the operational and tactical plans, as the Germans didn't do as the French plan intended them to (repeating 1914 and go through Belgium) and when meeting the Germans in combat the French CCC (Command, Communication and Control) system simply proved too slow for Blitzkrieg. On top of that the Germans were extremely lucky, even when their commanders disobeyed orders, it turned out to their advantage.

Had the French obliged to the static defence label they are usually seen with, and not advanced into Belgium, they would have been left with plenty of forces to grind down the German spearheads. In OTL the French already by 1st of June had implemented effective anti-blitzkrieg tactics, but had by then wasted most troops. With the troops cut off in Belgium still available the German chance is practically non-existent.

Concerning morale the French troops, when placed in situation in accordance with their plans and orders actually fought very well. But no unit's morale can survive being cut-off, surrounded and with orders from above clearly out of contact with present reality. As one Frenchman expressed it: "our tanks came in 1000 units of three tanks but the Germans came in three units of 1000 tanks!". So seen from the French side each battle would be felt like taking on 1000 enemy tanks with three of your own - while the 999 other units waited for orders.

Had the German however slowed down a bit, and even trivial PoDs could cause that, the French doctrine would have had the time to gain its coherrence. And once that happens the Germans will litterally run into a wall of fire.

Had the German attack been postponed, the basic factors of slow reacting French probably would not have changed much, but the French would have been tremendously better equipped. Plenty of anti-tank guns (ATG), some of them in the selfpropelled Laffly mounting, and an airforce many times the strength of the OTL one from May 1940. The Germans OTOH will with their not yet fully mobilised industry remain practically constant. French ATGs in great numbers will mean German attrition rates making it impossible to reach the Channel and if the Luftwaffe doesn't gain air superiority almost instantly, the large part of the German army risk being trapped at the Meuse crossings.

It appears like the longer term French plan was to make a major attack in mid 1941, not in the Blitzkrieg way, but in a slow and systematic advance breaching the Siegfried Line with 90 ton tanks with 90mm high velocity guns (making the Tiger look like a cub).

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
It appears like the longer term French plan was to make a major attack in mid 1941, not in the Blitzkrieg way, but in a slow and systematic advance breaching the Siegfried Line with 90 ton tanks with 90mm high velocity guns (making the Tiger look like a cub).

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

You mean after WWII broke out, I assume. Well, it's clear that for the first third of the war, Hitler's aggressive, reckless strategy worked very well. It might have continued to work, if Operation Barbarossa had started earlier or hit upon as much good luck as the campaign in France did. Winston Churchill once said something interesting about war: essentially, he was saying, for all your preparations, plans, and strategies, so much in war depends on a roll of the dice, on the vagaries of chance. In another TL, Hitler could have been stymied in France, and Hitler would quite possibly have fallen to a coup as memories of the First World War resurfaced. In yet another TL, Hitler could have been doing a little dance in Moscow, too. That's the fun of alternate history.
 

Markus

Banned
Hitler only annex the chezk republic, and doesn't go after Poland right a way. Could that give the Germans an extra year before going to war with England?

1. Hitler was 150% sure Britain and France would never delare war on Germany anway! Therefore no preparation for such a war will be made by him no matter when Poland will be attacked.
2. This much of a delay works for the Allies, not for Germany! British war production has already been mentioned. A key weakness of the French military was the Air Force. Their fighters leacked quality and quantity, but around the time of the German attack in 1940 several new designs were entering production. Plus, lot´s of planes were imported from the US.
 
Top