Hitler starts World War II three years late

Considering the pattern of scandal, resignation and new elections as well as the corrupt French political complex it's doubtful the French government could have kept it's position like that in a meaningful way. The German troops they'll be facing will be battle hardened from Poland, well equipped and certainly better trained than the majority of the French. The Luftwaffe would certainly be strong by an order of magnitude than the French.

Eh, you are grossly overestimating those factors. ..and the ability of Germany to sustain the level of reservist training of 1938-1939. Weapons production was not the only financial draw on the treasury.

& It's fairly clear nazi corruption equaled or exceeded that of France.
 
Sadly,that is not true.German planned 10.000 strong Luftwaffe mainly with Ju88 and Me109,when Poland would have only 700 planes.14:1 advantage.
In OTL,Poland had 315 planes,when germans use against them some 2.000.Only 6:1 advantage.

Assuming Germans would have been able to build such a strong Luftwaffe. With their economy collapsing they may have problems with that. Goering always had great and ambitious plans, but much too often he failed to impelement them.
 
I see the old "France as just waiting to surrender" trope is still alive and well. For a bunch of surrender monkeys there sure were lots of French units that fought valiantly even after it was clear the German units had broken French defenses.

Let's see, if it would take decades to shake off the effects of Stalin's purges, then how did the Soviet military recover so quickly in the midst of a shooting war while suffering huge losses of men and material?

If Germany defaults, how would she maintain a full bore rearmament? She can't buy stuff on credit if she defaults and Germany was very dependant on the world market for things like oil, rubber, chromium just to name a few. Take away her ability to pay and rearmament crashes to a halt.


I see blindness is also rampant.

Hitler got the keys to the Reich Bank when he sacked Schacht and everything from that point on was run on government credit notes that were backed up by the bank. The debit from these credit notes were recycled and covered by more note upon maturing and the whole fiasco would continue for as long as Hitler wanted it. I gather Hitler made it clear he had no intention of paying this debit when the war ended. He would spread as much of this debit around the occupied territories and abolish the rest.

As far as Soviets recovering so quickly after losing so many millions, I would suggest the very act of losing the millions would be sufficient motivation enough. However with Stalin I would suggest when the population got a measure of how much worse things might be under the Gestapo, the decided....'better the devil you know'.


I should also bloody well hope these "tropes" had better continue because they are "schools of thought" and that is critical part of the study of history over time.

NONE OF YOU WERE THERE AT THAT TIME , SO YOU KNOW NOTHING OTHER THAN WHAT YOU CHOOSE TO READ IN WHAT EVER BOOK YOU CHOOSE TO READ .

The very act of choosing this book or that book betrays a bias. Any one who thinks they don't have bias is fooling themselves.
 
Last edited:
...
Let's see, if it would take decades to shake off the effects of Stalin's purges, then how did the Soviet military recover so quickly in the midst of a shooting war while suffering huge losses of men and material?

...

I think his point would be that during a 3-4 year gap of 'peacetime' any lessons or pruning of Soviet military leadership are not likely to happen. Their recovery might still come in a 1943 shooting war, as IOTL, but that early period of bad leadership, encirclements, lack of combined arms, lack of any armor coordination tactics, would still exist. One could argue that the Soviet economy might put a lot more tanks on the battlefield for the Germans to encounter, but one could point out that those only fall into the hands of the Germans.

Taking a larger step back you never know what time might do to German aims/goals. If the economy did show signs of slowing down into the early 40's, scaled back plans might have been utilized for greater long term effects. Maybe they pursue a better relationship with the Soviets in light of increased powers of the West. The economic benefits to Germany also might negate some of the negative aspects of the economy mentioned here. Also, various factors also offer troubles to the Soviet military, specifically their leadership quality. For example, say a mess if the Soviets still went into Finland.
 
are still outnumbered by a qualitatively superior army.

The WAllies weren't even outnumbered OTL. How are they going to be outnumbered after another two years of ramped up armaments production and cadre formation while Germany's armament program crashes from a lack of raw materials?

In the event of a default the Germans could have still nationalized various war industries and embarked on a policy of total war esque mobilization.

Which does nothing to prevent implosion as their vital sources of raw materials dry up with the default. The Germans pre-Fall of France were hostage to imports from foreign entities, while the Anglo-French could make do by importing from their overseas empires.

I think his point would be that during a 3-4 year gap of 'peacetime' any lessons or pruning of Soviet military leadership are not likely to happen. Their recovery might still come in a 1943 shooting war, as IOTL, but that early period of bad leadership, encirclements, lack of combined arms, lack of any armor coordination tactics, would still exist. One could argue that the Soviet economy might put a lot more tanks on the battlefield for the Germans to encounter, but one could point out that those only fall into the hands of the Germans.

Except it was already happening. The purges were already winding down by 1939 (while arrests and executions continued in the latter part of '41, the trend was distinctly downward) and officers were already starting to be rehabilitated, on top of all of those being trained. By 1943 new Soviet officer corps would very much have gotten a handle on the worst of their problems. On average, most Soviet officers junior and mid-level officers in 1941 needed an additional two years for their given positions before they could be regarded as adequately experienced. By ITTL 1943, they'll have those two years. Additionally, many of the enlisted personnel by '43 would be from those generations born after the Russian Civil War who would enjoy the benefits of the greatly improved educational standards. The effect was felt even OTL and with the training regime more intact, ya know without a massive invasion to ruin it, it would be even more massive. Many of the encirclements simply won't happen and of those which do they would be smaller, take longer, and see the Germans take grossly heavier losses. The improved logistical situation would likewise mean many of those tanks, which would be of modern models superior to their German counterparts, would actually see combat and do damage to the Germans rather then simply being captured for lack of fuel or spare parts. On the whole, the the Red Army would very much be in a position to halt the Germans far short of the D'niepr river line, which would totally negate the worst military and industrial losses and make the Soviet mobilization that much more massive.

Hitler got the keys to the Reich Bank when he sacked Schacht and everything from that point on was run on government credit notes that were backed up by the bank. The debit from these credit notes were recycled and covered by more note upon maturing and the whole fiasco would continue for as long as Hitler wanted it. I gather Hitler made it clear he had no intention of paying this debit when the war ended. He would spread as much of this debit around the occupied territories and abolish the rest.

Which results in economic implosion as the foreign countries to which this debt are beholden are under no obligation to adhere to German delusions and without the German victories of 1939-1940, there is no occupied territory with which to offset it by looting or spread around that debt. If Hitler simply tries to "abolish" the debt without any of that, then imports of raw materials cease and German rearmament collapses.

As far as Soviets recovering so quickly after losing so many millions, I would suggest the very act of losing the millions would be sufficient motivation enough. However with Stalin I would suggest when the population got a measure of how much worse things might be under the Gestapo, the decided....'better the devil you know'.

Had the Soviet Union been such a rotten mess that it couldn't recover in peacetime, then it certainly wouldn't have been able to recover after taking such a massive blow. On the whole, the German invasion probably set back Soviet military development by six months. And the Soviets enjoyed widespread popular support among all of it's pre-1939 pretty much even before the war began, only in the recently annexed border regions were anti-Soviet sentiments manifested on a widespread scale.

I should also bloody well hope these "tropes" had better continue because they are "schools of thought" and that is critical part of the study of history over time.

The "France as just waiting to surrender" trope has never been a part of historical schools of thought even in 1946, when WW2 was barely even considered part of history.

I should also bloody well hope these "tropes" had better continue because they are "schools of thought" and that is critical part of the study of history over time.

NONE OF YOU WERE THERE AT THAT TIME , SO YOU KNOW NOTHING OTHER THAN WHAT YOU CHOOSE TO READ IN WHAT EVER BOOK YOU CHOOSE TO READ .

The very act of choosing this book or that book betrays a bias. Any one who thinks they don't have bias is fooling themselves.

"I don't like what modern history has to say about the Third Reich's situation in the late-30's/early-40's and what it means so I'm going to say it has a bias" is not a argument that is going to be taken seriously around here. The fact that none of us were there at that time, in addition to being a stupid argument (I mean, like you were?) is also a considerable advantage as it gifts us with a wider view of what was happening then was available at the time. Hindsight is twenty-twenty for a reason. Then again, what more can be expected from someone who posts evidence that contradicts his own assertions? I mean, look here at this post:

PSL said:

You claim that the Soviet Union won't be prepared because it was running away from war like everyone else only for us to click on the link and see the following:

"Soviet thinking was also based on the idea of total war and Soviet society was bombarded with patriotic and militaristic propaganda to prepare the population for mass mobilization. The heavy industry at the core of the Five-Year Plans of the 1930s was designed to be converted to a war-footing in the event of a sudden attack. Stalin played a key part in driving along the pace of Soviet rearmament. He did not seek war but he could see the deteriorating climate in the 1930s that the only communist state in the world needed to be able to defend itself effectively."

Indeed, it says the same thing about Britain and France: that while by 1939 they were (still) not seeking war, they were actively preparing for it.
 
Last edited:
Assuming they did start early, would they follow the same plan of attack or attack elsewhere first?

Also, would America be worked out of its Depression. I was always taught that without WWII mobilization, we would have been in serious trouble for years.
 
...

Also, would America be worked out of its Depression. I was always taught that without WWII mobilization, we would have been in serious trouble for years.

Depends in part on how much exports to Europe increase. Purchases of non war material from the US was rising. What increase there would is the question.

A second question is if the US does stumble into war with Japan. That event is less likely, but not improbable.
 
War with Japan depends on whether or not america and Western Europe extends their embargo to oil and various other raw materiel's needed to sustain the war in China if they do Japan gonna have to do something or run out of fuel in what 18 months IIRC
 
Looking at some data you could see a spike in unemployment about 1936/37 In the US (to over 15%) then a steady decrease as war readiness spending began to ratchet up amongst western powers. Unemployment ends up virtually vanishing after 41 when the US enters the war.

I think what you see with a war in 43 (assuming no Pacific war) is a slow decline in unemployment. Probably still lingering at 9-10% by the time war starts. Then depending on how things go, it could vanish or simply go lower as nations purchase more American goods.
 
obssesivednuker you fail to even understand the economic system that Hjlmar Schacht established prewar. It was based on government issued Reich-bank credit notes plus numerous bilateral trade arrangements with the many countries in eastern Europe , the Baltic & Balkan countries. This system was well on its way when Hitler hijacked the process with his FOUR YEAR PLAN. So rearmament would have continued albeit at a slower rate than wartime rearmament did.


Indeed, it says the same thing about Britain and France: that while by 1939 they were (still) not seeking war, they were actively preparing for it.

But they would not be ready until the actual war begins , whether it be 1939 or 1942. Meanwhile rearmament continues at the peace time 1939 rate....for all countries!
 
Last edited:
obssesivednuker you fail to even understand the economic system that Hjlmar Schacht established prewar. It was based on government issued Reich-bank credit notes plus numerous bilateral trade arrangements with the many countries in eastern Europe , the Baltic & Balkan countries. This system was well on its way when Hitler hijacked the process with his FOUR YEAR PLAN. So rearmament would have continued albeit at a slower rate than wartime rearmament did.

You accuse me of not understanding, yet clearly you are the one who doesn't understand: Schacht's system was not sustainable. Germany's trading partners would not tolerate a system that was tantamount to state-subsidized dumping forever. This is something Schacht himself had identified way back in 1936, explicitly so in December 1935. By 1939 it was on the verge of collapse and it was only the sudden victory over France in 1940 that salvaged Germany's economic situation, if only partially and temporarily. As it was, German munition production declined drastically in April 1939. The following chart from Tooze's "Wages of Destruction" (p.314) gives an idea of just how much resource starvation and the foreign exchange crisis restricted German production:

KCKebFL.jpg


Note that the projection into 1940 is a projection as briefed to Hitler in the summer 1939. So no, rearmament would not have continued remotely as fast as it had previously.

But they would not be ready until the actual war begins , whether it be 1939 or 1942. Meanwhile rearmament continues at the peace time 1939 rate....for all countries!

The pre-war rearmament measures resulted in the Anglo-French armaments production already matching Germany in 1939 and outstripping it in the first half of 1940. So no, what it means is that the German rate declines while the Anglo-French continued to rise.
 
Last edited:
It don't matter what the allies do- it only matters what the Germans do....either they have enough or not.

What you are showing was ammunitions production , which goes along way to explaining why all the excess programs were shut down when war began....to allow for ammo stockpiles to grow up to NEEDED wartime levels. Trouble is this was all predicated on Hitler's expanded HEER based on Hitler's FOUR YEAR PLAN, not the HEER that was originally envisaged under the 15 year expansion plan begun under the Groner defence ministry.
 
Top