Hitler waits until 1943 to start World War II and is defeated. What happens next?

For those who don't know, when Germany and Italy were negotiating the Pact of Steel, Mussolini's Under-Secretary of War, Carlo Favagrossa, concluded that due to the weak Italian industry(which did not equal more than 15% of that of France or of Britain in militarily critical areas such as automobile production), Italy would not be ready for a war until 1943 and both signatories agreed to wait until that year to declare war.

Of course, things didn't turn out that way. Hitler invaded Poland n 1939 and Mussolini declared war on the Allies in 1940, just before the Fall of France.

I've asked around several times about what would've happened had Hitler honoured that treaty to the letter and the answer has always been the same: Had Hitler tried to start World War II in 1943, he would've been defeated quickly due to the Allies being able to complete their rearmament programs ( the extension of the Maginot Line from the Belgian border to the coast being completed, France's less than competent generals are in retirement, the Soviet Union being much more prepared for a Nazi invasion, the Polish military being more modernized, etc)

So, let's talk about the aftermath of this alternate World War II (or whatever name they decide to call WWII in the world). Had Hitler attempted to invade Poland in 1943 and was crushed by a superior Allied opposition, what does the future hold for this alternate world?
 
For those who don't know, when Germany and Italy were negotiating the Pact of Steel, Mussolini's Under-Secretary of War, Carlo Favagrossa, concluded that due to the weak Italian industry(which did not equal more than 15% of that of France or of Britain in militarily critical areas such as automobile production), Italy would not be ready for a war until 1943 and both signatories agreed to wait until that year to declare war.

Of course, things didn't turn out that way. Hitler invaded Poland n 1939 and Mussolini declared war on the Allies in 1940, just before the Fall of France.

I've asked around several times about what would've happened had Hitler honoured that treaty to the letter and the answer has always been the same: Had Hitler tried to start World War II in 1943, he would've been defeated quickly due to the Allies being able to complete their rearmament programs ( the extension of the Maginot Line from the Belgian border to the coast being completed, France's less than competent generals are in retirement, the Soviet Union being much more prepared for a Nazi invasion, the Polish military being more modernized, etc)

So, let's talk about the aftermath of this alternate World War II (or whatever name they decide to call WWII in the world). Had Hitler attempted to invade Poland in 1943 and was crushed by a superior Allied opposition, what does the future hold for this alternate world?


The whole premise is flawed. You are talking about four more years of Nazi indoctrination of the German youth. The results of this can be predicted by analysing the battle performance of the Hitler Jugend division in Normandy. It fought with the fanaticism of the Japanese and a battle craft beyond any Allied troops. It had a combat power no Allied troops could ever hope to match. Such troops would have formed the bulk of the German Army by 1943. The outcome would have been the opposite of that you predict.
 
Another question is what would Japan do? They are ankles deep in China but their resources keep flowing if they can't occupy Indochina. They expect Germany to move against the USSR, something the might be able to back-up in 1943. Depening on how the war against China goes, but i suspect a lot better than OTL.

If the Axis don't attack the Western powers, wouldn't Stalin presume they are preparing to attack him? He might try to integrate Poland into his sphere of influence, maybe even attack it under some ruse. If successfull the USSr might launch a strike against Germany first. As early as 1942 even.

How would Germany even begin to attack the western powers in 1943? Sure they will have better tanks, better planes, better ships, but the situation in 1939 when Poland was attacked was perfect for the Germans, backed by the USSR. What plans would they have to attack without it looking just simply stupid? I think this only helps Italy to do better, but not Germany. Germany would do a lot worse, so much it would be plain suicide instead of unseeming suicide.
 
The whole premise is flawed. You are talking about four more years of Nazi indoctrination of the German youth. The results of this can be predicted by analysing the battle performance of the Hitler Jugend division in Normandy. It fought with the fanaticism of the Japanese and a battle craft beyond any Allied troops. It had a combat power no Allied troops could ever hope to match. Such troops would have formed the bulk of the German Army by 1943. The outcome would have been the opposite of that you predict.

The Hitlerjugend Division was almost completely destroyed after three months of fighting and while there were many individual acts of bravery and fanaticism by its individual troops, at the unit level its performance was characterized by rank incompetence. The most notorious example was attacking the Regina rifles head-on with no prior reconnaissance while making no use of the fact that their flanks were exposed. The unit was devastated. Tanks also ran out of fuel due to bad staff work and command and control was very spotty.

If that's the model of the ATL 1943 Germany Army than the OP is exactly right. They will be crushed like an empty beer can.
 
The Hitlerjugend Division was almost completely destroyed after three months of fighting and while there were many individual acts of bravery and fanaticism by its individual troops, at the unit level its performance was characterized by rank incompetence. The most notorious example was attacking the Regina rifles head-on with no prior reconnaissance while making no use of the fact that their flanks were exposed. The unit was devastated. Tanks also ran out of fuel due to bad staff work and command and control was very spotty.

If that's the model of the ATL 1943 Germany Army than the OP is exactly right. They will be crushed like an empty beer can.

Thanks for dispelling yet another wehraboo myth.
 
It fought with the fanaticism of the Japanese and a battle craft beyond any Allied troops. It had a combat power no Allied troops could ever hope to match.
...

So...you do realize the war actually DID last until 1943 OTL right? Where exactly were these mystical Ubremensch who crushed the Allies with no effort.

Oh right, they got stomped by people who actually knew what they were doing, because the side that won WEREN'T brainless fanatics.
 
The whole premise is flawed. You are talking about four more years of Nazi indoctrination of the German youth. The results of this can be predicted by analysing the battle performance of the Hitler Jugend division in Normandy. It fought with the fanaticism of the Japanese and a battle craft beyond any Allied troops. It had a combat power no Allied troops could ever hope to match. Such troops would have formed the bulk of the German Army by 1943. The outcome would have been the opposite of that you predict.
The whole premise is flawed. You are talking about four more years of the fortification of the Polish Nation. The results of this can be predicted by analyzing the battle performance of the 71st Infantry Regiment at Wizna. It fought with the fanaticism of the Japanese and a battle craft beyond any German troops. It had a combat power no Axis troops could ever hope to match. Such bunkers would have formed the bulk of the Polish frontier by 1943. The outcome would have been the opposite of what you predict.
 
The whole premise is flawed. You are talking about four more years of Nazi indoctrination of the German youth. The results of this can be predicted by analysing the battle performance of the Hitler Jugend division in Normandy. It fought with the fanaticism of the Japanese and a battle craft beyond any Allied troops. It had a combat power no Allied troops could ever hope to match. Such troops would have formed the bulk of the German Army by 1943. The outcome would have been the opposite of that you predict.

By 1943, these highly fanaticised soldiers (and I'm not discussing how competent they would be) would find that they were facing enemies that had undergone their rearmament and military build up to a level that unthinkable in 1939. I can imagine some reactions:

The French: "Well, we are lucky that the evil Boche decided to attack us now that we have completed the modernisation of our AdA because it has been a close call. Surely denying the enemy air superiority in the river crossings have been crucial".

The British: "Thanks God the war started now. Had it started by 1939 we would have not been able to deploy so many Spitfire squadrons in France while setting a RADAR network there. And our mechanised forced were quite useful to counterattack the German flanks".

Stalin (while smugly filling his pipe): "Told you Beria, I had time for that purge of traitors. Now let's watch the Capitalist destroy each other".

Then there is the small matter about the capacity of the German economy to sustain the continuous military build up until 1943.
 

hipper

Banned
The whole premise is flawed. You are talking about four more years of Nazi indoctrination of the German youth. The results of this can be predicted by analysing the battle performance of the Hitler Jugend division in Normandy. It fought with the fanaticism of the Japanese and a battle craft beyond any Allied troops. It had a combat power no Allied troops could ever hope to match. Such troops would have formed the bulk of the German Army by 1943. The outcome would have been the opposite of that you predict.

well to be honest the 12ss made no decisive contribution to the battle in Normandy and were tactically rather inept. They were matched quite well by the 3rd Canadian division and by the 99th American ID at the battle of the bulge
 
Last edited:
How does the Nazi regime maintain both re-armament and military expansion until 43 without slave labour and war booty from their various initial victories?

If they have to turn the taps off on both then they won't really be north of the position they were in in 1940. On the flip side the French and British ability to expand re-armament in a peacetime environment is extensive and can be maintained (indeed we would see huge positive impacts from the fiscal stimulus on the economies and empires which had had a rather mixed bag in the 30s).

You could see some rather interesting war alterting infrastructure projects taking place in the UK such as port expansion, strategic railway construction etc. little things that change the whole game going forwards. I think these will have the biggest impact on the post-war world. You basically have a UK and French alliance that would readily defeat the Germans in 43 (the Italians would doubtfully join in) and have interestingly modernised domestic and imperial economic improvements with significant growth in internal and external purchasing capacity.

I can't see the British and French infrastructure getting trashed in this scenario either.

You get a reduced Franco British version of the US boom post war.
 
.... Had Hitler attempted to invade Poland in 1943 and was crushed by a superior Allied opposition...

In Sept 1939, Stalin invades Poland ... and then Finland (remember ?) .. so if UK/France is going to do anything about 'protecting' Poland in 1943, first is has to kick the Russians out after '39 .. which, I'm betting, isn't going to happen .... (remember the Nazi-Soviet Pack ? no way is Hitler going to let the French/British send troops to Poland :) ) ...

Indeed, if Stalin sticks to the Pack, Hitler is going to be presented with half of Poland in 1940 without having to fire a shot ..

Then, on December 6th, 1941 the USA, Britain and France go to war against the Japanese .. and the British will build ships and Aircraft Carriers NOT tanks and 4 engined heavy bombers .. and the French likewise ..

By 1943 the 'BEF' will be in the Far East ... along with most of the Spitfires and almost the entire Navy ... and then Hitler 'invades' the half of Poland it doesn't already own .. i.e. it's Operation Barabaosa time ...

Well, I just can't see Britain/France (who will be up to their necks against the Japanese) declaring war on Germany .. indeed if Goebbels gets it right, Hitler will be 'rescuing the Poles' (and then 'rescuing the Ukraine', then Finland, then Bulgaria, Rumania etc etc) from the Soviets ! ...

So, it's not 'the Allies' who must defeat Hitler in '43 but Stalin and the Red Army ...and I'm betting that the Red Army in '43 will be in an even worse state of "'political correctness" than it was in '42 ..

Without the RAF 'bomber offensive' (and without the distractions of North Africa, Crete, Greece etc etc) Hitler will be MUCH better prepared to take on the Soviets in '43 .. and I'm betting there's no way the American's or Brit's would risk getting 'sucked in' by sending supplies of any sort to Russia .. so the Red Army is likley to be MUCH LESS effective ..

For sure, without 400,000 US trucks the Red Army is going to be very sort of supplies at the front (only what gets dragged up by horse and cart) .. and when it comes to a 'fighting retreat' they will be walking away without their heavy equipmen (or, indeed, any equipment) ..
 
Last edited:
I think it would depend on large part on who was president of the US ittl. As well as where he Belgium allows French troops to be stationed in it's borders.
 

But of course.

Because Stalin would exactly do the same things that he did in OTL even if the Germans do not invade Poland.

And because ship building means that nothing is done with the army and the air forces. I seem to remember that the British had some ambitious plans for the RN as much as they had some ambitious plans for the Army and the RAF. And the French would say, "Well, we have to fight the Japanese, let's forget about these guys who have invaded us like two times in the the last century and that are building up their armed forces! What could possibly go wrong? Pass the lead laced wine, please". "Sorry sir, the British secured all the world lead reserved for their tea", "Damn the cunning Angles!"

And it's obvious that the Japanese would decide that the time was right for a war in 1941. "Yes, we will attack the full and undistracted power of France, the British Empire and the US, their strength will play against them and make them overconfident!". No even the Japanese military was that crazy. The Japanese thought that they had a window of opportunity in 1941 with France defeated and the British overstretched. These conditions are not happening in this tl.
 
I've asked around several times about what would've happened had Hitler honoured that treaty to the letter and the answer has always been the same: Had Hitler tried to start World War II in 1943, he would've been defeated quickly due to the Allies being able to complete their rearmament programs ( the extension of the Maginot Line from the Belgian border to the coast being completed, France's less than competent generals are in retirement, the Soviet Union being much more prepared for a Nazi invasion, the Polish military being more modernized, etc)

So, let's talk about the aftermath of this alternate World War II (or whatever name they decide to call WWII in the world). Had Hitler attempted to invade Poland in 1943 and was crushed by a superior Allied opposition, what does the future hold for this alternate world?

If we assume Sudentendland crisis and then halt of German aggression, then what is written above is true.

On the other hand, Hitler capable of waiting till 1943 would have probably done a different approach on the whole rearmament, possibly focusing first on infrastructure, modernization of German rail and road infrastructure, expansion of industry, exports etc. and not on kamikaze rearmament, thus waiting till, say, 1941, for riskier foreign policy ventures such as occupation of Sudentenland etc.

This would mean that France and UK would have been quite satisfied and would not have started rearmament till, say, 1941 or 1942.
 
For those who don't know, when Germany and Italy were negotiating the Pact of Steel, Mussolini's Under-Secretary of War, Carlo Favagrossa, concluded that ... Italy would not be ready for a war until 1943 and both signatories agreed to wait until that year to declare war. ...So, let's talk about the aftermath of this alternate World War II (or whatever name they decide to call WWII in the world). Had Hitler attempted to invade Poland in 1943... ?
...
If the Axis don't attack the Western powers, wouldn't Stalin presume they are preparing to attack him? He might try to integrate Poland into his sphere of influence, maybe even attack it under some ruse. If successfull the USSr might launch a strike against Germany first. As early as 1942 even...

How does the Nazi regime maintain both re-armament and military expansion until 43 without slave labour and war booty from their various initial victories? ...

There is a common misunderstanding here of Hitlers view in of how events would fall out over the next few years. This is understandable since his ideas on strategy were not very clear, & his actions 1933-39 muddied the historical puddle.

Trawling through Hitlers speeches & what passed for writing a few consistent ideas emerge.

1. He saw the resolution of the Rhineland, Austrian, Cezch, and Polish questions would occur without significant opposition from France, Britain, or Italy, and the USSR. We can see he was correct up to the war with Poland. In fact he was surprised when they supported Poland and declared war. That was not in his vision & left him a bit confused. More so when the Allies failed to accept their defeat in Poland and continued the war.

2. He had expected to liqudate Poland cica 1939 & then deal with the USSR in 1940 or 1941. The idea the Judeao Bolshivik presence in the east could be defeated and liquidated in a year or two was part of his thinking at least as far back as 1939. He apparently saw the control of the Slavs in the east as essential for Germanys ability to gain superiority over the French & British.

3. He usually refered to war with France as coming no earlier than 1942, very possibly later. 'One final war with France to settle everything' was how he put it a couple times in the 1930s.

4. He never really got his head around war with Britain. His core view was that the English were fellow Aryans . He refered to the world eventually divided politically between the greater Reich area of influence & the British Empire. When he did consider a possible war with Britain his ideas were vague and did not see it as over major issues, & very far in the future.

One of the points in this is how screwy & unrealistic his strategic thinking was. Even if a Itlaian alliance causes the Polish war to be postphoned things are liable to go off the rails as early as the Spring of 1940 & a large scale war start.
 
Can the German economy continue to do everything it was doing if it doesn't get to steal all the stuff it stole 1939-1943, as well as the German people tolerating the shortages and dislocations because they are at war - different standards for peace time. If Hitler continues rearmament and also occupies Czechoslovakia, showing agreements with him (Munich) are worthless, Britain and France will continue to rearm and even small countries like Holland and Belgium will upgrade and modernize. Absent the Molotov-Ribbentrop Agreement, Stalin wpon't invade Poland or the Baltic states. The attacks on Finland will probably go on, but absent active fighting between Germany and France/UK support for Finland by the west can very likely prevent the Finns turning to the Germans as the only big power they can lean on.

The Japanese are screwed. If the US and the Europeans continue to ramp up sanctions, their options are pretty much the same. Siberian resources are either unkown or simply not recoverable at this point (oil and gas). If there is no war in Europe then the UK, France, and even Holland have a ton of more resources to devote to defending those areas and the Japanese won't simply waltz in to French Indochina. The geopolitical realities that drove the Japanese to try and knock the USA back long enough to secure their gains still apply. Japan facing the UK, France, Holland, and the USA who can devote the vast majority of their resources to dealing with this means they go down fast and hard.

If the above happens, and Germany starts things in 1943, they are now facing enemies who have had recent combat experience.
 
The battle performance of the Hitler Jugend is well attested. Major General Charles Foulkes, commander of the 2nd Canadian Infantry Division, who encountered the 12 SS Division at Caen and Falaise, stated "...we found that when we bumped into battle-experienced German troops we were no match for them."

Read the accounts by Zetterling or Max Hastings of the Battle of Normandy.

Another key indicator is that although German troops underwent far more severe bombardment that Allied troops, they showed far lower incidence of combat fatigue.

Facts win out over offended national pride unfortunately.

As for the comment about the Poles, the Dupuy institute has shown that the Germans had a combat efficiency against them of 1.7. This is despite the fact that the bulk of the German Army had minimal training and nearly half the men were aged 40+.
 
This never gets to a World War stage. The German economy overheats. Inflation and shortages ensue, whereupon Hitler's regime self-destructs.
 
What about this: WAllied bluff as response to German bluff instead of Munich. Say France calls mobilisation (but still with no intention to really help Czechs). Bluff worked-France and UK were not prepared for war, but Germans also were not ready. As result Hitler knows that von Neurath was right-France and UK would not ignore their eastern allies. How would Hitler behave if he's knowing he'll need to fight WAllies from the very start of the war?
 
Top