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

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 ! ...
..

Nope!

There is no war with Japan without the major 'Distraction' of a war in Europe (and France having been defeated).

Japan does not 'occupy' a vichy French Indo China and the USA does not in turn impose crippling sanctions and the Japanese in turn do not choose the path to that fateful date that will live in infamy on a Hawaian sunday morning in Dec 41.

So we are back to a now fully rearmed British and French Empires sitting pretty in Europe!
 
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?

In answer to the original question.

My personal view is that delaying war till 1943 carried large economic risks to Germany, and for a numbe of reasons could have allowed the Allies to narrow the gap in military capability.

Assuming the war is fairly quick I think the US does not get involved directly. This probably allows the European powers to keep their colonies a little longer before economic reality catches up with them. Perhaps a more orderly and structured de-colonialisation would be the result in Africa. A few unusual places like Singapore might stay British?

I suspect the Soviet Union would make some territorial gains (Baltic states) leaving a Cold War as an aftermath, no Warsaw Pact or NATO, but perhaps some diplomatic competition to keep the Central European countries on side. I don’t think the Soviet Union would feel as great a need for buffer states or space if it has not been invaded. I think the Soviet Union would be economically stronger simply from not suffering the losses and damage of a long war. They are probably the ‘winner’.

There is scope for a war between Japan and the US, though I suspect the circumstances and build would be slightly different, and might well not involve the European powers.
 
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.


My personal view is that the indoctrination would have been weaker during peacetime, especially if the economy was struggling. That said it is one of the areas that potentially improves the German performance.

However the division you describe was founded with a core of veterans from another division. In this 1943 there is not a large battlehardened core from which to draw NCOs and instructors, such a division formed after years of peace would be ‘enthusiastic’ but inexperienced at too many command levels.

The Japanese probably managed to reach peak fanaticism, the flaws of which became apparent when they ended up facing well equipped and properly led enemy formations.
 
Last edited:
The German economy overheats and there's a revolution circa 1941, which can succeed or be crushed, but in either way there's no real way for WW2 to proceed as OTL. Or Germany is forced to scale down its war economy, which actually leads to them being less prepared than in 1939, compared to their enemies. The world rejoices; Germany - and its Jews - not that much.
 
The German economy overheats and there's a revolution circa 1941, which can succeed or be crushed, but in either way there's no real way for WW2 to proceed as OTL. Or Germany is forced to scale down its war economy, which actually leads to them being less prepared than in 1939, compared to their enemies. The world rejoices; Germany - and its Jews - not that much.

Would Germany's foes keep rearming if there is no imminent threat?
 
Would Germany's foes keep rearming if there is no imminent threat?

This is the question left unanswered in "Germany will collapse if it won't attack Poland" meme. Why would Germany keep the Kamikaze rearmament scheme going if it was going to wait for a few years, and how would France and UK react if Germany appeared to be satisfied? Granted, after Munich this might be too late, but after Anschluss?
 
I guess that Germany's foes would keep rearming as long as they perceive that Germany is rearming and that they are lagging behind.

In some areas the rearming would happen anyway, for example in their navies that were long overdue for a modernisation once the treatises lapsed. The RN was undergoing a very important modernisation with the KGV battleships and armoured carriers as the first step. It did respond to Germany's rearmament but also and specially to Italy's and Japan's sabre rattling. Same for the MN, especially in respect to Italy.

I suspect that in respect to the air forces Germany was the main push and it would continue being so. Hitler and Goring loved showing off their air power and displaying it to scare the other countries and also as a propaganda device in front of their own public opinion. This would play against them because the British and the French would react and if the war started in 1943 both countries would have enough time for a meaningful reaction.
 
Nope!

There is no war with Japan without the major 'Distraction' of a war in Europe (and France having been defeated).

Japan does not 'occupy' a vichy French Indo China and the USA does not in turn impose crippling sanctions and the Japanese in turn do not choose the path to that fateful date that will live in infamy on a Hawaian sunday morning in Dec 41.

So we are back to a now fully rearmed British and French Empires sitting pretty in Europe!
A fun little butterfly of this is that there would be a state of Jefferson (northern califonia, southern Oregon) since it was supposed to apply for statehood on dec 8th but decided not to due to Pearl Harbor. (According to the history channel's series how the states got their shapes)
 
As for the comment about the Poles, the Dupuy institute has shown that the Germans had a combat efficiency against them of 1.7.
And yet it took a german army corps with total air superiority more than 3 days to get an understrength Polish regiment out of some bunkers.

Reducing combat to mere calculations won't change that fact unfortunately.

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."
Ah yes, something which the Hitler Youth would not be in 1943 should the war begin in 1943 (not like they'd be deployed in 1943 either), and of course later in the war they're just like in OTL, fanatics without logistics.
 
Last edited:
A fun little butterfly of this is that there would be a state of Jefferson (northern califonia, southern Oregon) since it was supposed to apply for statehood on dec 8th but decided not to due to Pearl Harbor. (According to the history channel's series how the states got their shapes)
No it wouldn't. California and Oregon wouldn't allow it, and Congress can't make them.
 

SsgtC

Banned
A fun little butterfly of this is that there would be a state of Jefferson (northern califonia, southern Oregon) since it was supposed to apply for statehood on dec 8th but decided not to due to Pearl Harbor. (According to the history channel's series how the states got their shapes)
No it wouldn't. California and Oregon wouldn't allow it, and Congress can't make them.
Yeah, I take everything I hear on the History Channel with a huge grain of salt. They stopped being about real history a long time ago
 
Yeah, I take everything I hear on the History Channel with a huge grain of salt. They stopped being about real history a long time ago
It really sucks too.
I mean, there used to be good documentaries, even if it had American bias, but now it's just nonsense.
Ancient Aliens....For Christ sake.
Anyway, long story short, WW2 sucks for Germany.
Their Economy is falling apart, the WAllies are much better prepared.
If they get anywhere I'd be surprised.
 
Yeah, I take everything I hear on the History Channel with a huge grain of salt. They stopped being about real history a long time ago
I mean, there WAS a big Jefferson state movement back in the ‘40s. Northern Cali & Southern Oregon thought the state govs were ignoring them in favor of the cities, and so wanted to secede and form a new state. Had voted on it even.

Didn’t matter though because it’s illegal to carve up states without the consent of the legislatures of said states.
 
I mean, there WAS a big Jefferson state movement back in the ‘40s. Northern Cali & Southern Oregon thought the state govs were ignoring them in favor of the cities, and so wanted to secede and form a new state. Had voted on it even.

Didn’t matter though because it’s illegal to carve up states without the consent of the legislatures of said states.
There probably would have been a stronger movement at the very least then.
 
Facts win out over offended national pride unfortunately.

Indeed. And it is a fact that by 1943, the progress of Anglo-French-Soviet rearmament and reform programs would have been such that, combined with the IATL implosion of the German war economy in 1941-42, there is no way the Germans could have prevailed in the resulting war regardless of how much ideological fanaticism or tactical apologism you apply to the German soldiery. The superior tactical performance of the German soldier will matter as much to the outcome of a war starting in 1943 as it did to the outcome of the IOTL one in 1944-45.
 
Last edited:
Would Germany's foes keep rearming if there is no imminent threat?

France had ongoing rearmament programs during the 1920s & 1930s without imminent threat. The construction of the CORF fortification project which peaked 1934-38 caused a cutback of funds for some categories of weapons. & the rearming cycle for some weapons did not match the political situation. That created the 'catch up' situation for portions of the military. Overall the French rearming programs reflected long term considerations, and internal politics rather than the current newspaper headline.
 
France had ongoing rearmament programs during the 1920s & 1930s without imminent threat. The construction of the CORF fortification project which peaked 1934-38 caused a cutback of funds for some categories of weapons. & the rearming cycle for some weapons did not match the political situation. That created the 'catch up' situation for portions of the military. Overall the French rearming programs reflected long term considerations, and internal politics rather than the current newspaper headline.

eloantra004.gif

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/military-spending-patterns-in-history/

FRA is for France, DEN for Denmark, FIN for Finland. Unit is per cent of GDP. French hike for 1929-1933 is more due to the Great Depression rather than increase in military spending.

See page 75 for very informative graphic on French GDP during 1920-1940.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.541.3974&rep=rep1&type=pdf

This seems to show build-up after 1934, probably in response to German threat. So, in situation in which the international situation seems to be less tense I'd expect spending to go down.
 
Last edited:
What threat was there from the Reichwehr of 1928-1934 when that expansion started?

Like I wrote these reflect long term trends, not the crisis du jour. Doughty 'Seeds of Disaster' traces the thinking behind the military budgets. By the latter 1920s France had milked the Great War residue as far as practical & programs were initiated to prepare for potential threat one or two decades out. The upward trends from the latter 1920s were initiated when the German military presented zero near term threat. It does not seem realistic that in 1939 the French would abruptly reverse long running plans for rearmament just because the current political crisis leaves the news paper headlines. The German military then represented a very real immediate threat vs that of the 1928-1936 period when the threat was near zero.
 
The Great Depression. French spending as a proportion of GDP rose as GDP tanked. Real spending did not rise.

?

As Doughty & Horne point out the rearmament programs started in the 1920s, & several years before the Depression started. The ten year CORF project was planned & budgeted from 1927-28. Ditto for the artillery development programs that reached out a decade plus.
 
Top