How far could Germany have gotten without rearmament?

I know he wouldn't, but if Hitler did not pursue a policy of rearmament, what kind of territorial concessions could he actually have gotten from his European neighbors? Could he still have pulled the same thing with Austria without a military severely lacking in both number and modern armament? Could the same thing hold true for any other territory?
 

Markus

Banned
I know he wouldn't, but if Hitler did not pursue a policy of rearmament, what kind of territorial concessions could he actually have gotten from his European neighbors? Could he still have pulled the same thing with Austria without a military severely lacking in both number and modern armament? Could the same thing hold true for any other territory?

Just for the record, he did all with "a military severely lacking in both number and modern armament." Troops, tanks, warplanes and lacking quality and quantity even in 1939. The German propaganda told another story and the rest of the world swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
 

mowque

Banned
Just for the record, he did all with "a military severely lacking in both number and modern armament." Troops, tanks, warplanes and lacking quality and quantity even in 1939. The German propaganda told another story and the rest of the world swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Well Poland tried to call the bluff but it didn't work out so well.
 

loughery111

Banned
Well Poland tried to call the bluff but it didn't work out so well.

Only because the two countries which, combined, did then have a decisive military superiority in all three arenas of modern warfare sat on their asses and watched it be overrun, just as they had the Czechs the year before. :mad:
 

Markus

Banned
Well Poland tried to call the bluff but it didn't work out so well.

Regardless of what people say: Size does matter!

Germany was larger and more populous and had a much bigger economy. Thus even the half-mobilized, half-ready German military sufficed. A year before against the CSR the outcome would have been different.
 
Besides affirming what Markus says, I'd note that re-armament started before the Nazis. You could have less re-armament, but the idea of Germany continuing with the Versailles restrictions into the 30s is absurd: Britain for one certainly didn't want it, although France is another question.
 
Regardless of what people say: Size does matter!

Germany was larger and more populous and had a much bigger economy. Thus even the half-mobilized, half-ready German military sufficed. A year before against the CSR the outcome would have been different.


Then why did the Czechs accept Munich? If they were strong enough to resist without Anglo-French aid, then they had no reaon to capitulate.

If, OTOH they were not strong enough to do so, then they would indeed have got what Poland got.
 

loughery111

Banned
Then why did the Czechs accept Munich? If they were strong enough to resist without Anglo-French aid, then they had no reaon to capitulate.

If, OTOH they were not strong enough to do so, then they would indeed have got what Poland got.

Had the Czechs not acquiesced, the Germans would have faced a bloodbath that would have destroyed the valuable Czech arms industry and devastated the newly minted German armored units. They would have won, unless the French and British intervened, but it would have been a net loss in combat power for a few years, at least.
 
Then why did the Czechs accept Munich? If they were strong enough to resist without Anglo-French aid, then they had no reaon to capitulate.

If, OTOH they were not strong enough to do so, then they would indeed have got what Poland got.

As Loughery says, the Czechs were strong enough to gut the German army so severely that the French would only have had to push and they would have fallen over, but it wasn't like they were going to march on Berlin. They didn't really want Prague to be obliterated from the air (everyone overestimated the bomber, remember) for the sake of being a Doomed Moral Victor.
 

Germaniac

Donor
As Loughery says, the Czechs were strong enough to gut the German army so severely that the French would only have had to push and they would have fallen over, but it wasn't like they were going to march on Berlin. They didn't really want Prague to be obliterated from the air (everyone overestimated the bomber, remember) for the sake of being a Doomed Moral Victor.

Rotterdam begs to differ
 
Rotterdam begs to differ

For one thing, people believed that "the bomber would always get through". Given their situation - surprised and under furious attack on land - one could hardly expect the Dutch to stop it, but as it turns out Fighter Command begged to differ.

For another, people did hugely overestimate the damage it would cause. No consolation to the dead, I know, but the British government set up emergency measures on the premise that bombing was going to be an absolute slaughter.

For another, everybody expecting bombers to have a shattering effect on morale. Once again, look at the specific Dutch situation: surprised and getting the worst of a land battle. They decided to end the seemingly hopeless resistance before any more civilian destruction. But in Britain, it was seen that a mobilised and prepared country could quite literally shrug and carry on when it came to morale.

So, these assumptions all work against the Czechs: it was thought that everything would be blown to smithereens and morale would break down. The lesson seems to me to be that if for some reason the Czechs had decided to mount what they knew was a hopeless resistance, people would die and heritage and industry would be destroyed, but life would carry on, factories would run, and fighting would continue at the front. This was not something people took for granted before the war.
 
Last edited:

Thande

Donor
For one thing, people believed that "the bomber would always get through". Given their situation, surprises and under furious attack on land, one could hardly expect the Dutch to stop it, but as it turns out Fighter Command begged to differ.

For another, people did hugely overestimate the damage it would cause. No consolation to the dead, I know, but the British government set up emergency measures on the premise that bombing was going to be an absolute slaughter.

For another, everybody expecting bombers to have a shattering effect on morale. Once again, look at the specific Dutch situation: surprised and getting the worst of a land battle. They decided to end the seemingly hopeless resistance before any more civilian destruction. But in Britain, it was seen that a mobilised and prepared country could quite literally shrug and carry on when it came to morale.

Indeed: reading 1930s impressions of what city bombing would be like is curiously similar to post-1950s ideas of what nuclear war would be like.
 

Markus

Banned
Then why did the Czechs accept Munich? If they were strong enough to resist without Anglo-French aid, then they had no reaon to capitulate.

If, OTOH they were not strong enough to do so, then they would indeed have got what Poland got.


Like I said, they believed the German propaganda that grossly exaggerated the strenght of the German military, particularly that of the air force. SOP was to present test planes or prototypes and say they were production aircraft and already in service.

For example:

For a 1939 fighter 320mph was good, 350 was very good, the "pimped" Me109 did ~450mph and nobody got suspicious. A similar scam with a Do17 also succeeded in fooling the rest of the world.
 
Could Hitler have gotten away with the same things he did if the German military was less along in terms of rearmament though?
 
Could Hitler have gotten away with the same things he did if the German military was less along in terms of rearmament though?

You mean in terms of gaining control of territory? Probably not, as the British and French don't particularly want Germany to be overwhelmingly dominant on the Continent, and they saw Hitler for what he was after he had invaded Czechoslovakia in early 1939. Before then people were convinced that he was only interested in seizing control of German-speaking populations.
 
If the German military wasn't as far along in the rearmament phase as per OTL, could Hitler have still taken Austria, then the Sudetenland, then assuming he doesn't invade Czechoslovakia; could he get away with taking the Polish Corridor and Danzig?
 
I'd say yes for the fact that in OTL there was a last minute attempt to appease Hitler by getting another Munich like agreement on Danzig and the Polish corridor.
 
Top