If Chamberlain had ceded Poland to Hitler?

Deleted member 1487

Didn't Hitler annex Austria once he realized how badly many Austrians want to be a part of the German Reich?
Yes, he did not anticipate that level of support, so had planned to put a Nazi in charge and make them a Slovakia type state, but realized he could just annex them.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Yes, he did not anticipate that level of support, so had planned to put a Nazi in charge and make them a Slovakia type state, but realized he could just annex them.
You mean Seyss-Inquart, correct?

Also, isn't that similar to what Putin did for Crimea in 2014? Indeed, didn't Putin only decide on annexation sometime after Russia had already occupied Crimea?
 

Deleted member 1487

You mean Seyss-Inquart, correct?

Also, isn't that similar to what Putin did for Crimea in 2014? Indeed, didn't Putin only decide on annexation sometime after Russia had already occupied Crimea?
AFAIK yes him.
Not sure about Putin, I thought he always planned on annexation, because otherwise it would be impossible to maintain it separated from Ukraine.

Edit:
Yup
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Seyss-Inquart#Life_before_the_Anschluss
Before his triumphant entry into Vienna, Hitler had planned to leave Austria as a puppet state, with an independent but pro-Nazi government headed by Seyss-Inquart. He was carried away, however, by the wild reception given to the German army by the majority of the Austrian population and shortly decreed that Austria would be incorporated into the Third Reich as the province of Ostmark (see Anschluss). Only then, on 13 March 1938, did Seyss-Inquart join the Nazi Party.[2]
 
Did Britain shelter the Polish government in exile? No, no...

Uh, yes, actually. "The government-in-exile was based in France during 1939 and 1940, first in Paris and then in Angers. From 1940, following the Fall of France, the government moved to London, and remained in the United Kingdom until its dissolution in 1990." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_government-in-exile

Of course, after 1945, 'shelter" did not mean "recognize"...
 

Archibald

Banned
Well, Chamberlain, if that ever possible, is remembered as an even bigger coward than OTL. Then he his removed, and good riddance.
Can Churchill become PM by September 1939 or did he lacked support at the time ?
 
Hitler would not have launched Fall Gelb in 1940. If he was permitted to annex Poland, he would then focus on the east (Alsace-Lorraine and Luxembourg meant less that Ukraine and Byleorussiya to him) unless Britain and France gave him a reason to launch an attack west. Of course, Hitler desired 'Germanic' territories to the west (i.e. Netherlands, Flanders, 'Burgundy') and a weakened France, but his goal was always to destroy the USSR.

If he begins Operation Barbarossa in 1940, there's a good chance that the Germans will do better than IOTL - though the Reich is unlikely to win, for all the reasons constantly stated in 'How can the Nazis win' threads. Perhaps Leningrad and/or Stalingrad falls, or even Moscow given the extra time. Still, without winter gear, the operation is probably doomed anyway.

The response of Britain and France to a German-Soviet war is an interesting topic. Perhaps they do nothing, as they dislike the Soviets just as much as the Nazis. Perhaps they see German ascension as too great a threat to the balance of power and intervene on Russia's side. They certainly won't side with the Nazis against the USSR, however much Hitler expected/wanted them to.

It would also mean the Japanese would hesitate to threaten Indochina or Malaya, with intact and undistracted British and French forces prepared to defend the colonies. This would remove the reason for the oil embargo by the USA, so perhaps the Japanese don't feel the need to lash out at America in the way they did IOTL. Somehow, I expect that the two would come to blows anyway - tensions over China were too great.

Without the need to seize French, Dutch and British territories in SE Asia, Tokyo could take the opportunity to fight the Soviets when the Germans launch Barbarossa. Given the less-than-perfect state of the Japanese army, however, the likelihood of any success beyond the occupation of Northern Sakhalin is doubtful. Maybe Manchukuo can be defended, maybe it falls to Soviet counterattack. Korea can probably be held indefinitely. Certainly, Vladivostok is unlikely to fall unless things get really bad for Russia in the west.

An invasion of Siberia could also give the USA a reason to embargo Japan, which basically makes war inevitable. And there's always the possibility that, given the recklessness of the Japanese government, they decide to occupy European and American territories anyway.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
If he begins Operation Barbarossa in 1940, there's a good chance that the Germans will do better than IOTL - though the Reich is unlikely to win, for all the reasons constantly stated in 'How can the Nazis win' threads. Perhaps Leningrad and/or Stalingrad falls, or even Moscow given the extra time. Still, without winter gear, the operation is probably doomed anyway.
Disagreed; after all, there would be one year less of Soviet resources flowing into Germany and, unlike in our TL, Stalin would actually see the Nazi invasion coming in this TL and thus prepare accordingly ahead of time.
 
Disagreed; after all, there would be one year less of Soviet resources flowing into Germany and, unlike in our TL, Stalin would actually see the Nazi invasion coming in this TL and thus prepare accordingly ahead of time.

The Soviet armies struggled against Finland. I doubt that they were ready to meet a German invasion at the time. And remember, all the forces used to garrison Germany's western conquests (including Norway, which hosted 350'000 Germans IOTL) will be available for use against the Soviets.

I don't see how Stalin would be any more alerted to Barbarossa ITTL relative to OTL. I suppose that the lack of a western front (even such a necessarily static one as produced by the English Channel) would remove the belief in Moscow that Germany would finish Britain off first, but it's not as if much could be done about it. The gunless Stalin Line and the yet-to-be-completed Molotov Line are unlikely to be able to accommodate any greater defensive plan better than they did IRL.
 
The only thing Britain and France could have done to directly help Poland would be immediate attacks against Germany in the west. Britain could not do so, except for air raids as the BEF was not on the continent in any numbers until well after Poland fell, and France would not do so as their entire strategic concept was based on making the Germans bleed along the Maginot Line, not advancing in to "open" warfare. If Hitler and Stalin split Poland and the Baltics as OTL, and then Barbarossa goes off in 1940 instead of 1941 and Britain and France have left Poland to its fate, therefore NOT at war with Germany, I don't see them getting involved in a Stalin-Hitler fight.

In spite of left wing demands, as OTL when all of a sudden groups fighting for "peace" demanded "war/second front" the day after the USSR was invaded, I expect the British and French will have a "plague on both your houses" attitude. They will probably accelerate their rearmament, not sell arms to either side. Since UK/France not at war with Germany, no blockade so Germany has access to world markets. In 1940 the Soviet military is even worse off than in 1941. In the spring 1940 the Russo-Finnish War has just ended (late March OTL) and in the situation where the UK/France are not at war with Germany the Finns may get much more assistance and therefore the war goes on longer and/or the Soviets have even more losses. IMHO while the Germans don't get the experience of the campaigns in the west to improve doctrine and equipment, the Soviets certainly haven't had any time to improve after their disastrous performance in Finland. Also improved armored vehicles and aircraft have not really entered in to series production in 1940 compared with 1941.

In any case, had Chamberlain failed to honor the guarantees to Poland he would have had a vote of no confidence in short order and been replaced. Even if this happened, and there was only a delay of a few days in proceeding as OTL, this would have been huge in the future. Given the history of Munich, and the initial betrayal of Poland, it would be hard for the British to keep other countries from either leaning towards Germany or even joining the Axis. Shoudl France fall as OTL, the cry of "Perfide Albion!" will resound even more.
 
Top