If Poland fought off the Blitzkrieg long enough to....

It wasn't called "The Phony War" for nothing. Neither the French or the British did anything but posture. So Poland would have to hold out for a long time indeed.

The French army was not ready for war, and they knew it. The only part of their defense posture that was ready to fight was the Maginot line. They had no reason to risk it all and leave the protection of the Line behind.

The allies were hoping the Germans wouldn't do nearly as well, that their navies would score some victories, and eventually with their reserves brought up to strength they can negotiate a deal for the Poles. Germany would be bloodied, get bought off with some Polish concessions, that was more how the Allies thought the war would go.
 
Slovakia yes, Czech Republic no. Hitler occupied Czech Republic in 1939. They can not be considered Axis members anymore than later Poland, Belgium or Norway.

You know what I mean, no need for quibbles.

The land that forms the Czech Republic was part of Germany, which was, obviously, an Axis member.
 
There's also a view that the French are very effeminate. Good with fashion, food, and other "non-manly" things. Hence, the Germans got beaten by a bunch of pussies.

Considering how many films were made about the Foreign Legion and the Riff War, the French are unlikely to be popularly considered as such. (And there's Verdun.) Sort of adding their backside kicking capacities on to the general status of Paris as cultural capital of Europe, maybe.
 
Considering how many films were made about the Foreign Legion and the Riff War, the French are unlikely to be popularly considered as such. (And there's Verdun.) Sort of adding their backside kicking capacities on to the general status of Paris as cultural capital of Europe, maybe.

Wow, I guess the stereotype came from the defeat to Germany. My bad.
 
If I remember correctly, the Germans only had two or three second class divisions to cover the entire Western Front. If the French had kicked with the slightest force, they would've broken right through the Saar and rapidly occupied the Rhineland. It would've been over before it began. Hitler gambled on French inaction and won.

try 42 infantry divisions of army group c; shielded by the west wall
 
try 42 infantry divisions of army group c; shielded by the west wall

Page 350

Jodl: "I believe that can only be explained as an expression of military ignorance. Up the year 1939 we were, of course, in a position to destroy Poland alone. But we were never, either in 1938 or 1939, actually in a position to withstand a concentrated attack by these states together. And if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions."

I've seen your figure of 42 before, but only in second hand sources (other message boards). The Siegfried Line was incomplete. I can certainly understand French and British reaction (they didn't know it was in such a state of disrepair, and they were used to WWI where static defenses were everything). But if they decided to actually give it a try, the Germans would be done for. I don't have numbers for the Eastern Front off the top of my head, but Wiki says 60 German divisions, 30 Soviet divisions, and 39 Polish divisions in the Battle for Poland. The Eastern Front hinges a lot on what the Soviet Union does, and I don't know Stalin well enough to figure out what he would do. On one hand, he's made comments about helping out whoever seemed to be losing the war (so the losses would be as big as possible), which implies he'd assist Germany. On the other hand, he's going to want a piece of the pie after the war, and actually joining in against Germany could help cement the Polish gains and would be the key to having a place at the peace table.
 

Tannhäuser

Banned
I'd say that helping the losing side only works if it isn't losing too much, otherwise you just lose with them. If Britain and France (or even just France, with British non-military support) invaded Germany, I doubt Stalin would have invaded Poland, knowing that his troops would be looking across the Polish-German border at French forces allied to Poland in a couple months. Or, he might have invaded Poland and then kept going right into Germany in an attempt to get as much of Europe as possible before the end of the brief war. Doing so might give him a shot at the rest of East Europe, as well. Any of the three options really is possible, but the OTL one probably the least so.

Also, it seems like there's a fair amount of support for and consensus on France's ground forces beating Germany's in this hypothetical situation. But does anyone want to guess as to what would happen in a Luftwaffe vs. French Air Force and RAF battle over the Rheinland? It seems that that could be the deciding factor. An Allied victory would mean the destruction of the Siegfried line, the almost certain conquest of the Rheinland, and the intensive bombing of Germany's weak economy for the duration of what would have been a very short war. A German air victory might be able to halt the Allied advance.
 
I'd say that helping the losing side only works if it isn't losing too much, otherwise you just lose with them. If Britain and France (or even just France, with British non-military support) invaded Germany, I doubt Stalin would have invaded Poland, knowing that his troops would be looking across the Polish-German border at French forces allied to Poland in a couple months. Or, he might have invaded Poland and then kept going right into Germany in an attempt to get as much of Europe as possible before the end of the brief war. Doing so might give him a shot at the rest of East Europe, as well. Any of the three options really is possible, but the OTL one probably the least so.

Yes but this France will be incredibly weak after the slog thought the west wall, the booting of the Heer out of the Rhineland and then defending agaisnt whatever the Reich throws at them to dislodge them, cause they will throw a lot at them.
The Soviets could steam roll them, and then force peace on Britain!
 

Deleted member 9338

Without additional Allied support it is difficult for Poland to last longer. I do not think even if they mobilized when they wanted to would have helped.
 
"When the Hun is away, the Frank will play."

Show a Nazi in oversized jackboots beating on a little kid labeled Poland, while a Frenchman molests a blond haired, blue eyes woman labeled Germany.

Hehe.

I think this would work rather well with a little touching up.
Propaganda%20Mirror.jpg
 
I'd say that helping the losing side only works if it isn't losing too much, otherwise you just lose with them. If Britain and France (or even just France, with British non-military support) invaded Germany, I doubt Stalin would have invaded Poland, knowing that his troops would be looking across the Polish-German border at French forces allied to Poland in a couple months. Or, he might have invaded Poland and then kept going right into Germany in an attempt to get as much of Europe as possible before the end of the brief war. Doing so might give him a shot at the rest of East Europe, as well. Any of the three options really is possible, but the OTL one probably the least so.

Also, it seems like there's a fair amount of support for and consensus on France's ground forces beating Germany's in this hypothetical situation. But does anyone want to guess as to what would happen in a Luftwaffe vs. French Air Force and RAF battle over the Rheinland? It seems that that could be the deciding factor. An Allied victory would mean the destruction of the Siegfried line, the almost certain conquest of the Rheinland, and the intensive bombing of Germany's weak economy for the duration of what would have been a very short war. A German air victory might be able to halt the Allied advance.

Tannhauser, you must remember that the Soviet Union wasn't waging a war of aggression against Poland, no sir. It was moving troops in to help stabilize the region and defend it against German aggression. At least, that's the line they used OTL, and I see absolutely no reason why they wouldn't pull it off again ITTL. France and Britain aren't going to want to antagonize the USSR for something like that, especially not after a war with Germany. Stalin's not going to be stupid enough to openly say "I want those Poles under the Soviet yoke!" but even if he did, the Western Allies would want to avoid a war at pretty much any cost.

What's the worst that can happen? Franco-British troops role up to Poland and ask "So, Stalin, you're going to let the Poles go free now, right?" And then Stalin magnanimously agrees, of course, but this is after a friendly puppet government is installed, and makes Stalin look good ("see? I helped out in the war against Germany by saving those Poles!"). Plus, it assumes Stalin doesn't decide to join the war. If Stalin does, the allies aren't going to care too much if he takes a slice of eastern Poland.
 

Tannhäuser

Banned
You're probably right. The most likely outcome, I'd say, is that Germany gets defeated and the USSR gets Poland. The only uncertainty is if it gets part of Germany as well because it invaded.
 
Page 350

Jodl: "I believe that can only be explained as an expression of military ignorance. Up the year 1939 we were, of course, in a position to destroy Poland alone. But we were never, either in 1938 or 1939, actually in a position to withstand a concentrated attack by these states together. And if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions."

I've seen your figure of 42 before, but only in second hand sources (other message boards). The Siegfried Line was incomplete. I can certainly understand French and British reaction (they didn't know it was in such a state of disrepair, and they were used to WWI where static defenses were everything). But if they decided to actually give it a try, the Germans would be done for. I don't have numbers for the Eastern Front off the top of my head, but Wiki says 60 German divisions, 30 Soviet divisions, and 39 Polish divisions in the Battle for Poland. The Eastern Front hinges a lot on what the Soviet Union does, and I don't know Stalin well enough to figure out what he would do. On one hand, he's made comments about helping out whoever seemed to be losing the war (so the losses would be as big as possible), which implies he'd assist Germany. On the other hand, he's going to want a piece of the pie after the war, and actually joining in against Germany could help cement the Polish gains and would be the key to having a place at the peace table.


Both of Jodl's numbers there don't tell the story

shoutout to papa BW for explaining this

as the polish crises was starting there where 23ish divisions there, however in late august, and 1st septermber hitler issued rounds of "wave call ups" as papa bw explained these where increased nets of conscription (increasing age, removing occupations from protected status etc) which generated a substantial increase in the army (he couldn't give me an estimate of how many of these 4/5 wave formations served in Poland just saying it was less than 12, and they mostly where used for breaching or follow on consolidation...the majority of these new recruits where sent to the west where they where organized into new formations... small arms existed for them; but no artillery and so all told by the time case white was in its closing stages there where 42ish divisions in army group c (of very mixed quality)

also, despite the french theoretical ability to mobilize 100+ divisions, their world wide committments to defend their colonies saw this be approximately 70 in actual practice in the field; plus they couldn't leave their frontier with italy and spain undefended

the british army of sept 1939 wasn't built for a major offensive either... the matilda II had only just entered production (on 9/1/39, there where only 2 of them) plus their artillery wasn't suited for fortress assaults; to say nothing of the allies (particularly the french) defeciencies in the air


the whole the allies walk in 9/39 has a lot of structural flaws

1. the french and british didn't begin mobilizing till they declared war... it necessarily takes time to marshal your forces, call up reserves and put them in the right place; whereas the german army (minus the 4/5 wave fellows) was already mobilized for 10+ days prior to the jump off against poland... days are critical poland is significantly defeated 12 days into the campaign
2. the french and british didn't have the proper artillery or air park for a general assault on the west wall; nor had their infantry rehearsed or trained for fortress assaults; plus they have to move all their guns, and massive ammo reserves into place for the assault which will take time, and if you want the infantry to survive, they need to recon the area they will assault, stage practice runs and work out plans of attack... critical time is lost for this, again Poland is heavily defeated within 12 days of the offensive starting
3. the french are EXTREMELY vulnerable from the air; they where totally defecient in AA guns both for their cities and for their field divisions; they have no early warning system and poor air doctrine... if their forces are advancing as poland collapses... the LW comes west a lot faster than the field army... and the LW would have a field day shooting up their columns (as they did in otl)
4. there is not enough time left in the campaign season.... its september; allowing 30 days for mobilization and prepping for an assault (generous) on the west wall... you only have 6 weeks max before you are encountering winter weather conditions
 

Tannhäuser

Banned
Again, it comes back to air power. If the Allies win, they probably take the Rheinland. As you said, they then have to deal with winter combat, but Germany has to face the winter under heavy aerial bombardment and probably suffering from a serious lack of fuel.
 
I'm assuming the POD is that the allies immediately get moving after the declaration of war, not just mobilization but prepping for attack. Some of the logistical stuff is consequently going to be different from OTL, a greater ratio of available units are going to be at the Franco-German border. This necessarily ignores some things like the fact that the Siegfried Line was believed to be much stronger than it actually was. But this is an alternate history site, and without making assumptions like that, we'd just end up with OTL.

Both of Jodl's numbers there don't tell the story

shoutout to papa BW for explaining this

Your dad was a WW2 general? :confused:

as the polish crises was starting there where 23ish divisions there, however in late august, and 1st septermber hitler issued rounds of "wave call ups" as papa bw explained these where increased nets of conscription (increasing age, removing occupations from protected status etc) which generated a substantial increase in the army (he couldn't give me an estimate of how many of these 4/5 wave formations served in Poland just saying it was less than 12, and they mostly where used for breaching or follow on consolidation...the majority of these new recruits where sent to the west where they where organized into new formations... small arms existed for them; but no artillery and so all told by the time case white was in its closing stages there where 42ish divisions in army group c (of very mixed quality)

That last bit is rather important. A well trained professional army is going to blow the hell out of a newly conscripted force.

also, despite the french theoretical ability to mobilize 100+ divisions, their world wide committments to defend their colonies saw this be approximately 70 in actual practice in the field; plus they couldn't leave their frontier with italy and spain undefended

From what I understand, the 110 divisions are British+French units on the German border.

the british army of sept 1939 wasn't built for a major offensive either... the matilda II had only just entered production (on 9/1/39, there where only 2 of them)

Pssst... there are more kinds of tanks than the Matilda II. The British also hundreds of Cruiser tanks and the Matilda I (which certainly had flaws, but still would be beneficial). And the French had their own varieties.

plus their artillery wasn't suited for fortress assaults;

They had a decent number of anti-fortress artillery. A little antiquated, definitely, but given the rather poor state of the Siegfried Line, it'd be more than enough.

to say nothing of the allies (particularly the french) defeciencies in the air

German air force outnumbered the combined French and British air forces about 4:3 at the onset of the war based on the numbers I've found scattered around (this is only including battle ready aircraft, the Brits had another few thousand planes that were either unusuable or preoccupied for one reason or another). However, the German air force was incredibly bomber heavy at this time (not so sure about later). That's perfectly fine when working against individual nations with relatively small air forces (see Fall Weiss and the Battle of France). It does not work well against a relatively large air force (like the British + French combined air force). They're pretty useless for air superiority. When you consider that a damned good portion of the Luftwaffe was in Poland at the time, the British+French air forces are now much larger than the German one. Given some time to move the air force down here, within a couple of weeks the Allies will be prepared for massive air superiority. The British+French planes weren't particularly fantastic, but neither were the German equivalents.

1. the french and british didn't begin mobilizing till they declared war... it necessarily takes time to marshal your forces, call up reserves and put them in the right place; whereas the german army (minus the 4/5 wave fellows) was already mobilized for 10+ days prior to the jump off against poland... days are critical poland is significantly defeated 12 days into the campaign

12 days in, Poland was largely defeated, sure. But between partisans and the Soviet army also in the area, it cannot be ignored. It's more than likely Poland would still end up being defeated in this TL, but they'll play a very important role in holding back German troops and forcing Germany to keep a decent amount occupying the area. Once again, especially with the Soviet Union right next door. If Germany decided to shift everything west for the Sept 39 invasion of Germany, Stalin would have a field day.

2. the french and british didn't have the proper artillery or air park for a general assault on the west wall; nor had their infantry rehearsed or trained for fortress assaults; plus they have to move all their guns, and massive ammo reserves into place for the assault which will take time, and if you want the infantry to survive, they need to recon the area they will assault, stage practice runs and work out plans of attack... critical time is lost for this, again Poland is heavily defeated within 12 days of the offensive starting

The Siegfried Line was incomplete in 1939. Some areas were strong, but the large weak areas would quickly be broken through, and once that happens, the strong areas would lose most of their raison d'etre. Having a defensive line isn't too impressive after a bunch of holes have been punched through it, even if the remaining tatters are strong.

3. the french are EXTREMELY vulnerable from the air; they where totally defecient in AA guns both for their cities and for their field divisions; they have no early warning system and poor air doctrine... if their forces are advancing as poland collapses... the LW comes west a lot faster than the field army... and the LW would have a field day shooting up their columns (as they did in otl)

This is a bit too early for the Luftwaffe to have a lot of the advantages it did in the Battle of France. I've mentioned some of the other facts above.

4. there is not enough time left in the campaign season.... its september; allowing 30 days for mobilization and prepping for an assault (generous) on the west wall... you only have 6 weeks max before you are encountering winter weather conditions

Six weeks is plenty of time to make massive headway. The Invasion of Poland was five weeks. The Battle of France was six. It's safe to assume that logistical differences mean the Allies aren't going to move quite as fast as Germany would be able to (shorter border, different equipment, different doctrine), but they'd certainly be able to move well into Germany. And consider the territory that's going to be taken. Areas like the Rheinland in western Germany were the nation's industrial base, and that's going to be what's taken by Allied forces. The Allies are going to have the winter to gear up and move huge numbers of forces into the area. Germany will still continue to gear up and mobilize, of course, but the numbers will be deeply impacted compared to OTL. Historically, the 4:3 air force ratio continued for a while (although the actual numbers were much higher by early 1940 and the Battle of France as compared to late 1939 and the invasion of Poland). That's not going to happen ITTL.
 
So if the allies win what would be the result? Will France ask the Rhineland or would they be contant just occupying it? IMHO there is no way a victorious France would go leniant on Germany. For the British I don't know they probably won't support a harsh peace it depend of the public opinion.
 
I'm assuming the POD is that the allies immediately get moving after the declaration of war, not just mobilization but prepping for attack. Some of the logistical stuff is consequently going to be different from OTL, a greater ratio of available units are going to be at the Franco-German border. This necessarily ignores some things like the fact that the Siegfried Line was believed to be much stronger than it actually was. But this is an alternate history site, and without making assumptions like that, we'd just end up with OTL.



Your dad was a WW2 general? :confused:



That last bit is rather important. A well trained professional army is going to blow the hell out of a newly conscripted force.



From what I understand, the 110 divisions are British+French units on the German border.



Pssst... there are more kinds of tanks than the Matilda II. The British also hundreds of Cruiser tanks and the Matilda I (which certainly had flaws, but still would be beneficial). And the French had their own varieties.



They had a decent number of anti-fortress artillery. A little antiquated, definitely, but given the rather poor state of the Siegfried Line, it'd be more than enough.



German air force outnumbered the combined French and British air forces about 4:3 at the onset of the war based on the numbers I've found scattered around (this is only including battle ready aircraft, the Brits had another few thousand planes that were either unusuable or preoccupied for one reason or another). However, the German air force was incredibly bomber heavy at this time (not so sure about later). That's perfectly fine when working against individual nations with relatively small air forces (see Fall Weiss and the Battle of France). It does not work well against a relatively large air force (like the British + French combined air force). They're pretty useless for air superiority. When you consider that a damned good portion of the Luftwaffe was in Poland at the time, the British+French air forces are now much larger than the German one. Given some time to move the air force down here, within a couple of weeks the Allies will be prepared for massive air superiority. The British+French planes weren't particularly fantastic, but neither were the German equivalents.



12 days in, Poland was largely defeated, sure. But between partisans and the Soviet army also in the area, it cannot be ignored. It's more than likely Poland would still end up being defeated in this TL, but they'll play a very important role in holding back German troops and forcing Germany to keep a decent amount occupying the area. Once again, especially with the Soviet Union right next door. If Germany decided to shift everything west for the Sept 39 invasion of Germany, Stalin would have a field day.



The Siegfried Line was incomplete in 1939. Some areas were strong, but the large weak areas would quickly be broken through, and once that happens, the strong areas would lose most of their raison d'etre. Having a defensive line isn't too impressive after a bunch of holes have been punched through it, even if the remaining tatters are strong.



This is a bit too early for the Luftwaffe to have a lot of the advantages it did in the Battle of France. I've mentioned some of the other facts above.



Six weeks is plenty of time to make massive headway. The Invasion of Poland was five weeks. The Battle of France was six. It's safe to assume that logistical differences mean the Allies aren't going to move quite as fast as Germany would be able to (shorter border, different equipment, different doctrine), but they'd certainly be able to move well into Germany. And consider the territory that's going to be taken. Areas like the Rheinland in western Germany were the nation's industrial base, and that's going to be what's taken by Allied forces. The Allies are going to have the winter to gear up and move huge numbers of forces into the area. Germany will still continue to gear up and mobilize, of course, but the numbers will be deeply impacted compared to OTL. Historically, the 4:3 air force ratio continued for a while (although the actual numbers were much higher by early 1940 and the Battle of France as compared to late 1939 and the invasion of Poland). That's not going to happen ITTL.

You where talking about having the French/British ready to attack whilst Poland was still a combatant... that has to involve some kind of pre 9/1/39 POD which might have its own effect on German dispositions

papa BW was in the bundswer, his father served on a number of assignments during the war commanding battalions in 6th panzer and panzer lehr and serving in the armored inspectorate

the french army was conscripted; and very few elements of any army at that point had combat experience... my use of the word "quality" was in terms of equipment

you couldn't fit 110 divisions on the french/german border, their common border was very small; the allies anticipated a strike through belgium and had their strongest divisions to the north (including ALL of the british formations (except 51st infantry) which were nowhere near the German border) 110 divisions fit for service was only theoretical given France's other committments AND the fact that the British took 8 months to generate 10 divisions in the field

French tanks where fine; they had more and better tanks than Germany; British contribution would be close to zero; their cruiser tanks of the period where crap and it took a long time to get them into France in any serious numbers... the question is can France's tanks break the west wall against 4 limiting factors
1 short time before the LW returns in force and contests the spear heads
2 short time before the stronger parts of the Heer are done in Poland
3 inability to maneuver through large german minefields covering the west wall
4 short time before winter weather comes which might make any advances precarious and vulnerable to counter attack

french and british air doctrine of that period was a joke; Germany had the largest AA network in the world; french and british tactical bomber doctrine involved low level strikes which would lose HEAVILY to flak (which they did in otl... Guderians 2 flak regiments alone shot down 352 aircraft during the battle of france) its also the fall... the window for air operations is very small, not only because bad weather is coming but because the hours of daylight are rapidly decreasing... the french where loath to launch strikes on German industrial centers because they had no aa network to defend their cities... the polish air force was largely destroyed within 2 weeks of the start of the campaign, if the French/British started acting more aggressive, fighter groups could be transferred west quickly and the bombers could be rotated in over a couple of weeks

just because the allies and the germans get into actual sustained ground combat doesn't mean stalin would break the M-R pact... he didn't break it in 1940 when the core of the German field army was deep inside France; nor does it mean that the majority of the polish army hasnt been pocketed and has no chance of escape

assaults on even semi prepared defensive lines where not something to be taken lightly... look at the trouble the russians had on the mannerheim line; and they had 1000 tanks that where all relatively state of the art for 1939... which major defensive line; even of only semi complete status did the allies break during the war without taking heavy losses and a decent amount of time?
 
So if the allies win what would be the result? Will France ask the Rhineland or would they be contant just occupying it? IMHO there is no way a victorious France would go leniant on Germany. For the British I don't know they probably won't support a harsh peace it depend of the public opinion.

Depeds on how long the war takes we can assume that even a
I doubt they’d try to detach the Rhineland there simply too many people there, and maintaining French control there would be too costly in the long-term.

Still a demilitarized Germany under occupation will still be much better off than OTL. It’ll maintain it’s 1933 borders at least, and will be intact economically and demographically.

Ditto Eastern Europe. The post-war world will be interesting to say the least. There’s scope for a Soviet-Nippon War in Manchuria once the Soviets doesn’t feel threatened by the Germans and it becomes apparent the Anglo-French Allies will focus on maintaining their own imperial holdings rather than try attacking the Soviet Union.
 
Chopping quotes short. This point by point response is the best way to have a dialogue, but gets really long and ugly looking very quickly.

You where talking about ... German dispositions

Not really. It depends on what you mean by "combatant." If you mean "more or less stable nation with a strong, well organized military," no, that's not going to happen. But large pockets of resistance? A military that's been smashed and disorganized, but still hanging on? Sure, that's easy enough. I'm not assuming some kind of really early POD that turns the invasion of Poland into a slugging match where Poland can last indefinitely. I'm assuming something minor; better luck, a few extra battles going Poland's way. Enough to slow the Germans down for a few extra weeks, not enough to completely shift the tide.

papa BW was in the bundswer

Nice that you have a first hand source, but I still trust higher ranking officers with access to more information than lower ranking ones.

the french army was conscripted

You're right that the French army didn't have much combat experience in 1939 (of course, neither did the Germans they would be facing for the first couple of weeks). Correct me if I'm wrong (can't find a decent source on this to double check), but both French and German armies used universal conscription at this time (for 2 years of service in either country?), that's how they built up large parts of their enlisted ranks (with professional officers). Conscription in this sense is a step up from just a conscription en masse at the beginning of the war. They're not going to be quite as well trained as someone with either combat experience or with years and years of training, that's true, but they're not at all comparable to the new 20 or so completely fresh German divisions.

The British army, from what I understand, wasn't used to universal conscription. They had just started conscription shortly before the war, but the army was more or less a professional, volunteer force.

you couldn't fit 110 divisions on the french/german border

Good point, there! Absolutely right, the mutual border was very small. I really don't think Jodl was only referring to the ENTIRE French and British armies, neither of them were so small. I'm not sure what he was referring to, in that case, but the Franco-British armies were still much larger than the couple dozen German divisions left to defend the Siegfried Line.

doesn't mean stalin would break the M-R pact...

Moving this above, because I think it's an important point, and my answer does effect a few others. Whether or not Stalin would break the M-R pact (and I'm not so sure he wouldn't if he smelled blood in the air once the western Allies start winning battles in the invasion of Germany). Hitler simply can't afford to move his entire military west. He'll be forced to move large portions, of course, but the entirety? Even if he leaves behind 15 divisions (which would be a fraction of what Stalin had in Poland in 1939, and an even smaller fraction of what Stalin could have soon enough if he decided to be aggressive, not including large numbers of Polish partisans which will especially be vicious in a TL where Poland has performed better for one reason or another), that's a quarter of his Polish invasion force. He had the majority of the Luftwaffe in Poland at the time, and won't be able to move it over in its entirety for similar reasons. Certainly, he won't need to worry about air superiority in the short term, but completely abandoning the region is lunacy I don't think Hitler is stupid enough to do.

1 short time before the LW returns in force and contests the spear heads

I think you're overestimating the Luftwaffe's ability to function here. It wasn't designed for air superiority in quite the same way as the French and British air forces, which limits a lot of its advantages (particularly the numerical one). A strategic bomber doesn't help too much when the enemy's in your territory and a wing of tactical bombers is of limited use against a dozen enemy fighters. It does have experience on its side, but that's only a very temporary advantage, the first Germans the French and British hit are going to be unexperienced (giving them some practice), and attacking Poland isn't nearly the same as defending from France and Britain. Given the point I made above about leaving behind portions of the Luftwaffe, and Hitler loses even more of an advantage. The AA you mention below is deadly (and certainly had great effect OTL), especially given the lack of western dive bombers. But Britain had just ordered the creation of massive numbers of new planes (not sure about France, but I'm willing to bet they did the same). Plenty of planes will be shot down... but they'll be replenished. The Messerschmitt factories were in western Bavaria, and will be a very early target of western strategic bombers (the British doctrine wasn't as bad as you think it was, they just didn't get too much of a chance to implement it due to the Battle of Britain). Junkers would be a bit safer, it was located farther away from the front lines. But some Stukas can't make an air force all on their own. You're going to have rapid Franco-British air superiority, followed by a period of small German air superiority as the luftwaffe moves west, which will summarily be wound down as the allies gain momentum.

2 short time before the stronger parts of the Heer are done in Poland

Again, a non-negligible portion will have to be left behind. And you're going to end up with them fighting a now-experienced enemy with a numerical advantage.

3 inability to maneuver through large german minefields covering the west wall

I didn't remember any major Siegfried line minefields, so I looked it up... Every reference I can find to westwall minefields refers to naval ones in the North Sea. I'm sure there were mines on the Siegfried line, of course, but not to a major extent.

4 short time before winter weather comes which might make any advances precarious and vulnerable to counter attack

This is second time you brought up the winter weather. But they still have plenty of time for early gains (and we know from history how much a short period of time can do). I'm not assuming they'll finish the war by the end of 1940.

assaults on even semi prepared defensive lines where not something to be taken lightly...

The Mannerheim Line, which was attacked entirely in winter, in one of the harshest regions in the world, and controlled by a nation whose entire military strategy was based on defending that little bit of territory, without any major obligations elsewhere? It also outperformed everyone's expectations because the Finns kept getting damn lucky and had some damn good soldiers (I'm sure you've heard the story about the one Winter War sniper who killed hundreds of Soviets, survived every attempt to kill him, and got out killing again just a week after being shot in the face, Simo Hayha). That's just the luck of war; sometimes the underdog does far better than it has any right to do.


Again, I'd just like to point out that I don't expect this to be as simple as the invasions of Poland and France. But when you have a very large force facing a much smaller one with shoddy defenses, and where even small gains by the larger force means the smaller one loses huge portions of its industry, you can't expect this war to last nearly as long as OTL. A 1940 victory, in my opinion, maybe 1941 if the Allied commanders make too many mistakes (granted, that's not necessarily a very big "if" in 1939! :)) or if the Soviet Union decides it would be beneficial to supply Germany (a very interesting perspective, I admit, and something that could've certainly happened).
 
Top