Must Hitler invade Poland in 1939?

To those of you who say that Germany would have collapsed due to economic strain: You are right. But we're talking about Hitler here, that guy who gratuitously declared war on the U.S.A. Needless to say, economics was not Hitler's strong suit.

I don't know about that. He balanced the economy on a very fine knife; not perfectly, but it's a bit hard to see how much things could have gone differently.
 
Hitler's economy was what I would like to dubb "Militaristic Keynesianism": it's a bit of a misnomer because the economy of Nazi Germany was by no means Keynesian, but there are some paralells: basically, he intended the spoils of his war to cover the investments made into the preparation of the military.
 
Poland gives up Dantzig to buy time or Hitler decide to waite for that.

The attack on Poland still happens, in spring 1941. Because Germany haven´t mobilised for war since September 1939, its army is more comparable to what it was historically in spring-summer 1940, except in terms of technology.

The following plan is no major operation for 1942, followed by a blitzkrieg in 1943, most likely in spring. The following campaign being planned to lasting until 1945 at the most.

The Anglo-French alliance declares war, this time an offensive is launched against the Rhineland but the Westwall have been completed, the allies gives up easily after the first bloodbaths. The Soviet-Union mobilises, Stalin begin planning total war.

In summer 1941, Hitler and his generals wonder what they are going to do against France while an offensive is prepared, in autumn 1941 the offensive begins.

The French army is better off but so is the German army those Panzers have better armour and cannons now. Situation is, somewhat, a mixe of historical Operation Barbarossa and Case Yellow. France is defeated.

Roosevelt lost in the 1940 elections without France being beaten back then, the new president is not the interventionist Roosevelt was and doesn´t promise to do his best to join the UK in a war.
Even if Churchill still comes to power, he´ll most likely negociate an end to the war, before 1942.

Then what? With the UK out, Stalin knows very well what Hitler have planned for in the spring of 1942, now that war mobilisation have advanced the time for his offensive on the Soviet-Union.

Germany is significantly weaker, in total forces, Hitler also demobilises the economy as the war with the Anglo-French is concluded, Stalin does the opposite.
Because of the German demobilisation and possibly because of climatic conditions, ITTL Barbarossa may come a few weeks later or not.
Disaster strikes in the summer of 1942, Germany fully mobilises its industry but the Soviet-Union mobilises its greater industry, the following 2 years see the complete defeat of Germany and its allies. On the front, it is a massacre and a brutal war of destruction.
Occupying the whole of Germany is too much for the Soviet-Union, because Germany and its allies have over half the population of the Soviet-Union, instead Stalin makes sure central and eastern europe is communist and later, instaures a governement in ITTL west-germany which is a pro-soviet neutral.
Later, the Soviet-Union expands to obtaining acess to the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean, forces both the Japanese and Chinese into territorial concessions. The UK may or may not try another war, most possibly not, since they would fight their victor´s victors.

The United States might leave isolationism in the name of anti-communism ITTL but the cold war would be far lesser up to the 1960s or even 1970s.
 
I think the Democrats would still win in 1940 but FDR wouldn't run - no war would at the very least see him pressured not run.

Britain will have a General Election in 1941 and Labour will most certainly win against Chamberlain, though a landslide is doubtful - then again its hard to balance the effects of the War and Churchill - if by 1941 there is no war will appeasement be less loathed?
 
I think the Democrats would still win in 1940 but FDR wouldn't run - no war would at the very least see him pressured not run.

Britain will have a General Election in 1941 and Labour will most certainly win against Chamberlain, though a landslide is doubtful - then again its hard to balance the effects of the War and Churchill - if by 1941 there is no war will appeasement be less loathed?

I wonder. I think without the crisis given the depth of the Depression it would be hard for a Democrat to win,

British law required a General Election by November 1940. (Special legislation was passed to postpone the election during the war in otl)
 
Interesting note on stalin, if Poland is invaded later, then you could quite likely delay Barbarossa, this increases the chance that Stalin believes the intelligence that tells him that the invasion is coming. IOTL he expected a German betrayal, just not as quickly as it came OTL.
 
I don't think Labour would win a 1940 election against the National Government. The Labour victory of 1945 came about due to factors which could only have presented themselves in wartime - the 'Guilty Men' aura which surrounded the Tories and the Tory-inclined Establishment generally, the respectability garnered from having served 5 years in the wartime coalition and having generally directed domestic policy, the perception that they could be trusted to 'win the peace'. The most likely outcome of a 1940 election is a return of the National Government with a reduced majority. Simply put there hasn't been the big swing to the left instigated by the enforced collectivism of the war and Labour probably isn't trusted by enough people.

BTW the Government would not be led into an election by Chamberlain, as he died in the autumn of 1940 from cancer. Without a war Churchill is unlikely to succeed him and as a peer, Lord Halifax probably won't either (again only the war gave him his chance). We could see someone like Sir Samuel Hoare (Home Secretary) becoming Prime Minister, or depending on the PoD, Anthony Eden. The PM would have to come from the Conservative Party so Sir John Simon (Chancellor of the Exchequer and a Liberal National) and Malcolm Macdonald (Dominions Secretary and National Labour) are out.
 
We have discussed that several times and consesus seems to be that Stalin wouldn't do anything supid without a WW already going on. .

Wouldnt the huge arms race that was going on in the late thirties/early forties lead some dictators into believing that they have overwhelming force and try to achieve some weird war aims driven by their political philosophy (bringing the benefits of Leninist-Marxism to the world!!). What was Stalin going to do with the hundreds of T34s he would have had by 1943.
I agree that the military build up by Germany was economically unsustainable and if Hitler hadn't had his war by 1943 Germany would have had to redirect the econmy to produce more butter, fewer guns. If Stalin thought that Germany's military might was on the wane then wouldn't he have made territorial demands on the Baltic States, Poland, Roumania etc. and start the annexation of Europe. Surely at some point the French and British would recognise the danger and see Germany as their only hope of stopping the Soviet juggernaut. To paraphrase Churchill 'ally with the devil (Nazis) to stop the Soviets'.
 
Top