Operation Himmler

Operation Himmler was a series of false flag operations enacted just prior to the invasion of Poland that were supposed to make it look like Poland struck first so that any German military actions against Poland could be called "self defense".

It failed to convince anyone on the international stage, with apparently only German citizens buying into it. Hitler himself didn't care how credible the casus belli was, just that he had one.

Germans invade Poland, Allies declare war on Germany . . . You know the rest.

-------------------

What I will ask is simple. What if the operation succeeded? What if these false flag operations had been enough to make the world believe that the Poles attacked first, and in doing so made the Allies nervous enough to hang Poland out to dry. (I'm assuming guarantees made to Poland would be null and void if the Allies thought the Poles started it.)

What would have happened next? Would the Allies have been much harsher when it came to the Soviets taking eastern Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia? When they went for Finland?

Would they have continued to focus their attention on Germany and whatever it might do next and, more or less, ignore Soviet expansionism?

Would we have seen a strictly Axis-Soviet War?

Against all odds, could the Axis and the Allies go after the Soviets? Maybe fighting separate wars? Allies fighting for Finland, Axis fighting just to gank Soviet lands?)

Or is this all utterly ASB and war over Poland was going to happen no matter what? (So I guess this boils down to, is it possible for appeasement to be given one last chance and for the Allies to go . . . "Fuck it. We let the Germans get away with it but we aren't going to let the Soviets do it too!"
 
IMHO, had the operation been broader in scope, (not just the radio station incident IIRC), and had it started a few months earlier, there is a better than even chance that Operation Pike would be broadened to include Germany, and would probably be enacted either during or after Fall Gelb.
 
So you think if a more ambitious Op. Himmler actually tricked the Allies into believing that self defense casus belli . . . Fall Gelb would happen anyways and the Allies would attack the Germans and Soviets at the same time?

Wouldn't that risk a three way war? Or even a temporary Nazi-Soviet Alliance? (Most likely the former. Hitler will probably still declare war on the Soviets no matter what.)
 
So you think if a more ambitious Op. Himmler actually tricked the Allies into believing that self defense casus belli . . . Fall Gelb would happen anyways and the Allies would attack the Germans and Soviets at the same time?

Wouldn't that risk a three way war? Or even a temporary Nazi-Soviet Alliance? (Most likely the former. Hitler will probably still declare war on the Soviets no matter what.)

The Soviets invaded east Poland in OTL, something that Operation Himmler probably wouldn't butterfly away. If the UK and France can't/won't declare war, then it would appear even more so that the German-Soviet Alliance(tm) is stronger than ever, necessitating the need to lauch a Pearl Harbour like surprise attack on oil supplies in the event of further aggression. Just my 2 cents.
 
The Soviets invaded east Poland in OTL something that Operation Himmler probably wouldn't butterfly away.


The USSR did so as part of their treaty obligations to Germany, only after Poland was essentially defeated by Germany, and after both Britain and UK were at war with Germany.

If the UK and France can't/won't declare war, then it would appear even more so that the German-Soviet Alliance(tm) is stronger than ever, necessitating the need to lauch a Pearl Harbour like surprise attack on oil supplies in the event of further aggression. Just my 2 cents.

So, Britain and France are fooled by Operation Himmler (something, given Germany's behavior over the previous few years, that borders on the ASB) and decide not to declare war. After avoiding that war, they then decide to start another by bombing Soviet oil fields USSR around Baku so that oil doesn't end up being used by Germany, the nation they originally chose not to go to war with?

Is that what you believe?

And what sort of things can an operation like Pike target inside Germany? Much of the thinking behind Pike involved the incredibly shoddy nature of the Soviet facilities and the oil-soaked ground around them.
 
Well, part of it fooling them could just be appeasement taking a little longer to die off.

If you don't want to say they're actually tricked, they at least pretend to go along with it because they still want to avoid a war.

So I guess ultimately the PoD of an Operation Himmler "working" could simply be that the promises to Poland were the Allies trying to bluff and the Germans calling their bluff . . . Though yeah. I guess one final round of appeasement might be a little ASB.

It'd still be somewhat interesting to see what some of the experts would think would happen next.

Like one thing I asked . . . If Germany taking Poland was the last appeasement, would a "No more appeasement" policy coming into place lead to the Allies taking a much more confrontational stance towards the Soviets once they move on Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Finland?

Is a three way war . . . Or even the Allies and Axis fighting seperate wars against the same enemy (the Soviets) possible?

(That last bit being . . . Could the Allies and Axis both be fighting the Soviets, with them not attacking each other but also not helping each other? Though given some of Hitler's thoughts, I imagine he'd really want to spin that towards an anti-Soviet alliance.)

I'd assume in the "separate wars" scenario . . . Finland is part of the Allies instead of ultimately going pro-Axis.
 
Last edited:
Well, part of it fooling them could just be appeasement taking a little longer to die off.


After Hitler pissed on the Munich Agreement, baked it in a cake, and mailed it to Chamberlain with card reading "Epic Fail! Sucks To Be You! LOL!" appeasement was over.

Britain and France drew one more line at Poland and Hitler crossed it without looking back.

If you don't want to say they're actually tricked, they at least pretend to go along with it because they still want to avoid a war.

In the OTL they were done avoiding war. We all know now how another year or so could have helped the Allies, but they didn't know that.

Though yeah. I guess one final round of appeasement might be a little ASB.

A little ASB is like being a little pregnant.

Absent some huge change that makes Britain and France desire more time to re-arm or a change which completely recasts the situation and/or nations involved, nothing is going prevent them going to war with Germany once Poland is invaded.
 
Like one thing I asked . . . If Germany taking Poland was the last appeasement, would a "No more appeasement" policy coming into place lead to the Allies taking a much more confrontational stance towards the Soviets once they move on Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Finland?


So, in order to signal the end of a policy of appeasement towards Germany, the Western Allies are going to declare war on the Soviet Union?
 
No. If appeasement lasted just a little longer to include Poland . . . I'm wondering would they go "Appeasement didn't stop the Germans so we won't appease the Soviets."

They wouldn't appease Germany anymore either, but I'm assuming the next thing Germany would do is go after the Soviets so you'd get the "We'll just let them wreck each other thing going."

Only really intervening to preserve Finland and the Baltics . . . Or something to that effect.

---------------------

I guess the idea is that since they wouldn't be at war with Germany at this point . . . They don't have to pussy foot with the Soviets because they aren't trying to get them to join them in fighting the Germans? Maybe?
 
No. If appeasement lasted just a little longer to include Poland . . . I'm wondering would they go "Appeasement didn't stop the Germans so we won't appease the Soviets."

I'm getting confused here...

Britain and France keep up appeasement long enough for Poland to be swallowed and afterward decide appeasing Germany didn't work. They swear off on appeasement as a policy, get huffy about Soviet actions, and then declare war on the USSR.

And all the while Germany is sitting untouched in central Europe, no to mention on the French border, between the Western Allies and the nation they've just declared war on.

Have I got all that right?

They wouldn't appease Germany anymore either, but I'm assuming the next thing Germany would do is go after the Soviets so you'd get the "We'll just let them wreck each other thing going."
Britain and France are at war with the USSR thanks to this "No more appeasement except for Poland which really didn't count" policy and then Germany attacks the USSR too, so Britain and France withdraw from the war and just sit back to watch Germany and the USSR slug it out?

Have I got all that right too?

Only really intervening to preserve Finland and the Baltics . . . Or something to that effect.
You can't. It's far too late by 1939.

I guess the idea is that since they wouldn't be at war with Germany at this point . . . They don't have to pussy foot with the Soviets because they aren't trying to get them to join them in fighting the Germans? Maybe?
So they attack the USSR, which they cannot really get at because, you know Germany, a Soviet ally, is in the way, in the hopes that Germany will join the war against the USSR so that they can lay off.

And all that makes sense to you?
 

Cook

Banned
Concerning the end of Appeasement and the Guarantee to Poland:

The Guarantee to Poland was not an act of Altruism; it was an act of Anglo-French self interest and needs to be assessed as such. Poland had a very large army that on paper posed a serious challenge to Germany and would be needed if Hitler was to be defeated in what was expected to be a re-run of the First World War.

Politicly Poland was not particularly close to the West and had been on good enough terms with Hitler to help themselves to some territory when Czechoslovakia was carved up.
 
While it's true to a certain degree that appeasement was over, what effort was made by France and England to stop Germany after Poland? AFAIK, the only thing they did was declare war on Germany. During the six months following Fall Weiss, and after the Soviet Union invaded Finland, England seriously considered launching a surprise attack on the Soviet Union's oil facilities, a country England wasn't even at war with. All it takes is for enough people to buy into the false-flag operation to make a DoW not happen, and Pike looks more appealing than OTL.
 
While it's true to a certain degree that appeasement was over, what effort was made by France and England to stop Germany after Poland?


Norway? Waiting for the attack in the West they knew was coming?

During the six months following Fall Weiss, and after the Soviet Union invaded Finland, England seriously considered launching a surprise attack on the Soviet Union's oil facilities, a country England wasn't even at war with.
That was after both Britain and France were at war with Germany, the USSR's nominal ally. You keep forgetting that France was involved too and the need for French airbases in Syria to be completed was the reason for when the attack was scheduled to occur.

All it takes is for enough people to buy into the false-flag operation to make a DoW not happen, and Pike looks more appealing than OTL.
So Britain and France are going to launch Pike when they're at peace? Sorry, I just don't buy it. I don't buy a Britain and France at peace, but attempting to face down Germany, choosing to pick a fight with the USSR.

The idea of attacking Baku had been around since the early 30s, but no one had done any of the real work like testing bombs against mock targets to see if it was possible, flying recon missions, moving bombers and supplies into the region, and all the rest until they were actually at war.

No war, no Pike. It's pretty simple.

And just what are the Pike targets in Germany you wrote about earlier?
 
Last edited:
@Don Lardo: I didn't mean Pike actually happens, I meant more that it has a greater chance of occuring. My thoughts went like this: Operation Himmler is more successful making a British and Frence declaration of war politically impossible after Fall Weiss. When the Soviet Union invades Finland in November, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact causes Pike to be dusted off, and prepatory work is started. Then, when Germany invades Norway and war is formally declared, Pike might get more consideration than IOTL, because England and France might perceive the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact to be stronger, thus the need for an attack on Soviet oil facilities, to prevent the Soviets from getting involved. As to potential targets inside Germany, I honestly don't know.

As to my scenario, IOTL Churchill ordered the RN to destroy the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir, even though Vichy was technically neutral. Is it too much of a stretch to believe he would go ahead with Operation Pike when the Soviet Union is technically a German "ally"?
 
As to my scenario, IOTL Churchill ordered the RN to destroy the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir, even though Vichy was technically neutral.


The two situations are in no way the same.

Is it too much of a stretch to believe he would go ahead with Operation Pike when the Soviet Union is technically a German "ally"?

First, why would Churchill be the PM?

Second, why are Britain and France going to add to their number of enemies while they're still at peace? What benefits accrue from starting a war with the USSR because you're worried about the Germans using oil from the USSR when you eventually go to war with them?

I can't even imagine the domestic turmoil that would occur when the people of Britain and France are told their nations are rearming against the threat posed by Germany but their governments are going to attack the USSR in the meantime.
 
It's ASB, but that was my thinking. Maybe if someone in Germany convinced Stalin to have a joint naval exercise near Norway the first week of April?
 
I don´t think this is totally ASB.

If Operation Himmler manages to create the idea that Poland is the agressor and that Germany is simply defending themselves, the British and the French aren´t going to rush in a war nobody really wants.

Historically, Poland and Germany had a lot of disputed territory between them and Poland was recreated a scant few decades ago from German lands (which had been Polish many decades before that...). So there is lots of room for mutual casus belli.

Poland had also been an enthusiastic acessory to the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia so it was hardly a poor, little country bullied by nasty Germany. A little more competent spin and Poland could have been isolated diplomatically.
 
Top