Smarter germany in wwii.

General Zod

Banned
For most of the 30s Poland's main ally was Germany.

WHAT ??? :confused::confused::confused:

I'd think this would be a bit of a disaster and allow Chamberlain's policy to fully work.

Chamblerlain's policy was "let Hitler exaust himself killing Stalin for us", not "let's attack Hitler when we are ready", therefore it would suit a smart Hitler's objectives perfectly.

They wouldn't get any such treaty with Poland, Poland was the line in the sand and Poland itself wouldn't go for it.

If Hitler doesn't invade rump Czechoslovakia, appeasement policy remains fully valid. As such, Poland never becomes the line in the sand and Britain never give it any garantee, since Britain always had very grave doubts about the wisdom of giving West Prussia, Danzig, and Upper Silesia to Poland in the first place. Therefore, they are not going to fight for Poland's very questionable Versailles territorial integrity. They shall gladly pursue a Munich-like agreement on the Corridor and Upper Silesia. If Poland doesn't accept it, London shall gladly let them hang themselves to German and Russian rope. Especially if Hitler does something smart to piant the bullheaded Poles let the frist shot, say by organizing an irredentist German takeover of Danzig, which the poles go guns blzing to suppress.

Also they couldn't really bother France or else Britain would be drawn in.

France isn't going to pick a fight over Poland if Britain shall not lead, or if they do, it is a wholly symbolic phony war show that winds down to a white peace in a few weeks or months. When this happens, Germany has no more reason to attack France, so detente with the Western powers may go into full swing.

From around 1941 the UK would hit Germany as soon as the time was right- and this UK would be fully prepared for war.

But they would not. The British ruling elite had NO intention of purposefully attacking Hitler if he pursued his objectives of expansion in Central and Eastern Europe by "acceptable" means (they had already chalked it away as Germany's economic turf) and NO intention whatsoever of getting involved in the Nazi-Soviet feud on Stalin's side.
 
Could you please quote when the alliance was signed and by whom. Thanks.

Germany and Poland weren't ever formal allies, (To the best of my knowledge) but relations between the two were relatively warm right up the early months of 1939. Although I don't see that as terribly relevant here.
 
Germany and Poland weren't ever formal allies, (To the best of my knowledge) but relations between the two were relatively warm right up the early months of 1939. Although I don't see that as terribly relevant here.

I always think it more that the Poles have absolutely no idea how weak they are, and thinking they are one of the big boys just do not worry about Germany anywhere near enough.
 
I always think it more that the Poles have absolutely no idea how weak they are, and thinking they are one of the big boys just do not worry about Germany anywhere near enough.

My take is that they wanted, and achieved, non-aggression pacts with both the bullies; they thought that, together with their strength (which they overestimated, as you say), could maintain the "equidistance". They (rightly) thought that making friends with one of the two bullies meant telling the other "we're enemies".
 
The Soviets were the big, scary enemy. They saw being friendly with Germany as their best defence against this, especially since as mentioned they believed themselves to be Germany's equal.

Chamblerlain's policy was "let Hitler exaust himself killing Stalin for us", not "let's attack Hitler when we are ready", therefore it would suit a smart Hitler's objectives perfectly.
Theres no way they would allow Germany to annex Russia though. That would make for a far too strong a Germany that could do anything.
Chamberlain wasn't anywhere near as stupid as you get taught in history class, he knew that war was a strong possibility; as a politician you can hardly just come out and say that when you're activly trying to avoid it can you?
As such in the late 30s Britain followed a policy of massive rearmement and preperation for war.
If somehow ASB magic grants Poland to Germany peacefully then I'd imagine they allow Germany and the Soviets to kill each other for a year or two then attack whichever side is on the road to victory (most likely Germany)
If Hitler doesn't invade rump Czechoslovakia, appeasement policy remains fully valid. As such, Poland never becomes the line in the sand and Britain never give it any garantee, since Britain always had very grave doubts about the wisdom of giving West Prussia, Danzig, and Upper Silesia to Poland in the first place. Therefore, they are not going to fight for Poland's very questionable Versailles territorial integrity. They shall gladly pursue a Munich-like agreement on the Corridor and Upper Silesia. If Poland doesn't accept it, London shall gladly let them hang themselves to German and Russian rope. Especially if Hitler does something smart to piant the bullheaded Poles let the frist shot, say by organizing an irredentist German takeover of Danzig, which the poles go guns blzing to suppress.
Self determination was the big thing.
Silesia and Danzig going to Germany could work.
The Polish corridor being annexed by Germany; never.

France isn't going to pick a fight over Poland if Britain shall not lead, or if they do, it is a wholly symbolic phony war show that winds down to a white peace in a few weeks or months. When this happens, Germany has no more reason to attack France, so detente with the Western powers may go into full swing.
Except they know Britain wouldn't stand by as Poland and France fight against the nazis.

But they would not. The British ruling elite had NO intention of purposefully attacking Hitler if he pursued his objectives of expansion in Central and Eastern Europe by "acceptable" means (they had already chalked it away as Germany's economic turf) and NO intention whatsoever of getting involved in the Nazi-Soviet feud on Stalin's side.

Annexation is not acceptable means.
And they wouldn't be on Stalin's side (assuming he's even still alive by then). They'd be hitting Germany for the sake of its other opressed people and in the name of peace for all time, blah blah.
 
The Soviets were the big, scary enemy. They saw being friendly with Germany as their best defence against this,

Only that they weren't. They had a non-aggression pact which meant exactly that and didn't equate to the later German-Soviet non-aggression pact.
 
Only that they weren't. They had a non-aggression pact which meant exactly that and didn't equate to the later German-Soviet non-aggression pact.

Well, there was Poland's ham-handedness during the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia...

But I agree, overall.
 
Well, there was Poland's ham-handedness during the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia...

Sure. that, and the claim before that, objectively helped the Germans. That doesn't make them friends, even less allies. It wouldn't be unusual, in that time frame and that area, to have three countries bordering, each of them at odds with both of the other two.
In a sense, some might see the taking of Cieszyn as a move preempting the eventual taking of the same by the Germans themselves.
 
in response to all who it may concern here is a link to the wiki article about the uprising in iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Iraqi_War

After reading through the article i stand corrected on a couple things, first off is that it took place after the start of the war, and secondly the Germans did in fact attempt to send some air support, but were unable to due to logistical reasons. However the British position in Iraq at the time was quite tenuous, also I would imagine that without german preparations for war in Russia, I do believe that The Germans could have done much better in Africa.

In fact I have now come to the conclusion that the best course of action after going to war would have been to stay out of Russia and concentrate on the French and British in stead, I beleive he had enough forces to take out France, and march into Spain if he really wanted to take Gibraltar and then take northern Africa. With Egypt in their hands, Iraq is relatively close, and if they make it that far the Suez canal is also in their hands which would effectively cut off the British from their colonial posessions. Under those circumstances The British may have been willing to negociate, and the Germans could probably move on and take Iran and would have a route to the USSR through Georgia.


THEN Hitler could go after Stalin... if he really wanted to.
 
Smarter Germany in WW2?

I think the best way for Germany to improve its position is simply to move slowly and to avoid a shooting war against anyone of equal size.

Even in 1933, after all of the economic misery that's happened to Germany, its still has the potential to be the largest economy in Europe. In the Soviet Union, Germany has a potential friend that's good for acquiring resources because the rest of the world refuses to deal with them. A quick look at Europe reveals that the Western Democracies, although suffering from an economic depression, have powerful economies and trading ties to much of Europe.

The Soviet Union, a territorial titan and a growing power industrially, is essentially quietly maneuvering. Japan has designs on China, and has just grabbed another chunk of territory.

Who's the weakest target? Almost Certainly, its the Danubian Pact. Italy's attempt to build an alliance with Austria and Hungary is clearly the "Weak Link" in Europe.

German Expansion, then, should be at the expense of these powers, while keeping the West Happy.

After a good deal of rearmament (which does not include militarizing the Rhineland), Germany marches into Austria, playing all the propaganda to the full. If Italy DoWs Germany, it will do so on its own.

Mussolini, then, is CLEARLY the weakest link in Europe. Once Germany has annexed Austria, the next move is to provoke a war against Italy; Germany can slowly rearm while keeping France and the UK happy. Mussolini is attempting to increase his own power--some stupid issue, like Albania or other territorial aggrandizement can turn into a flashpoint that results in a German ultimatum against Italy; and a war that would get the tacit support of France and the UK, or at least their neutrality.

Germany Vs. Italy is like tank vs. car. This could lead to large spoils to Germany, including the rich Industrial Regions of Northern Italy. Spinning off the colonies of Italy as a concession to the Allies (give Ethiopia its independence for kicks) or outright giving them to the hands of the League of Nations.

Given Italian support for Ustasche revolutionaries in Yugoslavia and the good relations enjoyed between Poland and Germany, as well as bribing France and the UK with Italian colonies, Germany gains from Mussolini's Stupidity.

Now Germany has the richest regions of Italy while simultaneously getting away with the whole deal. It entirely breaks with Hitler's opinions and Ideas, but I think this one is completely legitimate.

German Venice and Lombardy. And then Germany can just shift back to peacetime economics. In addition, this Germany is almost certainly going to enjoy relationships that haven't been severed while managing to gain large, rich regions.
 
well that does sound smart, however, without an asb even with someone smarter than hitler pulling the strings in Germany I don't see them being entirely happy with those circumstances, I mean even with that situation they are still at the mercy of another power for resources such as oil. In order to become a self sufficient European superpower they are gonna need to fight either the Soviets or the Western Allies, plain and simple.
 

After reading through the article i stand corrected on a couple things, first off is that it took place after the start of the war, and secondly the Germans did in fact attempt to send some air support, but were unable to due to logistical reasons.


Yeah.

However the British position in Iraq at the time was quite tenuous,


It was. Not as tenuous as anything the Germans could achieve, though.

also I would imagine that without german preparations for war in Russia, I do believe that The Germans could have done much better in Africa.


Say, have you considered reading some of the old old threads about this?

In fact I have now come to the conclusion that the best course of action after going to war would have been to stay out of Russia and concentrate on the French and British in stead, I beleive he had enough forces to take out France, and march into Spain if he really wanted to take Gibraltar and then take northern Africa.


So are you suggesting that instead of establishing a friendly neutral Vichy France, Germany forces the French to continue to fight and resist all the way to Algiers or Tunis? Additionally, you are either suggesting that the Germans undertake the burden of an allied Spain, or that they turn on the Spaniards and fight there too.

With Egypt in their hands, Iraq is relatively close,


Here by relatively close you mean a few hundreds of kilometers of barren desert which to date has no railway going through it. Somewhat like the railway-less Tripoli-Tobruk stretch that doomed Rommel's logistics.

and if they make it that far the Suez canal is also in their hands which would effectively cut off the British from their colonial posessions.


Have you noticed that save for under a half-dozen cargo ships that mostly stopped at Malta too, _all_ the British traffic to _Egypt_ went around the Cape route? And not across the Med? Have you noticed that all around Africa, the British have naval bases, and that a ship going from Britain to India not only does not need to cross the Suez Canal but, assuming it rounds Africa as they historically did, neither has to go up the Red Sea at all?

Under those circumstances The British may have been willing to negociate,


Nah. They are starving Spain, have replaced Gibraltar with the Canarias, and have thousands of additional kilometers of coastline to strike against, not to mention that even in the unlikely event of Egypt falling, they have lost nothing substantial and have logistics on their side in fighting from Basra and Sudan.

and the Germans could probably move on and take Iran and would have a route to the USSR through Georgia.


Sure, they only need some additional tens of divisions and millions of tons of logistical lift capability. Going from the Gulf to the Soviet border is like going from El Paso to Salt Lake City, only that the Rocky Mountains are lower and in the USA there is some decent, reasonable infrastructure. Going from Mosul to the Soviet border is a shorter but much more difficult route. To date, there is no useful railway.
Please also note the Germans have to molest the Azeris or the Armenians before doing the same to the Georgians. Actually, if by an ASB intervention the Germans were ever able to do something in the area from the South, they should ignore Georgia and aim for Baku.


THEN Hitler could go after Stalin... if he really wanted to.


Yeah… only that Stalin by this time has entirely overhauled the Red Army, produced T-34s and modern fighters by the thousands, built a Soviet Maginot, and cut the supplies to Germany.
 

General Zod

Banned
Theres no way they would allow Germany to annex Russia though. That would make for a far too strong a Germany that could do anything.

Yes, this is correct. The UK would not take action to correct the situation, however, unless it seems like Germany is to achieve a complete victory in Russia, however.

If somehow ASB magic grants Poland to Germany peacefully then I'd imagine they allow Germany and the Soviets to kill each other for a year or two then attack whichever side is on the road to victory (most likely Germany)

Or force a more moderate compromise peace through the threat of such an intervention.

Self determination was the big thing.
Silesia and Danzig going to Germany could work.
The Polish corridor being annexed by Germany; never.

Issues of nationality in West Prussia were murky and dubious enough, owning to pre-war and post-war population censuses of dubious reliability, post-war population movements, and the questionable status of the Kashubians, that the British were always quite half-hearted about giving it to Poland in the first place, and very dubious that the status quo was sustainable. As such, unless it is in their own interests to make a stand on it (which is not if Hitler has not betrayed the Munich accords), they are not going to fight for the sake of keeping the Corridor Polish, sorry.

Except they know Britain wouldn't stand by as Poland and France fight against the nazis.

Britain shall fight when it deems it is in her own interest to fight. If Poland goes berserk against London's counsel, they shall not lift a finger to save them. If France does too, they shall fight at once if Germany invades France or the Low Countries. If in all likelihood, they go phony war, they shall push and prod for a white peace. Poland's territorial integrity is NOT a British vital strategic interest.

Annexation is not acceptable means.

If it goes without British permission, it is not. However, if Germany pushes for a Munich II settlement that would give them Danzig and the Corridor, and they did not betrayed the previous settlement of Czechoslaovakia, London shall deem it a satisfactory way to settle the problems with Poland, too.

After that, again, if Hitler would say invade Romania without provokation, that might be a casus belli. If they manage to make it a satellite by indirect means, however, it's not London's business.

And they wouldn't be on Stalin's side (assuming he's even still alive by then). They'd be hitting Germany for the sake of its other opressed people and in the name of peace for all time, blah blah.

Quite possibly, but again, only if its looks like Hitler is going for the Urals border.
 
well that does sound smart, however, without an asb even with someone smarter than hitler pulling the strings in Germany I don't see them being entirely happy with those circumstances, I mean even with that situation they are still at the mercy of another power for resources such as oil. In order to become a self sufficient European superpower they are gonna need to fight either the Soviets or the Western Allies, plain and simple.

Well, here's the problem with that.

The Soviet Union is a giant country with a far larger population than Germany. While Stalin is a highly dysfunctional leader, he isn't entirely moronic.

Furthermore, Germany has no real way to get to the Soviet Union--Poland nearly lost its last war with the Soviet Union and has no real desire to fight another; Romania is on good terms with the Soviets (at least until Stalin grabs Moldavia.)

Finally, Germany has a real edge in dealing with the Soviets--the Soviet Union has defaulted on Tsarist Russia's debts and is not on good terms with much of the world. That Stalin is willing to sell resources to Germany (and he has a great deal to start with) is a positive that will obviously be lost if Germany attempts to declare war on the Soviet Union.

Meanwhile, the west poses problems as well. The French and British combination managed to bog down Germany very badly in WW1 and there's no guarantee that this won't happen again. Indeed, France and Belgium have created a massive pile of fortresses to ensure such a war will be hard fought.

And while taking Paris and KOing France is entirely possible (it looked just as possible in 1914), there are no real answers to beat the next combination: The UK and the United States.

It is for this reason that a Smarter Germany can not afford to attack either set of countries, and needs to play a excellent game of keeping them happy while increasing its own power.

Is Germany beholden to these powers for resources? Not quite. It certainly has the power to play them against each other. Indeed, perhaps the best part of this plan is that Germany, while far smaller than its dreams, is in excellent position to pick one of these two sides and defeat the other--a dream that's still intact even after Austria and Italy are taken out.

And, really, the best philosophy for Germany to take is "Exploit the mistakes of other countries politically and diplomatically". Mussolini, obviously, is a easy target. Mosicki might make a few Mistakes, and Stalin and Chamberlain are both men to watch.

The game plan, though, is for Germany, after KOing Italy, is to assert dominance over Hungary and befriend Poland, Czechloslovkia and Yugoslavia. With all borders safe and a stronger economy in play, German Economic Victory is just a matter of time.
 
And, really, the best philosophy for Germany to take is "Exploit the mistakes of other countries politically and diplomatically". Mussolini, obviously, is a easy target. Mosicki might make a few Mistakes, and Stalin and Chamberlain are both men to watch.

The game plan, though, is for Germany, after KOing Italy, .

I ask again: is there a thread where you developed this proposed anti-Italian German policy? I'd like to discuss it separately from other issues, if you wish.
 
Top