What if Poland joins Hitler's side?

And followed up with a decade of economic ties and military collaboration. Certainly I can't see the MR Pact was so surprising when many of the biggest advocates of Russo-German collaboration were still around...

Hitler was MUCH more anti-Communist than the German upper class and military élites that had sent Lenin into Russia in the first place. There's a reason why the decade of military cooperation was discontinued and the German officers sent home right when Hitler's government was formed.
 
Actually the polish regime and the Nazis were good friends as late as March 39, the friendship wasn´t too deep, but that can be changed. Here is how:

In 1918 the Poles realized one day, some day Germany and Russia will be strong again, so pissing off both is not a good idea! FM Pilsudski IIRC was rather interested in an eastward expansion, so the government is doing it´s best to keep the border with Germany quite, much to the dissatisfaction of the local polish radicals.

The Germans return the favour in 1920, when the Poles seem to loose the war with the USSR. Given the very moderate territorial claims of Poland, the USSR is seen as the far more dangerous enemy (which it actually was). German military and economic aid ensures a crushing defeat of the Red Army. This and the pressure from Britain and France to end the war ASAP is duly noted in Warsaw.

Than there is the Danzig Compromise. Poland okays Danzig´s formal return to Germany, while keeping the corridor. Of course Germany is allowed to build an extraterritorial railroad line to Danzig and East Prussia, while goods from Poland are not subject to customs inspection in the port of Danzig. A port which booms due to the polish im- and exports.

Equally important but more hush-hush is the secret military cooperation between Germany and Poland. Tanks, planes, poison gas … everything the ToV bans in Germany is tested in Poland.

And last but not least German Nazis and Polish militarists decide it´s time to take care of some unfinished business; the f…ing Communists. In 1940 Germany, Poland and Romania launch a joined invasion of the USSR over the lukewarm protests of the UK and France. Actually it´s just the governments protesting, quite a few people are overjoyed to see communism´s destruction.

A: If you have a POD as early as 1918, Hitler's rule might very well be butterflyed away (though of course not the existence of Hitler and the Nazi party).
B: The OTL decision of the Polish government to fight, hard as its short-term consequences for Poland were, was very, very much the correct one. It was not just a decision which made the long-term survival of Poland possible, but also a decision for which the rest of humanity should be grateful. Hitler certainly would not have been satisfied with Danzig and the Corridor. At some time Hitler would have either demanded still more territory or Poland's co-operation in a war against the Soviet Union, probably both. Then Poland would either have to fight anyway - but from an even worse position than the one in OTL - or would have to co-operate. Germany starting Barbarossa from a far more Easterly line, not having lost soldiers and equipment fighting Poland, not having to fight the Polish armed forces in exile and Polish partisans would considerably lengthen WW II, or might, just conceivably, allow a Nazi victory. This outcome is even more likely if Polish soldiers participate in Barbarossa. From all we know about the Nazis, they would show no gratitude towards their allies. The Nazi mindset was geared to inventing "enemies" and scapegoats. The Nazi ideology was not one that set great store by producing goods, but by finding outsider groups from whom the Germans could take things away unpunished. Let's assume Germany beats France as in OTL and also the Soviet Union, thanks to Polish co-operation, before the US intervenes in the war. Britain sees no possibility to liberate the Continent and more or less recognizes German hegemony. At first Germany would reap some benefits from exploiting the formerly Soviet territories and from sending some of its soldiers back to their peace-time jobs. But in the long run, the many economic mistakes the Nazis make and the costs of occupying half of Europe mean that the living standard in Germany won't rise above that of the pre-war era and might even fall below that. One very likely response is the blaming and persecution of scapegoats. The Jews and Gypsies have already been murdered and the various nations of the former Soviet Union are already being exploited to such an extend that they are starving by the millions. But since this seems to be not enough, new groups must be found who can be ruthlessly exploited and starved to death. The Slavic former allies come in handy... If this mechanism does not come into play in, say, 1943, it wil certainly do so at some point in the future, since the Nazis cannot be dislodged from power, and they certainly will not part from it voluntarily!
 

General Zod

Banned
B: The OTL decision of the Polish government to fight, hard as its short-term consequences for Poland were, was very, very much the correct one. It was not just a decision which made the long-term survival of Poland possible, but also a decision for which the rest of humanity should be grateful.

I have to question this statement most fiercely, as it does not take into account all the plausible outcomes. There are many possible kinds of TLs where Poland does the wise thing and follows the course of Romania and you have an overall better final outcome for mankind than OTL, which must always be remembered gave us Stalinist domination over Eastern Europe and the looming threat of Soviet Communism for two generations. Possible examples: Nazi Germany beats USSR but it is forced to surrender by American nukes; Nazi Germany and USSR fight each other to an exausted stalemate, which weakens both regimes and leads to their mutual swift downfall; Germany wins in Europe but Nazi economic mismanagement soon causes a successful military coup and the installation of a moderate authoritarian regime which gradually democratizes; Hitler dies soon after the war and a new guard comes into power which brings gradual softening of the regime, much like Franco's Spain. Lack of a clear Soviet victory in WWII does not absolutely mean In the Presence of My Enemies is the only mandated outcome.

As for long-term consequences for Poland... certainly a Congress Poland kinda-fascist German satellite would have spared the Polish people a huge amount of suffering during the war, and in any of the scenarioes I've described, they would have got a better final outcome.

As it concerns WWII, OTL is far, far from being any of the reasonable best-case outcomes for Europe and the world. Surely it was not the worst, but neither the best. Unless is able to concoct a scenario by which the USA are willing and able to inflict the same kind of decisive defeat to Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia both, or possibly suffers from that particular brand of anti-fascist/Germanophobe fanatic bias by which total revenge victory over Germany in WWII was worth whatever consequence.
 
Last edited:

King Thomas

Banned
The problem with this senario is Hitler and the Nazi's race hate. Why would Poland ally with someone who thinks Poles are inferior?
 

General Zod

Banned
The problem with this senario is Hitler and the Nazi's race hate. Why would Poland ally with someone who thinks Poles are inferior?

Why did Hungarians, Romanians, Slovaks chose so ? Expectation that it was better voluntarily to claim vassal status in the coming German sphere of influence than to be a defeated enemy, attraction for fascism as a political model and for German economy and technology, hostility to Russia and Soviet Communism.
 
Why did Hungarians, Romanians, Slovaks chose so ? Expectation that it was better voluntarily to claim vassal status in the coming German sphere of influence than to be a defeated enemy, attraction for fascism as a political model and for German economy and technology, hostility to Russia and Soviet Communism.

I'd also note that most people just didn't really take full Nazi racial ideology all that seriously back in the '30s. Who the fuck would've believed that a civilised country like Germany could turn into something Draka-like? Especially after the Communist threat had been averted by Herr Hitler...

As it goes, deeds say more than words, and Germany tried - for a while - to be nice to the Poles, even if it was just a matter of convenience (and timing). Remember the German-Polish non-aggression pact of 1934? Or that they grabbed Teschen when Czechoslovakia was thrown to the wolves? Hell, there was even a joint Polish-German Schoolbook Revision Committee to remove antagonistic chauvinism from their respective school systems!

Even Pilszudski made the same mistake as a lot of other people and thought Hitler was sane and could be bargained with. So did the junta that replaced him, though they were ultranationalists, of course, so they had other priorities. It was only after they got a showing of how the Nazis ran their foreign policy that they got wary. If Hitler hadn't demanded the German lands back, we might still have seen some kind of Germano-Polish agreement.

But since that wasn't happening, they were bound to be enemies eventually.
 
I have to question this statement most fiercely, as it does not take into account all the plausible outcomes. There are many possible kinds of TLs where Poland does the wise thing and follows the course of Romania and you have an overall better final outcome for mankind than OTL, which must always be remembered gave us Stalinist domination over Eastern Europe and the looming threat of Soviet Communism for two generations.

It could be argued that if the Poles had caved in, it would've been longer before WW2 proper broke out, which would mean more time for the Allies (and, unfortunately, Stalin) to prepare for war. That might be a good thing. And certainly, without the Nazis giving rightists everywhere a bad name and the various resistance movements against them, Communism would be weaker in Western Europe, at least.

Possible examples: Nazi Germany beats USSR but it is forced to surrender by American nukes;

Unlikely; why would the US nuke them if the Soviets were already out of the game? Any real victory over the Soviets would require a massive POD before 1942 at the very, very least (and that's being generous); it'd probably butterfly away the war with America, and Roosevelt's belligerence would then be to no avail. This isn't TBO; the US wouldn't spend absurd sums on something like the an uberduper Manhattan Project in peacetime just to genocide a country for the hell of it.

Nazi Germany and USSR fight each other to an exausted stalemate, which weakens both regimes and leads to their mutual swift downfall;

How does Poland's choice to join Germany cause this to come to pass? The POD doesn't appear too related to the outcome.

Germany wins in Europe but Nazi economic mismanagement soon causes a successful military coup and the installation of a moderate authoritarian regime which gradually democratizes;

Possible, but that'd take a decade or so at least; the victorious government would be wildly popular. In that time, they'd pretty much clean out the Slavs of Russia; genocide in the high decamillion range isn't really better than OTL, is it?

Hitler dies soon after the war and a new guard comes into power which brings gradual softening of the regime, much like Franco's Spain.

Again, possible, but shares the problems of the above.

Lack of a clear Soviet victory in WWII does not absolutely mean In the Presence of My Enemies is the only mandated outcome.

No, but it IS hard to see a scenario that is very much better than OTL. A stalemate might be a good conclusion, but Poland isn't essential to such.

As for long-term consequences for Poland... certainly a Congress Poland kinda-fascist German satellite would have spared the Polish people a huge amount of suffering during the war, and in any of the scenarioes I've described, they would have got a better final outcome.

Assuming a German victory scenario with an allied, Poland, that ally might be better off. It's hard to see their future, though, with newly-genocidal Nazis in East and West both.

As it concerns WWII, OTL is far, far from being any of the reasonable best-case outcomes for Europe and the world. Surely it was not the worst, but neither the best. Unless is able to concoct a scenario by which the USA are willing and able to inflict the same kind of decisive defeat to Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia both, or possibly suffers from that particular brand of anti-fascist/Germanophobe fanatic bias by which total revenge victory over Germany in WWII was worth whatever consequence.

All things considered, it ended much better than it could have. Imagine a Nazi victory in the East, or the Morgenthu Plan implemented, if you want a downright morbid end to what was a pretty horrible war to start with.
 

General Zod

Banned
It could be argued that if the Poles had caved in, it would've been longer before WW2 proper broke out, which would mean more time for the Allies (and, unfortunately, Stalin) to prepare for war. That might be a good thing. And certainly, without the Nazis giving rightists everywhere a bad name and the various resistance movements against them, Communism would be weaker in Western Europe, at least.

These are indeed some of the benefits. Overall, any of the three sides gets more time to prepare, which enhances the chances of a final stalemate. And that is definitely a good outcome.

Unlikely; why would the US nuke them if the Soviets were already out of the game?

This would require Hitler to do the supremely stupid thing and DoW the USA after Pearl Harbor. Which is not entirely out of the picture, giving how stupid and gratuious was to do so OTL.

Any real victory over the Soviets would require a massive POD before 1942 at the very, very least (and that's being generous);

If you mean the Reich's border on the Volga or the Urals, I mostly agree. if you mean Germany successfully enforcing a second Brest-Litovsk, without the second front it is wholly feasible without an additional PoD, as it was a final stalemate somewhere between the Dniepr and the Vistula-Dniester.

it'd probably butterfly away the war with America, and Roosevelt's belligerence would then be to no avail. This isn't TBO; the US wouldn't spend absurd sums on something like the an uberduper Manhattan Project in peacetime just to genocide a country for the hell of it.

Mostly yes, but see above.

How does Poland's choice to join Germany cause this to come to pass? The POD doesn't appear too related to the outcome.

The lack of a second front with the Western Allies, and the fact that both Nazi Germany and Soviert Russia are left to rearm until 1941-42, enhance the likelihood of a final stalemate.

Again, in such a scenario, the most likely outcome ranges from a second Brest-Litovsk to a stalemate somewhere in Bielorussia and Western Ukraine. Which one, it depends on how good German and Soviet generalships are.

Possible, but that'd take a decade or so at least; the victorious government would be wildly popular.

Depends. It is entirely possible to win the war but lose the peace rather swiftly. Ask Britain. It is quite possible that Nazi economic blundering brings a coup in the late 1940s already.

In that time, they'd pretty much clean out the Slavs of Russia; genocide in the high decamillion range isn't really better than OTL, is it?

On the paper, yes, but I've always been extremely skeptical on any degree of feasibility for Nazi pipedream mega-genocidal schemes in European Russia, beyond Hitler's armchair ramblings. Killing 100+ million Slavs would draw an insane amount of resources, economic and military, and expelling them is not that much more feasible. It is most likely that even beginning to attempt it would fatally break the back of the Nazi regime, even more so since in this scenario, they don't have the resources of rich and populous Western Europe to draw upon. Can we say insane military overextension, a mega-Vietnam, and economic collapse ? Goodbye, insane racist extremists. Welcome, moderate junta.

Stalin's own Holodomor genocide is probably the upper threshold of what was feasible in last century's Europe, and Germany's more advanced economic and political consittution would reject the attempt before similar bloodshed is reached. From exaustion if nothing else.

Again, possible, but shares the problems of the above.

And see my answer above.


No, but it IS hard to see a scenario that is very much better than OTL. A stalemate might be a good conclusion, but Poland isn't essential to such.

It is not essential, but it keeps the Western Allies out of the fight, and helps Germany and Russia fighting to a stalemate.

Assuming a German victory scenario with an allied, Poland, that ally might be better off. It's hard to see their future, though, with newly-genocidal Nazis in East and West both.

They may play the "we are close enough to Aryans" card. Historically, Nazi occupation authorities were willing to Germanize a substantial amount of the Polish population.

All things considered, it ended much better than it could have. Imagine a Nazi victory in the East, or the Morgenthu Plan implemented, if you want a downright morbid end to what was a pretty horrible war to start with.

As I said, it is not the worse outcome (besides the ones you quote, there is also the Red Army on the Atlantic shores).

But it is not the best plausible one. An early negotiated peace with Germany after a successful anti-Nazi coup, which leaves Germany its national unity and ethnic post-Munich territorial integrity, contains the bloodshed and destruction of the late phase of the war, and cuts the Holocaust short, or a stalemate in Eastern Europe which fatally exausts both Nazists and Communists, with Western Europe out of the war, fare much better than OTL in my view.
 
All those discussions above and still you're forgetting that Poles couldn't know a few facts we know now.
- Blitzkrieg tactics really works; yes, yes, I know that Polish campaign wasn't real Blitzkrieg, but it was first real test of all elements needed to do one: large mechanized forces, concentrated tanks groups, air support etc.
- France and Britain are not going to move their collective buts; yes, we know NOW it wasn't so easy (althought they didn't even try that much), but Poland was assured they would go into offensive about two weeks after declaration of war (or something like that, I'm not sure about details) -that USA would produce nuclears weapons capable to decide an outcome of any war; in 1939 only few Poles (or anybody else) had some idea something like that was possible; and why should isolationist US interfere in European war anyway
- that WW2 will happen as it did OTL; that most powerful army in Europe (i.e. French, since it was considered as one, except Red Army) will be defeated quickly and decisively; Germany will be very close to defeat USSR; USA would actively engage in Europe.
There are also other facts:
- Romania joint the Germany AFTER Poland's defeat and BECAUSE of Polish defeat; Romanians simply realized that in case of German aggression they on their own, and Romanian Army was even weaker than Polish Army. In 1939 Romania was Polish ally and possible way for transit of war supplies frm France.
- Any war between Germany and USSR would put Poland in danger; Poles wanted to avoid any war at all.

Polish government wasn't the brightest in the world (far from it) but they weren't totally stupid. They wanted to preserve Polish independence, because that was their duty. They believed they had reasonable chance to do it and based on what they could have known that wasn't so stupid assumption. They couldn't forsee so quick defeat of Poland, Soviet cooperation with Hitler and impotence of western allies. We believe many of those things are so obvious NOW, but at that time it wasn't so. History might have taken a different path and hey...isn't that what this forum is all about?
 
These are indeed some of the benefits. Overall, any of the three sides gets more time to prepare, which enhances the chances of a final stalemate. And that is definitely a good outcome.

Even better is if the initial German aggression fails.

This would require Hitler to do the supremely stupid thing and DoW the USA after Pearl Harbor. Which is not entirely out of the picture, giving how stupid and gratuious was to do so OTL.

But IOTL it actually served a point. When Roosevelt sent American destroyers to escort ships to Britain, essentially starting the war at the seas unofficially, the Germans had to respond. It wasn't just willy-nilly.

If you mean the Reich's border on the Volga or the Urals, I mostly agree. if you mean Germany successfully enforcing a second Brest-Litovsk, without the second front it is wholly feasible without an additional PoD, as it was a final stalemate somewhere between the Dniepr and the Vistula-Dniester.

What would the required POD for such be? And of course, Hitler would never have negotiated for a settlement, being who he was. "They're asking for terms? That's just a sign they're weak, let's crush them completely!" Or: "You say we should ask for terms? No and never! We're in this struggle together; it's either victory or total annihilation!"

The lack of a second front with the Western Allies, and the fact that both Nazi Germany and Soviert Russia are left to rearm until 1941-42, enhance the likelihood of a final stalemate.

Again, in such a scenario, the most likely outcome ranges from a second Brest-Litovsk to a stalemate somewhere in Bielorussia and Western Ukraine. Which one, it depends on how good German and Soviet generalships are.

The "front" will still be there; should Germany leave the French border undefended? And what's to say the Western powers don't go to war anyway sooner or later? Public opinion was tired enough of Hitler before Danzig. At the very least, they'll need a rapid response reserve in the Rhineland. That's instantly more of a diversion than Africa or Italy were IOTL.

And the initial Barbarossa strike will have lost most of its advantages; the RKKA will have recovered somewhat from its forced expansion, have better equipment, and most importantly, it won't be posted right at an unfortified border. It will be prepared, and fighting in terrain which is good for defence (Pripet Marshes).

Depends. It is entirely possible to win the war but lose the peace rather swiftly. Ask Britain. It is quite possible that Nazi economic blundering brings a coup in the late 1940s already.

What kind of blundering would that require, do you think?

On the paper, yes, but I've always been extremely skeptical on any degree of feasibility for Nazi pipedream mega-genocidal schemes in European Russia, beyond Hitler's armchair ramblings. Killing 100+ million Slavs would draw an insane amount of resources, economic and military, and expelling them is not that much more feasible. It is most likely that even beginning to attempt it would fatally break the back of the Nazi regime, even more so since in this scenario, they don't have the resources of rich and populous Western Europe to draw upon. Can we say insane military overextension, a mega-Vietnam, and economic collapse ? Goodbye, insane racist extremists. Welcome, moderate junta.

Stalin's own Holodomor genocide is probably the upper threshold of what was feasible in last century's Europe, and Germany's more advanced economic and political consittution would reject the attempt before similar bloodshed is reached. From exaustion if nothing else.

And there we come back to the old point of how much of White Russia died in a few years of Nazi occupation. As noted, you don't have to cram people into gas chambers to kill them; starving them to death works just as well. In fact, they'll likely expends less resources by simply leaving the people to die than by feeding them and letting them live. Yes, 100+ million is probably extreme. But more millions than Stalin racked up? Almost a foregone conclusion. Single decamillions at least, probably.

They may play the "we are close enough to Aryans" card. Historically, Nazi occupation authorities were willing to Germanize a substantial amount of the Polish population.

IIRC that depended a lot on just whose jurisdiction you happened to fall under as a Pole. Some Nazis, like Gauleiter Forster, were more like what you describe, but others like Greiser or Hans Frank were pure lunatics.

As I said, it is not the worse outcome (besides the ones you quote, there is also the Red Army on the Atlantic shores).

I deliberately took the worst ones. Much as I detest Communism, I think it's safe to say it was nicer than those two alternatives.

Of course, speaking strictly as a Swede, I personally would've been the worst off in that scenario...

But it is not the best plausible one. An early negotiated peace with Germany after a successful anti-Nazi coup, which leaves Germany its national unity and ethnic post-Munich territorial integrity, contains the bloodshed and destruction of the late phase of the war, and cuts the Holocaust short, or a stalemate in Eastern Europe which fatally exausts both Nazists and Communists, with Western Europe out of the war, fare much better than OTL in my view.

Certainly, I couldn't agree more. It's only the question of how plausible a successful anti-Nazi coup is.
 

Markus

Banned
No, it isn't. Any great power that does not have nuclear weapons is helpless against one that has them and is willing to use them.

And you don´t think the defeat of the USSR will change a few things, like free 100 to 150 divisons, reduce german losses to near zero, allow resources to be allocated differently?
 
..... I've always been extremely skeptical on any degree of feasibility for Nazi pipedream mega-genocidal schemes in European Russia, beyond Hitler's armchair ramblings. Killing 100+ million Slavs would draw an insane amount of resources, economic and military, and expelling them is not that much more feasible. It is most likely that even beginning to attempt it would fatally break the back of the Nazi regime, even more so since in this scenario, they don't have the resources of rich and populous Western Europe to draw upon. Can we say insane military overextension, a mega-Vietnam, and economic collapse ? Goodbye, insane racist extremists. Welcome, moderate junta.

Stalin's own Holodomor genocide is probably the upper threshold of what was feasible in last century's Europe, and Germany's more advanced economic and political consittution would reject the attempt before similar bloodshed is reached. From exaustion if nothing else.
I am afraid this "upper threshold" for the number of people killed in a genocide is entirely imaginary. Killing a hundred million slavs would certainly not bring any economic advantages to Germany, but neither would it be a gigantic feat that "would draw an insane amount of resources". It would require Germany to have conquered an area with so many Slavic inhabitants, and a completely defeated Red Army - things that might be possible with Poland co-operating and Hitler taking better strategic decisions. The only other ingredient that is needed is the will to murder people - an ingredient that the Nazis had in abundance. After harvest time in the Ukraine and Russia, Hitler simply would have ordered his soldiers to take away all the harvest and livestock and to kill everyone who resisted the attempt - things that had been already done to a large extend in OTL. Food that cannot be transported westward or eaten by the soldiers themselves is to be destroyed on the spot. There is no way in which an abstract concept like "Germany's more advanced economic and political constitution" "would reject the attempt". (By the way, what is so "advanced" about Germany's Nazism of the time?)

Did killing six million Jews lead to Germany's collapse? Did killing Indios bring about the destruction of the Spanish Conquistadors? Did killing Armenians bring about the defeat of the Turks in WW I? The answer is, unfortunately "No" in all cases.
 
Last edited:

General Zod

Banned
Even better is if the initial German aggression fails.

Which might entirely happen if the Red Amry and the Wehrmacht are the same level of preparatedness. A possible, and likely, outcome of the scenario.

But IOTL it actually served a point. When Roosevelt sent American destroyers to escort ships to Britain, essentially starting the war at the seas unofficially, the Germans had to respond. It wasn't just willy-nilly.

The by far wisest thing for Germany would have been to ignore Roosevelt's provocations, no matter how severe. The amount of direct damage and help Germany's warring enemies that Roosevelt was able to deliver without a DoW was sharpely limited, no matter how much Roosevelt stretched Executive Privilege. The Congress would have never delivered such a DoW, either before or after Pearl Harbor, so Hitler's own DoW played into Roosevelt's hands.


What would the required POD for such be? And of course, Hitler would never have negotiated for a settlement, being who he was. "They're asking for terms? That's just a sign they're weak, let's crush them completely!" Or: "You say we should ask for terms? No and never! We're in this struggle together; it's either victory or total annihilation!"

Quite possible, which would fulfill the "they keep fighting till mutual exaustion" scenario. I'm just convinced that the military equation in a pure Russo-German fight is that mutual exaustion will not pave the way to total victory of either part.

OTOH, if Hitler is politically savy enough to ensure Polish satellization, he might just wise enough to pursue a Brest Litovsk negotiated settlement instead of the total conquest scenario.


The "front" will still be there; should Germany leave the French border undefended? And what's to say the Western powers don't go to war anyway sooner or later? Public opinion was tired enough of Hitler before Danzig.

The British and French public picking a fight with Germany while it makes them a favor by exausting themselves against Soviet Russia, and a double bigger favor by bleeding Soviet Russia white ? Remember, in this scenario Germany has done nothing to threaten Western democracies directly, all her expansionism was towards Central and Eastern Europe. Nothing of that is vital to the security of France or Britain. Until the invasion of Czechia, most of what Hitler did was acceptable to many Britons, he was "redressing the wrongs of Versailles". This kind of PoD might well require Germany giving up annexation of Czechia in favor of satellization like Poland. In such a scenario, few will be willing to pick a fight for the sake of an anti-fascist crusade.

And the initial Barbarossa strike will have lost most of its advantages; the RKKA will have recovered somewhat from its forced expansion, have better equipment, and most importantly, it won't be posted right at an unfortified border. It will be prepared, and fighting in terrain which is good for defence (Pripet Marshes).

Again, the stalemate, which I agree is a distinct possibility. Whether that or Brest-Litovsk is more probable depends on how good Soviet and German generalship gets. I only rail against the "once the first shot is fired, the Red Army is fated to reach Strasburg" Sovietwank. Without the help of the Western Allies, hordes of Ivan conscripts and the Ural industries were not that good to enforce that result.


What kind of blundering would that require, do you think?

Oh, the bill of massive rearmement coming to reckoning without Western Europe to plunder, plus keeping millions conscripted to occupy European Russia while you pursue genocidal schemes and any able-bodied Slav goes partisan.

And there we come back to the old point of how much of White Russia died in a few years of Nazi occupation. As noted, you don't have to cram people into gas chambers to kill them; starving them to death works just as well. In fact, they'll likely expends less resources by simply leaving the people to die than by feeding them and letting them live.

The most savage and wide insurgency in history ? How many troops Germany would need to contain that ? And what would that do to German economy, manpower, and morale ? And how long before the generals decide insane racial cleansing schemes are not worth the bones of good German soldiers and give Hitler a bullet ? It would be the Portuguese Revolution scenario in Berlin.

Certainly, I couldn't agree more. It's only the question of how plausible a successful anti-Nazi coup is.

Well, assuming that Walkurie was kinda sloppy since the German Resistance knew the Allies were implacable about grinding Germany into the dust, and it only served to cut the bloodshed, and it came very close to success nonetheless, I assume anti-Nazi conspirators could have been much more wholehearted and hence well-prepared and well-organized when theri success would ensure a sane leadership and the long-term success of the Fatherland.
 
In 1939 nobody suspected there would be an alliance between Hitler and Stalin. After all comunism and nazism were mortal enemies.

There were voices about that alliance being possible. Read the introduction of Łojek's "Agression of Sptember 17th 1939". I dont have the book here atm, so cant quite but if they just listened...

In 1920 Pilsudski said: the next generation is going to fight a war . And it's not going to be a war for for provinces, but a struggle for the very existence of the Polish state. There will be no single front but all borders will be fronts.

Few years later he asked a question: Who is more dangerous: Germany or the Soviets, and he answered himself: Although the probability of a german invasion is much bigger, Russia is the greater threat, because against the Germans Poland can count on some sort of western help, especially French: they saw Germany as a threat too; however against Russia Poland is entirely alone, the western powers will never wage a war against them.

how prophetic....

Plus, he was no anti-german nationalist, in WWI he was on the central powers side, with the Polish Legion fighting for Franz Joseph... Now if someone that brilliant ruled Poland all the way until 1939 things would change a lot. He was the one that understood that this is not a fight for the corridor but he should try and save the existence of this state.

Dont overestimate the Nazi ideology. the fact that they were anti-polish OTL doesnt mean much. Hitler was a lunatic and if there was a need to do so, Poles would become quite aryan, enough for an alliance. Hungarians were, and they arent even indo-european.

The best option for the Poles is one when Hitler defeats Stalin, has a huge Vietnam-like hell there and is later kicked by the western allies. However, almost anything other than a nuclear holocaust, evil and lunatic Nazi\Soviet occupation\complete victory is better for them than OTL.

What if Poles are on the Nazi side and give up Danzig and corridor to the Germans and chunks of Eastern Poland to the USSR as part of TTL Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and receive Lithuania, then Hitler invades and crushes France to be sure he will avoid a two- front war he was so much afraid? (and get him the occasion to get involved in a war against the US when Japs attack Pearl Harbor) Seems quite possible to me: Poles would be forced to do that, and Hitler also wanted some vengeance on the French. OTOH he could try take Russia first, but had he signed the treaty with Stalin he could assume they wont move.
 
Which might entirely happen if the Red Amry and the Wehrmacht are the same level of preparatedness. A possible, and likely, outcome of the scenario.

The problem is that then the scenario favours the Soviet Union. In Barbarossa, Germany threw pretty much everything it had at them; if that force was defeated, they would be in a very poor position when the Soviets retaliated. Any scenario where Hitler doesn't achieve a quick knock-out spells doom for the Germans (Soviet superiority in numbers was never less than 3:1 on the Eastern Front, and if one looks at the figures for tanks or artillery it's even worse), and the worse the initial attack fares, the shorter is the space they'll have to retreat, the time they will have to switch to full war production, and the greater are Stalin's own resources. Bear in mind that the USSR outproducing the Nazi Empire by such a margin had had it most productive areas (Ukraine, Western European Russia) occupied/destroyed by the Germans; the full economic might of those industrial centres should be more potent still.

The by far wisest thing for Germany would have been to ignore Roosevelt's provocations, no matter how severe. The amount of direct damage and help Germany's warring enemies that Roosevelt was able to deliver without a DoW was sharpely limited, no matter how much Roosevelt stretched Executive Privilege. The Congress would have never delivered such a DoW, either before or after Pearl Harbor, so Hitler's own DoW played into Roosevelt's hands.

Not really any argument there; at best, he gained a small temporary advantage by incurring HUUUGE long-term problems. Still, what I meant was, he at least had a reason. With the Soviets defeated, Germany could've just sat around and let the British ruin themselves with war debts.


Quite possible, which would fulfill the "they keep fighting till mutual exaustion" scenario. I'm just convinced that the military equation in a pure Russo-German fight is that mutual exaustion will not pave the way to total victory of either part.

But the military-industrial balance strongly favour Russia. Their industry is larger and they have ample access to supplies; even if Germany remains on friendly terms with the West, there's a limit to how much oil/chromite/whatever that they can buy with their dwindling resources.

OTOH, if Hitler is politically savy enough to ensure Polish satellization, he might just wise enough to pursue a Brest Litovsk negotiated settlement instead of the total conquest scenario.

Hitler, at least in his later stages, was a psycho-fanatic; that wouldn't change overnight. The best one could hope for would be if Doctor Morell was butterflied away, somehow. Still, his madness wasn't all drug-induced. (And then there are the theories that he had syphilis etc, but I've never seen any convincing evidence for those.)

The British and French public picking a fight with Germany while it makes them a favor by exausting themselves against Soviet Russia, and a double bigger favor by bleeding Soviet Russia white ? Remember, in this scenario Germany has done nothing to threaten Western democracies directly, all her expansionism was towards Central and Eastern Europe. Nothing of that is vital to the security of France or Britain. Until the invasion of Czechia, most of what Hitler did was acceptable to many Britons, he was "redressing the wrongs of Versailles". This kind of PoD might well require Germany giving up annexation of Czechia in favor of satellization like Poland. In such a scenario, few will be willing to pick a fight for the sake of an anti-fascist crusade.

That's changing the POD. But it still doesn't remove the problem completely. Regardless of how friendly they were (and the French, at least, never had any high opinion of Hitler's Germany), it just wouldn't be sane to leave your country entirely undefended against a Western great power. They would need a strategic reserve in the West, unless they were genuinely allied with France, at that seems to be more of a change than the POD allows for.

Again, the stalemate, which I agree is a distinct possibility. Whether that or Brest-Litovsk is more probable depends on how good Soviet and German generalship gets. I only rail against the "once the first shot is fired, the Red Army is fated to reach Strasburg" Sovietwank. Without the help of the Western Allies, hordes of Ivan conscripts and the Ural industries were not that good to enforce that result.

But everything depends on the initial German push being successful. No one, not even Hitler himself, believed that a war of attrition against the USSR could succeed, and this was IOTL when he controlled Europe. The factories were powerful indeed; have you read the Soviet military mobilisation plans? They called for the production of tens of thousands of aircraft in bare peacetime. (I'll be back with a quote later, if you like.) The Soviets were paranoid enough to consistently overestimate the threats posed against them, so they armed accordingly.

And the Soviets, too, can still trade with the West for radios and other important articles they can't manufacture enough of by themselves.

Oh, the bill of massive rearmement coming to reckoning without Western Europe to plunder, plus keeping millions conscripted to occupy European Russia while you pursue genocidal schemes and any able-bodied Slav goes partisan.

They can plunder European Russia instead, if they do win; it's a rich country, in raw resources at least. Will the military elites object to mass conscription? The military-industrial complex? Party factions? Perhaps they might, but only if and when popular pressure grows high enough, and that will take a while.

The most savage and wide insurgency in history ? How many troops Germany would need to contain that ? And what would that do to German economy, manpower, and morale ? And how long before the generals decide insane racial cleansing schemes are not worth the bones of good German soldiers and give Hitler a bullet ? It would be the Portuguese Revolution scenario in Berlin
.

Send out patrols to steal food from ignorant peasants? Take over the railroad so food can't be shipped to famine-afflicted areas? This is easy; the Bolsheviks did it already, they just stopped when it went too far. Unlike them, the SS won't.

Well, assuming that Walkurie was kinda sloppy since the German Resistance knew the Allies were implacable about grinding Germany into the dust, and it only served to cut the bloodshed, and it came very close to success nonetheless, I assume anti-Nazi conspirators could have been much more wholehearted and hence well-prepared and well-organized when theri success would ensure a sane leadership and the long-term success of the Fatherland.

It would be a few years at the very least after the Great Victory in the East before that happened; victory is always a good thing in public and military opinion. And how close did it come? It didn't have popular support, nor the support of the SS nor even more than a fraction of the non-Party civil/military leadership. Killing Hitler is one thing, orderly taking over the country another.
 
Top