What if there was no WW2 over Poland?

King Thomas

Banned
What if Britian and France let Hitler take Poland, whilst putting their own armed forces on alert? Does Hitler attack the West anyway, or does he go east and become embroiled in Russia? If the latter, who would win, Germany or the USSR? Or would both sides just exhaust themselves and be unable to threaten the West?
 
Well, if we know Neville Chamberlain, he's not even going to increase army spending. Sorry, but no war means a minimal increase in army funding at best. Edouard Daldaier, knows that NC is a wimp and that France would be hard pressed to go it alone. The Poles, however, are no Czechs--and they would probably fight alone.

NC is fired, and Edouard Daldaier might be as well. Public opinion was heavily in favor of supporting the Poles. Winston Churchill would lead the Charge against Chamberlain, backed up by Anthony Eden. In France, the Political Right has already begun cozying up to Hitler, so Daldalier (Sp??) might survive. (French Names are hard to spell)

New UK PM: Winston Churchill, who resolves that one more mistake and Germany is toast. Churchill's not leading a war government though, so while he heavily increases army spending, he can not do more than put the nation on high alert.

Germany had not expected a war from the UK. But the lack of War from the UK and France suggested that the time had come. Delaying until April 1940, Germany launches Barbarossa A year and Two Months early, this time with the Bulk of the Italian Army, Volunteers from Spain, and Japan all entering in the fray. Once again, a bluff is called, and the UK has to fold. While the UK would have been ready for the Netherlands or Denmark, relations with the Soviet Union were frosty.

Still, the Soviet Union is a hard nation to crack. Russia is only as strong as the hearts of its people, but when those people are being abused and tortured in German hands, the war takes on a whole new meaning. In the Initial phases, many Soviets Surrendered (except to the Japanese), hoping that Hitler would liberate them. But after a few months of abuses, the "Soviet War of Survival" had become a matter of survival for the Slavic peoples, not just their boogeyman state.

And it is this cruelty that eventually stops the Germans. Germany can take Kiev, Smolensk, Leningrad, Moscow, Gorky, Stalingrad, Baku, Kubeychev and Sverdlovsk. But the Soviet People would never end their resistance--Not to the likes of Koch and Hube. German Occupation from 1942 onwards could be described as "Vietnam, writ large". The UK and France, resolved to keep Germany fighting, covertly supplied the Soviets with huge amounts of war material through Persia and Archangel.

Who knows how long it takes for the Germans to tire of a never ending guerrilla conflict that kills hundreds of their own each week? Stalin's Government might be gone, but the Slavic peoples continue to fight for their own survival, and the UK and France support them.

Finally, Hitler dies of a drug overdose, and his more rational successors withdraw first to the Volga, and later to the Moscow line. There is no peace, and the Axis Powers waste twenty years and tens of millions of soldiers for Living Space that can never be used--it can never be pacified. As for the Slavic Peoples of Russia, theirs is a grim fate--a life of terror and suffering. But because the Germans continue extreme measures, such as killing 100 people for each German killed, the resistance grows.
 
Blue Max, why would Britain and France in the situation you describe need to COVERTLY supply the Soviets ? Germany is going to know, either way, and if they are direct about it then Hitler faces the choice of letting them get on with it (like pre-Pearl Harbour Japan had to regarding US aid to China) or declaring war on Britain and France, which I would not necessarily put past him!

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Resistances are overrated.

BIG time.

At no point in actual history was even the Soviet resistance, by far the largest during the war, crucial in disrupting the German war effort. In France, it was at most an inconvenience in some inadequately policed areas. The only place it was anywhere near effective was Yugoslavia, and then only from a combination of very difficult terrain, divided enemy leadership, and minimal enemy resources (a single police brigade had to cover the area of Switzerland at some points).

In the USSR proper, collaboration or passive acceptance was (as in all other occupied nations) the norm. What partisans there were enjoyed strong support from the regular Soviet army. Without a Russian state, they won't even have that.

If the Germans are real nasty, they'll just cut off the food supply to the most difficult areas. After a few months, the surviving inhabitants would be happy to hand over any remaining partisans. Stalin did the same thing, and it worked.

Of course, this isn't any way to produce a useful region, with assets and workforce destroyed. They'll just make it a desert and call it peace. But hey, Himmler and the other SS lunatics wanted to exterminate the Slavs anyway...
 
Top