What is the maximum territorial expansion Germany can achieve in Europe WITHOUT triggering WW2? (Assuming WW1 goes as OTL)

Speaking post 11 November 1918, Germany could theoretically get the following territories, although many of them would be ASB:

1. Latvia, via the Baltic Freikorps under von der Goltz, and later under Bermondt-Avalov. Under some kind of PoD, things could take a different turn with Latvia under a Baltic German or White Russian dictatorship, to the point of Germans who fought in Latvia receiving citizenship after the fact.
2. Estonia, as above, Estonia was never particularly at threat IOTL.
3. Lithuania, as above, Bermondt-Avalov had to fight his way out via Lithuania to escape Latvia after defeat.
4. Crimea, many White Russians and German officers were part of Wrangel's 75,000 strong forces in the area sometime around October 1920 by the direct involvement of Scheubner-Richter and his Aufbau organisation. The entirety of Ukraine is impossible, but Crimea itself might be possible, it'd be in defiance of the French, but it wouldn't cause a war and there's frankly nothing they could do if Crimea held out.
5. Galicia, Wilhelm von Habsburg, or Vasily Vyshivannyi, and his associates paid Scheubner-Richter and his Aufbau organisation in summer 1921 to create a Ukrainian state out of Galicia. Aufbau would pay for soldiers in Berlin, they'd go to Bavaria, armed and saddled, and would make their way in as forest wardens. It was too little too late for such a plot though, but if it were timed as part of the Polish-Soviet war and given some luck, it's theoretically possible, and a direct border between Germany and Galicia by Silesia means it could be kept an independent state.
6. Hungary, Karl von Habsburg wanted to retake his throne, and failed twice to do so. Success could effectively alienate it from its neighbours and France, and turn it to a German or Italian orbit earlier, assuming they don't get invaded. This matters not so much for getting Hungary directly, but rather to get both Hungary and Austria in a later Anschluss under a dual crown.
7. Eupen-Malmedy, bought from Belgium.
8. Rhineland, no not via marching troops in, but perhaps by using Polish Military Organisation tactics to carry out terrorist actions against the French in the region up until the Dawes Plan comes about. I don't see it getting the territory now, but it'd give France a bloody nose.

For the Nazis:

9. Saar, per OTL referendum.
10. Rhineland, per OTL military action.
11. Austria, per OTL invasion and referendum, although Hungary can also be digested in the same move, and all territory the Hungarians got IOTL post Anschluss would also be German.
12. The Corridor, this is purely my own speculation, but I suspect a 99 year lease of the former German territories is possible. Create a seperate governing body out of Danzig, the land leased to Poland for 99 years, and both Germany and Poland invest into the infrastructure in the area, with the territory demilitarised on both sides. Effectively a compleye political and economic victory for Poland and a capitulation for Germany, but it gives Germany the means to build up the corridor for an Eastern invasion and helps stave off economic collapse a little bit. Also include a non-aggression pact for 20 years. Finally, include Molotov-Ribbentrop style divisions of Czechoslovakia and Lithuania.
13. Sudetenland, per OTL terrorist action. Germany is now bound to respect the territorial integrity of Bohemia and Slovakia.
14. Memel, per OTL ultimatum.

For Poland:

15. Lithuania, invaded by Poland in a bloodless conflict, though it would be largely dependent on imports from Memel through Germany still anyway.
16. Slovakia, as above.
17. Bohemia, as above, although it is critical that Germany takes Bohemian Gold before Poland reaches it. These were all basically free territories for Poland.

Back to Germany:

18. Poland, with Poland effectively drawing the ire of the West with the above invasions, and stretched out to its North and South, Germany should now be free to digest the Poland it fed in one war, claiming all these states for itself, "restoring" their independence but really bringing them under their sphere permenantly. It'd give Germany their first real conflict. Edit: Remember that 99 year lease. Germany sure doesn't.

That's about it for land, a war can be conducted against the Soviets as part of intervention on the behalf of Finland should they decide to try, but I doubt Stalin would be willing to do so without Germany also being at war with "the West".

There are many allies the Germans could get besides OTL, Brazil has two generals who are sympathetic to the Nazi regime, Argentina could see a coup in 1936, Bolivia can be influenced by sending experts to the Busch regime in 1938, etc.
 
Last edited:
12. The Corridor, this is purely my own speculation, but I suspect a 99 year lease of the former German territories is possible. Create a seperate governing body out of Danzig, the land leased to Poland for 99 years, and both Germany and Poland invest into the infrastructure in the area, with the territory demilitarised on both sides. Effectively a compleye political and economic victory for Poland and a capitulation for Germany, but it gives Germany the means to build up the corridor for an Eastern invasion and helps stave off economic collapse a little bit. Also include a non-aggression pact for 20 years. Finally, include Molotov-Ribbentrop style divisions of Czechoslovakia and Lithuania.
For Poland:

15. Lithuania, invaded by Poland in a bloodless conflict, though it would be largely dependent on imports from Memel through Germany still anyway.
16. Slovakia, as above.
17. Bohemia, as above, although it is critical that Germany takes Bohemian Gold before Poland reaches it. These were all basically free territories for Poland.

Back to Germany:

18. Poland, with Poland effectively drawing the ire of the West with the above invasions, and stretched out to its North and South, Germany should now be free to digest the Poland it fed in one war, claiming all these states for itself, "restoring" their independence but really bringing them under their sphere permenantly. It'd give Germany their first real conflict. Edit: Remember that 99 year lease. Germany sure doesn't.

Poland did threaten Lithuania with the invasion in 1938, but that was simply because Lithuania had been refusing to establish any diplomatic relations with Poland and claimed to still be at war with Poland over the Vilnius Region (having been de facto under polish control ever since 1920). While Poland threatened Lithuania with the invasion in 1938, the end goal wasn't to invade Lithuania but to merely scare Lithuania into finally accepting the reality that whether Lithuania likes it or not, the Vilnius Region is owned by Poland. As for Slovakia, the idea of polish annexation of Slovakia came from Germany, not from Poland. Poland had been completely uninterested in Slovakia, it was a random idea thrown by Germany in 1939 as a possible recompensation for the loss of Danzig (after Poland refused to give it away).

Speaking of which... Poland accepting Hitler's demands, among which there was also the polish membership in the anti-comintern pact, could be another POD for this thread: a joint german-polish invasion of the Soviet Union.
 
Last edited:
If everything was followed, Poland would essentially be given a free hand for Lithuania, Slovakia, and Bohemia Moravia, the question isn't so much what they did IOTL as posturing but whether they'd actually be willing to earn the ire of the West and take those territories. Imo, probably not, not with both parts of Ukraine and Belarus under their control, but a PoD where the Soviets take Trotsky's advice and peace out before the Battle of Warsaw, and the loss of Galicia as a independent Habsburg state could change that.
 
Well, up until war was declared, Hitler seems to have gotten pretty much whatever he wanted. So, the only thing I could see would be reversing the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland. After Munich, if Hitler leaves the rump Czech state alone for the moment, he will not (yet) have violated any guarantees made to the UK and France about keeping the peace. If the Wehrmacht is them turned on Poland (along with the USSR as OTL), that might not trigger the "line in the sand" the same way that the post Munich annexation of remaining Czech territory did OTL. After all, it was a different country (Poland, not Czechoslovakia) the would have been attacked. Too, any Franco-British opposition (diplomatic or threatened military) would have to potentially contend with the Soviet Union as well as Germany, which would at the very least send the French and British back to doing their sums on what is worth risking war over. I have a feeling that, once the dust settles, the French and British say, "He didn't violate the Munich agreement, and he left the rest of Czechoslovakia alone. Poland is historically a lot of German territory, and we have to rethink everything before involving ourselves in any situation with the USSR. So, it sucks to be Poland but at least Hitler follows his agreements-as far as they go, anyway." Then, with Poland digested, Hitler takes the last of Czechoslovakia. At that point the, "OK, next time, it is war" ultimatum is decided upon.

Hitler than chokes on a celebratory knockwurst, so there is no next time. Goring is the new Fuhrer and spends his days in a daze, while "Wiemar Economy 2, Economic Collapse Boogaloo" plays out for the next decade or so.
 
If everything was followed, Poland would essentially be given a free hand for Lithuania, Slovakia, and Bohemia Moravia, the question isn't so much what they did IOTL as posturing but whether they'd actually be willing to earn the ire of the West and take those territories. Imo, probably not, not with both parts of Ukraine and Belarus under their control, but a PoD where the Soviets take Trotsky's advice and peace out before the Battle of Warsaw, and the loss of Galicia as a independent Habsburg state could change that.
"Posturing"? What does it even mean? That Poland was lustful for conquests and would have done them if she could? Poland expanded right after ww1 eastward where the borders hadn’t been established yet, but that was because these regions were the parts of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and were inhabited by the significant number of Poles (either by people who had been polonised). In case of baltic Lithuanians, Poland realised that they don’t want to be with Poland anymore and that in this case there’s no point in even trying. As for Slovakia, there were no historical connections between Poland and Slovakia whatsoever. There were some disputes between Poland and Czechoslovakia over the tiny border villages, but overall the Carpathian Mountains have been for centuries a natural southern border for Poland.

If anyone was posturing as peaceful, it was the Soviet Union. When on 15 March 1923 the western powers officially recognized the eastern borders of Poland and added the addnotation about it to the Treaty of Versailles, the Soviet Union staunchly objected and claimed that this case is between Poland and USSR alone. Or in other words: „If we invade Poland, it’s noone else’s business”. And despite Poland signed in 1932 the non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union, it didn’t stop the Soviets from exterminating the „soviet Poles” in the Polish Operation of NKVD 1937-1938. Anyway, in OTL Poland already didn’t care much about the opinion of the west. In 1925 France signed with Germany the Treaty of Locarno which could be summarized as „Hey Germany, you may expand upon Poland and Czechoslovakia, just leave France alone and we’re cool”. And in 1933 Piłsudski proposed to France the franco-polish preemptive strike against Germany to overthrow Hitler when there was still a chance - and France refused. Seeing that the French stopped caring about aiding the Poles, Piłsudski signed the non-aggression pact with Germany in 1934. France was outraged and accused the Poles of not willing to fight Germany (as if Locarno and french refusal from 1933 never happened…), but Poland didn’t care. The british writer Bernard Newman wrote that „Poland breaks the shackles of France”, meaning that Poland pursues her own foreign policy. Shortly said, Poland already didn’t care about the opinion of the west.

In 1935 France signed the anti-german Treaty of Mutual Assistance with the Soviet Union. If anything, that’s the thing with which the III Reich could convince Poland into an alliance, not any „Poland’s territorial desires”: „Look Poland, France wants to cooperate with the Soviet Union who doesn’t even border me. The French are gonna sell you to Stalin, they already act as if you didn’t exist”.
 
Last edited:
"Posturing"? What does it even mean?
17 March 1938, Poland gave Lithuania a 48 hour ultimatum to recognize Polish conquests and establish diplomatic LOC with Poland. It moved 4 divisions to the border. I describe this as posturing. I don't know enough about Poland to determine whether they'd actually go through with the threat if Lithuania didn't acquiesce with the demands; I can't extrapolate Polish actions IOTL confidently to say they'd invade the indicated territories given a free hand. That is all.
 
My take is they could have gotten Danzig and possibly even the Polish corridor or at least part of it AND their former African colonies. Anything after that (except for minor areas such as Eupen-Malmedy or in the Danish border) and it's war.
 
My take is they could have gotten Danzig and possibly even the Polish corridor or at least part of it AND their former African colonies. Anything after that (except for minor areas such as Eupen-Malmedy or in the Danish border) and it's war.
I recall off the top of my head that... Britain...? offered to give Germany it's colonial possessions back as part of a League Mandate if they are willing to undergo some kind of disarmament, but it was rejected because it's basically deadweight territory. Edit: This would have been around 1938.
 
I recall off the top of my head that... Britain...? offered to give Germany it's colonial possessions back as part of a League Mandate if they are willing to undergo some kind of disarmament, but it was rejected because it's basically deadweight territory. Edit: This would have been around 1938.
It was feasible then - they just had to commit to "disarmament" and then lie their way out of it or rearm later.
 
If Hitler's able to bait stalin into sparking off WWII instead, the germans can get their goals in the east _without_ sparking a war. IDK if this technically counts since it'd be just them advantage of the soviets' starting a war and being able to be on the *allied side.
 
Belgium was willing to Sell there German part back to Reich in 1920s
For bargain prise of 25 million Goldmark
France Interviene here.
 
German territorial expansion under Albert Notler, leader of the Notzis:

1935: Germany reincorporates the Saarland.
1937: Germany is able to buy Eupen-Malmedy from Belgium.
1938: Incorporation of Austria into the Reich
1938: Munich agreement; Germany acquires the Sudetenland
1940: Germany uses the threat of war to regain Memel from Lithuania.
1949: Despite an economic crisis caused by conventional rearmament in the 1930ies, Germany is able to detonate its first experimental nuclear device.
1950: Germany pulls of the "Putin ploy" of using nuclear deterrence as a cover for a war of territorial aggrandizement: Germany invades Poland. Poland falls in a matter of weeks. The UK and France are to timid to declare war on Germany, especially as it takes them a few more years to develop workable nukes. Germany establishes the Reich Provinces of West Prussia and Wartheland. Deportation of the Polish population to the Polish rump state. Soviet conquest of eastern Poland and the Baltic countries in the same year.
1953: Resettlement of the South Tyroleans to Germany after an agreement between Notler and Mussolini.
1954: German invasion of Denmark. Pre-WWI German-Danish border is restored in the peace treaty.
1955: German annexation of Liechtenstein.
1961-1964: Disintegration of Yugoslavia. In 1964 Germany takes Slovene border territory such as Lower Styria (Untersteiermark).
1969: Albert Notler dies a natural death. The re-democratization of Germany follows.
 
Annexing the rest of Czechoslovakia after Munich only makes sense if you're planning to go to war with the Allies. Czechoslovakia had already been reduced to subservient status, economically and politically, and (contrary to popular belief) the Skoda production lines for the Panzer 38(t) had already been obtained through Munich. A more deft German dictator might have been able to get a limited war with Poland after some sort of Munich, but that was not Adolf Hitler. Furthermore, few people would have been as prepared to risk war in 1938 as Hitler. He got away with it by some incredible bluffing which a more sane head of state would have struggled to replicate.
 
Iirc they annexed it partly because of the economic situation of Germany in early 1939 both politically and to economically to secure the gold reserves, and partly to reorganise the Czech industry such as Skoda under Reichswerke Hermann Goring. There were also blast furnaces of Witkowitz and the armaments of Poldihutte Kladno, and probably other things that wouldn't exactly be negligible in a war against the Soviets.
 
Iirc they annexed it partly because of the economic situation of Germany in early 1939 both politically and to economically to secure the gold reserves, and partly to reorganise the Czech industry such as Skoda under Reichswerke Hermann Goring. There were also blast furnaces of Witkowitz and the armaments of Poldihutte Kladno, and probably other things that wouldn't exactly be negligible in a war against the Soviets.
The Czechoslovak rump state was economically and politically subservient to Germany after Munich, because they no longer had the means to say no. Unless planning for a general war like Hitler was, annexation is counterproductive.
 
Whether it was subservient or not, my point is it had utility in annexing it from the perspective of reorganising the economy under Reichswerke Hermann Goring and for the sake of keeping the economy afloat a few more months, to the end of an Eastern attack at a later date, so the claim that it only serves for a Western attack is false.
 
Whether it was subservient or not, my point is it had utility in annexing it from the perspective of reorganising the economy under Reichswerke Hermann Goring and for the sake of keeping the economy afloat a few more months, to the end of an Eastern attack at a later date, so the claim that it only serves for a Western attack is false.
The Nazi economy was only as bad as it was because Hitler was going for broke in pursuit of war, although the claims of imminent collapse are vastly overstated. We are talking about alternative scenarios for German expansion without a general war, and that's pretty much only if you take Hitler out of the equation. Unless, like Hitler, the German head of state is planning for a massive war, annexing the rump Czechoslovak state is counterproductive.
 
He was in persuit of war is true, though I disagree it would be in persuit of a war with the West, or specifically that annexation of Bohemia Moravia only made sense in persuit of war with the West. As for the economy, the economy absolutely experienced a downturn on the Ruhr, I believe in terms of coal extraction, in the first quarter of 1939. Whether it would lead to collapse, would it lead to collapse, probably not, but Hitler was working without the benefit of hindsight, he annexed the rump, took the gold, reorganised the industries, and it seems to have bought him time. As for Hitler himself, it's possible that Scheubner-Richter living after the Munich Putsch could push Hitler to more grand strategy, or perhaps some other POD can do it, you don't necessarily need to remove him.
 
Top