What year 'should' Germany start WWII to have the least unfavorable odds?

What year is least worst start for Germany?

  • 1936

    Votes: 6 7.0%
  • 1937

    Votes: 1 1.2%
  • 1938

    Votes: 11 12.8%
  • 1939

    Votes: 51 59.3%
  • 1940

    Votes: 7 8.1%
  • 1941

    Votes: 5 5.8%
  • 1942

    Votes: 5 5.8%

  • Total voters
    86
If the war started in 1938 Germans would not invade France after defeating Czechoslovakia. They'll invade Poland first. Poland would not remain neutral when France joined war.
 
If the war started in 1938 Germans would not invade France after defeating Czechoslovakia. They'll invade Poland first. Poland would not remain neutral when France joined war.

Yes, they would, once the poles see France's pitiful military performance Edward Rydz will drop his planed alliance with the west faster than you would drop a hot potato.

Edward had no intention of sacrificing poland to buy France mobilinzing time. And only agreed to the OTL alliance because the French lied to him and told him they would launch an all-out attack on the Rheinland before Poland fell in order to draw off German forces. With the french revealing their military incompetence in 1938 instead of in 1939 the poles almost definitely stay neutral.
 
Just some points about the diplomatic situation of Czechslovakia in 1938 that havent been mentioned yet:
1. Poland wanted Teschen. Poland is more likely to be hostile than to be friendly to Prague
2. Hungary too had claims on Czechslovakia.
 
Yes, they would, once the poles see France's pitiful military performance Edward Rydz will drop his planed alliance with the west faster than you would drop a hot potato.

Edward had no intention of sacrificing poland to buy France mobilinzing time. And only agreed to the OTL alliance because the French lied to him and told him they would launch an all-out attack on the Rheinland before Poland fell in order to draw off German forces. With the french revealing their military incompetence in 1938 instead of in 1939 the poles almost definitely stay neutral.
Poland would start mobilization right after German invasion of Czechoslovakia. Germans would need to invade Poland before they'll invade France. Poles IOTL believed, that Germans have no chance against France and UK, and before they'll proved to be wrong Polish-German war would start already.
 
Poland would start mobilization right after German invasion of Czechoslovakia. Germans would need to invade Poland before they'll invade France. Poles IOTL believed, that Germans have no chance against France and UK, and before they'll proved to be wrong Polish-German war would start already.

Agreed, assuming Germany doesn't try to invade Poland soon after Poland starts mobilizing to slow down the mobilization. Germany would see the mobilization and come to the conclusion it is about to get jumped. I would expect at least air raids to slow that down.
 
Agreed, assuming Germany doesn't try to invade Poland soon after Poland starts mobilizing to slow down the mobilization. Germany would see the mobilization and come to the conclusion it is about to get jumped. I would expect at least air raids to slow that down.
It is obvious, that Germany can't ignore mobilized Poland. So there is need to neutralise Poland: either invade or make a deal. Problem is Poland would not agree for a deal before France is defeated and Germans would not invade France before Poland is neutralized.
 
It is obvious, that Germany can't ignore mobilized Poland. So there is need to neutralise Poland: either invade or make a deal. Problem is Poland would not agree for a deal before France is defeated and Germans would not invade France before Poland is neutralized.

They certainly can't "write off the threat". If Poland mobilizes they have to do something to counter it.
 
You started your interaction with this thread by stating that the Anglo-French alliance and the Soviets would be quickly destroyed. You doubled down on the statement when you were pressed on it. You didn’t state that the Germans would win in a drawn out fight, you didn’t state the Wehrmacht was superior to Allied forces, you didn’t state that Czech fortifications were flimsy, you stated that the French, English, and Soviets would be rapidly destroyed. You are misreading what you’ve written if you think that I misread it.

Because you did misread it. To recap:

This is a blatant lie. You started your contributions to the thread by saying that the WAllies and the Soviets could be rapidly destroyed.

You made the assertion I lied in response to me saying in this post that I never claimed anywhere that Obsessed was the definitive source on WWII; you're quite obviously comparing two unlike things in a very nonsensical manner. To make your allegation have in basis in reality you need to cite where I:

1) Stated Obsessed is a definitive expert on WWII

Or

2) Where I backed off my claim that Germany would have an easier going of it in 1938.

Since neither of these were done in this thread, I think I need to reiterate my original advice: Reread what was posted.

It did no such thing, all it did was state that the French army was poorly equipped and that the Germans would be able to have the same effect with their tanks and a much smaller Luftwaffe that it did over a year later.

...ergo exactly as I said. Conceding the French Army is inferior in every possible way to the German Army in 1938 while also admitting that the Wehrmacht had relatively the same capabilities is admitting the argument I'm proposing is exactly correct

The idea that the Germans have an overwhelming advantage in 1938 is ridiculous. They still have to deal with the Maginot, which would nullify many advantages, or pull off another miracle in the Low Countries (Eban Emael specifically) with a smaller army. And that’s ignoring the Czechs. At the very least, they’ll be a big distraction that give the French and British time to mobilize and at the most 800,000 men will be too much for the Germans, no matter how fancy their tank maneuvers are. Or are we just going to ignore the Czechs now?

The citations from multiple books were provided and you've already conceded that in the above point that the Germans have an overwhelming advantage. The Maginot is meaningless because we all know how well that worked in 1940 IOTL and there is absolutely no reason to assume it will work any better in 1939. The Czechs will be rapidly crushed as both their own General Staff and the testing of the Germans showed, with the latter aided by the fact that half the nation is either ethnic Germans or Slovaks. Finally, the Anglo-French began mobilization after Munich anyway.
 
So the French forces would have received 'vital elements' after mobilization in 1938 and would have limited time to exercise with them by 1939 when the Germans could try to invade the West-minus their casualties in defeating the Czechoslovakians and minus the copious amount of equipment they captured when they seized the Czechoslovakian arms and arms factories in early 1939 which outfitted about 1/3 of their 1939 army!

This ignores that:

1) It took a year of mobilization and then several months of training to get that equipment on hand and it was still severely lacking even in 1939/1940. A German invasion in the Spring of 1939 mean that neither of these can be rectified, just as they weren't even into 1940.
2) Why are you making the assumption the Germans don't defeat the Czechs first and then turn West? We saw the Germans do exactly this in September of 1939 IOTL with the Poles.

Plus according to Shirer, the Czechoslovakian and French armies outnumbered the Heer by 2 to 1 in September 1938. The Czechs alone fielded over 800k troops and the French mobilized 600k troops on 28 September 1938. Where is the 'overwhelming' German favor when they had less than 1M troops-maybe 850k? Even if Shirer was off in his 2 to 1 estimate, there is no way the Heer outnumbered the 1.5M+ forces that would have been arrayed against them in the Fall of 1938. These are 'simple statistics'.

We were talking about the French Army in comparison to the Heer, as I cited and have now repeatedly stated.

EDIT: Plus kiss bye-bye to any German trade with the Soviets in this scenario - assuming the Soviets aren't an active enemy of Germany.

Which largely wasn't in play at this time anyway.
 

nbcman

Donor
This ignores that:

1) It took a year of mobilization and then several months of training to get that equipment on hand and it was still severely lacking even in 1939/1940. A German invasion in the Spring of 1939 mean that neither of these can be rectified, just as they weren't even into 1940.
2) Why are you making the assumption the Germans don't defeat the Czechs first and then turn West? We saw the Germans do exactly this in September of 1939 IOTL with the Poles.
1) Even if it takes several months of training and a year of mobilization, it means that the French Army may be no better in ATL 1939 than they were in IOTL 1940. However, I notice that you didn't respond to the fact that the Germans will be significantly weaker due to their losses beating the Czechs and losing the Czech arms. So it will be a somewhat weaker France against a dramatically weaker Germany. At least the French and their Allies have a better chance in 1939.
2) I never made that claim or assumption. German war plans assumed that they would attack and defeat the Czechs first. My claim was that the Germans were facing superior numbers in September 1938 and that the Germans didn't have 'overwhelming favor' . Please don't throw out strawmen.
We were talking about the French Army in comparison to the Heer, as I cited and have now repeatedly stated.
That is an unfair comparison since the French won't fight the Germans alone. There will be other forces involved such as the Commonwealth countries. And the Germany army will be most likely weaker than OTL due to the Czech war. So your claim of 'overwhelming favor' in this ATL 1938 - 1939 is pretty weak.
Which largely wasn't in play at this time anyway.
IOTL there wasn't much trade between Germany and the Soviets in 1938. But Germany was able to import a huge amount of goods from the Soviets especially in 1940 when they were fighting the French in the West. Without the improved relations between the two countries that were caused in part by the Soviets reaction to the Munich Agreement, there wouldn't be any trade improvement and the German blockade would be tighter.
For example, German Soviet trade in 1938 IOTL was 47.4 million RM and 1939 was 52.8 million RM and 1940 was hundred of millions RMs. As the Soviets were anti-Nazi in September 1938, trade would slow further or be cut off. So the Germans would not be getting the 1000+ million RM of Soviet trade in this scenario. How are the Germans going to defeat the French when they are losing all of the oil, foods, and other materials that they traded with the Soviets?
 
2) Why are you making the assumption the Germans don't defeat the Czechs first and then turn West? We saw the Germans do exactly this in September of 1939 IOTL with the Poles.
If the Germans are attacking in 1938 they're doing it with mainly Pz. I & II plus approx. 60 Pz. III & 70 Pz. IV - by 1939/40 these numbers have increased by approx. a further 500 of each (source Wikipedia but the numbers should be in the right ballpark).
Also if they are attacking the Czechs first a lot of the Czech tanks & factories are going to be damaged or destroyed reducing the numbers available for German service.
 
Top