WI: After seizing the rest of Czechoslovakia, Hitler focuses on continued buildup until the fall of 1940 instead of attacking Poland in '39?

So in this POD, he decides instead of pushing for the Polish corridor in 1939, he wants to take some time to ingest his new gains but with the economic situation, he can't push indefinitely, so pushes the war against Poland to fall of 1940. For sake of simplicity, same start date just a year later, Sept 1st, 1940.

Since the UK and France were already beginning their slow rearmament at this point, does the extra time hurt or help Germany?

On one hand, I see the benefit to getting more of the Wehrmacht mechanized as well as stockpiling of more imports from the Soviets but on the other, you now have stronger allied militaries? The one upside for Germany on the naval front is they could slip through their surface fleet prior to war, as the Bismarck was finally completed just a week prior to this proposed date (Aug 24, 1940 OTL), how would that impact the naval war on merchant ships with a stronger surface raiding fleet and more U-boats available (they only had 65 at start of war OTL in '39)?

How would countries like Poland and Finland use this additional time, would they be able to make any difference against the Germans and Soviets respectively?

EDIT: Forgot to mention, Chamberlain would die of cancer in November of 1940, so it's possible he has already stepped down and you now have a new PM, maybe Halifax? How would that change things?
 
Allies get proportionally way better compared to the Germans because they are now outpacing them in rearmament. Navies-wise, the Germans may have Biz now, but the British have 2 KGV's (PoW doesn't get bombed) and several Illustrious class, plus they have another year to pump out escorts. The Germans knew these things and went to war when they thought they could still win before the Allies got far enough into rearmament.
 
Allies get proportionally way better compared to the Germans because they are now outpacing them in rearmament. Navies-wise, the Germans may have Biz now, but the British have 2 KGV's (PoW doesn't get bombed) and several Illustrious class, plus they have another year to pump out escorts. The Germans knew these things and went to war when they thought they could still win before the Allies got far enough into rearmament.
How does the probable lack of FDR impact war once it does start? In OTL, it was really the war that made him decide to push for a 3rd term, would his successor act more quickly? I know Wilkie supported lend-lease and was more of an internationalist, but he was also a democrat before switching sides. With no FDR does he still run as a Republican?

Of course, if Hitler has a different outcome with the west than OTL, meaning a more draw out fight in France it most likely butterflies the invasion of USSR. How long would the Soviets stick with their deal and funnel supplies to Germany?
 
How does the probable lack of FDR impact war once it does start? In OTL, it was really the war that made him decide to push for a 3rd term, would his successor act more quickly? I know Wilkie supported lend-lease and was more of an internationalist, but he was also a democrat before switching sides. With no FDR does he still run as a Republican?

Of course, if Hitler has a different outcome with the west than OTL, meaning a more draw out fight in France it most likely butterflies the invasion of USSR. How long would the Soviets stick with their deal and funnel supplies to Germany?
The Germans have a pretty good chance of not beating the British and French with another year of rearmament, it won't really matter what FDR does, plus the American orders will be delivered to the neutral (until September 1940) British and French.
 
I think the most important consequences of the POD will be wether it tips the balance in France (I think not) and what it means for US policies.
I have no idea, except that FDR was very pro Allies
 
Poland itself sees a net increase in overall fighting power. France and the UK don't see a year of wartime from 1939 to 1940 so don't necessarily have as much manpower in military industries, but at the same time mobilizing people for the armed forces disrupted rearmament itself so from an industrial perspective France and the UK wouldn't necessarily be weaker by May 1940 than their OTL counterparts (outside of conscript training itself).

However, the war starts in September and Germany won't necessarily attack the Western Allies immediately, so in reality France and the UK would still enjoy several months of wartime status without being invaded. Therefore they are strengthened by the ITTL production between September 1939 and May 1940 PLUS whatever extra production alt-September 1940 to whenever France is invaded adds over the OTL expected production in that period.

This and the stronger Poland means that the Allies are more likely than not to be proportionally stronger than Germany in this war.
 
Allies get proportionally way better compared to the Germans because they are now outpacing them in rearmament.
Yep. The only problem in this case would be where will Nazi Germany attack.
Navies-wise, the Germans may have Biz now, but the British have 2 KGV's (PoW doesn't get bombed) and several Illustrious class, plus they have another year to pump out escorts. The Germans knew these things and went to war when they thought they could still win before the Allies got far enough into rearmament.
I think that this would be enough for halting the Western Front a la WW1.
 
It was not in Hitler's nature to wait. He could 'feel' his enemies pressing around him at all time, and only knew one response. Attack! He knows he needs to strike while the iron is hot and before the Western Allies get their feet under them, both politically and militarily. Unlike his enemies, Hitler could just unilaterally announce an invasion and it would happen. At this stage, that initiative was beyond price and he knew it. Holding place for a year was not in the cards and would only have hurt his odds for European domination.



'‘He is not yet sure,’ said Gandalf, ‘and he has not built up his power by waiting until his enemies are secure, as we have done.'
 
Could he have launched the war with an attack on France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, and worked on the basis that the Poles wouldn't come to the aid of France? Compared to OTL, the BEF wouldn't really be a factor, and the French might not be able to fully moblise their reserve forces, even if they have a few days notice that 'something' is happening?

Addtionally, compared to OTL, the French and British will only be a few months ahead on rearmament, and a peacetime mentality would still exist.

If France falls, similar to OTL, Poland can then be dealt with in due course, be it invasion, or a diplomatic demand for a return to 1914 borders.
 
Apart from the UK and France, the smaller countries (Belgium, Netherlands and Norway) also get more time to rearm. And Poland itself of course.
 
This delays the 2 Ocean Navy Act, which could have significant repercussions. Then again, Japan probably won't occupy FIC if France hasn't fallen, either, so perhaps there is no US embargo.
 
If the Winter War happened a year later, Finland would necessarily be materially better off than in late 1939. The Finnish government was on a crash weapon buying spree already before the fall of 1939, and it really started paying off only during mid-1940. There would be more fighters, more artillery, more ammunition, etc. The Finns would also have more trained soldiers, and would not need to fight practically without reserves like they did IOTL. Not losing the Karelian Isthmus and having to resettle the evacuees would mean that Finland would be economically better off in late 1940, too, and together with less disrupted foreign trade this would mean that Finland enters 1941 with a significantly better supply situation all around than IOTL.
 
Poland itself sees a net increase in overall fighting power. France and the UK don't see a year of wartime from 1939 to 1940 so don't necessarily have as much manpower in military industries, but at the same time mobilizing people for the armed forces disrupted rearmament itself so from an industrial perspective France and the UK wouldn't necessarily be weaker by May 1940 than their OTL counterparts (outside of conscript training itself).

However, the war starts in September and Germany won't necessarily attack the Western Allies immediately, so in reality France and the UK would still enjoy several months of wartime status without being invaded. Therefore they are strengthened by the ITTL production between September 1939 and May 1940 PLUS whatever extra production alt-September 1940 to whenever France is invaded adds over the OTL expected production in that period.

This and the stronger Poland means that the Allies are more likely than not to be proportionally stronger than Germany in this war.
So a tougher time against Poland but with same Soviet deal in place Poland still loses. Guess the question is does France take the same actions as otl before the BEF can deploy?
 
If the Winter War happened a year later, Finland would necessarily be materially better off than in late 1939. The Finnish government was on a crash weapon buying spree already before the fall of 1939, and it really started paying off only during mid-1940. There would be more fighters, more artillery, more ammunition, etc. The Finns would also have more trained soldiers, and would not need to fight practically without reserves like they did IOTL. Not losing the Karelian Isthmus and having to resettle the evacuees would mean that Finland would be economically better off in late 1940, too, and together with less disrupted foreign trade this would mean that Finland enters 1941 with a significantly better supply situation all around than IOTL.
Yeah, I wonder if they actually hold out in this scenario until help from west comes like was discussed otl before they lost? That could end up with the west against Soviets, maybe a 3 way war.
 
Allies get proportionally way better compared to the Germans because they are now outpacing them in rearmament. Navies-wise, the Germans may have Biz now, but the British have 2 KGV's (PoW doesn't get bombed) and several Illustrious class, plus they have another year to pump out escorts. The Germans knew these things and went to war when they thought they could still win before the Allies got far enough into rearmament.
Its actually worse on the naval front since Duke of York at the very least gets finished considerably earlier as well and probably Howe and Anson as well and Richelieu will be done and Jean Bart will be mostly finished. Oh and the UK has the first pair of Lions well under construction(with the second pair probably laid down)and the Implacables are as well. And that's basically paid for in terms of yard workers due to the need to do repairs on damaged ships not being there. And the Crown Colonies and Didos are well underway as are the various destroyer and escort designs.
 
Last edited:
I imagine if the US embargoes Japan, Pearl Harbor or an ATL equivalent happens regardless of Europe, because Japan would LITERALLY commit national suicide before giving up China.
Embargo didn’t happen until Japan went into indo China, therefore there would be no embargo until 41 or 42 in this TL.
 
I'm aware. But that assumes the only possible trigger for the embargo was Indochina, and I see no reason to assume that.
Considering China was invaded in 37 by Japan and went almost 4 years before getting sanctions only after indo China, I think it is a fairly safe assumption that there is no embargo without Japan going after some western nations colonies.
 
Top