WI: France and Britain invade Germany in 1933

And then the Red Army moves, storming across the Polish frontier. The Poles fight with great skill and bravery but they are horribly outnumbered and outgunned. German paramilitary forces, built off Communist and Social Democratic party organizations, attack on their western border forcing the Poles to fight on two fronts. The British and French are unable to send any significant aid as any ground forces traversing Germany will be subject to constant attack. Naval support is also unavailable as the Scandinavian countries, who have been welcoming German refugees and backed by the United States, make it quite clear that Allied military forces are not welcome in their territorial waters.

The Red Army of 1934 wasn't the unstoppable juggernaut of 1944, they're likely to face significant problems in overcoming Poland, and that's before they make contact with the larger and better equipped Anglo-French forces. There's no atrocity bad enough that is going to cause the Americans and Scandinavians to tacitly side with the Soviets as they invade Europe.
 
The German people, rightly enraged at the repeated and unwarranted atrocities inflicted on them by the British and French, turn to the one great power in Europe that can help, the Soviet Union..
.

And at point Germany are invaded again, while Soviet Union looks the other way in pretended innocence. They could have treated Germany like useful tool to complicate capitalists' lives but they have too many own troubles to risk invading the united west to help Germany that lacking army is a war ally of very limited value.

The idea that party thugs can do anything more than dying machine-gun mowed by Polish border guard and that multi million men army can be stopped or seriously delayed by partisans with hunting rifles and molotov cocktails - if that - is wildly optimistic from German POV.

But communist-socialist coalition gaining power in Germany and looking for alliance with Soviet Union (especially if the latter is misruled by Trotski rather than Stalin) would be much better reason for intervention than early Hitler and Allies looking for some sort of short victorious war for reasons.
 
why would the extremely cautious Stalin storm across the border ITTL? Here, the Anglo-French occupation of Germany has degenerated into a brutal quagmire and the KPD/Rotfront is only becoming more and more popular as a result. Also, a major anti-communist enemy - the Nazi regime - has been destroyed by the Entente, who are now stuck trying to hold down all of Germany. All at no cost to the Soviets.

The Soviets would be sitting back and laughing (while smuggling guns to the KPD and French Communists), not launching reckless military invasions.
 
Last edited:
We are getting absolutely nowhere here, because whenever it is pointed out the utter lack of realism in positing the UK and France having the will to keep Germany down forever regardless of the rivalries between the UK and France themselves, the fear that the overthrow of Hitler could lead to a Bolshevik Germany, resistance to even the minimum number of casualties that could plausibly be required, internal political problems in France and the UK, economic as well as moral costs, etc. the reply is "but I'm assuming there is such a will and that it is maintained indefinitely." "But that's a totally unrealistic assumption!" "Yes, but I insist we make it." Etc. I don't find this a terribly useful exercise.
 

Perkeo

Banned
Keep in mind the Post-WW2 economic miracle was spurred by American aid. Without Washingston intervening in this, Germany has a much harder time trying to rebuild.
Compare the amount of help to the effect that it had - btw not just in Germany. The secret wasn't the transfer of money, it was the transfer of the idea of economic liberalism.

That can be easily solved by doing a few things
  1. Impose a new treaty each time with more reparations and more territorial concessions. For 1933, maybe some 100 billion marks and the Saar + Danzig going to France and Poland respectively (permanent annexation). Plus perhaps a completely demilitarized Germany for good measure.
  2. Threat of economic sanctions and blockading may do the trick is Post-1933 Germany decides to act up again. While not an action that will garner support from the LON, starving the Germans into submission may cause Berlin to relent.
  3. If not that, resorting to pre-emptive strikes via bombing German cities (either with incendiary bombs or gas) may send a message. Will cost thousands of dead and lots of ruins, but the fear generated could be enough to scare the Germans into obedience.
One single bombing raid in WWII, without gas but against a city that did have bomb shelters and AA batteries, resulted in not just thousands, but tens of thousands of casualties. And you still have to repeat the cycle I described before, since atrocities do not tend to cause long term loyalty.

In other words, if France and Britain really go through with this, they don't prevent the Nazis but are the Nazis ITTL. And that was not an option to them after either world war IOTL.

And if all else fails, a second invasion and super-harsh 3rd Treaty. Keep in mind, THIS THREAD ASSUMES THE FRENCH AND BRITISH WILL DO ANYTHING NECESSARY.
Speaking of necessary, why is destroying Gemany more necessary than e.g. France's destruction was necessary after Napoleon. The world handled Germany's existence quite well before 1914 and after 1945 (or 1990, if you wish).

It's the most basic lession of military strategy: You must know what you want and what price you are willing to pay for it. And in most cases this doesn't include a complete destruction of the enemy.
 
Last edited:

Cook

Banned
It will not. It will only make sure it is the USSR, not Germany, which starts *WW2.

What rubbish. Stalin was acutely aware of how much weaker the Soviet Union was relative to the Imperialist powers, and how essential a prolonged period of peace was if they were to achieve Socialism in One State; the buildup of the Red Army was to defend against attacks from the West, it wasn't to launch a war of aggression. In addition, with Maxim Litvinov as foreign minister, the Soviet Union was, of all the major powers, the strongest supporters of the International Order and the League of Nations. It was only after the prolonged British and French refusal to stand up to Italian, German and Japanese aggression made it clear that the International Order was doomed anyway that Stalin abandoned the International order and cut a deal with Germany; had the British and French continued to support the League, so too would the Soviet Union.
The Bolsheviks in general, and Stalin in particular, believed that ultimately war with The West was inevitable, not because the Soviets would begin it, but because the Capitalist Empires would attack them; Marxist-Leninism held that the Capitalists, upon realising that the Socialist system was superior and would shortly leave them behind industrially, would launch an attack in order to prevent the ultimate success of the Socialist system; consequently the forces of the Revolution needed to always be alert, but would never start the war, since the longer the peace held, the stronger the Soviet Union would be when war finally came.
Historically, after Stalin's death, Khrushchev came to the view that nuclear war would be catastrophic, therefore nuclear war was impossible, and since any war with the West would go nuclear, any war with the west was impossible. Prior to 1960 he believed that ultimately the Socialist system would simply out-produce the capitalists; his widely quoted statement at the reception in Hungary that "we will bury you" has always been taken completely out of context and is, as a result, seen as a threat; in fact it was a boast; that Soviet industry would soon reach such levels of production that the Capitalists would be buried under the mountains of manufactured goods that would be produced. After 1960 Khrushchev began to have deep doubts about the Marist-Leninist system, but kept seeking a magic panacea that would solve all of the economic problems, always refusing to accept that insolvency is built into Marxist-Leninism; one of the most essential panaceas to him a was peaceful coexistence with the West that would let him reduce the Soviet Union's defence expenditure to a manageable level. The key point is that after Lenin's demise none of the Soviet leaders ever considered launching a war against the West.
 
Last edited:
The key point is that after Lenin's demise none of the Soviet leaders ever considered launching a war against the West.
In other words... the Entente constantly kicking down the Germans everytime they try to rise up prevents a Second European War?

Well, thats pretty bleak. I guess they'll see it as a necessary evil ITTL? (In an AANW A4 sort of way)
 
I guess they'll see it as a necessary evil ITTL? (In an AANW A4 sort of way)
Oh yes it just occured to me. Would the Anglo-French coalition pointing out Hitler's extreme Anti-Semetic rhetoric, the Nazi party platform, and the more questionable parts of Mein Kampf be enough to justify a 1933 invasion?

After all, they'd be preventing a genocidal maniac from getting too powerful.

Which from a certain point of view would be "better" for the world than OTL.
 
then if the French and British attack Germany like every 15 years that would happen in 80 when the colonies want to be independent and have help from the Russians, they will not have a very good economy for the various occupations against Germany, they would have the amount of troops to maintain their colonies and at the same time occupied Germany.
 
Top