WI: Hitler dies 5th October 1939.

They weren't thinking at far ahead obviously.

Not so sure about that. Losing the war economically and coming to terms diplomatically and politically is a defeat for the politicians, not for the generals. The army gets to keep its honor intact, the generals their ranks. It might be downsized just like after Versailles, yes, but they started cheating on those terms in 1919 and in a few years they were back anyway. Plus, if the politicians get a black eye for losing the war, who will be respected and honored and in position to make a bid for power after the peace treaty? The generals.
 
People seem to be operating under the illusion that Prussian militarism started and ended with Hitler. Granted he was the driving force behind pushing the war and pushing the generals to prepare to attack numerous countries, but doing so was already an ingrained part of the Prussian national psyche before Germany came to be.

The successful German Sickle cut through the Ardenne was not a result of Hitlers genius, no matter how much he tried to convince himself it was, but a combination of good planning by the German General staff, and excellent tactics using fast, powerful Panzer formations.

The reality is, once Poland is invaded, the Angol-French aren't going to accept anything less than full withdrawal from Poland, and probably Czechoslovakia too, which isn't happening. Therefore the war continues, and the Germans are still going to recognise that the longer it goes on for the stronger Britain and France get, and the weaker Germany gets. Ergo eventually they're still going to plan to attack France, and they're still going to recognise the need to bypass the Maginot line and hit the Ardenne.

What gets butterflied away is Barbarrossa in June 41, and probably the final solution too.
 

natalieb

Banned
The Polish government-in-exile - who also live in fantasyland in this timeline - will want Eastern Poland back and the Anglo-French aren't going to be able to get it for them in this timeline either.

Without the Soviets, the German border will be westward but not on the Oder. Stettin and much of Silesia will remain German i think.
 
After Poland, wouldn't there be some victory disease that would make attacking France more likely regardless of who was at the top?
Unlikely. I mean, despite being outnumber 3:2 in men, >2:1 in guns >3:1 in tanks and >11:2 in aircraft (and the Polish tanks and especially aircraft were generally inferior designs), never mind the Soviet contributions, it still took five weeks to conquer Poland. Against France (And Britain) where both the numbers and equipment quality are likely to be at parity, and it could look to the outsider like a very difficult fight indeed.
 
Thinking about it - wouldt the allies supporting polish government in exile and its claims keep the soviets on the german side? Also what was OTL allied reaction of Soviet conquest of eastern Poland? Shouldnt they theoretically declared war on Russia as well? I mean their ally whom they started the war to protect was attacked.
 
Ok, Goering is now in charge. Low intensity warfare as OTL on western front continues on. (assuming no Norway happens here as well). Goering offers peace terms of 1914 boundaries in the east+austria+sudentenland (obviously the west is status quo)+return of London Naval Treaty+the promise of arms limits.

Are Britain and France in 1941, just going to attack (not invading Belgium) a fortified German border? OR Launch a bombing campaign and fear retaliation? In the mean time Germany can trade with the world via the Soviet Union (and Italy) so the blockade is ineffective.

I wonder if Britain and France just shrug, say well at least Hitler is dead, we assure liberation of at least a rump of Poland and Czechoslovakia, and no one has to die.
 
Top