WI No Nazis. Who starts World War 2?

[Cryhavoc101]

Not arguing, but just stating that my story scenario has other divergences from OTL going back to the 1860s (Lincoln wasn't assassinated and Reconstruction was much milder with little of the lingering bitterness on the part of Southerners), as well as Taft's re-election in 1912 and being succeeded by another Republican (story character, unknown to OTL) in 1916 who was inclined to stay out of European conflicts. Without US support the Entente and the Central Powers fought to a stalemate until both sides were bled dry and sued for a white peace leaving Germany stronger than OTL and Britain and France much weaker. I'm not arguing that my "Great Pacific War" TL would have happened as I project, but I believe it's arguable that it could have.

Okay but would that not result in both Britian and France not cutting their militaries to the bone as OTL

And in such a scenario what does the TTL version of the Washington treaty look like if at all?

The German Navy would not have been sunk at Scapa flow obliging Britain to keep expanding its fleet

OTL it was not because it could not - it was because it did not have to

Its a massive Mothra of a POD

 

[kham_coc]

Well for a start the French 'Empire' might have something to say about it

While the Heer is across the border?
A Germany that isn't interested in starting WW2 can still make France's position untenable by merely having an army at the border.
That would indeed constitute their best strategy, forcing them to invest huge amounts of manpower into defending the border, and then making their empire untenable, one way or another France would be made to cry uncle. Their former solution to the problem, no longer exists, and Poland isn't a viable substitute.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

While the Heer is across the border?
A Germany that isn't interested in starting WW2 can still make France's position untenable by merely having an army at the border.
That would indeed constitute their best strategy, forcing them to invest huge amounts of manpower into defending the border, and then making their empire untenable, one way or another France would be made to cry uncle. Their former solution to the problem, no longer exists, and Poland isn't a viable substitute.

We are assuming a 100 plus division Heer

Germany not being the bent on war, MEFO bill abusing led Nazi government, is going to be just as hamstrung as France

And how many divisions would they need to send?

How many could Japan send?

It’s peacetime strength was 17 (and that included garrison forces)

By 1940 it had 41, 27 in China, 12 in Manchuria and 2 in Japan

By Dec 7 1941 it had about 50 bogged down in China and facing off against the Russians

They could only support a relative handful in South East Asia and often struggled to supply them.

 

[Kalga]

Even if you want to argue that the war really began with Franco-British involvement, that doesn’t change the fact that the impetus for the whole thing was the Nazi invasion of Poland, no Nazi invasion = no war. Britain and France were obligated to back Poland so as soon as the Wehrmacht started going east, they were going to get involved. The initial German invasion and the subsequent declarations of war by Britain and France are the same conflict, it didn’t turn from one war to another just by them getting involved any more than the US getting involved after Pearl Harbor made it yet a different war. If we count a country joining in the conflict as a new war, than there is no WWII, just several dozen mini-wars that happen to be connected.

What about the whole 2nd sino japanese war getting folded into the wider wwii once the USA was dragged in by pearl harbor?

 

[Maponus]

I think people on this forum are too vague about what a Conservative militarist Germany actually means, and just assume that " moderation" is this flat abstract principle that applies equally to every policy. In reality, there are mountains of resources that make it very clear what, for example, the DNVP were probably going to do once they were in power - and there is absolutely no debate to be had that a DNVP regime would not invade Poland. They would, expecting any scenario where the Polish regime is simply implausibly spineless. When the Germany came to its end it was Hugenberg, not Hitler, that the Poles were most alarmed about. Hitler was an unknown factor to them, but everyone knew Hugenberg hated Poland.

The Nazis, with their idiosyncratic ideology that was mostly an unknown to most other European nations, were actually easier to justify appeasing - their demands seemed fluid and reasonable at the time, because they seemed to be based on Wilisonian principles of self-determination. Mein Kampf was only available in a highly abridged English translation and contained all sorts of things Hitler seemed to have abandoned, and it was a matter of public record that Hitler did not wish himself committed to any specific party programme or doctrine (hence his refusal to not only follow the original programme, but also to approve any replacement programme - the entire idea of a party programme that constrained the Leader was simply banned from discussion). Not so the Conservative Nationalists! They were inflexibly committed to the restoration of the Old German Empire and the Borders of 1914, African colonies and all, with annexation of German lands not part of the Second Reich as a little extra bonus to make sure nearly everyone who bordered them would also have cause for alarm. If they come to power without any major change in their policy or outlook, there might not even be any appeasement - France will simply start preparing for a war over Alsace-Lorraine, encircle Germany with a large alliance of equally threatened states, and that will be that.

 

[galik]

I voted Italy for it's irrendetism, since this was targeting the French lands and it's interests in maintaining an Yugoslavian state

 

[Curtain Jerker]

I know this sounds pedantic but I would vote none. A run-of-the-mill right wing German government full of Prussian Junkers might start a war with Poland over irredentist claims, but I don't think that war escalates into a continent wide firestorm. It would be similar to the Poland-USSR war of the early 1920s.

 

[brunohusker]

So it really depends on why the Nazis are not in power. If they fail before the 1923 Putsch, then their might not be a war or it will be one between France and Germany and you might not see them drive for the east.

If it’s after the Putsch but before 33 then there probably is just another Nationalist type group who takes its place and at best is part of a cabinet but not in full power. It also depends on who runs the party. If Hitler’s gone I think Strasser or Goering might be a leader. Maybe even Hess. However I don’t think them just not existing is an option.

 

[Ambusher11]

When the Germany came to its end it was Hugenberg, not Hitler, that the Poles were most alarmed about. Hitler was an unknown factor to them, but everyone knew Hugenberg hated Poland.

Don't forget, one of the reasons why Hugenberg was forced to resign from Hitler's cabinet in June 1933 was because he had stated (at a time when Hitler was claiming that the Nazis only wanted peace) at the World Economic Conference that, to resolve the Great Depression, Germany should be given back its African colonies and be allowed to expand into Eastern Europe, which obviously caused a major rise in international tensions. Furthermore, when von Neurath tried to contain the damage by stating that those were just Hugenberg's private views, Hugenberg claimed that he was speaking on behalf of the German government, which didn't help his case at all.

 

[Kevin Andrew Yap So]

Which of these two statements sound more accurate?
Hitler started WW2 because he invaded Poland
Hitler invaded Poland forcing Britain and France to declare war thus starting WW2.

For me the second point is more accurate than the first that's why Britain and France officially started WW2.

But again these are all true:
1. Hitler provoked ww2.
2. Hitler is to blame for ww2
3. Hitler caused ww2
4. Etc.

 

[Crazy Boris]

Which of these two statements sound more accurate?
Hitler started WW2 because he invaded Poland
Hitler invaded Poland forcing Britain and France to declare war thus starting WW2.

For me the second point is more accurate than the first that's why Britain and France officially started WW2.

But again these are all true:
1. Hitler provoked ww2.
2. Hitler is to blame for ww2
3. Hitler caused ww2
4. Etc.

The invasion of Poland and WWII aren't separate wars, they're the same conflict.

 

[kham_coc]

The invasion of Poland and WWII aren't separate wars, they're the same conflict.

Well the British intervention in the German-Polish war made it a world war.

 

[Crazy Boris]

Well the British intervention in the German-Polish war made it a world war.

Still the same conflict. "World war" is just what that conflict is called, there's no actual criteria for what is and isn't a world war, it's just called that because it's a really big war. The Seven Years War was arguably more of a "world" war than World War One but people just don't call it that.

My point is that the initial fighting between Poland and Germany and the fighting when Britain and France declared war are part of the same conflict, that being World War Two, the two days between the start of the German invasion and Britain and France declaring war are not a different war from everything that came afterwards.

 

[raharris1973]

I think people on this forum are too vague about what a Conservative militarist Germany actually means, and just assume that " moderation" is this flat abstract principle that applies equally to every policy. In reality, there are mountains of resources that make it very clear what, for example, the DNVP were probably going to do once they were in power - and there is absolutely no debate to be had that a DNVP regime would not invade Poland. They would, expecting any scenario where the Polish regime is simply implausibly spineless. When the Germany came to its end it was Hugenberg, not Hitler, that the Poles were most alarmed about. Hitler was an unknown factor to them, but everyone knew Hugenberg hated Poland.

The Nazis, with their idiosyncratic ideology that was mostly an unknown to most other European nations, were actually easier to justify appeasing - their demands seemed fluid and reasonable at the time, because they seemed to be based on Wilisonian principles of self-determination. Mein Kampf was only available in a highly abridged English translation and contained all sorts of things Hitler seemed to have abandoned, and it was a matter of public record that Hitler did not wish himself committed to any specific party programme or doctrine (hence his refusal to not only follow the original programme, but also to approve any replacement programme - the entire idea of a party programme that constrained the Leader was simply banned from discussion). Not so the Conservative Nationalists! They were inflexibly committed to the restoration of the Old German Empire and the Borders of 1914, African colonies and all, with annexation of German lands not part of the Second Reich as a little extra bonus to make sure nearly everyone who bordered them would also have cause for alarm. If they come to power without any major change in their policy or outlook, there might not even be any appeasement - France will simply start preparing for a war over Alsace-Lorraine, encircle Germany with a large alliance of equally threatened states, and that will be that.

By your lights then, most of the comments and assertions in this thread would look pretty silly:

DNVP Germany in WW2

Any way for DNVP Germany to more or less follow Nazi's territorial expansion path and win WW2? If this is impossible, then, how at all DNVP or Military Dictatorship Germany can win WW2?

www.alternatehistory.com

By the way, is that map genuine contemporary DNVP campaign propaganda from pre-1933?