Manifest Destiny

Agreed pD. The first opportunity to stop/pause Hitler was the Rhineland in 1936, if the French had set foot in the Rhineland the German troops would of retreated which may have halted Hitler a little - given more voice to those in the government who opposed the action in the Rhineland. With hindsight we can say if the British and French had rearmed at the same rate as the Germans from 1935/6 then there could of been a different result later on. After 1936 the two points that could of justified an invasion are Czechoslovakia (September 1938 and March 1939) and the invasion of Poland rather than standing back and waiting on the border (Poland) or trying to solve it by diplomacy (Czechoslovakia). The French and British could of advanced a long way into Germany whilst the German armed forces were engaged in Poland or Czechoslovakia. The losses could of been high but it would of halted Hitler from completely conquering Poland and given the Poles time to regroup (although when the Soviets invaded from the East - if they still did then that would be the end of Poland as a free state). In the end it depends on the willingness of the French to fight which as was proved in the Fall of France in 1940 that they didn't really want to fight, in which case any invasion of Germany would of been half-hearted and therefore likely to fail.

If the French had shown heart at the Rhineland incident it wouldn't have halted Hitler. It would have made him rethink his actions but they would have been delayed; that is all. Germany would have known, at least, that France meant business and Germany would require a stronger military to take on Europe.

What is frightening is the possibility of a German defeat in the 1930s, and a Soviet invasion instead. In World War II we had two massive dictatorships wearing each other down on the Eastern Front, had Germany been disposed early on there would be no one willing to take on the sheer brute force of a strong industrial dictatorship.

Personally, and I know people will take offence, I think Germany was the saving grace of Europe where the Soviet Union is concerned. But in equal measure, the Soviet Union was also a saving grace. The two powers were counter-weights to the other, they needed to slaughter each other for the democracies to reign on.

I haven't taken offence because it is true, Germany proposed an alliance with the allies to combat the Soviets in their dying days. Without the German 'buffer' the Soviets would of rolled through to the channel which would of caused more problems than the Germans.

I know you can see what I'm saying. But a lot of people are overly-sensitive, and might take it the wrong way. Thinking I'm supporting Germany during World War II.

Gnomey said:

I haven't taken offence because it is true, Germany proposed an alliance with the allies to combat the Soviets in their dying days. Without the German 'buffer' the Soviets would of rolled through to the channel which would of caused more problems than the Germans.

Click to expand...

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that... rolled to through to the channel when?

Better yet - what if France just attacked in the west instead of selling old Poland down a river... Hitler's whole plan was a gamble based exactly on that... the French hanging out on the Maginot...

I suspect Germany had violated the armistice before the takeover of Austria by its arms build up and I suspect Great Britain and France were well aware of it but perfered to bury their head in the sand.

mkloby,

it's well-known that the Soviet Union aimed to expand. Stalin was not unlike Hitler in many respects when it came to his expansionist attitude. The Soviet Union would have, at some point, aimed to drive it's way through Europe.
After all, the Soviet Union did invade Poland in reality. If Britain and France reacted the same to the Soviets, as they did to the Germans, then the Soviet Union would have to drive through to France.
What really did happen was Germany wore the Soviet army down and the Allies still knew there was a risk. One of the main reasons the Allied governments aimed to push as far east as possible was to halt the Soviet advance.

Don't be mistaken, the Soviet Union was not our friends. We just all had a common enemy.

davpalr,

If you'd read all the posts, you'd notice that I (at least) mentioned that the Allies had the option to halt Germany in 1936 when the Rhineland was re-occupied.

Great Britain and France far from buried their heads in the sand. Great Britain for one knew Germany was a threat as soon as Hitler entered power. But while you can sit there and tell us all what should have been done, you're forgetting that you have hindsight. The governments of the day had no vision of Hitler becoming a genocidal maniac.

More importantly though, Britain and France couldn't act on their own. While they would have been able to soundly defeat Germany in 1933 (with hindsight, we know that Germany had been breaking the Treaty of Versailles for years by developing tanks and planes in Russia), they would be seen as the aggressors.

Have you ever thought the Soviet or U.S reaction to a Anglo-French invasion of Germany? The world would not see rearmament of Germany as a viable reason for invasion. The U.S for one saw Germany's build-up as a good thing, and saw it that Germany could fend for herself once again.

On top of international reaction, as I'm 90% sure that the U.S wouldn't lend support to an invasion anytime before the invasion of Czechoslovakia, there is also public reaction. Britain and France were democracies; and the people have say. France especially would have to be extra careful, the politics of the day were extremely volatile - an unjust war (in their eyes) would end in the vast majority of the army throwing down arms and quitting. Then the public at home would uprise against the government.

Britain wouldn't have been too eager to go to war without just reason either. This is a little far-out, but have you ever actually thought about how Britain managed to declare war on Germany without international backlash? Britain signed a mutual-defence alliance on August 25th, 1939! Britain knew Germany was going to attack, I reckon they signed that so they had a reason to go to war against Germany.
Britain only lended vocal support to Czechoslovakia, so there's no written grounds to go to war with Germany. But with the signed pact with Poland, the world had no option but to accept British military action. In every other situation leading up to World War II - the world would have seen Britain as the belligerent nation, and that includes the U.S. Britain knew it needed the U.S in any war against Germany.

The only real thing wrong that Britain and France did leading up to the full conquest of Europe by Germany. They were not aggressive enough when the war did begin. The French had said they would send the majority of their forces on the offensive 15 days after the declaration of war. And Britain should have been more willing to bomb the German navy in force - but they were too concerned with hitting civilians.

Saying that Britain and France were at fault for the rise of Germany is clichéd and I've heard it more times than I can remember. Take some thought about the global situation at the time. And reactions to any actions. Put yourself in the shoes of either Britain or France - and then think what you'd do (you have the added bonus of hindsight) , then think what the world would do to react.

plan_D said:

mkloby,

it's well-known that the Soviet Union aimed to expand. Stalin was not unlike Hitler in many respects when it came to his expansionist attitude. The Soviet Union would have, at some point, aimed to drive it's way through Europe.
After all, the Soviet Union did invade Poland in reality. If Britain and France reacted the same to the Soviets, as they did to the Germans, then the Soviet Union would have to drive through to France.
What really did happen was Germany wore the Soviet army down and the Allies still knew there was a risk. One of the main reasons the Allied governments aimed to push as far east as possible was to halt the Soviet advance.

Don't be mistaken, the Soviet Union was not our friends. We just all had a common enemy.

Click to expand...

Ok - i just did not know in what time reference the soviet risk was being portrayed. Unfortunately - nobody seems to remember soviet aggression against Poland. You know, potential soviet threat is another what if... it would have totally depended on the German question, French/BRITISH rearmament, and perhaps most importantly, American involvement, as US economic power would likely have been the key factor in any long term struggle of the period.

The risk of USSR expansionism would of been at its height around the 40/50s.

British rearmament was increased a lot after the remilitarisation of the Rhineland and was ramped up as the crisises happened, although it was still not fully done by the time they declared war on Germany. If the Germans were not perceived as a threat then the rearmament of Britain would likely not of continued but then same could be said for the USSR who wasn't rearming at the same level until after the German invasion. The military might of the USSR would of been less if the Great Patriotic war had not happened as they would not of had to do the development in arms etc that they did during and in the run up to the start of hostilities. If there was no threat from Germany then there would of been disarmament for longer than occurred. The Western Europeans would of taken longer to realise and react to the threat of the Russians if there was a perceived threat. If that was the case then there would of been no Warsaw Pact until later. Without the war that occurred it would of been likely that there war in the Pacific would of been localised between Japan and the Colonial Powers along with the USA with perhaps Russian involvement. The result of this would likely of been a confrontation between the Western Allies, Germany etc and the rest of what is now NATO against the USSR in a large scale war similar to that of the Eastern Front (same battleground likely). It would of been a very costly war with the results being the destruction of either the NATO powers or the USSR.

Gnomey said:

The risk of USSR expansionism would of been at its height around the 40/50s.

British rearmament was increased a lot after the remilitarisation of the Rhineland and was ramped up as the crisises happened, although it was still not fully done by the time they declared war on Germany. If the Germans were not perceived as a threat then the rearmament of Britain would likely not of continued but then same could be said for the USSR who wasn't rearming at the same level until after the German invasion. The military might of the USSR would of been less if the Great Patriotic war had not happened as they would not of had to do the development in arms etc that they did during and in the run up to the start of hostilities. If there was no threat from Germany then there would of been disarmament for longer than occurred. The Western Europeans would of taken longer to realise and react to the threat of the Russians if there was a perceived threat. If that was the case then there would of been no Warsaw Pact until later. Without the war that occurred it would of been likely that there war in the Pacific would of been localised between Japan and the Colonial Powers along with the USA with perhaps Russian involvement. The result of this would likely of been a confrontation between the Western Allies, Germany etc and the rest of what is now NATO against the USSR in a large scale war similar to that of the Eastern Front (same battleground likely). It would of been a very costly war with the results being the destruction of either the NATO powers or the USSR.

Click to expand...

It'd be interesting to how the USSR's member states held together if such a scenario developed, as well as the members of the warsaw pact...

I cannot say much for France, mkloby, but I know that Britain recognised the threats from Germany and the Soviet Union. It began re-arming before the Rhineland incident. The British invasion of Norway was in part to open a land route to supply the Finnish with men and arms against the Soviet Union.

We cannot be certain of U.S intervention. It has to be remembered that the U.S had the oppurtunity to go to war against Germany because Germany declared war on them. If the Soviets hadn't declared war on the U.S, then the U.S population would have probably refused to go to war with them.

The Soviet Union was re-arming ever since Stalin entered power. There were many economic plans solely devoted to increasing the military power of Russia. The only thing that brought the military to its knees were the Officer purges, and banning of "out-there" doctrines like Deep Battle.
The Red Army had developed the T-34, and was developing countless other machines that would be truth later in the war during the early 1940s. Stalin aimed to have the military in working shape by Spring 1942. That was before the major threat of Germany even appeared. The Soviet Union was aiming to go somewhere - the global conflict would have occured in the 40s.


Germany actually stopped this global conflict by being there first and wearing the Soviets into the ground. I feel that a war with the Soviet Union would have been much larger than World War II.

Possible. I am not sure that the internal situation within the USSR would have enabled such an action. Pretty much every nation under Soviet rule in the USSR hated russians - which Germany failed to fully capitalize on.

Also, although the US was officially neutral prior to her entry, she was certainly not neutral in reality. There were even incidents prior to Dec 41 of US surface ships engaging german subs. I really don't think that the US would have been neutral in the face of Soviet aggression.

The states under Soviet control couldn't really stand up against Russia. Russia was the largest country in the union, and supplied most of the military power.
The Soviet Union was willing to invade Lituania, Estonia, Poland and Finland. There's no reason to assume they wouldn't be willing to continue, especially if it was victory after victory. On top of that, they were Communists - and it had always been said they would expand.

The U.S were getting involved in U.S waters against the German U-boats. But the only action taken against Germany was in the ocean, the Soviet Union would not come into contact against the U.S. It would be a land war - and the U.S wouldn't be able to be there without breaking neutrality.

plan_D said:

The states under Soviet control couldn't really stand up against Russia. Russia was the largest country in the union, and supplied most of the military power.
The Soviet Union was willing to invade Lituania, Estonia, Poland and Finland. There's no reason to assume they wouldn't be willing to continue, especially if it was victory after victory. On top of that, they were Communists - and it had always been said they would expand.

The U.S were getting involved in U.S waters against the German U-boats. But the only action taken against Germany was in the ocean, the Soviet Union would not come into contact against the U.S. It would be a land war - and the U.S wouldn't be able to be there without breaking neutrality.

Click to expand...

True, I see your point regarding the land based conflict - but lend-lease wasn't neutral either, was it? USSR subs may have tried to interfere w/ American shipments to Britain... of course everything is based soley on conjecture.

I'm not totally sure that the subject nations under russian rule would have stayed subserviant. We'll never know.

It's all an interesting "what if?" - the global situation would have been thrown into turmoil.

I don't think the USN would need to intervene in the seas, the Red Navy had no chance against the Royal Navy. But I do see your point on the Lend-Lease, whether the U.S had any viable reason to support Britain in a war against the Soviet Union is another thing entirely.

Maybe the Soviet Union and U.S would come into conflict later on in the Pacific? But would the Japanese expand without knowledge of German support? After all, the only reason Japan had the option to occupy Indo-China was because Germany had crushed its owner; France.

plan_D said:

whether the U.S had any viable reason to support Britain in a war against the Soviet Union is another thing entirely.

Click to expand...

How's this - the US is one of the few western democracies in which a viable socialist party has never emerged (presently some in the democratic party are trying to change that!). Americans by and large have a bad image of socialism, it's almost a stigma - but would they in fact have gone to war in that specific timeframe regarding that is another question. Think of Korea and Vietnam, although there are some major differences in the two.

You're right that the U.S hasn't ever had a favourable view upon socialism, and in turn communism. But at the time of the Soviet Union's rise to power; the U.S were not in the same frame of mind as they were in the 50s and 60s.

The U.S were very naive about the Soviets, and believed them to be somewhat honourable. Fighting Communist rebels in Vietnam and Korea after the threat of communism had been full realised, it's worlds apart from fighting the Communist super-power before communism was recognised (by the U.S, at least) as a threat.

plan_D said:

You're right that the U.S hasn't ever had a favourable view upon socialism, and in turn communism. But at the time of the Soviet Union's rise to power; the U.S were not in the same frame of mind as they were in the 50s and 60s.

The U.S were very naive about the Soviets, and believed them to be somewhat honourable. Fighting Communist rebels in Vietnam and Korea after the threat of communism had been full realised, it's worlds apart from fighting the Communist super-power before communism was recognised (by the U.S, at least) as a threat.

Click to expand...

This is largely untrue. The first Red Scare in the United States occurred in the 1920s precisely because of the formation of the Soviet Union. True, it was more a fear of socialism or communism taking over the nation than a fear of expansionism on part of the Soviet Union, but still ... Look at the trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.

I never said the U.S were naive about the communists in their own nation, I was talking about the Soviet Union. You look at FDRs reaction to the Soviet Union - extremely naive, and believed them to be an honourable nation. Even believed they would allow Poland to become a free nation.

plan_D said:

I never said the U.S were naive about the communists in their own nation, I was talking about the Soviet Union. You look at FDRs reaction to the Soviet Union - extremely naive, and believed them to be an honourable nation. Even believed they would allow Poland to become a free nation.

Click to expand...

That's because the ruskis had been so respectful of the Polish nation in the past! My dad's whole side of the family is Polish, and they still harbor much resentment...