There's no Western Front!

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Lucky13

Forum Mascot
49,354
27,536
Aug 21, 2006
In my castle....
Was just wondering...
What if Hitler had moved east and not bothered with the west, how would that pan out, complications, objections from the west, would they still have declared war on Germany, how much more material and men would he have had?

....and so on!
 
Hilter moved east knowning Poland had a defense treaty with France and England.
He believed neither would honor it, he was wrong.
 
That isn't true. Britain issued a unilateral declaration to the effect they would not tolerate a GERMAN invasion of Poland. Soviet invasion of Poland, Romania and Baltic States was acceptable. Difficult to find a more blatant example of manufacturing a casus belli.

1939 Britain and France were determined to fight Germany and they will create a casus belli no matter what Germany does.
 
Oh dave, dave, all treaties have specific stipulations, that's nothing new.
Hitler knew of the treaty, but he went ahead and invaded Poland.
Wheather England and France would have eventually found another excuse for war even if Germany hadn't invaded Poland is just your thoughts on it, but for others it's a unknown.
 
Britain and France didn't want a war with Germany or anyone else for that matter. Neither country was ready for war and the memory of the Great War was still fresh in people minds which was why Germany was not stopped much sooner when it broke the Treaty of Versailles, Britain and France could have just walked in and laid down the law but left it too late. Hitler wanted to invade Poland to re-establish Germany's pre-1918 borders which left Germany divided in two halves by the Danzig corridor. If Britain and France had not declared war on Germany and had France not subsequently not been knocked out of the war then a situation would have existed where Germany would not of had the ability to go to war with Russia. The Russian's for their part were still supplying the German's with war material right up to the start of Barbarossa, between the wars they had trained the Luftwaffe and had been involved with German panzer development on Russian soil, these details have never been denied but have been ignored in the official version of history. The Russian's did this because they wanted to watch Germany, France and Britain destroy one another. Stalin was little better than Hitler if at all and it is only because the British and Americans needed Russia on their side that he was ever tolerated.
 
Lets suppose Britain and France did not declare war when Germany and Russia invaded Poland. The world protests, but no war.
Was Germany ready for an invasion of Russia right after Poland?
Certainly Britain, France, Holland, Belgium would be building up their armies.
Would Hitler stand by with this?
 
davebender said:
That isn't true.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. The "Agreement of Mutual Assistance" between the United Kingdom and Poland was signed on 25th August 1939. At the outbreak of WW2 in Europe, generally accepted to have been subsequent to the German invasion of Poland, triggering the terms of the Polish-British common defence pact there was a defence treaty between the United Kingdom and Poland.

The date of that signing is relevant given the recent signing of arguably the most cynical agreement ever made between two totalitarian systems a couple of days earlier.

Such was Britain's desire to seek a casus belli with nazi Germany that she had spent the entire period since the rise to power of the NSDAP operating a policy of appeasement towards Germany, even in the face of her increasing territorial demands and ambitions.
You can feed a ravening wolf tit bits, but when you run out it will come for you.

History is open to interpretation, but the facts remain.

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:

I think if Britain and France had not declared war against Germany in 1939 then this would have left Germany with a difficult choice to make about what to do next. In 1940 Germany would have been asking itself who should we attack first France or Russia. Which ever choice Germany had made it would have left one of it's flanks open so my guess is they would have probably of strengthened the fortifications facing France and attacked Russia, my reasons for saying this is that France had a less dangerous nature than Stalin's Russia and also I think that Hitler for his own reasons just wanted to invade Russia more than France.
 

You are right that Hitler's objectives were in the East.
It is important to view events with an eye on 1930s realities. At the time France was seen as the pre-eminent military power on mainland Europe. When Britain and France finally honoured a guarantee (for Poland) and declared war on Germany Hitler was left with little choice but to turn West. Having defeated France in short order (leaving Hitler literally skipping for Joy) the defeat of, or at least some kind of deal with Britain, would have cleared the way for a one front campaign against the USSR. We'll leave Italy's ill conceived Greek, Balkan and North African adventures, all of which needed rescuing, out of the equation for now.

To come back to the original poster's question I think Germany would have been in a much stronger position had she attacked the USSR in 1939/40 having not sustained the considerable and often under estimated losses of the Battles of France and Britain. More to the point, what kind of resistance would the USSR have offered at that time? I can easily see the Germans in Moscow. Whether that would have won the war or not is a moot point. Napoleon entered Moscow after crushing the Russians at Borodino, but we all know how that ended for the "Grand Armee". The French, it is said, were a tall race before Napoleon.

Unfortunately it is pie in the sky, it is difficult to see any conceivable way in which Germany might have been allowed a free hand in the East. It might make the theme for a decent novel

Cheers

Steve
 
Would Germany want to take on Russia in 1939 ?
With hindsight we now know Russia's military was still reeling from Stalins purges, but just how bad it was didn't become evident to the world until the Winter War with Finland.
 
Stona makes a good point about the losses in the Battle of Britain and to add to that point I don't think Germany's panzer army possessed enough effective panzers (in particular Panzer mk IV's) in 1940 to make an attack on Russia viable at that time. In any case the Battle of Britain didn't end until late in 1940 so Hitler had to wait until spring 1941 before he could attack Russia. The German invasion of Yugoslavia, Greece and Crete delayed Barbarossa and this is believed by some to have been a possible cause of the German failure to capture Moscow before winter set in.
 
".... Russia's military was still reeling from Stalins purges, but just how bad it was didn't become evident to the world until the Winter War with Finland."

Or how good it was in June - August, 1939 at Kulkan Gol, against the Japanese.

MM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

On the frontier Flight Research at Dryden, 1946-1981 free pdf.
Replies
0
Views
820
Snautzer01
Northrop XP-56 Black Bullet prototype fighter-interceptor, 1943
Replies
1
Views
793
Gnomey
No Eastern front. What next?
2 3
Replies
59
Views
4K
Mad Dog
M
Then and now, photo blending in Dordrecht, The Netherlands
3 4 5
Replies
84
Views
7K
Gnomey
A
Why did Britain appease Germany and Italy, but not Japan?
Replies
16
Views
1K
Thumpalumpacus
Menu
Log in
Register