Lets talk about alternative WW2 scenarios...

[David Floyd]

Also, if the Germans launch Barbarossa in April or May, then they just run into the spring mud and can't go anywhere until June, anyway. Can't see how this would have helped them much, except that it would have given the Soviets more time to build defenses and build up reserves, making the campaign in June/July/August just that much more difficult.

[Lancer]

The Germans should have taken Austria and the Sudaten as they did and then left the rest of Czechoslavakia alone. It was that land grab of non Germans that showed Hitler's true aims and turned the democracies solidly against him. If then he had cut the same deal with Chamberlain over Danzig he could have reunited Germany and developed a closer relationship with GB, possibly culminating in a defensive pact vs the Sovs who were a threat to GBs southern empire. Hitler knew the Sovs were preparing for war and having GB and other democracies on his side would have made a huge difference when the Sov attack occurred later. At that time Germany could have held on until the noose tightened around Stalin, then grabbed the Ukraine bread basket and the southern Russian oil fields. Food and oil, these were Germany's aims. He never really had to take on the West to get them. GB (not France) would have been glad to see the Sovs taken down a notch. France would not have sided with the Sovs in the case where the Sovs were the aggressor. France would have been marginalized without performance in their pact with Russia.

I'm posting this because if this forum gets folded back into the OT this thread should get alot more replys. That is if they get it done before everyone leaves the site finally.

[David Floyd]

Yeah, I agree - if we create a pre-1939 POD (point of divergence), then Nazi Germany's chances of surviving 1945 are much greater.

To make this plausible, though, I think that we have to come up with a way to make Hitler seem less invincible and all-knowing to ordinary Germans and the military. Perhaps an early failure in his expansion would create a chain of events leading to the Sudetenland, but no more.

Possibly....a much stronger Anglo-French response to the reoccupation of the Rhineland? A strong Italian response to the Anschluss? I don't know.

The key, though, is making Hitler seem fallible to the German military and German people.

[chequita guevara]

You make Hitler seem fallible and WWII doesn't start. If he's too powerless to take the rest of Czechoslovakia, then he isn't gonna take on Poland.

Lancer, no way the French would have gone to war over the USSR, even with the Socialist Party in charge. They didn't aid the Spanish Republic against the fascists, they aren't going to die to save commies.

[David Floyd]

I agree - at this point, we're talking about alternate WW2. Probably, a Germany vs. Soviet Union scenario, with Germany given covert and possibly even overt support from England and France, and the US staying neutral.

The war might start over a Soviet land grab in Scandanavia, Poland, or Romania - not that I think the Soviets were more aggressive than the Nazis, just that in this scenario, the Nazis somehow stop after the Sudetenland, other than somehow nabbing the Danzig Corridor.

[chequita guevara]

Pilsudski probably could have been enticed into an alliance with Germany against the USSR. The Western powers very likely would have, at the very least, looked the other way at German-Polish aggression against the Soviets, and likely would have sent aid.

That was precisely the scenario Stalin feared and was working feverishly against in the 1930s, selling out revolutions in Spain and Bulgaria to prove how responsible a leader he was.

Without a non-aggression pact with Germany, no way Stalin makes a move on Eastern Europe.

[David Floyd]

The Soviets are still going to move on Finland, as they did historically, IMO. If that happens, and without a larger WW2 going on, I think that we see a German-led dogpile - German and Swede "volunteers", English and French money/equipment - that could erupt into a wider war.

Also, there is nothing in this scenario which prevents a non-aggression pact between Germany and the USSR, just as there is nothing that would prevent Germany from violating that pact when such a violation served it's interests. If Stalin feels secure enough to move against Poland or Romania, thus presenting a long-term major threat to German security (in Poland, the prospect of the Red Army very, very close to Berlin, and in Romania, oil), there's no reason why Hitler wouldn't seize the moment to go to war, especially since he would very likely have Anglo-French support.

[Lancer]

Germans could have been the masters of central europe all the way to the Caspian, all they had to do was sell out the non aggression pact in alliance with the democracies after Stalin attacked Finland. GB and France almost went to war with Russia over Finland anyway during the sitzkriege. Instread they are today slaves to Russia who can turn off the oil on a whim.

[Heraclitus]

As opposed to how well the US can control the sources of oil?

[David Floyd]

Lancer - do you think that even after Poland the Allies would have made peace and allied with Germany against the Soviet Union?

That's certainly one thing Stalin was afraid of, and would have made for an interesting war. My guess is that the US would have stayed completely out of it, and focused solely on Japan in 1941. What, in this scenario, happens to the Tripartitite Pact? Does Germany declare war against the US after Pearl Harbor, is they did historically? Does Japan go after the Northern Resource Area rather than the Southern Resource Area? How do the Western democracies reconcile working hand in hand with the Nazis?

Either way, I think a Anglo-French-German-Italian dogpile on the Soviet Union would have resulted in a long, bloody war, but probably an eventual European victory. England, France, and the Soviets would all be SUBSTANTIALLY weaker without US Lend Lease (which I just don't see happening - it all goes to Nationalist China in this scenario, IMO), but Germany would be substantially stronger, fighting only on one front.

[Garth Vader]

I think the only way that dogpile works is if Germany hasn't attacked Poland yet and the Soviets start WW2 with Finland. In that case Germany is the lesser of two evils and gets allied support to fight the Soviets.

I just don't see the Soviets doing their historical aggression without the NA pact with Germany, and/or Germany engaged in another war.

[David Floyd]

I certainly don't see them invading Poland, but why not Finland?

[Garth Vader]

I think they were afraid of either a German or Western response. Which is why they waited for a treaty with Germany and a war which should have meant both Germany and the west would be too busy to respond.

Maybe I am wrong and they would have gone after Finland and/or the baltics anyway.

[David Floyd]

The Baltics, certainly, IMO. As for Finland, you might be right - who knows?

OTOH, even with a non-aggression pact with Germany, if there is no war in the West because Hitler somehow was forced to stop with the Sudetenland, why wouldn't Hitler use the Winter War as a pretext to safeguard German interests in the Baltic/secure resources in the Ukraine/ satisfy their "need" to expand by defending the Finns in partnership with the West?

[Garth Vader]

Oh yeah, Germany would use that as an excuse.

So if it was in partnership with the west what would happen to Poland? Would they participate as part of the German-Western Allies? Germany couldn't easily invade without going over land. If they refused help would the allies invade them to get at the Soviets?