Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if Hitler had contented himself with the Rhineland, Austria and Czecholslovakia

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What if Hitler had contented himself with the Rhineland, Austria and Czecholslovakia

    What if he were content to be the leader of a soon to be bankrupt Reich, with no other warlike or genocidal aspirations to tell of?
    "Profanity is but a linguistic crutch for illiterate motherbleepers"

  • #2
    Originally posted by johnbryan View Post
    What if he were content to be the leader of a soon to be bankrupt Reich, with no other warlike or genocidal aspirations to tell of?
    This would be my take on things if that were to happen....Give or take a few months in the timeline.

    1939 Germany continues to build at a moderate rate some ships, but mostly A/C and armour. USSR invades and forces Finland to negotiate (as per original timeline)

    1940 Germany continues with much of the same as 1939. USSR officially invades and conquers Baltic states. (same as original timeline)

    1941 Germany peacefully reaches parity with England and France in air and ground forces; yet, is forced to pension off most of her armed forces. (inability to maintain in peacetime) Leaving a large pool of trained reserves.

    1942/43 Winter - USSR invades and conquers Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia. Citing "Policing Action" due to instability in these countries causing security risk to Soviet Union.

    1942/43 Winter - England, France and Germany are forced to declare war on USSR. Germany mobilizes reserves---too slowly. England and France take even longer. Small contingents of German armed forces retreat into France. United States is forced to begin mobilization of armed forces.

    1943 Summer - All of Western Europe is fighting in western Germany, and on the Maginot line against the Soviet Union. Italy falls to socialist/ communist revolution. United States declares it's intention to defend the remaining free countries; states that any further incursion by Red Army would constitute an act of war.

    1943 Winter - USSR finishes off Switzerland. Red Army waits at Maginot Line for supplies to catch up, re-equips frontline units.

    1944 Summer - USSR overuns neutral states of Holland and Belgium, attacks into France, and washes her tanks in the channel surf by the end of Aug. USA is forced to declare war on USSR. Begins moving troops and equipment into Britain.

    1944 Fall - Battle of Britain begins, pitting RAF, USAAF, Remaing French and Luftwaffe forces against VVS.

    Who wins now????


    Or not-----maybe we would all be able to sit around a campfire in socialist brotherly love and sing KUMBAYA.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by johnbryan View Post
      What if he were content to be the leader of a soon to be bankrupt Reich, with no other warlike or genocidal aspirations to tell of?
      Well,...he wouldn't be Hitler. Other than that,...no war and he could have turned the economy to civilian production. Afterall, the depression was all but over by 1938 and contued public works could have aided the economy more so than tanks and aircraft.
      The Purist

      Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

      Comment


      • #4
        Assuming Hitler could change his spots a bit and be 'content', you'd likely find Stalin the European War aggressor in 1942 or 1943 like stated above. It's even possible Germany, France, and UK might stand together against the Red Menace, but it would take the Soviets rolling into Poland before they would do anything and by then, it would (also likely) be too late if Stalin was interested in a swim in the Channel. I can't see the US getting invovled until after France fell... would it be too late then? That's anyone's guess, but if the Soviets proved that aggressive, you might just end up with a US-UK-Japanese 'agreement' (alliance being too strong of word given the Japanese aggression in China) containing them in Asia and an Anglo-based alliance in Europe/Africa fighting to contain them to the continent and out of the Middle East. Axis and Allies and Russia after Germany is beaten...
        If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by deterrumeversor View Post
          -editted slightly to save space-

          1942/43 Winter - United States is forced to begin mobilization of armed forces.

          1944 Summer - USA is forced to declare war on USSR. Begins moving troops and equipment into Britain.
          I think you're underestimating the anti-war movement in the US, which opposed our role in the war until the USSR was attacked (of course, the commies had nothing to do with our antiwar movement ). I think Roosevelt was anti-Nazi, not necessarily anti-Red.

          There's a good chance Roosie and the US would have sat this one out, or come in too late and unprepared.
          Barcsi János ispán vezérőrnagy
          Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2003 & 2006


          "Never pet a burning dog."

          RECOMMENDED WEBSITES:
          http://www.mormon.org
          http://www.sca.org
          http://www.scv.org/
          http://www.scouting.org/

          Comment


          • #6
            I think it is completely implausible. Hitler was a madman and madmen want war, regardless of the need (or lack of need) for it.

            Comment


            • #7
              My two cents...

              See my first post in the "WWII" area: "The Five Dumbest Decisions..."(pg 3) for my (admittedly verbose) musings on this, and other related matters.

              Cheers, Ron
              48 trips 'round the sun on this sh*tball we call home...and still learning...
              __________________________________________________ __________________

              Comment


              • #8
                I think this scenario depends all on Stalin and how far he was gonna go. It all depended if he wanted to take western Europe. How far and how much would he want to have? Would he go into Italy or Spain or Turkey. Middle East after west Europe maybe. Granted this is alot of nations to **** off but the Russia is huge.
                "All Glory is Fleeting"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by The Purist View Post
                  Well,...he wouldn't be Hitler. Other than that,...no war and he could have turned the economy to civilian production. Afterall, the depression was all but over by 1938 and contued public works could have aided the economy more so than tanks and aircraft.
                  Theres a PhD research project. Was the nazi economy headed down the tubes, sustained only momentarily by the Austrian & Cezch treasurys. Or would sensible economic policys been possible, and able to save the National Socialist German Workers State?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I don't mean to hijack the thread, but why does the USSR always start WW2 in these alternate scenarios? They made no moves on other countries until Hitler demonstrated the unwillingness of the Western democracies to fight. Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania all came after Hitler attacks Poland and France and England do nothing. So in this scenario, why does Stalin start gobbling up countries?


                    Sorry John, but I need some clarification.
                    Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by revans View Post
                      I don't mean to hijack the thread, but why does the USSR always start WW2 in these alternate scenarios? They made no moves on other countries until Hitler demonstrated the unwillingness of the Western democracies to fight. Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania all came after Hitler attacks Poland and France and England do nothing. So in this scenario, why does Stalin start gobbling up countries?


                      Sorry John, but I need some clarification.
                      Oh, many people make some rather one dimensional assumptions about the USSR. Usually the 'drag' of the internal politics and of Stalins efforts to retain power are underestimated. I'd guess that internal power struggles, including a civil war, would be much more likely than external conquest.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by revans View Post
                        I don't mean to hijack the thread, but why does the USSR always start WW2 in these alternate scenarios? They made no moves on other countries until Hitler demonstrated the unwillingness of the Western democracies to fight. Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania all came after Hitler attacks Poland and France and England do nothing. So in this scenario, why does Stalin start gobbling up countries?


                        Sorry John, but I need some clarification.
                        It's simple really.. Stalin was a big proponent of bringing Socialism to the world.....By force if neccesary. Look at a map of the ex-Soviet states, almost all of which were taken by force during the 20's and 30's. Killing millions in the process. Just in the Ukraine during the forced collectivisation, around 2 million Ukrainians were starved to death.
                        Stalins penchant for conquering was immense, and keep in mind that Poland was a breakaway from Russia/Soviet Union in 20-21. Letting a country that fought for it's independence from the Soviet Union stand would not be tolerated. Hence the reason Stalin assisted the Germans in dividing up Poland in 1939, attacking Finland in 1939, conquering the Baltic states in 39-40.
                        For a list of all former republics and their incorporation into the Soviet Union here is a link, yes it's Wiki, but it is easy to read.
                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republi...e_Soviet_Union

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          You'll have to do better than that deter.

                          The war between the USSR and Poland in 1919-20 was fought over the ill-defined borders of Poland as laid down by Versailles,...Stalin was not even in charge then. That war was over issues common to any other nation on earth. Have a read of "Bitter Glory" by Richard Watt,...Poland share the fault in that war as much as Russia does.

                          As for the moves against Poland and the Baltic states in 1939 and 40, those moves have self-defense written all over them. The division of Poland allowed the Russians to push their western frontier all the way to the River Bug, establishing a buffer zone that was to save Russia. The Baltic states and annexation and the demands on Finland were done for the same reasons,...Stalin knew it was only a matter of time before Communism and Facism fought and he knew he needed space and time.

                          Finland was a miscalculation, the others were, even in the context of the time, readily recognised in the west for what they were.

                          ...Stalin was a big proponent of bringing Socialism to the world.....By force if neccesary.
                          Got sources for this? The ones I have point out that Stalin knew of Russia's weaknesses both economically and militarily. The Nazi-Soviet Pact bought him time and space but other than those moves, Stalin (and the USSR) never "exported" communism anywhere,...at least not by armed military force pre-war.

                          As for spreading communist ideology,...so what? That didn't need Stalin, it was started before him and continued afterward.

                          Stalin was not going anywhere in 1930s or 1940s.
                          Last edited by The Purist; 19 Oct 07, 18:27.
                          The Purist

                          Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Just to guarantee his power Stalin had to castrate his party intellegenstia, suppress the new generation of educated technical experts, and wreck his military in the purges of the 1920s, and again 1937 - 1940. Along the way he sabatoged the Spanish Communist party (probablly through incompetence) amoung others, and sidelined the Comintern out of fear he could not control it. Stalin may have intended to export Communist revolution, or maybe he didnt. In either case he was unable to. The man was so politically inept he could retain power only though the most vicious measures. Sucessfully exporting revolution was beyond his ability.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              And let's not forget that Stalin went against the Communists in China and backed Chiang Kai-Chek, the leader of the Nationalists and sworn enemy of Mao. Stalin for all of his faults(and there were many) was a pragmatist of the first degree. So I don't see him starting a war without the other major powers being already occupied with other things.
                              Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X