If the Polish Government and General Staff had known, in 1939 that there would be no significant support from the UK, USSR or France they probably would have deployed the bulk of their troops further from the frontier. In OTL most were hard up against the border in the hope that they'd soon benefit from a Western Front, courtesy of Poland's "allies".
WI Poland was left to fight Hitler by itself?
- Thread starter King Thomas
- Start date
Cook
Banned
At one stage in 1938 Chamberlain discussed in cabinet declaring that Britain’s security interests in Continental Europe stopped at the Rhine but was talked out it. This effectively meant that while Britain was willing to guarantee the sovereignty of France and the Low Countries (Belgium, Netherlands and Luxemburg), the rest of Europe would be thrown to the wolves. It was an acceptance that while Britain could threaten to and even declare war to protect Czechoslovakia, they couldn’t physically do anything to protect Czech sovereignty.
While Chamberlain looks ridiculous and rather wimpy, he was actually a very domineering personality in cabinet sessions and the limited press conferences of the day, generally browbeating dissenters and getting his way (Shame he didn’t behave the same way during a certain diplomatic crisis). Anthony Eden had already resigned and Duff Cooper would do so later in the year, removing the last strong opposition to Chamberlain in cabinet so such an announcement is not only conceivable, but would be a rational acceptance of Britain and France’s diminished status and the new realpolitik of Central Europe and The Balkans.
Hitler and Stalin would have been free to divide Central and Eastern Europe between them, which was what they were expecting. Hitler hadn’t expected the Western Democracies to go to war for Poland in 1939 anyway. He had expected to be able to swallow Poland and make one or two more territorial acquisitions before the inevitable showdown with the French and the English.
I would expect Hitler would not have rushed into an immediate war with the west, preferring to consolidate Poland and browbeat the rest of Central Europe and the Balkans into political ties with Germany, and then correcting the final injustices of France’s theft of Alsace-Lorraine.
While Chamberlain looks ridiculous and rather wimpy, he was actually a very domineering personality in cabinet sessions and the limited press conferences of the day, generally browbeating dissenters and getting his way (Shame he didn’t behave the same way during a certain diplomatic crisis). Anthony Eden had already resigned and Duff Cooper would do so later in the year, removing the last strong opposition to Chamberlain in cabinet so such an announcement is not only conceivable, but would be a rational acceptance of Britain and France’s diminished status and the new realpolitik of Central Europe and The Balkans.
Hitler and Stalin would have been free to divide Central and Eastern Europe between them, which was what they were expecting. Hitler hadn’t expected the Western Democracies to go to war for Poland in 1939 anyway. He had expected to be able to swallow Poland and make one or two more territorial acquisitions before the inevitable showdown with the French and the English.
I would expect Hitler would not have rushed into an immediate war with the west, preferring to consolidate Poland and browbeat the rest of Central Europe and the Balkans into political ties with Germany, and then correcting the final injustices of France’s theft of Alsace-Lorraine.
Yes very naive....But Hitler just couldn't get it taht the UK wouldn't do business with him....as mentioned prober due to his odd fascination of the British Empire.
Assuming the PoD is when Hitler rolls into Poland on 1st Sept, Britain and France, instead of declaring war and then doing nothing, accept that they cannot help Poland and simply make loud protestations.
The reality is, Britain and France weren't ready for war in 1939, and whilst Germany wasn't at full strength and Hitler hadn't planned to go to war for a couple of years yet, Germany had been arming and modernising all through the 1930's.
The major change that I can see, is that Britain and France would have been afforded more time to build up their armies, knowing that a showdown with Germany was inevitable. Hitler would always have ended up attacking the Soviet union, and probably would have done it around the same time. As others have stated, it probably would have made Germany weaker not to have France's resources, and to have to keep an eye on the French and British lest they attack Germany's rear, which they probably would have done eventually.
The reality is, Britain and France weren't ready for war in 1939, and whilst Germany wasn't at full strength and Hitler hadn't planned to go to war for a couple of years yet, Germany had been arming and modernising all through the 1930's.
The major change that I can see, is that Britain and France would have been afforded more time to build up their armies, knowing that a showdown with Germany was inevitable. Hitler would always have ended up attacking the Soviet union, and probably would have done it around the same time. As others have stated, it probably would have made Germany weaker not to have France's resources, and to have to keep an eye on the French and British lest they attack Germany's rear, which they probably would have done eventually.
AFAIK, while Hitler hoped for agreement with UK, he considered it necessary to beat France and thus secure western frontline before going for USSR. I remember german military was expecting full-scale war only in 1942, so I guess that after conquering Poland, Germany uses 1940 to increase their influence over remaining central european countries, and attempts invasion of western Europe in 1941 or '42. If they're as successful as in OTL, they go after Soviet Union next year.
Not likely the Soviets in general and Stalin in particular wouldnt be so trustful of Hitler. Meaning if/when the Germans attack the 1941 Red Army will be in a state of alert and not essentially destroyed in two months, thus needing to be rebulit with newly drafted & under-equiped troops.
That fact alone gives the Soviets more than two million extra troops and means a lot of extra losses for the Ost-Heer.
I don't know about that. Without the Western Front (and with the Western Allies having proven once and for all that they're never actually going to do anything unless they themselves are invaded), Hitler will be feeling pretty secure with his western frontier. Once the initial phase of TTL Barbarossa succeeds (which it almost certainly will), Hitler will find himself allies in countries like Romania, Italy, Hungary, etc.
The Wehrmacht would have marched towards Moscow, decimated by the winter and just then...
The heroic Frenchmen would declare war and march to Berlin (always with the British in front, of course
)
But really, Hitler expected France and GB to back down. Then he would have declared his crusade on Bolshevism and after that he would have declared war on France, because German supremacy in Europe is not compatible with a hostile French state backed by the British.
The heroic Frenchmen would declare war and march to Berlin (always with the British in front, of course
)But really, Hitler expected France and GB to back down. Then he would have declared his crusade on Bolshevism and after that he would have declared war on France, because German supremacy in Europe is not compatible with a hostile French state backed by the British.
I still think (assuming he's still got the MR pact) he'll turn west as planned in the spring of 1940, which could be even more of a disaster for the Allies as they are unprepared (or maybe not - No BEF perhaps?).
He can't just plough on into the Soviet Union after defeating Poland (it's late September) and even waiting until 1940 always leaves the danger that France might stab Germany in the back as she attacks the Soviets.
No, I think nothing much changes. Hitler will take Poland AND then go west anyway, hitting the French as OTL. The French will collapse even faster, but as noted above, this could be better (much better) for the British if France collapses before they can send any troops and equipment over.
If Britain and France do not go to war, then Hitler divides Poland with the USSR as planned.
The next thing is to determine what Stalin does. Does Stalin still go after Finland and the Baltics without the British and French being at war with Germany? They conceivably could which would open up a potential for German rapproachment with the West and then a combined anti-Bolshevik alliance. I think Stalin would proceed very carefully. IOTL, he didn't go after the Baltics until the Allies were preoccupied with the German invasion of France. Stalin might attempt to cajole and bully everyone he can, but actual invasion might be delayed until he sees an opportunity to do so without risk of a greater war.
But let's assume nothing happens in Eastern Europe which would really divert the timeline.
In 1941 or 1942, Germany goes to war against France. Hitler's goal was lebensraum in the East, and he thought that Britain should be a natural ally. But Hitler always saw France as Germany's inveterate foe as well as its most powerful one. Hitler will attempt to neutralize France first before turning against the Soviet Union. Al of Germany's war plans in the thirties support this.
The next thing is to determine what Stalin does. Does Stalin still go after Finland and the Baltics without the British and French being at war with Germany? They conceivably could which would open up a potential for German rapproachment with the West and then a combined anti-Bolshevik alliance. I think Stalin would proceed very carefully. IOTL, he didn't go after the Baltics until the Allies were preoccupied with the German invasion of France. Stalin might attempt to cajole and bully everyone he can, but actual invasion might be delayed until he sees an opportunity to do so without risk of a greater war.
But let's assume nothing happens in Eastern Europe which would really divert the timeline.
In 1941 or 1942, Germany goes to war against France. Hitler's goal was lebensraum in the East, and he thought that Britain should be a natural ally. But Hitler always saw France as Germany's inveterate foe as well as its most powerful one. Hitler will attempt to neutralize France first before turning against the Soviet Union. Al of Germany's war plans in the thirties support this.
This is an interesting point. IOTL when Stalin invaded Finland, Britain and France did consider declaring war on the Soviet Union. It was mainly the fact that they were already at war with Germany that stopped them, and the hope of bringing the USSR in as an ally.
If Britain and France weren't at war with Germany, would they declare war on USSR for the sake of Finland, after not declaring war on Germany for the sake of Poland?
It is indeed a interesting fact, but it is doubtfull it the UK and France would carry out a relief operation to Finland ITTL. Remember IOTL one of the main reasons for the planned support operation to Finland was to go through Norway and Sweden to cut off the iron ore being delivered to Germany from Sweden. Now since they are not at war, would from this perspective make the operation even less likely IMHO.
Last edited:
Cook
Banned
Actually the only thing that stopped the British and French involving themselves in the Winter War was Finland accepting a ceasefire. Preparations were underway for an expeditionary force and these preparations were subsequently applied to the Narvik expedition and the invasion of Norway.
Not quite as simple as that IMHO.
The Allies could also not get permission from Norway and Sweden to carry out their plan....
In addition the Finns didn't think that the suggested Allied contribution would make a difference, hence it was too small, and therefor never officially requested intervention from the UK and France.
And thirdly only a small part of the troops deployed in the Allied plan, would have gone to Finland. The rest would have been used to secure Lines of communications (Narvik, and stopping the iron ore going to Germany from Sweden).
This is an interesting question. Part of the issue is precisely how the lack of British/French participation comes about. The Brits issued a guarantee of Poland's borders in spring/summer of 1939, shortly after Hitler grabbed the rest of Czechoslovakia. If they don't do that, then the whole dynamics of the lead-up to war changes, and I'm not entirely sure the outcome is the same kind of German invasion of Poland, though some kind of invasion seems inevitable.
One piece of the puzzle: If it is pretty apparent that France and Britain are not going to go to war over Poland, Germany probably wouldn't seek a pact with the Soviets. They wouldn't really need one because they would not need it to deter the western allies from going to war and without a British blockade they would still have access to the world economy, so they wouldn't have the same economic incentives to reach an accord with the Soviets.
If there wasn't any agreement on spheres of influence, how would the Soviets react to a German invasion of Poland? They probably would stay out of the war initially and expect the Poles to hold out as a buffer for at least a few months. The Soviets were fighting the Japanese at Nomanham in July through early September 1939 (though most of the fighting was over before September). They had to be wary of a two-front war.
Without an agreement with the Soviets, the Germans would try to grab as much of Poland as possible, especially the oil wells in Galacia, of which historically two-thirds went to the Soviets. That would put the Germans uncomfortably close to the Soviet border. Would the Soviets sit by and allow the Germans to take over all of Poland? If the Soviets advanced into eastern Poland they would risk war with the Germans. If they didn't, they would end up with the Germans on their border, several hundred miles closer to vital targets in the Soviet Union than they were historically at the start of Barbarossa. I'm guessing that the Soviets do a partial mobilization, and maybe grab a few strategic areas just inside the Polish border, but do not push into Poland in a major way because they don't want to risk accidental clashes with the Germans.
So Germany ends up with all or almost all of Poland. Without a Soviet push the war lasts a bit longer and more of the Polish army escapes to Romania.
What happens then? I don't see Hitler turning West until the Soviets are taken care of. Going against France with no pact with the Soviets would make zero sense. Why cut yourself off from the world market without an alternate source of supply, which the Soviets historically were? Also, going after France with a long, hostile border with the Soviets makes no sense. The Germans would have to leave too much of their power in the east to keep an eye on the Soviets.
Going after the Soviets with the French still not conquered is a risk too, of course, but as long as Belgium remains neutral the potential front in the west is relatively small and defensible compared to the one in the east.
I'm guessing that the Germans would spend the rest of 1939 and the first few months of 1940 digesting Poland. They would probably be a bit more moderate in their occupation policies because they would have to worry about western public opinion, but they would be extremely exploitive nonetheless.
Given the Nazi economy, they would have to grab some additional territory to exploit by late spring of 1940. I'm guessing they go after the Soviets. As to how they do, I'm still thinking that through. There are a lot of considerations. As noted, beating the French historically gave the Germans a lot of booty, of which the French oil stocks and their artillery were probably the most important pieces. Having the French economy tied into the German war effort historically helped a lot too.
On the other hand, no British/French declaration of war means that the Germans would still have access to the world economy, to the extent that they were able to pay for material there. Hard currency would be the problem there, and the Germans would have to keep some of their economy focused on producing trade goods. The Germans wouldn't have to supply the Soviets with the machinery that the Soviets historically got from the German/Soviet pact, which would partly make up for the need to supply stuff to the world market.
Both sides would be much less capable if the Soviets and Germans squared off in the spring of 1940. I'm not sure which army would have lost the most capability. More on that later.
One piece of the puzzle: If it is pretty apparent that France and Britain are not going to go to war over Poland, Germany probably wouldn't seek a pact with the Soviets. They wouldn't really need one because they would not need it to deter the western allies from going to war and without a British blockade they would still have access to the world economy, so they wouldn't have the same economic incentives to reach an accord with the Soviets.
If there wasn't any agreement on spheres of influence, how would the Soviets react to a German invasion of Poland? They probably would stay out of the war initially and expect the Poles to hold out as a buffer for at least a few months. The Soviets were fighting the Japanese at Nomanham in July through early September 1939 (though most of the fighting was over before September). They had to be wary of a two-front war.
Without an agreement with the Soviets, the Germans would try to grab as much of Poland as possible, especially the oil wells in Galacia, of which historically two-thirds went to the Soviets. That would put the Germans uncomfortably close to the Soviet border. Would the Soviets sit by and allow the Germans to take over all of Poland? If the Soviets advanced into eastern Poland they would risk war with the Germans. If they didn't, they would end up with the Germans on their border, several hundred miles closer to vital targets in the Soviet Union than they were historically at the start of Barbarossa. I'm guessing that the Soviets do a partial mobilization, and maybe grab a few strategic areas just inside the Polish border, but do not push into Poland in a major way because they don't want to risk accidental clashes with the Germans.
So Germany ends up with all or almost all of Poland. Without a Soviet push the war lasts a bit longer and more of the Polish army escapes to Romania.
What happens then? I don't see Hitler turning West until the Soviets are taken care of. Going against France with no pact with the Soviets would make zero sense. Why cut yourself off from the world market without an alternate source of supply, which the Soviets historically were? Also, going after France with a long, hostile border with the Soviets makes no sense. The Germans would have to leave too much of their power in the east to keep an eye on the Soviets.
Going after the Soviets with the French still not conquered is a risk too, of course, but as long as Belgium remains neutral the potential front in the west is relatively small and defensible compared to the one in the east.
I'm guessing that the Germans would spend the rest of 1939 and the first few months of 1940 digesting Poland. They would probably be a bit more moderate in their occupation policies because they would have to worry about western public opinion, but they would be extremely exploitive nonetheless.
Given the Nazi economy, they would have to grab some additional territory to exploit by late spring of 1940. I'm guessing they go after the Soviets. As to how they do, I'm still thinking that through. There are a lot of considerations. As noted, beating the French historically gave the Germans a lot of booty, of which the French oil stocks and their artillery were probably the most important pieces. Having the French economy tied into the German war effort historically helped a lot too.
On the other hand, no British/French declaration of war means that the Germans would still have access to the world economy, to the extent that they were able to pay for material there. Hard currency would be the problem there, and the Germans would have to keep some of their economy focused on producing trade goods. The Germans wouldn't have to supply the Soviets with the machinery that the Soviets historically got from the German/Soviet pact, which would partly make up for the need to supply stuff to the world market.
Both sides would be much less capable if the Soviets and Germans squared off in the spring of 1940. I'm not sure which army would have lost the most capability. More on that later.
[
I'm assuming that it is the Allies who are continuing appeassement, hence the natural step prior to the Polish invasion was the seizure of rump Czechoslovakia.
IOTL Hitler didn't anticipate France and the UK declaring war....so ITTL for Germany the settings are the same, and Germany would then logically still seek a pact with the USSR. It still needed the ressources which where provided with great generousity by the USSR.
If this was the case, and therefore no Rippentrop-Molotov agreement, the Soviets would be up in arms, with having Germany moving closer to the USSR. I wonder what the Soviets would do....either deliver military support to the Poles, or in an act of "self-defence" seize Polish territory like IOTL, without German agreement. No matter what the situation would be explosive!
Also plausible IMHO.
There the Polish Army would be interned, as I am assuming Romania is still close to Germany ITTL. But it is a lot better than Katyn!
There would be no reason to go after France hence Lebensraum is to be found in the East. In Hitler's eyes the UK and France have shown themselves weak, and it not to be seen as a significant threath.
My guess would be that the Germans would be worse off. They lack a lot of the motorization which took place in 1940 - 41, as well as the combat experience gained in the West....not to mention the resources from France you also mentioned. The USSR on the other hand is alarmed by what they see from Germany (Even Stalin had to be) and should speed up the readiness of the Red Army.
I'm assuming that it is the Allies who are continuing appeassement, hence the natural step prior to the Polish invasion was the seizure of rump Czechoslovakia.
IOTL Hitler didn't anticipate France and the UK declaring war....so ITTL for Germany the settings are the same, and Germany would then logically still seek a pact with the USSR. It still needed the ressources which where provided with great generousity by the USSR.
If this was the case, and therefore no Rippentrop-Molotov agreement, the Soviets would be up in arms, with having Germany moving closer to the USSR. I wonder what the Soviets would do....either deliver military support to the Poles, or in an act of "self-defence" seize Polish territory like IOTL, without German agreement. No matter what the situation would be explosive!
Also plausible IMHO.
There the Polish Army would be interned, as I am assuming Romania is still close to Germany ITTL. But it is a lot better than Katyn!
There would be no reason to go after France hence Lebensraum is to be found in the East. In Hitler's eyes the UK and France have shown themselves weak, and it not to be seen as a significant threath.
[/QUOTE]
My guess would be that the Germans would be worse off. They lack a lot of the motorization which took place in 1940 - 41, as well as the combat experience gained in the West....not to mention the resources from France you also mentioned. The USSR on the other hand is alarmed by what they see from Germany (Even Stalin had to be) and should speed up the readiness of the Red Army.