What if Germany liberated Poland after keeping Danzig and it's earlier boundaries?

[FulmenTheFinn]

Be aware that this sounds suspiciously like a vote in favour of Suvarov's absurd 'Icebreaker' fantasy.

Not believing Stalin would sit idle forever is not the same thing as casting a vote for Suvorov.

This scenario requires the Nazis not to be in power.

It was the Bolshies who were ultimately against leaving any kind of Polish state on the map in 1939, not the Nazis. See my earlier post in the thread on the matter:

Actually leaving a rump Poland intact was discussed, but was eventually and definitively shot down by the Russians. From The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich:

The telegrams are available here, through the Wayback Machine:

https://web.archive.org/web/20071105072928/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/ns080.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20071105072934/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/ns081.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20080226032203/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/ns082.htm

Et cetera.

That is of course not to say said rump Poland wouldn't have eventually become something similar to the Generalgouvernement, particularly after 22.6.1941.

 

[Millefleurs]

Be aware that this sounds suspiciously like a vote in favour of Suvarov's absurd 'Icebreaker' fantasy.

I didn't know about Suvarov and this 'Icebreaker theory'. I google it know. But I don't say that Barbarossa is an preemptive strike of defense. It was Hitlers main goal to invade the SU, it was the core of his ideology to destroy the communists and take the russian land for the germans. We don't know what would have happened if Germany had focused on Britain instead of launching Barbarossa. Maybe the SU would have just built up their defense, maybe they would have been confident at some point to attack. Stalin tried to ally against Hitler because the SU was Hitlers main target but it failed because some european countries felt threatened as much by Russia as they felt by Germany. That there would be war between this countries was just a matter of time due to Hitlers dream of 'Lebensraum im Osten'.

 

[George Parr]

or if the Superior French Navy blockades Germany, 1vs1 in a long war, France wins.

I have no idea what gave you this idea. The French fleet wouldn't have been capable of blockading Germany on its own. For one, most of it was stationed in the mediterranean, due to the Italian navy, so it could never afford to focus on Germany in its entirety as long as even the possibility of Italy joining the war existed. Add the necessity to close off the north sea if you want to blockade Germany, and you have a fleet that is operating quite far away from its bases, with no means of immediate support in case of a battle, while having no air support. Germany might not have impressive numbers at the beginning of the war, but it is operating closer to its ports, can bring in air support, and is capable of focusing its fleet on one specific area while the French need to cover all the approaches to the North Sea in their entirety.

Secondly, it was anything but modern. Most of the battleships were remnants from WW1 that had not seen adequate improvements in the way it happened with the Italian ships. The only modern ones where the Dunkerque and Strasbourg, which weren't even full battleships, and the Richelieu, which wasn't even ready to enter service by the summer of 1940. The one carrier couldn't carry anything remotely modern. The fighters it could use where from the mid 20s. It was also slow as heck.

Now, France had plenty of plans for further modern ships, and was busily building some of them by the time the war started, but those would take quite some time to be ready. So they wouldn't be around until more German units would be around as well. France held an advantage in numbers, but that means little when you can't concentrate your forces (and are in fact contractually obliged to cover the mediterranean against the Italians) and don't have the bases to easily cut off Germany's acess to the Atlantic. Without Britian, there is no blockade of Germany, it is as simple as that. Not that Germany was as reliant on sea-trade as they were during WW1 anyway. While they didn't achieve autarky for all things, they made significant improvements in most areas. Germany ran into food-shortages in WW1 due to running out of fertilizers and being highly reliant on imports to feed the lifestock (up to 38% of the output was depending on it). For WW2, there was a large supply of fertilizers that would last for years into the war, and the dependance on imports to keep up feeding the lifestock had been reduced to less than 10 percent. The one main issue in terms of foods were fats and oils, because those where the things that Germany was actually lacking quite a lot of. Those were imported from the Balkans as well though, so it's not like the Soviet Union was the only source. At that point the question also becomes what sort of land Germany had taken during the war. E.g. Denmark added quite a bit to secure Germany's food supplies. It was one of the reasons for the lenient treatment. Also, Swedish iron ore was mostly transported in the Baltic sea. The route from Narvik was only necessary during winter, because at that time the northern ports of Sweden would be cut off due to ice, and a good rail transport system to the south had not yet been established.

Any sort of blockade, which, as mentioned above, would have been hard to pull off by the French on their own, wouldn't have had nearly as much impact as the blockade during WW1 had.

 

[Pz. Los]

Like Germany reoccupied the Rhineland, what if it occupied it's earlier territories given to Poland, and liberated the rest of the nation? This might have changed the course of events on the globe. I wonder how HOI4 would have played if this had been considered as a possible scenario?

Historically I agree that this wasn’t possible. The Molotov Ribbentrop Pact pretty nullified that as Stalin would never have given up his claims on Poland and the Soviet invasion of Poland nullified the Romanian Bridgehead strategy of the Polish army which potentially could have extended the conflict with Germany at least for a while. Now if you eliminate the “alliance” between the Soviets and Germany then I say your scenario is possible. Liberating a fully independent Poland would have gone a long way to showing Germany wanted nothing more than its previous territory back. I also haven’t really seen anyone mention the Phony War period between the time Germany invaded Poland and then invaded Norway. Allies really didn’t want a fight as WW1 was still fresh (20 years) and their disarmament meant that the initial part of the war would be a nightmare. Politically, Hitlers credibility could have been restored by such a move and pressure on Chamberlin would have been considerable to come to terms. In HOI4 I figure it would be the white peace option although I don’t know what would have to happen to get there

 

[Jack Churchill]

Historically I agree that this wasn’t possible. The Molotov Ribbentrop Pact pretty nullified that as Stalin would never have given up his claims on Poland and the Soviet invasion of Poland nullified the Romanian Bridgehead strategy of the Polish army which potentially could have extended the conflict with Germany at least for a while. Now if you eliminate the “alliance” between the Soviets and Germany then I say your scenario is possible. Liberating a fully independent Poland would have gone a long way to showing Germany wanted nothing more than its previous territory back. I also haven’t really seen anyone mention the Phony War period between the time Germany invaded Poland and then invaded Norway. Allies really didn’t want a fight as WW1 was still fresh (20 years) and their disarmament meant that the initial part of the war would be a nightmare. Politically, Hitlers credibility could have been restored by such a move and pressure on Chamberlin would have been considerable to come to terms. In HOI4 I figure it would be the white peace option although I don’t know what would have to happen to get there

Hitler's credibility was shot after Munich. The Polish government would also in no way accept the loss of its coastal territories, so there's no way a "fully independent" Poland would have been possible, especially with the Nazis in power. On a side note, can we stop using the term liberation? Liberation from what? Being territorially intact?

 

[DystopianAlphaOmega]

In a long war, despite Germany's bigger industry, they would be in a disadvantage vs France (The Germans them selves understood this, its why they invented Blitzkrieg, they knew in a long war, they'd lose.), as France actually had the natural resources to sustain a long war. If the USSR doesnt give Germany MASSIVE shipments of grain, oil, rubber, not to mention the massive iron ore shipments from Sweden that were also essential, if these countries dont supply Germany, or if the Superior French Navy blockades Germany, 1vs1 in a long war, France wins. The colonial Empire of France can supply nearly everything France needs in abundance, and they can buy all the oil they need from anywhere, while the superior French navy prevents Germany from shipping in Oil.

I reiterate again, for the people in the back, without the USSR giving Germany immense amounts of grain, oil, rubber etc..Germany would have stood NO chance vs France in 1940, even if Britain was absent. No fuel, no food, no blitzkrieg (Germany is not self sufficient on food, without huge grain shipments, millions of Germans would starve, their only seller was the Soviets, as no one else in Europe had a surplus, and they couldn't import it from overseas as the superior French and British navies blockaded them). All they'd have left is human wave attacks against the Maginot line.

Even the loss of just Swedish iron ore would collapse Germany. Grand Admiral Raeder, head of the German navy, declared that it would be "utterly impossible to make war should the navy not be able to secure the supplies of iron-ore from Sweden".

A couple of points.

There’s nothing France could really do to prevent Germany from getting imports from Soviets and Eastern Europe. So I don’t see how this has all that much bearing on Germany's ability to wage war. They might try to cut off the Narvik route through mining, but then Germany just does their historical Norway invasion in response to keep Swedish ore flowing (even easier with no UK). France might be able to do a pseudo-blockade through mining the North Sea and Channel (assuming UK allows them to), but this won’t affect trade within Europe (let alone potential blockade workarounds like Italy). Not to mention the effects of U-boats and Surface raiders without the Royal Navy. Besides, Germany had shown it could fight for years before a blockade would really take its toll in WWI.

So what are we left with then? France is down on manpower, down on industry, and down on airforce. They are going to lose in the long run.

And Germany used heavy artillery and combat engineers to take the parts of the Maginot they did capture (admittedly after having broken through the Ardennes anyways, but still) so it wouldn’t have been human wave tactics. Or they could have just gone through Belgium for the same result.

 

[Sunforged General]

A couple of points.

There’s nothing France could really do to prevent Germany from getting imports from Soviets and Eastern Europe. So I don’t see how this has all that much bearing on Germany's ability to wage war. They might try to cut off the Narvik route through mining, but the. Germany just does their historical Norway invasion in response to keep Swedish ore flowing (even easier with no UK). France might be able to do a pseudo-blockade through mining the North Sea and Channel (assuming UK allows them to), but this won’t affect trade within Europe (let alone potential blockade workarounds like Italy). Not to mention the effects of U-boats and Surface raiders without the Royal Navy. Besides, Germany had shown it could fight for years before a blockade would really take its toll in WWI.

So what are we left with then? France is down on manpower, down on industry, and down on airforce. They are going to lose in the long run.

And Germany used heavy artillery and combat engineers to take the parts of the Maginot they did capture (admittedly after having broken through the Ardennes anyways, but still) so it wouldn’t have been human wave tactics. Or they could have just gone through Belgium for the same result.

A French alliance with Soviets, or at least something similar to the molotov-ribbentrop Pact where the Soviets agree not to help Germany, and this is where Germany runs out of food and oil. Arguable the British caused the most problems with a french-soviet understanding, if the British stay entirely neutral and don't get in the way, a this alliance becomes more likely. Furthermore, with the British not guarding the north, the French send a part of their fleet north, probably their large submarine force, and with submarines they most definitely can keep Germany from importing iron from Sweden, as the Baltic sea is a very small space compared to the Atlantic, finding German convoys would be easy, and Germany has only a handful of destroyers, not nearly enough to combat French submarines.

Furthermore, attacking the Maginot line head on would never work, some Ouvrages of the line were hit with 420mm German mortars, and suffered no damage. The Germans never took major French forts, and this is considering the line at the time of German attack was severely undermanned, most men being sent north.

 

[DystopianAlphaOmega]

A French alliance with Soviets, or at least something similar to the molotov-ribbentrop Pact where the Soviets agree not to help Germany, and this is where Germany runs out of food and oil. Arguable the British caused the most problems with a french-soviet understanding, if the British stay entirely neutral and don't get in the way, a this alliance becomes more likely. Furthermore, with the British not guarding the north, the French send a part of their fleet north, probably their large submarine force, and with submarines they most definitely can keep Germany from importing iron from Sweden, as the Baltic sea is a very small space compared to the Atlantic, finding German convoys would be easy, and Germany has only a handful of destroyers, not nearly enough to combat French submarines.

Furthermore, attacking the Maginot line head on would never work, some Ouvrages of the line were hit with 420mm German mortars, and suffered no damage. The Germans never took major French forts, and this is considering the line at the time of German attack was severely undermanned, most men being sent north.

Remember that the French alone is definitionally going to be able to do less than the UK and France (plus others) were able to do together. If UK and France together couldn't cut off the Baltic supply lanes, it's extremely doubtful France alone could have, even if they were assured of no Italian intervention (the basic premise of the 1v1 that no other power attacks the two combatants, not exactly realistic, but that's the scenario that was being argued).

Sending submarines into the Baltic would be very risky. The Danish straits are too much of a chokepoint for mines, submarine nets, and destroyers. Not to mention the Germans would have air cover over the Baltic. The British considered sending a surface navy to the Baltic, but the plan was abandoned for being considered too risky. Also, ships in the Baltic can just hug the Swedish-Danish-German coastlines if necessary (violating this neutrality risking diplomatic repercussions).

Soviets are going to be happy to see the French and Germans fighting a re-run of WWI. That was their whole plan (let the West bleed itself dry again and then swoop in to pick up the pieces). Obviously the defeat of France nixed this plan in our own history. Germany had shown it could cut a deal with the Soviets to buy time and resources in exchange for splitting Eastern Europe.

As for the Maginot, again, Germany could just go around it through the Low Countries. Or employ some of the innovative tactics which they used in capturing forts during the Western Offensive such as glider aircraft and paratroopers combined with heavy artillery and combat engineers.

Beyond this, WWII showed the power of an air force. Germany's air force was focused around supporting ground troops and vastly outnumbered their French counterparts.
_______________________________

Regardless, I digress to the thread's topic. The issue is, as others have said, no one trusted Hitler, and that leaving Germany in such a dominant position would allow them to turn Eastern Europe (including the remains of Poland) into their sphere of influence, all the while giving them more opportunity to build up for further attacks. Besides, for the Germans to be doing well enough to have brought the Allies to the table, they are likely going to be demanding more than the Allies will be willing to stomach.

 

[Admiral Fischer]

I wonder why this topic is being discussed here? There's a separate forum section for pure historical matters.

 

[JonS]

The French fleet wouldn't have been capable of blockading Germany on its own. For one, most of it was stationed in the mediterranean, due to the Italian navy,

No, most of it was in the Med due to the explicit Alliance agreement by which the RN would focus on the Atlantic and North Sea, while the MN focused on the Med. Absent that Alliance, the MN would - perforce - have been present in both locations. Not as strong as when concentrated in the Med, but strong enough.

Add the necessity to close off the north sea if you want to blockade Germany, and you have a fleet that is operating quite far away from its bases, with no means of immediate support in case of a battle, while having no air support.

Close blockade vs distant blockade is a thing. There is no explicit requirement to operate under the GAF's air umbrella when the German merchantmen are coming from Africa or the other side of the Atlantic.

Secondly, it was anything but modern. Most of the battleships were remnants from WW1 that had not seen adequate improvements in the way it happened with the Italian ships. The only modern ones where the Dunkerque and Strasbourg, which weren't even full battleships, and the Richelieu, which wasn't even ready to enter service by the summer of 1940. The one carrier couldn't carry anything remotely modern. The fighters it could use where from the mid 20s. It was also slow as heck.

Merchantmen don't typically put up much of a fight, regardless of how old your warships are.

 

[davidc929]

I think colonialism was at least partly motivated by the same civilising attitude which brings the belief of some today that exporting democracy is a good idea

Colonies are often a net lose for the colonising state. But they make significant money for vested interests in their countries. A lot of people make great wealth as a result of them which gives them the influence over government to amek sure they keep going.

 

[Sunforged General]

Remember that the French alone are definitionally going to be able to do less than the UK and France (plus others) were able to do together. If UK and France together couldn't cut off the Baltic supply lanes, it's extremely doubtful France alone could have, even if they were assured of no Italian intervention (the basic premise of the 1v1 that no other power attacks the two combatants, not exactly realistic, but that's the scenario that was being argued).

Sending submarines into the Baltic would be very risky. The Danish straits are too much of a chokepoint for mines, submarine nets, and destroyers. Not to mention the Germans would have air cover over the Baltic. The British considered sending a surface navy to the Baltic, but the plan was abandoned for being considered too risky. Also, ships in the Baltic can just hug the Swedish-Danish-German coastlines if necessary (violating this neutrality risking diplomatic repercussions).

Soviets are going to be happy to see the French and Germans fighting a re-run of WWI. That was their whole plan (let the West bleed itself dry again and then swoop in to pick up the pieces). Obviously the defeat of France nixed this plan in our own history. Germany had shown it could cut a deal with the Soviets to buy time and resources in exchange for splitting Eastern Europe.

As for the Maginot, again, Germany could just go around it through the Low Countries. Or employ some of the innovative tactics which they used in capturing forts during the Western Offensive such as glider aircraft and paratroopers combined with heavy artillery and combat engineers.

Beyond this, WWII showed the power of an air force. Germany's air force was focused around supporting ground troops and vastly outnumbered their French counterparts.
_______________________________

Regardless, I digress to the thread's topic. The issue is, as others have said, no one trusted Hitler, and that leaving Germany in such a dominant position would allow them to turn Eastern Europe (including the remains of Poland) into their sphere of influence, all the while giving them more opportunity to build up for further attacks. Besides, for the Germans to be doing well enough to have brought the Allies to the table, they are likely going to be demanding more than the Allies will be willing to stomach.

A strictly 1vs1 battle between Germany and France, means France wins. There is no going around the Maginot Line, as that would get Belgium and Britain involved in the war. German air superiority means nothing at the border, as the Maginot Line is impervious to aerial bombardment. They can try to fly past it and bomb Paris, but since French air support isnt needed at the border, the entire French Air Force can guard Paris, which, like London did, be surrounded with Anti air balloons and huge amounts of Anti Air guns. The French navy in this scenario can go into the Baltic, because there can be no mines placed or anti submarine nets place at the straights of Denmark, because invading that country would involve Denmark and Britain. At this point Germany has no land connection to the USSR, and thus, if the Soviets let them trade with them, this trade must go through the Baltic, and risk being sunk by French submarines, its worth noting that the French had one of the largest submarine forces in the world (Not to mention one of the most powerful submarines, the Surcouf.). The German air force cannot locate and sink French submarines, as this is not 1943 and there are no planes with mounted sonar.

A strictly 1vs1 scenario greatly favors France. I still am dubious about whether Germany's economy was actually bigger than France, I've heard sources claim it, but its not backed by anything. In 1940 France showed it had a bigger production capacity for tanks, trucks, artillery, and naval ships. Germany only showed a higher production capacity in Aircraft.

What happened in 1940 does not preclude the possibility of France winning a war on its own, since Britain contributed very little in the way of land forces, relative to the other armies, and didnt send much of its Air force into France, while the Royal navy took a conservative defensive stance. Any level of French aggressiveness, in the Baltic for example, would be more than what the British contributed.

Germany requires a lot of external support to win, imports, land passages, etc. France is pretty self sufficient in terms of resources and its strategy.

 

[kettyo]

I wonder why this topic is being discussed here? There's a separate forum section for pure historical matters.

I have asked for moving it there already.

 

[valisk]

A strictly 1vs1 battle between Germany and France, means France wins. There is no going around the Maginot Line, as that would get Belgium and Britain involved in the war. German air superiority means nothing at the border, as the Maginot Line is impervious to aerial bombardment. They can try to fly past it and bomb Paris, but since French air support isnt needed at the border, the entire French Air Force can guard Paris, which, like London did, be surrounded with Anti air balloons and huge amounts of Anti Air guns. The French navy in this scenario can go into the Baltic, because there can be no mines placed or anti submarine nets place at the straights of Denmark, because invading that country would involve Denmark and Britain. At this point Germany has no land connection to the USSR, and thus, if the Soviets let them trade with them, this trade must go through the Baltic, and risk being sunk by French submarines, its worth noting that the French had one of the largest submarine forces in the world (Not to mention one of the most powerful submarines, the Surcouf.). The German air force cannot locate and sink French submarines, as this is not 1943 and there are no planes with mounted sonar.

A strictly 1vs1 scenario greatly favors France. I still am dubious about whether Germany's economy was actually bigger than France, I've heard sources claim it, but its not backed by anything. In 1940 France showed it had a bigger production capacity for tanks, trucks, artillery, and naval ships. Germany only showed a higher production capacity in Aircraft.

What happened in 1940 does not preclude the possibility of France winning a war on its own, since Britain contributed very little in the way of land forces, relative to the other armies, and didnt send much of its Air force into France, while the Royal navy took a conservative defensive stance. Any level of French aggressiveness, in the Baltic for example, would be more than what the British contributed.

Germany requires a lot of external support to win, imports, land passages, etc. France is pretty self sufficient in terms of resources and its strategy.

In 1939 the Northern Section of the Maignot line is much stronger, being constructed mainly out of interlinking fortresses, than the section running from Strasbourg to Mulhouse, which is mostly well sited pillboxes, blockhouses and casemate machine gun batteries, and relying a lot on terrain and the Black Forest and the Rhine for protection. Very similar in concept we might say to the section of the 'extended' line that was crossed at Sedan, only properly finished (and presumably the keys to some of the bunkers hadn't been lost )
Both North and Southern sections are reliant on Gap troops to sally and force back advancing forces and to support the batteries, but the southern section more so. Dealing effectively with the Luftwaffe would be critical or weakpoints will be found and individual batteries will be silenced, and with respect the French air force was not capable of doing this in 1939, nor could it have been made so in the short term.

So it comes down to how well it is defended and how well the units selected to be gap troops perform under dive bomber attack to keep the entire thing secure. It should be much more defensible true but there will be weak points, (such as Corap's 9th proved to be), regardless of the fortifications themselves. If the Germans in a 1 vs 1 are going to cross the line, it will likely be in this section, and the butchers bill would no doubt be high.
Otherwise it will be later when Gustav and Dora come to play, they will look to obliterate fortresses in the Northern sector and given what they did to the fortresses at Sevastopol this would be a very big problem for France. They would have no answer to this unless they had managed to best the Luftwaffe.

Secondly economy wise, you might wish to peruse the old League of Nations yearbooks, if you are dubious about Germany's economy vs France in 1939, or look at modern GDP projections mapped for the time. Germany had a GDP ~3x that of France and outproduced her enormously in terms of Steel and Coal. Even if France cuts off Germany's supply of Iron ore from Sweden it merely drops production by a 1/4 as she continues to consume the very large amounts of ore she produces domestically.

Next Tanks, France could have produced more tanks, and more armaments, but to suggest they could outproduce Germany post 1938, when they had the Czech capabilities added to their own is a fantasy. Secondly the tanks she did produce were of variable quality, the B1, excellent in many ways but with serious running gear problems, the rest were, charitably, not up to scratch. And finally even in 1940 Reynaud had enormous trouble persuading the owners and unions to actually work beyond a standard working week, most armaments factories shut at 5pm sharp, something massive has to change in the French industrial mindset, perhaps the shock of being abandoned might do it, or possibly the USSR encouraging the communists to work hard, though the latter would be dependent on if the USSR and Germany were friendly and had signed their pact.

If it is France alone, and Germany 'respects' the sovereignty of Belgium and Switzerland to avoid 3rd party intervention then France will face an uphill struggle even given her colonial advantages.

 

[DystopianAlphaOmega]

A strictly 1vs1 battle between Germany and France, means France wins. There is no going around the Maginot Line, as that would get Belgium and Britain involved in the war. German air superiority means nothing at the border, as the Maginot Line is impervious to aerial bombardment. They can try to fly past it and bomb Paris, but since French air support isnt needed at the border, the entire French Air Force can guard Paris, which, like London did, be surrounded with Anti air balloons and huge amounts of Anti Air guns. The French navy in this scenario can go into the Baltic, because there can be no mines placed or anti submarine nets place at the straights of Denmark, because invading that country would involve Denmark and Britain. At this point Germany has no land connection to the USSR, and thus, if the Soviets let them trade with them, this trade must go through the Baltic, and risk being sunk by French submarines, its worth noting that the French had one of the largest submarine forces in the world (Not to mention one of the most powerful submarines, the Surcouf.). The German air force cannot locate and sink French submarines, as this is not 1943 and there are no planes with mounted sonar.

A strictly 1vs1 scenario greatly favors France. I still am dubious about whether Germany's economy was actually bigger than France, I've heard sources claim it, but its not backed by anything. In 1940 France showed it had a bigger production capacity for tanks, trucks, artillery, and naval ships. Germany only showed a higher production capacity in Aircraft.

What happened in 1940 does not preclude the possibility of France winning a war on its own, since Britain contributed very little in the way of land forces, relative to the other armies, and didnt send much of its Air force into France, while the Royal navy took a conservative defensive stance. Any level of French aggressiveness, in the Baltic for example, would be more than what the British contributed.

Germany requires a lot of external support to win, imports, land passages, etc. France is pretty self sufficient in terms of resources and its strategy.

In a previous post you talked about France getting Scandinavia or the Soviets into the war. It all depends on how you define “1v1”. It definitely means no one else intervenes, but does it mean neutrals can be attacked?

Germany could also just do with Denmark what they did in WWI, which is send an ultimatum to mine/close the straits. I can’t see Denmark refusing.

Germany’s economy was far bigger than France’s. France and Britain together could outproduce it, but not France alone.

Regardless though, what began as a counter argument to a post claiming France was stronger than Germany has somewhat derailed the debate. This thread is far from the only one with such tangents, but I agree that this is quickly turning into a separate thread entirely.

 

[Secret Master]

Yeah, I think this should be in the history forum.

Thread moved.

 

[Zaleukos]

Russia played its own game. They were close to ally with Britain and France to stop the german expansion. They failed cause of the military rights through poland, which wasnt acceptable for the western allies. Strange how fast they turned to german and agreed to the Hitler -Stalin pact aka. molotov-ribbtr. pact.

Stalin wanted to buy himself time and didn't trust the western powers. He didn't expect MR to hold, but he did want to delay conflict for as long as possible.

 

[Yakman]

Like Germany reoccupied the Rhineland, what if it occupied it's earlier territories given to Poland, and liberated the rest of the nation? This might have changed the course of events on the globe. I wonder how HOI4 would have played if this had been considered as a possible scenario?

You mean fight the USSR in 1939?

Germany would lose.

 

[JonS]

A strictly 1vs1 battle between Germany and France, means France wins. There is no going around....

No no no. You don't understand.

In these scenarios the key is to give Germany all the unrealistic buffs you can imagine, whilst holding [France|UK|USSR|USA|whoever] to their historical behaviour.

So, in this case, Germany clearly gets to overrun Poland and the Low Countries, and depend on Italy as an ally, without UK deciding that hmm maybe it might be a good idea for longterm survival to get involved in this thing. And, you know, the ME-262 was available in 1944, and 4 years isn't that long, so let's just make ME-262s available for the Battle of Briatian. I mean, why not, right?

 

[Sunforged General]

No no no. You don't understand.

In these scenarios the key is to give Germany all the unrealistic buffs you can imagine, whilst holding [France|UK|USSR|USA|whoever] to their historical behaviour.

So, in this case, Germany clearly gets to overrun Poland and the Low Countries, and depend on Italy as an ally, without UK deciding that hmm maybe it might be a good idea for longterm survival to get involved in this thing. And, you know, the ME-262 was available in 1944, and 4 years isn't that long, so let's just make ME-262s available for the Battle of Briatian. I mean, why not, right?

1vs1 means 1vs1. However, all things considered, Italy getting involved means little. Italy proved it was unable to breach the French border, even with most of the French army fighting the Germans, the Italians suffered 20 to 1 casualties vs the French and gained almost no ground. Really, all France needs to do to sink Germany is send her submarines into the Baltic and stop the Flow of iron from Sweden, as the German Grand admiral Raeder stated without the iron of Sweden, Germany's war effort would collapse.