"What if Germany had been invaded and stopped in 1939?" Topic

Say Britain and France called Hitler's bluff in 1939 and invaded Germany directly as a result of Germany's invasion of Poland. Or even take it back a bit, and let's say that the allies foresaw that Hitler was not going to stop escalating and decided to invade in 1938 instead of brokering 'peace in our time?'

What would have been the consequence? How would Europe look now? Would it have created a peaceful and much more stable Europe earlier? Or would it have created an ongoing mess of other issues? Would there still have been a World War Two eventually, albeit with different players?

What would have been the unintended consequences? Or would it have been the best thing all around?

I think Italy, Russia, Japan still would have made their moves; too many non-peaceful characters around then. I don't see other countries (like Spain) joining in.

Here's another question:

Would the Russians have invaded anyway (possibly earlier)?

And if they did would they have stopped at the Narew, Western Bug, Vistula and San rivers (the boundary agreed upon in the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact or would they have taken all of Poland (and possibly some of Germany)?

Soviet Union never becomes a super power with uncertain results for decolonization efforts.

Fascism is never stamped out and remains a factor throughout Europe much longer.

Churchill goes on in history to be "that guy with the cigar".

Japan and the United States still rumbles.

I do not think Britain and France could have beat Germany in 1939. Their East Front was secure with the peace pact.
Finland could have invaded Norway on their own.
Germany had the Western Wall to blunt a French and British attack. Belgium and Holland remain neutral. As does the Balkans. All are places that would drain German manpower in the real war.

More Infantry divisions but the German blitz had been honed in Poland. The Germans blunt Allied attacks and launch counter-attacks to crush France and Britain. They can pick off Belgium and Holland after France falls.

I agree with most of the above.

More interesting if Britain and France go after Hitler in 1938 with Poland still a factor.

France DID invade Germany in 1939 while Germany was attacking Poland. It was called the Saar offensive and there was almost nothing standing in their way except French high command and government unwillingness to continue or put real pressure on Germany.

It's almost as if France and Britain didn't care about their "guarantees" of Poland's borders. The Polish don't call it the western betrayal for nothing…

A really interesting question, and I think the answer might have depended on how Stalin reacted.

The Germans were pretty much committed to the destruction of Poland, and if the Saar Offensive had been pushed with determination, then Hitler would have either had to divert some of the forces in the East to defend against the French and British, or lost large swathes of his territory, possibly including the Ruhr.

If he does divert, and assuming he has time to do so before the Saar Offensive goes critical on him, then would Russia have played ball, or would Stalin have taken advantage of the weakened German forces in the East to seize the whole of Poland for himself? Then again, unsure how things might play out, he could have sat on his hands to see who was going to end up the winner.

And I'm sure I've read somewhere that after the Polish campaign, the German army was pretty much out of ammunition. If that is true, then maybe Hitler would have been forced to sue for peace; gaining Poland at the expense of Western German would hardly have been a good deal for Berlin.

Can anyone remember the name of the German officer who said after the war, that Germany could have withstood a full scale French offensive in the west, for two weeks?

That's my thoughts, worthless babble most likely, and I'm sure there are people here who will be able to come up with much better "what-ifs" than me!

"The Polish don't call it the western betrayal for nothing…"

Yes, it wasn't our finest hour I have to agree. I guess we had the wrong man in Number 10 before May 10 1940, although Britain couldn't have done much without the French joining in.

Germany had the Western Wall to blunt a French and British attack

The fortifications of this "wall" were not complete, and they were thinly manned by poorly trained troops. As Pizzagrenadier remarks, the French blew through them with trouble at all.

Everything I've read shows that an early offensive by the Allies in 1939 would have cut a big swath through Germany. The Germans just did not have the forces available at that time to actually fight a two-front war.

I agree with Cuchulain that one of the big questions would be what would Uncle Joe have done. The other is what would Hitler actually have done (back down, fight to the bitter end, or something in between).

Rob

Also consider that the first potential coup against Hitler by a group of German generals was in 1939 before the invasion of Poland. It wasn't their dislike of him or a love of Poland so much as they thought Germany wasn't ready for war and that Hitler was taking too big a risk. A Saar offensive with some force behind it and some political will by Britain and France would have been terrible for Hitler at home as well. Imagine Hitler discredited and without the support of the army with French troops on the ground in Germany and the British navy off the coast. The party loses face and support and Germany signs new agreements from a position of weakness.

A determined offensive by the world's largest and best equipped army in 1939 (the French) would have triggered a coup by the conservative elements of the German General Staff, supported by the vast majority of German civilians who remembered 1918 and wanted no more war,death and destruction in their homeland.

Looks like number4 and I are on the same page.

Agree with Number4 and the Pizzagrenadier – the Germany Army in the West was thin indeed in terms of high quality troops and modern equipment; the French could have pushed pretty far into Germany, and Hitler's political position was nowhere near as secure as after the string of victories in Poland, Norway and France – I agree that there would probably have been a "readjustment" of government

In 1938, the Soviet Union was alarmed enough about Hitler that they were willing to join Britain and France. The catch was that they had no common border with Germany, so no way to directly exert force. They asked Britain and France to put pressure on the poles to let them through. The Poles, who weren't threatened, refused. That's one reason the Soviets didn't trust France or Britain in 1939, and opted to look out for themselves.

War in 1938 would have been bad for Germany, but as Hitler had no plan to back down in 1936, he probably wouldn't have backed down in 1938, either.

Grelber

Even the Germans admitted that had the French attacked there was nothing to stop them. But how far would have the French advanced? In war, determination plays a great part and the Allies lacked determination.

Germany would have been disarmed. Had the French responded immediately then Russian forces probably would have remained in place.

Russia may have transferred forces to the east and attacked Japan in China and defeated them. Russian military technology was far superior to Japan's.
Japan would not have attacked the US as the Commonwealth forces would not have been tied up against the Axis. Japan could not hope to defeat the US, Russia and the Commonwealth. Had Japan attacked, the British Navy would have sought a naval battle.
Italy would have remained Fascist and may have continued its efforts in Africa.
The Middle East would have been greatly impacted if Israel was not established.
The US would not have invented nuclear arms as soon as they did and would have remained isolated for another decade.
Russia might have installed a pro-Russian government in southern China and annexed northern China and Korea.
Japan would eventually have been defeated by Russia.

Would Russia have eventually attacked France and a restructured Germany? Possibly, as there was a lot of pro-Communist sentiment in Europe. Probably not though.

Much of today's technology has its origins in WW2 – rockets, aviation, nuclear power, computers, automation, productivity.

Immigration to Europe would have been reduced.
The Commonwealth would have remained pro-British.
China might not have become a major supplier of products to The West.
The picturesque cities of Europe would not have been destroyed.
Heavy metal music may not have been invented and we would all be forced to listen to pop and wear clothes like ABBA.
Communist elements in western workforces would have been the only remaining anti-elite political group and could have been stronger.

World at War magazine (S&T sister mag) #30 published a game called Hinge of Fate with both 1939 fronts that posited the idea of a French invasion of Germany while Germany and USSR were overrunning Poland. Hex-based wargame, simple system. Interesting victory conditions about the fall of Poland (inevitable as far as we can see after playing it a half dozen times). Germany gets pushed back quite a bit on the Western Front.

You can download the "e-rules" from the mag's site:

worldatwarmagazine.com/e-rules

My understanding is that Hitler was incredibly lucky in the early part of the war – through a combination of bluff and daring (not that I admire him in anyway), events seemed to keep falling into place for him.
I don't think it would have taken much for someone to have thrown a spanner in the works – though (for understandable reasons in the wake of the First World War) the Western Allies showed no enthusiasm to grab the bull by the horns. Easy to criticise them in hindsight, but are many rational people today – for example – saying that we should be sending vast numbers of armoured divisions to drive the Russians out of Ukraine? Or are we sort of shrugging our shoulders and looking the other way?

A determined thrust by the French army in 1939 could surely have succeeded, and could only have helped draw German formations away from Poland which might have even (at a stretch) tipped the balance on that front… all depending on the USSR. They adopted a wait-and-see attitude in any case, so might not have even become involved if they saw the German attack was stalling.

Why would Finland invade Norway? That statement puzzled me.

Ultimately, I think there would have been a devastating show down in Europe one way or another though. Aside from Britain and France, there were not too many decent, democratic regimes around – even the Polish government was not particularly nice.
With Hitler ousted in the wake of a successful French invasion in 1939, however, and a reasonable (pro-western allies) government in place in Germany instead, that might have stablised things in the east and kept Stalin in his box?

Who knows.

I actually have Hinge of Fate and it's an interesting scenario.

Regardless, I wasn't asking if it was possible or how it could have been done or not done- but rather what would have been the situation in Europe if the Germans had been defeated.

In other words, if you had to draw up a strategic scenario for a 1940s Europe in such an event, what do you think it would look like?

TGerritsen

I tried to answer that in my final paragraph, but didn't go into much detail.

I would imagine that it would have been pretty much a case of 'the USSR against the rest'. If Poland hadn't fallen (assuming French invasion had caused the Germans to pull back and the USSR had therefore not gone in) and a pro-western allies government installed in Germany, there would have been a couple of fairly powerful bulwarks against any expansion by Uncle Joe.

Italy would have gone which ever way the wind was blowing.

Not sure about how Japan would have played out, but a showdown between them and the US would probably still have happened.

Maybe the Soviet invasion of southern Finland would have gone ahead, and might have drawn in the western allies (as it very nearly did) though this time with their new Polish / German allies and a more general war would have started from that? If the British had any sense, they would have played to their strengths, and – as far as British commitment was concerned – kept it pretty much a naval / air war though.

Maybe this would all have meant the British Empire would have lasted for an extra generation, which would have been a good thing as far as Africa was concerned – a steadier, more evolutionary road to self-rule, rather than the actual somewhat undignified cut-and-run by a bankrupt Great Britain under pressure from Uncle Sam.

Interesting exercise, altho' so impossible to pin down. So much would depend on what Stalin does in Poland and how the French and British reacted to that and above all, if the Nazi Party remains in power following a humiliation in the West.

(A more favorable counter-factual might lie in the French and British moving in force to re-take the Rhineland in 1936, which the German leaders later admitted they were in no position to seriously resist -- that might have forestalled WWII by discrediting the Nazis and bringing a new government to power.)

Assuming that the Germans and the USSR still form their pact and Germany invades Poland, my guess is that the Soviet plans to invade were already in the works and go ahead as scheduled. Stalin either seizes what he wants and then stands pat or becomes bogged down in a trench war situation; meanwhile, Germany suffers losses in the West and a negotiated settlement takes place in 1940, which may or may not lead to a fall of the Nazis. If Hitler goes -- and perhaps he kills himself in 1940 rather than face the debacle of another German defeat -- Germany roils with internal power struggles while Stalin quietly pursues his expansionism in the East, a little here, a little there, careful not to provoke a Western armed response. An alternate Cold War of sorts develops between Western Europe and the Soviet bloc, with neither side willing to initiate open hostilities. Stalin would have been happy to see the capitalist powers squabble among themselves while subsidizing Communist parties across the continent, esp. in a post-Nazi Germany. Proxy wars take place in Eastern Europe and Scandinavia and perhaps in the Near East. Soviet influence in China effectively divides that nation into competing states (those under Communist control, those under Japanese occupation, and those preserving a pseudo-independence). It's too big and isolated a mass for any one power to digest or unite.

Meanwhile, the European colonial powers maintain their overseas empires, altho' India and Pakistan achieve home rule status within five years, along the lines of the Irish Free State. The USA remains quasi-isolationist but girds for a showdown in the Pacific with Japan that arrives in the mid-1940s and is fought to a guarded stalemate with little territory lost or gained and both sides eying a Round Two. American cultural and political life ambles along pretty much in the same path and the Fifties are marked with less prosperity but no less social upheaval, mainly centering around civil rights, "Red Scares", and labor struggles.

And in 1956 Liverpool, a young lad named Lennon meets an even younger lad named McCartney….

No Israel, so a more settled middle east. Plus dismantling the Empire was a condition of US help, so its possible you don't get the same pattern of countries out there.

While modern Iran is a direct result of the US overthrowing the democratic government in the 50s, without Israel the counter-revolution may not have the strong religious element.

Another point to consider is what would the political fallout for Germany be had their Einsatzgruppen activities in Poland been discovered in the wake of a defeat in 1939? The deliberate execution by orders of the Polish intelligentsia and political leadership (65,000 killed IIRC) and the beginning of the executions of and ghettoization of Jews was begun during the invasion of Poland.

So with the Soviets not propelled to super power status, and the colonial powers still standing strong, how does the Vietnamese bid for independence go?

Does India still receive it's independence peacefully?

Do we even see a cold war?

edit:
As someone else pointed out, even if you take Germany out of the equation, middle and east Europe is full of authoritarian fascist and proto-fascist governments. Plenty of powder for a spark and Italy is still ambitious.

Germany would have remained intensely nationalist, and the National Socialists had a monopoly of power, so I don't see Hitler being deposed except unless the Party turned itself on him (which I doubt).

Like how Saddam Hussein remained in power after his war against Iran, Hitler would have remained as well. Vilified by most, useful for some.

If I remember correctly, Mussolini admired Stalin (Italy was building fortifications against Germany as late as 1942). Had Hitler/Germany been humiliated by the Western Allies, perhaps he could have been persuaded to work with the USSR and the two would have cooperated in attempting to dominate the Middle East?

Just some ideas off the top of my head …

Let's do a little analysis on this:
Look at link and start at 9 September. This is the point at which the Saar Offensive stalled after penetrating 8 miles. The Soviet Union didn't start invading Poland until 17 Sept. So at this point let's assume that rather than pulling out the French doubled down and reinforced their attack. Assuming they continue to advance 4 miles per day each day in the morning Hitler would be briefed on the situation on both fronts and have to decide whether he would
a. Ignore the situation in the west and continue the offensive in Poland.
b. Divert resources to the west and slow the offensive in Poland.
c. Cease the offensive in Poland and counterattack in the west.
d. Ask for an armistice.
If Hitler ignores the French offensive by 17 September the French would have penetrated 40 miles, at this point the Soviets would have to ask themselves whether they want to incur the wrath of the Allies or invade Poland. I don't think that the Soviets would consider the opportunity prudent if Hitler took any other option.
The Polish campaign was effectively over on 6 October. If Hitler ignored the French entirely and they continued to gain an average of 4 miles per day (based on the speed of a foot soldier and the French C3 grid I'd say that was optimistic) they would have penetrated 116 miles into Germany. How bad would that be for the Germans? Would the French reach the Rhine industrial district by then?

Interesting.

There where good reasons the wEst sat. The one French offense ran into the German secrect weapon. The anti-tank mine. The French kept driving into mine fields and losing tanks. At the time they had no wayb to detect mines. So pushing on was futile.

Also the French and the United Kingdom had massive amounts of reserves recalled and needed to be trained up to standards. Neither country kept large numbers in uniform . You just can't put everyone in uniforms and call it a trained army.

Mel Brooks' career would have been ruined.

The German army would have removed Hitler and the war would have resumed a few years later under more responsible German leadership. You can't have all those nice large armies just sitting around going to waste, can you ?

The French were not a rapidly advancing offensive army by doctrine. The Germans would have had time to shift forces West and stop the French before they crossed the Rheine. A counter-offensive would have kept the front somewhere between the Rheine & French border.

The Russians would've taken Poland (remember the West was already angry with them over Finland) so they had nothing to lose.

After that, I think history repeats. Blitzkrieg in the West catches the haughty French off guard, the Brits withdraw & once everything in the West is settled Barbarossa launches from the German border, rather than the Polish demarcation line.

Along the entire border, 85 French divisions stood against 34 German, and all but 11 of those were reserve units, short of equipment and ammunition. And not a single panzer!

The French also had air superiority by default – the Luftwaffe presence consisting of a few antiquated fighters, many of which were biplanes. Most of the Bf-109's available were based in the north, protecting the industrial Ruhr and naval facilities. Bombing the merde out of some German real estate would have put a serious dent in Nasty Adolf's popularity with the civilian population…

Finland could have invaded Norway on their own.

Why? Finland had no issues with Norway, and had nothing to do with the historical April 1940 invasion. Never mind that the logistics of mounting such an invasion from northern Finland (with limited road infrastructure) might have been slightly demanding.

The Russians would've taken Poland (remember the West was already angry with them over Finland) so they had nothing to lose.

Actually, historically Soviet Union invaded first Poland (mid-September) and only later Finland (end of November), so I don't think your logic quite works.

As for the Soviets in general, they seem to have been reluctant to start messing with Poland, Finland and the Baltic states before they had Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty in their hands. Stopping the Germans in 1938 probably means that there is no Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty.

Had France and UK gone into serious offensive against Germany in September 1939, that would have probably given Uncle Joe even more freedom in the east than he had historically. As long as the Germany would keep them busy, they would not have much in the way of resources to spend elsewhere. Of course if Germany sues for peace then things will change radically – especially as western power fleets would be now more able to operate in the Baltic sea.

The timing of Stalin's actions is interesting. The Japanese had been nipping at the Soviet controlled Mongolian territory for several years. He was partially interested in signing Molotov Ribbentrop because it gave him some freedom to deal with that problem. After being drawn into the fighting between the Japanese Kwantung army and Soviet backed Mongolian troops, the decisive action came at Khalkin Ghol in late summer/early September 1939 when he was able to defeat the Japanese and force an understanding.

It's no coincidence that after this he goes after Finland to secure wiggle room near Leningrad. The added buffer room of Poland gave uncle Joe the feeling of security he was looking for against Germany and confidence to deal with them now that the east was secure.

It's also a factor in convincing the Japanese to turn westward towards the Pacific for room to grow the East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. So maybe we have Stalin to thank for Pearl Harbor…

"The Polish don't call it the western betrayal for nothing…"

Yeah. Just like the Poles leapt to the defence of Czechoslovakia when Hitler invaded!

Poland had tried at the end of WWI to extend its own borders at the expense of Ukraine, Lithuania and Czechoslovakia. The reality was that Poland was as happy to swallow its neighbours as Germany or the USSR. They didn't have many friends as a result of this. That they think their own aggressions were justified and Hitler's weren't doesn't make it true.

The fact is that Britain and France did declare war because of the invasion of Poland. Maybe the Poles would have liked it quicker, but it still happened.

There's also the factor that even if Germany is defeated quickly, it's still a nation with highly militarist mindset, an economy built on churning out tanks and guns and a political ideology that thinks gas chambers are a great idea.

Which of those will change when the first French tank drives into Paris? Any of them?

Except Germany wasn't churning out tanks in 1939 (it was stealing them from Czechoslovakia!). It wasn't as militarized as it would become. And, there were no gas chamber death camps yet (though concentration camps and the T4 program did exist). What you describe was a product of Nazi ideology but accelerated by the war. That description fits the Germany of 1942 better than 1939.

I think it's important to keep in mind the effect the war had on radicalizing Nazism into a much more potent and murderous form (more so than it already was).

1939 really is the interesting year.

Also, were Germans in 1938-39 really blessed with a 'highly militarist mindset' and a propensity for setting up gas chambers, or had an otherwise normal, cultured, Christian and well-educated society allowed themselves to be dragged along by a clique of deranged but charismatic loud mouths who took advantage of economic woes, semi-legitimate concerns over ethnic Germans in neighbouring territories and (what could easily be sold as) an inequitable settlement after the Great War?

Had said loud mouths been cut off at the knees before they really achieved much, I think sanity might have returned to Germany pretty quickly – like it seems to have done post-1945.

Most humans are sheep, I would suggest, and it only takes a few rabble-rousers (and half way plausible excuse / grievance) to get them going along a certain path. We have seen this time and time again in other countries, where otherwise normal, decent people suddenly turn on their neighbours (in some cases, literally) with incredible savagery.

Won't that depend on de-nazification though?

Will our hypothetical French victors remove the Nazi party as was done by law (and force) after ww2 or will the same feelings of resentment keep them around?

One would assume that a spot of de-nazification would have occured, yes.

Opening up plenty of opportunities for Mussolini to flex his muscles, with relatively predictable outcomes, no doubt :)

One wonders of the fate of the various authoritarian/protofascist regimes across Eastern Europe. A Spain situation where they linger until eventually replaced by democratic uprisings/reforms/pressure?

I am not so sure how Italy would have played out… maybe she would have grabbed at a couple of 'easy targets', but her hesitancy in 1940 showed she was not too keen to go it alone. Not sure how many more easy targets there were for the taking, though, without bumping heads with Great Britain or France… and I don't think Mussolini would have risked that without Germany's involvement. But who knows.

Re. the other various unpleasant regimes… yes – I tend to agree that they would have carried on for a generation or so – for some reason, many inhabitants seem to enjoy / at least put up with the 'stability' and 'order' of such regimes, and as long as they were not expanding militarily, there was no reason for anyone else to really worry about them?