"No War Against the West until 1944?" Topic

I have been reading an excellent book about Hitler's command practices and, mostly, mistakes. One of the big ones was that the Wehrmacht was told that there would be no war against the western powers until 1944. Instead he tried a diplomatic sleight of hand again against Poland and it all went down hill from there.

However, what if he had stuck to his plan and war had started in 1944? What would the Wehrmacht have looked like? We can have a fair idea about the Kriegsmarine as they had 'Plan Z' which was supposed to come to fruition in 1944. But what about the other two services? Without the experience of combat and the lessons learned, what equipment would have been developed? Would the Heer have Tigers and Panthers or would it have just a lot of Panzer IVs? Also, would the Panzer divisions have been fully armoured with all their infantry in halftracks? Would the Waffen SS gave been as large? (And nitty gritty point for the button counters, would everybody be in camouflage uniforms?)

And the Luftwaffe? Would they have the strategic bombers that they lacked in the real timeline? Would they have the ME 262 and would the ME 109s have been replaced by FW190s?

What do people think?

All you supposition supposes no war against the Soviet Union, and whether Japan still felt the need to expand…and when.
These factors alone would alter their militaries significantly.

You may have opened a veritable can of worms!

I think it's less than half the problem. Does "no war in the West" mean there's been war with Poland, Russia or both? Or have the Russians been given more time to recover from the purges and work on their combined arms game? What will the British and French armies and air forces look like after five years of rearmament? The Germans weren't the only ones fooling around with jet engines, for instance.)

Armed forces don't organize, arm or train in a vacuum. The state of everyone's forces will depend a lot on what goes on in those five years you just blipped out. Those Tigers and Panthers weren't some sudden inspiration or a long-term plan come to fruition: they were a response to situations encountered in a war which you may have just eliminated.

And without a war, could Hitler have kept making war materiel and not civilian consumer goods for another five years? Write me a history of 1939-44, and I'll take a guess at what the militaries look like.

I think the key thing was the invasion of Poland. The Nazis do that and they have a war with the West. And they need to get through Poland to be able to get at the Soviet Union easily without telegraphing their moves with allies like Romania and Hungary. The Japanese may have gone to war with Russia again in that time and drawn Stalin's interest to the east. If the non-aggression pact stood then he may still have felt safe from Germany.

Perhaps the Wehrmacht did go to war by going around Poland and trying to deal with the Soviet Union by deploying through Hungary and Romania etc. This may have given them the success they aimed for and with the Russians knocked out, Hitler would have felt safe enough to attack Poland and suffer the ire of the West. And by not gratuitously declaring war on the USA and bringing them to Europe, who knows..?

So that could give the experience and impetus to produce the late war equipment we know so well. As the Soviet Union is defeated in the east, we also have a 'cold war' in the west and maybe an arms race.

Should of…
Would of…
Could of…

All day long!

Oh. And why Panzer IV's? Without wartime experience, the German plan was mostly Panzer III's. Seems as though you're giving the Wehrmacht all the benefits of a wartime experience without an actual war.

I think the pace of war innovation would have been considerably slower, so doubt we would get to Tigers or Panthers if no war. Same for other services. Except maybe the U boat. I think the larger boats were already in the pipeline. And there would have been more of them. Which could really have been a factor in bringing Britian to its knees, maybe had them seek an armistice.

Hard to imagine Japan attacking the Soviet Union significantly while Germany was at peace, given that they didn't do so even after Barbarossa.
And look at the reasons the Nazi invasion of Russia failed: they were largely logistics. It would have been so much harder if they didn't have Poland.

I thought the plan was no war before ‘43-44. Hitler jumped the gun with Poland. Things were in the pipeline, like the Pak 38, developed 1938 and the VK 3001 development was started 1937. The main problem with later war was economic. Hitler was running out of money and he needed to loot countries to get more or grab the resources so he didn't have to pay anyone else for them.

I think Fred is closest to what I was after. I was really trying to find out opinions on what the Wehrmacht would have been like without the experience of 5 years of war but with planned equipment coming on line in the years 1939-44. So to define the question more closely, Hitler does not invade Poland in 1939 but he has 'acquired' Austria and Czechoslovakia. There is no war with Russia yet and the non-aggression pact holds. Perhaps Japan still attacks the USA in 1941 but Hitler does not declare war on the Americans.'His' war begins in 1944 when, after a short 'cold war' Poland is invaded and Britain and France declare war. (I know this stretches belief a bit as Hitler continually defied logic both military and political but…)

So what do the land and air forces of Germany look like now?

Like all the 'Luftwaffe 1946' wet dreams this is essentially an exercise in finding a way for Germany to win WW2.
It assumes all German arms improvements continue whilst the Allies stay at the old levels of development.
In reality Hitler was a 'smash and grab' merchant. Short campaigns where he then occupies and loots the conquered to finance Germany. Worked in Poland, worked in France, failed with the UK and then with The Soviets. Once it was attritional Germany was doomed.
The invasion of the Soviet Union was not expected to be a long campaign. The Germans planned for a victory within a year and as such expanded her Army beyond her means to equip and supply it. This risk was taken because it was believed that the Army would be quickly demobilised after the Soviets were beaten and all the men returned to industry. As we know that never happened.

On land, panzer and light divisions equipped with short-barrel PZ III's and IV's, but still lots and lots of horses in the army as a whole. Say enough halftracks for one regiment of each panzer division, but that's a guess. Not sure about the panzerjaeger battalions. I could see STUG III's, but I could also see the Skoda Works turning out something very close to the Hetzer. Guessing no disruptive pattern cammo. Balance between Army, Waffen SS and Luftwaffe ground troops will depend a lot on German internal politics. My guess would be more Army, fewer Waffen SS, and Luftwaffe ground troops limited to a few divisions of real paratroops, but there are lots of variables.

mkenny is largely right, of course. And it starts from a fantasy premise. Hitler did at least six things between 1933 and the French and British declarations of war, any one of which might have triggered hostilities, and the interval was getting shorter. I can't really see a four of five year pause after tearing up the Munich agreement. But if he somehow had…

By 1943, France has DLMs completely equipped with SOMUAs, DCRs fully equipped with Char B's, and a battalion of R-35's with every infantry division. The assult guns are coming off the lines, too. France has more tanks than Germany, and they've trained with them enough to fix some of the organizational problems and solve the refuelling situation.

Russia is fully equipped with T-34's and KVs, and has largely recovered from the purges. Not sure about doctrine. Russia has a LOT more tanks than Germany, though not as many radios.

Britain finally has reliable Cruiser tanks in quantity, along with Matilda II "I" tanks. Infantry units have 6-pd AT guns, and Cruiser tanks probably have them too.

Poland has the 9TP, and--more of a guess, here--probably introduced a stug or panzerjaeger type AFV based on the same chassis.

Or was the assumption that Germany stays on a war-footing economy for another five years, but the Allies roll over and go back to sleep?

This has been an interesting exchange. It has also obviated my next question which would have been about the Allies. Personally I cannot see how Germany could have won the War even with all the new kit etc ('Luftwaffe 1946 wet dream?!). With Hitler in charge and his misplaced belief in his own abilities and infallibility, it was only a matter of time even given the abilities of the Wehrmacht and its senior officers before his actions brought disaster. My question was aimed at assessing the assets available in 1944 without the previous five years of war and in no way a search for a scenario in which the Nazis win. Whatever our enthusiasms we should all grateful that our parents and grandparents faced the threat and destroyed it.

Assuming "real time" equipment would have been available in this alternate timeline is begging a whole dumpster full of questions.
What are your starting assumptions?
Everyone would assume that War is inevitable, but when? Will the French and British have improved stuff? The Russians but not the Germans?
What about the Poles? Would they be limited to tankettes?

No war simples! Germany gets Nuked like japan. If there had been Nukes in Ukraine ther would have been no war.
Nukes the Never win scenario.

Should have mentioned Italy. By 1943, Italy will have--much the sort of tanks they did have in 1942/43, though I'm not sure they'd have built Semovente without wartime experience. Italy will still be able to field and maintain a small modern army, and Mussolini will still insist on his "Seven million bayonets."

News of the T34 would have leaked out by say 1942 and larger tanks and upgunned smaller tanks would have been put in the pipeline by 1943-44.
What I would do is take each piece of upgraded equipment, double the time between Sept 1939 and it's arrival on the battlefield and double it. Then when the war starts go back to normal speed.

On land, panzer and light divisions equipped with short-barrel PZ III's and IV's, but still lots and lots of horses in the army as a whole. Say enough halftracks for one regiment of each panzer division, but that's a guess.

Not sure that is a given. Heavier tanks were under development and there would be incremental improvements even if war hadn't been declared by both sides. I can see Panzer III's with the long 50mm and possibly the heavier tanks with long guns instead of the short 75mm. If the Germans become aware of the T34 and KV1, which I am sure they would, it is likely they would respond.
As for the Luftwaffe it is likely that some of the next generation of aircraft would have entered service. Jet engine development too and they would have had more rockets.
This is essentially a Cold War scenario so all sides would be watching what the others were doing and responding. The depression stymied military development, but in the lead up to war great advancements were made. Aero engine power outputs doubled and we went from fabric covered biplanes to metal stressed skin monoplanes. Tanks went from WW1 relics to modern designs, with powerful armament, better armour and mobility. Modern artillery was developed with greater range and accuracy. The navies got bigger and more capable submarines, the aircraft carrier, faster and more capable surface ships.
There are other imponderables. Do the Soviets attack Finland still? The UK nearly went to war with them over that.

No war simples! Germany gets Nuked like japan.

Nah! Don't buy it. Can't see the US developing nukes without a pressing need for it. If Japan goes to war in 1941 with the US and UK able to commit greater forces to the conflict from the start it may well have been over before a nuke gets developed.

Fred Cartwright We (the Brits) were already working on Nukes, the US just helped out a bit. We would take longer but would have got there anyway so still the end of the now later European war.

What seems to be ignored is Germany's economy in 1939. With a soaring deficit and national debt the economy was heading for a cliff by 1939. In short the economy wouldn't hold together until 1944 let alone continuing funding the ambitious rearmament plan. To keep the wheels from coming off Hitler was counting on, as mkenny so elegantly put it, a "smash and grab" method.

What seems to be ignored is Germany's economy in 1939.

I don't think anyone is ignoring it. It has been mentioned several times.

You know, I'm intrigued by this alternate reality in which Germany has good intelligence on the Soviet Union and Hitler pays attention to it. That seems to me even less plausible than Hitler hitting the "Pause" button right after taking Prague.

Not that he was unique. Watch how much attention the US paid to reports of the Zero until we were actually in combat with them and had a captured specimen.

the US just helped out a bit.

Hmmm! Not sure I would characterise the Manhattan project as the US "helping out a bit". Tube Alloy fell behind the US effort which prompted the Brits to join forces.

You know, I'm intrigued by this alternate reality in which Germany has good intelligence on the Soviet Union and Hitler pays attention to it.

IIRC it was the number of tanks the Soviet's had in service that Hitler didn't believe, not anything specific about the types. He was a fan of heavy tanks and wasn't it him that wanted the long 50mm gun in the Panzer III and got mad when he found out they had fitted the short 50mm? Even without knowledge of the KV1 and T34 it would have been obvious tank armour was getting heavier with the Char B and Matilda II in service.

Had war not begun until 1943, the Allied fleets might have looked very different. Some of the battleships that the US and UK cancelled to expedite the construction of escort craft might have been completed; the American ships that were authorized by the Two Ocean Navy Act might never have been built, or built in smaller numbers. The fleets probably would not have adopted the heavy antiaircraft armament of the middle and late war period, and some of the older battleships would probably have been scrapped.

If you want to know what Germany would do then go no further than "Mien Kampf." It spells it all out. So yes Germany would eventually invade the Soviet Union to secure living space for the German people. Poland was a mistake and it will be eradicated and it's population would either be killed or serve as slaves. The final solution would still take place. All of this would more than likely lead to a European war.

Japan would continue it's war with China. FDR would make the oil embargo permanent. Japan would go to war to secure the resources it needs to prosecute the war in China and keep it's fleet afloat. A War with the U.S. is unavoidable, then Hitler declares war on U.S. Second verse same as the first.

So just for fun lets play counterfactual. If the war didn't start until 1944.

Germany discovered nuclear fission in 1938. Would Germany have developed an atomic bomb by 1944? For that matter would anyone else have developed an atomic bomb. Keep in mind it would be more than likely that the U.S. and Japan would be at war.

The very act of splitting the atom sent shock waves through the scientific community because every scientist knew what it meant. That is why Einstein signed the letter that was sent to FDR to warn him. Which started the ball rolling but they didn't get real serious about it until after Pearl Harbor.

So if the Japanese went to war as in the other timeline I see no reason why they shouldn't in our counterfactual timeline. Probably just like it played out in the normal timeline. Why wouldn't Hitler declare war on the U.S.? He was crazy to do it in both timelines. But he would.

So if the Germans were to develop an atomic bomb (I have my doubts) and the Manhattan Project went as before then we might have a nuclear war. The Germans were ahead of everyone in rocketry. So if Germany could make a nuke that was small enough to use as a warhead then the next target is London or Moscow.

But the Germans were so far behind the Allies in building a bomb that I have my doubts, for all kinds of reasons that we need not go into here. Making a bomb small enough to use as a warhead on a missile isn't easy. It took the U.S. until the 1950s. It took the Soviets longer. Germany just didn't have the resources. Even by 1944.

Also the Nazis were reluctant to start a program. They had to be talked into it by some of their scientist. They didn't trust physicist. Some Nazis called physics "Jewish Science."

Fred Cartwright We (the Brits) were already working on Nukes, the US just helped out a bit. We would take longer but would have got there anyway so still the end of the now later European war.

The British bomb program was called "Tube Alloys." They had started some preliminary work before 1941. When the U.S. was starting the Manhattan Project, the US invited the British to share there work and send their scientist to work on the project.

But Churchill didn't want to share their program with anyone including the Americans. But it was pointed out to him by I think Wallace Akers that the Americans were already significantly ahead of Britain and if we don't join in we will be caught standing still and miss out on the whole thing.

Only the U.S. had the resources to developed not only an uranium bomb but a plutonium bomb as well. The British have the Americans to thank for their nuclear program.

You have no idea what these countries would have had avaliable by 1944. Would anyone had invested money in jet airplanes in peace time? All these ships and tanks came about as a result of the war. You can't go by what they developed in the normal time line. You don't tend to spend the resources until you have to.

Assuming a German atomic bomb is problematic.
First, Hitler distrusted "Jewish science".
Second, the program itself was low priority, being controlled by Goering for no other reason than a bureaucratic power grab.
Third, Heisenberg, who led the project, didn't have much faith in it, and went down the wrong path.
Fourth, it was very expensive.

It's interesting to speculate on a Soviet atomic bomb, though. Russian research was well developed. Without the drain of fighting a war, it might have come along much sooner.

You have no idea what these countries would have had avaliable by 1944. Would anyone had invested money in jet airplanes in peace time?

No one knows for sure. If there are strong commercial reasons for developing something it gets done, not with the urgency of war time development, for sure, but it gets done.
We can make educated guesses. There would have been incremental developments. We know the Germans were planning follow on aircraft from those they started the war with. We also know things like the Pak 38 and heavier tanks were in development. Same goes for the allies. No reason to think that would have all stopped. The pace of development in the lead up to WW2 was brisk. The weapons armies and airforces had been equipped with in 1934/35 was obsolete by 1939/40.

I'm more interested in the alternative Pacific War. What if Japan doesn't attack the US as they did? What if Japan decides it can acquire the resources it desperately craves by only striking at the European colonial holdings? Japan makes the same blitz on the East Indies, Malaysia, Indochina, goes to war with France, Britain, Holland; then sets up a defense perimeter centered on strategic Pacific islands, isolates the Philippines, threatens Australia and India, and defies American opinion. What then?

Does FDR take the US into war against Japan without a Pearl Harbor? Under what plan for victory? And does the Imperial Navy wait until the US Navy takes the offensive, and try to lure the American fleet into an ambush? (Reverse Midway!) Does the American public support an indecisive "war of choice" against Japan indefinitely? Or does a peace candidate emerge in 1944?

All the while, Hitler maintains a judicious neutrality, focusing on the enemies he already has instead of making new ones.

How does that counter-factual play out?

It took a very specific set of circumstances for Japan to join the war when and how she did, and absent a major war in Western Europe and North Africa with full-scale British engagement, it's not likely Japan would have attacked at all. The Japanese knew going to war against the US and Britain was crazy- Tojo famously compared it to jumping off a temple verandah – and that was in the sure knowledge that Britain could not spare a fleet for Singapore, and American naval rearmament would not reach full stride until 1943.

All the while, Hitler maintains a judicious neutrality…

Oh, we have a "Historical Comedy" Board now?

You have to start with no Hitler and thus no Nazis for the war to start much later imo. Hitler was always going to borrow way beyond the country's means, push other western countries beyond the point of war, believe Germany could take on the world.

"It took a very specific set of circumstances for Japan to join the war when and how she did…"

The special circumstance for Japan to go to war was that the U.S. restricted the sale of aviation fuel and high-quality scrap metal. Then, in 1941, a full embargo on all scrap metal and oil was enacted, which significantly strained Japan's resources.

They had over a million troops fighting in China since 1937 and they had built up a huge fleet. Japan was going to take those resources regardless. If these colonial powers were preoccupied with a European war then so much the better.

In my opinion, Without an attack on Hawaii or the Philippines and the Japanese attacking the rest of Asia and the Pacific as they did in the normal timeline, the next incident that took place (a ship sunk or killing American citizens, whatever it took) would be jumped on by FDR and he would ask for a declaration of war on Japan. Whether Congress would vote for one is not certain. Probably would not be a unanimous vote.

"Second, the program itself was low priority, being controlled by Goering for no other reason than a bureaucratic power grab."

Initially, the German atomic research project was controlled by the military, but as the war progressed, many of these programs came under Albert Speer's ministry. This was particularly true after 1942 when Speer was given more control over weapons production and advanced scientific research.

Heisenberg reported to Speer. There is a common misconception as to Heisenberg 's role in the project. He was never fully in control. There were other scientist working on a bomb which was controlled by other organizations such as major universities.

Speer distributed the few resources he had to all these bomb projects. But Heisenberg was a key individual. In 1943 Speer met with Heisenberg, he asked Heisenberg how soon could Germany produce a bomb? The answer was ten years. That ended the Nazi efforts to develop a bomb during the war. All efforts would be to develop nuclear energy rather than a bomb. More resources were put into jets, rockets and advanced submarines. Programs which had a more immediate impact on the battlefield.

Wasn't there some heavy water plant/reactor in Norway that factors into what went on in Europe, vis-a-vis German atomic bomb planning? It was taken out in a bombing raid or commando raid or some such? And wasn't revealed until long after the war?

Yes, the heavy water project was taken out in a commando raid early on in the war. I remember reading a book on the raid by a survivor back in the 70s. My understanding was that it was something of a dead end anyway but I can't say I really know anything about it.

Cheers,
John

This is not unlike the question I asked a while back on the "Weird WWII" board, where I speculated that the computer (and other hypothetical) games of a German invasion of the US, complete with Panther 2s, Tiger 2s, Maus, He162s and Me 262s, Arado jet bombers etc seem unlikely because in order to be invading the US, the existing German equipment must have been adequate.

Chamberlain declaring "peace in our time" would not have been the subject of derision it has become if Germany had not invaded Poland in 1939. France and Britain, limping out of the Great Depression, would not have been investing huge resources in reequipping their armies. If Germany then invaded the Soviet Union via its eastern allies, the Brits and the French would have kicked back, relaxed, and toasted Hitler for "taking out the commies". Without huge quantities of troops tied up occupying Western Europe, Barbarossa might have succeeded. By then, Germany would have been much more capable of taking out the West – France is still "secure" behind the Maginot line after all . . .

Cheers,
John