Would it be moral for the Allies to invade Germany in 1936?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5643
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Would it be moral for the Allies to invade Germany in 1936?

#16

Post by OpanaPointer » 09 May 2016, 23:01

Maybe higher than that. But you have to remember that Gerald P. Nye, Burton Wheeler's lap dog, worked hard to paint the war as a Democratic/Big Guns/Big Banks war that we shouldn't have gotten into in the first place. Ironic that the GOP is now so completely in bed with the last two.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

Re: Would it be moral for the Allies to invade Germany in 1936?

#17

Post by Futurist » 10 May 2016, 01:50

OpanaPointer wrote:Maybe higher than that.
OK. Also, though, do you have any polls about this, OpanaPointer? :)
But you have to remember that Gerald P. Nye, Burton Wheeler's lap dog, worked hard to paint the war as a Democratic/Big Guns/Big Banks war that we shouldn't have gotten into in the first place. Ironic that the GOP is now so completely in bed with the last two.
To be fair, though, I can understand some/many Americans' disappointment that 116,500 American troops got killed in a war which didn't result in the peaceful and tolerant new European order that Woodrow Wilson promised them. :( After all, the U.S. lost more than 20 times more troops in World War I than it lost in the Iraq War almost a century later. :(


OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5643
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Would it be moral for the Allies to invade Germany in 1936?

#18

Post by OpanaPointer » 10 May 2016, 02:01

Versailles was a problem for the US, we didn't "get" why revenge was so important. I often say that WWI and WWII were "hot periods" in Europe's endless civil war. The rather naive American public didn't really understand that. When the Congressional Investigation into the roots of intervention in that war found their goats the public was even more put off. Senator Nye tried to reproduce that coup with his investigation into "war propaganda and US film makers". Didn't work out so well that time.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: American feelz

#19

Post by BDV » 10 May 2016, 06:17

American naïveté might be a bit overstated. Both wars, but especially first one served clear internal purposes, too.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5643
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: American feelz

#20

Post by OpanaPointer » 10 May 2016, 07:42

BDV wrote:American naïveté might be a bit overstated. Both wars, but especially first one served clear internal purposes, too.
Who said differently?
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10054
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re:

#21

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 15 May 2016, 07:41

Tim Smith wrote:If Stanley Baldwin (British PM in 1936) had chosen war over the Rhineland, he would have been opposed not only by the great majority of British public opinion but possibly also by the King himself (Edward VIII).

The scandal over Edward's relationship with a married American woman (Wallis Simpson) had not yet broken in March 1936, and so the people would be behind the King if he publicly protested against the war.

I'm not sure even a strong British PM could lead Britain into war if the King opposed it, since the King was theoretically Commander-in-Chief of the British armed forces.

Most likely France would have to fight Germany alone if they invaded. If this was the case, would France still win?
The assumption here there would have been a war is misunderstanding the German intent. It was a gamble based on some political analysis & a shrewd guess the French would not counter. Only six German infantry regiments were sent into the Rhineland, with little in artillery or logistics support. They marched around on a big photo op for a few days & then occupied some old pre 1918 barracks & camp sites. Hitler expected his government would fall if the French did react. More so if the Belgians joined them.
peter_suciu wrote:
Most likely France would have to fight Germany alone if they invaded. If this was the case, would France still win?
This could have turned into a replay of The Great War but fought in the Rhineland. France was a powerful military but I don't know if her people would have been behind it and Germany was in the process of developing their new weapons and tactics.

I'd think the Germans would eventually turn the tide and France would have to accept the loss of Alsac-Lorraine yet again. In this situation the Austrian crisis and Czech crisis wouldn't happen. They would just be absorded as Germany and France would sign a non-agression pact. If they could pull off the victory and manage to take Poland without a war, then the invasion of the Soviet Union would shape up nicely. The hundreds of thousands of men tied down to occupy France, Beligum, Norway, Holland and Denmark would be freed up for the East.
Anti war sentiment was still fairly strong in Germany as anywhere. NSDAP propaganda & overconfidence had not yet set in & pro war sentiment was still largely confined to the fanatics. There were more of them than in many nations, but the bulk of the population was skeptical.

A second problem was that relabeling to Wehrmacht two years earlier had not yet created a army capable of defending Germany. There was a massive expansion program underway, but it was just started. In two years a 500,000 man organized reserve had been created out of the old shadow reserve. The new conscripts or recruits had more than doubled the standing force. The downside was arms were still limited and the theoretical number of combat worthy 'divisions' had barely doubled from the seven infantry divisions of the Reichswehr. Support units, corps heavy artillery, and army echelon formations existed on paper & in the barracks, but were undermanned, undertrained, and largely unequipped. Ammunition was barely adaquate for training, but war reserves were nonexistant.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Would it be moral for the Allies to invade Germany in 1936?

#22

Post by ljadw » 15 May 2016, 09:03

The OP is wrong : it should be : would it be moral for France to invade Germany in 1936:Britain had NO forces to invade even Iceland .

France also had not the forces to invade Germany: it had first to mobilize .

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 13:15
Location: UK

Re: Would it be moral for the Allies to invade Germany in 1936?

#23

Post by Tim Smith » 15 May 2016, 20:12

ljadw wrote:The OP is wrong : it should be : would it be moral for France to invade Germany in 1936: Britain had NO forces to invade even Iceland .

France also had not the forces to invade Germany: it had first to mobilize .
No.

The British Army had 4 regular infantry divisions, all based in the UK. 2 divisions were based at Aldershot, and could have been deployed to France at short notice. This would have created a BEF only one third of the size of the one of August 1914 - but better than nothing at all.

The French Army had 20 regular infantry divisions, 5 regular cavalry divisions, and 1 light mechanized division. Mobilisation would activate reserve divisions and provide replacements for the regular units.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Would it be moral for the Allies to invade Germany in 1936?

#24

Post by ljadw » 15 May 2016, 22:26

Tim Smith wrote:
ljadw wrote:The OP is wrong : it should be : would it be moral for France to invade Germany in 1936: Britain had NO forces to invade even Iceland .

France also had not the forces to invade Germany: it had first to mobilize .
No.

The British Army had 4 regular infantry divisions, all based in the UK. 2 divisions were based at Aldershot, and could have been deployed to France at short notice. This would have created a BEF only one third of the size of the one of August 1914 - but better than nothing at all.

The French Army had 20 regular infantry divisions, 5 regular cavalry divisions, and 1 light mechanized division. Mobilisation would activate reserve divisions and provide replacements for the regular units.
This is not correct : in 1938 the British warned the French that for the first 6 months they could only expect the support of 2 divisions,in 1939 these 2 divisions arrived in France at the end of september .4 divisions were at the front on 12 october and a 5th division arrived at the end of 1939.

This means that the situation in 1936 was even worse .

For the French,the situation was also bad in 1936 : it would take weeks or months before the French would be ready :mobilisation would result in the disbandment of the peace army to form a war army .The peace army of 20 divisions was not operational,in 1914 the strength of the peace army was more than the double .

In 1936,the French politicians asked Gamelin what he could do :his answer was : nothing,unless mobilize,which was a political decision,and a mobilisation before the elections was impensable;besides the French government had told the public that it was safe behind the Maginot Line, thus,why mobilize and go east of the Maginot Line ?

The last time the French had advanced in Germany was in 1923 and the results were very bad .

Post Reply

Return to “What if”