German-Polish Alliance, Early Barbarossa in 1939.

[Liberterius]

This is a hypothetical grand strategy idea I've been thinking of for Germany after having read the first book of Harry Turtledove's "The War That Came Early" trilogy. (In which WWII starts in 1938, when the British and French declare war on Germany instead of giving them the Sudetanland.)

This is my first post on these forums. I want to think through my plans, possible problems I see with it already, what I expect would happen, and then I would like to see critiques from others.

Ok, here we go:

In our timeline, Hitler wanted to control the parts of East Prussia which were in Poland, as well as the Danzig corridor and Danzig itself. He eventually wanted all of Poland of course, for "living space" and to have a border adjacent to the Soviet Union to prepare for that invasion. He tried to pressure Poland into just giving Germany their "Germanic" regions in a settlement, but the Poles were smart enough to pretty much stonewall.

What if Germany had tried "softer" methods; gaining Poland as an ally in a plan to invade the Soviet Union?
Poland had already fought the 1920 war against the USSR, and its government was staunchly anti-communist and anti-"Jewish-Bolshevik." It's not unreasonable that they may have allied with another anti-communist great power in order to gain some turf in the East and eliminate a major threat.

Germany would have to make promises to Poland to give them some of the Eastern conquests; but they can always go back on this later, after the gains in the USSR are consolidated.

German troops can then combine with Poland to go through their territory in the invasion of Belarus and Ukraine; Germany will have a closer startline for their 1939 "Barbarossa."

It's unlikely that France and Britain would declare war on Germany in response to an invasion of the USSR; they don't like communists, and in our timeline they offered almost no material help to Poland when Germany invaded it, and they actually had a pledge to protect Poland. But no such treaties with the Soviets by summer 1939, when this invasion would be best.

Furthermore, Germany could MAYBE get Japan on its side to invade the USSR from the East; yes Japan's strength was mainly in air/sea power and not in their army, especially against the Russians (that scary little war in Mongolia a few years ago) but there were great resources of coal, iron, lumber, and oil in the Eastern USSR. Especially if the German/Polish (maybe +Romanian/Hungarian too?) force attacks the USSR at the same time, the Russians will be weaker in both areas.

In 1939 the Germany military would not be nearly as prepared as it was in 1941, in terms of tank numbers especially.
However, two years earlier for the Germans also means two years earlier for the Soviets; the officer corps is even more-so reeling from the effects of the purges, and tank production and current numbers are not as high as in 1941.
I believe the advantage when both of them are weaker, goes to the Germans due to their very superior tactics, airpower, and coordinated tank strategy.

Germany could start their invasion further East than in our timeline, against a weaker force, have one more ally on their side, and be unopposed by the West (no threats of bombing). Likely the initial Soviet forces on the border would be encircled just as easily as in our timeline. Soviet tank numbers would not be as high for the whole campaign. Germany should turn the "liberated," anti-Stalinist citizens of Ukraine and Belarus into troops for the invasion. The Baltic states might join on the German side in a bid to gain some Soviet territory, same for Finland.

The Soviets would be very hard pressed on multiple fronts, with little chance of international help; the world would basically be against them in an anti-Communist land-grab. Germany could likely press on to take Moscow, Leningrand, and Rostov and maybe even press into the Caucasus. I doubt they could conquer the entire country even in this scenario, but they could so crush the Soviet military and grab so much valuable land and so many major cities that they'd have to agree to a settlement, forcing the Soviet government to retreat to near East of the Urals. (Just west of them.)

Germany wouldn't own all of the territory they could have gotten historically had they miraculously won; it would be divided between their minor allied states, though they'd still get the best and biggest pick of everything, and could anyway pressure their former allies into a Cold War, Soviet-style economic system in later years, if not outright steal more of their territory.

France and Britain would just sit on the sidelines, happy to see their two biggest enemies hurt each other; until one wins.

But they also likely wouldn't declare war on Germany in the near future; they'd just prepare their own defenses while in the post-war years Germany carries out the Holocaust and German settlement of the East, and develops new weapons such as jet fighters and long range rockets.

The US would not fight the Japanese, as they would be fulfilling their territorial needs from Russian Asia. (In the late 1940s, Japan might decide to after the Pacific, though that's a story for another day.)

Problems I see with this strategy/timeline:

-Number one; Poland not joining Germany. They didn't trust the Germans much more, if at all, more than the Soviets. It would take some real wheeling and dealing to get them to agree to joining the alliance.

-Japan was more interested in going South to the Pacific islands for their resource needs; they had a comparatively stronger air/naval force compared to the Americans and British, and a comparatively weak army compared to the Russians.

-German forces not being developed enough to defeat the Soviets, and get bogged down in a static war which they ultimately lose. (I find this unlikely.)

-France and Britain attack western Germany while the German armies are in the East, though I find this unlikely too.

What say you?

Also I've been a lurker on here for a couple months by the way and it's a very cool forum!

[ljadw]

There already is a thread on this subject:If Poland had become Germany's ally,rather than its enemy

[Tim Smith]

I think the only way to really convince Poland of German sincerity, and to get Poland to join the Axis enthusiastically and willingly, is for Hitler to actually give Poland German territory! E.g. the southern third of East Prussia has Polish majority, so give that to Poland. Maybe even give Danzig itself to Poland, permanently, evacuating the entire German population and solving the Danzig issue once and for all.

Nothing short of that would turn the deeply suspicious Poles into friendly and enthusiastic German allies, willing to help Germany invade the USSR. But it would be VERY unpopular with the German people and the Wehrmacht generals, Hitler's name would be reviled and many Nazi leaders would be considering overthrowing him since giving even more German land to Poland is obviously the act of a weak-minded fool or a complete madman!

[princeliberty10311517]

Your overstating the case - Poland made a neutrality pact with Hitler and was faced with a choice between Germany and the Soviet Union and Germany looked better than the Soviet Union.

[Tim Smith]

Your overstating the case - Poland made a neutrality pact with Hitler and was faced with a choice between Germany and the Soviet Union and Germany looked better than the Soviet Union.

I say Germany did not look better than the Soviet Union in 1939. Certainly not after annexing Czechia in March - that showed Hitler up as a liar who would break any treaty as soon as it was convenient for him.

[ljadw]

The treaty between Germany and Poland was in 1934.