Germany attacks France instead of Poland

[Neptun]

What if Germany attacked France instead of Poland in september '39?

IMO, attacking France instead of Poland would be better choice for Germany. France would be defeated even easier than it was, in any case sooner than Poland could mount any serious attack, moreover if Poland was treated as a friendly state from 1933 on, there would probably be no attack at all (?). Germany would keep Poland intentionally intact (except maybe for Danzig and the corridor after the fall of France) because it would be a valuable ally against SU. In case of major german-SU conflict, Poland could hardly stay neutral. IMO it is reasonable to assume, that it would side with Germany like other east european states.

By 1940 Germany has now at least three options:
1) strike in the Mediteranean and ME, securing the southern flank and Italy before Barbarossa.
2) strike in the Mediteranean and ME, Barbarossa is postponed untill peace is reached in the west.
3) go on defence in the west and put all the effort in defeating the SU (no BoB, no Afrika Korps, instead press Italy to withdraw from Afrika if neccessary and concentrate on SU).

In any case, in the spring of 1941 Germany would be in much better position than it was. Together with some other better decisions like no declaration of war on USA, better infantry weapons, better torpedoes, submarines and naval aviation instead of useless Tirpitz and Graf Zeppelin, 'total war' measures from the beggining, which could all be done reatively easy, Germany might avoid the defeat.

Your thoughts?

[wm]

There was no way Poland would stay idle and do nothing. No credible political force existed in Poland that would even dare to suggest that.
And that scenario would give Poland the time needed to mobilize properly, and maybe even the time to receive modern arms from France or Britain.

[maltesefalcon]

Germany was totally unprepared to fight the French in 1939.
Look at the Order of Battle for the Polish campaign vs. 1940 Western campaign.

Also since the non-agression pact with Russia was only weeks old, there would be not enough time to build up the oil, foodstuffs and horse fodder that the Germans acquired for the 1940 campaign IRL.

Finally Hitler barely convinced his Generals into a limited war with Poland in 1939. He himself admitted Germany would not be prepared for a full scale war until 1943. Doing so on purpose rather than by misadventure would invite a coup.

[Neptun]

'Germany was totally unprepared to fight the French in 1939.'

Hitler wanted to attack France immediatelly after the fall of Poland, so I doubt that they were totally unprepared, moreover France was also less prepared than in spring 1940. In addition to this, there would be no BEF. The other option is to postpone the attack. Even in spring 1940 Germans were weaker than France and UK, they succeeded because of superior tactics, so it is reasonable to assume, that France could be crushed very rapidly, regardless of the moment of attack.

In any case, basic argument is that France would fall sooner than Poland could do anything to prevent this. After that Poland would be forced to side with Germany in Germany-SU conflict. At least that is the plan, I don't argue, that it would neccessarily work, I just say that it would be a better start for Germany.

[Baltasar]

Hitler wanted many things, a German colony on the moon being not the most unrealistic of his ideas.

The Wehrmacht in 1939 wasn't in a shape to fight France. The war in Poland did a lot to improve tactics on all levels, which as you mention yourself, were a major factor in that campaign. It also enabled the Wehrmacht to concentrate on the French really. Germany had had rather unsuccessful campaigns in France in 1870/71 and 1914-1918. Knocking out what appeared to be the weaker opponent was a rational choice, besides Hitler had thought that France and Britain would not go to war over Poland and so the Wehrmacht was poised to strike there in any case already. Railing them back to the west would cost too much time.

[Neptun]

''Hitler wanted many things, a German colony on the moon being not the most unrealistic of his ideas.'' Von Braun eventually got there, so it is not so unrealistic... You just have to put it in another context.

The point is not whether to fight France in '39 or '40 but to avoid war with Poland. I'll put it that way - avoid war with Poland and crush France at first chance (choose your own timming). The reason to preserve Poland intact is that it could be a potential ally against SU. Or was that impossible at all? Would Poland in case of German attack on France go to war no matter what, even if Germany would deliberately treat Poland the best way possible from 1933 onward? I think not. Most of the participants in WWII were very reluctant to go to war, so in case of German attack on France Poland would most likely wait on english response and after that if decides to attack, it first has to mobilize the army, organize an attack etc. It takes time. France was crushed in about 14 days - there's no chance that Poland could mount any serious attack soon enough to prevent that. Of course the German attack should be a surprise as much as possible, like Barbarossa or Japanesse advance in Pacific, to prevent others to intervene on time.

[Baltasar]

Relations between Germany and Poland went downhill quickly at least from mid-30's. You'd basically have to replace Hitler with somebody who would be able to make use of both his brain halfes to start with. We're talking not only about changing what happened in '39 but also the whole Nazi ideology, the public claims on Danzig / Gdansk, potential promises vis a vis Russian agression towards Poland etc. I believe that this would be pretty much impossible to do with that staff at the helm of German politics as of '33. The desire to reclaim the territories lost to Poland after WWI was quite big, this would make relations with Poland difficult to say the least.

[thaddeus_c]

posted a "what if Romania?" http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1&t=213916 (and am getting a daily critique of the idea)

(it would be in concert with Hungary and USSR, but against a country half the size of Poland. it was considered at least possible at the time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Ch ... _of_Poland)

since this would be smaller campaign they could then turn towards France, possibly before any British forces had arrived.

(assume Poland will not attack Germany, especially after their putative ally Romania has been occupied and Hungary in the Axis?)

after a defeat of France and occupation of Denmark and Norway, do not know reaction of Poland(?) have been told there is NO support for better relations with Germany? would this be the case if they maintained the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2% ... ssion_Pact and only asked for Danzig not insisting on corridor?

[Neptun]

@Thaddeus_c

Attacking Romania, a future ally of Germany is complete nonsense. Germany primarily lost the war because of too many enemies. How could attacking (future) ally be helpfull? My idea is the opposite, avoid (Poland) and delay (USA) conflict wherever possible and get as many allies as possible.

As Baltasar correctly pointed out, there is a major problem with (shortsighted) Hitler&Co, nevertheless Hitler was quite practical on many occasions, e.g: he didn't raise the question of South Tirol and even his requests toward Poland were quite fair. The real 'what if' here is, what if Hitler&Co realised that Germany is just too weak to fight everyone. He was quite fond of history, so it is not impossible, that he'd notice that UK always opposed the most powerfull state in Europe (so his dream of allying with UK was just a dream), what are the consequences of naval blockade (US civil war, first WWI) etc. and consequently concluded that Germany needed a strategy not only hastily improvisation.

This certainly doesn't mean that Germany would renounce of Danzig etc, the hipothesis is that instead of taking the shortest way to the goal is better to approach it in a different direction. The main idea is, if Germany wins the war it will be strong enough to set borders etc. without much opposition, however in order to win the war you need as many allies and as few enemies as possible.

[flakbait]

Or in "real politic" as few ACTIVE ie COMBATANT enemies as possible all at the SAME time. Disposing/ defeating/ occupying Germany`s victims ONE at a time is Nazi Germany`s only faint hope of emerging successful and victorious in WW2. Due to her Nazi government`s prior policies this thankfully was not possible and eventually almost EVERY country on Earth felt compelled for 1 or more reason to join the Allies and to completely destroy them, Thank God...this 1 fact of history alone speaks volumes of just how universally evil the Nazis truly were in the eyes and judgment of almost every society then on the planet then and now.

[Baltasar]

Thank God...this 1 fact of history alone speaks volumes of just how universally evil the Nazis truly were in the eyes and judgment of almost every society then on the planet then and now.

May be I'm just too cynic here, but I rather think that many countries only joined because they were either bullied into it or hoped to get something worthwhile for joining the bandwagon. The various crimes of Nazi Germany weren't known that much throughout the world as they are these days.

[flakbait]

Enough WAS known to convince some governments and others were directly and indirectly attacked by the U-boats in particular. And YES you are undoubtably correct that many nations whom didn`t really care either way still decided to be on the "winning" side and that by doing so that they would be `rewarded` with various favors afterwards. Nazi Germany as the war progressed was unable to continue to `reward` her own `allies` and instead was further forced to demand harsher and harsher terms from them...

[Neptun]

''Thank God...this 1 fact of history alone speaks volumes of just how universally evil the Nazis truly were in the eyes and judgment of almost every society then on the planet then and now.''

This is either pure hipocrisy or naivety. Nazis did much evil, that's true. But, how do you think that now so admired Roman empire rose to power? By planting flowers? Cezar was even by rather harsh contemporary standards regarded as war criminal, not to mention that he was one of the most corrupt and morally depraved leaders that world has ever seen, but now is consistently depicted as a great hero. The 'Arsenal of democracy'? First president, after whom the capital is named was a slaveowner. Should I go on? Just name one great hero of the history...

England and France went to war not because of nazi crimes, which were almost nonexistant at the time, but because they were afraid to loose there immense empires, which were acquired mostly by textbook war crimes. Correct me if I am wrong, but Germany didn't just demand Danzig, but proposed a referendum, something completly unthinkable for UK and France regarding their colonies. To make this hipocrisy even bigger, France and UK completly ignored the SU attack on Poland, an attack by a regime 100 times worse that German (at least at the time). Get serious!

[thaddeus_c]

Attacking Romania, a future ally of Germany is complete nonsense. Germany primarily lost the war because of too many enemies. How could attacking (future) ally be helpfull? My idea is the opposite, avoid (Poland) and delay (USA) conflict wherever possible and get as many allies as possible.

Germany gained Romania as an ally after they had defeated their two treaty allies (Poland and France) and they had lost huge territories (to Hungary, USSR, and Bulgaria)

they were not historical allies and an invasion was considered very possible at the time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Ch ... _of_Poland

what does an invasion accomplish? brings Hungary into Axis and eliminates Romanian Bridgehead (both areas Polish forces retreated to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Bridgehead) it places Romanian oil production under German control (they were only able to extract at most half during the war OTL) and it serves as basis of German-Soviet pact instead of Poland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_occ ... n_Bukovina

Germany could then turn towards France, possibly before the British forces arrive, Poland very unlikely to attack (or IMO even declare war) after seeing Romania quickly defeated and being surrounded by Germany and German allies (Hungary and Slovak Republic) and their traditional enemy USSR.

if/when France defeated (and BEF forced from continent) Poland would then be forced into at least a putative alliance with Germany.

[Carl Schwamberger]

I am in awe of the degree of ignorance or handwaving of the political dynamics and more important the internal ideaology of nazi Germany displayed in this thread. Trying to argue German strategy as if playing this out as game of WiF or Third Reich is more than a bit absurd.