No War in 1939

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
sal2012
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: 11 Dec 2012, 22:23

No War in 1939

#1

Post by sal2012 » 03 Jun 2015, 01:45

Hi,

One of Hitler's reasons for pushing ahead with his plans at a rapid pace was that the economic etc. betterment he had been able to introduce was not sustainable in the long term--It seems he thought it could not last beyond 1943-44 so he had to change the geopolitical situation before that time. Another reason was that by that time he expected the foreign powers to have rearmed.

My question is what if Hitler had stopped at the Sudetenland? i.e he never provoked any more foreign concerns.

I think for the answer we have to keep in mind that much of the world in 1939 was under colonial control and the colonial powers prevented any outside trade from the colonies except as it fitted in with the colonial powers' interests thus any "independent" trade with the rest of the world was pretty much off the cards for germany.

What would have happened then?

It would seem the german economy would have deteriorated with time especially if a global economic crisis occurred. The germans would not have had the 'trial" war with poland so the needed reforms would not have occurred in the military and the french campaign was even more important. Fianlly, the germans only stabilized their organizational issues in 1943 after the initial experiences in russia.

italy may well have been opposed to germany. japan may have been under greater pressure and may even have gone to war alone...

pugsville
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 05:40

Re: No War in 1939

#2

Post by pugsville » 03 Jun 2015, 09:46

Germany would have faced a serious balance of payments crisis and could no longer pay for continued imports needed to sustain the armaments for which the German economy was increasingly geared, with out annexing the rest of Czechoslovakia the Germans would not have gotten the Czech gold reserves (which they run through in about 6 months)

Colonial control is mostly irrelevant. Everybody wanted to export but they all were suspicious and would not give credit, Germany had no trouble getting stuff, market access was fine, the problems was paying for the stuff and trade tariffs.

World trade had collapsed with the depression, Nations were extremely reluctant to give trade credit, cold hard cash, for Germany to get imports they had to export something. Barter deals between Nations happened like 6 he112 for some soya beans.


sal2012
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: 11 Dec 2012, 22:23

Re: No War in 1939

#3

Post by sal2012 » 04 Jun 2015, 07:38

Thank for the reply pugsville.

So I guess the conclusion is that germany would have had to go to war anyway in to try and get a better deal for her people in the world...even at the risk of a lost war?

It would seem to me that none of the major powers were willing to give the germans a reasonable deal [from the germans' point of view--I am not talking about the Nazi demands, just the what the normal germans felt they deserved as a major power].....

pugsville
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 05:40

Re: No War in 1939

#4

Post by pugsville » 04 Jun 2015, 15:12

"the germans a reasonable deal"
"what the normal germans felt they deserved as a major power"

Totally fail to understand these bits.

Access to World trade was equal no body was extended credit and insisting on cash, they were being treated by other Nations in much the same way as other nations as far as trade goes. British colonies had preferential trade tariffs (called "Imperial Preference") but that was as far as colonial control went. Everyone was desperate to raise their imports and would sell to anyone who could pay.

German Rearmament was an Issue were Germans felt that they should be allowed and the French were vehemently opposed, but in the End the Nazis just did it and they was no real response. WW1 reparations had been effectively ended before Hitler came to power, and a generous German debt scheme put in place (the US was far more understanding about German debts than British or French debts).

The Nazi Regime was almost totally focused on rearmament, they ran massive deficits to do so and used up gold reserves (German, Austria then Czech) it was unsustainable short of war, if there was no war there would have been some sort of crisis with some sort of recession.Hitler really did not care about general economic matters, he wanted to massive increase the German armed forces, social programs were window dressing and generally starved of funding, economic measures were about increasing military force as the almost only priority and what ever happened to the economy would just have to be borne,

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: No War in 1939

#5

Post by michael mills » 01 Sep 2015, 04:32

The Nazi Regime was almost totally focused on rearmament, they ran massive deficits to do so and used up gold reserves (German, Austria then Czech) it was unsustainable short of war, if there was no war there would have been some sort of crisis with some sort of recession.Hitler really did not care about general economic matters, he wanted to massive increase the German armed forces, social programs were window dressing and generally starved of funding, economic measures were about increasing military force as the almost only priority and what ever happened to the economy would just have to be borne,
That is the vulgar Marxist line promoted in particular by Timothy Mason.

Other historians such as Richard Overy have disputed that interpretation and concluded that there was no economic crisis in Germany in 1939.

Germany was progressively creating an economic bloc in south-eastern Europe that was based on barter trade and provided it with most of the raw materials it needed, including oil to which it gained secure access through the trade treaty concluded with Romania in March 1939.

If Britain had not reacted to the German-Romanian trade treaty by giving Poland a "blank cheque" in the form of the famous unilateral guarantee of 30 March 1939, it is most probable that Poland would have joined the German economic bloc, followed by the Baltic States, Finland, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Greece (and perhaps even Turkey), leaving Germany in control of a self-sufficient economic zone without recourse to war.

That does not mean that there would have been no war at all, just that there would have been no war between Germany and Poland, with Britain and France being drawn in. Once German rearmament had been fully completed by 1943, Hitler would certainly have gone to war against the Soviet Union to destroy "Jewish" Bolshevism and conquer Lebensraum, which had always been his essential ideological and geopolitical aims.

GregSingh
Member
Posts: 3877
Joined: 21 Jun 2012, 02:11
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: No War in 1939

#6

Post by GregSingh » 01 Sep 2015, 05:05

Michael, your scenario assumes that England, France and Soviet Union would be just passively watching while Germany builds this block?

They got nervous in March 1939 after Germany took over Czechoslovakia. Poland and others joining German block would most likely cause France/England/Soviet treaty.

User avatar
The 51st Division
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: 25 Mar 2015, 06:39
Location: Beijing, China

Re: No War in 1939

#7

Post by The 51st Division » 16 Sep 2015, 04:58

Oh well, if Hitler stopped at Sudetenland then he's not Hitler anymore. He wouldn't stop unless he'd had his armageddon against the Jew-backed communist evil threatening humanity.
"The nation might be powerful, yet it shall be destroyed if it seeks war; the world might be peaceful, yet it shall be doomed if it forgets war."
--The Method of the Sima, Qin Dynasty Chinese Military Classic

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: No War in 1939

#8

Post by wm » 18 Sep 2015, 00:52

michael mills wrote:If Britain had not reacted to the German-Romanian trade treaty by giving Poland a "blank cheque" in the form of the famous unilateral guarantee of 30 March 1939, it is most probable that Poland would have joined the German economic bloc, followed by the Baltic States, Finland, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Greece (and perhaps even Turkey), leaving Germany in control of a self-sufficient economic zone without recourse to war.
At that point Poland had been refusing the German demands for four months already. And the internal political situation in Poland made accepting those demands impossible - not only for the Government but for any of all the major Polish political parties too. With guarantees or without them Poland was not going to become willingly another Czechoslovakia or Memel.

User avatar
Don71
Member
Posts: 332
Joined: 30 Jan 2011, 15:43

Re: No War in 1939

#9

Post by Don71 » 18 Sep 2015, 17:32

michael mills wrote:
The Nazi Regime was almost totally focused on rearmament, they ran massive deficits to do so and used up gold reserves (German, Austria then Czech) it was unsustainable short of war, if there was no war there would have been some sort of crisis with some sort of recession.Hitler really did not care about general economic matters, he wanted to massive increase the German armed forces, social programs were window dressing and generally starved of funding, economic measures were about increasing military force as the almost only priority and what ever happened to the economy would just have to be borne,
That is the vulgar Marxist line promoted in particular by Timothy Mason.

Other historians such as Richard Overy have disputed that interpretation and concluded that there was no economic crisis in Germany in 1939.

Germany was progressively creating an economic bloc in south-eastern Europe that was based on barter trade and provided it with most of the raw materials it needed, including oil to which it gained secure access through the trade treaty concluded with Romania in March 1939.

If Britain had not reacted to the German-Romanian trade treaty by giving Poland a "blank cheque" in the form of the famous unilateral guarantee of 30 March 1939, it is most probable that Poland would have joined the German economic bloc, followed by the Baltic States, Finland, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Greece (and perhaps even Turkey), leaving Germany in control of a self-sufficient economic zone without recourse to war.

That does not mean that there would have been no war at all, just that there would have been no war between Germany and Poland, with Britain and France being drawn in. Once German rearmament had been fully completed by 1943, Hitler would certainly have gone to war against the Soviet Union to destroy "Jewish" Bolshevism and conquer Lebensraum, which had always been his essential ideological and geopolitical aims.

This is a very strange interpretation.
Fact is, that 1939 the Gold reserves and at this time it is equal with foreign exchange money was nil too extremely short. The gold reserves were 500 Million RM compare to 27 Billion/Milliarden RM of France and GB.
You can't built an economic block at the 20th century with stability, basing on exchange of goods, which is the leading or oriented currency?
It is possible to do this sometimes between states and governments as was shown between the UdSSR and Germany and Romania and Germany, but that is not stabel in any kind of sense. Trading is functioning on cash, which was gold reserves at this time.
Also the german economy was NOT a public economy, the componies could trade and import and export raw materials and goods. So if the Banksystem had no more gold reserves and foreign exchange money, the german companies will be cut from the international trading in very short time and suffer a big economic crises.
If there is no War since the Sudetenland, Germany will be bankrupt in very short time, because the gold reserves of CSSR, Polen, Denmark, Norway, France, Serbia, and Greek will not be included to to the german banksystem, which will collapse in very short time.

becktelj
Member
Posts: 25
Joined: 05 Feb 2014, 07:07
Location: High northern Sierra Nevadas

Re: No War in 1939

#10

Post by becktelj » 18 Sep 2015, 22:44

michael mills wrote:
If Britain had not reacted to the German-Romanian trade treaty by giving Poland a "blank cheque" in the form of the famous unilateral guarantee of 30 March 1939, it is most probable that Poland would have joined the German economic bloc . . .
.
.
.
That does not mean that there would have been no war at all, just that there would have been no war between Germany and Poland, with Britain and France being drawn in. Once German rearmament had been fully completed by 1943, Hitler would certainly have gone to war against the Soviet Union to destroy "Jewish" Bolshevism and conquer Lebensraum, which had always been his essential ideological and geopolitical aims.
"A loaf of bread," the Walrus said,
"Is what we chiefly need:
Pepper and vinegar besides
Are very good indeed--
Now if you're ready, Oysters dear,
We can begin to feed."

the only way, i believe, that poland joins a german economic block is as oysters served up to the german walrus. the only question is when. hitler regarded it as an aberrant organ created by the wwi peace treaties. his intent was always to abolish the state. it was to be part of the german lebensraum.

because of its geographical position it had to fall next. and i'm not sure britain necessarily needed the treaty to join the war. when was the last time britain stood aside as a dominant power attempted to establish an hedgemony in europe.

Alixanther
Member
Posts: 411
Joined: 04 Oct 2003, 05:26
Location: Romania

Re: No War in 1939

#11

Post by Alixanther » 07 Oct 2015, 04:48

becktelj wrote:
michael mills wrote:
If Britain had not reacted to the German-Romanian trade treaty by giving Poland a "blank cheque" in the form of the famous unilateral guarantee of 30 March 1939, it is most probable that Poland would have joined the German economic bloc . . .
.
.
.
That does not mean that there would have been no war at all, just that there would have been no war between Germany and Poland, with Britain and France being drawn in. Once German rearmament had been fully completed by 1943, Hitler would certainly have gone to war against the Soviet Union to destroy "Jewish" Bolshevism and conquer Lebensraum, which had always been his essential ideological and geopolitical aims.
"A loaf of bread," the Walrus said,
"Is what we chiefly need:
Pepper and vinegar besides
Are very good indeed--
Now if you're ready, Oysters dear,
We can begin to feed."

the only way, i believe, that poland joins a german economic block is as oysters served up to the german walrus. the only question is when. hitler regarded it as an aberrant organ created by the wwi peace treaties. his intent was always to abolish the state. it was to be part of the german lebensraum.

because of its geographical position it had to fall next. and i'm not sure britain necessarily needed the treaty to join the war. when was the last time britain stood aside as a dominant power attempted to establish an hedgemony in europe.
Since when dismantling Poland becomes akin to establishing hegemony in Europe? Up to 1918 they were split between the Czar and Kaiser and there was a world war still. But sure, Britain never needed a good pretext to wage hegemonic war.

becktelj
Member
Posts: 25
Joined: 05 Feb 2014, 07:07
Location: High northern Sierra Nevadas

Re: No War in 1939

#12

Post by becktelj » 07 Oct 2015, 06:16

dismantling poland, in and of itself, doesn't do that. other than warsaw . . . and some neighborhoods in chicago . . . i guess who cares? but after austria, the sudetenland, the remainder of czechoslovakia and then poland this begins to look like a war the uk needs to join. and it really looks like it's the uk choice as to when.

Alixanther
Member
Posts: 411
Joined: 04 Oct 2003, 05:26
Location: Romania

Re: No War in 1939

#13

Post by Alixanther » 09 Oct 2015, 07:05

becktelj wrote:dismantling poland, in and of itself, doesn't do that. other than warsaw . . . and some neighborhoods in chicago . . . i guess who cares? but after austria, the sudetenland, the remainder of czechoslovakia and then poland this begins to look like a war the uk needs to join. and it really looks like it's the uk choice as to when.
Oh, yeah... 'cause Austria, Sudetenland, Bohemia, Moravia and half of Poland guarantees the hegemony of Europe... gimme a break.

Even after the usual historical argument of "creating a line of precedents" (which I could accept, it doesn't really matter), there's no much Hitler could do, even after breaking down Poland together with the Soviets. Why the urge for action? Because the British Empire would've lost the credibility of a superpower if they let the things go "unchecked"?
You know what was left unchecked? USSR was left unchecked. It's because USSR that Hitler dared all attacks starting with Poland, it has nothing to do with former "precedents". Without Ribentropp-Molotov pact there's no Poland partition, no Weserubung and no Fall Gelb.
It's precisely the diplomatic fault of Western (mainly British but also French and North-American) powers to contain the conflict. Both Stalin and Western Powers counted that Hitler would first fight the others. (Western Powers thought they would start fighting in Poland, Stalin thought that Hitler and Franco-British forces would be stalemated at his whim)
If Western Powers would not have been so high on their horses pretending that everything is nice and dandy and ignoring the main menace (Stalin), they could have at least caution Stalin he's playing a dirty game and he would better fall back or else. But since that time Hitler got into power they actively encouraged Stalin, as if Stalin would accept to play as a Western puppet. At no time Stalin saw Hitler as his main enemy. During all propaganda times the West was his main enemy, with or without Hitler. Even during the war (and evidently unbeknowst to the Allies) they portrayed Hitler as a "tool of the capitalistical decadent West".
It wasn't Hitler who "let the Russian bear out of its cage". It was the Western encouragements and economic favours who helped Stalin build his State superpower, all the while Stalin deviously encouraging and supporting Hitler's belligerence (including precious economic assets so that German economy would not need to go on war footing and upset their populace - who might not have opted for a total war in 1939, if asked - as opposed to the 1914 victory craze). And everything started in '33 when SU was accepted into the LoN. Otherwise none of these would have happened. And yes: "it was Hitler's fault we had to prop Stalin!" That's ludicrous.

becktelj
Member
Posts: 25
Joined: 05 Feb 2014, 07:07
Location: High northern Sierra Nevadas

Re: No War in 1939

#14

Post by becktelj » 09 Oct 2015, 19:11

Alixanther wrote:
becktelj wrote:dismantling poland, in and of itself, doesn't do that. other than warsaw . . . and some neighborhoods in chicago . . . i guess who cares? but after austria, the sudetenland, the remainder of czechoslovakia and then poland this begins to look like a war the uk needs to join. and it really looks like it's the uk choice as to when.
Oh, yeah... 'cause Austria, Sudetenland, Bohemia, Moravia and half of Poland guarantees the hegemony of Europe... gimme a break.

Even after the usual historical argument of "creating a line of precedents" (which I could accept, it doesn't really matter), there's no much Hitler could do, even after breaking down Poland together with the Soviets. Why the urge for action? Because the British Empire would've lost the credibility of a superpower if they let the things go "unchecked"?
You know what was left unchecked? USSR was left unchecked. It's because USSR that Hitler dared all attacks starting with Poland, it has nothing to do with former "precedents". Without Ribentropp-Molotov pact there's no Poland partition, no Weserubung and no Fall Gelb.
It's precisely the diplomatic fault of Western (mainly British but also French and North-American) powers to contain the conflict. Both Stalin and Western Powers counted that Hitler would first fight the others. (Western Powers thought they would start fighting in Poland, Stalin thought that Hitler and Franco-British forces would be stalemated at his whim)
If Western Powers would not have been so high on their horses pretending that everything is nice and dandy and ignoring the main menace (Stalin), they could have at least caution Stalin he's playing a dirty game and he would better fall back or else. But since that time Hitler got into power they actively encouraged Stalin, as if Stalin would accept to play as a Western puppet. At no time Stalin saw Hitler as his main enemy. During all propaganda times the West was his main enemy, with or without Hitler. Even during the war (and evidently unbeknowst to the Allies) they portrayed Hitler as a "tool of the capitalistical decadent West".
It wasn't Hitler who "let the Russian bear out of its cage". It was the Western encouragements and economic favours who helped Stalin build his State superpower, all the while Stalin deviously encouraging and supporting Hitler's belligerence (including precious economic assets so that German economy would not need to go on war footing and upset their populace - who might not have opted for a total war in 1939, if asked - as opposed to the 1914 victory craze). And everything started in '33 when SU was accepted into the LoN. Otherwise none of these would have happened. And yes: "it was Hitler's fault we had to prop Stalin!" That's ludicrous.
i'm sorry. i must have expressed myself poorly. i'll chalk it up to a language difficulty and try harder the next time.

durb
Member
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 May 2014, 10:31

Re: No War in 1939

#15

Post by durb » 12 Oct 2015, 11:48

Not to be taken too seriously but guess who would have won the Nobel Peace Prize if there would not have been war in 1939 and if Hitler in early 1939 (for the time being) would have been content to occupy just the Sudetenland and postponed his further territorial ambitions to 1940? No doubt of it: the Nobel Peace Prize of 1939 would have been shared between Neville Chamberlain, Edouard Daladier, Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler!!

Post Reply

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”