[Murph]

What would have been the effect if Hitler had waited till 1941 to start the war?

[pikachu]

Er, exactly what would you define as starting the war, then? Invading Poland? France? Basically, which of Hitler's pre-1941 military actions should he have postponed?

[Luke Y]

Britain and France were rearming at a faster rate than Germany in 1939 and the sand was running out of the hourglass for the krauts, so the picture would be considerably less rosy in 1941 for them than it was in 1939.

Plus it would delay a Barbarossa type plan to when the Russians were in a much better position.

Economnically Germany couldn't keep itself going much longer without parasiting other economies anyway.

[RETAC21]

Germany is broke, Italy nearly so, the French may find a spine to rebuild the little entente in the Balkans and the Soviet Army is slowly rebuilding itself.

[Tommy Bennett]

Interesting situation looking back on it. I think Stalin would've been the one making the moves. If no '39, what does Russia do about Poland? We would have to assume no pact between the two leaders, so is it Germany, France and the Commonwealth against the Red Army when they cross the frontier?

[RETAC21]

Tommy Bennett, on Thu 3 Dec 2009 1938, said:

Interesting situation looking back on it. I think Stalin would've been the one making the moves. If no '39, what does Russia do about Poland? We would have to assume no pact between the two leaders, so is it Germany, France and the Commonwealth against the Red Army when they cross the frontier?

Without pact Stalin wouldn't have dared to defy Hitler over Poland or invade the Baltic countries or Romania.

[JWB]

Tommy Bennett, on Thu 3 Dec 2009 1838, said:

Interesting situation looking back on it. I think Stalin would've been the one making the moves. If no '39, what does Russia do about Poland? We would have to assume no pact between the two leaders, so is it Germany, France and the Commonwealth against the Red Army when they cross the frontier?

The Hitler Stalin pact was a mutual admiration society and certainly would have existed. http://en.wikipedia....he_Soviet_Story

[RETAC21]

JWB, on Thu 3 Dec 2009 2000, said:

The Hitler Stalin pact was a mutual admiration society and certainly would have existed. http://en.wikipedia....he_Soviet_Story

You consider a valid source anything that has Viktor Suvorov? :blink: :rolleyes: :unsure:

[Tommy Bennett]

RETAC21, on Thu 3 Dec 2009 1354, said:

Without pact Stalin wouldn't have dared to defy Hitler over Poland or invade the Baltic countries or Romania.

While I've never read whatever spurious document these two concocted, it was my understanding that the agreement was to forestall common war but allow for certain redress of borders at politically expedient opportunities and keep the oil flowing west.

Stalin always struck me as an aggressive force of will who knew enough to build up his war machine before taking on the Wehrmacht, but would possibly have done whatever empire-building he could safely achieve.

[Tommy Bennett]

RETAC21, on Thu 3 Dec 2009 1412, said:

You consider a valid source anything that has Viktor Suvorov? :blink: :rolleyes: :unsure:

I was thinking "sanitize" myself, but I would certainly give it a look see. :)

[ShotMagnet]

Waiting the matter out deprives Hitler of his one advantage.

His nation cannot hope to compete in the long run. He has to win a quick victory, knowing that east the Bear is calculating when might be best to strike. Hitler's early victories validate what for the Wehrmacht was an optimal stratagem.

Win big, employing tactics no one has employed before. Show the world how awesome your military is, and let's not talk about the industrial problems you will face fighting a prolonged conflict.

Meantime, woo the industrial base of the west, which never did really trust Uncle Joe. Convince them that you're fighting for the side of right, and point east when you talk about threats.

Hitler did what he needed to do, politically. Hitler failed to play his political cards correctly subsequently, and then started to believe his own press-releases. That's where it went wrong for the Third Reich.


Shot

[JWB]

RETAC21, on Thu 3 Dec 2009 1912, said:

You consider a valid source anything that has Viktor Suvorov? :blink: :rolleyes: :unsure:

Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun is only a small part of the documentary. It is on youtube in parts.> http://video.google....396438375564124

[Ken Estes]

The balance of power -- an old concept still rather valid then and now -- would have been inexorably against Germany in 1941. The UK, FR and USSR rearmament programs did not depend upon WWII starting; only that of the USA did. All would have been outbuilding the Germans by 1940-41, plus training into their new doctrines. No Polish campaign would have existed to correct errors in the German army doctrine/tactics/procedures. No Japan alliance, just further isolation, perhaps even stronger Little Entente opposition.

Hitler was at his most brilliant in the late 30s. He sensed the weakness in the West, exploited it thoroughly, still lost. Bum luck. Phew! Too close for comfort.

[Jabberwocky]

1941 gives the UK and France a much more comfortable margin to rearm and modernise their armed forces. In particular, I'm thinking of the French Air Force and the Royal Navy (and, to a lesser extent, the British Army). Even with the nine month phony war period, they were still a long way from catching up.

While the French actually had on-paper numerical superiority to the German air force, so many of their aircraft were delivered in an unusable state that they couldn't operate effectively. Fighters delivered without propeller speed governors or working fuel pumps, bombers delivered without critical parts of their bomb sights, ect, ect.

Another six to 12 months puts the RN in a much better position, particularly when it comes to smaller fleet and escort units. It gets the RN 30+ Flower-class corvettes and another 20 or so War Emergence Programme destroyers, without all the commensurate losses in other small ships in the first 12-18 months of the war. There are also the larger L/M and Tribal destroyer classes under construction. The RN also gets to press on with commissioning larger ships, like the King George V battle ships and escort carriers.

Presumably, the Fleet Air Arm gets a shot in the arm as well. First Martlets (Wildcats) started delivery around Oct-1940. Although, in an alternative timeline, I'm not so sure the RN would order them as quickly.

RAF gets to put the Whirlwind in service (two squadrons by mid 1941 IIRC), and starts mounting the Hispano cannon into Hurricanes and Spitfires. The heavier armament is probably going to mean a few more losses in a 1941/1942 BoB style scenario. Two speed Merlin engines fitted to the Hurricane and Spitfire.


In the air, the Germans get the 109F instead of the E, early (and underarmed) 190s enter service.

Swings and roundabouts really.

[Tommy Bennett]

While we're on the what if, if the Germans had had somebody with a crystal ball, when could they have fielded a panzer force outfitted with the Pz. 4 and the long 75mm, scrapping the Pz. 2 & 3 in the standard divisions? Was that gun a reality before the war?

[seahawk]

It would all depend on when Germany would have stopped. If they do not brake the Munich agreement, the question is how much would have France and the UK invested in re-arming their forces?

The Soviets however would re-arm anyway.

[philgollin]

Luke Y is correct to point out the importance of the way that France and the Uk were catching up with rearmament.

What may be more interesting is how fast the US would confront Japan and especially when the oil embargo would be imposed. Not only does that feed-back on US rearmament plans, but also might put the UK in a difficult position with regards to positioning its forces.

.

[Rick]

Ken Estes, on Fri 4 Dec 2009 0422, said:

The balance of power -- an old concept still rather valid then and now -- would have been inexorably against Germany in 1941. The UK, FR and USSR rearmament programs did not depend upon WWII starting; only that of the USA did. All would have been outbuilding the Germans by 1940-41, plus training into their new doctrines. No Polish campaign would have existed to correct errors in the German army doctrine/tactics/procedures. No Japan alliance, just further isolation, perhaps even stronger Little Entente opposition.

Hitler was at his most brilliant in the late 30s. He sensed the weakness in the West, exploited it thoroughly, still lost. Bum luck. Phew! Too close for comfort.

Pardon if this has been brought up before but what is your opinion if Germany invaded the Soviet Union after Poland instead of going West?

[swerve]

seahawk, on Fri 4 Dec 2009 0641, said:

It would all depend on when Germany would have stopped. If they do not brake the Munich agreement, the question is how much would have France and the UK invested in re-arming their forces?

British & French arms build-up was well under way before Munich. It was not cut back afterwards.

[RETAC21]

Rick, on Fri 4 Dec 2009 1231, said:

Pardon if this has been brought up before but what is your opinion if Germany invaded the Soviet Union after Poland instead of going West?

A win-win for the Western powers, with the cave-at that the winner is going to be in an intractable position afterwards...