Broken backed World War Two

[uk 75]

I have always been intrigued by the idea of a World War Two in Europe beginning with a less well prepared Germany.
Britain and France hoped to contain German attacks in the Low Countries in a re run of World War 1 while a naval blockade strangled Germany slowly but relentlessly.
Key to this would have been Czechoslovakia and Poland fulfiling their Versailles role in encircling Germany.
One might also add a less hostile attitude in Paris and London to the Soviet Union.
Rearmament on both sides might have been slower but with France still in the war and Scandinavia unoccupied new battleships would have appeared on all sides.
Depending on how much of Belgium and Holland were lost to Germany the Luftwaffe would have had further to fly to bomb Britain and France
Japan would also have had stronger opposition from the European colonial powers.
With a slower pace of war jet engined aircaft might still have appeared but in a less dramatic fashion.
Matilda IIs Somuas and PzIVs would have been the standard tanks.

 

[Desertfox]

Perhaps starting in 1938 with an invasion of the Sudetland?

 

[Apophenia]

... add a less hostile attitude in Paris and London to the Soviet Union. ...

To what end? The Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance had already been signed on 02 May 1935. It didn't help. Some have argued that was because the French insisted on keeping to Locarno. So, instead, maybe compare with the Czechoslovak–Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance (16 May 1935) which was a bit closer to a true military alliance?

That Cz-SU Mutual Assistance pact opened up some Soviet supplies to Prague (the best-known being the supply of Tupolev SBs). But the Soviets made no military response whatever to Wehrmacht troops moving into the Sudetenland in October 1939. [1] Ditto when Czechoslovak was finally carved-up on 15 March 1939 between a pro-Nazi Slovakia and the former Czechia itself being absorbed into the Reich.

Then, within 5 short months of that absorption, the German-Soviet Boundary and Friendship Treaty (Molotov-Ribbentrop) was signed in the Kremlin. The Nazis had known full well that the Czechoslovak–Soviet and Franco-Soviet pacts weren't worth the ink of their signatories. The only question in Berlin is whether Hitler would have time to betray this Friendship Treaty with the Soviets before Stalin did.

So, the attitude towards the Soviet Union from London may have been hostile but that proven warranted. Sometimes, an unreliable or untrustworthy ally can be worse than no ally at all.

... Matilda IIs Somuas and PzIVs would have been the standard tanks. ...

The standard medium tank of the Panzerdivisionen would still have been the 5 cm-gunned PzKpfw III (the PzKpfw IV was viewed as a heavy support vehicle until 1941).

____________________________________

[1] Granted that Britain, France, and Italy had already agreed to the rape of Czechoslovakia. Vile as that appeasement was, it was no excuse for the Soviets to reneg on their commitments to the Czechoslovaks (although, that was of course their plan all along).

 

[Justo Miranda]

I have always been intrigued by the idea of a World War Two in Europe beginning with a less well prepared Germany.
Britain and France hoped to contain German attacks in the Low Countries in a re run of World War 1 while a naval blockade strangled Germany slowly but relentlessly.
Key to this would have been Czechoslovakia and Poland fulfiling their Versailles role in encircling Germany.
One might also add a less hostile attitude in Paris and London to the Soviet Union.
Rearmament on both sides might have been slower but with France still in the war and Scandinavia unoccupied new battleships would have appeared on all sides.
Depending on how much of Belgium and Holland were lost to Germany the Luftwaffe would have had further to fly to bomb Britain and France
Japan would also have had stronger opposition from the European colonial powers.
With a slower pace of war jet engined aircaft might still have appeared but in a less dramatic fashion.
Matilda IIs Somuas and PzIVs would have been the standard tanks.

The only way this could have happened is with a preemptive strike by the French army, but no democracy would start another war after the bad experiences of World War I.

The general idea was to wait for the German people to "react" against Hitler and thus avoid several million dead Frenchmen.

The blockade would not have worked because there was always the black market to circumvent it, the only thing that the blockade would have achieved would be an anticipation of the German-Soviet pact "against the democracies".

This display of weakness would have increased U.S. isolationism and Japan's aggressiveness.

The war was inevitable because the German people were very justifiably irritated with the diplomatic and commercial practices of the democracies they blamed, rightly, for the terrible shortages suffered during the 1930s and for the relentless obsession with tax collection of the French Jewish Minister of Economy, who had no mercy with the terrible economic situation suffered by the most helpless Germans. that was what built Nazism, not the ideological nonsense of a madman.

 

[Arjen]

relentless obsession with tax collection of the French Jewish Minister of Economy,

Yes, that was the reason for antisemitism, even though there is a thousand years history of it in Europe. Give me a break.

 

[Dilandu]

But the Soviets made no military response whatever to Wehrmacht troops moving into the Sudetenland in October 1939.

What exactly USSR could do? We have no common borders with Czechoslovakia and Poland not only refused to allow transit of Soviet troops (or even air forces) but actually threatened war in case of such attempt.

 

[Dilandu]

So, the attitude towards the Soviet Union from London may have been hostile but that proven warranted. Sometimes, an unreliable or untrustworthy ally can be worse than no ally at all.

Excuse me, who signed pact with Hitler first? Stalin or Chamberlain?

 

[Nik]

As I understand it, Chamberlain needed to get something on paper.
That, if reneged, was adequate 'Casus Bellis' (sic) for an utterly unwanted war with Germany that would be reluctantly but grimly supported by Commonwealth.

Up to then, had been H's verbal promises, re-assurances etc etc.
Chamberlain, however damned, got it in writing...

Hmm: A really big difference would be machine-gun nests atop the Belgian forts after the Belgian liaison officer saw Germans practicing assault-glider landings...
But understood what he'd seen...

Had that flank attack gone badly, would the Germans have tried to repeat their coup on Crete ??

 

[Dilandu]

As I understand it, Chamberlain needed to get something on paper.

My point was, that it's kinda illogical to insist that USSR was viewed as "unreliable potential ally" after Britain proved itself to be unreliable ACTUALL ally first.

 

[tomo pauk]

The war was inevitable because the German people were very justifiably irritated with the diplomatic and commercial practices of the democracies they blamed, rightly, for the terrible shortages suffered during the 1930s and for the relentless obsession with tax collection of the French Jewish Minister of Economy, who had no mercy with the terrible economic situation suffered by the most helpless Germans. that was what built Nazism, not the ideological nonsense of a madman.

Lame attempt to justify the Nazism and Nazi aggression.

 

[Apophenia]

What exactly USSR could do? We have no common borders with Czechoslovakia and Poland not only refused to allow transit of Soviet troops (or even air forces) but actually threatened war in case of such attempt.

Indeed. And it is not like Moscow's relations with Warsaw had suddenly soured. So what, exactly, was the purpose of the USSR signing a Mutual Assistance treaty with Czechoslovakia? As with London and Paris, Moscow's security promises weren't worth the paper.

 

[Apophenia]

Excuse me, who signed pact with Hitler first? Stalin or Chamberlain?

Stalin.

Chamberlain didn't sign a Friendship Treaty with Hitler (he just weaseled his way through various appeasement approaches with the Nazi leader until reaching a new low in groveling with the Munich Agreement/Mnichovská zrada).

 

[Dilandu]

. So what, exactly, was the purpose of the USSR signing a Mutual Assistance treaty with Czechoslovakia?

Firstly, to deter Germany. It was well-known that Germany is seriously fearing the possibility of two-front war, and Soviet leadership hoped, that if both Moscow and Paris show enough resolve and determination, Germany would not dare to actually try a war.

Secondly, Stalin hoped that either London and Paris would beat some common sence into Polish leadership (like that the idea of being in sour relations with BOTH of your more powerful neighbors is BAD idea), or that Poland would switch to German side (which was viewed as quite a realistic possibility not only in Moscow but also in Paris) and London & Paris would stop care about it.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Lame attempt to justify the Nazism and Nazi aggression.

Don't turn my economic and social reasoning around, its history, the Germans were irritated and the Nazis took the opportunity to lead them into a disastrous adventure. The wise man who predicts an eclipse is not the same thing as the leader who takes the opportunity to launch a pogrom against his political enemies.