Page 1 of 2

How would WW2 have turned out if started later?

Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 11:36 am
by SS Hauptsturmfuhrer

It's been said that Hitler started the ball rolling too early. Everything was just right for Germany with the Rhineland, Czech and Austria deals etc coupled with a revamped German economy and public stability... then the invasion of Poland screwed everything up.

So what if Germany had put off invading Poland or France for a few more years, maybe even 5 years? Donitz and Guderian could have had more medium tanks and submarines to make their plans work better. Everything about the German army would have been improved before going to war while the allies remained content that appeasement was working. Churchill would not have been elected leaving England leaderless and passive.

The only catch is Russia took a whooping from Finland and despite their losses, the lessons learned were invaluable. So the Soviet Union was getting stronger each year after the invasion of Finland. So there's a flipside for Germany to put it off.

Note that this question is not intended to be rhetorical, derogatory, condescending, racist, genocidal, a personal insult to you, nor a secret code to trigger the opening of a new branch of The Klan in your country. If after reading this you experience immense hatred or a heart attack coming on, please seek professional help immediately.

RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later?

Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 11:47 am
by 105mm Howitzer
And that flipside, SS, is just the problem. Russia would have been stronger ( some say ready by 1942) enough to turn it's eyes West. Would they have attacked? You kidding? Stalin was, at the core, a dictator just as Hitler was. The outcome would have been the same, ie: Germany conquered by the Red Army.

RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later?

Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 11:52 am
by SS Hauptsturmfuhrer
ORIGINAL: 105mm Howitzer

And that flipside, SS, is just the problem. Russia would have been stronger ( some say ready by 1942) enough to turn it's eyes West. Would they have attacked? You kidding? Stalin was, at the core, a dictator just as Hitler was. The outcome would have been the same, ie: Germany conquered by the Red Army.

Maybe true but if Russia attacked a passive Germany in 1942, it may have sparked support for Germany from the western allies and possibly even Scandinavia or the Commonwealth, especially if Churchill had any influence.

RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later?

Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 11:59 am
by EUBanana
ORIGINAL: SS Hauptsturmfuhrer
So what if Germany had put off invading Poland or France for a few more years, maybe even 5 years? Donitz and Guderian could have had more medium tanks and submarines to make their plans work better.

The naval war might have gone better for Germany, with a lot more submarines. ASW techniques took time to refine, having a small number of U-boats gave the Allied navies time to hone their techniques. A "Happy Time" when the U-boat fleet was large might have been decisive.

However, on land and in the air, I think a later start would be all bad for Germany. There is a case to be made for starting even earlier than they did I think. In 1938-9 the Luftwaffe would have absolutely destroyed the RAF over Britain. The 109 was in use in the Spanish Civil War, while in 38 the Allies were still flying complete junk - by 1940 the Allies had comparable machines.

Also I think if France was given more time to prepare they might have done a better job. They had begun creating armoured corps in 1940 for example. The French army in 1941 might have been a considerably more capable machine than it was in 1940.

RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later?

Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 12:03 pm
by 105mm Howitzer
I wouldn't put much hope in them. If, as you say, Germany would be passive in 1942, it still remained the most active military force in the West. The British and French were too complacent, and these make poor allies. How much would they have contributed ion the defense of the Reich? Piss-poor little.

RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later?

Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 12:04 pm
by 105mm Howitzer
Besides, many in the military and government wanted to see the 2 dictators at each other's throats, since both were largely un-appreciated.

RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later?

Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 12:07 pm
by EUBanana
ORIGINAL: 105mm Howitzer

Besides, many in the military and government wanted to see the 2 dictators at each other's throats, since both were largely un-appreciated.

That was Chamberlain's plan all along... the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is what really put the frighteners on Britain/France.

RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later?

Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 2:21 pm
by RedArgo
I saw a show on The Military Channel the other night that said if Hitler had delayed his attack on Poland or maybe France, I don't remember for sure, that Britain and France may have declared war of the USSR because of Finland. That would certainly have changed the way events worked out.

RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later?

Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 3:23 pm
by doomtrader
The German economy was not able to wait any longer for the war, if they will wait for some more time, then there will be no WW2 started by Third Reich.

RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later?

Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 3:53 pm
by jackx
The prediction on economic readiness being at is peak that I remember from my school textbook was for the early 1940's, but I think we picked holes in that back then in class already, because it completely failed to acknowledge the changes in readiness of other countries.

Then again why would you even wait on something as trivial as the economy when you're starting a war for ideological reasons...

RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later?

Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 4:05 pm
by doomtrader
I think that the war was not for ideology. It was another war of conquest, for German Lebensraum.
Nazis just use 'common enemy' to focus the society attention.

RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later?

Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 4:18 pm
by jackx
I'd rate the whole concept of "Lebensraum" as an ideological motivation - for material, not immaterial gains, but it's not about conquering land because you can, but because you think you have a (moral) right to it.
Of course, my reference-point is power-politics prior to the rise of (modern) nationalism, and after the decline of religious motivations, so I have a bit of a puristic view on this.
As far as modern power politics go, the 1938/39 period, from the German point of view, probably qualifies as ruthless and "pure" - but compared to the invasion and occupation of Saxony in 1756 it's still heavily ideologically charged.

RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later?

Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 6:28 pm
by paullus99
There has been several arguments that Germany was actually in a better position to fight the Western Allies in 1938 than in 1939 - both Britain & France were still just beginning to gear up in response to Germany's build-up, the Chain Home Radar stations weren't in place yet, and the RAF was under-equipped & without Spitfires.

Waiting wouldn't have put Germany in a better position - since a lot of their wartime development of tanks and other equipment was done because of facing superior Allied/Soviet equipment in battle (and there would have been a lot more of it - on the Western Allied & Soviet side).

RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later?

Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 7:29 pm
by SLAAKMAN
It wouldve depended upon Jet tech and whether or not the Germans really did win the Atomic race or not; [:'(]
 
Hitlers Atomic Bomb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3KmIgAkx8E
 
Hitlers Atomic Bomb FULL Part #2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TmIlFH105I

RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later?

Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:32 pm
by morvwilson
ORIGINAL: 105mm Howitzer

Besides, many in the military and government wanted to see the 2 dictators at each other's throats, since both were largely un-appreciated.
This was very true. There was a US senator who said in the chambers when Germany invaded Russia, that we should aide whomever is losing, and switch our aide if the tide turns thus killing as many of both as possible. That senator was Harry Truman.

RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later?

Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 11:17 pm
by SS Hauptsturmfuhrer
ORIGINAL: morvwilson

ORIGINAL: 105mm Howitzer

Besides, many in the military and government wanted to see the 2 dictators at each other's throats, since both were largely un-appreciated.
This was very true. There was a US senator who said in the chambers when Germany invaded Russia, that we should aide whomever is losing, and switch our aide if the tide turns thus killing as many of both as possible. That senator was Harry Truman.

That must be why Jim Carrey was chosen to represent Harry Truman.

RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later?

Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 1:11 am
by Carl Myers
Now, let's see. Germany does not invade Poland in 1939. The conflict between the U.S. and Japan continues to heat up to President Rooseveldt's embargo in mid-41. Japan has six months to accede or go to war. If Japan goes to war, the US. GB, France and Netherlands ramp up their economies and their militaries and defeat the Japanese about timeGermany had planned to go to war.

RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later?

Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 6:05 am
by SS Hauptsturmfuhrer
ORIGINAL: Carl Myers

Now, let's see. Germany does not invade Poland in 1939. The conflict between the U.S. and Japan continues to heat up to President Rooseveldt's embargo in mid-41. Japan has six months to accede or go to war. If Japan goes to war, the US. GB, France and Netherlands ramp up their economies and their militaries and defeat the Japanese about timeGermany had planned to go to war.

Good point. You also have to consider the likely changes to the agendas of both America and Japan if the European war was not happening. There are a lot of possibilities to the Pacific situation. I wonder if Roosevelt would have put as much pressure on Japan without the world's attention being fixed on Germany's war.

RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later?

Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:27 pm
by Mobius
If the war was delayed for maybe 5 years Germany might have invented a computerized ultra that was uncrackable. Then the Allies would be in for a treat.

RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later?

Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:53 pm
by sprior
ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: SS Hauptsturmfuhrer
So what if Germany had put off invading Poland or France for a few more years, maybe even 5 years? Donitz and Guderian could have had more medium tanks and submarines to make their plans work better.

The naval war might have gone better for Germany, with a lot more submarines. ASW techniques took time to refine, having a small number of U-boats gave the Allied navies time to hone their techniques. A "Happy Time" when the U-boat fleet was large might have been decisive.

If you look at Plan Z you will see that it called for a huge increase in surface combatants, not so much submarines. germany fought the battle of the Atlantic with what it had, not what it wanted.