Britain and France don't declare war

[Kyle Holgate]

Here's a what if that I've not seen bounced around. Hitler expected Britain and France to back out of their pledge to Poland to declare war if Germany invaded the country.
What if they did?
What would Hitler have done next? He was obviously obsessed with attacking the Soviets at some point in time, and wasn't expecting war with England until 1944 or so.
Does he sit and play nice within his borders until some later date when he makes is move on Moscow?

[old_pop2000]

Here's a what if that I've not seen bounced around. Hitler expected Britain and France to back out of their pledge to Poland to declare war if Germany invaded the country.
What if they did?
What would Hitler have done next? He was obviously obsessed with attacking the Soviets at some point in time, and wasn't expecting war with England until 1944 or so.
Does he sit and play nice within his borders until some later date when he makes is move on Moscow?

That's not hard to figure, Hitler hated the French nearly as much as he hated Poland. After securing his back with the Soviet-German Pact, he reorganizes the German forces, removes the Panzer Is from the Panzer forces, adds more Panzer IIIs and IV's, improves the Luftwaffe and German navy, then attacks France. He will first attempt to talk to the British about a non-aggression pact. He will place his naval forces both surface and submarine in a position to interdict any movement of British forces into France. He might entertain talks with the already scared Dutch and Belgians. He watches Norway, but without war at this moment with the British, why provoke them. He will continue to produce more Type VIIC and IX boats and send them to sea along with raiders. His naval forces, as few as they are, will demonstrate along the Dutch and Belgian coasts to intimidate them. Neither of them like or trust the French, but they don't trust the German's either.

The US still struggles with the depression and probably the two ocean navy bill has more problems getting passed. American people are still isolationists.

The Japanese just sit and wait, continuing their operations in China.

[Kyle Holgate]

My thinking...
Yes - Hitler has a bone to pick with the French, but would rather not have a war with Britain. Does war with France bring them in? Does he want that gamble?
Alternatively - some time in 1941 he attacks the Soviets. Without the lessons learned in France things would possibly go somewhat differently.
France and Britain both sit back and watch as the two totalitarian dictatorships tear each other apart.

[old_pop2000]

My thinking...
Yes - Hitler has a bone to pick with the French, but would rather not have a war with Britain. Does war with France bring them in? Does he want that gamble?
Alternatively - some time in 1941 he attacks the Soviets. Without the lessons learned in France things would possibly go somewhat differently.
France and Britain both sit back and watch as the two totalitarian dictatorships tear each other apart.

Why not let Herr Hitler tell us what he planned to do.


The aim must be to deal the enemy a smashing or a finally decisive blow right at the start.....Preparation must be made for a long war as well as for a surprise attack and every possible intervention by England on the Continent must be smashed.

The Army must occupy the positions important for the fleet and the Luftwaffe. If we succeed in occupying and securing Holland and Belgium, as well as defeating France, the basis for a successful war against England has been created. The Luftwaffe can then closely blockade England from Western France and the fleet undertake the wider blockade with submarines That was a statement made by our boy, on November 5th, 1937 at a meeting of the commanders in chief of the three services. It precisely lays out exactly what happened more than a year later.

Sorry sir, but France, Belgium, Holland were next on the hit list, whether they declared war or not.

Source: The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A history of Nazi Germany by Willam L. Shirer Page 487

[asnrobert]

I don't see how Hitler can go to war with France without dragging England in. I read in Massie's Dreadnought how concerns over rising German military pushed these two countries who had been bitter enemies for centuries into each other's arms. And Britain didn't want Germany to gain control of France's Channel ports (of course, Britain did end up having to face Germany alone and Germany did gain patrol of the Channel ports, but nobody in 1940 expected France to fold as fast as she did).
I agree with Kyle. Hitler should let France and England alone. Spend a year or two building up the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht, and the have the Kriegsmarine build more U-boats (and maybe build some units of the Z-plan). Then go after the Soviet Union and this time they will have two advantages- a one front war, plus Italy is probably neutral, so there's no diversion of resources to bail out Musso's misadventures (North Africa, Greece, etc), which means you can through the bulk of your military at the Soviets. I also agree that France and Britain would be content to remain neutral and let the Germans and Soviets bleed each other white.
Now, supposing Germany is victorious (which includes acquiring the resource rich region of the Caucasus) and now turns its attention to France, how will a 1944 campaign compare to the historical 1940 campaign? The Germans will have improved tanks and airplanes, but probably the British and French will to. More importantly, will Allied doctrine have evolved, or will British and French commanders still have a WW1 trench warfare mentality? Regarding the war at sea, the Kriegsmarine should have a sizable sub force and perhaps have a number of Z-plan warships in service. But the French and British will not have remained idle- no doubt they will have started building more and larger ships, modernizing some of the older ships, and perhaps mothballing others (if only to free up crews for new construction).

[old_pop2000]

I don't see how Hitler can go to war with France without dragging England in. I read in Massie's Dreadnought how concerns over rising German military pushed these two countries who had been bitter enemies for centuries into each other's arms. And Britain didn't want Germany to gain control of France's Channel ports (of course, Britain did end up having to face Germany alone and Germany did gain patrol of the Channel ports, but nobody in 1940 expected France to fold as fast as she did).
I agree with Kyle. Hitler should let France and England alone. Spend a year or two building up the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht, and the have the Kriegsmarine build more U-boats (and maybe build some units of the Z-plan). Then go after the Soviet Union and this time they will have two advantages- a one front war, plus Italy is probably neutral, so there's no diversion of resources to bail out Musso's misadventures (North Africa, Greece, etc), which means you can through the bulk of your military at the Soviets. I also agree that France and Britain would be content to remain neutral and let the Germans and Soviets bleed each other white.
Now, supposing Germany is victorious (which includes acquiring the resource rich region of the Caucasus) and now turns its attention to France, how will a 1944 campaign compare to the historical 1940 campaign? The Germans will have improved tanks and airplanes, but probably the British and French will to. More importantly, will Allied doctrine have evolved, or will British and French commanders still have a WW1 trench warfare mentality? Regarding the war at sea, the Kriegsmarine should have a sizable sub force and perhaps have a number of Z-plan warships in service. But the French and British will not have remained idle- no doubt they will have started building more and larger ships, modernizing some of the older ships, and perhaps mothballing others (if only to free up crews for new construction).

I remind you of the initial question.
What would Hitler have done next?

The question is not what should he have done, but what would he have done. ;)

[asnrobert]

I remind you of the initial question.

The question is not what should he have done, but what would he have done. ;)

True, but then Hitler wss an idiot.

[old_pop2000]

True, but then Hitler wss an idiot.

Well, I tend to think he was a crazy Austrian house painter, who had delusions of grandeur. Be that as it may, what he actually did, was precisely what he had intended to do with a few detours like Norway and North Africa.

[john964]

Well, I tend to think he was a crazy Austrian house painter, who had delusions of grandeur. Be that as it may, what he actually did, was precisely what he had intended to do with a few detours like Norway and North Africa.Just like Himmler who was a chicken farmer. Or Goring who was a suspected cross dresser and drug addict.

[asnrobert]

Just like Himmler who was a chicken farmer. Or Goring who was a suspected cross dresser and drug addict.

Considering the Nazi leadership, its amazing they got as far as they did.

[old_pop2000]

Considering the Nazi leadership, its amazing they got as far as they did.

It isn't amazing, they had the support of the German General Staff. That is all they needed. That was the best corp of staff officers and military leaders in the world.

[Kyle Holgate]

Assuming Hitler wasn't just blowing smoke - He said he did not expect war with England until 1944 (or something to that effect, don't have an exact quote). If this is the case he either A) doesn't think England will declare war if he has at France and the low countries or B) he plans on doing something else until 1944 and then doing something that is likely to bring Britain into the war.
I hate to give Hitler any credit - but I don't think he was delusional enough to think the he could conquer France without the British declaring war. So was he lying to Admiral Raeder? I don't think so. If he thought war with England was liekly sooner rather than later he'd have approved the Sub/Raider plan not the Z plan with the battleships.

[old_pop2000]

Assuming Hitler wasn't just blowing smoke - He said he did not expect war with England until 1944 (or something to that effect, don't have an exact quote). If this is the case he either A) doesn't think England will declare war if he has at France and the low countries or B) he plans on doing something else until 1944 and then doing something that is likely to bring Britain into the war.
I hate to give Hitler any credit - but I don't think he was delusional enough to think the he could conquer France without the British declaring war. So was he lying to Admiral Raeder? I don't think so. If he thought war with England was liekly sooner rather than later he'd have approved the Sub/Raider plan not the Z plan with the battleships.


Raeder and Hitler both were aware that the Z plan would not reach the level of the RN until 1945. Hitler never planned to wait that long. He had no illusions, that attacking the low countries and France, wouldn't bring in the British. In May of 1938, Hitler accelerated the building of the Tirpitz and Bismarck along with expanding the U boat programme in case of a war with England. Sounds to me like he was fully aware of what was to take place. While he and Von Ribbentrop were surprised by the declaration of war following the invasion of Poland, it did not substantially alter their plans.

[Kyle Holgate]

Raeder and Hitler both were aware that the Z plan would not reach the level of the RN until 1945. Hitler never planned to wait that long. He had no illusions, that attacking the low countries and France, wouldn't bring in the British. In May of 1938, Hitler accelerated the building of the Tirpitz and Bismarck along with expanding the U boat programme in case of a war with England. Sounds to me like he was fully aware of what was to take place. While he and Von Ribbentrop were surprised by the declaration of war following the invasion of Poland, it did not substantially alter their plans.

I still disagree, but fair enough. Once again I find it interesting how people can have the same information and conclude different things. Must be software ;).

[old_pop2000]

I still disagree, but fair enough. Once again I find it interesting how people can have the same information and conclude different things. Must be software ;).

I tend to follow the information where ever it leads me and read with an open mind, and not let past prejudices influence my thoughts. We are all different, that's what makes this forum interesting. My idea concerning your question is that: A. The German General Staff is not going to attack Russia, with France and England at their back, especially when they need those channel ports. B. The invasion of Russia has to start in May or June, any attack on France and England has to be completed by Autumn of 1940. Timing wise, Russia seems to be last on the hit parade. There also maybe Balkan considerations because the Rumanian oil fields are vital to Germany's interests for the future of the conflict. Hitler also has to contain Mussolini in NA. He can't let him embroil Germany in that area until he is ready.

[Kyle Holgate]

I just can't picture England and France caring enough about the Soviets to go to war about it. I can see England going to war for the low countries and France however. I don't doubt that each of us has different specific information we're basing our views on. What I know just leads me to believe that Hitler would have "saved" England and France until after he dealt with the USSR. Your view is that he'd (attempt to) take care of them first, then worry about the Soviets. There are plenty of hints as to what he might do - pointing both ways.

In the historic time line - Hitler did deal with France first, but then again France declared war and "started it". He was so obsessed with the Soviets that he left England behind him and initiated Barbarossa. So even with war already going, he risked a second front. With no war with England and France it just seems to me that his obsession with the Soviets would take him east, even if common sense (and perhaps his Generals) recommended otherwise.

Heck, had he actually listened to his Generals or Admiral Raeder the USSR, North Africa, the Middle east oil and caucuses oil could have ended up in German hands. I sometimes think Hitler was his own worst enemy - doing more to help Germany loose the war than the Allied armies.

[old_pop2000]

I just can't picture England and France caring enough about the Soviets to go to war about it. I can see England going to war for the low countries and France however. I don't doubt that each of us has different specific information we're basing our views on. What I know just leads me to believe that Hitler would have "saved" England and France until after he dealt with the USSR. Your view is that he'd (attempt to) take care of them first, then worry about the Soviets. There are plenty of hints as to what he might do - pointing both ways.

In the historic time line - Hitler did deal with France first, but then again France declared war and "started it". He was so obsessed with the Soviets that he left England behind him and initiated Barbarossa. So even with war already going, he risked a second front. With no war with England and France it just seems to me that his obsession with the Soviets would take him east, even if common sense (and perhaps his Generals) recommended otherwise.

Heck, had he actually listened to his Generals or Admiral Raeder the USSR, North Africa, the Middle east oil and caucuses oil could have ended up in German hands. I sometimes think Hitler was his own worst enemy - doing more to help Germany loose the war than the Allied armies.

Hitler always desired to take care of the French problem first. He felt that she had been Germany's traditional stumbling block to expansion and that her continued existence was a threat to the security of the Reich. One important event that is often neglected, is the re militarization of the Rhineland on March 7,1936. That action greatly affected France's ability to invade Germany through a demilitarized zone into the heart of the German economic heartland. This avenue once removed also eliminated any possibility of a French attack on Germany, if she invaded the Balkan's. This action could be reversed at any time, when the bulk of the German armed forces were engaged in the east. If the two Allied powers did not declare war, Hitler would have tried to separate England from France. For good reason, the English were tired of having to come to the aid of the French. If he could find something diplomatically to divide them, he could dispose of France and then turn on the Balkans to outflank the Russians in the South.

So, the sequence has always got to be:

First protect the eastern flank, occupy Poland and get Danzig back

Two Build up the fleet, armor and the air force while attempting to divide the two Allies.

Three Invade and occupy France to relieve any possible security issues with the Ruhr and the economic heart of Germany plus gain the French fleet along with access to the French ports. A side effect would be French industry which could be helpful in the production of war material. Another important effect is to give the Luftwaffe coastal aerodromes from which to blockade England, if she proves recalcitrant.

Four Invade and occupy the Balkans to outflank the Russians, and gain access to Ploesti oil fields along with a port along the eastern Mediterranean. This also gives them access to the Black Sea through Rumania and could allow them to put pressure on the Turks.

Five Invade Russia and dispose of the Communist regime

This is what I feel is the most logical sequence that gains Germany security and economic improvements in her situation. As to the French, remember that the French and the Balkan nations have an agreement that France will come to their aid, if Germany attacks them. Hitler must have the Balkans, so he has to eliminate any threat from the French to his back. The German's have to plan for what the French can do, not what they will do. After the reoccupation of the Rhine, the ineptitude of the French was clearly visible and the Little entente of Balkan nations now realised that the French were not in a position both politically or militarily to assist them. But the German's can't plan for that, they must assume the worst.

[Kyle Holgate]

Let's assume Hitler does attack France in 1940/41 and the low countries. I think we can also assume the attack through the Ardennes is as historically done.
I would expect that England would declare war, and other than some question about a Norway invasion - things then proceed pretty much along historic lines I would think.
Experience in Poland would not be available - but I don't see that as a major hurdle.
Perhaps no Churchill as PM without a 1939 war though.

[old_pop2000]

Let's assume Hitler does attack France in 1940/41 and the low countries. I think we can also assume the attack through the Ardennes is as historically done.
I would expect that England would declare war, and other than some question about a Norway invasion - things then proceed pretty much along historic lines I would think.
Experience in Poland would not be available - but I don't see that as a major hurdle.
Perhaps no Churchill as PM without a 1939 war though.

Are you starting the war, 1939 or 1940? Poland is first, no matter what. Hitler hates the Poles for taking Danzig and the corridor worst than anyone and he needs a buffer against the Soviets while he deals with France and England. Now, if they decide that the Poles are not worth fighting for and abrogate any treaty, the little entente nations of the Balkans have to take a careful look at the situation. If England and France don't live up to the obligations that they signed treaties for, then these small nations don't have a snowball's chance in hell against the Germans with the Soviets on their doorstep.

Remember your geopolitics, Kyle. With most of Poland in his hands, he now has more coast bordering the Baltic Sea for access to Swedish iron mines and closer to Finland and the Baltic states. He must take Poland first, then France.

[Kyle Holgate]

The change is that E & F don't declare war due the the invasion of Poland (as Hitler thought would happen). Assume the Soviets move in from the East on Poland as happened.
Any moves on the Baltic states is problematical for Germany, as you know Stalin moved on them and would not look kindly on Germany doing that first. Hitler didn't do anything about it historiclally when the Soviets moved in - would not expect anything different without war with England/France going on.
War with France in 1940? 41? later?

[old_pop2000]

The change is that E & F don't declare war due the the invasion of Poland (as Hitler thought would happen). Assume the Soviets move in from the East on Poland as happened.
Any moves on the Baltic states is problematical for Germany, as you know Stalin moved on them and would not look kindly on Germany doing that first. Hitler didn't do anything about it historiclally when the Soviets moved in - would not expect anything different without war with England/France going on.
War with France in 1940? 41? later?

There is an unknown factor or person in this whole scenario. Mussolini and the Fascist government. Inadvertently, he could bring England and France into this war.

We know that the USSR and the Germans had a secret agreement partitioning Poland the Baltic states along with returning Bessarabia to Russian control. The action in the Baltic was one more incident that told the Balkan's that they were not to be trusted. Once France was defeated, the Balkan's knew they would get no help from either Ally. They knew that with the Soviet occupation of Polish territory, they were in a bad position. If the Soviets continued to occupy Baltic countries against the agreement with Germany, then the Balkan states, would tend to lean towards Axis powers.

The problem is Italy and Albania. If Italy goes after Albania, then the Greeks will side with the Albanians, since they are English allies, the whole balloon goes up. Hitler has to have at least Rumania and Bulgaria to use as an avenue for his armored forces to send against the Ukraine, if and when he attacks Russia. He also needs the oil. The other states can be finlandized easily once Bulgaria and Rumania are Axis allies or at least quiet participants.

As to the Baltic states, Hitler knows he can grab those anytime he wants and the Russian's are going to be hard pressed to stop him. They are of no value to Hitler, at this time.