Nazi Germany: Suppose an "East only, never West" strategy

Great Debates
1

I know we’ve had hundreds of threads about World War II, so I hope there haven’t been threads on this before, or at least, not too recently:

In IMHO, a poster asked why most of Europe was so reluctant to go to war with Hitler, and the main reason was because the severe trauma of World War I made them want to make war an absolute last resort. Hitler, no doubt, knew this as well. Moreover, the Western Europeans didn’t like Bolsheviks/Communists any more than anyone else.

Suppose Hitler had only ever gone east in his war - focusing all his efforts solely on conquering all of Europe east of Germany, and never bothering with any of Europe to the west (well, at least not for a decade or two) - this would have had several immense advantages for the Nazis:

[ul]
[li]Germany does not over-extend itself by attacking everyone all at once. In this scenario, Germany doesn’t have to spend forces and resources on capturing Netherlands, Denmark, France, Belgium, attacking the UK, Norway or fighting any Americans, nor does it have to wage any Atlantic U-boat campaign;[/li][li]Russia was even weaker in 1939 than in 1941; [/li][li]The consolidation of Germany’s concentrated forces on its Eastern Front is even more effective than it was in Barbarossa;[/li][li]Assuming that Hitler makes his intentions clear (“I’m only going east, never west”), the French, Americans and Britons would have had strong incentive to stay out of the war. They would have wanted to sit on the sidelines and watch the Nazis and Communists duke it out with each to the maximum extent. Sure, they would have armed up their forces, but they wouldn’t have much incentive to attack or invade Germany, absent any German attack on them first.[/li][/ul]
By the 1950s, Hitler might have then turned his eye west, and found the western Allies too tough a nut to crack (since they would have been arming up for a long time now,) and there would have been a prolonged Cold War between the Axis and free west. But Russia and all of Eastern Europe might be Axis.

2

They didn’t have a choice once they invaded Poland, as the western powers declared war on them. Eventually, France and Britain would have attacked Germany, especially if Germany continued pushing east and actually engaged with Russia. If Germany allies with Russia and they basically divide Eastern Europe between them then you still have to account for the western powers attacking Germany. Sorry, but Germany had gone as far as they could and remain at peace with France and Britain. Unless they stopped before Poland, war was inevitable. Eventually, France and Britain would attack Germany, whether they chose to fight in the west or not. I’m not convinced Germany could win a totally defensive war with France/Britain at this stage either, as their own defenses weren’t in any sort of shape for that, and their forces were really more geared towards offense than defense. Even WITH the Soviets on their side I don’t see how that works out for them, and my WAG is Stalin would have gladly cut Hitlers throat the first chance he got…just like Hitler did to him in the real timeline.

Why do you think that France and Britain would hold off indefinitely? :confused:

3

Exactly. Arguing about whether Germany should have had a different policy is a moot point. They were in a war with Britain and France because Britain and France declared war on Germany. And the reason they did so was because Germany was seeking to expand to the east in Poland. So Germany didn’t have an “east only” option.

4

Yeah. None of these “what-if” plans work out for Germany. The only way The Nazis end up not militarily defeated is if they aren’t Nazis and don’t invade anyone.

Of course, then they just collapse in a few years as their economy was a shell game and they needed to plunder conquered nations to avoid bankruptcy.

5

Because the French and British would have to sell their populace on the following: “We are only twenty years removed from a deeply traumatic Great War, and the Germans aren’t hurting or planning to hurt us, they only want to go after East Europe and the Bolsheviks. Meanwhile we need to mobilize millions of our men to get potentially wounded or killed even though it would be in our interest to just sit back and watch Stalin and Hitler go against each other in the ring for as many rounds as possible.”

6

And how does Germany do that without going through Poland, which Britain and France had a security treaty with?

And again, it’s not something Germany can control. Only Britain and France can sell that message to their populaces. There is no way Germany can unilaterally have an east-only policy.

7

They can’t though. They were hoist on their own petard, since they had said, clearly, that they WOULD go to war if Germany invaded Poland…which Germany did. When that happened, a state of war existed at least wrt the agreed upon policies (I think Chamberlain declared war jointly for the allies a few days later). Now, I suppose you could posit that the UK and France decided that, despite this, that they really didn’t mean it and it was all good. That seems…unlikely.

So, you have the Brits and French declaring war. Now, I suppose you could posit that with the phony war happening, the Brits and French decide they will just sit on the defensive and do nothing as long as the Germans don’t invade westward. The Germans, of course, didn’t or couldn’t know that this was what the French and Brits would do in the long run. The Brits and French were content to sit on the defensive in the short term while they built up their forces, but eventually they would have pushed into Germany, especially if the Germans were only going east.

Sorry, there is just no way to make your scenario work in the real world, if Germany in fact invades Poland…which they pretty much had to do to make your scenario of Germany going east work. Once that happened there is just no way for Germany NOT to have to fight the western powers.

Also, neither France nor the UK were stupid (well, not THAT stupid). They weren’t going to just let Germany expand eastward unchecked, even if they did decide to sell the Poles out. At some point, they simply couldn’t just continue to let Germany expand eastward without doing anything. This is why they DID decide that Poland was their red line. But if it wasn’t Poland it would have been something else. Certainly, if Germany went ahead and invaded Russia that would have been a line for them, despite what they felt about the Soviets.

8

Here’s the map of Europe on the eve of the outbreak of the Second World War. Nazi Germany physically can’t attack the U.S.S.R. without first invading Poland. A few days later Nazi Germany did just that. And Britain and France, “twenty years removed from a deeply traumatic Great War” notwithstanding, promptly declared war on Germany (along with the rest of the British Empire and Commonwealth).

The only way I can think of for the Nazis to have mounted an “East only, never West” strategy would be to somehow persuade the Poles to let Germany send a huge army through their country unopposed (“We’re just passing through on our way to attack those nasty Bolsheviks, cross our hearts and hope to die!”). While the Poles had long-standing and more recent reasons for not getting along with the Russians, they also didn’t exactly have much historical reason to trust the Germans (let alone Adolf Hitler), and in any event letting the Big Powerful Country on one side of you use your country as a highway to attack the Big Powerful Country on the other side of you is probably never a great idea, strategically speaking.

9

The policy of the Great Powers since oh about 1871 was to contain Germany. Why would the suddenly change their minds?

10

Well, that’s pretty much what they did. With the Maginot Line and the English Channel, France and Britain didn’t feel they were directly threatened by Germany. They declared war against Germany to keep Germany from expanding into Eastern Europe.

11

As noted, it wasn’t Hitler’s choice to go to war with the UK and France over Poland. Yes, technically he responded to an ultimatum that stated, in effect, “Withdraw your troops from Poland, or else we’ll declare war on you,” by declaring war himself when the deadline passed. But it was effectively France and the UK’s decision to give that ultimatum, and I don’t think it’s likely that they would have held back and not declared war themselves, as advertised, if Hitler hadn’t first. Left to his own devices, absent an ultimatum from the Anglo-French alliance, he would have preferred to hold off on a war with the west.

Perhaps a more historically/geographically plausible question—if you’ll pardon my proposing it in this thread—is…

What if Germany and Japan had actually coordinated their efforts, as the allies ultimately did, to attack their mutual foe on separate fronts? A strategic, if not an operational, partnership akin to what the US and UK had with the USSR.

[ul]
[li]Invasion of Poland and Battle of France go down as written in the historical record.[/li][li]Hitler makes no pretense at preparing for an invasion of the UK and “most earnestly and sincerely” articulates his desire for peace with the UK.[/li][li]Germany and Japan coordinate to launch dual offensives into the USSR, from Manchuria in the East and Poland in the West. They squeeze the USSR between them as a vice.[/li][li]Japan actively avoids confrontation with or provocation of the US. Whatever happens in December of 1941, no US territories or protectorates are threatened.[/li][/ul]

Now, the UK might have kept fighting and the US might still have ended up being drawn into the war absent a direct attack against it, much as it was drawn into WWI when it became too inconvenient to remain neutral, but 1) it would have given Germany and Japan (oh, uh, and Italy) a free hand for longer, and 2) the enthusiasm of the American people for a long, drawn-out, and bloody war would have been much diminished, and FDR (if he was even still in office if and when the US ended up going to war) would have had a much harder time mobilizing the nation for total war. No Pearl Harbor, no rallying cry, no more near-universal consensus (I mean, there was one vote cast against war in the House…)

12

Except that it would not be in French or British interests to let either of them conquer the other and become sole master of the bulk of the Eurasian landmass. Sooner or later either would present a real threat to British interests in India, and directly to metropolitan France.

Essentially similar arguments applied over Czechoslovakia and Poland. Public opinion wasn’t ready over the Sudetenland, but was over Poland, after the takeover of the rest of Czechoslovakia.

13

Well, not quite. If Halifax had become PM, he would have considered a deal to end the war. With GB out, France out, and the USA not in (and never will be vs germany) that leaves the nazis vs the USSR, and even Stalin admitted they would have lost.

That brokered peace is about the only thing that would have allowed germany to win.

The only other possibility is that Stalin has Zhukov eliminated like all the other officers(Zhukov was going to be, but a chance meeting with a Field marshal buddy of Stalin saved him and sent him back to command vs the Japanese). No Zhukov and thus Japanese Northern plan works, they push into Russia. That would have made things very very tough for the USSR.

But both those things are very early in the war. Once Hitler attacks Russia and the Japanese attack Pearl, it’s all over.

14

The way this discussion is being carried is as if nobody is aware that Nazi Germany and the USSR pretty much invaded Poland jointly and in agreement with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

15

Germany could have also built up its defenses along its western border very stoutly, such that France would incur high costs in invading Germany, and decide not to invade.

16

They could have called it the Siegfried Line… oh wait:smack::rolleyes:

17

What if Germany totally backstabs Stalin?

Let Russia invade Poland, sit back, don’t invade themselves. Let Poland panic for a bit, maybe the UK and France declare for Poland. Talk with Finland a bit about the Winter War. Then, when Poland is about to panic, offer help against Stalin, seeing as Germany has this useful army next door. And not across the ocean or over in France.

Germany would lose the tactical advantage of surprise they had when they attacked Russia, but gain a strategic advantage in allies against Russia and no multi-front war. Coordinate with Japan about attacking Russia in the east, because that would probably be the point when the western allies would start to worry about Hitler more than Stalin. Useful to control when that happens.

18

Zero chance of

  1. The Soviets invading Poland without direct support from Germany
  2. France and the UK going to war with the Soviet Union over Poland.
19

But very interesting to think of Germany taking an East only, never West approach. My hunch is that America would never have entered the war, in those circumstances, so long as Japan took a West only, never East approach.

And what if the Nazi’s avoided Poland altogether, and went east through Hungary & Romania to get to Russia? Or even a more southern route? Not sure which countries had pacts, but it’s interesting to think of what might have happened if the Nazi’s went east only & the Japanese went west only. Where would we be today?

20

The backstab was convincing them you were going to support, then not actually doing so. Communications in the 1930s were not as quick as today, and the Soviets were not exactly at the cutting edge of logistics and communication.

As for France and the UK… they were willing to go to war with Germany over Poland, even after the experience of WWI. And given Soviet behavior in the Baltics and against Finland I think they would be an issue of concern. if you remember how much worry there was about the ideology of communism at the time, as opposed to Nazism and Fascism.

However, just Germany + Poland + Finland against Russia would be a huge improvement on our historys strategic position for Germany.

Althugh on reflection I think getting Japan to invade Russia without attacking the US would be difficult, they had their own war aims which was not just territory.