July 2011 Main Page
Lenin Lives Longer
Give Lenin another 5 to 20 years
AH
Challenges
iPads, Spain in World
War II, etc.
No British/French
Guarantee For Poland
How does that change World War II?
Excerpt:
Exchange Sequel
Trapped in an alternate reality with a bunch of
convicts. What else could go wrong?
Church of the
Space Saviors
A very different alien invasion
Multiple Human
Species?
How could we have ended up with multiple surviving
human species?
Comments Section
Point Of Divergence
is an
amateur press
magazine and also a forum for discussing AH and AH-related
ideas. Here is my comment section.
|
This
came up on AlternateHistory.com forum. Part of the issue is
precisely how the lack of British/French participation comes about.
The Brits issued a guarantee of Poland's borders in spring/summer of
1939, shortly after Hitler grabbed the rest of Czechoslovakia. If
they don't do that, then the whole dynamics of the lead-up to war
changes, and I'm not entirely sure the outcome is the same kind of
German invasion of Poland, though some kind of invasion seems
inevitable.
One piece of the puzzle: If it is pretty apparent
that France and Britain are not going to go to war over Poland,
Germany probably wouldn't seek a pact with the Soviets. They wouldn't
really need one because they would not need it to deter the western
allies from going to war and without a British blockade they would
still have access to the world economy, so they wouldn't have the
same economic incentives to reach an accord with the Soviets.
If
they did try to reach an agreement with the Soviets, the Germans
would be in a stronger bargaining position because they wouldn’t
have to use the Soviets as an alternative source of raw materials and
they wouldn’t need to use the agreement with the Soviets as a
way of deterring French and British declarations of war.
If
there wasn't any agreement on spheres of influence, how would the
Soviets react to a German invasion of Poland? They probably would
stay out of the war initially and expect the Poles to hold out as a
buffer for at least a few months. The Soviets were fighting the
Japanese at Nomanham in July through early September 1939 (though
most of the fighting was over before September). They had to be wary
of a two-front war.
Without an agreement with the Soviets, the
Germans would try to grab as much of Poland as possible, especially
the oil wells in Galacia, of which historically two-thirds went to
the Soviets. That would put the Germans uncomfortably close to the
Soviet border. Would the Soviets sit by and allow the Germans to take
over all of Poland? If the Soviets advanced into eastern Poland they
would risk war with the Germans. If they didn't, they would end up
with the Germans on their border, several hundred miles closer to
vital targets in the Soviet Union than they were historically at the
start of Barbarossa. I'm guessing that the Soviets do a partial
mobilization, and maybe grab a few strategic areas just inside the
Polish border, but do not push into Poland in a major way because
they don't want to risk accidental clashes with the Germans.
So
Germany ends up with all or almost all of Poland. Without a Soviet
push the war lasts a bit longer and more of the Polish army escapes
to Romania.
What happens then? I don't see Hitler turning
West until the Soviets are taken care of. Going against France with
no pact with the Soviets would make zero sense. Why cut yourself off
from the world market without an alternate source of supply, which
the Soviets historically were? Also, going after France with a long,
hostile border with the Soviets makes no sense. The Germans would
have to leave too much of their power in the east to keep an eye on
the Soviets.
Going after the Soviets with the French still
not conquered is a risk too, of course, but as long as Belgium
remains neutral the potential front in the west is relatively small
and defensible compared to the one in the east.
I'm guessing
that the Germans would spend the rest of 1939 and the first few
months of 1940 digesting Poland. They would probably be a bit more
moderate in their occupation policies because they would have to
worry about western public opinion, but they would be extremely
exploitive nonetheless.
Given the Nazi economy, they would
have to grab some additional territory to exploit by late spring of
1940. I'm guessing they go after the Soviets. As to how they do, I'm
still thinking that through. There are a lot of considerations. As
noted, beating the French historically gave the Germans a lot of
booty, of which the French oil stocks and their artillery were
probably the most important pieces. Having the French economy tied
into the German war effort historically helped a lot too.
On
the other hand, no British/French declaration of war means that the
Germans would still have access to the world economy, to the extent
that they were able to pay for material there. Hard currency would be
the problem there, and the Germans would have to keep some of their
economy focused on producing trade goods. The Germans wouldn't have
to supply the Soviets with the machinery that the Soviets
historically got from the German/Soviet pact, which would partly make
up for the need to supply stuff to the world market.
Both
sides would be much less capable if the Soviets and Germans squared
off in the spring of 1940. I'm not sure which army would have lost
the most capability.
Posted
on
Jan 4, 2012.
More
Stuff For POD Members Only
What you see here is a
truncated on-line version of
a larger zine that I contribute to POD, the alternate history
APA. POD members get to look forward to more fun stuff.
|