Britain & France don't declare war on Germany

Oestreich · #1 (**permalink**) February 22nd, 2008, 08:41 PM

If Britain and France had not declared war on Germany but allowed Hitler free reign in the east, would the end result not be very similar to the actual outcome of World War II? From all that I've read it appears to me that Hitler was obsessed with controlling eastern Europe, the prize being Russia. His occupation of the western European nations was a response to two powerful and hostile nations (Britain and France) on his western border. He would have been a fool not to occupy these countries. The big question, then, is whether or not Hitler, once he had dealt with the east, attack the western nations in a bid to rule continental Europe. My sense is that this was not of particular interest to him. So, would there have merely(!) been an enslavement of eastern Europe with the rest of the continent more or less going about it's business? As it actually turned out, eastern Europe was enslaved for fifty years by Russia, rather than by Germany. Had Britain and France not declared war, millions of people--soldiers and civilians--would not have died in the hostilities. As for the Holocaust, as terrible as that was, my understanding is the Russians were carrying out their own Holocaust in even greater numbers than the Germans.

I don't for a minute suggest that there shouldn't have been an attempt to stop Hitler. But with the benefit of hindsight, I wonder which is to be preferred: eastern Europe controlled by Germany or by Russia?

pegasus · #2 (**permalink**) February 22nd, 2008, 09:32 PM

Hi, there is no dout in my mind that Stalin was as bad if not worse than Hitler, due to the propigander machine that lets us see only what it wanted to at that time (Germany an enemy and Russia an friend) we where oblivious to the goings on and purges that the Russians (NKVD) carried out aginst its own people and others, but the crimes of the Germans where shown to all,
As to whether Germany would, after dealing with the east, then have attacked England and France we will now never know that answer, however if Germany would have, I personaly could see no reason why the out cum would have differed from how it happened in ww2, the only possible diffarnce would have been that Hitler would not have been distracted by operation barbarossa and probibaly would have invaded England

Sloniksp · #3 (**permalink**) February 22nd, 2008, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oestreich

His occupation of the western European nations was a response to two powerful and hostile nations (Britain and France) on his western border.

Britain and France hostile nations?

Quote:

As for the Holocaust, as terrible as that was, my understanding is the Russians were carrying out their own Holocaust in even greater numbers than the Germans.

I wonder which is to be preferred: eastern Europe controlled by Germany or by Russia?

What Stalin did to his own people ( while inexcusable ) was an internal conflict.

Russia did not invade Europe and start to systematically exterminate populations of other countries.....

Tomcat · #4 (**permalink**) February 22nd, 2008, 10:00 PM

Well In my opinion If the western allies never waged war against Germany, Hitler still would have lost the war against the soviets, there numbers were too great for germany to take on until he had more industrial power for more tanks and aircraft. Plus Britain was always going to wage war on Germany after they delared war on poland and Briain and poland had an alliance and the English couldn't just look the other way. However if the Russians did capulate to Germany rule, the allies would not have been able to withstand the entire german army at there door step, until the Americans arrived at least.

von Rundstedt · #5 (**permalink**) February 23rd, 2008, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomcat

Well In my opinion If the western allies never waged war against Germany, Hitler still would have lost the war against the soviets, there numbers were too great for germany to take on until he had more industrial power for more tanks and aircraft. Plus Britain was always going to wage war on Germany after they delared war on poland and Briain and poland had an alliance and the English couldn't just look the other way. However if the Russians did capulate to Germany rule, the allies would not have been able to withstand the entire german army at there door step, until the Americans arrived at least.

Germany sends all those extra divisions that would have served in other theatres against the Soviets, so the German Army at this point in time in effect only lost men and equipment during the Polish Campaign, so Her entire Army is intact, Her Entire Luftwaffe is intact (no BoB), and Her Entire Kriegsmarine is intact, also if we have no declaration of war by Britain and France on Germany then we have to assume no allied declaration of war on Italy, meaning that Italy could effectively capture the Balkans without Allied interference, meaning that the Italian Army/Navy/Airforce is also intact to serve on the Eastern Front with Germany.

The one effect of Germany waging a war on the Soviet Union would have a massive possitive effect for France and Britain and that is if and when Germany did decide to attack after the defeat of the Soviet Union her forces would be alot less weakened, Britain and France would have built up their forces with many more heavy tanks, their airforces would be more modernized and much more larger that historically.

T. A. Gardner · #6 (**permalink**) February 23rd, 2008, 03:34 AM

I doubt that the British and French would not have shipped massive amounts of equipment to Russia as aid. Both would have been more than willing to give the Soviets lots of weapons and supplies to fight the Germans.
Also, the Germans would still have had to leave a fairly large force in Germany to defend against the possibility of France and Britain entering the war at some point. One cannot rule out the US doing the same.
If at some point the Western Allies do enter the war it is actually worse for Germany the longer the delay to that point is.

Tomcat · #7 (**permalink**) February 23rd, 2008, 03:41 AM

I disagree look how long it took the Germans to push from Normandy in France all the way to Berlin, and that wasn't against the whole German army only the Western army, so agaisnt the whole army I don't think they would hold to well. Plus as I had said if Russia had capulated then Germany would have been ablt to link up with Japan by land meaning Japanese reinforments and vice versa, and the Germans would have the industrial power of the soviet union as well as there own.

mac_bolan00 · #8 (**permalink**) February 23rd, 2008, 05:24 AM

it might have given the germans time to develop the bomb though. imagine if germany was able to nuke the russians.

Shangas · #9 (**permalink**) February 23rd, 2008, 08:20 AM

Firstly I don't see how France and England could ignore it. Germany had already gone after places like Austria and Czechoslovakia. England and France let this slip because Hitler's excuse was that he was simply reclaiming land that previously belonged to Germany but which was taken away from Germany after WWI and the Treaty.

However, both of the allied countries had alliances with Poland. They could not stand idly by and do nothing while Hitler went marching next door to plunder their ally. If one went to war (say France) England would have to go to war as well, because if they didn't, the French would most likely start questioning where the English loyalties lay - with freedom or fascism.

Secondly, assuming that France and England REALLY DID NOTHING - I don't think Hitler could win a war against the Soviets, or at least, against Russia, anyway. Napoleon tried...and failed. And when Hitler DID try in the later years of the war - it was a disaster. And this was after he'd gone through the other countries and probably swelled his ranks with forced conscription.

Tomcat · #10 (**permalink**) February 23rd, 2008, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shangas

Firstly I don't see how France and England could ignore it. Germany had already gone after places like Austria and Czechoslovakia. England and France let this slip because Hitler's excuse was that he was simply reclaiming land that previously belonged to Germany but which was taken away from Germany after WWI and the Treaty.

However, both of the allied countries had alliances with Poland. They could not stand idly by and do nothing while Hitler went marching next door to plunder their ally. If one went to war (say France) England would have to go to war as well, because if they didn't, the French would most likely start questioning where the English loyalties lay - with freedom or fascism.

Secondly, assuming that France and England REALLY DID NOTHING - I don't think Hitler could win a war against the Soviets, or at least, against Russia, anyway. Napoleon tried...and failed. And when Hitler DID try in the later years of the war - it was a disaster. And this was after he'd gone through the other countries and probably swelled his ranks with forced conscription.

Firstly if you are talking about my post then, mate I don't mean to be rude but maybe you should read what the posts are before you tear them apart. My opinion was never that the allies would stay idle that was a what if scenario based on the original thread, and yes yes I know all about the reasons for annexing those countires and how and allied reaction and so on.

Secondly I think the original invasion of Russia was very successful up to a point where some bad desicions and lack of troops cost Germany the war. Hitler wasn't napolean sure same tactics and doctrines based on him but different weapons and targets. Look at what the Germans did with the men they had, imagine what would happen if they did have an entire German tranined army not conscripts or pressed men but volunteers and properly trained men and units, you still don't think they could have won?

Shangas · #11 (**permalink**) February 23rd, 2008, 10:05 AM

Just to clarify, Tom, my post is not a response to yours in any way - I did not even read your post. I read only the opening post to see what the thread was about and posted my response and thoughts based on that, and that alone. I was not trying to break down any of your arguments, opinions or thoughts, whatever they may've been.

Tomcat · #12 (**permalink**) February 23rd, 2008, 10:08 AM

well ok then. in that case im sorry for biting your head off, I think I got you mixed up with someone else.

Shangas · #13 (**permalink**) February 23rd, 2008, 10:11 AM

Well this is a nice way to start off on a new forum...Assumptions are like barrels of nitroglycerin, extremely dangerous and not to be thrown around for fear of explosion. Tom I did not mention your post and I was not referring to it in any way. Please don't jump to conclusions like that in the future. If I do reference someone, I'll make a note of it in the post.

Tomcat · #14 (**permalink**) February 23rd, 2008, 10:24 AM

No problem mate like I said im sorry I got you mixed up with someone else and you are right about assumptions, sorry again

Hey lets start again welcome to this thread.

Slipdigit · #15 (**permalink**) February 23rd, 2008, 02:04 PM

Yes, Y'all start over. We don't need two Poms fighting in here, stuff gets broken, tables and chairs turned over and likker gets spilled.

Oh yeah, then I step in and that's not pretty.

Tomcat · #16 (**permalink**) February 25th, 2008, 10:44 AM

ahaha very good, but Im not no pommie they may still rule over our country of Australia but we aint in no way English I can tell you that and as far as I know Shangas is Australian too and I am sure he wont want to be called english, no aussie does

Shangas · #17 (**permalink**) February 25th, 2008, 11:18 AM

Yes I'm an Australian (At least, that's what my passport says).

Tomcat · #18 (**permalink**) February 25th, 2008, 11:42 AM

My passport actually says im New zealand(that was where I was born at least) plus I look about 6ys old lol

von Rundstedt · #19 (**permalink**) February 25th, 2008, 11:21 PM

Getting back to the topic.

Just to add that as my previous post, if Germany attacks the Soviets in 1941, then all those divisions that otherwise would have been sent to France, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Norway and Denmark are now situated on the Soviet/German-Axis frontier totaly intact, this would be the deployment of an additional 5 to 6 Armies either in the innitial offensive or held in reserve, also the Luftwaffe is totally intact this deployment would have at least 5 to 6 Luftflottes all told, then we would have the Kriegsmarine operating in the Baltic and North Sea, while the Italians without having to worry about Britain and France could send her navy into the Black Sea.

Then there other tangibles such as German and Italian industries being unmolested by allied bombing, also the Roumanian Oilfields running at full capacity. Another question is this would Britain and France be so willing to send arms to the Soviet Union after the Soviets had invaded Finland, considering the Britain did send equipment to Finland. But i would see in all this that Britain and France would not sit by and do nothing, they would make preperations to defend themselves.

Without any help what so ever, An intact Germany and her Axis Allies would eventually destroy the Soviets.

Tomcat · #20 (**permalink**) March 3rd, 2008, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by von Rundstedt

Getting back to the topic.

Just to add that as my previous post, if Germany attacks the Soviets in 1941, then all those divisions that otherwise would have been sent to France, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Norway and Denmark are now situated on the Soviet/German-Axis frontier totaly intact, this would be the deployment of an additional 5 to 6 Armies either in the innitial offensive or held in reserve, also the Luftwaffe is totally intact this deployment would have at least 5 to 6 Luftflottes all told, then we would have the Kriegsmarine operating in the Baltic and North Sea, while the Italians without having to worry about Britain and France could send her navy into the Black Sea.

Then there other tangibles such as German and Italian industries being unmolested by allied bombing, also the Roumanian Oilfields running at full capacity. Another question is this would Britain and France be so willing to send arms to the Soviet Union after the Soviets had invaded Finland, considering the Britain did send equipment to Finland. But i would see in all this that Britain and France would not sit by and do nothing, they would make preperations to defend themselves.

Without any help what so ever, An intact Germany and her Axis Allies would eventually destroy the Soviets.

I disagree the germans would be forced to leave many troops to guard there western flank from the French and British even if they didn't declare war there would still be the chance they would attempt to stop Germany, and Hitler coudn't afford to take such a chance. To let the Germans get hold off Soviet industries and Oil even if it would take time to get them up and running, the western 'allies' could not just sit and watch Germany rearm herself with more and more tanks they would be forced to declare war against germany.

Because of this threat it means less armies and air flottes as you stated above. Plus I still don't think that the soviets can be overrun, they just have too many men and too large a country, suppy lines get strecthed far to long and the winter weather would still make it to hard to launch any good offensive seeing that Germany was not properly equipped for a winter war against the Russians, just another stalingrad with men freezing to death and so on. One great advantage that the Russians posess is the ability to just keep being pushed back and back and it seeming like there is no end to there borders, the question is can the Germans not only keep pushing with there suppy lines getting longer and longer but do they have enough men to man the front lines, countinue attacking, man the borders of Turkey and the middle east plus have enough men on anti-partisan duties all throughout captured Russia? It isn't possible there man power just wouldn't allow it.

British-Empire · #21 (**permalink**) March 3rd, 2008, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oestreich

If Britain and France had not declared war on Germany but allowed Hitler free reign in the east, would the end result not be very similar to the actual outcome of World War II? From all that I've read it appears to me that Hitler was obsessed with controlling eastern Europe, the prize being Russia. His occupation of the western European nations was a response to two powerful and hostile nations (Britain and France) on his western border. He would have been a fool not to occupy these countries. The big question, then, is whether or not Hitler, once he had dealt with the east, attack the western nations in a bid to rule continental Europe. My sense is that this was not of particular interest to him. So, would there have merely(!) been an enslavement of eastern Europe with the rest of the continent more or less going about it's business? As it actually turned out, eastern Europe was enslaved for fifty years by Russia, rather than by Germany. Had Britain and France not declared war, millions of people--soldiers and civilians--would not have died in the hostilities. As for the Holocaust, as terrible as that was, my understanding is the Russians were carrying out their own Holocaust in even greater numbers than the Germans.

I don't for a minute suggest that there shouldn't have been an attempt to stop Hitler. But with the benefit of hindsight, I wonder which is to be preferred: eastern Europe controlled by Germany or by Russia?

If Britain and France had stayed neutral as very nearly happened then I expect the Axis forces would have defeated invaded the USSR in 1940 not 1941 and it's likely that Japan would have entered the war against the USSR when the Germans had reached Astrakhan as the Japanese Strike North group in the armed forces and government had wished.
If this is the case I can’t see the USSR surviving long.