What if the French had fired a single shot when Hitler invaded the Rhineland?

I read that Hitler's most anxious hour was in 1936, in his first adventure, when he ordered his Wehrmacht to violate the Versailles Treaty and reoccupy the Rhineland. Until then, he had only assumed that the democracies would cave in to him, but he had no proof. In fact, he had so little confidence then that he ordered his troops to withdraw immediately if opposed by even a small counterforce. After all, since the French army was at the time so huge, and since no one knew yet that they were such cowards, Hitler's career could have ended for good, on the spot! I have often wondered what would have happened if a single French soldier had fired a single shot and the German officer on the point would have obeyed the order to withdraw, could WWII have ever started in the first place?

 

Welcome Karl-Otto!

Anyway, as long as Hitler would be the leader his aim was to start the war sooner than later. The program to arm the nation was already on its way so some kind of large scale military action was on its way.

With facing resistance and not able to send soldiers to Rhineland Hitler would know he had met his limits in the west so then he´d turn to Autria, and then to the Sudentenland problem, which this time would lead to war. If Halder et co really were preparing for a coup then this time no Munich pact and Hitler might have been thrown out of his position and also a lot of blood would be shed, but this time within the Reich.

Also possible that the Generals would follow Hitler and probably a war with big losses for the Germans (against the Czech fortresses ) and then the war would start one year earlier, but it seems that nothing would stop the war from coming if Hitler was the leader of Germany.

 

I mostly agree with Kai-Petri. With the Nazi war machine gearing up there was going to be a conflict.
Maybe he would have just built up his forces more behind his own borders before the next foray. Continued with the parades and showing off his power to the country to foster more nationalism and then tried again.

 

The key part of my scenario is that by being turned back in his attempt to reoccupy the Rhineland, Hitler would have been shamed. That shame would have made it impossible for the Hitler myth to get started. Having thus lost the support of the German people, and since that support was the only thing that stopped the generals in the OKW from moving against Hitler, he would be gone in a hurry. But as it was, the generals were blindsided by Hitler having been elevated to godlike status by his victory in the Rhineland. So, I say, suppose a his Wehrmach turned tail at the firing of a single shot. Would Hitler have survived for long?

 

In the face of an embarassing military episode it may well be that the German people would not have supported him and he would have been out of power. That would still have left the country rife for someone like Hitler to harness the discontent and rouse the country behind some similar nationalistic cause that would have led to war.

 

The problem is as well that Hitler gave the army what they wanted; MORE POWER ( men, tanks, planes ) after the Weimar republic. So one simple politic loss might not be that bad but if the Generals had acted as one against Hitler that might result in Hitler being thrown out of his position, however, not without blood shedding as Hitler would not let go without fighting.

 

If Hitler were replaced, nothing would be the same because Hitler was unique. The Allies could never again get that lucky because Hitler won the war for us. Anyone else would have done a far better job for Germany. He was our best asset in the Axis, right up there with the Japanese who planned Pearl Harbor. Without them, the Allies would not have won WWII. Of that I am certain.

 

First, welcome, Karl-Otto.

Second, I find your post terribly disrepectful, making a false generalisation of the French people, because, as annoying as they can be, French are not cowards. Why not ask the hundreds of thousands of dead men at Verdun, Bir-Hakeim and Cassino.

Third…

Hitler may not have been replaceable at all, but German and Japanese megalomania remained there to provoke and miserably lose a war, as did the United States' might.

 

The militaristic and nationalistic fervor of the Japanese and German peoples would still have been there regardless of Hitler or Pearl Harbor. That is true. I do tend to believe that had different leaders planned and executed some of the big picture items of the war in either theater, that things could have been vastly different. A better diplomat may have kept the United States out of the war in Europe, so our might would have been a moot point. If the Japanese had continued to wage their war on the Chinese mainland we would have continued to meddle diplomatically, but would any of the Allied nations really have gone to war in China if the Japanese would have left the British colonies and American assets alone? If the German government would have started the war after having the economy on a wartime footing for a few years(full 24 hour production, massisve employment of women) would they have miserably lost? Most of those decisions in Germany belonged to one man. Get rid of him and someone with a more level head may have continued to pursue the same course in a more effective manner.

 

Yes, even that way. Why? Because, no matter what Germany conquered or whome she defeated and crushed, by summer 1945 some German city ceases to exist by 'Little Boy', flown from Iceland or somewhere…

Now, the United States couldn't have remained indefinately out of the war, by diplomacy or anything. The potential threats to American worlwide interests of every kind in case of an Axis victory were too immense to let that happen, and the potential benefits of a victory (becoming a super-power and becoming the leading country in economics, politics and culture) were as well too great to waste the opportunity. FDR knew it and he did it.

 

I think that I would have to disagree. If there were no open hostilities between the United States and Germany. If Japan would have continued to limit its agression to the Chinese mainland and Hitler would have bloodied Britain's nose enough to make them sue for peace as he had hoped, then I think it is entirely possible the isolationists in the United States would have kept us out of "another" conflict in Europe. It took the propagandizing of the Lusitania to get us into WWI and it took the attack on Pearl Harbor to get us into WWII. I won't say that there is absolutely no way we would have gotten involved without the attack on Pearl Harbor, but it would have taken a lot more pushing than had occured up until then to get us involved. Without that attack getting us into the war if the 1941 campaign to take Moscow would have suceeded, there is a good chance the Euro would never have been needed. Everyone would be using the Mark in Europe and most of Western Asia. (Except maybe the Swiss)

 

In what does this affect Lend & Lease, USN's help and the fact that Germany didn't have the actual capacity to invade Great Britain and crush her?

I disagree. How was Germany going to defeat the Soviet Union? Taking Moscow? How? The distances and logistical nightmare are still there, the General Staff's incompetence is still there, the resolution of the Soviet foot soldier is still there…

And, again, the geopolitical benefits of a victory were too great to waste the chance. With FDR, who was a visionnary and was more than aware of that, in the White House, the US would have entered the war in any way or another.

 

Freidrich, I continue to contend a few points.

My original contention was that Britain does not get invaded, that they merely take enough punishment and sue for peace before the attack on Pearl Harbor. This would end the need for the continuation of Lend & Lease shipments and the USN involvement in protecting them. Now the US sailors and vessels are no longer in harms way. The war is now confined to the European continent. French interests are run by the Viche government under German control and trade and relations with the US continue.

The occupation of Moscow is not a given. It was however possible. I think many participants in this forum would agree that there were two crucial components to the defeat of the German army at the gates of Moscow; the heroic resolve of the Russian army, and the Russian winter. Without the delay of Operation Barbarossa caused by Hitler funneling off resources to support Mussolini in the Balkans there would have been a realistic chance that the Germans would have overcome the resolve of the Russians and displaced them from Moscow before the winter struck.

Place the German army inside the shelter of Moscow and provide them with control of the central transportation hub of the entire country and this solves a lot of the problems that the German army faced in the 1941-1942 winter. The Russians would then be faced with trying to marshall their forces and assemble the machinery from their dispersed industry without this vital logistical hub, and without the shelter of a large city.

I am not sure what German general staff incompetence you are referring to so I cannot address that.

I put a couple of quotes from different posts together here.

I am not sure what threats to American world-wide interests you are referring to. I honestly don't know of any and welcome the discussion. If Hitler maintained trade from German controlled Europe and the rest of the European colonial holdings I don't see a threat to our national interests that is sufficiently alarming to overcome the isolationalists that were a strong force in the US before Pearl Harbor. (Remember that in my original post the Pearl Harbor attack doesn't happen and Japanese activity is limited to mainland Asia. No British or American Pacific holdings are attacked, Hong Kong included)Despite FDR's vision, up until the Japanese attack, he couldn't get us into the war.

 

OK. But still, what 'punishment' we're taking about? Surely Great Britain couldn't have suffered more severe blunders than the series of disasters of 1940-1942 in France, the Atlantic, Lybia, Egypt, the very British skies, Somalia, Malaya, Hong-Kong, Burma, India… and still, under the stubborn Winston, they fought on.

They needed to get invaded and see the Nazi flag flying in Piccadilly to sue for peace. And still, I think the Scottish highlands would have seen the guerrilla warfare that made the Romans and English leave Scotland alone…

In fact, the Russian winter's rôle is over-played. Operation 'Typhoon' was already halted and paralised (for lack of supplies, exhaustion and unbearable losses in men and matériel) when temperatures drastically dropped.

The Balkans campaign was not either a factor in the delay of 'Barbarossa'. The snow's defrost and drying of terrain came very late that year. The terrain was not suitable for mobile operations until early or mid-June. Also, the equipping of German mobile forces took too much than expected due to the pathetic German industry dedicated to build vehicles. Civilian lorries and cars from all over occupied Europe and Germany had to be stolen by the Wehrmacht to equipp its motorised units. This was not ready until late June (all this vehicles, there's no need to say, lacked the capacity and condition to perform heavy military work and German mechanic shops didn't have the needed spare parts in case of failures).

The German General Staff's incompetence is simple: they did almost everything wrong. Putting all their money on brute force and not physical condition, designing multiple ill-defined strategical plans with no clear objectives and far beyond the Wehrmacht's capacity to carry them out, under-rating the enemy's resolve, resistance and healing capacity, over-rating their own technological superiority, wasting man and material resources… the list goes on.

What makes you think the Soviets wouldn't have burnt it? They did it once, didn't they? And they defeated an adversary who was far better than Hitler, Brauchitsch or Halder in their best day…

Well, what happens to American-European trade? Is almighty Hitler going to allow American capitalist enterprises and business in German-occupied Europe or Germany itself?

Not getting involved in WWII meant no reconstruction of Europe and Japan, with the massive world-wide trade consequences that benefited the US so much. Would US firms have had access to the massive markets of third world nations just released from their European masters? (Specially if they were conquered by Japan or Germany).

Let's make a historic example. In 1866 Prussia defeated France's old enemy, the decadent Austria. Great! France lost a weak but old adversary, but allowed at the same time the strenghtening of a new and more formidable one. By helping Austria, Napoléon III would have prevented German unification and making Austria a secondary power at the same time. Well, he didn't, and 4 years later he faced a stronger enemy that took Paris in a matter of weeks and got him out of the throne.

In WWII, the US avoided a long-term war with a dominant Germany by helping Great Britain. Also, making Great Britain fight that war, bleeding her and mortally wounding her empire, would allow a post-war economic conquest of the pieces of that same empire. (Which is exactly what happened).

Those are the long-term and great benefits of fighting and winning WWII: making the US a (and the dominant) world super-power.

 

Ah… I forgot.

Just one thing to emphasise some things said in this thread:

 

I mean absolutely no disrespect to the gallant and heroic effort of the British military and people. I was only trying to create a set of circumstances that would somehow keep Britain out of the land war in Europe. I thank God that they did persevere.

I am only an amateur WWII history buff. The few texts that I have read about the 1941 invasion may have over-played the winter effects. They seemed quite plausible to me. This is an area where the opinions of some of the other forum members would be beneficial to the discussion.

This is obviously a logistical side of the offensive that I have not been exposed to before. I was unaware that the German's had resorted to using confiscated vehicles to move parts of the force.

They very well may have burned Moscow. This would have presented the German army with very similar sheltering difficulties to what they faced sitting outside. They still would have been in control of the focal point of all Soviet transportation routes to the East of Moscow. How do you think that would have effected the Russian effort?

I have no understanding of what Hitler's economic intentions were. Maybe it is naive of me but, yes I would have expected Germany to continue to trade and conduct commerce with the US. I never heard of Hitler's plans including isolationistic self-sufficiency. He would still have kept trading with other countries IMHO.

I agree that the reconstruction period was a great boon for America. Earlier in the discussion we mentioned FDR as a visionary. I didn't think we were granting him full knowledge of the future, though. FDR may have seen the war effort as a great way to provide the depressed American industries with a way to recover. He may have even seen getting involved in the conflict as a way to prove the muscle of America and broaden her diplomatic stroke around the world like Teddy Roosevelt before him. I don't believe for a minute he could have forseen or guessed the final outcome.

While I respect your historic example about Prussia, I have never seen any evidence to indicate that there were any thoughts like these driving the decisions or policies that the US administration made. The end result that you give is also quite correct. I don't think that was a projected, suspected, guessed at, or even hoped for, consequence. What I saw was an administration trying to find a way to get some economic growth back into the economy. I saw an administration concerned with a growing faciast strength in Europe and how that would effect our foreign interests. I saw a strong sentiment of isolationism from a country still reeling from the loss of so many sons and fathers in WWI. Despite FDR and any hopes plans or dreams he had for increasing Americas power across the globe I think it would have taken more charisma than FDR had at the height of his wartime popularity to get the US into WWII without Pearl Harbor, or some other set of circumstances that enraged the public.

 

Big:

First of all, I want to apologise in case my responses seem very harsh: they're not intended that way, but I get carried out by my usual sarcasm. I am, of course, not all-knowing and I appreciate the tone of this discussion. Thanks.

Now…

There was always the option of confiscating the farm animals and food from Russian peasants and throwing them out of their Izhbas (huts) to warm and shelter. I know of 3rd SS Panzer division 'Totenkopf' doing that, with the obvious consequence of thousands of Russians who died of freezing and starvation.

I think it would have affected it very much, but I think that the Germans had very little chances to actually take the city. A siege of Moscow would have recquired twice as much troops as the siege of Lieningrad and far worse urban fighting than at Stalingrad. Now, all that in the middle of winter, with collapsed logistics and infantry units down to 50% their paper numbers?

Well, that was precisely Hitler's economic aim: isolationism and self-sufficiency for the superior Arian race. The Untermenschen would work as slaves for as long as the war lasted. Then, once the Lebensraum in the east had been acquired and there were enough Arians to populate the Russian steppes, then the Untermenschen (Poles, Czechs, Ukrainians, Russians and all Slavs) become usless and, therefore, they face the Jews' destiny.

Of course free trade and commerce was not in Hitler's mind. National socialism was as ferociously anti-capitalist as was anti-communist. Being a darwinist ideology, nazi economy worked like this: if you don't have something, instead of buying it from someone who does in exchange for somthing you do have, you steal it from the weak.

The lorries for 'Barbarossa' are a good example. Couldn't Germany have bought some 200.000 Dodge/Ford/GM lorries (better than anything Germany could produce at the time) to the US before the war and save her war effort many trouble? Germany, instead, stole lorries, cars and petrol from all over occupied Europe, including Berlin's buses and taxis…

 

Fried; Thanks, I didn't take offense but I am glad we are keeping it a discussion. I find the best way for me to learn is take what little I know and challenge someone so I learn the rest or find out I had the right idea.

Okay, I yield in the face of superior information. I shall withdraw from the gates of Moscow unlike the poor troops we are discussing.

Okay, so Hitler really was crazier than I had previously given him credit for. Living in Hitler's head must have been lonely for those few active brain cells.

It is one thing to accumulate power and influence to control trade. It is another altogether to attempt to try to take everything you think you could ever want.

Good discussion Fried, too bad we didn't get some other involvement, but maybe they knew you were going to do just fine giving me a good spanking and wouldn't have to get involved.

Now I have to start a new posting to learn something new on top of this.

 

Just wanting to remind that not only Germans were capable of this. The Russians themselves bombed any house/building that could be used by Germans to take cover from the cold weather. This was definitely dooming the Russian civilians to death but it was highly effective in downgrading the German army´s effectiveness.
That was total war.

 

After starving millions and millions of them to death just because they could, blowing up their houses for a reason doesn't seem so unreasonable. Most of them were probably vacant in the Ukraine anyway.