A "What If.." quesion.

[oakranger]

Instead of Germany invading Poland first, what if, Hitler invaded France first.  How much would WWII operations in European Theater change.

[68ZooM]

What if Hitler slipped on a bar of soap during a shower and died then and there?  You can what if this to death and still never have all the answers, only speculations.   

[Angus]

Good question.
Perhaps a disaster for Hitler, perhaps the same outcome with the countries swapped  in time. Perhaps (and I think it's a srong possibility) Stalin would have gobbled up Poland on his own, with the Germans busy on the other side.

[JunkyII]

Better question....What if the South won The Battle at Ghettysburg?

I think there is a book about it somewhere

[Angus]

Naaa, that's a puny question. No nazis. 

[bj229r]

Better question....What if the South won The Battle at Ghettysburg?

I think there is a book about it somewhere

I think I've seen that book--At the time, a goodly % of the North was quite over the war....had the battle gone better, an alliance with Britain would have been possible (to that end, Churchill wrote an essay about it, condensed  here) and pressure would have mounted on Lincoln for a truce. (I grew up in Manassas, and after the first battle, the south could have actually CAPTURED D.C....would have been a hoot ) but they failed to press their advantage

[ebfd11]

No a good "what if" question is .. What if Poland invaded Germany????

[Masherbrum]

Better question....What if the South won The Battle at Ghettysburg?

I think there is a book about it somewhere

Lee attacked a Ghetto?   

[JunkyII]

Lee attacked a Ghetto?   

Ive been playing alot of rap lately give me a break

[oakranger]

Better question....What if the South won The Battle at Ghettysburg?

I think there is a book about it somewhere

There is a great show about that on PBS: CSA: Confederate State of America.  You tube it.

[mbailey]

Better question....What if the South won The Battle at Ghettysburg?

I think there is a book about it somewhere

I like what Shelby Foote said about the Civil War and the industrialized north....... ( from memory) Quote-- " I think the North fought that war with one hand behind its back, if the war was in fear of being lost by the North, I think the north would have just pulled its other hand out"

In a nut shell, while the South had many exceptional victories, with it being an "agriculturally" based economy, and the north being an industrial based economy, the North could have out manufactured the South. Also, with the population differences, the north could replace its losses on the battlefield, whereas the South could not.

 A real question ive always wondered is, What if the British came to the aid of the South, started another front down from Canada etc..........

*I dont want anyone to think that im "bashing" the South, these were very brave, hard fighting, (extremely) well led soldiers. While some of what they were fighting for was wrong ( ie Slavery ) . Their bravery and resolve should never be challenged.

I enjoy "What If" questions, usually fosters intresting discussions

<S>
Mbailey

[APDrone]

Instead of Germany invading Poland first, what if, Hitler invaded France first.  How much would WWII operations in European Theater change.

In the overall scheme of things, why would you think they would change?  

I don't see where the order of events would have led to a different result.. i.e.. Europe occupied up to the Soviet border.. unless the Soviets took that opportunity to expand westward.

Maybe I don't know enough about the military capabilities and psychological factors of the time-period.

 

[Saxman]

Better question....What if the South won The Battle at Ghettysburg?

I think there is a book about it somewhere

Gettysburg really didn't decide anything. Lee's army wasn't destroyed in detail, and the Army of the Potomac was just as battered by the end of the engagement. It didn't hasten the end of the war. Any opportunity Meade may have had to finish off Lee was largely lost by allowing him to escape back across the border, in large part because his own army was in no more condition to press another fight than was Lee's.

Most importantly: Any news of the loss at Gettysburg would have been IMMEDIATELY overshadowed by the much more significant victory at Vicksburg the following day. If the Union had lost Gettysburg all it likely would have meant is that Grant would have been transferred to the Eastern Theater and taken control of the war there that much sooner

[Simba]

Can't help grinning when I see how quickly an interesting historical speculation on European history turned into a re-fight of the 'War Between The States'.

Hitler was always going to concentrate on the gaining of 'Lebensraum' in Eastern Europe - read 'Mein Kampf' - and Poland was 'Part One' of that ambition. He regarded the French as a spent force and the British government as a bunch of weaklings, especially after Chamberlain sold Czechoslovakia down the river at Munich in September 1938. Deeply shocked when he occupied all of that sad country in early 1939 and Chamberlain's Tory UK government reversed its policy of appeasement and declared it would support Poland if that volatile country was invaded, he accelerated German re-armament, negotiated the cynical pact with Stalin that secretly divided Poland between them, then went hell-for-leather to grab all the territory he could. Once he'd established a buffer zone out of the western part of Poland and realised the weakness of France, he couldn't resist the opportunity to avenge Germany's defeat in 1918 and so invaded.

Poland had fought for its existence in 1918-19 against the Bolsheviks and regarded the USSR as its main enemy. While not averse to gaining some territory from smaller, weaker neighbours, no way was it ever going to invade Germany at the expense of weakening the defences on its eastern frontier. If Germany had invaded France first instead of Poland, Stalin would probably have invaded Poland instead of or in addition to Finland. The Norwegian campaign would not have happened because France would have been defeated in 1939 just as it was in 1940, Britain would have fought on, and the German attack in the east would eventually have happened just the same, with Army Group Centre's start-line positioned at the western boundary of Soviet-occupied Poland instead of the eastern frontier of Nazi-occupied Poland.

As ever, 'what if' is fantasy but fun. Thanks for asking the question and getting this ol' cat's li'l grey cells working again.

 

[oakranger]

I like what Shelby Foote said about the Civil War and the industrialized north....... ( from memory) Quote-- " I think the North fought that war with one hand behind its back, if the war was in fear of being lost by the North, I think the north would have just pulled its other hand out"

In a nut shell, while the South had many exceptional victories, with it being an "agriculturally" based economy, and the north being an industrial based economy, the North could have out manufactured the South. Also, with the population differences, the north could replace its losses on the battlefield, whereas the South could not.

 A real question ive always wondered is, What if the British came to the aid of the South, started another front down from Canada etc..........

*I dont want anyone to think that im "bashing" the South, these were very brave, hard fighting, (extremely) well led soldiers. While some of what they were fighting for was wrong ( ie Slavery ) . Their bravery and resolve should never be challenged.

I enjoy "What If" questions, usually fosters intresting discussions

<S>
Mbailey

The whole out come of the war would change.  If Hitler had a mass army in France, and then maybe, just maybe, BoB could been a lot uglier.