What if Nazi Germany did not invade Poland?

[Shaka_Khan]

Hitler added Austria and Czeckoslovakia to Germany without a war. What if he did not invade Poland? Would the Nazis still be in power today? There are many countries that changed from a dictatorship to a free democracy. Would the Germans have grown tired of Hitler? I think that would have been possible.

A lot of good might've come from this. There wouldn't have been a holocaust in the scale that happened during WWII. Germany would've even made money by exporting new ideas such as the autobahn.

Or would the Nazis be in power to this day?

[Craterus]

Hitler was hellbent on making his "Greater Germany", he was ALWAYS going to invade Poland.

Even if for some reason, he didn't, he would have expanded in a completely different direction and started a war that way.

[Ludens]

Hitler was hellbent on making his "Greater Germany", he was ALWAYS going to invade Poland.

Even if for some reason, he didn't, he would have expanded in a completely different direction and started a war that way.
Indeed. Hitler had to fight a war. He had built up Germany by creating a massive debt so his economy could not run like this much longer. To avert collapse he had to impose the kind of restrictions that only a war could justify or admit that his economical policy was a failure. I doubt it took him long to choose.

[ShadesPanther]

He gambled that Britain and France would back down over it just like they did with czechoslovakia. They did not.
Poland was not going to give Germany back the "Polish Corridor" through any other means than Germany taking it from them.
Hitler gambled that war would not start until 1945, So yes it really could of changed many things. For instance if the Allies did Nothing Germany would be even stronger than in 1940, but then so would the Allies.

[BelgradeWar]

Thw whole Nazi climb was based on a "Enemy" - nazis needed an enemy, to be a focusing point of all their members and eventually whole German people. Hitler practically rose because of his smartly organised conflict with communists. Once they where down, he focused on Jews - again an excellent choice of enemy (of course, we talk here on purely tactical means, and from Hitlers point of view) - suspicion against Jews is old as a Bible - literally. He just used that, added it new momentum, gathered new points on political scale, eliminated quite a strong political opponent and last, but not least - put his hand on vast fortunes the Jews had. But it couldn't last forever.
For prolonged rule and in order to have an excuse for his policies, methods and the whole Nazi organisation he needed new ones. Austria, then Chechoslovakia. He couldn't stop there. And he would never stop. It was just a matter of time.

[spmetla]

I don't think that Hitler actually cared for a real war in 1939. He gambled again but this time the Allied powers resisted. I believe he had even instructed the heads of the Kreigsmarine not to warplan against England because he didn't believe that they'd go to war with Germany. He'd also told the Kreigsmarine that the next war would be in 1944. If he were to start a war though I'd imagine that it would have been right a way with France. The only thing he hated more than Communism were the French (probably from his experience in WWI) and then we'd have to wonder whether the Polish and British would support the French. France at the time had "best" army in the world and might have been viewed as strong enough to handle Germany by itself besides a France first policy wouldn't have allowed time for a British Expeditionary Force to assemble in France therefor no Dunkirk and probably no great Desert Fox successes in North Africa if he had to face all that extra armor.

If he hadn't gone to war but had still done the diplomacy for the Danzig corrider I think the Allied powers would have been happy that Hitler could be negotiated with and wasn't starting another Great War. Churchill might not have become Prime Minister.

The US would then have had no reason for a peacetime draft and military buildup which would probably have kept it isolationist and with France not subdued and the Royal Navy tied up Imperial Japan might not have dared to reach as far as it did.

According to my mom my grandparents (Austrian) didn't really mind Hitler when the Anschluss happened but were just afraid that he'd start a war. I imagine that with no need for the Final Solution the Halocaust wouldn't have been as bad (still plenty bad though ) because the Germans wouldn't have been able to persecute the Jews throughout Europe but only the ones within Germany.

The US would not have had the opportunity to become the postwar Superpower we became (or maybe this would just be delayed until a bigger war). Seeing also that the US had started the Manhatten just about that time I imagine that we'd have continued to pursue that and in the event of a war delayed a few years the US might have had a few A bombs ready to ship to Britain and drop on Germany (although both the Transatlantic and actually delivery to target would have been much harder than in the Pacific) which might have been enough to stop a delayed WWII before it really started. But if now war happened then it's possible that the US would have just remained a sleeping giant with nuclear capabilites but no one knowing (no Cold War?). In addition seeing as German nuclear research was slow and supposedly the closest they got to was a dirty bomb they might have been able to drop one of these on London for a 1944 war (not 1944 but shortly afterward) and if the war was greatly delayed or not happening the Germans too may have become nuclear powers.

As for Britain and France I imagine that they would have held on to the greater parts of their empires longer. Without the deficits of WWII and the Marshal Plan they might have been able to get out of the economic slump of the 30s soon enough that maintaining an empire was still cost effective. Who knows maybe there would have been no independence granted to India (peacefully at least).

As for Russia without a Great Patriotic War the purging of the Red Army would probably have continued with no great leaps in technology for aircraft or the navy while tank technology would probably have continued. There wouldn't have been a Winter War with Finland at least and the occupation of Estonia, Lativia, and Lithuania might not have happened or at least delayed.

As for Germany itself who knows how long the Nazis would have been in power. WWII changed the world completely and the liberal movements of the 1960s might not have happened as they did. The Nazis were definately good at repression so they would have stayed in power for a long time so long as they didn't start a war and lose.

GAH! Who knows anyhow, fun speculating though :dizzy2:

[Vladimir]

GAH! Who knows anyhow, fun speculating though :dizzy2:

Indeed.

If Hitler wasn't ambitious and greedy he could have just continued the Prussian tradition of "uniting" Germanic Europe. It would have been interesting to see just how bad their economy would have suffered. The effects of rampant socialization combined with the annihilation of the Jews would have stunted or crippled their economy. Europeans might not like the Jews but they're good for business. Even under communism Eastern Germany was one of the most productive if not the most productive satellite state in the Soviet Empire. Hitler’s Germany would continue to do well but would not thrive.

The world did change and it is hard to say what would have happened to Japan. After the US cut off oil to Japan it needed to find a new supply or its military would have ground to a halt. I’m not sure if they had an option to not strike against the Dutch.

I’m just glad the war started when it did. The problem is that you had the “good guys” (foolishly) playing by the rules when developing their military and the bad guys weren’t. If the allies had to face jet fighters, IR guided missiles, and sonar equipped submarines from the start (and God forbid a Nazi nuke) I don’t think they would have won.

[Kraxis]

There wouldn't have been a Winter War with Finland at least and the occupation of Estonia, Lativia, and Lithuania might not have happened or at least delayed.
Do not agree with this.
Stalin was pretty paranoid about the events unfolding, and his paranoia this time seems to have been justified. As Germany expanded, he felt that he must create a bufferzone wheer war could be waged. Well, Poland was just that if it was still alive, but the Baltic States and Finland couldn't be considered that (though with hindsight it might have been better to leave Finland alone, and then perhaps not).
And given Rumania's sidelong glances at the SU that too had to be considered.

So I truly believe these events would have unfolded, perhaps not as they did, but in they would in my mind.

[Kagemusha]

This is intresting question indeed. We have to remember that the Invasion on Poland was inmatter of fact Co operation of Germany and Soviet Union, that followed the plan of so called Ribbentrop Molotov pact.That was aimed so that Germany and Soviets would have shared Eastern Europe to their own zones of control.Here is a map of the divisions of areas that were planned and another one with the actual results:

https://img215.imageshack.us/img215/5664/800pxribbentropmolotov9au.png


Here is a good link provided by Wiki about the pact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact

[cegorach]

He had to attack, because otherwise Germany would face incredible economical problems in close future - he needed conquests and its rewards like stolen and taken goods to keep german society happy and his power safe - Gestapo, SS and other were far too small to keep them under controll.

@Kagemusha

Good that you have posted the map for the original deal where you can see that even Warsaw was to be halved - so much about protecting German and Ukrainian/Belorussian minorities they were so 'concerned about' :laugh4:

Regards Cegorach :book:

[ShadesWolf]

I think an additonal interesting question would be " What would have happened if Britain and agreed not to enter the war, hence the empire would not have got involved and Hitler would have had a free hand in europe.

Would Western Europe be a German super state and would Britain still have her empire ?
Would we have all the problems in Africa and the middle east ?
would Japan rule the East ?

[Domen]

Here is a translated interview with Piotr Zychowicz, author of the book "Ribbentrop-Beck Pact":

Krzysztof Rak - Today our guest is Mr Piotr Zychowicz, author of the book "Pact Ribbentrop-Beck".
Piotr Zychowicz - Good morning.
KR - You are a supporter of a thesis, that in 1939 Poland should enter into an alliance with Adolph Hitler, Fuhrer of the German Reich. Why do you think so?
PR - Indeed it sounds desperately. But I think that casualties suffered by Poland during WW2 were so enormous, both political casualties - as we lost half of our territory - as well as purely biological, as we lost several million inhabitants, we lost Warsaw which was demolished - that an alliance with Western powers signed by Joseph Beck on the eve of WW2, was simply a fiasco. And it seems, that such a very unpleasant, difficult alliance - a temporary one, which I underline very firmly - signed with Germany, would let us avoid all those things.
KR - Your thesis could be moderated and it would be more digestible for the audience if we expressed it in such a way - in 1939 we had also other alternative options, not just an alliance with the West.
PR - In 1939 the Polish state found itself in a tragical situation. That is, neither choice which was possible for us to make would be a good choice. Of course it would be the best if noone was accosting us, if we could just for next 100 years live within such borders as we had with Wilno and Lwow. Unfortunately it was impossible. WW2 was in the wind, it was known that sooner or later Hitler would go against the Soviet Union. And either he was going to trample us in his march there, or go together with us.
- Here some doubts emerge. The first doubt is whether Hitler indeed wanted to go with us against the Soviet Union.
PR - Well, paradoxically there is no doubt about this. There is such a huge amount of documents both from Hitler himself and from his surroundings, as well as accounts, memoirs, various staff elaborations. There is no doubt that Hitler wanted Poland to cooperate with him during WW2.
KR - But what was the cause of this? What were Hitler's calculations?
PR - Hitler decided to conquer hegemony on the European continent. In order to achieve this he needed to destroy two states which threatened that supremacy. First of all, France, secondly, the Soviet Union. In order to carry out that plan he wanted to avoid a two-front war and he wanted to attack and defeat the weaker one - that is, France - first, and - after securing his rears - to invade the Soviet Union. Poland in all those Hitler's plans had an extremely important role to play. During the first phase of Hitler's war - invasion of France - we were supposed to secure his rears, in case if for example Stalin would like to intervene. And then - after Hitler would already "put in order" - in his own way - the Western Europe, neutralize France, push out Great Britain into the islands - we were supposed to march together for that anti-Soviet crusade of Hitler's dreams.
KR - But why do you think that Franco-British guarantees were unreal, that we should have refused accepting them?
PR - Accepting the guarantees of Great Britain, as well as France as she also warranted, was madness. The entire "British game" on the eve of WW2 consisted in turning away Adolph Hitler's aggression from their own borders, from Western Europe. By reason of this Great Britain attempted to direct that main impetus of the Third Reich in various directions. Hitler until 6 April 1939 did not have a plan of the invasion of Poland. Only then he decided that he would start that war from us. He decided so because on 6 April 1939 Joseph Beck, in London, accepted the British guarantees and signed a pact with Great Britain.
- So - do I understand this correctly? - the cause of Hitler's decision to wage a war against Poland were the British guarantees for Poland?
PR - Of course.
KR - So in some sense Great Britain manoeuvred, dragged us into the war?
PR - Yes. Of course. It wasn't like the British were supposed to die for German Danzig - on the other hand, Poles were supposed to die for Manchester and London. Mind you in what situation did Adolph Hitler found himself in the moment when Poland signed a pact with Great Britain and he was "surrounded" - as he said - by a powerful Anglo-Franco-Polish coalition. He found himself in a very difficult strategic dillema. In that moment Poland was standing in his way on both of his directions - that is, he could not attack France, because Poland would then attack him from behind and he would have to fight a two-front war; and he also could not attack the Soviet Union, because we were standing in his way again. He had only two solutions from that strategic dillema - either to forgo his wartime plans - and this is what Joseph Beck expected, he expected that Hitler would just give up his plans and in such a way Beck would secure European peace - or, Hitler's second option - to attack Poland together with Stalin. Hitler started his first, survey talks with the Soviets, on 7 April 1939, one day after Joseph Beck signed an alliance with Great Britain. It is very unpleasant for us, but Beck hurled Hitler into Stalin's arms. There was no a Ribbentrop-Beck Pact, so there had to be a Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact.
KR - You write that - well, and this is also our common historical knowledge - that those main forces the West - democratic Western powers from one side, the Soviet Union on the other side, and we - at least as long as Joseph Pilsudski was responsible for Polish foreign policies -, each of those forces wanted to enter the war as late as possible, and such was also the testament of Pilsudski. Joseph Beck's mistake consisted in the fact that we let the others to drag us into a war against Hitler as his first target.
PR - Indeed. What we should have done on the eve of the war, was to do the same as all other states did - that is, to play for time. Because whoever enters the war first - as Marschall Pilsudski warned - is the one who loses it. While who enters the war during its subsequent stages, preserves his forces and has a chance for some profitable conclusion of this armed conflict. Beck backslided the political testament of his master.
KR - In your book you underline that in 1939 Poland could play a particular role. I would even use such a term, that we could call Poland a geopolitical kingpin - so a country that was not a military power, but had a significant influence on how the European balance of power would look like. And probably in 1939 we played such a significant role in the system of European powers for the last time. Do you agree with this?
PR - No. I think that we played such a role not only for the last time, but also for the first time. Never in our entire long history, Poland played such an important role in the world history, and never Poland had such a politician as Joseph Beck whose decision would have so colossal effects for the entire world. Please imagine the following situation - Beck makes a different decision, he sticks up his nose, and with his second hand he signs that unpleasant alliance with the Third Reich - an undesired alliance, but that would be a marriage of convenience, not a love match. At First France falls, so history flows the same way as it really rolled, then we invade the Soviet Union together. It seems that those our additional 40, maybe even 50 divisions, well rearmed during those 1,5 year, could be a decisive factor. So in 1941 / 1942 the Soviet Union collapses. But then Germany would most likely lost a war against Americans on the Western Front, maybe with help of Poland which would betray the Third Reich. And the entire conflict would end in such a way, that in year, let's say 1945, we would have year 1991. There would be no Soviet Union.
KR - Oh, I think you go even one step further in your book. You write that after 1945 there is no Soviet Union, Germany is defeated, and in the Central-Eastern Europe with have a large and only power, and this power is Poland. And indeed such a situation in the history of Central-Eastern Europe never occured.
PR - Well, it occured when a Union between Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was signed for the first time. But the main thesis of this book is as follows...
KR - But we didn't manage to conquer Muscovy at that time. We didn't finish that.
PR - Well, indeed. History gave us later further chances, which we didn't exploit. But the main thesis of this book is as follows - WW2 could end for us with a "happy end" and any kind of success if and only if the scenario similar to that of WW1 would take place once again. By the end of WW1 a political situation dreamed by generations of our Polish grandfathers and great grandfathers took place, that is - both of our partitioning powers collapsed. First Russia collapsed, defeated by Germany in 1917. And then, one year later, German Western Front collapsed. Only thanks to the fact that those two military powers collapsed, Poland could regain its independence and even "muscle in" a bit on the map of Europe. If the course of WW2 was similar, Poland would emerge victorious by its end.
KR - This scenario, and such a tough "Realpolitik", induces among the audience, among the readers of your book, very impetuous reactions. They say about a scandal, some reviewers say that it is a scandal that such a person who writes such books emerged. And I have such a question to you - why for us Poles it is so hard to get rid off thinking in categories of honor, prestige. Why is it so hard for us to think in categories of raison d'Etat? Because whatever to say about your book, you certainly try to use this one category. And for example British people, Russians, Germans, etc. operate with this category every day and it is for them an obvious motive of actions. Why is this category so non-obvious for us?
PR - Well, you rightly mentioned the British people, who - in my opinion - during World War 2 gave us exactly such a brutal lesson what the real international politics is. The British people during WW2, at the beginning attempted to direct the first of Hitler's strikes in various other directions, they were sacrificing one state after another, the British people during WW2 were betraying their allies, they were not keeping agreements, the British people during WW2 signed an alliance with an awful, totalitarian regime - the Soviet Union, not because they loved Communism, but because they understood that such an alliance was in their best national interest. If it comes to the matters of year 1939 then I think that a problem with exists and the cause why a calm and prudent debate about this is today so difficult in Poland, results from two things. The first of them is for me absolutely understandable. This thing is the extent of gruesome, genocidal policies on territories of Nazi-occupied Poland. Indeed, what they were doing here, after 1939, was a horror. And now, if someone talks that we should have signed an alliance with those same Germans, it naturally causes very emotional reaction. But the problem lies in the fact that emotions are not good feelings when we speak about major political matters. Just a short analysis is enough to understand that Hitler murdered so many Poles, because we dared to fight a war against him, and then we lost that war and fell under his total occupation. All these three things would simply not take place if we signed an alliance with him, so this is obvious. So that difficult German-Polish alliance, which would have to be ransomed by unpleasant concessions, harming our prestige, would be a remedy, a resort of preventing a hecatomb of the Polish nation. This is the first matter. Secondly, ...
KR - But when we talk about those national interests, we can read in any handbook, that the most basic raison d'Etat lies in survival of a nation and its people. There are no any more important values in foreign politics. There are no. This is the measure of foreign politics - a good foreign policy is the one which leads to survival of a nation and its people, while bad foreign policy is the one which leads to debunking of this entity. True?
PR - Yes. Winston Churchill once said something like this: "I haven't become a prime minister in order to expose Great Britain to destruction. I have become a prime minister to shield her from destruction." I'm not sure if Joseph Beck could say the same thing about himself, unfortunately. But the second cause of this problem which the Poles have with the year 1939, is Marxism. Even many people who lived in the People's Republic of Poland, even subconsciously, are suffused with such a fatalistic Marxist approach, that history had to flow they way it did. That is, that the role of individuals is unimportant, because the entire course of history is heading toward the victory of communism. And...
- Here we have to do with so called historical determinism.
PR - Yes. And the 2nd Republic of Poland, as a "rotten state", troubled from inside by various problems, by a "capitalist-landed gangrene", ...
KR - But of course such a "underdeveloped, disabled capitalist state" to some extent.
PR - Yes of course. So it had to collapse during the very first turmoil of history, right? In order to concede place for a new, Communist state. But it is rubbish. The 2nd Republic of Poland was not a "rotten state", it was a state with potential, a state that was becoming stronger and developing. It had - contrary to what is said - decent armed forces, and it had all hopes for lasting and existing, as well as achieving successes on the international arena. So it was not any "fate" that was hanging over us. For example some very partiotically-minded historians write that Beck found himself in a situation without any choice. It isn't true. There is always a choice in politics. We don't need to turn this into some huge dispute between supporters of Realpolitik and supporters of some our traditional "romantic" politics - Beck, quite simply, made a bad political decision allying with England and France, and that's all.
KR - So let me summ up our discussion in such a way - There is only one thing in the lives of nations and countries that is without price. That thing is independence & sovereignity. Thank you very much.

[ReluctantSamurai]

But then Germany would most likely lost a war against Americans on the Western Front, maybe with help of Poland which would betray the Third Reich. And the entire conflict would end in such a way, that in year, let's say 1945, we would have year 1991. There would be no Soviet Union.

So basically Zychowicz is claiming that Poland would have been better off rolling the dice in a very iffy crapshoot with Germany:shrug: What if US support doesn't materialize, and they remain isolationist? So much for Germany losing a war on the Western Front which is dubious at best with the Soviet Union already defeated in this scenario and no need for Germany to have 2/3 of her fighting force preoccupied in the East. How could any politician of the day predict what the US was going to do? Hitler guessed wrongly, as did Tojo.

And now Poland would be left to deal with Nazi Germany all by itself when Hitler decides he doesn't need her help any more....

I basically see this as Poland selling her soul to the devil....and when the dues are to be paid, the results will be nearly the same...the only difference being Polish blood spilled on foreign soil instead of defending her own.

[Domen]

As a counter-argument for thesis of Piotr Zychowicz, here is a translated excerpt from the "Case study of a strategic plan of Poland against Germany", which was written in period 14 November 1937 - 10 January 1938 by Tadeusz Kutrzeba and Stefan Mossor:


"a) Possibility of signining an alliance with Germany itself:

Positive sides of signing a close alliance with Germany would be very numerous. First of all, a direct threat of an imminent war would dissapear, because Russia, constantly struggling against internal difficulties, at the present moment doesn't pose a threat of external territorial expansion, while other neighbours are not dangerous. Another positive side would be the possibility of gaining access to an output market for Polish agricultural products, which would facilitate the productivity of this important branch of Polish national economy. The third positive side would be a strong and considerable help of Germany in industrial development of Poland, in installing sewer system, electrification, in development of the network of transport and communication, etc. All difficulties in rearmament of our army and its future reserves could for sure be - with help of German industry - easily solved within a period of several years. It would be possible to further continue and take on high level - with help of that industry as well as German specialists - the economic development of such underdeveloped regions like Wilno region, Polesie, etc., etc.

However, all those numerous and extraordinarily positive influences of an alliance with Germany could be implemented only under such a condition, that Germany would consider Poland as an absolutely reliable ally, and this can be achieved only through considerable subordination of Poland to Germany, that is - through concluding with Germany a similar pact to that which existed between Austria and Hungary. Without this certainty of having a reliable ally, Germany would of course not invest even one red cent into Poland's development, in order not to strengthen their potential enemy.

Even assuming, that it is possible to win the Polish public opinion over for such an alliance, we must first thoroughly consider, if it would really be profitable for Poland. So, such an alliance would undoubtedly lead to a rapid economic development of Poland, to increase of the level of wealth and culture of the population, it would remove the danger of discontent and riots among national minorities, etc. That would be a good side to it.

A bad side to it would be the fact, that Poland in order to achieve such a development, would have to enter the sphere of interests of the aggressive German policy. Even if we would be able to avoid being dragged into some "expeditions" for territorial or ideological conquests, for example against Russia, then still a natural consequence of such a close alliance with Germany would be an automatic drop out from us of all other potential allies, in other words - Poland would find itself completely at the mercy of Germany's good will. If for example in some moment Germany would propose Poland a joint conquest of Belarus up to Smolensk and Ukraine up to Kiev - and then expansion of Polish borders in eastern direction, with simultaneous abandonment of Pomerania, Poznan region and Upper Silesia and incorporation of these lands to Germany, then in such case Poland would have only two possible solutions: either to agree (and such a consent, in my opinion, would not be possible to obtain from population by any Polish government), or to begin a solitary, improvised war against overwhelming German power, already deeply rooted into Poland's organism, without any external help."

This particular excerpt was written by Stefan Mossor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadeusz_Kutrzeba

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Mossor

[Strike For The South]

The what if game is futile

[ReluctantSamurai]

What ifs can be fun to discuss, but yes, in the end, pointless....and especially this what if. Either way, Poland is screwed and there's really not much she could have done about it. Anyone who suggests that Hitler would've played nice with Poland's very large Jewish population as an ally is.......dreaming.

[Jolt]

Poland was going to get the Germany stick, either sooner or later.

[Kadagar_AV]

Poland was going to get the Germany stick, either sooner or later.

This.

As much as I like "what ifs", Poland would be the very LEAST probable change.

If you look at maps from before the invasion you will understand why, the Versailles peace made Poland split Germany in two to give Poland sea access... So Poland basically ran like a corridor through Germany.

A lot of people don't know this these days.

Poland was the priority ONE thing to grab.

[Vladimir]

The thought of a German-Polish alliance is interesting. Imagine the restoration of greater Poland, to secure the German east, while Germany went west.

Obviously that could never happened with a maniac at the helm but a more thoughtful planner could have pulled it off.

[Domen]

Obviously that could never happened with a maniac at the helm but a more thoughtful planner could have pulled it off.

You talk about Hitler now ???



Anyone who suggests that Hitler would've played nice with Poland's very large Jewish population as an ally is.......dreaming.

At least Hitler would not be able to build death camps on occupied Polish terrotories.

By the way - several other states which were Germany's allies during World War 2 also had large Jewish minorities.

For example Hungary with almost 1 million Jewish population in 1939.



If you look at maps from before the invasion you will understand why, the Versailles peace made Poland split Germany in two to give Poland sea access... So Poland basically ran like a corridor through Germany.

Poland was the priority ONE thing to grab.


Man, the Corridor was like 3% of Polish territory...

Poland did not split Germany in two - but East Prussia (which was a relatively small & irrelevant province) from Germany proper.

Saying that Poland split Germany in two is like saying that Canada split the USA in two (i.e. Alaska from all other states).

So I guess the only solution for the Americans to get over this is to invade and annex Canada to reunite with Alaska ??? Lol.



A lot of people don't know this these days.


Uhm, maybe some total ignorants when it comes to WW2 history.

[Fisherking]

Figuring that the Nazis could leave Poland alone is a big stretch. Hitler wanted those lands back that were once German and was even willing to go in with the Soviets to do that.

But just for the sake of argument, assuming he did not attack Poland and perhaps allied with them it would have made a huge difference to the intelligence gathering abilities of the Western Allies. Cracking the German codes was based on Polish research. They gave the key to the cracking of Enigma to British Intelligence.

Just the same, Poland would have had to make huge donations of territory and take on a Nazi atmosphere to placate Nazi Germany, as well as participation in “The Final Solution” once it was thought up. It would have been just as ugly a proposition as its conquest.

There is little good one can find about the Nazis. The best thing may have been their invasion of Poland which put an end to appeasement.

[Domen]

The best thing may have been their invasion of Poland which put an end to appeasement.

But at what cost for Poland. Apart from Germany Poland was the biggest loser of WW2. But (Western) Germany after WW2 received $$$ financial support for reconstruction. Poland - which found itself on the other side of the Iron Courtain - did not receive anything.

In 1945 Poland was "liberated" from the German occupation only to found itself under Soviet / Communist occupation one moment later.

And lost so many civilians and soldiers. For what? Polish soldiers who fought alongside the Western Allies could not return to their country after WW2 - those who returned were persecuted by Communists. Home Army members were also imprisoned, persecuted, some executed by Communists.

In exchange for Eastern territories - Poland received land in the West as a "gift" from Stalin. But that land was devastated. Cities like Wroclaw were completely demolished, because Waffen SS and Wehrmacht defended them to the last building destroyed by Soviet artillery.

Warsaw was also demolished - after the 1944 Uprising Hitler ordered to destroy what remained of Warsaw. Stalin did nothing to stop him.

Churchill and - especially - Roosevelt - sold Poland to Joseph Stalin's regime. Communism was not much better than Nazi occupation.

Today nobody in the West remembers the Polish contribution to Allied victory in WW2 anyway. Jewish organizations blame Poland for doing not enough to save Jews from the Holocaust. And - strangely - American Jews seem to forget that they observed sufferings of European Jews and did nothing for so long time. Even later (from December 1941 on) American Jews did almost nothing to save European Jews. When information about death camps - including that from Poles, like Jan Karski for example - reached Western Allies - they did nothing to stop the massacres.

[PanzerJaeger]

When information about death camps - including that from Poles, like Jan Karski for example - reached Western Allies - they did nothing to stop the massacres.

What would you have had them do, apart from attempting to defeat Germany in the quickest manner possible?

[ReluctantSamurai]

Churchill and - especially - Roosevelt - sold Poland to Joseph Stalin's regime. Communism was not much better than Nazi occupation.

And what were the Allies supposed to do.....start WW3 against the Soviets over Poland?

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

And what were the Allies supposed to do.....start WW3 against the Soviets over Poland?

I believe that Churchill advocated exactly that course of action..... now there's a what if.

[Sarmatian]

And what were the Allies supposed to do.....start WW3 against the Soviets over Poland?

That was highly unlikely, as the Allies already set that precedent with Italy. They couldn't, with a clear face, ask for joint control of Poland while not giving joint control of Italy. And Italy, of course was much more important than Poland.

[HopAlongBunny]

I believe that Churchill advocated exactly that course of action..... now there's a what if.

Largely a pipe dream I think.

The Soviets were just too big (and advanced) at the end of WW2; largely due to American aid.

While the Soviets did the majority of dieing in WW2 they still had more where that came from. The US would have had to "carry the ball" for the Eastern war, and I don't think the population would have stood for it. In addition, without time for retrenchment the Allies logistics would have collapsed. It is an interesting "what if" but I just can't see the needed popular support for extending WW2 much beyond where it finished.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Largely a pipe dream I think.

The Soviets were just too big (and advanced) at the end of WW2; largely due to American aid.

While the Soviets did the majority of dieing in WW2 they still had more where that came from. The US would have had to "carry the ball" for the Eastern war, and I don't think the population would have stood for it. In addition, without time for retrenchment the Allies logistics would have collapsed. It is an interesting "what if" but I just can't see the needed popular support for extending WW2 much beyond where it finished.

Well, exactly. You've hit the nail on the head. Of course US national sentiment wouldn't have stood for it - nor was there too much appetite for extending the war within an already ravaged Europe. That is the thing with any what ifs - there is usually a reason why it remained a what if rather than an actual event. The reasoning was sound, but there were stronger reasons (cons) considered at the time which out-weighed the pros.

[Brenus]

“Communism was not much better than Nazi occupation”????. Really? Polish were poor under communism, ad repressed, but at least not exterminated… But if you can’t see the difference…
“I believe that Churchill advocated exactly that course of action..... now there's a what if.” Probably a Communist Europe from Pacific to Atlantic. Remember 7 on 10 German casualties were on the Russian front, and the Red Army was much more battle trained than the Allies. Then they had better material (T34/85, JSU, JS Stalin etc) and more. And better generals. And if USA attacked USSR, what would have been the reaction of the Communist Partisans in France and Italy? Not in favour of USA…
“largely due to American aid”: Largely a legend. In 1941, first German defeat in front of Moscow, USA is even not at war… And the production is not a full speed, so they have even problem to supply the UK.

[Sarmatian]

Well, exactly. You've hit the nail on the head. Of course US national sentiment wouldn't have stood for it - nor was there too much appetite for extending the war within an already ravaged Europe. That is the thing with any what ifs - there is usually a reason why it remained a what if rather than an actual event. The reasoning was sound, but there were stronger reasons (cons) considered at the time which out-weighed the pros.

We've already discussed potential ww3 scenario to death here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?111163-Patton-pushes-on-%28what-if%29). It is definitely an interesting read.

[ReluctantSamurai]

“largely due to American aid”: Largely a legend. In 1941, first German defeat in front of Moscow, USA is even not at war… And the production is not a full speed, so they have even problem to supply the UK.

At the risk of opening the Lend-Lease can of worms (not my intention), the 1941 and 1942 contributions of LL were minimal. But by 1943 through 1944 the contributions were simply staggering in amounts. The Soviets owed their battlefield mobility largely to US trucks, food supplies, and fuel. Without LL, the Soviets probably fight the Germans to a standstill...and stalemate on the Eastern Front rears its head.

And that would make the whole discussion of starting ww3 over Poland rather mute, IMHO....


While the Soviets did the majority of dieing in WW2 they still had more where that came from.

While the first part of that statement is certainly true, the part about having manpower reserves in 1945 is questionable.


The US would have had to "carry the ball" for the Eastern war, and I don't think the population would have stood for it.

This, I believe, is the crux of the matter. Nazism had been beaten, Hitler was dead, and America had done its duty. Now it was time to go home.


We've already discussed potential ww3 scenario to death

Certainly a lot of good information presented there (and some not so good). But I think, in the end, ww3 didn't happen there and then more for political reasons than material ones...(my humble opinion, of course).

[Brenus]

"While the first part of that statement is certainly true, the part about having manpower reserves in 1945 is questionable" See the Soviet Offensive in Manchuria. The means put on it...A of course operation Bagration. At they still didn't include 13 years old boys and 63 years men.

[HopAlongBunny]

I think we agree. The entire issue hinges on the politics.

Stalin could reasonably expect to arm and mobilize any citizen capable of drawing a breath and pointing a rifle.

The allies would need to deliver manpower to the front over extraordinary distances, through not altogether friendly territory, to make war on a recent ally. Selling that to the public (alas democracy and its annoying public) would have been next to impossible.

[ReluctantSamurai]

See the Soviet Offensive in Manchuria.

The Soviet offensive against the Japanese Kwantung Army was done almost entirely with existing units moved east from the European theater of operations.


of course operation Bagration.

Bagration and the other major Soviet offensives of 1944 and 1945 were made possible, in part, by LL which allowed the Soviets to conscript from the worker population that otherwise would have had to be on the farms or in the factories.


At they still didn't include 13 years old boys and 63 years men.


Stalin could reasonably expect to arm and mobilize any citizen capable of drawing a breath and pointing a rifle.

I could quote some sobering statistics from Mark Harrison's book Accounting for War: Soviet production, employment, and the defense burden 1940-1945, but this probably isn't the place for it. Suffice it to say, the Soviets were scraping the bottom of the barrel for manpower (one good indication is the reduced size of rifle divisions from earlier in the war; another is that even by 1950, Soviet population and production had not yet returned to pre-war levels). They had been consistently conscripting from the farm and factory workers pool. When LL comes to an abrupt end (as it would in a ww3 scenario with the Western Allies), then in order to keep some semblance of production numbers to make up for LL, population is going to have to be shifted back to the farms and factories, not the other way around.

[Kocmoc]

Well, if I read those posts here, it looks like, as the Nazis (in most cases called "Hitler") where the main reason for the war. In the end they was, yes,
but in the first place I want too see some real reasons here.

Wars was decided and still are, by strong Families and banks. Let me mention "Rothschilds" here.
This Family decided about the loss of Napoleon at Waterloo by organizing the Gold, needed for payment for the british (and their allies) soldiers.
Not to mention other wars, where the money decided the start and the outcome.
When did the confederates lose the war? It was the moment as their bonds (wool) got worthless… no money, no payment, no soldier, lost!

The Nazis had a few economical and financial problems, the reparation was the least problem.
Hitler knew the real problem of that time, which is still the same today. Banks and a handful humans had/has too much power.
He choose a very questionable way to "solve" that problem, he started to kill and deport those people, who was jews in the most cases.
The moment he started to rip of the power of those banks and people, he had a new enemy.

If you look back in history, you will find the same pattern over and over again. It started all in 1407 with the first bonds ever made in florence.


If Hitler would not have touched the banks/jews, he could have run over poland and russia, without getting into war with UK, france.
This way the strong powerful banks and families, like the mentioned Rothschilds, would have earned tons of money from germany by buying their bonds.
The Problem was, that wars was heavily needed, same today, wars make countries giving bonds out and that makes banks rich.


The last 250-300 years every single war was always a war between Banks/Rothschilds and a/some countries.
Banks always won!

[Brenus]

"When LL comes to an abrupt end (as it would in a ww3 scenario with the Western Allies)" It would have been a problem for USSR, however I think, as said in a previous debate, that the Allies would have face: a famine (harvesting in Europe was a disaster in 1945) and of course the Communist Parties (powerful and armed) mainly in France and Italy (and Greece, Yugoslavia etc). I am not sure that the "Allies" logistic would have been so good, and then, their Generals definitevely not at the same levels than the Soviets.

[Kralizec]

Well, if I read those posts here, it looks like, as the Nazis (in most cases called "Hitler") where the main reason for the war. In the end they was, yes,
but in the first place I want too see some real reasons here.

Wars was decided and still are, by strong Families and banks. Let me mention "Rothschilds" here.
This Family decided about the loss of Napoleon at Waterloo by organizing the Gold, needed for payment for the british (and their allies) soldiers.
Not to mention other wars, where the money decided the start and the outcome.
When did the confederates lose the war? It was the moment as their bonds (wool) got worthless… no money, no payment, no soldier, lost!

The Nazis had a few economical and financial problems, the reparation was the least problem.
Hitler knew the real problem of that time, which is still the same today. Banks and a handful humans had/has too much power.
He choose a very questionable way to "solve" that problem, he started to kill and deport those people, who was jews in the most cases.
The moment he started to rip of the power of those banks and people, he had a new enemy.

If you look back in history, you will find the same pattern over and over again. It started all in 1407 with the first bonds ever made in florence.


If Hitler would not have touched the banks/jews, he could have run over poland and russia, without getting into war with UK, france.
This way the strong powerful banks and families, like the mentioned Rothschilds, would have earned tons of money from germany by buying their bonds.
The Problem was, that wars was heavily needed, same today, wars make countries giving bonds out and that makes banks rich.


The last 250-300 years every single war was always a war between Banks/Rothschilds and a/some countries.
Banks always won!

I'm not aware of any bad blood between Hitler and the financial industry. I'm sure he railed against jewish bankers, but I mean generally - as far as I know, he never sent any Aryan bankers to concentration camp merely for their profession. He did not exactly limit his programme of extermination to rich jews either.

The volume of international lending and trade was one of the reasons why people thought at the beginning of the 20th century that a pan-European war would never break out. Then WW1 broke out, something that "the bankers" largely opposed. I'm sure that some of them benefited of it. Or of WW2. How is that surprising, or significant?

Gah.

[Kocmoc]

I'm not aware of any bad blood between Hitler and the financial industry. I'm sure he railed against jewish bankers, but I mean generally - as far as I know, he never sent any Aryan bankers to concentration camp merely for their profession. He did not exactly limit his programme of extermination to rich jews either.

The volume of international lending and trade was one of the reasons why people thought at the beginning of the 20th century that a pan-European war would never break out. Then WW1 broke out, something that "the bankers" largely opposed. I'm sure that some of them benefited of it. Or of WW2. How is that surprising, or significant?

Gah.

Well, thats indeed the problem. You are not aware. Are you aware of how other wars was decided by bank or rich and mighty families?
I brought you some examples.

Fact is, that no one of those persons or banks want to stay in the spotlight. Of course they try to not make it public.
That he "railed against jewish bankers" is a wellknown fact, now the funny thing is, that in early 20s and 30s the majority of the banks was in jewish hands.

I dont want to go to far into this, but the goldstandard was gone in 1910, one major problem at those times was the raise of rich families such as:
Goldman Sachs, Rockefeller, Lehman, Loeb, Rothschilds, Warburgs, Lazards, Seif.

Now some things need to be considered ( I assume, that major things are well known…), the federal reserve act, lead to the federal reserve banks (12), that was founded in 1913.
You have to look at the owner of those banks, the names i mentioned earlier own major parts of those federal reserve banks with their own banks.
Amazing if you consider the time of the start of WW1.

The gold standard was a real problem, it was a good way to work with in times of peace, but it was always (remember napoleon and other wars before) a disaster, if governments
did need quick a lot of money.


Now get this together. There was and are about 8 families, who control around 80% of the money/cash/banks of the world, the basement was settled in the early 20s of the last century.
They kinda invented the system to create unlimited money and transfer it to their own banks. You should also have a look the FED.

What have that to do with the topic?
Imo those families did want war, since this was the only way (at those times) to ensure countries are going to give out bonds.
If you look at the end of the wars and how the might changed heavily towards the USA (actual 4 of those families living in the USA), than you gonna notice how the impact of this new system did work out.

Hitler and many other people, actual there are old books still out (today they are "guilty" of anti-Semitism and more or less are not allowed in certain countries), saw how the power changed.
You want to go to war? Alright, you need tons of money and that you get from banks. The money system of the nazis completely outpaced the whole idea of these families.
It was a selfmade bond-system. The power of the families was left out and if they would let hitler go towards east, than they would not earn anything.




To your second point. At the beginning of the 20th century the old system, mentioned as gold standard, was not really functional to bring enough money to pay for the wars at those times.
The most big player, lets mention rothschilds in London, mentioned, that they cant place all the bonds in that old system.
That maybe led to the opinion, that there could be no big war anymore, since no one did know: where on earth to get that money!?!?

As mentioned, with the end of the gold standard and the invention of the fed system, money was unlimited. That did widely open the door for new and real big wars.

[Brenus]

So Kocmoc, you discovered than most of the wars were done for money… I feel a little (and that is euphemism) worry about you Rothschild (Jew) obsession.
You just forget the interest of what Eisenhower called the Military-Industrial Complex. I can argue that Krupp and Schneider were behind the Franco-Prussian War (1870) and they certainly got a lot of money for it. Colonisation earned a lot of money the Michelin, Goodyear and others big (mining) companies. Thanks to Empires as the UK, French, Belgium, Portuguese, Spanish, they plundered all what they could for centuries. And do not forget the towns that profited from the Triangular Trade (slavery).
So you hand picking of one bank is a bit suspect.

And your apparent indulgence for Politics (and Hitler) does reinforce this feeling.

Hitler didn’t went in war because the Rothschild. He went to war with the agreement of the Germans to avenge the defeat of the WW1 and the well cultivated feeling of injustice of the Peace Treaty. He exterminated Jews, Gipsies, Slavs and all under-humans races because is beliefs in eugenic reinforced by his Christian Background and Education.

Napoleon went to war thanks to the attack of all Europe against the new born French Republic. Without the Foreign Interventions, no Napoleon would have been possible.
And the defeat at Waterloo was because the French Bourgeoisie and population had enough of wars. And because he couldn’t defeat all Europe. He didn’t in 1814. He couldn’t in 1815. He would have lost after Waterloo even if he had won it.

[ShadesWolf]

A very interesting question. If Poland had of handed over Danzig then they might have been ignored.

But I still feel Germany would have ended up fighting the USSR as Germany need 'breathing space' for its population to expand into.
The east had been its area in the first wolrd war and still would have been in the second. It was only a matter of time before hitler declared war on USSR, France was only a temp conflict to remove them from the equation, USSR was always going to be the enemy.

As for the Jewish question, this is a highly debated subject, and again a feel (personally) they were also on the agenda from day one.

[fenir]

Kocmoc,

In 12 years you still haven't learnt.
I tried to explain all this to you in 05/06, about finanical instrutments. And still you dont get it.

Most of the banks in the world have a British or American Owner. The top 10 banks, out side of china, unless you saying chinese are Jews. Are all British & American.

A Bond, is when the Government borrows your money for an interest rate return on maturity. It's called a loan. A specific kind of loan.
And I dont mean this in a bad way, but anything you have put down in this thread as with the others about finance, or banking, after 12 years, is still wrong.


Brenus
Franco-Prussian War (1870)
What was behind it was that it had always been German, and the french pinched it in ~AD1670, and German was always trying to get it back. And of course once germany united, it was able too. All that area was majority German population once. Read the French government ethnic and cultural report, and the methods they used to "ethnically cleanse" it, their words.
Strassburg was still majority German in AD1914 before the French started the Alsace-lothraingia (lorraine in french) explusions. And you wonder where Hitler got the idea?


Sincerely


fenir

[Brenus]

“What was behind it was that it had always been German, and the french pinched it in ~AD1670, and German was always trying to get it back. And of course once germany united, it was able too. All that area was majority German population once. Read the French government ethnic and cultural report, and the methods they used to "ethnically cleanse" it, their words. Strassburg was still majority German in AD1914 before the French started the Alsace-lothraingia (lorraine in french) explusions. And you wonder where Hitler got the idea?”

Few things when you discuss History: I suggest you to get your facts right: Germany didn’t exist in 1681. Germany was created in 1870, so Germany couldn’t try to get it back as Germany did not exist. The population living in Alsace-Lorraine is still speaking a Germanic Language but it doesn’t make them German. Or USA is still English.
Please provide the documents for the ethnic and cultural reports; I am curious to see them. And yes, I wonder where Hitler got his idea, because I am still curious to see the equivalent of Concentration and Extermination Camps in France...

[fenir]

Brenus,



Germany didn’t exist in 1681 Yes it did. It was called Heiliges Römisches Reich, in english Holy Roman Empire. By your example, France didn't exist either.


Germany was created in 1870 Only modern Germany as the political entity. Thats like saying a Ritter is a knight, but it's not true. Until you know what kind of Ritter you can't tell. Same as with all german titles and lands, it's very complicated.



The population living in Alsace-Lorraine is still speaking a Germanic Language but it doesn’t make them German. Actually today it is more or less ~10% german and for a longtime it was illegal to teach german, or provide state funds for german schools.

Hmmm very semantic statement, you because, or you aren't because. If you speak french you aren't French? Or is A germanic language. English is a Germanic spoken language of latin.
So what you are saying, is because they speak French, which is germanic, they are german? Or French?
Historically the population was German. Even today, the French Cultural Department considers and lists them as French, German French, or French Speaking Germans. Or to individualise, Alsations which is the usual modern diffinition.

You will need to have access to a university library, research Lothringia. Rather than Lorraine.You will need to request Micro finch from various soruces inculding the french, who are usually touchie about it. Go through Paris University. It makes it easier if french Govt thinks it's for their own Uni.
In general, Research Swabian History, Lothringia and Alasse were both parts of Swabia, though up around Frankfurt and Mainz, you will get into the orginal Franken Duchy of the rhine area.
You will also need to pour though alot of documents, census, manor lists et cetera...

Look under the following.
Herzogtum Lothringen
Grafen im Elass
Swabisce sp?
Bistum bellum AD1261.
Plafgrafen bein Rhein.
Herzogtum Lutzelburg (Luxembourg actual, and orginal name).
So many. Actually type in Heiliges Römisches Reich AD1400, AD1648 should give a good maps and stats online, I just brought up thousands. It's in German though.

My Orginal writings were of the Kurfurst von und zu Hohengeroldseck, of modern Baden-Baden / Elass and Lothringia; ie eg Swabia. There were 6 branchs of the family, and they lived all through the area which is how I come to know so much about it's history. But that was 20 years ago, I will look and see if I can find it.

Sorry about spellings, but not being german it is hard to remember the rules and this puter doesn't do german or french convert.


Sincerely

fenir

[Sarmatian]

Or is A germanic language. English is a Germanic spoken language of latin.
So what you are saying, is because they speak French, which is germanic, they are german? Or French?
Historically the population was German. Even today, the French Cultural Department considers and lists them as French, German French, or French Speaking Germans. Or to individualise, Alsations which is the usual modern diffinition.


I'm not very familiar with the history of the region, your idea of languages is way off.


English is a Germanic spoken language of latin

What does this even mean? English is a Germanic language, but there are no connections whatsoever with Latin, except borrowed words.

And French is definitely not a Germanic language, it'a Romance language.

[Brenus]

“By your example, France didn't exist either” Louis the XIV wasn’t the King of France? That is new. So, what was his Kingdom names?

“for a longtime it was illegal to teach german, or provide state funds for german schools”: Sources? The main newspaper in Alsace is printed in Alsatian. And German is taught in French Schools. And the official language in France is French by the Constitution, so no German Schools will be financed by the State, nor Algerian, Russian, Portuguese etc. The “francisation” of France (when local languages were banned) happened after 1870 with the development of the school system (Laic and compulsory) under Jules Ferry, so Alsace was not French. It came back in 1918, and yes, the Germans forbade French when they occupied the territory.

“Hmmm very semantic statement”: Nope, it is the core of the problem. You claim that because the population speak a kind of Germanic language (as were the Franks, from where the name France comes from) that makes them German. You ignored the will of the population (the Alsatians Representative of the 1st Assembly of the 1st Republic, during the Federation Commemoration held on the 14th of July 1790, acknowledged and pledged the belonging of Alsace to France Territory.
France is not an ethnic, Religious or Language State. Borders changed, populations are various, so languages. It is a political contract based roughly on the values of Enlightenment and the Republic.

“Historically the population was German”: Based on what? So were the Franks.

“Even today, the French Cultural Department considers and lists them as French, German French, or French Speaking Germans” Sources? Because the French Constitution forbids distinction and that is why it is difficult to know Religion and Ethnic Backgrounds of the French Population (no distinction will be made blab la bla). You just made claim you cannot sustain. And such list will be done by the former “Renseignements Généraux” kind of internal half secret police, if it would be done.

And you still didn’t answer about where Hitler founded his idea in France.

[Empire*Of*Media]

the only reason of defeat of Nazis was the hitlers mistake to invade Soviets !! if he would take old fox GREAT BRITAIN First then invade the enemy's curse land "RUSSIA" and if hitler would listen to Grand ERWIN ROMMEL now all the world was German soil !!and many nations would survive from these imperialists !!

[ReluctantSamurai]

There are those who say invading the Soviet Union was a mistake, and that Rommel was one of Germany's greatest generals.

I am not one of them. Great Britain would only be subdued by direct invasion (something the Germans were ill-prepared to do) or by a total U-boat blockade (Germany did not have enough subs to accomplish this in a short period of time).

The invasion of the Soviet Union came precisely at the moment when she was the most vulnerable...the army command in total disarray from the purges, and in the midst of upgrading armaments (imagine a year later when most Soviet mech divisions would've had the T34 and KV's instead of only a small handful of units having them). A proper, and more conservative plan for the invasion would have crippled the Soviet Union and could very well have led to Stalin having to sue for peace.

Rommel was an excellent divisional commander, a very good corps commander, but beyond that his total lack of understanding of logistics and grand strategy was a liability (the defeat of the Afrika Corps was a direct result of those two short-comings).

My 2-cents, of course......

[Brenus]

“I am not one of them.” Same. It took 2 years minimum for 2 industrial countries to plan and succeed the landing in France. Germany had no resources to be able to do so in 1940. The success in France was partially due to the ability to supply the tans thanks to the fact that France had petrol stations. The logistic was and will be the German weak point during the entire war. Even if the RAF would have been pushed, due the German Air Planes limitation (15 mn on objectives), there was no way to secure the support the land forces. So, no logistic, bad weather coming and no air support: recipe for disaster.

Rommel was a competent general, so were others in Africa (von Arnim). I think his reputation is over-rated as his anti-Nazism.

The mistake of Hitler was to start the war without an army able to sustain the war he wanted. He couldn’t invade UK because he didn’t prepare for it. The Army he got from the Weimar Republic was not ready and trained to cross the Channel.
The failure of Barbarossa is due to the failure of the German Armies to defeat the Soviet Armies at the borders. Even with the Purges, the German didn’t succeed to destroy the Red Army. The heavy loses endured by the Russians persuaded the German that victory can be achieved and in a bid to rescue the plan, the OHW and Hitler had no choice than to try and try again to have the last, the ultimate battle that will destroy the Red Army. It never happened.
The first defeat of the German Army in the East is in 1941, 6 months after the start of the invasion. The failure to take Moscow is not due to luck for the soviet, or to the snow, but it was the failure of a concept, of a plan.
Hitler was a gambler, but he knew he had to act fast. France was rearming, Soviet Union was retraining. He succeeded in France (thanks the French Generals) and failed to the Soviets.