What if Nazi Germany did not invade Poland?

[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. 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.

[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.