What if Nazi Germany did not invade Poland?

[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.