Pre-WWII Agression: Could the Allies have preemptively stopped the Axis?

Half_Life_Expert#4276

It has been some time since my Zitadelle thread. Ive been busy since, but now I am able to launch the next What if/Could it? Thread.

Again, I just want to remind everyone that I would like to advance beyond WWII soon, and am fully open to new ideas. This thread and the one after it will hopefully be the last WWII threads for a long time.

All of my previous threads covering a WWII event have covered a key battle, campaign or theater of the war, but now I want to look at the events that preceded the 1939 Invasion of Poland, the event widely considered to be the start of WWII (although there is a camp that considers Japan's invasion of China in 1937 to be the true start).


If one looks at the eight years prior to the Invasion of Poland, there were clearly plenty of events that drew the world close to a second devastating conflict. From the Invasion of Manchuria in 1931, to the Annexation of Czechoslovakia in 1939, and everything in between.

The three key Axis powers; Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan were on the march and building up for years prior to 1939, committing many acts that were universally recognized as violations of International Law, here are some of the key pre-war acts of Aggression and/or clear war intentions.

-Japan's takeover of Manchuria in 1931, and subsequent establishment of the puppet state of Manchukuo.

-Italy's 1935 invasion of Ethiopia

-Germany's rearmament, most notably the 1935 unveiling of the Luftwaffe, something the Versailles treaty forbad Germany to possess.

-Germany's 1936 remilitarization of the Rhineland and Saarland, something the Versailles treaty also forbad

-German and Italian direct military Support for Francisco Franco's Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War. (Yes, Stalin helped the other side, but we are strictly looking at the actions of the 3 Axis Powers, so just put the USSR aside)

-Japan's 1937 Invasion of China

-Germany's 1938 bloodless takeover of Austria, and the Munich Conference, in which Germany legally obtained the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia

-Finally, Germany's 1939 takeover of the rest of Czechoslovakia and establishment of Slovakia as a Protectorate

One of the common arguments in history discussions of this time is that Britain and France miserably and shamefully failed to meet their obligations to both the Versailles treaty and to Poland and Czechoslovakia, and thus share part of the blame for the horrible toll of WWII.

Is this a fair criticism of Britain and France?

No doubt the useless League of Nations played an important role in failing to stop the war, but lets just ignore them as I think we can all agree they were totally worthless in stopping the Axis.

The question I put forward this time is:

"Could the future Allies of World War II: Britain, France, The USSR and in the Case of Japanese Aggression, the United States, have militarily been able to preemptively stop the Axis powers in the time leading up to World War II?"

and "If Not, what would have been militarily required for victory in a Preemptive war on Germany, Italy and/or Japan in a military respect?"

This may be examined from any or all of the key acts of aggression, (i.e. a preemptive war on Germany in 1936 vs 1938), as the circumstances could be decisively different.

I will also allow examination of the feasibility of the USSR launching a preemptive war on Germany Sometime between the Invasion of Poland and Operation Barbarossa. Perhaps an attack during the Invasion of Western Europe in 1940 could have crippled Germany's efforts?


NOTE, PLEASE READ BEFORE RESPONDING:

Anyone with even a passing interest in this part of history is well aware that the Western Democracies had no political or social will to go to war in the mid 1930s, no doubt a preemptive war was out of the question.

We all know this, so for the sake of this thread, we will hypothetically assume that the nessicary political and social motivation in the Allied nations is enough for a preemptive war.

This thread will strictly look at MILITARY requirements for victory


I really think this could be a refreshing new look at the Second World War, and perhaps restart large numbers of posts in these threads, which have gone down in the more recent ones

Bmnoble981#3908

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles_1919

Treaty Violations

The German economy was so weak that only a small percentage of reparations were paid in money. However, even the payment of this small percentage of the original reparations (219 billion Gold Reichsmarks) still placed a significant burden on the German economy, accounting for as much as one third of post-treaty hyperinflation. Furthermore, the provisions forcing the uncompensated removal of resources and industrial equipment sowed further resentment.
Some significant violations (or avoidances) of the provisions of the Treaty were:
In 1919 the dissolution of the General Staff appeared to happen. However the core of the General Staff was hidden within another organization, the Truppenamt, where it rewrote all Heer (Army) and Luftwaffe (Air Force) doctrinal and training materials based on the experience of World War I.
The Treaty of Rapallo was an agreement in the Italian town of Rapallo on 16 April 1922 between Germany (the Weimar Republic) and Russia SFSR under which each renounced all territorial and financial claims against the other following the Treaty of Brest Litovsk and World War I. A secret annex signed on 29 July allowed Germany to train their military in Soviet territory, thus violating the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. The first post-war German tanks and aircraft were tested and exercised under this (see Soviet-German relations before 1941).
In March 1935, Adolf Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles by introducing compulsory military conscription in Germany and rebuilding the armed forces. This included a new Navy (Kriegsmarine), the first full armoured divisions (Panzerwaffe) and an Air Force (Luftwaffe). For the first time since the war, Germany's armed forces were as strong as those of France.
In March 1936, Hitler violated the Treaty by reoccupying the demilitarized zone in the Rhineland.
In March 1938, Hitler violated the Treaty by annexing Austria in the Anschluss.
In March 1939, Hitler violated the Treaty by occupying the rest of Czechoslovakia.
In September 1939, Hitler violated the Treaty by invading Poland thus, initiating World War II in Europe.

My opinion:

If the Allies had bothered to enforce the treaty, from the moment it was first violated, before the Germans fully rearmed/prepared, WW2 in Europe may have been much shorter.

If the Allies attacked early enough, before the Germans could get far enough into their rocket research, it could have delayed the development of the ICBMs/Rockets used for early space exploration and without a long drawn out war Nuclear weapons may have taken longer to develop. *deleted*

If Italy joined Germany the war may have lasted longer, but if Germany fell quickly they would probably have sued for peace and focused on overseas expansion or rebuilding depending on how long the war lasted and their involvement.

Imperial Japan, who knows, If Germany and Italy had been defeated in Europe early on, they may have avoided war with the US and Britain for considerably longer but would probably continue fighting in China.

Without WW2 the US might never have become the worlds only superpower.

Tyer032392

I don't really think so, with the United States in its isolationist attitude that it was, and the economies of all the major nations in the tank, I don't see that it would of made any difference. Sure, the Allies could of invaded and removed Hitler from power, but that would of allowed the Communist party to take part in Germany, and many of the Allies did not want that to happen. Than you also have the fact that Hitler was very well liked among all Germans as he did save Germany from their depression and made them affluent through all the public works that he initiated, and if the Allied did something to him, another person would of taken over and started the Second World War.

Edit: For the guy who brought up the Treaty, might I remind you that everybody was breaking the Treaty, not only Germany.

-The United States was building battleships that went over the max limit set by the Treaty with their North Dakota and Iowa classes.
-Great Britain was also building warships that exceeded the limit set
-Japan was the same story
-Italy as well
-Germany

If you notice, the majority of the countries that I listed were in the Allies during the First World War apart from Germany, so I believe that the Allies really did not have any claims in terms of the treaty if they themselves were willing to violate them. Than again, maybe they did not realize just how large warships would get, including Aircraft carriers.

daelin4#9896

Totally. Hitler was really banking on the Allies doing nothing up to the point where Czechoslovakia was annexed. But it wasn't like he was making blind guesses though, he was counting on the Allied leaders being cowed and persuaded to let him have his way. William Shirer in his book Rise and Fall of the Third Reich describes the strategy in the event of Allied intervention during the re-occupation of Rhineland as a "hasty retreat". IMO, Hitler was in no military position to confront any Allied resistance.

In Asia, things might be a bit different. It was only when the US imposed sanctions on Japan did they really count on a hostile conflict with America. If news of the US fleet sailing towards Japan arrived when their invasion of China was under way, panic would have ensued for the Japanese government.

The criticism of the Allied leadership would be understandable in my view: they cannot just decide to wage war on a nation that is working rather hard to convince them that they are really just doing their own thing, and in any case they'd have to convince their government of that reality anyhow. I believe Stanley Baldwin, the British prime minister before Chamberlain, was also convinced of Hitler's arguments; during his visits to Germany he was given a great impression. So it wasn't like they knew the realities either.

Remember that popular opinion holds much sway over the decision for a democratic government to declare war. Pearl Harbour convinced the US to fight, and by the time Poland was attacked the Allies' governments were well convinced of Hitler's real intentions. But governments that held authoritarian (and dictatorial) power can wage war on their own whim.
Even so, a declaration of war did not immediately bring about mustering of arms and sailing to Europe for an invasion: nothing occurred between the end of Poland and the battle of France, a span of about five months. This I think Hitler also counted upon: wen he was re-arming Germany, the Allies were not.

Personally I think the Allies were not only cowed and hesitant, but they were also counting on using Hitler for their own gain. They wanted a Germany that was stable but weak enough to be on their friendly side, a sort of underling they could rely on to reign in German aggression. Hitler was popular, which was a great plus, not to mention he was a staunch anti-communist: they needed a bulwark against the Soviet Union. Declaration of war after Poland was really a matter of last resort.

Interestingly, after Poland the USSR was expelled from the League of Nations for taking part in the Polish invasion, and they began mining, without permission, Norway's coastal waters.

Half_Life_Expert#4276

Tyer032392 wrote: »

I don't really think so, with the United States in its isolationist attitude that it was, and the economies of all the major nations in the tank, I don't see that it would of made any difference. Sure, the Allies could of invaded and removed Hitler from power, but that would of allowed the Communist party to take part in Germany, and many of the Allies did not want that to happen. Than you also have the fact that Hitler was very well liked among all Germans as he did save Germany from their depression and made them affluent through all the public works that he initiated, and if the Allied did something to him, another person would of taken over and started the Second World War.

perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but I think I made it clear that in terms of the US partaking in a preemptive war, it would be against Japan, I do not see a situation in the 1930s where the US would have immediately joined Britain and France against Germany. I say that from a military standpoint, as perhaps the US could have decided that Britain and France could have held Germany for some time. It also would have taken a long time for the US to effectively deploy sufficient forces to Europe. Remember, it took almost a year after Pearl Harbor for US Ground Forces to go into Action in the European theatre.

Bmnoble981#3908

Tyer032392 wrote: »

I don't really think so, with the United States in its isolationist attitude that it was, and the economies of all the major nations in the tank, I don't see that it would of made any difference. Sure, the Allies could of invaded and removed Hitler from power, but that would of allowed the Communist party to take part in Germany, and many of the Allies did not want that to happen. Than you also have the fact that Hitler was very well liked among all Germans as he did save Germany from their depression and made them affluent through all the public works that he initiated, and if the Allied did something to him, another person would of taken over and started the Second World War.

Edit: For the guy who brought up the Treaty, might I remind you that everybody was breaking the Treaty, not only Germany.

-The United States was building battleships that went over the max limit set by the Treaty with their North Dakota and Iowa classes.
-Great Britain was also building warships that exceeded the limit set
-Japan was the same story
-Italy as well
-Germany

If you notice, the majority of the countries that I listed were in the Allies during the First World War apart from Germany, so I believe that the Allies really did not have any claims in terms of the treaty if they themselves were willing to violate them. Than again, maybe they did not realize just how large warships would get, including Aircraft carriers.

The Treaty of Versailles was imposed on the Germans at the end of the war it did not apply any restrictions on the Allies, the ship size restrictions you mention only applied to the German Navy: Naval forces limited to 15,000 men, 6 battleships (no more than 10,000 to each), 6 cruisers (no more than 6,000 t each), 12 destroyers (no more than 800 t each) and 12 torpedo boats (no more than 200 t each).




Treaty Terms http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles_1919

The terms of the Treaty, which Germany had no choice but to accept, were announced on May 7, 1919. Germany lost:
13% of its national territory
All of its overseas colonies (including Kamerun, German East Africa, German Southwest Africa, Togoland and German New Guinea)
12.5% of its population
16% of its coalfields, and half its iron and steel industry.
Union with Austria (Anschluss) forbidden.
Territorial Restrictions on Germany
Alsace-Lorraine yielded to France.
Saar coal fields placed under French control for 15 years.
Annexation of Austria prohibited.
Annexation of Czechoslovakia prohibited.
Annexation of Poland and Danzig prohibited.
Loss of all overseas colonies.
Upper Silesia ceded to Poland.
Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia became independent states (acquired by Germany from Russia at Brest-Litovsk).
Military Restrictions on Germany
The Rhineland to be a demilitarized zone.
The German armed forces cannot number more than 100,000 troops and no conscription.
Enlisted men were to be retained for at least 12 years; officers were to be retained for at least 25 years.
Manufacturing of weapons is prohibited.
Import and export of weapons is prohibited.
Manufacture or stockpiling of poison gas is prohibited.
Tanks are prohibited.
Naval forces limited to 15,000 men, 6 battleships (no more than 10,000 to each), 6 cruisers (no more than 6,000 t each), 12 destroyers (no more than 800 t each) and 12 torpedo boats (no more than 200 t each).
Submarines are prohibited.
Military aircraft are prohibited.
Artillery is prohibited.
Legal Restrictions on Germany
Article 231: forced to accept sole responsibility of war and had to promise to make good all the damage done to civilian population of the allies. Also known as the "War Guilt Clause".
Article 227: former German emperor, William II was charged with supreme offence against international morality. He was to be tried as a war criminal.
Article 228-230: many were tried as war criminals. Some could not be tried as they were hiding.
Territorial Losses
On its eastern frontier Germany was forced to cede to the newly independent Poland the province of West Prussia, thereby granting Poland access to the Baltic Sea, while Germany lost land access to the province of East Prussia. Danzig was declared a free city under the permanent governance of the League of Nations. Much of the province of Posen, which, like West Prussia, had been acquired by Prussia in the late 18th-century partitions of Poland, was likewise granted to the restored Polish state. A significant portion of coal-rich and industrially developed Upper Silesia was also transferred from Germany to Poland, as the result of a later plebiscite.
Germany was also compelled to yield control of its colonies. Although these colonies had proven to be economic liabilities, they had also been symbols of the world-power status that Germany had gained in the 1880s and '90s. Article 156 of the treaty transferred German concessions in Shandong, China to Japan rather than returning sovereign authority to China. Chinese outrage over this provision led to demonstrations and a cultural movement known as the May Fourth Movement and influenced China not to sign the treaty. China declared the end of its war against Germany in September 1919 and signed a separate treaty with Germany in 1921.
Besides the loss of the German colonial empire the territories Germany lost were:
Alsace-Lorraine, the territories which were ceded to Germany in accordance with the Preliminaries of Peace signed at Versailles on February 26, 1871, and the Treaty of Frankfurt of May 10, 1871, were restored to French sovereignty without a plebiscite as from the date of the Armistice of November 11, 1918. (area 14,522 km², 1,815,000 inhabitants (1905)).
Northern Schleswig including the German-dominated towns of Tondern (Tønder), Apenrade (Aabenraa), Sonderburg (Sønderborg), Hadersleben (Haderslev) and Lügum in Schleswig-Holstein, after the Schleswig Plebiscite, to Denmark (area 3,984 km², 163,600 inhabitants (1920)).
Most of the Prussian provinces of Posen and of West Prussia, which Prussia had annexed in Partitions of Poland (1772-1795), were returned to Poland. This territory had already been liberated by local Polish population during the Great Poland Uprising of 1918-1919 (area 53,800 km², 4,224,000 inhabitants (1931), including 510 km² and 26,000 inhabitants from Upper Silesia) (This includes parts of West Prussia were ceded to Poland to provide free access to the sea, along with a sizeable German minority, creating so called the Polish corridor.
The Hlučínsko Hulczyn area of Upper Silesia to Czechoslovakia (area 316 or 333 km², 49,000 inhabitants).

Tyer032392

bmnoble981 wrote: »

Treaty

I might be thinking of a different treaty than, but there was a treaty that was made that forbid the allies among some of the same things that the Germans were not allowed to have, granted to a lesser extent. It might of been in the charter to the League of Free Nations, but I'll have to look it up now.

Edit: Just a little info from Wikipedia

"The bottom line, with the signing of the treaty, was that any capital ships under construction by the five signatories (the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan) had to be canceled and scrapped. For battlecruisers, this encompassed the United States' Lexington class, Japan's Amagi class, and Great Britain's G3 battlecruisers.[4] For the U.S. Navy, the choice seemed clear. If it scrapped all six Lexingtons in accordance with the treaty, it would throw away $13.4 million that could otherwise go toward aircraft carriers. The Navy opted for the latter course.[3][5]"

This treaty, which I believe is referring to is the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922. It also appears to of been an arms race limitation treaty to prevent in my opinion, another world war.

daelin4#9896

The Washington Naval Treaty was between some of the Allies, including Japan, and in some ways was meant to legitimize the naval elements of the Versailles treaty by way of attempting to impose some of their own limitations (which were lenient by comparison). It was also meant as a containment strategy against signatories that might be potential enemies, though obviously some were far less likely to fight eachother (US against Britain). The Japanese felt particularly miffed as they were at the bottom end of the proportions listed.

Ancient_Ruffian#5651

The terms of the Treaty of Versailles, as some noted historians such as A J P Taylor have pointed out, all but guaranteed a future European war. Had they been less punitive, especially economically, there may have been more of a chance that Germany would not have been so severely hit by the Great Depression. However, WW1 itself caused such a huge amount of destruction that the world was facing inevitable economic collapse in the decades after it. It's all very well to say that wars stimulate economies - they do, but down the track that stimulation has to be paid for.

The key period when some form of intervention may have delayed or even prevented the outbreak of WW2 is the early to mid Thirties. During that time Churchill was a lone - or almost lone - voice crying aloud in the wilderness of mindless pacifism that had engulfed France and Britain. This speech is one example of that, and worth taking the time to read in full.

Was the League of Nations useless? Yes, ultimately, it was, but as Churchill points out, only because people didn't use it. Small and simple remedies were ignored until the point came when only large remedies would suffice.

I am of the opinion that, on the instant of the very first breach of those aspects of the Versailles Treaty that limited German rearmament, had France and Britain had the collective will to enforce them against German wishes , Germany would have had to bow to the pressure and pull its head back in. The consequences of such a result would possibly have been a slowdown in German economic recovery, which in turn would have put pressure on the Nazis, although by 1935 they were well on the way to becoming a totalitarian regime able to ignore to a certain extent the grumbling of the masses.

While the longer-term directions of such a scenario aren't at all clear to me, there are some possible alternative outcomes:
1. that Germany would not have had the resources or the temerity to support the Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War. And Italy may have, under the circumstances, decided not to make an international paraiah out of itself by supporting them alone. The end result may well have been a Republican victory. A democratic, Western-aligned Spain would have been one more reason for Hitler not starting WW2.
2. Knowing that the Great Powers were prepared to come rolling in if they didn't behave may have discouraged some of the more extreme elements of Nazism, perhaps even emboldening some elements in the party to get rid of Hitler and replace him with a more "acceptable" face. Whether or not this would have stopped the excesses against the Jewish population of Germany is very doubtful, in my opinion, but as the biggest number of Jews killed in the Holocaust came from Poland, the size of any kind of horrific German-wide pogrom would have been smaller in terms of casualties and hence, regrettably, less noticed by the world.

Hitler is reported to have said "Our enemies are little worms - I saw them at Munich", or something along those lines. WW2 as it played out was, in my opinion, an eminently avoidable conflict.

The Great Pamphlet

@OP

You forgot to add the de facto "annexation" of the Kingdom of Albania by the fascist Italy.

On the subject, I am of the opinion that if the western powers had insisted on the Treaty of Versailles, Germany would never pose a threat, as they may have had the will but not the means. It was a harsh treaty, which created reactionary feelings (although the same applies to Prussia's behaviour in 1871), but the United Kingdom and USA tried to undermine it constantly, despite France weak disagreement.

In my opinion, the reason behind the Anglosaxons' "compasssion" is the same reason for which they did not declare war to Germany, in the early 30s. For the ruling, urban class fascism was much better than comunism (expected as nether Hitler nor Mussolini questioned the power of their local, urban class, in contrast to the Soviets), so a relatively strong Germany would be an ideal buffer state to hold back the Russian communists, as they repeatedly denied the Soviet suggestions to form a coalition against the 3rd Reich. France was less persistent about it, but not enough, I am afraid.

Unfortunately for Britain, a nation which had become an expert at dividing Europe, their plan backfired pretty horribly.

Seleucos of Olympia

The Washington Naval Treaty, as has already been mentioned, should not be confused with the limitations placed on Germany under the Treaty of Versailles. The signatories of the Washington one intended it as a means of halting the capital ship arms race, and in that they mostly succeeded, until the mid 30s when Japan and Italy denounced the treaty. The tonnage limits (paraphrased from Wikipedia) gave a strength ratio of approximately 5:5:3:1.75:1.75 between Britain, the United States, Japan, Italy, and France; which, given that Japan could concentrate all its ships in one ocean, while the USA had two and the UK pretty much the whole globe, was if nothing generous to Japan and Italy (Italy, with a naval presence only in the Mediterranean, had the same limit as France).

As for militarily stopping Germany before 1939, France could well have steamrolled Germany when Hitler began to rearm it, or when he remilitarized the Rhineland, or possibly even as late as when he threatened Czechoslovakia (given that the Czechoslovakian army was no pushover). But there was no political will, especially given the horrendous casualties suffered by the French people in WWI.

Half_Life_Expert#4276

I am confident that if the decision had been made to attack Germany, by Britain and France, Germany would have been defeated. A major defeat at the outset of the war could have let to a military/political coup or a civil uprising against Hitler's regime. When the war really started in Poland in 1939, most of the German people, as well as the military, went into it unoptimistic, essentially very very nervous. The spike in morale only really occurred after the stunning defeat of France the following year.

But there is one thing about this that I think somewhat lowers the odds of a German defeat:

The problem militarily facing France was that it was not nearly as prepared for offensive warfare as Germany, as it's war plans against Germany were pretty much entirely defensive. So, I believe that for a successful attack, France would probably have needed to reform it's active units and change it's plans from offensive to defensive. Ideally, I would see this beginning after 1936 when the Rhineland was seized, and being at least sufficiently ready in time for the 1938 Sudeten Crisis.

The possibility of a Soviet preemptive attack on Germany before Barbarossa, I would say the only chance Stalin had for a decisive victory was during Fall Gelb and Fall Rot, the Invasion of Western Europe. Essentially May and June 1940. Most of the German military was in the West, so if enough forces were concentrated in Eastern Poland (Stalin's share of the 1939 invasion), the Red Army could have driven to Berlin, but of course, it would have been hampered critically by the purges of the military leadership. This was shown perfectly in the opening campaign of the Winter War when the USSR initially was humiliated in it's attempted invasion of Finland, despite outnumbering the Finns 10 to 1.


I don't think Italy could have been stopped, due entirely to it's acquisitions being distant from the primary peacetime formations of Britain and France. Perhaps a French Attack into Northwest Italy could have done something.
But a Naval battle could have crushed the Italian Navy, perhaps that would have been enough.



In terms of Japan, really only two Nations were in a position to take on Japan: The United States and The USSR.

The problem with the USSR, as with Europe, was the purges of the command structure. Also, on the Asian Mainland, Japan had much of it's now seasoned Army already there, and it would have been a bloody fight, even if the Soviets won.

And, Japan would no question have had naval dominance over the USSR, odds are Vladivostok could have fallen in a Japanese counterattack using weapons not available in 1905: The Aircraft Carrier and more effective amphibious assault capabilities.


With the US, im sure the Pacific fleet was perfectly capable of dealing a serious defeat on the IJN, after all, Japan considered it a large enough threat to risk SIX of it's precious aircraft carriers in a sneak attack.

But, Japan certainly had dominance in Carrier aviation at the outset of the war, and perhaps that could have been the factor of a US defeat.


Im going to get the next thread up tomorrow or the day after. I have three topics ready to go. Im going to wait on that second WWII topic and go with one I thought of regarding WWI. After that I will get to the WWII topic and another one.

Ace_Blazer

I haven't studied WWII for a while, but I remember that one of the excuses (in hindsight?) for Chamberlain's appeasement policy starting in 1937 was so that Britain could build up the RAF. It was clear that Nazi Germany by 1937 was a very aggressive power with a military which already looked formidable on paper; as the common tendency is for the British to undervalue it's ground forces, opinion may have been that they were not prepared at the time. If Chamberlain hadn't delayed, or had Britain set something off too soon, then perhaps they wouldn't have been able to fight in the Battle of Britain and blah blah blah blah.

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can take over here.

dge1

Half Life Expert wrote: »

The problem militarily facing France was that it was not nearly as prepared for offensive warfare as Germany, as it's war plans against Germany were pretty much entirely defensive. So, I believe that for a successful attack, France would probably have needed to reform it's active units and change it's plans from offensive to defensive. Ideally, I would see this beginning after 1936 when the Rhineland was seized, and being at least sufficiently ready in time for the 1938 Sudeten Crisis.

I tend to agree with this. France was very ready to continue fighting WW1. Their political and military leaders were pretty parochial where national interests and the military were concerned.

Naisho

When you talk about preemptive war with the US and Japan, the issue comes down that the US air-core didn't exist. It only existed on paper, but what it exactly meant was more or less about 850ish aircraft and 16000ish men total 1936 and that was its lowest point. Roosevelt only expanded it in response to Hitlers growing aggression and not before the same was true of all branches. 1935-1942 Japanese had some of the best aircraft ever made. Starting with the A5M4 it was the first carrier based mono-wing fighter.

Japan only lost the naval war after midway.
Putting that aside, let look at the reason why the US won the ground war against Japan at so few losses. It was the M1 Garand. It was the first mass produced semi-automatic rifle and it was only introduced in 1936.

A US intervention at any point prior to 1937 would have likely ended up with the US being defeated or at the very least suffering serious losses in all forms of armed services. Even a intervention in 1937 (the second sino-japanese war) would have posed serious disadvantages. The US hadn't yet built up most of its armed forces in response to Germany

The Great Pamphlet

Half Life Expert wrote: »

I don't think Italy could have been stopped, due entirely to it's acquisitions being distant from the primary peacetime formations of Britain and France. Perhaps a French Attack into Northwest Italy could have done something.
But a Naval battle could have crushed the Italian Navy, perhaps that would have been enough.

I don't want to insult our Italian co-members, but, honestly, even a brigade of bunnies could have stopped Italy. It was one of the most militarily ridiculous states, with the Ethiopians and the wooden ships of Austria defeating them rather easily, and unfortunately for them, the second world war wasn't an exception.

For example, the Italian army was easily reppeled in the Alpes, by few French units, despite the fact that the German forces were already outside Paris, not to mention that the army of backward Greece forced them to retreat from southern Albania.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_invasion_of_France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Italian_War

daelin4#9896

Half Life Expert wrote: »

I am confident that if the decision had been made to attack Germany, by Britain and France, Germany would have been defeated. A major defeat at the outset of the war could have let to a military/political coup or a civil uprising against Hitler's regime. When the war really started in Poland in 1939, most of the German people, as well as the military, went into it unoptimistic, essentially very very nervous. The spike in morale only really occurred after the stunning defeat of France the following year.

I'd be very confident as well, but I also think the decision was largely based (and perhaps unjustifiably) upon the fear of public dissatisfaction for declaring war on what seemed to be some country trying to get back on its feet, so to speak. Hitler on the other hand would not have cared for such talk, he's of the alpha male personality. An aggressive response to Germany's moves would definitely have irked Hitler from trying to pull off the same stunts up to Poland. Throughout all the pre-ambles to war, the German military was doubtful.

I also agree that the one country that could take on Germany- France- was geared towards the defensive, and the Allies likely saw this flaw as well and probably did not want to justify Germany's moves by upping their ante with deploying forces. Such manouvres can quickly snowball into a war that might very well need not happen. Of course they couldn't have known that.

For Japan, there is the idea that after Tsushima, where they beat the Russians and established themselves as a respectable naval power, gave them a sense of confidence that was based upon the size of their naval fleets, and thus a primary psychological foundation for their power base. Can't blame them, every powerful world power has a large fleet, and all of them were bigger. The Washington Naval Treaty sure didn't endear them towards what they then say as potential enemies since it effectively puts Japan at the bottom of the list. The Japanese perceived this, and rather rightly, as the West trying to keep them down a peg. I'm sure the US would have done the same as well in that position. An early war however would seem very premature especially to an American public- why should they declare war on a country that attacked another country far away? The United States did not enter the war until Pearl Harbour- the reason is because a lot of American lives and ships were lost in a military attack. If the Japanese made no such moves, an attack on Japan would not sit well with the public or the politicians as any base justification for war.

Rath_Darkblade

bmnoble981 wrote: »

My opinion:

If the Allies had bothered to enforce the treaty, from the moment it was first violated, before the Germans fully rearmed/prepared, WW2 in Europe may have been much shorter.

I wonder if anyone had seen a series of books called, simply, "What If?" - and edited by Robert Cowley. It is a collection of essays about counterfactual history. Originally, the essays appeared in the magazine MHQ (i.e. Military History Quarterly). One of these essays - by Williamson Murray, a professor of history emeritus at Ohio State University - is called "The War of 1938: Chamberlain fails to sway Hitler at Munich".

Very briefly, Murray argues that, had the war started in 1938, it would have ended sooner and would have gone better for the Allies than it actually did. This is because the strategic situation in 1938 was far more favourable to the Allies than it would prove the following year. He argues that the Nazis were not ready for a blitzkrieg war and that, in particular, the Nazi tanks and fighters in 1938 were very much inferior to what they would prove to be in 1939.

Look up the book if you're interested - I can hardly quote the entire essay here, seeing as it's well in excess of 20 pages - but the whole book is well worth a read, and quite cheap now! ;-)

---

Now, back to the question at hand. I'm not sure how we even can consider this question entirely in military terms, without considering the other circumstances of the time. As HLE states:

Half Life Expert wrote: »

Anyone with even a passing interest in this part of history is well aware that the Western Democracies had no political or social will to go to war in the mid 1930s, no doubt a preemptive war was out of the question.

We all know this, so for the sake of this thread, we will hypothetically assume that the nessicary political and social motivation in the Allied nations is enough for a preemptive war.

This thread will strictly look at MILITARY requirements for victory.

Even ignoring the political and social factors of the mid-1930s, there is a countervailing and even more important factor: economics (although due to lack of space - and because I'm best aware of the US economic factors - I will only look at the US economy here). Remember, the United States at the time was almost virtually bankrupt, thanks to the following twin disasters:

1. The Harding administration of 1920-23 - well-known for financial scandals, of which the Teapot Dome Scandal is foremost in the public mind; and
2. Prohibition - beginning in 1920, this was a moral crusade that sought to outlaw alcohol in the US, on the basis that drinking caused "laziness and fighting", etc. etc. The Volstead Act - also known as the Eighteenth Amendment - brought this into being. However, Prohibition resulted in widespread corruption as crooked cops turned a blind eye to illegal booze. It also meant that huge quantities of alcohol - worth possibly millions of dollars - had to be destroyed, and the tax revenue on alcohol - potentially huge - was lost. A third side-effect was explosion of organised crime (bootlegging, beatings, murder of rivals etc.) This was the era of Al Capone and numerous other gangsters. Finally, and even worse, amateur winemakers during Prohibition - due to lack of expertise or equipment, or both - often created alcoholic products that were deadlier than pre-Prohibition alcohol.

To these I would possibly add a third disaster - although perhaps I am viewing this from benefit of hindsight: Calvin Coolidge's laissez-faire to both Prohibition and its effect on the US economy. Coolidge cleaned up the worst excesses of Harding's stooges and lackeys, but by the time he became President in 1923, Prohibition had been going on for 3 years. Therefore, it is possible that Coolidge would have seen its dire effects on the economy. Should he have acted? From our point-of-view, we would say yes - but can we say the same if we had been living in the 1920s?

At any rate, Prohibition was not repealed until FDR's accession to the Presidency in 1933 - by which time a greater disaster had eclipsed all others, and that is of course the Wall Street Collapse of 1929. By the mid-30s, there was evidence that FDR's New Deal was producing some fruits - but the US was far from returning to its pre-1920s level of prosperity, and certainly far from being the world superpower that it would become.

---

So far for the US economy - now for the UK. Germany may have owed billions in reparations, but Britain in turn owed the U.S. billions in loan repayments. Even worse, the UK economy went into an serious stagnation at the end of WWI, due to the enormous human and material losses. By 1919, the work-week for industrial workers was reduced to 48 hours. By 1921, more 2 million Britons were out of work, and even by 1926, the UK economy was still struggling (although the general strike of 1926 did the economy no favours). Industrial relations rose briefly in 1927, but the Stock Market Crash of 1929 meant both that unemployment had skyrocketed to nearly 30% and that the British Pound had to leave the Gold Standard. This state of affairs continued until, finally, the UK economy recovered in the mid-1930s, stimulated by private housing. By 1938, unemployment fell to 10% and fell even further during WW2.

The Russian economy, of course, was mismanaged by Stalin and a succession of his political appointees (not that it was in any great shape to begin with under the Czars!) The situation was not helped by Stalin's paranoia, political purges and show trials, and his absurd 5-year-plans (which are on par with Mao's equally absurd Great Leap Forward).

For all these reasons, I do not believe that either of the so-called Great Democracies would have risked another European War during the 1930s - particularly when the last one had cost so much in men and materials that both the US and UK were still only recovering. The Russians are a different story - they are the wildcard here. Even with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Nonaggression Pact, Stalin remained paranoid of Hitler and skeptical even of the reports of his own spies. (For instance, it took him several days to be convinced that Operation Barbarossa had begun, even when reports came in from his very best spies). Who knows what would have happened if - sometime during the 1930s - Stalin had decided to take a different course? Yet what course would he have taken, and when, is almost impossible to conjecture.

Comments? ;-)

daelin4#9896

Hmm, I wonder if Hitler would have simply embraced the Soviets as unholy allies if the Allies went to war- remember that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact just before both invaded Poland. Granted both sides considered it a calm before the storm of an inevitable war, the Soviets prior to Barbarossa weren't friends with the West either, and they tended to play both sides for their own security. Obviously such an idea Hitler would hear none of it, what with his ideological stance and stubbornness, but the Soviet Union traded with Germany in many vital resources, including expertise, even before war broke out. I think part of the Allies' unwillingness to go straight for war is that it would also be perceived by the Soviet Union as an attack on their own interests, seeing as they were in Germany's pocket, so to speak.
Being the politician he was, Hitler could very well just maneuvered to gain favour with the Soviet Union and the Axis would merely have added Russia into its membership. IMO, the Soviet Union taking sides with Germany was probably a bigger threat than an upstart Germany that might pose a bulwark against communism, especially given Hitler's stance and his actions against German communists during the tenuous time between the wars. By the time he seized the rest of Czechoslovakia, the Allies were pretty much convinced war's going to occur between them and Germany regardless of which side Russia takes. They'd also start looking up Japan for friendship as well, since they were at odds with Russia.

For perspective let's look at the Axis satellite countries working under Germany during WW2: Romania, Bulgaria, and Finland, to name a few, participated in combat alongside Germany in their campaign in Russia. These countries have good reason to work for Hitler rather than Stalin- for many people, communism was a larger threat than the Nazis. Some might say even the French would prefer German rule than the Bolsheviks'. This, I think, was all part of the psychology towards accommodating Hitler: I mean if someone's willing to face the Red Menace most would let him, especially if you'll end up benefiting from it. Let's not forget that immediately after WW2 after Germany was destroyed, the Western Allies immediately went cold on Russia.