"Arthur Pennant" ha scritto nel messaggio
news:dacc608d-50cc-4e70-a790-4eb548d3c5dd@r6g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> Any reason Hitler needs to invade Poland in the first place?
Yes, that he wanted Lebensraum.
His
> alliance with Italy and the Japanese shows that he had no difficulty
> allying with "subhumans" when it fit his agenda. Invading Poland,
> he'd have to fight France any rate, and it puts his border up with the
> Soviet Union.
>
Which is exactly what he wanted.
> Why not conquer France, on the grounds that France has for too long
> denied Germany its rightful place in the sun? French has much greater
> industrial capacity than Poland any rate. Annex the northern part
> citing Neustrasia and the possibly Germanic-speaking Belgae as
> evidence of the Aryan history of the region. Impose a ridiculously
> easy test to determine if Frenchmen are "Aryan," require inhabitants
> of the Neustrasian provinces learn German, and establish a puppet
> state in the south (an Occitan speaking state with a ban on the French
> language is even better). Annex Wallonia under similar
> circumstances, maybe Flanders and Holland, or else set up a Dutch
> puppet state. Fortify the coast and ignore the British.
You can't, because the British will not ignore you.
It's best you
> can get Italy to remain officially neutral (promise them Corsica and
> Provence at a later date), they can evade British blockades for you.
>
Only that in WWI that did not work, as you will certainly remember. The
British are still criticized today for a decision that, depending on the
POV, either verges on breaking or outright breaks the Hague Convention about
the rights of neutrals in time of war. Just like they did in WWI, the
British will make sure the Italians don't import from overseas an iron nail
or a drop of oil that is above their internal needs, be they neutral or not.
And in case you were wondering, France was a food importer; Italy imported
all sort of things from overseas. Hitler has established a continental
conglomerate of Germany plus satellites, occupated territories and friendly
neutrals that cannot survive in the long run without imports the Royal Navy
can cut.
There also is the detail that the Polish alliance is a two-way route. In
history, the French settled for the Phoney War - but they were facing the
Westwall and the difficult Saarland terrain. If the Germans attack the
French first, then the Poles will overrun Eastern Prussia, which has nothing
like those advantages, in the meantime.
Of course the very fact that France can be taken down is questionable too.
Sure the Germans paid a butcher's bill for Poland - but they did not buy
only Western Poland, they also bought invaluable battle experience, by
fighting an enemy that was far from a walkover but yet definitely outmanned
and outmaneuvered.
Without the smashing successes of Poland behind them, will the German panzer
generals in France get the same loose reins they had in history in 1940?
Maybe France falls anyway, because if Hitler attacks there first, the BEF
will be a couple of divisions instead of 20 or so. Which is not necessarily
a good thing, since OTOH the BEF isn't going to lose 90% of their tanks and
artillery and trucks, given that they never were in France in the first
place. Definitely this gives the British much more leeway in the periphery;
their Army is still basically intact.
Now let's suppose everything goes well. There has not been, however, the
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, because the Soviets don't stand to gain anything
from the fall of France, Belgium and the Netherlands. So there's this
uncomfortable situation where the Germans have as bad relations with the
Soviets as since 1933, and the British, on the contrary, have
plenipotentiaries in Moscow ready to promise anything (since the Soviet
infantry must replace the French one). And the Soviets are a viable ally for
the British, not having helped the Germans in any way.
All in all, a bad idea.
|
