Any alt-history where you have to change Hitler seems kinda off. Hitler wanted a war.
I also do not really see how delaying helps the Nazis as their peak advantage was 1938/39.
I agree, but there's a ton of little factors that I believe influenced the outcome into being what ended up happening. I touched on it with a prior post but Hitler's "eastern crusade" excluded France and the UK. He personally considered reclamation of the old borders a waste of time and colonies pointless as the economic independence he desired couldn't be done with overseas colonies.
In the proposed peace terms conveyed by Dahlerus there was no territorial concessions from France and the UK but there was to be financial recompense for the lost German colonies. Poland was to become a puppet, and German activities in the East ignored. This was a proposal conveyed in September of 1939 so it was probably the most lenient option given since it was also framed as an allied surrender.
I think he could've taken or leaved a war with Poland based on this, but there's a lot of supposition I admit and the "crusade East" would logically include Poland. he was opposed to war with the UK in Mein Kampf but I think the initial desire to ally with the UK got scuppered with either Anschluss or annexing the Czechs - probably the latter given they violated an agreement in doing so meaning the Germans couldn't be trusted.
In my mind "optimal" is the most gain for littlest expense - money, diplomatic reputation, and lives - and given what I know (incomplete picture) Hitler could've gained:
(1) Austria
(2) Sudetenland (not the rest)
(3) Memel
(4) Danzig
All without firing a shot had he not thrown away all his diplomatic capital with the UK by annexing the Czechs, which was apparently Ribbentrop's idea so maybe in a scenario where that sperg wasn't in a position of power things could've gone differently? Up until the Czechs the relations between the UK and Germany were considerably more cordial than with the French, indicating Hitler at least was paying lip service to his desire in Mein Kampf to ally the UK against the Soviets, but simultaneously he put his "best" guy in the role of ambassador to the UK - Ribbentrop.
Ribbentrop is probably more to blame for WW2 than Hitler, which is crazy to think about.
I think it's plausible to argue that Germany expected the UK and France to back down in similar fashion to Czechoslovakia and Lithuania given one of the things that Dahlerus and the businessmen had to convey to Goring was that, yes, Britain would commit to a war this time and not just do nothing,. The Germans held that assumption, that either the outward disapproval for German actions in the East was PR given, or the Allies were weak so were ultimately just barking and wouldn't bite. This in conjunction with Mussolini promising a day 1 joining of the war if the Allies declared on Germany (mirroring Germany's promise to Austria prior to WW1 breaking out) and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact meaning in the event of war their their Eastern flank would remain un-stabbed - the Germans had the mindset their bets were hedged so it was win-win. Keep in mind this risk would've fucked them had the Allies pushed into Germany whatsoever during their advance on Poland given the Italian support, hilariously, did not manifest as promised so their Western border was open to the full focus of the French and British.
If you want to see a masterpiece of a botch, let me start by informing you that the first year of WW2 was called "
The Phoney War"
Invading
Norway was considered a greater strategic priority than actually
pushing into Germany. The Germans weren't weak and viable to early defeat because of quality, it was an issue with quantity.
Saar Offensive.
There was a window from the outbreak of war, prior to the Soviets invading Poland (which itself was encouraged by the lack of Allied action in September) and Italy joining in next year where Germany was on its own and vulnerable to a concerted effort by the Allies.
Delaying was arguably a necessity for Germany. It's how they managed to last as long as they did to begin with. There's a timeline where Germany lost within the first 6 months of the war and Italy feels vindicated in not joining the war it initially promised to, joining Spain's Franco in just being this awkward oppositional ideology in Europe that is viewed as preferable to Communism.
An aside on Italy:
taly only joined the war when it looked like Germany was capable of winning it, and Mussolini apparently thought it wouldn't go on for too long, one must consider that Italy might've sent the assurance of support specifically to give Germany enough confidence to not back down in order to get embroiled in a war they never intended to join and see them lose it. Or possibly join in themselves and attack Germany was it was bogged down between the Allies, Polish, and soon-to-be themselves. There's also the bizarre possibility we could've seen a joint Italian-Soviet attack on Germany if things played out differently. There's a lot pointing to Italy planning to stab Germany in the back and merely got wrapped up in the war when it looked like it would end a couple months after they joined it. From 1930 to 1940, Mussolini had made overtures to almost every side and only joined in when the side he joined appeared a sure thing.
They think it’ll collapse cuz neoliberal tooze and Redditors, said only thing fascism is good at is propaganda
Hitler spoke about propaganda and its uses in Mein Kampf. It was more of a Nazi thing and the intent was specifically German-minded in its applicability. The whole, "A lie told once remains a lie but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth" wasn't just applicable in a negative context but also positive. You see this manifested in egomaniacs who're told they're living gods by those around them so they think they're hot shit because they end up believing it. The idea of propaganda's positive applications is basically an attempt to harness the "national spirit" spoke of by Hegel and what Nietzsche said had exclusivity rather being open to everyone. Essentially, if you tell the German people that they are special, they are great, they are capable of anything, etcetera, and keep reinforcing that message positively, then the German people will believe it and they will be able to manifest their own excellence. Hitler basically came up with the term quote, (or rather, he came up with the term which then was used to make up the quote attributed to Goebbels - yes he never said that), wherein the idea Germany started WW1 was so big a lie but was repeated enough by press and governments that the German people believed it.
"A lie told once remains a lie but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth"/"A lie told often enough becomes the truth" are creations of Reddit who then tether the quotes specifically to German figures during WW2 for negative reasons or some Commie for positive ones. This is similar to the, "Nazis at a dinner table" """saying""" which was similarly made up. The former reinforces that "Nazis"/"Fascists" will always lie to further their goals and the more insistent they are upon it the greater probability of it being a lie (also a Communist would never lie to advance their own goals). The latter is meant to reinforce this idea of guilt by association and acts as an argument against tolerating opposing ideas, especially "Nazis", so even if you're at the table as a stranger by tolerating the presence of the intolerable you're essentially now apart of the intolerable. These are also in conjunction with Karl Popper's "Paradox of Intolerance", which is just regurgitated Liberal platitudes about what you are meant to do in a Liberal society, but the "intollerent" can only be right-wing and/or Nazis.
The point of this diatribe was to explain why people like Cynical Historian are such shit historians. Because they've been stewing in reddit platitudes for over a decade to the point where:
(1) They cannot even humour the idea of taking a source from the "bad guys" as being truthful
(2) They cannot engage with opposing viewpoints because to engage is to tolerate, which would make them as bad as they person they're talking with
(3) The above also qualifies to sources, so by reading a source belonging to the Nazis and not first filtered through another
approved author/source, they'll contract nazism or something.
(4) They need to actively crusade against the "intolerant" because doing so will bring about fascism, hence the seizing of Zoomerhistorian's youtube URL and Fredda's numerous shit response videos and lambasting of alternate history videos that one time.
Tax:
Here's a video of a German dude explaining the Sturmabteilung, the early paramilitary organisation of the Nazis under Hitler.
This dude has a huge catalogue of rather dry explanations of many components of the Nazis and Germany. More "play n the background whilst doing something else"-content, a podcast essentially. He also explains the differences between the original German version of socialism and contemporary socialism.
Fun fact: The "brownshirts" the early Nazis were known for were cheap surplus formally meant for German colonial troops. Given they lost the colonies after WW1, the company who made them had a massive surplus they needed rid of, so sold them in bulk to the SA.
Knowing the
first leader of the SA had Jewish heritage and opted for the best deal when it came to outfitting the paramilitary is amusing.
