Allies declare war on Soviets, 1939

POD: September 21 1939 - France and Great Britain declare war on the Soviet Union in response to the invasion of eastern Poland. How large an effect would this have on the war?

This would change a lot IMHO.

Actually, I never understood why the Western Allies only declared war on Germany, although Stalin had taken a similar chunk out of poor Poland...

Because the allies goal was to stop Germany, Poland just happened to be a good excuse to declare war.

The Allies were going to send a small force to Finland to help fight the Soviets there (they viewed the USSR as being another member of the Axis alliance, and it was Soviet shipments of oil and grain that made a repeat of Britain's WWI blockade impossible).

However, there was a lot of wrangling between Norway and Sweden over the issue, and the great German offensive westward made the plan moot. Plus I think by the time everything was ready, the Winter War was already over.

There was an Allied plan to raid Baku from the British vassals in the Middle East, which would have basically gutted Stalin's ability to ship oil to Hitler, but that never came around either.

Maybe as a result of the reported Soviet brutalities of its citizens, Winston Churchill is out there warning of the dictatorships of the extremes, both Germany and Russia.

The rhetoric catches on, and when Poland happens, England and France are forced (by public opinion) to either declare war on both Germany and Russia, or ignore the whole thing, hoping the Russians and Germans declare war on each other.

Unlike OTL, the decision is harder to come to because now it will involve two enemies, rather than just one. Would they drive the Russians and Germans together, are they creating a larger Axis?

What about the US? Without Churchill's strong lead, the chances are that the isolationist stance of the US would continue.

But Germany would be stuck in a pickle too. Does it strike West against France, or merely guard its Eastern borders with Russia? Germany's economy at this point (as has been pointed out by so many) is a little 'delicate' and Hitler almost requires a war to stay in power.

If he goes against the French, the West will definitely declare war, if he does nothing, he will lose power.

"Driving the Axis closer together" isn't much of a risk, as Hitler was ultimately planning on attacking Russia once his "rear" (the West) was secure. Barring a sudden ideological switch (not likely for him), he'll still have his lebensraum fantasies.

Matt Quinn said:

"Driving the Axis closer together" isn't much of a risk, as Hitler was ultimately planning on attacking Russia once his "rear" (the West) was secure. Barring a sudden ideological switch (not likely for him), he'll still have his lebensraum fantasies.

Click to expand...

This is basically my thought too, but the West did not know it then. So in some way we have to consider what they would do being uncertain of what the Germans and Russians would do.

Matt, in your opinion do we (eventually) get a three sided war? West against Germany and Russia, Germany against Russian and the West, and Russia against West and Germany?

If this were to happen, in some respects, Germany would benefit most when compared to OTL, Russia the least, because there would be no lend-lease or other supplies from the West.

I like that a three sided war, the Soviets and the Chinese Communists fighting on one side, Japan, Germany, Italy (perhaps Spain in TTL) fighting on the second side and British Empire, France, Nationalist China, and the United States fighting on the third.

Talk about bloody, if the western allies get the bomb first still will they nuke Japan twice or will they drop one on Japan, and the other on Leningrad? Will they drop both on Russia Leningrad and Stalingrad?

Distribution of Lend Lease

Without Russia in the Equation, how would lend lease be distributed? Does this result in earlier D-Day?

How about bombing? If the Germans are focused on the East, does Hitler attempt to bomb London?

It is my guess that his Eastern Campaign would be largely unchanged, but the West would probably assist the Finns more. What about the Caucasus? Does Russia strike south into Iran?

Some thoughts...

Would the Soviets still be selling supplies to Nazi Germany when they are at war with UK and France themselves? What will happen to the German economy without them? Afaik, the synthetic fuel plants etc. were not fully operational in 1939.

What kind of offensive action, if any, would be made against the Soviet Union(SU)? Neither France nor the UK has any border, and the territory is also out of range for any bombers. So, would they attempt to make a landing in Murmansk? Or in the Baltic? Would they land in Norway on year earlier than OTL?

What will Hitler do in this situation? After all, he had planned to attack the SU in spite of the non-aggression pact, and had always dreamt of an alliance with the UK...

sikitu said:

What will Hitler do in this situation? After all, he had planned to attack the SU in spite of the non-aggression pact, and had always dreamt of an alliance with the UK...

Click to expand...

If Churchill has become PM still then the answer is no, there is no way he would go with it and, despite the attitudes of a handful of politicans, I doubt the mass of the British population would support an alliance with Germany against Russia.

It's far more likely that if Churchill is PM he makes peace and alliance with Russia as soon as Hitler moves east. When Hitler did invade Russia there was some resistance to supporting the Soviets but Churchill said "If Hitler attacked Hell, I'd make an alliance with the Devil" (or words very close to that).

I don't see this happening. Declaring war on the USSR while still fighting the Germans is just crazy. You have a hard time taking down the Germans and you want a war with the Russians as well? Although almost no one thought that the Germans would conquer that fast very few thought it would be a "walk in the park" either.

Jason said:

If Churchill has become PM still then the answer is no, there is no way he would go with it and, despite the attitudes of a handful of politicans, I doubt the mass of the British population would support an alliance with Germany against Russia.

It's far more likely that if Churchill is PM he makes peace and alliance with Russia as soon as Hitler moves east. When Hitler did invade Russia there was some resistance to supporting the Soviets but Churchill said "If Hitler attacked Hell, I'd make an alliance with the Devil" (or words very close to that).

Click to expand...

But what (as I suggest), if there are early revelations about Soviet massacres of its own civilians followed by wide spread and well documented killings of the captured Polish Officers? These reports might make it impossible for Churchill to ally with the Russians.

I agree Churchill would never ally with Hitler, but I think a case could be constructed where it would also be impossible for him to ally with Stalin's Soviet Union.

Norman said:

But what (as I suggest), if there are early revelations about Soviet massacres of its own civilians followed by wide spread and well documented killings of the captured Polish Officers? These reports might make it impossible for Churchill to ally with the Russians.

I agree Churchill would never ally with Hitler, but I think a case could be constructed where it would also be impossible for him to ally with Stalin's Soviet Union.

Click to expand...

Whilst I have no real proof to back this up, other than a personal view of Churchill's character, I suspect he would find a way to bring about peace with Russia so both nations could concentrate on destroying Hitler.

Jason said:

Whilst I have no real proof to back this up, other than a personal view of Churchill's character, I suspect he would find a way to bring about peace with Russia so both nations could concentrate on destroying Hitler.

Click to expand...

There must be some point for Churchill at which supporting Stalin becomes impossible, what would those conditions be?

Maybe there will be a temporary cease fire between the USSR and UK until the common enemy is knocked out. The conflict between Moscow and London would resume during the race to Berlin and re-conquer all of Germany. Im not too sure if the Soviets would try to make peace with Britain being so closely allied to the US, however if Stalin felt threatened its possible, even probable.

What about the US?

Time to put everyone's darling country into the equation

If France and UK declare war on Russia and Germany, and then the UK signs a ceasefire with Russia, what will the US do in view of support for the UK? In OTL, the US provided lend-lease to the UK and later to the SU. Would they also help a see-saw-UK government whose foreign policy looks like a kindergarten?

And, after all, I assume that Hitler would not be so crazy to attack the SU in 1939 or 1940. He would concentrate on the West. And, well, there is of course the option that the UK's and French declaration of war result in closer cooperation of Nazis and Stalin at least for a while. Yes, they will finally clash, but WI they cooperate first. Have SU troops advance into Norway in 1939/40, the Germans take Denmark as OTL and maybe land in Southern Norway as well. I however have some trouble what will be with Finland and Sweden.

Any suggestions, folks?

Let's start at the very beginning (a very good place to start). Why on earth should Britain and France declare war on Russia for invading Poland? They went to war, not for any love of Poland, but because they'd finally drawn a line in the sand, because it had become apparent that Hitler could not be negotiated with. As Overy puts it in THE ROAD TO WAR (1989): "Of all the new states created at Versailles Poland was almost certainly the most disliked and her Foreign Minister the most distrusted. Poland's pursuit of an independent line left her bereft of any close friends by the end of 1938; to the outside world, Germany seemed the closest. The Western powers saw Poland as a greedy revisionist power, illiberal, anti-Semitic, pro-German; Beck was "a menace", "arrogant and treacherous." The West, anxious enough to avoid war themselves at Munich by giving away the Sudetenland, pilloried Poland for taking her share of the spoils. The French Prime Minister, Daladier, told the American Ambassador in Paris that "he hoped to live long enough to pay Poland for her cormorant attitude in the present crisis by proposing a new partition..."

Prunesquallor said:

Let's start at the very beginning (a very good place to start). Why on earth should Britain and France declare war on Russia for invading Poland? They went to war, not for any love of Poland, but because they'd finally drawn a line in the sand, because it had become apparent that Hitler could not be negotiated with. As Overy puts it in THE ROAD TO WAR (1989): "Of all the new states created at Versailles Poland was almost certainly the most disliked and her Foreign Minister the most distrusted. Poland's pursuit of an independent line left her bereft of any close friends by the end of 1938; to the outside world, Germany seemed the closest. The Western powers saw Poland as a greedy revisionist power, illiberal, anti-Semitic, pro-German; Beck was "a menace", "arrogant and treacherous." The West, anxious enough to avoid war themselves at Munich by giving away the Sudetenland, pilloried Poland for taking her share of the spoils. The French Prime Minister, Daladier, told the American Ambassador in Paris that "he hoped to live long enough to pay Poland for her cormorant attitude in the present crisis by proposing a new partition..."

Click to expand...

Agreed, the only way I could see it is if you somehow make the USSR a minor power in 1939 and I don't see how you could do that.

Xen said:

Maybe there will be a temporary cease fire between the USSR and UK until the common enemy is knocked out. The conflict between Moscow and London would resume during the race to Berlin and re-conquer all of Germany. Im not too sure if the Soviets would try to make peace with Britain being so closely allied to the US, however if Stalin felt threatened its possible, even probable.

Click to expand...

Which, for all practical purposes, is exactly what happened, albeit in a slower, non-combat style. We called it the Cold War.

I think the biggest shift in tactics if the Allies (ca. 1939/40) were to lump the USSR in with Germany would be moves against Soviet southwest Asia, as Matt alluded to. Seizing oil-rich areas and Black Sea ports would be of paramount importance, to limit the flow of oil and other materiel to the North African campaign.

Hitler and Stalin would be chafing the whole time, however. Hitler would know he had to launch the Western front at some point, and take the war to France on his terms, rather than wait and be invaded. That would draw troops away from the Northern front, allowing Hitler's Soviet "allies" to seize more and more territory around the Baltic Sea. The Red Army, on the other hand, would be surging out from all sides, once they realize that they can only go so far west, and would be extorting the invasion of France in return for beating back the UK in the south and re-opening shipping lanes into the Med.

I agree that Churchill would be hard-pressed to maintain the war against the USSR once Hitler turns back to the East. BUT...

What if Stalin's the one who breaks the alliance, instead? Say the USSR decides to step farther than Hitler intended in Sweden...or gets fed up with the partition of Poland and decides to claim a bigger share?

There's no way Churchill would seek terms with Hitler, not with France and the Low Countries occupied. But since there is no "victimization" of the USSR, prevailing sentiment continues, and is perhaps further enflamed against Stalin (particularly if the reports/rumors of massacres are public by then).

As a result, the USSR would see no Lend Lease money or materiel from the US, keeping them weak when Hitler counterattacked. Hitler, would, of course, be making overtures to the West for peace...to no avail.