What if UK/France allied with USSR in 1939?

[RRA]

March 15, 1939 - Germany invades and conquers Czechoslovakia. The next day, Hitler proclaims from Prague Castle the new protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia that replaces the remains of a once independent republic.

In the rapid response to this gross violation and betrayal of the Munich Agreement, the UK House of Commons' Foreign Policy Committee called for conscription, an all-party coalition government of national unity, and...an alliance with the Soviet Union to deter further German aggression. (Who notably were left out of the MA and felt betrayed because France, like the USSR, shared a mutual defense pact with Czechoslovakia.)

Conscription happened, as did the unity government ultimately, but alliance w/ USSR didn't happen. Why didn't it? One problem was that of geography, and Germany was seperated from the USSR by Poland, who refused (by historical reasons, understandably) to grant USSR permission to militarily cross its borders in case of outbreak of war. Also I suppose in Chamberlain's government, it was the fact that USSR were the evil communists and we can't dare to partner up with the ideological mortal enemies. (Of course later that year, the supreme Fascist Hitler and Communist Uncle Joe both proved that lucrative pragmatism can cut through ideology. Nixon/Mao would prove this again decades later.)

Unless I'm mistaken, do correct me if I'm incorrect, but didn't Chamberlain at MA dangle in front of Hitler the idea of a broad continental coalition against the Soviets, consisting of UK/Nazi Germany/Italy/France? (Which Hitler had no interest in anyway.) I seem to remember reading that somewhere, but I'm not certian.

March 31, 1939 - Chamberlain announces to the House of Commons that UK has given Poland a unilateral security guarantee. As a result of being rebuffed twice by the Western allies, feeling alone with nobody to deter Hitler with, Stalin decided to make a deal with Hitler, who was desperate himself to negotiate too to let him invade Poland by September.

But...what if the Western Allies did ally with the USSR in this critical junction? Sure it was easier for Hitler to promise more than the Allies were willing or able to give (practicality and ethically), unless the Western Allies were willing to replace Hitler in pre-emptively partition Poland. (Which sounds like something Chamberlain would do, yet would he be too squeamish to do this now?)

If somehow UK and USSR came to terms before Hitler coulld, would it deter Hitler from invading Poland or would it not? Would Hitler even consider partnering up with Poland (for the short term)? One must remember that Poland considered Russia a greater threat to their sovereignty (again informed by history) than Berin. I do also remember one anecdote that Stalin before June 1941 didn't believe Hitler would attack the USSR because that would be stupid/craz.

I don't know. Thoughts folks?

(For bonus, what terms could the Allies have offered the Russians?)

 

[Shaby]

First of all I've never heard Chamberlain offering coalition of any kind to Hitler. The British were deeply interested in keeping peace in Europe, even at expense of 'minor' territorial adjustments. If you (or anyone else) have some source on this I'd really like to hear it.

Second, Allies agreeing with the Soviets is impossible because the Soviets could get a better deal from Hitler than they ever could hope to get from the Allies. Allies could only offer Stalin parts of Poland (much smaller than what Hitler eventually offered) and Baltic States, Finland and Romania were never an option in this alliance. So it was never only about Poland here.

Furthermore, the Polish had absolutely no interest in allying with either side and they knew that both Stalin and Hitler plotted to make their country their client and use it as a battleground. They felt scre*ed either way equally. It was a matter of picking poison.

Hitler knew he could offer Stalin lot more and did, because he knew that in war on two fronts Germany would lose. And he needed the war to start, he could not wait any more.

One other consideration was that the Allies never held Soviets in high regard and doubted their military capability, thus feeling that any demands for concessions from the Soviet Union far outweighed their possible contribution to the war.

And finally, Allies never trusted Stalin and the Soviets, which precluded their open negotiations.

 

[RRA]

First of all I've never heard Chamberlain offering coalition of any kind to Hitler. The British were deeply interested in keeping peace in Europe, even at expense of 'minor' territorial adjustments. If you (or anyone else) have some source on this I'd really like to hear it.

I can't cite it. I just remember that alleged idea, but maybe I imagined it?

Either way I brought this quesiton up because Shirer in his book claimed that failure at an alliance was a monumental failure of British foreign policy. Conrad Black in his FDR book shared the same sentiment.

But could it really have been feasible or is it a pipedream at best? I'm curious.

 

[Shaby]

Well the alliance could be feasible, if the Allies were willing (and capable) to swallow a bitter pill of accommodating Stalin in his demands. However, they couldn't do this without exposing themselves to the German propaganda campaign which would probably be successful and expose Allies diplomacy as hypocritical and ruin the French and British alliances and relations throughout Europe. In addition such alliance with the USSR would require parliaments of both countries to ratify such alliance. Even if possible, it would alienate a large portion of the electoral base of the French and British governments and possibly lead to their fall. They wouldn't do it.

 

[RRA]

Well the alliance could be feasible, if the Allies were willing (and capable) to swallow a bitter pill of accommodating Stalin in his demands. However, they couldn't do this without exposing themselves to the German propaganda campaign which would probably be successful and expose Allies diplomacy as hypocritical and ruin the French and British alliances and relations throughout Europe. In addition such alliance with the USSR would require parliaments of both countries to ratify such alliance. Even if possible, it would alienate a large portion of the electoral base of the French and British governments and possibly lead to their fall. They wouldn't do it.

I might add that I referenced that the UK Parliament foreign committeed called for a Soviet alliance in March '39. I don't think it would be that big of a deal breaker domestically for them. (France, I have no idea honestly with their domestic politics.) With Appeasement dead, a public outraged, the British public and government would get behind a Soviet alliance if it indeed did come about.

Of course this depends on the potential quartering of Poland and Baltics and Eastern Europe, whether they're revealed (or leaked) publicly, or only after the fact? If its kept quiet like Soviets agreeing to partition Poland as they did in OTL, I don't know how the Nazi propaganda can exploit that.

 

[Shaby]

Of course this depends on the potential quartering of Poland and Baltics and Eastern Europe, whether they're revealed (or leaked) publicly, or only after the fact? If its kept quiet like Soviets agreeing to partition Poland as they did in OTL, I don't know how the Nazi propaganda can exploit that.

But France and UK were democracies. It cannot be kept as quiet as it was in USSR or Nazi Germany, where in the event, no one dared challenge such an agreement, regardless of whatever private doubts they might have had. In the UK or France someone members of the opposition parties would jump at the chance to use something like this.

 

[aktarian]

First of all I've never heard Chamberlain offering coalition of any kind to Hitler. The British were deeply interested in keeping peace in Europe, even at expense of 'minor' territorial adjustments. If you (or anyone else) have some source on this I'd really like to hear it.

There is a theory that British ultimate aim was to have Germany defeat Soviets and to do this they were willing to let Germany become strong. So appeasement policy was in place to allow Germany to pick itself up and strike and Soviets.

No, I don't have any documents that back this up though at some other forum this theory was posted and backed by alledged documents.

 

[Shaby]

There is a theory that British ultimate aim was to have Germany defeat Soviets and to do this they were willing to let Germany become strong. So appeasement policy was in place to allow Germany to pick itself up and strike and Soviets.

No, I don't have any documents that back this up though at some other forum this theory was posted and backed by alledged documents.

I've seen those theories, yet I don't find them credible. All the British hoped to do was to deter both Germany and USSR with each other, hoping that a standoff would ensue and neither would dare provoke an outright war, thus creating a stable Europe. It would not do any good to France and Britain if either of the two gained the upper hand (or in the worst case come to an agreement). As long as they were forced to watch each other with suspicion served the purposes of Britain and France best.

 

[aktarian]

I've seen those theories, yet I don't find them credible. All the British hoped to do was to deter both Germany and USSR with each other, hoping that a standoff would ensue and neither would dare provoke an outright war, thus creating a stable Europe. It would not do any good to France and Britain if either of the two gained the upper hand (or in the worst case come to an agreement). As long as they were forced to watch each other with suspicion served the purposes of Britain and France best.

I agree that it's not credible, seeing how victorious Germany would undermine ballance-of-power policy that's been cornerstone of English/British policy for centuries. It's possible some British circles would like strong Germany to act as counterweight to Soviets and they felt themselves ideologically close to Germany. Not Nazism but strong, right-wing state acting as barrier to spread of communism.

 

[AdA]

A UK/France/USSR alliance would prevent WW2 happening as in OTL, since not even Hitler was crazy enough to risk invading Poland if faced with the possibility of war with those three.

Regarding the "Broad Anti Comunist Front" I guess it sounds familiar because it's a common POD for our "How to defeat the USSR in WW2" threads.
By 1938 most sensible people in Britain were aware that war with Germany would happen. They just thought they would be in a better position for it somewhere in 39/40 rather than in 1938...
Before Munich Chamberlain asked his millitary leaders if they were ready for war and the answer he got was "not now, maybe later" He followed their advice.

 

[Remicas]

The French did try to ally with the USSR in the 30s to keep Germany in check. Staline wasn't interested.

 

[The Red]

If somehow UK and USSR came to terms before Hitler could, would it deter Hitler from invading Poland or would it not?

It's possible, but I'd lean on it still going ahead. Many in the German army saw this type of two-front war unwinnable and they may have been able to convince Hitler of the same. However at this point in time the German economy essentially required war, and Hitler was always known to ignore the cautious advice of his generals.

 

[Shaby]

The French did try to ally with the USSR in the 30s to keep Germany in check. Staline wasn't interested.

You mean the Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance? But it was signed and Soviets were actually interested in it. Laval later tried to torpedo it and eventually succeeded as the treaty itself, although signed and ratified by both parties, lacked any precise obligation. But the Soviets were interested as they feared the Germans.

 

[AdA]

It's possible, but I'd lean on it still going ahead. Many in the German army saw this type of two-front war unwinnable and they may have been able to convince Hitler of the same. However at this point in time the German economy essentially required war, and Hitler was always known to ignore the cautious advice of his generals.

German plans were for the big one to start in 1942. 1939 was really too soon for their modernization plans. Much later they would go broke before going to war.

 

[AdA]

You mean the Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance? But it was signed and Soviets were actually interested in it. Laval later tried to torpedo it and eventually succeeded as the treaty itself, although signed and ratified by both parties, lacked any precise obligation. But the Soviets were interested as they feared the Germans.

The soviets would probably have sided with the allies if they had gone to war in 1938. How they would provide assistance and the efect on Eastern Europe is a major source of What Ifs...

 

[Remicas]

You mean the Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance? But it was signed and Soviets were actually interested in it. Laval later tried to torpedo it and eventually succeeded as the treaty itself, although signed and ratified by both parties, lacked any precise obligation. But the Soviets were interested as they feared the Germans.

All right. I knew something like that was tried and failed but I wasn't really 'cause I didn't find where I read about that first (and my reflex isn't to go to wikipedia in English)
Hard to imagine Laval was supposed to be a socialist at some point. Well I think he can be the caricature of the bad socialist then. Or simply the bad politician.
I don't know about that article 16 of the League of Nation Pact thing, but was Poland part of the League ? So if Germany was at war with Poland and France declared war on Germany, would't that mean the USSR should declare ware to Germany (basing this on the idea the Germano-soviet pact isn't signed or something like that) ?

 

[Shaby]

So if Germany was at war with Poland and France declared war on Germany, would't that mean the USSR should declare ware to Germany (basing this on the idea the Germano-soviet pact isn't signed or something like that) ?

Most certainly the Soviets would declare war. But they got way better offer from Hitler and simply dropped out from the treaty. The treaty was Litvinov's and Bartou's child and simply died when the two of them disappeared from the scene. It can be speculated how it would turn out if Bartou survived Marseille.

Although, it can also be argued that circumstances worked against the treaty.