Allied First Strike (WWII What If?)

I know, I know - yet another WWII thread. But bear with me, as the search function didn't pull up anything similar to this that's very recent. And we all know the dangers of necromancy. ;)

Now, I'm not a very details oriented guy. First I'm just going to throw some broad ideas at you - this is what I'm trying to accomplish, see if this seems like a reasonable chain of events to you.

1. France and Poland jointly attack Germany
2. Soviet Union steamrolls through Poland
3. Soviet Union doesn't stop steamrolling when it reaches Nazi soldiers
4. ???
5. Profit?

The Details:
A.K.A. My poor attempt at a timeline
  • Now, for a Polish first strike I've heard it suggested that April 28th would be a good POD (or thereabouts) as that is when Adolf Hitler renounced the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact.
  • Maybe for the other allies Chamberlain could reach this point sooner: "Past experience has shown that no reliance can be placed upon the promises of the present German Government." Which he said after the invasion of Poland (!!!). Why not after Germany broke the Munich Agreement (IIRC in two different ways!?) and made an ultimatum to Lithuania (March 1939).
  • One of the guys at the Nuremburg Trials said "if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions." Now if we're talking April or May (maybe even June?) for the Allied First Strike then some of those units would have already been transferred.
  • Now, with the Soviet Union would it even make sense to invade Poland first? While there was some negotiations regarding some sort of cooperation, they didn't really formalize into the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that we know until around August. Still, with the above mentioned quote about Germany's defeat, I could see the Soviets seeing an opportunity - to not just take Poland, but also Germany. If they have to roll through both countries to do it, who cares? (Or maybe I'm misreading their boldness here).
  • Finally IIRC the United States helped the Western Allies to arm themselves after the invasion of Poland (pre-Lend-Lease, I believe everything was bought with gold). Would they still sell arms if the war happened a few months early? My guess is yes, they would. Would this have any significant effects on the economy or FDR's election? Especially if things in Europe seem to be less dire than they were IOTL.

Besides all that, Italy has already begun invading other European countries. Would they and/or Germany sue for peace in such a way that their fascist regimes continued on? This is WAY before "Absolute Victory". Although maybe the people would do the Allies a favor and remove these regimes?

Also, what does this do to Allied-Soviet relations? They were pretty pissed off at the Winter War. Here they're probably a lot more fresh than they were IOTL 1945 - would they make a move on the Soviets (if the details of the conclusion of the war with Germany allowed that)?
 
France and Poland!?

Not a chance of this happening at all. France was led by veterans of the first world war, who were almost exclusively defensive-oriented. War was the last thing the high command and government (or almost any leaders in Europe, Germany included) wanted.

The Polish government knew they would have no chance against Germany without French and British aid via second front.

This isn't going to happen.
 
France and Poland!?
I suppose the U.K. is apart of the Allies as well! Lets include them!

This isn't going to happen.
I disagree. Unlikely does not equal impossible or ASB. Kudos for not using that term, by the way. There were certainly factions (like Churchill) who wanted to attack Germany (I'm sure there were French politicians of the same mind). I think that even prior to the invasion of Poland, Germany had made themselves untrustworthy and especially with breaking the German-Polish non-aggression pact I think it was pretty obvious that war was coming.

I think it's just a matter of convincing the right people ITTL. Anyone else have any thoughts?
 
There were seldom few politicians in either France or Britain who wanted war. Remember that it wasn't until after the fall of France that Chamberlain resigned. These were men and countries with memories of four years and a generation lost fighting senselessly in the trenches and losing millions over what ammounted to nothing. There is a reason why Chamberlain (and by extension, the french also) opted to sacrifice Czechoslovakia- they wanted to avoid those horrors at any cost.

Hitler showed in the wake of Munich that he couldn't be trusted to maintain the peace, but even now war was seen as avoidable, if the germans could be brought to their senses. Britain and France promised to defend Poland, and at this point they well outnumbered Germany. Hitler allied with the Soviets, called their bluff against the better judgement of his generals, France wasn't ready yet, and Poland was lost. The whole strategy depended on France acting, and they didn't. They mobilized too late, had a joke of an air force, and had spent two decades forming defensive doctrines.

Germany is the only country that is going to strike first in 1939.

Edit: whoops, I was wrong about Chamberlain.
 
Last edited:
There were seldom few politicians in either France or Britain who wanted war. Remember that it wasn't until after the fall of France that Chamberlain resigned. These were men and countries with memories of four years and a generation lost fighting senselessly in the trenches and losing millions over what amounted to nothing. There is a reason why Chamberlain (and by extension, the french also) opted to sacrifice Czechoslovakia- they wanted to avoid those horrors at any cost.
IIRC Chamberlain was actually voted out after the loss of Norway which is not an "important" ally like France. It was when they perceived that war was happening and that people like Chamberlain were woefully unprepared for such an event. While WWI was about petty treaties, surely it would be clear from the treatment of Czechoslovakia that it was a more clear cut cause this time? Or do the WAllies only care if it happens to a Western country (as you suggest)?

They did begin the Phoney War after the invasion of Poland, and surely they must have recognized that (even if they didn't act) at some point their declarations of war would lead to real, actual, war so there seems to be some (OTL) precedent for acting on the behalf of other countries sovereignty.
Hitler showed in the wake of Munich that he couldn't be trusted to maintain the peace, but even now war was seen as avoidable, if the germans could be brought to their senses. Britain and France promised to defend Poland, and at this point they well outnumbered Germany. Hitler allied with the Soviets, called their bluff against the better judgement of his generals, France wasn't ready yet, and Poland was lost. The whole strategy depended on France acting, and they didn't. They mobilized too late, had a joke of an air force, and had spent two decades forming defensive doctrines.
It seems that the issue is more of a general convincing the French high command that an early strike could cripple the Germans and prevent a prolonged war (like WWI). I feel changing the entire outlook of the French and British culture is a bit too much and unnecessary.
 
IIRC Chamberlain was actually voted out after the loss of Norway which is not an "important" ally like France.

Oops, my mistake.

It seems that the issue is more of a general convincing the French high command that an early strike could cripple the Germans and prevent a prolonged war (like WWI). I feel changing the entire outlook of the French and British culture is a bit too much and unnecessary.

Bingo. There are ways to have the French army prepared for the war, but they are not going to launch a first strike because

A. They, and the French public, don't want to

B. It doesn't really garner any international support, when you tell them you struck first, and that in turn feeds the German propaganda machine

C. Germany could still defeat France in the field (they have a higher population and at least equal numbers in troops) and stalemate them, which defeats the whole purpose
 
Bingo. There are ways to have the French army prepared for the war, but they are not going to launch a first strike because

A. They, and the French public, don't want to

B. It doesn't really garner any international support, when you tell them you struck first, and that in turn feeds the German propaganda machine

C. Germany could still defeat France in the field (they have a higher population and at least equal numbers in troops) and stalemate them, which defeats the whole purpose
Hmmmm, okay. Perhaps instead of them attacking first, then, would it be more reasonable to avoid the Phoney War? From what I remember reading about France and Poland's agreement, France was supposed to be attacking Germany on about September 6 or something like that (almost immediately after the German invasion). Might this help to butterfly the other thing I was looking for - i.e. Soviets rolling through the Polish (as per their agreement with Germany) but then immediately back-stabbing the Germans?

I suppose that would also require some back-working on the part of the Soviets perspective, as I know Stalin was a bit crazy and IIRC they were going through another officer purge around that time.
 
Top