Feasibility Check: Surviving Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

No, that was a bit rude on the other poster's part.

U
nión de
Repúblicas
S
ocialistas
Soviéticas

Yeah, in anglophone spaces we use USSR, but there's no rule that you can't use an acronym with which you're familiar. It might be a bit confusing, but it's not wrong, like Onkel said.

Romantic languages have their interpretation of course, and that's just as valid.

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought it was a spelling error or a typo. My bad. I can't help myself when I notice something like that.
 
Thanks for clearing that up. I thought it was a spelling error or a typo. My bad. I can't help myself when I notice something like that.

No problem, I edited the post so nobody jumps the gun in the future.

The URSS thing threw me for a loop the first time I saw someone use it. I think I tried correcting them on that too, or at least thought about it. It's how we learn, I suppose.
 
my view the original problem with M-R Pact is that Germany dealt away their entire trading bloc of Poland, Finland, and the Baltics, leaving themselves overly dependent on trade with USSR. it is possible they could have struck a deal over Poland and Romania? (with the latter subjected to TTL's Winter War)

you probably need the earlier suggestion of Allied Operation Pike, followed by Soviet invasion of Iran?

So, you have to deal with three key facts if you want the M-R Pact to hold. I will address each in turn and then I will add my POD recommendation below. The facts are these:

The Soviet Union has everything to gain by waiting
The Third Reich has nothing to gain by waiting
The Third Reich and the whole West possess incredibly unreliable intelligence about the Soviet Union

The first of these works in your favour. As Stalin himself explained, the M-R had one purpose from the Soviet perspective, to upset the balance of power in Europe. It did so even too well for Stalin's liking, but the point is that the Soviets made sure the capitalist countries were fighting each other rather than turning their eye to the USSR. This plays right into Stalin's paranoia that the Allies would eventually team up with Hitler to crush Communism
... when Stalin sent Molotov to Berlin with a mandate to seek a Soviet entry into the Axis (and thus the war), there is good reason to believe the offer was sincere. You can find the full treaty in the sources below. As you will see, with a treaty like that, Stalin gets to realise almost all of Russia's long-term foreign policy goals without spilling a single drop of blood: access to the Straits and warm water ports, a strong foothold in the Balkans, domination over Iran and Central Asia at British expense, and a permanent shield against a new large-scale western invasion.

The second is, unfortunately, a near-insurmountable problem. The struggle is already desperate. Now, with every passing year of the M-R pact, the Soviets can continue their industrialisation and modernisation. In the meantime, Nazi Germany grows dependent on Soviet raw materials for not only its home front, but basically its entire war effort. And here is where you get to the crux of the issue, why the Soviets are willing to continue the M-R indefinitely/upgrade it to an alliance while Hitler is in a hurry to invade them. If things stay as they are, then the Soviets, not the Germans, will become the senior partner of the Axis. Stalin knows this, and so does Hitler. This way, Stalin can use Germany to wage a perpetual war against the Allies, while all the fighting he has to do is occupy Iran.

The third problem is also very hard to deal with. The intelligence in possession of Germany (and the Western Powers too) makes the argument for an invasion very compelling. if it controlled the resources of the whole of Western Russia, it could make itself unassailable and immune from blockade, and build up to the apocalyptic trans-atlantic struggle over a very long time. Now, what strategic alternatives to an invasion of Russia does Germany have in 1940? The Luftwaffe cannot break the UK. The Kriegsmarine has demonstrated its fatal weaknesses in Norway. The army, now, has defeated the enemy of centuries with a single killing stroke ... And what really clinches this situation is that the whole of the Western world + Germany has completely missed the radical, developmental process of forced industrialisation that Stalin has conducted in the USSR, and no one has any idea just how awe-inspiring Soviet production can be in war time, or what endless ability to mobilise army after army they have.

In my opinion, if you want to achieve a lasting M-R Pact, you need two things to change compared to OTL.
You need to give Germany, directly or indirectly through another country, knowledge of just how much industrial capacity and mobilisation abilities the USSR has, driving it strongly home that an invasion is doomed to end in apocalyptic terms. And then the second change you need: in November 1939, the French proposed treating the USSR as a co-belligerent since they were effectively enabling Germany to conduct the war as well as saving them from a continental blockade. Specifically, they proposed a bombing run against the Baku oil fields, to deny the Soviets the ability to ship oil to the Third Reich (Operation Pike as referred to by Thaddeus). The British stopped this plan in its tracks, because they were hard at work on winning the Soviets over to an anti-Hitler coalition. Find a way to make this obvious act of war happen, and then you can have a situation in which the Third Reich and the USSR are allies or at least co-belligerents, while still trying to outmaneuver each other all the time (and especially Germany trying to stave off junior status to Moscow).

my speculation repeatedly is that Germany needed a more coherent KM/naval program, including large percentage of coal fired ships. this would allow them to build ships for the USSR (which against all reason they wanted)

the same could be said for their synthetic fuel program, worst of both worlds, they expended the resources but only finished during wartime , so no chance to reap the benefits or stockpile fuels.

hinted in earlier post they needed to occupy Romania rather than ally with them? (in agreement with Hungary and USSR) with Germany occupying the old Kingdom

Romania_territory_during_20th_century.gif

this might present a more dire scenario to the Allies and help provoke "Pike" (used as generic term here for any Allied DoW or operations against the USSR) but the objective is to place the oil under German control.

if they retained their Baltic trading bloc with exception of Poland (or rather half of Poland), a relatively robust synthetic fuels program, and had the Romanian oil in hand it would transform their economic situation vs. historical? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi–...1934–41)#Mid-1930s_deterioration_of_relations

who knows if the Soviets would agree to dealings that leave the Baltics and Finland independent?
 
So isn't the easiest POD then for Hitler to have simply not conquered Western Europe?

In my opinion, no. The key thing here is that Manstein in the post-war was allowed to give his primary account and paint this cozy narrative of him being the genius who was being ostracised by the army leadership, until he managed to get Hitler to see the brilliance of his plan. The truth is, there was good reason to oppose his plan if you start from a conventional military perspective. The Manstein Plan meant risking literally everything - to give one example, the entirety of Germany's armour was committed to that operation. Nothing in reserve. The Luftwaffe too managed to achieve localised superiority only because it was committed on an insanely narrow front. The sickle cut was going to either win you the war in the West in one stroke, or lose it in one stroke. If something had gone wrong... say, a traffic jam because a signals officer made a mistake. Or if the column had been spotted. Or if the Allies had kept armies in reserve south of the Ardennes, etc etc. Then Germany's war is lost there and then, the armour is gone, and it's just a question of how long can disorganised and demotivated infantry hold back the Allied advance through the Rhineland. In this scenario you don't get a longer-lasting M-R pact, it lasts as long as OTL and comes to a close due to a crushing German defeat rather than a crushing German invasion.

The only reason Hitler went along with this plan is that he knew Germany had no hope of winning the war conventionally, unless we intend "win" as "force a diplomatic conclusion that could be considered positive". Hitler wasn't seeking a redressing of borders or anything like that, he wanted to alter the global strategic balance. Which means he had to take insane gambles because if they pay off, then you win spectacularly, and if they don't pay off, then you lose - just like you would have lost with a more conventional military strategy. The conventional plan by the generals (a slog through the channel) was the uninspired repetition of what had already failed in WW1. So, to make a long story short: if the invasion of France fails, Germany is instantly doomed and so is the longer M-R pact you want.

No, if you want this to be a prolonged TL you need to walk a very fine line between having Germany do very well, and not have it do well enough that it can attack the Soviets immediately (or give it a different motivation not to).

I'm not actually sure the USSR would enter as an ally or co-belligerent to Hitler - but they very well might just sit the entire war out.

Well, they offered to in November 1940, as you can read in the draft treaty I linked. But that is beside the point - this is why my suggestion is to start with a POD in Operation Pike. If the West conducts an act of war against the USSR, or DOWs them, then the Soviets and Nazi Germany are both fighting the West in parallel, even if they are not allies. This is what makes them co-belligerents, especially with M-R still on. That might remove Hitler's incentive to attack the USSR while they are busy killing British soldiers for them...

... then again, he might also reason that he has to strike at them before they can actually carve out a new empire out of former British possessions. I don't know. But it seems to me like this is your best option: if they are both fighting the WAllies, then a compelling argument can be made for extending the Pact for the time being. Especially because there definitely were a few senior diplomats and party members within Nazi Germany, beyond just Schulenberg, who advocated for a totalitarian alliance stretching from Paris to Vladivostok (and Tokyo - Japan was an enthusiastic proponent of Soviet entry into the Axis). If every totalitarian country is fighting the same enemy, then their voice is strengthened. It might not be enough, but it's a place where you can begin.

my speculation repeatedly is that Germany needed a more coherent KM/naval program, including large percentage of coal fired ships. this would allow them to build ships for the USSR (which against all reason they wanted)

the same could be said for their synthetic fuel program, worst of both worlds, they expended the resources but only finished during wartime , so no chance to reap the benefits or stockpile fuels.

hinted in earlier post they needed to occupy Romania rather than ally with them? (in agreement with Hungary and USSR) with Germany occupying the old Kingdom

View attachment 487804

this might present a more dire scenario to the Allies and help provoke "Pike" (used as generic term here for any Allied DoW or operations against the USSR) but the objective is to place the oil under German control.

if they retained their Baltic trading bloc with exception of Poland (or rather half of Poland), a relatively robust synthetic fuels program, and had the Romanian oil in hand it would transform their economic situation vs. historical? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi–Soviet_economic_relations_(1934–41)#Mid-1930s_deterioration_of_relations

who knows if the Soviets would agree to dealings that leave the Baltics and Finland independent?

The problem with different production lines is that you need a POD in at least 1933, and you have to somehow circumvent the tight corset the German economy is stuck in while trying to rearm. I really don't see a way around that, tbh.
Regarding the Baltics and Finland, I doubt it. As I mentioned earlier, Stalin's objective was the restoration of typical Great Russian chauvinist goals. Now with that said, originally Germany was meant to keep Lithuania, with the Soviets keeping a larger chunk of Poland. Berlin proposed to alter the border and trade Lithuania for a larger piece of Poland, and Moscow agreed. It's possible that if this doesn't happen, Germany's presence in the Baltics somewhat alters their economic situation. However, what you need to keep in mind re stuff like the oil fields, is that Germany constantly overestimated how much it could get out of its vassals/conquered territories, because they assumed they could just take over and production would continue at full capacity. That was almost never the case and it would take them years to bring those conquests up to speed. Especially in isolation from world trade.
 
Last edited:
my speculation repeatedly is that Germany needed a more coherent KM/naval program, including large percentage of coal fired ships. this would allow them to build ships for the USSR (which against all reason they wanted)

the same could be said for their synthetic fuel program, worst of both worlds, they expended the resources but only finished during wartime , so no chance to reap the benefits or stockpile fuels.

hinted in earlier post they needed to occupy Romania rather than ally with them? (in agreement with Hungary and USSR) with Germany occupying the old Kingdom

this might present a more dire scenario to the Allies and help provoke "Pike" (used as generic term here for any Allied DoW or operations against the USSR) but the objective is to place the oil under German control.

if they retained their Baltic trading bloc with exception of Poland (or rather half of Poland), a relatively robust synthetic fuels program, and had the Romanian oil in hand it would transform their economic situation vs. historical? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi–Soviet_economic_relations_(1934–41)#Mid-1930s_deterioration_of_relations

who knows if the Soviets would agree to dealings that leave the Baltics and Finland independent?

The problem with different production lines is that you need a POD in at least 1933, and you have to somehow circumvent the tight corset the German economy is stuck in while trying to rearm. I really don't see a way around that, tbh.
Regarding the Baltics and Finland, I doubt it. As I mentioned earlier, Stalin's objective was the restoration of typical Great Russian chauvinist goals. Now with that said, originally Germany was meant to keep Lithuania, with the Soviets keeping a larger chunk of Poland. Berlin proposed to alter the border and trade Lithuania for a larger piece of Poland, and Moscow agreed. It's possible that if this doesn't happen, Germany's presence in the Baltics somewhat alters their economic situation. However, what you need to keep in mind re stuff like the oil fields, is that Germany constantly overestimated how much it could get out of its vassals/conquered territories, because they assumed they could just take over and production would continue at full capacity. That was almost never the case and it would take them years to bring those conquests up to speed. Especially in isolation from world trade.

regarding the synthetic fuels program, they actually built it out to reach 36m barrels annually but only by '43, my point was they expended the steel and manpower, and a large percentage of it pre-war, but they stalled the completion (the worst of both worlds)

a more coherent naval building program (perhaps build nothing larger than Admral Hipper-class ships? or ships over 20k tonnes?) might have yielded enough steel to finish the fuel plants?

finish the synthetic plants to more rational production numbers (say 24m barrels per annum) since under this scenario they are not conducting operations on the Eastern Front? this could have transformed their trade arrangements, if Germany needed only the foodstuffs and critical materials not oil? (not saying oil would not be part of their trade, just that they would not require so much or any)

who knows? about Finland and the Baltics? as pointed out they conceded Lithuania without protest, and proposals were made for border adjustments to Finland?

if Germany was in a (relatively) better position in their trade arrangements, and the nexus of operations was in the south (Romania), the Soviets might have left occupation of Finland and the Baltics for a future date? as the Germans were postponing their invasion of the USSR?

edit. they tripled oil production in Austria and domestic against a backdrop of Barbarossa being the priority, so had that been postponed even the giant Matzen field might have been developed there?
 
Last edited:
Yes, good points. Germany focused a lot on quality when quantity would have served it best, considering the kind of struggle it faced, and it also suffered from the many different priority shifts.
About the border adjustments though, keep in mind that they had given up Lithuania in exchange for something of equal value, a larger chunk of Poland. If you assume Germany has to have all three Baltic republics, then the Soviets would need adequate compensation elsewhere. And even then, having Nazis so close to Leningrad might be a no regardless...
 
Yes, good points. Germany focused a lot on quality when quantity would have served it best, considering the kind of struggle it faced, and it also suffered from the many different priority shifts.
About the border adjustments though, keep in mind that they had given up Lithuania in exchange for something of equal value, a larger chunk of Poland. If you assume Germany has to have all three Baltic republics, then the Soviets would need adequate compensation elsewhere. And even then, having Nazis so close to Leningrad might be a no regardless...

my speculation was for Soviets to gain Bessarabia earlier, and even entry into Bulgaria? if the Soviets started "spilling out" into the Med, along with Germany actually delivering warships to them it might provoke the desired conflict with UK?
 
Top