German Russian alliance vs non agression pact

[Bob in Pittsburgh]

I am not quite sure how an alliance would have been any different than the neutrality pact they signed. I don't see Stalin going to war against Britain and France. The Soviet Union could have declared war on Poland but they invaded without the formality of a declaration of war. Ultimately either Hitler or Stalin would have gone to war against the other. You also ask what the impact of a longer peace would have had on the German economy. I think Hitler would have continued to rearm since it would take time to retool for consumer production.

 

[thevaliant]

Let's say Germany and Russia sign an alliance vs nonaggression pact. In response Poland accedes to German demands .....

No they don't.
The territorial integrity of Poland has been guaranteed by two Great Powers, one of which controls the most land in the world in 1939 and has the biggest navy, and the other which (on paper) has probably one of the best armies in the world.

Poland doesn't accede to any demands. They (mistakenly) think the UK and French guarantees will prevent a war, or that Germany will be soundly defeated if she were foolish enough to try.

 

[Lexijag]

No they don't.
The territorial integrity of Poland has been guaranteed by two Great Powers, one of which controls the most land in the world in 1939 and has the biggest navy, and the other which (on paper) has probably one of the best armies in the world.

Poland doesn't accede to any demands. They (mistakenly) think the UK and French guarantees will prevent a war, or that Germany will be soundly defeated if she were foolish enough to try.

The guarantees might never had happened if Hitler had not taken the rest of Czechoslovakia over

 

[jamesownz]

In our timeline didnt Hitler invite Molotov to Germany to discuss the Soviets joining the Axis just six months before invasion?

Now obviously it would be hard to do but lets say Hitler gives into Stalins demands for joining (whatever they were) as long as Stalin opens a new front against the British in a short time

 

[fasquardon]

Even if they don't create value they still are encouraging demand in the economy which grows it in general. It's not that difficult to retool arms factories to produce cars instead of tanks or whatever.

Military spending creates short term demand, but long term it is a waste. So if you are spending money to get your population through a short-term slump, it can be beneficial to keep the economy from losing long term capacity as would happen if factories are demolished and people starve. If you are trying to solve a long term problem, it is like trying to put out a fire by pouring lighter fluid on it. And by 1939, Germany had entered a long-term crisis engineered by Nazi mismanagement.

Germany needed to attack and loot Poland to keep the rotten system from collapsing on itself because its own economy was not producing the needed exports to trade for the imports it needed AND it was burning through imported resources faster to build an army that needed more rubber and tungsten and petrol than normal civilian production. And after Poland they needed to loot France. And after looting France they figured it would be easy to loot the Soviet Union.

And given they were close to crashing and burning their economy when they launched each invasion, it looks like roughly speaking, maintaining the levels of military spending the Nazis desired required them to invade and loot one country a year from 1937 on, more or less.

Let's say Germany and Russia sign an alliance vs nonaggression pact. In response Poland accedes to German demands and gives up danzig as well additional land to Russia. So no invasion in 1939. No war. As 1940 and 41 move on and France and GB rearm Hitler realizes a war would be difficult to win so economically he is pushed to slow his military build up. No war happens and Germany moves towards an economic dominance strategy


1 can this happen
2 could Germany dominate Europe like it does today over the next 20 years

You gotta understand, antisemitism is central to Nazism. Victory for the Nazis required destroying the evil (and completely non-existent) conspiracy they thought was keeping Germany from its rightful place. Hitler can't achieve an "economic victory" or indeed any kind of victory.

Though it would be funny to read a timeline where Hitler tried to economically out-compete the fictional Jewish conspiracy he believed in.

fasquardon

 

[jamesownz]

Yes, he did. Molotov visited Berlin from November 12-14 1940 and laid down Stalin's terms for the Soviets joining the Axis. Basically, Stalin wanted influence in Finland, Bulgaria, Romania and the Turkish Straits.

Hitler refused to discuss the subject of Turkey and the Balkans, with the latter claiming he would have to speak with Benito Mussolini on the matter. What he did instead, was issue Directive 18 to the OKW, telling them to continue the preparations for Barbarossa which had begun in June 1940.

While talking with Ribbentrop in an air raid shelter, Molotov basically said the Soviets were 'concerned' about Sweden's neutrality and who would control the exit to the Baltic. Ribbentrop urged Molotov to encourage the USSR's expansion towards India. After Britain was defeated, then Germany and the Soviets could share the spoils by carving up the British Empire.

Basically, Molotov was dragging out the negotiations by consistently trying to establish a Soviet sphere of influence larger than that agreed in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

A draft agreement was drawn up between the two and was carved up into two halves, one for public release and one for private use only.

The public portion contained an agreement with a ten-year duration whereby the parties would respect each other's natural spheres of interests, while Germany, Italy and Japan would affirm their recognition of existing Soviet borders.

The draft of the secret agreement included the obligation not to join any alliance directed at the four signatories and to assist each other in economic matters. The secret agreement contained a protocol defining the territorial objectives of the four signatories, with Germany laying claims to central Africa, Italy in northern and northeast Africa, Japan in southeast Asia and the Soviet zone to the ”center south of the national territory of the Soviet Union in the direction of the Indian Ocean.

On November 25, Stalin sent a counter-proposal, demanding

Officially, Germany didn't respond. Unofficially, Hitler was frustrated with Stalin's constant demands, calling him a 'cold, blooded blackmailer' and claiming Stalin only sent the offer because a German victory in the war would not be in the USSR's interests. In regards to Molotov's negotiations, Hitler would say...



TL: DR - The Soviet Union joining the Axis would only happen if Hitler was prepared to give up a large swathe of Eastern Europe to Soviet influence, or as John Keegan put it...

Yes, interesting.

I just picture a timeline where Hitler agrees to Stalins demands only if he opens a massive front against Britain... Similar to the one that was made in regards to Japan in our timeline....with the intention Hitler still invades anyway

What would that be like

 

[A Piece of History]

I just picture a timeline where Hitler agrees to Stalins demands only if he opens a massive front against Britain... Similar to the one that was made in regards to Japan in our timeline....with the intention Hitler still invades anyway

November 1940 was when Stalin made his demands, so let's start there.

With the Soviets gurateeing peace with Finland, then that only leaves one place for the Soviets to throw their troops in support of the Axis: Central Asia.

Soviet troops would probably launch an offensive through the Caucasus and into Iran and Iraq. Iran immediately throws in with the Allies, including it's imperialist overlord, Great Britain.

Invading Iran would not be as simple as it sounds. Assuming the Soviets can take Tehran (and that is an assumption, since the RAF has a base right next door in Iraq that could crack down on supply lines), their supply lines are going to be hampered by the fact that Iran possesses a mountainous terrain in which Allied-backed partisans can attack those supply lines (and in OTL's World War II, the mountains of Greece were the Greek Resistance's greatest ally, so the same can be said for the mountains in Iran) .

And if that isn't enough, then the British can just wipe the dust off of Operation Pike and launch air raids against the Caucasian oil fields, where 80% of the USSR's oil came from, but it is debatable as to whether or not this operation would be effective as aerial bombing in 1940 was not a precise as some people make it out to be.

Speaking of the air, assuming the British can spare the fighters so soon after the Battle of Britain, then they have the Soviets beat when it comes to air forces and the production of aircraft. In 1931, Stalin had said

We are 50 or 100 years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this lag in 10 years. Either we do it, or they crush us!

Also, the Soviets lacked many experienced pilots and ground support crews, so the Soviet Air Force is going to be less of a challenge to the RAF, which again, had just gone through the Battle of Britain, than some people might think.

Som people will say that if the Soviets joined the Axis, then Stalin would probably order aircraft production to be stepped up. That is possible, but I don't think Stalin would care too much about the outcome of the Iranian adventure and would focus more on what the Nazis are going to do while he is throwing troops away to help them, probably deploying manpower and aircraft to the new Soviet bases in Bulgaria, assuming Bulgaria is conquered quickly and does not become a second front in Stalin's war.

So, the Soviets are stuck in a war, being plagued by insurgents attacking their supply line, the RAF are bombing their oil supplies and their leader is probably more worried about what Hitler will do than the war in Iran, so I think the Soviets would be in a bad place in Iran.

And I leave the worst thing for the Soviets until last, Iran is right next door to India, so expect to see hundreds of Indian troops being deployed to Iran to fight the Soviets.

 

[The Undead Martyr]

History is full of ideological differences between nations that work together. Also in 1933 Russia told the communists in Germany to vote for Hitler. Up until the night of the long knives the nazi and communist parties where not significantly different in ideology. National socialism was socialism in a country while communism was on a global basis.

As to economic issues yes German growth with massive military spending was a road to bankruptcy however a scale back on military spending would have been possible. Dictatorships can basically create any illusion as to economic conditions. Look at USSR pre collapse or China debt today

Stalin told the German communists to vote for Hitler because he viewed the SPD as a greater threat, and at the time they were. Had the Weimar Republic survived we likely would have seen an early EU between France and Germany, something not at all in Stalins interests.

A note that while states certainly tend to follow key interests, and an alliance between Russia and Germany may be justified (as would be conflict; neither are inevitable IMO), that thr Nazi regime in particular was explicitly ideological and anti-materialist; the entire crux of fascism, beyond racism, militarism, and authoritarianism, is a will to power, the belief that superior will or breeding can overcome material concerns and realities. The Nazis were hoping to win the war over materially superior enemies through literal belief in the German people's innate superiority, dismissing their enemies as decadent and weak willed, likely to surrender when tbe going got tough rather than commit to a total war. If Hitler was the sort to engage on coldly practical realpolitik, he wouldn't be Hitler.
Which, mind, doesn't make a temporary truce developing into a tactical alliance impossible- stranger things have happened. But it will not be inherently stable or likely.

 

[jamesownz]

November 1940 was when Stalin made his demands, so let's start there.

With the Soviets gurateeing peace with Finland, then that only leaves one place for the Soviets to throw their troops in support of the Axis: Central Asia.

Soviet troops would probably launch an offensive through the Caucasus and into Iran and Iraq. Iran immediately throws in with the Allies, including it's imperialist overlord, Great Britain.

Invading Iran would not be as simple as it sounds. Assuming the Soviets can take Tehran (and that is an assumption, since the RAF has a base right next door in Iraq that could crack down on supply lines), their supply lines are going to be hampered by the fact that Iran possesses a mountainous terrain in which Allied-backed partisans can attack those supply lines (and in OTL's World War II, the mountains of Greece were the Greek Resistance's greatest ally, so the same can be said for the mountains in Iran) .

And if that isn't enough, then the British can just wipe the dust off of Operation Pike and launch air raids against the Caucasian oil fields, where 80% of the USSR's oil came from, but it is debatable as to whether or not this operation would be effective as aerial bombing in 1940 was not a precise as some people make it out to be.

Speaking of the air, assuming the British can spare the fighters so soon after the Battle of Britain, then they have the Soviets beat when it comes to air forces and the production of aircraft. In 1931, Stalin had said



Also, the Soviets lacked many experienced pilots and ground support crews, so the Soviet Air Force is going to be less of a challenge to the RAF, which again, had just gone through the Battle of Britain, than some people might think.

Som people will say that if the Soviets joined the Axis, then Stalin would probably order aircraft production to be stepped up. That is possible, but I don't think Stalin would care too much about the outcome of the Iranian adventure and would focus more on what the Nazis are going to do while he is throwing troops away to help them, probably deploying manpower and aircraft to the new Soviet bases in Bulgaria, assuming Bulgaria is conquered quickly and does not become a second front in Stalin's war.

So, the Soviets are stuck in a war, being plagued by insurgents attacking their supply line, the RAF are bombing their oil supplies and their leader is probably more worried about what Hitler will do than the war in Iran, so I think the Soviets would be in a bad place in Iran.

And I leave the worst thing for the Soviets until last, Iran is right next door to India, so expect to see hundreds of Indian troops being deployed to Iran to fight the Soviets.

Can we get direct fighting between the Soviets and British?

How does all this effect a Hitler invasion of Russia in June?

 

[fasquardon]

Yes, interesting.

I just picture a timeline where Hitler agrees to Stalins demands only if he opens a massive front against Britain... Similar to the one that was made in regards to Japan in our timeline....with the intention Hitler still invades anyway

What would that be like

Bluntly, invading India was not a worthwhile investment for the Soviets. Stalin thought the demand ridiculous, and he was right. The real jewels in the British empire at this point are Britain itself, Canada, Egypt and South Africa. Sure, India has some value, but there's no good way for the Soviets to access it. There's no rail link from Moscow to Delhi. Britain can shut down any attempt by the Soviets to trade with (a magically conquered) India by sea. And attacking from Central Asia (already an underdeveloped backwater) through some of the harshest terrain on Earth only using whatever can make it down the dirt tracks of Afghanistan and into the subcontinent is just a massive burden to a Soviet Union that knows Hitler hates them as much as he hates the Jews.

If the Soviets do agree to this ridiculous demand, they're not going to put a serious effort into it (and in any case, they can't) and they're going to continue getting ready to fight Germany on the North European plain. If they actually clash with British troops, or Indian army troops, they likely do so in Afghanistan and use it as a lever to try and get concessions from the slippery and untrustworthy Brits as the Brits try to do the same. The Soviets and the British hated and distrusted each-other but both just have less reasons to argue with each-other than they do to beat Germany into a smoking crater.

At most this delays the start of Barbarossa (very good for the Soviets) or delays Britain sending material aid to the Soviets (very bad, British Lend-Lease was tiny compared to the Lend-Lease received from the US, but arrived sooner than the US Lend-Lease, meaning it was more important for keeping the Soviets in the war through their darkest time and ensuring Allied victory) or possibly a combination of the two (overall good for the Soviets, more time to get their army ready to fight the Germans is just a huge deal). Oh, and lots of people die needlessly in the Afghan mountains, but compared to the overall death toll, it would be a rounding error next to the overall bloodshed, even in a scenario where the Soviets do much better which could potentially shave off tens of millions of deaths off the total death count of WW2.

fasquardon

 

[thaddeus]

there is a certain logic to Germany-USSR cooperation even if not a close alliance, that was what Gen. von Seeckt envisioned in the 1920's and 1930's, and the German military would have welcomed a continuation of that when the Nazis came to power.
does not have to erase the Nazi plan to invade the USSR at some point, or some other plan to dominate them.

November 1940 was when Stalin made his demands, so let's start there.
With the Soviets gurateeing peace with Finland, then that only leaves one place for the Soviets to throw their troops in support of the Axis: Central Asia.

my speculative scenario is always that Germany could have tempted the Soviets to move against the Turkish Straits (Turkey), which they resisted Soviet designs on historically.

 

[GlobalHumanism]

Others have already answered the second question, but I will just add that in 1932, Germany's national debt was 10 billion Reichsmarks. By 1939, the debt had ballooned to 19 billion Reichsmarks, according to official statements from the German government. The MEFO bill fraud had caused the debt to triple, with it making up half the increase, but this was kept off the books. By 1939,, cracks were beginning to show in the German economy and Hjaalmar Schacht was sacked when he suggested Hitler pull back on rearmament. There was no way the Nazi state was going to be economically viable by 1941. The Nazis' economic fraud effectively relied on the booty from stolen lands to push back the debt. That was why in Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland, the Nazis raided their national banks and stole everything of value.

This is exactly what I was trying to get across.
Perfectly said.