One of the main factors for WWII occurring when it did was Hitler underestimating the Anglo-French commitment to Poland. What if the Allies made their intentions clearer to Hitler? For example, they could deploy token forces to Poland. A British battleship anchored off Westerplatte, or a French regiment assisting Polish border defenses would not change the outcome of a German invasion, and might even be tactical wastes of blood and treasure, but it would inextricably link "war with Poland" with "war with Britain and France". Would this alter Hitler's decision making process? I'm under the impression the decision to start the invasion was a close-run thing, delayed at least once. Perhaps the Nazis would strike earlier once they know what the Allies are up to?
Overt pre-war support of Poland
- Thread starter Living in Exile
- Start date
Stalin giving Hitler the thumbs up and agreeing to also invade Poland from the East made war a certainty. That gave Germany an easy enough war in Poland to then turn its sights on France and win a one front war there.
If France and the UK put significant forces in Poland and Stalin and Hitler invade the only difference is the UK and France will declare war on both the Soviet Union and Germany. In that case one could imagine the German Army backed up by hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops attacking France in 1940.
The Hitler/Stalin alliance will still fall apart, but the exact date it falls apart would be less certain at least as long as the UK and/or America is in the war.
That would be a awesome TL (The Soviets inadvertedly joining the Axis and fighting Britain and France with Germany) the combined forces of the Russians and Germans could probaly beat both France and Britain.
America on the other hand.
Most USSR in the Axis timelines I'm aware of use the Winter War as a POD, and I don't think any of them involve Russian troops deployed into France. I'm inclined to believe that if the USSR and Germany became allies they'd only coordinate their actions in a broad sense, much like Germany and Japan. Stalin didn't even allow Allied troops in significant numbers into Russia OTL, so I wouldn't expect anything similar when dealing with Nazis.
The difference is Germany and the USSR will be actually connected on a map.
Also Living in Exile the main reason why Stalin wouldn't allow Allied troops in the USSR in any real numbers was his paranoia that they would get a very different picture of Stalinist Russia then the Western Allies believed with real info on what is going on in Russia coming in which he certainly feared would lead to an end to Lend Lease and possibly the WAlles making a seperate peace with Germany and turning on him.
What I said here though only requires that the Soviets lend infantry support to the invasion of France, which I could see Hitler allowing. Russian heavy weapons like tanks crossing his borders he certainly wouldn't allow though.
Last edited:
If you've ever played the game HoI2 (by Paradox, the makers of Victoria, Crusader Kings and Europa Universalis) it explores the ahistorical option of the Soviets and Germans joining in an alliance when they agree to invade Poland. This brings both powers in a war against the Allies. It only happens about 1 out of every 200 games though if you start the game in 1936. Needless to say when it happens the results are not pretty.
Stalin didn't get away with eastern Poland because Britain and France were too stupid to notice, but because they had no intention to fight the USSR. Nor did Stalin want a war with them (IIRC fear of Allied aid was one reason behind his termination of the Winter War, remember also the futile 1940 German attempts to get the USSR onboard). I wouldn't expect it to differ here. Stalin would sooner decline confrontation altogether IMO.
Middle East ?
If Stalin and Hitler Joins forces, I don't really see them working closely together.
Another possibility is Stalin going for the classic Russian goal of a warm water port.
Attacking through Iran into the British and French mandate areas.
France may survive being kicked out of the middle east, but Britain has much more at stake:
The canal, Egypt and even India are suddenly in danger, but worse ...
Basically all british oil resources are in the area, if they are lost Britain (and France) becomes entirely dependent on the US for oil - and what happens when they run out of cash (mid '41 otl) ?
Churchill may decide to leave the western front to the French, and concentrate all British and Empire resources in the middle east.
If this goes badly Britain may "take control" of Dutch East India (Indonesia) for the oil.
Not sure how that would play in Washington and Tokyo...
If Stalin and Hitler Joins forces, I don't really see them working closely together.
Another possibility is Stalin going for the classic Russian goal of a warm water port.
Attacking through Iran into the British and French mandate areas.
France may survive being kicked out of the middle east, but Britain has much more at stake:
The canal, Egypt and even India are suddenly in danger, but worse ...
Basically all british oil resources are in the area, if they are lost Britain (and France) becomes entirely dependent on the US for oil - and what happens when they run out of cash (mid '41 otl) ?
Churchill may decide to leave the western front to the French, and concentrate all British and Empire resources in the middle east.
If this goes badly Britain may "take control" of Dutch East India (Indonesia) for the oil.
Not sure how that would play in Washington and Tokyo...
We're moving far from initial question here. Stalin's goal in '39 was not a war with Allies, but getting some tasty bits of Eastern Europe while letting Hitler do the heavy fighting (Finnish war was supposed to be quite easy 
Small Western detachements in Poland pre Ribbentrop-Molotov might delay war a bit, maybe into '40, maybe just for a few weeks (but the Summer was ending). Polish campaign would be probably more bloody, or maybe, in '40, Germans would choose a "France first" strategy? That would be unlikely, but interesting, since it would mean Polish offensive (or at least an attempt of one).
In case Ribbentrop-Molotov happened anyway, would it mean Soviet-German military alliance? I doubt it, British/French troops would be positioned in western Poland with no risk of encountering the Red Army...
Small Western detachements in Poland pre Ribbentrop-Molotov might delay war a bit, maybe into '40, maybe just for a few weeks (but the Summer was ending). Polish campaign would be probably more bloody, or maybe, in '40, Germans would choose a "France first" strategy? That would be unlikely, but interesting, since it would mean Polish offensive (or at least an attempt of one).
In case Ribbentrop-Molotov happened anyway, would it mean Soviet-German military alliance? I doubt it, British/French troops would be positioned in western Poland with no risk of encountering the Red Army...
With overt Allied support of Poland I doubt Stalin would be foolish enough to commit as heavily as he did IOTL. After all the M-R Pact's main OTL goal was to avoid involving the Soviet Union in a major European war until it was properly ready, while still expanding it's spehere of influence as much as possible.
Originally posted by Julian
Indeed. Stalin waited over two weeks two make sure the Allies wouldn't move to help Poland. He attacked when Polish Army was practically already defeated, the half-hearted Saar offensive stopped and the general attack France had promised to the Poles rescheduled (and practically canceled).
Indeed. Stalin waited over two weeks two make sure the Allies wouldn't move to help Poland. He attacked when Polish Army was practically already defeated, the half-hearted Saar offensive stopped and the general attack France had promised to the Poles rescheduled (and practically canceled).