Soviet-German Alliance in World War II

In OTL, the USSR joined German aggression against Poland on 17th of September, 1939. Although Polish armed forces were trying to resist Red Army's offensive (admittedly, Poles were very weak after two weeks of battles on German front, but, nonetheless, few hundred Soviet soldiers have perished in their "Liberation march"), Polish government had not announced state of war with the USSR. Later, Polish government in exile explained such strange pacifism as mean to ensure free passage of Polish soldiers and civilian refugees through Soviet lines to Romania.
Thus, Western allies of Poland fought only against Germany, although Poland was divided by two aggressors.
So, POD: What if Poland on 17th of September, 1939 declared war against the USSR? Britain and France were obliged to help Poland against every aggressor, and war between those powers and the USSR could be imminent. In such situation Soviet Union had to look for allies, and Reich was most likely ally. The Soviet-German coalition could invade British and French colonies and protectorates in Middle East, and Soviet assistance could greatly increase power of Germans in the West front.
On the other hand, Empire of Japan had suffered defeat in the hands of Soviet army in August, 1939 (Nomonhan incident), so Japan easily could join Western coalition. Thus, we can see World War II without Pearl-Harbor and without German invasion into the USSR.
Any thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Interesting.

Would a soviet-German coalition have enough industrial and military strength to somehow negate the Royal Navy and invade England?
 
To be honest I don't think this would entice the Japanese to attack the Soviets more likely they would enjoy their non-aggression agreement and seek a permanent understanding with Stalin. Imagine the position of the UK. Churchill now has only the hope of the United States as its survival. Tokyo won't be seeing any worth full gain from supporting the British when the Empire is at its weakest point possible.

Hitler is free to go after the Middle East, UK and Africa. The Soviets can look at invading India a prize they have desired for centuries. Leaving Japan to strike out against the US and UK.

For Churchill this would be a nightmare. Stain in New Delhi, Hitler in Cairo and possibly London soon enough. (Not Sealion! A more feasible plan) Leaving the Dutch East Indies to the Japanese and most of British Asia. Now if the Japanese, Germans and Soviets can keep from attacking each other in a paranoid rage (Unlikely) then maybe just maybe the world will be a very very different place.
 
For Elidor: Combined industrial and military strength of Germany, the USSR, Italy, German-controlled France and lesser European states would be more than sufficient (IMHO) to launch (after prolonged bombing campaign) invasion of Britain (preferably joint airborne and sea landings), if only the British fought on their own. But the UK had support of all the British Empire, and moreover, the US. On the other hand, isolationists were very strong in America before Pearl Harbour, so direct involvement of the US Navy in the defence of the British Isles easily could be impossible. In such case invasion would be successful.
For OperationGreen: Soviet-Japanese non-aggression pact was signed (in OTL, of course) only on 13th of April, 1941. In 1939 Japan had not any obligations to the USSR. Japanese Army (unlike Japanese Navy) saw the USSR/Russia as main enemy of Empire (don't forget, in OTL Stalin supported Chinese nationalists and communists against the Japanese till 1941, and such support included even best Soviet fighter pilots and planes). Moreover, before French surrender Japan would see Western and German-Soviet coalitions as more or less equal rivals, and Japanese government could see its involvement in this war as chance to end eternal struggle against "Russian danger" and peacefully exploit resources of British and French colonies as those powers would be allies of Japan.
 
The problem with German-Soviet Alliance is they were natural enemies. Both dictators wanted to rule the world and that meant they sooner or later had to fight each other. Besides, Hitler considered Soviets Untermenschen (since they were mostly Slavs and have Jews among them), and his dreamed Lebensraum lied in East, i.e. in Soviet Union. Poland was actually the only thing both sides could agree about - it needed to perish. Both Hitler and Stalin were preparing to invade the other one, only Hitler was faster (it doesn't matter if Stalin wanted to attack in 1941 or later - he did want to do it). They never trusted each other, and they both knew it.
And even if Poland declared war on Soviet Union in 1939, it doesn't mean France and Britain had to fight it. Since Polish goverment was interned in Romania, they could always said it didn't happen or it was only a misunderstanding. And Polish goverment in exile couldn't make such declaration wothout permission of France and Britain. Besides, Western-Soviet relations in period 1939-1941 was far from friendly - it was practically cold war. Churchill meant it when he said that if Hitler had invaded Hell, he would have said a good word about the Devil himself.
 
I read a timeline similar to what this asks I'll try to find again. From what I remeber is that Italy and Japan hate Germany for stabbing them in the back and Britain does get occupies Scotland to the Sovs and England and Wales to the Nazi's Norhthen Ireland joins Ireland. And the Brits set up B.R.A (lol) Hitler dies though...
 
For OperationGreen: Soviet-Japanese non-aggression pact was signed (in OTL, of course) only on 13th of April, 1941. In 1939 Japan had not any obligations to the USSR. Japanese Army (unlike Japanese Navy) saw the USSR/Russia as main enemy of Empire (don't forget, in OTL Stalin supported Chinese nationalists and communists against the Japanese till 1941, and such support included even best Soviet fighter pilots and planes). Moreover, before French surrender Japan would see Western and German-Soviet coalitions as more or less equal rivals, and Japanese government could see its involvement in this war as chance to end eternal struggle against "Russian danger" and peacefully exploit resources of British and French colonies as those powers would be allies of Japan.


Lets set the scene here. The Japanese army have been just defeated in open battle with the Soviets. By 1941 even with the Germans close to victory the Japanese didn't strike. Now in this TL we have a stronger USSR, which can turn all its forces on the Japanese. It’s not going to happen. Japanese don’t = idiots. The southern Strike is better for them. With Britain pulling resources out I hardly think they will be desperate to ally with them and lose their empire.

This is pure fantasy. Regardless of the Japanese feelings about the Western Allies they are not just going to sit on their laurels with the French and British stripping all their best units to fight elsewhere and wait it out for a victory they have no part in.

To be realistic a second as soon as France falls, it’s game over. The Japanese won’t regardless of your desire attack Siberia when the Dutch East Indies, Indochina and all their other targets are growing weaker by the day. Exploit resources? Really that’s what they will do. Please this is there best chance ever to create a massive empire and become a world power. The only thing Japan would do against the Soviets is build massive defences as eventually war will be coming between this most “Unholy Alliance”.

I know it was your plan to have the British Commonwealth and Japan vs. Germany and Russia and have us discuss all the possible events with Rommel in Cairo and Zhukov in Bombay. But this is Alternative history not ASB. Japan has a chance it has never dreamed of. As soon as the Soviets move at India the British will be less concerned about East Asia then ever. If the Japanese move the Brits won’t want another enemy.

Just take a moment and imagine you’re a Japanese Leader. With the Western Allies losing and pulling units out of East Asia desperate to defend Suez, India and the Homeland what would you do?
Join the Allies and wage war on two superpowers?
Or take the admittedly easy pickings and prepare for a major war with the US?

I know which way any realistic person would go and to give you a hint it’s not freezing to death in Siberia.
 
You shouldn't assume that alliance commitments (or, for that matter, obligations under international laws) are automatically honored, even when they are against the best interests of the country that should honor them.

There is a middle ground between, let's say, "complying with your alliances only when it suits you" and "mindlessly complying with your alliances even when that means national suicide", and most countries work within that middle ground.

In that time frame, there were lots of situations where both logic and a strict application of the alliance systems should have yielded outcomes that, on the contrary, did not come to pass. The French should have supported the Czechoslovakians back in 1938. But they managed to wiggle out of their obligations.
The British commitment provided that it would kick in only if Poland had "become engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter", and Art. 2 mentions a threat so grave that Poland would have "considered it vital to resist it with its armed forces." (The French treaty had similar clauses).
As it happened, the Polish government's stance prevented the activation of the commitment (even though individual clashes did take place, they were under the initiative and responsibility of local Polish commanders, so Poland as a whole not having declared war nor ordered those fights, was not "engaged in hostilities" with the SU, nor resisting with its armed forces). So the British (and French) could breathe, not having to declare war on the SU.
If the Polish government, on the contrary, does declare war and order its remaining troops to fight, the British (and the French) might still wiggle away, if they decided that was necessary. For instance, they might claim the Polish declaration of war was only formal, without actual "hostilities" (that would be contrary to the truth, but then, who would disclaim that? The Soviets?); or they might state they accepted the Soviet version of the events, and that there was no "aggression". It would be hardly honorable, but as I said in the beginning, you shouldn't rule that automatically out.

The same applies to the Soviet position if we assume Britain and France do declare war. Historically, we know that they did against Germany – and that did not bring about an all-out offensive, while the French had a border in common with the Germans. So I fail to see the Soviets (sitting back out there, where the Allies would need strong sea power projection capabilities to annoy them) as feeling they absolutely immediately urgently needed an ally to fight back a Phony War.
Of course there were plans to strike back at the SU, some will say; in Scandinavia, at Baku. Yes. And there is a reason if they never came to fruition. In this scenario they are a bit more likely, since Britain and France have declared war on the SU. This still does not mean they will bring about an all-out war. These don't necessarily happen between half-hearted opponents, the contrary is more likely. Both the Soviets on the one side, and the British and French on the other knew perfectly well who was the loose cannon of Europe and did not need to give it more friends.
For instance, what would have been more logical than a state of war between Japan and the SU in 1942? The system of alliances dictated that. Yet you know how much more time it took. Even in presence of a DoW, what happened on the German-French border in the winter of 1939 is not the only example of Phony War. Britain bombed Finnish territory at Petsamo in 1941, without a DoW. The Finns should have declared war, but did not, they knew very well it wasn't in their interest. The Brits took another five months before finally declaring, and did nothing concrete. You might study the interesting story of Bulgaria's diplomatic relations in WWII, it's a lesson about the difference between a formal state of war and actual war being waged.

In short:
- it's unlikely that the Poles declare war against the SU, it wasn't in their interest;
- if they do, it's unlikely the British and French follow suit, for the same reason;
- if they do, it might well be a Phony war, followed by a "it was all a mistake" when Germany attacks in the East, instead of a real war;
- if it is, it's not a given the USSR a) decides to declare back, b) decides to wage actual war back against them, c) feels it needs an alliance with Germany.

Of course I'm not discussing the possibility of Germany _not_ attacking the SU at some point. You need to change German leadership for that, but if you do, the whole sequence of events in 1935-1939 gets changed beyond recognition, with the war itself becoming unlikely.
 

Sissco

Banned
Germany and the soviet Union was closer than most peopl realise! I'm just after watchinga Documentary on BBC2 that claims that new documants have been found that shows just how close Russia and Germany were!

Aparently Stalin's Soviet Union sent materials, metal, steel ETC to Germany as well as allowinga German ship to stop at a harbour north or Murmask for repairs!!! This was all around the time Germany was fighting with France!!!! stalin, aparently even said at a meeting with Ribbiontrov (I think) that He didn't wanna see a weak Germany and that he's more or less help out if needed! In the weeks leading up to Hitler's invasion of Russia, Molotov went to Berlin to find out what German Intentions were, and he was asked by German Ministers if the Soviet union was all for invading British India!!!

There was also, in the early weeks of the war, a state Banquet in Moscow were Himmler and Beria actually met!! And not only that but apparently at the actual dinner, Stalin proposed a toast to Hitler!!!

I often wonder how they would've got along if Hitler and Stalin had actually met fact - to - face?
 
Germany and the soviet Union was closer than most peopl realise! I'm just after watchinga Documentary on BBC2 that claims that new documants have been found that shows just how close Russia and Germany were!

Aparently Stalin's Soviet Union sent materials, metal, steel ETC to Germany as well as allowinga German ship to stop at a harbour north or Murmask for repairs!!! This was all around the time Germany was fighting with France!!!! stalin, aparently even said at a meeting with Ribbiontrov (I think) that He didn't wanna see a weak Germany and that he's more or less help out if needed! In the weeks leading up to Hitler's invasion of Russia, Molotov went to Berlin to find out what German Intentions were, and he was asked by German Ministers if the Soviet union was all for invading British India!!!

There was also, in the early weeks of the war, a state Banquet in Moscow were Himmler and Beria actually met!! And not only that but apparently at the actual dinner, Stalin proposed a toast to Hitler!!!

I often wonder how they would've got along if Hitler and Stalin had actually met fact - to - face?

Calm down, that's nothing new. It was all known stuff. Please re-read what happened LATER.
 

Sissco

Banned
I wish I could remember the name of the port but it was a little north of Murmask and it was colse-ish to Finland......I seriously remember the BBC showing us a map of this northerly part of the Soviet union and showing us a little port the soviets had just north west, a little, from Murmask!!! The Germans wanted to used murmask to repair a ship but Stalin allowed them to use another port instead!!! within a bout a year, if even that, Nazi forces were charging over Soviet Russia!!!! I wish I could remember the dates!

Again, I ask, why did Hitler send his Govermnet ministers to Moscow? Why didn't Hitler meet Stalin, himself? It would'nt have been cool but it would've been fasinating!

sissco
 
there are ports north of murmask:confused:?

anyways thats just the soviets i dont think the feeling was mutal.


Murmansk is at the Southern end of a fjord-like feature. And the U-Boot base was to the North-West of it. And yes, the Germans weren't going to help the Soviets forever.
 
I wish I could remember the name of the port but it was a little north of Murmask and it was colse-ish to Finland......I seriously remember the BBC showing us a map of this northerly part of the Soviet union and showing us a little port the soviets had just north west, a little, from Murmask!!! The Germans wanted to used murmask to repair a ship but Stalin allowed them to use another port instead!!! within a bout a year, if even that, Nazi forces were charging over Soviet Russia!!!! I wish I could remember the dates!

Again, I ask, why did Hitler send his Govermnet ministers to Moscow? Why didn't Hitler meet Stalin, himself? It would'nt have been cool but it would've been fasinating!

sissco

Don't get over-excited. The place was named Zapadna Lista, it was to the NW of Murmansk, and lots of people already know about it.
 
Sahaidak, I'm sure you're familiar with quip about British gentleman being a Master of His Word: He giveth it and he taketh away. I have a cynical feeling that's what will happen would Poles declare war. On the flip side, Phony War with Nazis plus DoW on USSR is much more likely to bring English and French (and later, Americans) in the same camp with Nazi. How does "Gret Britain joins the Axis" sound?
 
Not sure if this is going to ever really happen without serious change to the top Soviet and Nazi leadership.

Actually, there was the whole "Eurasian Alliance Theory" put forth by Geo-Politician Karl Haushofer. Basically very close to this scenario being discussed here. It would have German and Italian technology combined with vast Soviet manpower and resources, Japan was also to be in the alliance. All of this was to challange Anglo-Saxon domination.

Too many egos would spoil this eventually. But Nazi ideologies would have to modify to cooperate with the Soviets for the long term.
 
Actually, there was the whole "Eurasian Alliance Theory" put forth by Geo-Politician Karl Haushofer. Basically very close to this scenario being discussed here. It would have German and Italian technology combined with vast Soviet manpower and resources, Japan was also to be in the alliance.
This is Russo-German alliance, a.k.a. "Continental civilization", as opposed to Anglo-Saxon "Maritime civilization". 1930s is one of worst periods in last 500 years one could pick to implement it.
 
Top