What if: Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance in 1939

How would the world look today if the French and Brits responded positively to a offer made by the Soviet Union on August 15th 1939, two weeks before war broke out in 1939, where the Soviet Union proposed sending a powerful military force in an effort to entice Britain and France into an anti-Nazi alliance. But the British and French delegation that had a meeting on August 15th 1939 at the Kremlin with a senior Soviet military delegation made up of the chief of the general staff, Boris Shaposhnikov, Defense Commissar Kliment Voroshilov and the naval minister, Admiral Nikolai Kusnezov who offered to dispatch 120 infantry divisions (each with some 19,000 troops), 16 cavalry divisions, 5,000 heavy artillery pieces, 9,500 tanks and up to 5,500 fighter aircraft and bombers on Germany's borders in the event of war in the west if Polish objections to the Soviet Army crossing its territory could first be overcome. But Admiral Sir Reginald Drax, who was leading the British delegation briefed by their governments to talk, but not authorized to commit to binding deals - did not respond to the Soviet offer. Instead, Stalin turned to Germany, signing the notorious non-aggression treaty named the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact after the foreign secretaries of the two countries barely a week later.

But what if the British and French had taken this offer seriously then together the British, French and Soviet armies could have put some 300 or more divisions into the field on two fronts against Germany - double the number Hitler had at the time, this might have forced Hitler to backed off, lest he trigger a two-front war. Hitler believed that he could defeat Poland well before the western powers could intervene, but could scarcely have entertained the same hope with regard to the Soviet Union. In his manifesto, Mein Kampf, the Nazi leader warned against the danger of fighting on two fronts. And, if anything, his generals feared that prospect more than he did. A secret resistance to Hitler among the men of the German High Command already existed. An alliance between the British, French and Soviets might have made Hitler’s foreign policy course seem so reckless as to spur that resistance into action.

But Hitler might have invaded Poland anyway. It was well known throughout Europe that Stalin’s military purges of the late 1930s had enormously damaged the Soviet armed forces. Hitler had contempt not only for the Soviet military but for its political leadership, and, countervailing alliance or no countervailing alliance, may well have pressed ahead with an attack on Poland, gambling that he could eliminate Poland before the Red Army could lumber into action and intervene effectively.

An Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance might have achieved the desired effect of deterring Hitler from invading Poland. But an alliance also might merely have postponed that invasion while Hitler engaged in more of the diplomatic maneuvering that had characterized his foreign policy for years. Or a Soviet alliance with the Western Allies could have had scant effect, with Germany invading Poland on September 1st 1939, as occurred historically.

What then would have been the impact of an alliance between the Soviet Union, Great Britain and the French Republic? In many respects the Soviet Union would have annexed the Baltic states and Eastern European would fall under its sphere of influence. But although it is unlikely that it would have helped the Poles fend off the Germans, the Soviet Union could have wound up holding onto an eastern strip of Polish territory.

The main difference—and this is vital—is that instead of a second front breaking open with the surprise attack of Operation Barbarossa in June 1941, war would have broken out between Germany and the Soviet Union in Sept ember 1939. The French army would have stood undefeated, Britain’s forces on the continent would have remained formidable, and, whatever their military shortcomings, the Soviets would have threatened Germany in a way that Hitler could not have ignored. In short, an Anglo-French-Soviet alliance might not have achieved its objective of deterring war. But the alliance would have forced Germany into a two-front conflict that would have played out very differently— to Germany’s disadvantage.

In the end no such alliance was formed, Poland whose territory the vast Soviet army would have had to cross to confront Germany, was firmly against such an alliance as they had good reasons to mistrust the Soviet Union and Britain was doubtful about the efficacy of any Soviet forces because only the previous year, Stalin had purged thousands of top Red Army commanders.

A desperate attempt by the French on August 21st to revive the talks was rebuffed, as secret Soviet-Nazi talks were already well advanced, it was only two years later, following Hitler's Blitzkreig attack on Russia in June 1941, that the alliance with the West which Stalin had sought finally came about - by which time France, Poland and much of the rest of Europe were already under German occupation.
 

iVC

Donor
How would the world look today if the French and Brits responded positively to a offer made by the Soviet Union on August 15th 1939, two weeks before war broke out in 1939

The main problem OTL was the staunch position of Poland and Romania. These countries DO NOT WANT any soviet troops on their territory, even if it means rejecting their help to fight the Germans. Some kind of 'better dead than red' motto.

France and UK could not persuade Poland govt to reconsider their refusal to even consider any joint polish-soviet military actions. So, without any coordination between UK-France/USSR itself/Poland and Romania these talks were as good as dead.

Voroshilov later wrote about Allied delegation rigorously evading any precise discussion about joint war plans. Sir Reginald Drax simply doesn't have enough authority to actually discuss something along with Soviet military command. It was a failure. And Poles were totally against soviet co-op.
 
Voroshilov later wrote about Allied delegation rigorously evading any precise discussion about joint war plans. Sir Reginald Drax simply doesn't have enough authority to actually discuss something along with Soviet military command. It was a failure. And Poles were totally against soviet co-op.
Well maybe that is why the British send this low level delegation to the Soviet Union, they knew that this kind of deal would never work out.
 

iVC

Donor
Well maybe that is why the British send this low level delegation to the Soviet Union, they knew that this kind of deal would never work out.

Probably yes, because if you invite the Soviet Russia in the any military co-op with the West, then Baltic states and Poland immediate goes batshit insane.
Probably because they were not expecting any kinds of pacts between two mortal enemies and were hoping for 'sane Hitler' scenario.

Many historians have argued that Drax was a blimpish member of the naval hierarchy, when sending a general would be more appropriate, and that the delegation was deliberately lowly. The delegation was also sent by sea in an elderly passenger ship The City of Exeter, which took five days to get to Leningrad, arriving on 10 August. It was also said that the British Embassy in Moscow was appalled at the low status of the delegation, which ought to have been headed by Lord Halifax, the Foreign Secretary, himself, as had been previously requested by the Soviet Ambassador in London, Ivan Maisky. However before he left, Drax had been told by Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister, and Halifax, to try and spin the negotiations out until October when winter conditions would make a Nazi invasion of Poland difficult. Maisky also found out from intelligence reports that the delegation would not be able to make any decisions on the spot. Negotiations dragged on for ten days despite an invasion of Poland by Germany becoming more and more likely.

This lackadaisical approach of the British Government reflected a view that their policy of appeasement with Hitler would prevent war, and that a friendly relationship with Germany was of more value than an accommodation with the Soviet Union. There were also concerns that permission would have to be given to the Soviet Union to invade Poland so as to engage the Nazis, should Germany attack, and this Poland would never agree to. Finally, when the Soviet Marshall Voroshilov asked Britain and France directly on 14 August if they would agree to this, the delegation would not reply. Consequently, Stalin, who was as ideologically opposed to Britain and France as to Nazi Germany, signed a non-aggression pact with Germany on 23 August, the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, believing it would avoid the Soviet Union being dragged into war.

https://pocketbookuk.com/2013/05/01/who-was-reginald-drax/

So, imho, talks should start much earlier, in April 1939, simultaneously with guarantees to Poland from the Allies. And all this time must be spent on the precise war planning and forcing the Poles to co-op with Soviets.
 
Last edited:

Archibald

Banned
The French governments post- Front Populaire (that is, after 1936-1938) were right-wing - Daladier, Reynaud - and had an intense dislike of Communism. Stalin was considered an evil as much as Hitler. But makes no mistake, the Molotov - Ribbentropp pacts come as a major surprise. With perfect hindsight, with communism and fascism being polar opposites, I think Britain and France were over-confident Stalin and Hitler hated each other so much they could never open any kind of talks, and even less having a non agression pact.
AFAIK Stalin was angered because GB and France scorned him, and thus he decided to side with Hitler just to piss them off and also to scare the shit out of them. That's my understanding.
I'm not a specialist of WWII by any way, and as such, it still amaze me this pact ever happened.

What kind of German diplomacy genius managed to achieve that, by the way ?

I think the OP has a pretty good POD.
 
So, imho, talks should start much earlier, in April 1939, simultaneously with guarantees to Poland from the Allies. And all this time must be spent on the precise war planning and forcing the Poles to co-op with Soviets.
Problem would, would the Soviets leave Poland if they passed true, even if there where guarantees, and also what would be the future of a post war Germany look like, a early east and west divide maybe.
 

iVC

Donor
AFAIK Stalin was pissed off because GB and France scorned him, and thus he decided to side with Hitler just to piss them off and also to scare the shit out of them. That's my understanding.

As long as I can speak from the Russian-born positions :angel:, the decision to sign the pact was purely tactical. Stalin bought the time to prepare USSR for the World War.
After the Munich, after the Spanish Civil War, after the Drax mission flop, he decided that no one is wanting to help the Soviets to build any kind of a common security system, so the next war will be one-to-one.

So, uncle Joe went for purely tactical decisions. Continue to re-arm. Kiss Hitler in his moustache. Push the borders. Prepare for the industry evacuation. Trade as much time as possible to finish the military reshuffle. Punch the Finland and the Baltic states into face and make a forward defensive position of them.
 
Last edited:
As long as I can speak from the Russian-born positions :angel:, the decision to sign the pact was purely tactical. Stalin bought the time to prepare USSR for the World War.
After the Munich, after the Drax mission flop, he decided that no one is wanting to help the Soviets to build any kind of a common security system, so the next war will be one-to-one.

So, uncle Joe went for purely tactical decisions. Continue to re-arm. Kiss Hitler in his moustache. Push the borders. Prepare for the industry evacuation. Trade as much time as possible to finish the military reshuffle. Punch the Finland and the Baltic states into face and make a forward defensive position of them.
But if there would be a Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance in 1939, could we end up with a divided Germany , one a Soviet Puppet state and one a French-British puppet state, maybe the beginning of a early cold war between the Soviet Union and a Anglo-Franco alliance.
 

Archibald

Banned
A TL I would read with great interest. Imagine Tube Alloys + the Joliot-Curies (the daughter of Marie Curie, Irene, and her husband, Frederic Joliot). Versus the Soviet Union own nuclear weapon program.
 
A TL I would read with great interest. Imagine Tube Alloys + the Joliot-Curies (the daughter of Marie Curie, Irene, and her husband, Frederic Joliot). Versus the Soviet Union own nuclear weapon program.
Italy would join the Anglo-Franco alliance, i think Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria as well.

Austria would become a independent country again, i do not know what the fate of Slovak Republic would be.
 

iVC

Donor
But if there would be a Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance in 1939, could we end up with a divided Germany , one a Soviet Puppet state and one a French-British puppet state, maybe the beginning of a early cold war between the Soviet Union and a Anglo-Franco alliance.

I personally don't think it would be necessary. The point of dividing the Germany was not so much like 'let each take a piece of a pie'. The main purpose was to prevent any German re-militarization in the future. There were such a concepts like 'nullify the unification of German lands and split them all to a bunch of pre-Bismarck states'.

So if The Third Reich fails after the short war, it simply gets Weimar Germany restored back. 'To lose quickly' sometimes is the most profitable outcome. If the Kaizer Germany lost WWI quickly, there still could be such a state. ;) The bloodbath of the WWI actually biased the Entente to the point of 'punishing' the Germany. Versailles Treaty of 1915 would be much milder and softer in comparison with such a treaty of 1919. So, I think about swiftly beaten Germany and not-divided-at-all Germany.

And there it begins again - political debates, Thalmann, Krupp, landtag and elections jiggery-pokery, but no classic Cold War.
 
I personally don't think it would be necessary. The point of dividing the Germany was not so much like 'let each take a piece of a pie'. The main purpose was to prevent any German re-militarization in the future. There were such a concepts like 'nullify the unification of German lands and split them all to a bunch of pre-Bismarck states'.

So if The Third Reich fails after the short war, it simply gets Weimar Germany restored back. 'To lose quickly' sometimes is the most profitable outcome. If the Kaizer Germany lost WWI quickly, there still could be such a state. ;) The bloodbath of the WWI actually biased the Entente to the point of 'punishing' the Germany. Versailles Treaty of 1915 would be much milder and softer in comparison with such a treaty of 1919. So, I think about swiftly beaten Germany and not-divided-at-all Germany.

And there it begins again - political debates, Thalmann, Krupp, landtag and elections jiggery-pokery, but no classic Cold War.
So no Soviet setting up their own communist government in East Germany, no taking over of Poland, dam that is boring.
 

iVC

Donor
So no Soviet setting up their own communist government in East Germany, no taking over of Poland, dam that is boring.

Yeah, sorry to intervene. Your TL is good, but the outcome most obviuosly would be 'fixing what once went wrong'.

Our TL classic Cold War was not unevitable, too. Just a bit more of Stalin - Truman talks, maybe a not-so-dead Roosevelt, the UN as-it-could-be - the powerful and benevolent peacekeeping colossus, powered by joint forces of Allies and USSR.

This would be not so boring, just think not about tanks and missiles, but about joint flight to Mars or manned space stations to the 1960's. :winkytongue:
 
Yeah, sorry to intervene. Your TL is good, but the outcome most obviuosly would be 'fixing what once went wrong'.
Is no TL, only a article i pieced together from the internet, but it would be cool to see it happening ,but would be more a ASB scenario as there is no way the Polish government, who still remember what happen almost 18 years ago would allow the Soviet to move true their country in order to attack Germany, and the British and French would never allow the Soviet Union to move uninvited true Poland.
 

iVC

Donor
Problem would, would the Soviets leave Poland if they passed true, even if there where guarantees, and also what would be the future of a post war Germany look like, a early east and west divide maybe.

There is another POD.

Okay, the Poles were persuaded to let Soviets in, woo-hoo, the fuhrer was beaten and then suddenly there is 'People republic of Poland', 'People republic of Baltic' and 'People republic of Slovakia' popping out. The peoples Popular Fronts, you know, all as one, everyone loves the old Marx and the old Lenin.

What would the western democracies do? Clench their teeth and go all out against treacherous ally? Remember, this TL may still have Chamberlain as the British Empire prime minister.
 
What would the western democracies do? Clench their teeth and go all out against treacherous ally? Remember, this TL may still have Chamberlain as the British Empire prime minister.
So he might go for round 2.0 of appeasement and peace in our time, allowing the Soviets to take over the same country, the British went to war over in OTL.
 
So, uncle Joe went for purely tactical decisions. Continue to re-arm. Kiss Hitler in his moustache. Push the borders. Prepare for the industry evacuation. Trade as much time as possible to finish the military reshuffle. Punch the Finland and the Baltic states into face and make a forward defensive position of them.

The M-R deal, from Soviet perspective, must be the worst diplomatic disaster ever.
 
The M-R deal, from Soviet perspective, must be the worst diplomatic disaster ever.
I would think if this deal would have been signed, it could be consider the worst diplomatic disaster ever, as i fear Poland would become also a victim of it despite being the country that is the focal point in all of this.
 

iVC

Donor
The M-R deal, from Soviet perspective, must be the worst diplomatic disaster ever.

Stalin and other soviet leaders were very afraid about Hitler secretly making an arrangement with the western powers to chew through Poland and go straight to the Motherland. So when Ribbentrop promised the non-aggression pact, Stalin was eager to sign it.

Soviet Union of 1939 was very unprepared for a one-to-one war, even without example of Winter War. M-R pact was a hard and churlish decision, but it actually bought Soviets almost two years to prepare.

ITTL that would be an astonishing decision. To sign the treaty with the admiral Drax and sign another with Hitler the next day! Oh my goodness, this one night someone in the Kremlin actually decided to shut out from any wars in Europe?
 
Stalin and other soviet leaders were very afraid about Hitler secretly making an arrangement with the western powers to chew through Poland and go straight to the Motherland. So when Ribbentrop promised the non-aggression pact, Stalin was eager to sign it.
Seeing that this Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance is unlikely ever to have happen, i never have heard Stalin was afraid of a Anglo-Franco-German Alliance.
 
Top