What if: Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance in 1939

iVC

Donor
I doubt Red Army could succesfully trespass Vistula river in case war still breaks through. We must assume that Hitler, enraged by joint East-West statement, launches Poland offensive at Aug 26 (it was the first planned date OTL until it was postponed to 1 Sep).

Hitler's plan would be to crush Polish state before Red Army fully mobilizes. Wermacht advance is slightly hampered by Jews and Ukrainians resistanse, but still Germany is able to secure area east of Vistula to the 1st Nov 1939.

Polish army tries to evacuate in disciplined form and make connection with Soviets, but partially fails to do so due to new german tactic of encirclements (OTL polish attempts to advance ended horribly: their battle plan was 'Hold everything, do not lose a grab of land and try to advance to East Prussia'. They actually splitted their army into a several battlegroups, allowing wermacht to beat it one by one).

Winter of 1939/40 heralds itself with the Red Army attempts to cross Vistula and joint french and british decision to start bombing Saarland and Black forest (OTL there was curios british parliament session, where deputies argued about possibility and dishonour of bombing the German private property).
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
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.

Chamberlain was a committed anti-communist. In fact, the reason for the Munich Conference was he thought the Soviets were more dangerous than the Soviets. So yes, he will go all out.
 
I doubt that Stalin trusted Hitler. But the M-R pact promised more gains to the Soviets at little or no cost (Baltic states, Bessarabia, Eastern Poland) than what the West could offer. Plus the West couldn't offer much military support in 1939 so the Soviets would have had to do the bulk of the fighting. The M-R pact wasn't a disastrous idea for the Soviets in August 1939 (trading peace for time to build up) but it turned out to be one due to the Fall of France.

But options weren't MR pact or Anglo-French alliance. Third option would be just staying neutral and selling everything to highest bidder. "Yes, Mr Nazi, we have oil for you...for gold and a nice little battleship...."

Actually, more one thinks about it, even for the scenario of sitting out and perhaps attacking when Nazis are exhausted, a neutrality would be the best option. Military power is always relative, not absolute. Nazi military power would decay faster than Soviets could build anyway. We have following roughly scenarios for a war without M-R pact

-Germany conquers Poland -> Conquers Norway and Denmark (or not, these are not important in this timeframe) -> Stalemate in France -> Both Germany and Anglo-French know the German time is ticking in 1941. In 1941 Stalin has multiple options...

-Germany conquers Poland -> Conquers Norway and Denmark (or not, these are not important in this timeframe) -> France conquered. Sheesh! But without Soviet resupply Germany cannot prepare for Barbarossa. UK, on the other hand, would be very likely to make an alliance with Stalin...

As for RKKA, in June 1941 it might well have been in worse shape than in 1939 due to reorganizations. But military power is relative, not absolute. Germany and it's allies invaded Poland with 63 divisions, 2750 tanks and 2315 aircraft. In 1940 Germany invaded France with 141 divisions, 2445 tanks and 5600 aircraft. In 1941 Germany and it's allies started Barbarossa with even greater strength.... Hitler and his generals could thank Stalin for this.

An invasion of USSR with 63 divisions would have been an outright disaster....for Germany.
 

iVC

Donor
Third option would be just staying neutral and selling everything to highest bidder. "Yes, Mr Nazi, we have oil for you...for gold and a nice little battleship...."

You almost pointed out real circumstances: M-R pact wasn't the one-way deal with Soviets generously supplying The Reich.

The economical agreement of the pact covered "current" business, which entailed Soviet obligations to deliver 180 million Reichsmarks in raw materials and German commitment to provide the Soviets with 120 million Reichsmarks of German industrial goods. Under the agreement, Germany also granted the Soviet Union a merchandise credit of 200 million Reichsmarks over 7 years to be financed by the German Gold Discount Bank. The credit was to be used to finance Soviet "new business" orders in Germany to include machinery, manufactured goods, war materials and hard currency. This loan would be 100% guaranteed by the German government with a 5% interest rate.However, the agreement contained a "Confidential Protocol" providing that the German government would refund 0.5% of the interest, making the effective rate 4.5%. The terms were extremely favorable, at 1.5–2.5% lower as compared to discount rates than such credit lines in the 1920s and early 1930s. The Soviet Union would start to pay off the loan with raw materials seven years later (beginning in 1946).

Germany was expecting to receive lumber, coarse grain, iron ore, cotton, oil, platinum and furs.

Soviet Union was expecting to receive certain wartime supplies (then unfinished Admiral Hipper-class cruisers Lützow, samples of german artillery units, shells, torpedoes, periscopes, optic machinery, power-shovels), along with oil-refining, chemical and precise machinery, power-generating units, ore mining and metal pressing equipment, steam engines, turbine motors, fishermen boats and other industrial goods.
 

iVC

Donor
I doubt Red Army could succesfully trespass Vistula river in case war still breaks through. We must assume that Hitler, enraged by joint East-West statement, launches Poland offensive at Aug 26 (it was the first planned date OTL until it was postponed to 1 Sep).

Hitler's plan would be to crush Polish state before Red Army fully mobilizes. Wermacht advance is slightly hampered by Jews and Ukrainians resistanse, but still Germany is able to secure area east of Vistula to the 1st Nov 1939.

Polish army tries to evacuate in disciplined form and make connection with Soviets, but partially fails to do so due to new german tactic of encirclements (OTL polish attempts to advance ended horribly: their battle plan was 'Hold everything, do not lose a grab of land and try to advance to East Prussia'. They actually splitted their army into a several battlegroups, allowing wermacht to beat it one by one).

Winter of 1939/40 heralds itself with the Red Army attempts to cross Vistula and joint french and british decision to start bombing Saarland and Black forest (OTL there was curios british parliament session, where deputies argued about possibility and dishonour of bombing the German private property).

Hess flight could follow just like in OTL. He would try to persuade british govt to start a peace talks with Germany, excluding the Soviet Union from the alliance.
 
Hitler's plan would be to crush Polish state before Red Army fully mobilizes. Wermacht advance is slightly hampered by Jews and Ukrainians resistanse, but still Germany is able to secure area east of Vistula to the 1st Nov 1939.

Er. What slows the Germans down is the resistance of Jews and Ukrainans? Now, really?

Even with the Zachód defense plan, the Poles still had some six infantry divisions, all of them belonging to the group of the only partially mobilized ones, that were in the East of the country. There they also had units of the ON (militia) and of the military border guard. And the best supplied depots of their army.

If you look up the battle of Lwow (today L'viv), you'll see that the Poles, in OTL, had managed to repulse the first two German attempts to take it on the run. This was possible also because the Germans were only a divisional-sized vanguard. Things would have gone bad for the Poles once further German units would arrive. However, that was preempted by the Soviet attack on the city from the East. The city surrendered to the Soviets.

So, in this ATL, even assuming that the Germans arrive at the gates of Lwow in the same time it took them to do so in OTL (which is unlikely given that all Polish forces are freed to face West), the Soviets arrive - and instead of attacking the city from the back, they attack the Germans on the flanks.

Now, it is entirely possible that, by throwing further units and Luftwaffe air support at this theater, the Germans still win. But not so quickly, not so easily, and certainly the factor hampering them isn't "resistance" by Jews and Ukrainans. It's the Wojsko, helped by the RKKA.
 

iVC

Donor
Even with the Zachód defense plan, the Poles still had some six infantry divisions, all of them belonging to the group of the only partially mobilized ones, that were in the East of the country. There they also had units of the ON (militia) and of the military border guard. And the best supplied depots of their army.

The one thing we forgot completely. Would Polish-Romanian alliance be activated in the ATL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Romanian_Alliance#Outbreak_of_World_War_II)?

In OTL Poland declined offer of Romanian help due to polish govt wanted to use Romania as a transit country for western supplies. Not the best decision, however.
 

nbcman

Donor
But options weren't MR pact or Anglo-French alliance. Third option would be just staying neutral and selling everything to highest bidder. "Yes, Mr Nazi, we have oil for you...for gold and a nice little battleship...."

Actually, more one thinks about it, even for the scenario of sitting out and perhaps attacking when Nazis are exhausted, a neutrality would be the best option. Military power is always relative, not absolute. Nazi military power would decay faster than Soviets could build anyway. We have following roughly scenarios for a war without M-R pact

-Germany conquers Poland -> Conquers Norway and Denmark (or not, these are not important in this timeframe) -> Stalemate in France -> Both Germany and Anglo-French know the German time is ticking in 1941. In 1941 Stalin has multiple options...

-Germany conquers Poland -> Conquers Norway and Denmark (or not, these are not important in this timeframe) -> France conquered. Sheesh! But without Soviet resupply Germany cannot prepare for Barbarossa. UK, on the other hand, would be very likely to make an alliance with Stalin...

As for RKKA, in June 1941 it might well have been in worse shape than in 1939 due to reorganizations. But military power is relative, not absolute. Germany and it's allies invaded Poland with 63 divisions, 2750 tanks and 2315 aircraft. In 1940 Germany invaded France with 141 divisions, 2445 tanks and 5600 aircraft. In 1941 Germany and it's allies started Barbarossa with even greater strength.... Hitler and his generals could thank Stalin for this.

An invasion of USSR with 63 divisions would have been an outright disaster....for Germany.

The M-R pact allowed the Soviets to push their frontier tens of kilometers to the west at minimal cost. Knowing that there was going to be a reckoning between the Soviets and the Germans, wouldn't it be wise as a Soviet Dictator choose to start that war as far away from your country's core territory as possible?

Also, there was no guarantee on 24 August 1939 that the Anglo-French would hold to their promise and fight the Germans over Poland. So you've neglected (at least) one scenario above:

-Germany attacks Poland -> Anglo-French remain at peace -> Germany annexes Poland -> Germany starts to ratchet up anti-Soviet rhetoric -> Anglo-French / German Relations improve -> Germany attacks Soviets -> Anglo-French breathe a sigh of relief and trade with Germany to keep the Nazi-Soviet war going on as long as possible to exhaust those two nations -> Anglo-French attack the weakened Germans (best case, but the Anglo-French would gain the spoils of war on the cheap) or the weakened Soviets (nightmare case).
 
Last edited:
The one thing we forgot completely. Would Polish-Romanian alliance be activated in the ATL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Romanian_Alliance#Outbreak_of_World_War_II)?

In OTL Poland declined offer of Romanian help due to polish govt wanted to use Romania as a transit country for western supplies. Not the best decision, however.

As to myself, I didn't forget about it.

I simply judge it ineffective. The above is the official version. It doesn't make sense; Romania could have perfectly well been a conduit of military supplies even if it was a combatant. In that case, it could have allowed allied troops through, too.
My opinion is that the Romanians actually told the Poles that they would help them in any way possible - short of actually entering the war. And the Poles had to accept that. The Poles could have officially demanded direct military intervention, but if the Romanians had still refused it, that would not have helped Poland at all. If anything it would have pushed Romania towards Germany, and the revolving-door policy of the Romanian internment camps that allowed the Poles to form an army in exile in the West would have not taken place at all.

Now, if that's the Romanian stance, what happens in this ATL? Probably exactly the same; Romania doesn't go to war. The Romanians aren't keen to go to war in any case. They are also as afraid as the Poles of welcoming Soviet troops on their territory. Therefore, even if the war begins going for the worse for Germany, the Romanians will simply provide Poland and the SU with supplies of their own (oil) and from the West. They would be on the right (winning) side at the end of the war, suffer no losses due to it, and risk nothing as to the Soviets. Ideal outcome for them.
 
I wonder, would Italy join the French, British and Soviets, stay neutral ore join the Germans in this conflict.
 

iVC

Donor
I wonder, would Italy join the French, British and Soviets, stay neutral ore join the Germans in this conflict.

Most definitely would stay off any conflicts or joins the winner's coalition (F-B-Sov) later on.
Mussolini knew very well about his country total unpreparedness. OTL Italy lost even their attempt against already beaten France in July 1940.
So Italy would stay calm and later pushes for Austrian secession.
 
To keep Hitler from advancing for some time, no more, no less. Bad outcome, but still some kind of solution.
What would've been your own decision as Stalin after Drax delegation failed? Remember you still have a German foreign minister waiting in your lobby, with non-aggression treaty in his pocket.

If that were true, following the Anglo-French DOW, the Soviets should have issued their own. Because now there's no doubt that Britain and France will fight Germany. And that was the only reason for R-M Pact, right? Fear that the WAllies were going to send Hitler east?
But instead Russia gobbled up half of Poland and then set about purging the army and seizing the Baltics for nearly two years. Hard to square that with what you're saying.
 

nbcman

Donor
If that were true, following the Anglo-French DOW, the Soviets should have issued their own. Because now there's no doubt that Britain and France will fight Germany. And that was the only reason for R-M Pact, right? Fear that the WAllies were going to send Hitler east?
But instead Russia gobbled up half of Poland and then set about purging the army and seizing the Baltics for nearly two years. Hard to square that with what you're saying.
Stalin thought otherwise on 7 September 1939:

A war is on between two groups of capitalist countries ... for the redivision of the world, for the domination of the world! We see nothing wrong in their having a good hard fight and weakening each other ... Hitler, without understanding it or desiring it, is shaking and undermining the capitalist system ... We can manoeuvre, pit one side against the other to set them fighting with each other as fiercely as possible ... The annihilation of Poland would mean one fewer bourgeois fascist state to contend with! What would be the harm if as a result of the rout of Poland we were to extend the socialist system onto new territories and populations?
 
Stalin thought otherwise on 7 September 1939:

Oh I know that - but there seemed to be a little Soviet apologia going on. They didn't really collaborate, of course not. They were desperate to fight the real enemy after reading Mein Kampf.

Just, yknow, not quite yet. Just one more purge of the army and one more invasion of Finland first. Then we'll be right there. Honest.

It was the WAllies who were to cowardly to fight Hitler. Until they started fighting Hitler. Without Soviet support. But that's different, you see.
 

iVC

Donor
Because now there's no doubt that Britain and France will fight Germany.

Are you serious? So, seven days after signing the pact, uncle Joe should have been rip this paper to pieces and begin to knock the French and British doors, the same doors which sent out this miserable Drax delegation with no authority and no suggestions? WAllies-Soviet negotiations were taking place for MONTHS in 1939 and still WAllies refused to guarantee their involvement and help. Drax delegation memoirs were published and the matter of talks is well-known. WAllies did not start any offensive to offer any help to Poland anyway.

So Uncle Joe should just move his troops into the same Poland, which rejected his offers just a couple of weeks ago? Does he have an assurance that WAllies would be cooperative this time? Or they will just wait till uncle Joe did all the dirty job? He is not the Batman, y'know.

During the Winter War WAllies were very close to the bombing of soviet oil fields in Baku, not to the actual bombing of german industries. Isn't that a sign of overwhelming distrust they feel for Soviet Union? 'We would better fight Soviets in Finland and Baku than Germans in Ruhr'.

You, guys, are kinda strange. Uncle Joe must be knight-in-the-shining-armor type, desperately hoping to beg WAllies to include him in his alliances OR he is a tyrant and fool. You're just using your 'OTL history knowledge' to blame him for his decisions which were emerging from actual european history 1933-1939 and the history of Soviet-French, Soviet-Polish, Soviet-German relationships from the past times.
 
Last edited:

nbcman

Donor
Oh I know that - but there seemed to be a little Soviet apologia going on. They didn't really collaborate, of course not. They were desperate to fight the real enemy after reading Mein Kampf.

Just, yknow, not quite yet. Just one more purge of the army and one more invasion of Finland first. Then we'll be right there. Honest.

It was the WAllies who were to cowardly to fight Hitler. Until they started fighting Hitler. Without Soviet support. But that's different, you see.

Which is why I prefaced my comments 'as a Soviet Dictator'. If there wasn't a paranoid nutcase in charge of the Soviets and if the Soviets didn't have a history of supporting revolutionary groups outside their borders, maybe there could have been a better solution in the lead up to the beginning of WW2 in Europe. But that is not the case IOTL.
 

Deleted member 1487

Chamberlain was a committed anti-communist. In fact, the reason for the Munich Conference was he thought the Soviets were more dangerous than the Soviets. So yes, he will go all out.
I think you mean more dangerous than the Nazis, but yes. Ironically Stalin thought the same of the Imperialist states relative to Hitler and Fascism, the latter he assumed based on ideology was closer to the workers revolution than the imperialists.
 

iVC

Donor
They didn't really collaborate, of course not. They were desperate to fight the real enemy after reading Mein Kampf.

Ok, what was, according to you, the real purpose of soviet offers to build european collective security system since 1934? Soviets opposing the Anschluss, Soviets offering to activate Soviet-Czech defensive treaty, Soviets blaming the Munich decision?
 

Deleted member 1487

Ok, what was, according to you, the real purpose of soviet offers to build european collective security system since 1934? Soviets opposing the Anschluss, Soviets offering to activate Soviet-Czech defensive treaty, Soviets blaming the Munich decision?
Soviet 'collective security' meant stationing their troops in their neighbors countries, which all those little ones understood the Soviets would never leave from and take control, like they did after WW2. There is a reason Poland refused to agree to Soviet terms for the Soviet-Allied negotiations in 1939 and why the USSR then turned around and made a deal with the Nazis.

http://karmak.org/archive/2003/01/history/collectsec.html
But Frenchmen had equally legitimate reasons to distrust their Soviet allies. Although Litvinov repeatedly proclaimed the indivisibility of peace and the need for collective security, French diplomats must have always had lingering doubts about the strength of the Soviet Union's resolve to build a powerful alliance system against Nazi Germany. As early as 1935 and again in 1936, 1937 and 1938 Stalin hinted to Hitler through Soviet trade, military, and diplomatic representatives that he hoped to improve relations between their two countries. In 1936 and 1937 reports concerning the conversations of influential Soviet military and civilian figures with their German counterparts reached France and greatly troubled French advocates of friendship with the Soviet Union--especially Leon Blum, the head of the Popular Front government then in power in France.

Further suspicions concerning the sincerity of the Communists' professed determination to combat the menace of German Nazism were aroused by the opportunism they displayed in the course of their participation in the Popular Front movement. French Communists abandoned their hostility toward other socialist parties about the same time the Soviet Union decided to join the League of Nations; and after the Seventh Congress of the Comintern of July 1935 they worked for the establishment of a ''united front'. with reformist socialist and even non-socialist parties willing to join the Communists in their ''struggle against Fascism.''

However, once a Popular Front government came into existence in France in 1936, the Communists failed to cooperate with that government in working to unite France politically and to make her strong militarily so that she could resist possible German aggression. Instead, they all too often engaged in irresponsible radical politics that contributed to the further weakening of France as a great power, thereby creating the impression that their participation in the Popular Front was above all a tactical maneuver and an attempt to broaden their base of popular support in preparation for a Communist revolution in France.

.....

Even if the Soviet Union had been wholly committed to the struggle against fascism, it never was entirely clear whether or not the soviet army actually was in a position to come to the assistance of France and Czechoslovakia in the event of a European war. The Soviet Union had no common border with Germany and Czechoslovakia, and neither the Rumanians nor the Poles, who feared both Communist social revolution and the possible revival of traditional Russian imperialism at their expense, were willing to permit the transit of Soviet troops across their territories.

Furthermore, the disastrous effect that the 1937 purge of the Red Army had on the caliber of Soviet military leadership was well known in informed European military circles. Given the apparent ineffectiveness of the Red Army at that moment as a fighting force, French military leaders were understandably reluctant to attach too much importance to possible Soviet military assistance for France. Unprepared for war and internally divided, France was therefore drawn into closer cooperation with England, a nation that was equally unprepared for war but one that seemed to have a reservoir of moral strength and was preferable as an ally to terror-ridden Communist Russia.
 
Top