What if: Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance in 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.

The Soviets tried for years to contain the Nazi threat through diplomacy and collective agreements. That was specifically the task of Litvinov. The replacement of Litvinov with Molotov is the sign of the sea change in the Soviet foreign policies; every attempt to come to terms with the enemies of the Nazis have come to naught, so it's time to consider the alternative. People tend to forget about Litvinov and to focus on the final rush to war with Molotov.

That doesn't mean that
a) the Soviets wouldn't try to scoop up any fringe benefit that could windfall their way, if possible; it's not as if every power didn't do that, and
b) the Soviets, once they had to, did not cooperate with Germany. They did.
Note the "when they had to". If you look at the amounts of supplies sent to Germany in 1940, you'll notice that it was just a trickle, until the Germans won big in the West. Only then did they pick up. One could hypothesize that Stalin did not want to "really" help Germany, as long as there was a chance that the Polish stunt had been an exception and that the best army in the world would teach the Heer a lesson. Once that had not come to pass, well, the Soviets had to start delivering the goods.


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 fail to see the basics of these plans. Neither of which was motivated by a preference to fight the Soviets instead of the Germans.

The Scandinavian idea wasn't really to "help the Finns", though that is how it was portrayed in propaganda. The real points were
a) in Norway, to stop the transit of U-Boote and German surface ships,
b) in Sweden, which would be stumbled into by mere chance even though it was a neutral like Norway, to stop the iron ore from being shipped to Germany.
Note the Scandinavian operation also had another hallmark of age-old British strategy: a peripheral attack relying on superior sealift against a continental enemy. Attacking straight into the Westwall was exactly a no-no for the british under this respect. It also was very unpalatable for the French, for obvious reasons linked with the expected butcher's bill and their manpower situation.

Operation Pike was meant to bomb the main source of oil for the Soviets and for the Germans. At the time, Romania was neutral, and though it was selling oil to Germany, it was doing so at nearly normal market conditions, and as a neutral it could be pressured, diplomatically and economically (outbidding), to sell less and less to Germany. In prospect, Baku and the other oilfields were the only other significantly large oil source.

And the Ruhr?
First thing, stopping the imports of iron and oil harms the Ruhr industries without having to bomb them.
Secondly, finding and bombing an immense refining complex on the tip of a peninsula over a sea with prevailing dry weather was something the Bomber Command of 1940 might be expected to do. Finding and bombing a city in the inland, foggy Ruhr - let alone a specific industrial plant within the city - would have been so difficult as to make the effort essentially ineffective.

So don't project your present-day political prejudices onto the Allied strategic plans of 1940. Operation Pike was a monumentally bad idea and the Scandinavian operation might have worked solely as to its Norwegian objectives, probably, assuming it had been launched before the Germans' operation; but this has nothing to do with a preference to fight the Soviets.
 

iVC

Donor
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.

I know you were just sarcastic, but allow me, please, to state my view of M-R pact:
1. There were a bunch of right-wing governments in the pre-WWII Europe, who were directly or indirectly opposed to SU. Italy, Hungary, Baltic states, Romania and Poland to a certain degree, Third Reich, Spanish Franco State (as clear winner of the civil war). Japanese Empire was nearing the eastern borders.
2. Democratic governments of the West were (again, to a certain degree) susceptible to possibles right-wing coups. Failed Paris coup of 1934 and British Union of Fascists were worrying symptoms.
3. Since 1938 Soviet Union was already involved in a border conflict with Japanese Empire. OTL fighting continued until 15 Sep 1939. It was the fact of German-Soviet treaty appearing which poured cold water upon the japanese ambitions.
4. There was a common distrust for soviet attempts to secure a couple of mutual assistance treaties with various Eastern Europe governments.
5. Every time WAllies had a chance to stop Hitler they failed spectacularly. They accepted the re-militarization, Saarland, Anschluss, Sudetenland, complete swallowing of Czech state, Klaipeda-Memel racket and so on.
6. Stalin did not want to risk battling Germans and Japanese simultaneously, so until the breakdown of Drax delegation talks he tried to make a friendship with the WAllies.
7. But there was a suspicion about totally unacceptable scenario: Western powers just sitting and watching upon Hitler tearing through Poland (as they already did in Munich) and saber-rattling near the USSR border. (IRL OTL WAllies did not help the Poland, which strengthened Stalin's worries about flawed France and Britain).
8. There was a certain possibility about border states (Romania, Finland, Baltic states, even pre-war Poland) deciding to ally with The Reich for their own piece of USSR.
9. So when time was nearly out, German pact was regarded as a good tactical move. Stalin guaranteed that no war would be waged upon the USSR this year. Stalin guaranteed that border conflict with Manchkukio and Japan would cease to exist. Stalin guaranteed precious tech and machinery import from The Reich. Stalin guaranteed the possibility to subjugate border states and make a foremost defenses of them thus nullifying their chances to be used as German allies.

It was not a magnificent plan. Stalin surely knew sooner or later clash with Hitler would be unevitable. And he was not expecting any help from the West, he was sure it would be bloody one-to-one duel. It was surely a flawed plan - but nobody really expected France to fall so quickly. But it was a honest try to use a very disadvantageous position USSR had in the Aug 1939 for the country's profit and security.
 
Last edited:

iVC

Donor
So don't project your present-day political prejudices onto the Allied strategic plans of 1940. Operation Pike was a monumentally bad idea and the Scandinavian operation might have worked solely as to its Norwegian objectives, probably, assuming it had been launched before the Germans' operation; but this has nothing to do with a preference to fight the Soviets.

I honestly did not tried to project current geopolitical propaganda in this thread. I was trying to explain why Stalin had not rushed into the cuddling hugs of WAllies after 1 Sep 1939. He was not expected to do so and he was not trusting WAllies command and governments after almost a decade of fruitless negotiations. At least he had a treaty with Hitler: poor consolation, but still something.
 
can we please go back to the thread, would Germany win a defensive war in the east against the polish-Soviet forces and in the west against British-French forces ore are the doomed.
 

iVC

Donor
can we please go back to the thread, would Germany win a defensive war in the east against the polish-Soviet forces and in the west against British-French forces ore are the doomed.

In the long run it depends on japanese activity on the Far East. Undisturbed SU would surely squeeze the germans slowly to the West if british blockade would work out well.
 
In the long run it depends on japanese activity on the Far East. Undisturbed SU would surely squeeze the germans slowly to the West if british blockade would work out well.
The Japanese will not get involved, unless the Battles of Khalkhyn Gol which where still ongoing escalate.
 
In the long run M-R Pact paid off for the Soviet Union.

Had France, Britain and Poland (with Soviet neutrality or support) beaten Germany in 1941/2, Eastern Europe would have stayed hostile to the USSR.

In OTL, the M-R Pact and WWII gave Russia the control of Eastern Europe, up to the Elbe.
 
Did the Soviet Union ever pay off this loan?

Frankly I would never consider this in separation from the whole package.

You're selling to me the milk of your cow for a value of $18.
I'm paying you with a bag of fodder that is worth $12.
Evidently I can afford to throw in a loan of $2 on your next purchase of a milk bucket.
 

iVC

Donor
In the long run M-R Pact paid off for the Soviet Union.

I do agree, but most respects must be paid to Yalta Conference.
Nevertheless, it's doubtful if acquiring of puppet states was a good trade-off. The european part of USSR was literally wiped out, the reconstruction period surely halted the USSR. Total war prevention surely would be a better choice, but it was almost impossible due to distrust and failure to communicate between future anti-Nazi coalition members. But, yes, OTL M-R pact was not altogether bad.

p.s. It's kinda strange how this thread slipped from the original idea of 'what if working anti-Nazi coalition could be formed at the brink of war 1939?' to the discussion of moral and economical aftershocks of M-R pact.
 
p.s. It's kinda strange how this thread slipped from the original idea of 'what if working anti-Nazi coalition could be formed at the brink of war 1939?' to the discussion of moral and economical aftershocks of M-R pact.

That's because the original idea is not very promising. Western diplomats, people who did this for a living, did try pretty hard to convince the Poles back then, and failed. It's hard to imagine that we amateurs can come up now with a shiny new selling point that will get the Poles into an alliance with the Soviets.
 
That's because the original idea is not very promising. Western diplomats, people who did this for a living, did try pretty hard to convince the Poles back then, and failed. It's hard to imagine that we amateurs can come up now with a shiny new selling point that will get the Poles into an alliance with the Soviets.
But what would be the moral of this Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance, was the Soviet Union not a bigger evil in 1939 than the Third Reich ore am i wrong.
 
But what would be the moral of this Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance, was the Soviet Union not a bigger evil in 1939 than the Third Reich ore am i wrong.

Are you asking for my own opinion? If so, I have one, but I don't think it's very important.

IF OTOH you are asking for the opinion of the contemporary decision makers, you already know the answer, because the British and the French, even though half-heartedly and ineffectively, sent envoys to Moscow to contain Berlin, not to Berlin to contain Moscow.
So you know what was the opinion in Paris and London as to which was the greater evil.
Then again, as already mentioned several times, the Warsaw opinion also was important. And the Polish decision makers considered the two equally evil.
 
Are you asking for my own opinion? If so, I have one, but I don't think it's very important.

IF OTOH you are asking for the opinion of the contemporary decision makers, you already know the answer, because the British and the French, even though half-heartedly and ineffectively, sent envoys to Moscow to contain Berlin, not to Berlin to contain Moscow.
So you know what was the opinion in Paris and London as to which was the greater evil.
Then again, as already mentioned several times, the Warsaw opinion also was important. And the Polish decision makers considered the two equally evil.
Thanks for your answer, now i start to wonder about a what if the French and British send a offer of a alliance to Berlin instead of Moscow, but that would be better if it has its own thread.
 
Top