Who would win a 1939 War: German Polish Alliance vs Soviet Union

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by Jiraiyathegallant, Nov 28, 2019.


Who wins?

  1. Germany and Poland win a total victory early

    2 vote(s)
  2. Germany and Poland have early success, get bogged down, but eventually win a total victory

    18 vote(s)
  3. Germany and Poland have early success, get bogged down, but eventually win a limited victory

    78 vote(s)
  4. Stalemate

    7 vote(s)
  5. The Soviets eventually win a total victory

    26 vote(s)
  6. The Soviets eventually win a limited victory

    26 vote(s)
  1. Michele Well-Known Member

    Nov 9, 2007
    See post #10, above.
  2. I want to learn Well-Known Member

    Oct 11, 2013
    The casus belli would have been “that maniac Hitler has invaded another country and has to be stopped”, as OTL. By September 1939 OTL the British and French leadership realized they had let things get out of hand and had committed themselves to throwing down with Germany. IIRC, they had not just guaranteed Poland’s security, but basically every other Eastern European country’s too. They had negotiators seeking alliance with the Soviets when the Molotov Ribbentrop pact was signed on the eve of WW2. The Entente would have been enormously relieved that diplomacy/dumb luck had brought the Soviets to their side, they might sit uneasily behind the Maginot line conducting Phony War as OTL, but Germany would have been blockaded and subjected to gradually escalating air bombardment the moment war broke out.

    If not earlier, when the Polish-German alliance is signed. I have a hard time imaging a Polish-German alliance that allows the German army to cross Polish territory to invade the USSR that involves anything short of complete puppetization of Poland. I think the Entente would have gone to war over that too, so I think Germany could have found itself at war with Britain and France even before the invasion of Russia as proposed by OP.
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2019
  3. M79 Well-Known Member

    Jan 8, 2007
    No one in the West, certainly. Whoever wins this scenario the UK, France, and US are in deeper trouble as a result, especially if war prepararions are delayed in the West for another year or two
  4. Coyote_Waits Active Member

    Oct 25, 2019
    Germany could maybe entice Finland by offering up Estonia, the Kola Peninsula & the rest of Karelia: SUPER FINLAND

    Edit: Re: Oil

    I don't know too much about Turkey during this period but is there any chance to entice the Kemalists into alliance? Turkey opening up a Caucaus front could get access to Baku's oil and consequently deprive the Soviets of the same
  5. Titanicus Very Well-Hated Member

    Aug 24, 2018
    The Baltic States stayed neutral at the start of World War Two. No one is going to ally with Poland or Germany until they're completely certain that the USSR is done for. What do the Baltic States gain out of fighting against the USSR? They can't bring much to the table anyway. They wouldn't join a war.
    Ran and Paolo Giusti like this.
  6. Michele Well-Known Member

    Nov 9, 2007
    The word is "casus", and in OTL Britain and France had an alliance with Poland.

    You don't remember correctly.

    Yes, that's why my reference to slow and plodding negotiations.

    Yes, without actually declaring war. Why should they?

    This is ASB. Just no. The French, and to a lesser degree the British, fear retaliation in air war, and know very well the Luftwaffe's bomber arm is larger, and think "the bomber will always get through". They expect cities to go up in flames on the first raid. They will not bomb Germany.

    Czechoslovakia was puppetized by Germany, with an extremely lukewarm opposition by France and Britain, in OTL. They did not go to war over that.
  7. AdA Well-Known Member

    May 25, 2011
    Good post. I had missed it before.
  8. Gunner's_Quadrant Lord High Commander of the Duchy of Grand Fenwick

    Sep 23, 2012
    I'm having a hard time understanding this scenario. I can possibly envision the Poles accepting some sort of alliance with Germany. What I can't see is the new alliance then making a surprise attack on the Soviet Union in 1939.
    The Germans weren't planning for a war in 1939. Hitler didn't think that war would start in 1939 versus the UK and France when he attacked Poland, he assumed they would back down as before. From what I remember, Hitler thought that full-scale war wouldn't break out until 1942/1943 time frame. Why jump the gun so drastically?
  9. Michele Well-Known Member

    Nov 9, 2007
    Indeed, we're all ignoring the backstory because it's so unlikely that it would be a waste of time. We're running with the premise without questioning it.
    Paolo Giusti likes this.
  10. Paolo Giusti Kaleckist-leninist

    Nov 21, 2019
    Western Stalingrad
    Worsenings syphilis.
  11. I want to learn Well-Known Member

    Oct 11, 2013
    France also had an alliance with the Soviets. There were lots of treaties made in 1920s/early 1930s Europe which were discarded or dusted off and resurrected as needed when the scramble for war came.

    The would have become a lot less slow and plodding in response to actual war if not the other upheavals necessary to make this timeline happen. See OTL, where announcements of mutual good feelings were made within hours, and substantive assistance came within a couple weeks.

    Because their status as great powers depends on it, same as OTL.

    Nonsense. The air war would have been subject to the same gradual tit-for-tat escalation that culminated in the London Blitz and the torching of Dresden et al that occurred IOTL. To suggest anything else is wildly discordant with what happened in real life. Yes, there were pre-war fears, but experience was something different.

    But it caused a shock to Britain and French foreign policy that made it crystal clear they had to fight Hitler at the next juncture. Which IOTL, they did, despite the internal debate, despite having anemic allies, despite not being ready for war, all because Nazism was an existential threat. The cycle of appeasement had been played out.
  12. Michele Well-Known Member

    Nov 9, 2007
    Oh, sure, they did have a treaty, which, in order to be acted upon, would have needed the submitting of an appeal to the League of Nations, and the approval of several powers including Fascist Italy. It's not an operational alliance by any means.
    Yes, it's true, if there's a political will, that might serve as a fig leaf. But what I'm talking about is a casus belli the public opinion will accept. The French public opinion would think, good, they're not coming West. The political will wouldn't be there.
    And the British - no alliance, no treaty, no nothing, no casus belli.

    No, substantive assistance didn't came within weeks. That said, you are still ignoring the fact that large sections of the British and French public opinion feared Communism, and even larger ones feared war.

    Well, not necessarily. It's entirely possible that the reasoning would exactly be: "if we stay out of the war and don't waste our treasury and young men's lives, we'll be the great powers standing at the end of it".

    The fears were not "pre-war". For as long as France was in the war as such, the French never bombed Germany and positively attempted stopping British bombers from taking off. And the British stayed well clear of truly sensitive targets in Germany until the late summer of 1940.
    Now, it's true that the slow tit-for-tat escalation took place, and that eventually (very eventually; Dresden is in 1945) no holds would be barred. But that's looking at a war lasting years. I'm looking at a stalemate by 1941 here.
    Even being very optimistic and assuming a DoW on Germany, chances are the Westerners play the drôle de guerre, and in OTL that was no air attacks on Germany.

    Exactly. In OTL, it was, we'll have to deal with the Nazis ourselves. In this ATL, it's: there's somebody bleeding white the Nazis, to no cost for us, let's wait and see.
    The fact that Poland couldn't match the Germans, in OTL (the anemic ally), is another factor pushing for involvement, not the opopsite; the Germans are likely to win out there in OTL, and therefore to become more dangerous. But in this TL, with the German-Polish troops moving into Russia in the fall of 1939, people in the West would be thinking about Napoleon.

    It's possible the British and the French sell military equipment to the Soviets for a political price. That's OK. It would be this ATL's equivalent of the US Lend-Lease. There will be economic sanctions, embargoes etc. against Germany and Poland. War, not so quickly.


    The side aspect nobody has considered until now is: would the Soviets buy it, if the alliance offer was made before the German-Polish attack?
    In OTL, the Soviets were extremely wary of the Westerners' proffers - because they were thinking about the scenario above. The Westerners telling them, let's you and him fight. So, even if the British and the French really come to the unlikely decision you are rooting for, even if they timely send plenipotentiaries to Moscow - are we sure Stalin, being his usual paranoid self, doesn't think "this is a ploy to make sure the Germans and Poles attack us"?

    Naturally, things change once the attack is on, and any help is welcome. But at that point, I don't believe the French and British would play the cavalry's tune.
    33k7 likes this.
  13. 33k7 Well-Known Member

    May 2, 2012
    Ctarl-Ctarl Empire
    that's like comparing an apple to a watermelon The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact gave the Soviet Union a free hand in Eastern Europe which gave the Soviet Union the ability to invade Finland and take over the Baltic states
    in our timeline it doesn't exist in this one

    do you honestly think these nations would sit on the sidelines and go if the Soviet Union wins they'll leave us alone no they won't the Polish German Alliance has forced their hands. We must all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.is the situation there in.

    an to the other guy

    FDR cannot give Lend Lease to the Soviet Union without congress's approval and they will give him the f****** middle finger until the 1940 election is over. an even after that they're going to look at him and go yeah you better shut up we're not supporting a dictatorship and giving the Republicans the ammunition to take back the house.you can easily have a hundred Congressman saying this to FDR

    you also need the Congress and Senate approval to embargo the Polish and Germans how exactly is FDR going to sell that to the Congress and Senate no one knows about the death camps yet in Germany they do know the Germans are treating the Jewish people like crap but that didn't stop European nations and the Americans from not taking in Jewish refugees they also know how brutal Stalin's regime is
    The Holodomor the man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine in 1932 and 1933 that killed millions of Ukrainians.

    why don't we just let them kill each other and clean up the mess would be the case if it was just the Nazis and Soviets here's the problem though there is a bunch of other nations most likely fighting that aren't evil with the Germans does the United States really want to burn those bridges with these nations because I'm sorry if they do this the backlash would be major from immigrant families please don't forget the Polish immigrants to this country they are significant voting Bloc.

    Germany and Poland were not broke Germany's economy to keep going for quite some time and where in the hell do you get your information that Poland government was in Dire Straits the Polish economy has recovered from the Great Depression already per capita of the Polish people were making a little bit more than they were in 1929 yes there was quite a few problems in the 1930s but by 1939 the Polish economy has mostly recovered and you have to remember it War economy hires a lot of people it's what finally drove the United States out of the Great Depression.
  14. Paolo Giusti Kaleckist-leninist

    Nov 21, 2019
    Western Stalingrad
    • Kick
    Dear mouthy kid,
    you have clearly showed you have no idea about politeness nor how basic economics works.
    Care about the first is not my business.
    About the second, I want to suggest you to learn the difference between "make your economy work by looting" and "buying stuff on the world market".
    Then, you will understand why Germany (and Poland) had no currency reserves to buy oil and rare metal/earths that were running out IOTL and ITTL.
    Then maybe you will understand what Neutrality Acts were and how they could be used to embargo Germany humoring those same isolationists.
  15. 33k7 Well-Known Member

    May 2, 2012
    Ctarl-Ctarl Empire
    and you completely ignore most of my arguments let's agree to disagree
  16. Paolo Giusti Kaleckist-leninist

    Nov 21, 2019
    Western Stalingrad
    I never play chess with a pigeon.
  17. Titanicus Very Well-Hated Member

    Aug 24, 2018
    Yes, because I come from one of the Baltic States. We stand to gain nothing by siding with either Nazi Germany or the USSR. We have no territorial claim or ambition, other than perhaps Lithuania, given their claims on Memel and Wilno, but they, if anything, would ally with the USSR, but that is highly improbable. You'd think that if the Baltic States wanted to ally someone, they'd have done it at the start of the war in OTL. They didn't and neither would they ITTL, because they stand nothing to gain from a war. Why'd you think the Baltic States peacefully surrendered to the USSR with virtually no resistance? Because they didn't want the machine of war to ravage their land.
    Michele likes this.
  18. CalBear Your Ursus arctos californicus Moderator Moderator Donor

    Oct 4, 2005
    This isn't how we do things hereabouts. I strongly suggest you take some time to review the Board rules and policies.

    You will have the time to do so.

    Kicked for a WEEK.
  19. Michele Well-Known Member

    Nov 9, 2007
    Germany has burned through its reserves of valuable foreign currency, and gold, by the end of 1938. That's why most people agree the gold in the coffers of the Czechoslovakian national bank was very necessary. There's a reason if from then on, all trade agreements which Germany managed to sign (with the Soviets themselves, as well as with Italy and minor Axis allies) were based on barter.
    In this situation, the key provider of much needed raw materials in the OTL 1940-41 frame, the Soviet Union, isn't available for trade.
    The Romanians almost certainly are, and that's why I wrote, in a previous post, that the germans probably don't run out of fuel.
    The Italians, the Finns, the Swedes will also be willing to trade, but not at friendly prices - they'll do that at the going market values. The Italians in particular. That's aluminium, nickel, iron, timber.
    That's how rubber will soon be a problem, followed by manganese, other additives for special steels, aluminium. Then, it will be foodstuffs.

    While I disagree with those who think the British and French will be warlike enough to immediately jump into the fray, I have no doubt they'll pass sanctions against an aggressor. That will make the German economic situation even worse. No, the Royal Navy won't blockade them, so in theory they can buy rubber from Japan and phosphates from Spain, but the problem will be paying for those shipments. Note that in early 1940, while the Royal Navy wasn't blockading Italy since it was still neutral, the British were not above stopping, detaining and delaying Italian coalers, just to make the point that the seas were theirs.

    The economic situation of Poland can well be, on balance, better than Germany's, but it's also the much, much smaller of the two parties in the alliance. Whatever the Poles lack, it will have to be supplied by the Germans, or it will have to bypass those economic sanctions, and those Royal Navy tricks.

    And as to war being a good way out of an economic depression, sure - if the nation's economy has untapped resources that the citizens do own, but are afraid to invest (given the 1929 precedent). The state can issue bonds, and pay for the war with a deficit. But the money has to come out from somewhere (the US savers' mattresses, in the case at hand). Now, the German small investors and savers were already tapped. In OTL, they had in their hands, among other state bonds, some that were due in 1940. Guess what, their state unilaterally postponed the payment.
    Even assuming there is money somewhere to tax, entice, or otherwise appropriate, you still can't eat money - or turn it into armor steel if you lack iron, manganese, tungsten etc. and you cannot buy it.
    Zagan and Shevek23 like this.
  20. 33k7 Well-Known Member

    May 2, 2012
    Ctarl-Ctarl Empire
    it's one thing when you have no hope it's another thing entirely when you have two very powerful European nations moving against the Soviet Union this is just my personal opinion like I said above with Benjamin Franklin's words of wisdom.

    for me personally the Germans can fund most of their endeavors until 1944 we do know that there is a lot of Nazi gold unaccounted for in our history. and considering what they're willing to do to a large portion of the people in their country I wouldn't be surprised if they're able to maintain a War economy they were able to do it in our timeline fighting a two-front war.they have the cash on hand to fight the war. now could they be broke after it yeah. an Poland even if it's not bringing much financially to the table it will bring over a million men to the German side. yes I know they haven't invaded France and a bunch of other nations but even without that they still have a huge amount of money.

    as long as Neville Chamberlain is prime minister I don't see this going anywhere fast an Churchill and his supporters would look at this and go let them kill each other
    an the minority that would want to sanction the polish German Alliance would not be able to do anything. the United States would be in the same boat at least until the election was over even after it I think FDR would have a hard time trying to put through any sanctions. also you have to remember the Press is still quite free in these countries considering they're not fighting a Global conflicts right now so reports about the war will be down the middle.
    the French will probably take a bit of time to but will most likely be the first to Levy sanctions most likely before 1940. the United States and the British might not do anything until 1941 if not 1942.

    Lend Lease to the Soviet Union you might see some from the French the British probably won't do anything the United States FDR will have a hell of a time trying to do that Maybe by 1942 and that will mostly be food shipments.

    the Germans did not have a problem with food feeding their people and Poland feeding its people will not be a problem considering what they are doing to millions of their own people f****** Nazis they're having a food surplus.

    I honestly believe Finland, Romania and the Baltic states will join the war a few months into it.I have already made my arguments about this. Germany focusing everything on one front with the Polish and several other nations. keeping the SS back in Germany so no war crimes gives you a lot of Russian and Ukrainian partisans. this anti-soviet Alliance will also have air superiority. Spain, hungry and Italy might also send volunteer forces to fight in the war and I also see those countries giving more favorable trade deals. Joseph Stalin is facing a smaller version of his nightmare a European Coalition against him.

    and this is my last statement on this thread. y'all have a nice day.
    Zagan likes this.