WI no M-R Pact

As we know, Hitler was terrified by the idea of the two-front war, which he considered a main cuplrit for Germany's FWW defeat (along with the Judeo-Bolshevik cabal, evidently). We know Stalin kept repeatedly delaying signing the pact (having already been informed of the invasion's potential starting dates), so as to force Hitler accept his conditions wholesale (he was simultaneously playing the Entente, obviously without any desire to sign a mutual assistance pact, but fully conscious that the Anglo-French will not back down in this instance, like they did with Czechoslovakia).

What if Hitler's inveterate gambler instinct had broken his fear and made him say "Fuck it, we're going in regardless"? Stalin was utterly contemptuous of the Entente and had 0 desire to, in his words, "pull out British and French chestnuts out of the fire with Russian hands". He was massively paranoid of ending up played by the Entente, which is why he only issued the invasion order for Eastern Poland after the Germans had already reached, and stopped at, the aforementioned agreed-upon partition line. We also know that the economic portion of the pact gave the Germans precious little of true hard value; they had already managed to strongarm Romania and others into heavily one-sided agreements, and Stalin had the habit of intentionally delaying some of the shipments (in a way that would make it seem like a random act of underling incompetence; he was great at this sort of stuff). Stalin, OTOH, got the whole damn Old Empire back. The discrepancy in value is readily obvious.

Again, what if Hitler's gambling addiction and the Russophobe wing of his acolytes combine to say "Jacta alea esto!"?
 
Immediate differences:
* Different invasion of Poland, the border will be further east, but the Germans will pay a higher price, both because the Soviets will watch the show (to gauge the German strength), thus giving the Poles a bit more room to breate, and because near the end the Soviets might actually be covertly supplying some of the more communist partisans.
* Different invasion of France and the low countries, it will probably take the Germans a few more weeks to recover from Poland, so delaying Fall Gelb until late May-early June.
* Different Operation Barbarossa, the Stalin line is maintained better, and Stalin is under no illusions about what the German buildup is for.
 
Immediate differences:
* Different invasion of Poland, the border will be further east, but the Germans will pay a higher price, both because the Soviets will watch the show (to gauge the German strength), thus giving the Poles a bit more room to breate, and because near the end the Soviets might actually be covertly supplying some of the more communist partisans.
* Different invasion of France and the low countries, it will probably take the Germans a few more weeks to recover from Poland, so delaying Fall Gelb until late May-early June.
* Different Operation Barbarossa, the Stalin line is maintained better, and Stalin is under no illusions about what the German buildup is for.

I agree on a longer Polish campaign, but

The Russians will not go for Finland without German consent.

This probably means that UK does not get the idea to attack Norway and thus maybe the Germans wont be so bothered (OTL the Brits considered to help finland by occupying northern Norway and shipping suplies there)

No Weserübung! - so Germany should be prepared to jump on France around the same time as OTL (one longer campaign - one campaign not done)
 
Immediate differences:
* Different invasion of Poland, the border will be further east

If Britain and France behave as they did IOTL, I don't see why Stalin wouldn't occupy eastern Poland roughly at the same time as IOTL. If Germany has already gotten into a war with the west, Hitler can't really afford to say no.
 
This probably means that UK does not get the idea to attack Norway and thus maybe the Germans wont be so bothered (OTL the Brits considered to help finland by occupying northern Norway and shipping suplies there)
Actually, the British were contemplating an occupation months before the Winter War, although to be fair the Winter War was the spark that touched it off.

No Weserübung! - so Germany should be prepared to jump on France around the same time as OTL (one longer campaign - one campaign not done)
Actually, Weserübung used relatively few Heer resources, so it's more like Fall Gelb is delayed, but the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine are in much better shape for it.
 
If Britain and France behave as they did IOTL, I don't see why Stalin wouldn't occupy eastern Poland roughly at the same time as IOTL. If Germany has already gotten into a war with the west, Hitler can't really afford to say no.
Stalin was ultra-paranoid. In fact, the only thing which kept him from sitting in a windowless room with a gun pointed at the door all day was his megalomania (his megalomanic powerthirst and paranoia tended to cancel each other out - most of the time, anyway).

At any rate, due to his paranoia, he never attacked first. He always tried to find an 'in' (see the Baltics and Soviet 'military bases') using covert or overt threats and pressure; direct military action was a tool of last resort (ex. Finland, who flatly refused the 'deal'). And even then it was enveloped into some sort of (usually flimsy) excuse (in the case of invading Eastern Poland, the pretext was protecting Ukrainian and Byelorussian ethnics, in the case of Bessarabia and Bukovina, it was to protect Ukrainian and Russian ethnics). But only if he was certain he could get away with it.

Therefore, in the case of no M-R pact, Stalin would've stayed put, until circa 1942 (or mid-late 1941, depending on how things went in 1940).
 
Last edited:
Top