WI: Stalin Broke The Pact....

Soundgarden

Banned
So Hitler and Stalin signed a treaty known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact where each pledged to remain neutral in the event that either nation were attacked by a third party. It remained in effect until 22 June 1941, when Germany invaded the Soviet Union entitled Operation Barbarossa.

Both men had a reputation of being power hungry and trustworthiness being questionable at best. It was only a matter of time until one of them broke the pact.

Lets say it was the other way around and Operation Barbarossa was caused by Stalin, how do you think it would affect the rest of World War II?

Would Nazi Germany end up being the dominant force in Europe at the end of the War? Provided that the U.S. joins the war, would they take Hitler's side?

Any thoughts?
 
I can't see the senario where the US would be involved in a European war where Britain isn't in immediate danger. Not with Hitler in charge.
 
To say it quickly, Stalin had interest in waiting Hitler to attack

-Political benefit : being the attacked one is far more useful, critically for searching allies.
-Strategical benefit : USSR stregnthened its army again and again while Germans already reached its limits while being already in war.

For US : why they should have joined Hitler even if he was attacked? They joined the war because Germany declaread war on US because of alliance with Japan giving a good pretext to get rid of american help to UK.

For German victory : simply said no. At best Stalin would have won a minor victory, more likely Hitler would have been crushed as badly if not more than OTL.
 
Stalin doesn't have any reason to attack. If he waits and becomes Nazi Germany's creditor and pushes his borders westward, he wins. When, not if, Hitler shoots first, he still wins as Hitler's an aggressor and the Allies have no choice but to support him. Too, Stalin was caution incarnate, this is more characteristic of Hitler.
 
Stalin doesn't have any reason to attack. If he waits and becomes Nazi Germany's creditor and pushes his borders westward, he wins. When, not if, Hitler shoots first, he still wins as Hitler's an aggressor and the Allies have no choice but to support him. Too, Stalin was caution incarnate, this is more characteristic of Hitler.
something like that. Or he would be waiting until somehow Germans and British ( maybe with US help) will get Really busy at west.
 

b12ox

Banned
Germans and English were busy in the West. When Hitler attacked France and then England chances of an allience between Germany and the US were gone, even if the Soviets made the first move.

Meanwhile the Soviets were happy with German Blitzkrieg in the West. They were not happy when France folded so quickly, but the French were screwed after the R-M pact, and didn't know how to address it. French army was as strong as German, but fighting Germans seemed like playing in the hands of Russians. If France was pushed against the wall, the way Russians were, the war in the West could be diffrent. The strategy of Blitzkrieg is imo overrated. The western campaign gave Germany false idea of invincibility, at least in the papers. The sucess in the West was mostly due to the French not wanting to fight at all costs.

Conversly, the allies, especially England, was intrested in war in the East for obvious reasons. For the English, it didn't matter who strikes first as long as things get rolling. Stalin didn't want to fight and had no interest in doing so, Hitler did.

Another thing is the Soviets didn't trust the Frech and Englisch. They were right on with the French. The Germans were continously banging on to make peace with England. It didnt happen, but then in '40-41, it was not clear, what was going to happen.

So in the end, no one trusted no one, and the only party unhappy with Barbarossa were Russisans, the date was off mark.
 
Top