WI: The Soviets declare war on Germany in May 1940, interrupting the Battle of France?

If the Germans continue on with the attack on France and knock them out of the war and uses the resources of Western Europe with Italian help then I think the war ends sometime in 1942/43 with Germany in control of Poland, but with Germany and the Soviet Union bled white.

No LL to the Soviet Union likely means no German DoW after Pearl Harbor assuming that still happens which we can't. Here Hitler might listen to Rommel urging him to make a full settlement with France after winning and toss Italy and Japan's ambitions for French colonies under the bus. Which could mean the US is slower to squeeze Japan.

However if Hitler panics and calls off the attack on France in 1940 then Germany is boxed in and will be slowly defeated. Obviously the Ango-French might or might not be ok with a separate peace here after Hitler is tossed overboard instead of Soviet and Anglo-French troops meeting up in the center of Germany.
 
Last edited:

nbcman

Donor
There would be a communal whiplash by Comintern sponsored groups in the West and especially in France from changing from opposition to the Anglo-French Imperialist War to enthusiastic support for the war. It would reduce some of the defeatist sentiment in France that was created in part by Communists. It may be enough to keep France in the war to a greater extent than OTL.

The Nazis would be in deep trouble in the long run since they would lose their largest trading partner in the 1940-1941 time frame. Best case scenario for Germany is for a coup to topple the Nazis and for a conditional peace treaty to be signed where the Germans retreat to early 1939 (no Polish conquests), early 1938 (no Czechia) or 1936 borders (no territorial gains) plus the re-establishment of Poland as a buffer state. Worst case would be total occupation with the Soviets probably gaining a greater share of Germany as their occupation zone IOTL.
 
Last edited:
This would completely turn Stalin's OTL policy on its head. Why he would choose to do that I do not know; I think he would have to go literally insane.

The Soviets would definitely do VERY poorly. This is less than TWO MONTHS after the Winter War where they lost hundreds of planes, thousands of tanks, and suffered more than 300,000 casualties, losses they had very much not recovered from by this point AFAIK. This was against an enemy with nine divisions, four brigades, and assorted smaller units, along with a whopping 32 tanks and 114 total aircraft of which only 49 were remotely useful combat aircraft (and even their best fighter, the Fokker D.XII, was hardly the best or newest aircraft around). And the Soviets still broke their teeth on that force. The Red Army committee to study the lessons of the Winter War had only convened in April and the findings of that group hadn't been fully implemented even by the start of Barbarossa thirteen months after the hypothetical events we're discussing, never mind within weeks of the committee's first meeting!

So you've got a scarred, unreformed Red Army that couldn't break a force of nine divisions, four brigades, and some independent units of much greener soldiers going up against 21 divisions of well-led combat veterans (if the figures of @Carl Schwamberger are right) supported by thousands of aircraft that were worlds better than anything the Finns ever fielded during the Winter War. Yes, I see that going very well indeed...

The Nazis also have hundreds of miles of strategic depth to play with now at they've conquered Western Poland.

I'm not actually at all sure that this would lose Germany the Battle of France. The core things that led to the German victory are in many ways still the same. Manstein's sickle cut plan, the real key, has been adopted, Denmark has been rolled up and victory in Norway basically assured, the plans for Fall Gelb have still fallen into the hands of the Belgians and led to a belief that the thrust would be through the Low Countries as in WWI instead of through the Ardennes, the BEF hasn't fully deployed, and the Germans are fully ready to begin the campaign. Hitler in OTL thought that the Soviet Army was a complete joke after the Winter War, which helped inform his thinking for Barbarossa, and he was also a gambler by nature who knew he couldn't wait too much longer in the West or victory in France would be impossible. He also knows he has a force already in Poland that is far superior to what the Finns had along with some strategic depth. It would be well within his nature, known existing beliefs, and the contours of the situation for him to decide to let the forces already in Poland handle it unless they looked seriously in danger of collapse, which is very unlikely to happen.

Overall, Germany probably doesn't do as well if only because they have no element of strategic surprise over the Soviet Union and the Stalin Line hasn't been dismantled. I don't see them getting near Moscow. However, the scenario actually has some interesting upsides for the Nazis. Being at war with the USSR at that stage would butterfly the North African Campaign (no way Hitler is going to waste troops on such a backwater with his dreaded Judeo-Bolshevik bogeymen knocking at the door) and the Battle of Britain (assuming they won the Battle of France). It would also probably butterfly Mussolini's slapstick military campaigns in the Balkans that Hitler had to bail him out of. Il Duce was a gigantic egomaniac but even he probably would have realized that right then wasn't the time if the Soviets were invading. This all means that the Luftwaffe in particular is in way better shape in all areas, the Fallschirmjagers haven't been gutted on Crete (along with the Luftwaffe transport units) and still have Hitler's confidence, and the Nazis didn't lose a whole army group in Africa.

Overall I think many in this thread give the Soviets too much credit.

Adding to this, the Soviets would have to make a fairly significant logistical effort to put the necessary resources into position for such an effort. How long does this take - a month? The Germans are probably going to notice this. Once the Germans invade France, it's too late to react as nobody expected France to fall that quickly and the Soviets cant move resources into position quickly enough after the invasion.

Finally, it's worth noting that it wasnt until 1943 and 1944 that the Soviets really mastered the tactics that would ultimately give them victory. I can easily imagine a scenario where the Soviets invade in June 1940, blunder along through Poland for a month while the French collapse. The Germans start moving forces east and execute some devastating counter attacks that annihilate the Soviet offensive - Think Tannenbaum x10. The Soviets are forced into a long retreat with assets even more out of position than they were in 1941. In this scenario, Stalin wakes up with a bullet in his head.
 
The question is how is Germany going to fuel its war with no Soviet and most likely no Romanian oil (being firmly pro allied prior to the fall of France and Vienna dictate)?
 
Adding to this, the Soviets would have to make a fairly significant logistical effort to put the necessary resources into position for such an effort. How long does this take - a month? The Germans are probably going to notice this. Once the Germans invade France, it's too late to react as nobody expected France to fall that quickly and the Soviets cant move resources into position quickly enough after the invasion.

Finally, it's worth noting that it wasnt until 1943 and 1944 that the Soviets really mastered the tactics that would ultimately give them victory. I can easily imagine a scenario where the Soviets invade in June 1940, blunder along through Poland for a month while the French collapse. The Germans start moving forces east and execute some devastating counter attacks that annihilate the Soviet offensive - Think Tannenbaum x10. The Soviets are forced into a long retreat with assets even more out of position than they were in 1941. In this scenario, Stalin wakes up with a bullet in his head.

And where does the stuff to replace all the material losses suffered during the invasion of France come from? OTL they plundered western Europe for a year and had a year of domestic production to do it
 

Deleted member 97083

The Nazis would be in deep trouble in the long run since they would lose their largest trading partner in the 1940-1941 time frame.
Important point. No one thus far has mentioned the importance of German-Soviet trade at the time.
 
Adding to this, the Soviets would have to make a fairly significant logistical effort to put the necessary resources into position for such an effort. How long does this take - a month? The Germans are probably going to notice this. Once the Germans invade France, it's too late to react as nobody expected France to fall that quickly and the Soviets cant move resources into position quickly enough after the invasion.


But this plays into the Soviets hands. Let the preparations be out in the open and forcethe Germans to divide their forces keeping fifty divisions in the East rather than twenty. It makes the German Western offensive impossible. There will be stalemate in the West at best for Germany. The British, French and Germans pounding at each other is exactly what Stalin wants. Its doubtful that Hitler would turn East as Stalin is obviously on to him and the Franco-British forces are in his rear.

Even at the time of the armistice, France has a respectable army left- enough to tie down maybe fifty German divisions. With Stalin mobilizing the French have every reason to stay in the fight.

When does Hitler start moving his forces East? Surely he's not going to rely on the twenty divisions to hold very long

Finally, it's worth noting that it wasnt until 1943 and 1944 that the Soviets really mastered the tactics that would ultimately give them victory. I can easily imagine a scenario where the Soviets invade in June 1940, blunder along through Poland for a month while the French collapse. The Germans start moving forces east and execute some devastating counter attacks that annihilate the Soviet offensive - Think Tannenbaum x10. The Soviets are forced into a long retreat with assets even more out of position than they were in 1941. In this scenario, Stalin wakes up with a bullet in his head.

WHich is balanced against

Romanian and Hungarian neutrality

Thirty or more additional German divisions in the West

The Germans not having the captured British and French equipment

The horrible losses suffered because the Soviets were surprised

The German equipment being worn down by the Western campaign
 
If the pace of the German advance slows down the French might be able to use there strategy of Fire power against movement like the Did in 1918 . I can see the French and British Army's learning how to stop armored attacks and start pushing the Germans back . Remember at this time and most of the War German Artily units moved by Horse teams
 
Top