WI WW2 started with German/USSR Alliance vs France/UK?

[HMS Warspite]

What if the War in 1939 started with the declaration of war by both UK and France against not only Germany, but also the USSR, for also invading Poland in september 1939?

Primary point of interest is that the anti Communist thinking still was widespread and the USSR had absolutely no sympathy in the non communistic world. Finland, already at war with the USSR was supported by the West, so why not going for an all out war entirely, since the Finnish People had shown the USSR to be pretty weak in military terms.

Things might even be more complicated when Germany also struck at the USSR in sumer 1941.

 

[BlackWave]

There would be no point. Remember, they were hoping that the USSR and Nazi Germany would destroy each other, and declaring war on the Sovs would be detrimental. Furthermore, with Germany in the way, they couldn't really touch the Sovs either way. As far as they were concerned, the Soviets were a lesser threat, and enemy of my enemy...

 

[Dure]

USSR had absolutely no sympathy in the non communistic world.

You seem to have confused the history of this time-line with that of another. In the run-up to WWII the Soviet Union was greatly respected and admired by the greater part of British and French society and was widely loved by the American working class.

 

[Hörnla]

There would be no point.

That is true. Still, Britain got frighteningly close to DOWing Stalin over Finland, as far as I remember from Colville's diaries. We are only talking about a phase of a few days, but the matter got discussed (curiously not because of Poland, in that case a Red East Poland was still better than a brown one).

Thus, I declare this "What if" to be valid.

 

[NHBL]

Striking oil?

I seem to recall (though might be completely off...) some sort of scheme to strike Soviet oil production to deny it to Germany in the days before Barbarossa. If this happens, Stalin's in. And with Stalin's paranoia, even word delivered by spies about such a scheme might well result in war...even if the scheme was a purely hypothetical exercise that an agent blew out of proportion--either deliberately, or for political reasons of his own.

 

[Hörnla]

I seem to recall (though might be completely off...)

We would be two persons completely off..... These were imaginative times!

 

[The Red]

Britain and France are pretty much screwed, so are the Germans eventually.

 

[MerryPrankster]

You seem to have confused the history of this time-line with that of another. In the run-up to WWII the Soviet Union was greatly respected and admired by the greater part of British and French society and was widely loved by the American working class.

Got evidence for that?

 

[Eurofed]

I seem to recall (though might be completely off...) some sort of scheme to strike Soviet oil production to deny it to Germany in the days before Barbarossa. If this happens, Stalin's in. And with Stalin's paranoia, even word delivered by spies about such a scheme might well result in war...even if the scheme was a purely hypothetical exercise that an agent blew out of proportion--either deliberately, or for political reasons of his own.

Indeed there was an Anglo-French plan to bomb Baku, which was talked about very seriously. Had not cooler minds prevailed, this would have surely brought Stalin in the Axis.

 

[Eurofed]

Britain and France are pretty much screwed, so are the Germans eventually.

In the Sovietwankers' wet dreams. In reality, Britain is indeed screwed, since the German-Russian-Italian Axis would kick it out of North Africa and the Middle East, but Soviet Russia cannot win a solo war against fascist continental Europe, without American Land-Lease. With luck and skill, it can gun for an unfavourable Brest-Litovsk compromise peace of mutual exhaustion, but nothing more. A Soviet conquest of Europe in this scenario is ASB. Germany ITTL is only screwed if Japan forces America in the war before Britain collapses. In such a case a stalemate would likely ensue, Germany and Russia would not come to blows, Axis would keep western Eurasia and North Africa, the Allies would keep the British Isles and India, and steamroll Japan, until America nukes bring the uber-Axis to its knees.

 

[I Blame Communism]

What if the War in 1939 started with the declaration of war by both UK and France against not only Germany, but also the USSR, for also invading Poland in september 1939?

Problem is, we went to war on the 3rd, Russia on the 17th. There was no immediate casus belli (indeed, the Polish guarantee was deliberately without reference to Russia, IIRC). We'd need some othe rcause.

Primary point of interest is that the anti Communist thinking still was widespread and the USSR had absolutely no sympathy in the non communistic world.

Not entirely true, not to say that Dure is correct either.

Finland, already at war with the USSR was supported by the West, so why not going for an all out war entirely, since the Finnish People had shown the USSR to be pretty weak in military terms.

Finland was not at war in September.

The Finnish was, however, was where Britain and France talked seriously about sending troops to fight Russians. Germany and the USSR looked awfully chummy at this point. The Finnish cause was popular, and of course given that the Soviets had ahrdly distinguished themselves, it was imagined that a Finland stiffened by our troops could hang on while we helped ourselves to the Swedish iron fields. This would also mean the dropping of bombs on Baku (and perhaps a few bombs on Batum...).

We didn't, ultimatly, because it would have been a further complication (nobody had foreseen the coming disaster in the west), and because the suggestion stayed Stalin's hand in Finland. But it's really not outside the realm of possibility.

Things might even be more complicated when Germany also struck at the USSR in sumer 1941.

Assuming they still do, of course...

 

[I Blame Communism]

In the Sovietwankers' wet dreams. In reality, Britain is indeed screwed, since the German-Russian-Italian Axis would kick it out of North Africa and the Middle East

This is rather a handwave. So Russia invades Turkey, which will be a pretty substantial undertaking and take a great deal of time and resources... then what? And how will it compell Britain to surrender?

 

[Eurofed]

This is rather a handwave. So Russia invades Turkey, which will be a pretty substantial undertaking and take a great deal of time and resources... then what? And how will it compell Britain to surrender?

Whomever said anything about Turkey ? Assuming Stavka got half a brain, after a British declaration of war, they would send the Red Army to invade Iraq and Persia. Britain would lose Middle Eastern oil, be forced to defend India, and in no shape to keep North Africa against Germany and Italy.

 

[I Blame Communism]

Whomever said anything about Turkey ? Assuming Stavka got half a brain, after a British declaration of war, they would send the Red Army to invade Iraq and Persia. Britain would lose Middle Eastern oil, be forced to defend India, and in no shape to keep North Africa against Germany and Italy.

This all rather smells of Risk. The Red Army could take the best bits of Persia, and extending operations to Iraq would be plausible, but with an increasingly suspicious Turkey in the way, extending them anywhere else would be rather a job. Invading India would be one hell of a job.

One must also wonder how far Stalin would be willing to go, and whether Hitler would revise his plans for Russia at all. If we bombed Baku, Stalin would no doubt go for his pound of flesh, but though mad, he was hardly stupid, and there is a point at which continuing to underwrite Germany's conquest of everywhere would be manifestly stupid of him. And all the time the Soviets gets after the summer of 1941 works in their favour, obviously.

 

[Astrodragon]

There is always the posibility that German JOINS France and Britain if they attack and go to war with Russia...!!
After all, thats his ideal scenario. The west are now helping him destroy Russia, and geographically he will be the only one to win out in the end, He can even generously give back most of CZ, and even allow a Polish puppet state (for a while).

I dont recall any AH where this is a scenario? Not sure what the PoD would be, maybe even more stupid (if possible) governments in Britain and France?

 

[Eurofed]

This all rather smells of Risk. The Red Army could take the best bits of Persia, and extending operations to Iraq would be plausible, but with an increasingly suspicious Turkey in the way, extending them anywhere else would be rather a job. Invading India would be one hell of a job.

And how Britain is supposed to remain in the war for long once it loses North Africa and the Middle East to the Axis and it fights alone ? Assuming so smells to me of ASB taking Churchill's "we never surrender" empty boasting and propaganda bluff as political and strategic fact. In reality, Churchill almost lost a no confidence vote about losing Tobruk.

One must also wonder how far Stalin would be willing to go,

Invading the Middle East suffices to bring Britain on his knees.

and whether Hitler would revise his plans for Russia at all.

It seems that in late 1940, he made serious approaches making Russia a full ally, at least in the short-medium term. Of course, once France and Britain is defeated and America is neutral, the risk of Germany and Russia coming to blows grows exponentially. If however, Germany, Italy, and Russia fight together the Anglo-Americans, Barbarossa may be easily butterflied away.

If we bombed Baku, Stalin would no doubt go for his pound of flesh, but though mad, he was hardly stupid, and there is a point at which continuing to underwrite Germany's conquest of everywhere would be manifestly stupid of him.

Well, IOTL the German-Russian alliance talks failed because they could not reach a compromise about Bulgaria and Turkey. However, assuming they do, there were definite spheres of influence for the various allies: continental Europe to Germany, Mediterranean to Italy, Near East and Central Asia to Russia. Which, by the way, fulfilled long-lasting Russian strategic aims. Stalin would not be a water-bearer for Hitler.

And all the time the Soviets gets after the summer of 1941 works in their favour, obviously.

countered by Germany not having a second front with Britain and America, keeping a firm grip on continental Europe, and Russia not having any Land-Lease.

 

[I Blame Communism]

And how Britain is supposed to remain in the war for long once it loses North Africa and the Middle East to the Axis and it fights alone ? Assuming so smells to me of ASB taking Churchill's "we never surrender" empty boasting and propaganda bluff as political and strategic fact. In reality, Churchill almost lost a no confidence vote about losing Tobruk.

As someone not especially fond of Churchill except as an orator...

"Empty boast"? We didn't surrender, did we?

Churchill was not the only one fighting the war, and removing Churchill does not mean we instantly kiss Hitler's feet and say sorry. In any case, assuming Germany does force Britain to negotiate a peace, this is the signal for Stalin to start looking at them suspiciously. "Germany wouldn't fight on two fronts... it's all Churchill's plan!" was how Stalin justified inserting his head into his nether regions just before Barbarossa.

Invading the Middle East suffices to bring Britain on his knees.

"Invading the Middle East" is still something that just happens without much explanation. And if the worst comes to the worst, I think we, as in Our Island, could be sustained by the Americans, if only as an airstrip.

It seems that in late 1940, he made serious approaches making Russia a full ally, at least in the short-medium term. Of course, once France and Britain is defeated and America is neutral, the risk of Germany and Russia coming to blows grows exponentially. If however, Germany, Italy, and Russia fight together the Anglo-Americans, Barbarossa may be easily butterflied away.

That the invasion could well be delayed, to Russia's favour, is what I had meant.

Well, IOTL the German-Russian alliance talks failed because they could not reach a compromise about Bulgaria and Turkey. However, assuming they do, there were definite spheres of influence for the various allies: continental Europe to Germany, Mediterranean to Italy, Near East and Central Asia to Russia. Which, by the way, fulfilled long-lasting Russian strategic aims. Stalin would not be a water-bearer for Hitler.

Another long-standing strategic aim was to not be invaded by a military power dominating Europe. That the Russians made negotiations which could land them with some juicy morsels does not mean they actually intended to let Germany become undisputed master of Europe with a nod and a wink.

countered by Germany not having a second front with Britain and America, keeping a firm grip on continental Europe, and Russia not having any Land-Lease.

The Russians held Moscow, Leningrad, and Donbas without any meaningful help, and that was after a military disaster of truly flabberghasting proportions. Without American goodies, there would have been no "Stalin's Ten Blows", but the fact is the Russians didn't go in December 1941, and a German invasions of Russia in 1942 might well have much less initial success. The Germans achieved a truly astonishing level of total surprise, and concealing their aircraft, moving their supply depos, acknowledging the existence of German recon planes, and actually having a strategy in the first days of the campaign could all have helped the Soviets a lot.

 

[Dure]

Got evidence for that?

Of course.

 

[Eurofed]

"Empty boast"? We didn't surrender, did we?

Only because Hitler's megalomania saved Churchill's butt by declaring war to Russia AND America before he was finished with Britain. A solo fight between Britain and fascist continental Europe, with Russia a friendly neutral to the latter, was hopeless, and if Hitler had done the wise thing, maintaining friendly neutrality to America and keeping the KM off US shipping, FDR would have had no hope in Hell of convincing the Congress and the American people to bail out Britain, no matter how much he howled his Germanophobia to the skies.

In any case, assuming Germany does force Britain to negotiate a peace, this is the signal for Stalin to start looking at them suspiciously. "Germany wouldn't fight on two fronts... it's all Churchill's plan!" was how Stalin justified inserting his head into his nether regions just before Barbarossa.

No question with this. I'm not arguing that a solo Nazi-Soviet match would necessarily result in the fulfillment of Hitler's Urals dreams. That result, although theoretically possible, is far from the most likely outcome. It would require deep changes to the way the Nazi managed their empire and their strategy, and it is indeed made much more difficult by the Russians not being caught by surprise. I'm just arguing that in such a fight, a Soviet conquest of Europe is ASB, and the only really plausible outcome is some kind of Brest-Litovsk peace of exhaustion, where Germany and its vassals wins but not triumphs, and Russia is cut down but not destroyed as a great power.

"Invading the Middle East" is still something that just happens without much explanation.

Hmm, how is Britain supposed to successfully defend Persia and Iraq from the Soviets, and Egypt and Syria-Palestine from the Italo-Germans, with its own resources, plus peacetime American Land-Lease, for up to a couple years ?

And if the worst comes to the worst, I think we, as in Our Island, could be sustained by the Americans, if only as an airstrip.

If America is in the war, sure. What guarantees that ITTL Japan is going to go berserk, and Hitler and Stalin are going to declare war to America for no real advantage, before Britain collapses ?

Another long-standing strategic aim was to not be invaded by a military power dominating Europe. That the Russians made negotiations which could land them with some juicy morsels does not mean they actually intended to let Germany become undisputed master of Europe with a nod and a wink.

Nonetheless, it is a proven historical fact that German-Soviet diplomatic talks about Russia joining the Axis, including definition of anti-British strategic plans, were quite advanced in late 1940, and only failed because of divergencies about Bulgaria and Turkey, not because the fundamental streategic issues you talk about diverged. With slight tweaks to the leaders' personalities, a strategic equilibrium between a German-Italian bloc controlling continental Europe and the Mediterranean, and a Russia controlling the Middle East and Central Asia can be stable. Of course, you have Hitler's Lebenstraum plans getting in the way, and you may have Stalin's Suvorov plans too, which is where you reasoning would go. But this does not mean that slightly different leaders may not defer their own match until they have dispatched their common British enemy, as they seriously talked to do in 1940.

The Russians held Moscow, Leningrad, and Donbas without any meaningful help, and that was after a military disaster of truly flabberghasting proportions. Without American goodies, there would have been no "Stalin's Ten Blows", but the fact is the Russians didn't go in December 1941, and a German invasions of Russia in 1942 might well have much less initial success. The Germans achieved a truly astonishing level of total surprise, and concealing their aircraft, moving their supply depos, acknowledging the existence of German recon planes, and actually having a strategy in the first days of the campaign could all have helped the Soviets a lot.

No arguing with this. I'm not saying that this PoD makes a total German victory (defined as the Volga border or better) certain. I'm just saying that it makes a clear Soviet victory (defined as anything better than its 1939 borders) impossible, and a partial German victory (a Brest-Litovsk peace) the most likely outcome.

 

[T3h_shammy]

Britain and France are pretty much screwed, so are the Germans eventually.

What makes you think that the Soviet Union could take Britain. Germany who had a much stronger navy/airforce and was 50 miles away from the United Kingdom, was unable to even think about realistically landing a force to invade the British Isles. Not to mention that group of people across the Ocean who came originally from the British Isles. Speak the same language, oh and have the most industry in the world.