Losing WW II by choice.

[Donkey Kong]

I simply ask: what would happen if AngloFrench end up in hot conflict with USSR in winter 1940.

Regarding operation Pike, neither the British nor French had a lot of bombers available for a raid in the Caucasus. The bombing would likely not cause a lot of damage.
How the Soviets would react to the bombing is hard to predict. I doubt the Soviet Union wanted war with the allies. The Soviet Union didnt have much to gain from it. And I doubt Germany would let the Red army enter the Reich, meaning the soviets would not be in a position to fight France/UK anyway.

Most likely the bombing would lead to a breakdown in diplomatic relations. Something similar to how the raid at Mers-el Kebir severed diplomatic ties between the UK and Vichy France.

If (a big if) the Soviets declared war following operation Pike we need to set a time for when it happens. If Germany defeats France shortly after (June 1940) there is no need for russian troops in western Europe. Most likely Russian subs would patrol the atlantic and maybe Germany would allow the soviet airforce to participate in battle of Britain.

The Soviet contribution would add to the pressure on the British air and naval forces. While Britain would probably survive for a while, the fact that the possibility for a clash between Germany and the Soviets is no longer there, Britain may not see a reason to continue the war. My guess is Britain would sue for peace, hoping to jump back into the war once conflict erupts between Germany and the Soviet Union.

 

[Grandpa Maur]

No, I don't think to execute the Allied intervention is unrealistic, but having the historical, prevailing conditions, it had a very little hope of succeeding, if the objective was to militarily help Finland against the Soviet invasion and secure the Finnish 1939 border.

I take this (and rest of your post) to mean that AF intervention was both unrealistic to happen (obviously i agree, but the whole premise of this thread is what if it happened regardless - unless you mean it's completelt out of question and if that's what you mean, why?

And also that it was doomed to be ineffective, at least from the Finnish perspective. Which is totally ok! It's even better - i am looking for biggest divergence, and one where AF land troops in Finland, bomb Baku successfully AND get whacked with Finland getting annexed is a scenario with much greater potential than one where Finland wins with AF support.

Or is it? See, the main questions are:

1) How do German-Soviet relations change? More cooperation against now common enemy or Barbarossa anyway?

2) France falls anyway, but is Hitler fixing on EEurope or is he going to change the strategy to more anti-Anglo. Mediterraen? Depends on point 1.

3) If Barbarossa, does the Churchill make the deal with the devil speech or does the war with USSR prevent it and it remains threeway free for all? What about LL? What are effects on eastern front?

4) If allies and soviet don't forget this hypothetical conflict and go back to our timeline, what happens militarily? Is USSR defeated? Is EFront stalemated? What Allies do in these cases?

5) and how does it affect post war? Cold war? The end of war frontline?

And what else? Japan? Usa?


That is why i am asking this, not Finland itself. It has potential for huge worldwide consequences. That aaid, i found your insight on Winter War interesting to read and consequences for Finland itself too.

 

[Grandpa Maur]

I would also describe it as a German daydream, as if a successful one, it would had cut the Soviet mobilized and armored units supply of oil, at least most of it. In these conditions, Germany would had a clear upper hand against the Soviets and Hitler achieving victory against Stalin would had been much more realistic.

Well, the question is how successful would that be (i have my doubts) but if yes, coupled with half of soviet avgas being from LL, is pretty significant

What could they have done? The infrastructure to get to the Soviet Union wasn't there. The Normandy landings were across a few tens of km of open water. Strategic bombers didn't have the range to reach the Soviets. The only routes for a land invastion are through Persia or Afghanistan and Central Asia where there again is next to no infrastructure. An economic blockade wouldn't do much as the Soviets were already isolated from world markets. Conversely the Soviets wouldn't be able to do much besides sabotage and assassinations either.

I agree that there is not much potential for direct warfare (barring post german defeat or US heavy involvement), but see my post above: a lot of indirect effects seem possibly very significant.

 

[Grandpa Maur]

How the Soviets would react to the bombing is hard to predict.

I agee! That's the main reason for this thread.

THIS IS THE POINT.

If it would be easy to answer i would not need to ask it.

I doubt the Soviet Union wanted war with the allies. The Soviet Union didnt have much to gain from it. And I doubt Germany would let the Red army enter the Reich, meaning the soviets would not be in a position to fight France/UK anyway.

Agreed on all counts. I don't see Germany going that far, not with Hitler longterm plans. And i don't think Soviets wanted war with either - not yet anyway. But still, it's hard to imagine post 1941 cooperation be as easy as it was historically.

Most likely the bombing would lead to a breakdown in diplomatic relations. Something similar to how the raid at Mers-el Kebir severed diplomatic ties between the UK and Vichy France.

The main questuon is, what happens post Barbarossa? Are they mended due to common interest? But with less trust? Is US, the main player later on affected at all, not being involved in this hypothetical conflict?

Allied found Darlan so despite that breakdown, interest prevailed. But they also liked the assasination of Darlan. Very convenient for Ike.

Most likely Russian subs would patrol the atlantic and maybe Germany would allow the soviet airforce to participate in battle of Britain.

They would have to rebase the subs to German occupied ports. Both this and airforce is huuuge change, and how does that effwcts things lateron?

The Soviet contribution would add to the pressure on the British air and naval forces. While Britain would probably survive for a while, the fact that the possibility for a clash between Germany and the Soviets is no longer there, Britain may not see a reason to continue the war. My guess is Britain would sue for peace, hoping to jump back into the war once conflict erupts between Germany and the Soviet Union.

Oh here you answer. It's interesting but i am not sure if it'd be pissible much less probable to have this level of cooperation between Germany and Soviets. Sure, they did 180 turn before, so...

 

[Easy-Kill]

This is a fascinating question @Grandpa Maur - there are so many what if questions that expect Germany could win by doing something differently, but asking what the Allies could do to not win; and what the Allies could do to lose the war offers a fascinating examination of the real causes of victory. I also think that using the 'winter war' as a catalyst or flashpoint is a great time point to consider.

I am not convinced that a war between the UK, France and The Soviet Union will change much until the winter of 1942/43. The forces that the UK/France could put into the field in Scandinavia are too small to affect the winter war, and similarly too small to affect the Allie's strategic force disposition in France. I believe that the war would likely go the same with Germany conquering France and subsequently declaring war on the Soviet Union. The aid sent by Britain to the Soviet Union in 1941 was not war winning/losing and US aid didn't really have a quantitative effect until the Soviet Union ignited it's offensive operations.

Conflict between the UK and Soviet Union would likely play out with the UK imposing trade restrictions through it's colonies (though this is unlikely to affect the Soviet Union's ability to conduct defensive operations), and there could be some conflict in the central Asia and Persia areas. However the logistics of fighting a war here mean it is unlikely to be decisive in any way.

I believe that Germany will end up invading the Soviet Union and fighting the UK historically. The invasion of the Soviet Union was a precursor to Germany being able to build the strategic weapons of war needed to smash
the Anglo-American heart of world Jewry.

I think that the war will continue until the Germans stall in Stalingrad. The main question is then whether the Soviet Union can sustain an advance without the important lend-lease supplies provided by the USA!

 

[Jopa79]

1) How do German-Soviet relations change? More cooperation against now common enemy or Barbarossa anyway?

2) France falls anyway, but is Hitler fixing on EEurope or is he going to change the strategy to more anti-Anglo. Mediterraen? Depends on point 1.

3) If Barbarossa, does the Churchill make the deal with the devil speech or does the war with USSR prevent it and it remains threeway free for all? What about LL? What are effects on eastern front?

4) If allies and soviet don't forget this hypothetical conflict and go back to our timeline, what happens militarily? Is USSR defeated? Is EFront stalemated? What Allies do in these cases?

5) and how does it affect post war? Cold war? The end of war frontline?

1) The most common view is, the Nazis and the USSR will strengthen their relationship, even forming a military alliance. However, this opinion forgets the fact that Hitler's vision of the European nations living in the east was belittling, and his and Nazism's basic ideas included very strongly the need for Germany to expand to the east. It would take a great deal for this fundamental pillar of Nazi-ideology to be broken and for the Nazis to make a reliable alliance with the Bolsheviks. It is known that before the Battle of Britain, Hitler still tried to make peace with the Brits, even naively hoping to create a military alliance. In this absurd scenario, maybe it would be possible. Germany allies with Britain, possibly with France also and they have a common enemy, the USSR. If this happens, the possibility of the US entry in the war decreases and it might not join at all. On the other hand, the US right-wingers, driven by Charles Lindbergh and Fritz Kuhn might gain a lot more popularity. The US can carry on its isolation policies, at least, leaving European nations to fight against each others and maybe concentrating more on the Pacific and the Japs.

2) If 1) happens, the German invasion of France does not occur. Operations in the Mediterranean are secondary, leaving Mussolini's Italy with more freedom in the region.

3) Barbarossa happens, but the attackers are Britain, France and Germany. Maybe Italy, but the Finnish effort is much more weaker, as it was occupied during the Winter War.

4) In this vision, the USSR is left to fight alone. The US will not lend-lease, neither Britain, of course. Britain, France and Germany will defeat the Soviet Union.

5) This is too hard to think, but it can be anything. I need some rest before forming an opinion.

 

[Henry IX]

I am inclined to believe that very little would actually change. The Allies lacked the ability to meaningfully supply Finland with a decisive amount of aid and the Germans will invade the Soviet Union because Nazis going to Nazi.

Finland may escape with slightly more leniant terms from the Winter War and will likely not get involved in the Continuation War as they would be officially part of the Allies.

The outcome I would expect is Finland's loss, followed by a settlement, much as in OTL, as the Allies lack the ability to make a desisive difference in the war. At this point the war between the Allies and the Soviet Union comes to an end. Given that the Soviet Union lacks the ability to significantly impact German descisions about when to invade Barbarossa looks a lot like it did in OTL. At the point of invasion the Soviet Union transitions rapidly from recent enemy to vital ally, probably to the disgust of Finland.

Germany still loses.

Even if the Winter War drags on for longer, thanks to extra materials being sent to Finland, the invasion of the Soviet Union is a massive crisis which would cause Stalin to settle the Finnish issue on terms. Its not like Stalin and Churchill ever trusted each other anyway, so a minor proxy war with minimal British loss of life will likely not change much.

The British were already badly overstretched and the French were strongly opposed to putting soldiers anywhere other than France's borders so I would not expect any commiment of forces sufficient to prevent the war from being conveniently forgotten once the Germans invade.

 

[newtlord]

I wonder if Allied involvement in the Winter War doesn't lead to a worse outcome for the Finns. As mentioned, it's unlikely that the Allies are able to bring to bear enough force to make a difference, but the actuality of Allied participation means that the threat of them becoming involved is no longer a factor in persuading Stalin to make a quick peace for limited gains rather than continuing to push until Finnish resources are exhausted- and now he has a much stronger motivation to wrap up the entirety of Finland while England and France are distracted rather than leaving portions of it free for them to use as a base for future operations against Russia.

 

[Henry IX]

I wonder if Allied involvement in the Winter War doesn't lead to a worse outcome for the Finns. As mentioned, it's unlikely that the Allies are able to bring to bear enough force to make a difference, but the actuality of Allied participation means that the threat of them becoming involved is no longer a factor in persuading Stalin to make a quick peace for limited gains rather than continuing to push until Finnish resources are exhausted- and now he has a much stronger motivation to wrap up the entirety of Finland while England and France are distracted rather than leaving portions of it free for them to use as a base for future operations against Russia.

I hadn't thought about that perspective. Thanks.

 

[Yakman]

The last three posts make me, frankly, angry.

Generic wwii whatif has tendency to absorb any other specific wwii wi discussion.

I explicitly stated this is ONLY about AngloFrench conflict with USSR going hot in 1940. Please respect that.

If you want to write about other ways for allies to lose, make a new thread, please! I will gladly participate.

But leave this to the one specific question (i know, i made a bad thread title, i know i suck at this).

It's pretty important, if largely unremarked, that despite the USSR being allied with Germany in 1939 that Britain and France did not declare war on the USSR when they declared war on Germany.

The major powers understood that they could split their opposition. It worked out.

 

[Jopa79]

It's pretty important, if largely unremarked, that despite the USSR being allied with Germany in 1939 that Britain and France did not declare war on the USSR when they declared war on Germany.

The major powers understood that they could split their opposition. It worked out.

It was mostly due to the fact that the West was not aware of the German and USSR agreement. There were rumors moving, but no definite information was available until it was made public during the Nuremberg trials.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was not so much a military alliance. It was a political and economic agreement and contained the clauses of the non-aggression pact between Germany and the USSR and the spheres of influence in Eastern and partly Northern Europe, defining the future borders for countries locating there and Germany and the Soviet Union.

New borders could not be implemented if Germany and USSR wouldn’t use their political and military resources. In the case of Poland, Germany and the USSR had agreed that Germany would attack from the west and the USSR from the east until to the pre -agreed destinations and objectives which quite a bit happened as well. The invasions of Poland are the closests, matching to a military alliance between Germany and the USSR, but still, the operations were independent, not co-operations and it happened only, because Hitler and Stalin, on the paper, they had split Poland to German part and to Soviet part.

The next operation, clearly a militarian one, was the Soviet invasion of Finland, aka, the Winter War. According to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Germany would not intervene the war, but would allow the Soviets do their will. However, this didn’t happen quite like the plan was, in the both, in German and in Soviet pre-thinking Finland was clearly assumed to fall by the political and military pressure of the Soviet Union. Still, there are signs, already during the Winter War, perhaps from the very beginning of the signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop, Germany had knew, the pact would only be a short-living.

When Finland managed to delay and stop the invasion, it changed German plans to some extent. Germany saw that Finland might be useful in the future as an ally and hinted that Finland would be worthwhile to do peace if the USSR offers it, as soon, the possibility of Finland would receive compensation for lost areas with interest rates. This strongly refers to the coming German invasion of the Soviet Union and is a quite clear sign of the fragility of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

The Anglo-Polish agreement, 1939. The Polish ambassador in London, Edward Bernard Raczyński, contacted the British Foreign Office to point out that clause 1(b) of the agreement, which concerned an "aggression by a European power" on Poland, should apply to the Soviet invasion. Halifax responded that the obligation of British government towards Poland that arose out of the Anglo-Polish Agreement was restricted to Germany, according to the first clause of the secret protocol.

Poland was not aware, in 1938-1939 that England and France weren’t ready for war. The English knew their military weakness very well, but covered it quite skillfully. The country tried to get a four-member-military-alliance, Britain, France, Poland and the Soviet Union, but had not succeeded. Declaring war on the Soviet Union in 1939 could have made things very bad for the Allies.

 

[Yakman]

It was mostly due to the fact that the West was not aware of the German and USSR agreement. There were rumors moving, but no definite information was available until it was made public during the Nuremberg trials.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was not so much a military alliance. It was a political and economic agreement and contained the clauses of the non-aggression pact between Germany and the USSR and the spheres of influence in Eastern and partly Northern Europe, defining the future borders for countries locating there and Germany and the Soviet Union.

New borders could not be implemented if Germany and USSR wouldn’t use their political and military resources. In the case of Poland, Germany and the USSR had agreed that Germany would attack from the west and the USSR from the east until to the pre -agreed destinations and objectives which quite a bit happened as well. The invasions of Poland are the closests, matching to a military alliance between Germany and the USSR, but still, the operations were independent, not co-operations and it happened only, because Hitler and Stalin, on the paper, they had split Poland to German part and to Soviet part.

The next operation, clearly a militarian one, was the Soviet invasion of Finland, aka, the Winter War. According to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Germany would not intervene the war, but would allow the Soviets do their will. However, this didn’t happen quite like the plan was, in the both, in German and in Soviet pre-thinking Finland was clearly assumed to fall by the political and military pressure of the Soviet Union. Still, there are signs, already during the Winter War, perhaps from the very beginning of the signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop, Germany had knew, the pact would only be a short-living.

When Finland managed to delay and stop the invasion, it changed German plans to some extent. Germany saw that Finland might be useful in the future as an ally and hinted that Finland would be worthwhile to do peace if the USSR offers it, as soon, the possibility of Finland would receive compensation for lost areas with interest rates. This strongly refers to the coming German invasion of the Soviet Union and is a quite clear sign of the fragility of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

The Anglo-Polish agreement, 1939. The Polish ambassador in London, Edward Bernard Raczyński, contacted the British Foreign Office to point out that clause 1(b) of the agreement, which concerned an "aggression by a European power" on Poland, should apply to the Soviet invasion. Halifax responded that the obligation of British government towards Poland that arose out of the Anglo-Polish Agreement was restricted to Germany, according to the first clause of the secret protocol.

Poland was not aware, in 1938-1939 that England and France weren’t ready for war. The English knew their military weakness very well, but covered it quite skillfully. The country tried to get a four-member-military-alliance, Britain, France, Poland and the Soviet Union, but had not succeeded. Declaring war on the Soviet Union in 1939 could have made things very bad for the Allies.

Pretty sure that both France and Britain were well aware that Germany and the USSR had invaded Poland.

 

[Jopa79]

Pretty sure that both France and Britain were well aware that Germany and the USSR had invaded Poland.

I'm not sure, if you're kidding, or completely indifferent.

I'm talking about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and especially the clause, Secret protocol which defined German and Soviet spheres of influence regarding several minor European countries.

Wikipedia:

 

[Atlanteax]

I'm not sure, if you're kidding, or completely indifferent.

I'm talking about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and especially the clause, Secret protocol which defined German and Soviet spheres of influence regarding several minor European countries.

Wikipedia:

View attachment 1143856

Jopa, Yakman is correct in that knowledge of, not being aware of, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is immaterial.

France & Britain declaring war on Germany when the later invaded Poland was what effectively started WW2.
Yakman indicated that France & Britain did not elect to declare war on USSR when it invaded Poland as well.

Yakman's point was that by not declaring war on the USSR, France & Britain left open the door to coordination with the USSR against Germany ... and ultimately history played out that Germany was defeated by the nominally allied blocks of France & Britain (and USA) and the USSR (supplied by UK/USA).

This nominal alliance of coordination against Nazi Germany most likely would not had been possible if France & Britain declared war on the USSR for invading Poland.

 

[Jopa79]

@Yakman
@Atlanteax

It’s hard to decide, where should I start, but I’ll do my best to structure this as fine as I can.

At first, if you feel, me being unpolite, sorry then, maybe I was provoked by some sarcastic reply. Anyways, I think, my meaning, my point of view was totally misunderstood.

In the first place, all I wanted to say, was to express my dissenting opinion on Yakman’s short statement, Germany and the Soviet Union being allies (I assume, a military alliance was what Yakman meant) during 1939-1941. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was not about agreeing and establishing a military alliance, but a non-aggression agreement between the Nazi-Germany and the Soviet Union. In addition, it was a trade agreement, but a military alliance, hardly.

Also, the West was not completely unaware of the German-Soviet pact, at least, regarding the clause of non-aggression. Quite the opposite, it was very well known outside Germany and the USSR. But, some clauses were not known at all, or were known only poorly, most importantly, the section of the Secret Protocol.

When speaking of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the clause of the Secret Protocol is the closests to match to a military alliance between two nations. But still, even the Secret Protocol isn’t an agreement of establishing a military alliance, but the protocol decides the German and Soviet right to claims regarding their neighbouring countries, in other words, the spheres of influence.

If there was an information leak and the West would had acquired the content of the Secret Protocol, I dare say that the West would have acted differently than it did historically. At this point I present my second dissenting opinion, the West, not being aware of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (the clause of the Secret Protocol) was not immaterial, but very significant regarding to what the West really did and did not.

If the Nazies and the USSR were allies, why didn’t Germany intervene the Soviet invasion of Finland, the Winter War, why didn’t it join the Soviet side and help its ”friend”? Finland would have collapsed easily if the two great powers did so. On the contrary, Germany's actions during this war show that it had little respect regarding the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, while hinting and revealing Finland its future invasion plans against the USSR.

Let’s go back a little further. The Anglo-Polish alliance was a military alliance between Britain and Poland. It obliged Britain to declare war against any European country that would attack Poland. This is how Britain acted when Germany started the invasion. When the Soviet Union launched its own invasion about two weeks later, Poland demanded that Britain act as it was obliged to do. Britain wanted to interpret the agreement according to its own views and claimed that the "any European country" mentioned in the agreement was limited to only Germany. So, Britain did not declare war on the Soviet Union, but in that respect broke its obligations, what it had promised to Poland.

 

[Yakman]

@Yakman
@Atlanteax

It’s hard to decide, where should I start, but I’ll do my best to structure this as fine as I can.

At first, if you feel, me being unpolite, sorry then, maybe I was provoked by some sarcastic reply. Anyways, I think, my meaning, my point of view was totally misunderstood.

In the first place, all I wanted to say, was to express my dissenting opinion on Yakman’s short statement, Germany and the Soviet Union being allies (I assume, a military alliance was what Yakman meant) during 1939-1941. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was not about agreeing and establishing a military alliance, but a non-aggression agreement between the Nazi-Germany and the Soviet Union. In addition, it was a trade agreement, but a military alliance, hardly.

Also, the West was not completely unaware of the German-Soviet pact, at least, regarding the clause of non-aggression. Quite the opposite, it was very well known outside Germany and the USSR. But, some clauses were not known at all, or were known only poorly, most importantly, the section of the Secret Protocol.

When speaking of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the clause of the Secret Protocol is the closests to match to a military alliance between two nations. But still, even the Secret Protocol isn’t an agreement of establishing a military alliance, but the protocol decides the German and Soviet right to claims regarding their neighbouring countries, in other words, the spheres of influence.

If there was an information leak and the West would had acquired the content of the Secret Protocol, I dare say that the West would have acted differently than it did historically. At this point I present my second dissenting opinion, the West, not being aware of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (the clause of the Secret Protocol) was not immaterial, but very significant regarding to what the West really did and did not.

The West not having an inkling of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact existing, or even the text of the same existing at all, is completely immaterial once Germany and the USSR coordinated an invasion of Poland. At this point, it was clear to all observers that a military alliance existed between Germany and the USSR.

It could have been the Molotov-Ribbentrop fist bump, "Yo... let's Partion Poland bro?!" "Ja volt!"

If the Nazies and the USSR were allies, why didn’t Germany intervene the Soviet invasion of Finland, the Winter War, why didn’t it join the Soviet side and help its ”friend”? Finland would have collapsed easily if the two great powers did so. On the contrary, Germany's actions during this war show that it had little respect regarding the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, while hinting and revealing Finland its future invasion plans against the USSR.

As you mentioned, Finland was put into the USSR's sphere. And Germany was a little busy.

You stated: "The next operation, clearly a militarian one, was the Soviet invasion of Finland, aka, the Winter War. According to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Germany would not intervene the war, but would allow the Soviets do their will."

So... why would Germany involve itself when it's busy occupying Europe and fighting in Africa? The USSR was given free reign in Finland.

Let’s go back a little further. The Anglo-Polish alliance was a military alliance between Britain and Poland. It obliged Britain to declare war against any European country that would attack Poland. This is how Britain acted when Germany started the invasion. When the Soviet Union launched its own invasion about two weeks later, Poland demanded that Britain act as it was obliged to do. Britain wanted to interpret the agreement according to its own views and claimed that the "any European country" mentioned in the agreement was limited to only Germany. So, Britain did not declare war on the Soviet Union, but in that respect broke its obligations, what it had promised to Poland.

Yup, sure did. Perfidious Albion. Can't trust 'em.

But why did the UK not assist Poland against the USSR? Because they knew that Poland was doomed anyway, AND, that declaring war on the USSR would just bind the Germans to the Soviets even more tightly. Potentially leaving the USSR out of the broader war would allow the western allies to play Stalin against Hitler. Which they did and which ultimately led to the Nazi defeat.

I'm not really sure what your point is here? The facts are pretty plain to see and are part of the public record at this point.

 

[Jopa79]

The West not having an inkling of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact existing, or even the text of the same existing at all, is completely immaterial once Germany and the USSR coordinated an invasion of Poland. At this point, it was clear to all observers that a military alliance existed between Germany and the USSR.

It could have been the Molotov-Ribbentrop fist bump, "Yo... let's Partion Poland bro?!" "Ja volt!"

Well, like I said earlier, I disagree, and I think, that if the Allies had known the secret content of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, it would have been relevant for decision-making.

There are no documents existing which prove German-Soviet military alliance. But if you do have a source which proves it, please, can you share it, I would like to examine it too. Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is not a document of military alliance, but a non-aggression agreement.

Germany and the Soviet Union never went to war together against any other country, but were at war at the same time against Poland. The division of Poland and the separate military operations of Germany and the Soviet Union had been agreed upon in the secret section of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the Secret Protocol.

As you mentioned, Finland was put into the USSR's sphere. And Germany was a little busy.

You stated: "The next operation, clearly a militarian one, was the Soviet invasion of Finland, aka, the Winter War. According to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Germany would not intervene the war, but would allow the Soviets do their will."

So... why would Germany involve itself when it's busy occupying Europe and fighting in Africa? The USSR was given free reign in Finland.

Because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Poland and Finland had to fight for their existence of being nations without any significant foreign assistance. Besides these two military campaigns, not very much was happening in the theaters of war. The time-period is also known as the Phoney War, ”the laziest time” in WWII.

During the Winter War, Germany wasn’t busy elsewhere in Europe. If it wanted to, it could have intervened the Winter War. Neither did the Deutsches Afrikakorps join the North Africa Campaign, not until March 1941. And just in case, the Winter War was fought from November 30, 1939 - March 13, 1940.

Yup, sure did. Perfidious Albion. Can't trust 'em.

But why did the UK not assist Poland against the USSR? Because they knew that Poland was doomed anyway, AND, that declaring war on the USSR would just bind the Germans to the Soviets even more tightly. Potentially leaving the USSR out of the broader war would allow the western allies to play Stalin against Hitler. Which they did and which ultimately led to the Nazi defeat.

I'm not really sure what your point is here? The facts are pretty plain to see and are part of the public record at this point.

My point here is, to show, the Allies were not reliable, they could not be trusted during the early stages of WWII. They broke their word, the promises they made, only to focus their own interest. There’s nothing wrong, to concentrate for one’s own welfare, but one shouldn’t make any promises regarding the others, if the promises are not going to be executed.

Further, I was asked here earlier, if I can explain, why the potential Allied intervention to the Winter War would likely to fail. I have the opinion, being untrustworthy is not going to make any good.

 

[Kovax]

While an Allied declaration of war against the Soviets and a relative handful of troops unprepared for winter conditions in the north wouldn't have saved Finland, material support, particularly ammunition, might have prolonged the conflict.

The one case where the Allies could have "lost" the war (as in a negotiated peace, rather than total victory) would be if they had honored their agreement and declared war on the Soviets over the invasion of Poland. It would not have saved Poland, since Germany had effective control of the Baltic through land-based air operations, making supply extremely hazardous and leaving Poland effectively cut off. There might have been a rapid effort made to provide Finland with equipment and ammunition, along with token (and irrelevant) ground forces against the Soviets if they had invaded in spite of the existing war. An Allied intervention probably wouldn't have changed the outcome for Finland, but it's possible that the Soviets might not have invaded Finland at all at that time, while already technically at war against the Allies.

What a Soviet-Allied war does for German-Soviet cooperation is hard to guess, since Germany's primary objective for declaring war was to expand to the east into Soviet territory; all of its other conflicts were primarily to prepare for and secure the flanks for that main effort. Does Germany delay its Barbarossa offensive because of greater cooperation with the Soviets, or launch it earlier as an opportunistic move when the Soviets initiate a somewhat delayed Winter War?

The disruption of Allied material support to the Soviet Union against Germany would not have significantly affected the Soviet defensive efforts, as it wasn't substantial enough to have much impact up to that point, but the ability of the Soviets to launch, coordinate, and supply offensives would have been crippled without that steadily increasing support of essential communications gear (radios, telephone wire) and transportation equipment, (trucks, tires) as well as refined fuel supplies (aviation gas). Germany would almost inevitably still have lost the war, eventually, after the highly probable entry of the US, but the war might have dragged on for another year or several, possibly ending in some kind of negotiated settlement instead of a total surrender by Germany, and the borders in Europe afterwards would likely have been substantially different.

I don't see any way that the UK could have "lost" the war in the form of an actual surrender to Germany without the total destruction of its naval and air forces. An invasion of the British Isles against those assets was not a possibility for Germany in any reasonable timeframe, and a major economic collapse of Germany would have occurred well before that.

 

[Yakman]

Well, like I said earlier, I disagree, and I think, that if the Allies had known the secret content of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, it would have been relevant for decision-making.

Sure. But I still don't see what point you are trying to make here.

There are no documents existing which prove German-Soviet military alliance. But if you do have a source which proves it, please, can you share it, I would like to examine it too. Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is not a document of military alliance, but a non-aggression agreement.

The headline of the Racine Journal-Times on 17 September 1939 proves a USSR-German alliance. If they knew it in Wisconsin, they knew it in London.

Germany and the Soviet Union never went to war together against any other country, but were at war at the same time against Poland. The division of Poland and the separate military operations of Germany and the Soviet Union had been agreed upon in the secret section of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the Secret Protocol.

Wha? Pay attention to what you just posted. There was clearly a military alliance between the two countries. They'd been collaborating with each other for years.

Because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Poland and Finland had to fight for their existence of being nations without any significant foreign assistance. Besides these two military campaigns, not very much was happening in the theaters of war. The time-period is also known as the Phoney War, ”the laziest time” in WWII.

During the Winter War, Germany wasn’t busy elsewhere in Europe. If it wanted to, it could have intervened the Winter War. Neither did the Deutsches Afrikakorps join the North Africa Campaign, not until March 1941. And just in case, the Winter War was fought from November 30, 1939 - March 13, 1940.

So... Germany was getting ready to invade, lemme see...

Denmark.
Norway.
Luxembourg.
Belgium.
The Netherlands.
France.

Did I miss anyone?

I would posit that they might have been busy. Oh, and occupying Poland.

My point here is, to show, the Allies were not reliable, they could not be trusted during the early stages of WWII. They broke their word, the promises they made, only to focus their own interest. There’s nothing wrong, to concentrate for one’s own welfare, but one shouldn’t make any promises regarding the others, if the promises are not going to be executed.

Further, I was asked here earlier, if I can explain, why the potential Allied intervention to the Winter War would likely to fail. I have the opinion, being untrustworthy is not going to make any good.

The Allies were not going to intervene in the Winter War. Finland is really far from London/Paris, and Germany's in the middle.

 

[Jopa79]

Sure. But I still don't see what point you are trying to make here.

You have previously expressed your opinion that whether the Allies knew the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact content, or not, it’s immaterial.

I disagree and have the opinion, it’s not immaterial, that’s the point what I’m saying.

The headline of the Racine Journal-Times on 17 September 1939 proves a USSR-German alliance. If they knew it in Wisconsin, they knew it in London.

The Racine Journal-Times headline surely is an interesting tidbit, thank you for sharing. Still, it’s not a prove of USSR-German alliance, but a newspaper headline, written by reporters.

Acceptable evidence of the USSR-German military alliance is, for example, a document that describes the content of the agreement, at least in general and is signed at least by the Foreign Ministers of the both countries.

Further, the Racine Journal-Times generalizes too much the situation, or at least it easily gets a false perception, by saying, ”Soviet Formally Joins Forces With Nazis”.

The German and Soviet forces never, during the Polish invasion, were literally, and not practically together. They did not attack in a joint operation, against the Polish forces, but had their own, independent operations. Germany attacked from the west and the USSR from the east, Poland and the Polish forces were always between the German and the Soviet forces, until the Polish surrender.

Wha? Pay attention to what you just posted. There was clearly a military alliance between the two countries. They'd been collaborating with each other for years.

Yes. I’m, always paying very close attention, to what I say. The military alliance -thing, I’ve explained it several times now. Collaborating, sharing information, technology, even military one, still it doesn’t mean a military alliance. For example, Finland joined the German submarine, or the U-Boat research program in the early 1930’s and worked on it through the decade. Still, there was no military alliance between the two countries in the 1930’s.

I am, very well aware, for instance, the Lipetsk fighter pilot school and the German U-Boat bases at the Arctic Ocean, on Soviet soil, or at least, the Germans were allowed to use the Soviet bases, dockyards, ports, harbors, etc.

So... Germany was getting ready to invade, lemme see...

Denmark.
Norway.
Luxembourg.
Belgium.
The Netherlands.
France.

Did I miss anyone?

I would posit that they might have been busy. Oh, and occupying Poland.

Usually, military allies join each others in their wars. Clearly, Germany was not interested to join the Winter War, as they were preparing for their own, to-do list. Neither did Germany intervene the Soviet occupation of the Baltic States and in Romania.

The Soviet Union did not participate in German operations anywhere in Europe.

The events strongly support the fact that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was not an agreement of a military alliance, but an agreement, a promise to not to interfere with each others doings.

The Allies were not going to intervene in the Winter War. Finland is really far from London/Paris, and Germany's in the middle.

Most politely, Sir, I want to point out that you may not be familiar with the actual course of these events, or you have not followed this thread, or your sentence suggests that the Allied speeches and plan to help Finland was empty from the beginning.

The Allied plan, to intervene the Winter War, was supposed to happen via Norway and Sweden, not via the Baltic Sea, past Germany.

Franco-British plans for intervention in the Winter War - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org