• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Lordhen

Second Lieutenant
8 Badges
Oct 19, 2018
149
0
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria 2
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
What if Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance in 1939

Ever created a British-French-Soviet Alliance in HoI, well it did almost happened, so how would the world look today if the French and Brits responded positively to a offer made by Stalin on August 15th 1939, papers which were kept secret for almost 70 years show that the Soviet Union two weeks before war broke out in 1939 proposed sending a powerful military force in an effort to entice Britain and France into an anti-Nazi alliance. But the British and French delegation that had a meeting on August 15th 1939 at the Kremlin with a senior Soviet military delegation made up of the chief of the general staff, Boris Shaposhnikov, Defense Commissar Kliment Voroshilov and the naval minister, Admiral Nikolai Kusnezov who offered to dispatch 120 infantry divisions (each with some 19,000 troops), 16 cavalry divisions, 5,000 heavy artillery pieces, 9,500 tanks and up to 5,500 fighter aircraft and bombers on Germany's borders in the event of war in the west if Polish objections to the Soviet Army crossing its territory could first be overcome. But Admiral Sir Reginald Drax, who was leading the British delegation briefed by their governments to talk, but not authorized to commit to binding deals - did not respond to the Soviet offer. Instead, Stalin turned to Germany, signing the notorious non-aggression treaty named the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact after the foreign secretaries of the two countries barely a week later.

Photo of the arrival of the British-French delegation in Moscow
reginalddrax2.jpg


But what if the British and French had taken this offer seriously then together the British, French and Soviet armies could have put some 300 or more divisions into the field on two fronts against Germany - double the number Hitler had at the time, this might have forced Hitler to backed off, lest he trigger a two-front war. Hitler believed that he could defeat Poland well before the western powers could intervene, but could scarcely have entertained the same hope with regard to the Soviet Union. In his manifesto, Mein Kampf, the Nazi leader warned against the danger of fighting on two fronts. And, if anything, his generals feared that prospect more than he did. A secret resistance to Hitler among the men of the German High Command already existed. An alliance between the British, French and Soviets might have made Hitler’s foreign policy course seem so reckless as to spur that resistance into action.

But Hitler might have invaded Poland anyway. It was well known throughout Europe that Stalin’s military purges of the late 1930s had enormously damaged the Soviet armed forces. Hitler had contempt not only for the Soviet military but for its political leadership, and, countervailing alliance or no countervailing alliance, may well have pressed ahead with an attack on Poland, gambling that he could eliminate Poland before the Red Army could lumber into action and intervene effectively.

An Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance might have achieved the desired effect of deterring Hitler from invading Poland. But an alliance also might merely have postponed that invasion while Hitler engaged in more of the diplomatic maneuvering that had characterized his foreign policy for years. Or a Soviet alliance with the Western Allies could have had scant effect, with Germany invading Poland on September 1st 1939, as occurred historically.

What then would have been the impact of an alliance between the Soviet Union, Great Britain and the French Republic? In many respects the Soviet Union would have annexed the Baltic states and Eastern European would fall under its sphere of influence. But although it is unlikely that it would have helped the Poles fend off the Germans, the Soviet Union could have wound up holding onto an eastern strip of Polish territory.

The main difference—and this is vital—is that instead of a second front breaking open with the surprise attack of Operation Barbarossa in June 1941, war would have broken out between Germany and the Soviet Union in Sept ember 1939. The French army would have stood undefeated, Britain’s forces on the continent would have remained formidable, and, whatever their military shortcomings, the Soviets would have threatened Germany in a way that Hitler could not have ignored. In short, an Anglo-French-Soviet alliance might not have achieved its objective of deterring war. But the alliance would have forced Germany into a two-front conflict that would have played out very differently— to Germany’s disadvantage.

In the end no such alliance was formed, Poland whose territory the vast Soviet army would have had to cross to confront Germany, was firmly against such an alliance as they had good reasons to mistrust the Soviet Union and Britain was doubtful about the efficacy of any Soviet forces because only the previous year, Stalin had purged thousands of top Red Army commanders.

A desperate attempt by the French on August 21st to revive the talks was rebuffed, as secret Soviet-Nazi talks were already well advanced, it was only two years later, following Hitler's Blitzkreig attack on Russia in June 1941, that the alliance with the West which Stalin had sought finally came about - by which time France, Poland and much of the rest of Europe were already under German occupation.
 
It might have stopped Germany from invading Poland, but it was basically enabling the USSR to do so.

The Poles wouldn't have permitted it, so it was a non-starter in many ways.
 
The effect would have been Poland rather to subdue to Germany than the USSR.
 
An Anglo-French-Soviet alliance at that time means that Poland has two choices:
1) become a protectorate of the USSR to be protected from Germany but practically end polish independance with a permanent presence of soviet troops in Poland,
2) take the prior german offer to become their ally and give up support for the Free City of Danzig so that it becomes german again.
 
Probable outcomes acording to my theory:

1. Germany prepares for war in 1942+
- Leaves Poland alone
- Alliances change till then, who knows what happens next

2. Germany invades Poland in 9/1939 or not much after

PART I:
- Soviets come from the east for rescue
- French threaten to take action via loudspeakers across the rhine...
- British sail around the North sea, blockading...
- Barbarossa less successfull, when Germany starts loosing peace is signed
- Soviets get eastern Poland to invest into.

PART II:
- Hitler is overthrown
- Germany, France and Britain forge an alliance against the red menace
- Barbarossa II starts, this time with the US as project manager and supplier.
- If Soviets lose, map is similar to nowaday's.
- If Soviets win, nukes step in. Korean war on steroids and on European soil.
 
An Anglo-French-Soviet alliance at that time means that Poland has two choices:
1) become a protectorate of the USSR to be protected from Germany but practically end polish independance with a permanent presence of soviet troops in Poland,
2) take the prior german offer to become their ally and give up support for the Free City of Danzig so that it becomes german again.
or poland rejects both, which is entirely plausible.
 
or poland rejects both, which is entirely plausible.

I do no think so. The polish before WW2 were overconfident (after all they had won against the USSR only a few years ago) but most of their confidence came from the alliance with France and the UK. The polish plans for war took their western allies into account and their promised invasion of Germany from the west as a relief attack. If all of that would depend on Poland allowing soviet troops marching over polish soil, losing Danzig to Germany does not seem so bad anymore.
 
I do no think so. The polish before WW2 were overconfident (after all they had won against the USSR only a few years ago) but most of their confidence came from the alliance with France and the UK. The polish plans for war took their western allies into account and their promised invasion of Germany from the west as a relief attack. If all of that would depend on Poland allowing soviet troops marching over polish soil, losing Danzig to Germany does not seem so bad anymore.
This.
Especially bearing in mind that Poland actually even didn't own Danzig at that moment :)
 
This.
Especially bearing in mind that Poland actually even didn't own Danzig at that moment :)
They didn't own it in the sense that they ruled the place, or collected tax from the Danzigers.

But they controlled it, and were the only thing stopping both the Danzigers from rejoining Germany and Germany from walking into Danzig to anschluss it... So actually yes they did "own" it and could "lose" it.
 
This all boils down to the one underlying problem for the Allies: the Eastern European countries feared conquest by the Soviets even more than conquest by Germany. They feared the Germans as a threat to their freedom, but the Soviets would also take that, plus threaten their livelihood and religion. Hitler counted heavily on that greater fear to draw/coerce Hungary and Romania into eventual alliances, despite Horthy in Hungary despising Hitler and Romania having no love for Germans in general.

My suspicion is that any attempt by France and the UK to pressure Poland into allowing Soviet troops into the country (again) would drive Poland into some kind of "deal with the devil" with Germany. That ultimately could have ended up worse than the historical course of events, where some incident provoked or set up by Hitler triggers a Germany/Italy/Poland versus France/UK/Soviets war in 1940, especially if Stalin decided to pursue his aims in Finland or the Balkans.
 
There is also an outside possibility of a second Polish-Soviet war with an eventual German intervention to 'protect' the Poles from the Soviets. If the Soviet Union was the aggressor then there is even the possibility of an eventual German - British alliance against them. This idea had at least some support from some sections of British society and had Hitler been a little more restrained (which is possible in the case of an Anglo-Soviet alliance) it may have been adopted as policy, if the Soviets were viewed as untrustworthy aggressors.
 
There is also an outside possibility of a second Polish-Soviet war with an eventual German intervention to 'protect' the Poles from the Soviets. If the Soviet Union was the aggressor then there is even the possibility of an eventual German - British alliance against them. This idea had at least some support from some sections of British society and had Hitler been a little more restrained (which is possible in the case of an Anglo-Soviet alliance) it may have been adopted as policy, if the Soviets were viewed as untrustworthy aggressors.
The problem is, whit those German volunteers moving into Poland to aid them against the Soviet Union, if the war ends, they most likely will not leave.
 
Doubt Poland has much choice, do wonder if the enemy of my enemy is my friend works with Poland and the Soviet Union as i think Poland fears Germany and the Soviet Union the same way i think.
?

They reject both. And... nothing happens. The Soviets can't attack them because they are scared of war with Germany. Vice versa.

Play them against each other.

It was only when the two worked together IRL that they managed to overcome their mutual terror and split Poland atwain. if their alliance never forms, Poland can walk right down the middle. if they side with one of the titans, they lose their advantage.
 
?

They reject both. And... nothing happens. The Soviets can't attack them because they are scared of war with Germany. Vice versa.

Play them against each other.

It was only when the two worked together IRL that they managed to overcome their mutual terror and split Poland atwain. if their alliance never forms, Poland can walk right down the middle. if they side with one of the titans, they lose their advantage.

Because that worked so great the last 3 divisions of Poland between neighbours that were not really friendly with each other?
 
Because that worked so great the last 3 divisions of Poland between neighbours that were not really friendly with each other?
you side with Germany, then the Soviets have no compunction about invading. You side with the Soviets, and the Germans might come over the border. And in either case, you'll probably have to give up a chunk of sovereignty.

there was no perfect solution.
 
I have my doubts. Hitler was hell-bent on his mad "Lebensraum" schemes, so he WILL start a war and Poland will be caught in the middle.
If Germany invades, then you call in the Soviets for help.

The genius of the Pact of Iron was that it removed that option from the Poles.
 
AFAIK, Stalin was worried that the western allies would set Germany and the USSR up against each other to bleed one another dry in war. He thought he had turned the tables on them with the M-R pact. But even without that pact, Stalin might have been reluctant to bear the brunt of the costs of a war.

Generally, smaller powers between larger ones do not seem to last long. Playing one against the other sounds nice in theory but the moment one of the big guys has other problems and is distracted or weakened, the other fella seizes the opportunity to come for you.
 
The problem is, whit those German volunteers moving into Poland to aid them against the Soviet Union, if the war ends, they most likely will not leave.
As horrific as it was IRL this scenario could actually be worse for the Poles...