What if: Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance in 1939

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 9166
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: What if: Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance in 1939

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 05 Jul 2020 06:33

Futurist wrote:
04 Jul 2020 22:03
...
How long until a coup happens in Germany once a two-front war ends up happening in this scenario?
How long did it take OTL?

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: What if: Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance in 1939

Post by Futurist » 05 Jul 2020 18:03

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
05 Jul 2020 06:33
Futurist wrote:
04 Jul 2020 22:03
...
How long until a coup happens in Germany once a two-front war ends up happening in this scenario?
How long did it take OTL?
Well, we didn't have a serious second front until June 1944, and the coup attempt was in July 1944, so, one month?

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 9166
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: What if: Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance in 1939

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 05 Jul 2020 18:16

There was a conspiracy & assassination attempts earlier. I'd think the course of all that would be similar & equally depend on luck or chance in this hypothetical war.

rkka_arvgk
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: 01 Jul 2020 17:37
Location: USA

Re: What if: Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance in 1939

Post by rkka_arvgk » 06 Jul 2020 15:54

Futurist wrote:
04 Jul 2020 22:05

Being under German occupation for 1-5 years might have been perceived as being better than being under Soviet occupation for 40-100 years, though.
You're not too well-versed in Nazi racial theories, are you.
Futurist wrote:
01 Jul 2020 21:45
It seems like a couple of years of German occupation would be superior to this if the Holocaust wasn't reasonably foreseeable yet.
The quote below, which you seem to want to minimize & and seemingly justify, explains it all.
Futurist wrote:
01 Jul 2020 21:45
"When we speak of land in Europe today, we can have in mind primarily Russia and her vassal border states'" Perhaps the Polish government should have had a look at Nazi racial theory, and the place Slavs occupied in it.
He's still not advocating genocide here, technically speaking.
He's advocating the acquisition of soil for the German plow, from areas whose agricultural productivity wasn't all that great, so someone's going to go without...

Adolf was an avid reader of the novels of Karl May, set in the American West, which related the consequences of the US expansion into the West to indigenous peoples, and intended a similar fate for the Slavs, Poles & Ukrainians very much included.
Futurist wrote:
01 Jul 2020 21:45
After all, Poland managed to survive several years of German occupation in World War I, so the hope was presumably for a repeat of this during World War II--followed by an eventual Western Allied victory as in World War I, of course.


Kaiser Billy II =/= Kaiser Adolf I. See Nazi racial theories, referenced above.
In Mein Kempf, the only Jews that Hitler advocated gassing were those 12-15 thousand Jews who were demoralizing the German troops on the front lines during World War I (in other words, Jewish subversives). He was not advocating mass murdering the entire Jewish population in Mein Kampf.
The soil for the German plow were to come from the Slavs populating & farming it, Poles & Ukrainians very much included.
Futurist wrote:
01 Jul 2020 21:45
After such a victory, I am presuming that the hope would be that Poland's independence would be restored without Poland actually having to fall under Communist rule.
As the DCoS mention, long wars transform things, and the only hope of a short war involves the Polish government accepting Soviet assistance.
But even with a short war, Poland could still end up under Soviet occupation and/or under indirect Soviet rule for decades afterwards, no?
In the event of a short war, Poland has an army & a government in Warsaw, sitting at the conference table, rather than a conquered country being ignored.

And the anticommunist French government, with an army, and an anticommunist British government, are far more likely to take up Poland's cause than was the case historically.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 7157
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: What if: Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance in 1939

Post by wm » 07 Jul 2020 21:38

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
02 Jul 2020 01:38
If so that was a stupid hope. Germany was obviously going to crush Poland quickly and then was the clear favorite against France and 10 British divisions.
But strangely Polish soldiers were planting Polish flag over destroyed Berlin at the same time Hitler committed suicide with his wife and his dog.
40683.jpeg
so it wasn't really that stupid.
With the subsequent collapse of the "thousand-year" USSR, it resulted in the finest Polish victory in her history over two of her most dangerous enemies.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: What if: Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance in 1939

Post by Futurist » 07 Jul 2020 22:30

wm wrote:
07 Jul 2020 21:38
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
02 Jul 2020 01:38
If so that was a stupid hope. Germany was obviously going to crush Poland quickly and then was the clear favorite against France and 10 British divisions.
But strangely Polish soldiers were planting Polish flag over destroyed Berlin at the same time Hitler committed suicide with his wife and his dog.

40683.jpeg

so it wasn't really that stupid.
With the subsequent collapse of the "thousand-year" USSR, it resulted in the finest Polish victory in her history over two of her most dangerous enemies.
Poland's population (especially its Jews) suffered an extremely heavy price for this Polish victory, but Yes, in geopolitical terms, Polonia emerged much stronger in 1989 than it was back in 1939.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 9166
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: What if: Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance in 1939

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 09 Jul 2020 21:04

wm wrote:
07 Jul 2020 21:38
...

But strangely Polish soldiers were planting Polish flag over destroyed Berlin at the same time Hitler committed suicide with his wife and his dog.
Polish soldiers advancing across the north German plain, from the south to Austria & Bavaria, and from the east to Berlin. The suicide is understandable.
so it wasn't really that stupid.
With the subsequent collapse of the "thousand-year" USSR, it resulted in the finest Polish victory in her history over two of her most dangerous enemies.
It pays to play a long game.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: What if: Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance in 1939

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 09 Jul 2020 21:23

Carl Schwamberg wrote:It pays to play a long game.
The game actually started in 1795 with the Third Partition. The Second Polish Republic was a fakeout that Russia and Germany fell for. Poland like - gotcha! - we'll take 50 more years of foreign domination!

But the Poles couldn't match Russia's long game of 300 years under the Golden Horde. They gave up too soon.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: What if: Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance in 1939

Post by Futurist » 16 Sep 2020 21:35

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
09 Jul 2020 21:23
Carl Schwamberg wrote:It pays to play a long game.
The game actually started in 1795 with the Third Partition. The Second Polish Republic was a fakeout that Russia and Germany fell for. Poland like - gotcha! - we'll take 50 more years of foreign domination!

But the Poles couldn't match Russia's long game of 300 years under the Golden Horde. They gave up too soon.
Why suffer longer under foreign domination than you have to? ;)

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: What if: Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance in 1939

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 17 Sep 2020 01:10

Futurist wrote:
16 Sep 2020 21:35
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
09 Jul 2020 21:23
Carl Schwamberg wrote:It pays to play a long game.
The game actually started in 1795 with the Third Partition. The Second Polish Republic was a fakeout that Russia and Germany fell for. Poland like - gotcha! - we'll take 50 more years of foreign domination!

But the Poles couldn't match Russia's long game of 300 years under the Golden Horde. They gave up too soon.
Why suffer longer under foreign domination than you have to? ;)
Can't tell whether you don't get the joke or you're echoing it.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: What if: Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance in 1939

Post by Futurist » 17 Sep 2020 03:31

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
17 Sep 2020 01:10
Futurist wrote:
16 Sep 2020 21:35
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
09 Jul 2020 21:23
Carl Schwamberg wrote:It pays to play a long game.
The game actually started in 1795 with the Third Partition. The Second Polish Republic was a fakeout that Russia and Germany fell for. Poland like - gotcha! - we'll take 50 more years of foreign domination!

But the Poles couldn't match Russia's long game of 300 years under the Golden Horde. They gave up too soon.
Why suffer longer under foreign domination than you have to? ;)
Can't tell whether you don't get the joke or you're echoing it.
I got the joke; hence my wink here. :)

rkka_arvgk
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: 01 Jul 2020 17:37
Location: USA

Re: What if: Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance in 1939

Post by rkka_arvgk » 25 May 2022 12:43

Why suffer longer under foreign domination than you have to? ;)

Can't tell whether you don't get the joke or you're echoing it.

I got the joke; hence my wink here. :)
By August '39, war is inevitable absent visible Anglo-French preparations to intervene militarily against Germany in the West, which there is no chance of Chamberlain agreeing to, and no chance of Daladier attempting without Chamberlain's acquiescence.

Historically, effective Polish Army resistance was broken in two weeks, with the Polish Army by then cut up into about 10 pieces, six surrounded, incapable of operating in mutual support and subject to defeat in detail.

In the event of Poland agreeing to the entry of Soviet forces in the event of a German attack on Poland, leading to success for the Anglo-French-Soviet (& now Polish) military staff talks in Moscow, and with some time for combined planning & coordination, there's a chance of effective Polish resistance being prolonged beyond that.

What is Adolf's position now, and is there a chance of Europe being spared a six year orgy of blood & horror killing 50m Europeans?

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: What if: Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance in 1939

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 25 May 2022 20:01

This is the foundational WW2 counterfactual. The war could have been avoided or turned into a relatively cheap police action to slap down Hitler, who had no chance against this coalition. An additional benefit is that the US can remain out of the war, which delays its switch from self-righteous non-interventionism to self-righteous global imperialism - perhaps saving millions of lives in countries later victimized by US imperialism.

In surveys at the time, 80-90% of Brittons supported an alliance with the Soviet Union. Even atavistic reactionaries like Churchill - no friend of Communism - supported it. British actions during negotiations over the failed alliance were so disreputable that HM government was forced to hide them: Britain tried in 1940 to publish a document blaming the Soviets for the alliance's failure but its own ally France - and many in the British Foreign Office - forced the government to renege on a promise to do so. The actual record was judged more embarrassing to the government than publicly reneging on the pledge to publish the paper.

What's more, the Allies (Chamberlain and his ilk aside) knew that their military position in the coming war was weak, absent the SU. Discussion of this fact here. Germany was a far stronger land power than France, who barely held Germany in WW1 with massive help from Russia, Italy, the US, and 80 British Empire divisions. Germany was well prepared for blockade following the lessons of WW1, as discussed here. While much of that German preparation was hidden from public view, much of it was not and the assumption that blockade would work rested on political conditions negated by spurning the SU and which were facile anyway (assuming Germany would/could not learn WW1 lessons). With no Russia/Italy/US and the British sending only 10 divisions, with the blockade significantly neutered, France was doomed to fall.

Even in 1939 the Eastern Front was by far the most important theater of the war - this time for its absence.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: What if: Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance in 1939

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 25 May 2022 20:38

rkka_arvgk wrote:
25 May 2022 12:43
In the event of Poland agreeing to the entry of Soviet forces in the event of a German attack on Poland, leading to success for the Anglo-French-Soviet (& now Polish) military staff talks in Moscow, and with some time for combined planning & coordination, there's a chance of effective Polish resistance being prolonged beyond that.
It's a virtual certainty that Polish resistance would have been prolonged. During the Munich crisis, RKKA began moving to the border and mobilized the equivalent of 90 divisions. See The Soviet Union and the Origins of the Second World War by Geoffrey Roberts. In 1939 the SU could have done at least as much.

Had Britain/France been honest with Poland instead of leading them to believe a Western relief offensive and other aid would prevent Hitler swallowing them, they'd probably have relented and allowed the Red Army to fight on Polish soil. Maybe they wouldn't have, though? In that case, forget Poland - they shouldn't have been allowed to create a global catastrophe through their own stubbornness.
rkka_arvgk wrote:
25 May 2022 12:43
What is Adolf's position now, and is there a chance of Europe being spared a six year orgy of blood & horror killing 50m Europeans?
Hitler is screwed, his project thwarted. His only chance was always to divide his enemies and conquer them separately. In Mein Kampf the plan was to make Britain a German ally. That didn't work but then Britain resurrected his project by turning the Soviet Union into a temporary neutral/ally.

Yes, Europe could have been spared WW2. The only reason it happened is the folly of Allied leaders (mostly British by the late 1930's) pretending that Europe could handle Germany without Russian/Soviet belligerence. Those leaders were ultimately unable to decide which was worse - Nazism or Communism. WW2 is ultimately a subchapter of the Cold War.
Last edited by TheMarcksPlan on 25 May 2022 20:39, edited 1 time in total.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 7157
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: What if: Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance in 1939

Post by wm » 25 May 2022 20:39

rkka_arvgk wrote:
25 May 2022 12:43
Historically, effective Polish Army resistance was broken in two weeks, with the Polish Army by then cut up into about 10 pieces, six surrounded, incapable of operating in mutual support and subject to defeat in detail.
The resistance collapsed because Poland was attacked from behind. Poland indented to resist in the barely-accessible in autumn Eastern parts of Poland. The gradual withdrawal to the East was in the plan.

We shouldn't confuse Stalinist Russia with the cute bear from the "Masha and the Bear" cartoon.
The (genocidal) Stalinist Russia wasn't going to pull capitalist chestnuts out of the fire for the benefit of its enemies (i.e., Britain and France.)
Even more preposterous is the idea that Russia was going to fight Germany alone (and for years) - as it was obvious France had no offensive capabilities in 1939.

When the British committed themselves to the defense of Poland, they simultaneously handed over to Russia the only thing Russia needed - a prospect of a devastating war between capitalist countries without its involvement.
Russia simply didn't need and shouldn't have been involved in that.

The talks between the Allies and Stalinist Russia didn't collapse because Poland refused - actually Poland granted the request for negotiation purposes. Anyway, it was the less important military agreement they negotiated over there.

The Allies were reluctant to sign the more important political agreement because Stalinist Russia wanted to be paid for its services with a free hand in Eastern Europe, with the right to sovietize Eastern Europe.

Return to “What if”