# What if the Allies had declared war on the Soviets in 1939.



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2007)

This is just an interesing what if scenerio. We all know this did not happen but what if the Allies had declared war on the Soviets in 1939.

The British and the French had allready agreed to defend the Polish if they were attacked. They declared war on Germany after it invaded Poland on Sept. 1, 1939. The French and British actually declared war on Sept 3, 1939. Later that month on Sept. 17 1939 the Soviets who had allready met with Germany and come up with a plan on how to devide Poland after the invasion (called the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) then proceded to invade the Polish from the East. They technically were aggressors on the side of Germany. Once the two invading Armies met they helped each other with strategic plans and continued to occupy the rest of the country. In just the 2 years until Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941 the Soviets killed or deported 1.8 million Polish citizens in there area of occupation.

How would this have effected the war if France and England had declared war on the Soviets?

Why did they choose not to declare war on the Soviets?

Would Germany and Russia been able to cooperate eneogh with each other fight the French and the British?

Would Hitler still have invaded the Soviets in 1941?

How would the US have reacted to a British/French war against Germany/Russia.

What are your thoughts?

Below are pictures of Russian and German troops together in Poland.


----------



## Glider (Jan 10, 2007)

Seeing as the Germans were all over the British/French forces in record time, the Russian forces added to to the Germans would have crushed us.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 10, 2007)

The US would have stayed out of it. US neutrality and isolationism was still very strong at the time.


----------



## Glider (Jan 10, 2007)

In 1939 it wouldn't have mattered if the USA had joined in. The USA had no tanks, no planes capable of taking on the Germans and the production of war material hadn't had a chance to develop.

Nope it would ahve been a very short glorious defeat.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 10, 2007)

Axis production capabilities augmented by the USSR would have been staggering. I agree with Glider that given the unprepared nature of the Allies, and also the US, there would have not been a chance of victory for the Allies - at least not in the short run.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2007)

Interesting ideas that I pretty much also had thought of and agree with you. Just want to see what others think. I think that if the Soviets had war declared on them it would have been a tragedy...


----------



## mkloby (Jan 10, 2007)

The only possible "good" outcome for the Allies would have been in when Germany attacked Poland on 1 Sep, they actually attacked Germany's western border. Germany would not have been able to sustain it's attack vice Poland and defend her western border. It's possible that Russia could have backed out of the pact - since she did invade on 17 Sep I believe.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2007)

Yeap 17 Sept, 1939 is when they invaded.


----------



## Raf ace (Jan 12, 2007)

I realy dont get it


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2007)

What is there not to get?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 12, 2007)

here's how i'd see it- USA stay out of the war as per the real war, however i agree that the Russians would have aided the Germans in inflicting a huge defeat in France, but at the same time they wouldn't be a great deal of help in some respects, mostly because of the time it would've taken to get the troops to France. However i don't see the Russians being able to get enough troops into France to change the outcome in anyway, the advance was so quick extra troops would have done little, then both Germany and Russia are facing the Channel, Russia would have been little help here because of their non-existant airforce, extra naval strength perhaps? not up to the standards of the RN however, ultimately however as long as hitler was making the decisions he would have declared war on the 'Communist Infidels' sooner or later out of hatred for them...........


----------



## Medvedya (Jan 13, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> , Russia would have been little help here because of their non-existant airforce, extra naval strength perhaps? not up to the standards of the RN however



The VVS was just out-dated, not non-existant. On the other hand the VMF (Red Navy) was a mere shadow of what it became in the Cold War.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 13, 2007)

Medvedya said:


> The VVS was just out-dated, not non-existant. On the other hand the VMF (Red Navy) was a mere shadow of what it became in the Cold War.



And that was a shadow of what what the US Navy during the Cold War  

I actually like the old Sevestopol class. The Soviet Navy would have been a decent force (despite lack of naval aviation) if they survived and were modernized along w/ the Imperatritsa Mariyas, the Imperator Nikolai, and Izmails (if these last weren't forsaken or destroyed during the revolution).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2007)

the fact remains that the Ruskies would be just as stumped by the channel as the Germans and all the other attempted invaders over the last 950 years.............


----------



## Medvedya (Jan 13, 2007)

Oh Gawd - an invite to a Lunatic style pissing contest complete with extremely boring pages of stats going round and round and round forever. No thanks. 

Stats or irrefutable historical sources quoted from Tom Clancy novels aside, the Soviet Navy must have been regarded as a credible threat by the Pentagon during the Cold War, otherwise why would billions of dollars have been sunk (no pun intended) in the USN submarine service? 

Anyway - The Soviet Union had just come out of the purges by 1939, and it was mainly the legacy of those that caused the Winter War against Finland to be an utter fiasco. 

This would suggest that their armed forces were in such a parlour state at that point, that even if the USSR had become a full military ally of Germany in 1939, it's extremely doubtful that they would have become directly involved in a Western offensive that would have been of no benefit to them whatsoever.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 13, 2007)

mkloby said:


> I actually like the old Sevestopol class. The Soviet Navy would have been a decent force (despite lack of naval aviation) if they survived and were modernized along w/ the Imperatritsa Mariyas, the Imperator Nikolai, and Izmails (if these last weren't forsaken or destroyed during the revolution).


The Sevastopols were pre-revolutionary buckets that would have stood little chance against the more modern battleships and cruisers of the Royal Navy, and British naval expertise. The Kirovs were an overall decent modern cruiser design, with some glaring flaws in AAA placement, but not enough to make much of a dent in the RN. 

The Soviet Navy wasn't exactly inept though. They retained much of the pre-revolutionary pride and tradition that was lost in the Army, and they were actually very good sailors. The fact is that the Soviet Navy was still too small, relatively out of date, and not nearly up to the level of the RN. Not enough to make a heck of a difference on the seas.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 13, 2007)

Medvedya said:


> Oh Gawd - an invite to a Lunatic style pissing contest complete with extremely boring pages of stats going round and round and round forever. No thanks.
> 
> Stats or irrefutable historical sources quoted from Tom Clancy novels aside, the Soviet Navy must have been regarded as a credible threat by the Pentagon during the Cold War, otherwise why would billions of dollars have been sunk (no pun intended) in the USN submarine service?



Hold on cowboy - it was a JOKE not an "invite." Didn't you notice the smiley face???


----------



## Medvedya (Jan 13, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Hold on cowboy - it was a JOKE not an "invite." Didn't you notice the smiley face???



Ah no problems - in other forums I've been in during my sabbatical from here I've grown to expect the worst!


The trouble was, although expanding and modernising the Navy was planned in the Thirties, the powers that be never gave it much priority. Indeed, when the GPW started in 1941, many of the naval guns were taken off battleships and used on land. And many sailors were given rifles and thrown in to fight alongside the RKKA. There was admittedly a large submarine fleet, and the Naval Razvechiki proved to be deadly and capable on the Kola peninsular - but STAVKA realised too late that having a powerful Navy was a good thing to have after all.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 13, 2007)

Medvedya said:


> Ah no problems - in other forums I've been in during my sabbatical here I've grown to expect the worst!


----------



## Medvedya (Jan 13, 2007)

Incidentally - I'm going back to St. Petes in a little over a weeks time (just got my visa through today) I'll try and get some pictures of the Aurora when I'm there.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 13, 2007)

Please do!


----------



## Medvedya (Jan 13, 2007)

It's still a commissioned vessel in the VMF (although it's moored in concrete now) and has a crew who are both curators and live aboard her. 

During the siege it was kitted out with Ack Ack guns (PVO) as part of the city's defences.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 13, 2007)

Medvedya said:


> Incidentally - I'm going back to St. Petes in a little over a weeks time (just got my visa through today) I'll try and get some pictures of the Aurora when I'm there.



That would be most excellent!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2007)

Yeap looking foward to that Med. Good to have you back around though.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 13, 2007)

Yeah, look forward to the pics. I have seen her when I was in St Petersburg but I didn't go around her (were only their for the day so it was only the Palace's that I saw).

I would agree with most people and say an alliance between Germany and the Soviets in 1939 would not of changed the outcome of the battles in the West in 1939/40. I think that it would of possibably bought the Russians more time to rebuild their armed forces and so be better prepared for any Barbarossa style attack that the Germans may launch later in the the decade (likely between 41 and 43).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2007)

The only problem with that would be that it would make a Barbarossa really hard because the Russians would allready be at your front door and in your country due to the aliance. They also would want to be part of the occupation of France.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 13, 2007)

Exactly which makes the possibility of a formal alliance between the two (for more than just Poland) even more unlikely. The case could be put though not to give them occupation rights because they had no troops on the ground (like not giving the Soviets occupation rights on mainland Japan).


----------



## Cojimar 1945 (Jan 17, 2007)

The Royal Navy was considerably weaker than the US navy. People may be overestimating it.


----------



## Soren (Jan 17, 2007)

With Hitler in charge I find it very hard to believe that Germany could ever have the Soviet Union as an ally for any long period of time.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 17, 2007)

Cojimar 1945 said:


> The Royal Navy was considerably weaker than the US navy. People may be overestimating it.



Not in 1939, the Royal Navy was the strongest in the world at that time. Was only after the American's entered the war and started rearming that their Navy took of in size peaking in 1945 (as did the RN).


----------



## plan_D (Jan 17, 2007)

The Soviet Union would have probably only pushed through Finland and into Norway. There the German forces and Soviet Union would have met - the Germans would have had to cross the Channel, and if the Soviets bothered they'd have to cross the North Sea. It wasn't going to happen. It'd have all been basically the same, since Hitler would have turned on the Soviets anyway.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 17, 2007)

The RN at the time had absolute naval superiority in the atlantic and north sea- plus of course something which is often forgotten- the only Russian warm water port is in the black sea, the only way out is through the Bosphurus, we couldn't stop them coming through there but in traveling to Britain to fight there you have to make it past Alexandria, Malta _and_ Gibralta- all the Russian ports in the arctic circle freeze solid for 5/6 months of the year! as such the Soviet navy can all but be ignored in this discussion i believe, what can't be ignored is the RN's history, experience and size..........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 17, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> the only Russian warm water port is in the black sea...all the Russian ports in the arctic circle freeze solid for 5/6 months of the year!


The Kola Fjord, and the Northern Fleet base at Severomorsk just north of Murmansk, are open water year round. Not to mention Vladivostok on the Pacific of course.


----------



## Glider (Jan 19, 2007)

The Russian Navy wouldn't have been any help to the Germans as I believe it was the least effective arm of any of the participants in WW2


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jan 19, 2007)

My thoughts are:

Having the advance to the channel would have been a bad thing for Germany or the Soviets IMO because they both wanted to attack each other, preferably when Britain was out of the way and the other nation was war-weary.

I think for the Soviets, Barbarossa would come even sooner and Stalin would be even less prepared. Also, the Germans could cut into the centre of the Russian advance, isolating ands maybe destroying those in Europe?

For the Germans, well the Soviets in France could open another front - much like D-Day.

I expect that when both sides got near Spain, that memory of the Civil War there might start tensions?

Would the BoB have happened? Would Britain just sue for peace? What would I-16's add, if anything? Would Hitler be more, or less patient about Barbarossa? Would the US realise it's error, crap it's pants and attack?

I like someone's ideas of attacking Germany from the West, halting the German and maybe Soviet advance into Poland, nipping it inthe bud. What would've been the consequences of that though?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 20, 2007)

> Not to mention Vladivostok on the Pacific of course



yes i ignored that one on account of the fact it's on the other side of the world and they'd have to get past the japaneese too, didn't know about the others though..........


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 21, 2007)

Still pressure on Malta and all those places, if you are in an Alliance with Germany could be effective. Malta and all of those places would have been useful as shipping places for convoys to stop and thus there would have been problems if they were in enemy hands or under attack... The US was probably doing underhand deals before it was in the war with Britain...


----------

