WI: Great Britain and France declare war on the Soviet Union as well in 1939?

[Look More Closely Later]

Perceptions

Gamelin and Churchill were both wrong; by October 1939, only eight infantry divisions remained in the east, garrisoning East Prussia and Poland. The German army in occupied Poland didn't exceed 10 divisions until March 1940, peaking at 18 divisions in April 1940 before dropping to just 7 divisions by June. Germany diverted more men and resources away from the Western Front for the invasion of Scandinavia: 7 divisions, a Luftwaffe Fliegerkorps and the entire Kreigsmarine surface fleet.

If Gamelin and Churchill actually believe at the time that the Germans have twenty plus divisions tied down in Poland holding a staring contest with the Russians, that's what they're going to do their political and military sums based upon though. If they believe the Russians are tying down twenty German divisions, keeping at least a dozen or so away from the western front (I'm guessing from your figures that the Germans need a minimum of 7 for garrison duties), that counts for something, given Britain and France's perilous state.*
Edit:
* By perilous state I refer to their not being on quite so much of a war footing as Germany, basically trying to play catch-up at this point.

 

[pattersonautobody]

OTL the USSR wanted to join the Axis for concessions south of their borders, so if in 1939 the French and British declared war, the USSR would essentially be a co-belligerent by default. It may butterfly away the winter war and the Russians might face disaster in Iran (due to British assistance). Operation Pike may occur. It leads to a weaker Russia that Germany likely attacks in 1941, though butterflies might push it off a year (in OTL part of the reason of attacking Russia was to get Britain out of the war. Now, with USSR in a warm war with Britain, they might temporarily reevaluate this strategy.)

However, if the invasion of France goes different, it would be interesting to see Russian "assistance" which the Germans might welcome, being that they welcomes their allies assistance against Russia OTL.

 

[Cook]

Wikipedia (for what it's worth)...

Wikipedia is, as usual, entirely unreliable.

If Gamelin and Churchill actually believe at the time...

Churchill was being disingenuous. During the British cabinet discussion following the Soviet invasion, Churchill had argued strenuously for Britain to declare war on the Soviet Union, only to be overruled by Chamberlain; one of the very few strategic decisions Chamberlain made correctly. The French government of Premier Daladier had wanted to declare war on the Soviet Union at the time and only the firm British veto that prevented it. Ultimately it brought down Daladier.

 

[wietze]

surprised that nobody mentioned the winter war yet, even when they don't declare war on the ussr following the invasion of poland. the chances are much better that they declare war on the ussr when they start the winter war against finland.

Churchill was being disingenuous. During the British cabinet discussion following the Soviet invasion, Churchill had argued strenuously for Britain to declare war on the Soviet Union, only to be overruled by Chamberlain; one of the very few strategic decisions Chamberlain made correctly. The French government of Premier Daladier had wanted to declare war on the Soviet Union at the time and only the firm British veto that prevented it. Ultimately it brought down Daladier.

interesting, recently there was a thread about a WI chamberlain dies earlier, so if that happens, one of the consequences might be that the UK & France declare war on the Ussr?

 

[Amakan]

If the US does get involved how does that effect Japan and China?
Suppose Japan still bombs a US base, do the Soviets join the war with Japan against the United States?

Anyway, if Germany knocks France out of the war as OTL and then focuses with Italy on Africa post FoF then it would mostly be the Soviets conquering much weaker powers.

In such a scenario, with all of Europe under Axis control and the USSR able to focus most if not all of its power towards invading India could Britain even win?

Perhaps through the use of chemical and biological weapons? And eventually nuclear ones as well?

It would be brutal for sure.

 

[pattersonautobody]

surprised that nobody mentioned the winter war yet, even when they don't declare war on the ussr following the invasion of poland. the chances are much better that they declare war on the ussr when they start the winter war against finland.

I did. I said this would butterfly it away. The USSR would exert power south of its borders to prevent the British and French from bombing them.

Both USSR and Germany are blockaded. The USSR will have to try to do something to take the fight to the British if they did this.

 

[Mekajiki]

I did. I said this would butterfly it away. The USSR would exert power south of its borders to prevent the British and French from bombing them.

Both USSR and Germany are blockaded. The USSR will have to try to do something to take the fight to the British if they did this.

Is the USSR that dependent on things they can't get in Europe? In an Axis alliance that controls all of Europe will they be forced to pressure Britain for things they can't get? I'm asking because I legitimately don't know.


Also I'd like to know if USA is willing to trade or not. I'd assume not based on the OTL policy to the Nazis but both with USA trade and not scenarios seem relrelevant here.

 

[PoeFacedKilla]

Is the USSR that dependent on things they can't get in Europe? In an Axis alliance that controls all of Europe will they be forced to pressure Britain for things they can't get? I'm asking because I legitimately don't know.


Also I'd like to know if USA is willing to trade or not. I'd assume not based on the OTL policy to the Nazis but both with USA trade and not scenarios seem relrelevant here.

I'd say the Axis could give two shits about a blockade if it includes the USSR, the can get all they need overland from Asia or Europe.

As said, I think the US depends on how Japan is doing at the time, if they are still so belligerent then the US may decide not to trade with the Axis.

 

[Michele]

or using Xinjiang...or worse FUCKING Tibet

Xinjiang Warlord are ally of Soviet during WWII and defect because of Barbarossa...
no need to invade just passing through

Soviet operations in WWII relied on railways.

 

[AsGryffynn]

I just love how people forget that during the 40's and before the advent of the nuke, the USSR was the strongest country bar none. The US had a very small army and, just like the UK, the bulk of their forces was a Navy (that's going to be useless in vast tracts of land) whereas the USSR had the largest Land Forces as well as arguably having the largest Air Force.

Also, rasputitsa...

 

[matzeskatze]

The problem with "largest of sth." is that the later OTL showed that the lack of quality was a near millstone around the neck of the SU.

And that is also coloring our perception today. Because in its day, the French pre WWII Army was also "one of the strongest". And we all know how that played out. Pure numbers are nice to have. But quality of troops and equipment is also important.


As to blockades, how would the RN be able to totaly close up a potential Axis + Su coalition? They had nearly everything under direct controll, or where able to reach it on the land way. Yes shipping it may be more econmical but in times of crisis, the states could rely on other means of transport.

 

[wietze]

I did. I said this would butterfly it away. The USSR would exert power south of its borders to prevent the British and French from bombing them.

Both USSR and Germany are blockaded. The USSR will have to try to do something to take the fight to the British if they did this.

yes it would butterfly that if the DOW would happen before that, what i meant was that the winter war was a point where it could easily happen that the allies declare war on the ussr.

and take the war to britain, didn't the do that already in otl? the cambridge five, and it is suggested that some of the strike s in britain during ww2 were organised by the soviets on orders of stalin.

personally i think operation barbarossa will still happen even if the british declare war on the ussr. it was too much an item in hitlers head not to happen. would be an 'interesting' situation, a tripolar war. allies fighting germany and ussr, germany fighting the allies and ussr

 

[matzeskatze]

Could Hitler (or someone more military sane) go for Barbarossa in 1942?

If the Allies and Soviets are tearing at each other (and some kind of Anglo German Armistance) would it not be prudent to wait one year and see how it is shaping up? Also use it to streangthen the LW and Wehrmacht after Poland and France. There were many lessens to be learned for the Germans and that could be done if one waited one year. Also the armaments situation could be much better.
On the other hand, both Britain and the Soviets would gain valuable experience in modern ground warfare. Esp. the Russians could gain more modern armor. But the flaws found could be hard to change in active operations...

 

[lukedalton]

I just love how people forget that during the 40's and before the advent of the nuke, the USSR was the strongest country bar none. The US had a very small army and, just like the UK, the bulk of their forces was a Navy (that's going to be useless in vast tracts of land) whereas the USSR had the largest Land Forces as well as arguably having the largest Air Force.

Also, rasputitsa...

Ehm...no, sure numbers say that, but the winter war and the initial stage of Barbarossa showed that the Red Army (thanks to Stalin purge and meddling) was a paper tiger with a quality even lower than the italians

 

[wietze]

and furthermore, without lendlease the soviets are screwed

few thingies with the numbers:
http://www.o5m6.de/Numbers.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/lend.html

http://ww2-weapons.com/History/Production/Russia/Lend-Lease.htm

http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p4013coll8/id/950/rec/1
(this last one is an extensive pdf)


i agree with luke, the strength of the ussr was mostly a result of a lot of propaganda, and a paper tiger due to the purges.
when it comes to population base, the axis is about the same size as russia, whereas the axis industrial production capacity is quite a bit higher than russia.

 

[Dan]

So:

Say October 1st 1939 - Britain & France declare war on the Soviet Union.
Almost immediately in Britian, the known leaders of the Communist party join Mosley and the BUF on the Isle of Wight.

If we say that activity on the Western Front remains as OTL, conscription, which was enabled on September 3rd 1939 continues apace. by June 1940 the British Army alone contained 1.65 Million men. In 1941 the Pre Barbarosa Soviet Army numbered 2.09 million men, roughly 1/3 more.
Final mobilisation was around 4.5 Million men for Britian in 1945, while the Soviets managed 30 million by the end of the war.

At this stage of the war though, as huge as the Soviet Army would become, what size Army could Stalin afford to commit to a campaign against the British?
If aside from the DOW, everything else is OTL, then the SU need to guard it's eastern borders against the Chinese Nationalists and/or the Japanese. Against the British & Canadians potentially just outside of Alaska, (another way to bring the Americans into the war - the Soviets attack an American ship thinking it's British or Canadian), They also allegedly had in excess of 2 million men stationed in the west, (this does not match with the pre war Army size figures given so I would revise the total Army size upwards to around 3m+ in an estimation).

I would actually suggest that rather than the Soviets actually moving south towards the Middle East or India, that in fact, they would send no army at all.

India had a number of anti-imperialist/Communist groups in circulation, so I would suggest that instead, covert support for such groups would be hugely increased in order to try and forment a revolution in India instead. Palestine and Egypt could end up in a similar situation.

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

WHile I agree in many points with BOTH sides in this discussion - I come to my own conclusions.

Lets assume the Entente (UK + France) declare war on the USSR in mid/late Sept. 39 - thats the POD and it should stand as such (if its unlikely thats another question )

Soviet capabilities should be seen with " a grain of salt": a large army but the higher ranks were quite thinned.

The question if the SU could survive without Lend Lease is seasily answered.

Certainly.

OTL much of the industrial and agricultural heartland of the Rodina was overrun by Germany. ITTL that does not happen. Germany and Russia would work together.

Russia would fight on two main fronts (at first): Persia and Finland (I assume UK and France would support Finland.

Iraq is already leaning towards the Axis and with Russia in Persia tehre is a land connection so we might see joint German, Italian, Russia and Iraqi forces threatening the Levant and Palestina.

Russia would not fight in India threatening the Empires lifeline (suez) would be the more tempting target.

Russian oil would allow the Regia Marina to operate free of fuel constraints.

I assume even Hitler would se the advantage of bleeding Russia dry (fighting against the Brits while sending resources to Germany and Italy)

I assume that witghin 2 years (1941) the Brits would seek terms (light terms would be granted as Hitler certiainly would turn on his former ally ) - But this time russia would not get help and Germany would no longer fight Britain (which might face earlier and heavier problems with the colonies)

 

[wietze]

it also brings in the fact that japan attacked the ussr in mid 1939 (battle of khalkin gol, may-sept), so this would mean that uk/france and japan end up at the same side. this would change the entire pacific dynamics.

 

[lukedalton]

it also brings in the fact that japan attacked the ussr in mid 1939 (battle of khalkin gol, may-sept), so this would mean that uk/france and japan end up at the same side. this would change the entire pacific dynamics.

And depending of the timing, Italy can seat out the whole things, being actively allied with the Soviet will be...a little akward for many and the King can find enough balls to say no to Benny (Mussolini himself will find the decision more hard than OTL DoW).
Hell...it's even possible with some good diplomacy to bring Italy on the Uk/France side with a Stalin/Hitler alliance.

 

[pattersonautobody]

Is the USSR that dependent on things they can't get in Europe? In an Axis alliance that controls all of Europe will they be forced to pressure Britain for things they can't get? I'm asking because I legitimately don't know.

Also I'd like to know if USA is willing to trade or not. I'd assume not based on the OTL policy to the Nazis but both with USA trade and not scenarios seem relrelevant here.

Blockades are still an act of war. The fact the USSR OTL wanted to join the Axis and pay them off with raw materials in order to have control of a sphere of influence south of themselves, shows they were willing to have conflict with the British Empire.