Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Soviets join Allies in 39?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Soviets join Allies in 39?

    What if the Russians told the Germans that an invasion of Poland means war, the Germans think the Russians are bluffing, go through with the invasion and the Soviet Union declares war?

    I know the Russians were weak in 39 because of the purges and would not have been able to launch a real offensive, but the Germans would have to fight Britain, France and Russia all at once.

    The Germans wouldn't have been able to launch a major offensive(Without serious risk) until the spring of 40 because of winter, giving the Russians more time to recover from the purges. The Fins wouldn't have been fighting the Russians like they did in Barbarossa.

    Would countries like Romania, Bulgaria and Italy have still fought the Russians? What other countries might have declared war as a whip lash affect? Could the allies have won realistically?

  • #2
    A Russia allied with the west stops Hitler in his tracks. In 1939 OKH estimated the Russian's had 200 divsions and the extent of the purges was not yet felt and Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky's ideas still held sway.

    It's a nightmare scenario for the Germans

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by zraver View Post
      A Russia allied with the west stops Hitler in his tracks. In 1939 OKH estimated the Russian's had 200 divsions and the extent of the purges was not yet felt and Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky's ideas still held sway.

      It's a nightmare scenario for the Germans
      I'm pretty sure the purges were quite felt by 1939. Not to mention that Tukhachevsky's ideas holding sway, while important, were not backed by the logistical capacity needed. His ideas were not holding sway per se, his disciplie (Zhukov) was. Fighting the Japanese in '39 and the Germans in '39 is apples and oranges so far as I understand.
      In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
      The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

      Comment


      • #4
        Hitler was not ready for a 2 front war in 39.

        Comment


        • #5
          Is there not already a long topic about a "reverse babarosa"?

          And would it not be a two front war for the russians too? (Finland)

          Comment


          • #6
            To some extent this overlaps with the 'Reverse Barbarossa' thread, although in that other thread the assumption is that the Soviets attack Germany after France has been defeated.

            Regarding this scenario, that the Soviets do not sign a pact with Hitler and in fact 'warn' him that they will go to war in Sept. '39 if Germany invades Poland, the obvious reaction is that the war does not start. Although the original premise of the thread did mention that Hitler 'assumes' the Soviets are bluffing, the simple fact of the matter is that Hitler was very anxious to secure a pact with the Soviets before invading. This was much more than an assurance that he would not have to fight the Soviets at the same time. Hitler was also desperate to secure an economic agreement that would keep raw materials flowing to Germany (especially oil and foodstuffs) and thereby mitigate the worse effects of the blockade. Historically the Allies put a great deal of their hope into the blockade, which had been so effective in WWI. However, with the Soviets supplying Germany, the blockade wasn't particularly effective. In fact this points to the greatest impact that the Soviets could have had in '39. As mentioned, their military was very much impacted by the purges that had just taken place. Militarily they may have had great difficulty in launching an effective offensive. However, by simply not supplying Germany with raw materials, in conjunction with the Allies blockade, German industry would have been severely constrained.

            Politically, the apparently desperate position of Germany in such a scenario would tend to keep erstwhile 'Axis Allies' out of it. Italy's entrance was triggered by the collapse of France, and apparent imminent victory by Germany. So Italy was likely not going to enter in the given scenario. Hungary was largely interested in grabbing territory from their neighbours when the opportunity presented itself, so again they weren't likely to come to Germany's aid. Without Finland having been attacked by the Soviets, they would not likely be particularly 'pro-German'. Although the Soviets would still have to station forces facing the Finns, they had plenty of manpower to spare and the Finns would not likely attack them. As well, Rumania was not 'forced' into the Germany sphere until the Soviets seized Bessarabia and Bukovina from them. So while a number of nations were prepared to 'jump on the bandwagon' of an apparently victorious Germany, and / or to strike back at a Soviet Union that had 'attacked' them first, it is not likely that any European nations would be joining Germany in the scenario described. Germany's best hope for an 'ally' would have been for Japan to force a 2 front war on the Soviets.
            Last edited by deadkenny; 20 Aug 07,, 14:11.

            Comment


            • #7
              Churchill gives some interesting insights on the behind-the-scenes wrangling over alliances in 1939.

              Poland was very much caught between a rock and a hard place. The Soviets requested that in order to reform the "Triple Alliance", they would need the ability to form a defensive line in Polish territory, much the same as the line they ended up occupying in September after Poland was partitioned.

              The Poles were understandably uneasy about this, given the occupation of much of Poland for centuries and the war between the Bolsheviks and Poland after WWI.

              Although Italy publicly announced they supported Germany during this time, Mussolini was very much against German aggression against Poland as it didn't feel that it was prepared enough for the war that would ensue, in three years he felt perhaps Italy would.

              If the Soviet Union had allied with France and Britain, and as they required for this, be allowed to occupy a defensive line in the middle of Poland as it was then, my guess is Hitler would have backed down.

              Oh, and before I forget... the book by Churchill is "The Gathering Storm".
              "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Tarek Morgen View Post
                Is there not already a long topic about a "reverse babarosa"?

                And would it not be a two front war for the russians too? (Finland)
                Finland would have no reason to go to war with Russia, and in this scenario the Germans are fighting two major fronts instead of one.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Tukhachevsky was a moron, and he proved it in 1920 when he was annihilated by POLAND. His entire military strategy was to capture as much land as possible and to "Sovietize" it in hopes that the local population will rise up to help you fight. In short he theorized Marxist-style world revolution in place of regular military strategy. And trust me I've read his books. They read more like military propaganda then a military doctrine. The real man behind Soviet strategic development was Triandafillov.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    russia 1939

                    I doubt that any country in europe would support germany in 1939.
                    Japan was fighting Russia back in 1939 but they lost.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Funny tihng is they lost because of the purges. The Far Eastern MD was commanded by Marshall BLucher who was purged and replaced with Apanasenko, who quickly improved the military infrastructure of the far eastern MD which allowed for the devastating victory at Khalkhin Gol.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Feanor View Post
                        Funny tihng is they lost because of the purges. The Far Eastern MD was commanded by Marshall BLucher who was purged and replaced with Apanasenko, who quickly improved the military infrastructure of the far eastern MD which allowed for the devastating victory at Khalkhin Gol.

                        Feanor,

                        There is no doubt that the purges also got rid of a lot of less talented officers & sometimes allowed more talented ones to rise to positions of prominence.

                        I think the devastating impact was not so much at the level of senior commanders, but lower down, especially at the level of combat officers. With an officer corps the size of the Red Army it was always going to be possible to find talented generals to fill the few hundred positions required for them. The real problem was lower down, where thousands were lost. They took longer to replace, a process that was nowhere near complete in 1941.

                        Milhistory folk love to concentrate on the quality of German generals. Much less discussed was the real strenght of the Wehrmacht - its combat officers & NCOs. These men formed the backbone of the interwar army, where they formed a much larger percentage of its total strenght than would be usual for an army. This meant that when the rapid expansion of forces took place in the late 1930s there were enough well trained officers to meet demand.

                        In modern warfare, especially wars of rapid movement, the best General in the world will struggle if his underlings are incapable of implementing his orders properly. Likewise, a quality officer corps can help to make a mediocre general look good.

                        Once the Red Army had faced combat in 1940 & 1941 those officers who survived had the most important thing any officer can have - experience. That helps to explain how an organisation gutted before 1939 & virtually destroyed in 1941 could fight its enemy on almost equal terms twelve months later, and prove its master another twelve months on.
                        sigpic

                        Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The actual number of Soviet officers executed in 1937 was several thousand. The documents have been published for years. Realistically the purges did not center on the lower echelons of the Red Army. With the exception of the higher commanding generals the rest of the purges were not of serving line officers but of non-military personell that had officer ranks. This was common practice in the Soviet Union. Also a large number of commissars and NKVD operatives that were working in the Red Army were purged. This created the illusion of a massive officer purge. Realistically this did little (if any) damage to the Red Army. The problem was actually the poor state of Soviet military academies in the 20's and 30's. This is what really accounted for a lack of experienced officers.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            people army ?

                            I think we could go back as far as the civil war.
                            Russia has no intrest to help France or UK.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Feanor View Post
                              The actual number of Soviet officers executed in 1937 was several thousand. The documents have been published for years. Realistically the purges did not center on the lower echelons of the Red Army. With the exception of the higher commanding generals the rest of the purges were not of serving line officers but of non-military personell that had officer ranks. This was common practice in the Soviet Union. Also a large number of commissars and NKVD operatives that were working in the Red Army were purged. This created the illusion of a massive officer purge. Realistically this did little (if any) damage to the Red Army. The problem was actually the poor state of Soviet military academies in the 20's and 30's. This is what really accounted for a lack of experienced officers.

                              Feanor,

                              I think you are presenting a wildly optiistic view of things. Even Suvurov estimates that up to 33% of the 36,000 officers purged in 1937 were 'proper' officers. I know that his work is controversial, so his estimate may be low. Even if it is not, that is about 12,000 'proper' officers purged, most of them killed. About 350 of these were brigade commander or above level. That leaves over 11,500 below brigade level. I don't care how big your army is, try taking out that many officers in a year or two & see what happens.

                              Of course, the purges didn't end there. From 1938-1941 another 20,000 - 24,000 or so were purged. Again, using Suvurov's estimates that is still 8000 more 'proper' officers. There is also no doubt that the purges instilled fear & conservatism in the remaining officer corps, limiting the willingness of officers to take the initiative or do anything but religiously follow orders.

                              Officer training in the 20s & 30s may indeed have been poor, but the purges ensured that many of those leading men into combat in 1940-41 were perhaps the least able to overcome that, in a system that further limited their ability to do so.
                              sigpic

                              Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X