Alternate History: The Munich Agreement

[red_elk]

Both allies expected war, as you must know.

Both "allies" expected war against each other, right?
Or may be not, plan Barbarossa is a fake and Stalin by June 1941 amassed 190 divisions in Western border districts of the USSR just for fun?
Or you insist on calling "allies", countries expecting war against each other in near future?

Again, you already agreed that intelligence reports on the imminent invasion were dismissed by Stalin.

On exact date of invasion, yes. He correctly dismissed most of reports as false intelligence - because about a dozen of them contained different dates. Moreover the invasion was a few times postponed by Hitler, thus invalidating earlier reports. The reports about the fact that Hitler was planning invasion were not dismissed - it's now confirmed with many different sources, including Stalin's speech on May 5-th, 1941, about impending war.

 

[Domen]

Try to think again.

Ok, I checked this and indeed German losses in the SU during the first 50 days of the campaign were still considerably higher than German losses in the Western Campaign (almost 50 days). But Soviet losses in the first 50 days of "Barbarossa" were also considerably higher than French losses in 1940.

In general fighting was on a larger scale (more troops involved on both sides).

And the speed of Axis advance in those early days of Barbarossa was very fast - here is a good animation:

http://english.pobediteli.ru/flash.html

During the first +/- 50 days, they made such a progress (compared to initial frontline - white line):

http://postimg.org/image/cqlu4elrl/

Spoiler :

You sure can explain why he expanded army personnel to 6 million in period 1939-1941 and created largest tank force in the world.

Red Army's tank force was already the largest one in the world in 1939, when WW2 started.

You wrote that Soviets had 26,000 tanks in June 1941.

By comparison on 01.01.1939 Soviets had already 21,100 tanks and 2,600 armoured cars.

And on 01.01.1940 they had 23,400 tanks and 4,000 armoured cars.

By comparison Wehrmacht had about 3,500 - 3,600 tanks on 01.09.1939 and some 1,400 armoured cars.

========================================

BTW - here is a German propaganda poster from July 1939 (over one month before the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact was signed):

"Poland - on a false course" says the text in German and guy inside this "Poland boat" is of course Foreign Affairs Minister Józef Beck:

http://grafik.rp.pl/grafika2/927285,995147,16.jpg

Spoiler :

 

[Serutan]

OK, not sure the best place for this, but here goes: What would have happend if in the
spring/summer of 1939 the British and French had told the Poles, "We will help you if and only if
you agree to Soviet help. Otherwise, you're on your own."

 

[Traitorfish]

Why would the British and French do that? In 1939, they didn't like the Soviet and the Soviets didn't like them.

 

[Domen]

As Traitorfish wrote.

In the early 1920s British and French expeditionary forces fought hard in Russia to overthrow the Bolsheviks, smash the Revolution, and reinstall Tsardom / White Russia again.

 

[Lord Baal]

After eighteen years the priorities had changed somewhat, but yes, the Western Allies and the Soviets did not get along. They were willing to work with Stalin to contain Hitler, but while they put some pressure on the Poles they weren't willing to put that much pressure on them. Not to mention that such an ultimatum to Poland would have effectively pushed much of east-central Europe into the German orbit.

 

[Serutan]

After eighteen years the priorities had changed somewhat, but yes, the Western Allies and the Soviets did not get along. They were willing to work with Stalin to contain Hitler, but while they put some pressure on the Poles they weren't willing to put that much pressure on them. Not to mention that such an ultimatum to Poland would have effectively pushed much of east-central Europe into the German orbit.

But much of east-central Europe wound up in the German orbit anyway, just pushed
there by Stalin instead of Chamberlain/Deladier.

The motivation for asking was twofold - first, what I know about the details
of the diplomatic situation then would fit in the dimple of a golf ball, and second,
I just re-read John Charmley's End of Glory in which he amusingly argues that
it was unnecessary for Britain to go to war over Poland, but then tosses in the odd
qualifier about it was OK depending on how Hitler went about his acquisitions. And still later stating that Britain had got itself into its postwar mess (loss of the Empire, near bankruptcy caused by the war) by impulsively going to war over Poland. Baal, if you've
read this I would be most interested in your take on it, as I am also not familiar with the serious scholarship on Churchill.

 

[Lord Baal]

But much of east-central Europe wound up in the German orbit anyway, just pushed
there by Stalin instead of Chamberlain/Deladier.

The motivation for asking was twofold - first, what I know about the details
of the diplomatic situation then would fit in the dimple of a golf ball, and second,
I just re-read John Charmley's End of Glory in which he amusingly argues that
it was unnecessary for Britain to go to war over Poland, but then tosses in the odd
qualifier about it was OK depending on how Hitler went about his acquisitions. And still later stating that Britain had got itself into its postwar mess (loss of the Empire, near bankruptcy caused by the war) by impulsively going to war over Poland. Baal, if you've
read this I would be most interested in your take on it, as I am also not familiar with the serious scholarship on Churchill.

I haven't read that book, but his hypothesis sounds terrible. Hitler may have claimed that he didn't believe that Britain and France would go to war over Poland, and does seem to have been genuinely surprised by British statements over Poland, but he was actually deliberately attempting to provoke a war with the West as early as Munich. He wanted Alsace-Lorraine from France, though more importantly to cripple the French military, removing it as a threat to his rear, before embarking on his grand conquest of Russia.

If the British had not entered the war against Hitler the French would have been forced into an even more untenable position - remember, Britain entered WWI to prevent the collapse of France - likely with Gaullist government-in-exile to oppose Petain's collaborationist regime. A Vichy France that didn't have it's fleet crushed at Mers el-Kebir (I've likely misspelt that) is such an obvious threat in Vichyites hands that the UK would likely have sought terms with Germany if it weren't already at war with the latter. This would have left Germany and the USSR to duke it out over Europe themselves. That would have resulted in a communist Continent. That is significantly worse for the British than losing some colonies.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Mers el-Kebir (I've likely misspelt that)

You spelled it correctly, but if you're worried about it in the future, the nearby port from which they sailed was Oran, or alternatively, Operation Catapult.

 

[Lord Baal]

You spelled it correctly, but if you're worried about it in the future, the nearby port from which they sailed was Oran, or alternatively, Operation Catapult.

Thanks. I'm genuinely surprised I got it right. I'm quite terrible with Arabic spelling. I remembered they were at Oran. I wonder why I didn't just type Oran then? My brain is strange sometimes.

To expand on my earlier post a bit now that I don't have to go to a meeting, if the British had left the Germans to their own devices on the Continent the French would almost certainly have still gone to war. To do otherwise would be to surrender control of east-central Europe to Hitler or Stalin. Without British assistance the French would have been very unlikely to change their strategy - if anything, they'd have been more cautious, but I'd be happy to have someone with more knowledge of the minutiae of WWII operations, like private_hudson, correct me on this if I'm wrong - and would therefore have been overrun just as in OTL. De Gaulle may have tried to set up a government-in-exile, but without British assistance his attempt is unlikely to have amounted to much. It's doubtful if he could even have escaped to French Equatorial Africa - the area that refused to recognise Vichy - without British assistance. If he could make it to Algiers, then avoid capture long enough to get to Chad, he could probably have effected a successful resistance against Vichy attempts to crush him, but that wouldn't get him anywhere in France itself.

With the Continent effectively under German control Hitler, without Britain to take care of, would have turned his attention east very soon. He likely would not have been able to launch Barbarossa any earlier than he did; the weather saw to that. But without British assistance the Soviets would have been even harder-pressed than in OTL. When they finally turned the tide - and rest assured, while the Germans came close to taking Moscow they didn't actually have the capacity to destroy the USSR - the British would not have opened a second front.

The Soviets would therefore have liberated all of Europe, instead of just the eastern half. Cheezy might appreciate that, but the British Empire wouldn't. Given Stalin's issues with Franco he'd probably have pushed into Iberia as well. You have maybe Sweden, Finland and Switzerland avoiding Soviet control, and that is likely only by Finlandising themselves. Not good for the British, who relied on European markets for their colonial goods.

 

[Agent327]

OK, not sure the best place for this, but here goes: What would have happend if in the
spring/summer of 1939 the British and French had told the Poles, "We will help you if and only if
you agree to Soviet help. Otherwise, you're on your own."

Basically what happened in 1939: Germany invades Poland, Britain and France declare war, ad USSR comes in "to help".

Both "allies" expected war against each other, right?
Or may be not, plan Barbarossa is a fake and Stalin by June 1941 amassed 190 divisions in Western border districts of the USSR just for fun?
Or you insist on calling "allies", countries expecting war against each other in near future?

Seeing as Germany and the USSR signed a non-agression pact (with secret clauses) they were allies. That has little relevance to the fact that they both expected war between one another. (Stalin a little later than Hitler.)

On exact date of invasion, yes. He correctly dismissed most of reports as false intelligence - because about a dozen of them contained different dates. Moreover the invasion was a few times postponed by Hitler, thus invalidating earlier reports. The reports about the fact that Hitler was planning invasion were not dismissed - it's now confirmed with many different sources, including Stalin's speech on May 5-th, 1941, about impending war.

If you insist: seeing as he believed those dismissed reports, it's a pity he did not take adequate measures.

 

[red_elk]

Seeing as Germany and the USSR signed a non-agression pact (with secret clauses) they were allies. That has little relevance to the fact that they both expected war between one another. (Stalin a little later than Hitler.)

Non-aggression pact is merely a declaration of neutrality. USSR had similar pacts with Finland, Poland and Japan, during and before WW2.
Military alliance implies a different level of cooperation, such as signing a mutual defense treaty, or large scale military cooperation against common enemy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_alliances

If you insist: seeing as he believed those dismissed reports, it's a pity he did not take adequate measures.

In hindsight, yes, measures which had been taken were not adequate enough. Hitler, on the other hand made worse mistake, underestimating Soviet strength, tenacity and ability to resist.

 

[Serutan]

I haven't read that book, but his hypothesis sounds terrible. Hitler may have claimed that he didn't believe that Britain and France would go to war over Poland, and does seem to have been genuinely surprised by British statements over Poland, but he was actually deliberately attempting to provoke a war with the West as early as Munich. He wanted Alsace-Lorraine from France, though more importantly to cripple the French military, removing it as a threat to his rear, before embarking on his grand conquest of Russia.

If the British had not entered the war against Hitler the French would have been forced into an even more untenable position - remember, Britain entered WWI to prevent the collapse of France - likely with Gaullist government-in-exile to oppose Petain's collaborationist regime. A Vichy France that didn't have it's fleet crushed at Mers el-Kebir (I've likely misspelt that) is such an obvious threat in Vichyites hands that the UK would likely have sought terms with Germany if it weren't already at war with the latter. This would have left Germany and the USSR to duke it out over Europe themselves. That would have resulted in a communist Continent. That is significantly worse for the British than losing some colonies.

I agree with your arguments. While I thought Charmley made some good points about Churchill, his "big picture" arguments left me going . As near as I
could tell, the loss of the Empire really really stuck in his craw. And while (again) he made some good points about Roosevelt's foreign policy incompetence, he wholly ignored the restraints Roosevelt was under in terms of getting the US in to the war/providing aid to Britain before Pearl Harbor.

 

[Lord Baal]

I agree with your arguments. While I thought Charmley made some good points about Churchill, his "big picture" arguments left me going . As near as I
could tell, the loss of the Empire really really stuck in his craw. And while (again) he made some good points about Roosevelt's foreign policy incompetence, he wholly ignored the restraints Roosevelt was under in terms of getting the US in to the war/providing aid to Britain before Pearl Harbor.

Oh, FDR's foreign policy was woefully incompetent; after Pearl Harbour. Before Pearl Harbour, while it wasn't very good, it was still likely the best he could manage given the circumstances he was in, excepting, of course, his relations with the Free French and Vichy.

 

[Agent327]

I would say the US policy vs Japan was woefully counterproductive, yes. As concerns fugitives, immigration restrictions were rather common in the 1930s (Jews not welcome wasn't restricted to Nazi Germany).

Non-aggression pact is merely a declaration of neutrality. USSR had similar pacts with Finland, Poland and Japan, during and before WW2.
Military alliance implies a different level of cooperation, such as signing a mutual defense treaty, or large scale military cooperation against common enemy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_alliances

The USSR and Germany already cooperated miltarily and economically, dating from the 1920s. Oh, and the USSR did not have a neutrality pact wit Poland "during WW II": during WW II Poland was first divided (as part of that "neutrality pact"), then occupied and in part annexed (first by Germany, after "liberation" by Russia).

In hindsight, yes, measures which had been taken were not adequate enough. Hitler, on the other hand made worse mistake, underestimating Soviet strength, tenacity and ability to resist.

Apart from frontier area reconnaissance German intelligence was terrible. Ad "in hindsight"? Abandoning the Stalin Line (it was never completed) and putting the bulk of your defense right next to the border was a strategic disaster waiting to happen.

 

[red_elk]

The USSR and Germany already cooperated miltarily and economically, dating from the 1920s.

Russia cooperates militarily and economically with many NATO countries - nobody calls it military alliance. Allies of Russia are CSTO countries, which have mutual defense agreement with it.

Oh, and the USSR did not have a neutrality pact wit Poland "during WW II"

USSR had neutrality pacts with Poland and Finland just before war, which according to you, means they were allied.

Abandoning the Stalin Line (it was never completed) and putting the bulk of your defense right next to the border was a strategic disaster waiting to happen.

Defense lines were outdated concept of WW1 by that time. Focus already shifted to mobile warfare and blitzkrieg. Fortifications were only effective where border was short, otherwise Germans themselves several times proven their ineffectiveness.

 

[Agent327]

Russia cooperates militarily and economically with many NATO countries - nobody calls it military alliance. USSR had neutrality pacts with Poland and Finland just before war, which according to you, means they were allied.

The USSR also signed a non-agression pact with Japan; that does not make them allies. The situation with Germany was different due to other treaties being in effect as well, as mentioned.

Defense lines were outdated concept of WW1 by that time. Focus already shifted to mobile warfare and blitzkrieg.

Actually, no. The Red Army was experimenting with some armored divisions, but only gradually adapted to the concept of having a division centered around armour. Like all Allies, they quickly learned to adapt, but - unlike for Britain - many experienced troops were simply lost in the first months of the German invasion.

Blitzkrieg is a post-WW II term, which applies to the combination of both land and air force units in a lightning-fast (Blitz) attack in order to achieve a reasonably fast victory.

Fortifications were only effective where border was short, otherwise Germans themselves several times proven their ineffectiveness.

Actually, the Stalin Line did serve as a post-invasion defense, but it was ineffective due to lack of defending troops and incompletion of the fortification themselves. One has also to remember that the Red Army's reorganization was still far from complete at the time of the invasion.

The Western fortifications (Maginot Line) were basically circumvented by the German offensive. That may not have been possible in Russia, where supply lines were necessarily longer, from the German point of view.

The main point, however, is that, given the panicky reactions from Moscow in the first week of the invasion and the almost complete destruction of the defending forces, saying that the USSR was "prepared" hardly conforms to the facts known.

 

[red_elk]

The USSR also signed a non-agression pact with Japan; that does not make them allies.

That's what I just said, a few posts ago. Why you are repeating this?

The situation with Germany was different due to other treaties being in effect as well, as mentioned.

Then name these treaties, which in your opinion mean that German-Soviet relations can be considered as a military alliance. Or you mean secret protocol to MRP, dividing spheres of influence in Eastern Europe? Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact included similar agreements, dividing spheres of influence in Mongolia and Manchukuo. Usually it's rival powers who make such agreements.

Blitzkrieg is a post-WW II term, which applies to the combination of both land and air force units in a lightning-fast (Blitz) attack in order to achieve a reasonably fast victory. Actually, the Stalin Line did serve as a post-invasion defense, but it was ineffective due to lack of defending troops and incompletion of the fortification themselves.

It's not about terminology (BTW, ever wondered why this "post-ww2 term" originated from German words?).
Germans in fact employed Blitzkrieg strategy and tactics. In Soviet case, with thousands kilometers of borders, building country-wide defense lines was a waste of money.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Seeing as Germany and the USSR signed a non-agression pact (with secret clauses) they were allies.

USSR had neutrality pacts with Poland and Finland just before war, which according to you, means they were allied.

The USSR also signed a non-agression pact with Japan; that does not make them allies.

That's what I just said, a few posts ago. Why you are repeating this?

Did you see "The JEELEN Two-Step?"

It's not about terminology (BTW, ever wondered why this "post-ww2 term" originated from German words?).
Germans in fact employed Blitzkrieg strategy and tactics. In Soviet case, with thousands kilometers of borders, building country-wide defense lines was a waste of money.

FWIW, the Soviets had a fantastic weapon against blitzkrieg in Operational Art, or what the Soviets called Deep Battle. But most of that information was lost in the year leading up to WWII, and they had to re-learn lessons taught to them before during the Civil War. A Deep Battle-ready army might have put up a damn good fight in Belarus and Ukraine in the summer of 1941.

 

[Domen]

Fortifications were only effective where border was short.

Or where fortifications were long.

But it's true that fortifications can usually only delay enemy advance.

USSR had similar pacts with Finland, Poland and Japan, during and before WW2.

The USSR violated its non-aggression pacts with Poland and Finland in 1939.

As for Japan - they signed a pact with Japan on 15-16 September 1939, so they didn't have it before WW2.

These pacts did not have any secret protocols though.