A philosophical question.

[BulletRat]

In November 1939 Russia attacked Finland (a then neutral country) without a declaration of war, which almost brought England to the point of declaring war on Russia.

Once Germany attacked the low countries it brought the focus of attention off Russia and back to Germany - however I'm wondering IF England did declare war on the Soviet Union, what would have been the outcome and where would we stand today?

[Tero]

Originally posted by BulletRat:

In November 1939 Russia attacked Finland (a then neutral country) without a declaration of war, which almost brought England to the point of declaring war on Russia.

Once Germany attacked the low countries it brought the focus of attention off Russia and back to Germany - however I'm wondering IF England did declare war on the Soviet Union, what would have been the outcome and where would we stand today?

Had England and France done that I think the following would have happened:

The strategic focus would have been shifted North. As the main objective of the Anglo-French expedition would have been to secure Swedish iron ore and the Russo-German effort to prevent that a major campaing would have devastated Denmark, Norway Sweden and Finland and most propably left Western Europe basically defenseless (BEF and major French forces devastated up North) against the German attack which would have surely followed.

If the Anglo-French alliance had not fallen apart before the attack I'd expect France would have been rolled up as per what really happened and England would have been forced to seek peace because of lack of manpower after costly campaing up North and in Western Europe.

The only wild card is Roosevelt. He may have been forced to accelerate his efforts to bring USA to war prematurely which would either have ended up in the anti-war fraction getting the upper hand and USA sitting it out entirely. Or the USA would have been forced to commit its forces in Europe and suffer the fate of France and England in the battlefield forcing the US forced to be widrawn and Roosevelt deposed. That would have left the entire Europe in the hands of Stalin and Hitler to divide up as they pleased.

They would have fallen out eventually and I think Stalin would have come out on top and in control of entire Europe. This because of with his better resource management and experiences from the Winter War under the Red Army belt the Red Army would have been properly revised without Barbarossa fouling Stalins plans.

Where would we stand today ? In Europe we would propably be dead or red.

[Quintus]

Given that Russia attacked Finland very early in the "Phoney War / Sitzkrieg" period. It makes me wonder whether or not the not-so-subtle German backchannel diplomacy might have born fruit :

"Look Britain, we all know who the real enemy to Western Christian Society is here... it's those stinking Reds." Etc. etc.

Given that Anti-communist feeling was quite high at the time (The General Strike was not that long past in many people's memory - Churchill for one) and Hitler had attacked Poland, rather than somewhere closer to home, it's not inconceivable that some sort of 'accomodation' could have been arrived at.

Britain and France had been appeasing like nobodies business for years prior to this and if there had been any straw like hope of 'peace in our time' to cling to, they may well have leapt for it.

Long term... the consequences might have been terrible - Germany with 'A free hand in the East' and the Western Allies weakened, America perhaps more than ever sure that staying out of Europe's affairs was right.

Then again, you never know what would have happened had the Maginot Line been finished and some of the hard lessons learned in France about tactics and the inadequacy of Allied equipment taken place on someone else's soil.

I'm vehemently anti-Nazi in my personal views but I do appreciate that to someone in 1939 without first hand knowledge of Nazi oppression, Herr Hitler seemed like a 'Solid bloke who had put Germany back on her feet and didnt like the Bolshies as much as the rest of us'.

Hell, the Abdicated King met him for tea...

The other 'What If?' that I wonder about is what would have happened if the re-occupation of the Rhineland had been opposed by Britain and France. Hitler is later said to have said that he'd've backed down and postponed his plans for a while... An interesting notion.

[BulletRat]

What therefore, would have happened to Japan and its designs?

[BulletRat]

*bump*

Cmon, you can discuss the whys and wherefores of Star Wars but can't talk about an interesting topic like this??

(Maybe I should have made the topic line more interesting..)

[Mikael]

IMHO Japan would've carried out its invasion of SE Asia as it did historically... It never cared much for what was happening in Europe. Had an Axis-Great Britain-France coalition severely weakened the Soviet Union, Japan may have seized parts of Siberia as it did in 1918-1921.

[Franko]

Personally, I think if a butterfly flaps its wings in China, a whole bunch of wierd Sh*t happens.

F

[Olle Petersson]

I agree mostly with Quintus.

Given that Hitler's main goal was to conquer the European Soviet union, I think he'd gone a long way to make peace and form an alliance with UK (and possibly also make peace/cease fire with France).

Then Germany, aided by Finland and UK and cheered on by Sweden, would have started the advance on USSR a bit sooner, and Fall Gelb would have been postponed (if not cancelled all together).

What would happen from there on I can't tell. Perhaps Japan would use the turmoil to invade Asian USSR.

Cheers

Olle

[BulletRat]

It's true that Hitler both respected and admired his english rivals, in the early months of the war anyway. He ordered Operation Sealion with genuine reluctance, once the city bombing started I think his perspective changed a lot.

The only wild card is Roosevelt. He may have been forced to accelerate his efforts to bring USA to war prematurely which would either have ended up in the anti-war fraction getting the upper hand and USA sitting it out entirely. Or the USA would have been forced to commit its forces in Europe and suffer the fate of France and England in the battlefield forcing the US forced to be widrawn and Roosevelt deposed. That would have left the entire Europe in the hands of Stalin and Hitler to divide up as they pleased.

If this had happened - and it's fairly close to the truth I suspect, there would have been little to stop the Japanese in their rampage through the pacific and all the way to Australia. Some argue that the Japanese wern't interested in invading Australia, I digress - they came so close to invading they were already printing currency for the Japanese government in Australia.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

Given that Hitler's main goal was to conquer the European Soviet union, I think he'd gone a long way to make peace and form an alliance with UK (and possibly also make peace/cease fire with France).

One major snare in that scenario: the British and the French had already deglared war on Germany. They came within days of deglaring war on USSR, or at least coming to blows with the Soviet troops. What complicated things was the fact the Finnish government did not ask for help and the Swedes did not want any foreign troops on their soil. Had the Finns asked for help that would pre-empted the peace settlement which Stalin had to agree to to avoid from having to potentially fight the British and the French troops in Finnish soil. Chamberlain was at the end of his tether and after Poland he could not let promises and assuarances of help slide without committing a political suicide in the process.

Then Germany, aided by Finland and UK and cheered on by Sweden, would have started the advance on USSR a bit sooner, and Fall Gelb would have been postponed (if not cancelled all together).

By that time Finland would have been a Soviet republic, Sweden entangeled in fighting against the French, the Britts and possibly even the Germans and the Soviets. In any case Sweden would have been ravished. The fate of Fall Gelb would have been down to the actual result of the fighting. Judging by the fate of the Norwegian expedition I expect the Germans and the Soviets would have been victorious no matter how large the forces engaged would have been.

What would happen from there on I can't tell. Perhaps Japan would use the turmoil to invade Asian USSR.

After Lake Hasan and the other reverses they suffered ? I doubt they would have entered the scene before the Soviets had actually collapsed.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Quintus:

Given that Russia attacked Finland very early in the "Phoney War / Sitzkrieg" period. It makes me wonder whether or not the not-so-subtle German backchannel diplomacy might have born fruit :

"Look Britain, we all know who the real enemy to Western Christian Society is here... it's those stinking Reds." Etc. etc.

Chamberlain was in charge at the time and I think even he would not have allowed the Munich agreement and the broken promises of "peace in our time" slide. It was after all he who instigated and authoriced the failed Norway expedition which in direct relation to the relief mission to Finland. If Finns had asked for help his hands would have been bound. Brittain and France would have had to fight both the Germans and the Soviets.

Given that Anti-communist feeling was quite high at the time (The General Strike was not that long past in many people's memory - Churchill for one) and Hitler had attacked Poland, rather than somewhere closer to home, it's not inconceivable that some sort of 'accomodation' could have been arrived at.

I doubt that. Finland was peanuts to them. The Swedish iron ore was not. As a vital strategic materiel to the Germans they would have been in an advantage to get hold of it and having a choke hold on the Germans. What actually happened shows clearly that the Soviets did not wish to enter the war in opposide sides with Brittain and France, despite their rethorics. Stalin knew he had to secure allies for the future. He had to avoid winding up in a situation he could not back down from. Even allowing for a possibility the Germans and the Anglo-French coalition to have started negotiations would have left him in a severe disadvantage.

Britain and France had been appeasing like nobodies business for years prior to this and if there had been any straw like hope of 'peace in our time' to cling to, they may well have leapt for it.

Not at this stage. They had wound up their population for war against Germany with quite powerful propaganda. To back down from that would have been illogical.

Then again, you never know what would have happened had the Maginot Line been finished and some of the hard lessons learned in France about tactics and the inadequacy of Allied equipment taken place on someone else's soil.

That means the Anglo-French forces would have been beaten in Norway/Sweden not in France. Even so that would have meant emasculation and capitulation, propably for both the British and the French.

I'm vehemently anti-Nazi in my personal views but I do appreciate that to someone in 1939 without first hand knowledge of Nazi oppression, Herr Hitler seemed like a 'Solid bloke who had put Germany back on her feet and didnt like the Bolshies as much as the rest of us'.

Hell, the Abdicated King met him for tea...

That nice, solid bloke had absconded Tshekoslovakia and carved up Poland. With strategic interests at stake the British and the French could not start negotiating with this character. Not after all that.

The other 'What If?' that I wonder about is what would have happened if the re-occupation of the Rhineland had been opposed by Britain and France. Hitler is later said to have said that he'd've backed down and postponed his plans for a while... An interesting notion.

By that time he would have had his army and more importantly the navy all built up. We are lucky he got greedy too soon.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by tero:

After Lake Hasan and the other reverses they suffered ? I doubt they would have entered the scene before the Soviets had actually collapsed.

That's an interesting point Tero. It's my understanding that after the reverses at Kolkhin Gol (sp?), the Soviets were about the only fighting force the Japanese were genuinely afraid of and wanted to avoid conflict with at almost any cost. What's your take on this aspect?

Regards

Jim R.

[BulletRat]

I really should read up on the Japanese/Russian war to understand more about their backgrounds pre-WWII.

Anyone got some good book suggestions?

[KG ThorsHammer]

Interesting question.

The Finns were doing quite well on their own, so the addition of British/French forces with modern tanks and aircraft would have meant a serious problem for the bumbling Russian forces. Hitler could have seen this as an opportunity and attempted to form an alliance with them and attack Russia. I'm sure a swarm of anti communist volunteers would have joined up from all over Europe. I seriously doubt the Russians could have withstood such an onslaught. With the Soviets out of the picture, Hitler could have then turned West on his once allies had he wanted to, and there would be no Eastern front to draw away German forces

[Frunze]

WWII had already began, in September 1939, with Germany fighting Britain and France, before the USSR invaded Finland in November 1939. So a British-German alliance against the USSR at that point seems unlikely. Earlier, maybe, it coulda been a possibility.

And it would've been difficult for Britain to spare forces for a really large-scale intervention in Finland at that point. But if the Winter War had continued - it ended in March 1940 - British involvement might have increased somewhat. (IIRC they were already supplying some weapons.)

Which might have interfered with Hitler's plans for the invasion of Norway, which took place in April 1940, one month after the end of the Winter War. These plans depended heavily on surprise, and involved naval attacks that Britain probably coulda messed up with advance warning. If Britain's attention - and the Royal Navy - was drawn to Scandinavia earlier by even a small intervention in Finland, they might have noticed the preparations for the German invasion.

One possibility: this may have been a factor in the USSR's decision to negotiate peace with Finland. The Winter War was going somewhat better for them by this point, and they were wearing down Finland by attrition. But if Hitler demanded that Stalin lay off Finland in order to not mess up his plans for Norway....

[Tero]

Originally posted by KG ThorsHammer:

The Finns were doing quite well on their own,

Until February when the Red Army got its **** together and started making progress. The lack of materiel was starting to hurt us then really bad.

so the addition of British/French forces with modern tanks and aircraft would have meant a serious problem for the bumbling Russian forces.

One major reason the Finns did not actually ask for the help was the fact they did not trust the foreign troops to be as good as the Finnish troops in combat.

The Germans BTW got rated below the Finnish troops in most respects when the German troops fought side by side with Finnish troops.

I'm sure a swarm of anti communist volunteers would have joined up from all over Europe.

Well, the swarm that actually joined the cause was not that great.

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by BulletRat:

In November 1939 Russia attacked Finland (a then neutral country) without a declaration of war, which almost brought England to the point of declaring war on Russia.

Once Germany attacked the low countries it brought the focus of attention off Russia and back to Germany - however I'm wondering IF England did declare war on the Soviet Union, what would have been the outcome and where would we stand today?

The war was decided from that day, since Germany left the gold-standard and re-created a currency built on labour and sweat instead on gold and interests.

The capitalistic states choose the right victim:

Communism with it's planned-economy will never be able to compete over longer periods with capitalism (later the USA even had to help CCCP to survive from the german fistblow).

But this new international trading system Germany created, was a real threat for Capitalism.

Only in the few years from 33 to 39, the USA lost almost complete south-america as market.

These rich by nature countries (a look into those countries today, shows how "great" capitalism works) preferred the German barter-system to get a fair value - means german machines - for their good products, instead of being wringed out by the international trading-system of interest-slavery and a currency, that is kept high due to the artificial value of gold, stored in Fort Knox.

There were quite strong political forces in GB, that preferred the new economical system created by Germany, too and predicted what will happen, if the Empire doesn't get rid of interest-slavery and it's deadly embrace by the USA, but when Highgrade Freemason Churchill became Prime-Minister, the way GB would go, was clear.

[Frunze]

Yeah, we all know how capitalists like Krupp, IG Farben, and Henry Ford hated the Nazis.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Frunze:

Yeah, we all know how capitalists like Krupp, IG Farben, and Henry Ford hated the Nazis.

Or how Peron was an arch-capitalist on the scale of Rockefeller

[Frunze]

That's a pretty feeble attempt at sarcasm.

A. Peron was not a fascist. The generals who overthrew him were closer.

That was a slander spread because Argentina remained neutral in WWII. Which tells you little about the character of his regime...except that it had the independence to act in its own interests, and not in Washington's.

B. I don't know about "on the scale of Rockefeller", but Peron's government was a capitalist government, albeit one that leaned on the labor unions for support. In contrast to fascist regimes, which smashed them.

[Andreas]

Frunze, maybe re-read my post? Where did I call good old Mr. Peron a fascist? I would think that it could be argued (by those knowing more about it than I do) that his non-capitalist leaning on the labour union may have something to do with the mess Argentinia is in.

Before accusing someone of 'slander', better make sure you actually read what they wrote.

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by Frunze:

Yeah, we all know how capitalists like Krupp, IG Farben, and Henry Ford hated the Nazis.

It's not a question if productive capitalists were glad about the new german economical system.

Why not?

That's just polemic.

The basic-conditions a system gives to the productive workers of fist and brain and the unproductive parasitically traders and money-lenders are important.

And the unproductive, but very powerful international money lenders and traders saw very clearly, that this new system was the declaration of war against interest-slavery.

And they did what was necessary to get rid of this threatening.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Frunze:

And it would've been difficult for Britain to spare forces for a really large-scale intervention in Finland at that point.

And they might have been too late in arrival anyway. But if they had gotten the invitation they might have gotten as far as the Swedish iron ore deposits just in time to see the Finns get eliminated.

But if the Winter War had continued - it ended in March 1940 - British involvement might have increased somewhat.

The problem was Chamberlain and Dalladier had made promises to their own to make up for Poland and IF the Finns had actually asked for troops they would have had to do something concrete. Stalin on the other hand was not too keen on having to enter the war in earnest at that stage. He was busy rearranging his sphere of influence as per the agreement with the Germans and he was not prepared to shift his focus too far ahead of schedule.

(IIRC they were already supplying some weapons.)

Along with the rest of the world. Most of it came in too late though.

Which might have interfered with Hitler's plans for the invasion of Norway, which took place in April 1940, one month after the end of the Winter War.

That plan was a counter plan to pre-empt any and all attempts on his supply of iron ore.

These plans depended heavily on surprise, and involved naval attacks that Britain probably coulda messed up with advance warning.

So why did the Anglo-French forces get creamed then ? With the Home Fleet properly deployed they could have thrown a monkey wrench in the German plans.

If Britain's attention - and the Royal Navy - was drawn to Scandinavia earlier by even a small intervention in Finland, they might have noticed the preparations for the German invasion.

I doubt neither the Anglo-French or the German strategists had even considered the ore before it was being bypassed when routes for the relief force were being considered.

One possibility: this may have been a factor in the USSR's decision to negotiate peace with Finland. The Winter War was going somewhat better for them by this point, and they were wearing down Finland by attrition. But if Hitler demanded that Stalin lay off Finland in order to not mess up his plans for Norway....

Highly unlikely. Hitler did not make any demands to lay off IRL. He was in no position to do so. Finland was in Stalins sphere of influence fair and square. Stalin ended the war because every passing hour increased the potential of the Finnish leaders making a formal request for help in form of troops. That would have meant Chamberlain and Dalladier would have been forces to give Stalin a final note (just like they had given Hitler one in Poland) and soon after that they would have been forced to deglare war on the USSR (or abdicate on the spot). While the deglaration of war would propably been a pro forma affair it would have placed Stalin in a very isolated position if and when Germany had beaten the Anglo-French forces silly.

In short: a between USSR and the Anglo-French coalition did not suit anybody elses plans except Hitlers. Stalin had already made a deal with the devil so he could not afford to have more than one enemy at the time when his army was being proven to be less than adequate for the job in front of it in the near future.

[Frunze]

Andreas, if you weren't sarcastically implying that Peron was a fascist, then your post just plain makes no sense in the context of the thread.

Schoerner, you just plain make no sense.

Tero, I'll accept that. Does your last point imply that Stalin realized that Germany might turn on him at some point?

[SgtMuhammed]

The simple fact is that Britan and France were in a worst position to help Finland than they were to help Poland. At least in the case of Poland the could have attacked Germany along the Rhine. In order to help Finland they would have had to either try to force an expedition into the Baltic or around the Scandinavian peninsula to the north. Neither scenario held much chance of success given that they were already at war with Germany (The RAF was already bombing German military instaliations).

A declaration of war on the USSR by France and England might have resulted in a temporary strengthening of German Soviet relations, at least until things settled down in the West, but Barbarossa would still have come. What would have been a very real possibility is that Stalin would never have become one of the Allies and would instead have continued to fight on his own. Remember, Stalingrad came BEFORE we began to send help on a massive scale. There would have been no post war agreements on how to divide the German Empire and the Russians would have just blitzed as far as they could and claimed whatever they took as their own. One of the driving forces behind the Normandy invasion was the need to get troops on the continent to enforce the postwar agreements.

As for Krupp and the rest, Hitler courted the German industrialists to fund his rebuilding programs. His major incentive to them was that he wasn't going to take their property as the communists would have. In addition he quashed what opposition the German labor unions might have given both the regiem and the industrialists. Capitalism is about profits and Hitler was good for profits.