France, UK and the USSR in 1939

When the Soviet Union invaded Poland on September 17, France and Great Britain faced two aggressive powers in europe. So there were two nations, which didn´t shy away from military activity against a peaceful nation and two nations, which had to think about how to deal with this annoying situation. As we all know, they declared War on Germany, but what were the strategic plans for the Soviet Union (blockade at sea ?). And did France not attacked during the so called "Phoney War" coz they feared to close ranks of the USSR and Nazi-Germany ?

Regards,
Che.

 

IIRC France didn't attack partly because they had very much planned for a defensive war.

France was caught between a succession of inept and weak governments, in the middle of a rearmament and modernisation that was not completed in time, still reeling from the horrendous casualties of WWI and still very much traumatised by that war. They were fearful of repeating that experience, unprepared to even attempt it and in any case the national and political strength and willpower was understandably lacking.

 

And of course they swallowed the German Propaganda about the Seigfried Line. It must have helped that they had their own 'impregnible' defensive line, so the mindset would have been "defensive line = very tough nut to crack = big losses = no way!".

In truth, the Seigfried Line was under-developed and under-manned in 1939.

 

It could be that if the French had declared war on Germany, they also might have declared war on Russia, for attacking Poland. If that were the case then the Allies would have been faced by the "Rome, Berlin, Tokyo, Moscow" axis, and the war would have taken much longer to win, or might have been lost by the Allies. :-?

 

This might be an important factor, however wasn´t the september of 1939 the chance at all to defeat Germany. The German Army focused on Poland with a large part of their Army, at least 53 Division fought in Poland and nearly 2000 aircrafts were quite busy to engage the polish Army, to minimize germany´s causulties.
However what I also wanted to know with this thread is, how the Allies planned to deal with the Soviet Union in 1939, if there where any plans to weak Germany´s "Ally". For example were the Commonwealth Troops in (South) East Asia and the middle east instructed for a war against the USSR by the british high command. Were there plans for the RN to block Soviet harbors, like Vladivostok or Murmansk or for example a plan to attack the SU by the south (through Persia) and the north (with Finnland??) ?

Regards,
Che.

 

It might very well be that there wasn't such a plan in existance... Russia had been the traditional ally of France and Britain, and if anything the Allies expected the Soviet Union to make an alliance with them, and not the Nazi's...

This would go some way to explaining why the world was so shocked when the Nazi-Soviet Pact was signed... France especially had thought she could depend upon military co-operation against Germany in the event of a war, with the signing of the Mutual Assistance Pact in the early 30's... France and Russia, after all, had made (and lived up to) the same agreement in WW1

There were plenty in the French government who wanted an alliance with the USSR, and plenty of Soviet officers who would have agreed... Unfortuntely there were also many French officers who remembered Russia's ineptitude in WW1 and had no faith whatsoever in another alliance with Russia... It was as much the French governments inability to come to an agreement in regards to Franco-Soviet policy as it was Stalins double dealing which doomed diplomatic relations. But soured relations were only one thingl; the French never even considered the possibility that they would be fighting the Russians, because it seemed so implausible

 

.

France was traumatized by the losses of WW1 ,the biggest of all the participant per capita , the young males of the country had been decimated ,the country bled to death .
great gaps in the age groups made the birthrate decline , much to the dismay of politicians and generals
all French inter-war diplomacy was resting on two pillars
- a firm alliance , the "entente cordiale" between England and France

- a set of alliances called the little entente with the central Europeans power of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Romania
no agreement was possible with Poland they were a pain and run by a pro Nazi military junta , rabidly anti-jew and anti-Russian

At Munich Chamberlain single handedly destroyed 20 years of French diplomacy , by agreeing on the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia and forcing the French to choose which entente to follows
There is no reasons to think Chamberlain had a clue as to what he was doing except being nice to Hitler and taking those pesky French allied down a peg .
Of course , Romania turned to Hitler and Yugoslavia went neutral , leaving the French reputation in ruin

Russia who was the European leper , observed how the western powers were capable of all compromises to please Nazi Germany , in central Europe and spain while rejecting all approach for an anti-Nazi front

The western powers came ( finally ) in mid 39 to negotiate a military alliance with the USSR , the negotiations went very badly , no precise plan or guaranties of action , no agreement on the Curzon line , Stalin and his old mate Molotov concluded that theses guys would double cross them as soon as the war started and make a separate peace .
Stalin threw a bait to the Germans by the means of a trade delegation , Ribbentrop took it , tugged at it and was amazed how well the whole thing went , it had taken more than a year for the westerners to send commissioners to Russia ( by ship ! ) Ribbentrop plane was landing in Moscow in a week !!
The Germans agreed on pretty much everything , including the Curzon line border , leaving the western power with a war on their hands and no eastern alliance ,
They nearly declared war on the USSR during the Russo-Finnish war
but were saved of their foolishness by their indecision .


.

 

Just as well they didn't declare war

 

.
I presume some of the more devious diplomats though there was some possibilities of a grand kiss and make up alliance against the BAD bolchies

:smok:

.

 

Yes, but it's a shame the Finns got left swinging in the wind.

 

.

They did O.K. with not much , fighting well , loosing well and going for a second round straight away !

This Suomi fighting spirit was tempered with very cool thinking , they kept the Germans at arm length , pretty much running their own war with the name of
the " continuation war " to make it obvious to all
It was no mere spin , for example stopping their successful offensive at the fall of 41 on the river Svir , the technical argument was exhaustion and having reached the old border , but a further advance would have cut the rail life line to Leningrad , making its doom certain , similarly I'm not aware of serious attempt to cut the rail line to Murmansk , that too would have been a body blow .

After good fighting and the great soviet offensive of the summer 44, the Finnish government recognized the inevitable and negotiated for peace , the terms were harsh , but they kept their independence ,
they could easily have been absorbed into the U.S.S.R.

Strangely , in spite ( or because ) of the past , the soviets had a certain amount of respect for the Finns ,and understood that their nationalism was deep and practical as opposed to the poles just as fiercely nationalist but racially incapable of separating high fantasy from reality
Later , during the cold war , president Kerkonnen managed to negotiate the removal of the soviet bases and establish satisfactory mutual relations

Finland fought without expecting too much from others big coutries promises ,
a very good thinking for a small country

.

 

So if Finland was at war with Russia while recieving aid from Germany but not fighting the allies as a whole? The Russian army was very bad trained, badly led and bad equipment with bad mechanics which all worked against them.

 

How did the Russians win the war against the Germans if their Army was so bad. I suppose they got better at fighting the Germans after they won the battle of Stalingrad.

 

The Soviets had the manpower and space to make mistakes and learn from them and in the initial year they did make lots of mistakes which cost them lots of men and lots of space, but ultimately there was always more meat for the grinder. The resources available to the Red Army in terms of material and men were just more than Germany could overcome.

 

I guess although Russia has much more empty space than Germany, it has a vastly bigger land mass and a vastly bigger population.

 

Russia and Finland...

The first war, the Russians expected to win very easily. After all, Russia is big, with modern planes & tanks, while Finland is small and outdated.

Lesson 1) Never underestimate your enemy.

Lesson 2) Always take account of terrain and climate

Result - Shambles, as Russian 'lets just steamroll in and win the war quickly' tactics met the excellent Finnish defensive/delaying tactics.

Outcome - Big re-think in Russia about how to fighht wars. a big shake-up of army aorganisation. It started to work in Finland, which was when the Finns sued for peace.

Unfortunately, the changes were just being rolled out throughout the USSR when those cheeky Germans invaded. Catching the Red Army still grappling with new formations and doctrines.

Lesson 3) Never try to completely change your tactical book in the midst of a war - or even shortly before one

However, with the reorganisation complete, plus with a few lessons learned from the Germans, guess who started coming out on top. Virtually limitless manpower, space and Industry did help a hell of a lot.

 

Sure did. Hitler was quite wrong when he said, "We have only to kick in the back door, and the whole rotten Russian edifice will come crashing down."

 

Well, he was almost right, but managed to negate any advantages the Germans gained in Russia through sheer stupidity. The German troops were initially welcomed as liberators in places like the Ukraine, until Organisation Todt came in; the chance to conduct their offensive operations with a willing and cooperative population in their rear was thrown away. Then there was the constant shifting around of the panzer formations, first here, then there, wearing out both men and machines to no avail. Then there was the final, ultimate blunder: Operation Barbarossa was launched without an objective other than Russia itself. Had, say, Moscow been listed as the objective, then the main effort could have been directed at that city, whose fall might well have brought the Soviet Union down, or at least crippled it rather badly.

 

.


It's all like corpcasselbury said ,

the first year of the war was a race to see whom could loose the war ,
the soviets threw away men and machine , while the Germans , spread themselves in all directions ,
ignoring the first principle of fighting , to always go for the schwerpunk , the center point .
that would have been Moscow ,
the large quantities of rail connections and manufacturing centers in the city and surrounding towns would have made its loss a terrible blow ,
also it's not possible to defend Leningrad and murmansk if moscow is fallen , not enough rail supply capacity , the whole northern army group would become available
half decent treatment of the locals would have been gratefully accepted and the Germans black crosses on their tanks as the sign of Christians against the reds godless evil ,
sending the war prisoners home , if liberated , or use them to free their home if not yet would have created a mass of men totally dedicated to not having the reds come back ( they would have shot all of them )


.