If Hitler hadnt invaded the USSR would Stalin have invaded him?

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
The whole objective of the British and French and any alliance with the SU was to avoid a war not start one.
No. They had no objective. They sent nobodies with zero negotiation power, qho gave little insight into what they wanted. Their only concession was attending, which is as uncommitted as it comes.

This thread is about whether USSR would have invaded Germany if Barbarossa didn't happen. I don't think they ever had specific plans, let alone issuing of warning orders, staging, etc. But its pretty clear they considered Germany threat enough in 1938 that they broached that alliance in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist and tomar

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,938
The French and British were at a grave disadvantage in negotiations with the Soviets, they couldn't offer them anything in return for an alliance, while Germany could. The Soviet territory lost to Poland in the war of 1920.
They had lots to offer... Territory was not the only thing... Recognition, normal relations, extended trade, security.... all part of a potential package deal.... But no high level officials really got involved (as opposed to them scurrying to the Munich conference)... again this is neither good diplomacy nor seriousness of intent
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,938
The Soviet Union will not have to fight Germany if Poland is not occupied by Germany. The British and French were not so much hoping for an alliance to destroy Hitler, but rather an alliance that prevented further aggression from him.
The thing to remember about the position of the British and French is not only did they not trust the Soviets, the nation's they were hoping to protect from German aggression didn't either. The Poles under no account would have allowed Soviet troops onto their territory as part of any alliance.
The poles sided with Germany against Czech.... Who was to say that they would not side with Germany again, against the USSR ?

You cant "hope for an alliance" without taking concrete steps and involving high level officials in the discussions......Again consider who went to Munich from the allied side and who went to Moscow.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,327
SoCal
They had lots to offer... Territory was not the only thing... Recognition, normal relations, extended trade, security.... all part of a potential package deal.... But no high level officials really got involved (as opposed to them scurrying to the Munich conference)... again this is neither good diplomacy nor seriousness of intent
Relations between the Anglo-French and the USSR were already normal, no? Diplomatic relations were established and France even signed a security pact with the USSR in 1935.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,327
SoCal
The poles sided with Germany against Czech.... Who was to say that they would not side with Germany again, against the USSR ?
There were no Polish-majority territories in the USSR that were yearning for a Polish liberation like there was in Czechoslovakia.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,938
There were no Polish-majority territories in the USSR that were yearning for a Polish liberation like there was in Czechoslovakia.
Well arguably there was Ukraine, where Poland had a history.... Ukraine of course (or parts of it) was more looking for independence than polish domination, but poles had ambitions there....So Adolf could have offered parts of Ukraine to Poland as a deal sweetener....
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,938
Relations between the Anglo-French and the USSR were already normal, no? Diplomatic relations were established and France even signed a security pact with the USSR in 1935.
Here is a good piece on the matter

https://www.webdepot.umontreal.ca/Usagers/carleym/MonDepotPublic/Carley's Web site/Carley_Berlin_2014.pdf

It basically posits that the USSR had been trying to build an anti german pact for 6 years with France, the UK, Poland and Rumania (+Czech) to no avail... the others were never really interested
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,829
No. They had no objective. They sent nobodies with zero negotiation power, qho gave little insight into what they wanted. Their only concession was attending, which is as uncommitted as it comes.
They had a very clear objective – peace. Any alliance the would be an alliance FOR war (as would be the case with the USSR) would by a failure by defintion.

And one at the expense of all kinds of smaller nations. It's the problem with the kind of lawless might-makes-right policies of both the USSR and Nazi Germany. Hard for democracies with an agenda of rule-base interaction and international peace to enter into without screwing themselves.

And yes, it's ALL back in international politics today. Including the allure of might-makes-right that has always been a temptation for powerful nations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redcoat
Mar 2019
1,983
Kansas
And yes, it's ALL back in international politics today. Including the allure of might-makes-right that has always been a temptation for powerful nations.
The parallels I see between today and the interwar period scares me sometimes :(
 
  • Like
Reactions: redcoat