If WWII breaks out in 1938 over Czechoslovakia and France falls in 1939, is there any realistic way for the USSR to hold out in 1940 against the Axis?

If WWII breaks out in 1938 over Czechoslovakia and France falls in 1939, is there any realistic way for the USSR to hold out in 1940 against the Axis? I'm specifically thinking of a joint Nazi German, Polish, Slovak, Hungarian, Romanian, and Italian assault on the Soviet Union here, only one year earlier and, again, with Polish participation.

And FWIW, I'm talking about the USSR holding out not only in 1940, but for the rest of the war, and for the Axis to subsequently be decisively defeated in this alt-WWII just like they were in 1945 in real life's WWII. And Britain can continue the fight after the Fall of France in this TL just like it did in real life, if that is what you want and you actually deem this realistic in this TL.

If war broke out in 1938, the Russian army may actually better prepared to fight than it was in 1941 as Stalin was just starting his first purge rather than halfway through the second. Additionally, while the German army would not be weaker in general, it would lack the lessons and equipment it developed fighting the Finns in the winter war.
And of course if war breaks out then Germans won't have the chance to incorporate Czechoslovakia.
On the other hand with a year less to build up their military the French and even more so the British would be in much worse condition and winter 1942 was noted as unusually harsh so presumably the Germans would suffer less from winter 1939 and would have more resources to dedicate to fighting the eastern front.

On the whole I'm not sure if russians will do better or worse in this timeline, but I think it's highly likely that they'll manage to survive as long as Britain and US stay in the fight.

The Unicorn said:

Additionally, while the German army would not be weaker in general, it would lack the lessons and equipment it developed fighting the Finns in the winter war.

Click to expand...

That was the Soviets, not the Germans!

WolfBear said:

That was the Soviets, not the Germans!

Click to expand...

I'm an idiot!
You're right. So one more in favor of the Germans not a counter. Seems likely then the soviets won't do as well as they did historically, so I guess it comes down to how thoroughly they can trash the oil fields and weather or not the Germans can get them back running.

Are we sure the Poles are going to be signed up for a war as a co belligerent with Germans given carte Blanche to march through?

I can see them yielding territory, the whole corridor, outright, if isolated with no France. But I can see them also still refusing to allow in German troops to what is left of Poland. The Yugoslavs did this after all, even when they were alone on the continent. The motive, despite the bad odds and risks of Hitler invading in anger, is if you let a million plus Germans in, how will they ever leave?

raharris1973 said:

Are we sure the Poles are going to be signed up for a war as a co belligerent with Germans given carte Blanche to march through?

I can see them yielding territory, the whole corridor, outright, if isolated with no France. But I can see them also still refusing to allow in German troops to what is left of Poland. The Yugoslavs did this after all, even when they were alone on the continent. The motive, despite the bad odds and risks of Hitler invading in anger, is if you let a million plus Germans in, how will they ever leave?

Click to expand...

I could actually see Hitler limiting his demands here to Danzig and an extraterritorial road through the Corridor. Even if Hitler will want more than that, he'll still allow the Poles to keep Gdynia, just like he did in his pre-war ultimatum to Poland. (Gdynia would then be connected to the rest of Poland through an extraterritorial road.)

As for Poland throwing itself under the bus just like Yugoslavia did, it's an interesting thought, no doubt. The crucial question would be just how strong British influence would be in the Polish government and Polish military in 1940 in this TL. Without hindsight, what the Serbs/Yugoslavs did was an extremely massive gamble that could have severely blown up in their faces had the Allies lost WWII. So, Yeah, in regards to Poland, I think that it might depend on just how much strength the realists vs. the idealists in Poland will have in 1940 in this TL. It's quite interesting that in our TL, the Poles, Lithuanians, and Yugoslavs all ultimately refused to sign up for the Nazi program. I suppose that it would also depend on whether Poles would prefer the Nazi devil to the Communist devil. With Yugoslavia, there was at least a chance--the hope--that their own royalist/Chetnik insurgents would liberate their country from Communist tyranny. Here, it would be clear for the Poles that, with France having already fallen, the only country that could realistically liberate them from Nazi tyranny would be the Communist Soviet Union. (A successful D-Day with a knocked-out Soviet Union should be too difficult to pull off, one would think.)

WolfBear said:

If WWII breaks out in 1938 over Czechoslovakia and France falls in 1939, is there any realistic way for the USSR to hold out in 1940 against the Axis? I'm specifically thinking of a joint Nazi German, Polish, Slovak, Hungarian, Romanian, and Italian assault on the Soviet Union here, only one year earlier and, again, with Polish participation.

And FWIW, I'm talking about the USSR holding out not only in 1940, but for the rest of the war, and for the Axis to subsequently be decisively defeated in this alt-WWII just like they were in 1945 in real life's WWII. And Britain can continue the fight after the Fall of France in this TL just like it did in real life, if that is what you want and you actually deem this realistic in this TL.

Click to expand...

@sillygoose I'm sorry for bothering you, but what are your thoughts on this scenario of mine? You haven't responded to this thread yet, which is why I'm curious to hear what you think about this topic.

What two politically feuding factions of guerrillas might do, and their potential opportunities to liberate Yugoslavia did not factor one bit in the decision of the Yugoslav coup makers of March 1941 who reacted against the Acis appeasement policy and made the treaty with the USSR, which they should have known meant automatic Axis invasion. Those guerrilla didn’t exist yet.

The OTL Fall of France smacks of a poorly written Deus ex Machina wehrabowank fic - an October War leading to France's fall sometime during the next calendar year? - now, that's just beyond belief
The question should be:
If WWII breaks out in 1938 over Czechoslovakia, is there any realistic way for Germany not to be beaten by mid 1939?

Buba said:

If WWII breaks out in 1938 over Czechoslovakia, is there any realistic way for Germany not to be beaten by mid 1939?

Click to expand...

Who do you imagine would beat them? In 1938 the British had nothing to contribute, the French had significant forces, but no ability to project force anywhere, Poland might join the war and do better than they did in OTL, but that won't be enough to defeat Germany quickly.

The German Army was a mess. An underamred, hastily raised, undertrained and disroganised mob. As shown by its performance during the Anschluss and Sudentenland occupation.
Had the Czechs put up a fight AND Poland joined in, there would had been a grind or push and shove along the borders. Czechoslavakia and Poland together had as many Divisions as Germany (if not more?). Even if shitty, but German were not much better. France (Britain can be ignored) would have time to mobilise - three weeks or so - and attack from the west.
As Oster's example shows, there were factions inside the Heer which wished to avoid WWI redux.

Buba said:

France (Britain can be ignored) would have time to mobilise - three weeks or so - and attack from the west.

Click to expand...

I do not believe France could have posed a significant threat on the offense in three months, much less three weeks. Their forces were a mess, but their logistics was even worse. They could mobilize for defensive operations relatively quickly, but there's no way they could pose a significant threat offensively without some major restructuring.

Buba said:

The German Army was a mess. An underamred, hastily raised, undertrained and disroganised mob. As shown by its performance during the Anschluss and Sudentenland occupation.
Had the Czechs put up a fight AND Poland joined in, there would had been a grind or push and shove along the borders. Czechoslavakia and Poland together had as many Divisions as Germany (if not more?). Even if shitty, but German were not much better. France (Britain can be ignored) would have time to mobilise - three weeks or so - and attack from the west.
As Oster's example shows, there were factions inside the Heer which wished to avoid WWI redux.

Click to expand...

Add that even in 1939 germans was almost out of ammo after 3 weeks of fighting.Here - they would have nothing to fight after month.French do not need to fight,just come and take prisoners.

ATP said:

Add that even in 1939 germans was almost out of ammo after 3 weeks of fighting.Here - they would have nothing to fight after month.French do not need to fight,just come and take prisoners.

Click to expand...

The Germans would have a lot more ammo then they had in 1939 if the French attempted to attack. The Germans didn't run out of ammunition in 1939 - they outrun their logistics that was carrying the ammunition.
If they were being attacked they'd be closer to their stockpiles and thus won't be outrunning their logistics even IFthey consumed resources as fast, which they wouldn't be because defensive fighting uses far less resources than the sort of charge they engaged in historically.
Not that it would matter because the French would not be able to sustain any sort of attack.

The Unicorn said:

The Germans would have a lot more ammo then they had in 1939 if the French attempted to attack. The Germans didn't run out of ammunition in 1939 - they outrun their logistics that was carrying the ammunition.
If they were being attacked they'd be closer to their stockpiles and thus won't be outrunning their logistics even IFthey consumed resources as fast, which they wouldn't be because defensive fighting uses far less resources than the sort of charge they engaged in historically.
Not that it would matter because the French would not be able to sustain any sort of attack.

Click to expand...

Germans do not run out of ammo becouse they win in month.few weeks more and they would be fucked.
In 1938 they have less ammo,and no real tanks.With half trained units.They would lost quickly .

Not that it would matter becouse the germans would kill their fuhrer.

ATP said:

Germans do not run out of ammo becouse they win in month.few weeks more and they would be fucked.

Click to expand...

Granting this for the sake of argument, that translates to having enough Ammo to defend for 3-4 months. Not that it would matter because they'd have months before any serious attack could be launched from the west.

In 1938 they have less ammo,and no real tanks.With half trained units.They would lost quickly .

Click to expand...

And you have a cite for this I'm sure?

Not that it would matter becouse the germans would kill their fuhrer.

Click to expand...

Just like they did historically, right?

The Unicorn said:

Just like they did historically, right?

Click to expand...

Had Klaus von Stauffenberg placed two bombs in his briefcase and even only detonated one of these bombs (as he did in real life), then he might have actually succeeded in killing Hitler since the explosion from the first bomb might have very well successfully detonated the second bomb, thus killing Hitler and everyone else in the same room together with him.

WolfBear said:

Had Klaus von Stauffenberg placed two bombs in his briefcase and even only detonated one of these bombs (as he did in real life), then he might have actually succeeded in killing Hitler since the explosion from the first bomb might have very well successfully detonated the second bomb, thus killing Hitler and everyone else in the same room together with him.

Click to expand...

Sure, and someone assassinating Hitler successfully after years of war and more importantly insane orders is plausabile. Him being assassinated in 1938 or 1939 is much less plausible, although I'll grant not completely impossible.

The Unicorn said:

Sure, and someone assassinating Hitler successfully after years of war and more importantly insane orders is plausabile. Him being assassinated in 1938 or 1939 is much less plausible, although I'll grant not completely impossible.

Click to expand...

There was the Oster Conspiracy in 1938:

The Unicorn said:

Sure, and someone assassinating Hitler successfully after years of war and more importantly insane orders is plausabile. Him being assassinated in 1938 or 1939 is much less plausible, although I'll grant not completely impossible.

Click to expand...

They do not dare to kill him when he was winning and have his private SS army.In this TL,he would be loosing and few SS regiments.German generals do not even need to kill him,only arrest.