1939: The Alliance That Never Was

In his historical study, Michael Jabara Carley explores the unsuccessful diplomatic efforts to create a unified front against Nazi Germany. The text highlights how tensions and anti-communist sentiment among Western leaders prevented a vital coalition between Britain, France, and the Soviet Union. This failure led directly to the nonaggression pact between Hitler and Stalin, which essentially cleared the path for the invasion of Poland. Carley utilizes extensive archival research to argue that ideological blindness and the politics of appeasement were responsible for this missed opportunity. Ultimately, the work serves as an analysis of the moral and political shortcomings that contributed to the outbreak of World War II.

Transcript

Unknown: 0:00

Welcome back to the deep dive. Our mission here is, well, it's pretty simple. You give us the source material, and we give you the intellectual shortcut, right? The core insights, the surprising facts and all the context you really need to, you know, truly get your head around a topic. And today, we are undertaking a deep dive into what is, and I don't think this is an exaggeration, arguably the most critical pivot point of the entire 20th century. Oh, absolutely. We're talking about the summer of 1939 that's it. This is a moment historians just keep coming back to again and again, because it really represents the diplomatic edge of the cliff, a very steep cliff, a very steep one. We all know the outcome global war devastation. But the puzzle, the thing that just keeps nagging at you is, why, why, when faced with an absolutely existential threat like Nazi Germany, did its natural opponents just fail to unite? Why did the grand alliance fail to materialize right when it was needed most? That is the core question, and it's a terrifying one, because the consequences of that failure were so swift and so devastating, we're talking about the last real political opportunity to stop Adolf Hitler's aggression before the tanks started rolling into Poland, the very last chance. And our entire focus today is pulling apart the analysis from historian Michael Jabara Carly in his his seminal work, 1939 the alliance that never was in the coming of World War Two. And Carly's work, it's not just another diplomatic history. It's an indictment. It really is. It reads like one for sure. So our mission for you is to extract the most crucial and frankly, the most revolutionary insight from his research. Because if you thought this failure was just about, you know, logistical disagreements or a bit of mutual distrust, which is the common story, right? It is, but you need to prepare to reconsider Carly argues the root cause was systemic. It was ideological, and in many ways, it was deeply intentional. Absolutely the conventional narratives, they often just gloss over the profound ideological friction that really dominated this whole era. So we're going to unpack the central thesis that challenges those prevailing historical interpretations, the idea that the political leaders in London and Paris fundamentally chose not to partner with Moscow chose that's the key word, even when the alternative was clearly going to be war. We promise you in a ha moment here that will, I think, reframe your entire understanding of how World War Two began. The key puzzle we have to solve is why Britain, France and the Soviet Union, the three major non Axis Powers, failed to form this collective security pact, the one thing that might have worked right, and this failure, as we all know, led directly to the Soviet Union signing the infamous Molotov Ribbentrop pact with Germany in August 1939 so we're gonna spend a good amount of time setting the stage, establishing the context that proves why this alliance should have happened and why its failure was so incredibly consequential. Okay, let's unpack this. Let's get right into it. So let's start with the immediate scene. Paint the picture for us the summer of 1939 Okay, so this wasn't a time for, you know, leisurely old school diplomacy, not at all. No slow boats. Well, we'll get to that. But the atmosphere was electric with tension. Germany wasn't just rearming anymore. That was old news. They were actively, openly preparing for military action against Poland, and everyone knew this. This wasn't a secret, no, not at all. Intelligence was pouring into London and Paris, diplomatic cables, spies on the ground, military attaches, they were all confirming these plans. We're talking troop movements, supply buildups on the border. The window for any kind of diplomatic counter move, for presenting a unified front that might actually deter Hitler was closing, and not by months, right? No, not by months, by weeks, maybe even days. The sense of urgency was, or at least it should have been, completely overwhelming yet. And this is the first big puzzle, the Western powers seemed to be acting with a baffling slowness. Baffling is the perfect word. The goal of the negotiations was so clearly defined. It wasn't complicated. They needed a mutual defense treaty, a collective security arrangement. Exactly an attack on one is an attack on all. If these three powers, Britain, France and the Soviet Union, could just agree on those terms, it would create an immediate, overwhelming deterrent to the east and west of Germany. And if you just visualize the map for a second the potential of that grand alliance. It would have been strategically unassailable completely. You have Britain and France with their massive navies and empires controlling the West, and then you have the Soviet Union providing this enormous pool of manpower and strategic depth in the east. It would have meant a two front war for Hitler from the very start, from day one, the one scenario that German military doctrine going back to the First World War desperately thought to avoid, the potential was right there to halt his ambitions without even firing a shot, or the very least, to contain the conflict immediately, if he was foolish enough to start it exactly, and that is precisely why the outcome is so devastating. Saying the talks failed utterly, completely, and the result was the non aggression pact between the USSR and Germany signed in August 1939 which was Stalin's final pivot. After months of being, in his view, rebuffed and stalled by the West, he made a cold, pragmatic decision to take what he could from a deal with Hitler, and this was the immediate precursor to the invasion of Poland just days later, September 1, the failure to align effectively handed Hitler the strategic freedom he needed to start his war. Okay? So this is where Carly, the author of our source material, introduces a really critical piece of recontextualization. It shapes his entire argument. Yes, this is crucial. He asks us to look at the events of 1939 not just as pre World War Two maneuverings, but as happening at the and this is the phrase end of the early Cold War, that framing is everything. It completely changes the dynamic of how you see these negotiations, because we normally think of the cold war starting after 1945 right? We date it from, you know, Churchill's Iron Curtain speech in 1947 give or take. But Carly demonstrates that the ideological hostility, the mutual suspicion, the active attempts by the West to isolate the Bolshevik regime that had all been going on since the 1917 revolution, so for over 20 years, at this point exactly, you have to remember Britain, France, the US, they all intervened militarily in the Russian Civil War, trying to strangle the revolution in its cradle. That was the idea. They refused full diplomatic recognition for years. They utterly distrusted the communist economic system. It was seen as a contagion. So the implication here is that London and Paris were entering these negotiations in 1939 with a partner they had spent two decades actively trying to contain, to undermine, or frankly hoping to see overthrown. Precisely. It wasn't just a simple distrust of Stalin, the man. It was a fundamental, deeply entrenched ideological friction that came long before the German threat ever materialized. And this ideological friction, Carly argues, is the core analytical point for the Western leadership. The Soviet Union wasn't a potential ally. It was still, in their minds, an ideological cancer on the European continent. They viewed communism as a direct internal threat to their own systems, to democracy, to capitalism, to their colonial empires, this hatred and fear of Bolshevism, it was institutionalized. It was baked into the very culture of their foreign offices and cabinets, which means the negotiations were never starting from a clean slate, never they were burdened by 20 years of history. Britain and France weren't just trying to make a simple security deal. They were trying to override a 20 year foreign policy of anti communist containment and isolation, and they just couldn't bring themselves to do it. They struggled immensely. And the great danger, as Carly argues so powerfully, is that this deep seated ideological friction meant the Western powers were literally incapable of prioritizing the immediate, existential military threat from fascism over their long term, ideological fear of communism exactly they let the early Cold War dynamic dictate their strategy during a moment of absolute crisis. And this inability, this failure, to be pragmatic in the face of annihilation, is what the source material finds so unforgivable. So when the negotiations failed. It wasn't really because the Soviets were demanding too many tanks or planes. No, not at all. It's because the Western government simply could not stomach the political ramifications of legitimizing Stalin's communist regime through a formal, binding military alliance. It was the political price, not the military one, that they refused to pay. They were dealing with two totalitarian evils, in their view, but they perceived one fascism as a sort of temporary military problem that might be contained or, even better, redirected eastward against the other evil, exactly, and the other communism, they saw as a permanent global ideological threat, that distinction, that miscalculation, proved fatal. Let's move from that high level ideological context down to the ground level of the diplomacy. Yeah. How did this, this ideological poison, actually manifest itself in the negotiation room? Well, this is where the story gets both tragic and, frankly, a little absurd. Carly uses some very strong language here, he critiques the French and British governments for dallying during these absolutely crucial negotiations. Dallying is an incredibly precise and damning word in this context. It's not just about being slow, no. It implies hesitation, indecision, a fundamental lack of authentic commitment. Hitler is literally preparing his final military orders for the invasion of Poland and London and Paris are still dragging their feet. They're holding internal debates about whether they should even be negotiating at all, let alone whether they could trust Moscow to really understand the catastrophe this dallying. You need to get into the specific examples and Carly's book per. Provide some astonishing detail on how this all manifested. It does. I mean, you can see it in the timeline. You can see it in the nature of the diplomatic missions they sent. Let's talk about the military mission, the one the British sent to Moscow in August 1939 okay, this is one of the most revealing details in the entire book. It tells you everything you need to know about their attitude. So the diplomatic talks had been sort of limping along for months, right? But the really critical military discussions, the nuts and bolts, defining how Soviet troops would actually coordinate with Anglo French forces, where they would move, who would command, what those only began in August, the very last minute, the last possible minute, and the British mission was led by an admiral, Sir Reginald Drex. Now, by all accounts, he was a decent, honorable man, but he was explicitly not authorized to make any binding commitments. So he couldn't actually sign a deal. He couldn't sign anything. He was a middle ranking non cabinet official sent there essentially to talk, to gather information, to well, to Dali. He had no real power, and this is the man they sent to negotiate the fate of the world. But it gets worse, how they traveled. The western delegation didn't fly, right? You mentioned this before. They took a slow boat, a slow merchant vessel. Yes, they spent six days in transit to get to Moscow, six days in August of 1939 given the known impending threat, the ticking clock, it communicated an astonishing, almost insulting, lack of urgency. So how did the Germans handle their negotiations? Yeah, well, that's the contrast that makes it so stark. When the Germans decided they wanted a pact with Moscow, their foreign minister, Ribbentrop himself, a top cabinet official, flew in immediately. Of course he did, the contrast between the speed, the rank and the authorization of the German mission versus the low level, leisurely British mission, yeah, it speaks volumes about the commitment, or rather the lack of it on the western side and the dallying wasn't just about slow travel, was it? It was political delay? Oh, absolutely. Carly details how the French and British spent weeks, months arguing internally. They argued over the specific wording of guarantees, and most crucially, they got completely hung up on the Soviet demands for military transit rights across the territories of smaller Eastern European countries, specifically Poland and Romania. This point seems to be where the whole thing really falls apart. It's where the Collective Security failure really intersects with the ideology the Soviet Union quite logically pointed out that their army couldn't fight Hitler if it couldn't get to him. Seems reasonable. You'd think so, without the ability to move their massive armies across Poland or Romania, the buffer states bordering Germany, any defensive pact was useless. It was just a piece of paper, but Poland refused, adamantly, driven by its own deep seated and, you know, historically justified antagonism toward Russia and very real concerns about Soviet expansionism, the Polish government absolutely refused to grant these transit rates. So what did London and Paris do? Did they lean on their ally? They did not. Instead of pressuring their Polish ally to make what was clearly a necessary military concession for the sake of collective European security, they just meekly backed Poland's refusal. Wow, they deferred to the sovereignty and the ideological preferences of a minor ally over the strategic necessity of bringing the Soviet military machine into the equation. It demonstrates a fatal lack of commitment to the whole idea of collective security. It proves the concept was dead. Collective security requires shared risk and absolute commitment from all parties. The West was clearly only willing to commit halfway. This entire story, as Carly concludes, is not a pretty story. It's just a cascade of systemic failures, and we can really isolate two primary policy failures that were at the heart of it all. First, the policy of appeasement, right Munich, the year before, was the high point of that. But you're saying the spirit of appeasement was still alive. In 1939 it was alive and well, even as they were supposedly negotiating in good faith with Moscow. There were powerful elements within the British cabinet, people like the foreign secretary, Lord Halifax, who were still secretly exploring the possibility of another deal with Germany, essentially, yes, a bilateral deal that would they hoped divert Hitler's attention eastward, away from Britain and France, so divert him toward the Soviet Union. That's the ultimate cynicism of it, isn't it to engage in these talks with Moscow as a kind of fallback, a bit of leverage, while simultaneously hoping that Hitler might just be satisfied if he could attack the Soviet Union instead of Western Europe. The sources suggest this mindset, which is rooted in appeasement, it just completely contaminated the sincerity of their negotiations with the USSR, it did. And the second major failure is the failure of collective security itself as a concept in Europe. The great hope after World War One, the hope was that the League of Nations treaties, mutual defense pacts, that they would prevent another catastrophe. 1939, was the final. Final exam for this whole concept, and it failed spectacularly by failing to convince their own smaller allies like Poland to be pragmatic, and by refusing to genuinely treat the Soviets as an equal necessary partner. Britain and France demonstrated that the system was fundamentally broken. It was an empty shell. This brings us to the strong moral judgment that Carly places on the individuals involved. He doesn't pull his punches. He calls the political environment one of moral depravity and blindness. It's very strong language for a historian, but he backs it up. It's so engaging because it moves beyond just dry diplomacy and policy into the realm of human choices, human failings. What does he mean by moral depravity and blindness? The blindness is the refusal to see that Hitler was the most immediate, the most clear and present danger to European civilization. It was a willful blindness. The depravity, he argues, lies in the willingness to risk a global war rather than align with the regime they hated. They'd rather see the world burn than shake hands with Stalin. That's the implication. He describes the political landscape as being populated by villains and cowards. And these aren't just abstract concepts for him, who are the villains? The villains are the powerful, entrenched political figures and diplomats who actively use bureaucratic stalling, slow communication and these conditional, powerless delegations to sabotage any potential alliance, and they were driven by their deep seated anti Soviet paranoia. And the cowards, the cowards are those who might have seen the danger, who understood the strategic necessity of the Alliance, but just lack the political courage to stand up against the prevailing anti communist tide in their governments and in the press. This level of detail, it really elevates the analysis. It's not just a policy failure anymore. It becomes a tragedy of human character, it does, and it forces us, you know, as listeners, to confront this really uncomfortable idea that the origins of World War Two weren't merely accidental or some kind of inevitable historical force. No, they were the direct result of moral and ideological choices made by identifiable people at the very top of government. Okay, so we've set the scene. We have the dallying, the failed policies, the the moral paralysis. Now let's get to the absolute heart of Carly's work, the definitive why exactly this is the intellectual contribution that really challenges the easy historical outs, the simple explanations. Absolutely for decades, particularly in the West, many historians treated the molotov Ribbentrop pact as purely a demonstration of Stalin's own inherent cynicism and opportunism. The idea being that both dictators were two sides of the same coin. They were always going to find each other exactly that the negotiations with the West were just a facade that Stalin was playing both sides all along. Carly, directly and forcefully challenges this interpretation, and he argues what exactly? He argues that the evidence shows the Soviets were genuinely and for a long time seeking a real collective security arrangement, but they were ultimately forced into the deal with Hitler by Western ambivalence and ideological hostility. Now, the weight of an argument like that really rests on the sources. Where is he getting this from? Well, the sheer scale of his source material is what gives it such authority. We have to give credence to this. This was his life's work. He did deep dives into the French archives, the British archives, which is standard for this kind of history. It is. But the true game changer for his thesis, the thing that sets his work apart comes from his access to the newly opened Soviet archives. Ah, okay, that's critical. It's absolutely critical. Before the fall of the Soviet Union, much of the Western narrative was built on essentially speculation about what Stalin was really thinking. Right? They were reading the tea leaves from the outside exactly, but access to the actual Soviet Foreign Ministry cables internal Paul at Borough debates and military communications allows Carly to confirm Moscow's perspective from the inside. And what did that perspective show? It showed that they wanted a binding military alliance, that they saw the threat from Germany with perfect clarity, and that they felt increasingly insulted and more importantly, endangered by the West's lukewarm, non committal response. So the Soviet archives provide the empirical proof of what the West was doing, or rather not doing Yes. It confirms that the Soviets presented concrete, comprehensive proposals for mutual defense. They offered specific troop commitments. We're talking hundreds of divisions and detailed operational plans. And these serious proposals were met with foot dragging, low level representation, and ultimately a political rejection over the Polish transit issue. This archival authority, then, is what allows Carly to state his central thesis with such conviction right, which is that anti communism was the major systemic cause of the failure to form an alliance against Hitler. It was the wedge that drove everyone apart. Let's elaborate on that a bit. How did this ideological hostility? Act as a wedge. In practical terms, it wasn't just a vague dislike, was it? What were the specific fears held by men like Neville Chamberlain and his key advisors? There were several specific and for them, paralyzing fears. Okay, first there was the political fear a formal military alliance would politically legitimize the Stalinist regime in the eyes of their own populations, which could, in turn bolster the communist movements in France and Britain, precisely for conservative governments who saw communists as the primary internal threat, this was a risk they were deeply unwilling to take. Okay, so that's the domestic political fear. What else second there was this strategic fear about Eastern Europe. This goes back to the transit rights issue. They were worried that if Soviet troops entered Poland, they'd never leave. That's it. Exactly the fear of bolshevization spreading into Central Europe, the fear of replacing one totalitarian threat with another. From their perspective, they preferred to keep a weak German vulnerable buffer zone, rather than guarantee Soviet military access, because that access might become permanent occupation. And there was a third fear, wasn't there, related to the British Empire? Yes, a colonial and Imperial fear. This was huge for Britain. They worried deeply about the implications of aligning with the Soviet Union, a power that actively supported anti colonial movements all over the world. So an alliance can threaten their standing in their massive empire, especially in India, it could empower an ideological enemy that was already dedicated to dismantling their empire. So they were constantly weighing the short term security of Europe against the long term integrity of the British Empire, and the Empire often won out it did so you see the implication, the ideological hostility, all these different fears. They didn't just complicate things. They functionally paralyzed the Western leadership. They were so intent on avoiding this perceived ideological cost that they completely missed the window for ensuring their own physical survival. The tragedy is that their deep seated anti communist friction just superseded the basic requirements of State Security. It's almost irrational when you look back at it. They were essentially gambling with the future of Western democracy. They were rolling the dice, believing that somehow, either Hitler would stop on his own, or that the war that resulted could be managed without the full participation of the USSR, a catastrophic miscalculation. But let's play the impartial card for a moment, as we have to how does Carly's work address the common counter argument, the idea that Stalin was just inherently opportunistic and was always going to take the best deal he could get? That's a necessary question, and Carly doesn't ignore it. He fully acknowledges Stalin's ruthlessness, his paranoia, his strategic calculation. He doesn't paint him as some kind of benevolent actor, but his archival evidence shows that Stalin pursued the Western pact for eight months from the spring to the late summer of 1939 and he did so with increasing desperation. Moscow's signals of commitment were consistently stronger and more detailed than the replies they were getting from Paris and London. So when the West consistently demonstrated this ambivalence, when they stalled on transit rights, when they sent this low level mission on a slow boat, Stalin, as a pragmatist, concluded that the Western powers were either not serious or worse, worse, how worse that they were actively hoping to use the Soviet Union as a sacrificial lamb to push Hitler into a war with the USSR, where the two totalitarian states would bleed each other dry, leaving the West to pick up the pieces. So in other words, Stalin's pivot to the German pact wasn't because he woke up one day and decided he preferred Hitler. No, it was because the Western powers, through their ideological paralysis and their constant dallying, made the pact with Germany the only rational security choice left on the table for the Soviet Union. The West effectively pushed Moscow into Hitler's arms. That is curly's core argument. The Nazi Soviet non aggression pact was a direct consequence of the Western failure. It wasn't just some independent act of Soviet betrayal that came out of nowhere. The Western government's own ideology forced Stalin to choose the devil who at that moment could deliver concrete strategic gains and, most importantly, a temporary buffer zone from the war he knew was coming the price of Western anti communism in 1939 was the successful forging of the Nazi Soviet pact. This intense ideological blockade, it makes Carly's focus on the few who saw the situation clearly all the more dramatic. Yes, we talked about the villains and cowards, but the source material also makes a point to highlight the heroes of this period, and these were the individuals who just recognized the sheer scale of the danger and tried desperately to force this grand alliance into existence. Who were these people? Generally? They were primarily a handful of diplomats, some intelligence analysts and a few dissenting politicians who understood that Hitler represented an existential threat that was far, far greater than communism, at least in the immediate term. Term, they are the pragmatists they were, and as Carly puts it, they stood against the intellectual and popular tides of their time. And we have to remember that tide was a tsunami of aggressive anti Bolshevik sentiment that cut across the entire political spectrum. We're talking about figures like Winston Churchill. Obviously, Churchill is the most famous example. He was in the political wilderness. At this point, a back bencher, repeatedly warning about German rearmament and loudly advocating for a full fledged no nonsense military alliance with Moscow, and he was dismissed as a warmonger for it widely dismissed. But there were others, too, diplomats and Soviet specialists within the Foreign Office who were sending memos back to London trying to communicate the seriousness of the Soviet proposals and the sheer absurdity of sending a delegation by slow boat. They knew it was an insult, but their efforts were ultimately doomed, completely doomed, because the official policy, the one being guided by Chamberlain in London and his counterparts in Paris, was fixed. It was set in stone by ideological prejudice and Carly notes, there was a real human cost for these people who went against the grain. He does. He writes that some of these heroes died for their beliefs, maybe in subsequent purges, or simply broken by the sheer weight of political exclusion and failure. Others, he says, labored in obscurity and have been nearly forgotten. Their warnings and their memos just gathering dust in archives, exactly ignored until after the catastrophe they had predicted had already come to pass, and their shared unsuccessful goal was to realize this grand alliance that never was. Their failure really serves as a devastating measure of how powerful that anti communist ideology was. It just suffocated any attempt at rational policy making. The system had no mechanism to reward pragmatic foresight when that foresight meant embracing an ideological front, it was built to reject it, and the immediacy of the consequence is just it's breathtaking when the negotiations officially broke down, and the Nazi Soviet pact was announced in late August. The world learned in an instant that collective security had failed. It was over, and just over a week later, Hitler invaded Poland, September 1, 1939 this failure wasn't a contributing factor. It was the direct trigger for the global conflict. It was and the fact that Carly's book was published on the 60th anniversary of that invasion. It really reinforces the point the Alliance failure was not some secondary historical event. It was the very mechanism by which the war began, because it assured Hitler he would only have to face a one front war in the West, at least for the time being, it gave him the green light. Now what happened two years later provides the perfect and most tragic counterpoint to all of this. It really does, because the failure in 1939 did not eliminate the need for an alliance with the Soviet Union. No, it just postponed it. It just changed the circumstances under which it was eventually formed dramatically. So the grand alliance does eventually come together in 1941 but under radically different, far more desperate conditions. Yes, this later wartime Alliance was formed specifically to defeat a demonic enemy, as Carly says, it wasn't driven by political foresight anymore. It was driven by sheer desperate necessity after German forces attacked the USSR in June 1941 and suddenly all that ideological prejudice just evaporated. Overnight. It was immediately abandoned for survival. Churchill, the arch anti communist, welcomed Stalin as an ally without a moment's hesitation. But look at the geopolitical configuration of that 1941 Alliance versus the one that failed in 1939 The difference is staggering. Crucially, the later Alliance was formed without France, because France had already fallen in 1940 a direct consequence of the 1939 failure. Exactly the refusal to guarantee Eastern Europe's security led directly to the collapse of the Western European defense a year later, and most significantly, the later Alliance was formed with the United States, which highlights the enormous premium that was paid for that two year delay, the delay caused by the dallying and the ideological rigidity. So in 1939 the necessary collective front against Hitler required three powers, the UK, France and the USSR, a strong but manageable European coalition. But by 1941 the front required the full might of the British Empire, the full mobilization of the Soviet Union after it had been invaded, and the eventual entry of the industrial and military superpower of the United States. The cost of failing to ally in peacetime was the loss of France, the devastation of the entire continent, the Blitz in London and a global struggle that would ultimately consume 50 million lives. It's the ultimate historical irony, really, the alliance that could have prevented the war was stalled by ideological prejudice, while the Alliance required to win the war needed two additional superpowers and only formed when the danger was no longer theoretical, but immediately existential for everyone. It proves that the price of ideological purity in 1939 was a global catastrophe. Okay, let's try to tie all these threads together for you, the listener, and summarize the key knowledge nuggets we've extracted from Carly's really powerful analysis, right? Let's boil it down first, and this is the starting point for everything. You have to remember that 1939, was the final, absolute last political chance to stop Hitler without a World War. It wasn't one of many negotiations. It was the deciding moment. It was peace or war, right there on the table. Second, the immediate cause of the failure was this diplomatic hesitation, this lack of genuine commitment from Britain and France, the political act of dallying, illustrated perfectly by that slow, low ranking military mission, and the refusal to pressure Poland on the critical issue of transit rights. And third, and this is the core of Carly's thesis, the ultimate reason for this hesitation was deep seated anti communism. The ideological rigidities of what he calls the early Cold War literally blinded Western leaders to the immediate existential threat. It outweighed their commitment to collective security. So what does all this mean for you, whether you're, you know, analyzing history or looking at contemporary global politics? Well, Carly's work provides this profound, almost timeless case study in how ideological rigidity and long standing friction between nations can absolutely override immediate, rational security needs. And you can see this dynamic play out again and again throughout history. Can't you? You can when decision makers prioritize political purity, or they hold on to long term ideological grudges over making pragmatic, temporary alliances against a shared pressing threat, disaster often follows. It's a reminder that states, even when they're facing immediate destruction, aren't always guided by pure rational self interest, not at all. They are so often guided by deep, ingrained biases, by cultural hatreds and by political fear. The failure of 1939 is probably the most expensive historical lesson ever in the danger of ideological tunnel vision, which leads us to our final provocative thought, something for you to ponder long after this deep dive is complete. We know the 1939 Alliance failed because Western anti communist sentiment was just too strong to overcome. But let's slip it. Let's imagine if that sentiment had been suppressed for the sake of global survival, if Chamberlain and his French counterpart, Daladier, had overcome their fear and fully embraced Stalin, if they'd granted him military access through Poland and politically legitimized his regime with a full Alliance. What political and moral compromises would that Grand Alliance have truly required of the rest? That's the question. If World War Two had been averted, the geopolitical landscape would have been vastly unrecognizably different. Would that Western partnership with Stalin have simply emboldened Soviet expansionism immediately after the threat from Germany was nullified, would the struggle for control of Europe have just become an immediate, maybe even hot clash between the communist superpower now bolstered by Western legitimacy, and the remaining democracies, the alliance that never was forces us to ask, what moral line are you willing to cross to guarantee peace, and can you ever trust the resulting peace to be any less dangerous than the war you managed to avoid the heavy thought the failure in 1939 cost the world millions of lives, but its success might have required an entirely different and morally complex calculation for the future of democracy, a real Devil's bargain. Thank you for joining us for this crucial Deep Dive. We hope you now feel thoroughly informed, not just on the events of 1939 but on the enduring power of ideology to reshape, or in this case, to destroy, strategic reality. We'll see you next time.