WI: Great Britain and France declare war on the Soviet Union as well in 1939?
- Thread starter Iggies
- Start date
Indeed, I thought about that too. And paradoxically, Britain might see herself forced to conclude a peace agreement with Nazi Germany, just to stop an enemy that is even more dangerous. Quite bizarre, if you think about it. The dangers that such a scenario would pose was certainly the reason why the Allies IOTL didn't go to war with the USSR over the partition of Poland.
you mean like US an GB land in Normandy sometimes in 1944, push through Germany and afterwards push Soviet Army from Poland?
1. I may have had my numbers wrong, that I will admit. I was using the current populations for the former Raj vs. the former USSR.
2. I don't understand how that part doesn't make sense, though. If Britain and France declared war on the USSR, and then the Soviets invaded British India, wouldn't the Indian soldiers have the backing of the British and French Empires?
India was likely to become independent soon anyways, so I'd bet on France. India also has a pretty decent army that probably wouldn't all defect to the Soviets just because of British imperialism, and France is much closer to home for the average Briit.
That's very convergent and unlikely due to butterflies.
Forget about the second part, I misunderstood that as OTL support for the USSR. My bad.
But still, my other point stands: An invasion of Iran and Afghanistan would have been a fairly easy thing for the USSR to achieve, and a subsequent invasion of India wouldn't have been too difficult for them either. Eventually, they would have been overrun.
How far could the Soviets really get before the Americans enter the war? Wouldn't a better option for them just drop out of the war? THey have little to gain and a lot to lose.
deathscompanion1
Banned
Would they?
There is the minor matter of non existent infrastructure and the Red Army depending on Lend Lease trucks, radios and aviation fuel as well as locomotives and spare parts to stop its sweeping OTL advances burning out hundreds of miles short. Invading India was a massive fear that the British had yet never really seemed all that plausible.
1) Why would the US join such a war in the first place? It couldn't stand militarily against Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, and it could nowhere get a foot into the door anyway. The best thing it can hope for is to isolate herself and finish the Manhattan Project as soon as possible, to have a proper deterrent in the dystopic world of this TL.
2) The best option for all would obviously be to not start the war in the first place; and IOTL, this is indeed what happened for these obvious reasons. But the premise of this thread is that the Allies went to war with the USSR following the partition of Poland, arguably leading to the USSR and Nazi Germany to become allies/co-belligerents. And if the situation already went that far, it wouldn't really make much sense anymore to just 'drop out of the war'.
The best proof of how smoothly a Soviet incursion into Iran would have proceeded in this scenario is the OTL Anglo-Soviet invasion of 1941. After merely five days, the Soviets controlled the whole north of the country and captured Hamedan, leading to the Iranian government to accept the offered ceasefire.
Iran isn't Afghanistan. The soviets would have to travel without Studebakers and all the other LL goodies that made their army function, through the most remote region on earth, with Pashtuns attacking thin supply lines (if genghis khan couldn't subdue them, Stalin wouldn't have an easy time of it either) while the Brits and Indians hold the passes against them. You're talking about a war that they could barely supply, much less aggressively advance in.
Cook
Banned
Yes it would further enforce the Nazi-Soviet alliance. Yes it would have been possible and yes it would have tipped the scales against the British and French.
They didn't had Studebakers in Iran 1941 either. Stalin didn't need to subdue Afghanistan just make it desert. We are talking about man who had Chechens and Tatars moved after WWII to Siberia. Man whosearmy fought UPA in Ukraine after WWII.
PoeFacedKilla
Banned
If the US does get involved how does that effect Japan and China?
Suppose Japan still bombs a US base, do the Soviets join the war with Japan against the United States?
Anyway, if Germany knocks France out of the war as OTL and then focuses with Italy on Africa post FoF then it would mostly be the Soviets conquering much weaker powers.
In such a scenario, with all of Europe under Axis control and the USSR able to focus most if not all of its power towards invading India could Britain even win?
Suppose Japan still bombs a US base, do the Soviets join the war with Japan against the United States?
Anyway, if Germany knocks France out of the war as OTL and then focuses with Italy on Africa post FoF then it would mostly be the Soviets conquering much weaker powers.
In such a scenario, with all of Europe under Axis control and the USSR able to focus most if not all of its power towards invading India could Britain even win?
or using Xinjiang...or worse FUCKING Tibet
Xinjiang Warlord are ally of Soviet during WWII and defect because of Barbarossa...
no need to invade just passing through
Last edited:
Alien Space Bats mind-controlled Western Leaders?
Is this thread in the correct forum? Why would France and England, who already have their hands full with Nazi Germany, want to fight the Russians too??? Especially since now the Nazis are directly next to the Russians there's a lot more potential for an outbreak of hostilities between the Germans and the Russians.
Last edited:
Churchill on Poland
As Churchill pointed out regarding the Russian invasion of part of Poland:
*****
[1] Churchill quoting a paper that he wrote for the war cabinet on the 28th September, 1939, included in Chapter XXIV of Volume 1 of The Second World War.
As Churchill pointed out regarding the Russian invasion of part of Poland:
Unless the France and Britain do something like declare war on Russia, the Russians are tying down German forces in the East even if they're not currently fighting each other...
*****
[1] Churchill quoting a paper that he wrote for the war cabinet on the 28th September, 1939, included in Chapter XXIV of Volume 1 of The Second World War.
Well the Russians and Germans were rather "good friends" at that time. And the Soviet overtake of the Baltics and Eastern Poland was rather aggressive. So if the English and French "flip out" and go ahead with something like Operation Pike than it could spiral out of controll and into a general war rather fast.
On the other hand, Russian options are not only India but the whole Middle East too.
If Uncle Joe decides to get some more oil, then the British have a hard time. Esp. come 1940 and the fall of France. (I doubt the mad Austrian would stopp it.)
Then we have a ugly situation for the British. Lets say, seeing the trouble for the British Hitler decides against BoB and waits for the "ineviteble" British colloapse (just to stopp the city destroying bombing on both sides).
What have the British to do? Hold India, hold the Middle East and lo and beholde Mussolini would probably like a chunk of Africa.
Can they do it? I doubt it. At least not all together at the same time.
I could imagine a armistance in the west then. Maybe around early 1941.
And if the Red Army did somewhat like OTL Finland then a Barbarossa could concivebly happen.
How that would play out? Anyones guss. As the British and USA could be a tad hesistant to grand LL in this case. And how the Red Army learned and improfed in the meantime. Not to mention the German reaction to a even more aggressive Soviet Union (and the East European reaction as well).
On the other hand, Russian options are not only India but the whole Middle East too.
If Uncle Joe decides to get some more oil, then the British have a hard time. Esp. come 1940 and the fall of France. (I doubt the mad Austrian would stopp it.)
Then we have a ugly situation for the British. Lets say, seeing the trouble for the British Hitler decides against BoB and waits for the "ineviteble" British colloapse (just to stopp the city destroying bombing on both sides).
What have the British to do? Hold India, hold the Middle East and lo and beholde Mussolini would probably like a chunk of Africa.
Can they do it? I doubt it. At least not all together at the same time.
I could imagine a armistance in the west then. Maybe around early 1941.
And if the Red Army did somewhat like OTL Finland then a Barbarossa could concivebly happen.
How that would play out? Anyones guss. As the British and USA could be a tad hesistant to grand LL in this case. And how the Red Army learned and improfed in the meantime. Not to mention the German reaction to a even more aggressive Soviet Union (and the East European reaction as well).
Wikipedia on OTL reaction to Poland invasion.
Wikipedia (for what it's worth) says in a subsection about the allied reaction on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland page:
Wikipedia (for what it's worth) says in a subsection about the allied reaction on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland page:
Also:
And even (at least regarding the reaction of the British public) also:
Cook
Banned
Gamelin and Churchill were both wrong; by October 1939, only eight infantry divisions remained in the east, garrisoning East Prussia and Poland. The German army in occupied Poland didn't exceed 10 divisions until March 1940, peaking at 18 divisions in April 1940 before dropping to just 7 divisions by June. Germany diverted more men and resources away from the Western Front for the invasion of Scandinavia: 7 divisions, a Luftwaffe Fliegerkorps and the entire Kreigsmarine surface fleet.