Yeah. Italy might want to sit out this one or going for a separate landgrab at Yugoslavia hoping nobody else notices (like "all the big guys are busy so we can give a shot at it now).
WI: Great Britain and France declare war on the Soviet Union as well in 1939?
- Thread starter Iggies
- Start date
Yeah. Italy might want to sit out this one or going for a separate landgrab at Yugoslavia hoping nobody else notices (like "all the big guys are busy so we can give a shot at it now).
I did not know that that was the Soviet aim in signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact - gaining a sphere of influence South of the Soviet Union, i.e. at the expense of the British Empire. Could you quote where you read that?
AsGryffynn
Banned
You're missing it. I'm not saying quality doesn't matters, but it doesn't when the raw numbers make the advantage offered by more skill and better weapons redundant.
I do blame Stalin's purges for leading up to most of the skilled generals and higher ups dying.
Here's where I make my point. Even if all three countries were to attack the Soviets, they'd still be outnumbered two to one at best, four to one at worst. Even supposing a newcomer led the Red Army, they'd still have enough in raw numbers to literally human wave everyone away. Also, the Germans withdrew from Leningrad exactly the same way Napoleon did... This would only lead to more numbers in the Allies and Germany's casualty rank.
As it stands, unless the invasion is moved to summer, almost any campaign against the USSR would lead to any invaders freezing or drowning in mud.
Also, I'm supposing that somehow the Allies and Germany plot together. The RN alone isn't enough, and the Germans aren't either. You need both working together to stand a chance, and as history has shown us, it's more likely Stalin never comes to power than the Allies and Germany cooperating.
"The enemy of my enemy is my best friend" sadly does not work when dealing with pride blinded, self absorbed, quasi religious nutjobs.
Oh, I totaly agree, raw number are important. IF you can bring them to bear...
With the Soviets could NOT in any meaningful way against the British. Neither in Persia nor in India. The infrastructure is simply not there to support massive motorised armies in that time.
So your hordes of Soviet soldiers will sit out behind the original border and then trickle into the combat zone. And then the Indian and British will most likely handily have parity. And than the quality of troops and equipment will matter.
That is in no means meant to say the Soviet soldier is less dedicated or willing to fight than the Indian or British one. Simply he is lead worse and fights on the tether of a overly long logistics chain through hostile terretory.
As to the British (and French pre invasion) working together with the German/Axis, I agree it is mostly unlikely. But the simple fact that the Soviets are fighting an agressive war (Poland followed by whatever else) will likely negate some of the "defend the Rodina" spirit. And then the fact that the British are somewhat slugging it out in the Middle East and Asia may profe that the Soviets have more of everything and are willing to bleed themself dry. So Adloph may wait and gather his own streanght. And even a partly motorized Wehrmacht played holy hell with the Soviets...
With the Soviets could NOT in any meaningful way against the British. Neither in Persia nor in India. The infrastructure is simply not there to support massive motorised armies in that time.
So your hordes of Soviet soldiers will sit out behind the original border and then trickle into the combat zone. And then the Indian and British will most likely handily have parity. And than the quality of troops and equipment will matter.
That is in no means meant to say the Soviet soldier is less dedicated or willing to fight than the Indian or British one. Simply he is lead worse and fights on the tether of a overly long logistics chain through hostile terretory.
As to the British (and French pre invasion) working together with the German/Axis, I agree it is mostly unlikely. But the simple fact that the Soviets are fighting an agressive war (Poland followed by whatever else) will likely negate some of the "defend the Rodina" spirit. And then the fact that the British are somewhat slugging it out in the Middle East and Asia may profe that the Soviets have more of everything and are willing to bleed themself dry. So Adloph may wait and gather his own streanght. And even a partly motorized Wehrmacht played holy hell with the Soviets...
"The infrastructure is simply not there to support massive motorised armies in that time."
Why is there an assumption that the Red Army has to immediately invade India? In this scenario, and with the notoriously cautious Stalin in charge, the USSR would be much more likely to protect it's borders, bite off (or attempt to) chunks like Finland, possibly threaten Iraq/reinforce the rebels (depending on timing) with a smaller force. And in the meantime build up the road and rail system in northern Persia and see how the masses in India respond to the undoubted propaganda campaign led by Radio Moscow to rise up and throw off the imperial yoke. Then in a year or two see what the political landscape on the subcontinent is like.
Why is there an assumption that the Red Army has to immediately invade India? In this scenario, and with the notoriously cautious Stalin in charge, the USSR would be much more likely to protect it's borders, bite off (or attempt to) chunks like Finland, possibly threaten Iraq/reinforce the rebels (depending on timing) with a smaller force. And in the meantime build up the road and rail system in northern Persia and see how the masses in India respond to the undoubted propaganda campaign led by Radio Moscow to rise up and throw off the imperial yoke. Then in a year or two see what the political landscape on the subcontinent is like.
I agree, Stalin is going to let Hitler do all the heavy lifting and I don't see a major Soviet invasion of India happening until he is absolutely certain of its success; and Britain is on its knees.
My assertion was based on the Soviet Union deciding to attack first in response a lot of the supposition that the Red Army could just march where ever it wants and just take over. The RA starts with war with somewhere in the region of 2.3 Million men either in Poland or Western Russia to guard against the Germans, this is before we look at troops deployed in Karelia, the troops deployed on the Chinese Border, in the Caucases, in Siberia etc. So while the Red army is huge, it is spread pretty thin and to begin a conflict against the British in Suez, Persia or India would, prior to 1941 stretch them too far. That is wy I don't believe Stalin would order an attack in the conventional sense, but would forment rebellion instead.
I agree - no chance without serious ASB intervention. A seperate peace is possible, but allying against Russia is unlikely. Possibly more likely would be a seperate peace between the Soviet Union, the British & French, and then an agreement to split Germany post war, but no LL or other such goodies for the Soviets.
I never said Stalin had to attack imidiatly. Just that the infrastructure is not in place to swarm the Persian and Indian Theater.
The Mind of Stalin is also a matter of himself. Yes he was cautionous befor declaring war. But afterwards he favored a strong offensive. See all the counterattacks and offensives in the time of Barbarossa.
So lets say he gets DoW'ed in 1939 right allong the invasion of Poland.
Ok. He waits and lets Hitler do the heavy lifting. That gets him to mid to late 1940. If the OTL holds true and France falls in Fall Gelb.
Here I see an even more succesfull German offensive, as the French likely have diverted troops into the Middle East and to Asia. Not too much, but one or two Divisions are likely enough to let the Germans keep the OTL succes and more.
Also the BEF could be smaller. Alltogether maybe we could see a "Disaster of Dunkirk" rather then the "Miracle".
After that the British should have the need to see a victory. And if Hitler plays it somewhat smart (he is not the raving lunatic yet), he lets the British know the same peace terms... Butterflys.
But in the Soviet Theater, the British and French thought about Operation Pike, the Bombing of Baku... So they will likely have done something to annoy Stalin. And with the French surrender the chances of Soviet vs. British could seem good to him. Esp. as he has the "secure" flank towards Germany.
The negotiations could be a roadblock, but Imo that could also be interpreted as British weakness.
For what happens than? Who knows. But if the Soviets are in serious fights in the south and show their best equipment to their "Friends" then that could also spark the rearmament and waiting on Germanys part. As the "Slavic Subhumans" tire themself out against the British and Indians...
The Mind of Stalin is also a matter of himself. Yes he was cautionous befor declaring war. But afterwards he favored a strong offensive. See all the counterattacks and offensives in the time of Barbarossa.
So lets say he gets DoW'ed in 1939 right allong the invasion of Poland.
Ok. He waits and lets Hitler do the heavy lifting. That gets him to mid to late 1940. If the OTL holds true and France falls in Fall Gelb.
Here I see an even more succesfull German offensive, as the French likely have diverted troops into the Middle East and to Asia. Not too much, but one or two Divisions are likely enough to let the Germans keep the OTL succes and more.
Also the BEF could be smaller. Alltogether maybe we could see a "Disaster of Dunkirk" rather then the "Miracle".
After that the British should have the need to see a victory. And if Hitler plays it somewhat smart (he is not the raving lunatic yet), he lets the British know the same peace terms... Butterflys.
But in the Soviet Theater, the British and French thought about Operation Pike, the Bombing of Baku... So they will likely have done something to annoy Stalin. And with the French surrender the chances of Soviet vs. British could seem good to him. Esp. as he has the "secure" flank towards Germany.
The negotiations could be a roadblock, but Imo that could also be interpreted as British weakness.
For what happens than? Who knows. But if the Soviets are in serious fights in the south and show their best equipment to their "Friends" then that could also spark the rearmament and waiting on Germanys part. As the "Slavic Subhumans" tire themself out against the British and Indians...
"But afterwards he favored a strong offensive. See all the counterattacks and offensives in the time of Barbarossa"
Of course the Red Army was aggressive against the Germans, they were fighting to recover their country. This is a completely different situation where the Red Army would be the initial aggressor attacking outside of their territory. Much less likely to occur, at least without a clear likelihood of success.
"But in the Soviet Theater, the British and French thought about Operation Pike, the Bombing of Baku..."
They're not going to do much damage to Baku in 1940 or 41, the bomber fleet isn't built yet. By the time Bomber Command has become the big stick the map is probably going to look very different and they nare going to have an awful long way to go from wherever they are based. Plus the RAF's main job will be against the Germans. Damage to Baku is likely to be minimal, at least until America fully enters the war.
"As the "Slavic Subhumans" tire themself out against the British and Indians..."
It's much more likely the Soviets will be the cautious partner, and Hitler will launch his forces on grand adventures. Stalin is far more likely to be the partner who husbands his resources and allows his allies to bear the brunt of the fighting. Stalin has little to gain from sending millions of men to India, and he knows it. Any Red Army operations on the subcontinent would probably involve a smallish force that would be designed to tie down the British, stir up anticolonial sentiment and, for him, hopefully cause a revolt by the locals. Most of the Red Army would be making sure the Rodina is secure, not off gallivanting around Eurasia.
Of course the Red Army was aggressive against the Germans, they were fighting to recover their country. This is a completely different situation where the Red Army would be the initial aggressor attacking outside of their territory. Much less likely to occur, at least without a clear likelihood of success.
"But in the Soviet Theater, the British and French thought about Operation Pike, the Bombing of Baku..."
They're not going to do much damage to Baku in 1940 or 41, the bomber fleet isn't built yet. By the time Bomber Command has become the big stick the map is probably going to look very different and they nare going to have an awful long way to go from wherever they are based. Plus the RAF's main job will be against the Germans. Damage to Baku is likely to be minimal, at least until America fully enters the war.
"As the "Slavic Subhumans" tire themself out against the British and Indians..."
It's much more likely the Soviets will be the cautious partner, and Hitler will launch his forces on grand adventures. Stalin is far more likely to be the partner who husbands his resources and allows his allies to bear the brunt of the fighting. Stalin has little to gain from sending millions of men to India, and he knows it. Any Red Army operations on the subcontinent would probably involve a smallish force that would be designed to tie down the British, stir up anticolonial sentiment and, for him, hopefully cause a revolt by the locals. Most of the Red Army would be making sure the Rodina is secure, not off gallivanting around Eurasia.
But it shows that Stalin was not averse to offensives in war. There may be an initial defensive stance. But the British and French plans could annoy him. With something like attacks on... Baku?
And I never implied that the demage would be huge, or even important. But they are attacks on the Soviet Union. So Stalin would most likely react.
And where would Hitler go and squander the German fighting power? Western Europe would practicaly be his. And even with Mussolini stirring trouble on the Balkans and Africa. That would be minor commitements.
On the other hand, Stalin may percive the British and Free French as weak... and pounce them to streangthen his own position and swat those pesky bomber bases.
And I never implied that the demage would be huge, or even important. But they are attacks on the Soviet Union. So Stalin would most likely react.
And where would Hitler go and squander the German fighting power? Western Europe would practicaly be his. And even with Mussolini stirring trouble on the Balkans and Africa. That would be minor commitements.
On the other hand, Stalin may percive the British and Free French as weak... and pounce them to streangthen his own position and swat those pesky bomber bases.
Hitler now has the military and political power to force Spain, Portugal, and Turkey into the Axis. Especially Turkey would be an important ally in such a scenario, as it would serve as the staging point for German operations in the Middle East*.
*The USSR is -albeit now an ally- still an ideological enemy, and an eventual conflict between the two is still looming somewhere on the horizon. The oil sources of the Middle East would be much needed to prepare for this possibility, and to keep the German industry and war machinery alive and running.
Stalin invaded Iran IOTL during WWII with three armies while locked in a life and death struggle against Germany, so the logistics aren't prohibitive of a Soviet invasion South. If the Soviet oil fields are in danger of being bombed from British bases in the Middle East, then Stalin would invade Iran to get to Iraq and eliminate those bases. He is not going to ignore those bases regardless of how cautious he is.
So there is your Shouthern Front. The Soviets are going to fight the British in the Middle East. This weakens the UK's position by creating an entire new front where OTL there was only an Iraqi uprising and a short invasion of Iran. The mere existance of this front will help Hitler against the UK and against the Soviets once he inevitably invades.
So there is your Shouthern Front. The Soviets are going to fight the British in the Middle East. This weakens the UK's position by creating an entire new front where OTL there was only an Iraqi uprising and a short invasion of Iran. The mere existance of this front will help Hitler against the UK and against the Soviets once he inevitably invades.
The Soviets were able to overrun significant portions of Iran during the height of Operation Barbarossa, so I'm not sure why people are saying the infrastructure is not in place for an invasion of Iran.
I suppose people want to say that there is no infrastructuee for an invasion of India, which is largely true if you consider the terrain between the Soviet Union and India (i.e. Afganistan).
But a Soviet thrust southwards is not only a possibility - it was actually done IOTL.
"But it shows that Stalin was not averse to offensives in war"
Who said he was? I certainly didn't.
"So Stalin would most likely react"
Maybe, but even if he reacts, Stalin showed IOTL that he was unlikely to be lured into foolhardy actions just because someone attacks the USSR. Any response is likely to be considered, not rash.
"And where would Hitler go and squander the German fighting power?"
If anyone could find a way it would be Hitler. He very likely would embark on a Med/North Africa campaign but he still has the British staring from across the Channel. What the Germans could do about that is an entirely different question and one I am not going to get sucked into.
But the main point is this: If anyone is likely to be the cunning mastermind allowing his allies to do most of the fighting while his country gets stronger it is most likely to be Stalin, not Hitler.
Who said he was? I certainly didn't.
"So Stalin would most likely react"
Maybe, but even if he reacts, Stalin showed IOTL that he was unlikely to be lured into foolhardy actions just because someone attacks the USSR. Any response is likely to be considered, not rash.
"And where would Hitler go and squander the German fighting power?"
If anyone could find a way it would be Hitler. He very likely would embark on a Med/North Africa campaign but he still has the British staring from across the Channel. What the Germans could do about that is an entirely different question and one I am not going to get sucked into.
But the main point is this: If anyone is likely to be the cunning mastermind allowing his allies to do most of the fighting while his country gets stronger it is most likely to be Stalin, not Hitler.
AsGryffynn
Banned
Why is charging headfirst into Delhi a priority anyways? As far as I understand, he's more likely to set camp in Persia where he can (as explained below)...
The Soviets get a bigger Navy. Their economy gets a boost. No lend lease simply means less land grabs and a longer war, but I don't think it's going to spell the end of them and expenditures in military hardware are likely to go up during the post War period, meaning the economy will get an slight boost from all the new innovation and construction involved in updating their forces.
Spain was already Axis. It was only neutral because we had NO ARMY to speak off after the Civil War. All we had were a bunch of ragtag insurgents and a secret police to quell Catalans so Franco had no opposition to speak off...