WI: Allies Declare War on USSR in '39?

[Gridley]

In OTL, the straw the broke the camel's back for the UK and France to declare war on Germany was the invasion of Poland.

What, then, if the allies also declared war on the USSR when they moved into 'their' side of Poland later that month, or perhaps after the Soviets occupied the Baltic states or invaded Finland later that year.

There was no love lost between the allies and the USSR; both the British and the French had sent troops to try to stop the Reds from taking over Russia in the Russian Civil War (1918-1920). While Stalin and Hitler both planned to stab the other in the back, the allies certainly didn't know that.

I welcome thoughts on both how likely (or unlikely) this is, as well as consequences for the coarse of the war. I assume that even if the allies declare war on the USSR, Germany will still invade the USSR in 1941 (most likely) or the USSR will invade Germany in 1942 (almost certain if Germany doesn't beat them to the punch in 1941).

 

[lothaw]

If the Allies were this stupid(as much as they disapproved of it OTL, they didn't do a thing), they would be in a world of trouble.

There's very little power Britain and France can bring to bear against the Soviets, especially while they're fighting Germany.

Meanwhile the Soviets... well Iran and Afgahnistan are gone, and that opens the road to India... so the British will be fighting a two front war there.

Though I suppose it's possible Japan seeing the Soviets with two other potential enemies, could see fit to change their strategic plans and join in when Germany invades thinking a three front war will lay waste to the Soviet giant and they'll get their slice of Siberia.

 

[Don Lardo]

If the Allies were this stupid(as much as they disapproved of it OTL, they didn't do a thing), they would be in a world of trouble.

While it would have been an incredible mistake, the Allies came very close to making it. Almost scarily close.

Allow me to introduce you to Operation Pike

The Allies made extensive plans to bomb the USSR's primary oil extraction and refining assets around Baku in the hopes of crippling both Nazi Germany's and the USSR's economies. US oil engineers working in the area had reported the Soviet's usually shoddy and slapdash industrial practices had created dangerous conditions in the region's oil fields including things like oil-saturated earth and settling ponds full of petroleum by-products.

Britain conducted a few tests to "prove" that a mixture of HE and incendiaries could start the fires necessary. The RAF flew secret recon flights into the USSR to photograph the targets. France began building more airfields for the operation in Syria. Both countries dispatched bomber squadrons to the region for the job and shipped in enough ordnance for a three month bombing campaign.

While preparations for the campaign were supposed to be finished by mid-May, whether the political establishments in both countries would have pulled the trigger then is another question.

Of course the damage that aerial bombing could inflict was wildly inflated both before and during the war, however the conditions in the fields and refineries around Baku and Grozny certainly sound susceptible to bombs.

 

[grdja83]

Hitler backstabs Stalin sooner or later, chomps up everything to Urals, UK folds and USA is at very best a very right wing country with full apartheid, if outside influence doesn't cause slide to full fascism.

 

[Gridley]

While it would have been an incredible mistake, the Allies came very close to making it. Almost scarily close.

Allow me to introduce you to Operation Pike

Thanks for the link; I hadn't heard of that op before.

Agreed it would have been a huge mistake, but there's nothing that says the allies can't make a huge mistake or two, especially if they're lacking information on how big a mistake it would be.

 

[Gridley]

UK folds and USA is at very best a very right wing country with full apartheid, if outside influence doesn't cause slide to full fascism.

Um... why would the UK fold? Why would the US even lean towards fascism?

 

[archaeogeek]

Um... why would the UK fold? Why would the US even lean towards fascism?

Because the UK is now at war with two powers which collectively outproduce it; they may not be able to land in their metropolis but they can strangle it in India and the Middle East, probably even while they're busy killing each other.

Roosevelt was also not so much a friend of Britain as an enemy of the fascists in many ways; he'd probably covertly support two of the sides but be rooting for whoever is more likely to break the empire; if anything I suspect US intervention in the war might come in the form of a string of US-armed and equipped nationalist governments throughout in Africa and East ASia - and that's, indeed, assuming the far right doesn't use the occasion for a boost (a Lindberghian "Great America" would be pretty scary).

 

[Gridley]

Because the UK is now at war with two powers which collectively outproduce it; they may not be able to land in their metropolis but they can strangle it in India and the Middle East, probably even while they're busy killing each other.

Err... Germany alone outproduced the UK, and that's without Italy. I don't see why the USSR in 1940 would fare better against the mid-east states than they did against Finland in OTL, and after June 1941 they've got bigger problems.

I can see a combination of factors causing the Axis and the USSR to divide the mid-east between them (which would lead to another front between them come 1941/1942), and more-or-less succeeding in taking it away from the Allied powers (a different outcome to the Iraq rebellion, etc.), though I don't think that's the most probable outcome. But... India? If the UK is worried about loosing it they'll boost the Indian army. No way Axis/Soviet units at the end of a logistical train THAT long can take India. You think supplying the Africa Corp is hard, try unloading in the Levant and moving everything by poor roads all the way to India (no railroads that run handily there). Even with the Suez in Axis hands the RN can still raid most of the supply line from bases in the Indian Ocean. The Italian navy wasn't suited to operations outside the Med; they won't be much help securing the seaward flank.

 

[archaeogeek]

Err... Germany alone outproduced the UK, and that's without Italy. I don't see why the USSR in 1940 would fare better against the mid-east states than they did against Finland in OTL, and after June 1941 they've got bigger problems.

I can see a combination of factors causing the Axis and the USSR to divide the mid-east between them (which would lead to another front between them come 1941/1942), and more-or-less succeeding in taking it away from the Allied powers (a different outcome to the Iraq rebellion, etc.), though I don't think that's the most probable outcome. But... India? If the UK is worried about loosing it they'll boost the Indian army. No way Axis/Soviet units at the end of a logistical train THAT long can take India. You think supplying the Africa Corp is hard, try unloading in the Levant and moving everything by poor roads all the way to India (no railroads that run handily there). Even with the Suez in Axis hands the RN can still raid most of the supply line from bases in the Indian Ocean. The Italian navy wasn't suited to operations outside the Med; they won't be much help securing the seaward flank.

The Mideast states don't have a line of massive fortifications on their borders, and Finland sued for a minimally humiliating peace when it became obvious that the soviets were a) having a breakthrough and b) if they didn't drop out of the war before that breakthrough became too bad, there would be a Finland Soviet Federative Socialist Republic before long. I know there's a lot of uplifting to be had with the whole "plucky small republic survives one of the behemoths of the war" and that's one of the reasons people keep rooting for Switerland in a Tannenbaum hypothetical, but IRL things are usually much much greyer: the Soviets got a bloody nose, but at the time the Finns got a peace, it was a lucky peace and that was about it.

Also more involvement in Britain to keep India will mean stronger British government in India, and that will cost them India, fast. If the british do anything to suggest they're reconsidering Home Rule, this would have repercussions not only with India but the US, too.

 

[Gridley]

The Mideast states don't have a line of massive fortifications on their borders,

No, they just have mountains and deserts. Those are GREAT terrain for mobile forces. (/Sarcasm) India has a particularly nice set of mountain ranges that cover most of the possible invasion routes.

The Soviets will be up against not just the local 'national'/colonial troops but also British, Aussie, French, etc.

Also, with a POD no earlier than September 1939, Stalin has to choose: go with invading Finland in November, or turn everything around and go south instead?

If he goes with Finland, he takes the casualties as in OTL and realizes the Red Army needs SERIOUS work before he's ready to go toe-to-toe with the Allies (or the Germans). If he turns south, he's going to be using the same flawed instrument that invaded Finland.

 

[stevep]

Also more involvement in Britain to keep India will mean stronger British government in India, and that will cost them India, fast. If the british do anything to suggest they're reconsidering Home Rule, this would have repercussions not only with India but the US, too.

archaeogeek

If the British claim their going to continue ruling yes. But since they were already moving towards accepting Indian independence and under the crisis that has developed - presuming the Russians get anywhere near India - it's far more likely both sides do what's in their own interests. That is Britain and India work, hard, for their mutual defence. Coupled with the distance and terrain that is going to make a hell of a problem for anyone trying to invade India.

The greatest danger would be if Japan joined the Axis, without bringing the US into the conflict. That would pose a threat from the more difficult to defend east and the IJN could pose serious threats to supply lines across the Indian Ocean. Although if India is being mobilised on the sort of scale that would be likely and Britain has been driven from the ME it could easily be that the Japanese don't get passed Malaya as it's likely to be defended more strongly and reinforced quickly.

If Germany and Russia don't go to war with each other quickly, then Britain might fall or be forced to surrender by ~42/43 but that's more likely than India going down. I don't think even Gandhi would be rash enough to encourage a Soviet invasion.

Steve

 

[Bearcat]

The Mideast states don't have a line of massive fortifications on their borders, and Finland sued for a minimally humiliating peace when it became obvious that the soviets were a) having a breakthrough and b) if they didn't drop out of the war before that breakthrough became too bad, there would be a Finland Soviet Federative Socialist Republic before long.

Massive fortifications. In Finland. It is to laugh.

Try very crude earthworks, in reality.

The Soviet failure in 1939 was NOT because of Finnish strength, but because of Soviet bumbling. Anything the USSR took on in '39 would be a farce. Of course, by '42, things would be very different indeed.