|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Sept 21, 2023 1:05:29 GMT
The latter four countries had made a non-aggression pact, fearing an attack of the Soviets.
But what if the SU had invaded them, at some time during World War 2? Maybe as part of a continental block, as planned by "von" Ribbentrop?
If the SU stayed victorious, I already have some ideas of what they'll do next. But I'm interested in your opinions first.
|
|
575
Captain
There is no Purgatory for warcriminals - they go directly to Hell!
Posts: 2,730 
Likes: 4,106
|
Post by 575 on Sept 21, 2023 10:12:20 GMT
The latter four countries had made a non-aggression pact, fearing an attack of the Soviets.
But what if the SU had invaded them, at some time during World War 2? Maybe as part of a continental block, as planned by "von" Ribbentrop?
If the SU stayed victorious, I already have some ideas of what they'll do next. But I'm interested in your opinions first.
Entered 8 July 1937 - running for 5 years; automatic renewal as none of the signatories renounced it.
By the "Continental Block" I assume You refer to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 23 August 1939 - which leaves just about two years for the Soviets to do their thing before the Germans attack. As Finland was such a disaster and Khalkin-Gol a tie of sorts I see little incitement for the Soviets to do a third as Stalin well knew the Germans were coming and began preparations - defensive line. Operation Countenance the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran could have led to more from the Soviet point but going for British Oil in Iran and Iraq??? Afghanistan seems more the like as the British had tried their hand in the very late 19 cent. Let the Soviets experience it themselves!
Turkey - well the British would love to have Turkey as an ally so a Soviet invasion during WWII - driving it into Nazi-arms!
This could lead to a War within the War like Finland but against either Nazi-Germany or Britain which in either case would be interesting as such would upset all sorts of things. Like prospect of Lend-Lease come Barbarossa!
A late war go say post August 1944 would be another thing. I'd expect the WAllies to stop Lend-Lease if Iran - should be more or less an automatic at least through Iran - or Iraq. The Brits wouldn't like the latter nor the former. And it would have the Soviets lose any credence left.
Afghanistan would probably only annoy the British as a vision of Great Game renewed but they would expect the Soviets to get bogged down - which eventually happened in the 1980's. Here they may commit larger force but at the cost of Manchuria I'd expect. Turkey - that would scare the British too as to the outlook of the Middle East. Wouldn't do much regarding Germany.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Sept 21, 2023 12:03:23 GMT
If the Soviets were to attack any of those states - triggering a defence agreement by the others - or all four of them then a lot would depend on the date. If before 1941 and especially before the fall of France I suspect that Germany would take the opportunity to 'support' its ally by attacking western Turkey if/when it can badger Romania and Bulgaria to give it access. So it could secure Istanbul and the straits for itself and keep it out of Soviet hands. This would cause the western powers, or Britain after June 1940 to try and support the Saadabad members.
If such a move by Stalin was say early 1941 - although I would agree with 575 that is unlikely - then I could see Berlin quickly making approaches to Ankara and seeking to gain it as an ally when they attack the USSR, possibly a bit earlier than OTL despite the weather. Working on the basis that for all Britain's willingness to support the nations attacked - as well as defending important interests - they would lack much in terms of capacity. Coupled with anti-British feeling in Iraq and Iran that could be very dangerous but would lead to a chaotic 3 sided war. In such a case L-L for the Soviets is far less likely both because their making moves which endanger US interests and also to get political agreement for such through Congress. Aid from Britain once the Germans attack would also be a no-no unless Stalin makes serious concessions, including at the least withdrawing from all occupied territories.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Sept 24, 2023 0:48:21 GMT
In this case, I wasn't asking so much about the How - let's just say it happens. The real question would be, what'll happen to them? Here are my ideas: - Iran's northern provinces (incl. the famous Persian Riviera at the Caspian Sea) will become part of the Soviet republics of Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. Since the former will more than double its size (and be one piece from now on, with no exclave), Stalin may decide to give Nagorny-Karabakh to Armenia - keep them at each others' throats.
- The border to Turkey will be moved to that of 1914, at least. Which means that Armenia will gain the borders of 1920 (including famous Mount Ararat), and Georgia will also become bigger. The Black Sea Coast will be under Soviet control (not sure whether the Laz people will get their own republic), and they'll control at least a part of the Straits. Which means they'll have troops marching through Istanbul and probably Ankara too.
- The north of Afghanistan would be incorporated into Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. Churchill will predict that the "Pathan snipers" will make the Soviet occupators' life hell.
- Something should happen to Kurdistan as well...
- Generally, they might try to assimilate their conquests by forming all-party coalitions first, but driving out one party at a time (always that farthest on the right, of course), similar as in OTL Eastern Europe after 1945. In Iran, e.g. Mossadegh might be involved in such a government - but he might end up in a GULAG as well...
In case the Axis will be involved in this time: Their ambassadors in Ankara were Papen (that is well-known), Ottavio De Peppo, and for Bulgaria a Sava Todorov Kirov (took me some time to find that out, but I got him!). And for the SU, we have Sergey Aleksandrovich Vinogradov. Can't hurt to know all of that.
|
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Sept 24, 2023 1:13:14 GMT
The latter four countries had made a non-aggression pact, fearing an attack of the Soviets.
But what if the SU had invaded them, at some time during World War 2? Maybe as part of a continental block, as planned by "von" Ribbentrop?
If the SU stayed victorious, I already have some ideas of what they'll do next. But I'm interested in your opinions first.
Are we certain the Saadabad allies considered the Soviets the prime threat? Or were they perhaps equally concerned with others like the British or Italians? *If* the Soviets attacked these countries unilaterally, it would not sit well with Britain. But even if it did, if later the Germans and Soviets fought, and the Soviets became a useful instrument to bleed the Germans, the British and Americans would find a way to put disputes with the USSR on hold and supply the Soviets with the tools to bleed the Germans, and, if possible and relevant, Japanese. |
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Sept 24, 2023 1:31:29 GMT
The latter four countries had made a non-aggression pact, fearing an attack of the Soviets.
But what if the SU had invaded them, at some time during World War 2? Maybe as part of a continental block, as planned by "von" Ribbentrop?
If the SU stayed victorious, I already have some ideas of what they'll do next. But I'm interested in your opinions first.
Are we certain the Saadabad allies considered the Soviets the prime threat? Or were they perhaps equally concerned with others like the British or Italians? That's even stated on Wikipedia...
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Sept 24, 2023 16:05:03 GMT
The latter four countries had made a non-aggression pact, fearing an attack of the Soviets.
But what if the SU had invaded them, at some time during World War 2? Maybe as part of a continental block, as planned by "von" Ribbentrop?
If the SU stayed victorious, I already have some ideas of what they'll do next. But I'm interested in your opinions first.
Are we certain the Saadabad allies considered the Soviets the prime threat? Or were they perhaps equally concerned with others like the British or Italians? *If* the Soviets attacked these countries unilaterally, it would not sit well with Britain. But even if it did, if later the Germans and Soviets fought, and the Soviets became a useful instrument to bleed the Germans, the British and Americans would find a way to put disputes with the USSR on hold and supply the Soviets with the tools to bleed the Germans, and, if possible and relevant, Japanese.
That would depend on who was seen as the biggest threat. To powerful commercial and conservative interests that isn't necessarily the Nazis. At least unless and until the Soviets start losing badly. Also with the Red army attacking British 'protectorates' and areas of interest and engaged in fighting with British forces its going to require some agreement with Stalin before a cease-fire could occur and supplies sent through the southern route. Also how much does Britain [and allies] lose in manpower and territory, both against the Soviets and the Axis before this occurs. I can't see Britain being happy with aiding the Soviets unless and until they probably withdraw to the pre-attack borders. Ditto while the Soviets are fighting the British, even if they are then attacked by the Soviets I can't see the US providing them with L-L and while their in conflict with Britain Britain won't be supplying shipping or escorts for such.
Given the loathing of much of the British establishment to the Soviets and the position looking hopeless against Germany, Russia and Italy - with possibly Japan looming I wouldn't rule out Churchill being forced from office and a deal being made with Hitler. Which could then become an informal alliance with the Nazis, at least in the short term.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Sept 27, 2023 21:39:34 GMT
Obviously, history would have to develop very differently from OTL to achieve this.
|
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Oct 10, 2023 0:28:53 GMT
What inspired the launch of this thread, Max?
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Oct 12, 2023 0:15:13 GMT
What inspired the launch of this thread, Max? {Spoiler}
Don't tell everybody, but I'm planning to use something like this (the results) in a bigger TL.
|
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Oct 12, 2023 0:47:41 GMT
noice!
|
|
|
|
Post by lukedalton on Jan 15, 2024 20:31:06 GMT
Before Barbarossa:
Possible even if unlikely due to repercussion with the UK and USA and frankly because the performance of the Red ARmy are not be really good till now (Finland and Poland) and they still feel the repercussion of the great purge. In any case whatever is sent there is not used against the Nazist when they invade making their job easier and frankly whatever conquest the soviet do will be immediately evacuated due to the need to transfer soldiers and equipment in the northern front.
In any case i expect a Turkey much friendlier with the Axis and the UK that will be slower than OTL in giving support to the URSS
After Barbarossa:
The Wallies will be extremely pissed off expecially the British and there will be repercussion like a slowing down of L-L in any case, whatever used there is not used against the nazist again making Hitler job easier and prolonging the nightmare that was the WWII eastern front of months.
Done just before the end of the war
The Wallies will be extremely pissed off and probably take the agreement regarding the division of the occupation zone and use it as toilet paper
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jan 16, 2024 11:24:37 GMT
Before Barbarossa: Possible even if unlikely due to repercussion with the UK and USA and frankly because the performance of the Red ARmy are not be really good till now (Finland and Poland) and they still feel the repercussion of the great purge. In any case whatever is sent there is not used against the Nazist when they invade making their job easier and frankly whatever conquest the soviet do will be immediately evacuated due to the need to transfer soldiers and equipment in the northern front. In any case i expect a Turkey much friendlier with the Axis and the UK that will be slower than OTL in giving support to the URSS After Barbarossa: The Wallies will be extremely pissed off expecially the British and there will be repercussion like a slowing down of L-L in any case, whatever used there is not used against the nazist again making Hitler job easier and prolonging the nightmare that was the WWII eastern front of months. Done just before the end of the war The Wallies will be extremely pissed off and probably take the agreement regarding the division of the occupation zone and use it as toilet paper
Before Barbarossa - I would say the Soviets are stuffed. There's going to be no western aid for some time as Britain, which will probably be fighting the Soviets in the ME area won't be sending any and the OTL Iranian route will be closed while its far less likely Washington will extend L-L to them once Hitler strikes east. You could see Moscow and Leningrad fall, which while it won't necessarily be fatal to the USSR is going to greatly weaken them.
I think Iran and Iraq will side with Britain out of necessarily as their the only nation in a position to help them. Turkey could look to Britain for support and/or Germany and the latter might be in a better position to aid them but probably not immediately as that would lose surprise for the main attack.
After Barbarossa - I can't see this happening until fairly late in the war as the Soviets need western aid and definitely can't afford to go to war with Britain, which attacks on any of those would be. It would mean an end to aid via Iran [obviously] and Murmansk and very like at the least a cut to aid from the US via the Pacific routes. Its possible it might happen in say 1944 but it would be a really stupid move by Stalin even then for the reasons mentioned and also because, while its actually extremely unlikely in reality he should fear the western powers making a separate peace with Hitler. As such I think it extremely unlikely.
In 1945 - Again unlikely as it would prompt hostility from the western powers. Britain may be pretty much exhausted manpower rise but its still got a powerful military and Churchill or even Attlee is going to respond vigorously while the US will also see it as a betrayal as it removes any help from Stalin against Japan and also reduces British pressure on Japan. Similarly attacking Turkey is going to cause problems for an already stretched Red Army especially as it might give new hope to resistance in the Balkans. Its also going to be difficult to retain the agreement over Greece. Given that the Soviets are the clear aggressors and their targets include neutral Turkey and Afghanistan it would be very difficult for the US not to become a belligerent with the Soviets as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Jan 31, 2024 21:16:41 GMT
And this proposal do the Germans have a alliance with the USSR? If this is the case, then the Soviet union is going to have to give air and sea support against the British in the battle of Britain campaign. This will give the red military a disadvantage, and could Afghanistan be more radical under the Taliban rule in this work thanks to a earlier Soviet invasion? I’m not sure the allies would care for them invading those nations either way, and I think Hitler is a greater threat than Middle Eastern countries, who did it harm the USSR. The Soviet union perhaps should’ve discussed how they could’ve assisted the Japanese, if said she’ll lies with the Germans ever happened. . Because Japan did pose a threat to the Soviet union and during the 30s engaged in the border conflict.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jan 31, 2024 21:35:54 GMT
|
|
