alternatehistory.com

I'd like to keep discussion/debate here focused on the military/logistic feasibility aspects, *not* political permissibility.*

Could the Western Allies have projected a combined arms combat force of their own into Murmansk before the end of 1942?

Could shipping and port capacity in the Atlantic, Arctic and northern Russia support a Western Allies force on the Arctic front AND the same lend-lease for the rest of the Red Army as OTL?

If the WAllies could project a combined force, say by October or November 1942, could they make progress there such that the Finns are knocked out of the war, the Germans are rolled back from northern Norway, and the bulk of Soviet combat forces from the Arctic can shift to reinforce the other Soviet fronts by say March to May 1943? How would the WAllied losses of said operation compare to OTL's Operation TORCH? How would Axis losses compare?

Or would any supportable force be too small to really push the front forward against the Germans and Finns?

Or would the force required to make progress negate the benefits of Murmansk Lend-Lease by consuming all the supplies itself and having none left over for the Soviets for many, many months?

Could the airfield/airbase infrastructure of the Karelian SSR accommodate a major surge of Western Allied combat air forces?

If the WAllies push into northern Finland and Finnmark province of Norway in 42-43, how does this affect Sweden's situation with regard to its neutrality in the war and trade with each belligerent coalition?

*I would expect many to answer, "Stalin would never permit this because of fears of ideological contamination from the west and weakening of his political authority." I happen to disagree, because in OTL, he asked for the Western Allies to send troops to the Russian front in the Donbass and Caucasus in 1941 and again in 1942. You may disagree, but I don't really care, and do care much more about the questions above punctuated with question-marks.
Top