How would the Soviets react to a successful Operation Pike?

So, lets say that Operation Pike was goes off with a hitch and the Anglo/French Air Forces manage to bomb Baku using the French Syrian airbases, what would the Soviets do in the aftermath?

How badly would this affect later Soviet/Wallies relations during/after the war?
 
There are pretty much two thoughts i've read on this site.

Either it pushes Stalin and Hitler together to form a "super Axis" ( bad for the allies)

Or

It doesn't change much except further relations are damaged regarding land lease and stuff.. though it makes me wonder if the mission was very successful.. does that handwave away case blue?
 
A lot of this depends on both Hitler and Stalin's reactions. As likely as a Super Axis could form, Hitler is ultimately more hostile to the Soviets than the British. If he misreads Operation Pike as a British willingness to stand with Germany in an anti-Soviet war, he might go ahead with Barbarossa anyway. As for Stalin, he too could go either way.
 
Perhaps super Axis forms, but I see that as unlikely. It would remain more on the levels they had in the 30s and up to Barbarossa. Hitler will likely interpret it as British willingness to cooperate, so he waits how things unfold.

What is sure is there's no lend/lease.

Stalin will also likely try to expand in Central Asia, most likely trying to take Iran. The British will no doubt contest that, fearing for the straits and India. That will tie down a lot of manpower which could be used in Africa and against Japan. This emboldens Italy and Japan. With no Barbarossa on OTL schedule, the Germans can afford to send more troops to Africa in support of Italy, but they might not want to alienate the British that much. However, they might think that a quick victory in Egypt could prompt Britain to sign a ceasefire to better focus on the war with the Soviets. The Japanese will have a field day in Malaya and the British Far East.
 
Or Stalin says to the British and French "Either you let me take the Straits and Iran, or I fully side with Hitler, sends my troops in the Battle of France, and invade Iraq and India as well".

Then, when France falls, Churchill will likely accept Stalin's deal (and thrown Iran and Turkey under the bus), because Hitler and Germany threatening Britain are more important than containing the Soviets in Asia.
 
Or Stalin says to the British and French "Either you let me take the Straits and Iran, or I fully side with Hitler, sends my troops in the Battle of France, and invade Iraq and India as well".

Then, when France falls, Churchill will likely accept Stalin's deal (and thrown Iran and Turkey under the bus), because Hitler and Germany threatening Britain are more important than containing the Soviets in Asia.

lulwat, Churchill will hand over the keys to the Jewel of the British Empire in exchange for "promises" from two proven scumbags?
 
it would certainly create a chaotic scenario

seems most likely (as per previous posts) that Soviets would offer greater support and materials to Germany (rather than press claims on greater territory in Romania than had been previously agreed and probably not a mention of Bulgaria being in their sphere of influence.)

in final attempts to conclude Axis talks historically, Stalin offered access to Iran and Manchuria on favorable terms as well as continued use of Northern Sea Route.

in other words set Germany up with most favorable economic scenario possible to support their continued war against Allies.
 
Yeah, but i kinda don't see the "Super-Axis" lasting in the long-term, Hitler always desired German lebensraum in the east, so he will plan to attack them in the future, but for now, he will wait. Stalin didn't trust the Germans either, he thought that Germany would fight a grueling war against the Anglo-French like in WW1 and he was shocked by the sudden defeat of France by the Germans.

I can agree to Stalin attacking Eastern Turkey, the Turkish Straits and parts of Iran in retaliation but invading India is purely ASB territory.
 
A successful Operation Pike causes the collapse of the Axis war effort and favorable terms for France and Britain. But there's lots of reasons for Operation Pike to fail: Allied strategic bombers are less effective than anticipated, Soviet defenses are more effective than anticipated, the strategic situation changes and the campaign is aborted part way through, or the loss of Soviet oil just isn't as damaging as the Allies hoped. I think some combination of these things is likely, and the exact repercussions depend on the POD.
 
At least in the short term, I don't see Barbarossa happening. We have to remember that a major (batshit insane and stupid) reason for attacking the Soviets was to "wipe out UK's last hope so they come for an agreement." If UK has hit Baku, why would Adolf think of that logic and risk a two-front scenario?
 
A successful Operation Pike causes the collapse of the Axis war effort and favorable terms for France and Britain. But there's lots of reasons for Operation Pike to fail: Allied strategic bombers are less effective than anticipated, Soviet defenses are more effective than anticipated, the strategic situation changes and the campaign is aborted part way through, or the loss of Soviet oil just isn't as damaging as the Allies hoped. I think some combination of these things is likely, and the exact repercussions depend on the POD.

not sure how it would cause German war effort to fall apart since they did not receive any Soviet oil after June '41 and continued for 4 years? also the Soviets got a third of their oil from Maikop and Grozny, which seem a bit far for Allies to strike (with the plans as they existed)

there is also some fair amount of Soviet reserve, have seen figures across the spectrum (and sources switch from barrels to tonnes also)
 
not sure how it would cause German war effort to fall apart since they did not receive any Soviet oil after June '41 and continued for 4 years? also the Soviets got a third of their oil from Maikop and Grozny, which seem a bit far for Allies to strike (with the plans as they existed)

there is also some fair amount of Soviet reserve, have seen figures across the spectrum (and sources switch from barrels to tonnes also)

Much of their high octane avgas was from L-L
What does the UK do with the billion odd Pounds Sterling they save in L-L in this TL?
 
Much of their high octane avgas was from L-L
What does the UK do with the billion odd Pounds Sterling they save in L-L in this TL?

sorry do not follow the question, my point was to effectiveness (in at least short term of say 12 - 18 mos.) of Operation Pike, my view even IF Baku was disabled a third of their oil came from sources (likely) not destroyed and some large amount of oil if not in proper reserve is available in downstream of their distribution.

AND even if Soviet deliveries to Germany ceased? that happened IOTL anyway and their (German) military operations continued? so they would in situation where Soviet deliveries are curtailed by Allied bombings. AND Germany is likely not engaging in operations across vastness of USSR in this scenario (a huge fuel savings.)

to Allied side and L-L savings? were swimming in oil and high octane fuel anyway, not sure how it would affect war effort to have even more abundance?
 
Norway debate and Sickle Cut still happens, right?

In that case, new British PM Churchill calls off the bombing. Stalin doesn't go on a conquering rampage totally contrary to his cautious nature (he does increase air defenses in the Caucasus though). British and Soviet diplomats reach some sort of agreement regarding a cease-fire. When Barbarossa happens a year later, the Soviets will be needing a lot more fuel imports, which may translate into a slower advance come '44.

That said, I frankly don't see how Op. Pike can be successful given the realities of 1940.
 
Top