Operation Pike in April 1940

On February 2, 1940 the Allied War council approved an operation to intervene in the Winter War against the Soviets. The Allies went to war with Germany over Poland and the Soviets were as culpable for the destruction of Poland as the Germans. The operation was set to set start on March 20th. The operation never went forward because the Norwegians and Swedes wouldn't' permit passage of foreign troops.

What if on February 2nd the War Council had approved a concurrent supporting operation, Operation Pike, to destroy Soviet oil fields in the Caucasus around the same time set for the Finland intervention, in early April, when the intervention force should have been reaching the Finnish border. Serious planning for the actual Operation Pike only began after the Winter War and was set to proceed in May but was aborted due to Fall Gelb. Unlike Sweden and Norway, Turkey and Iran, had given permission for over flights of their territory to bomb Baku, so there were no political impediments to Operation Pike.

The Soviets had war gamed offensives into Turkey and Iran in response to Operation Pike. Given the poor performance of the Iranian army during the Anglo Soviet invasion Iran would have been a push over for the Soviets. Turkey had similar terrain and was as poorly equipped as Iran. A Soviet offensive should have been successful in Turkey as well. The Soviets could have conceivably reached the Suez if Vichy and Italy cooperated.

If the Allies bombed Baku in early April 1940 how would a Soviet war in the Middle East have played out assuming Churchill becomes priminister, sticks to his guns, and doesn't compromise with Hitler or Stalin. Would the Soviets still get lend lease from the Americans if Germany invades the Soviet Union the next year?
 
First better take in consideration that at the time the Red Army and Air Force performance was way way way less than stellar, Stalin purge and general mismanagement' had their consequences. Vichy and Italy will have difficulty to collaborate with each other image with the URSS as it will weaken their reason d'etre and Benny declare war and meaning being an ally (even unofficial) of Stalin it's a big big no.
 
I think that we should more often consider the fact that WWII was not total war from day one, but that there was a gradual escalation in the attitudes of the different nations, especially among the democracies. Still in 1939 and early 1940, the Allied leadership considered the opinion of the voting public and of the other nations as to their role in the war more important than in the latter part of the war.

Supporting Finland in its war against the Soviet invader was the fig-leaf the OTL plans for attacking the USSR were based on. The public opinion in the West was very much on the side of Finland, and thus protecting the plucky little Finns was a very potent public argument. That is why getting an actual official plea for help from the Finnish government was seen as an important thing for kicking off the Allied intervention in early 1940. Helsinki publicly asking for support would have provided the casus belli. But when Finland has already made peace with the USSR, London and Paris would lose this justification. After that, an Allied attack on the USSR is just one-sided aggression. Hitler and Stalin might kick off invasions willy-nilly, but for London and Paris in the early part of the war the idea that any significant attack is justified, even if just by legal fiction, in the perception of others was important - especially in terms of how the US saw the warring powers in Europe. Thus, I think it would be realistic to say that after Finland can't be used as a rationalization for an attack on the USSR anymore, it would be useful if not necessary to find another as potent, pressing argument for an attack on the USSR instead of just striking the Soviets out of the blue and thus risking looking as aggressive as the Germans.
 
Thus, I think it would be realistic to say that after Finland can't be used as a rationalization for an attack on the USSR anymore, it would be useful if not necessary to find another as potent, pressing argument for an attack on the USSR instead of just striking the Soviets out of the blue and thus risking looking as aggressive as the Germans.

Between the invasion of Poland and their massive logistical support of the Nazi, argument are not scarce
 

Toraach

Banned
I think that we should more often consider the fact that WWII was not total war from day one, but that there was a gradual escalation in the attitudes of the different nations, especially among the democracies. Still in 1939 and early 1940, the Allied leadership considered the opinion of the voting public and of the other nations as to their role in the war more important than in the latter part of the war.

Supporting Finland in its war against the Soviet invader was the fig-leaf the OTL plans for attacking the USSR were based on. The public opinion in the West was very much on the side of Finland, and thus protecting the plucky little Finns was a very potent public argument. That is why getting an actual official plea for help from the Finnish government was seen as an important thing for kicking off the Allied intervention in early 1940. Helsinki publicly asking for support would have provided the casus belli. But when Finland has already made peace with the USSR, London and Paris would lose this justification. After that, an Allied attack on the USSR is just one-sided aggression. Hitler and Stalin might kick off invasions willy-nilly, but for London and Paris in the early part of the war the idea that any significant attack is justified, even if just by legal fiction, in the perception of others was important - especially in terms of how the US saw the warring powers in Europe. Thus, I think it would be realistic to say that after Finland can't be used as a rationalization for an attack on the USSR anymore, it would be useful if not necessary to find another as potent, pressing argument for an attack on the USSR instead of just striking the Soviets out of the blue and thus risking looking as aggressive as the Germans.
You forgot that the soviet empire earlier invaded Poland a country which was allied with France and Britain and for which they declared a war on Germany. So there is enough causes justification to bomb soviet oil industry. The Soviet Empire was at that time the best friend with Germany.
 
I think that we should more often consider the fact that WWII was not total war from day one, but that there was a gradual escalation in the attitudes of the different nations, especially among the democracies. Still in 1939 and early 1940, the Allied leadership considered the opinion of the voting public and of the other nations as to their role in the war more important than in the latter part of the war.

Supporting Finland in its war against the Soviet invader was the fig-leaf the OTL plans for attacking the USSR were based on. The public opinion in the West was very much on the side of Finland, and thus protecting the plucky little Finns was a very potent public argument. That is why getting an actual official plea for help from the Finnish government was seen as an important thing for kicking off the Allied intervention in early 1940. Helsinki publicly asking for support would have provided the casus belli. But when Finland has already made peace with the USSR, London and Paris would lose this justification. After that, an Allied attack on the USSR is just one-sided aggression. Hitler and Stalin might kick off invasions willy-nilly, but for London and Paris in the early part of the war the idea that any significant attack is justified, even if just by legal fiction, in the perception of others was important - especially in terms of how the US saw the warring powers in Europe. Thus, I think it would be realistic to say that after Finland can't be used as a rationalization for an attack on the USSR anymore, it would be useful if not necessary to find another as potent, pressing argument for an attack on the USSR instead of just striking the Soviets out of the blue and thus risking looking as aggressive as the Germans.

Soviets invasion of Poland I think would be a better casus belli.
 
Between the invasion of Poland and their massive logistical support of the Nazi, argument are not scarce

You forgot that the soviet empire earlier invaded Poland a country which was allied with France and Britain and for which they declared a war on Germany. So there is enough causes justification to bomb soviet oil industry. The Soviet Empire was at that time the best friend with Germany.

Soviets invasion of Poland I think would be a better casus belli.

We are talking about April 1940 here. The German-Soviet division of Poland was already a fait accompli, had been so since October 1939. The Soviet invasion of Poland would be rather belated as a casus belli at this point when it had not been used as one when the Soviets actually invaded Poland.
 

Toraach

Banned
We are talking about April 1940 here. The German-Soviet division of Poland was already a fait accompli, had been so since October 1939. The Soviet invasion of Poland would be rather belated as a casus belli at this point when it had not been used as one when the Soviets actually invaded Poland.
Still it is enough to justification of this action.
 
Still it is enough to justification of this action.

Technically and de jure, arguably. What I am mainly talking about are perceptions, though. The Allies striking the USSR in April 1940, in a theatre far away from both Poland and Finland, would be easy to present as unprovoked aggression in Soviet propaganda. It would not look good in terms of the public perception in the nations that are still neutral or unaligned at that point, either. In the US, those opposing joining the war and arguing for isolation would most likely use the attack to air their talking points as well.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Perhaps he believed the latter were a softer target?
More like the Baku fields were a much higher value target and the Soviets had no way to hit the French in return, while the Germans had the most powerful air force in the region and could heavily retaliate against France if any part of Germany was bombed.
 
More like the Baku fields were a much higher value target and the Soviets had no way to hit the French in return, while the Germans had the most powerful air force in the region and could heavily retaliate against France if any part of Germany was bombed.

In other words, less fear of retaliation. Part of what I meant by softer target.
 

Anchises

Banned
If the Allies bombed Baku in early April 1940 how would a Soviet war in the Middle East have played out assuming Churchill becomes priminister, sticks to his guns, and doesn't compromise with Hitler or Stalin. Would the Soviets still get lend lease from the Americans if Germany invades the Soviet Union the next year?

The only winner in this scenario is Nazi Germany.

Depending on what the "Gröfaz"* want there is a real possibility of either a Soviet-Third Reich alliance until Britain is defeated or a war against the Soviet Union supported or at least tolerated by Britain. Access to the world market etc.

I am assuming Fall Gelb would still happen as IOTL.

*trying to be sarcastic here, hard to convey that online
 
Last edited:
Given the forces that the UK and France could deploy to do this, would the Soviets even realise they had been bombed??
 
...

Depending on what the "Gröfaz"* want there is a real possibility of either a Soviet-Third Reich alliance ...

The anti Communists in the British government did not care. Most of them were confused by the Nazi Soviet treaty & were enraptued by the Nazi anti Communist credentials.
 

trajen777

Banned
At this time you have to remember
1. France was considered the strongest military country in the world
2. GB the strongest Navy
3. Oil was the diving force of Mobil warfare (no one understood how important) -- but keeping fuel out of German hands was critical - to limit aircraft, cubs, ships, tanks
4. Knocking out USSR exports of fuel to Germany could have been crucial
5. USSR and Germany appeared to be in some type of Non Aggression +++ program with Germany and USSR working with industry, raw materials, etc.
6. The USSR was an unknown as to military capabilities, and was viewed as a problem almost as much as Germany
7. France had 100% of its terrain in tack vs WW1
8. SO if the support and military assistance could have moved forward the prob of this escalating to a full war with USSR on Germany's side could have happened with :
a. troops fighting along with the Fins (this would have left troops in Norway and Sweden (cutting ore shipments to Germany and air bases to attack northern Germany and shutting down the Baltic)
SO
Plus for Allies :
1. Close Baltic
2. Strong Defensive presence in Sweden and Norway as well as saving Finland
3. Little ways for USSR to counter this move (War in Finland)
4. Shut down the oil imports to Germany
5. Not sure if USSR is with Germany -- so better to attack while they are on the offensive
6. They know Stalin is not popular so a prob of overthrowing the communists
Negative for Allies
1. Adding another player they will have to fight
 
Flipping back thru the books I see Gamelin was very concerned about a bombing war. It also appears that Op Pike was going to be a Brit op, with little French. participation. Wonder it that is accurate.
 
Top