Soviet Invasion of the Raj

What if Finland had been able to put up more of a fight and the Winter War dragged on long enough for Great Britain to declare war on the Soviet Union? how does this effect the battle for Britain? Will the Red Army be able to drive all the way to the Persian Gulf and conquer the Middle East? What kind of obstacle would a Soviet Invasion of India face? With the Red Army stretched across the Middle East fighting the British how does this effect Operation Barbarossa? Will Churchill be forced to make peace with either Nazi Germany or the USSR? How does the USSR do without Lend-Lease?
 
What kind of obstacle would a Soviet Invasion of India face?

himalalyas-karakoram-hindu-kush-india-pakistan-space-view-Nature-view-backgrounds-for-glacier-mountain-range-hd-wallpapers-512-x-384-300x225_large.jpg
 

Tsao

Banned
Will the Red Army be able to drive all the way to the Persian Gulf and conquer the Middle East? What kind of obstacle would a Soviet Invasion of India face? Will Churchill be forced to make peace with either Nazi Germany or the USSR?

1. No.
2. The Hindu Kush. Afghanistan.
3 Prob'ly not.
 
First problem in an invasion of India is getting there, Afghanistan isn't exactly a great place to move across for a big army. Mind you, I doubt it would get as far as war, Britain couldn't afford it, although it would probably decrease the amount of Lend-Lease Russia ends up getting.
 
A better place for the Soviets to attack would be through Persia, where they could probably draft some local supporters into their army, in the form of Azeris, Tudeh Party members, and possibly Kurds. That attack would peter out relatively quickly once the British brought their whole military force to bear, and might lead to peace for Germany on the Western Front.
 
1. No.
2. The Hindu Kush. Afghanistan.
3 Prob'ly not.

Could the British and the Iranians really stop the Red Army from conquering Iran and Iraq? The Middle East was held down by scratch forces, wouldn't the Red Army be able to roll them up and threaten the Suez Canal?

I concede that the Hindu Kush and Afghanistan make excellent barriers to any Soviet Invasion.
 
Could the British and the Iranians really stop the Red Army from conquering Iran and Iraq? The Middle East was held down by scratch forces, wouldn't the Red Army be able to roll them up and threaten the Suez Canal?

I concede that the Hindu Kush and Afghanistan make excellent barriers to any Soviet Invasion.

Oh, Britain would stand a good chance. First of all, don't you think that the local people would be a bit hostile to the communist ideology and Stalin's brutality? Second, the British are really, really tough to beat when they want to win. And they would really want to win and those scratch forces would suddenly get some help. Third, the toll taken by fighting so far from home.
 
Oh, Britain would stand a good chance. First of all, don't you think that the local people would be a bit hostile to the communist ideology and Stalin's brutality? Second, the British are really, really tough to beat when they want to win. And they would really want to win and those scratch forces would suddenly get some help. Third, the toll taken by fighting so far from home.

The ''local people'' tried uprisings against British forces and failed badly. As for the British Army wanting to win. This would be true, but even the most generous appraisal of it's performance during WW2 would say it was mediocre at best. Except in regard to small unit & Commando forces.

Frankly, if the Red Army made a determined effort to take Iran & Iraq there wasn't much to stop them. India was a much harder nut to crack. The Indian Army couldn't mount much of a counter-offensive but it's defensive prospects were solid, particularly given the logistic issues involved for any land-based attacker.

Of course the premise is ASB Churchill didn't want to DoW the Soviets for very sound reasons. Even if he did I highly doubt Stalin would send the Red Army on a jaunt round the Middle East. Given the Soviet Union had more pressing concerns on it's western & far-eastern borders. To say nothing of the trouble in Finland.
 
The ''local people'' tried uprisings against British forces and failed badly. As for the British Army wanting to win. This would be true, but even the most generous appraisal of it's performance during WW2 would say it was mediocre at best. Except in regard to small unit & Commando forces.

Frankly, if the Red Army made a determined effort to take Iran & Iraq there wasn't much to stop them. India was a much harder nut to crack. The Indian Army couldn't mount much of a counter-offensive but it's defensive prospects were solid, particularly given the logistic issues involved for any land-based attacker.

Of course the premise is ASB Churchill didn't want to DoW the Soviets for very sound reasons. Even if he did I highly doubt Stalin would send the Red Army on a jaunt round the Middle East. Given the Soviet Union had more pressing concerns on it's western & far-eastern borders. To say nothing of the trouble in Finland.

You don't think the Brits could bring in shiploads of troops, tanks, planes etc...? Slow the Soviets down by whatever means necessary (even sabotage) and the Brits will have time to regroup and hit them hard. Heck, land an amphibious force. Also, I think the French might lend a helping hand cosidering their assets in the middle east so there's that.
 
Given their struggle against the Finns, the Soviets weren't exactly a top-class force at the time either.
 
Given their struggle against the Finns, the Soviets weren't exactly a top-class force at the time either.

So 2 second class army would slug it out - thus I think numbers will count....

Depending if the Soviets will threaten India or keep an western approach the thing will have 2 possible outcomes...

(India was quite reluctant to support England during WWII - IIRC no conscription just volunteer forces)

1. Soviet goes Iran/Iraq stopping well before India - SU has the upper hand (more troops)

2. Soviets go for India - SU gets stiff resistance and is overwhelmed by an INDIA that is fully geared to war....


Of course that latter might prevent Japan from attacking in 1941... as India - for the time supports England fully
 
If they're pulling from the Egyptian forces, the British are starting with a well acclimatised army, while the Soviets will go in somewhat unacclimatised, which will even the odds a bit. Also, the British will probably be destroying the railways as they go so if the soviets advance too fast they outrun their supplies.
 
IF pulling from Egypt - that is an invitation for Italy...
What you mean the same Italians that got their collective asses handed to them by an army with 1/4 the soldiers, 1/13 the artillery and 1/2 the aircraft and tanks? No, the Italians will still get pushed back, albeit more slowly, and only to Halfaya Pass and Hitler will order Mussolini to hold there.
 
What if Finland had been able to put up more of a fight and the Winter War dragged on long enough for Great Britain to declare war on the Soviet Union?

It's not necessarily a matter of the Winter War as a CB. France and England did have plans ("Operation Pike") to attack the Soviet Unions oil fields before Hitler knocked out France, proving that the Allies were only marginally cleverer than the Axis at the worst of times.

So, if the Allies are smarter during the Phoney War and do better against Germany in the European theatre (as they had every chance of doing), they might go ahead and make the ultimate blunder of attacking the worlds largest fucking country very early in the war. If this happens, the Allies will desperately need to make a separate peace with Russia at some point.

Another interesting thing that could emerge here is Bose working with the Soviets as he originally intended. A war with Socialist Russia started by the Allies will likely inflame the Nationalists, who were already upset about being conscripted into our war with Hitler in any case.
 
I'd say the Red Army gets bogged down in Afghanistan, some sporadic fighting along the border, the Indian Army undergoes major reforms afterwards. Either that or Quit India is established 2 years ahead of schedule. Stalin deploys troops southward against the British as well as Eastwards against Japan.
Come Barbarossa Churchill would be all to happy to sacrifice the Soviets and wait out until Hitler is exhausted.

Maybe the the dispersion of forces will tempt the Japanese into attacking the USSR (not likely but ...)
 

Orry

Donor
Monthly Donor
Because we all know the mighty Soviet Army was the best in the world....

The 1940/41 Russian army was terrible. In this situation you do not have the morale boost of defending the motherland. You are not up against an enemy army that is committing atrocities like the Germans did.

Germany is still going to attack as well.... Hitler always hoped the British would join his 'crusade' and will seek to take advantage of the distraction offered.

There may end up being a Anglo-Soviet peace but it would not be because the British surrender. Rather a desire to fight the main enemy - with a far colder cold war afterwards with the possibility that Poland will not get sold out to the Russians
 
Top