Stalin vs British Empire 1944

Hello

My understanding is that we can post general questions in this forum, so here is one I was wondering about. I also apologize in advance for the ill researched nature of the question.

Following the success of the Bagration campaign, Stalin hatches a moustache-twirlingly evil plan. He wants to break the back of Western Imperialism post war and claim the Middle East oil fields and Suez Canal for himself.

To this end, on August 20, 1944 the forces of the First and Second Bellorussian Front, hundreds of thousand of men and material, are transferred south east, through the Caucasus and into Iran and the Middle East with whatever reinforces Stalin can manage coming in the coming weeks and months ahead.

How does this play out?
 
Sorry, I'm still a newb.

Thanks for the heads up. I guess all the really weird stuff goes over in the Alien Space Bat area then?
 
I shall bother to help the newb on why this is ASB:

Essentially by this time the Red Army is so completely dependent upon support provided for it by the American Lend-Lease Act that any action that would bring the Soviet Union into a conflict with the Western Allies would be completely unfeasible from a military perspective. The armies that overran Eastern Europe were conscripted from the bottom of the barrel, farmers and workers in vital war industries, that the Americans covered through their extensive supplying of the Red Army. If the Red Army loses this support, they not only lose their high-end jet fuel, the Soviet citizenry back home is going to start starving even worse than it was before, this is going beyond mere "acceptable losses" this is pushing into territory where there will be widespread starvation that may even surpass the period of collectivization of agriculture. That will throw the populace into revolt.

Essentially, Stalin has a whole lot to lose from the war and even a victory would be won at the cost of further immense devastation, to a country that had already been pulled to Hell and back by the Second World War, with some places like Belarus losing 75% of their population. It just goes against his personality to start a war he isn't absolutely sure he was going to win, a war against the Western Allies is not the kind of war he is going to win.
 
I agree; in 1944, it would've been jaw-droppingly stupid.

But to build off the idea in a more plausible direction... what if he did this in spring or summer 1941, while the Soviet Union was still a Nazi ally? The Red Army wasn't so competent then (as Hitler was about to prove), but the British Empire was significantly overstretched. Plus, this just might convince Hitler to postpone Barbarossa a bit... maybe? Or at least it'd put a very significant element of distrust in Western-Soviet relations.
 
I agree; in 1944, it would've been jaw-droppingly stupid.

But to build off the idea in a more plausible direction... what if he did this in spring or summer 1941, while the Soviet Union was still a Nazi ally? The Red Army wasn't so competent then (as Hitler was about to prove), but the British Empire was significantly overstretched. Plus, this just might convince Hitler to postpone Barbarossa a bit... maybe? Or at least it'd put a very significant element of distrust in Western-Soviet relations.

Stalin had no interest in it, he knew the Red Army was ill-prepared after the Winter War, and he probably had no real intentions of ever following Hitler on his mad crusade. Cautiously taking advantage of it to snag up old Russian Empire territories is one thing, outright blitzing the British is quite another.

Stalin did not fully trust the Germans by any means, he just believed that keeping them off his back with a friendly policy was the best thing for Soviet interests.
 
Stalin signed the Pact precisely to get Britain and Germany to fight while he build up his resources and weighed his options. Allowing Germany to defeat Britain was precisely contrary to the purpose
 
Stalin signed the Pact precisely to get Britain and Germany to fight while he build up his resources and weighed his options. Allowing Germany to defeat Britain was precisely contrary to the purpose

Exactly, the British fighting the Germans means that (in theory) nobody should have men left to fight the Soviets, thus buying some time. Not that he expected fool Hitler to pick a fight he almost certainly wouldn't win, I have to say, in some ways Hitler's sheer idiocy put him closer to winning the war in some cases than if he had behaved rationally.
 

Devvy

Donor
Out of interest, when is the Soviet Union realistically able to take on the British Empire - is it the decline of the Empire, of the growth of the Union?
 
Shouldn't the title read "Stalin vs British Empire, USA, other Allies and the Axis 1944?"

That pretty much sums up how much of a chance the Soviets would have had of pulling this off.
 
Top