USSR invades Iran instead of Finland.

Don Quijote

Banned
Since Russia has traditionally been a British rival in Asia, what if it achieved its ambition of a port in the Persian Gulf by invading Iran in late 1939? This would also give it access to the Abadan oilfields, probably more important than securing Karelia from Finland.
The British and French had made some plans for this, including the bombing of the Baku oilfields, and the sending of troops from India, but didn't want to risk war with the USSR while also fighting Germany. What might have been the consequences, and the reaction of UK, France, Germany?
 
This might force the UK and France into acting against the USSR. They were close to getting directly involved over Finland and Stalin heading into the Middle East would be a more direct threat to the UK's strategic interests.

I think Germany would be happy with this development as their current and future enemies are now fighting each other. The only downside would be if the UK and France are successful in cutting off the USSR's oil production which would hurt Russian exports to Germany.
 
I don't t think that Stalin is so stupid that he would go war against UK and France. He surely understand that if he invades Iran he might be war with UK and perhaps France.

If then Stalin think Chamberlain being so soft that he wouldn't want send Brits to Iran.
 
I don't t think that Stalin is so stupid that he would go war against UK and France. He surely understand that if he invades Iran he might be war with UK and perhaps France.

If then Stalin think Chamberlain being so soft that he wouldn't want send Brits to Iran.

Do be so sure.
France and the UK had pretty strong relations with Finland (trying there best to keep it neutral in the conflict) at the time of the Winter War.

The DOW by the USSR nearly forced Britain and the UK into a conflict as did the USSR's move on the Baltic states.
 
Iranian oil was controlled by British at the time. They would be forced to react.

Interesting, such act of USSR would be a much more aggressive then Finland invasion from Russian PoV, though the distinction may be lost to the West. Iran never was part of Russia unlike Finland and hardly a threat by itself (even perceived) unless relations with UK/France is worse then OTL. Maybe USSR continues to actively pursue the World Revolution doctrine?
 
Given that Stalin likely be unwilling to go to war with Britain and France, presumably any conflict with Iran would be more limited in its objectives. Border adjustments in the north to unite Azeri districts with the Soviet republic, the legalization of a Soviet puppet communist party and maybe their participation in government, Soviet military bases on the Iranian shore of the Caspian, maybe some guaranteed trade between Iran and the USSR, that sort of thing.

Taking the whole of Persia would naturally invite direct British intervention, and considering the terrain and proximity of the Indian army, it might be a fair match.

Would the British be willing to tolerate limited Soviet gains in northern Persia, and an increase in their influence over the Persian government through a local communist party? One assumes that British economic interests would be left alone, even in the north of Persia, perhaps even with compensation for any property that ends up in Soviet Azerbaijan.

Another question is whether Iran would be willing or able to resist a Soviet invasion to secure these 'limited' objectives. I don't doubt that nationalist anti-Soviet feeling would become intense in response to both the initial demands and then the invasion/occupation of Iranian territory, but did Iran really have the leadership and resources to give the Red Army a bloody nose in the same way as Finland?
 

Don Quijote

Banned
Another question is whether Iran would be willing or able to resist a Soviet invasion to secure these 'limited' objectives. I don't doubt that nationalist anti-Soviet feeling would become intense in response to both the initial demands and then the invasion/occupation of Iranian territory, but did Iran really have the leadership and resources to give the Red Army a bloody nose in the same way as Finland?
Definitely not, their armed forces were very weak. The Iranians asked Britain for military supplies, including 60 aircraft, in mid-1941, but by this time the UK and USSR were planning a joint invasion, as Barbarossa had already begun. As well as Iran being a good supply route to Russia, the Allies were worried about the c.2000 Germans in the country, who could carry out sabotage attacks to support an Axis advance from the Caucasus.
 
...why would this be any different than when the British and Soviets jointly occupied Iran in Fall 1941?

If you're asking what would happen if the Soviets up and did it without trying to do a dirty deal with Britain, I have to ask why on earth would they? Stalin was not one to take pointless risks.
 
Russia's official excuse (for invading Finland) was to remove a threat to Saint Petersburg/Leningrad. Specifically, Russian Foreign Minister Molotov requested the removal of some antique, muzzle-loading cannon pointed towards St. Petersburg.

OTL Russia had an historical claim on Finland it had once been a duchy ruled by the Russian Czar. The Czar took turns with various Scandinavian kings in ruling Finland.

Russia had a far less legitimate claim on any of the Moslem republics to the south. Traditionally, various tsars allowed Russian traders to infiltrate Moslem lands. Then when Moslems got uppity and objected to Russian Orthodox merchants living on their towns, the Tzar sent in Russian troops to suppress local dissidents.
During WW2, Iran proved most valuable to Russia as a conduit for the import of Lend-Lease materials. Britain and the USA invested heavily in Iranian roads and railroads to ensure that LL goods reached Russia.
 

Don Quijote

Banned
...why would this be any different than when the British and Soviets jointly occupied Iran in Fall 1941?

If you're asking what would happen if the Soviets up and did it without trying to do a dirty deal with Britain, I have to ask why on earth would they? Stalin was not one to take pointless risks.
Because this is before Barbarossa, the Nazi-Soviet Pact is still in force, and Britain is still completing rearmament. The invasion wouldn't have been a huge risk. The reason this was instead of Finland is because I think Stalin could have (and did) get away with one major invasion, but two wouldn't have been tolerated. However, Britain didn't want to get thrown out of the Middle East by a German-Soviet alliance.
 
This would also give it access to the Abadan oilfields, probably more important than securing Karelia from Finland.

The Red Army invaded Finland with the strategic goal of annexing the entire former Russian province - moving the border further away from Leningrad was just something the Soviet propaganda conjured up as a post-war justification of the entire fiasco.
 
the year 1939 seems unlikely to the extreme unless the British were attempting an invasion on their own (itself implausible.)

also think until German invasion the Soviets were more interested in securing Black Sea access (i.e. base in Bulgaria or some other arrangement.)

(which, IMO, was the "instead of Finland" scenario https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=364090)

Because this is before Barbarossa, the Nazi-Soviet Pact is still in force, and Britain is still completing rearmament. The invasion wouldn't have been a huge risk. The reason this was instead of Finland is because I think Stalin could have (and did) get away with one major invasion, but two wouldn't have been tolerated. However, Britain didn't want to get thrown out of the Middle East by a German-Soviet alliance.

still think the time frame is off, that the Soviets would not invade before France was defeated and, just IMO, any target other than Finland is likely focused on Black Sea.

HOWEVER, if they did invade Iran it would be seen not either/or invasion of Finland, a much more serious action.

think it would be seen as true CommuNazi Alliance. practical effect would be Iraq is reinforced. certainly would be hard to see Lend Lease to Soviets to extent as IOTL?
 

Don Quijote

Banned
I expect there would be a lot of butterflies, so its hard to say if it would change German actions towards Russia.
also think until German invasion the Soviets were more interested in securing Black Sea access (i.e. base in Bulgaria or some other arrangement.)
Given that they already had Black Sea bases, why would they want Bulgaria so badly? The Persian Gulf is slightly more risky, but could make the USSR a big player in southern Asia.
 
also think until German invasion the Soviets were more interested in securing Black Sea access (i.e. base in Bulgaria or some other arrangement.)

(which, IMO, was the "instead of Finland" scenario https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=364090)

Given that they already had Black Sea bases, why would they want Bulgaria so badly? The Persian Gulf is slightly more risky, but could make the USSR a big player in southern Asia.

USSR had/has Black Sea bases (and shipyards) but Turkey controls the access, like saying you have freedom of movement but someone's hand is on your throat.

believe they saw base(s) or rights of passage through Bulgaria as way to ensure access, without having to conquer Turkey (do not mean overland through Bulgaria, mean base a military force in relatively friendly Bulgaria as threat to Turkey.)

my speculation only would be IF German-Soviet collaboration continued, their influence over Iran would grow without invasion, with the Soviets using Nazis as "cat's paw" there against British.
 

Don Quijote

Banned
How 'anti-Soviet' was Turkey in 1939-1942? Even if the Soviets did get hold of a port like Varna, its still within the Black Sea. Iran offers more possibilities.
 
How 'anti-Soviet' was Turkey in 1939-1942? Even if the Soviets did get hold of a port like Varna, its still within the Black Sea. Iran offers more possibilities.

cannot read Stalin's mind, only mention Bulgaria because it was the issue raised over and over by Soviets during talks to join Axis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Axis_talks

(Varna is on Black Sea coast but for argument's sake that Greece is occupied as IOTL? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_occupation_of_Greece#/media/File:Triple_Occupation_of_Greece.png Bulgarian territory, port on Med open to Soviet ships)

at the time of 1939 - 1940, it seems invasion of Iran would be a level above Finland or Balkans as it revives Great Game? and Soviets fear their uncertain ally Germany might strike deal with GB?

(they offered Germany transit to Iran and Manchukuo, maybe better policy for them to stay in background?)
 

Don Quijote

Banned
Britain and Germany won't do a deal so soon after Poland, as it would basically be a return to appeasement, which was over by this stage. Also, Greece wasn't occupied until April 1941. The talks to bring the USSR into the Axis were several months earlier. Hitler may support Stalin (for now) and delay Barbarossa for a year while he tries to finish off the British.
Interesting idea: pro-Nazi Iraq under Rashid Ali next door to Iranian SSR?
 
Top