WI: Operation Pike carried out, drives USSR to Axis

Britain and eventually the US would still aid the Soviets later if Hitler went east. Alliance and Lend Lease would be in both parties interests regardless if the USSR was briefly a full fledged axis power or just Hitler's cobelligerent.
 
Also, if Pike happens and the Soviet Union is at war in the middle east, Barbarossa is almost certainly delayed by a long time whether or not France falls.
 
An interesting scenario would be if the USSR joining with Germany drove Germany and Japan apart. The British feel overwhelmed and wind up making peace with Germany/USSR.
Japan continues down its original path and winds up at war with the US and UK in the Pacific. Meanwhile Hitler still goes for Barbarossa. So the world winds up with two separate wars of Germany vs USSR and The UK and US vs Japan.
 

trajen777

Banned
My thoughts :
1. Pike happens April 1940.
2. USSR declares war -- mobilizes -- some troops sent through Germany to help
3. USSR transfers air units south - moves significant forces south to invade Iran
4. France falls
5. USSR invades Iran, Afg, and heads towards India -
6. Moose declares war to gain part of France
7. Moose invades Egypt (Are Brit forces what they were - or moved to Iran India
8. Brit most likely sues for Peace. (Does Egypt fall? How well does USSR logistically move into Iran / Afg and N India)
9 . USSR understands better its limitations in war. If war continues into 1941 KV1 and T34 are seen in Iran (Germany reconsiders Barb for 42)
 
The most interesting version of this timeline is if Pike happens, but the Germans fail to break through in France.
Indeed, were I a better military historian I'd write something like that. A re-run of 1914 was probably the most likely outcome and if France holds then things get quite interesting.
 
If that raid does go off, Baku will be wrecked for some time.

Not likely. Bomber command was all kinds of terribad at that time, so accuracy is liable to be abysmal, and the Soviets were quite used to containing oil fires in Baku so the few firebombs which do hit anything aren't likely to do much damage. Plus, the nature of the Baku deposits make it a cinche to repair.
 
Not likely. Bomber command was all kinds of terribad at that time, so accuracy is liable to be abysmal, and the Soviets were quite used to containing oil fires in Baku so the few firebombs which do hit anything aren't likely to do much damage. Plus, the nature of the Baku deposits make it a cinche to repair.

You can't miss the place, it's very distinct from the air, discounting all the natural gas being burned off from flare pipes.
They never had to deal with hundreds of incendiary bombs going off within a short time, either. Oil spills were everywhere, and crude stored in open-air lagoons
 
You can't miss the place, it's very distinct from the air, discounting all the natural gas being burned off from flare pipes.

So? Just because you can find the general area doesn't mean your going to be actually hitting anything. Bomber command in 1940 had a hard time getting even one bomb within a mile of it's target.

They never had to deal with hundreds of incendiary bombs going off within a short time, either. Oil spills were everywhere, and crude stored in open-air lagoons

We're not talking about hundreds of incendiary bombs. At best we're looking at something like a half-dozen. The British also don't have night vision and laser-guidance systems to ensure their incendiaries go straight for any random oil spill or land directly in a crude oil lagoon. Their just dumping them over some vague lights and having them land wherever. There may be a bunch of spills and open-air lagoons, but there is going to be even more empty space or space filled with stuff that isn't actually that impotant so statistically a bomb is going to land in the latter a lot more then the former. Your assuming a degree of accuracy downright fantastical for bomber command at the time.

Not to mention this is all based on contemporary assessments of expected damage. But I'll say what I said the last time Operation Pike came up and people started waxing lyrically on the Anglo-French wiping out half of Soviet oil production with a relatively tiny strategic bombing force in just a few raids and waved those estimates around to justify them: the historical record of such assessments for bombing raids actually carried out was excremental. They were, almost without exception, wildly optimistic. They mean spit. Even less if they're for a raid that wasn't even conducted.
 
They might try, all the same...

...And do some damage, if not as much as they want to.

Damage assessment after WW2 would probably have put Bomber Command as pretty useless before 1942, but 'The bomber will always get through', remember? It's the mindset of the time that you have to consider - not our ivory-tower knowledge.
 
What about the chances of this Quadratic Pact of winning WW2? Could this "super-Axis" conquer the world or would they at most be able to secure all of Eurasia
 
You very much can. The British in that time were often unable to hit the right country,and hitting a big city was a good job.

No, it's on the western isthmus on the Caspian Sea, and is already lit by fire. Ports are the easiest areas to ID, even at Night

Bomber Command never missed Kiel, Hamburg or Brest.
 
Personally I think the whole Operation would lead to an unofficial expanded Axis, only with Japan as a co-belligerent given it's more obvious hostility to the USSR and Italy being more of a wildcard given the Anti-Comintern thing.
 

Deleted member 1487

Early in the war, they sometimes did.
Not Brest. Hamburg is inland along a river, Kiel is nestled somewhat inland as well, so it isn't a regular coastal target. Baku on the other hand is a very distinctive and rather unmissable target if there is enough moonlight to reflect on water:
Baku.8.gif
 
Personally I think the whole Operation would lead to an unofficial expanded Axis, only with Japan as a co-belligerent given it's more obvious hostility to the USSR and Italy being more of a wildcard given the Anti-Comintern thing.
Italy is the interesting power here, Mussolini knew that Italy was not ready for war in 1940, and had certainly gone back and forth on whether Germany or Britain would make the best ally throughout the 1930s.

In a situation where a Nazi-Soviet alliance continued to deepen, and the French showed no signs of surrender, I could see Italy remain neutral and wait to jump in on the winning side.
 
Top