Allied plans in case the Soviet Union was defeated

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

J

Jenisch

Staff Sergeant
1,080
17
Oct 31, 2011
Hello,

Can someone inform me if there was any official Allied plan in case Hitler defeated the Soviet Union?
 
Churchill was a leading proponent of military alliance with the Soviet Union. Britain would boot him out of office and accept one of the numerous German peace offers.
 
".... in case Hitler defeated the Soviet Union?"

I think you need to spell out the shape, timeline and details of that "defeat" for your question to be meaningful.

"... Britain would boot him out of office and accept one of the numerous German peace offers."

I think that is a flippant statement, DB. I'd like to see some sources for it. Churchill was an advocate of alliance with any parties that effectively fought Hitler. That's why he provided aid to communists (Yugoslavia, France, Greece etc.) not just Russians.

I don't think Canada or Australia-New Zealand would have been too keen on a Chamberlain-style "peace", after the Fall of France -- and that certainly would be the timeframe for a defeat of the Soviet Union. Parsifal may want to clarify the sentiments from the other pillars of the Commonwealth :)

Operation Pike was envisioned in 1940 --- Germany and Russia were allied with each other at that point.

MM
 
Last edited:
michaelmaltby said:
".... in case Hitler defeated the Soviet Union?"

I think you need to spell out the shape, timeline and details of that "defeat" for your question to be meaningful.
Click to expand...

I don't want to examine personal alternative scenarios here, only in the plan or plans if they existed. At the time most in the West belived the Soviets would not resist the Barbarossa, so perhaps the plans were drafted for such a case. Anyway, I don't know. ;)

About Allied resistance continuing, well, the US didn't wanted to sent much aid to the Soviets because their survival doubtful. I belive that means the material was planned to be used elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
".... the US didn't wanted to sent much aid to the Soviets because their survival doubtful. I belive that means the material was planned to be used elsewhere."

What is your source for that statement ..... because it is demonstrably NOT correct. The US gave the Soviet "buyers" in the US an almost free hand in what they could "request", (with exceptions like 4-engine bombers) and companies like Bell integrated Soviet input into their design and maintenance programs. By Soviet request, vast amounts of US aid was delivered across the Bering Straits to the Soviet Pacific where it enabled a build up prior to Operation August Storm, 1945 (attack on Japan).

MM

EDIT:

"... At the time most in the West belived the Soviets would not resist the Barbarossa"

Again - SOURCE for that!!!


Try spending some time here:

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/intro.htm
 
Last edited:
I read your "source" and frankly, I have no idea what points Mr Lebedev is trying to make .... and the illustrations are pxss poor. This source is revisionist ex-USSR BS.

Perhaps you'd like to explain the points you think Mr. Lebedev is trying to make .... because the Lend Lease statistical record is very clear .... and I'm not interested in analysis of whether or not the P-40 or the P-39 or Hawker Hurricane were great airplanes ..... that's hindsight. The Americans didn't send the Soviets anything they weren't using themselves ....

But the British had a plan if Russia had succumbed to the Nazis .... keep fighting .... until they won. That was the plan. End of story. The Royal family was prepared to relocate to Canada, if worst came to worst.

MM
 
"... a British version of Götterdämmerung."

Sorry, DB, Götterdämmerung is not the British way --- whatever you may think of the British -- Götterdämmerung is a Germanic proclivity. Just as self-disembowelment is uniquely Japanese.

MM
 
Last edited:
I also think the Allied resistance would continue if the Soviets were defeated (including the Soviet resistance). The US and Britain also would change their strategy for this new reality. Certainly, Germany would receive even more priority, economically and military from the Anglo-Americans. The Soviet Lend-Lease for example, would all be turned against the Germans. The Germans also would take some time to occupy the Soviet territory and start to obtain the resources (the Soviets would probably set fire in the oil fields and conduct other scorched earth policies). And If I'm not wrong, Britain abandoned plans for an Army of the size of the WWI one to save money for the post-war. This would not be the case in such a scenario. Not to mention the atomic bomb. So, looks like the popular view that only the Soviets stood between the Eurasia domination by the Axis is debatable.
 
Last edited:
davebender said:
That was Churchill's plan. I wouldn't count on others blindly following him in a British version of Götterdämmerung.
Click to expand...

You are having a turkish dave....
There would be no 'final battle' with evil. The British are too pragmatic for that. If you look at history you'll see that we usually prevail...eventually.
John
 
Jenisch said:
And If I'm not wrong, Britain abandoned plans for an Army of the size of the WWI one to save money for the post-war.
Click to expand...

You are wrong Britain had a larger proportion of its population in uniform during WWII than it did in WWI. The British Army was smaller than in WWI but when you include the size of the RAF and consider that until 1943 the RN was the biggest navy in the world (in sheer numbers of hulls the USN only overtook in late 1943) Britain spent as much of her treasure and people as it could. Plans were made for a post war Britain but no money was spent or saved dont forget Britain still had food rationing until 1954 and in fact the individual food ration in the terrible winter of 1947 was smaller than it had been in 1945 which was smaller than it had been in 1941 at the depth of the Battle of the Atlantic.

My mother remembers after VE day her Uncle who was a farmer had 2 german POWs working on his farm the Germans used to bring there POW food rations to the farm in exchange for great Aunty cooking them sunday dinner. The Germans also swapped butter for beer in the pub, my mother didnt eat butter from 1939 till 1945. Not saying the POWs shouldnt have had butter but just saying when even POWs who got army rations got better food than British civilians I dont think there was any money being saved for the post war.
 
fastmongrel said:
You are wrong Britain had a larger proportion of its population in uniform during WWII than it did in WWI. The British Army was smaller than in WWI but when you include the size of the RAF and consider that until 1943 the RN was the biggest navy in the world (in sheer numbers of hulls the USN only overtook in late 1943) Britain spent as much of her treasure and people as it could. Plans were made for a post war Britain but no money was spent or saved dont forget Britain still had food rationing until 1954 and in fact the individual food ration in the terrible winter of 1947 was smaller than it had been in 1945 which was smaller than it had been in 1941 at the depth of the Battle of the Atlantic.

My mother remembers after VE day her Uncle who was a farmer had 2 german POWs working on his farm the Germans used to bring there POW food rations to the farm in exchange for great Aunty cooking them sunday dinner. The Germans also swapped butter for beer in the pub, my mother didnt eat butter from 1939 till 1945. Not saying the POWs shouldnt have had butter but just saying when even POWs who got army rations got better food than British civilians I dont think there was any money being saved for the post war.
Click to expand...

Well said. People forget the deprivations in post war Britain and the 'make do and mend' culture that was a necessity. I see that TV companies have started making programmes about 'super scrimpers' showing young ladies how to darn, repair clothes and not waste food and young chaps the value of DIY. I think we can all be gratefull to Mr Cameron that just we thought the good times were here to stay we are plunged back to 1950..:rolleyes:
John
 
If Russia was out of the war, then Japan would be able to use a lot of the troops and material they had in Manchuria in case of a Russian invasion. That would make them more potent in Burma, and China, maybe more able to defend the Phillippines also.

So a lot of the lend-lease material not going to the USSR, might end up going to the Pacific, and China- Burma-India theater of war.
 
".... You are frequentely trying to mock me, don't say this."

If you take the time to review my threads/posts, Jenisch, you will find that I frequently "mock" a lot of people on this Forum. I usually do it - as I did in your case - with a :). It's called humor. Please do not take offense - I'm NOT singling out just YOU. :)

MM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

O
British Balloon Bombs in the Balkans, Summer 1943?
Replies
4
Views
381
Old MacDonald
O
v2
Mass Executions in Palmiry
Replies
0
Views
53
v2
v2
Ghosts of War
WWII remnants in Tunisia and Algeria
Replies
0
Views
565
Ghosts of War
Ghosts of War
Marcel
Then and now, photo blending in Dordrecht, The Netherlands
3 4 5
Replies
84
Views
7K
Gnomey
Gnomey
M
US AA defense in WWII ETO and pacific
Replies
4
Views
761
Frog
F
Back