British Army on the eastern front?

[tecumseh]

Was there any possibility for UK & commonwealth troops to fight in numbers on the eastern front?

I just want to get a sense if it was possible but rejected, extremely difficult and rejected, or simply impossible. It’s in response to this Russian chap who feels belatedly aggrieved:

What UK troops (corps? division? army?)

The moment of rout at Dunkirk and the period I’m talking about (November of 1942) is separated by two and a half years. I think this term was more than enough for Britain to have regimented a considerable number of men (having desire of course). I remind you that Russians could only dream about such moderate conditions. In addition I suppose the involving of British colonial troops from Middle East, India, South-East Asia and Africa.

landing where?

The transfer of troops could be accomplished through Iran (not only by sea - directly from Britain, but by land too -from India and Middle east) and further through Central Asia using Trans-Caspian railway straight to the banks of Volga.

when?

Active arrangements could started to carrying out immediately after the 22nd of June 1941.

fighting with which soviet army and affecting which offensives?

By the beginning of winter 1942 we concentrate in the south of Stalingrad additional 300 - 500 thousand Allied troops. Released Soviet forces (one or two of soviet 51st, 57th, 28th armies or maybe all of them) are transferred to the north for strengthening the Don and South-west fronts.

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by tecumseh:

The transfer of troops could be accomplished through Iran (not only by sea - directly from Britain, but by land too -from India and Middle east) and further through Central Asia using Trans-Caspian railway straight to the banks of Volga.

when?

Active arrangements could started to carrying out immediately after the 22nd of June 1941.

fighting with which soviet army and affecting which offensives?

By the beginning of winter 1942 we concentrate in the south of Stalingrad additional 300 - 500 thousand Allied troops. Released Soviet forces (one or two of soviet 51st, 57th, 28th armies or maybe all of them) are transferred to the north for strengthening the Don and South-west fronts.

In June 1941 the UK is going to send troops to Russia? How?

In 1942, this guy thinks that there will be 300,000 to 500,000 Allied troops, from any and all sources, to send to Russia to free up as many as three Soviet Armies??

And soon after that the Martians land in Berlin and take over the German rocket program too!

MR

[Tero]

There was a real possibility in early 1940 there would have been British troops in the Eastern Front. Fighting both the Soviets and the Germans in Arctic Norway, Sweden and Finland.

[Der Alte Fritz]

What he is forgetting is the attitude of the Soviet authorities. Here are some examples of where British armed forces mixed with the Soviets.

1) RN sailors were unable to land or even to talk to dockyard staff when they delivered Lend Lease material via the Russian Convoys to Arch angel.

2) The RN had to send a hospital ship to treat their own wounded because the Soviets refused to have them in their hosptals on shore.

3) A plan to bomb the Tirpitz by the RAF heavy bombers took years to arrange because no landing rights could be secured.

4) Stalins refusal to allow Allied planes to drop supplies to the Polish Home Army in Warsaw by allowing them use of landing rights to land refuel and return straight home.

Remember this was Stalins Russia and memories of Allied intervensions in the Russian Civil War still ran deep.

cheers

[ March 04, 2007, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: Der Alte Fritz ]

[Bigduke6]

Well, to be fair let's not forget there was a squadron of French pilots flying Yaks, a whole Polish Field army and major formations (Corps and divisions) of Czechs, Bulgarians, and Lithuanians serving as part of the Red Army; not to mention the bazillion Soviet ethnic formations almost wholly recruited of Bashkirs, Kamyks, etc.

It's not as if the Soviets didn't accept non-Russian help. The question was, on what terms.

British troops are different kettle of fish. Theoretically they could be brought in and supplied the same way Lend Lease armor and aircraft from the Commonwealth did arrive at the Soviet Union; via the Arkhangelsk ship route or the Iran rail route. Certainly, given that the British occuptied the southern half of Iran for the duration of the war, it is difficult to say no British troops were in proximity to the Soviet Union.

If I remember correctly the rail link between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan was already built by 1941, meaning that had there been a will on both sides Indian troops could theoretically have been sent to the Soviet Union.

But we should not forget that although Roosevelt and Stalin were willing to at least pretend the US and the SU had no major conflicts of interest, Churchill was a Red-baiter from way back, and Stalin knew it and trusted the British not a whit. They had been on opposite sides during the Russian Civil War, not as passive soldiers or low-level bureaucrats, but decision makers in their respective governments.

Add to this the general material weakness of British troops shortly after Dunkirk, the subsequent British disasters against the Japanese, and the fact that by late 1942 the Germans no longer could dictate when and where battles would take place on the East Front; and there is really no time when the Commonwealth is in a position to send troops, and the SU is in a position to really need them.

Frankly I think your Russian friend has no rhetorical leg to stand on. Great Britain and the Soviet Union were unwilling allies, fighting together because the Germans represented a common threat, but with few illusions that their interests coincided on terms besides that.

So why should Britain knock itself out to help the Soviet Union? The better strategy is to send some material but let Soviets soldiers die fighting Germans, not British. After all, as a democracy, the United Kingdom had an obligation to protect the lives of its citizens - an obligation the Soviet government sometimes thought was stupid: For the Soviets, murdering ones' own citizens in the millions was, at times, considered a fine idea by the Kremlin.

It is worth bearing that in mind, when some one (usually a modern Russian) points out the Soviet death rates in the war were dramatically higher than those of the British and Americans. This is true, but it is also true the Soviet government as a matter of policy tried less to keep its soldiers alive, than the British or Americans.

(It's also worth pointing out that more Chinese died during WW2 fighting Japanese than Soviets

fighting Germans. Usually modern Russians discount that sacrifice on grounds fighting Japanese was not as important as fighting Germans, and also Chinese deaths are less important than a similar number of Soviet deaths...off the subject, sorry.)

Another matter many modern Russian attacking the western Allies for "not helping the Soviet Union enough" conveniently forget is that the Soviets stayed out of the war with Japan until Hiroshima. Given the size of the forces the Soviet Union stationed in the Far East - two Fronts of roughly army group size - it is a good question to ask "If the Soviet Union was such a great country fighting to defend civilization and humanity, why did the Soviet Union leave the Americans and the British to fight the Japanese three years and change, without Soviet help?"

[tecumseh]

Thanks, I appreciate the help. I know hypothetical "what if" WW2 discussions are as rare and exciting as indigestion.

So in summary...

Politically: never going to happen

Technically: difficult but very possible

Effect: probably not huge by winter 42

[Guest Mike]

The British had a plan to have 6000 troops fighting with the Finns against the Soviets in 1940 tho - they were going to invade Norway and Sweden and occupy the Sedish mines to prevent them shipping iron to Germany......IIRC 100,000 troops were planned for.....of which only the 6000 would actually fight the Russians - but "helping brave little Finland" sounded so much better than "agressive invasion of Neutral Baltics"....

[The_Enigma]

Sorry to resurrect this thread.

British and Imperial troops had fought along side the Soviets in WW2. We co-operated in kicking 2 tons of crap out of the Iranians - Operation Countenance.

At the time this force was made up of 2 Indian Divisions and 3 seperate brigades, British and Indian.

Following which i believe we had set up the 10th Army and had them sitting off guarding the Oil Fields in the Gulf, the supply route from Basra to the USSR as well as watching the Turkish and Soviet borders incase Harry Hun arrived ... if i remember correctly that is.

So if Stalin was up for it, there was at least a Corp sized formation sitting on his doorstep ready for a fight ...although it probably would have spolit there plans of shagging a few more prosies

As someone else mentioned, there was India. Iirc from William Silms memoir, he stated how divisions were roated off the front if the logistical situation could not keep them supplied.

I have also read of a "North East Army" in India which i presume must refer to troops watching the Afgani border.

So there was also the possibilites of extra divisions from India...

More importantly, there seems to have been an actual plan laid down to move troops to the Caucasus to aid the Soviets. However i have only ever seen the short description and the name of the operation .... Operation Velvet. I have no other information other then that.

Stalin's Organist: We also had planned two operations, prehaps more? which involved aggression agaisnt the Soviet Union.

Operation Pike and Raspberry.

Basically to cause the greatest fire on the face on the planet by destroying the oil fields, refinerires etc at Baku!

Iirc it was devised by the French and British when the Soviets were aiding the Germans so that we could cut off there oil supply and was then latter brought up by the Top Brass when the German war machine invaded the USSR and started closing in on them.

I have also read that there was plans to use commandos, paratroopers, SOE agents etc to cut oil lines, railtracks, blow up power plants etc and basically cause havoc in the Caucasus and render the area ununsable to the Germans.

Add to this the general material weakness of British troops shortly after Dunkirk, the subsequent British disasters against the Japanese

A general weakness which was sorted out pretty quickly from what ive read and at no point was my Island Nation at threat of falling under the flag of the Germans ... that is unless we let the weak polaticians rule the roost

One should also note that the British Army in the Middle East, under funded, under equipped etc etc was able to deal with its internal secuirty problems fine, send the Italians packing in Egypt and defeat them soundly in East Africa.

Form new forces to take down the Iranians and and Vichy French forces and nearly win the battle of Crete.

And not to forget deal with the Iraqi coup.

Btw:

Dunkirk - May to June 1940

Singapore fell in February 1942.

We had done alot of arse kicking in between

It is worth bearing that in mind, when some one (usually a modern Russian) points out the Soviet death rates in the war were dramatically higher than those of the British and Americans.

They also really hate Antony Beevor

Frankly I think your Russian friend has no rhetorical leg to stand on. Great Britain and the Soviet Union were unwilling allies, fighting together because the Germans represented a common threat, but with few illusions that their interests coincided on terms besides that.

Amen.

... jeez that turned into one long post.

[ April 09, 2007, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: the_enigma ]

[Philippe]

I have a gread deal of difficulty imagining the Soviets countenancing co-operation with foreign-controlled forces. This may have something to do with the fact that English-speaking troops had tried to supress the Bolshevik revolution within the immediate memory of too many of Moscow's leaders (Stalin tended not to forget things like that).

American airman who landed in the Soviet Union tended to dissapear into POW camps despite being allies. I believe this happened to a few of Doolittle's raiders after the Tokyo raid, and it certainly happened to one of my uncles after bombing Ploesti (the POW camp was behind the same wire as the Allied Internment camp, and anyone, usually children, who approached the wire to throw food to the starving inmates, was machine-gunned -- my uncle, who was reported as KIA, ended the war hating the Russians at least as much as the Germans).

The French fighter squadron was probably under Soviet operational control -- I suspect the French were not viewed as as much of a threat as their anglo-saxon allies at that point.

[Guest Mike]

Of course any Anglo units operating on the Eastern front would have been under Soviet operational control! sheesh!

Stories of hardships of allied sailors in Murmansk seem to be exagerated - there are 1st hand accounts of teh dockers being friendly, but other locals being reserved - which is a normal Russian attitude to foreigners and has been for centuries. Hell it's a normal attitude of anyone to strangers pretty much world wide.

Lest anyone forget the RAF operated a wing of 39 Huricanes from Murmansk in late 1041 - conditions were difficult, but certainly not impossible.

I see operation Pike has a book about it but not much else on the web, what was Raspberry?

[The_Enigma]

I cant remember the exact details as it was over a year ago when i stumbled across the few details i posted above.

For the time being i would have to presume that one was the orignal plan drawn up to get Baku and the other was the modified version post 1941.