Operation Pike: Britain versus Stalin.

W

Wingknut

Guest
Sorry if this is old news but there is an aviation link here: one alternative history to conjure with would involve Britain attacking the USSR in May / June 1940.
It seems there were several quite detailed British and Anglo-French plans for (e.g.) basing aircraft in Iran, Iraq and/or Syria and using them to attack the USSR's oilfields in the Caucasus. The aircraft to be used were light-to-medium bombers like the Vickers Wellesley or Bristol Blenheim, and the attacks were supposed to be continued for weeks if necessary. I was surprised to learn that i) Britain got as far as using unmarked reconnaissance aircraft to overfly proposed targets and ii) the U.K. government was still considering plans to attack the USSR after Operation Barbarossa was launched, in the hope of destroying the Caucasus oil-reserves before Hitler got them all.
The standard book here seems to be Patrick R. Osborn's 'Operation Pike: Britain versus the Soviet Union, 1939-1941' (Greenwood Books, Westport, CT, 2000). Most of the book's Prologue can be found here:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=39Q6uCjQEWQC&lpg=PP1&dq=%22operation%20pike%22&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false
Greenwood catalogue-page for 'Operation Pike' can be found here:
http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/GM1368.aspx
Some handy quotes and an interesting review can be found on this forum-page:
http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/eastern-front/9042-operation-pike.html
 
Starting with Churchill's own 6vol Memoirs, published as Stalin moved from friendly, victor Uncle Joe to Threat, Western historiography has skated over the period between us all trying to boot out Bolshies, 1920-ish (USMC in Central Asia guarding the Trans-Siberian railway), and "making a favourable reference to the devil" after Barbarossa. Irish-American neo-con Pat Buchanan,2008, did Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War which lauds Baldwin's policy, derided as Chamberlain's appeasement, which was: 29/7/36: “If there is any fighting in Europe to be done I should like to see the Bolshies and the Nazis doing it” H.M-Hyde,Br.Air Policy Between the Wars, Heinemann,1976,P389. UK, US preferred Germany to do the Drang nach Osten that would otherwise fall to them. Remember, by 1936 communism was rife in France. Strong leadership by Men of Steel in Poland, Hungary, Italy, Finland, Spain, Germany was not seen as a concerted Fascist Threat to civilisation, but as bulwark against foul baboonery. UK built its KGV battleships and Illustrious carriers, not as Atlantic convoy escorts to address Continental Powers but to keep Japan's Imperial Navy away from our Eastern Empire.

This all became unspeak after Barbarossa, and while he was our co-victor until the Berlin Blockade, and remains awkward today, implying that encouragement to Hitler to go East young Man could have stifled the pain we did all endure, 1939-90.

One reference only (that I cannot now recover) that Consolidated's LB-30 (taken up by USAAC as B-24) was initiated by France to hit Baku from Syria: in 1936 under Communist influence, France's aero industry had been nationalised. Farman F.222 was not followed up because the Party could deduce their intended target.
 
Call Pat Buchanan many things, but he is NOT a neocon. I'll leave it at that, this is OT enough.
 
Not meaning to wax political on this forum but I would like to put some clear water between myself and the first comment above.
I completely reject the thesis advanced in Buchanan's 'Unnecessary War'. (If any war was necessary, it was the one against Hitler.) I would also point out (in case this gets lost sight of) that the 'Operation Pike' plan would have committed Britain to fighting Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR simultaneously, which I don't think is at all what Buchanan and co. have in mind by talk of letting the Bolshies and the Nazis fight it out themselves.
In any case, far from Operation Pike being "unspeak" (note the little Orwellian dig, readers), it's common knowledge in the UK that Britain nearly took on Stalin c. 1940. (Hence my "Sorry if this is old news …" in my original posting.)
 
Target: Hitler's Oil by R. Cooke and Roy Conyers Nesbit had a bit on this and is a very good book for the various operations against German oil from 1939 to 1945.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/0718305736/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&qid=1281382342&sr=1-1&condition=used

And with prices starting at £2.72, well worth adding to your collection, though I would avoid the £53,21 and £55.37 ones - are those two sellers dull???

When you read about British plans for operations against Russia you start to look at the 4,000mile range with 16,000lb bombs or 2,000miles with 32,000lb of Wallis' 'Victory Bomber' with more interest......

Just seen the price of the Operation Pike book on Amazon - £87.35!!!, although you do save £4.60.
 
Hey, beware with Amazon!

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,10670.0.html

;)
 
I read about the Entente's plans to fight USSR 1940 in a news letter produced by a Swedish military history magazine. They didn't mention the name of the op. was Pike. Seems to me that failing with Plan R 4, the Franco-British plans for intervention in the Winter War and/or the Allied campaign in Norway made such plans moot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_R_4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-British_plans_for_intervention_in_the_Winter_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_campaign_in_Norway

According to Wikipedia (don't remember the name of or link to the article), France had plans to involve Turkey in order to use Turkish bases to bomb Caucasian oil industry. Knowing that France (and UK) could use Syria, Iraq and Iran, I wonder why they would want to use Turkey (if it's true). Closer to Baku? ???

Victor Davis Hanson and Christopher Hitchens pwns Patrick J. Buchanan ;) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDkG9fY5pZQ
 
Wingknut said:
Sorry if this is old news but there is an aviation link here: one alternative history to conjure with would involve Britain attacking the USSR in May / June 1940.
It seems there were several quite detailed British and Anglo-French plans for (e.g.) basing aircraft in Iran, Iraq and/or Syria and using them to attack the USSR's oilfields in the Caucasus. The aircraft to be used were light-to-medium bombers like the Vickers Wellesley or Bristol Blenheim, and the attacks were supposed to be continued for weeks if necessary. I was surprised to learn that i) Britain got as far as using unmarked reconnaissance aircraft to overfly proposed targets and ii) the U.K. government was still considering plans to attack the USSR after Operation Barbarossa was launched, in the hope of destroying the Caucasus oil-reserves before Hitler got them all.
The standard book here seems to be Patrick R. Osborn's 'Operation Pike: Britain versus the Soviet Union, 1939-1941' (Greenwood Books, Westport, CT, 2000). Most of the book's Prologue can be found here:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=39Q6uCjQEWQC&lpg=PP1&dq=%22operation%20pike%22&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false
Greenwood catalogue-page for 'Operation Pike' can be found here:
http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/GM1368.aspx
Some handy quotes and an interesting review can be found on this forum-page:
http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/eastern-front/9042-operation-pike.html
Click to expand...
Aha, the www.ww2talk.com thread mentions Turkey. Didn't know that UK planned to bomb Caucasian oil rigs after Op. Barbarossa.

Thanks Wingknut.
 
The Red angle in pre-War Fr. a/c industry is from Herrick Chapman,State Capitalism and Working-Class Radicalism in the French Aircraft Industry, UCP,1990, 0520071255. The Cabinet Air Minister was Communist, as was the Mayor of Toulouse (Dewoitine/SNCAM).

This issue of the logic of appeasement, as to point Germany East, reminds me of the response attributed to EL Chou in the sense "What do you think of the French Revolution?" "It's too soon to say."
 
Many thanks to PMN1, Hammer Birchgrove for quotes and links. (Sorry to hear about your Amazon problems, pometablava.)
Re: the "logic of appeasement" – quotes from Premier Zhou notwithstanding, I think history has already ruled definitively on appeasement and pronounced it an absolute moral and political disaster. However well-intentioned some of the individual appeasers may have been, their efforts nearly handed (at least) Europe over to Hitler without a shot being fired.
For a bracingly disrespectful view of what Chamberlain 'achieved' at Munich, see (e.g.) Williamson Murray's essay 'The War of 1938', in the collection of counterfactual essays 'More What If?' edited by Robert Cowley, (Putnam, 2001, pages 255-278). A quick quote therefrom: "What the historian can suggest from the available evidence is that the strategic situation in 1938 was far more favorable to the Allies than it would prove the following year", (Cowley ed., page 278).
See also Williamson Murray and Allen R. Millett's book 'A War to Be Won', extracts from which can be found here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tdYkMPfUSUAC&lpg=PP1&ots=SzNaXXdSE0&dq=%22Williamson%20Murray%22&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false
 
H.Chapman and his publishers, Uni of California Press, might not grasp the subleties of French centre-left politics and may have relied on Wiki: "In 1936 Cot, by this time a convinced Socialist, became a leading support of the Popular Front, an alliance of the Radicals and the Socialists led by Léon Blum, with the support of the French Communist Party. An antiwar activist, though not a pacifist, he was president of the International Peace Conference from 1936 to 1940. He received the Stalin Peace Prize as a result in 1953....(after June,1940) He flew to London and offered his services to Charles de Gaulle's Free French movement, but de Gaulle considered him to be too pro-Communist and offered him no position."

Chapman has him as influential in stopping discussions for a French licence for DC-6 production, recoiling in fear of “vassalisation” of the industry” and recalling “French airplane factories were bombed particularly heavily by (UK/US in) the last months of the war. Perhaps now we can better understand why.” Chapman,Pp.282/300

Thread drift, maybe: my point was that some Western Leaders in the 1935-39 period considered the West's skirmishes in Russia, 1919-21, to be unfinished Work In Progress.
 
Interesting insight into pre Armistice France. Imagine if Paul Reynaud had accepted Churchill's offer of Franco-British political union in 1940 rather than armistice...
 
Abraham Gubler said:
Interesting insight into pre Armistice France. Imagine if Paul Reynaud had accepted Churchill's offer of Franco-British political union in 1940 rather than armistice...
Click to expand...
Sure it was Reynaud and not Petain who didn't accept the union? I just think Reynaud would have been open for such suggestions. ???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-British_Union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Reynaud

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Monnet

In any event, I'm curious to what the effect of the union would have been. I fail to see how it would have saved France from the German invasion as late as 1940. (Had it been proposed 1938, I think it would have made a huge difference.) I guess the Petain government, if it had come to be, had not been seen as legitimate by UK and USA.

Correct me I'm wrong.
 
Hammer Birchgrove said:
Sure it was Reynaud and not Petain who didn't accept the union? I just think Reynaud would have been open for such suggestions. ???
Click to expand...

Reynaud was the PM but Petain kyboshed it in cabinet - and we all know how that turned out. So Reynaud could not accept the offer as much as he may have wanted to. Displace Petain from the French Government at this time and there may have been Franco-British Union.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
Hammer Birchgrove said:
Sure it was Reynaud and not Petain who didn't accept the union? I just think Reynaud would have been open for such suggestions. ???
Click to expand...

Reynaud was the PM but Petain kyboshed it in cabinet - and we all know how that turned out. So Reynaud could not accept the offer as much as he may have wanted to. Displace Petain from the French Government at this time and there may have been Franco-British Union.
Click to expand...
I see, thanks.

Re-reading about Reynaud has (at least) made me decide that in one of my Alternative Histories, I'll have Reynaud stay in the cabinet after 1932 as it would be one of the more plausible ways to enable France to invade Rhineland 1936 and intervene in the Spanish Civil War (and, if needed, later stop Hitler and Mussolini from invading Europe).
 
Hammer Birchgrove said:
I see, thanks.
Click to expand...

The difference is not strong. You’re right it was Petain, Reynaud was just left holding the raw end.

Hammer Birchgrove said:
Re-reading about Reynaud has (at least) made me decide that
Click to expand...

Has lead me to ask what would have happened to WW2 if on June 16 France and the UK joined in political union and there was no Vichy? While it is unlikely that fighting on the French Army could stop the Germans occupying most of France this would significantly tilt things in favour of the Allies (or Union) Forces in 1940. Even if only half the French Army could be evacuated to the UK and Africa that would be over 500,000 soldiers as well as thousands of air force personnel. The Maginot Line fighting to the last would result in several German divisions destroyed. Within a year the French units would be reequipped and retrained with American weapons. All the French colonies and fleet would be on the Union side.

Come 1941 and it would be the Union on the offensive in the Mediterranean not the Axis. Hitler’s core ideology and delusions could not abandon the attack on the Soviet Union. Without the distraction of the Mediterranean campaign (Italy would be on the defensive not the offensive) the invasion of the Soviet Union would probably happen sooner.

In the real world Hitler miscalculated that he had time to defeat the Soviets and refocus his war economy on fighting the UK-USA before the later could strike him. With the French contribution to the alliance and without a distracting Mediterranean campaign Allies could strike western Europe much sooner. 1942-43? With the German armies much further away in central Russia the Nazi empire would fold like a deck of cards.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
Hammer Birchgrove said:
I see, thanks.
Click to expand...

The difference is not strong. You’re right it was Petain, Reynaud was just left holding the raw end.

Hammer Birchgrove said:
Re-reading about Reynaud has (at least) made me decide that
Click to expand...

Has lead me to ask what would have happened to WW2 if on June 16 France and the UK joined in political union and there was no Vichy? While it is unlikely that fighting on the French Army could stop the Germans occupying most of France this would significantly tilt things in favour of the Allies (or Union) Forces in 1940. Even if only half the French Army could be evacuated to the UK and Africa that would be over 500,000 soldiers as well as thousands of air force personnel. The Maginot Line fighting to the last would result in several German divisions destroyed. Within a year the French units would be reequipped and retrained with American weapons. All the French colonies and fleet would be on the Union side.

Come 1941 and it would be the Union on the offensive in the Mediterranean not the Axis. Hitler’s core ideology and delusions could not abandon the attack on the Soviet Union. Without the distraction of the Mediterranean campaign (Italy would be on the defensive not the offensive) the invasion of the Soviet Union would probably happen sooner.

In the real world Hitler miscalculated that he had time to defeat the Soviets and refocus his war economy on fighting the UK-USA before the later could strike him. With the French contribution to the alliance and without a distracting Mediterranean campaign Allies could strike western Europe much sooner. 1942-43? With the German armies much further away in central Russia the Nazi empire would fold like a deck of cards.
Click to expand...

Very good points; I forgot that there wouldn't be a need for the controversial Operation Catapult* and a following war with Vichy France. French navy would be a serious threat against Italy and help escort the convoys, and Franco's Spain and Salazar's Portugal might be less inclined to help German U-boats. Mussolini would, if bold enough, strike Tunisia (instead of Egypt), and face a two-front war in North Africa. Or, better still (for him at least), change sides and join the Allies. Which would possibly lead to a re-run of First World War's "War in snow and ice", and Italian air strips to help bomb Axis oil industries much earlier than in OTL.

* It's debatable whether is was really needed, but I understand Churchill's reasons for pulling it off, and at least it helped the Free French to get bases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Mers-el-K%C3%A9bir
 
You might be interested in the APOD (A Point of Departure) timeline/research project - Now that the French side of France Fights On (FFO) have had their book published, the 'Anglo' side has gone back to the start with some alternative decisions to what was agreed with FFO.


http://francefightson.yuku.com/directory
 
PMN1 said:
You might be interested in the APOD (A Point of Departure) timeline/research project - Now that the French side of France Fights On (FFO) have had their book published, the 'Anglo' side has gone back to the start with some alternative decisions to what was agreed with FFO.


http://francefightson.yuku.com/directory
Click to expand...
It's a very interesting project but it's a bit hard to get an understanding of the full scope of this counterfactual history; a summary would be appreciated. :)
 
Here's a link to the news letter I mentioned; prepare to use Google translate and dust off your Swedish-[fill in your language] wordbooks:

http://www.krigsmyter.nu/b.php?at=at&kw=ww2&gclid=CPDgvZnD8KMCFUkrDgod6V8L2Q
 
Wikipedia has an entry now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pike

Maybe one or several of the members of this website have contributed to it, if not written the whole article? :)
 
Hammer Birchgrove said:
PMN1 said:
You might be interested in the APOD (A Point of Departure) timeline/research project - Now that the French side of France Fights On (FFO) have had their book published, the 'Anglo' side has gone back to the start with some alternative decisions to what was agreed with FFO.


http://francefightson.yuku.com/directory
Click to expand...
It's a very interesting project but it's a bit hard to get an understanding of the full scope of this counterfactual history; a summary would be appreciated. :)
Click to expand...

Let me try :) (I contributed to it)

In june 1940 France was polarized into two factions.
a) those who wanted an honourable ceasefire with Germany (Petain, Weygand...)
b) another faction that wanted to resume fighting - De gaulle obviously, Mandel...

Option b) meant moving to Algier. I mean, moving
- the whole parliament
- the government
- the air force
- the navy
- the army
- industry, workers, engineers and factories

Quite a big move hmm ? ;D Sceptics said "It can't be done..."

Paul Reynaud was a brave man, but two persons had a bad (read, defeatist) influence on him. They were
- Helene de Porte, his mistress
- Colonel Paul de Villelume.

Helene de Portes was killed late june 1940 in a car crash. That the sticky point of FFO (France Fights On)
They literally "moved" this accident three weeks ealier, moving it back from June 28 1940 (everything was lost) to June 6 1940.
And they put Villelume in the car instead of Reynaud :)

This result in Deporte killed, a dishonoured de Villelume fired by Reynaud, and, above all, two bad influences over Reynaud head are gone.

History starts to diverge from this moment onwards, with spectacular results. Reynaud hangs on, and b) wons over a).
In other words, De Gaulle's slash Petain, and France remains on allies side (no bloody vichy regime).

Petain obviously can't bear that, has an attack, and dies late 1940. fighting resume until early August, when the last french townes, Banyuls, fell to German hands.

A pitiful nazi puppet regime led by Laval and other miserable morons takes over the metropole - mostly in ruins.
The real government, however, has moved to Algier. Armies are rebuild from the ground up with US aircraft and tanks.

Voilà !
 
That's very intriguing. I assume moving factories would have been the hardest part. In the FFO reality, was any factories moved successfully, or does the French workers and engineers work in (I assume) British industries?
 
The basic rule is that Algeria has too much an insufficient industrial base to build any useful boat or aircraft there.
So yes, many engineers goes to GB and the USAs, with decisive results. The aviation timeline is quite altered :D

The english website is not easy to follow, while its french counterpart is much better. http://1940lafrancecontinue.org/

And the french forum

http://www.1940lafrancecontinue.org/forum/
 
Note about APOD: this is the result of a shism. Some basic assumptions are, however, unrealistic
(vichy france "resurrection" through a coup mid july 1940; german airplanes send to North Africa right from June; Fiat CR-42s shooting Martin 167s and Leo 451 flying faster and higher... be warned !)

More discussion there
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/12418

(Lmah is one of major FFO contributors)

The skeleton
http://francefightson.yuku.com/topic/700/t/APOD-1940-1945-Grand-Strategic-Skeleton.html

Reading APOD I have this feeling that the idea of France staying on the allied side annoyed some persons.
So in some way the FFO had to be corrected with the OTLl "nasty Vichy" / "weak Free French" sheme, and APOD is the result of this...
 
Hmmm, With a French-British Union providing a major thorn in the German plans to consolidate Europe before moving on Russia would the delay have been (possibly) enough (had Stalin gotten his er... "stuff" together that is) for the Russians to have moved on Germany first?

One wonders if Japan would have still initiated the war with the United States, or turned and tried to put pressure on Russia to aid the Germans?
(Which frankly would have probably kept the US out of the war longer)

Randy
 
Archibald said:
Reading APOD I have this feeling that the idea of France staying on the allied side annoyed some persons.
So in some way the FFO had to be corrected with the OTLl "nasty Vichy" / "weak Free French" sheme, and APOD is the result of this...
Click to expand...

From what I understand, the 'Anglo' side of FFO thought the Germans and Japanese were being played as idiots.
 
RanulfC said:
Hmmm, With a French-British Union providing a major thorn in the German plans to consolidate Europe before moving on Russia would the delay have been (possibly) enough (had Stalin gotten his er... "stuff" together that is) for the Russians to have moved on Germany first?
Click to expand...

That is one of the debates

http://francefightson.yuku.com/topic/794/t/Discussion-Barbarossa-Does-it-still-happen.html
 
PMN1 said:
Archibald said:
Reading APOD I have this feeling that the idea of France staying on the allied side annoyed some persons.
So in some way the FFO had to be corrected with the OTLl "nasty Vichy" / "weak Free French" sheme, and APOD is the result of this...
Click to expand...

From what I understand, the 'Anglo' side of FFO thought the Germans and Japanese were being played as idiots.
Click to expand...

Well.. no. I could say the same thing about the french in APOD: they are sometimes played as idiots.

The fact that France remains on Allied side has cascading effects, notably in North Africa.

The British alone nearly drove the italians out of Africa early 1941. Soon however the germans send the Afrika Korps, nearly sunk Illustrious and the war in North Africa dragged on for two more years, until May 1943.

If the french remains in the war and then their armies to North Africa, well, the Italians are screwed long before 1941. The African campaign ends long before any Afrika Korps ever exists - long before 1941.
Then the rest is history. Without the whole North African campaign, WWII changes positively - for the allies of course !
 
In fact the FFO was born on November, 30 2004 on the naval fiction board. Someone asked about the anglo-french union. ;)
Looks like the plan was discussed in very early FFO shemes circa 2005, but soon dropped in favour of the "North africa" option. Why ?
As much as I like the idea of an anglo-french union, it is an utopian concept. Even more mid-june 1940 amid chaos.
Last call for France was June 7 1940, when the second german offensive pierced Weygand thin line of defense north of Paris. After that point events unfold too fast - fall of Paris (14 june) Reynaud dismisal (June 16) Petain take-over and De Gaulle trip to England (June 17 - 18).

It is no coincidence that FFO point of divergence happens on June 6.
 
alertken said:
One reference only (that I cannot now recover) that Consolidated's LB-30 (taken up by USAAC as B-24) was initiated by France to hit Baku from Syria: in 1936 under Communist influence, France's aero industry had been nationalised. Farman F.222 was not followed up because the Party could deduce their intended target.
Click to expand...
According to Wikipedia, Armée de l'Air did order 120 B-24 before the Fall of France, but it doesn't say if it was France who originally wanted it as LB-30. Instead it says it was Consolidated who decided they could make a bomber of their own instead of making B-17 on license.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_B-24_Liberator#Operational_history

Wikipedia also claim that the Handley Page Halifax was originally intended to strike Soviet oil fields. It certainly seems a better choice for the job than Bristol Blenheim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Halifax#Operational_service

I like to point out that errors sneak into Wiki articles from time to time. :p
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom