Baku, or the Map Game

[Faeelin]

So, I'm reading Operation Pike, a book about British plans to attack the Soviet Union during the Second World War during the period of German-Soviet nonaggression. The British spent an astonishing amount of time and energy plotting how to destroy the Soviet Union, which, up until Barbarossa, much of Britan's leadership saw as the serious threat. As a result, a great deal of planning went into destroying the Baku oil fields, perceived to be the USSR's achilles heel, and an easier way of knocking out Germany and the USSR than a brutal slog across Germany.

Most of the plans, frankly, were a tad absurd, envisioning a couple squadrons of bombers taking out a major network of oil wells and refineries. Nevertheless, since it was well known the Soviets were so incompetent that they couldn't even beat Finland, it was envisioned that it would be easy to knock themn out. The real concern, in the eyes of some planners, was that if the USSR was attacked they'd invite the Germans in to reorganize their economy along more efficient, German lines, creating, as one planner joked, "Teutoslavia."

Some people recognized that this was a terrible idea, notably A.P. Herbert, the PM for Oxford, who wrote a poem criticizing the ideas.

Baku, or the Map Game

Its Jolly to look at the map, and finish the foe in a day.
Its not easy to get at the chap; these neutrals are so in the way.
But what if you say 'what would you do to fill the aggressor with gloom?'
Well, we might drop a bomb on Baku. Or what about bombs on Batum?

Other methods, of course, may be found. We might send a fleet up the Inn.
We might burrow far underground and come up in the heart of Berlin.
But I think a more promising clue to the Totalitarian doom
is the dropping of bombs on Baku.
And perhaps a few bombs on Batum.

The scale of the map should be small if you're winning the war in a day.
it mustn't show mountains at all, for mountains may be in the way.
But, taking a statesmanlike view, and sitting at home in a room,
I'm all for some bombs on Baku. And, of course, a few bombs on Batum.

Sometimes I invade the dear Dutch. Sometimes I descend on the Danes.
They oughtn't to mind very much, and they don't seem to have any planes.
I slip through the Swiss and say 'Boo!'. I pop over the Alps and say 'Boom!'.
But I still drop a few bombs on Baku. And I always drop bombs on Batum.

Vladivostok is not very far. Sometimes I attack him from there.
With the troops in a rather fast car, I am on him before he's aware.
And then, it's so hard to say who, is fighting, precisely, with whom,
that I know about bombing Baku, I insist upon bombing Batum.

During the war, this poem was classified Most Secret, and it's such a great criticism of wargaming that I thought I'd share it.

[KRonn]

What an event changer that could have been, maybe give pause to Germany in attacking the USSR, which could certainly have altered the war's outcome. Germany would have been a lot tougher without having to deal with the USSR. But there might have been other outcomes, depending on how things turned out.

Very interesting to ponder what may have happened if events had played out differently.

[Queequeg]

How would you hit it?  Through Iran or Turkey? Neither would want war with the USSR and Germany at the same time. 

[Neil]

It would have been glorious.  The Allies and the Nazis joining up to crush Communism once and for all.

[Faeelin]

How would you hit it?  Through Iran or Turkey? Neither would want war with the USSR and Germany at the same time.

Actually, the Iranian Shah may have offered bases, but the general plans involved either bases in Turkey, who had already signed an alliance with France and Germany, or flying through their territory from Iraq.

[Iormlund]

Attacking the USSR from the Caucasus? That sounds like a terrible idea. Bombing raids yes, land operations? Hod no. you'd have much better odds pretty much anywhere. Say Siberia.

[jimmy olsen]

It always amazes me when I read of the plans to open up a front against the Soviet Union, as if the Allies didn't already have enough on their plate.

[Faeelin]

Attacking the USSR from the Caucasus? That sounds like a terrible idea. Bombing raids yes, land operations? Hod no. you'd have much better odds pretty much anywhere. Say Siberia.

I don't think you realize that the Soviets are a tottering, evil empire. One good kick and the whole rotten structure will come down.

Anyway, bombing raids on Baku would've almost certainly failed, given how Ploesti stayed in operation despite the Allies tossing far more to bear than the British could've in 1940.

[Ed Anger]

Attacking the USSR from the Caucasus? That sounds like a terrible idea. Bombing raids yes, land operations? Hod no. you'd have much better odds pretty much anywhere. Say Siberia.

There was an American WWIII plan to do that in the late 40's. Of course, it was to be spearheaded by bombers nuking the holy hell out the motherland.

[Richard Hakluyt]

All sorts of plans are suggested, only some are adopted.

[Faeelin]

All sorts of plans are suggested, only some are adopted.

Substantial preparations went into these. Oddly, it was the French who were most gung-ho about it.

[Neil]

All sorts of plans are suggested, only some are adopted.

Substantial preparations went into these. Oddly, it was the French who were most gung-ho about it.

Given the very real danger of having France governed from Moscow, that's hardly surprising.

[grumbler]

The fallacy of strategic bombing was not evident in 1940, the politicians having spent so many years drinking the bomber enthusiasts' kool-aid.

Hell, for years after the war, some people still believed that the Allied Bomber Offensive had been decisive.

Had the Brits bombed the Caucasus and failed, they would have come up with a million reasons why it hadn't worked, and not one of the would have been "strategic bombing, by its nature, is attritional and not decisive." 

[grumbler]

Substantial preparations went into these. Oddly, it was the French who were most gung-ho about it.

A quick look into this (including reading the portions of the book excerpted in google books) tends to lead one to believe that the author may be overstating his case for the benefit of his book.  After all, if these were just the usual contingency plans that all militaries engage in, who would buy the book, except the specialist?

[Sheilbh]

It always amazes me when I read of the plans to open up a front against the Soviet Union, as if the Allies didn't already have enough on their plate.

I think a more accurate description at the time would have been the British Empire and Dominions, oh and that annoying Frenchmen with a few dozen followers.

I think a more accurate description would be the greatest man of the twentieth century and his people.