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.
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.
How would you hit it? Through Iran or Turkey? Neither would want war with the USSR and Germany at the same time.
It would have been glorious. The Allies and the Nazis joining up to crush Communism once and for all.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 24, 2009, 10:43:04 AM
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.
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.
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. :lol:
Quote from: Iormlund on April 24, 2009, 02:13:15 PM
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.
Quote from: Iormlund on April 24, 2009, 02:13:15 PM
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.
All sorts of plans are suggested, only some are adopted.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 24, 2009, 06:03:16 PM
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.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 24, 2009, 06:30:13 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 24, 2009, 06:03:16 PM
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.
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."
Quote from: Faeelin on April 24, 2009, 06:30:13 PM
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?
Quote from: mongers on April 24, 2009, 06:14:17 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 24, 2009, 02:16:04 PM
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. :lol:
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.
Quote from: mongers on April 24, 2009, 06:14:17 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 24, 2009, 02:16:04 PM
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. :lol:
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.
This was being planned before the fall of France. The French were the ones who were most enthusiastic about it, which is ironic considering how bad the French bomber force was, even compared to the British bombers of the time. It's been a while since I've read much about this, but IIRC the French bombers involved would have been F.222's. Look 'em up, and have a laugh.
And yeah, they would have based in Iraq and/or Syria and overflown Turkey and/or Iran. The attitude seems to be that if Turkey and Iran didn't give them permission to overfly their territory, the French and British would have done it anyway and then basically have told the Turks and Iranian, "To bad, whatcha gonna do 'bout it?"
Oh, and BTW, this wouldn't have been the Western Allies and the Nazis teaming up to take out the Commies; this would have been the British and French taking on both the Nazis and Soviets at the same time. Well, actually, the hope seemed to have been that the Allies would destroy Soveit oil production and the Soviets would just suck it up and say, "Oh, Ok" and not actually go to war over it. A lot of Allied strategy before the fall of France was pretty delusional.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 24, 2009, 09:39:40 PM
[I think a more accurate description would be the greatest man of the twentieth century and his people.
IMO, de Gaulle ranks with Princess Di as one of the most over-rated people of the 20th century.
Yeah, scary plans, delusional. Sheesh..
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 24, 2009, 09:39:40 PM
I think a more accurate description would be the greatest man of the twentieth century and his people.
DeGaulle is largely meh in the grand scheme of things. He was irrelevant during the Great Challenge of the Twentieth Century. He reorganized France, but other men had already done the work of starting France towards the European Enterprise.
Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2009, 10:03:31 PM
DeGaulle is largely meh in the grand scheme of things. He was irrelevant during the Great Challenge of the Twentieth Century. He reorganized France, but other men had already done the work of starting France towards the European Enterprise.
First he saved his nation's soul, and in so many ways, during the Second World War. Then, after the war and especially during Algeria, he saved his nation from herself. No-one in the 20th century has such achievements by their name.
I for one love DeGaulle. Somebody the left and the right can rally around, the romantic hero of his nation..
the very personification of france, eee..
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 24, 2009, 10:08:17 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2009, 10:03:31 PM
DeGaulle is largely meh in the grand scheme of things. He was irrelevant during the Great Challenge of the Twentieth Century. He reorganized France, but other men had already done the work of starting France towards the European Enterprise.
First he saved his nation's soul, and in so many ways, during the Second World War. Then, after the war and especially during Algeria, he saved his nation from herself. No-one in the 20th century has such achievements by their name.
Richard Nixon.
FDR.
Winston Churchill.
DeGaulle worked in one small country. You might as well say that some US state governor is the greatest man of the 20th century. The French soul was irrelevant during WWII, just as the French themselves were.
Neil, 'small' country seems to overstate it. France's population is fairly huge..
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 24, 2009, 10:08:17 PM
First he saved his nation's soul, and in so many ways, during the Second World War. Then, after the war and especially during Algeria, he saved his nation from herself. No-one in the 20th century has such achievements by their name.
Lech Walesa. :contract:
The man ended communism in Europe (and the USSR, if you don't think it is part of Europe).
But Walesa is DeGaulle's only competition in the 20C for single-handed feats.
Quote from: grumbler on April 24, 2009, 06:54:58 PM
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."
You think atomic weaponry changed this or not?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2009, 12:35:28 AM
You think atomic weaponry changed this or not?
Since there was no atomic weaponry in 1940, no.
Quote from: grumbler on April 25, 2009, 01:42:17 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2009, 12:35:28 AM
You think atomic weaponry changed this or not?
Since there was no atomic weaponry in 1940, no.
Gee thanks Grumbler. I respect your opinion and then you do this to me. :(
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 24, 2009, 06:03:16 PM
All sorts of plans are suggested, only some are adopted.
Madonna and Angelina. :contract:
Pre ww2 scales were just so weirdly different...
Strange period. The technology and so much was modern yet the thinking...still very 19th century. This is a very Napoleonic way of thinking only with bombers replacing warships.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 24, 2009, 10:08:17 PM
First he saved his nation's soul, and in so many ways, during the Second World War.
How, by fostering a myth of national resistance? Other occupied countries managed to do quite well without one.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 25, 2009, 07:58:11 PM
How, by fostering a myth of national resistance? Other occupied countries managed to do quite well without one.
Exactly by fostering a myth of
national resistance. That is that France never really surrendered. That was hugely important I think in the post-war relative weakness of the Communists. Given that they did most of the heavy lifting, of the resistance, I think it would have been very easy for them to have become the dominant party, as in Italy, or to have forced a civil war, as in Greece.
France, unlike most other occupied countries, didn't have a monarch as the embodiment of the nation. Monarchs are like a permanent national myth, Republics have to creat their own. De Gaulle did.
Other republics that were occupied tend not to come out of the war very well and I think de Gaulle managed to save France from that sort of turmoil by creating the useful myth that, though the Communists were useful, and so were the allies, France didn't need them because France had never failed.
'No! We will not hide this deep and sacred emotion. These are minutes which go beyond each of our poor lives. Paris! Outraged Paris! Broken Paris! Martyred Paris! But liberated Paris! Liberated by itself, liberated by its people with the help of the French armies, with the support and the help of all France, of the France that fights, of the only France, of the real France, of the eternal France! Well! Since the enemy which held Paris has capitulated into our hands, France returns to Paris, to her home. She returns bloody, but quite resolute.'
Trust the French to construct myths where they are courageous liberal anti-Fascist partisans instead of disinterested, ashamed intellectuals, totalitarian partisans or supplicant Vichy German-lovers while the Greeks, Yugos and Soviets do the actual work.
The East German resistance was superior. Especially Chocolate Mousse and Latrine.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 25, 2009, 08:38:00 PM
Trust the French to construct myths where they are courageous liberal anti-Fascist partisans instead of disinterested, ashamed intellectuals, totalitarian partisans or supplicant Vichy German-lovers while the Greeks, Yugos and Soviets do the actual work.
To be fair, the Germans were better than the assorted Easterners. If Hitler could have been counted on to countain his aggression to those lands, the world would have been a better place.
Quote from: Neil on April 25, 2009, 11:46:11 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 25, 2009, 08:38:00 PM
Trust the French to construct myths where they are courageous liberal anti-Fascist partisans instead of disinterested, ashamed intellectuals, totalitarian partisans or supplicant Vichy German-lovers while the Greeks, Yugos and Soviets do the actual work.
To be fair, the Germans were better than the assorted Easterners. If Hitler could have been counted on to countain his aggression to those lands, the world would have been a better place.
Eastern Jews?
Quote from: Queequeg on April 26, 2009, 12:06:56 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 25, 2009, 11:46:11 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 25, 2009, 08:38:00 PM
Trust the French to construct myths where they are courageous liberal anti-Fascist partisans instead of disinterested, ashamed intellectuals, totalitarian partisans or supplicant Vichy German-lovers while the Greeks, Yugos and Soviets do the actual work.
To be fair, the Germans were better than the assorted Easterners. If Hitler could have been counted on to countain his aggression to those lands, the world would have been a better place.
Eastern Jews?
The majority of them ended up being liquidated anyways. It wouldn't make that much of a difference. Besides, sometimes sacrifices have to be made for the good of all mankind.
Quote from: Tyr on April 25, 2009, 07:06:39 AM
Pre ww2 scales were just so weirdly different...
Strange period. The technology and so much was modern yet the thinking...still very 19th century. This is a very Napoleonic way of thinking only with bombers replacing warships.
Actually, in the case of the bomber pre-WW2, the thinking was very post-war. Read about what the politicians and military types thought would happen when bombers started raining destruction on the cities, and you will see very strong similarities to the "balance of terror" of the nuclear age. What gave Chamberlain pause at Munich was not that the BEF could only be two divisions, but that Britain's air defenses were thought too weak to prevent the utter destruction of British cities from the air.
So strong was the ingrained "knowledge" that "the bomber will always get through" that plans like the bombing of Baku with a dozen or so float bombers were not laughed off, but rather taken seriously. Even experience didn't demolish this faith.
It is ironic that, despite the evidence, the faith in strategic bombing didn't die out until the technology that justified it came along! :lol:
Quote from: Queequeg on April 26, 2009, 12:06:56 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 25, 2009, 11:46:11 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 25, 2009, 08:38:00 PM
Trust the French to construct myths where they are courageous liberal anti-Fascist partisans instead of disinterested, ashamed intellectuals, totalitarian partisans or supplicant Vichy German-lovers while the Greeks, Yugos and Soviets do the actual work.
To be fair, the Germans were better than the assorted Easterners. If Hitler could have been counted on to countain his aggression to those lands, the world would have been a better place.
Eastern Jews?
And Western Girls?
Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2009, 08:00:15 AM
Quote from: Tyr on April 25, 2009, 07:06:39 AM
Pre ww2 scales were just so weirdly different...
Strange period. The technology and so much was modern yet the thinking...still very 19th century. This is a very Napoleonic way of thinking only with bombers replacing warships.
Actually, in the case of the bomber pre-WW2, the thinking was very post-war. Read about what the politicians and military types thought would happen when bombers started raining destruction on the cities, and you will see very strong similarities to the "balance of terror" of the nuclear age. What gave Chamberlain pause at Munich was not that the BEF could only be two divisions, but that Britain's air defenses were thought too weak to prevent the utter destruction of British cities from the air.
So strong was the ingrained "knowledge" that "the bomber will always get through" that plans like the bombing of Baku with a dozen or so float bombers were not laughed off, but rather taken seriously. Even experience didn't demolish this faith.
It is ironic that, despite the evidence, the faith in strategic bombing didn't die out until the technology that justified it came along! :lol:
Yeah, I know that stuff. The Shape of Things to Come shows this oddly. I think this is a different situation though, not destroying Russia from the air, more of a strategic strike
Just dashing into Russia, destroying a few things then rushing home before tea time...very alien to the modern world (with two decently powerful nations anyway). Seems quite Nelson-esque to me.
Quote from: Tyr on April 26, 2009, 09:15:33 AM
Yeah, I know that stuff. The Shape of Things to Come shows this oddly. I think this is a different situation though, not destroying Russia from the air, more of a strategic strike
Just dashing into Russia, destroying a few things then rushing home before tea time...very alien to the modern world (with two decently powerful nations anyway). Seems quite Nelson-esque to me.
Actually, that's exactly what modern warfare is like, except that they're using bombers rather than cruise missiles.
Quote from: Tyr on April 26, 2009, 09:15:33 AM
Yeah, I know that stuff. The Shape of Things to Come shows this oddly. I think this is a different situation though, not destroying Russia from the air, more of a strategic strike
Just dashing into Russia, destroying a few things then rushing home before tea time...very alien to the modern world (with two decently powerful nations anyway). Seems quite Nelson-esque to me.
Seems more like Operation El Dorado Canyon (Libya, 1986), Operation Opera (Iraq, 1981), or Operation Infinite Reach :x: (Afghanistan and Sudan, 1998) to me. In other words, very modern indeed. I don't know of any time Nelson carried out a one-time attack on any nation with whom Britain was not at war, but am willing to be shown otherwise.
Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2009, 02:52:22 PM
Quote from: Tyr on April 26, 2009, 09:15:33 AM
Yeah, I know that stuff. The Shape of Things to Come shows this oddly. I think this is a different situation though, not destroying Russia from the air, more of a strategic strike
Just dashing into Russia, destroying a few things then rushing home before tea time...very alien to the modern world (with two decently powerful nations anyway). Seems quite Nelson-esque to me.
Seems more like Operation El Dorado Canyon (Libya, 1986), Operation Opera (Iraq, 1981), or Operation Infinite Reach :x: (Afghanistan and Sudan, 1998) to me. In other words, very modern indeed. I don't know of any time Nelson carried out a one-time attack on any nation with whom Britain was not at war, but am willing to be shown otherwise.
Was Britain at war with Denmark before Nelson took Copenhagen?
Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2009, 03:05:42 PM
Was Britain at war with Denmark before Nelson took Copenhagen?
You may be thinking of 1807, then Gambier and Wellesley took Copenhagen. Britain and Denmark were not at war at that point (though, obviously, were so thereafter).
In 1801, Britain and the "League of Armed Neutrality" had exchanged ultimata, so effectively they were at war when Nelson attacked the Danish fleet (but didn't take the city).
Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2009, 08:31:07 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2009, 03:05:42 PM
Was Britain at war with Denmark before Nelson took Copenhagen?
You may be thinking of 1807, then Gambier and Wellesley took Copenhagen. Britain and Denmark were not at war at that point (though, obviously, were so thereafter).
In 1801, Britain and the "League of Armed Neutrality" had exchanged ultimata, so effectively they were at war when Nelson attacked the Danish fleet (but didn't take the city).
I was actually thinking of 1801, but was sloppy with my terminology (using 'taken' in place of 'fought a battle at and exerted control over'). In retrospect, given 1807, I should have been more precise.