Page 1 of 2

Any evidence Stalin would have allowed UK/USA units in USSR?

Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 7:31 pm
by rkr1958
I would like to hear from the the WW-II "historians" among us on the following question(s).

Is there any historical evidence that would support the premise that Stalin would have allowed corps size combat troops from the UK or USA to operate within the Soviet Union?

If yes or no, what is that evidence?

And if yes, under what conditions do you believe Stalin would have allowed this?

RE: Any evidence Stalin would have allowed UK/USA units in USSR?

Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 7:32 pm
by rkr1958
ORIGINAL: rkr1958

I would like to hear from the the WW-II "historians" among us on the following question(s).

Is there any historical evidence that would support the premise that Stalin would have allowed corps size combat troops from the UK or USA to operate within the Soviet Union?

If yes or no, what is that evidence?

And if yes, under what conditions do you believe Stalin would have allowed this?
I'll also go first ... so fire away if you disagree. [:)]

My opinion is based on Stalin's paranoia over holding power as supported by the following two historical points.

1. The purge of the Red Army in the 1930's in which 90% of its general officers and 60% of its colonels were done away with.

2. The fact that Stalin ordered the Red Army to stand down and allowed the Nazi's time to crush the pro-western partisans during the Warsaw uprising in August of 1944.

Edited -- to post my opinion and not restate my question as I accidentally did.

RE: Any evidence Stalin would have allowed UK/USA units in USSR?

Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 8:43 pm
by Shannon V. OKeets
ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

I would like to hear from the the WW-II "historians" among us on the following question(s).

Is there any historical evidence that would support the premise that Stalin would have allowed corps size combat troops from the UK or USA to operate within the Soviet Union?

If yes or no, what is that evidence?

And if yes, under what conditions do you believe Stalin would have allowed this?
I'll also go first ... so fire away if you disagree. [:)]

I would like to hear from the the WW-II "historians" among us on the following question(s).

Is there any historical evidence that would support the premise that Stalin would have allowed corps size combat troops from the UK or USA to operate within the Soviet Union?

If yes or no, what is that evidence?

And if yes, under what conditions do you believe Stalin would have allowed this?
I seriously doubt that Stalin would have. Both the Commonwealth and the USA had a lot of troops in the USSR after WW I and they fought (more or less) on the side of the White Russians. That is, the fought against Stalin and the Red Russians.

RE: Any evidence Stalin would have allowed UK/USA units in USSR?

Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 8:45 pm
by Tylom


We at least know that sailors in the North Sea convoy routes were allowed off-ship. Military personnel were accepted as such and given "liberty" of the city. We also know that the Brits had agents in St. Pete(Leningrad)...One has got to guess that Uncle Joe was informed to some extent.
I would guess that Stalin would happily use allied troops, especially should the north ports be threatened. However, I don't know of any time the US/UK saw action on Soviet soil. My bet is that it's possible, but probably never happened.

RE: Any evidence Stalin would have allowed UK/USA units in USSR?

Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:34 am
by warspite1
I think that if the situation was desperate enough then Uncle Joe would have accepted troops on Soviet soil; but the situation would have needed to be really desperate, because of Stalin's paranoia. The treatment of Allied sailors on the Arctic convoys is proof of that.

The only exception I know of is the RAF which did have a unit based in Murmansk for a couple of months. IIRC this unit was sent over to train Soviet pilots on the Hawker Hurricane, but also flew combat missions themselves - and had an impressive kill record.

However, this is the only foreign unit (Polish excepted - which was a different kettle of fish) I know of on Soviet soil in WWII, and is a long way from being a corps sized army unit.

RE: Any evidence Stalin would have allowed UK/USA units in USSR?

Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:50 am
by elxaime
I would not be so sure. There is some anecdotal evidence that the Soviet Union suggested it would be open to Allied ground assistance during the most dire period of Summer/Fall 1941-2. However the fact of the matter is that, aside from perhaps that brief period, it was not a real possibility. The British Empire was in no position to send troops anywhere in Russia and the USA likewise had its hands full after December 1941.

We need to remember that politics makes strange bedfellows. Prior to it actually happening, few would have predicted the Soviet-Nazi Pact of 1939. Likewise, the idea of massive US supplies being sent to the Soviets would have appeared ludicrous until the circumstances arose and it actually happened.

With our historical hindsight, we tend to discount various actions as being beyond the realm of possibility . But the better approach is to try and put yourselves in the shoes of the decision makers at the time. If the circumstances provided for the possibility, and the political cost-benefit analysis played out, it could have happened.

I see three elements to consider. First, remember that Hitler's Regime was waging what was essentially a genocidal war against the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was to be vaporized and replaced by the Third Reich's vision of a new "Ostland" with local populations replaced by German settlers and surviving Slavs either enslaved or relegated to east of the Urals. There was precious little room to negotiate - it was a war to the death. If the choice was between going under the Nazi boot and accepting whatever help was available in whatever form, can we truly say Stalin would have balked? Second, there is historical precedent for the Soviets doing whatever it took to "save the Revolution", namely Lenin's Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that took Russia out of WW1. That treaty, temporarily as it turned out due to Germany's subsequent defeat, gave the Kaiser a huge chunk of land, indemnities, etc. Third, we need to avoid having our lenses, as it were, colored by later Cold War views. At the time in 1941-1945, feelings toward the Soviet Union as an ally, and especially feelings toward the Soviet people, were much, much warmer in the US and Britain. The Red Army was viewed heroically for its victory at Stalingrad. There was real Soviet relief and gratitude at the establishment of the Second Front in Normandy in June 1944.

World diplomatic history is full of some amazing volte-faces and strange alliances of convenience. Our own US history started with one such, the assistance, including troops and ships, of the absolute French Monarchy fighting alongside the new revolution against the British during 1778-1783. It would be a mistake to view Soviet-Western relations during WW2 as so predetermined by ideological views as to preclude such possibilities.

RE: Any evidence Stalin would have allowed UK/USA units in USSR?

Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 6:12 am
by Shannon V. OKeets
ORIGINAL: elxaime

I would not be so sure. There is some anecdotal evidence that the Soviet Union suggested it would be open to Allied ground assistance during the most dire period of Summer/Fall 1941-2. However the fact of the matter is that, aside from perhaps that brief period, it was not a real possibility. The British Empire was in no position to send troops anywhere in Russia and the USA likewise had its hands full after December 1941.

We need to remember that politics makes strange bedfellows. Prior to it actually happening, few would have predicted the Soviet-Nazi Pact of 1939. Likewise, the idea of massive US supplies being sent to the Soviets would have appeared ludicrous until the circumstances arose and it actually happened.

With our historical hindsight, we tend to discount various actions as being beyond the realm of possibility . But the better approach is to try and put yourselves in the shoes of the decision makers at the time. If the circumstances provided for the possibility, and the political cost-benefit analysis played out, it could have happened.

I see three elements to consider. First, remember that Hitler's Regime was waging what was essentially a genocidal war against the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was to be vaporized and replaced by the Third Reich's vision of a new "Ostland" with local populations replaced by German settlers and surviving Slavs either enslaved or relegated to east of the Urals. There was precious little room to negotiate - it was a war to the death. If the choice was between going under the Nazi boot and accepting whatever help was available in whatever form, can we truly say Stalin would have balked? Second, there is historical precedent for the Soviets doing whatever it took to "save the Revolution", namely Lenin's Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that took Russia out of WW1. That treaty, temporarily as it turned out due to Germany's subsequent defeat, gave the Kaiser a huge chunk of land, indemnities, etc. Third, we need to avoid having our lenses, as it were, colored by later Cold War views. At the time in 1941-1945, feelings toward the Soviet Union as an ally, and especially feelings toward the Soviet people, were much, much warmer in the US and Britain. The Red Army was viewed heroically for its victory at Stalingrad. There was real Soviet relief and gratitude at the establishment of the Second Front in Normandy in June 1944.

World diplomatic history is full of some amazing volte-faces and strange alliances of convenience. Our own US history started with one such, the assistance, including troops and ships, of the absolute French Monarchy fighting alongside the new revolution against the British during 1778-1783. It would be a mistake to view Soviet-Western relations during WW2 as so predetermined by ideological views as to preclude such possibilities.
Very true.

But there were US troops up by Archangel that got driven out by the Soviets in the 1920's. And there were Commonwealth units down in the Crimea if my memory serves me correctly. The Red Army fought a desperate battle against the White Army and a host of other countries (US, Commonwealth, Japan) while simultaneously keeping down nationalist uprisings in Belo-Rus, Ukraine, and the Baltic States. There were even Hungarians conducting a fighting retreat eastwards across Siberia (they eventually exited through the Pacific and circumnavigated the globe to get back to Hungary). That all took place in the 1920's when Stalin and the members of his Politobureau (sp?) were out in the front lines fighting. Those experiences were undoubtedly be hard for Stallin and his comrades to forget easily.

RE: Any evidence Stalin would have allowed UK/USA units in USSR?

Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 6:53 am
by HansHafen
Actually the second and third fronts were the air war over western Europe and the Med Front, both English out of Egypt and USA out of Algeria etc. So, June 44 was really like the fourth front. And fronts two and three pulled away a significant amount of units from the eastern front.

RE: Any evidence Stalin would have allowed UK/USA units in USSR?

Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:46 am
by composer99
I understand a Free French air squadron, the Group de Chasse GC3, also served in the Soviet Union during the war.

RE: Any evidence Stalin would have allowed UK/USA units in USSR?

Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 5:33 pm
by Centuur
I remember reading a book sometime where a visit by Molotov to London was mentioned during which Churchill did offer an Expeditionary force of about 10 divisions to be send to Russia in 1941. Molotov declined the offer by stating that those divisions could be better used to create a second front in Europe.
However, the Russians still don't give a lot of information on how they managed things during the war...
 

RE: Any evidence Stalin would have allowed UK/USA units in USSR?

Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 8:20 pm
by SirWhiskers
ORIGINAL: rkr1958

I would like to hear from the the WW-II "historians" among us on the following question(s).

Is there any historical evidence that would support the premise that Stalin would have allowed corps size combat troops from the UK or USA to operate within the Soviet Union?

If yes or no, what is that evidence?

And if yes, under what conditions do you believe Stalin would have allowed this?

A World at Arms by Gerhard Weinberg, page 290: "This concern was exacerbated in the fall of 1941 by the great difficulties in allocating already scarce supplies to Russia and the inability to respond to Stalin's appeal for either a massive invasion of Western Europe or the sending of 25-30 divisions to fight alongside the Red Army on the Eastern Front. [emphasis mine] Since the Soviet leader presumably knew that these divisions did not exist - and could not get there if they did - his demand must be understood as a measure both of his desperation in the face of the German onslaught and his desire to pressure the British into doing something." [emphasis in original]

End Notes for this passage, note 90, page 1011: Beaumont, Comrades in Arms, pp. 50-52; Woodward, British Foreign Policy, 2: chap 20, Gilbert, Churchill, 6: chap. 62.

If one accepts Weinberg's scholarship, it appears that there was a request from Stalin for British troops, but that the request was not intended to be met.

Also, based on evidence in other books, it seems highly unlikely that Stalin would have allowed foreign troops on his soil. In Absolute War, Chris Bellamy cites numerous examples of the NKVD following all foreign nationals and any Soviet citizens with whom they interacted. The assumption was that they were all spies, or at best, subversives.

RE: Any evidence Stalin would have allowed UK/USA units in USSR?

Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 8:59 pm
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: composer99

I understand a Free French air squadron, the Group de Chasse GC3, also served in the Soviet Union during the war.
Warspite1

Tell us more please: where, when?

RE: Any evidence Stalin would have allowed UK/USA units in USSR?

Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:57 pm
by composer99
My online source is Wikipedia.

Wikipedia refers to three books and one article as references:
- Normandie Niemen, Yves Courrière, Omnibus, 2004 ISBN 2-258-06171-7
- Un du Normandie-Niemen, Roger Sauvage, Poche, 1971 ISBN B0000DOP3V
- French Eagles Soviet Heroes, John D. Clark, Sutton, 2005 ISBN 0-7509-4074-3
- Bernole & Barnett, "French Aces on the Eastern Front", WWII Quarterly, Fall 2011, pp. 16-25, 94

Wikipedia also links to the following more-or-less official online sources:
- What appears to be http://normandieniemen.free.fr/ for the official musuem/exhibit dedicated to the group.

RE: Any evidence Stalin would have allowed UK/USA units in USSR?

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:46 am
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: composer99

My online source is Wikipedia.

Wikipedia refers to three books and one article as references:
- Normandie Niemen, Yves Courrière, Omnibus, 2004 ISBN 2-258-06171-7
- Un du Normandie-Niemen, Roger Sauvage, Poche, 1971 ISBN B0000DOP3V
- French Eagles Soviet Heroes, John D. Clark, Sutton, 2005 ISBN 0-7509-4074-3
- Bernole & Barnett, "French Aces on the Eastern Front", WWII Quarterly, Fall 2011, pp. 16-25, 94

Wikipedia also links to the following more-or-less official online sources:
- What appears to be http://normandieniemen.free.fr/ for the official musuem/exhibit dedicated to the group.
Warspite1

Interesting stuff, thank-you.

RE: Any evidence Stalin would have allowed UK/USA units in USSR?

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:35 am
by rkr1958
Below is an interesting reference (given to me by someone else) on why Stalin might be sour on US combat intervention in Russia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Bear_Expedition
The Polar Bear Expedition (also known as the Northern Russian Expedition, the American North Russia Expeditionary Force - ANREF or the American Expeditionary Force North Russia - AEFNR) was a contingent of about 5,000 U.S. troops[1] that landed in Arkhangelsk, Russia as part of the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War and fought the Red Army in the surrounding region during the period of September 1918 through July 1919.

RE: Any evidence Stalin would have allowed UK/USA units in USSR?

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:43 pm
by rkr1958
ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Below is an interesting reference (given to me by someone else) on why Stalin might be sour on US combat intervention in Russia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Bear_Expedition
The Polar Bear Expedition (also known as the Northern Russian Expedition, the American North Russia Expeditionary Force - ANREF or the American Expeditionary Force North Russia - AEFNR) was a contingent of about 5,000 U.S. troops[1] that landed in Arkhangelsk, Russia as part of the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War and fought the Red Army in the surrounding region during the period of September 1918 through July 1919.
Another interesting reference on the Polar Bear Expedition -

http://polarbears.si.umich.edu/index.pl ... %20history
The American military intervention at Archangel, Russia, at the end of World War I, nicknamed the "Polar Bear Expedition," is a strange episode in American history. Ostensibly sent to Russia to prevent a German advance and to help reopen the Eastern Front, American soldiers found themselves fighting Bolshevik revolutionaries for months after the Armistice ended fighting in France.

RE: Any evidence Stalin would have allowed UK/USA units in USSR?

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:48 pm
by Shannon V. OKeets
ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Below is an interesting reference (given to me by someone else) on why Stalin might be sour on US combat intervention in Russia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Bear_Expedition
The Polar Bear Expedition (also known as the Northern Russian Expedition, the American North Russia Expeditionary Force - ANREF or the American Expeditionary Force North Russia - AEFNR) was a contingent of about 5,000 U.S. troops[1] that landed in Arkhangelsk, Russia as part of the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War and fought the Red Army in the surrounding region during the period of September 1918 through July 1919.
Thanks.[&o]

I had it wrong, it wasn't the Hungarians - it was the Czechs - that held the Trans-Siberian railroad and eventually departed the USSR via the Pacific to take the long way home after WW I was over.

EDIT: There was an old SPI game on the Russian Civil War that covers all of this. A very good board game I might add.

RE: Any evidence Stalin would have allowed UK/USA units in USSR?

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2011 8:56 pm
by elxaime
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
But there were US troops up by Archangel that got driven out by the Soviets in the 1920's. And there were Commonwealth units down in the Crimea if my memory serves me correctly. The Red Army fought a desperate battle against the White Army and a host of other countries (US, Commonwealth, Japan) while simultaneously keeping down nationalist uprisings in Belo-Rus, Ukraine, and the Baltic States. There were even Hungarians conducting a fighting retreat eastwards across Siberia (they eventually exited through the Pacific and circumnavigated the globe to get back to Hungary). That all took place in the 1920's when Stalin and the members of his Politobureau (sp?) were out in the front lines fighting. Those experiences were undoubtedly be hard for Stallin and his comrades to forget easily.

Yes, there certainly were tensions between the Soviets and other countries. But I return to my original point. Germany waged war on the infant Revolution in 1918 and helped Finland and the Baltic States get their independence. But that didn't prevent close collaboration with the Soviet Communists post-Versailles Treaty, to the extent where German weapons and techniques were tested on Soviet soil in the 1920's and 1930's. To use another example, we tend to think of the Anglo-French alliances in WW1 and WW2 as natural and inevitable. However, historical accounts among the officers who landed in France with the BEF in 1914 admitted to attitudes where "we would just as soon fight the French as the Germans." France was the historic enemy turned ally.

If push came to shove, I don't think we can discount Allied cooperation on an even deeper level than occurred. One does not make alliances based on whether one likes the ally or not - they are based on cold-eyed political interests and no interest is more dire than a life and death struggle.

The old Avalon Hill Third Reich, and many similar strategic scale European Theater WW2 games, usually have a rule not allowing Western-Soviet cooperation past a certain point. I think these rules reflect hindsight and also play a game balancing purpose. But I don't consider them predictive of what might have happened if historical circumstances had been different.

RE: Any evidence Stalin would have allowed UK/USA units in USSR?

Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:13 pm
by Minority Report
There was also a Canadian contingent in 1918-1919 in Vladivostock.

See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_S ... nary_Force

I am sure for the Soviets who had memory of this event, British or Canadian it is the same thing: not welcomed.

RE: Any evidence Stalin would have allowed UK/USA units in USSR?

Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 11:08 am
by Extraneous
After the “Doolittle Raid April 18, 1942” Capt. Edward J. York had his plane and crew interned at Primorsky Krai, Siberia.

So I don’t believe Stalin would have allowed Corps size units to operate in the U.S.S.R.