Did the Anglo-Americans ever consider sending a lot of their own troops to the USSR to help the Soviets fight the Nazis in WWII?

May 2018
928
Michigan
Yes, but was a second front actually feasible before 1944? I mean, it would have been much, much better if the Allies would have been able to permanently hold onto a part of France in 1940 and to then use it as a base of operations to liberate the rest of France.
The conventional wisdom seems to be that a second front wasn't really feasible before 1944. Given American/allied performance, and the massive difficulties even with Air Supremacy and near absolute Sea Control, I am not inclined to disbelieve the conventional wisdom.

IIRC, the defeat of France in six? weeks was a surprise to everyone. They beat France faster than in the 1870 war and faster than Austria in the 1866 war. I think the Allies (and even Stalin) were planning on France being in the war a lot longer, to the point of being able to land troops in France without opposition and hit Germany.

The more I think about it, the less useful Allied troops would be to Stalin on his own soil: did he really want a bunch of capitalist troops guarding Moscow? How would FDR respond to Stalin if he offered a Soviet Army Corps to "protect Washington, D.C. (or more likely, some important landholding in the Pacific) from attack"? The last thing he needed was another Russian Civil War, instigated by the "Allies" (intentionally or not!): how would Russian whites (closeted or no) react to a bunch of "White-Friendly" (do not take that in the wrong way!) troops on Soviet soil?

Far better for the Western Allies to send their troops into the grinder on a second front. For Stalin to consider allowing a "strategically significant amount of Western troops" to protect Soviet interests from the Nazis, things would have to be even more dire than they were, probably to the point of Stalin being ousted from power and a Western friendly government requesting assistance.

Edit: And for the Western Allies, it was probably better that the Soviet Union lose huge amounts of manpower fighting Germany than...for Western powers to lose that same manpower fighting Germany. Unless FDR or Churchill truly wanted to attempt some sort of military takeover of the Soviet Union, having Western troops in the USSR would be a huge liability: Who would command them? Who would supply them? Did Stalin have direct command, or would his orders have to pass through Winston Churchill or FDR first? I can't imagine Churchill or FDR allowing their nations soldiers to be under the command of Soviet officers, given how bloody-minded their tactics were (even if they showed greater finesse at higher strategic levels).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Apr 2017
1,678
U.S.A.
Worth mentioning is how Stalin responded to the Polish uprising in 44, he stood by and watched as the germans crushed them. May have done something similar to allied troops fighting in the Soviet Union.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

At Each Kilometer

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
4,050
Bulgaria
The only allied troops that fought in Soviet Russia belonged to Entente expeditionary forces and it happened right after WWI during the Russian civil war / They fought against the Soviets two decades before Barbarossa.
 

Lee-Sensei

Ad Honorem
Aug 2012
2,122
Yes, but was a second front actually feasible before 1944? I mean, it would have been much, much better if the Allies would have been able to permanently hold onto a part of France in 1940 and to then use it as a base of operations to liberate the rest of France.
A successful one? Probably not. It took a while to gather the resources and equipment for Overlord. Besides that, they needed to prepare their troops, plan the operation and the Germans were still relatively strong in 1943. They might have been thrown off the continent. Politically, it was also smart of them to let the Soviet Union do a lot of the fighting, since the Soviet Union would be the main enemy after the defeat of the Axis Powers. The industrial strength of the Brits and especially the Americans, along with their access to natural resources and the fact that they were separated from the main theatres of the war in Europe and the Pacific gave them a lot more freedom than the Germans, the Russians, the French, the Italians and the Japanese.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Lee-Sensei

Ad Honorem
Aug 2012
2,122
Hitler certainly didn't always make good decisions. For instance, he alienated Jews who might have otherwise been willing to support him by discriminating against them, engaging in brutality against them, and subsequently sending them to concentration camps or death camps.
Yup. There was a scientific exodus in Ger,any when Hitler came to power and it happened in other fascist state that implemented anti-se metic laws under their influence. Fritz Haber was a Jew, but he loved Germany and gladly contributed to their war effort in WW1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Nov 2019
199
United States
As anyone here who might understand Stalin and his machinations could easily guess, he would not have wanted American soldiers under any circumstances. The first is that he wanted the conflict to end with him viewed as the conqueror, with his troops. He did so that his hegemony over those nations he conquered would be confirmed, which is exactly what happened. The second reason was that the socialization between Americans and Soviets would be considered "anti-Soviet", just check out what happened to virtually every Soviet soldier who fought in Spain during the Spanish Civil War.

Keep in mind that Stalin signed the non-aggression Pact with Hitler so that they could split the spoils of Poland before both invaded in'1939.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,750
SoCal
Worth mentioning is how Stalin responded to the Polish uprising in 44, he stood by and watched as the germans crushed them. May have done something similar to allied troops fighting in the Soviet Union.
Probably not since the Allies were uninterested in actually creating anti-Communist states in Eastern Europe like the Polish Resistance was.
 
Nov 2019
199
United States
Probably not since the Allies were uninterested in actually creating anti-Communist states in Eastern Europe like the Polish Resistance was.
I think Churchill and Eisenhower would argue that. Churchill was undercut by Roosevelt's slavish trust in Stalin. Might Roosevelt have been the most naive president ever?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,750
SoCal
I think Churchill and Eisenhower would argue that.
True, but Allied forces in Eastern Europe probably wouldn't be in much of a position to stop Stalin.

Churchill was undercut by Roosevelt's slavish trust in Stalin. Might Roosevelt have been the most naive president ever?
Roosevelt knew that having the US enter WWII at all was a huge challenge for him as it was and thus probably felt that it was best for someone else to do the lion's share of the bleeding in this war.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,750
SoCal
As anyone here who might understand Stalin and his machinations could easily guess, he would not have wanted American soldiers under any circumstances. The first is that he wanted the conflict to end with him viewed as the conqueror, with his troops. He did so that his hegemony over those nations he conquered would be confirmed, which is exactly what happened. The second reason was that the socialization between Americans and Soviets would be considered "anti-Soviet", just check out what happened to virtually every Soviet soldier who fought in Spain during the Spanish Civil War.

Keep in mind that Stalin signed the non-aggression Pact with Hitler so that they could split the spoils of Poland before both invaded in'1939.
Soviet soldiers who fought in Spain were summarily executed after they returned to the USSR?