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?

Lord Fairfax

Ad Honorem
Jan 2015
3,445
Changing trains at Terrapin Station...
.
Churchill may have had brain storms about defending the Caucasus oil fields at some point, but there were only 4 - 5 Commonwealth divisions in the Middle East and Persia-Iraq in 1942 and wiser heads would have prevailed.
There are indeed 10-12 Empire divisions, though obviously not all available.

In his memoirs Churchill discusses plans for moving British/Commonwealth forces from Persia north into the USSR, especially in the summer and fall of '42 when the Germans were approaching the Caucuses. It almost reads like there were at least a dozen, maybe more, British/Commonwealth divisions garrisoning the Middle East. I'm hard pressed to believe the British had that many divisions just sitting around idle at that phase of the war.
By the winter of 1941/42 the British have 50 Indian brigades, though the last 14 (37--50th) are still in training.
With about 10 deployed in Africa and 15 in the far East, the British theoretically have 3-4 Indian divisions, 2 British divisions (2nd & 5th) plus 2 Australian divisions, with another 4-5 Indian divisions still training .

Obviously Operation Ironclad (Invasion of Madagascar ) in May 42 and the deteriorating situation in the Far East used up the British reserves.

Churchill's plan would likely have been to put two - three Corps to hold tne Caucusus, which would also relieve the Soviets from using troops to garrison it.
Had the Soviets collapsed, the British/Indian troops would prevent the Axis from advancing south into Persia
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Nov 2019
199
United States
The difference between Stalin and Hitler were few Stalin would tell a general he didn't like that it was time to kill himself or his family would die a cruel death in the Gulags, whereas Hitler would simply humiliate him publicly and then suggest poison or retirement. The SS were dispicable in every way, the GRU would send groups behind troops and mow them down if the troops withdrew. Hitler killed millions for the pure pleasure of murder, Stalin would kill millions because they disagreed with him in any way, or simply because he imagined they might.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

At Each Kilometer

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
4,050
Bulgaria
The difference between Stalin and Hitler were few Stalin would tell a general he didn't like that it was time to kill himself or his family would die a cruel death in the Gulags, whereas Hitler would simply humiliate him publicly and then suggest poison or retirement. The SS were dispicable in every way, the GRU would send groups behind troops and mow them down if the troops withdrew. Hitler killed millions for the pure pleasure of murder, Stalin would kill millions because they disagreed with him in any way, or simply because he imagined they might.
GRU was the Soviet military intelligence, a unit in the Soviet army.

NKVD was the Soviet equivalent of SS. NKVD were on every battlefield and were the most elite troops of the Soviet army. NKVD units being the most loyal to the state were used as blocking troops to prevent normal red army units from retreating or deserting, though they also fought Germans for example 10th NKVD Division lost 90% of its personnel at Stalingrad.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
May 2011
519
UK
It's arguable that this would have been a hindrance to the Red army rather than provide any real help. The Red army relied on cohesion and the ability of it's units to carry out tasks without much fuss. A contingent from the west would have been unwieldy, useless, politically dangerous and would probably have just got in the way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Nov 2019
11
The Arctic
Imagine British, Commonwealth and American troops ordered into the breach in battles like Operation Mars etc. Ideology aside you could not see FDR and Churchill happy with this. The Soviets in any case, luckily weren't short of manpower.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Apr 2017
1,678
U.S.A.
Probably not since the Allies were uninterested in actually creating anti-Communist states in Eastern Europe like the Polish Resistance was.
You miss the point, Stalin would want to eliminate forces not in his control. Additionally actually the west did want to create non-communist states in eastern Europe. Stalin agreed to have shared (varied by country) influence in all the eastern European countries, something he obviously reneged on. That's why he allowed the Poles to be crushed, to destroy any rival to the polish communists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Nov 2019
199
United States
The strange thing about this conversation is that if Hitler and his syncophants hadn't been barbarous thugs bent on murder, genocide, and plunder, the people of the Ukraine would probably have joined him in destroying the hated Stalinists.

Interestingly enough today is Remembrance Day for the Holodomor, something Ukranians still today struggle to make nations conscious of.
Excerpted from Congressional testimony presented by Robert Conquest before the United States Ukraine Famine Commission in Washington, D.C. on October 8, 1986.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist