Operation Barbarossa - the UK is neutral and Japan attacks Siberia

Which concluded that 360000+ poorly trained men, some 50+ aged
some former prisoners already exhausted by gulag, with refitted
training riffles with very limited supplies, guarded soviet Far East
for almost two years.

Even these are spread over a huge area on the Machurian border.

 

Not at all. Britain was not contractually bound to help the Soviet Union as she was to Poland.

Geneva convention

 

You do know what the Geneva Convention is dont you?

• First Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 1864
• Second Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 1906
• Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 1929

Britain had no contractual binding to the Soviet Unions defence.
In fact Britain nearly went to war with the Soviet Union in late 1940.

 

Many Soviet troops in 1941- 42 were poorly trained. One can argue that the best were killed or captured in the first 8 months...

I would, however; like to see the source that shows the Red Army troops guarding the east as being over 50yrs.

 

???? Looks like we have another problem with definitioins. I don't see that that thread reached any such conclusion. We have one quote from a forum member that states that. There are also official numbers which state rather the oppositie. The thread goes on discussing things well past that post. So no it doesn't conclude that at all and in fact it's obviously rather debateable.

Just like the Japanese forces must be or suffer pontentially severe problems from Red Army spoiling attacks.

 

??? Why do you think so?
A minor clash in the Far East that was likey over with before much about it was known would hardly be of much concern to the British would it? Now a major war between Germany and the USSR is going to be of critical interest to the British. Of course it's not at all clear how this situation would come about in the first place which I think was Sloniksp's point and a very good one it is.

 

No the Japanese attack plan concentrated its forces on the Maritime Province.

 

Baldwin and Chamberlain both said they would not intervene in a German v Soviet war.

 

Well you can work it out yourself just by looking at the figures of troops moved west, recruited etc as was done in the thread posted.
Then you will get a good picture of Soviet troop strength.

 

Not a very friendly post BE. Since you seem so to be so familiar with the Geneva Convention, show me where Japan or the Soviet Union signed it??

The conflict in the East between the 2 nations was regional and ended quite quickly. Unlike Poland, there was never any pledge to help either one of the nations if attacked.

Britain was far from war with the Soviet Union and the reason was Germany. All of Britains efforts went into the German dilemma. Britain pledged to help Poland in case Germany attacked. A treaty between Japan, Italy and Germany showed all who stood with who.... Britain stood with Russia because it was clear who the bad guys were...

 

Neither of these two were in power by 1941. What did Churchill say?

 

The Geneva Convention has nothing to do with the UK defending the borders of the USSR.

Nor was there a pledge to help the USSR.

The USSR also invaded Poland.
In December 1940 Britain had the USSR kicked out the League of Nations.
135,000 British and French troops were ready to be dispatched to Finland in March 1940.
If Finland had not signed a peace treaty they would have been and Britain and France would have been at war with the USSR.
The Allies also planned to bomb the Baku oilfields from Iraq.

Franco-British plans for intervention in the Winter War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

This is a neutral Britain thread so Churchill would not be in power.
If Britain stayed neutral in 1939 it would be Chamberlain Prime Minister until summer 1940 before most likely being replaced by Sam Hoare.
Or if Britain as the thread states goes neutral in the summer of 1940 it would be through Halifax becoming PM rather than Churchill.

 

You are clearly missing the point. GB and France declared war on Germany after it attacked Poland (a nation which both had pledged to help. After Germany conquered Western Europe it invaded another country, the Soviet Union. GB quickly pledged support.

Regardless of GB and French intentions, they would have never gone to war with both Germany and the Soviet Union.

 

Apart from the fact they nearly did and only the Finnish peace treaty prevented it.
The USSR at this point was pretty much a German ally supplying it with everything it needed to engage in war with the British Empire.

 

Now if Britain is neutral in 1941 they wont be jumping in to save the USSR.

 

I still fail to see how GB is neutral.

Some may argue that it was Barbarossa that saved Britain....

 

That may be but if they concentrate their entire force there a Soviet spoiling attack could succeed elsewhere. Again given their intel the Soviets are likely to be able to concentrate in front of any Japanese attack as well.

Or not. That's simply speculation on your part and would depend a lot on what had happened and how it was viewed in Britain. For instance if they didn't offer the guarantees to Poland and the Germans and Soviets split it as they did historically wouldn't this still discredit Chamberlain in many eyes?

Jumping in? Perhaps not but it's certainly not in Britains interest to see Germany win so if that looks likely the British are almost sure to offer some aid. France might as well.

 

350,000 men over a very large area is not likely to be enough.
The Maritime Province would fall but I doubt the Japanese would meet with much success in their planned attacked to Lake Baikal.
They lack the serious armour for that.

He would be to some extent but if he resigns in September 1939 or when his health declines in the summer of the next year Britain will still be neutral.

That would risk war.
The Germans dominating European Russia will keep them occupied for several decades so they are unlikely to be a threat elsewhere even after a victory over the USSR.
Britain should be more concerned about Japan and Italy as many in the foreign office were at the time.

 

It was no German ally,and ,what it was supplying,was irrelevant .