Communist expansion without WW2

[shillinger]

The basic premise is that the nazis dont come to power and the Weimar Republic survives, thus preventing WW2.

How would Communism spread (if at all) in the years and decades following 1930.?

And on a related subject, how would the Soviet Union expand (if at all) in such a scenario?

NOTE: I dont take Red Alert as an accurate display of Soviet politics in a world without WW2. So please dont assume I started this tread because of it.

[couldawouldashoulda]

when you say that the nazis don't come to power, is that because german communists did? or is the premise that neither did? A communist germany would be a pretty substantial ally for the USSR and quite possibly an incentive for Stalin to expand into Europe. He might indeed "red alert" europe. Other than that though, there's a couple routes of course. stalinist, or antistalinist revolution. stalinist or antistalinist electoral victories. the great depression left voids in many countries that communists had a shot of filling. A USSR - Germany - USA communist alliance has quite a shot at expanding communism against the UK, France, and everyone else.

Without a world war between the Great Depression and the formation of the UN, Bretton-Woods, NATO, etc communism probably would've expanded violently ("red alert" style) lead by the USSR, but that could've also backfired depending on Stalin's decisions and who his allies were. Electorally speaking, I'm not sure communism would've been "allowed" to win over that many parliaments (and a congress). Though maybe a few.

[shillinger]

Originally Posted by couldawouldashoulda

when you say that the nazis don't come to power, is that because german communists did? or is the premise that neither did? A communist germany would be a pretty substantial ally for the USSR and quite possibly an incentive for Stalin to expand into Europe. He might indeed "red alert" europe. Other than that though, there's a couple routes of course. stalinist, or antistalinist revolution. stalinist or antistalinist electoral victories. the great depression left voids in many countries that communists had a shot of filling. A USSR - Germany - USA communist alliance has quite a shot at expanding communism against the UK, France, and everyone else.

Read this:

the Weimar Republic survives

I believe that its clear enough the Communists dont come to power.

[Blue Max]

My thought would be that Stalin would kill communism without WW2.

The extreme human cost of the Soviet Union was historically justified by the second world war. No dramatic invasion of the country and no attempt to kill the Russian people and suddenly it becomes very hard for Stalin to be viewed as a good leader.

There will be more purges without WW2. Stalin will keep on purging people for a decade he didn't in OTL--and this will leave the country in sorry shape for whoever succeeds him. Forced Industrialization was important when Germany was threatening to extinct the Russian people, but without that threat, it is an unacceptable butchering of what would probably be well in excess of fifteen million people.

Does Stalin get assassinated, as he may have in OTL? Maybe, but even if he does, the Soviet Union is on its way out. True, a utterly merciless secret police will run the country.

Now the people who died resisting the Nazis (even retroactively) can only be blamed on the Communist Government. That's a lot of public hatred and that can never end well for a government.

Soviet Union dead in the 1960s? Its leaders left with a joyless, empty state with nothing but violence and suffering to offer its people? This is not a state that will start a crusade against the world, its a nation that will choke to death on its own feces.

It is not like some kind of left-wing ideology will disappear. Stalin is probably going to be seen as the end of Communism, a traitor who instead of pursuing Marxist goals, decided instead to butcher his own people to a tune UNRIVALLED in modern times (no holocaust, remember...)

NeoMarxism would probably seek a more "Populist" variation, and remain alive and apart from what would be viewed as a ideological nightmare. This branch may make progress, but it would do so without a cold war on its head.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Blue Max

My thought would be that Stalin would kill communism without WW2.

There will be more purges without WW2. Stalin will keep on purging people for a decade he didn't in OTL--and this will leave the country in sorry shape for whoever succeeds him. Forced Industrialization was important when Germany was threatening to extinct the Russian people, but without that threat, it is an unacceptable butchering of what would probably be well in excess of fifteen million people.

But the crash industrialization drives had basically ended by 1938 (and were to an extent in response to German aggression).

Stalin, moreover, was popular within the USSR. He was a good guy, you know. Only his advisors were evil.

[MerryPrankster]

Here's a thought:

Might Stalin be interested in "settling accounts" with the Japanese without a danger to the West?

There've been some interesting "Second Russo-Japanese War" in 1938 discussions on the board lately. And Stalin did just this in 1945, even though the Japanese did not bother the Soviets during WWII.

Even if Stalin's government grows hated, a "short victorious war" avenging a prior "wrong" (the Japanese victory in the first war) might be a good move to unite the public behind a faltering regime.

[Grimm Reaper]

What about Mao in China? The US is still in isolation and may consider Mao a better choice than the Japanese Empire.

[MerryPrankster]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

But the crash industrialization drives had basically ended by 1938 (and were to an extent in response to German aggression).

Pre-Munich, Italy seems on paper more aggressive than Germany. Hitler had killed or expelled internal enemies, united with Austria (which wanted it), and meddled in Spain, but Italy was the only state to wage an overt war of conquest (Ethiopia).

IIRC Stalin's industrialization program began in 1932-33 and Munich and the annexation of Bohemia and Moravia afterward were in 1938. If Hitler's aggression was the issue, wouldn't the program have continued past 1938?

[MerryPrankster]

If the Japanese still make war on the European colonial regimes and the US, the Soviets could easily get some international good PR by joining everyone else in crushing the Japanese.

After all, before the rise of Hitler, the Soviets were seen as a rogue/terrorist state by most other governments. Japanese militarism could serve the same legitimizing process in TTL.

And Stalin, scheming, clever, evil man that he was, could use a Japan-vs-the-world war to occupy China and impose Mao (or perhaps someone more pliant) as a fait accompli.

[I Blame Communism]

I find it a bit backwards that millions of people not starving to death, hundreds of towns not being obliterated, several harvests not being carried away to Germany, many more children being born as not everything is for the front, is all going to make the Soviet Union do even worse. Faeelin has already made good points.

I also have to question this idea that without a Holocaust, the Purges take their place in the public consciousness. Murder is murder, sure, bad men are bad men, but there was a massive quantitive and qualitive difference between the two. The reason we think of the Holocaust as the Holocaust is because it's utterly without precedent.

Reading 30s literature, a lot of people from the left and centre really did think "what's happening in Russia is being mismanaged and is savage, but that's how you rule a country like that, and they've come forward a lot". Before we have a flamewar over the merits of that viewpoint, the point I'm making is that communism isn't going to be discredited worldwide at all.

[I Blame Communism]

Originally Posted by MerryPrankster

Pre-Munich, Italy seems on paper more aggressive than Germany. Hitler had killed or expelled internal enemies, united with Austria (which wanted it), and meddled in Spain, but Italy was the only state to wage an overt war of conquest (Ethiopia).

IIRC Stalin's industrialization program began in 1932-33 and Munich and the annexation of Bohemia and Moravia afterward were in 1938. If Hitler's aggression was the issue, wouldn't the program have continued past 1938?

He did say "partly", and anyway a proactive, energetic foreign policy is still just as threatening even if it is justified and accomplished without violence (also, violating an international treaty with the excuse that the USSR and France dared to make one is hardly avoiding offense). That the Soviets were anxious about the Nazis is clear from their pursuit of collective security, and why shouldn't they have been? The Nazis had engaged in a crazy degree of re-armament. Hitler happened to gave written a book claiming that Russians are an inferior race who deserve to be exterminated and for bonus points follow an evil ideology from Jewish-Bolshevist hell.

I do agree that Soviet adventures in the Far East are a potential place for communism to spread. The other biggie is decolonialisation going pear-shaped.

[Ziomatrix]

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

What about Mao in China? The US is still in isolation and may consider Mao a better choice than the Japanese Empire.

The US were already backing a KMT lead government who probably bore the distinction of the first non-European political party to have any serious lobbying influence within the US due to their outward appearance in creating a Federalist Republic and granting top priority of their resources to US businesses along with academics.

Also, the key members of the KMT including Chiang Kai-shek were quite wealthy as apposed humble Mr. Mao at the time. The US was "isolationist" as they would be hesitant to become directly in foreign wars but had no qualms in shipping aid and in fact building up another nation's infrastructure that would benefit US businesses and other interests.

In fact I would wager without WWII an apparently declaration of war between the KMT and CPC would occur a whole lot sooner which in turn would mean the probability of a much earlier start of Cold War tensions between the US and USSR.

[Tizoc]

I'm wondering if you're looking in right direction. Consider the borders of Imperial Russia before WW1 nad borders of Soviet Union in 1930's and you'll see where's the most likely outlet for USSR expansion is. Especially if Japan deconcentrate - with war - western powers.

[AMF]

Originally Posted by Blue Max

My thought would be that Stalin would kill communism without WW2.

The extreme human cost of the Soviet Union was historically justified by the second world war. No dramatic invasion of the country and no attempt to kill the Russian people and suddenly it becomes very hard for Stalin to be viewed as a good leader.

I completely agree with Blue Max that the Second World War gave Stalin and his system a semblance of credibility in the eyes of the inhabitants of the Soviet Union and many other people. Then there is also the obvious fact that communism historically came to Central Europe only through the might of the Red Army, with the possible exception of Yugoslavia and Albania. Neither of these factors would exist in a world where the Weimar Republic survives, and this may indeed shorten the life of communism.

There are, however a few factors that might work the other way. There were several millions of German soldiers who actually saw what Stalin's "workers and peasant's paradise" actually looked like. Of course they actively worked to increase the poverty they saw even more, but they were also able to see that the Soviet Union was very poor to begin with. In a timeline where the Weimar Republic survives, German men with strong leftist leanings can project their utopian hopes on the Soviet Union to their heart's content, without any enforced reality check, so to speak.
On top of that, a Soviet Union that did not expand as the historical Soviet Union did, is viewed as a potential aggressor mostly by its immediate neighbors only, which increases the number of people who can project their wishes on the Soviet system still more.

Two more possibilities come to mind to increase the number of adherents to communist ideology beyond the numbers of our timeline.

The worldwide economic crisis that followed "Black Friday" at the New York stock exchange was greatly exacerbated by various countries' increasing the tariffs against their trade partners, a policy that was generally known as the "Beggar your Neighbor" policy, although it also directly worked against the countries that employed it. I do not know how much worse the situation for international trade could still be made, but assuming that tariff barriers are increased still more, unemployment and poverty would have been still worse problems than they actually were and would have provided even more fertile soil for Marxist ideology.

Another added opportunity for Marxism in Europe might be a more prolongued refusal of European colonial powers to give up their colonies. This might happen independently of the possibility of increased tariff barriers, or as a consequence of them. "If other industrialised countries can't buy my industrial goods because of the high tariff barriers, then I have to keep my colonies as a captive market" - this might be the chain of reasoning in various European governments. (Of course it would not work, because the colonies have relatively little to offer in turn, but it nevertheless might be argued in that way.)
Prolongued colonial wars might increase the number of adherents of Marxism both in the colonies and in the colonizing powers. In the colonies, the Soviet Union is seen as a liberator, in the colonizing powers the human and material cost of the wars is seen as a proof how evil the system of capitalism really is.

While increased tariff barriers are not the result of the absence of World War Two, and prolongued colonial wars by no means a neccessary result, there is still a possibility how the absence of WW II and Soviet military expansion might indirectly result in an increased number of adherents to Marxism: the fact that in Europe today there is no equivalent to the "Beggar your Neighbor" policy of the Thirties is largely due to the European Economic Community and its successor, the European Union. And historically the amount of co-operation necessary to establish these institutions was probably made easier by the presence of a common enemy: the Soviet Union. No strong Soviet Union, then just possibly no European Economic Community, and possibly higher tariffs and more poverty in Europe, and therefore more Marxists.

Admittedly all speculative, but that's alternate history.

[I Blame Communism]

Originally Posted by AMF

I completely agree with Blue Max that the Second World War gave Stalin and his system a semblance of credibility in the eyes of the inhabitants of the Soviet Union and many other people. Then there is also the obvious fact that communism historically came to Central Europe only through the might of the Red Army, with the possible exception of Yugoslavia and Albania. Neither of these factors would exist in a world where the Weimar Republic survives, and this may indeed shorten the life of communism.

He hypothesised the Soviet Union actually being torn apart decades early. Sure, Communist Czechoslovakia is very unlikely, but that doesn't led to the assumption that not being a victim of genocidal war is going to shoot the Soviets in the foot.

Originally Posted by AMF

There are, however a few factors that might work the other way. There were several millions of German soldiers who actually saw what Stalin's "workers and peasant's paradise" actually looked like. Of course they actively worked to increase the poverty they saw even more, but they were also able to see that the Soviet Union was very poor to begin with.

It was by no means impossible to travel to the USSR (Robert Byron said it was easier than in Tsarist times); people just generally didn't. Complete secrecy was impossible, and there was already a massive right-wing propaganda effort to smear the Soviets. I do mean smear. Stalin's measures were savage and terrible, but the propaganda parted company with reality.

For instance: I mentioned Robert Byron? While visiting Veilikiy Novgorod, he found the local cultural authorities to be helpful and hospitable, even procuring him a harness to go up close to some of the frescoes he was studying. In some of the churches he visited, services were ongoing. He was barred from only one church, because it was undergoing restoration work (something only done in a coherent way after the revolution). He made an anecdote of his battle with the construction crew; and on his return to Britain discovered to his horror that by an elaborate game of Chinese whispers he was being cited as evidence that "desecration of churches continued in the Novgorod district".

Originally Posted by AMF

In a timeline where the Weimar Republic survives, German men with strong leftist leanings can project their utopian hopes on the Soviet Union to their heart's content, without any enforced reality check, so to speak.

The SDP were bitterly anti-communist and vice-versa. In a German context. Left-of-centre people in all countries were more liable to realise that just because the Soviet system was brutish internally didn't mean that engaging with it as an equal was the most effective diplomatic strategy.

[MerryPrankster]

If the Weimar Republic survived and Stalin decided the USSR was ready to cause trouble ("socialism in one country" was more along the lines of the USSR controlling everything than not expanding), when would the time for settling accounts with Japan be?

Would they wait until the Japanese invaded Manchuria (1931) or advanced further into China (later 30s) and decide to come to the aid of their friends in the CCP and KMT (IIRC the Soviets helped both) or would they wait until the Japanese picked fights with EVERYONE in the Pacific (1941)?

The latter might be the smart thing to do, since as Tizoc said, Stalin also wanted the old Empire's borders back. Perhaps, in exchange for aid against the Japanese, the Soviets get a free hand in the Baltics, Romania, and Finland?

The Soviets have the manpower to swallow the Baltics, intimidate Romania into ceding Bessarabia, and beat Finland with an iron bar while at the same time plowing Japan under on the Asian mainland.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by MerryPrankster

Pre-Munich, Italy seems on paper more aggressive than Germany. Hitler had killed or expelled internal enemies, united with Austria (which wanted it), and meddled in Spain, but Italy was the only state to wage an overt war of conquest (Ethiopia).

Look at the timing, however.

NotIn the 1920s, the Red Army was less than a million men. By Munich, it was 1.7 million; by Barbarossa? Power level 5 million!

(I couldn't resist. Sorry).
the Soviet Armed Forces numbered
about 6-800,000 men, and did not have a particularly high priority for
investment. By the time of Munich it was 1.7 million, and in 1941 it
was up to over 5 million.

(There is an argument to be made that it was the threat of war with Japan, and the war scare in the late 1920s, but I think Stalin was terrified by Hitler, and the west's reaction).

Here's Stalin in January, 1933:

It is true that the output of goods for mass consumption was less than the amount required, and this creates certain difficulties. But, then, we must realize and take into account where such a policy of relegating the task of industrialization to the background would have led us. Of course, out of the 1,500 million rubles in foreign currency that we spent during this period on equipment for our heavy industries, we could have set aside a half for importing cotton, hides, wool, rubber, etc. Then we would now have more cotton fabrics, shoes and clothing. But we would not have a tractor industry or an automobile industryi we would not have any thing like a big iron and steel industry; we would not have metal for the manufacture of machinery -- and we would remain unarmed while encircled by capitalist countries armed with modern technique.

We would have deprived ourselves of the possibility of supplying agriculture with tractors and agricultural machinery -- consequently, we would be without bread.

We would have deprived ourselves of the possibility of achieving victory over the capitalist elements in our country -- consequently, we would have raised immeasurably the chances of the restoration of capitalism.

We would not have all the modern means of defence without which it is impossible for a country to be politically in dependent, without which a country becomes a target for military attacks of foreign enemies. Our position would be more or less analogous to the present position of China, which has no heavy industry and no war industry of its own and which is being molested by anyone who cares to do so.

page 599


In short, in that case we would have military intervention; not pacts of non-aggression, but war, dangerous and fatal war, a sanguinary and unequal war; for in such a war we would be almost unarmed in the face of an enemy having all the modern means of attack at his disposal.

This is how it works out, comrades.

Firstly, as a result of the successful fulfilment of the five-year plan, we have, in the main, already achieved its principal object -- to place industry, transport, and agriculture on a new, modern, technical basis. Is there really any need, after this, to spur the country on and urge it forward? Obviously, this is no longer necessary.

Secondly, as a result of the successful fulfilment of the five-year plan, we have already succeeded in raising the defence capacity of the country to the proper level. Is there really any need, after this, to spur the country on and urge it forward? Obviously, this is no longer necessary.

Here he is in 1934:

The intensified struggle for foreign markets, the abolition of the last vestiges of free trade, the prohibitive tariffs, the trade war, the foreign currency war, dumping, and many other analogous measures which demonstrate extreme nationalism in economic policy have strained to the utmost the relations among the various countries, have created the basis for military conflicts, and have put war on the order of the day as a means for a new redivision of the world and of spheres of influence in favour of the stronger states.

Japan's war against China, the occupation of Manchuria, Japan's withdrawal from the League of Nations, and her advance in North China, have made the situation still more tense. The intensified struggle for the Pacific and the growth of naval armaments in Japan, the United States, Britain and France are results of this increased tension.

Germany's withdrawal from the League of Nations and the spectre of revanchism have further added to the tension and have given a fresh impetus to the growth of armaments in Europe.

It is not surprising that bourgeois pacifism is now dragging out a miserable existence, and that idle talk of disarmament is giving way to "business-like" talk about armament and rearmament.

Once again, as in 1914, the parties of bellicose imperialism, the parties of war and revanchism are coming to the foreground.

Quite clearly things are heading for a new war.

http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/SPC34.html

What is generally forgotten nowadays is that Stalin spent most of the 1930s raising hell trying to forge collective security agreements with the Western powrs; he tried to get one to defend China. He tried to get one for Spain. He promised aid to Czechoslovakia.

And the response was... herm. Underwhelming.

[Eurofed]

As others have stated, the only plausible avenues for expansion of Communism without a WWII and "Red Alert" military aggression seem to be a second Russian-Japanese war, support to the CCP in China, and support to anticolonial movements in the Third World.

The first option is going to net Manchuria and Inner Mongolia for the USSR with its superior Army (but Japan is going to seize Sakhalin in retaliation with its superior Navy) and not much else, since an otherwise intact Japan is going to be able and keep Korea. Depending on Stalin's relationship with the KMT and CCP and its strategy for China, it may get a clue from Japan and set up them as Red Manchukuo/Mengkuo, maybe in a federation with Mongolia, or make them the nucleus of a Red China.

The second option, which may or may be not adopted in combination with an attack on Japan, is to pour major support to the CCP, and even stage a direct intervention in China, perhaps as part of an attack on Japan, perhaps independently. However, a Soviet bid on China is going to be at least as alarming for USA and UK as the Japanese one, quite possibly more. Hence Britain, America, and quite possibly France, Germany and Italy too are going to pour major support to the KMT, even if a direct intervention is less liekly. The most likely final outcome is a division of China between CCP North and KMT South.

The third option is to give major support to left-leaning nationalist and anticolonialist movements in South East Asia and in the long term, Africa. It is quite doubtful how much the likes of Ho Chi Minh would be successful without a friendly Communist haven in Southern China. This is going to make France, Britain, and Italy mad at Soviet Russia, and a united anti-Soviet European front is going to emerge.

A Communist expansion in Europe without Soviet military aggression (which would surely unleash an anti-Soviet WWII) or another socio-economic catastrophe like WWI or the Great Depression is ASB.

[Eurofed]

Originally Posted by I Blame Communism

I find it a bit backwards that millions of people not starving to death, hundreds of towns not being obliterated, several harvests not being carried away to Germany, many more children being born as not everything is for the front, is all going to make the Soviet Union do even worse. Faeelin has already made good points.

The outcome of Russia as a nation (which is going to be much improved by the lack of WWII devastation) and of the Soviet regime (which is going to be significantly worse in the long term when no Nazist aggression shows up to retroactively give some justification for the Stalinist atrocities) are two different things, however. Russia may fare better socio-economically, but the Soviet regime still fall sooner when its subjects tire up of a murderous dictatorship which keeps eating up lives in senseless purges for no good apparent outcome. With no Nazist attack and "Patriotic War" respite, it is plausible that Stalin keeps the Purges going (since he was going to restart them after WWII) until the regime eats itself alive.

I also have to question this idea that without a Holocaust, the Purges take their place in the public consciousness. Murder is murder, sure, bad men are bad men, but there was a massive quantitive and qualitive difference between the two. The reason we think of the Holocaust as the Holocaust is because it's utterly without precedent.

Even without reopening our endless debate about the relative "merits" of Nazist and Communist crimes, you really have to understand that ITTL the millions of people murdered by Stalin and the "industrial" quality of his atrocities shall have no plausible comparison. Nothing of remotely similar severity and magnitude shall exist without the Holocaust. The totalitarian nature of the Soviet state may delay the awareness of Communist crime from spreading in popular culture for a while, but it shall eventually spread just like it did IOTL. Without Hitler around, there shall be nothing to keep Stalin from becoming the face of absolute evil in the 20th century. The damning effect of this on Communism shall be immense.

Reading 30s literature, a lot of people from the left and centre really did think "what's happening in Russia is being mismanaged and is savage, but that's how you rule a country like that, and they've come forward a lot".

That viewpoint is going to become more and more discredited as time goes on.

[Eurofed]

Originally Posted by MerryPrankster

If the Weimar Republic survived and Stalin decided the USSR was ready to cause trouble ("socialism in one country" was more along the lines of the USSR controlling everything than not expanding), when would the time for settling accounts with Japan be?

Would they wait until the Japanese invaded Manchuria (1931) or advanced further into China (later 30s) and decide to come to the aid of their friends in the CCP and KMT (IIRC the Soviets helped both) or would they wait until the Japanese picked fights with EVERYONE in the Pacific (1941)?

The latter might be the smart thing to do, since as Tizoc said, Stalin also wanted the old Empire's borders back. Perhaps, in exchange for aid against the Japanese, the Soviets get a free hand in the Baltics, Romania, and Finland?

The Soviets have the manpower to swallow the Baltics, intimidate Romania into ceding Bessarabia, and beat Finland with an iron bar while at the same time plowing Japan under on the Asian mainland.

Japan is not going to pick a fight with all the Western powers in the Pacific without Nazi Germany or Soviet Union to keep them busy in Europe, and Soviet expansionism in China would be just as wholly unacceptable to the UK and USA as the Japanese one. They are not going to buy Stalin as the "liberator" of the Chinese. And sure as hell the Western powers are not going to give Stalin a free hand in Eastern Europe. They can surely let Stalin got scot-free once or twice about aggressive moves on the Baltics, Finland, and Romania out of various butterflies, but they shall take note, and get busy organizing a united European front, regardless of how much Japan gets aggressive in China. At the second or third Soviet aggression, declarations of war shall rain from the West.