A diferente RB-ML Pact

[ruisramos]

What instead of Germany it had been the Soviets to begin the invasion
of Poland?

 

[Snake Featherston]

Stalin has no reason to invade Poland absent Nazi Germany's influence. The Soviet MO as the Cold War illustrated was always to rely on internal subversions and only rarely resort to direct Soviet military intervention. The Soviets were cloak and dagger types, addicted to elaborate conspiracies. The Nazis were the ones that went for massive invasions damn the consequences.

So what the Soviets would do is use the Comintern to manipulate politics all over Europe and stir up trouble and agitate for the Curzon Line boundary, not initiating a major war.

 

[GarethC]

Stalin has no reason to invade Poland absent Nazi Germany's influence. The Soviet MO as the Cold War illustrated was always to rely on internal subversions and only rarely resort to direct Soviet military intervention. The Soviets were cloak and dagger types, addicted to elaborate conspiracies. The Nazis were the ones that went for massive invasions damn the consequences.

So what the Soviets would do is use the Comintern to manipulate politics all over Europe and stir up trouble and agitate for the Curzon Line boundary, not initiating a major war.

OK, so if the OP wants an invasion-minded USSR, what changes would make that reasonable? What POD would be likely to put army-biased individuals in charge, yet happen late enough that no previous Soviet military interventions would also have occurred?

And then given that POD, would a Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact still be viable?

Would Anglo-French guarantees about Poland still be likely? Would Hitler jump in with the Entente and tell Guderian to just keep on heading east after he finishes with rump Poland?

Would the Russo-Japanese clashes in 40-41 still be on the cards, and would Stalin prosecute them more aggressively as a consequence?

 

[Snake Featherston]

OK, so if the OP wants an invasion-minded USSR, what changes would make that reasonable? What POD would be likely to put army-biased individuals in charge, yet happen late enough that no previous Soviet military interventions would also have occurred?

And then given that POD, would a Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact still be viable?

Would Anglo-French guarantees about Poland still be likely? Would Hitler jump in with the Entente and tell Guderian to just keep on heading east after he finishes with rump Poland?

Would the Russo-Japanese clashes in 40-41 still be on the cards, and would Stalin prosecute them more aggressively as a consequence?

Far too many PODs to a point where there is no WWII as we know it.

 

[TranscendentalMedication]

I don't think Stalin would want to come off as the aggressor, whereas Hitler didn't really care (Though I have read he was surprised that Poland finally got the allies to respond). If memory serves, in OTL Iron Joe claimed that he was "protecting the minorities in Poland" from the chaos that had resulted from the German invasion.

 

[Devolved]

Stalin has no reason to invade Poland absent Nazi Germany's influence. The Soviet MO as the Cold War illustrated was always to rely on internal subversions and only rarely resort to direct Soviet military intervention. The Soviets were cloak and dagger types, addicted to elaborate conspiracies. The Nazis were the ones that went for massive invasions damn the consequences.

That sounds pretty good but ignores the direct invasion of Finland and the the direct occupation of the Baltic States prior to 1941 in addition to invading Poland. During the war they invaded Iran and Manchuria and Korea. Post WW2 they invaded Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan.

But yes they preferred cloak and dagger.

 

[Snake Featherston]

That sounds pretty good but ignores the direct invasion of Finland and the the direct occupation of the Baltic States prior to 1941 in addition to invading Poland. During the war they invaded Iran and Manchuria and Korea. Post WW2 they invaded Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan.

But yes they preferred cloak and dagger.

In the case of Iran, they did it with you chaps double-teaming Iran (oo-er). In terms of the invasions of Manchuria and Korea, as both were part of the Japanese Empire at the time that's like arguing that the USA's invasions of Iwo Jima and Okinawa were invasions of Japan.

In the cases of Poland, the Baltic States, and Finland all were allotted to the Soviet sphere in the M-R Pact, which ensured the bulk of Nazi strength was sent west and that the Allies would not interfere, while their invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia were at least on paper "defensive" insofar as they maintained the all fangs, no flab aspect of the Warsaw Pact. Afghanistan of course really was an aggressive invasion and it didn't work well for them as I recall.

The Soviets did not as a general rule rely on aggression, and where they did they tried to rig it so it would not be costly or present too much risk for them to do so. Of course what they wanted was one thing, what they actually got......

I would also add the Soviet annexation of Bukovina as another Soviet direct act of aggression entirely outside their treaties, and here as with Lithuania the Nazis actually *aided* Soviet expansion, not opposed it, giving their "anti-Communist" leanings something of a bitter irony in terms of the 1941 invasion.

 

[Devolved]

In the case of Iran, they did it with you chaps double-teaming Iran (oo-er). In terms of the invasions of Manchuria and Korea, as both were part of the Japanese Empire at the time that's like arguing that the USA's invasions of Iwo Jima and Okinawa were invasions of Japan.

In the cases of Poland, the Baltic States, and Finland all were allotted to the Soviet sphere in the M-R Pact, which ensured the bulk of Nazi strength was sent west and that the Allies would not interfere, while their invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia were at least on paper "defensive" insofar as they maintained the all fangs, no flab aspect of the Warsaw Pact. Afghanistan of course really was an aggressive invasion and it didn't work well for them as I recall.

The Soviets did not as a general rule rely on aggression, and where they did they tried to rig it so it would not be costly or present too much risk for them to do so. Of course what they wanted was one thing, what they actually got......

I would also add the Soviet annexation of Bukovina as another Soviet direct act of aggression entirely outside their treaties, and here as with Lithuania the Nazis actually *aided* Soviet expansion, not opposed it, giving their "anti-Communist" leanings something of a bitter irony in terms of the 1941 invasion.

Still sounding good but sending your tanks across the border of a country that hasn't declared war on you or attacked you is an invasion.

All the cases listed fall into that category.

BTW the Americans were only in Iwo Jima because the Japanese attacked them. Not comparable in the least.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Still sounding good but sending your tanks across the border of a country that hasn't declared war on you or attacked you is an invasion.

All the cases listed fall into that category.

BTW the Americans were only in Iwo Jima because the Japanese attacked them. Not comparable in the least.

So what were Lake Khazan and Khalkin Ghol if not attacks on the Soviet Union?

 

[Devolved]

So what were Lake Khazan and Khalkin Ghol if not attacks on the Soviet Union?

Is that the best you can do?

We both know that was all over by 1939 and the two countries then signed one of those non Aggression Pacts that the Soviet Union was so fond of signing with Axis regimes.

The two countries were at peace for 6 years before the Russians allowed the non aggression pact to lapse and INVADED the Japanese Empire on the same day the US dropped the Atom Bomb on Nagasaki.

I am disappointed that you thought you could pass that off as an excuse.

 

[Genmotty]

Don't be snarky. Peace man .

August Storm was a product of Yalta where the 'Allies' had been formed, and it was agreed/decreed that the Soviets would help against Japan when the time came.. Therefore they had little chance but to honour the agreements made then. Plus Stalin appeared to be a man of honour with regards to foreign policy, but was a backstabber in his own home. .

 

[Devolved]

Don't be snarky. Peace man .

August Storm was a product of Yalta where the 'Allies' had been formed, and it was agreed/decreed that the Soviets would help against Japan when the time came.. Therefore they had little chance but to honour the agreements made then. Plus Stalin appeared to be a man of honour with regards to foreign policy, but was a backstabber in his own home. .

If being snarky means not being fooled by smokescreens then I'm guilty.

As for Stalin being a man of honour I'm sure the peoples of Eastern Europe who had communist governments imposed on them would agree. I'm also sure Jan Masaryk the Foreign Minister of Czechoslovakia was thinking of Stalin's honour when he was flying out of a window.

Also what about Stalin's honour when he passed information of American plans to attack the Philippines in late 1944 on to the Japanese?

Stalin entered the war against Japan because the Americans pretty much bribed him with more Lend Lease and agreed to turn a blind eye to what he was doing in Eastern Europe. Also a lot of Stalin's foreign policy from the 1930's was geared towards restoring Russia's old frontiers and spheres of influence lost during the Revolution and in the Russo Japanese war in 1905.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Is that the best you can do?

We both know that was all over by 1939 and the two countries then signed one of those non Aggression Pacts that the Soviet Union was so fond of signing with Axis regimes.

The two countries were at peace for 6 years before the Russians allowed the non aggression pact to lapse and INVADED the Japanese Empire on the same day the US dropped the Atom Bomb on Nagasaki.

I am disappointed that you thought you could pass that off as an excuse.

Ah, so in other words when the Japanese Army invades the USSR twice in two years this is not an invasion, but when it blindsides the USA and UK, that is worth reacting to?

 

[Snake Featherston]

If being snarky means not being fooled by smokescreens then I'm guilty.

As for Stalin being a man of honour I'm sure the peoples of Eastern Europe who had communist governments imposed on them would agree. I'm also sure Jan Masaryk the Foreign Minister of Czechoslovakia was thinking of Stalin's honour when he was flying out of a window.

Also what about Stalin's honour when he passed information of American plans to attack the Philippines in late 1944 on to the Japanese?

Stalin entered the war against Japan because the Americans pretty much bribed him with more Lend Lease and agreed to turn a blind eye to what he was doing in Eastern Europe. Also a lot of Stalin's foreign policy from the 1930's was geared towards restoring Russia's old frontiers and spheres of influence lost during the Revolution and in the Russo Japanese war in 1905.

I refuse to take seriously any claim that Iran in particular was a Soviet invasion when the British both worked together with the USSR and were the only Ally to sign a formal treaty of alliance with the USSR, one that ensured neither could seek a separate peace. The USA was smarter than that.

The Soviets never pretended to be anything but a bunch of dicks, anyone that felt differently is what used to be called impolitely a useful idiot.