AHC: Soviet Conquest of Western Europe

The Soviets would probably support the occasional Marxist or semi-Marxist leaders and movements that appear though.

A sideshow compared to the dominance in Europe. There might be support for nations with potential to exert influence of their own, effectively bringing a region like the Middle East or Indochina into the red fold.

I wonder what the implications this would mean for Asia.
 
Somehow I doubt Roosevelt living would mean Soviet dominance over Western Europe.

http://www.answers.com/topic/yalta-conference (Looking at the Oxford Companion to US Military History and the Gale Encyclopedia of Russian History entries.)
If Stalin broke his promises - promises that if kept would make his requests/demands/suggestions more reasonable - like he did in OTL, why would Roosevelt trust him further (either as in continuing to trust him or granting him more confidence)?

I'm not saying this was FDR's finest hour, but it wasn't a sell out (at least not by intentions - and blaming FDR for Stalin being dishonest gets into the second half of this point), and it would have been difficult to come up with an agreement that doesn't lead to at least some Soviet presence in Eastern Europe without another conflict. Another big conflict.

So taking one quote in 1942 as proof of what Roosevelt would do if he was alive in 1947 seems very unfair.

Well, the Roosevelt government successful drained every last penny out of the UK which was not good for any ability to withstand further moves west of the Soviets although it seems he started to get worried in 1945 that Stalin was playing him but by then the damage was done...from the same book..

P298

Evidence that a niggling doubt had now lodged in Roosevelt’s mind surfaced the next day (March 30 1945). He asked the lend-lease administrator Leo Crowley: ‘How much do the Russians owe us?’ Crowley replied that it was somewhere in the region of eleven billion dollars. Roosevelt told him that Henry Morgenthau had suggested the Soviets be given ten billion more. Crowley said he was opposed to this. Roosevelt agreed. ‘I have yet to get any concessions from Stalin,’ he remarked. ‘We are getting down to the tail end of the war. I do not want you to let out any more long-term contracts on Lend-Lease,’ he ordered Crowley, ‘further, I want you to shut off Lend-Lease the moment Germany is defeated.’ He also conveyed his anxieties to an aide, Chester Bowles: ‘We’ve taken a great risk here, an enormous risk, and it involves the Russian intentions. I’m worried. I still think Stalin will be out of his mind if he doesn’t cooperate, but maybe he’s not going to; in which case, we’re going to have to take a different view.’
 
Well, the Roosevelt government successful drained every last penny out of the UK which was not good for any ability to withstand further moves west of the Soviets although it seems he started to get worried in 1945 that Stalin was playing him but by then the damage was done...from the same book..

How in heaven's name is Roosevelt to blame for the UK spending more than it could afford? And its not like the UK is exactly in a position to stop further moves west on its own anyway.

P298

Evidence that a niggling doubt had now lodged in Roosevelt’s mind surfaced the next day (March 30 1945). He asked the lend-lease administrator Leo Crowley: ‘How much do the Russians owe us?’ Crowley replied that it was somewhere in the region of eleven billion dollars. Roosevelt told him that Henry Morgenthau had suggested the Soviets be given ten billion more. Crowley said he was opposed to this. Roosevelt agreed. ‘I have yet to get any concessions from Stalin,’ he remarked. ‘We are getting down to the tail end of the war. I do not want you to let out any more long-term contracts on Lend-Lease,’ he ordered Crowley, ‘further, I want you to shut off Lend-Lease the moment Germany is defeated.’ He also conveyed his anxieties to an aide, Chester Bowles: ‘We’ve taken a great risk here, an enormous risk, and it involves the Russian intentions. I’m worried. I still think Stalin will be out of his mind if he doesn’t cooperate, but maybe he’s not going to; in which case, we’re going to have to take a different view.’
And this confirms how unreasonable it is to take a 1942 quote to indicate 1947 policy.
 
How in heaven's name is Roosevelt to blame for the UK spending more than it could afford? And its not like the UK is exactly in a position to stop further moves west on its own anyway.

And this confirms how unreasonable it is to take a 1942 quote to indicate 1947 policy.

The POD is is anytime, with bonus points after 1939, only 3 years before Roosevelt made his statement about Western Europe having to endure Russian occupation. The non-Roosevelt 1947 policy would have been a little too late if Roosevelt had had his way.
 
The POD is is anytime, with bonus points after 1939, only 3 years before Roosevelt made his statement about Western Europe having to endure Russian occupation. The non-Roosevelt 1947 policy would have been a little too late if Roosevelt had had his way.

Roosevelt OTL didn't go anywhere near "Soviet control of Western Europe".

One quote in one conversation with someone who isn't a diplomat or a major Allied leader (or even minor Allied leader) is not a policy.

I'm not saying you can't have him try to (and succeed at) pushing for Soviet control further west - "What if FDR's stance here (quote) was American policy?", but that's different than just having him live longer or "get his way".

On that note, I'd think the main impact would be the issue of Germany - more likely to be as the Soviets want it, rather than France and Italy falling. At least right away. What happens from there may get ugly.
 
Last edited:
Top