AHC/WI: Soviets start WWII

The challenge is to have the Soviets start WWII, instead of the Germans as OTL. Also, what would the coalition opposing the Red Army look like? Do we see Roosevelt fighting alongside Hitler?:eek: What would be Japan's situation?
 
Unlikely, the USSR after the Civil war and Polish war wasn't an expansionistic state. It was very defensive in nature and openly feared a coalition war against it. Provoking a war against the world would run counter to all of it's interests.
 

Cook

Banned
Unlikely, the USSR after the Civil war and Polish war wasn't an expansionistic state. It was very defensive in nature and openly feared a coalition war against it. Provoking a war against the world would run counter to all of it's interests.

This is essentially correct but needs one slight change:

The USSR under Stalin wasn’t an expansionist state. Stalin was very defensive in nature and openly feared a coalition war against him. Provoking a war against the world would run counter to his interests.
 
The USSR under Stalin wasn’t an expansionist state.
LOL. Then what do you call the events of 1939/1940, apart for naked expansionism? What do you call the Mongolia affair, where he eliminated every single Communist leader apart for his personal puppet, turning the MPR into a de facto provice of the Soviet Empire? What do you call the Soviet-Japanese conflict of the mid-late-30s (instigated and waged primarily through Stalin's Mongol proxies)?

Stalin was hyper-expansionist. He was a weird mixture of Old Russia imperialism and turbo-Bolshevism. The only thing which tempered his grabby ways was his gargantuan paranoia. He was deathly afraid of having the rest of the world gang up on him, which is why he only finally relented from playing his little sidey-side game after the creation of NATO. He couldn't manipulate the Western powers against each other anymore (like he did before the war).
 

Cook

Banned
Stalin was hyper-expansionist.
Actually no, he wasn’t. Stalin throughout this rule went for the safest, most cautious option available in every instance.

Then what do you call the events of 1939/1940, apart for naked expansionism?
The Soviet Union, from when it joined the League of Nations in 1933 through until mid-1939 was the consistently strongest supporter of the concept of Collective Security the formed the foundation of the League. While the governments of Britain and France were happily throwing one country after another to the wolves, Stalin had his foreign Commissar flying backwards and forwards across Europe trying to hammer home an alliance to confront Germany and Italy and guarantee the security of the smaller states of Europe.

Even in 1938, when Chamberlain declared Collective Security dead, the Russians persisted; pressing for action over Czechoslovakia, mobilising forces and pressing the French to do the same, only to be frozen out of the mockery of negotiations that took place in Munich by the British and the French, who were meant to be their allies along with the Czechs!

Despite that, the Stalin and Litvinov persisted in trying to form an alliance with Britain and France. It was only after negotiating for five months and being stalled every step of the way that Stalin decided to abandon any hope of making an alliance with the western democracies and opted for an accommodation with Hitler.

He did so because it was clear to him the British and French had would take no action to stop Hitler and would not fight unless attacked (which was what they did even after declaring war on Germany); in those circumstances it was safest to look to the Soviet Union’s defences and do everything in his power to secure the approaches to the Russian heartland. The occupation of the Baltic States, Eastern Poland, Bessarabia and Karelian Isthmus were all part of that; former Russian territories he considered essential to securing the western approaches. It is important to note that he did not take any action prior to German action; Stalin was constantly afraid that he would be drawn into a war with one of more of the Capitalist nations.

What do you call the Mongolia affair, where he eliminated every single Communist leader apart for his personal puppet, turning the MPR into a de facto province of the Soviet Empire?
It was exactly that: securing of a de facto Soviet province.

What do you call the Soviet-Japanese conflict of the mid-late-30s (instigated and waged primarily through Stalin's Mongol proxies)?
It was a border conflict to defend the Soviet Far East from Japanese encroachment, and that was all that it was; the Soviet armies did not press further into Manchuria despite winning a decisive victory over the Japanese and clearly being capable of doing so. BTW, yours is the first time I’ve ever seen anyone accept the Kwantung Army’s interpretation of who was responsible for the conflict.

He was a weird mixture of Old Russia imperialism and turbo-Bolshevism.

No, Stalin’s maintained his policy of ‘Socialism in One State’ from the time he established himself as undisputed ruler through until war became inevitable in 1939. Even after that his confrontations with the west were all very calculated and cautious, designed to secure what he already controlled. Even in Korea, he only gave approval of the actions of his proxies after the Americans had indicated that they had no interest in the region.
 
This is essentially correct but needs one slight change:

The USSR under Stalin wasn’t an expansionist state. Stalin was very defensive in nature and openly feared a coalition war against him. Provoking a war against the world would run counter to his interests.

The foreign policy of Stalin wasn't solely adopted by him; the USSR between Lenin's death and 1928, and from 1928 to 1939, maintened a consistent foreign policy. The primary difference among potential Soviet leaders was in their economic policies. Bukharin, for instance, helped formulate the concept of Socialism in one Country, but disagreed with Stalin over how it would be achieved. Put someone else in power and there'd be unlikely to be an increase in agression.
 
I guess you could ask what would happen if there was no Anglo-French guarantee to Poland, or if in the face of the Nazi-Soviet Pact the British and French deserted the Poles, especially if, unlike OTL, the Russians invade Poland at the same time as the Germans?

With this evidence of Soviet aggression, any move against Finland later might seem like a step too far and result in war

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Would Stalin have attacked Nazi Germany in, say 42 or '43?

Maybe. IF the west was behind him.

Might he 'liberate' Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia from Nazi rule? And set them up as Soviet puppets? Seems plausible.

But no way is he going to do it if it looks like it might spark an antiBolshevist alliance.
 
Stalin avoided starting war by himself, because he hoped for a great conflict between fascist and democratic states in Europe, in which USSR could intervene in decisive moment to get the most spoils (which is kind of what happened i OTL, only differently than he anticipated). Stalin hopes failed, when Hitler's Germany defeated France quickly, and turned against him.

So how about UK and France actually get their act together against Germany better by launching a full scale offensive on the western front in 1939 and succeed in defeating Germany by 40 or 41? Such war, relatively short, may not be counted as a full "world war".

Afterwise, Europe second-strongest power is again disarmed and unstable, perhaps with brewing communist movement. UK, France and Poland are exhausted by another war. Meanwhile, USSR has gained even more strength, perhaps made an annexation or two while all Europe was busy with Germany. Soon Stalin finds some way to antagonize Poland. Meanwhile in Germany, with Soviet support, communists attempt takeover. Stalin gives Red army orders to march west...
 
Actually no, he wasn’t. Stalin throughout this rule went for the safest, most cautious option available in every instance.
And how does that contradict my assertion? Being strongly inclined towards expansionism doesn't automatically come prepackaged with a gambling addiction.

The Soviet Union, from when it joined the League of Nations in 1933 through until mid-1939 was the consistently strongest supporter of the concept of Collective Security the formed the foundation of the League.
The whole 'collective security' thing didn't appear due to Stalin wanting it, because he didn't; he preferred seeing the Western powers tear each other apart in a Warhammer 40k-style war; after which, evidently, the proletariat would be liberated from under the now-completely exhausted imperialist yoke by the glorious soldiers of the Workers Paradise. It didn't appear because he needed it, stricto sensu; it appeared because the potential prospect of an eventual pan-European
coalition of ultra-nationalist/Fascist states messed with his plans, and decided to pre-empt any possibility of such a thing appearing. And the 'collective security' charade was it.

While the governments of Britain and France were happily throwing one country after another to the wolves,
Masterful scenography, don't you think? "The impotent Western powers are so pitifully and pitiably keen on appeasement; how could we, the Great Socialist Paradise, put any trust in them? In fact, how could anyone?" Pravda-quality, that. Amazing how it survived nearly unchanged throughout the decades.

Stalin had his foreign Commissar flying backwards and forwards across Europe trying to hammer home an alliance to confront Germany and Italy and guarantee the security of the smaller states of Europe.
Read: "Making a great deal many promises, most of which he had absolutely no desire of keeping".

Even in 1938, when Chamberlain declared Collective Security dead, the Russians persisted; pressing for action over Czechoslovakia, mobilising forces and pressing the French to do the same, only to be frozen out of the mockery of negotiations that took place in Munich by the British and the French, who were meant to be their allies along with the Czechs!
See above. Stalin had precisely 0 intentions to enter the war. Had the Western powers attacked Germany he would've pulled the ol' switcheroo and simply said "We reconsidered, we're sitting it out for now", then simply swooped in and picked up any juicy pieces were left by the end. After all, it wasn't like anyone could prevent him from doing so once the war had started, nor could he be punished for his doublecross; France and Britain were a continent away, with hostile Germany inbetween. Being kept out from the conference did indeed irk Stalin considerably, since he was denied a potentially perfect opportunity to grandstand, something he absolutely loved to do.

Despite that, the Stalin and Litvinov persisted in trying to form an alliance with Britain and France. It was only after negotiating for five months and being stalled every step of the way that Stalin decided to abandon any hope of making an alliance with the western democracies and opted for an accommodation with Hitler.
Stalin never had any intention of forming an alliance with the Entente. They couldn't give him what he wanted, and whatever 'assurances' they could offer were empty to him (and the Entente was constantly suspicious of him simply deciding to sit on his butt doing nothing while they were embroiled in battle with Germany). Do remember that the man didn't believe in the idea of 'allies'. To him, the Western powers (during the war) weren't his allies, but rather enemies which currently happened to be fighting against the same guys he was. Also, he knew post-Munich-humiliated Britain and France would declare war over Poland, meaning Hitler would have to move against them sooner rather than later. Which fit perfectly into his long-term plans. In the short run, he greatly preferred playing upon Hitler's neurosis about the danger of two-front wars. Which he did eminently. He gained the Old Empire's territories in exhange for a neutrality promise he would've kept anyway, even without a written treaty; until the proper moment, of course.

in those circumstances it was safest to look to the Soviet Union’s defences and do everything in his power to secure the approaches to the Russian heartland.
And doing everything in his power to have a common border with the Nazis, instead of a buffer string of 3rd parties helped that, how exactly?

The occupation of the Baltic States, Eastern Poland, Bessarabia and Karelian Isthmus were all part of that; former Russian territories he considered essential to securing the western approaches.
He was a weird mixture of Old Russia imperialism and turbo-Bolshevism.

It is important to note that he did not take any action prior to German action; Stalin was constantly afraid that he would be drawn into a war with one of more of the Capitalist nations.
Nope. He was afraid the Western powers would somehow pull a double-blind trick on him ending up fighting the Germans, while they sat and watched. His plan of a great European war would, in that case, go into the shitter, to put it plainly.

It was exactly that: securing of a de facto Soviet province.
Except Khorloogyin Choybalsan was only one of 11 original Mongolian Communist leaders; without the assassinations (he ended up being the only one left), Mongolia's trajectory wouldn't have necessarily been that of Stalin's plaything; after all, China was Communist (heavily so), and it wasn't a de facto Soviet province/puppet; neither was Yugoslavia. Oh, and puppeteering is expansionism.

It was a border conflict to defend the Soviet Far East from Japanese encroachment, and that was all that it was
Except they all had invariably begun (a long series of them; Lake Khasan and Khalkin Gol being but the latest) with Mongolian cavalrymen 'mistakenly wandering' with their 'grazing horses' over some vaguely defined part of the border; most of them ended with Mongolian(/Soviet) victory.

BTW, yours is the first time I’ve ever seen anyone accept the Kwantung Army’s interpretation of who was responsible for the conflict.
Y'know, just because someone is a vile fuckwad, doesn't necessarily make that someone automatically wrong. TBT, I'd never heard their interpretation before. It does sound like something Stalin would demand his puppets to do.

No, Stalin’s maintained his policy of ‘Socialism in One State’ from the time he established himself as undisputed ruler through until war became inevitable in 1939.
The Soviet leadership was a refined conclave of duplicitous whores, with Stalin their ur-typ. Everything he/they said was a lie, even the truth; in fact, especially the truth. He/they lied to everyone, particularly to their own people. It's pretty much the only thing which kept the old carcass aloft in the latter years; see what happened when Gorby demanded that bureaucrats stop lying all the time.

Even after that his confrontations with the west were all very calculated and cautious, designed to secure what he already controlled.
Stalin grew increasingly bitter and disillusioned as time went on. His dream of a great Soviet Socialist German Republic had fizzled, and he didn't even have the entirety of Berlin under his grasp (as a legitimising factor for the GDR as the sole 'true' Germany). Note that under his rule not a single V-Day parade was held, apart for the very first (it was Brejnev who would introduce the national free day + yearly parade) and here was a man who relished the masses' adulation. He sincerely didn't believe the USSR truly 'won' the war (for whatever measure of 'winning' he held as yardstick).

Even in Korea, he only gave approval of the actions of his proxies after the Americans had indicated that they had no interest in the region.
Korea was a test of the West's power, resolve, but also restraint. They passed it with flying colours (much to Stalin's dismay and despair). It was supposed to embroil the West (the US, in particular) into an all-out to-the-bitter-end shooting war with Mao's China, taking their attention and resources away from Germany (and Western Europe in general), allowing Stalin to
leisurely ply his trade. That didn't happen.
 
And how does that contradict my assertion? Being strongly inclined towards expansionism doesn't automatically come prepackaged with a gambling addiction.
Read Cook's post again. Stalin's aquisitions of territory didn't begin until the German threat appeared to be growing without being checked.
The whole 'collective security' thing didn't appear due to Stalin wanting it, because he didn't; he preferred seeing the Western powers tear each other apart in a Warhammer 40k-style war; after which, evidently, the proletariat would be liberated from under the now-completely exhausted imperialist yoke by the glorious soldiers of the Workers Paradise. It didn't appear because he needed it, stricto sensu; it appeared because the potential prospect of an eventual pan-European coalition of ultra-nationalist/Fascist states messed with his plans, and decided to pre-empt any possibility of such a thing appearing. And the 'collective security' charade was it.
While Stalin would have liked to have seen his enemies fight each other rather than himself, there is no denying that Stalin genuinely did try as hard as possible to cobble together some kind of collective security against the fascist threat. Remind yourself that Stalin was a "Socialism in one Country" type rather than a world revolution type.

Masterful scenography, don't you think? "The impotent Western powers are so pitifully and pitiably keen on appeasement; how could we, the Great Socialist Paradise, put any trust in them? In fact, how could anyone?" Pravda-quality, that. Amazing how it survived nearly unchanged throughout the decades.
This is particularly bad. Rather than attack Cook's statement on any kind of logical basis, you decide to paint a huge strawman of his argument, seemingly painting Cook (of all people!) as making a argument sympathetic to the cause of communism. Are you actually trying to deny that Britain and France did nothing to help Czechoslovakia, or no concrete action to aid Poland?

Read: "Making a great deal many promises, most of which he had absolutely no desire of keeping".
Except the smaller states of Europe made great buffers for the Soviet Union to keep it safe from the encroachment of greater powers.

See above. Stalin had precisely 0 intentions to enter the war. Had the Western powers attacked Germany he would've pulled the ol' switcheroo and simply said "We reconsidered, we're sitting it out for now", then simply swooped in and picked up any juicy pieces were left by the end. After all, it wasn't like anyone could prevent him from doing so once the war had started, nor could he be punished for his doublecross; France and Britain were a continent away, with hostile Germany inbetween. Being kept out from the conference did indeed irk Stalin considerably, since he was denied a potentially perfect opportunity to grandstand, something he absolutely loved to do.
Do you have any evidence at all that this was part of some Machiavellian scheme to throw Germany and the Western powers into war. Stalin was a very wily politician, but it seems highly suspect that anyone could be that smart. And it is certainly something I have not come across in my admittedly limited reading around the subject.
And doing everything in his power to have a common border with the Nazis, instead of a buffer string of 3rd parties helped that, how exactly?
Defense in Depth? If the Nazis are going to be going on a seemingly unstoppable conquering spree, it is best to be able to rely on your own defensive capabilities rather than the questionable ones of the Baltic States.
Nope. He was afraid the Western powers would somehow pull a double-blind trick on him ending up fighting the Germans, while they sat and watched. His plan of a great European war would, in that case, go into the shitter, to put it plainly.
Or his plan for any kind of security for the Soviet Union.
Except they all had invariably begun (a long series of them; Lake Khasan and Khalkin Gol being but the latest) with Mongolian cavalrymen 'mistakenly wandering' with their 'grazing horses' over some vaguely defined part of the border; most of them ended with Mongolian(/Soviet) victory.
No doubt the 50 or so Mongolian Horsemen were a key plan in Stalin's hyper-expansionist plan to occupy Manchuria. Considering that the border was ill-defined, and that the violating force was so minuscule, it very well may have been a mistake.
Y'know, just because someone is a vile fuckwad, doesn't necessarily make that someone automatically wrong. TBT, I'd never heard their interpretation before. It does sound like something Stalin would demand his puppets to do.
Unless, apparently, the vile fuckwad in question is Stalin.
Korea was a test of the West's power, resolve, but also restraint. They passed it with flying colours (much to Stalin's dismay and despair). It was supposed to embroil the West (the US, in particular) into an all-out to-the-bitter-end shooting war with Mao's China, taking their attention and resources away from Germany (and Western Europe in general), allowing Stalin to leisurely ply his trade. That didn't happen.
So what exactly was he planning if the Korean war dragged on longer than it did OTL?
 
I have a idea for a timeline in which the Soviet Union starts WW2 (which is primarily fought in Asia) in the mid-1930s to mid-1940s.

The basic premise is that a Indian Raj unit called the East Persian Cordon marches on the Soviet Central Asian SSR capital of Tashkent during the Russian Civil war. In OTL Malleson the British general in charge of the East Persian Cordon spread rumours he was going to do this but never got round to it due to the Indian government recalling him. The POD is that he receives a supply of good Scottish whiskey just before the start of the civil war and one night when marching through Southern Central Asia gets very drunk with his officers and decides to march on Tashkent, 'to smash those damned Bolos'.

Anyway you end up with a greatly weakened USSR which has its eyes on China, India and the Persian gulf rather than Europe. Southern Central Asia, Afghanistan, parts of the Caucuses, parts of Mongolia and a small area around Vladivostok are British, Iranian or Japanese controlled. The UK suffers from much greater trade union unrest, the division of Northern Ireland is messy (due to the unions striking in Ireland being dominated by catholics or some such), Indian nationalists are much more militant (backed by the Soviet Union who is focusing on 'setting fire to the East') and the Chinese communist see much more funding. The sides are thusly:

Communists:
USSR
Mongolia
Indian nationalists
Chinese communists
Kurdish nationalists
Arab nationalists

Allies:
British Empire
Turkey
Japan
The Indian Raj
Republican China
White Russia based out of Tashkent
Some sort of Iranian puppet state in the Caucuses
Afghanistan
Iran

I haven't figured out a ending yet but India in revolt (although not necessarily by Soviet supportive rebels), Japan embroiled in trying fighting a communist insurgency in China, the Caucuses and Central Asia in Soviet hands, the end of the Afghan king, a Kurdish genocide in Turkey and Iran and a fascist Britain could be the likely out comes. A bitter bloody peace with very little directly gained by each side (although India becomes independent early and the British empire faces a faster collapse). You could also see a non-Nazi Germany fighting it out with Italy over the Austrian alps (to the joy of France). Its very much a work in progress.
 
Last edited:
Top