Anglo-French vs Soviet war in the 1930s?

There were excellent reasons to do all of the above, yes. But before '37 and the purges and the consolidation of power it wasn't on the agenda, and if things went even slightly differently abroad or domestically, maybe they wouldn't have been so in the short term.

In the very long term, yes of course. The Baltic countries were pretty valuable strategically, that much was known since before the 13th c.

Notably the Reds did fight over Finland, and did invade the Caucasus, and so on. But that was in the "exporting revolution" phase and Trotsky was commissar and there was lots of chaos and opportunity. The situation wasn't the same at all until much later (as in the late 30s).

Oh, maybe I misread you earlier, but I agree with basically everything you said, Stalin avoided picking early fights because the idea was to build his own power base, and to industrialize the USSR, that is to say, an inward before an outward focus.
 
Oh, maybe I misread you earlier, but I agree with basically everything you said, Stalin avoided picking early fights because the idea was to build his own power base, and to industrialize the USSR, that is to say, an inward before an outward focus.

Right. The situation had to be right. If diplomacy worked for real in Spain, China or Munich, for example, there may have been no way to justify an outward focus. It's contingent on a lot of things.

On the other hand, if you want real Soviet Imperialism in the time period, you can read all about the Xinjiang adventures (and what a terrible mess it was for everyone involved).

Of course all involved parties wanted complete silence on the subject so you had the bizzare situation where the Red Army was supporting White Russians who were supporting Uighur Muslims who were supporting a Chinese (supposedly) KMT-aligned warlord, against Hui Muslims supported by Kazakhs etc. who crossed the border during the Russian Civil War who were supported by actual regular KMT troops, all the while the Soviets were sending miltiary aid to the KMT to be used against Japan - and everyone was pretending it was some sort of Muslim Uprising Against Local Government, Easily Put Down.
 
I gamed out something like this a couple years ago. There were two PoD.

1. the nazi party had not come to power in Germany.

2. The USSR, under more aggresive leadership (Trotsky?) falls into a second round with Poland circa 1937.

France supports its protege & ally, but the Red Army is able to bludgeon its way to Warsaw in a few months.

If Britain & Italy join in the battle front might be stabilized near the Vistula, tho in my exercise circumstances put the Red Army across Germanys border for a few months.

Both sides would be subject to considerable internal political stress as Reds, Facists, & others struggle for control of the various European governments. Strikes, riots, sabatoge, ect... would be a few of the social struggle weapons deployed. Facist assasins and police actions by extremeist governments would be common counters. All this applies to the USSR as non Russians and those without sympathy for socialism would attempt to exert their own agendas inside the USSR.
 

Tyr Anazasi

Banned
As the Polish-Soviet Pact of no aggression was made in January 1932 a PoD has to start there. Indeed another condition is the removal of the Nazis. And then it will be interesting...
 
Notably the Reds did fight over Finland, and did invade the Caucasus, and so on. But that was in the "exporting revolution" phase and Trotsky was commissar and there was lots of chaos and opportunity. The situation wasn't the same at all until much later (as in the late 30s).

But what if the "exporting revolution" phase was a lot more successful? I'll handwave the reasons at this point, but let us say Finland falls to the Reds in 1918, the Baltics in 1918-19 and Poland in 1919-20. That would make for a more confident Soviet Union for the 20s and 30s, one that sees exporting the revolution in eastern Europe both feasible as well as desirable. That might well make the Soviet Union a lot more aggressive after the Civil War(s), even if that aggression would be more based on hubris than a level-headed analysis on what the Workers' State is capable of on its own.

While the Soviets would make overtures in eastern and northern Europe and support revolutionary organizations more strongly in countries like Germany, Britain and France, the bourgeois states of Europe would be more likely than IOTL to try and build a strong alliance to contain the Soviet menace.

It is IMO possible that this kind of a situation might escalate and deteriorate into a shooting war between the Soviets and a Western alliance sometime in the 30s, say an attempted and Soviet-backed revolution in a East-Central European state like *Czechoslovakia or *Hungary acting as a catalyst.
 
Finland

If the German threat had been neutralized (a more productive Munich sees Germany backing down) and the USSR still invaded Finland anyway, there is a remote possibility that France and the UK might be tempted to provide Finland with assistance. From there it's possible to escalate the situation to a war.
 
But what if the "exporting revolution" phase was a lot more successful?

Eh, sure. But then lots of things would be different; Stalin's rise, for one, would not be guaranteed. The Army might have a LOT more political clout...basically, so much can change between '21 and '39 you'd have to think really carefully about the implications of what you're suggesting.
 
Top