Interference during or in the immediate aftermath of war is not always in the form of invasion.
Sure, however as I have been pointing out but which seem unable to just calmly accept, that wasn't what was being generally referred to in the post that you kind of derisively put down.
You're nitpicking over what "in or near theater" means? Yeah, I rest my case.
I'm not nitpicking. I'm pointing out what you said, which now doesn't quite sync with your line of discussion now. You can deride it all you wish, but you're the one who seems to be talking about 1946-1953 whereas what I was referring to in my first response to you was 1939-1945 based very much on your own words. Don't be upset that the word "theatre" means something else other than you intended and that others possibly misinterpret you as a result. That's not anyone else's fault nor is it the fault of the word.
I'm sure Galba can get into his meaning, but by his own standard expressed in the post, maybe not what he meant, certainly not how you've taken it, Czechoslovakia was forcefully brought into the Soviet sphere despite not having made war on Russia nor having been part of it. His two only stipulations. If you or him want to argue that Czechoslovakia shouldn't count because it was so central to much of the fighting, that's a different argument; it's not the argument made. The Greeks would be pleased to know that the Soviets were in no way militarily involved there after the Flensburg government gave up the fight.
But here again you are skipping over the very situation that allowed Czechoslovakia after the war to be brought more firmly into the soviet sphere (i say "more firmly" as czechoslovakia was quite soviet friendly from 1945-1948 as it was anyway) - the experience of liberation by Soviet forces as a result of the course of the war. As a result Czechoslovakia was actually friendly towards the USSR and local communists were genuinely more popular than at any point before the war. These communists were already in government and had control over the local security forces.
You keep mentioning the Greeks though as far as I know, Stalin didn't want to support the Greek communists after the war due to an agreement he made with Churchill. It was Tito who mainly backed them and this contributed to the Tito-Stalin split If I'm not mistaken.
You're splitting all the hairs, aren't you?
If that's what you think then that's unfortunate. I started by pointing out where your post was unnecessarily condescending towards a fellow poster and where your specific reference to only Switzerland being left alone in or near the European theatre (ie during the years 1939-1945) was in error since you left out Sweden and Turkey (and we could add Spain and Portugal to that). There's nothing wrong with having been mistaken.
Whether or not they were neutral at the time of invasion is and has always been irrelevant.
Then why are you even discussing anything in this thread? The thread is about Bulgaria being neutral in WWII.
The Dutch sit between Britain and Germany. I suppose that meant that Britain should have puppetized the Netherlands?
If Britain was run by Stalin I have very little doubt that for those very reasons this British Stalin would very much aim to keep the Netherlands in the British sphere. Or do you disagree that that would be the case?
[Note, you are now talking about what should have happened which is a whole other discussion. But of course Stalin shouldn't have puppetized Poland, however the harsh and sad fact is that he did and was likely always going to under the circumstances and as had been posited before, Stalin had reasons for his actions. Recognizing that he had reasons for taking a particular course of action doesn't mean those reasons are right or agreeable]
The model as established disqualifies Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia, but the latter was occupied anyway.
No it doesn't disqualify Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia had:
1. Territory that would have given the USSR direct access to continue dominating a conquered enemy (Hungary)
2. Said territory also happened to be populated by a majority from an ethnic group or closely related ethnic group to one of the SSRs of the Soviet Union
3. Czechoslovakia provided additional access to the occupation zones in Germany and Austria If necessary (But having bases in Poland and Hungary obviated the need for this and between local communist popularity and the alliance between the USSR and Czechoslovakia it wasn't really necessary to keep troops there, hence why soviet troops (other than numerous advisers) were withdrawn in July 1945 if I'm not mistaken).
4. Been occupied by Germany, necessitating Soviet forces moving into the country to expel German forces as the war progressed.
As you agreed though, a neutral Bulgaria which hadn't thrown in its lot with the Axis (and thus not been neutral) or had been occupied by the Axis (thus requiring Soviet forces to clear out the Axis troops during the course of the war) and which wasn't along a route to a conquered enemy nor which had territory inhabited by an ethnic group with their own SSR or ASSR in the Soviet Union wouldn't fit this model.
Basically from 1945 onwards until Cuba in 1959 the only two places where a communist government was successfully established without Soviet forces having at a some point been in control militarily of the territory were North Vietnam and Albania. Any and all other Soviet attempts at interference (and now I'm referring to the time period you seem to be trying to talk about) simply did not come to fruition. Mongolia, Tuva, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, the attempted republics in northern Iran, East Germany, North Korea, China...they all had something in common: Soviet troops were in control of all or at least some (and in some cases very strategic or important) parts of their territory and in many cases were able to provide a lot of assistance to local communist forces (even as they left since they left behind equipment and had established links to provide aid in prosecuting communist agitation).
Mongolia and Tuva were already puppet states from the 1920s and had been so as a result of the Russian Civil War during the time of Lenin so they wouldn't really have any bearing on a post-1939 neutral Bulgaria. Poland, Czechoslovakia, and China (in regards to Manchuria and Inner Mongolia) were not enemy states (well not after 1941 for Poland rather since 1939 the Soviets did invade Poland; though at no point was Czechoslovakia considered an enemy state nor were Czechoslovak forces attacked systematically) but they were occupied by enemy (Axis) forces and thus their territories were taken under Soviet control in the process of vanquishing the Axis.
Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria in OTL were enemy countries insofar as they were a part of the Axis (though Bulgaria did not participate in Barbarossa nor declared war on the USSR, but as Lascaris noted, Bulgaria couldn't really claim neutrality in the war with Germany since it allowed in thousands of Wehrmacht troops to conquer Greece and participated in the occupation and partition of other Allied countries while remaining in alliance with Germany). As such, the trio were outright conquered by the USSR as enemy states.
Iran as was pointed out before was occupied by the Soviets in complete conjunction with the British as they joint planned it based on their desire control the railway link that ensured Lend-Lease supplies were reaching the Soviet Union (a neutral Bulgaria which was actually strictly neutral in the war and as Jovian or Lascaris postulated, not invaded by Germany and thus rendering the entire scenario as a variant on OTL, isn't going to be as important as a route for getting supplies to the USSR since anything being shipped to the USSR from there can likely simply be shipped through the Bosporus Straits directly with a neutral Turkey and it would require that the eastern Mediterranean around the Bosporus be safe for such shipping as well and thus likely require that Greece not fall under Axis control).
East Germany is self evident since it was the part of Germany that the USSR (mostly) conquered (some bits were conquered by the Americans and the British) in the war and kept as an occupation zone. To this end, eastern Austria was conquered as part of Nazi Germany and also made into an occupation zone.
Yugoslavia saw Soviet forces move through the northeastern bit of it including Belgrade as they battled German forces which were occupying Yugoslavia. northern Korea was occupied (though a small bit of it was conquered before the war ended) as part of the enemy territory of the Japanese Empire. northern China (Manchuria) was occupied in a similar fashion with the intention of restoring it to China (which was done officially, though Chinese communist were left in control of the area).
Okay.
Did Tuva enter either the war in Europe or the Asian one? Serious question.
No answer to my question first? But in answer to your question Tuva had apparently declared war on Germany following its invasion of the Soviet Union and volunteers (or I guess "volunteers") were sent.
This is literally shifting goalpost to the point of farce. Why is direct overland access required? It wasn't for the British or for the Americans.
Was Stalin British or was he American? I thought he was neither and that we were discussing what Stalin (and more broadly the Soviets) did in OTL and would likely do in an ATL based on his OTL actions and reasons for them. We can dislike him all we want but that won't change who he was or the reasons behind his actions.
And in case you're curious, one of the reasons Stalin's former foreign minister, Molotov opposed withdrawal from Austria in 1955 was that it might set a precedent for withdrawals elsewhere in eastern Europe and call into question the continued Soviet need for troops in Hungary (since they wouldn't be needing Hungary to access the zone in Austria)
We've been trying to discuss the consequences of hypothetical Bulgarian nonbelligerence in the second world war.
Right. Agreed.
Soviet interference in Europe of all forms is relevant to that discussion.
Sure. I can definitely agree with that. What I had been trying to tell you though was that up to the post you had been responding to in a discourteous way the poster in question was not mainly referring to the post war period (as you seem to be) But that wartime period. So that's fantastic, however being a bit more respectful of other posters and not trashing their points by trying to refer to time periods they weren't even mainly talking about might be a better way to bring your points across.
Jovian and Lascaris both approached it without hyperbole and both attempted to work out the post war period based on how the war would likely unfold in an ATL.
You were complaining up-thread that I was allowing for an interpretation of World War II that included its aftermath, and you bring up a conflict in Asia from thirty years later? Really?
Read what I was responding to. I mentioned Afghanistan during 1939-1945 as yet another example of a neutral country that Stalin didn't invade. You missed that I guess.
Last edited: