Bulgaria stays neutral in World War II

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:

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Geographically, Bulgaria is much more ‘on the way’ than Turkey as far as the Balkans are involved and hardly could be left completely uninvolved in the operations of 1944 - 45. OTOH, Turkey, territorially, was completely irrelevant for these operations.

Makes me wonder how "on the way" Yugoslavia was. In OTL the Red Army went through its northeast corner while Tito independently took over the rest. If Yugoslavia had been an Axis member, or if it had been a tolerated neutral, would the Red Army still have gone through that corner? Or a wider swath of territory? If Yugoslavia had been Axis, would the Westerners have occupied any part of it?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
If you were the Nazi/Wehrmacht leadership in this scenario, and respecting Bulgarian territory meant a harder, longer slog south through Yugoslavia and into Greece, would you tolerate that? Or just expand the war to Bulgaria to allow for more mobility corridors?

The latter seems more "in character"
 
"If you were the Nazi/Wehrmacht leadership in this scenario, and respecting Bulgarian territory meant a harder, longer slog south through Yugoslavia and into Greece, would you tolerate that? Or just expand the war to Bulgaria to allow for more mobility corridors?"

They wanted the Bulgarian army against Yugoslavia, not Bulgarian territory.
 
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.
Wasn't it?





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.
If you don't understand how the aftermath of the second world war historically is relevant to this thread and the decisions that would me made therein, I cannot help you. Theater frequently has a military context, and it can have a context for neighboring states wherein related engagements occur, such as a civil war involving a sympathetic political movement.






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.
Yet the Soviets toppled an already eerily cordial Czechoslovak government anyway. You're helping my argument yet again.
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.
Eventually, Yes, Stalin entered into such an agreement, but only after having earlier supported them. We might see something similar happen here with Bulgaria, but it's by no means certain.

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.
You really need to stop supporting my point in your effort to disprove it. Officially nonbelligerent countries were still very much involved in the war and the intrigues surrounding the war. You invoking the nonbelligerents Spain and Portugal very much demonstrate that.


Then why are you even discussing anything in this thread? The thread is about Bulgaria being neutral in WWII.
I'm really not sure how you reached that conclusion.


]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]
As has been my argument from the start. I'm glad we're on the same page. Now, given Stalin's OTL actions, I've yet to see why he would not seek to bring Bulgaria into the Soviet orbit even if it had largely stayed out of the war.






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)
Not an established stipulation, nor the only way to access Hungary, given Romania, as well as Soviet conquest of Subcarpathian Ruthenia.

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
Not unlike Romania and Moldova.
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).
I did not think they were withdrawn, as some of the forces used against Hungary in 1956 I hought came from Czechoslovakia
4. Been occupied by Germany, necessitating Soviet forces moving into the country to expel German forces as the war progressed.
Not an established stipulation, and not a basis for other postwar occupations, as you've pointed out.
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.
Which wasn't the established standard in that post.

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).
Soviet forces did not end up in Albania at all?

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.
So, if the Soviets quietly annex a vassal stae, why would they not try to flip Bulgaria communist?
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.
So, the USSR got to force Bulgaria into its orbit historically even though Bulgaria did not fight the USSR. Sounds a lot like my argument. Remind me again about heeding Stalin's reasoning ;)

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).
One fewer places for Stalin to press an advantage after the war.

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.
True. But how does this help your argument?
]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).
But in leaving Manchuria to Chinese Communists, Stalin hoped to maintain influence there.


Okay.

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.
If the Soviets annex an allied country, why would they leave a nonbelligerent adjacent to the fighting and in/near their historical sphere of influence alone?


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.
Agreed.

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)
More support for my argument. Thanks!



Right. Agreed.




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.
In other words, you've perpetuated this argument over hyperbole.

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.
Now you're trying to have it both ways.
 
Wasn't it?

No.





If you don't understand how the aftermath of the second world war historically is relevant to this thread and the decisions that would me made therein, I cannot help you. Theater frequently has a military context, and it can have a context for neighboring states wherein related engagements occur, such as a civil war involving a sympathetic political movement.

Ye, but the bit of your post that I quoted was about the theatre. Hence, unless you were using "theatre" in a very, very unconventional and confusing way, that bit of your post that I quoted and pointed out contained an error must have been referring to the second world war and not the aftermath. You've been conflating the two when I was specifically referencing that bit of your post. Go back and read it over if you don't believe me (which it seems you don't unfortunately, not sure why because everyone makes mistakes and generally I find your posts to be quite informative and productive).



Yet the Soviets toppled an already eerily cordial Czechoslovak government anyway. You're helping my argument yet again.

I don't see how since I've noted that the context that enabled the Soviets to topple that Czechoslovak government was enabled by how things went in the course of the war (which would be possibly quite different for a Bulgaria that remained neutral and never had the Red Army enter its territory), but apparently you do. So c'est la vie.


Eventually, Yes, Stalin entered into such an agreement, but only after having earlier supported them. We might see something similar happen here with Bulgaria, but it's by no means certain.


Right, but Stalin entered that agreement in late 1944 which is before the war ended. After that he gave no active support to the Greeks as far as I know but didn't discourage the communists there (he basically took no position so that if things worked to his advantage then all the better). Maybe something similar could happen with Bulgaria, but much as how the percentages agreement made no mention of Turkey (likely because Turkey wasn't involved as it was a neutral country), I doubt in a TL where Bulgaria successfully maintained neutrality and staved off any German invasion that we would see it being included either.

You really need to stop supporting my point in your effort to disprove it. Officially nonbelligerent countries were still very much involved in the war and the intrigues surrounding the war. You invoking the nonbelligerents Spain and Portugal very much demonstrate that.

It seems you are reading it quite differently. Given that I've noted that I've been talking about 1939-1945 in terms of Axis or Soviet invasions and occupations of neutral countries (otherwise how would they have been left alone in the the European Theatre?), Spain and Portugal most definitely were never invaded or taken control of. Intrigue sure, but there's always intrigue. Said intrigue never resulted in them becoming toppled and aligned in outright alliance with either the Axis or the Soviets. They were fascist countries which were sympathetic to Germany of course, but they were left in peace instead of having bloody fighting across their territory.



I'm really not sure how you reached that conclusion.

Okay, well you aren't sure how I reached that conclusion and I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that discussing Manchuria or Austria being neutral or not at the time Soviet forces entered was irrelevant.


As has been my argument from the start. I'm glad we're on the same page. Now, given Stalin's OTL actions, I've yet to see why he would not seek to bring Bulgaria into the Soviet orbit even if it had largely stayed out of the war.

The bit you highlighted in bold, noted that "under the circumstances" Stalin was always likely to puppetize Poland. What are the circumstances under which Stalin got the opportunity to do so?

1. Soviet troops had to cross Poland to get into Germany and to also expel the Germans

2. He was able to exert control through military control of the territory which assisted him greatly in helping local communists actually come into power and maintain power

If Bulgaria had stayed out of the war, these circumstances would not be replicated for it.







Not an established stipulation, nor the only way to access Hungary, given Romania, as well as Soviet conquest of Subcarpathian Ruthenia.

Yes, that's the previously established stipulation I was referring to. Sorry if it wasn't clear, but I thought that when I wrote:

"Czechoslovakia had territory that would have given the USSR direct access to continue dominating a conquered enemy (Hungary)" that it was clear I was referring to Subcarpathian Ruthenia which the USSR annexed as the most direct access to Hungary from the Soviet Union is via Subcarpathian Ruthenia.

Not unlike Romania and Moldova.

True, though as we've seen Stalin seemed to be quite interested in incorporating areas which had been previously apart of the old Russian Empire (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldavia and the attempt with Finland as well as approximately half of the area of eastern Poland annexed in 1939 (the other bit having been a part of the Austrian Empire). Outside of that the guiding motivations seemed to be a mix of what was previously part of the Russian Empire, whatever territory provided some strategic asset for security, or whatever territory contained ethnic groups with their own SSR

I did not think they were withdrawn, as some of the forces used against Hungary in 1956 I hought came from Czechoslovakia

To the best of my knowledge, all Soviet forces were withdrawn from Czechoslovakia (following an agreement with Truman) in mid or late 1945 (excepting numerous military advisers) and Soviet forces were never based in Czechoslovakia again until the Soviet intervention against the Prague Spring in 1968. No Soviet forces entered Hungary in 1956 from Czechoslovakia (though some did from Romania - this map is from a Hungarian born cartographer).

Not an established stipulation, and not a basis for other postwar occupations, as you've pointed out.
'

The stipulations are taken together. As in, multiple categories can fit a particular territory at a given time or only one might. A Bulgaria that avoided being involved in World War II would fit none of the examples of the other territories actually occupied or controlled by the USSR as a result of World War II.


Soviet forces did not end up in Albania at all?

During the course of the war? Nope:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Albanian_split

Albania was the only country in Eastern Europe, except Greece, which had liberated itself without the presence of the Red Army on its soil.[3] A combination of these factors led Stalin to initially have been "both curious and suspicious about the only leader of a Communist regime in the Soviet bloc who escaped from any historical ties or contact with the Soviet Union." This, Halliday continues, "was true not just of Hoxha as an individual, but of almost the entire leading group in Albania."[4] Despite this, however, Hoxha was "the quintessential Stalinist. Many of the descriptions Nikita Khrushchev used to denounce Josef Stalin ... could easily be applied to Enver Hoxha."[5]

Following Albania's liberation on November 29, 1944, the country's economic and foreign policies were dominated by its neighbor Yugoslavia under the leadership of Josip Broz Tito, and Albania became in the words of historian Miranda Vickers a "sub-satellite."[6] During this period ties with the Soviet Union remained limited, though formal diplomatic relations were established in December 1945.[7]

The first Soviet bases in Albania were established in the 1950s i.e. years after Albania became a communist vassal. The Soviet bases were mainly missile, air and naval bases. Soviet forces were removed following the Soviet-Albanian split in the 1960s.

Until the 1950s though there were no Soviet forces in Albania.

So, if the Soviets quietly annex a vassal stae, why would they not try to flip Bulgaria communist?

I dunno...maybe because they wouldn't have the means to? After all a vassal state is already under their control. So annexing it is fairly straightforward (it's basically just a formality). How successful was Stalin in flipping Italy or France to become communist? And isn't it a coincidence that neither of them were under Soviet control at any point between 1939 and 1945?

So, the USSR got to force Bulgaria into its orbit historically even though Bulgaria did not fight the USSR. Sounds a lot like my argument. Remind me again about heeding Stalin's reasoning ;)

Bulgaria was in alliance with the Germans who were fighting the USSR though and had hosted thousands of German soldiers. So, not really like your argument unless you are arguing that a truly neutral Bulgaria would be allied to Nazi Germany and allow German troops access to their territory to occupy Greece......


True. But how does this help your argument?

Germany was a conquered enemy, hence Soviet forces were there. Why would Soviet forces be stationed at any point in a truly neutral Bulgaria? That's been my argument all along.

But in leaving Manchuria to Chinese Communists, Stalin hoped to maintain influence there.

Exactly. Soviet forces entered Manchuria. Established control (or rather took it from the Japanese) and then left it with the local communists as a way to maintain influence that had been established when the Soviet forces first entered Manchuria.

Are we to say then that Stalin would hope to maintain influence in a Bulgaria where he had very little previously? Would he not rather wish to extend it? But then how is he going to do that when based off the track record, the only places where he ever successfully established control and real influence (other than Albania and northern Vietnam) were places where the Red Army was at some point in charge for a period of time? And in the case of Albania it was the local communists who took control as the Germans withdrew (and the local communists who harassed them and attacked them as their positions became untenable in the area) - and he was initially very wary of them because they were independent communists. They (the Albanian communists) had this opportunity because the Albanian state had been gutted by first the Italians and then the Germans. A neutral Bulgaria that avoided the war would not resemble Albania in this sense because it's national government would not have been subverted and overthrown by the Germans and there would have been no vacuum for the local communists to fill. For northern Vietnam it was again the local communists who had a hand in fighting the occupiers (Japanese) and then the after the war the Chinese Nationalists largely left northern Vietnam under the control of local Vietnamese forces (but forced the inclusion of non-communist Vietnamese nationalists into the provisional Vietnamese government). So in 1945, in northern Vietnam the local communists took power in a vacuum and were then not forced out completely by the Chinese, enabling them to continue gathering control.

So unlike any of the countries or other territories where Soviet forces were at some point in control (or still had a vast presence) and could thus aid local and subservient communist forces, or in the two territories/countries (Albania, northern Vietnam) where local (and largely independent) communists could take advantage of a vacuum, a truly neutral Bulgaria would more resemble Sweden, Turkey, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland or Afghanistan of the 1930s into 1940s in not having had a vacuum caused it's goverment being extinguished at some point by hostile occupation and allowing the Soviets to decisively support or enable communists to assume control. Even in the case of a place like Greece, the disorder from the years of occupation and war, provided an enabling environment for local communists even without Stalin's backing.

If the Soviets annex an allied country, why would they leave a nonbelligerent adjacent to the fighting and in/near their historical sphere of influence alone?

Because their actions require opportunity. What opportunity would have been presented for Stalin to send in the Red Army into Bulgaria?



More support for my argument. Thanks!

Not sure how. Molotov opposed Soviet withdrawals. So unless we are postulating that a neutral Bulgaria was going to be occupied, what Soviet forces would there be in order for a withdrawal to take place? And which occupation zone does Bulgaria give access to? Because Stalin allowed his army to access eastern Austria via Hungary (which in turn was accessed as an occupied enemy via annexed Subcarpathian Ruthenian). His army accessed eastern Germany via Poland. Hence control over Poland. Hungary was also a conquered enemy (it fell into two categories). Romania and OTL Bulgaria were also conquered Axis nations.

A neutral Bulgaria that avoided the war would be none of those things.



Now you're trying to have it both ways.

No I'm not. Honestly. I don't understand how you misunderstand me and then attempt to play it as if I'm playing it both ways.

This is literally the very last thing I said in the post I was referring to:

Going into Bulgaria would be about as useful as conquering Afghanistan and Stalin notably didn't bother Afghanistan in 1939-1945 (despite Afghanistan containing territories with large numbers of Uzbeks, Tajiks and Turkmens who all had SSRs in his Soviet Union!)

Now how is that in reference to the 1980s? I specifically referred to Stalin and Afghanistan in 1939-1945. This was to point out that despite Afghanistan containing large populations of ethnic groups with SSRs in the Soviet Union, Stalin didn't attempt to conquer it or annex it in 1939-1945. When I asked "no love for Afghanistan?" I was asking how it is that this example is overlooked. How is that me trying to have it both ways?
 
Last edited:
Bulgarian neutrality is basically impossible once Germany demands passage through Bulgaria to attack Greece. In turn, a German invasion of Greece is basically inevitable once Greece has been involved in the war. Therefore it seems that the only way to avoid Bulgaria's entrance into the war would be to avoid Italy's invasion of Greece. In this case, it's almost certain that Yugoslavia remains neutral - with a neutral (and German friendly) Bulgaria and Greece there is little need to force them into entering the Axis.

Taking these necessary conditions into account, the scenario starts with Italy not attacking Greece (perhaps Hitler learns about the invasion before it can starts and forces Mussolini to back down). The consequences of this on the wider war would be significant, but certainly would not change the outcome. It’s very likely that without the distraction of sending troops to Greece, Britain would conquer Libya before the Germans could muster help. This would substantially improve the British position from this point on. On the other hand, Germany would be able to start the invasion of the USSR early and with the participation of their paratroopers. This would almost certainly not be enough to reach Moscow in 1941 (the earlier start would be offset with the German troops being bogged in their last phase of advance due to having to move earlier, when the roads would be more impassable), but the Soviet union would be in a weaker position. It still won’t be enough to prevent the Soviets from occupying Romania before the Allies. At this point Bulgaria would likely switch from pro-German to pro-Allied neutrality and likely break diplomatic relations with Germany (possibly issue a token declaration of war, like Turkey did but this is technically against the rule of this scenario). As I explain in detail below, Bulgaria certainly would not be attacked by the Soviets.

After the war subsequent developments in Bulgaria depend to a significant degree on whether Boris III lives longer. If he does (rather likely, without an irate Hitler or possible poisoning to contend with), expect Bulgaria to remain an authoritarian country under his leadership (though formally it might act as a democracy, including neutered opposition parties). Certainly the Soviets would attempt to interfere in Bulgaria’s affairs, but based on OTL experience they won’t be successful (and unlike in Greece they wouldn’t even have an experienced guerilla army to support against the government). Bulgaria would likely join NATO along with the initial member states or shortly thereafter. After his death, it’s likely that the regime would liberalize and possibly abolish the monarchy, if the authoritarian regime was particularly heavy handed.

If Boris dies early, it’s likely that a transition to democracy would occur (no charismatic figure to take over plus Allied pressure), most likely under the leadership of the Agrarians. Bulgaria would probably attempt to be a friendly neutral towards the Soviets. If they are satisfied with this arrangement (quite likely), Bulgaria might survive as a neutral buffer throughout the Cold War. Otherwise even this government might join NATO eventually. There is of course also the possibility of an US sponsored military coup if the US coup as in Greece, if the US is concerned about Bulgaria being too friendly to the Soviets.

An important, but difficult to predict part of this timeline is the situation in Yugoslavia. The interwar Yugoslav was quite unstable and only got worse as time passed on. Add likely Soviet interference and it’s very likely that Yugoslavia would collapse, probably in a civil war. In this case, Bulgaria would very likely attempt to seize Macedonia, where in this scenario the great majority would still have a Bulgarian identification.


Most probably, there would be Romanian model: 1st, Bulgaria is ‘persuaded’ to join the Allies, 2nd, the Red Army is on its territory (nothing personal, just logistics), 3rd, a pro-Soviet government is formed, 4th, the King (after receiving Order of Victory, etc.) is persuaded to abdicate and leave the country. Even if by the reasons of a pure geography, Bulgaria could not be allowed to remain outside the Soviet zone of influence.

The Romanian model fails immediately because Bulgaria would not be an enemy of the Soviet Union with German troops on its territory. So 1st, a coup like inRomania is very unlikely (no reason to remove the government to stop an , 2nd, the Red Army is not going to enter Bulgaria (no logistical reason for that whatsoever since no possible route through Bulgaria leads anywhere the Soviets would want to go), 3rd, no pro-Soviet government is likely without the support of the military, 4th, obviously impossible without the previous conditions. And of course, there is no geographic reason whatsoever for Bulgaria to be inside the Soviet zone of influence.


Bulgaria was not involved in the invasion of the SU and AFAIK was not at war with the SU. It declared a war on the Axis in 1944 and its armies advanced with the Soviets into Yugoslavia, Hungary and Austria.

After the Soviets had already declared war on Bulgaria. And more importantly, after Bulgaria had already declared war on the Allies, occupied parts of Greece and Yugoslavia and German troops were stationed on their territory.


Geographically, Bulgaria is much more ‘on the way’ than Turkey as far as the Balkans are involved and hardly could be left completely uninvolved in the operations of 1944 - 45. OTOH, Turkey, territorially, was completely irrelevant for these operations.

Bulgaria is not in the way to anything (remember that if Bulgaria is neutral, then so is Yugoslavia). Attacking Bulgaria would be an unjustified aggression against a neutral country. Do explain why Stalin would alienate his Allies for such minor gains and greatly undermine the Soviet position that their objective is the defeat of Germany and not expansion.


Bulgaria would be within the Soviet zone of operations so its neutrality is neither here nor there and change of the regime would happen after the war is over (Michael of Romania abdicated in 1947). A standard arrangement with Weatern Allies was conduct of the free elections (with the Red Army occupying the territory). Worked quite well (from Stalin’s perspective) all over the Block.

If Bulgaria is neutral, then it would not be within any zones of operation, any more than any neutral country was.


Invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece goes very differently, instead of swift advance through Macedonia, the Germans will need to cross Danube and condusct much longer march, giving Greeks and Brits more time to prepare defenses, also Luftwaffe will be flying support missions from Romania until captured Yugoslav airfields can be prepared. Not to mention that Greeks will be able to pull troops from Metaxas line to reinforce the defense against German advance. Thus the Greece campaign would be longer and bloodier, perhaps the invasion of Crete doesn't happen due to Barbarossa, which in turn would give the British a base for operations in the Egean sea.

Your scenario is not realistic. If Bulgaria refused to let the German forces pass, then Germany would invade Bulgaria as well. The German high command had in fact two timetables for passing through Bulgaria - with or without their permission and made sure the Bulgarian government knew that. So there's practically no chance of Bulgaria refusing.



Would Stalin invade neutral Bulgaria in 1944? No. Would he start shenanigans to get a Red government installed post war? Certainly.


Like it’s neighbours Greece and Turkey, Bulgaria will probably be an early frontline in the Cold War; due to the strength of the Macedonian KKE partisans the Greek Civil War could easily spread over the border. But I doubt outright invasion.


I’d put my money more on a ‘neutral’ Finland 2 or even Turkey 2 - Bulgaria gets so bugged out by Soviet mind games they end joining *NATO.

There would be no KKE partisans since Greece would be neutral as well, for the reasons I explained above.


Agreed. The question here, is why does Bulgaria decide not join the Axis given it's claims? I suppose different domestic politics could play out to keep Bulgaria from pursuing these goals with the Axis.


I suspect that rather than being left alone though, Bulgaria would be pressured into joining the Allies in '44-45 since as alexmilman notes, it occupies a strategic space for the pursuit of operations against the Germans in southern Yugoslavia and in Greece. This might then involve Bulgaria joining the Allies and allowing Soviet troops to cross its territory, but I don't see the Soviets outright invading neutral Bulgaria (they might, along with the other Allies, intimate that in order for Bulgaria to retain southern Dobruja after the War then Bulgaria should join the Allies, lest that award be nullified along with Hungary's reward of territory in Romania).


If that happens then Bulgaria ends up after the war with borders pretty much as in OTL and it might have either ended up in the Soviet sphere in a different way, or been able to remain neutral.

If there are German troops in Greece and Yugoslavia, then there would be inevitably German troops in Bulgaria as well. There is basically no scenario when Germany would not make use of Bulgarian territory if it's necessary to attack either country and Bulgaria is too weak (and too unwilling) to refuse.


Soo the way it looks is that either the Germans have to invade Bulgaria in March, which defeats the whole neutrality idea, or alternatively to selve the plans for a Balkan campaign till after the expected destruction of the Soviet Union. This in hindsight may not look as a good idea but in February 1941 isn't particularly unlikely.

It is particularly unlikely. The above mentioned German plan, IIRC had three more days for passage through Bulgaria without their permission. It shows that Germany was not particularly concerned with Bulgarian resistance.



Well, as a Bulgarian I'm of the opinion that it depends on what happens exactly. There are several possible outcomes to Bulgaria remaining neutral in WWII.


1. Germany invades Bulgaria as part of the Balkan Campaign, the Fatherland Front becomes part of the anti-Nazi resistance movement. The Soviets take control of it as part of their advance against Germany and history continues more or less as OTL with the Fatherland Front becoming the post-war Communist Government.

Doesn't fit with the scenario, since Bulgaria would be an Allied country then.


2. Germany doesn't invade Bulgaria, Bulgaria still experiences the Fatherland Front coup in 1944 and joins the Allies and later the Soviet bloc. History continues mostly the same as OTL.

Not going to happen. The other parties (and most importantly Zveno with their connection to the military) only joined to get Bulgaria out of the war. With Bulgaria neutral, they would not be willing to help them.


3. Germany doesn't invade Bulgaria, the Fatherland Front coup fails. Bulgaria becomes a constitutional monarchy under Boris III and his heirs (who in this TL don't try to become politicians, thank God.), the Bulgarian Communists are given Soviet support and we get a civil war similar to the OTL Greek Civil War, which ends with a fascist Bulgaria that eventually liberalizes and Bulgaria winds up mostly like OTL South Korea economics wise.

This is not a good thing, since it means that they instead are monarchs, with the ability to intervene in Bulgarian politics by the Tarnovo constitution. As for a civil war, this is rather unlikely. In Greece the civil war happened because the Communists already hada rebel army that had fought the Germans and thus they had a reasonable claim to be the true government of Greece. In Bulgaria, a Communist uprising would be just a naked power grab under the obvious direction of the Soviets. It would find little support.

As for the economy, the level of South Korea is unrealistic. Perhaps at most somewhat better than the OTL Greek one.


The only reason Bulgaria ever became a Republic was because of the Communist coup that made it part of the Soviet Bloc, after the end of teh Communist Party rule the Bulgarian people simply didn't care enough to bring back the monarchy and Bulgaria remains a republic to this day, a former member of the Royal family (Simeon II who otherwise would've been tzar of Bulgaria) even became Prime Minister in 2001.

By this logic, Greece would still be a monarchy. If the monarch involves himself into politcs and especially if he attempts to enforce an authoritarian regime, it's more than likely that Bulgaria not be a monarchy today. Keep in mind that all parties, including the opposition supported the abolishing of the monarchy in 1946.


I wonder if Bulgaria can get much richer or more populous today.

This is rather likely. Without the rapid urbanization and increased education in Communist times natural population growth would be higher than in OTL and there wouldn't be population crash during the disastrous transition after the fall of Communism. A population of up 10 million wouldn't be surprising. Economically, Bulgaria might do as well or better than Greece in OTL.

It still gets swept up into the Soviet sphere. If the WWestern allies can betray Poland a second time in six years, as per OTL, a nonbelligerent Bulgaria does not stand a chance.

Chris S has done a good job at refuting your arguments about why Bulgaria would be in the Soviet sphere, so I'm just curious about the exact mechanism by which this "sweeping up" would be done. Because almost all possible scenarios seem extremely unlikely:

1. Invasion during WWII? Extremely unlikely. It's an attack on a neutral country without justification, in an area the British were sensitive about. At the time the Soviets are still dependent on Allied supplies and on their goodwill for the post-war arrangements in Europe. It's completely contrary to Stalin's cautious attitude, who for example did not attempt to seize Greece in the autumn of 1944 when the circumstances where in his favor.

2. Invasion after the war? Even less likely. As the Iranian example showed, Western tolerance for these kinds of activities considerably declined after the war.

3. A coup as in OTL? As unlikely as the previous scenario. The coup (and the alliance with the Communists) only happened because part of the military saw it as the only way to get a favorable peace from the war. Otherwise the military had little sympathy towards the Soviets and Communists.

4. An armed insurrection? Again nearly impossible. As I explained above, there isn't a battle hardened guerilla army with the political mandate of having fought for the country against the occupiers. Plus, supplying rebels across the Romanian border is much more difficult than it's over the mountains on Greeece's northern borders.

5. Through an election? Not any likelier than the previous cases. In Bulgaria were always weaker than the Agrarians. They would never have won the OTL elections without the occupation of Bulgaria and the coup they carried out. In this scenario, it's even less likely.
 
Last edited:
The war in Europe was ostensibly waged for the sake of Poland, a country forced after the war into the camp of one of the countries that invaded it. If the British and the French are disinclined from defending the ally for whose sake they went to war, then it's unlikely that they will stand up for the independence of a nonbelligerent with stronger historical links to Russia. Frankly, Finlandization seems a likely option here.
 
The war in Europe was ostensibly waged for the sake of Poland, a country forced after the war into the camp of one of the countries that invaded it. If the British and the French are disinclined from defending the ally for whose sake they went to war, then it's unlikely that they will stand up for the independence of a nonbelligerent with stronger historical links to Russia. Frankly, Finlandization seems a likely option here.
The Soviets troops were only in Poland (thus allowing a Communist regime to be imposed) because Poland was occupied by the Nazis and on the way to Berlin. They would have no business going in a neutral Bulgaria, so the situations are not comparable. It should be pointed out that even in OTL the Soviet Union did not declare war on Bulgaria until it had become certain that the Allies still considered them an enemy country.
As for Finlandization, or rather neutrality, this is a possible outcome. But if the Bulgarian King is still in power, Bulgaria will likely enter NATO, as he was strongly anti-Communist. In any case, Allied tolerance of Soviet advances considerably declined after the end of war. You can expect that all anti-Communist forces in Bulgaria would be generously supported.
 
Top