Communist expansion without WW2

Eurofed

Banned
Stalin had offered many times to assist the West in containing and overthrowing Nazi Germany. Each time he was rebuffed by people who figured the Nazis were the lesser of two evils. What choice did Stalin have but to try to buy off the monster on his doorstep?

Oh, please, Stalin was eager to set up some kind of collective security in the 1930s just because he wanted to avoid war with the capitalist powers while the USSR remained in a position of relative weakness. His actions were mirrored by Hitler's signature of non-aggression pacts with Poland and naval limitations treaty with Britain in the mid-1930s for similar reasons. He wanted to keep Europe quiet until he was done with Soviet industrialization and rearmament, then he would unleash his aggressive aims. When he began to see the preparation close to completion, he kept himself ready to exploit the clash to mutual exhaustion between Nazi Germany and the Western powers (he did not expect France to fall so swiftly and completely). In the meanwhile, he exploited Germany's need to avoid a two-front war to bring the USSR's borders back to the Tsarist levels (unfortunatley for him, Finland proved to be too tough for complete conquest). Then the revamped Red Army would sweep exhausted Europe and pick the pieces. Even when the Fall of France disrupted his earlier plans, he was preparing to attack Hitler in 1942, only the Nazis beat him to the gun.

All this talk of Stalin the peace angel eager to contain the Nazi monsters for the good of Europe that was let down by the nasty Western powers thoroughly sickens me. He was just a genocidal imperialist warlord that was beaten to the gun and cast in the position of temporary lesser evil in the face of the West by the actions of his even more blatantly aggressive peer. Trust a killer to outsmart a killer.
 
Last edited:
Bombing Baku in response to the USSR's collaboration with Nazi Germany, which had people viewing them as an AXIS POWER.

After all, the Soviets providing the Nazis oil and grain made a British naval blockade a la WWI ineffective.

I wasn't criticising anything except the idea that Britain would never have gone to war with the Soviets if they embarked on naked aggression. While obviously it would have been a strategic FUBAR and have terrible consequences for mankind, I don't mind know that we were willing to take on the better part of Eurasia for our principles.

I can't remember, as it's been many years since I've read the article. All I really remember is that phrase, the description of the Holodomor, and a bunch of big guys working on weight machines made of old tank parts.

And this comes from National Geographic, not the John Birch Society. You can't just write them off with a hand-wave and smart-aleck remarks.

I'm used to seeing phraseology which wrinkles my Russophilic nose in the Economist, which I rely on for many things; and it would have been a big ask to expect people to understand 1991 in 1991. I'm not criticising NG for making the comment, I'm saying that it is not a useful historical source and if you can't remember which ones it cites, a smart remark is all that it is.
 
Stalin could have easily chosen to refuse to cooperate with the Nazis entirely. He was the dictator.

I don't know why you keep mentioning this. We've gone over it time and time again; Stalin tried to get the West to ally with him to contain Hitler; this was the point of Franco-Soviet negotiations in 1935. By 1939, after teh sellout of Czechoslovakia (where Stalin had mobilized) he had no reaosn to assume the Western Europeans wouldn't stand by and watch Poland, and then the USSR, fall.

And waddya know, they did nothing in September.
 
Sorry IBC. I misread an early post you made. I thought you said "Orwell could make cracks..." My apologises at my misunderstanding.

Ah, I see. Quite alright.

Oh, please, Stalin was eager to set up some kind of collective security in the 1930s just because he wanted to avoid war with the capitalist powers while the USSR remained in a position of relative weakness.

So he was a bit like almost all statesmen, ever?

Nobody conducts diplomacy according to principles. Liberal democracies don't (just look at the whacky adventures we had in the Cold War) stand by theirs; totalitarian regimes don't stand by even their own skewed and immoral ones (hence the M-R pact), let alone ours.

His actions were mirrored by Hitler's signature of non-aggression pacts with Poland and naval limitations treaty with Britain in the mid-1930s for similar reasons.

That's not remotely analogous. Hitler signed an aggression pact with Poland as a temporary rear-cover measure (although his plans for Poland wouldn't have been in the least pinned down at that point, we know that his eyes were pinned on Lebensraum) while he engaged in aggressive actions in Germany's west and south (we all know that I think Anschluss was a good thing in itself, but in real balance-of-power terms violating treaties is always more "aggressive" than upholding them; the Nazis charming habits of marching into a place with armed divisions, abolishing democracy, and unleashing their gangs on the local political troublemakers and Jews aren't what I'm referring to here).

But Stalin, when he flew Soviet aircraft to CZS while frantically canvassing for a three-power pact, obviously meant to actually defend the independence of CZS. His search for collective security was not a cover until he was done pursuing urgent goals elsewhere, since he didn't have any.

I don't see what's so remarkable about this. A regime comes to power in an important European country, throws all your co-ideologues in camps, preaches the destruction of your ideology and the extermination of your people, signs alliances which say on the tin that they're directed against you (something peacetime alliances, which are full of euphemism, rarely do), and starts re-arming at a furious rate.

And being worried about this and trying to use the fact that this regime is obviously an aggressive menace to divide the capitalist front that haunts your nightmares makes you an "angel of peace", as opposed to "a chap with brains, even if they are paranoid"?

He wanted to keep Europe quiet until he was done with Soviet industrialization and rearmament, then he would unleash his aggressive aims.

What? His burning lust to posses Viborg and Chisinau?

I'm not seeing much evidence for these unusual positions, as against the clear attempts by the 1930s USSR to shut out outside influences, and the fact that Soviet re-armament began on a massive scale after Nazi re-armament.

When he began to see the preparation close to completion, he kept himself ready to exploit the clash to mutual exhaustion between Nazi Germany and the Western powers (he did not expect France to fall so swiftly and completely).

As I said, he mobilised his troops over the Czech crisis, and organised flights to CZS. Given that, it seems abundantly clear that his almost desperate search for a three-way pact was a real attempt to check Hitler.

One can hardly argue that he wasn't stupidly snubbed by Chamberlain: the man himself at first poo-pooed the idea of a general conference (as opposed to Anglo-German talks) in case "other powers" might get a seat. Who could that be?

Now, that doesn't make it right that he signed a pact. Frankly, everybody screwed up. A lot. I just find it annoying that Stalin's blunder is Pure Evil, whereas Britain's blunder is frequently apologised for. We both had entirely cynical motives. We both did things which were entirely immoral. We both did it because of a massive miscalculation. When all is said and done, Britain's miscalculation was bigger and less justifable.

In the meanwhile, he exploited Germany's need to avoid a two-front war to bring the USSR's borders back to the Tsarist levels (unfortunatley for him, Finland proved to be too tough for complete conquest).

I won't apologise for Soviet imperialism, but he was also, ah, "exploiting" the USSR's need to avoid a one-front war.

Then the revamped Red Army would sweep exhausted Europe and pick the pieces. Even when the Fall of France disrupted his earlier plans, he was preparing to attack Hitler in 1942, only the Nazis beat him to the gun.

Ah, those documents. If we're thinking of the same ones, let's review the plans in question. Their author was Zhukov: not a man known to see eye-to-eye with Stalin on everything, or to underestimate Soviet capabilities or his own. They were not stamped by Stalin, so in the totalitarian Soviet society they were essentially tissue-paper; and it's quite possible the marshall was using them as a coded message to Stalin (the Soviets loved coded messages: the elaborate stories dreamed up for show-trials all had a moral for the underlings) about the growing possibility of a German attack before it was expected. And then, generals just make up war-plans all the time. They can't always be Saving the Motherland on a White Horse with Strategic Insight and Mountain Manliness.

All this talk of Stalin the peace angel eager to contain the Nazi monsters for the good of Europe that was let down by the nasty Western powers thoroughly sickens me. He was just a genocidal imperialist warlord that was beaten to the gun and cast in the position of temporary lesser evil in the face of the West by the actions of his even more blatantly aggressive peer. Trust a killer to outsmart a killer.

Diplomacy is actually very complex. It contains a great deal of indecision, misunderstanding, confusion, and humbug. The only way to trace trains of thought are the actual documents, where they're to be had. One can't imagine that Stalin (or Hitler, though he knew what he wanted in the end) ever had a coherent master-plan. Diplomacy just unfolds.
 
I found my old National Geographic. The description of Ukraine is in the introduction to the three articles, which cover Ukraine, Russia, and Kazakhstan. Mike Edwards was the author; Gerd Ludwig is the photographer.

Broken Empire said:
I chose three to follow: Russia, shruken in prestige, wrestling ineffectually to beat its swords into plowshares; Kazakhstan, blessed with natural resources but troubled by pollution and ethnic division; and Ukraine, which bolted like some fierce caged beast, only to be snared again by its former party bosses."

However, I question the "still not free" claim.

Broken Empire said:
"'We aren't afraid anymore,'" said a woman in a Ukrainian village. Repression has ended--the greatest blessing in these worlds turned upside down. Religion thrives. A chorus of dissonant political voices is heard. Minorities that suffocated under the Soviet system, especially in the 1930s and 1940s when Joseph Stalin was dictator, seek unaccustomed sunshine.

That being said, the next paragraph describes how the ex-Communists are still running the show--they being the only ones with governing experience--and graft, "lubricant of the old system," has rapidly grown. Plus "illegal privatization" of old state assets was a problem.

The article on Ukraine began with a description of a bunch of elderly Ukrainian partisans, who had fought the Nazis and Soviets both, doing marches singing their old songs in Kiev, to the cheers of a crowd.

(Ukrainian Insurgent Army.)

However, it describes how Leonid Kravchuk, one the "chief Communist ideologist," stifled the development of private enterprise and subsidized state-owned industries. Ultimately, Leonid Kuchma cut off the subsidies.

The article does describe Ukraine as having an "ardent independence movement" called Rukh. However, it also concedes pro-Russian sentiment in the Donbas and elsewhere.
 
The article on Ukraine began with a description of a bunch of elderly Ukrainian partisans, who had fought the Nazis and Soviets both, doing marches singing their old songs in Kiev, to the cheers of a crowd.

So, basically, out of the enormous nation, these are the people he chose to seek out for interviews? I'd bet you there were more Ancient Ukre Nazi Neopagans (not to be confused with the Ancient Rus Nzi Neopagans) and New Age Millenialists than these guys around in 1991. IN UKRAINE. And believe me, there were plenty of both, so I may not even be exaggerating that much.

However, it also concedes pro-Russian sentiment in the Donbas and elsewhere.

Ah well, that's nice of him. The part of the country that was the economic donor and held most of the urban population. Makes sense that he should not highlight these people but go straight for the Volyn Banderovtsy (UPA! HE talked to UPA survivors, what did he THINK they might say? Surely a journalist might do his research first?) to reflect the average viewpoint of the average guy from Kharkov.

No offense MP, you're a smart guy and all, but it's like you're trying to illustrate the point IBC was trying to make.
 
No offense MP, you're a smart guy and all, but it's like you're trying to illustrate the point IBC was trying to make.

Perhaps. I couldn't find any mention of the New Union Treaty (in the Ukraine section) and the only argument I could make against it--that it, being a Soviet election, could have been fraudulent--also applies the Anschluss vote.

(The pre-Anschluss government of Austria was not democratic.)
 
So, basically, out of the enormous nation, these are the people he chose to seek out for interviews? I'd bet you there were more Ancient Ukre Nazi Neopagans (not to be confused with the Ancient Rus Nzi Neopagans) and New Age Millenialists than these guys around in 1991. IN UKRAINE. And believe me, there were plenty of both, so I may not even be exaggerating that much.

Ah well, that's nice of him. The part of the country that was the economic donor and held most of the urban population. Makes sense that he should not highlight these people but go straight for the Volyn Banderovtsy (UPA! HE talked to UPA survivors, what did he THINK they might say? Surely a journalist might do his research first?) to reflect the average viewpoint of the average guy from Kharkov.

The article describes how much of the territory the anti-Soviet and anti-Nazi Ukrainian nationalists were active in was originally part of Poland--implicitly stating that it was Western Ukraine.

And the issue is not that there were some elderly partisans, but they were being cheered by a crowd.

He also describes how the Russian Orthodox Church has vanished from Western Ukraine--but not ALL of Ukraine.

He also describes how it is rather dubious the officers of the Ukrainian army--at least one who was originally Russian but stayed because he had an apartment in the Ukraine--would fight against Russia if the Russians decided to swallow the country.

Furthermore, the Donbas comment is part of a section on the 11 million ethnic Russians and how they wanted autonomy from Kiev and its Ukrainian nationalism.
 
Perhaps. I couldn't find any mention of the New Union Treaty (in the Ukraine section) and the only argument I could make against it--that it, being a Soviet election, could have been fraudulent--also applies the Anschluss vote.

The most obvious counter-argument to that (other than a tsk tsk at the Godwin attempt) was that the party heads of the three most important union republics nonetheless all chose to split up despite the (weakly held, as it turns out; apathy is pretty rife there even now) wishes of the people/fraudulent elections that they staged for whatever reason.

So basically, the Union government agencies in the respective republics could have gone ahead and created a false result, which the top republic brass for whatever reason utterly disregarded, or else the people voted the way they voted, and the top brass disregarded their wishes. Either way, republican leadership split the country by fiat.

Not that there weren't plenty of nationalists, Russia not least. Many people at the time were convinced we'd be better off without the republics. Sadly they were correct in part: we're better off than the republics are today, but it's questionable if anyone's better off on average than when there was one country.

As they say, they lengthened the chain, let you bark, and then moved the food bowl out of reach.
 
Last edited:
It's not a Godwin attempt--it's an easy counter-argument to make, given my views on other subjects.

After all, I got into an argument with the anti-Valkyrie clique about the wisdom of allowing Anschluss to stand and I've openly wondered if Austrian nationalism is essentially a gigantic post-WWII brainwashing project (a largely successful one, I might add).
 
Now, this little derailing aside, what might the circumstances of "settling accounts with the Japanese" look like?

Would the Soviets decide to openly aggress against the Japanese, or would they wait for a border incident to claim they'd been attacked?

Also, how defensible is Korea against the Soviets? Some people have said the Japanese would be able to hold that (albeit losing Manchuria), but although Korea is a geographic bottleneck, it's not THAT severe, plus if the Soviets hold nearby ports in Manchuria, they can conduct landings in other parts of the peninsula.
 

Old Airman

Banned
I'm not going to go in fine details of discussion how bad the Soviet Union was, but I have an easy answer to question "How many people would see a Soviet Union as a role model?", if we define Soviet Union as being able to feed most population most of the time, while building relatively modern industry, providing free basic education (universities charged tuition fees several times in OTL USSR, and, I think, even high school wasn't free for several years in late 1940s) and crude but pretty effective healthcare. And the answer is "majority of population of the British Empire, French and Dutch Colonial Empires, as well as China and good chunk of Latin American countries". In other words, region known as the third world. Sure, Soviets can kiss goodbye to WarPac (Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Greece might have homegrown communist movements powerful enough to swing them to Soviet side, with some cover Soviet support, and CZS might Finlandize under threat from (non-Nazi) Germany, Hungary, Austria, but not much more), but the third world is up for grabs. Not that I believe that everything listed below must happen in a world without WWII (it would be pretty Commie-wankish), but anyone interested in "no WWII" TL writing might want to consider some of it happening.

Off the top of my head I can name name several regions which could swing much more pro-Soviet than OTL:
1. India. OTL decolonization was at least as much result of WWII as WarPac was. Without WWII, British would continue to rule India (and amass bad carma there) longer. Increased radicalization of Indian independence movement might very well transform them into outright Commies (basically, Nehru going Castro's and Nasser's way).
2. Indonesia. Same as India. Continued colonization leads to radicalization of independence movement along class lines (Communist parties were always the most radical anti-colonialist forces everywhere) leads to much more powerful Communist party establishing lasting Soviet client regime, as opposed to OTL swing.
3. Latin America. It was always a bridge too far as far as Soviet influence is concerned. Devastation of WWII prevented USSR from getting enough muscle to effectively act there. So most of OTL achievements of the Left there were results of homegrown movements not supported by Commies (Castro have helped Sandinistas and FARC, but it was not crucial; ones who calls Sandinistas "Soviet agents" have to call Solidarnosc "CIA puppet force"). It might have been different without WWII. So, pro-Soviet Columbia, Brazil and couple of others randomly picked countries South of the Rio Grande is possible.

I still think it is likely that China and Viet Nam will end up Communist. Although OTL Soviet support to CCP had been massive, Soviets didn't give to Mao anything KMT didn't have 10 times more, so it was a civil war CCP won, not Soviet puppet regime. And, since Soviet involvement into Chinese affairs goes back to early 1920s (KMT was a Soviet creation, for crying out loud, and kept Bolshevik organizational structure till 1990s), it would continue without WWII.

Viet Nam would be a chain reaction after China goes communist (and continued French rule wouldn't make things easier for anti-Communist activity there. either homegrown or foreign).

Korea would likely remain anti-Soviet (although, with Japanese ruling it longer than OTL and China and USSR sponsoring all independence movements there, even that is debatable). As far as Africa is concerned, pretty much OTL (pro-Soviet regimes would pop up randomly, courtesy of local circumstances).

Poland, when I think about it, would be pretty interesting case in a world without WWII. I don't expect it to swing Comminist, not in a world where "Communism" strongly associated with "Russia". However, pre-WWII Poland has Kresy... That's where things start getting hairy. According to Madison, USSR reached parity with Poland in GDP per capita terms in 1939. Taking into account that Soviets did spend a ginormous part of GDP on military and industry-building purposes, it wasn't felt in terms of quality of life, so an average Ukrainian farmer on Polish side of the border probably had better living than on Soviet one. However, the pace of Soviet growth was much bigger and, unlike backward agrarian Kresy, USSR and BSSR were rapidly growing industrial powerhouses with all kinds of opportunities one might expect from urbanism. So, without WWII, an average guy from Kresy could find himself staring at Soviet side of the border with the same feeling as a Pole today stare at German side ("the place of good living... it is there") by, let's say, late 1940s. Now, let us not forget that "quality of life" didn't have the same meaning in 1940s as it has today. It wasn't "how many times a year can one go to vacation overseas" or "how many TVs does a house hold own", it was "does one have adequate nutrition and access to basic healthcare", and Sovets weren't too bad in covering THAT definition. Add nationalist feelings (and leanings of Polish Jewry in this world, without post-WWII "doctors' plot", but with perennially spotty Polish-Jewish relationships) into the mix, and you have third of Polish population being pro-Soviet. It is a recipe for an interesting life, isn't it?
 
Given the USSR's massive superiority in armor it is very hard to imagine Japan not being driven fairly easily from Manchuria and perhaps with some difficulty from most or all of Korea.


Faeelin, there's a substantial difference between Stalin concluding, with good reason, that the British and French are not worthy partnering with against Hitler and actively joining forces with Hitler.
 

Old Airman

Banned
Given the USSR's massive superiority in armor it is very hard to imagine Japan not being driven fairly easily from Manchuria and perhaps with some difficulty from most or all of Korea.

Korea is a difficult terrain and Japanese would have time to prepare. They might actually stop Soviet-Chinese force.
 
Faeelin, there's a substantial difference between Stalin concluding, with good reason, that the British and French are not worthy partnering with against Hitler and actively joining forces with Hitler.

Is there? This way he ensures Hitler doesn't attack him, and watches the hostile powers bleed each other white.
 
Except he didn't ensure that and lack of a pact would leave Hitler both weaker and distracted.

Just having to occupy all of Poland costs Hitler a division or three and if he isn't certain of Stalin's benevolent neutrality then how many divisions does that cost when Hitler needs them in the West?
 
Why do everyone assume that any form of communist exspanison sans WW2 and the third reich would have to be conquest bye the sovjet union?

We might just see a a different interpretation of marxsism, and i dont think that anti-colonial grouppes will be militant moderat liberalists.

And the Moscow line vs the non Moscow party will be biiger without the nazis.
 
Industrialisation continues. By 1943, Red Army start to be expanded, militarization 5 years plan. 1948, the Red Army goes west, european powers attempt resistance. There is no power with the numbers and the technology to resist, only the Maginot line provide a strong resistance point but it doesn´t extend to the Belgian border. Battle of England, RAF is outnumbered several times over, islandes are seized.
Moscow becomes the capital of the Socialist Sovietic Republics of Eurasia and Africa. The United States formes an alliance with Imperial Japan, completely dominates Indonesia, Australia, Centrral and South America. Massive industrialisation begins there, beginning of the protracted struggle.
In the 1970s, the first prototypes of Homo Sovieticus are born.

Should the Soviet-Union continue undisturbed, its indutrialisation level would become proportionally superior to France and England, conquering europe would become useless for all puyrposes.
Hovewer, someone may decide to attack the Soviet-Union and win the Darwin aware. Some mad marshalls in Warsaw perhapse or France and Britain deciding to start a border war with a communist China.


It is not like some kind of left-wing ideology will disappear. Stalin is probably going to be seen as the end of Communism, a traitor who instead of pursuing Marxist goals, decided instead to butcher his own people to a tune UNRIVALLED in modern times (no holocaust, remember...)

Well, I guess Churchill was an idiot for not asking for a peace treaty when Germany turned east in 41´.
 
Last edited:
only the Maginot line provide a strong resistance point but it doesn´t extend to the Belgian border. .

Oddly enough it did. France also planned on using Belgium river and foritifications in case of war. It was a hell lot weaker than the main line and wouldent make any difference at all but the fact just annoyed me. :eek:

1940-Fall_Gelb.jpg
 
Top