Effects of a Polish-Soviet war in 1936

Eurofed

Banned
I think that as a matter of fact, with this war, the Soviets shall get far head a lot, likely overrunning most of Poland. As other have pointed out, they have several elements of superiority to the Poles. I think the Romanians would honor the alliance, after all if Poland falls it is obvious that they are the next target. Germany has just begun its own rearmament, and the Wehrmacht is still close to a joke, they can lend an hand, but I doubt they would be enough to stop the Red Army. I think that Britain and France would be forced to intervene.

As I said, Romania likely joins the fray, but I think would not fare much better (another reason Hitler would have to behave: if Ploesti is threatened, the Westenr powers control his oil supply), likely Moldavia at least is overrun, if not more. It is pretty much sure that the moment the great powers join the war, Stalin would invade the Baltic states. I wonder what Finland would do.
 
The scary thing is, in this scenario most of the West would probably be favorable to the Nazis; after all they're holding back the Red Menace.
Methink that Stalin's fear of "United Anti-Communist Crusade" is the biggest reason which makes all those apocalyptic "USSR attacks this" and "USSR attacks that" scenarios ASB. Yes, any bold move on Stalin's side without both Germany and Entente being busy elsewhere is unlikely. Would Stalin attacks in 1936, France would still be in doubts about resurgent Germany, but, being pressured by it's own fears of new war, as well as British fears of "Red Menace", it would not protest much.

Czechoslovakia is likely to be either on the Soviet side or sympathetic, giving Hitler the perfect excuse to conquer them.
Yes, Czechoslovakia factor is interesting one. I believe that OTL Sovetization of Czechoslovakia was one of most stupid political decisions Stalin ever made. In any other reasonable realistic TL but OTL Czech were doomed to be Soviet pals.

Actually if Germany, France, and Britain form an anti-Soviet coalition, and especially if Britain and France sends troops to the Eastern front, this is a very good thing because the Nazis shall have to be much more restrained about their actions.
Don't count on it too much. IOTL Western Allies didn't give a rat's behind about fate of European Jewry (I mean, even if one is deaf and blind, everything was painfully obvious after Kristallnacht) and they signed Munich agreement when Buchenwald was up and running, so Western involvement just prolongs "pre-extermination phase" a bit.

Hitler is forced to scrap (in his mind, delay indefinitely) plans for genocide and dust off the ones to make non-Russian nationalities viable satellite states and make the Jews emigrate to some distant corner of the world.
It is very telling that even your imaginary warm and fuzzy Hitler isn't going to treat Russians as equals (BTW, what "non-Russian satellites" are you talking about in 1936? Balts are independent at this point and Ukraine, without Kresy being united with Ukrainian heartland, is pretty loyal). Besides, are you talking about the same Allies who pressured every dependent state IOTL (I'm talking Latin America and SA mostly) to refuse Jewish refugees entry? To put it simply, I see no reasons for Hitler's policy being any more benevolent than it was pre-OTL Barbarossa. And, with Barbarossa starting 5 years earlier in your dreams and Allies obviously trying to be as uninvolved in fight as they could... Yeah, this is very nice future for EE Jewry under the blind eye of Allies.
 
(another reason Hitler would have to behave: if Ploesti is threatened, the Westenr powers control his oil supply),

In 36, wouldn't most of Germany's oil (among a lot of other major resources) still be coming from the Soviets themselves? Any kind of coalition with Germany and the West is going to have to have major incentives for Germany. Danzig rightfully should return to Germany, possibly even the entire corridor. The German areas in Czech's have a good chance to be forced over as well. Germany has a lot of diplomatic cards to play. If the Western allies are serious about 'joining' Germany in assistance to Poland against the Soviets then they are going to definitely provide assistance to Germany in the way of resources and concessions. It's hard for me to see French armies marching/trained across Hitler's Germany, or RN ships passing through the Kiel Canal but ... interesting thoughts. A major venture because I'm of the opinion that while not quickly, I think the Red Army would push the Poles back eventually. In the likelihood of victory though, the poles come out ahead and actually regain some land in the East, possibly even pushing for a Black Sea coast line or up to the Dnieper harkening back 4 centuries. :)
 
Methink that Stalin's fear of "United Anti-Communist Crusade" is the biggest reason which makes all those apocalyptic "USSR attacks this" and "USSR attacks that" scenarios ASB. Yes, any bold move on Stalin's side without both Germany and Entente being busy elsewhere is unlikely. Would Stalin attacks in 1936, France would still be in doubts about resurgent Germany, but, being pressured by it's own fears of new war, as well as British fears of "Red Menace", it would not protest much.
I am suprised to say that, on this particular point, I am in complete agreement with you. Stalin was always very wary of the possibility of Germany and the Western powers finding common cause against him, and I imagine he wouldn't have attacked Poland unless Britain and France had much more pressing concerns.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Methink that Stalin's fear of "United Anti-Communist Crusade" is the biggest reason which makes all those apocalyptic "USSR attacks this" and "USSR attacks that" scenarios ASB.
Yes, any bold move on Stalin's side without both Germany and Entente being busy elsewhere is unlikely.

Unlikely but not impossible. While the man had a lesser (but still substantial) dose of sheer megalomania than Hitler, he had an even higher one of sheer paranoia, and he was badly prone to underestimate his enemies' ability and determination to fight (Winter War, Barbarossa, Korean War). Therefore, it is perfectly plausible that he triggers a general European war (or more likely a World War since in any war between the Euro powers and the USSR, Japan is very likely to intervene with roughly equal possibilities to backstab either side) because he underestimate the capitalist powers' will to fight and/or their military capabilities, or he thinks they are going to attack anyway and therefore a pre-emptive attack is the best option. I freely concede you that this scenario is rather more more likely in 1942-43, when the purges, the modernization of the Red army, and Soviet industrialization, are all basically done, if a PoD somehow prevents Hitler from unleashing WWII.

Would Stalin attacks in 1936, France would still be in doubts about resurgent Germany, but, being pressured by it's own fears of new war, as well as British fears of "Red Menace", it would not protest much.

Especially because Poland and Romania are unlikely to stand on their own for too much, the 1936 Red Army is nowhere like its previous rag-tag 1921 incarnation. In this scenario, Germany is sharing part of the military burden that would otherwise fall squarely on the shoulders of France and Britain. Also because a sizable part of the British Empire's fighting potential must perforce go to man the Middle East/Central Asian front.

Yes, Czechoslovakia factor is interesting one. I believe that OTL Sovetization of Czechoslovakia was one of most stupid political decisions Stalin ever made. In any other reasonable realistic TL but OTL Czech were doomed to be Soviet pals.

This does not change the fact that in this scenario, their obvious alliance with Stalin would be just as stupid. It gives Germany good justification to scrap Czech independence with the support of the West, not just claiming Sudentenland as IOTL or satellitization, which would be the obvious result of the Western-German alliance, but the annexation which IOTL was what really turned the West against Hitler. They have just given Hitler a good argument why he cannot tolerate an independent Czech state on his border. Sure, the Czech army was good and Czechoslovak would give the Red Army a corridor to backstab Poland and overrun Hungary (which makes Romania's situation quite hairy). It is more doubtful whether it would be enough to allow the Soviets to overrun Silesia and Austria, which is what would really make things hairy for the *Allies. Otherwise, when the Anglo-French-German-Italian mobilization is done and ready for a counteroffensive, the Czech are politically and diplomatically in a world of trouble.

Don't count on it too much. IOTL Western Allies didn't give a rat's behind about fate of European Jewry (I mean, even if one is deaf and blind, everything was painfully obvious after Kristallnacht)

The Final Solution was not written in a secret appendix to Mein Kampf, although brutal separation of Jewdom from Germansphere was. For a long period, the default plan was "let's dump them in some forsaken distant corner of the world and forget about them". One of the main reasons it did not fulfill was that Germany was at war with the powers that controlled the seas. Here they would be wartime allies, or benevolent neutrals (America). The way is clear for the explusion option.

and they signed Munich agreement when Buchenwald was up and running, so Western involvement just prolongs "pre-extermination phase" a bit.

Up and running for the Nazis' political opponents, essentially. And in 1936-1938 Nazi concentration camps were essentially that, concentration and forced labour camps, not organized extermination engines. Big difference. No doubt that when this war breaks out, the French are busy throwing their own Communists in their own concentration camps like they did OTL while the USSR was Germany's quasi-ally.

It is very telling that even your imaginary warm and fuzzy Hitler isn't going to treat Russians as equals (BTW, what "non-Russian satellites" are you talking about in 1936? Balts are independent at this point and Ukraine, without Kresy being united with Ukrainian heartland, is pretty loyal).

I have no doubt that Stalin overruns the Baltic states the moment any capitalist great power intervenes on the side of Poland. I'm a bit uncertain whether Finland would be able to keep its neutrality for long, but otherwise Western intervention immediately expands the war in a ring of fire from Memel to Kandahar.

I have terrible doubts, that Ukraine, after the Holodomor, is going to be any loyal to Soviet butchers if given half a chance (i.e. if the German troops, with the Anglo-French in their midst, are obliged to behave gentlemanly when they show up in Kiev, so the Ukrainians don't get OTL tragic disllusionement).

They are not likely going to be treated as equals (BTW, there was a lot of folks around the world that the Anglo-French did not treat as equals in the 1930s-1940s, either, and Stalinism only treated everyone but its cronies and thugs at the same level of abject misery, when it did not targeted them for random extermination). The point is, if the Nazi can be coherced by the constraints of wartime alliance to go along with the plans for satellitization instead of extermination (an option that did exist in their mind, see Rosenberg's plans), living as a satellite of non-genocidal fascist great power beats living as a subject of a communist great power, b/c fascism is better than communism at making the life of non-scapegoat-minority average subject less miserable. The OTL non-Russian minorities seemed to agree, until the Nazi turned genocidal.

Besides, are you talking about the same Allies who pressured every dependent state IOTL (I'm talking Latin America and SA mostly) to refuse Jewish refugees entry? To put it simply, I see no reasons for Hitler's policy being any more benevolent than it was pre-OTL Barbarossa. And, with Barbarossa starting 5 years earlier in your dreams and Allies obviously trying to be as uninvolved in fight as they could... Yeah, this is very nice future for EE Jewry under the blind eye of Allies.

The British and French have plenty of poor-value colonies they can sell a valued wartime ally at discount price to dump its unwanted minorities in. They are going to roll their eyes while they do so, but they are going to humor the guy that is shouldering like 40% of anti-Soviet war effort, like they humored Stalin IOTL. Being kicked out of Europe is not nice, but surely beats the death camps by leagues. And a much more popolous Israel in some corner of Africa surely raises much less hardship for the world in the future. A 10-million Israel in some place less troublesome than Palestine would be a great asset to the world, besides avoiding a terrible tragedy.
 
The British and French selling colonies...

Czechoslovakia as a bad guy...

France rounding up the communists for internment...

France selling out the Little Entente in favor of a much stronger Germany...


Eurofed, precisely what piece of alternate history fiction are you getting your 'history' from?
 

Eurofed

Banned
In 36, wouldn't most of Germany's oil (among a lot of other major resources) still be coming from the Soviets themselves?

Of course, not an option while Germany and the USSR are at war. ;) OTOH, the British have plenty of oil to feed the war machine of the whole anti-Soviet coalition. The point is, how good would be the 1936 Red Army at staging a Middle Eastern blitzkrieg and how good the British at repelling them ? The Iraqi-Iranian oilfields are no good for the West if the Soviets overrun them. OTOH, America at this point in history can likely still feed the oil need of the Western coalition. Despite FDR's closet pro-Soviet sympathies, I doubt the anti-Communist American public and Congress would deny Britain its Land-Lease to kick back the Bolshevik hordes.

Any kind of coalition with Germany and the West is going to have to have major incentives for Germany. Danzig rightfully should return to Germany, possibly even the entire corridor. The German areas in Czech's have a good chance to be forced over as well. Germany has a lot of diplomatic cards to play. If the Western allies are serious about 'joining' Germany in assistance to Poland against the Soviets then they are going to definitely provide assistance to Germany in the way of resources and concessions.

Very true.

It's hard for me to see French armies marching/trained across Hitler's Germany, or RN ships passing through the Kiel Canal but ... interesting thoughts.

Hard, why ? Hitler was not as paranoid as Stalin about possible political contamination or backstabbing by allies. Remind, he gladly hosted the Olympics in 1936. In such a scenario, Goebbels is likely working overtime setting up propaganda setups for crossing Western troops and officials and the German civilians and troops alike about "solidariety of Aryan European peoples against the savage Asian Bolshevik hordes" and stuff. And Leni Riefensthal is busy with a new costume blockbuster about the Hun or Mongol invasions of Europe with an Attila or Genghis Khan that looks very similar to Stalin ;)

Anyway, I think Western troops would be shipped to the Polish front by a mix of railroad transport across Germany and ship transport across the Baltic. Marching from the Channel or Alsace to Poland is a terribly inefficient method in 1936, by the time the AF arrive, there would be a Soviet flag over Berlin (I have very serious doubts the Germans can stop the Soviets alone in 1936, in the first year of the war).

A major venture because I'm of the opinion that while not quickly, I think the Red Army would push the Poles back eventually.

Yup, the point is, how deep the Soviets would go before the Anglo-French arrive in sufficient numbers and the Whermacht (still a skeleton structure in 1936) can get into shape enough to stalemate them ? If the Soviets can reach Silesia and Austria, the Euros are in a world of trouble.

In the likelihood of victory though, the poles come out ahead and actually regain some land in the East, possibly even pushing for a Black Sea coast line or up to the Dnieper harkening back 4 centuries. :)

They are still likely to end up the satellites of Germany, but yes, it is very likely that when the *Allies get down to their own little Alt-Yalta, Poland may find it with rather better borders in the East (at least as compensation for returning the Corridor to Germany), perhaps even close to the famous/infamous 1772 borders. :p Again, assuming that in this scenario Hitler is forced to go with the satellitization scenario, the post-war Yalta-like plans of the coalition in all likelihood go something like Poland and Ukraine as German satellites, Caucasus and Central Asia as Anglo-French satellite, and a White Russian puppet regime in Russia proper.

In this framework neither Berlin nor Paris or London are going to care too much over the respective merits of the claims by Poles, Bierlorussians, and Ukrainians, it would depend on how much aid the respective parts provide to the Western war effort. I.e. if the Poles make a valid resistance until the AFG troops arrive, and the Ukrainians stay mostly quiet, the Poles have a good chance of getting the Dniepr border at the treaty table. If they are overrun up to Posen, and the Ukrainians flock to the Western banners in masse when they cross Soviet borders, they do not, and the Polish border likely stays close to the 1921 one.
 

Eurofed

Banned
The British and French selling colonies...

To make a Jewish homeland, yes. Need I remind you that making one in Uganda in 1896 was a serious option ? The Balfour declaration is still in force, and the Anglo-French have plenty of possible places less valuable than Uganda and less troublesome than Palestine.

Czechoslovakia as a bad guy...

If they take Stalin's side and backstab Poland, most definitely yes. I am more than a bit skeptic myself that they would go so far (it's geopolitical suicide), but I was commenting a point made by CG.

France rounding up the communists for internment...

They did so after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the outbreak of WWII. Check your history books, please. Or simply go here. ITTL, the French Communists are not just the fifth column of the quasi-ally of the main enemy, they are the fifth column of the main enemy.

France selling out the Little Entente in favor of a much stronger Germany...

Early 1920s diplomatic-strategic schemes that fall apart the moment Poland and/or Romania are overrun by the rampaging Soviets have no meaning in the strategic, diplomatic, and political constraints of a late 1930s pan-European anti-Soviet World War.

Eurofed, precisely what piece of alternate history fiction are you getting your 'history' from?

I earnestly try to reason out outcomes from the circumstances of the specific scenario, instead of assuming that the Anti-German Time Travel Agency is busy giving 1919 or 1946 OTL history books to Western statesmen of every TL. :rolleyes:
 
Uganda was never a serious option as far as the Jews were concerned which kills the idea immediately, as well as any even less valuable areas offered, not to mention the existing Jewish population and Balfour Declaration as regards British Palestine.

If Hitler moves on Czechoslovakia as you suggest then Prague has no choice but to grab the only ally available which makes Germany the villain.

No reference offered regarding alleged French round-up of Communists. Round up of German nationals on French soil is not a valid example.

It is nonsense to imagine the French tossing a system of allies and ignoring the threat of a resurgent Germany because Poland provoked a neighbor one time too many. Neither is your vision of a great crusade against Bolshevism, plus any nation refusing to submit to German demands, credible.

The last comment about the Anti-German Time Travel Agency makes clear you aren't interested in alternate history so much as an anti-Soviet wankfest.
 
What about a Soviet backed communist coup gone wrong and discovered. If a Soviet officer made a too overt move it could be interpreted as an act of war by the Poles and a semi-preemptive attack could be launched, which in a fit of solidarity the rest of Europe would probably accept at face value and join in the crusade.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Don't count on it too much. IOTL Western Allies didn't give a rat's behind about fate of European Jewry (I mean, even if one is deaf and blind, everything was painfully obvious after Kristallnacht) and they signed Munich agreement when Buchenwald was up and running, so Western involvement just prolongs "pre-extermination phase" a bit.


I agree somewhat, but what you forget is that, the final solution was a effect of war, where the Germans saw iot as a waste to keep the Jews alive, while there was a lack of food. Here we will see some massacre of Jews, but mostly we will see the spread of anti-Jewish laws in Germanys new easten "allies", and likely a continued exodus of Jews to whom which will let them in. Unpleasant yes, but in a entire different category from our world.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Uganda was never a serious option as far as the Jews were concerned which kills the idea immediately,

Well, it's not exactly like the Jews are leaving of their free will or choosing their exact initial destination, although in the long term, it is wholly feasible they may emigrate from it pretty much anywhere as antisemitism dies down and immigration limits are lowered.

However, about Sionist Uganda, from what I know, the option was wholly viable as a resettlement, the Zionists gave it up because they aimed for Palestine.

But the point is, if this path is taken, six millions of Jews cross through a crucible much like the expulsion of their ancestors from Spain but utlimately survive. :)

not to mention the existing Jewish population and Balfour Declaration as regards British Palestine.

Well, Nazi Germany basically does not give a rat's ass about what the British do with its own Jews in Palestine or about non-European Jews in general. From its PoV, they are someone else's problem.

If Hitler moves on Czechoslovakia as you suggest then Prague has no choice but to grab the only ally available which makes Germany the villain.

Please, have you even read the scenario ? Russia attacks Poland before Germany has done anything. This is pre-Anschluss, pre-Munich, pre-Danzig. Now, no doubt that the Anglo-French are going to concede their new main anti-Soviet German allies pretty much any "sensible" request (i.e. Austria, Sudetenland, Danzig, the Corridor). If Czechs play along, and cooperate with the anti-Soviet coalition, they only lose the Sudetenland (which never was rightfully theirs by national self-determination criteria, anyway). The specific point was whether Czechoslovakia sides with Russia before Germany does anything.

No reference offered regarding alleged French round-up of Communists.

It was mentioned in the wiki page I quoted. Anyway, if you want a more specific reference, here's a quote from an Amazon book:

The Fall of France, Julian Jackson, p. 121, here. Third paragraph.

It is nonsense to imagine the French tossing a system of allies

That in no time, are being overrun by the Soviets, proving useless, while Germany is an essential part of an anti-Soviet coalition.

ignoring the threat of a resurgent Germany

Which threat ? This is 1936, Germany has scarcely done anything really aggressive.

because Poland provoked a neighbor one time too many.

Now, for all my exceeding lack of sympathy for obnoxious interwar Polish nationalism, this is about Stalin, right ? Who said Poland has to be the obvious aggressor, in this scenario ?

Neither is your vision of a great crusade against Bolshevism,

Well, I suppose that in your alternate world, the AGTTA gave everyone in the 1930s their 1946 history books, while IOTL almost anyone but left-wing radicals thought Bolshevism was the greater threat up to the point Germany invaded Czechia and Poland.

plus any nation refusing to submit to German demands, credible.

Plus anyone that takes the side of the Soviet rabid dog, you mean. As a matter of fact, I think it is rather more likely that Japan effectively takes the side of Russia by backstabbing Britain and France in South East Asia rather than Czechoslovakia doing the suicidal move CG suggested.

The last comment about the Anti-German Time Travel Agency makes clear you aren't interested in alternate history so much as an anti-Soviet wankfest.

I find quite fascinating WWII strategic scenarioes where the roles of Germany and Russia are reversed, yes. What's the problem ?
 

Eurofed

Banned
I agree somewhat, but what you forget is that, the final solution was a effect of war, where the Germans saw iot as a waste to keep the Jews alive, while there was a lack of food. Here we will see some massacre of Jews, but mostly we will see the spread of anti-Jewish laws in Germanys new easten "allies", and likely a continued exodus of Jews to whom which will let them in. Unpleasant yes, but in a entire different category from our world.

Exactly. In this WWII, Germany has full access to world markets, availability of food and other commodities is certianly not going to be a problem. Heck, probably they are getting Land-Lease, or at least the Anglo-French do.
 
I do see one problem with this whole anti soviet crusade in 1936, in that the government of France was the popular front of Leon Blum. The communists and the Socialists were running France at the time. So it is much more likely France is paralyzed, just as they were at Munich and over the Anschluss, until a more rightist government is elected in a year or two. And without France, England is not going either. So odds are Poland is on it's own, unless the Germans want to throw themselves under the bus.
 

Eurofed

Banned
I do see one problem with this whole anti soviet crusade in 1936, in that the government of France was the popular front of Leon Blum. The communists and the Socialists were running France at the time. So it is much more likely France is paralyzed, just as they were at Munich and over the Anschluss, until a more rightist government is elected in a year or two. And without France, England is not going either. So odds are Poland is on it's own, unless the Germans want to throw themselves under the bus.

This is a real concern, one I was admittedly oblivious of. Well, there is a possibility that Soviet aggression in Poland makes the popular front government fall down (I mean, the popular front met very strong opposition as it was, imagine how anti-Communist French must feel with the PCF in power while Stalin is busy munching Poland), either new elections are called and right-wing parties win (likely with anti-Communist panic) or moderate left-wing and right-wing parties make a centrist coalition government.

Anyway, assuming this takes so much that Poland falls in the meanwhile, which I concede is wholly possible, this is what is going to happen:

France drags its feet because of division in the political leadership, Britain does not dare to go alone, Hitler gives intervention up when his generals explain it would be suicidal at current levels of military preparedness.

After a few months of valiant resistance, Poland collapses under relentless Soviet onslaught and is occupied. Stalin either annexes territory up to the Curzon line and makes the rest an independent Communist vassal or annexes all of it as a SSR, 50-50 likelihood.

Stalin is giddy with success and, emboldened with lack of Western reaction, annexes the Baltic states and prepares the Red Army for next aggression.

Western public opinion is freaked, refugees from Poland and the Baltic tell stories about Bolshevik brutality, France switches to a right-wing government, Britain adopts full anti-Soviet containtment mode, Hollywood movies start to show Communists subversives and Russian spies as the baddies.

Diplomats in Berlin, Paris, London, and Rome are busy signing the anti-Comintern Pact and an anti-Soviet military alliance. Germany gets a green light for the Anschluss and rearmament and secret guarantees to get back the Sudetenland, Danzig, and the Corridor after the war most are starting to think is inevitable. Mussolini is forgiven Ethiopia and gets a secret "get Dalmatia, Croatia, & Albania free" card as long as he promises to behave and cooperate for the duration fo the crisis.

All four powers go into full rearmament mode. Communist parties in the West start aggressive propaganda against imperialist "aggression", stage sabotages and riots, increasing the polarization.

The SCW erupts, Stalin and the Western powers send "volunteers", Franco gets Anglo-French support too so it wins more quickly ITTL but the proxy war increases polarization further.

Stalin attacks Finland, the Western powers are not yet ready to intervene, Sweden intervenes but its army is hopeless outmoded, Finland eventually collapses after a few months of valiant resistance, ITTL Stalin is not as interested in giving Finland an harsh peace (either he does fear Western intervention or thinks war is coming anyway), presses on and Finland is occupied. Again, 50-50 of becoming a SSR or an independent Communist vassal with OTL territorial changes for Russia. The Western powers drag a line in the sand after the fall of Finland.

At this point, it is a bit hard to say whether Stalin is willing to give Sweden a break or presses on. If the former, Sweden is forced to sign an harsh peace, ceding bases to the Soviets. Stalin turns to its next target, Romania. If the latter, he presses on in Sweden. Either way, the Western powers, having bought time for theri own military and political preparation over the "regrettable" sacrifice of Poland and Finland (cue in post-war recriminations of "Western betrayal" for the Soviet occupation and atrocities, as the NKVD is busy with the usual Stalinist abattoir), declare war. Churchill gets to make a lot of flowery and bombastic speeches about the return of the Mongol hordes and reminds everyone he was a staunch anti-Communist since the 1920s.
 
Eurofed, I could write a fair-sized novel pointing out all the factual errors in your last post but will settle for a few...

1) Your Ugandan situation is now officially classified as pathetic. The British are going to force millions of people they don't want in their empire in the first place, and whom they have no means of providing for during the trip or after the arrival, into one or more of their colonies?:rolleyes:

2) As to Palestine and the Balfour Declaration, your determination to ignore the fundamental issue that the BRITISH decide what goes on in British territory, not the Germans, is asinine.

3) You've developed a delusion that a Germany supposedly at grave risk and in frantic need of concessions and military support from the British and French is simultaneously imposing terms on the British or French.

4) On Czechoslovakia you seem to have serious issues coping with the fact that you don't rally a moral climate against one aggressor by simultaneously surrending to the demands of another, and grabbing off part or all of several neighboring countries is aggression. Your argument on Germany's claim to the Sudetenland is historically and factually invalid, not least because the Germans never felt any need to honor such conditions when they wanted or held an area where Germans were the minority.

5) You ignore the climate, especially in France, where Germany is the villain since 1869 and convinced yourself that if Germany's first response to Stalin is to threaten Austria and Czechoslovakia this will not trigger all of France's worst suspicions, leading to the thought that a Soviet-conquered Poland is a lot further away from France than a rearmed Germany which is aggressive to the point of lunacy.

6) Accepting Hitler's claims to neighboring territories is morally wrong, but assuming an old enemy with a puny army(Germany) can get England and France to accept those demands while betraying allies...:rolleyes:

7) A few hundred who were released after France surrendered due to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact? Are you really comparing a few hundred political prisoners to the gulags or Hitler's death camps?

8) Germany, with a skeletal army of 100,000 men and perhaps another half million available in six months, if someone arms them, is more essential and more formidable than the literally millions of men available to Poland and the Little Entente?:rolleyes:

9) Again your ignorance appears with your false assumption that French fears of a rearmed and aggressive Germany were based on Hitler and not on three generations of past experience with Germany.

10) You're going to need to explain why a paranoid and ultra-cautious Stalin is suddenly launching a continental war of aggression and given British opinion of Poland a modest goal or even a restoration of the Curzon Line won't bother London in the slightest.

11) You do know that when you offer nothing but insults and pro-Nazi sympathies you've lost the argument.

12) Reviewing all this I conclude that you don't comprehend the difference between a valid strategic scenario and a wankfest where you ignore all inconvenient data.

13) Refusing to be dismembered(Poland, Czechoslovakia) or conquered outright(Austria) means they deserve what they got? Based on that and other comments supporting Hitler's claims on neighboring territories I just realized I'm debating a Nazi sympathizer and welcome you to my ignore list.
 

Eurofed

Banned
1) Your Ugandan situation is now officially classified as pathetic. The British are going to force millions of people

No, they accept what the Germans force out. Besides, in this scenario, it would be a few hundred of thousands (Germans and Austrian Jews) for the first phase of the war. Poland is under Soviet occupation or a war zone.

they don't want in their empire in the first place,

Hardly ever single piece of the British or French colonial empire is so high-value that it cannot host a Zionist colony.

and whom they have no means of providing for during the trip or after the arrival,

I must have missed the part where the dirt-poor immigrants to the New World starved en masse during the trip or after the arrival. :rolleyes:

3) You've developed a delusion that a Germany supposedly at grave risk and in frantic need of concessions and military support from the British and French is simultaneously imposing terms on the British or French.

The concept of diplomatic bargaining between wartime allies is apparently an alien concept.

Your argument on Germany's claim to the Sudetenland is historically and factually invalid, not least because the Germans never felt any need to honor such conditions when they wanted or held an area where Germans were the minority.

Denying the right of self-determination on the basis of hindsight about facts that ITTL may easily never happen. Typical Germanophobe crap. Surely next thing I'm going to read is that Frederick II and Bismarck planned the Holocaust because they laid down laws that favored Germans buying Polish land.

5) You ignore the climate, especially in France, where Germany is the villain since 1869

So ? Britain was the villain for much much longer, then they became best buddies. New war, new enemies, new allies. It happens all the time in history.

and convinced yourself that if Germany's first response to Stalin is to threaten Austria and Czechoslovakia

Please, disabuse yourself of the pathetic notion that the Anschluss was done against the will of the Austrian people. The Austrians (and the Sudetenfolk) had made their will clear about joining Germany since 1918, and the Entente was aware of that. France, Britain, and Italy just have to make a public statement that they no longer oppose the Anschluss, according to the Versailles treaty then it becomes perfectly legal. Things shall flow downhill from that without any cohercion of the will of the Austrian people.

6) Accepting Hitler's claims to neighboring territories is morally wrong,

Including when the inhabitants of those territories support such claims, following your previous argument. National self-determination is valid for everyone but guys who have a crappy leader. What a fascinating double standard.

but assuming an old enemy with a puny army(Germany) can get England and France to accept those demands while betraying allies...:rolleyes:

Czechoslovakia, even built up in full, can provide a pathetic contribution to the anti-Soviet WWII in comparison to what a built-up Germany can do.

7) A few hundred who were released after France surrendered due to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact?

The source I quoted says 3,400.

8) Germany, with a skeletal army of 100,000 men and perhaps another half million available in six months, if someone arms them, is more essential and more formidable than the literally millions of men available to Poland and the Little Entente?:rolleyes:

Somebody has problems with basic demographic facts of Europe here.

9) Again your ignorance appears with your false assumption that French fears of a rearmed and aggressive Germany were based on Hitler and not on three generations of past experience with Germany.

No, they are based on observation of what France actually did in 1930s and projection of those trends on a TL where Germany has not done nothing really aggressive while Soviet Russia is rampaging. Of course, such considerations are immaterial to worldviews where nationalistic hatreds are unchanging and eternal.

10) You're going to need to explain why a paranoid and ultra-cautious Stalin is suddenly launching a continental war

Paranoid men are wholly prone to attacks in response to imaginary threats or mistake others' intentions.

of aggression and given British opinion of Poland a modest goal or even a restoration of the Curzon Line won't bother London in the slightest.

Assuming that he stops before Sovietization of Poland, which in not in his typical modus operandi unless forced by circumstances. But let's assume that he stops when he's gotten the Curzon line, and Western powers are apathetic. Then Stalin shall get emboldened from lack of Western reaction and shall think that he's got a free ride to rebuild the Tsarist Empire for Communism. The Baltic states are gobbled up in a few months, then it's the choice whether getting Finland and Romania first. Soon Whitehall folks are getting nightmares of the Red Army getting through the Kyber Pass.

11) You do know that when you offer nothing but insults and pro-Nazi sympathies you've lost the argument.

The typical Germanophobe slander. When you do not agree with their questionable arguments, they insult you as a Nazi sympathizer. In your enthusiastic Germanophobia, you have apparently missed the point that one of the reasons I root for this kind of scenario is that it offers a plausible way by which six million Jews may be SAVED after Hitler has gotten into power. Cavalierly expelled but ALIVE. But I know that for typical Germanophobe/Sovietophile/Slav Chauvinist mindsets, such considerations are immaterial, the only important thing is that the Germanophobe revenge fantasy, the Sovietophile power fantasy, or stuff, is fulfilled. Welcome to my ignore list.
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
What about the Spanish Civil War?

Good question. It depends on whether anti-Soviet WWII erupts almost immediately, as a result of Western intervention, or later, as result of gradual Western-Soviet polarization.

If the former, I say it depends whether the Spanish Republicans can be bullied/bribed by the Western coalition into maintaining a moderate, neutral or even pro-Western course. If they can, Spanish conservatives are grudgingly appeased into not staging a coup and the SCW is butterflied away. If they cannot, they sponsor a more powerful coup, and Franco takes over without a real civil war, only the post-coup repression. In either way, Spanish society remains politically polarized longer without the sobering effect of such a destructive civil war (say, it's more like post-war OTL Greece, where the civil war was nowhere so severe, or Argentine), with more political instability.

In the gradual scenario, the coup and civil war surely occur (gradual international West-East polarization smother butterflies out), Stalin sends a "volunteer" expeditionary corps, the Western powers do so as well, Franco wins the war rather more quickly b/c he's getting Anglo-French support, too. In the latter scenario, we may even see a little undeclared naval war in the Mediterranean and Atlantic between the RN/MN/RM and the Soviet Navy, over Soviet supplies to the Republicans. In practice, the SCW becomes a proxy war prelude to anti-Soviet WWII.

In this scenario, the International Brigades either don't happen as Western governments clamp their formation down or they have a much lesser impact, as only card-carrying Communists and sympathizers take part, and they are demonized as fifth-columnists of Stalin afer the war. Public perception of the SCW changes, instead of left-wing democracy vs. fascism, it becomes Communism vs. the West, with Franco being perceived much like pro-Western right-wing dictators in the 1950s: "a SOB, but our SOB", Falangist atrocities being glossed over and Republican ones being trumped up. Only Communists and left-wing radical sympathizers defend the Republican cause, but mainstream public opinion, oriented by the mass media, is turning anti-Communist, so they get limited audience outside their ranks, what they try to support the Republicans by more radical means (strikes, riots, sabotages) it only feeds growing polarization against them. When WWII occurs, of course, Communists and obvious sympathizers become fifth-columnists and suspect traitors, and are treated as such: internments, social ostracization, close police survelliance. Communist parties in France, Britain, and the Commonwealth are banned outright, in the neutral but pro-Western USA may remain nominally legal but get all the OTL Cold War harassment and more.

Post-war Spain unfolds almost like OTL, with the difference that Western democracies perceive Franco as an ally from the start, support to rebuild Spain is greater and the civil war less destructive, so Spanish economic takeoff occurs sooner. ITTL, you get world-famous photos of heroic dying Falangist soldiers, not Republican ones, and the legacy of Communist artists like Picasso becomes as scorned and controversial as the one of OTL Fascist ones, so something like Guernica, assuming it is not butterflied away, is left ignored as only cautiously rediscovered after 30-50 years as WWII hatreds die down.
 
Last edited:
I am suprised to say that, on this particular point, I am in complete agreement with you.
I'm not. There's only one step to be made to be in agreement with me over many issues, namely to abandon Manichean worldview of eternally good "us" and eternally bad "them". Most regimes in history of humankind weren't completely bad or were driven by pure evil, even Nazism grew out of very valid grievances of post-Versailles Germany. Every regime pursued it's own agenda and if certain countries were on the way of this agenda, too bad for them

P.S. In case of Stalin's USSR, a lot of Western cliches are coloured by ruling elites' fear of their domestic left-wing movements, as well as the simple fact that a lot of Western sovietologist were from countries with complex relationships with USSR (as in "grab as much Russian land as you can and then wail that Russians took theirs back" complex), so basically tribal grievances of losing side were rammed down the throat of Joe Public as "Soviet crimes against humanity".
 
Top