WI the Western nations had waged some sort of Kosovo-style "humanitarian war" against the Soviet Union over the purges and deliberate famines that Stalin was orchestrating? Most of the Western political establishment hated Communism enough to turn a blind eye to Hitler, so there would be ulterior motives as well.
"Humanitarian War" in Ukraine, 1933
- Thread starter MerryPrankster
- Start date
Who would do this?
Britain and France wouldn't fight for an independent Finland or Czechoslovakia 5-6 years later. Germany was in sorry shape. Italy, on the basis of some scheme of Mussolini's? The US, with some rabid anti-communism POD a few years before?
It's hard to imagine the French taking the lead and I don't think Britain and Italy combined is enough. So let's say we have Coolidge assassinated early in 1925 by a self-identified communist driven to despair after La Follette's death.
The US is ready to rid the world of Red scum, I mean save the Ukrainian people. Who's with them?
Britain and France wouldn't fight for an independent Finland or Czechoslovakia 5-6 years later. Germany was in sorry shape. Italy, on the basis of some scheme of Mussolini's? The US, with some rabid anti-communism POD a few years before?
It's hard to imagine the French taking the lead and I don't think Britain and Italy combined is enough. So let's say we have Coolidge assassinated early in 1925 by a self-identified communist driven to despair after La Follette's death.
The US is ready to rid the world of Red scum, I mean save the Ukrainian people. Who's with them?
aktarian said:
Not when it came to the USSR. The US didn't even recognise them for the first decade or so after the civil war. Most western governments would have happily seen them disappear off the face of the earth, and I can't see anyone objecting to a war - as long as they didn't hae to fight it. That, of course, would be key. I equally can't see anyone willing to spend the money and blood that it would take, especialy as they couldn't keep their gains.
Could the US fund such an operation (assuming the Great Depression doesn't lead to the tightfisted fiscal policies of OTL)? If so, a coalition of eastern European nations could be found willing, having both most to gain and most to lose. Maybe starting with greater US engagement in Europe post WWI? Especially in the new nations, they would have plenty of political capital to spend.
carlton_bach said:
While true this is true because of their regime, not because of their treatment of Ukrainian peasants. If they had rightist regime and would cause same resuts nobody would get worked up because of it. Since they had leftist regime this was useful bashing tool. And not some sympathy for Ukrainians.
Nobody went to war with Germany over their treatment of Jews.
aktarian said:
Very few states ever go to war for moral outrage. That said, the Ukrainian situation would have made a good pretext had they been willing.
Maybe if Stalin dies? Or is died?
carlton_bach said:
OK, let's negate the existence of the Great Depression
The Western countries were in no way going to fund such an operation directly. By 1933, in my opinion, there was a foreseeable German threat rising. Western troops are just out of the question for a plethora of reasons, not just to mention the looming legacy of WWI. Money and supplies might have been supplied for some Eastern European coalition, but who would participate? Remember, every state from Finland, south, were brand new states after WWI. Was this kind of adventurism really something worth risking? Also, practically, there wasn't even enough cooperation among these states to ultimately protect their own sovereignty come 1939, so there was no way of gaining some sort of cooperation to take an assertive move on anything
Another question is whether a lot of people even knew about the famines outside of the USSR. The USSR was more or less a closed shop regarding news to the outside world, and many of the famous writers that came actually visited were those that Stalin had schmoozed into compliance.
Brilliantlight
Banned
No one sane would want to go to war with the USSR even in 1933 so I don't see this happening.
Brilliantlight said:
No one sane would want to go to war with the USSR in 1941, and it still happened. All it takes is the right mix of overconfidence, stupidity and political miscalculation.
White Russian emigre intervention force ?
Hmmm, WI there was a substantial enough force of White Russian and Ukrainian nationalist emigres who could be formed by 1933 into a 1930s equivalent of the KLA, to take the fight back to Stalin and the NKVD/OGPU during the course of the famine, and be fully supported with military training and hardware by Britain, France and the US ? Could this have then developed into a similar sitn as occurred with NATO intervening in Kosovo 1999, by say a coalition of anti-Soviet eastern and central European states ie Poland, C-S, Romania and Yugoslavia intervening militarily in support of the Ukrainian ppl ?
BTW, discussing the concept of humanitarian intervention during the 1930s, remember that Hitler himself actually purported to cite this doctrine to justify the ANSCLUSS of the Sudetenland during 1938-39, arguing that Germany had to intervene against Czechoslovakia to protect the rights of the German population from being infrigned by Bohemian-Moravian domination.
Hmmm, WI there was a substantial enough force of White Russian and Ukrainian nationalist emigres who could be formed by 1933 into a 1930s equivalent of the KLA, to take the fight back to Stalin and the NKVD/OGPU during the course of the famine, and be fully supported with military training and hardware by Britain, France and the US ? Could this have then developed into a similar sitn as occurred with NATO intervening in Kosovo 1999, by say a coalition of anti-Soviet eastern and central European states ie Poland, C-S, Romania and Yugoslavia intervening militarily in support of the Ukrainian ppl ?
BTW, discussing the concept of humanitarian intervention during the 1930s, remember that Hitler himself actually purported to cite this doctrine to justify the ANSCLUSS of the Sudetenland during 1938-39, arguing that Germany had to intervene against Czechoslovakia to protect the rights of the German population from being infrigned by Bohemian-Moravian domination.
Melvin Loh said:
While this is an option it needs support of at least one neighbouring country (Romania?) who would shelter them, allow training camps and crossing from their country to SU. And would be willing to endure consequences i.e. Soviet counter masures. Maybe there is communist revolution in Romania which is bloody and violent but eventually put down. This than puts regime to communist paranoia overdrive.
If this happens I expect this country would experience internal troubles both by domestic communists and NKVD agents. Also there would be tensions between Ukrainians and local folks (see Jordan and Lebanon).
Hmmmmmmm, this could lead to reorientation of Soviet policy so instead of building communism at home there could be drive to export it, to take fight to the enemy. Could Trotsky prevail?
Valamyr
Banned
DMS said:
Nonsense the US of the time was in no mood for any foreign adventures. Isolationist to the hilt, with no practice or doctrines of power projection, and a strong reluctance to get involved in Europe.
No one could do this. Besides, the USSR of the 30s wasnt exactly Iraq. Theyd have kicked any invader out, except a strong militarized Germany, which didnt exist at the time.
Lets go further; back then "Human rights" means about zero. The only reason to wage war is one's strategic interests. Stalin decimating the populations of the East IS in pretty much everyone's long term strategic interests. Even today, Europe probably benefits from the long term effects of a much lesser population in the east than would have been without the revolution/purges/WW2. Without these events, an iron curtain would still exist, even if it was merely on the vistula.
aktarian said:
Trotsky was exiled and Stalin was absolute lord and master @ this point. Or are you referring to a change in ideology w/ Stalin himself? Perhaps he concludes that the USSR cannot build up @ home for the future war to the knife with capitalism--it must move NOW or not at all.
Melvin's idea about a group of Ukrainian/White infilitrators setting up a KLA-type group to make trouble seems good. Perhaps these exiles can somehow trigger revolt in the Red Army itself (in OTL, one army unit mutinied in response to the terror-famine, and I believe it was quickly squished)?
There might be shift in policy. But IMO this would lead to supporting communists in supporting contries as well (German, France....). Which would lead to greater suport for ULA, which would lead to greater support for communists etc etc....