My Professor´s thoughts

[Paul V McNutt]

In a class on Russian History, the professor offered his opinion that if Stalin had behaved after World War II: left Eastern European governments alone etc, the U.S, would have gone back to sleep. He then thought that Stalin could have then, after some years marched in taken over much of Europe. What does everybody else think?

 

[David S Poepoe]

What does your professor think about Mao and Red China?

I don't particularly feel that the US would have lapsed back into isolationalism. Does he think we'll turn our backs on the UN?

 

[Incognitia]

The US took one of the four occupation zones of Germany and most of the French zone of Germany in the early days as the Republic re-assembled itself after Liberation; as well as a total occupation of Japan.

To abandon those commitments would most likely be seen as throwing away all that had been bought, at such a cost, in the late war.

Without aggressive moves from the Soviets, West Germany would take much longer to be rehabilitated amongst the nations of Europe - in fact the FDR might never be formed as such, as the plan was always for occupation until unification until the Western Allies realised how things were going in the Soviet Occupation Zone.

Equally there wouldn't be a NATO, though a close and continuing alliance between the USA, the UK, the Dominions and probably France is hard to avoid.

Basically you could plausibly have fewer American troops pre-positioned in Europe; you could have a much less unified and established Western Bloc; but I don't think you can plausibly have a USA in the '40s or '50s which is prepared to see Europe fall to the USSR, no matter how slowly they went about it. Needs an earlier PoD than the Kremlin, 1945.

 

[Atreus]

Equally there wouldn't be a NATO, though a close and continuing alliance between the USA, the UK, the Dominions and probably France is hard to avoid.

Im not so sure about france. Yes, there will be decent relations, but postwar france is going to be looking to reestablish itself as a power, and the lack of an immediate soviet threat is going to remove one of if not the primary reason for it to ally with the USA, as it did through NATO. Likewise, once a fair bit of rebuilding has been completed, I would expect to see far stronger UK-France relations, and possibly a somewhat weaker special relationship between the US and the UK. That seemed to be the way that they were intending to go pre-Suez, and I would expect the british and french to gravitate towards each other in a postwar world, especially if the russian bear is hibernating and American troops are being drawn back from europe.

 

[Moltke]

... Without aggressive moves from the Soviets, West Germany would take much longer to be rehabilitated amongst the nations of Europe ...

... Equally there wouldn't be a NATO, though a close and continuing alliance between the USA, the UK, the Dominions and probably France is hard to avoid ...

... Basically you could plausibly have fewer American troops pre-positioned in Europe ...

I think all that adds up to a very nice situation in which Europe could and might fall to the Reds. Alot depends on the attitude of the US. Without a large solid force on the ground,an alliance holding the West together, and European states already with large internal (potentially larger if the US hasn't been focused on countering) Communist parties and elements ... it's going to be hard for the US to get themselves in a position to do anything about it before it's too late. I would bet on Soviet domination of the mainland by 1965 or 70 at the latest. Italy elects themselves communist, and massive Soviet political as well as military pressure force West Germany to reunite (under the curtain) with what's left of Easter Germany while France forms some type of compromise for a few years before elections and trade/military pressure flip her as well. The UK, Norway, Finland all stick together ...

 

[DuQuense]

For this to work, Stalin has to accept the Free Polish [London] Government. This means Marshall Plan Poland, [as well as Marshall Plan Hungary, & Czechoslovakia].
All three nations will be using the Development funds to Rebuild their Militaries.
By the time the Russians invade in 1948~49 they will be facing Czech ME-262's and Polish Tiger Tanks.

OTL by 1949 the US Military had been downsized to a 1939/per Capita Size. so I don't see the US doing much for several Months.
?However I wonder what this would do the the British and French - Post War - Downsizing?

 

[Incognitia]

I think all that adds up to a very nice situation in which Europe could and might fall to the Reds. Alot depends on the attitude of the US. Without a large solid force on the ground,an alliance holding the West together, and European states already with large internal (potentially larger if the US hasn't been focused on countering) Communist parties and elements ... it's going to be hard for the US to get themselves in a position to do anything about it before it's too late. I would bet on Soviet domination of the mainland by 1965 or 70 at the latest. Italy elects themselves communist, and massive Soviet political as well as military pressure force West Germany to reunite (under the curtain) with what's left of Easter Germany while France forms some type of compromise for a few years before elections and trade/military pressure flip her as well. The UK, Norway, Finland all stick together ...

Okay
1) The very qualities which would make the Soviet actions in Eastern Europe less shocking, like permitting non-Communist parties, not stripping the industries to send them to Russia, etc...would weaken the Soviet hold on Eastern Europe. They would also cause problems with regards to invading Western Europe.
2) Western Europe holds two independent nuclear deterrents (Britain and France) as well as an industrialised population of 200 million or more. While there is some variation, with Italy one of the weakest, most of the governments are pretty stable, and not going to be toppled by Communists short of military force or ASB.
3) Just because Communism is less unpopular due to fewer atrocities in Eastern Europe and no Hungarian Uprising in '56 (presumably) it isn't going to lead to a mass flood of members to the Communist parties. The main popular left-wing parties across Europe are some form of Christian Socialists.
4) If there's a Soviet campaign to systematically undermine Western governments by ANY means, be they diplomatic pressure, insurgency, subversion, whatever - they'll lose all goodwill they retained by not trashing Eastern Europe. Cue a speedily set up common defence agreement, a rearmament of West Germany, and a distinct chilling of relations. View point two for a reminder that the combination of France, Germany and Britain are far from helpless.

Any war that did kick off would get extremely messy, with use of nuclear weapons a near-certainty unless the Russians were somehow stopped conventionally (which is near enough ASB without Yankees involved).
Europe is far more likely to end up uranium-green than Communist Red.

 

[xt828]

If the Soviets managed to avoid being total dicks in EE, and retained the international image of being one of the good guys which they go during WW2, I think it's plausible that Italy and/or France could elect a Communist government. The Communist party in both nations was incredibly strong immediately after the war due to their roles in the resistance and they polled extremely well until word of Soviet nastiness began to filter out. IIRC the first postwar Italian election ended up being the Communists versus everyone else, and they didn't lose by a landslide. If West Germany hasn't been created by this point, that leaves quite a lot of Austria and Germany in Communist hands.

 

[Magniac]

Your professor is thinking in terms of a quite well developed counterfactual.
I'm not convinced that's such a good thing for an academic to do--it's one thing for a historian to ask 'what if?', another for said scholar to continue on down the road, make a couple of turns, cross a bridge, etc.

This is why the conclusion of Niall Ferguson's Virtual History sucks so badly. Too much extrapolating going on (though Ferguson's extrapolations also suck because they're a pastiche of OTL).

Anyway, Stalin was a very paranoid hardass, he wanted his buffer, and he wanted it built on land the Red Army had captured that very morning.

Plus your prof's thesis sounds a little too much like a rejigging of Suvoruv's 'Icebreaker'.

 

[Hashasheen]

In a class on Russian History, the professor offered his opinion that if Stalin had behaved after World War II: left Eastern European governments alone etc, the U.S, would have gone back to sleep. He then thought that Stalin could have then, after some years marched in taken over much of Europe. What does everybody else think?

Your Professor is a Noob.

 

[Magniac]

Your Professor is a Noob.

Oh, you are a terrible man.

But when I read Paul's story I couldn't help but think, "Thank God my European history prof was one of those guys who knew AJP Taylor and EH Carr."

I hate academic elitism, but I'm glad I never had my faith in my teachers shaken by one of them putting forward a really dodgy theory.