Phony War, Short War

Eurofed

Banned
Romania for strategic reasons. Bulgaria is in the Soviet field, just like (southern) Yugoslavia. Romania may feel embittered by having been practically abandoned by the West and sacrificed by the Wester powers. All in all, a Soviet option may appeal to some sectors of the population, thus reproducing the Polish and Yugoslavian situation. But this time Stalin will likely wish to physically connect he countries under his heel...

I see. Well, it is entirely possible that Stalin again tries the Red subversion trick on Romania, but if he does, I do expect the Communist insurrection attempt to fizzle and die rather quickly, nothing like Poland and Yugoslavia. This for several reasons: pre-civil war Poland and Yugoslavia were left in a neutral geopolitical vacuum, which armed their economies and gave a sense of national insecurity. Romania is firmly anchored to the EDEL. I reasoned out that TTL Romania would turn out a fairly loyal and stable member of the Euro bloc just like it did OTL for the Axis, despite the losses it suffered, since the situation is quite similar. Romania has been already attacked by the Soviets, and the Romanians have witnessed how much misery the Polish and Yugoslav civil wars brought to those countries, so Communist infiltration would find little appeal within the Romanian people. Morevoer, they don't have anything like the cultural affinity to Russia that Serbia and Bulgaria had.

I may write an aborted Communist insurrection attempt in Romania, but likely it would be quickly snuffed out by the government and put the European powers even more in a Red Scare mood, but I doubt it would be the main flashpoint. The strategic reasons you quote are good, but proxy subversion would fail for the reasons I quoted, if Stalin want Romania, he likely has to send the Red Army to grab it, and this would immediately cause a general war.

Rather, I was thinking that the main falshpoint might be the Middle East. Turkey eventually joins the EDEL, which makes Stalin feel even more encircled and pushes him to grab Iran, either by direct invasion or by using Azeri separatists as proxies. The EDEL sends troops to support the Shah, there are the first armed skirmishes between Euro and Soviet troops, Stalin thinks war is inevitable and orders Suvorov.
 
None of these conditions apply ITTL: the USSR has gotten farther with its industrialization and military build-up, the Red Army has been battle-tested and has won a major victory in Asia, the European anti-Soviet front has formed anyway, and nukes do not exist yet.

As it concerns Stalin's paranoia, yes he was exceedingly paranoid. However, paranoia does not necessarily (or that often) push the subject to prudence, it may easily drive one to pre-emptive attacks instead. TTL Stalin may decide it is better to strike against the European alliance before it gets too strong. Remember, the man was prone to miscalculating his enemies' willingness or ability to fight (Winter War, Barbarossa, Korean War). So far, his decisions and guesses have been more or less correct, he got no early Barbarossa sobering experience, and he has reaped confirmation about the correctness of an aggressive foreign policy from his Asian victories. For him to get a dose of victory disease becomes rather plausible.

Having said that, I see no problem about having an Euro-Soviet war start with some flashpoint instead of just a reverse Barbarossa (although if such a general war does happen, IMO it is surely bound to expand from Scandinavia to Central Asia in extremely short order). It is that by this point, many potential East-West flashpoints have been already settled. I fail to see how Romania might be one, since Bessarabia, Dobruja, and Transylvania have been settled, and Romania is firmly in the EDEL camp. Please care yo elucidate ? I do see a potential nifty flashpoint, but it is not Romania.

I'd assume that the proxy wars stage ITTL was already done with the Polish-Yugoslav civil wars and the Comintern-sponsored unrest in India and South East Asia. This is still the pre-nuclear age, there is only so much antagonism the great powers are willing to tolerate before they deem to heck with it, I'm going to escalate.



He may well want middle-eastern oil, striking through Iran, to support the much expanded Soviet military and weaken the european powers. Later, this could evolve into an attempt to establish a foothold in Egypt and eastern africa. The PRC would probably support that latter move, in exchange for sending surplus populations there, India´s population may be in serious troubles in the next decades.


Stalin didn´t want to conquer europe itself, Hitler had plenty of plans for the european Soviet-Union but Stalin seriously lacked plans for western europe or even Germany. Too many problems.

But what if someone else than Stalin took power or at least, a Stalin which isn´t our Stalin, so to state?

Why not a Soviet leader that instead of being a neo-nationalist isolationist, is an internationalist* of sort? In the sens that he wants a World Union of Soviets or at minimum, Eurasiafrica under the red banner.

With a correct POD, it would be surely be less outrageous than Himmler taking power, even furthering Hitler´s lebensraum grand vision, restarting a war with a fully mobilized US while inventing rock´n´roll in the way.


* I´v read plenty of complaints from "communists" how tragic it was that Stalin turned the Soviet-Union ideologically away from internationalism (beside corrupting a democratic society, of course).
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
I've revised last update to have a civil war happen in Romania similar to the ones in Poland and Yugoslavia. It ends in a White victory much like Poland, for much the same reasons.
 

Daffy Duck

Banned
Great Story

Good Job! Looking forward to the next update. Stalin will be in for a nasty war if he attacks a unified Europe. :D
 
Top