Plausibility Check: A second European war only two years after World War I

In our timeline's 1920, the Soviets were defeated at Warsaw and were driven out of Poland and eventually sued for peace, guaranteeing Poland's independence and abating a second European war for the next twenty years.

But in some alternate timeline, how plausible is the idea of every country who had fought in the Great War (both on the Entente and the former Central Powers) going to war with the Soviet Union after Warsaw falls to the Soviets? Most people I've run into say that it is plausible that every anti-Communist country in the world would declare war on the USSR. But, I have trouble believing that the nations of Europe or the USA would be so willing to go to war again, only two years after what was then called The War to End All Wars.

  • Belgium and France were ravaged by the war. Thousands of their countrymen laid dead and their industries were ruined.
  • Germany, thanks to the Treaty of Versailles and internal schisms, was barely holding itself together with a standing army of 100,000 men with no tanks, no airplanes or heavy guns. Only a few months before the fall of Warsaw in this timeline, the Kapp Putsch had just happened, to give an example of how unstable Germany was.
  • Britain only got involved in the Great War because of Belgium and it was expected that that war be a short one. Would the people really be willing to fall for the same trick twice and throw their support behind yet another war, supposedly being fought to defend another country's independence? The war devastated the British populace so much that Britain was so unwilling to stop Hitler that Chamberlain resorted to appeasement when dealing with him and that was twenty years after the Great War.
  • The United States only got involved in the war because of a combination of German unrestricted submarine warfare and the Zimmerman Telegram. After the war in OTL and even during it, isolationism slowly reasserted it's influence in American foreign policy, as shown by the US's rejection of the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations.
And before someone brings up the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War, that wasn't being fought to end the Soviet Union. That was being fought to secure heavy weapons that were left in Russian hands after the Treaty of Brest Litovsk and to ensure that the Czechoslovak Legion made out of Russia safely.

So, in your opinion, is a second European war, only two years after World War I, plausible?

By the way, when I say 'European war', I mean a war on the scale of World War I.
 
Depends.

1. If the soviets out right annex Poland then you have a strong possibility of a general war that would start as a phony war.

2. If the soviets annex Poland and take the Baltics. This could add alot more ammo to the fire.

2.5 You also have the Greek - turk war going on 1919-1922

3. The USA, Japan, Italy, China You will need them involved. You will need money to fund this. Also the soviets are not Going to Last long in this fight.

2 years after WW1 the British and French are damn near broke, Germany is wobbly internally and broke, Austria doesn't even realize it's Austria even, Hungary is forging its path.. the ottomans are fallinging/fell apart.


Germany would be the front line jumping off point.
 
Top