Plausibility Check: Soviets annexing Eastern Europe Post WW2

Would it have been possible for the Soviet Union to directly annex some or all of the states that fell within its sphere of influence post-World War 2? Could we see a Polish SSR, or even a German SSR? I assume that there'd be strong western opposition; could this provoke the Western Allies into taking direct action?
 

Zeus

Banned
I guess it would have been somewhat plausible for the USSR to annex Eastern Europe (or at least parts of it) after WWII. However, the main reason why they didn't do it was probably because they wanted Eastern Europe specifically as a buffer zone to protect them from Western attack, as well as to avoid antagonizing the West too much.
 
This is somewhat unlikely because the USSR had enough on its plate from simply winning WWII, and there was always the possibility that the new subjects could produce another Stalin.
 
More like, at times, it's better to have supposedly free states but actually pet dogs around you than directly conquer them.

An example could be Swisterland... They could have been taken by the Reich (at a big cost). But they where way better supposedly neutral...
 
Would it have been possible for the Soviet Union to directly annex some or all of the states that fell within its sphere of influence post-World War 2? Could we see a Polish SSR, or even a German SSR? I assume that there'd be strong western opposition; could this provoke the Western Allies into taking direct action?

This would make more sense if the Soviets got to the Rhine and into Italy, possibly after a FaT sort of D-Day 1943 Disaster. Then, with vassals like Denmark, Netherlands, and Italy on the frontline, annexations of things like a Polish and Finnish SSR makes sense.

I'm pretty sure that if Stalin gets that border, he will have merry fun Gerrymandering borders to his pleasure. Direct incorporation of Poland, Finland, and possibly Romania and Bulgaria into the Union would probably not trigger WWIII. Germany, in particular, would be targeted geographically; I could see Stalin adopting the most insane anti-German boundaries possible, leading to a bloated Denmark and a engorged "East Netherlands".

The Soviets wouldn't annex all of their holdings, but they'd probably take a larger bite if the border was further west.
 
I tend to think that a "greater" Soviet victory in WWII makes annexation of Eastern European countries more likely, at least the ones that used to be part of the Russian Empire. After the Soviets took over the Baltic States and formally annexed them, they refused to dis-engorge them until the breakup of the USSR.

Alternatively, even with a post May 1945 POD, The Soviets certainly could annex Romania, Poland and Bulgaria after WWII, the local communists were Russian stooges and would have signed off, and the locals were so utterly defeated they could have hardly resisted. The only thing that prevented it from happening is Stalin wanting to minimize his PR damage post-WWII. If the Allies get more aggressive about the division of Germany early on, he might be less concerned with that and just annex the one or more of those countries as a shot across the West's collective bows.
 
Again at times, why conquer and face all the issues along it, when you can impose your will in a more insidious, and paying, way?
 

Cook

Banned
I assume that there'd be strong western opposition; could this provoke the Western Allies into taking direct action?

No. The west was exhausted; Britain had been fighting for six years.

It would have changed attitudes in the US fasted and accelerated the start of the Cold War though. And made the propaganda associated with international campaigns of ‘national liberation’ less convincing.
 
Top