Soviet union is attacked by "medical cordon" countries in the end of 1920th-1930th

Poland alone has no chance against the Soviets, Romania is unlikely to get involved even before considering that Bulgaria and Hungary are both likely to lean towards the USSR due to unresolved grudges from WWI, the Baltic States are militarily impotent and Lithuania hates Poland more than the USSR while the British Army is little more than a token so London certainly can't arm another nation while France is far more concerned with what Germany might do while everyone's attention is diverted.

A curb stomp of Poland resulting in the 1945 boundary coming a decade sooner is plausible, nothing more.

Funny, prior to 1930 the Soviets felt that they couldn't win a war against Poland whereas the Poles felt that they couldn't deliver a knockout blow against the Soviets. Neither country had the ability to wage a prolonged war. And that's not necessarily a military statement - the Soviet government was so focused on party over people that its decisions were convoluted at best. One gets the impression that certain factions in the Soviet gov't wouldn't mind losing a large chunk of territory in exchange for placing their faction in control.

The Polish plan relied on getting their men mobilized first against a relatively undefended Soviet border. They would then push quickly into Kiev and Belorussia, liberate the locals there and encourage national uprisings to augment their own troops. They had a fair amount of support on paper in those regions. (whether it would have amounted to anything tangible was another thing). Then they would try to fight a defensive war and wait for the inevitable peace process.

Of course this was all 1927. By 1932 the situation was totally changed. The Soviets had enough troops on their borders at all times to essentially nullify the plan. Most of the resistance had been quashed and the USSR viewed Poland as a mild irritant. But there was a window up until about 1930 where the Soviet military machine was basically a shadow and the outcome of a war between the two would have been very much in question.

A bit of a wildcard from the Polish side would have been Pilsudski, who apparently scared the pants off of Moscow. Having led Poland through the 1920 war, he also had "hands-on" experience, which could be good or bad. On the other hand Polish diplomacy at the time could be described as "petty" at best and so getting aid or arms would be problematic. But you never know.. a good PR campaign plus the fact that there were a lot of ex-pat Poles in the rest of Europe might make a difference.

Most importantly, i think is that prior to Pilsudski's return to power the Poles had no concerted desire to go to war. The economy was good and the country was getting back on its feet. After Pilsudski returned then the head of state may have wanted war, but the country likely still didn't. So Poland is really going to have to be forced into a corner to go to war (as evidenced by the way the war scare in 1927 turned out) or be attacked outright. That may drive sympathy up for Poland temporarily.

Oh, and regarding Germans crossing Polish soil to fight for the Soviets (or even on the Polish side). Consider that the Poles refused to allow the soviets onto their soil in 39. Expect the same response towards the Germans in the 1920s.
 

oberdada

Gone Fishin'
Interesting idea, some thought on:

Germany: likely to stay nutreal.
If Poland colapses, the Reichswehr would have likely marched into Poland, stopping at the pre WWI border, but leaving Danzig/Gdansk unocupied.
German-Soviet millitarry cooperation on airplanes and tanks started in 1926, but was inofficial and supposed to be kept a secret. Unlikely to have any effect.
German volunteers fighting for Poland is almost unthinkable.
But a right-wing freecorps fighting with Estonians or Finns could happen.

Comparisons with the Spanish Civil war:
I could imagine international brigades, fighting for the Soviet Side.
------>Crazy idea:
If war breaks out after 1928 and things don't look well for the USSR, Trotzky might lead one of them.

Cooperation between Poland and Lithania: very hard to imagine for the dispute over Vilnius.

Soviet internal Problems: Uprisings in the Ucraine or Georgia could happen.
What about white-russians in Exile?


Another point: Could this postpone the Crash of 1929?
 
Well, there was a state of war between Finland and the USSR (unlike, say, the USSR and the Turks)
"Turks" were just a hint that it would not be a sign of genius mind to explain all Soviet decisions by inherent evil and madness of Stalin. So, if Soviets chose to risk German attacks of supply routes and assign badly needed troops and materiel to fight Finnish naval forces, to me it means they did not see Finnish desire to fight sitzkrieg. So, was that desire there?
, and yes, the Finnish Ladoga flotilla did get into some brushes with the Soviet units on the lake. However, it was not its mission to nor did it have specific orders to stop the relief of Leningrad by lake. The flotilla was there to maintain a general presence on Ladoga, because as you know, leaving that long stretch of the front unmonitored would have been, from the military point of view, kind of stupid.

You have to also remember that Naval Detachment K (L.Os.K) operating in the southern Ladoga during fall 1942 was mostly made up of German (and Italian) troops, even if it was under nominal Finnish control: elements of the detachment did at times rather follow the German than the Finnish doctrine on Leningrad. Take Einsatz Brazil, the disastrous invasion of Suhosaari (Sukho): it was planned and conducted directly by the Kriegsmarine, the Finns had very little say in it.
Again, I'm not amused by your arguments, although I don't question them. Finns, at very least, are accomplices in what Nazi did to Leningrad. Compare stern Finnish refusal to participate in Final Solution madness and casual help provided to Nazi murderers in Leningrad.
Stalin never went for an all-out evacuation effort, evacuation was an option only for those who had the official authorization to leave. Had the Soviet leadership valued the lives of the people of Leningrad over the industry of the city and its symbolic value as the home of the revolution, hundreds of thousands people could have been saved.
This isn't a topic for casual conversation. However, my sources (including dozen or so survivors I knew personally) are more or less agree that effort was genuine and wide. Could it be bigger? Yes it probably could, Leningrad did supply certain amount of arms to Red Army even in dark winter of 1941-1942 and this space could have been used to evacuate people. However, wouldn't it mean more killed Soviet citizens because there wasn't enough arms somewhere (Red Army was very short on stuff in 1942)? This topic deserves separate discussion and I'm not ready.
So, do we agree that what Stalin offered, was "dirt": a few patches of wilderness in Karelia, and what he wanted, was "gold": the only place to make an effective defensive stand to protect southern Finland?
No we don't. I was just using Finnish moniker. I do agree that land swaps are rarely equal, though, and Stalin demanded huge and unfair concessions. However, one may say it was a fashion of the day post-Munich. Germany and Poland biting pieces off Czechoslovakia, Germany, USSR and Slovakia partitioning Poland, Hungary biting pieces off Slovakia, Hungary and Romania quarelling for Transylvania... In this particular Finnish-Soviet case, there were so many mutual phobias clouding the horizon, it is just incredible. Both countries viewed same piece of land as absolutely important for their security.
According to you, then, Finland should have issued an ultimatum to the USSR in 1941 and demanded Stalin to cede Eastern Karelia "to protect Finnish security": apparently Soviet refusal to cave in would have made an invasion of areas over and beyond previous holdings acceptable (this being the nature of the Finnish doctrine)?
Acceptable? Nope. Understandable? Yes. Once you at war, you aim for victory, not court dance with hauty static poses and well-rehearsed sequence of steps. However, it does not mean that your pre-war aims were "total victory".
 
Germany will do as best serves German interests which can only mean improving ties to the USSR as a response to Anglo-French post-WWI hostility plus the many issues regarding Poland's border.

This does not mean Germany won't make noises about the big bad commies if Berlin concludes this would be useful.

Wonder what kind of improvements in Versailles military restrictions Germany might get away with given a brief war and modest border adjustments?
 

oberdada

Gone Fishin'
Wonder what kind of improvements in Versailles military restrictions Germany might get away with given a brief war and modest border adjustments?

An idea, maybe a bit unlikely:
Poland colapses
Germany de-facto restore 1914 borders
but de-jure does not claim the terretorry
THerefore it would not fall under the Versaille restrictions.
building a small navy, tanks airplanes could happen there, officially without any connection to Germany.
 
"Again, I'm not amused by your arguments, although I don't question them. Finns, at very least, are accomplices in what Nazi did to Leningrad. Compare stern Finnish refusal to participate in Final Solution madness and casual help provided to Nazi murderers in Leningrad. This isn't a topic for casual conversation.

CG, I am sorry if I have insulted your sensibilities on the issue. Like I said, the Finnish army did conduct the war in ways that were sometimes brutal and morally unacceptable, but I also tend to take a dim view of the Finns being accused of mass murder according to what I consider little direct evidence of culpability. So lets agree to disagree and possibly take the issue up later, if you so will. There has quite enough OT discussion for this particular thread already.
 
In the end of 1920th soviet militaries thought that USSR could be atacked by so-called "medical cordon" countries(countries, "protecting" europe from communism-Baltic countries, Poland, romania, Finland) could attack USSR with help of the west countries.

What's with the brackets? That's what they were doing.

Well, Americans didn't stop at the Baghdad's gates, although everyone and their dog knew by that moment that they launched the aggression under phony pretext, did they? Try to use the same measuring stick for all parties.

And the 2003 invasion of Iraq has what to do with this exactly? I think we need a Godwin's Law for that war.

You really have to manipulate the time-lines to get any sort of cooperation between the buffer states by 1929 and not have it be ASB. And to manipulate the time-lines you essentially have to make a fundamental change in perception in many important peoples' minds. By 29' most of the border states distrusted each other or outright hated one another. They were far more content to squabble over tiny bits of land than thing about "the big picture".

The "squabblity" of Eastern Europe has been much exaggerated. Those countries bordering the USSR were Poland, Finland, Romania, Latvia, and Estonia. None of them had any beef with each other.


That's a scenario for the Soviet Union attacking Eastern Europe. We're talking about Eastern Europe attacking the Soviet Union.

I understand that "those dumb Ruskies" were unable to exploit safety of Finnish part of the lake, as far as Western thinking goes.

That's it, I've had enough of this shit! I know that you'll probably get away with the ridiculous baiting and the anti-Western stereotypes. You might even get away with putting words in other people's mouths. But one thing that won't get you far is the constant use of Russophobic comments, from which you probably get some cheap thrill. Do it again and I'm calling Ian. Give me one more "Russki" or "ogre", I dare ya!
 
Last edited:
That's it, I've had enough of this shit! I know that you'll probably get away with the ridiculous baiting and the anti-Western stereotypes. You might even get away with putting words in other people's mouths. But one thing that won't get you far is the constant use of Russophobic comments, from which you probably get some cheap thrill. Do it again and I'm calling Ian.
I could, and I half-seriously considered to do so. But that would mean stooping to your level, and this is something which does not plant warm and fuzzy feelings into me. However, count on me to bring up this stereotype again next time somebody comes up with version as fantastic as "Finland did not fight Soviet convoys and Soviets still kept those convoys as far from Finnish shores as possible", as this stereotype (would it describe reality) is the only possible explanation of such versions not being ASB.
 
Poland had problems with any and all nations bordering her, including Lithuania, Czechoslovakia, Germany and Russia.

All we need now for a nice flame war is the return of Hurgan.
 
I could, and I half-seriously considered to do so. But that would mean stooping to your level, and this is something which does not plant warm and fuzzy feelings into me.

Ending the use of ethnic slurs is "stooping to my level"?

...

There's nothing I could comment on this that would make it seem more insane than it is.

However, count on me to bring up this stereotype again next time somebody comes up with version as fantastic as "Finland did not fight Soviet convoys and Soviets still kept those convoys as far from Finnish shores as possible", as this stereotype (would it describe reality) is the only possible explanation of such versions not being ASB.
Come on, don't pussy out! If you're gonna call someone prejudiced then be a man and say it to their faces. Are you or are you not saying that DrakonFin is prejudiced against Russians? I know you love to suggest stuff like that, let's see if you have the balls to state it.
 
Are you or are you not saying that DrakonFin is prejudiced against Russians?
I'm not, and it seems to me that DrakonFin understands it. Would you care to re-read the thread instead of playing seizures of noble ire, you would find that I just ridiculed his suggestion that Finns did not play a role in Leningrad's starvation. I said that, would they not, there's no rational explanation of Soviets avoiding Finnish waters to ship food to the city but "stupidity". We still disagreed (that is fine, a lot of disputes have no ultimate "right" and "wrong" sides), but he did not question that Soviets had good reasons not to do so.

Now, would you be so kind to contribute something of value or leave me alone, please? TIA.
 
I'm not, and it seems to me that DrakonFin understands it. Would you care to re-read the thread instead of playing seizures of noble ire, you would find that I just ridiculed his suggestion that Finns did not play a role in Leningrad's starvation. I said that, would they not, there's no rational explanation of Soviets avoiding Finnish waters to ship food to the city but "stupidity". We still disagreed (that is fine, a lot of disputes have no ultimate "right" and "wrong" sides), but he did not question that Soviets had good reasons not to do so.

I didn't get a reputation as a hair-splitter by not reading what people have to say. Next time you put such words into someone's mouth I won't give you a chance to back out, I'll just report you.

Now, would you be so kind to contribute something of value or leave me alone, please? TIA.

Most of the other people that I really can't stand have been banned. You don't compare with Val but you'll have to do.
 
I could, and I half-seriously considered to do so. But that would mean stooping to your level, and this is something which does not plant warm and fuzzy feelings into me. However, count on me to bring up this stereotype again next time somebody comes up with version as fantastic as "Finland did not fight Soviet convoys and Soviets still kept those convoys as far from Finnish shores as possible", as this stereotype (would it describe reality) is the only possible explanation of such versions not being ASB.

I'm not, and it seems to me that DrakonFin understands it. Would you care to re-read the thread instead of playing seizures of noble ire, you would find that I just ridiculed his suggestion that Finns did not play a role in Leningrad's starvation. I said that, would they not, there's no rational explanation of Soviets avoiding Finnish waters to ship food to the city but "stupidity". We still disagreed (that is fine, a lot of disputes have no ultimate "right" and "wrong" sides), but he did not question that Soviets had good reasons not to do so.

So, you wish to continue the discussion? I assume you do when you choose misquote me in answer to someone else... I do not remember claiming "Finland did not fight Soviet convoys": In fact I wrote, exact quote, "there was no Finnish policy of harassing the transport of supplies on the Road of Life or on Lake Ladoga". The operative word is policy. To conquer Leningrad or to starve Leningrad into submission was in the German, not in the Finnish interest. Thus the Finnish government's and Mannerheim's policy of leaving the city alone. I quite literally have here at my hand a study by Raimo Seppälä about the wartime Minister of Defence, Rudolf Walden, based mainly on the correspondence he left behind. On page 224 Walden discusses with Mannerheim on the demand by Keitel that the Finns join in the attack on Leningrad (my translation):

"[Mannerheim:] -I have accepted my position as C-n-C on the exact condition that the Finnish army will not attack St. Petersburg [M. never learned to call the city Leningrad]. What the Germans are suggesting, we should firmly decline. I even doubt it is in the national interest to go past Svir. Do you agree with me?

- Yes, completely, answered Walden quietly.

The men had decided on the the Leningrad-question already in advance. Their views were fully convergent. It would have been senseless to attack Leningrad. And it was not even in the Finnish interest to help the Germans there. That, the Russians would never forget or forgive."

When we talk about "Finnish waters" on Lake Ladoga, we have to distinguish between German and Finnish actions on the lake, and between the Finnish Ladoga flotilla proper and the Naval Detachment K (L.Os.K). While the Finnish flotilla proper was composed mainly of an assortment of small motor boats and a few tugs, L.Os.K was composed of 4 Italian MTBs (with Italian crews), 21 German Siebel ferries (with German crews) and 9 German motor boats (with German crews) and one Finnish motor boat (the WWI vintage Sisu, with a Finnish crew).

While the bulk of the Finnish flotilla followed the Finnish policy, L.Os.K (even though nominally part of the Finnish OOB), was de facto under German command, the Italian MTBs under the Kriegsmarine and the Siebel ferries and motor boats under, curiously enough, the Luftwaffe, forming the Einsatzstab Fähre Ost commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Fritz Siebel himself. The offensive operation conducted at southern Ladoga during fall 1942, or Operation Klabautermann (of which Brasil was a smaller part) was part of the German designs on Leningrad and had nothing to do with the Finnish war aims or policy:

""The idea of using small boats to interdict Soviet traffic had come to Hitler in 1941, too late to put into effect. It was revived in the spring of 1942 after Finnish reports indicated the Russians were evacuating Leningrad, Hitler feared the Russians might pull out of Leningrad entirely; in that case the northern sector of the front would no longer be important to them, and they would be able to transfer troops to another part of the front. Consequently, he ordered the evacuation combated by all means. By 1 July the Navy had German and Italian PT boats ready for action on the lake. The Luftwaffe brought in its craft a month later. Both claimed overall command and and further impaired the operation, which was already hampered by by lack of air cover and the hazards of operating on the shallow lake." (The German Northern Theater of Operations, pages 230-231)

The operation ran between August and October, and was terminated after the failed invasion of Suhosaari on October 22nd. Because the onset of winter, L.Os.K was dismantled and the boats and ferries tranferred to other fronts.

The bottom line: Ladoga was used for less than three months as an area of offensive operations against the relief of Leningrad by lake. These operations were ordered by Hitler, planned by the staff in the German navy and the German air force and realized by using German and Italian troops, with a handful of Finnish soldiers taking part.

At least for a part of 1942, then, the Soviet troops taking part in the relief of Leningrad had a real reason for fearing a naval attack from the northern parts of the Ladoga, but this was very little due to the presence of actual Finnish units. It is probable that many Soviet sources say the attacks were committed by "Finns" - and this is indeed a very logical view, considering the disposition and location of the units taking part in Klabautermann, even if it most likely is incorrect.

Without the Germans taking action in Ladoga, the Finns would not have any reason whatsoever nor the required strength to do anything about the relief of Leningrad. To leave the city alone was their doctrine at Ladoga, as it was on the land fronts, before and after the German action of fall 1942. Finns played a part in the operation, there is no denying it, but as military action goes, the scale of the Finnish participation was negligible.

After reviewing the sources at my disposal, I still think Stalin was in a definitely better position to save the civilians of Leningrad than Mannerheim or the Finnish government were. And I say this taking no position at all as to the national characteristics of the general Russian population at that time or today.
 
Last edited:
The "squabblity" of Eastern Europe has been much exaggerated. Those countries bordering the USSR were Poland, Finland, Romania, Latvia, and Estonia. None of them had any beef with each other.

That's a scenario for the Soviet Union attacking Eastern Europe. We're talking about Eastern Europe attacking the Soviet Union.

No it hasn't. To consider it otherwise goes against pretty much all of researched history from the 20th century. Lithuania, for example, refused to have any diplomatic relations with Poland until the late 1930s after the Poles took Vilnius. Poland had a similar problem with Czechoslovakia. The other country Poland had a significant border with was Germany - and no friends there. Romania and Poland had decent relations, but only a very small connecting border. So the idea of alliances after 1920 was simply ASB.

I postulated a Soviet attacking scenario because that scenario is far more likely than the original idea. And by "far more likely" i mean that the original idea is utter fantasy.
 
No it hasn't. To consider it otherwise goes against pretty much all of researched history from the 20th century. Lithuania, for example, refused to have any diplomatic relations with Poland until the late 1930s after the Poles took Vilnius. Poland had a similar problem with Czechoslovakia. The other country Poland had a significant border with was Germany - and no friends there. Romania and Poland had decent relations, but only a very small connecting border. So the idea of alliances after 1920 was simply ASB.

"Those countries bordering the USSR were Poland, Finland, Romania, Latvia, and Estonia. None of them had any beef with each other." That is what I said and that is what I meant. Nowhere on that list do you see Germany or Czechoslovakia or Lithuania. I specifically referred only to the countries that bordered the Soviet Union.
 
Top