Soviets do not establish satellite states In eastern Europe post world war 2

prani

Banned
Say after world war 2 in 1947, the soviets do not go on establish the satellite states and instead treat the states in Europe as literal buffer states, that is to say the soviets do not interfere in the internal matter of the countries of eastern Europe (Social, economic, political independence except in foreign policy) in return those countries allow soviets to set up military bases within their countries and those countries also pledge perpetual neutrality that is to say they won't join any military bloc and their neutrality is protected by the soviets. Germany is allowed to unify and is to be kept neutral as well with soviet troops stationed in the eastern parts of the rump German state.

This has several implications for the cold war....cause the soviets would not been as an aggressor and instead would seen as benevolent country that desires world peace although the reason for such benevolence is their weakness....in reality is pragmatism. The massive amount of resources that the soviet pored into the eastern bloc to keep it afloat like sale of oil and gas at "Brotherly" terms and price costed the soviets billions and not to mention the cost of keeping these countries subjugated militarily and politically.

In the absence of the planned economy which was better suited to the soviet union because of it's massive resource base, eastern Europeans countries would grow on back of western capital from which the soviets can profit off, by selling raw materials and machinery at market determined prices thereby helping the soviets earn billions of more dollars in the 70s and the 80s, just about enough to keep the soviet economy from going bankrupt. This IMO is the massive difference between our timeline and this alternate timeline.

Well that and lesser military spending cause without the eastern bloc and the division of Germany the tension of the cold war is not that visible. This would allow the soviets to spend billions more in their extensive development growth model for a two decades more until we see the rise of China and later India, which is when the soviets can diversify their export and begin to sell the products to those two countries in return for cheap low quality consumer goods and thereby continue their resource extraction development model basically the USSR becomes one giant Australia with nukes and the most powerful military in the wolrd.

In the light of above situation the question is, in the absence of the satellite states in Eastern Europe would the soviets be able to survive into the modern day ?
 
Last edited:
Obviously great for all the countries involved, I bet we need Stalin to die and Beria to take over, he had the idea of selling East Germany to the west for money so it seems like this is in his wheelhouse.

Lots of questions:
Can the Soviets get Marshall plan aid in this timeline???

If the Soviets are playing this way what happens in China, Do the Soviets keep the communists on a leash. Does the USA hold back Chaing. Best case Manchuria is an OTL east Germany like communist basket case, and China remains nationalist. Korean war doesn't happen????

I really don't see Poland tolerating Soviet bases on their soil for long, or any self-determined Polish government dealing with the Soviets at all after 1939 Soviet German pact, massacre of Polish officers. Almost need to do away with the crushing of the Warsaw uprising, with the Soviet providing all available help to support the uprising to have even a hope of friendly relations. Its the biggest leap of faith here (I can see Soviet bases in Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary no problem, their ex Axis powers, Poland is an Allied state).

Ultimately though: So many butterflies here, yes the Soviets are economically better off here, and their people are enjoying more consumer goods. I can see the Soviet regime lingering 10 more years for sure. But can the Soviets maintain a closed society managed regime forever and remain competitive??? It just doesn't seem likely.
 
Last edited:

prani

Banned
If the Soviets are playing this way what happens in China, Do the Soviets keep the communists on a leash. Does the USA hold back Chaing. Best case Manchuria is an OTL east Germany like communist basket case, and China remains nationalist. Korean war doesn't happen??
Oh yes...I forgot to mention in my long rant...the Soviets split off Manchuria and Xinjiang and form east turkestan people's republic and Manchurian people's republic and they might treat it in a manner similar to Mongolia since these regions are pretty empty at this point in time while rest of China is left to the nationalist forces and Korean peninsula might be divided or left United on the promise of neutrality by the Korean. I think the Soviets might have issues with Chinese takeover of Tibet as well.. ...so a rump China to the east doesn't sound so farfetched or
the Soviets might treat China (realising the clusterfuck that China was back in 1945) in similar fashion as eastern Europe? Forcing it to grant military bases and mineral concessions in Manchuria and Xinjiang and forcing China to be neutral perpetually which would be the case anyway since China is well China regardless of the CCP would be an independent power pole in the world geopolitics and the Soviets might use the military bases as a bargain tool to extract concession from the Chinese when the negotiate trade agreement down the line.

I really don't see Poland tolerating Soviet bases on their soil for long, or any self-determined Polish government dealing with the Soviets at all after 1939 Soviet German pact, massacre f Polish officers. Almost need to do away with the crushing of the Warsaw uprising, with the Soviet providing all available help to support the uprising to have even a hope of friendly relations
How farfetched would it be for the Soviet union to annex the whole of Poland as polish Soviet socialist republic I mean Poland disappears from the map....not the first time that's happening but...I don't think the western allies would be so pleased with that ..but I think the Soviets can pressure Poland to become something like Finland ..they do have the military might to ensure that Poland doesn't get ideas, I think that's more probable outcome.

(I can see Soviet bases in Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary no problem, their ex Axis powers, Poland is an Allied state).
I think the Soviets do have the power, resources and influence to ensure that Eastern Europe stays neutral more so than Finland, in terms of international relations as well as military alliance, who knows even force these countries to enter into trade agreement that are favorable to the Soviets in return for Soviets not interfering in domestic matters.

Mind you at this point in time people were still worried about rise of Germany but since it was split up...the fears were quelled but in this timeline there does exist a neutral Germany...and I don't think countries in eastern Europe would be at ease and might try to have an insurance with the Soviets against Germans.

But can the Soviets maintain a closed society managed regime forever and remain competitive??? It just doesn't seem likely.
I think they can ...they have the resources both natural and human to just export metals, chemicals, oil, gas, minerals and timber in return for consumer goods which they can just import cheap consumer goods from China which would have industrialized much earlier in absence of Mao.
Can the Soviets can Marshall plan aid in this timeline
No the Soviets won't participate in Marshall plan but they would allow the eastern Europe to participate in the plan provided the US accepts the neutrality of those countries ....the Soviets instead would recover on the back of reparations, mostly from Germany which would be saddled with billions of dollars worth of reparations which would be paid off mostly in form of industrial and mining equipment and also reparations from Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria which would probably take the shape of mineral concessions or supply of grain to the USSR since these countries had a very robust agriculture before communism.
I guess the Soviets indirectly benefit from the Marshall plan.
 
Last edited:
Oh yes...I forgot to mention in my long rant...the Soviets split off Manchuria and Xinjiang and form east turkestan people's republic and Manchurian people's republic and they might treat it in a manner similar to Mongolia since these regions are pretty empty at this point in time while rest of China is left to the nationalist forces and Korean peninsula might be divided or left United on the promise of neutrality by the Korean. I think the Soviets might have issues with Chinese takeover of Tibet as well.. ...so a rump China to the east doesn't sound so farfetched or
the Soviets might treat China (realising the clusterfuck that China was back in 1945) in similar fashion as eastern Europe? Forcing it to grant military bases and mineral concessions in Manchuria and Xinjiang and forcing China to be neutral perpetually which would be the case anyway since China is well China regardless of the CCP would be an independent power pole in the world geopolitics and the Soviets might use the military bases as a bargain tool to extract concession from the Chinese when the negotiate trade agreement down the line.


How farfetched would it be for the Soviet union to annex the whole of Poland as polish Soviet socialist republic I mean Poland disappears from the map....not the first time that's happening but...I don't think the western allies would be so pleased with that ..but I think the Soviets can pressure Poland to become something like Finland ..they do have the military might to ensure that Poland doesn't get ideas, I think that's more probable outcome.


I think the Soviets do have the power, resources and influence to ensure that Eastern Europe stays neutral more so than Finland, in terms of international relations as well as military alliance, who knows even force these countries to enter into trade agreement that are favorable to the Soviets in return for Soviets not interfering in domestic matters.

Mind you at this point in time people were still worried about rise of Germany but since it was split up...the fears were quelled but in this timeline there does exist a neutral Germany...and I don't think countries in eastern Europe would be at ease and might try to have an insurance with the Soviets against Germans.


I think they can ...they have the resources both natural and human to just export metals, chemicals, oil, gas, minerals and timber in return for consumer goods which they can just import cheap consumer goods from China which would have industrialized much earlier in absence of Mao.
China makes sense.
Poland sort of makes sense, a united Germany would be worrisome, and Soviet relations with Poland may be tolerant, as long as there are no Soviet military bases, on Polish soil, that is just a bridge too far I feel with their history.

Maybe the Soviet could possibly survive till 2023, Western liberalism as a movement might be less without the Soviet threat. But the Soviets regime would still be repressive. People inside, especially the extra smart people, would want to go west for a better life, especially the non Russian peoples. There are so many butterflies on this that its really hard to tell over 80 years later from the POD.
 

prani

Banned
But the Soviets regime would still be repressive.
Oh yes no doubt about that...I think it would be more paranoid given the fact that it is surrounded by countries whose neutrality would be questionable at best.
But if they prevent their antagonism with the Americans getting better of them....they can drive a wedge between the Europeans and the British/Americans.... while Europeans would have issues with the dictatorship of the USSR and interference of the Soviets in their domestic politics....but since the Soviets don't turn half of Europe into the vassals...the American narrative about the Soviets would begin to sounds something like propoganda from pravda.
 
Say after world war 2 in 1947, the soviets do not go on establish the satellite states and instead treat the states in Europe as literal buffer states, that is to say the soviets do not interfere in the internal matter of the countries of eastern Europe (Social, economic, political independence except in foreign policy) in return those countries allow soviets to set up military bases within their countries and those countries also pledge perpetual neutrality that is to say they won't join any military bloc and their neutrality is protected by the soviets. Germany is allowed to unify and is to be kept neutral as well with soviet troops stationed in the eastern parts of the rump German state.
I find this scenario very interesting but I have a few questions, mainly territorial ones. Hopefully this map shows up as it would clarify what I am asking.
7a2c1ebe-1c49-4244-bdbf-698d787b9bbc.gif.pagespeed.ce.e6KboiE0d_.gif

(1) Does keeping the East European nations as “literal buffer states” also mean restoring all their pre-World War II borders ? Or could there be some adjustments or annexations while leaving the nations essentially intact ? I remember that Soviet Russia, after invading Poland in 1939, then handed over the territory of Vilnius(Wilno) they seized from Poland to Lithuania. The Soviets did not mind doing this since Lithuania was going to be in their sphere of influence. Possibly ditto with the East European states in this ATL so maybe no changes to the borders at all ?

(2) In Poland’s East, which the Soviets took in 1939, the majority of the population was Ukrainian and Belarusian, with Poles being about 38 percent. Within the Soviet Union, there were the Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, kinsmen of Poland’s East’s non-Polish majority. I can’t see the Soviets giving this territory back both because the Poles were a minority in it and its retention also gives Russia a land border with Czechoslovakia that Russia did not have in 1938. Would the Soviets do this in this scenario?

(3) If like OTL, the Russians annex Ruthenia, Czechoslovakia’s eastern tip, in this ATL, this also gives the Soviets a direct land border with Hungary, again something they did not have in 1938. And Ruthenia was mostly Ukrainian and Hungarian, not Czech. Direct land borders with Russia would be another “incentive” to keep the East European nations neutral since the Soviets could quickly intervene if they felt it necessary to add to the Russian troops already stationed in these nations. So would the Soviets annex Ruthenia in this ATL ?

(4) Since the Soviets never recognized Bessarabia as belonging to Romania (The Romanians had seized Bessarabia in 1918 from the Russians) and recovered it by the 1940 ultimatum, would they give it back, especially since Romania had been an ally of Nazi Germany in invading the Soviet Union ? Ditto northern Bukovina. Should its overwhelmingly Ukrainian population be handed back to the Romanians as well ? (But a big majority of Bessarabia’s population was Romanian)

(5) Would the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have their independence restored also ?
Catspoke said:
Poland sort of makes sense, a united Germany would be worrisome, and Soviet relations with Poland may be tolerant, as long as there are no Soviet military bases, on Polish soil, that is just a bridge too far I feel with their history.
(6) I agree with Catspoke. So do the German lands east of the Oder River get ceded to Poland as in OTL or would they remain part of Germany that will contain Russian military bases, something that seems to be precluded in this ATL if they become part of Poland ?

(7) What happens to East Prussia in this ATL ? Do the Russians and Poles divide it between them as in OTL giving the Soviets their only ice-free port of Kaliningrad (Königsberg) for naval purposes ?
 
7a2c1ebe-1c49-4244-bdbf-698d787b9bbc.gif.pagespeed.ce.e6KboiE0d_.gif

(1) Does keeping the East European nations as “literal buffer states” also mean restoring all their pre-World War II borders ? Or could there be some adjustments or annexations while leaving the nations essentially intact ? I remember that Soviet Russia, after invading Poland in 1939, then handed over the territory of Vilnius(Wilno) they seized from Poland to Lithuania. The Soviets did not mind doing this since Lithuania was going to be in their sphere of influence. Possibly ditto with the East European states in this ATL so maybe no changes to the borders at all ?

The territorial changes had been agreed to during various war time conferences so those would've still be implemented regardless of whether the Soviet Union had established Communist satellite states or not. The annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union was never recognised by the United States but the annexation of these countries would've been treated the same as in OTL.
(2) In Poland’s East, which the Soviets took in 1939, the majority of the population was Ukrainian and Belarusian, with Poles being about 38 percent. Within the Soviet Union, there were the Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, kinsmen of Poland’s East’s non-Polish majority. I can’t see the Soviets giving this territory back both because the Poles were a minority in it and its retention also gives Russia a land border with Czechoslovakia that Russia did not have in 1938. Would the Soviets do this in this scenario?
The Soviets would've retained virtually all the territory they gained under the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact regardless of the regimes established in Eastern Europe.
(3) If like OTL, the Russians annex Ruthenia, Czechoslovakia’s eastern tip, in this ATL, this also gives the Soviets a direct land border with Hungary, again something they did not have in 1938. And Ruthenia was mostly Ukrainian and Hungarian, not Czech. Direct land borders with Russia would be another “incentive” to keep the East European nations neutral since the Soviets could quickly intervene if they felt it necessary to add to the Russian troops already stationed in these nations. So would the Soviets annex Ruthenia in this ATL ?
In a word, yes. In 1938 Hungary seized Ruthenia from Czechoslovakia so this region was regarded as being Hungarian before the Second World War broke out. The loss of Ruthenia to the Soviets was not seen as Czech territory being seized but Hungarian territory. Thus, it would've been seen as reparation for Hungary's involvement in the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941.
(4) Since the Soviets never recognized Bessarabia as belonging to Romania (The Romanians had seized Bessarabia in 1918 from the Russians) and recovered it by the 1940 ultimatum, would they give it back, especially since Romania had been an ally of Nazi Germany in invading the Soviet Union ? Ditto northern Bukovina. Should its overwhelmingly Ukrainian population be handed back to the Romanians as well ? (But a big majority of Bessarabia’s population was Romanian)
The Russians would've kept Bessarabia as reparations for the Romanian involvement in the 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union and for the numerous war crimes committed by Romanian forces in the Soviet Union.
(5) Would the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have their independence restored also ?
No. The annexation of the Baltic states would've been a condition of them recognising the neutrality of Eastern Europe. Also, the Soviets had not forgotten nor forgiven the large scale co-operation between the Nazis and the population of the Baltic states, especially when it had come to the Holocaust.
(6) I agree with Catspoke. So do the German lands east of the Oder River get ceded to Poland as in OTL or would they remain part of Germany that will contain Russian military bases, something that seems to be precluded in this ATL if they become part of Poland ?
The war time agreements that determined the borders of post war Europe resulted in Poland getting this territory as compensation for the loss of its territories in the east. This would not change. A neutral bloc in Eastern Europe does not mean the expulsion of the Germans from these territories would not have occurred in this alternate time line.
(7) What happens to East Prussia in this ATL ? Do the Russians and Poles divide it between them as in OTL giving the Soviets their only ice-free port of Kaliningrad (Königsberg) for naval purposes ?
Same as in OTL. The Soviets needed and got a major ice free port on the Baltic Sea and Poland got both major industries and prime German agricultural land thanks to the partition of East Prussia. This would not change.

For the Soviets to have agreed to allow the establishment of a buffer zone of neutral states in eastern Europe the acceptance of the territorial gains made by the Soviets between 1939 and 1940 would've been unconditional. Not least because of the huge losses of life and the wholesale destruction of much of the Soviet Union as the result of the Second World War.

I could see an alternate time line where the Soviets have sovereign military bases which are subject to Soviet law within certain eastern European countries similar to the UK Sovereign Areas that exist in and around UK military bases in Cyprus. This could be the condition of the Russians allowing the establishment of a bloc of neutral nations between them and the West.

The big question would be Germany. The Soviets were terrified of a resurgent unified Germany so it's unlikely they would've relinquished control of eastern Germany unless there was certainty that Germany would never become a threat again. A demilitarised Germany, a Germany whose military could only have a budget of about 1 or 2% of its GDP thus ensuring a German military that was big enough to defend itself but not big enough to attack anyone else or the breakup of Germany into various states that would be banned from reuniting would've been the most likely options. A unified, neutral and disarmed Germany would've been the most likely option.

In the longer run, a neutral eastern Europe would've benefitted the Soviet Union as it would not have wasted so much money and resources on the military as it would not have needed to worry about a potential attack by the West. A neutral eastern Europe would've been a hotbed of intrigue and jockeying for position between the Soviet Bloc (made up of Albania, China, Korea, Mongolia, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia) and the West. McCarthyism would never have become as strong in the USA and the Vietnam War may very well have been avoided.
 

prani

Banned
Would the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have their independence restored also ?
They would be annexed into the USSR. Those countries are unfortunately quite close to the Russian core.
The big question would be Germany. The Soviets were terrified of a resurgent unified Germany so it's unlikely they would've relinquished control of eastern Germany unless there was certainty that Germany would never become a threat again. A demilitarised Germany, a Germany whose military could only have a budget of about 1 or 2% of its GDP thus ensuring a German military that was big enough to defend itself but not big enough to attack anyone else or the breakup of Germany into various states that would be banned from reuniting would've been the most likely options. A unified, neutral and disarmed Germany would've been the most likely option.
I did say that the Soviets would insist on stationing troops in eastern half of the country.... maybe demilititarised Eastern Europe and Germany would be a good idea too ..or some restriction on the size of the military with the independence and sovereignty guaranteed by the Soviet bayonet in case of eastern Europe and a joint guaranteed of German independence and neutrality by the Americans, French, British and the Soviets.

While I see some issues with policy makers taking offence to de milititarision of their countries, I'm looking at you Poland, which granted is a real issue but I think on the whole most of the ordinary people of eastern Europe wouldn't bother...so long as Soviet demands remain at neutrality and that Soviets would defend their country's independence and sovereignty in case of an external attack in return each country can pursue it's own path of economic and social development....I mean Eastern Europeans don't hate the Russians as Russian propaganda have us believe, ofcourse there would be folks who would bemoan the fact of Soviet imperialism....there would be a lot more who would be glad that their country doesn't end up like Mongolia which is a defacto Soviet republic or the Baltic republics who are annexed into the Soviet union.

As for the threat of German military I think the Soviets initially would be a bit uneasy at the prospects of it but as time passes by...I do think Moscow and Berlin would co operate in jointly subjugating eastern Europe, the Germans with their capital and businesses and the Soviets with their military and supply of raw materials and other industrial inputs. Germany would be much more powerful in this time line, economically speaking.
I could see an alternate time line where the Soviets have sovereign military bases which are subject to Soviet law within certain eastern European countries similar to the UK Sovereign Areas that exist in and around UK military bases in Cyprus. This could be the condition of the Russians allowing the establishment of a bloc of neutral nations between them and the West
Which is why I insisted on having military bases in an around eastern Europe. This combined with de milititarision of those countries would ensure
shield against the hostile capitalist countries beyond the Rhine.
I mean you will find one or two politicians in eastern Europe calling for an alliance with the west or to pursue an independent foreign policy etc....but the electorate would not have the appetite to you know go on such adventure as they have increasingly better standard of living and threat of war kept at bay by de milititarision and Soviet guarantees not that they love the Soviets...at the end of the day people just don't want war especially after the horrors of world war 2.
Same as in OTL. The Soviets needed and got a major ice free port on the Baltic Sea and Poland got both major industries and prime German agricultural land thanks to the partition of East Prussia. This would not change
The war time agreements that determined the borders of post war Europe resulted in Poland getting this territory as compensation for the loss of its territories in the east. This would not change. A neutral bloc in Eastern Europe does not mean the expulsion of the Germans from these territories would not have occurred in this alternate time line.
Soviets would've retained virtually all the territory they gained under the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact regardless of the regimes established in Eastern Europe
I find this scenario very interesting but I have a few questions, mainly territorial ones. Hopefully this map shows up as it would clarify what I am asking.
7a2c1ebe-1c49-4244-bdbf-698d787b9bbc.gif.pagespeed.ce.e6KboiE0d_.gif

(1) Does keeping the East European nations as “literal buffer states” also mean restoring all their pre-World War II borders ? Or could there be some adjustments or annexations while leaving the nations essentially intact ? I remember that Soviet Russia, after invading Poland in 1939, then handed over the territory of Vilnius(Wilno) they seized from Poland to Lithuania. The Soviets did not mind doing this since Lithuania was going to be in their sphere of influence. Possibly ditto with the East European states in this ATL so maybe no changes to the borders at all ?

(2) In Poland’s East, which the Soviets took in 1939, the majority of the population was Ukrainian and Belarusian, with Poles being about 38 percent. Within the Soviet Union, there were the Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, kinsmen of Poland’s East’s non-Polish majority. I can’t see the Soviets giving this territory back both because the Poles were a minority in it and its retention also gives Russia a land border with Czechoslovakia that Russia did not have in 1938. Would the Soviets do this in this scenario?

(3) If like OTL, the Russians annex Ruthenia, Czechoslovakia’s eastern tip, in this ATL, this also gives the Soviets a direct land border with Hungary, again something they did not have in 1938. And Ruthenia was mostly Ukrainian and Hungarian, not Czech. Direct land borders with Russia would be another “incentive” to keep the East European nations neutral since the Soviets could quickly intervene if they felt it necessary to add to the Russian troops already stationed in these nations. So would the Soviets annex Ruthenia in this ATL ?

(4) Since the Soviets never recognized Bessarabia as belonging to Romania (The Romanians had seized Bessarabia in 1918 from the Russians) and recovered it by the 1940 ultimatum, would they give it back, especially since Romania had been an ally of Nazi Germany in invading the Soviet Union ? Ditto northern Bukovina. Should its overwhelmingly Ukrainian population be handed back to the Romanians as well ? (But a big majority of Bessarabia’s population was Romanian)

(5) Would the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have their independence restored also ?

(6) I agree with Catspoke. So do the German lands east of the Oder River get ceded to Poland as in OTL or would they remain part of Germany that will contain Russian military bases, something that seems to be precluded in this ATL if they become part of Poland ?

(7) What happens to East Prussia in this ATL ? Do the Russians and Poles divide it between them as in OTL giving the Soviets their only ice-free port of Kaliningrad (Königsberg) for naval purposes ?
The POD is somewhere around 1948 or post death of Stalin. But once the satellite states are established I don't think the Soviet leadership want to give up on its privileges in Eastern Europe and any leader who floats that idea would be deposed like Beria.
So pretty much borders would be post world war two that we have in our time line but just before communist coups that happened all over Eastern Europe from 1947-1948. Maybe the Soviet government is just overwhelmed by the scale of the task and decide to cut their losses.
 
Czechoslovakia was liberated 1945 - the Carpatia Ruthenia territory was ceded to the Soviet Union July 1945 and by the end of the year the Soviet and US troops had been pulled out. Only by the Prague Spring 1968 did Soviet troops reoccupy Czechoslovakia.
Stalin did forward the Stalin Note by 10 March 1952 proposing uniting Germany in a demilitarized state which was rejected by NATO and the German Federal Republic i.e. West Germany.
Poland as already mentioned suffered a huge Soviet occupation force - some 500,000 troops 1945-47 - untill 1956 and didn't get a Constitution till 1952. The Government in Exile in London wasn't recognized by the Soviet Union with Great Britain and US ceasing to recognize it 5 July 1945.
Hungary was occupied by Soviet troops untill the end of the Cold War - the 1956 rebellion against the Communist rule had the Soviets crush it militarily.
Romania was occupied by Soviet troops untill 1958.
Bulgaria - Soviet troops were withdrawn 1947.
Austria was partly occupied by Soviet troops untill 1955.
The Baltic States saw Partisan activity against Soviet rule to 1956.

So by 1947 the Soviets decide to wheel around even though they have been establishing "friendly" regimes in most of these states.
The Soviet occupation Army of Poland becomes just bases? The Poles didn't like the presence of Soviet troops nor their local Communist rule. Local protest 1956 against the regime.
Where will the Occupation Army from the Soviet Occupation Zone of Germany go? OTL they had to get Germany to pay for new housing in Soviet Union post Cold War pull out. There was a revolt 1953.
The Hungarians Revolted 1956 against their Communist Government propped up by Soviet troops - how will this change?
The Romanian Communist Party was kept in power till 1958 and then managed on its own.
It may work in Czechoslovakia - well it did till 1968 and then what?
It did work in Bulgaria till 1991.

A number of the major Eastern Nations like Poland, Hungary didn't like their Communist regimes - how do You expect ATL any different? Of course becoming forced neutrals may do some but not having their full autonomy they'd be happy about?
How large would said proposed bases be? Forward areas to expedite a quick reaction force into Country in case of regime-unfriendly protest/insurrection or full Division size combatformations as well as Navy and Airbases? How else to the Soviets guarantee their forward "securityzone"?

ITTL there would be little need for establishing NATO at least not with US forces and certainly not West German but when the Soviets demand still bases in East Germany it will happen.
It will be a contradiction in itself.

Surely I would love not having to live through a better part of the Cold War but I'm also aware of the tensions within Europe that was and would be sceptical of such a scheme to work. The West German Government may have been un-duly sceptical of the 1952 Stalin Note but I see the basis for too many a conflict in Europe stemming from popular dissatisfaction with their rulers as the result of this.

Yes - You did address some of the issues and also realized that there might be a Soviet reaction if unrest occurs which was just what happened OTL and which prompted Soviet interventions.
You'll have to dig deeper to make the idea work and at least be more explicit that just to avoid the cost of ongoing military investments.
The Stalin Note could have been POD but even then that wasn't going to be as You still saw the need for Soviet bases in Germany and hence got back to square 1. ;)
 
Last edited:

prani

Banned
Czechoslovakia was liberated 1945 - the Carpatia Ruthenia territory was ceded to the Soviet Union July 1945 and by the end of the year the Soviet and US troops had been pulled out. Only by the Prague Spring 1968 did Soviet troops reoccupy Czechoslovakia.
Stalin did forward the Stalin Note by 10 March 1952 proposing uniting Germany in a demilitarized state which was rejected by NATO and the German Federal Republic i.e. West Germany.
Poland as already mentioned suffered a huge Soviet occupation force - some 500,000 troops 1945-47 - untill 1956 and didn't get a Constitution till 1952. The Government in Exile in London wasn't recognized by the Soviet Union with Great Britain and US ceasing to recognize it 5 July 1945.
Hungary was occupied by Soviet troops untill the end of the Cold War - the 1956 rebellion against the Communist rule had the Soviets crush it militarily.
Romania was occupied by Soviet troops untill 1958.
Bulgaria - Soviet troops were withdrawn 1947.
Austria was partly occupied by Soviet troops untill 1955.
The Baltic States saw Partisan activity against Soviet rule to 1956.

So by 1947 the Soviets decide to wheel around even though they have been establishing "friendly" regimes in most of these states.
The Soviet occupation Army of Poland becomes just bases? The Poles didn't like the presence of Soviet troops nor their local Communist rule. Local protest 1956 against the regime.
Where will the Occupation Army from the Soviet Occupation Zone of Germany go? OTL they had to get Germany to pay for new housing in Soviet Union post Cold War pull out. There was a revolt 1953.
The Hungarians Revolted 1956 against their Communist Government propped up by Soviet troops - how will this change?
The Romanian Communist Party was kept in power till 1958 and then managed on its own.
It may work in Czechoslovakia - well it did till 1968 and then what?
It did work in Bulgaria till 1991.

A number of the major Eastern Nations like Poland, Hungary didn't like their Communist regimes - how do You expect ATL any different? Of course becoming forced neutrals may do some but not having their full autonomy they'd be happy about?
How large would said proposed bases be? Forward areas to expedite a quick reaction force into Country in case of regime-unfriendly protest/insurrection or full Division size combatformations as well as Navy and Airbases? How else to the Soviets guarantee their forward "securityzone"?

ITTL there would be little need for establishing NATO at least not with US forces and certainly not West German but when the Soviets demand still bases in East Germany it will happen.
It will be a contradiction in itself.

Surely I would love not having to live through a better part of the Cold War but I'm also aware of the tensions within Europe that was and would be sceptical of such a scheme to work. The West German Government may have been un-duly sceptical of the 1952 Stalin Note but I see the basis for too many a conflict in Europe stemming from popular dissatisfaction with their rulers as the result of this.

Yes - You did address some of the issues and also realized that there might be a Soviet reaction if unrest occurs which was just what happened OTL and which prompted Soviet interventions.
You'll have to dig deeper to make the idea work and at least be more explicit that just to avoid the cost of ongoing military investments.
The Stalin Note could have been POD but even then that wasn't going to be as You still saw the need for Soviet bases in Germany and hence got back to square 1. ;)
Hey if there are no Soviet troops in eastern Europe then I'm all for it.... I'm kinda obsessed to keep the union chugging on into the modern day and age and the fact that they do not have to maintain a large military to keep the buffer states neutral would help me in my ultimate goal cause that would dial down the cold war and thus the military spending of the USSR and a lot more countries out in the west would be glad to trade with the USSR ignoring the reservation that the Americans have about the Soviet regime and as you pointed out NATO may not be established.....even if established it would lose purpose and direction once the mass hysteria surrounding the soviets in Europe dies down.

But that would go against everything that I know about the USSR.... remember how that country was formed? The entire developed world got together to strangle it ...and that had a lasting impact on the psyche of its leadership. I mean Stalin industrialized the country because of some incidents that too place in 1927-1928 in China and in Europe.....the entire program of industrialization of USSR was based on a conspiracy theory! Let that sink in!

The problem that i see here is Poland....which is on the door step of the USSR and Poland has a history of interfering in Russian affairs given the bitter history of the two. Maybe the Soviets turn Poland into a satellite state or station troops only in Poland or annex it into the USSR as the Polish soviet socialist republic (I mean the soviets as a policy did try to extent their borders to align it with the Tsarist era boundaries) and allow the rest of the eastern Europe to go its own way? That would open a can of worms, albeit a smaller one.
 
No the Soviets won't participate in Marshall plan but they would allow the eastern Europe to participate in the plan provided the US accepts the neutrality of those countries ....the Soviets instead would recover on the back of reparations, mostly from Germany which would be saddled with billions of dollars worth of reparations which would be paid off mostly in form of industrial and mining equipment and also reparations from Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria which would probably take the shape of mineral concessions or supply of grain to the USSR since these countries had a very robust agriculture before communism.
I guess the Soviets indirectly benefit from the Marshall plan.
Your model is a Finlandization of Eastern Europe. Finland didn't receive Marshall aid because this would antagonize the USSR too much in the eyes of the Finnish government. So i would say no Marshall plan for Eastern Europe either.
 

prani

Banned
Your model is a Finlandization of Eastern Europe. Finland didn't receive Marshall aid because this would antagonize the USSR too much in the eyes of the Finnish government. So i would say no Marshall plan for Eastern Europe either.
I don't have any particular model... I'm just doing a thought experiment as to how to keep the Soviets out of Eastern Europe as much as possible.... without it sounding improbable Finlandization of eastern Europe is just a idea and if there is no marshal plan for Eastern Europe because of the valid reasons that you pointed out ...then so be it
 
Last edited:
Hey if there are no Soviet troops in eastern Europe then I'm all for it.... I'm kinda obsessed to keep the union chugging on into the modern day and age and the fact that they do not have to maintain a large military to keep the buffer states neutral would help me in my ultimate goal cause that would dial down the cold war and thus the military spending of the USSR and a lot more countries out in the west would be glad to trade with the USSR ignoring the reservation that the Americans have about the Soviet regime and as you pointed out NATO may not be established.....even if established it would lose purpose and direction once the mass hysteria surrounding the soviets in Europe dies down.

But that would go against everything that I know about the USSR.... remember how that country was formed? The entire developed world got together to strangle it ...and that had a lasting impact on the psyche of its leadership. I mean Stalin industrialized the country because of some incidents that too place in 1927-1928 in China and in Europe.....the entire program of industrialization of USSR was based on a conspiracy theory! Let that sink in!

The problem that i see here is Poland....which is on the door step of the USSR and Poland has a history of interfering in Russian affairs given the bitter history of the two. Maybe the Soviets turn Poland into a satellite state or station troops only in Poland or annex it into the USSR as the Polish soviet socialist republic (I mean the soviets as a policy did try to extent their borders to align it with the Tsarist era boundaries) and allow the rest of the eastern Europe to go its own way? That would open a can of worms, albeit a smaller one.
Well this is cute - but - You don't address any of the issues that I presented. You just can't say now I use my magic wand and everything changes for the better in my opinion. History doesn't work that way.
 
ITTL there would be little need for establishing NATO at least not with US forces and certainly not West German but when the Soviets demand still bases in East Germany it will happen.
It will be a contradiction in itself.

Surely I would love not having to live through a better part of the Cold War but I'm also aware of the tensions within Europe that was and would be sceptical of such a scheme to work. The West German Government may have been un-duly sceptical of the 1952 Stalin Note but I see the basis for too many a conflict in Europe stemming from popular dissatisfaction with their rulers as the result of this.

Yes - You did address some of the issues and also realized that there might be a Soviet reaction if unrest occurs which was just what happened OTL and which prompted Soviet interventions.
You'll have to dig deeper to make the idea work and at least be more explicit that just to avoid the cost of ongoing military investments.
The Stalin Note could have been POD but even then that wasn't going to be as You still saw the need for Soviet bases in Germany and hence got back to square 1. ;)
I'm not necessarily knowledgeable enough to adress the rest, but I feel pretty confident to suggest that military bases in Germany wouldn't be off the table. We're talking about a country whose government invaded most of the European continent with the intent to violently murder a significant party of its population. I take Japan as evidence of that: the US were allowed to keep Okinawa under direct control all the way until 1972, which, yes, was in a Cold War context, but still provides a sort of baseline example that democracies wouldn't consider it off the table for themselves and thus probably not for others as well.

Germany is going to be a whole can of worms: we're going to have the French who would be extremely weary of Germany, the British who would be weary of the occupation costs, and the USSR mostly motivated by keeping some sort of leverage in Central Europe and having very very very good reasons not to trust the Germans ever again. OTL, the Cold War "vibes" led to the France, the UK and the US having a more cohesive response while the Soviets were distrustful and engaging in petty power play over the Marks. Here, we might see the more intervention-skeptical US and economically weary British disagree with the French and the Soviets on whether or not to end military occupation and what to do next with Germany. I honestly don't know how Germany would end up: probably united at some point, sure, since the Soviet Union probably wouldn't want to risk conflict with its less advantageous military and political positions and a country based on the "French bra" would probably fall apart very very quickly. But still, I think there would be ways to have France and the Soviet Union sneak some "right-to-occupy" clause in a potential German State Treaty.
 
I'm not necessarily knowledgeable enough to adress the rest, but I feel pretty confident to suggest that military bases in Germany wouldn't be off the table. We're talking about a country whose government invaded most of the European continent with the intent to violently murder a significant party of its population. I take Japan as evidence of that: the US were allowed to keep Okinawa under direct control all the way until 1972, which, yes, was in a Cold War context, but still provides a sort of baseline example that democracies wouldn't consider it off the table for themselves and thus probably not for others as well.
Thats actually what I wrote in the first line of Your quote. I reacted to the premise of the OP saying that Soviet Union would keep "bases" in Germany which due to the history as You then proceed to outline would carry on establishing some kind of collective security institution - in this case NATO.
Germany is going to be a whole can of worms: we're going to have the French who would be extremely weary of Germany, the British who would be weary of the occupation costs, and the USSR mostly motivated by keeping some sort of leverage in Central Europe and having very very very good reasons not to trust the Germans ever again. OTL, the Cold War "vibes" led to the France, the UK and the US having a more cohesive response while the Soviets were distrustful and engaging in petty power play over the Marks. Here, we might see the more intervention-skeptical US and economically weary British disagree with the French and the Soviets on whether or not to end military occupation and what to do next with Germany. I honestly don't know how Germany would end up: probably united at some point, sure, since the Soviet Union probably wouldn't want to risk conflict with its less advantageous military and political positions and a country based on the "French bra" would probably fall apart very very quickly. But still, I think there would be ways to have France and the Soviet Union sneak some "right-to-occupy" clause in a potential German State Treaty.
That I am quite aware of but also as I pointed out that the OP proposal would not change anything major.
The Stalin Note of 10 March 1952 if gone ahead might have done so but surely I can't see any of the European Nations - my own included which suffered partiel occupation by the Soviet Union - go along with the OP.
I am of the opinion should it not have clear from my first post that the OP premise isn't valid in the postwar situation in Europe and have no reason to assume that the Soviet Union we know of history would have proposed such - which it didn't.
Again: You just can't say now I use my magic wand and everything changes for the better in my opinion. History doesn't work that way.
 
Thats actually what I wrote in the first line of Your quote. I reacted to the premise of the OP saying that Soviet Union would keep "bases" in Germany which due to the history as You then proceed to outline would carry on establishing some kind of collective security institution - in this case NATO.

That I am quite aware of but also as I pointed out that the OP proposal would not change anything major.
The Stalin Note of 10 March 1952 if gone ahead might have done so but surely I can't see any of the European Nations - my own included which suffered partiel occupation by the Soviet Union - go along with the OP.
I am of the opinion should it not have clear from my first post that the OP premise isn't valid in the postwar situation in Europe and have no reason to assume that the Soviet Union we know of history would have proposed such - which it didn't.
Again: You just can't say now I use my magic wand and everything changes for the better in my opinion. History doesn't work that way.

You misinterpreted what I was saying. What I said is "in a situation where Soviet diplomacy moves towards a more conciliatory tone, there is no reason for the rest of the world to react with the creation of NATO."

If the Eastern governments (which if I recall correctly were at the time mostly coalitions headed by the Communist Party, and not full on one party states) are given full right to self-manage in any regards that aren't foreign diplomacy, then it means those coalition governements are going to be just that, coalitions that can fall apart if governement by a Communist-led coalition becomes too unpopular. Part of the agreement was to hold free and fair elections, which the Soviets in this "hands off" scenario will kind of have to let proceed.


You seem to be taking this as some sort of historical academic conference , as opposed to a literary exercise. We all have to take our magic wand if we want anything to happen, because otherwise not Point of Divergence happens ever. Maybe it's various minor staffers in Stalin's cabinet having different careers and influencing his perspective and understanding of events by the way they structure and present his foreign policy primers. Maybe he strikes a conversation with Henry Wallace when he visited the Soviet Union and gets charmed by his vision of WW2 as an "international people's revolution" and becomes more inclined with good-faith inter-Allies postwar cooperation.
 
You misinterpreted what I was saying. What I said is "in a situation where Soviet diplomacy moves towards a more conciliatory tone, there is no reason for the rest of the world to react with the creation of NATO."
Well I didn't see that that specifically spelled out.

If the Eastern governments (which if I recall correctly were at the time mostly coalitions headed by the Communist Party, and not full on one party states) are given full right to self-manage in any regards that aren't foreign diplomacy, then it means those coalition governements are going to be just that, coalitions that can fall apart if governement by a Communist-led coalition becomes too unpopular. Part of the agreement was to hold free and fair elections, which the Soviets in this "hands off" scenario will kind of have to let proceed.
Thats exactly what I was saying. This is where the magic wand comes into being because I tried saying that if the Soviets had gone this way they would have quite some problems with their Neutral states particularly Poland and Hungary. Worked fine in Czechoslovakia due to the local political situation which I also said. Though regarding West Germany that didn't want to be left at the mercy of the Soviets even though the Soviets would withdraw all forces from Germany within a year and the Western Powers were to do like.
You seem to be taking this as some sort of historical academic conference , as opposed to a literary exercise. We all have to take our magic wand if we want anything to happen, because otherwise not Point of Divergence happens ever. Maybe it's various minor staffers in Stalin's cabinet having different careers and influencing his perspective and understanding of events by the way they structure and present his foreign policy primers. Maybe he strikes a conversation with Henry Wallace when he visited the Soviet Union and gets charmed by his vision of WW2 as an "international people's revolution" and becomes more inclined with good-faith inter-Allies postwar cooperation.
No.
It should be a literary exercise but if somebody ask "how to navigate to that result" and isn't answered then there is no discussion and no literary exercise.
Henry who? (I'll look him up ;)) Might have been a POD. ;)
 
Say after world war 2 in 1947, the soviets do not go on establish the satellite states and instead treat the states in Europe as literal buffer states, that is to say the soviets do not interfere in the internal matter of the countries of eastern Europe (Social, economic, political independence except in foreign policy) in return those countries allow soviets to set up military bases within their countries and those countries also pledge perpetual neutrality that is to say they won't join any military bloc and their neutrality is protected by the soviets. Germany is allowed to unify and is to be kept neutral as well with soviet troops stationed in the eastern parts of the rump German state.

This has several implications for the cold war....cause the soviets would not been as an aggressor and instead would seen as benevolent country that desires world peace although the reason for such benevolence is their weakness....in reality is pragmatism. The massive amount of resources that the soviet pored into the eastern bloc to keep it afloat like sale of oil and gas at "Brotherly" terms and price costed the soviets billions and not to mention the cost of keeping these countries subjugated militarily and politically.

In the absence of the planned economy which was better suited to the soviet union because of it's massive resource base, eastern Europeans countries would grow on back of western capital from which the soviets can profit off, by selling raw materials and machinery at market determined prices thereby helping the soviets earn billions of more dollars in the 70s and the 80s, just about enough to keep the soviet economy from going bankrupt. This IMO is the massive difference between our timeline and this alternate timeline.

Well that and lesser military spending cause without the eastern bloc and the division of Germany the tension of the cold war is not that visible. This would allow the soviets to spend billions more in their extensive development growth model for a two decades more until we see the rise of China and later India, which is when the soviets can diversify their export and begin to sell the products to those two countries in return for cheap low quality consumer goods and thereby continue their resource extraction development model basically the USSR becomes one giant Australia with nukes and the most powerful military in the wolrd.

In the light of above situation the question is, in the absence of the satellite states in Eastern Europe would the soviets be able to survive into the

The whole of Eastern Europe(and germany) would most likely turn a giant Finland (that is, internationally neutral but remains democratic)

I could see an economic union came out of this. Earlier Visegrad? Danubian Union everyone?
 
Hmm ..as a counter to the Western European European steel community?

If the Soviets allowed Germany to unite back as a neutral country, Germany would most likely absent from EEC. France might be either focus on maintaining relations with Eastern European countries, or on their former colonies instead.
 
Top