Strict Soviet neutrality 1939

WI a Soviet government had announced that it would not take part in a Eurpean war and had not attacked Finland or the Baltic states.

Obviously the Nazis will still take Poland, however I wonder whether it might have cost the German War machine a little more.

I guess that events in the West might be the same (though how much problem would they have with less access to fuel and other materials,)

How much or an advantage would it be for the Nazis to be that much further forward,

What would happen to Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia?

I rather assume that Finland would be neutral, how important is this?
 
WI a Soviet government had announced that it would not take part in a Eurpean war and had not attacked Finland or the Baltic states.

Obviously the Nazis will still take Poland, however I wonder whether it might have cost the German War machine a little more.

I guess that events in the West might be the same (though how much problem would they have with less access to fuel and other materials,)

How much or an advantage would it be for the Nazis to be that much further forward,

What would happen to Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia?

I rather assume that Finland would be neutral, how important is this?


Hmm - on the down side, the Germans won't be getting cut-price food and minerals from the Soviets, so their supply situation will be worse. And the Soviets will be able to take advantage of the pre-existing fortifactions and military positions on the Polish border - the Soviet military were still getting the new situation sorted out in 1941.

Re the Baltic states - I have trouble seeing _any_ Soviet government remaining neutral if Hitler tried to occupy them, before or after his invasion of France. Just too damn long a border with the Reich.

Finally, the $60,000 dollar question - who is running the USSR? Has Stalin been hit by an alien mind-re-arrange-o beam, or does someone else run the show? Either way, they're unlikely to duplicate Stalin's mistake of believing that Hitler would not attack, in spite of all his intelligence services told him...

Bruce
 
Finally, the $60,000 dollar question - who is running the USSR? Has Stalin been hit by an alien mind-re-arrange-o beam, or does someone else run the show? Either way, they're unlikely to duplicate Stalin's mistake of believing that Hitler would not attack, in spite of all his intelligence services told him...

Bruce

Well stalins personality come 1939 is going to lead him down the path he's al;ready taken but its not neccesarily the case. Its generally accepted that Stalins second wife killed herself in 1932, stalins first wife had died and his first son had killed himself so this combination of personal tragedies can be in part blamed for stalins extreme paranoia since he became increasingly isolated and lost his grip on reality.
Certainly if she doesn;t kill herself stalins going to be a lot more lucid, also the army is going to be a lot more robust since its possible that the army purges won;t take place or will be more akin to a mccarthyite witch-hunt rather than the absolute decimation of the red armys tacticians.
How we get her to not kill herself is questionable, its fairly obvious that her suicide was partly politically motivated since she had been a bolshevik. If the 1928 labour laws and five year plans mark the beginning of stalinism proper in economic terms then 1932 marks the beginning of its worst excesses since that was the year of the forced famine in the ukraine.
 
Well stalins personality come 1939 is going to lead him down the path he's al;ready taken but its not neccesarily the case. Its generally accepted that Stalins second wife killed herself in 1932, stalins first wife had died and his first son had killed himself so this combination of personal tragedies can be in part blamed for stalins extreme paranoia since he became increasingly isolated and lost his grip on reality.
Certainly if she doesn;t kill herself stalins going to be a lot more lucid, also the army is going to be a lot more robust since its possible that the army purges won;t take place or will be more akin to a mccarthyite witch-hunt rather than the absolute decimation of the red armys tacticians.
How we get her to not kill herself is questionable, its fairly obvious that her suicide was partly politically motivated since she had been a bolshevik. If the 1928 labour laws and five year plans mark the beginning of stalinism proper in economic terms then 1932 marks the beginning of its worst excesses since that was the year of the forced famine in the ukraine.

WI first wife strangles Joe before or instead of killing herself. (though I realize getting rid of Stalin causes LOTS of butterflies
 
I've always wondered what a Kirov government would be like.

Would it be a Kirov-Ordzhonikidze alliance? How much would the army be involved? Certainly Kirov was a pretty hardline Bolshevik but he wouldn't, IMO, have organised anything quite like the 1937 purges that even affected people out of politics for decades, or the army purges.

Would he back down over the excesses of collectivization, unlike Stalin (he certainly was of the same mind in theory)? Would he ever appoint that swine Zhdanov Commissar for Culture? How would the USSR constitution look like?
 
I've always wondered what a Kirov government would be like.

Would it be a Kirov-Ordzhonikidze alliance? How much would the army be involved? Certainly Kirov was a pretty hardline Bolshevik but he wouldn't, IMO, have organised anything quite like the 1937 purges that even affected people out of politics for decades, or the army purges.

Would he back down over the excesses of collectivization, unlike Stalin (he certainly was of the same mind in theory)? Would he ever appoint that swine Zhdanov Commissar for Culture? How would the USSR constitution look like?


Carlton Bach made a stab at a Kirov TL a while back...

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=19364&highlight=kirov

Bruce
 
By "strict neutrality," can the USSR still force the Baltics into some kind of defensive alliance?

That should get them the benefits of increasing the territorial buffer without making masses of enemies the way annexation/deportation did.

Finland could be safely ignored.
 
Finland could be safely ignored.

Well considering the butterflies of this a "nice" guy USSR could pull of making a few bases maybe. Not the terretory changes but basing rights might pass.

Of course knowing Stalin if its not a European war theres going to be things going on in asia.
 
Won't the Germans still want war, even to the point of declaring it? I don't think hitler was willing to respect any neutrality unless you were also supplying his country with gold. I think the Germans had always thought they could easily defeat the Soviets, so I would imagine their easy victories in france would lead them to think they could easily defeat Russia.
 
Well considering the butterflies of this a "nice" guy USSR could pull of making a few bases maybe. Not the terretory changes but basing rights [in Finland] might pass.

I doubt it. I think you are seriously underestimating the extent the political climate of the "First Republic" was shaped by a paranoia towards the Soviet Union, shared by virtually all parties except the extreme left.

There is hardly a way the USSR could look "nice guy" enough to seriously dampen Finnish suspicions about allowing Soviet troops on Finnish soil. In the very least, we are talking about policies for allowing a genuine East Karelian autonomy (as stipulated in the Tartu Treaty) and a permissive stand towards Finnish defensive arrangements with her Baltic neighbours (first in the case of the "Baltic entente" and/or later with the proposed defensive alliance with Sweden). Such "nice" policies would be most likely considered to be in direct opposition to the long term strategic interests of the USSR, as they would possibly allow this Baltic bloc to ally with a hostile power, be it Germany or the Anglo-French in a later date.

Instead, a non-aggression pact between the USSR and Finland will probably come about, but that happened in OTL too and did little to placate Finnish fears.

I more or less agree with Merry, though. If the USSR treats Finland (and the Baltics) in anything resembling a civil manner, ie. not stooping to threats, provocations and an invasion, at least in 1939-40 Finland will maintain neutrality. Later, it becomes a question of trade access: with Germany blocking the Baltic, the Soviets should better consider "servicing" Finnish neutrality by not interfering with Petsamo and promising to supply Helsinki with strategic foodstuffs. The center-left in Finland will have a hell of a time controlling the Germanophiles, but in this way they at least would have a fighting chance.
 
Last edited:
Won't the Germans still want war, even to the point of declaring it? I don't think hitler was willing to respect any neutrality unless you were also supplying his country with gold. I think the Germans had always thought they could easily defeat the Soviets, so I would imagine their easy victories in france would lead them to think they could easily defeat Russia.

Of course he will attack - gaining "living space" in the east at the expense of the Slavs was one of Hitler's primary obsessions. OTL, Stalins military purges and the Soviets poor performance against the Finns (plus, I suppose, old memories of the Russians so-so performance in WWI combined with the whole "Slavs are inferior beings" belief system) led the Germans to think the Soviets would "collapse like a pack of cards".

In this ATL, if alt-Stalin/not-Stalin doesn't carry out a massive purge and avoids attacking Finland, there may be less certainty about Soviet military crapitude - but Hitler _will_ attack, he might just spend another year building up the military before he strikes (which, if the USSR builds up _its_ military as fast as OTL, will just be a case of running in place).

Bruce
 
Obviously the Nazis will still take Poland, however I wonder whether it might have cost the German War machine a little more.
By the time Red Army crossed the border Polish Army ceased to exist as a fighting force. Even all that molobization of Wikipedia didn't quite manage to hide this fact (although it did make a damn good job to put a thick level of maskirovka over).

So, consequences off the top of my head:

1. Instead of Autumn, Leeb would wheel through neutral Baltic countries to Leningrad by July 1st., 1941.
2. Whatever left of Baltic Jewry IOTL (refugees and/or deportees to USSR, and sometimes it isn't easy to distinguish) would be completely obliterated ITTL.
3. Distance between Latvian border and Moscow is half of that between Brest and Moscow. So, would part of Loeb's forces not "turn left" in Latvia but continue their eastward push, it places Luftwaffe within striking distance from Moscow by the same July 1st and Heer would have half as much distance to cover in their push toward AA line.
 

wormyguy

Banned
I doubt it, they're not very industrialised and the Nazis couldn't really justify invading them like it could justify invading the USSR.

Yes he could, because he could claim that he was merely protecting the rights of Baltic Germans, a minority there since the 1200s.
 
By the time Red Army crossed the border Polish Army ceased to exist as a fighting force.

Not entirely true,the Poles were getting ready to retreat into their redoubt-The Romanian Bridgehead,it had natuaral defenses and although the Poles would be beaten eventually they could have held on till early 1940.The Soviet invasion of OTL crushed any hope of this plan from being realised as they had a pretty clear route into the bridgehead.
 
Not entirely true,the Poles were getting ready to retreat into their redoubt-The Romanian Bridgehead
Oh The Great Romanian Bridgehead! Your ghost flies around every time one needs to prove that Soviets stabbed mighty Polish Army in the back mere hours before it was about to counter-attack and destroy puny German warband. Just FYI, Germans beseiged Lvov (Lviv, Lwow, whatever) Sep. 12, effectively cutting what's left of Polish Army off this mythical "bridgehead" 5 days before Soviets entered the fray.
 
Keep in mind that USSR provided lots of resources via legal trade to the Germans from 1939-41. If they were neutral these resources would not have been in teh Germans pockets and would have force their hand quicker.
 
Top