The Bolsheviks stop at the Curzon Line; where do they go from here?

The Avenger

Banned
If Lenin decides to listen to Trotsky and Stalin and stop at the Curzon Line in 1920 instead of going for Warsaw, and if the Bolsheviks are able to repulse any renewed Polish attempts to expand east of the Curzon Line (thus getting the Poles to agree to the Curzon Line as the Soviet-Polish border), where do the Bolsheviks go from there?

Specifically, do the Bolsheviks decide to immediately try grabbing any additional territory--such as Finland, the Baltic countries, Subcarpathian Ruthenia, Bessarabia, and northern Bukovina?

Also, with a Polish-Soviet border on the Curzon Line, does Poland become more receptive to Nazi overtures for an alliance in the late 1930s?

In addition, if the Soviet Union has a common border with Czechoslovakia in this TL, do Britain and France decide to fight on Czechoslovakia's behalf in 1938 in this TL?

Thoughts?
 

The Avenger

Banned
Some questions:

Would Germany approve of a Soviet seizure of the Baltic countries?

Would Hungary approve of a Soviet seizure of Subcarpathian Ruthenia?
 

trurle

Banned
If Lenin decides to listen to Trotsky and Stalin and stop at the Curzon Line in 1920 instead of going for Warsaw, and if the Bolsheviks are able to repulse any renewed Polish attempts to expand east of the Curzon Line (thus getting the Poles to agree to the Curzon Line as the Soviet-Polish border), where do the Bolsheviks go from there?

Specifically, do the Bolsheviks decide to immediately try grabbing any additional territory--such as Finland, the Baltic countries, Subcarpathian Ruthenia, Bessarabia, and northern Bukovina?

Also, with a Polish-Soviet border on the Curzon Line, does Poland become more receptive to Nazi overtures for an alliance in the late 1930s?

In addition, if the Soviet Union has a common border with Czechoslovakia in this TL, do Britain and France decide to fight on Czechoslovakia's behalf in 1938 in this TL?

Thoughts?
Finland. The border skirmishes in Finland was continuous at that time, and Soviet leaders had a grand delusions about level of popular support they may meet in Finland. Of course, the main question would be "why we attacking Finland while much easier Poland is in reach?" Will be an interesting political conflict regarding this question among Soviet leadership.
 
Contrary to the situation in 1939, at this point the Soviet march to Helsinki with a lot of support from local Reds is a much more viable scenario.
 

trurle

Banned
Contrary to the situation in 1939, at this point the Soviet march to Helsinki with a lot of support from local Reds is a much more viable scenario.
Local Reds in Finland were already politically cleansed by middle 1918, and thoroughly discredited in the following 2 years by reports of atrocities and anarchy in Russia. By 1920, large scale Soviet-sympathizing movement was non-existing.
Also, the industrial recovery of Finland was much faster due shorter civil war (Finland issued revised rifles in 1924, while Soviet Union only in 1930), although in 1920 the war was mostly about imports and stocks in hand. And imports of armament were actually favouring Finland too. In 1919, Finland added at least 5 new models of imported weapons (tank/automobile gun, 3 aircraft, and pistol) to inventory, while Russia added none.
 

The Avenger

Banned
Local Reds in Finland were already politically cleansed by middle 1918, and thoroughly discredited in the following 2 years by reports of atrocities and anarchy in Russia. By 1920, large scale Soviet-sympathizing movement was non-existing.
Also, the industrial recovery of Finland was much faster due shorter civil war (Finland issued revised rifles in 1924, while Soviet Union only in 1930), although in 1920 the war was mostly about imports and stocks in hand. And imports of armament were actually favouring Finland too. In 1919, Finland added at least 5 new models of imported weapons (tank/automobile gun, 3 aircraft, and pistol) to inventory, while Russia added none.
Okay.

Also, considering that the Reds lost most of their support in Finland by 1920, wouldn't it be too late for the Soviet Union to intervene there? After all, I'm talking about the Soviet Union stopping at the Curzon Line in July-August 1920.
 
What changed between 1920 and 1939?
Tl;dr - Finnish society, and the composition, training, preparedness and armament of the Finnish Army alongside it. In TTL a Bolshevik invasion would seem like a continuation of the Finnish Civil War.

The defeated SDP was back in government, Lapua Movement had also been defeated, and the conscripts of 1939 had lived their entire adult lives in an independent country.
 

trurle

Banned
Okay.

Also, considering that the Reds lost most of their support in Finland by 1920, wouldn't it be too late for the Soviet Union to intervene there? After all, I'm talking about the Soviet Union stopping at the Curzon Line in July-August 1920.
Yes, it was too late in 1920. Unfortunately, history showed very little understanding of Finnish socio-dynamics by Soviet leaders until East Karelian uprising in 1921. Since that uprising, the more restraint on Soviet side was visible though.
 
Local Reds in Finland were already politically cleansed by middle 1918, and thoroughly discredited in the following 2 years by reports of atrocities and anarchy in Russia. By 1920, large scale Soviet-sympathizing movement was non-existing.
"Effectively suppressed" would be a more fitting description. In 1920 there was still so much bad blood that a new war would be a disaster.
And imports of armament were actually favouring Finland too. In 1919, Finland added at least 5 new models of imported weapons (tank/automobile gun, 3 aircraft, and pistol) to inventory, while Russia added none.
The French and British military support to Finnish government would certainly form an important aspect of TTL war.
 

iVC

Donor
What if the Bolsheviks try to subjugate Romania and make an attempt to revive the recently deceased Hungarian Soviet Republic?
 
Top