Troskyite USSR invades Poland

Carl Schwamberger

Circa 1931 the excuse of labor unrest an Communist agitators is used for attacking Poland with a mobilized Red Army. Assume the Baltic states are occupied as well.

Assume the European leaders are not completely surprised by this, with the previous 2-3 years of preparation encouraging the radical left in the west and scaring the hell out of the right.

1. Does France try to strengthen the 'Little Entente' through diplomacy & perhaps military aid ?

2. How much can Polish defense be boosted in a couple years?

3. I am assuming Facist Italy is concerned and tries to use this to strengthen connections with Rumania, and other Balkan states. Or is this unlikely ?

4. How far would the 1929-31 governments of the US and Britain go in supporting the continent against the USSR ?

5. Would the French government of the era overlook and effort by Germany to rearm, even in a small way ?

6. What are the prospects for central Europe as the Red Army marches to Warsaw? That is how does this war go & how is it likely to expand ?
 

David T

I don't quite understand why a Soviet attack on Poland in 1931 is more likely under Trotsky than under Stalin. To quote an old post of mine:

---

Why does everyone assume that Trotsky is more likely to do this than Stalin? Leaving aside the obvious and extreme riskiness of this course, he never advocated it. "Encouraging world revolution" (which both he and Stalin favored *as long as it could be done*) =/= "invade everyone with the Red Army." Trotsky seems to have been at first reluctant to cross the Curzon Line and invade ethnic Poland in 1920. (Some people have questioned this, but Richard Pipes, not exactly an admirer of Trotsky, has defended him on this point: "Several historians have questioned whether Trotsky really opposed the invasion of Poland as he later claimed...But the documents cited against him date from August 1920, when the matter had long since been decided, and Trotsky, having fallen in line like a good Bolshevik, naturally desired a quick and decisive victory." *Russia under the Bolshevik Regime*, pp. 182-3.)

From an interview of his in 1940:

***

QUESTION: Do you, as the former head of the Red Armies, feel it was necessary for the Soviets to move into the Baltic states, Finland and Poland, to better defend themselves against aggression? Do you believe that a socialist state is justified in extending socialism to a neighbor state by force of arms?

ANSWER: It cannot be doubted that control over the military bases on the Baltic coast represents strategical advantages. But this alone cannot determine the question of invasion of neighboring states. The defense of an isolated workers’ state depends much more on the support of the laboring masses all over the world than on two or three supplementary strategical points. This is proven incontrovertibly by the history of foreign intervention in our civil war of 1918-20.

Robespierre said that people do not like missionaries with bayonets. Naturally that does not exclude the right and duty to give military aid from without to peoples rebelling against oppression. For example in 1919 when the Entente strangled the Hungarian revolution, we naturally had the right to help Hungary by military measures. This aid would have been understood and justified by the laboring masses of the world. Unfortunately we were too weak ... At present the Kremlin is much stronger from a military point of view. However, it has lost the confidence of the masses both inside the country and abroad.

If there were soviet democracy in the USSR; if the technological progress were accompanied by the increase of socialist equality; if the bureaucracy were withering away, giving place to the self-government of the masses, Moscow would represent such a tremendous power of attraction, particularly for its nearest neighbors, that the present world catastrophe would inevitably throw the masses of Poland (not only Ukrainians and White Russians but also Poles and Jews) as well as the masses of the Baltic border states on to the road of union with the USSR.

At present this important pre-condition for revolutionary intervention exists, if at all, in a very small degree... https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/xx/ww2.htm

***

Now of course there is boasting here: if *I* were in charge of the Soviet Union, there would be popular revolutions in eastern Europe, and everyone would be begging the USSR to come to their rescue! But I doubt that as actual leader of the USSR, he would be guilty of such self-deception, knowing about the nationalism Polish workers had shown in 1920...

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...europe-in-the-early-30s.411037/#post-14322206
 

skarosianlifeform

But why would either Stalin or Trotsky (or any Soviet leader) would invade Poland in 1931 ? I mean, aside the obvious (expand their control on the map, spread communism and get forward bases). I mean, they would know that an invasion campaign would be extremely costly, plus risk of war with the West.

We need to find a plausible reason for a Soviet-Polish war in 1931, starting with much more tensions between the two in the 1920s, another Soviet leader (probably neither Stalin nor Trotsky, but I don't know which of them, if any, would have launched a conquest war on Poland in peacetime), etc.
 

Carl Schwamberger

But I doubt that as actual leader of the USSR, he would be guilty of such self-deception, knowing about the nationalism Polish workers had shown in 1920..
Click to expand...

Eh, self deception is fairly common, the midwife of so many bad decisions.

I appreciate the expertise here, tho it could be helpful. Generally when I see a weak PoD I try to offer a stronger path to the actual questions of the thread.

... plus risk of war with the West.
Click to expand...

Which touches on my first question. that is how far would France reach supporting Poland.

1. Does France try to strengthen the 'Little Entente' through diplomacy & perhaps military aid ?
 

Ramontxo

Donor
The world wide depression being the beginning of the end for capitalism with Weimar in particular being in the verge of collapse. Say that Trosky sees the global situation and decides to be in place to help the German Proletariat in their inevitable revolution and start by getting Poland...
 

Carl Schwamberger

After reviewing what I understand of the military situation of the era it looks like the risk to the USSR and so much else revolves around what action the French take. While the Soviet Army then is not a 800 pound Gorillia of a later era, its still a 400lb monster in a room of small mammals. Poland, Germany, Hungary, Rumania, or Cezchosolvakia combined still don't compare. Further they would not be a well organized coalition or start as Allies in any fashion. Italy lacks the depth of military and economic strength to effectively aid Poland. France is pretty much the game. Either way the Poles will not be a easy victory.
 

thaddeus

skarosianlifeform said:
But why would either Stalin or Trotsky (or any Soviet leader) would invade Poland in 1931 ? I mean, aside the obvious (expand their control on the map, spread communism and get forward bases). I mean, they would know that an invasion campaign would be extremely costly, plus risk of war with the West.

We need to find a plausible reason for a Soviet-Polish war in 1931, starting with much more tensions between the two in the 1920s, another Soviet leader (probably neither Stalin nor Trotsky, but I don't know which of them, if any, would have launched a conquest war on Poland in peacetime), etc.
Click to expand...

Poland and Romania were very close during this period, signing treaties and even discussion of "joint Kingdom" or other Romanian royalty to occupy the Polish throne? (how serious the latter prospect?? but it illustrates their close relations)

maybe the prospect of (more or less) unified country, reaching Baltic to Black Seas, panics the Soviet leadership?

(signed major add. treaty in 1931)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top