USSR invasion: a certainty?

I have seen mentioned that, without an aggressive Germany in the 1930s the USSR would have invaded Europe? I guess I didnt think Stalin was that aggressive, but I really don't know. Is it fairly probable to see this happening in the 30s or 40s?
 
I have seen mentioned that, without an aggressive Germany in the 1930s the USSR would have invaded Europe? I guess I didnt think Stalin was that aggressive, but I really don't know. Is it fairly probable to see this happening in the 30s or 40s?

He was planning to invade Nazi Germany in mid 1942 as of early 1941. When he first made such plans I don't know.

Certainly it would be in character for what I know of Stalin to invade if he believed he could win with an acceptable cost. One reason the Cold War didn't go hot was that the atomic bomb threat made the cost prohibitively high.
 
I have seen mentioned that, without an aggressive Germany in the 1930s the USSR would have invaded Europe? I guess I didnt think Stalin was that aggressive, but I really don't know. Is it fairly probable to see this happening in the 30s or 40s?

I quite agree. That assumption owes more to the subconscious influence of Red Alert than to any analysis of the facts, which are that one great power very seldom suddenly decided to up and fight four great powers at the same time. The Russians accidentally fought two great powers at the same time in the 1850s and look how well that went.

Stalin explicitly cited the lessons of tsarist foreign policy in discussing his own. He was acutely aware of being behind the western European countries: indeed, he was paranoid, and thanks to that he saw confederacies against him everywhere. The whole point of the M-R pact was to divide Germany from the Entente and prevent them from uniting against Russia, so why should the Soviet policy be any different if Germany isn't Nazi?

And what is there in eastern Europe that's of so much value? There were a variety of Soviet interests in the cordon countries - the national connections to western Ukraine and Belarus, the claim to Besserabia, anxieties about Leningrad, desire for more Baltic ports - but without the pressing need to establish a military buffer against Germany, these goals are hardly worth risking a disastrous general war. The real prizes for the Soviets in a world without an agressive Germany would be in Asia.

Certainly it would be in character for what I know of Stalin to invade if he believed he could win with an acceptable cost.

Stalin took some risks in his career, but we're talking about the guy who gave up a militarty advantage in Finland at the first whiff of Entente intervention. Where does everyone get the idea that he'd have been another Hitler given the chance?
 
I quite agree. That assumption owes more to the subconscious influence of Red Alert than to any analysis of the facts, which are that one great power very seldom suddenly decided to up and fight four great powers at the same time. The Russians accidentally fought two great powers at the same time in the 1850s and look how well that went.

Stalin explicitly cited the lessons of tsarist foreign policy in discussing his own. He was acutely aware of being behind the western European countries: indeed, he was paranoid, and thanks to that he saw confederacies against him everywhere. The whole point of the M-R pact was to divide Germany from the Entente and prevent them from uniting against Russia, so why should the Soviet policy be any different if Germany isn't Nazi?

And what is there in eastern Europe that's of so much value? There were a variety of Soviet interests in the cordon countries - the national connections to western Ukraine and Belarus, the claim to Besserabia, anxieties about Leningrad, desire for more Baltic ports - but without the pressing need to establish a military buffer against Germany, these goals are hardly worth risking a disastrous general war. The real prizes for the Soviets in a world without an agressive Germany would be in Asia.

As usual, you stated my opinion far more eloqently then I ever could.
 
I think with Hitler and Stalin it was a case of which stabbed the other in the back first. Without an aggressive militarist Germany on his doorstep, I don't know whether Stalin would have invaded Europe or not. Certainly he attacked Finland, but in that case his action had been tacitly "okayed" by Nazi Germany, which was standing between him and any retribution from, for example, Britain or France and given the balance of forces Stalin had every reason to think it was going to be a walkover for the Red Army (not that it worked out that way, not in the short term anyway...). I can see Stalin opportunistically chewing bits off countries like Romania or the Baltic States if he thought he could get away with it, but provoking a World War without the threat of the Third Reich facing him...? I don't know. He might have, I guess - others may be more knowledgable in this area than I - but I'm not sure it would be a guaranteed thing.

EDIT: Ahah - I see IBlameCommunism has commented while I was typing the above - that was what I was trying to say. What he said. :D
 
Anent chewing bits off various countries: people seem to assume that because the Entente did nothing about the Rhineland and Austria they'd do nothing about Poland and Romania. But we've got to be aware that the appeasement policy was a policy, it wasn't just lack of resolve: Chamberlain knew what he was doing, which was with one hand re-arming Britain to maintain our position of strength and on the other hand trying to give Hitler what he wanted without war and without giving up any vital British interest. It was as history showed an enormously ill-judged policy, but it wasn't just cluelessness.

And the whole point of the policy was to keep the Russians out in the cold, isolated from Europe by the revived power of Germany. Chamberlain confessed his profound dislike and suspicion of the USSR in his personal writings, as if it wasn't obvious enough that this attitude had been the foundation of much British policy since we tried to off Lenin.

There would never be any policy of appeasement towards Russia. As we saw, even when at war with Germany, the Entente still contemplating supporting Finland and bombing Baku.

So in short: a Russian attack on Romania or Poland or even the Baltic countries would almost certainly meet a rapid response from Britain and possibly France as well.

As usual, you stated my opinion far more eloqently then I ever could.

Cheers. :eek:
 
Stalin was paranoid and saw enemies EVERYWHERE. The countless purges and especially what became of the Old Guard communists was proof enough of that. He was obviously ruthless and cold blooded and wanted to expand his power as far as he could.



But like most tyrants he preferred taking on opponents who could not actually fight back. As a revolutionary he'd seen what had become of the Czar when he allowed Russia to go to war with Germany in order to support the West. He'd also witnessed the interventions of British, American, and Japanese troops into Soviet territory following the end of World War One in an effort to support the White Russians. He was quite aware that war against a great power was very different than war against helpless Soviet citizens or even against isolated Baltic nations. He was also aware that while the West might try to use him that they did not truly want a communist regime in the world.



What actually occurred? Prior to the outbreak of war when Litvinov was still the Foreign Secretary he sought security by collective action with the other powers. Unlike Germany during this time period the Soviet Union did NOT threaten other nations or try to expand its borders. Unlike Germany of Fascist Italy.



During the border conflicts with Japan Stalin did not try to use the military victories the Red Army won there to expand into Manchuria. The Japanese were the aggressors and Stalin merely wanted to secure his border. Though he Red Army won battles Stalin did not seek a full scale war with Japan.



During the summer of 1939 as the crisis over Poland was intensifying Stalin sought a military alliance with the west to prevent Hitler from conquering Poland and achieving a common border with the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, and inexplicably, the British and French representatives along with their governments did not show enough serious interest. Given his paranoid views Stalin suspected they were attempting to maneuver him into a position where the Russians would have to fight the Nazi forces alone while the British and French stood by and watched.



From his point of view this would have been a disaster. Having to fight the Germans alone was the absolute last thing he wanted. He was not going to repeat the Czar's mistake and bleed in order to spare the western nations who would be just as happy to see the Soviet Union destroyed.



Since an iron clad alliance with the west looked to be impossible signing the Non-Aggression Pact with Hitler was less about expansion into Europe than it was about protecting himself from an armed German invasion.



In the early part of the war each time the Soviet Union expanded; into eastern Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Finland, and Rumania it was done with German acceptance.



In the summer of 1941 following the fall of France and the military buildup along his border Stalin was desperate to appease Hitler and avoid war at any cost. Even going so far as to permit spy planes to overfly his troops and fortifications.



Later on when the Red Army DID overrun eastern and central Europe it was after years of ferocious battle when Stalin was certain of his greater strength.

Likewise he only declared war on Japan when they were already defeated and standing on their last legs.

Obviously all these actions show his mindset. He had no objection at all to expanding his borders through warfare or the threat of war. However he never exposed his country or himself to unnecessary risk. At no point did he ever seek out a major war with a great power unless he was forced into it or the odds were highly in his favor.



Without an aggressive Germany Stalin might have attacked small border nations if they could be politically isolated, but would certainly never have risked a serious war in Europe.
 
Top