What if the Soviets had won the Battle of Warsaw?

What if the Soviets had won the Battle of Warsaw during the Soviet-Polish War?

Could it have lead to a wider European (or global) revolution?

Could it have at least resulted in greatly expanded Soviet borders and/ or the creation of some friendly communist buffer states?

Or could it have backfired massively by alarming the major powers into a more concerted and confrontational effort to crush the revolution (compared to the interventions) and consequently restored the Russian empire/ installed a capitalist republic/ divided russian territory amongst themselves?

Could such a wider war (likely being viewed as a continuation of the Great War, though a significantly and radically different phase) have lasted for a very protracted time possibly for a decade or more?

What other interesting developments might occur as a result of a Soviet victory during the Battle of Warsaw?




One interesting thing about the Battle of Warsaw was that the Soviets lost atleast partially because some forces were diverted south away from Warsaw by a certain commander. The commander wanted to win his own battle in southern Poland for personal gain. The commander was Joseph Stalin. The prevention of him from doing this or his simple removal from the event (such as choking on his dinner a month or two before hand or something) could've played a big role in the Soviets winning the Battle of Warsaw. It may also have lead to Stalin being less capable of seizing power and brutally reigning over the USSR three decades.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
You're new(ish) here so I'll respond to this before I Blame Communism can blast you with the holier-than-thou tone he likes to use so much whenever anything pertaining to Russia is brought up. (He's a decent chap and undoubtedly very intelligent; he can just be rather...brusque...at times).

If the Soviets manage to take Warsaw, you will probably see some sort of Soviet Poland. However, a Soviet victory over the Poles will, frankly, scare the ever living shit out of the rest of Europe.

Since Poland is now Red and the Soviet hordes seem unstoppable, the newly-victorious Entente will most likely allow Germany to ignore or outright revoke a lot of the Versailles Treaty, especially the bits about Germany losing its Polish territories and having to reduce its army (the German navy will still probably take a hit since the Reds aren't at all a naval force). The main reasons for France, Britain, etc. allowing this is because if there was one thing that scared them more than a strong Germany, it was stronger Bolsheviks.

There may be a few Communist revolts/uprisings in Germany, but they'll most likely be much smaller than the fiascoes that were the Spartacist Uprising and the Bavarian Socialist Republic and easily put down by either the army or the Freikorps. Also expect the Freikorps to play a bigger role in Germany proper as what's left of the newly-growing army is headed off east to stabilize the front and reassume authority over its former Polish lands so as to make sure the Soviets don't make it to the Fatherland and beyond.

Not that the Soviets will be able to make it a whole lot farther than Warsaw; their supply lines etc. were already stretched pretty thin as it was. The best they can hope for is a stalemate with Germany and the worst case is that the Germans beat them badly and roll them back to the east bank of the Vistula.

Since Germany is now the West's first line of defense against International Bolshevism, you'll see stronger solidarity amongst the Western nations, a more polarized political situation in Europe, and possibly an even greater tolerance for fascism in Europe than existed IOTL. We will probably see Britain and France pouring as much support as they can into the Baltic States...if the Soviets don't manage to gobble them up first.

With the Reds literally at the gates, France and Britain (as mentioned before) are going to be pretty indifferent to Germany remaining militarized (on land). An alliance will probably even be formed between France, Britain, Germany, Italy, and perhaps a few former A-H nations to hold back the Soviet tide.

There will most likely be an earlier rise of the far-right in German politics and harsher crackdowns on leftists. We could see the country either become a military dictatorship or fall under the control of some far-right group similar to the Nazis (perhaps not so anti-Semitic/racist/etc., more an emphasis on anti-Communism and the need to utilize every German citizen available or something like that).

Chances are there will be an earlier WWII, but Germany probably won't be the one to start it. Assuming Stalin still becomes god-king of the USSR (and let's face it, he is clever enough to pull it off), you'll probably see the Soviets instigate it. Perhaps during the Great Depression (assuming that still happens, too) or a bit later. It'll probably spring from some pesky little conflict that springs up between the Soviets and Finland or Romania or the Baltic States if they're still around.

I think I've covered all the bases, but it's late, so that's all you're getting for now.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
The prevention of him from doing this or his simple removal from the event (such as choking on his dinner a month or two before hand or something) could've played a big role in the Soviets winning the Battle of Warsaw. It may also have lead to Stalin being less capable of seizing power and brutally reigning over the USSR three decades.

I'm not so sure about this. I mean, Stalin was stuck with a good deal of the blame for the failures of the Polish Campaign IOTL (Trotsky got the most and Stalin tried to pin his own share on Tukhachevsky, but folks weren't buying it), and he still managed to make it to the top of the Soviet pyramid.

The way I see it, the only possible side effect of Stalin not being involved in the Polish Campaign is that he doesn't develop a deep-seated hatred forTukhachevsky so maybe he survives the Purges...but probably not.
 
What if the Soviets had won the Battle of Warsaw during the Soviet-Polish War?

Could it have lead to a wider European (or global) revolution?

Global, no. European? If the Soviets want to try their luck; but the chance for Germany and Hungary to really turn commie of their own accord had basically based in 1919. If the Russians want to try, I predict a bloody nose for them.

Could it have at least resulted in greatly expanded Soviet borders and/ or the creation of some friendly communist buffer states?

At most, I think they could get the Baltics (but that depends on German agreement, so Soviet Baltic probably means German Posen) and Besserbia. Maybe Finland.

For commie regimes abroad... hmm. They might start being bolder vis Bulgaria. It was pretty much run by agrarian socialists from 1920-1923 anyway, and the Soviets always had a fascination with IMRO. Bulgaria is in a strategic position for them with regard to the straits (Turkey is still an ally, though), and if/when "Russian" attitudes start to resurface as they did in the 30s, there's the sentimental tie.

Or could it have backfired massively by alarming the major powers into a more concerted and confrontational effort to crush the revolution (compared to the interventions) and consequently restored the Russian empire/ installed a capitalist republic/ divided russian territory amongst themselves?

I doubt it. You could get us Brits to start wetting ourselves urgently, but France is still juggling anti-communism with anti-Germanism. I can see them invading the Ruhr before the Ukraine.

The Baltics will stay independent if Germany and Russia are hostile, and I think Finland's chances are pretty good whatever happens. Wrangel's Crimea can maybe be saved (it's actually really hard to hold onto, because the seas around the Perekop isthsmus can literally be waded), and perhaps Georgia too (although the Soviets and Turkey have it surrounded); but not the sad remains in the Far East and North. And invading Russia from scratch is a tall order...

Could such a wider war (likely being viewed as a continuation of the Great War, though a significantly and radically different phase) have lasted for a very protracted time possibly for a decade or more?

I doubt it. Everyone was really, really exhausted, Russia more than any.

What other interesting developments might occur as a result of a Soviet victory during the Battle of Warsaw?

That's a very big question...

One interesting thing about the Battle of Warsaw was that the Soviets lost atleast partially because some forces were diverted south away from Warsaw by a certain commander. The commander wanted to win his own battle in southern Poland for personal gain. The commander was Joseph Stalin. The prevention of him from doing this or his simple removal from the event (such as choking on his dinner a month or two before hand or something) could've played a big role in the Soviets winning the Battle of Warsaw. It may also have lead to Stalin being less capable of seizing power and brutally reigning over the USSR three decades.

I'm inclined toa gree with Wolfpaw: Stalin is a sufficiently slippery bastard to get away with it.

"Stalin trips up and lands on an exceptionally re-enforced Budenovka," though... well, that and Warsaw, is two major PoDs in one! You'd need to start brainstorming an actual TL, really...
 
You're new(ish) here so I'll respond to this before I Blame Communism can blast you with the holier-than-thou tone he likes to use so much whenever anything pertaining to Russia is brought up. (He's a decent chap and undoubtedly very intelligent; he can just be rather...brusque...at times).

It's nice to have an indepedent reputation at last! :D

I generally try and be nice and welcoming to new chaps. I'm sure I often fail...

It's not just Russia. I have tendency to get acidic quickly about any issue touching me at all personally, I know. But we hardly ever see "Austrians were never German" or "Jacobites: Scottish national liberation Army" any more. "Russians want to nationalise our women" is pretty pervasive; but I see none of it here.

If the Soviets manage to take Warsaw, you will probably see some sort of Soviet Poland. However, a Soviet victory over the Poles will, frankly, scare the ever living shit out of the rest of Europe.

Definitely true; however, Susano asserts that France was still more scared of Germany, and I'm inclined to agree. It's pretty understandable, given what had just happened to them. Of course, French foreign policy goals in 1920s eastern Europe were never exactly modest...

Since Poland is now Red and the Soviet hordes seem unstoppable, the newly-victorious Entente will most likely allow Germany to ignore or outright revoke a lot of the Versailles Treaty, especially the bits about Germany losing its Polish territories


That's and interesting one. The Soviets basically said that everything that was Russia in 1914 was theirs until they signed a treaty giving it away (they never formally abandoned their claim to Besserabia right until they got it back), and they were generally pretty scrupulous about not expanding beyond these borders, thus the rather absurd tale of independant socialist Tannu Tuva.

On the other hand, they had a Galician Revolutionary Committee, and it appears they wobbled on this when it looked like Warsaw was about to fall and they could potentially just barge right on to Posen.

So you could see a number of things: the Soviets hedge their bets and stick to the borders of 1914 (plus Galicia) and try to sponsor Germany while using its internal communists to exert influence, and Germany plays along; the Soviets grab Great Poland and try the same trick; the Germans move in themselves and try to cosy up with Britain as anti-communist bulwark...

The Germans are getting Silesia, though. The partition there wasn't clarified yet, and I'm pretty sure that, even if enough Poles do prefer the Polish People's Republic to Weimar's rather exemplary minority rights (not very likely at all), Britain and Germany can certainly conspire to pretend they don't.

and having to reduce its army (the German navy will still probably take a hit since the Reds aren't at all a naval force). The main reasons for France, Britain, etc. allowing this is because if there was one thing that scared them more than a strong Germany, it was stronger Bolsheviks.

Certainly true for Britain; perhaps less for France. Bolsheviks hadn't just invaded and looted their country, after all. France doesn't like Bolsheviks, but whereas Britain will take this as "we have to strengthen Germany against Bolshevism!", France may be more inclined to think "We should occupy the Ruhr! You never know."

There may be a few Communist revolts/uprisings in Germany, but they'll most likely be much smaller than the fiascoes that were the Spartacist Uprising and the Bavarian Socialist Republic and easily put down by either the army or the Freikorps. Also expect the Freikorps to play a bigger role in Germany proper as what's left of the newly-growing army is headed off east to stabilize the front and reassume authority over its former Polish lands so as to make sure the Soviets don't make it to the Fatherland and beyond.

Certainly, Germany's commies are sufficiently neutered that they can't take over by themselves.

Whether the Russians would invade, well... my reading of Lenin is that he was one of those rare figures like Napoleon who matched limitless, unattainable ambitions with sufficient pragmatism and skill to continually make progress towards them. He wanted world communism, but while he was waiting for it he would rebuild Russian power like an old-style statesman. The "western offensive" was basically a ginormous recon-in-force: let;s see what we can get away with. If we gan get away with grabbing Lwow, cool. If we can get away with the 1914 border, still cool. If we can Sovietise Germany and begin the world revolution, awesome. But Lenin will sell out the revolution in Germany as quickly as he did in Estonia, Latvia, or Fnland if it suits the sober goals of his immediate foreign policy.

Not that the Soviets will be able to make it a whole lot farther than Warsaw; their supply lines etc. were already stretched pretty thin as it was. The best they can hope for is a stalemate with Germany and the worst case is that the Germans beat them badly and roll them back to the east bank of the Vistula.

This is an important detail. Even there winning it is quite a tall order: the Red Army was a pretty ragtag force at that point, and stretched way out. If I'd been the Soviets, I'd have stopped at the Curzon Line, but I'm not, and if we align everything just right, they can probably win at Warsaw.

Since Germany is now the West's first line of defense against International Bolshevism, you'll see stronger solidarity amongst the Western nations, a more polarized political situation in Europe, and possibly an even greater tolerance for fascism in Europe than existed IOTL. We will probably see Britain and France pouring as much support as they can into the Baltic States...if the Soviets don't manage to gobble them up first.

The precedent of 1940 is that when Germany and the Soviets eat up Poland, the Baltic leadership can prepare for a trip to GULAG.

If Germany is hostile to Russia, it's a differant story. Germany can certainly keep Lithuania independent with its forces (they pretty much did that anyway...), and take Memel for their trouble. Estonia would want to play germany against Russia, but the problem is that Latvians, who were majorly pissed about how a bunch of Freikorps, reactionary Teutonic Knights, and Whites had tried to take over their country. There was some worry in London that the Latvians would turn Bolsh in 1919; but it Britain is willing to commit decisively (and we were majorly involved in the Baltic OTL), we can keep it independent, I should think.

With the Reds literally at the gates, France and Britain (as mentioned before) are going to be pretty indifferent to Germany remaining militarized (on land). An alliance will probably even be formed between France, Britain, Germany, Italy, and perhaps a few former A-H nations to hold back the Soviet tide.

I'm still unsure about France... Britain would keep telling them to follow such a course, but we weren't very keen on their invading Germany in 1923 and that didn't stop them.

Romania is going to have a fit and look for an alliance with everyone. Whether the Bolsheviks really want to make things even tenser by invading Besserabia (which is rough country, and the Romanians were not slouches) or not, Romania is going to be very uncomfortable.

There will most likely be an earlier rise of the far-right in German politics and harsher crackdowns on leftists. We could see the country either become a military dictatorship or fall under the control of some far-right group similar to the Nazis (perhaps not so anti-Semitic/racist/etc., more an emphasis on anti-Communism and the need to utilize every German citizen available or something like that).

Well, I make a habit of optimism about Germany and the Germans, and I'm inclined to think anti-communist hysteria was exagerrated. The Social Democrats had it in for their commies, but I don't think this would extend to backing a far-right regime against the Soviets. And the army, that bastion of 19th centuy thought, had no qualms about testing tanks in Ukraine and eagerly anticipating the next partition of Poland.

So, I predict fairly "normal" German political development (which doesn't preclude disaster, obviously) if the Soviets stop at the border like good boys, especially if it happens to be the border of 1914. If they invade, that's a recipe for Wilhelminism, though...

Chances are there will be an earlier WWII, but Germany probably won't be the one to start it. Assuming Stalin still becomes god-king of the USSR (and let's face it, he is clever enough to pull it off), you'll probably see the Soviets instigate it. Perhaps during the Great Depression (assuming that still happens, too) or a bit later. It'll probably spring from some pesky little conflict that springs up between the Soviets and Finland or Romania or the Baltic States if they're still around.

Stalin was scared pretty shitless at the prospect of a capitalist alliance against Russia. I have trouble seeing him going Red Alert, to be honest; not that a war can't start by accident.
 
Last edited:

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
The Baltic States would also fall if Poland falls to the Soviets. And German Communist revolutionaries could get Soviet support.
 
A question regarding Hungary;had Bela Kun's regime already been toppled by the Romanians by the time of the battle of Warsaw?
 
Soviet Victory at Warsaw boost for revolutionaries abroad?

Could a Soviet victory at Warsaw have been used as a major morale boost for revolutionaries elsewhere to promote revolutionary ideas and action? Especially in the wake of the destruction of WW1, could this kind of victory given these revolutionaries enough of a boost to reignite attempts like Bavaria, Hungary, etc? Probably not in those places specifically, but elsewhere in Europe, or even the US or elsewhere?
 
Could a Soviet victory at Warsaw have been used as a major morale boost for revolutionaries elsewhere to promote revolutionary ideas and action? Especially in the wake of the destruction of WW1, could this kind of victory given these revolutionaries enough of a boost to reignite attempts like Bavaria, Hungary, etc? Probably not in those places specifically, but elsewhere in Europe, or even the US or elsewhere?

Well, in Hungary and Munich (despite the name, the brief republic was entirely Munchkin; rural Bavaria is bad soil for communism to grow in) there had been "White Terror" (and at times it really did deserve the title, whetever the Reds had been up to themselves). The chance had come and gone, really.

There were late bursts of commie activity in Germany: the Ruhr Red Army and all that. I don't think butterflies can prevent them being crushed unless the Soviets actually invade, though. And if that happens, it might just mean the French crushing them instead.

The Balkans might well be the place to look. If Romania is local enemy number one for the Soviets and they feel more confident, they have even more reason to wrap their tentacles round IMRO and push their interests in Bulgaria.

Bulgaria's native crop of communists was small but influential and always very much dancing to Moscow's tune. Between 1920 and 1923, Bulgaria was ruled by Stomboliyski's Agrarian Union (Social Revolutionary types) as a near-dictatorship which was overthrown from the right because the communists sat out.

So, if the Soviets are very interested in Bulgaria and feel able to assert their influence, they might have their local supporters back up Stamboliyski if he agrees to admit them to his government, hoping to make Bulgaria dependent on them. They could give Bulgaria economic help to relieve its financial woes (it was peremenantly searching for loans). By the 30s, they definitely considered Bulgaria in their sphere and themselves to have a right of first purchase to sending troops there; and crushing Poland will increase their assertiveness earlier, I should think, so we might eventually see some Red Army advisors. The Bulgarian officer classes won't like that, but that's rather the point.

Not long after that, you have the Soviet-backed establishment of Bulgarian guerilla organisations in Dobruja... things could get interesting. And I wonder if Greece would be quite so nonchalant about letting their troops cross into Pirin if the Soviets are known to be Bulgaria's sponsor...
 
Last edited:

Wolfpaw

Banned
Could a Soviet victory at Warsaw have been used as a major morale boost for revolutionaries elsewhere to promote revolutionary ideas and action? Especially in the wake of the destruction of WW1, could this kind of victory given these revolutionaries enough of a boost to reignite attempts like Bavaria, Hungary, etc? Probably not in those places specifically, but elsewhere in Europe, or even the US or elsewhere?

Probably not. The major reason we remember the Battle of Warsaw is because the Soviet's lost when basically everybody expected them to win.

As has been discussed earlier on this thread, the Soviets will get beaten at some point, either by external forces or their own inability to maintain their advance. It'll probably galvanize people on the same scale that their conquest of Georgia did :rolleyes:. And again, by this time, most Red revolutions that could have happened had already happened and had ended badly for the Reds. There are of course some outliers that lived on into the mid-20s, but those still went south pretty quickly.

EDIT: Of course, the above was with regards to Western Europe. IBC raises excellent points about the Soviets mucking about a bit more in the Balkans and Southeastern Europe.
 
Top