WI: Nazi Germany stops after Czechoslovakia, never invading Poland, what does the Soviet Union do?

Japan won't be given carte blanche, but there likely won't be intervention directly, more like embargoes and material support to China along with advisors. Germany probably would stay involved in supporting China, as the alliance with Japan loses all motive once Hitler is gone and Germany settles down in Europe; Chinese trade is FAR more profitable.

Honestly, if there's still a Tientsin Incident, I can easily see the UK going to war with Japan. Japan seizes Hong Kong, and the two sides start skirmishing back and forth without much progress either way until the IJN sinks a few American ships in the combat zone "By Mistake".
 
Last edited:
So, up until 1939, with Germany out to swallow Austria, Czechoslovakia and Memel, and building arms as if there was no tomorrow, the Soviet did not feel they could make a solitary move for more buffer in Ponad. Then, once Germany starts producing and selling radios and cuckoo clocks and people's cars, reduces combat readiness, and doesn't invade Poland - the Soviets change their minds and, all alone, seize more buffer.
Why?

I think the Soviets would still be willing to move on Poland due to two motivations:

A. Buffer- either against German economic, political or military strength. Poland moving into the German sphere would place an economically and politically powerful nation on their borders. The Soviets feared this almost as much as military strength.

B. To bring Poland back "home". Poland was a former Tsarist holding that enjoyed some autonomy. As such, the Soviets viewed it as an artificial nation that rightfully belonged back "home"- in the new Soviet Empire perhaps with the same Tsarist level of autonomy. This feeling was probably intensified when "artificial" Poland was drawn with borders that included Ukrainian and Belarusan areas. The Soviet leadership considered both ethnic groups to be Russo slavs and thus naturally belonging in the new Soviet Empire.
 
Huh, well, there's that they're scraping the bottom of the barrel as to valuable foreign currency and they still need South American fuel, Swedish iron ore, colonial rubber, Finnish nickel, steel additives from all over Europe, aluminium from somewhere abroad, and so on.
There also is the issue of public debt; they're going to default Argentina-style by 1941 at the latest if they don't change something.

most German rearmament was internal so it was covered by government credit notes. For others within Europe there was on going negotiation's for bi-lateral trade agreements that would work around currency exchange....the beginning's of there own empire?
 
The life in the Soviet block was so harsh that call of assistance became a joke.
Depends what parts of Eastern Block. 80-ties in Czechoslovakia were great. But of course we never had food shortages. Vacations were great, local or on the beaches of brotherly socialist nations. Had to watch who you were telling political jokes to.
From materialistic point of view early 90-ties when commies were over and new "democratic" politicians were stealing and seling state property for penies were worst. After all buying power of Czech or Slovak citizens reached levels they had in 1989 only few years back.
I guess so called socialism and later transformation made many people cynical.
 
For whatever reason Nazi Germany stops its expansionist movements after April 1939, they never sign a pact with Russia, they don't invade Poland.

How would the Soviet Union and the rest of the world react to this? What happens to Japan, who do they ally with? Do the Soviets take all of Poland?

(People, why Germany acts as it does and what it does later is off topic.)

Stalin is very cautious and does not want to risk war with any major power. He thinks that the non-Communist powers are all looking for an excuse to dog-pile on the USSR in an "Anti-Bolshevik Crusade".

Nonetheless, by 1940, he will start to get a little frisky. I have a respectable source which claims the USSR had 20,000 AFVs in 1940 - more than the rest of the world combined. Most of those were junk, but then so were a lot of other countries' AFVs. (Italian tankettes, Pz Is, etc.)

So I would guess that Stalin would start to poke at the borders of the USSR about then. His targets would be former Russian territory now parts of small, weak countries: Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Bessarabia. (Poland is too large to attack without provoking that dog-pile. Lithuania has no border with the USSR.) Bessarabia is especially vulnerable because Romanian annexation of Bessarabia was not recognized internationally (AIUI). And the Romanian government are scum.

Another possible axis of expansion could be the Far East. Japan has no friends either. The USSR could treat the Nomonhan incursion as a casus belli, and conquer all of Manchuria, Korea, and Karafuto.

Success in such moves might inspire more reckless conduct by Stalin.
 
Depends what parts of Eastern Block. 80-ties in Czechoslovakia were great. But of course we never had food shortages. Vacations were great, local or on the beaches of brotherly socialist nations. Had to watch who you were telling political jokes to.
From materialistic point of view early 90-ties when commies were over and new "democratic" politicians were stealing and seling state property for penies were worst. After all buying power of Czech or Slovak citizens reached levels they had in 1989 only few years back.
I guess so called socialism and later transformation made many people cynical.

Well, life wasn't terrible in the Eastern bloc, but it wasn't perfect either. There was little shortage on basic needs like simple food, work, housing or clothing - but more comfort was available only to those on the top or with the right connections. The building stock was in a bad shape, there was a perpetual lack of fruits, medication for chronical diseases was hardly available and holidays were restricted to other socialist states.
Telling political jokes wasn't that dangerous though, at least in the GDR in the 70s and 80s.
 
Without the German invasion of Poland and the subsequent war with Britain and France does Stalin still attack Finland? If he does then you could still see a general European war, only with the Soviets as the enemy of the west.
 
Well, life wasn't terrible in the Eastern bloc, but it wasn't perfect either. There was little shortage on basic needs like simple food, work, housing or clothing - but more comfort was available only to those on the top or with the right connections. The building stock was in a bad shape, there was a perpetual lack of fruits, medication for chronical diseases was hardly available and holidays were restricted to other socialist states.
Telling political jokes wasn't that dangerous though, at least in the GDR in the 70s and 80s.
Well depends on the point of view. In Czechoslovakia average factory worker could take a loan and build brannd new house. As a bonus he would get almost free property for that.
Now factory worker will not get a loan to buy 30-40 years old appartment build when his father didn't even think of having kids.

On other side to get building material for that house was sometimes adventure itself.
As I am saying Czechoslovaks had it very good so basically 90-ties for us was going from good to worst. Be able to buy in 90-ties vacation at Mallorocka ilwas worth nothing if you can't even afford to buy cacation in Bulgaria doesn't counts as improvement at my book. That's why Havel is louhjen lougj at, he called communist appartment buildings rabbit cages. What I have seen across rhe world counts them as pretty luxurious one.

Of course I wouldn't change anymore, just there is only black and white.
 
Without the German invasion of Poland and the subsequent war with Britain and France does Stalin still attack Finland? If he does then you could still see a general European war, only with the Soviets as the enemy of the west.


No. It would provide a perfect excuse for Germany and the WAllies to unite against him (iirc Anglo-French intervention in the Finnish War was seriously considered even OTL). No way would he have made such a move unless/until Germany was actually at war with GB and France, making such a combination impossible.
 
So they go to war against Poland, France and Britain. And that's a minimum; Romania is an ally of France and Poland, and they still fear the Soviet claims on Bessarabia. The Japanese are smarting for a rematch. Add that if the Germans are scaling down, they might be happy to sell armaments to the Poles. The Soviets, as always, have no allies.
It's exactly the sort of everyone-against-the-SU scenario that Stalin, remembering the role of practically all foreigners in the Russian Civil War, feared most.
 
most German rearmament was internal so it was covered by government credit notes.
That's exactly why I mentioned a public debit default Argentina style. Note that part of those credits were MeFo junk bonds - a financial disaster within the disaster waiting to happen.
With the war, everything was at least postponed. Patriotic German savers could not complain when bonds ending in 1940 were unilaterally postponed by their government. There's a war on, and all of that. But in peacetime?

For others within Europe there was on going negotiation's for bi-lateral trade agreements that would work around currency exchange....the beginning's of there own empire?

Yes, and those negotiations were going so well that when the Romanian government was made the German proposal, they correctly saw it as accepting an economic subjugation to Germany, and asked Britain for help. The British issued an unilateral guarantee not just to Poland, famously, but to Romania too, less famously, and it was because of that sort of trade offer, not because Germany was bordering with Romania and was moving troops around.

The other great barter-based trade deal was with the Soviet Union. But the Soviets are on record stating that a trade agreement, alone, was not of interest to them. They wanted the whole package, secret clauses included.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
For whatever reason Nazi Germany stops its expansionist movements after April 1939, they never sign a pact with Russia, they don't invade Poland.

How would the Soviet Union and the rest of the world react to this? What happens to Japan, who do they ally with? Do the Soviets take all of Poland?
Stalin is not dumb enough to do anything if the West aren't tearing each other to shreds. He knows he can't stand against a unified West-
 
(People, why Germany acts as it does and what it does later is off topic.)

Only relevant in how it would impact the political manoeuvrings of the other players. If you have Germany turn insular, turn pacifist or if you have Germany descend into civil war to meet the requirements then probably the external world will react differently.

So from the discussion it seems like Stalin can't touch Europe, leaving Central and East Asia as his only alternatives. Would he attack Japan? What kind of war would that result in, can the Soviets invade mainland Japan, will they end up nuking Japan? What happens in China?

If Japan isn't at war with anyone else do the West aid Japan against the Red Menace or leave them to their fate?
 
Difficult question that. The other powers don't trust Japan at all, but they also don't want the Soviets getting their hands on China or the Japanese Navy. In the end I think they opt to support Japan as the lesser of two evils, but insist they withdraw from China.
 
If Hitler dies in a motor accident on the way back from Munich he is probably remembered as a great German leader who restored Germany's pride & position. His successors, however, are the men who were in charge during the 2nd collapse of the German economy as the bonds come due for payment with no funds available to pay them except by printing more & more worthless marks.

Edit: To get back to the OP if Germany does collapse into a new depression then Stalin will probably encourage the 'correct' revolutionary elements in their struggle against the 'Fascists'.
 
Last edited:
So from the discussion it seems like Stalin can't touch Europe, leaving Central and East Asia as his only alternatives.

Oh, he can jolly well touch Europe. Only, he will want to gain an ally, ideally another bully on the block, not a lightweight; and/or at least tacit approval by the other major players.
For instance, with Germany giving up arms, if France and Britain can be maneuvered into some form of acquiescence, who will defend the small, neutral, ally-less Baltic states? Just saying.

Would he attack Japan? What kind of war would that result in, can the Soviets invade mainland Japan, will they end up nuking Japan? What happens in China?

1. Why? What for?
2. Longish low-tech maneuvers on rail lines and hooves, alternated with occasional bouts of armored warfare.
3. No, they can't and won't.
4. No, how the heck do they develop even the idea.
5. The usual: war, pillaging, famines and epidemics.

If Japan isn't at war with anyone else do the West aid Japan against the Red Menace or leave them to their fate?

So Japan makes peace with China? I don't see it.
 
In 1939 you have had the Anschluß, and all of Czechoslovakia is occupied by Germany. If Hitler stops there/Hitler dies and is replaced by somebody "saner" and Poland is not invaded (and no need for Nazi Soviet pact) you see the borders as of August, 1939 stay the same for the moment. Germany may go ahead and split Czechoslovakia and allow an "independent" Slovakia. In Central/Eastern Europe you will have Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria in the German orbit for starts. Probably Yugoslavia as well as the coup won't have any impetus. Finland will be closer to Germany unless the UK and France fully support it when the Soviets attack. Poland and the Baltic states will be very nervous about the USSR - will they get cozy with Germany, will they get assurances from the UK/France (and will they trust them). In any case Stalin will be faced with the countries west of him involved in one or another alliance system designed to keep the Russian Bear at bay. Attacking Poland could see his nightmare of UK/France/Germany (and other perhaps) coming to the aid of the Baltics or Poland, no way he will risk it.

You won't see a final solution in a Germany run by Goering or any other "reasonable" Nazi, Jews in the Grossdeutsches Reich will be ghettoized/pauperized, and perhaps expelled in some way and Jews in the Nazi affiliated bloc will also get the short end of the stick, but death camps no. You'll see higher levels of armaments in Europe on all sides than pre-1939 OTL, also the US will build up but nowhere near as much as OTL. While there will eventually be atomic weapons, here the push to do this and spend the money needed will be much less pressing.

The Japanese are not going to get much in the way of credit from the western powers both because the west does not want them to "win" in China, and also because the west will need to be spending money on their needs and in a "peacetime" environment where, unlike an outright war, the people and the legislatures will not give them carte blanche to spend on the military. The war in China is bleeding Japan dry economically, the rate subject to discussion but their ability to continue this on their own resources is going to stop in the not too distant future. How Japan responds to this reality - Yamato damashii doesn't fuel aircraft or make munitions - will dictate whether or not there is a war in the Pacific. In a T/L where there is no war in Europe, and the UK/France/Holland can send lots of forces to SEA/DEI and the US has no threat from the east, Japan going to war against this combination is even more insane than OTL. Will that reality be seen by them??
 
That's exactly why I mentioned a public debit default Argentina style. Note that part of those credits were MeFo junk bonds - a financial disaster within the disaster waiting to happen.
With the war, everything was at least postponed. Patriotic German savers could not complain when bonds ending in 1940 were unilaterally postponed by their government. There's a war on, and all of that. But in peacetime?



Yes, and those negotiations were going so well that when the Romanian government was made the German proposal, they correctly saw it as accepting an economic subjugation to Germany, and asked Britain for help. The British issued an unilateral guarantee not just to Poland, famously, but to Romania too, less famously, and it was because of that sort of trade offer, not because Germany was bordering with Romania and was moving troops around.

The other great barter-based trade deal was with the Soviet Union. But the Soviets are on record stating that a trade agreement, alone, was not of interest to them. They wanted the whole package, secret clauses included.



None of this matters because Hitler could & would have continue his rearmament drive . In fact if anything it would have forced him to pursue mass production to keep up with demand [in 1938/39 instead of 1942/43 .....It would have also continued the rationalization of civilian economy.
 
None of this matters because Hitler could & would have continue his rearmament drive.

Sure. You are saying that Hitler does OTL. After all, what's the purpose of arming if you never get to use the arms. Indeed, I agree, the only way for Germany to stop after the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia is by removing Hitler.

That said, if the German soaring public debt and the shortage of valuable foreign currency don't matter, why was your last post an attempt at pushing them under the carpet? If their existence doesn't matter, why argue about them?
 
Top