WI Soviets win Soviet-Polish War?

Err, what? Where did I ignore France's view? I specifically referenced it in relation to how attitudes to Germany might change in the face of an enlarged Bolshevik empire immediately to the east.

I'm not sure how Germany is moving into Poland and occupying the Polish corridor in 1920 when Germany has been defeated and stripped of it's air force, tanks and navy and left squarely in France's shadow.

Well the Germans planned to move into the region, and were talking with the Soviets to do just this in OTL....

You argue that the French attitude would change if faced with a stronger Russia. Why? Why would they want to rearm their hereditary enemy which has invaded them twice in the last four decades because the Little Entente has fallen?
 

Eurofed

Banned
Everyone ignores France's view here.

Nobody is ignoring that. It's simply that the Bolsheviks apparently victorious and breaking out in Central Europe is going to change a lot in France's view. Boches shall still be hereditary enemies, but they are an established part of the normal order of things. Bolsheviks are an existential threat to the whole social order.

It's 1920. Two years after a war where the Germans almost broke France as a great power, and occupied vast swathes of their nation.

A Germany dominated by Communists, and a Red bloc spanning from the Rhine to Moscow would be much, much worse for French security.

The Germans are collaborating with the Russians; German dockworkers in Danzig opposed the flow of munitions to Poland, German railway workers strike, and Germany seizes the Polish corridor in the aftermath.

So what ? German ruling elites don't like Bolsheviks any more than French, British, or Italian ruling elites do. They shall reluctantly cooperate with the Russians only as an absolute last resort if the Entente powers keep treating Germany like crap.

A bit more compromising Entente attitude on ToV clausles would do wonders to make Germany cooperate with the Entente in good faith to contain the Communists, which is in the best interest of both sides.

And if the Soviets are in Warsaw, Poland is already kaput, what Germany does or does not do at that point to salvage West Prussia from the disaster is absolutely trivial and inconsequential. If anything, that area is more useful in German hands than in Red hands.

What stops Germany from being a great power now? Several hundred thousand Frenchmen died in vain, while Germany allies with the USSR.

With the Soviets being masters of Central and Eastern Europe, France and Britain are much more secure with a friendly, 1938-like Germany strong and stable enough to do its part and help contain the Bolsheviks, than a Germany in the thrall of Lenin. The German ruling elites won't ally with the USSR unless the Entente really forces them to.

France warned Germany it would occupy the Ruhr if they moved into Poland. Because they weren't stupid.

With the Soviets in Warsaw, Poland is gone anyway, Germany is simply salvaging a couple pieces. And doing so is not against France's best interest.

Also, Russia was exhausted. The Kronstadt riots were only a few months away, Russian industry was producing at a fraction of its prewar capacity, famine was widespread...

With the Soviets in Central and Eastern Europe, nobody is going to care or be mindful of such things overmuch.
 

Eurofed

Banned
You argue that the French attitude would change if faced with a stronger Russia. Why? Why would they want to rearm their hereditary enemy which has invaded them twice in the last four decades because the Little Entente has fallen?

Because the alternative, from period French PoV, is to face an enemy that is planning to ride to Paris and put the French elites to the wall. Prussian militarists at their worst would never think of doing that. Lenin and Trotski openly boasted their intention to do so. With their victory over the Little Entente, those boasts do not seem so empty anymore, and if the Reds somehow overrun Germany, it becomes a clear and present existential scenario.

Don't be fooled by hindsight and fix your attention on the unquestionable "logistic" difficulties the Soviets would face to overrun Europe in 1921. Given the circumstances, such factors would be easily ignored or dismissed. Instead, in the minds of most observers, the easy analogy between Soviet Russia and Revolutionary France would be paramount.
 
You are right, they had no interests there, which was the reason they wanted do leave ASAP. I just point out they didn't get to see much action, aa they were more interested in going home than fighting communsts. Would their motivation be different once they got home?

No, that does not make him either a communist or fascist, but a guy who wouldn't oppose either if he got to keep some power and prestige. And yes, most Czechoslovak Prime Minsters were agrarians/small-farmer party, but only after 1922 - before that the socialists were a powerfull political force, and it is in that time an attack on Czechoslovakia would come. I wouldn't see it as unlikely that they would choose to not oppose the Soviets, allowing them passage to Hungary or otherwise cooperating rather than fighting.
Well, Legions had over 4000 KIA in Russia. Most of them against Reds.
Italian Legions fought Hungarian communists. With Russians, situation depends. If Soviets would accept neutrality, probably Czechoslovakia would prefer that. We have to remember that Hungarian Soviet republic was gone since august 1919 while battle of Warsaw was fought in august 1920.
As to Socialists in power in Czechoslovakia. Between 1919-1920 Prime minister was Socialists and yes, that's worst timing since. But in middle of September he was history. Then for another year from 1920-1921, Prime minister was Agrarian. From 1921-1922 Prime minister was Eduard Benes from Czech National Socialistic Party. As it's name says it was nationalistic party which opposed to idea of world socialistic revolution. Actually there is fanny thing about this party on wiki:"Despite the similar name, the CNSP was not affiliated with the German Nazi Party. However, the first party platform of the German Nazi Party was in many cases an almost verbatim copy of the Czech one."
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Keeping Germany militarily strong enough to fend off the scary communists will become a legitimate political viewpoint, even in France.
Who knows, maybe having the SU this close will give us an early analogy to some sort of European NATO?

Even in early WW1, there were editorials in the New York Times stating that the UK and France needed a strong Germany. Basically either France has a large army to keep Germany in line or the Russian Army at the Elbe (bit of a paraphrase there).


It's hard to say. I think you can see Germany end up going red as the French occupy the Ruhr in an attempt to punish the Germans for collaborating with the fall of Poland, and strikers seize power.


Either France lightens up in the Ruhr, or Germany does turn Communist with direct help from the Soviets, who would be viewed as saviors by the Germans, at least at first.
 
I agree that logistics and the state the Soviet Union was in absolutely speak against continuing the war, and the Soviets should take 1940 borders if they get them. That's possible with a victory in the Soviet-Polish war.

But that's rather Realpolitique, right? One just doesn't know what revolutionary spirit and ideological indoctrination can do when faced with reasoning and facts. From a purely ideological viewpoint, the Soviets cannot stop in Poland IMHO if they are victorious. At this time, they still believed in world revolution and it's not that far-fetched that communist hardliners ignore logistics up to a point simply because they truly believe that once they enter Germany the workers there would greet them as liberators from capitalist suppression and join Soviet Union happily. From then on, the union of German and Russian proletariat, under the wise guidance of Lenin and the party, would go on to liberate the whole world...
 
Either France lightens up in the Ruhr, or Germany does turn Communist with direct help from the Soviets, who would be viewed as saviors by the Germans, at least at first.

Or Germany breaks up, with a Catholic Rhineland, conservative Bavaria, and a rump Germany. Paris feels for the Bavarians, their homeland menaced by the Communist lackeys in Berlin.
 
You are thinking too rationally - the bolsheviks weren't that rational. Russia was depleted in 1917 but managed to keep the war going, because what does it mean "can't keep going"? That there will casualties? That was expected, in fact they created an entire system for that - it was called "war communism" which would simply keep on going causing famine and fatalities - all in the name of an ideology. The USSR didn't want a Warsaw Pact, or buffer states - it honestly believed in adding every country to itself as an additional SSR. Its leaders had different strategic goals than even Stalin in the 40's had, since by the time he was a civic leader for 20 years and thought about his countries national interest - while revolutionaries fought to abolish states and for ideology to triumph. There is a different mentality there.

The Bolsheviks were rather more rational than you give them credit for, rational enough to alter their policies where they were obviously unpopular and unworkable both. They understand that if they seek for Berlin and leave a White Vendee in the Crimea that they risk having the Revolution imperiled at home. They aren't any *more* intent on exporting the revolution, logistics be damned, than Imperial France was.

Because the alternative, from period French PoV, is to face an enemy that is planning to ride to Paris and put the French elites to the wall. Prussian militarists at their worst would never think of doing that. Lenin and Trotski openly boasted their intention to do so. With their victory over the Little Entente, those boasts do not seem so empty anymore, and if the Reds somehow overrun Germany, it becomes a clear and present existential scenario.

Don't be fooled by hindsight and fix your attention on the unquestionable "logistic" difficulties the Soviets would face to overrun Europe in 1921. Given the circumstances, such factors would be easily ignored or dismissed. Instead, in the minds of most observers, the easy analogy between Soviet Russia and Revolutionary France would be paramount.

Don't ignore those logistical factors exist, either. The Soviets can't decide to try to march to the Ruhr and neglect Wrangel and Japan, not after the heavy losses sustained and the prospect of a continued war producing the kind of large-scale upheaval in Soviet territory that collapsed Tsarism. Russia's bark would be worse than its bite.

I agree that logistics and the state the Soviet Union was in absolutely speak against continuing the war, and the Soviets should take 1940 borders if they get them. That's possible with a victory in the Soviet-Polish war.

But that's rather Realpolitique, right? One just doesn't know what revolutionary spirit and ideological indoctrination can do when faced with reasoning and facts. From a purely ideological viewpoint, the Soviets cannot stop in Poland IMHO if they are victorious. At this time, they still believed in world revolution and it's not that far-fetched that communist hardliners ignore logistics up to a point simply because they truly believe that once they enter Germany the workers there would greet them as liberators from capitalist suppression and join Soviet Union happily. From then on, the union of German and Russian proletariat, under the wise guidance of Lenin and the party, would go on to liberate the whole world...

Actually there are two very good reasons to do precisely this: Wrangel and Japan.
 
Its leaders had different strategic goals than even Stalin in the 40's had, since by the time he was a civic leader for 20 years and thought about his countries national interest - while revolutionaries fought to abolish states and for ideology to triumph. There is a different mentality there.

Its leaders had no problem cutting alliances and soliciting foreign investment to redevelop the USSR. Don't forget, the Soviets tried to end the war before the invasion of Poland...
 
Nobody is ignoring that. It's simply that the Bolsheviks apparently victorious and breaking out in Central Europe is going to change a lot in France's view. Boches shall still be hereditary enemies, but they are an established part of the normal order of things. Bolsheviks are an existential threat to the whole social order.

And the Bolsheviks still have Japan in Siberia and Wrangel in the Crimea to worry about. Wrangel establishing a Crimean Vendee that imperils them at home is a much more worrisome prospect than the temptation to secure what victory in Poland would indicate is inevitable anyhow. The war also has limits people forget about: The Bolsheviks remembered they took over by exploiting a war continued past a certain point and do not want others to do unto them what they did unto the Provisional Government.

So what ? German ruling elites don't like Bolsheviks any more than French, British, or Italian ruling elites do. They shall reluctantly cooperate with the Russians only as an absolute last resort if the Entente powers keep treating Germany like crap.

A bit more compromising Entente attitude on ToV clausles would do wonders to make Germany cooperate with the Entente in good faith to contain the Communists, which is in the best interest of both sides.

Yes, except the Germans put the Communists in power in the first place. Their protestations against them are a bit......insincere....in this regard. If they had cared so much about it those ties going back to 1915 would not have existed. German interests could easily be seen as favoring Bolshevik survival, not the replacement of the Bolsheviks with a White Republic or worse a new Tsar who will have a deep and personal hatred of Germany due to Germany's direct role in the road to Yekaterinburg.

And if the Soviets are in Warsaw, Poland is already kaput, what Germany does or does not do at that point to salvage West Prussia from the disaster is absolutely trivial and inconsequential. If anything, that area is more useful in German hands than in Red hands.

Which is why Weimar Germany had such fruitful and productive ties with the USSR IOTL and the German Empire had made the Bolshevik state in the first place, to say nothing of Molotov-Ribbentrop and its poison fruit. :rolleyes:

With the Soviets being masters of Central and Eastern Europe, France and Britain are much more secure with a friendly, 1938-like Germany strong and stable enough to do its part and help contain the Bolsheviks, than a Germany in the thrall of Lenin. The German ruling elites won't ally with the USSR unless the Entente really forces them to.

Hold on, the Germany that forcibly annexed one country and was within a whisker of a general European war over the forcible dismemberment of another is friendly? Come again?

With the Soviets in Warsaw, Poland is gone anyway, Germany is simply salvaging a couple pieces. And doing so is not against France's best interest.

Except that IOTL German interests favored ties with the USSR even during the Locarno era when Germany was at its best relationships with the West.

With the Soviets in Central and Eastern Europe, nobody is going to care or be mindful of such things overmuch.

If the Soviets get to Warsaw but no further it'll seem in later years like 1922 was a bit overblown and well the Soviets didn't *really* threaten anybody so maybe they're not so much of an aggressive threat after all. And unless the Soviets want to self-destruct out of the starting gate they will stop at the Vistula.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Yes, except the Germans put the Communists in power in the first place. Their protestations against them are a bit......insincere....in this regard. If they had cared so much about it those ties going back to 1915 would not have existed. German interests could easily be seen as favoring Bolshevik survival, not the replacement of the Bolsheviks with a White Republic or worse a new Tsar who will have a deep and personal hatred of Germany due to Germany's direct role in the road to Yekaterinburg.

You are greatly exaggerating the direct culpability of the Kaiserreich in bringing the Communists at power in Russia, both in hindsight and in the judgement of 1920s international public opinion. While it was a reckless gambit that exploded in their face, a Russia under Lenin was certainly not what they meant (rather to add a little more internal instability to post-Tsarist Russia adn bring it to the peace table sooner). It's like saying that because Reagan sent support to Afghan mujaedin, America willed, and bears direct culpability, for Al-Quaeda. There is very little evidence that mainstream 1920s public opinion shared your... odd view.

Hold on, the Germany that forcibly annexed one country and was within a whisker of a general European war over the forcible dismemberment of another is friendly? Come again?

I meant a Weimar Germany with 1938 borders (plus West Prussia and Memel), a reasonable amount of reparations, and sufficient rearmament to protect themselves from the Reds since the 1920s would have no real reason to hate the Entente or plot another war against them.

Except that IOTL German interests favored ties with the USSR even during the Locarno era when Germany was at its best relationships with the West.

And the ToV crap was still in place. Big deal.

If the Soviets get to Warsaw but no further it'll seem in later years like 1922 was a bit overblown and well the Soviets didn't *really* threaten anybody so maybe they're not so much of an aggressive threat after all.

If the immediate aftershock of the Soviets in Warsaw means Germany gets the Entente-panicked goodwill to negotiate its way out of the ToV crap, that is going to stand as the new, much more stable status quo in German-Entente relations, even later years show the Soviets did not really meant an all-out bid to conquer Europe in the 1920s.

And unless the Soviets want to self-destruct out of the starting gate they will stop at the Vistula.

That's an exaggeration. They would self-destruct if they pick a fight with one or more of the European great powers, which isn't guaranteed to happen till they violate the German or Italian space or invade Greece or Turkey.

If the Poles collapse and the Soviets reach Warsaw, Poland shall simply become another major non-Russian SSR like Ukraine, and the Baltics and Hungary would more or less fall in their lap by themselves. Butterflies can go in various different directions, but the rest of Eastern Europe would find itself in a very precarious situation, without any need for an overwhelming Soviet effort.
 
Last edited:
You are greatly exaggerating the direct culpability of the Kaiserreich in bringing the Communists at power in Russia, both in hindsight and in the judgement of 1920s international public opinion. While it was a reckless gambit that exploded in their face, a Russia under Lenin was certainly not what they meant (rather to add a little more internal instability to post-Tsarist Russia adn bring it to the peace table sooner). It's like saying that because Reagan sent support to Afghan mujaedin, America willed, and bears direct culpability, for Al-Quaeda. There is very little evidence that mainstream 1920s public opinion shared your... odd view.

Actually I'm understating it so I don't drag in the few resident Soviet apologists to explain that "No, the Soviets really did have a mass support they never had." The Bolshevik Revolution in October was bought and paid for by the Kaiserreich to get Russia out of the war on the cheap. Long-term thinking didn't exist in Germany then or later. These ties went all the way back to 1915, accelerated as despite the massive losses, overthrow of the Tsar and flip-flopping in terms of Revolutionary-era Government Russia just would. not. quit.

Germany made the Bolsheviks and didn't realize what they'd done. Then Germany repeated the exact same mistake by letting in another attempt by the German military to influence politics, the result of sending political officer Hitler of Branau-am-Inn to the DAP into power. The German military literally created all the horrors of the 20th Century. I understate this again to avoid needless wankery about this but since you happily offered the chance for me to point this out.....

I meant a Weimar Germany with 1938 borders (plus West Prussia and Memel), a reasonable amount of reparations, and sufficient rearmament to protect themselves from the Reds since the 1920s would have no real reason to hate the Entente or plot another war against them.

Why are the Allies going to let Germany do this instead of doing it themselves if they're this willing to slog into Russia?

And the ToV crap was still in place. Big deal.

Sevres, St. Germain, and Trianon expose the degree to which 1920s Germany was full of treacherous, whiny little bitches at the highest levels and fascist scum on the fringes who didn't appreciate what a bunch of mealy-mouthed whiny supercilious slippery lying douchebags were running the Weimar-era Republic. Germany was not forcibly dismembered like Hungary, nor was it intended to be altogether erased like the Ottoman Empire. The Germans, however, had not the memory or ability to think of goldfishes at the highest levels. If they had had such ability it would have been immediately obvious to them that Versailles actually strengthened Germany, not weakened it, by leaving it mostly intact and its enemies all the legacies of having to rebuild from the territory fought over to the degree it resembled Mordor. They would have thus assured precisely the kind of peaceful path to hegemony you're talking about while leaving Versailles intact and eschewing the self-contradictory rearmament program followed by Hitler's wretched hive of scum and villainy.

Instead they just decided to go give the Soviets the starting ground for the very army that would later take over a good-sized chunk of Eastern Europe.

If the immediate aftershock of the Soviets in Warsaw means Germany gets the Entente-panicked goodwill to negotiate its way out of the ToV crap, that is going to stand as the new, much more stable status quo in German-Entente relations, even later years show the Soviets did not really meant an all-out bid to conquer Europe in the 1920s.

Again, the Allies went to war to sustain Sevres. A Soviet victory at Warsaw that doesn't go anywhere, which a realistic victory will not, will not lead the Allies to in turn start creating Germany anew as a military power. 1921 is not 1946, the USSR is not a military superpower ruling half the continent.

That's an exaggeration. They would self-destruct if they pick a fight with one or more of the European great powers, which isn't guaranteed to happen till they violate the German or Italian space or invade Greece or Turkey.

If the Poles collapse and the Soviets reach Warsaw, Poland shall simply become another major non-Russian SSR like Ukraine, and the Baltics and Hungary would more or less fall in their lap by themselves. Butterflies can go in various different directions, but the rest of Eastern Europe would find itself in a very precarious situation, without any need for an overwhelming Soviet effort.

Given the degree to which France and the UK were already getting involved a second time in the Polish-Soviet War as they had been in the earlier phase of the war, the Soviets deciding to push on and risk the same fate that claimed the Romanovs and Kerensky only happens if they're driven by the same suicidal impulses that animated WWII-era Japan and Germany. They were not and never were this, otherwise their whole orientation in politics would be very, very different.

Why is Hungary going to go Soviet after defeating its own Communist Uprising? Again, 1921 is not 1944. The USSR's arms have no prestige. The kind of narrow victory a full-scale defeat of Poland requires deprives them of the ability to press on afterward without leaving the risk of Wrangel controlling the Crimea and thereby assuring the Soviets face a permanent Vendee denying them access to the Black Sea. Soviet leaders could read maps, they knew as much as the Allies did the risk of a permanently hostile Crimea.
 
This isn't even taking into account that the Soviets probably won't find holding Poland to exactly be cheap. Not just because of the troops it would take to conquer, but also a population that is probably somewhat hostile. Because of that, if the Soviets got Poland, it won't cause the Entente to heavily re-arm. Why? Because they're exhausted, both sides. The Entente from WW1, and the Soviets from having to hold down Poland, which wasn't cheap to take to begin with.
 

MSZ

Banned
The Bolsheviks were rather more rational than you give them credit for, rational enough to alter their policies where they were obviously unpopular and unworkable both. They understand that if they seek for Berlin and leave a White Vendee in the Crimea that they risk having the Revolution imperiled at home. They aren't any *more* intent on exporting the revolution, logistics be damned, than Imperial France was.

Post Civil War, yes. But that was the result of Stalin taking power and introducing very specific plans for the USSR. As long as the revolution is ongoing, it will expand - the bolsheviks would not stop because they are "unpopular" somewhere, and leave that place alone.

Its leaders had no problem cutting alliances and soliciting foreign investment to redevelop the USSR. Don't forget, the Soviets tried to end the war before the invasion of Poland...

Huh? You are not taking Soviet propaganda of "peace, now and forever" seriously? Any ceisefires they made, were tactical ones, in order to pressure on them being reduced, and forces fred this way to be used elsewhere. There was no genuine peace offer by Lenin or Trotsky to others, both routinly broke such promises.
 
Post Civil War, yes. But that was the result of Stalin taking power and introducing very specific plans for the USSR. As long as the revolution is ongoing, it will expand - the bolsheviks would not stop because they are "unpopular" somewhere, and leave that place alone.

The same Stalin that built a global world empire for a nuclear superpower USSR? :rolleyes:
 
Top