WI: Stalin annexes the entirity of Post-WW2 Eastern Europe

How brilliant is this plan of Great Comrade Stalin?

  • It is indeed brilliant

    Votes: 3 2.9%
  • Most brilliant

    Votes: 4 3.8%
  • Truly Stalin's wisdom is betond comprehension

    Votes: 15 14.3%
  • THIS IS THE MOST INGENIOUS DECISION EVER MADE IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND

    Votes: 83 79.0%

  • Total voters
    105
Once again, why? Absolutely everything Stalin wants in the "people's democracies" from purge trials to military and economic integration of the bloc, can be (and was) accomplished without this crazy idea.

The simple answer is that the OP assumes he does. This is alternate history and we ask ourselves what happens if something is done. if the argument is that Stalin had reasons not to do something is carried to its logical extreme, then we end up with OTl is the only answer

Annexation does change things. For one it gives the Soviets far more control over the Eastern Europeans. Throughout the Cold War, the East Europeans proved troublesome for the Soviets. That they had their own armies and police made much of this possible. There's a reason that the Czechs, Hungarians, Poles and East Germans made more direct challenges to Soviet leadership than Ukrainians and Kazaks. Romania even got away with it

Nor can we just say that it was the weaknesses of the post Stalin leadership that allowed for this. After all, the same weak leadership that allowed the East European resistance is the same leadership that held the internal reins tight

While the thread refers to Eastern Europe, the advantages of direct control can best be seen in korea. There, the North Koreans were given independence from the Soviet Union and promptly brought about a war which Stalin did not want. If he had incorporated it into the Soviet Union, there would never have been a Korean War
 
I'd assume you'd see WW3 at some point before 1960, which is going to be a war that the new and improved Soviet Union loses. Badly.
 
While the thread refers to Eastern Europe, the advantages of direct control can best be seen in korea. There, the North Koreans were given independence from the Soviet Union and promptly brought about a war which Stalin did not want. If he had incorporated it into the Soviet Union, there would never have been a Korean War

No, the Korean War did not come about because Kim Il Sung brought about a war that Stalin did not want. It came about because Kim eventually convinced Stalin to give him the go-ahead. Stalin was perfectly free to say No to Kim as he had said before, but Kim persuaded him that the South would be defeated before the US could do anything about it. If Stalin had remained unpersuaded, and refused to give Kim the go-ahead, there would have been no war.
 
No, the Korean War did not come about because Kim Il Sung brought about a war that Stalin did not want. It came about because Kim eventually convinced Stalin to give him the go-ahead. Stalin was perfectly free to say No to Kim as he had said before, but Kim persuaded him that the South would be defeated before the US could do anything about it. If Stalin had remained unpersuaded, and refused to give Kim the go-ahead, there would have been no war.

Or else Kim would have started it and seen if Stalin would try and stop it. The idea that you can set up puppets with their own armies, their own intelligence services and exercise as much control over them as you would if you had direct control is just wrong. The Soviets had more control over Kazakstan than they ever had over Romania. Ceaucescu would never have happened at home.

Nor is the idea preposterous. After all, Stalin annexes the Baltics. Your argument is simply "Stalin won't because he didnt" Its right but tells us nothing. We want to explore altenatives
 
Or else Kim would have started it and seen if Stalin would try and stop it. The idea that you can set up puppets with their own armies, their own intelligence services and exercise as much control over them as you would if you had direct control is just wrong. The Soviets had more control over Kazakstan than they ever had over Romania. Ceaucescu would never have happened at home.

Nor is the idea preposterous. After all, Stalin annexes the Baltics. Your argument is simply "Stalin won't because he didnt" Its right but tells us nothing. We want to explore altenatives

(1) No, Kim could not have started the war without Stalin's approval or he would have started it earlier.

(2) The Soviets had firm control over Romania as long as Stalin was alive. Only after Khrushchev withdrew Soviet troops did any semblance of an independent Romanian foreign policy become possible.

(3) The Baltics were a special case because they had been part of the Russian Empire. Stalin wanted to incorporate into the USSR the territories that had been part of the Russian Empire--and did not even annex all of those (Poland and Finland). But I just don't see any evidence that he even considered the idea for eastern Europe in general (note his summary dismissal of Gottwald's suggestion) and I don't see any reason for him to do so. As for "but what would the consequences be if he did?" I think I did address that at https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...post-ww2-eastern-europe.432791/#post-16218492
 
Supposedly Gottwald also once asked Stalin to let Czechoslovakia join the USSR, but in the first place Gottwald was drunk when he said it, and in the second place in context the request was part of an unfavorable view of Soviet behavior. As Khrushchev recalled it:

"In 1948 Klement Gottwald was vacationing in the Crimea with Stalin. Stalin called me up and said: “Gottwald is here. Come join us.” The next day I flew there. We gathered at Stalin's place for dinner. Gottwald had drunk a great deal (he had that weakness) and began to say, "Comrade Stalin, why are your people stealing our patents? Just tell us and we'll give them to you for nothing. When your people steal them and we see it, we feel offended. We can give you more than just patents. Take us in as part of the Soviet Union. We'd be happy to join the Soviet Union and then everything we have will be common property.” Stalin refused to take them in, and he got angry over the thieving. But that was only in words, because we continued to steal, sometimes just out of old habit, like the gypsy who was asked: “If you were king, what would you do?” He answered: “I'd steal me a herd of horses and disappear."..." https://books.google.com/books?id=uv1zv4FZhFUC&pg=PT242


BTW, I see that some years ago in soc.history.what-if, Martin Ripa gave a somewhat different version of the story:

***

An anecdotal story:

Once in early 1950's the Czechoslovak president Klement Gottwald visited this comrade and brother Joseph Stalin. Both got drunk a lot and Klement wanted to make Joseph happy. So he fell on his knees and began to beg:
"Comrade Stalin! Fulfill the ancient dream of all Czechoslovak workers! Let the Czechoslovak people join the Soviet Union of brotherly republics! "

Stalin, with his typical smile, replied: "Why not, comrade Gottwald - I was always for the socialist brotherhood - but only as *two* Soviet republics !"

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/ZsaWTrzMvD4/INh69BemoFQJ
 
I don't think this would happen unless the USSR managed to take Western Europe too.

"A CONTINENTAL SOVIET UNION IS OUR DESTINY!"
maxresdefault.jpg
...as is the headaches of the Free French, Vatican authority, Fascists in Spain, British backing of insurgents not to mention American opposition since taking the WHOLE continent would be a violation of Allied plans which likely means WWIII and nukes. Eesh.
 
People underestimate Koba the Dread. He's not a savage or a barbarian. He would only annex Eastern Europe after the people begged him in a plebiscite. Sincce it would have the blessings of the people annex, the West would have no grounds to object


This move is brilliant as it eliminates the nominally independent countries that would latter cause so much trouble. With the East EUropean armies under his direct control, Koba will remove all traces of resistance. No Hungarian uprising, no Prague spring, No Ceacescu causing trouble
What happens when the uprisings in Poland, Hungary, and East Germany follow? Would the West accept said plebiscites without neutral observers? Otherwise it remains illegitimate.
 
Once again, why? Absolutely everything Stalin wants in the "people's democracies" from purge trials to military and economic integration of the bloc, can be (and was) accomplished without this crazy idea.
By not annexing Eastern Europe, it also proves the USSR isn't an oppressive neo-colonial force; an image it used to great effect in Africa and Asia. Swallowing the east proves the bear is just as much of a threat as the West.
 
I wonder, if the Soviets had been less successful on the Eastern Front (for whatever reason) and only liberated Poland, Berlin, and small chunks of eastern Slovakia and Romania, would this annexation be possible then?

Lets say the Allies get even more of Germany, all of Austria and Hungary, nearly all of Czechoslovakia, all of Albania, and most of Romania?

What would Stalin do then? I'd say he would withdraw from Germany on the condition of full de-Nazification, demilitarization, and neutrality, and annex Poland, East Prussia, and the occupied parts of Slovakia and Romania to the USSR.

Is that likely?
I could see annexing parts of Poland (those lost in 1920 which it pretty much did), and possibly Prussia (makes the remainder of Poland dependent on the Soviets without sea access as well as a valid punishment for Germany's actions, removing the source of it's militarism). That's the most I can see.
 
Yugoslavia was liberated without much assistance from the Red Army, and Tito could have maintained independence with tacit or explicit American and British backing, as IOTL. The Red Army was also nowhere close to Albania.
true, but... looking at that map, if the USSR does indeed annex Yugoslavia and Albania, then the Soviet fleet is no longer much hindered by the 'Turkish bottleneck straits' that the OTL Soviet Black Sea Fleet had to deal with. For that matter, Turkey seems unlikely to be able to join NATO, seeing as how it is now so isolated. That is going to cause NATO some grief...
 
No, the Korean War did not come about because Kim Il Sung brought about a war that Stalin did not want. It came about because Kim eventually convinced Stalin to give him the go-ahead. Stalin was perfectly free to say No to Kim as he had said before, but Kim persuaded him that the South would be defeated before the US could do anything about it. If Stalin had remained unpersuaded, and refused to give Kim the go-ahead, there would have been no war.
I agree. The Korean War is butterflied as this Stalin seems far more obsessed with Europe vs Asia. Koba wouldn't want to antagonize the West, especially with the forces required to occupy Eastern Europe. The Chinese civil war also either bogs down between North and South or sees a Kuomintang victory (with an expansionist policy, do you think the UK and US would just standby and watch a potential check on Soviet growth go under?) That alone increases Stalin's trepidation to support Kim and likely leaves American forces in theater and properly trained vs the mentality of demobilization and complacency that gutted American ground forces and put them at a disadvantage with Kim's first strikes.
 
true, but... looking at that map, if the USSR does indeed annex Yugoslavia and Albania, then the Soviet fleet is no longer much hindered by the 'Turkish bottleneck straits' that the OTL Soviet Black Sea Fleet had to deal with. For that matter, Turkey seems unlikely to be able to join NATO, seeing as how it is now so isolated. That is going to cause NATO some grief...
The heel of the Italian boot and Western Greece could serve to seal off the Adriatic, which probably happens.
 
Top