WI Stalin had annexed all his conquests?

Its only a matter of time not if until you have ressistance movements and attempted revolts. The soviet union had problems holding down what they had OTL in this time line they have even more problems.

Also western europe clings to america.
 
Ah-ha!

So no more Poland, East Ger,many and so on, theres only one big Soviet Union. What next?
Well, he has fewer votes in his bloc at the UN for one thing...
And a whole lot more 'domestic issues' for the Moscow bureaucracy to have to handle, instead of being able to delegate them to puppet governments.
 

Asami

Banned
He has basically signed off any remaining goodwill from anyone, and the Soviet Union would be a huge pariah state, reviled by everyone for Stalin's outright imperialism.

Actually, the Allies might actually go ahead with Operation Unthinkable and use the a-bomb against Stalin's USSR.
 
I don't know why he would do this. OTL the USSR got almost all the benefits of being an imperial power without a lot of the downsides. In TTL the USSR can't even pretend to be anti-imperialist.
 
Imagine the hungarian revolution of 1956

Now imagine events like that happening in the entire eastern europe almost every year

Imagine the soviet bureocratic crisis and how their economy struggled a lot to keep their huge army mobilized

now imagine them with a bigger army (to keep eastern europe occupied) plus the huge amount of resources needed to keep them under martial law (while the NATO problably would be sponsoring uprisings)

The soviet union would collapse 20 years earlier, this if the hardline faction doesn't cause a civil war trying to keep the country united
 
I'm am positive that Stalin will orchestrate even more genocide and ethnic cleansing then in otl. Who knows just how much this alone would affect the remaining years of the S.U. Perhaps a greater Monarchist presence after the fall of the Union....
 
It would harm relations with the Western and other non-Communist nations, would be a tremendous propaganda boost to anti-Communists, would greatly decrease pro-Soviet representation in the UN and other world organizations, would alienate those east Europeans who were willing to accept communism and pro-Soviet policies but not loss of (at least nominal) national independence--and all for what? It would not give Stalin more effective control over Poland or Czechoslovakia, etc. than he had in OTL.
 
It would harm relations with the Western and other non-Communist nations, would be a tremendous propaganda boost to anti-Communists, would greatly decrease pro-Soviet representation in the UN and other world organizations, would alienate those east Europeans who were willing to accept communism and pro-Soviet policies but not loss of (at least nominal) national independence--and all for what? It would not give Stalin more effective control over Poland or Czechoslovakia, etc. than he had in OTL.

That's the problem exactly, what does Stalin gain out of this? Mao would definitely hurt, particularly if it includes Manchuria. The Nationalists would certainly be claiming that Mao is a Russian tool and that if he wins all China would be ruled by the Russians.

I doubt the Chinese would look favorably at the idea of being ruled by the Russians. If the Soviets would annex Manchuria Mao would have to take the lead in kicking them out. He would have to denounce Stalin and declare his policies to be in opposition to "true socialism"! If he doesn't he loses any credibility . The Nationalists have much easier as they can argue that they clearly aren't part of a Russian plot to take over China, which is what they would be arguing the Maoists would be doing.
 
Last edited:

Sabot Cat

Banned
uA160vH.png


Socialism in One Country, 1950
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
As for implications, they probably create a more decentralized federal structure and draw up a new constitution to accommodate the larger union, whose republics are ostensibly sovereign even in OTL. Furthermore, considering the transparently fictitious nature of autonomy in the Eastern Bloc, and the fact that whatever powers have to be delegated to the constituent republics in order for them to be a functional part of the Soviet Union can be easily accomplished through constitutional amendment if not wholesale revision, I don't think this will be much of a game changer at first. These republics would also all be single-party states with local Communist Party chapters instead of having Bloc parties with ostensible coalitions of multiple parties, but again, that doesn't change much on the ground. What does, however, is the theoretical basis used to justify this, and how it effects the Soviet Union's foreign relations.
 

Asami

Banned
Socialism in One Country, 1950

Wouldn't Stalin annex Manchuria and Northern Korea too? Also, I can't see Mao being very happy when Stalin annexes Port Arthur and parts of Xinjiang and basically tells him "sod off" when he asks for it back. Also, this blatant imperialism may convince the Allies to give Germany back control of rump-Austria, and bypass the whole "dismantle Germany" thing entirely.
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
Wouldn't Stalin annex Manchuria and Northern Korea too? Also, I can't see Mao being very happy when Stalin annexes Port Arthur and parts of Xinjiang and basically tells him "sod off" when he asks for it back. Also, this blatant imperialism may convince the Allies to give Germany back control of rump-Austria, and bypass the whole "dismantle Germany" thing entirely.

Probably, and this style of Soviet Union makes Communism as the Soviet Union understood it seem more parochial and less appealing on the international stage.
 
It also slows down decolonization. The USSR funded a lot of it and after this it would be harder for would be revolutionaries to accept its help. You aren't going to get a lot of people to back you if they think all that is going to happen is that they trade British/French rule for Russian. All you have done is switch overlords and more ruthless ones at that.
 
Top