Would the Soviet Union still expand without Molotov-Robbentrop Pact?

The title is quite self explanatory.

Would the Soviet Union still have expanded and attacked Poland, Finland, and took over Latvia and Estonia if there were no pact dividing Europe up into zones of influence between the Germans and the Soviets? If they still did will the Entente condemn them or still overlook it? If they don't expand what will they do instead?

Discuss!
 
Greetings!

It is possible that the Soviet Union came into conflict with the allies or the axis sooner or later.

Hitler would not allow an advance in Europe.
 

Deleted member 1487

The title is quite self explanatory.

Would the Soviet Union still have expanded and attacked Poland, Finland, and took over Latvia and Estonia if there were no pact dividing Europe up into zones of influence between the Germans and the Soviets? If they still did will the Entente condemn them or still overlook it? If they don't expand what will they do instead?

Discuss!
No of course not. Stalin was paranoid the capitalists would unite against him and only was taking the opportunity to expand because the Nazis were giving him cover to do so. He was also afraid of pissing off Hitler and inviting invasion, so would be extremely careful about making any moves that would invite attack. Of course he'd attack Hitler if there was no agreement and he thought he could get away with it once Hitler was involved elsewhere.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're suggesting is that there is no MR pact in 1939 and Hitler goes and attacks Poland? What would stop Stalin then from accepting the deal that the Allies were offering him to ally against Germany? If anything he'd sit back and supply Poland with arms without the MR pact and wait for Hitler's back to be turned, sign an agreement with the Allies, attack Germany while Hitler is fighting France, and divide up Europe on his terms and dare the Allies to do something about it.
 
No of course not. Stalin was paranoid the capitalists would unite against him and only was taking the opportunity to expand because the Nazis were giving him cover to do so. He was also afraid of pissing off Hitler and inviting invasion, so would be extremely careful about making any moves that would invite attack. Of course he'd attack Hitler if there was no agreement and he thought he could get away with it once Hitler was involved elsewhere.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're suggesting is that there is no MR pact in 1939 and Hitler goes and attacks Poland? What would stop Stalin then from accepting the deal that the Allies were offering him to ally against Germany? If anything he'd sit back and supply Poland with arms without the MR pact and wait for Hitler's back to be turned, sign an agreement with the Allies, attack Germany while Hitler is fighting France, and divide up Europe on his terms and dare the Allies to do something about it.

Yeah I'm thinking about no MR pact and Germany invades Poland, but I'm also interested in what the Soviet Union will do if they didn't get the lands allowed for by the treaty and have their army be even weaker since there is no Winter War to reveal its weakness....

Will Hitler attack the Soviets after Poland falls (although they might hold out longer with Plan West) without even turning to France, England, and Norway in this scenario, only playing it defensively in the west?
 

Deleted member 1487

Yeah I'm thinking about no MR pact and Germany invades Poland, but I'm also interested in what the Soviet Union will do if they didn't get the lands allowed for by the treaty and have their army be even weaker since there is no Winter War to reveal its weakness....

Will Hitler attack the Soviets after Poland falls (although they might hold out longer with Plan West) without even turning to France, England, and Norway in this scenario, only playing it defensively in the west?
Then the Soviets save a lot of strength and assume they are stronger than they are, so they are overconfident enough to stab Hitler in the back while fighting in France. They don't really do well when they do attack, but it spoils the German success in France and ensures that Germany is crushed in a two front war by 1941. So we get OTL 1945, but in 1941-42 without the US involved and a FAR stronger USSR that owns a less destroyed Poland and East Germany, while the French and British have to prop up a West Germany to keep Stalin at bay. Ironically the Allies will need a strong Germany even more than IOTL, because the USSR suffers no damage, the US isn't their patron, Czechoslovakia/Poland/East Germany have been conquered and yield up help to develop the Soviet economy, while potentially Romania and Hungary have been taken by Stalin too. Italy probably jumps in on the Allied side to take Austria as a buffer state and bolster Yugoslavia against the USSR. In a lot of ways it is almost a nightmare scenario for the Allies and a dream one for Stalin.
 
Then the Soviets save a lot of strength and assume they are stronger than they are, so they are overconfident enough to stab Hitler in the back while fighting in France. They don't really do well when they do attack, but it spoils the German success in France and ensures that Germany is crushed in a two front war by 1941. So we get OTL 1945, but in 1941-42 without the US involved and a FAR stronger USSR that owns a less destroyed Poland and East Germany, while the French and British have to prop up a West Germany to keep Stalin at bay. Ironically the Allies will need a strong Germany even more than IOTL, because the USSR suffers no damage, the US isn't their patron, Czechoslovakia/Poland/East Germany have been conquered and yield up help to develop the Soviet economy, while potentially Romania and Hungary have been taken by Stalin too. Italy probably jumps in on the Allied side to take Austria as a buffer state and bolster Yugoslavia against the USSR. In a lot of ways it is almost a nightmare scenario for the Allies and a dream one for Stalin.


Oh.......

But can the same army that got stumped by a force much smaller and has less equipment make much headway against an entrenched, modern army with superior firepower and troops? And would their be enough butterflies to prevent a Fall Of France since most likely events still transpire the same on the western front?

Although your answer makes me wonder why the Soviets took up the offer in the first place, if the end result was going to be that good....
 

Deleted member 1487

Oh.......

But can the same army that got stumped by a force much smaller and has less equipment make much headway against an entrenched, modern army with superior firepower and troops? And would their be enough butterflies to prevent a Fall Of France since most likely events still transpire the same on the western front?

Although your answer makes me wonder why the Soviets took up the offer in the first place, if the end result was going to be that good....

If Germany is in France with all its combat effective forces, it won't matter how much better the Germans are. IOTL there were about 400k old occupation troops lacking firepower in Poland during the French campaign. Had Stalin attacked in late May-early June he'd catch the Germans with their pants down and the only thing stopping him would be logistics. It would derail the German efforts during Case Yellow, as they'd have to transfer huge forces back east to hold the Soviets in Poland and East Prussia. They will, but by then the Allies would have recovered and counterattacked. The Germans were running low on munitions by the end of the BoF IOTL, so by July/August they'd be dry and highly vulnerable in East and West even with hand to mouth munitions production.

As to why Stalin did that...he thought that the war in the West would be a lot longer and more grinding, so he could build up his forces and sweep everyone and plant the Soviet flag on the French Atlantic coast come 1942-43. IOTL the Germans did the impossible: the defeated the French in 6 weeks and pushed the Brits off the continent, while bringing Italy into the war. No one expected that was possible in 1939. During the MR Pact negotiations that deal seemed like the best possible option for Stalin, which without hindsight, it really was. The problem was the later course of events mooted the entire strategic plan Stalin had laid out.
 
No of course not. Stalin was paranoid the capitalists would unite against him and only was taking the opportunity to expand because the Nazis were giving him cover to do so. He was also afraid of pissing off Hitler and inviting invasion, so would be extremely careful about making any moves that would invite attack. Of course he'd attack Hitler if there was no agreement and he thought he could get away with it once Hitler was involved elsewhere.

Exactly.
 
Assuming Hitler still attacked Poland in the absence of the M-R pact AND the Uk & France declared war, as OTL, what then? Assuming also that Stalin doesn't try to seize some of the former Tsarist lands east of the Curzon line anyway.

Hitler has a potentially hostile border with the USSR further east than iOTL. Does he try to make a deal on the M-R lines post defeating Poland, in which case we're probably back on the strategic situation of OTL by early 1940 anyway? Or does he seek to make peace with the UK and France, setting up a puppet rump Poland? So he can attack the USSR in 1940-1. Implausible IMHO but maybe others will see it differently. Does he dare attack in the West as iOTL without securing his rear through a Treaty?

The last is to me the most plausible but his strength in the West may be reduced. Leaving it possible the sickle cut fails, though given the way the French command structure fell apart that's perhaps less likely than one night hope. Given a similar Fall of France what are the choices open to him afterwards?

1) Try to make peace with the British Empire - it's terms won't be palatable but it would be the best option. Given Hitler's long term goals.

2) Secure his rear with a pact with the USSR and adopt the Atlantic and Mediterranean strategy to force Britain to surrender. An attractive option but one unlikely to bring victory before 1942 if at all. With US backing Britain can hold out indefinitely and may well in fact be able to develop an A bomb if the war drags on much beyond 1945. All the while the USSR is getting relatively stronger especially if it can demand a high price for raw materials in capital goods, patents etc. Stalin's choice when to intervene though I doubt he would.

3) Contain and try to weaken the UK by U-boat warfare etc., while launching Barbarossa roughly on schedule but a little further forward. That seems the likeliest choice but the assault will face Soviet armies in prepared defensive positions. The Germans will still break through but unless their logistics are very much better (how?) they will still stall before Moscow. Which gives us a variant of OTL but a two front war with a similar ending is probable.
 
The title is quite self explanatory.

Would the Soviet Union still have expanded and attacked Poland, Finland, and took over Latvia and Estonia if there were no pact dividing Europe up into zones of influence between the Germans and the Soviets? If they still did will the Entente condemn them or still overlook it? If they don't expand what will they do instead?

Discuss!

No pact. Does Germany still go to war over Poland? If so, the USSR may take advantage of the engagement of Germany, France, and Britain to occupy the Baltic States and possibly Bessarabia. Finland, possibly. All three operations would be spun as re-unification with former Russian territory.

If Germany does not go to war... The USSR does nothing for quite a while. Eventually Stalin will want to try it on - the Soviet army was enormous - but he will be very cautious to avoid an anti-Soviet coalition forming.
 
Without MR it is doubtful Germany even attacks Poland. Hitler is not completely insane at this juncture and risks being killed if he goes ahead with such a war. Finland and Romania breath a sigh of relief. Ironically, by 1943-43, you might see Poland and Germany being allies as the USSR completes its building program. France and Britain will simply wait to see which way the wind is blowing.

We would essentially have an early Cold War. I just don't see the Russians getting involved in Europe with Poland, Romania, and Finland a full strength and powers such as Germany, France, and Britain undistracted. As huge militaries inherently breed aggressiveness, Stalin will end up using his new toys, but probably against Japan and in supporting Communists in the Chinese civil war. So, what I see is a multipolar cold war and Korea and parts of Japan will be annexed to the USSR. The USSR will not invade the Japanese homeland.
 
Top