Discussion:
Thoughts on Prospects for Soviet military aggression in a Hitler-less or WWII-less world
Add Reply
Rob
2017-07-15 17:04:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I think "conquering Stalin", no matter how popular a theme of alternate history is not inevitable, and that it is actually rather unlikely without the permissive and stressful geopolitical circumstances created by WWII.

I think, unless provoked badly by Japan, the Soviet Union is probably going to keep its own powder dry till the 1950s or later. It would have reason to fear a powerful anti-Soviet coalition if it tries to revise any of its borders in Europe or the Middle East. Finland, Poland, Romania and Turkey are all substantial countries. Even the Baltic States would likely be safe from invasion through 1950 and beyond, because grabbing one of them still could cost more than it is worth in terms of generating possible backlash by larger powers.

After about 1950 the situation probably gets more permissive for Soviet aggression in Europe. By 1950, the Soviets will be *much* more industrialized, having gone through four and a half five years plans, and under mid 20th century conditions this is probably going to widen the Soviet advantages against its immediate western neighbors, and even Germany, quite a bit. Another factor potentially making the environment for Soviet aggression more permissive later in the 1950s or 1960s could be the development of atomic weapons and delivery systems.

Even if, as is likely, the USSR is not the first atomic power, and the US, Britain, France and Germany all achieve that status before the Soviets, the Soviets going to be far ahead of any of their immediate western neighbors. An atomic shield, in an era of relatively unilateral-ized military policies and no NATO-style guarantees, could embolden Moscow to use brute force to achieve some revisionist territorial aims.

Alternate conditions besides WWII that could prompt the Soviet Union to expand its territory in the 1940s could include grabbing Bessarabia if Bulgaria and Hungary end up at war with Romania, without German participation. Or limited gains could be made against Poland in the context of a Polish-Lithuanian War, Polish-Czech war, or war amongst the Baltic states, or Turkish involvement in war against another great power. Of course gains against Poland are possible in the event of a less than total German-Polish war that does not involve other major powers. A successful revolutionary movement or disorder so extreme in a neighbor that makes a modest military fait accompli look super easy could also tempt Stalin.
Alex Milman
2017-07-15 18:20:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rob
I think "conquering Stalin", no matter how popular a theme of alternate history is not inevitable, and that it is actually rather unlikely without the permissive and stressful geopolitical circumstances created by WWII.
I think, unless provoked badly by Japan, the Soviet Union is probably going to keep its own powder dry till the 1950s or later. It would have reason to fear a powerful anti-Soviet coalition if it tries to revise any of its borders in Europe or the Middle East. Finland, Poland, Romania and Turkey are all substantial countries. Even the Baltic States would likely be safe from invasion through 1950 and beyond, because grabbing one of them still could cost more than it is worth in terms of generating possible backlash by larger powers.
Well, even in the early-1930's a prevailing idea behind the Soviet military
doctrine was a war started by a coalition of the "buffer states" backed up by
France and the Brits in the terms of weaponry.

The Soviets started developing their industrialization started only in the
late 1920's practically from the scratch and by the late 1930's their
industrial base still was in a very precarious state while both industry and
army suffered from the severe shortages of the educated specialists and
simply people educated enough to handle a reasonably complex machinery (in
1941 big percentage of the cadres in the mechanized/tank units had 6 or less
years of school).

By 1941 they were in the midst of a terrible mess: the old armor was proven
to be obsolete and the new was still in a status of "pile of junk" (tests of
T-34 run in the spring of 1941 resulted in a conclusion that the tank is not
ready for exploitation: the list of problems of all types takes pages).
Besides problems with the engine, transmission, armor, shells' loading, the
optics was getting dirty at no time with no way to clean it from inside (so
basically, the crew was blind). On the top of the above, the amounts of the
armor piercing shells reported by the mechanized corps commander shortly before
the German attack were uniformly ZERO. Add to this absence of the industrial reserves for producing spare parts, absence of the powerful tractors, shortage
of the field repair stations, shortage of the trucks, and the fact that most of
the reported (and routinely used by the historians) tank numbers include tanks
that were exploited to the limit of their resource and requiring serious
repairs. Under the normal circumstances and without OTL Lend Lease it would
take quite a few years to have an adequate supply of an operational hardware
and the people capable of serving it. Plus, with a severe shortage of the
experienced engineering cadres, any new design or improvement was (in OTL) a
prolonged sequence of trials and errors.

So, yes, it is quite realistic to assume that Stalin may not risk a big scale
military adventure on his own for the next decade or so.
Post by Rob
After about 1950 the situation probably gets more permissive for Soviet aggression in Europe. By 1950, the Soviets will be *much* more industrialized, having gone through four and a half five years plans, and under mid 20th century conditions this is probably going to widen the Soviet advantages against its immediate western neighbors, and even Germany, quite a bit.
Well, non-Hitleresque Germany would not be in crisis forever and probably
sooner or letter would decide to reject conditions of Versailles. Taking into
an account that country retained all its technical and military specialists,
its military development could happen relatively fast (as in OTL) and
perhaps in a more systematic way than in OTL. But, anyway, with Stalin not
being excessively fond of the world revolution, what would be the reason for
the Soviet-German military confrontation? If anything, they could end up
with an idea of the re-adjustments at the expense of their neighbors, like it
happened in OTL. Could it be done in a way that is not leading to WWII?
Post by Rob
Another factor potentially making the environment for Soviet aggression more permissive later in the 1950s or 1960s could be the development of atomic weapons and delivery systems.
I wonder if the whole thing would happen without WWII? It was a high expense,
high risk exercise which is hard to justify at the time of peace.
SolomonW
2017-07-16 10:11:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rob
Another factor potentially making the environment for Soviet aggression more permissive later in the 1950s or 1960s could be the development of atomic weapons and delivery systems.
I wonder if the whole thing would happen without WWII? It was a high expense,
high risk exercise which is hard to justify at the time of peace.
It is said the real secret of the atomic bomb was that it could be built.
The Old Man
2017-07-16 19:49:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rob
Another factor potentially making the environment for Soviet aggression
more permissive later in the 1950s or 1960s could be the development of
atomic weapons and delivery systems.
I wonder if the whole thing would happen without WWII? It was a high
expense, high risk exercise which is hard to justify at the time of peace.
It is said the real secret of the atomic bomb was that it could be built.
By 1940, physicists had the knowledge to build a nuclear weapon, but sans Hitler, I very much doubt that they'd have the impetus to build one. Perhaps they'd go on a tangent to try for nuclear power plants, mobile and stationary both.

Regards,
John Braungart
pyotr filipivich
2017-07-17 03:18:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Old Man
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rob
Another factor potentially making the environment for Soviet aggression
more permissive later in the 1950s or 1960s could be the development of
atomic weapons and delivery systems.
I wonder if the whole thing would happen without WWII? It was a high
expense, high risk exercise which is hard to justify at the time of peace.
It is said the real secret of the atomic bomb was that it could be built.
By 1940, physicists had the knowledge to build a nuclear weapon, but sans Hitler, I very much doubt that they'd have the impetus to build one. Perhaps they'd go on a tangent to try for nuclear power plants, mobile and stationary both.
As I understand it, the physicists knew it was possible, but
advised the American Government to make one, only because they thought
The Third Reich was not only capable of making one, but might actually
be attempting to do so.
--
pyotr filipivich.
For Sale: Uncirculated Roman Drachmas, feature Julius Ceaser's Portrait,
several dated 44 BCE. Comes with Certificate of Authenticity.
The Horny Goat
2017-07-18 01:29:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
I wonder if the whole thing would happen without WWII? It was a high expense,
high risk exercise which is hard to justify at the time of peace.
It is said the real secret of the atomic bomb was that it could be built.
Perhaps - but the "Einstein letter" was delivered to FDR in peacetime.
Admittedly not by much ..... (it was a couple days before Pearl
Harbor)
SolomonW
2017-07-18 09:59:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
I wonder if the whole thing would happen without WWII? It was a high expense,
high risk exercise which is hard to justify at the time of peace.
It is said the real secret of the atomic bomb was that it could be built.
Perhaps - but the "Einstein letter" was delivered to FDR in peacetime.
Admittedly not by much ..... (it was a couple days before Pearl
Harbor)
Peacetime only to the US.
The Horny Goat
2017-07-18 23:12:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SolomonW
Post by The Horny Goat
Perhaps - but the "Einstein letter" was delivered to FDR in peacetime.
Admittedly not by much ..... (it was a couple days before Pearl
Harbor)
Peacetime only to the US.
Surely when I mentioned Einstein (who was in the US at this point) and
FDR it must have been obvious that I was talking about the US.

I'm a Canadian - I know very well what happened on 30 Jan 1933
(besides my father being born - truth!), 1 Sept 1939, 3 Sept 1939, 10
Sept 1939 (for non-Canucks that's when our parliament declared war),
10 May 1940, 22 June 1941 and 7 Dec 1941.

I'm pretty sure I know who had been fighting for 2+ years by 7 Dec
1941 and who was president of the United States of America.

Next question?
Rich Rostrom
2017-07-20 03:04:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SolomonW
Post by The Horny Goat
Perhaps - but the "Einstein letter" was delivered to FDR in peacetime.
Admittedly not by much ..... (it was a couple days before Pearl
Harbor)
Peacetime only to the US.
The Einstein-Szilárd letter was delivered 2 August 1939;
peacetime to everyone except Japan and China (and the USSR,
a little).
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Rob
2017-07-18 02:09:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rob
Another factor potentially making the environment for Soviet aggression more permissive later in the 1950s or 1960s could be the development of atomic weapons and delivery systems.
I wonder if the whole thing would happen without WWII? It was a high expense,
high risk exercise which is hard to justify at the time of peace.
The topic of the course of atomic development in a world without WWII was last discussed many years ago here.

There was some thought that Britain and America would probably first and that first applications might be ship propulsion or power plants. A bomb would come a bit later. Perhaps inspired somewhat by a nuclear accident.

Is the application of nuclear fission to bombs (or reactors) a technology that really can be retarded for 50, 60, 70, 80 years, at least without a global de-technologizing disaster?

I mean yeah manned flight to the moon stopped almost 45 years ago without no signs of resuming in the next five to ten years, but atomic explosives are both less expensive and more practical.
Post by Alex Milman
Perhaps they'd go on a tangent to try for nuclear power plants, mobile and stationary both.
yes, those have been suggested as the initial applications. But going two generations without any fission applications and even without bombs, seems like a stretch to me.
Post by Alex Milman
a Soviet Union that DIDN'T fight WW2
probably DOESN'T have the atomic bomb

they'll probably get it sometime though, and before Poland or Turkey get one, and definitely before Latvia does.
Post by Alex Milman
While I have no doubt that the OTL Soviets would have accepted WW2
level losses in return for a guaranteed conquest of Europe

I do not know that they would either except such losses by choice or that they would contemplate expending those lives trying to outright conquer all Europe.

Ultimately I'm still just imaging border wars for the Soviets, related to improving the imperial frontiers a bit.
Post by Alex Milman
Perhaps - but the "Einstein letter" was delivered to FDR in peacetime.
Admittedly not by much ..... (it was a couple days before Pearl
Harbor)

Actually it was over two years before that, it was sent about a week or two before the Nazi invasion of Poland.
The Horny Goat
2017-07-18 23:15:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 19:09:07 -0700 (PDT), Rob
Post by Rob
I mean yeah manned flight to the moon stopped almost 45 years ago without no signs of resuming in the next five to ten years, but atomic explosives are both less expensive and more practical.
I recently watched a video on Project Nerva and the chief physicist
commentator was understandingly nervous about discussing the Nerva
type of bomb as he believed it was of a type that would be of extreme
interest to post-911 terrorists.

I presume he meant a LOT smaller than Little Boy or Fat Man.

(I presume you know the relevance of Project Nerva to your original
statement right?)
Rob
2017-07-20 01:38:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 19:09:07 -0700 (PDT), Rob
Post by Rob
I mean yeah manned flight to the moon stopped almost 45 years ago without no signs of resuming in the next five to ten years, but atomic explosives are both less expensive and more practical.
I recently watched a video on Project Nerva and the chief physicist
commentator was understandingly nervous about discussing the Nerva
type of bomb as he believed it was of a type that would be of extreme
interest to post-911 terrorists.
I presume he meant a LOT smaller than Little Boy or Fat Man.
(I presume you know the relevance of Project Nerva to your original
statement right?)
I didn't actually. But then I looked it up in wikipedia. Interesting.
The Horny Goat
2017-07-18 01:27:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 10:04:33 -0700 (PDT), Rob
Post by Rob
After about 1950 the situation probably gets more perm
issive for Soviet ag=
Post by Rob
gression in Europe. By 1950, the Soviets will be *much* more industrialized=
, having gone through four and a half five years plans, and under mid 20th =
century conditions this is probably going to widen the Soviet advantages ag=
ainst its immediate western neighbors, and even Germany, quite a bit. Anoth=
er factor potentially making the environment for Soviet aggression more per=
missive later in the 1950s or 1960s could be the development of atomic weap=
ons and delivery systems.=20
Haven't you missed something - a Soviet Union that DIDN'T fight WW2
probably DOESN'T have the atomic bomb but then hasn't lost close to 20
million people either.

While I have no doubt that the OTL Soviets would have accepted WW2
level losses in return for a guaranteed conquest of Europe in the
1950s nothing in war is guaranteed and Stalin knew it.

Of course Germany hasn't been decimated either so Stalin would still
need to keep his powder dry even if a quasi-pacifist like Erhard was
running things in Germany at that time. (One can reasonably argue
whether Erhard's love for peace derived from German losses 1939-45 or
a genuine love or peace but that's a different discussion)

My view of Stalin is that while he didn't glory in war he wasn't about
to lose one either. The Soviets of the post 1953 era were quite
different and I don't see Stalin handling the Cuban Missile Crisis at
all like OTL.
pyotr filipivich
2017-07-18 16:19:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
My view of Stalin is that while he didn't glory in war he wasn't about
to lose one either. The Soviets of the post 1953 era were quite
different and I don't see Stalin handling the Cuban Missile Crisis at
all like OTL.
Interesting thought: How likely is the President of the US in 1955
going to be a War Hero, there having been no WW2?
E.g., would Ike have become so well known if there had been no war
in Europe?
Likewise, would John Kennedy have run if his older brother hadn't
been in a European War?
--
pyotr filipivich.
For Sale: Uncirculated Roman Drachmas, feature Julius Ceaser's Portrait,
several dated 44 BCE. Comes with Certificate of Authenticity.
The Horny Goat
2017-07-19 00:02:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 09:19:19 -0700, pyotr filipivich
Post by pyotr filipivich
Interesting thought: How likely is the President of the US in 1955
going to be a War Hero, there having been no WW2?
E.g., would Ike have become so well known if there had been no war
in Europe?
Likewise, would John Kennedy have run if his older brother hadn't
been in a European War?
I think it's pretty much inevitable that for the next 20 years atter a
major war men are going to come forward who have distinguished
themselves in the war - not necessarily Medal of Honor winners but in
some way - Truman was a WW1 artillery officer, Hoover coordinated
large scale relief efforts. There's no particular reason America
couldn't have been ruled in the 1950s by a WW1 hero.

It's not even necessary they have distinguished themselves - Ludwig
Erhard of West Germany and John Diefenbaker of Canada were both
invalided out of WW1 service.
pyotr filipivich
2017-07-20 17:21:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 09:19:19 -0700, pyotr filipivich
Post by pyotr filipivich
Interesting thought: How likely is the President of the US in 1955
going to be a War Hero, there having been no WW2?
E.g., would Ike have become so well known if there had been no war
in Europe?
Likewise, would John Kennedy have run if his older brother hadn't
been in a European War?
I think it's pretty much inevitable that for the next 20 years atter a
major war men are going to come forward who have distinguished
themselves in the war - not necessarily Medal of Honor winners but in
some way - Truman was a WW1 artillery officer, Hoover coordinated
large scale relief efforts. There's no particular reason America
couldn't have been ruled in the 1950s by a WW1 hero.
That is true. I'm not sure what sort of other world events get
butterflied away in this Hitlerless world (either to prevent his rise,
or because he was not there to shape things. E.G., a Third German
Empire, but without the racist ideology, a lessening of The Great
Depression {which has its own set of PODS} and so forth.) - at some
point the world in 1935, let alone 1940, becomes so completely
different that who knows, Jet-propelled airships smuggling rum into
Cuba. But I digress.)
Anyway. Ike was a staff officer, no combat experience, and rather
noticeable in retrospect after he was Supreme Allied Commander Europe
in The War. (I keep in mind that there is a photograph from the Korean
war of Major John Glenn with his wingman Ted Williams. in 1952 - who
was the more well know? The Marine pilot (future astronaut & US
Senator) or the Baseball Player?)
Post by The Horny Goat
It's not even necessary they have distinguished themselves - Ludwig
Erhard of West Germany and John Diefenbaker of Canada were both
invalided out of WW1 service.
Yep. the whole "Was you dere, Scharlie?" validation. I recall
reading that Truman was recognized as a good officer because "his men
didn't want to kill him."

tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich.
For Sale: Uncirculated Roman Drachmas, feature Julius Ceaser's Portrait,
several dated 44 BCE. Comes with Certificate of Authenticity.
Rich Rostrom
2017-07-20 02:47:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pyotr filipivich
Interesting thought: How likely is the President of
the US in 1955 going to be a War Hero, there having
been no WW2?
If there is no WW II, the entire shape of later
history changes

OTL, almost every young adult American male who was not
disabled served in WW II.

At the Presidential level - Eisenhower, Nixon, Kennedy,
Johnson, Agnew, Ford, Reagan, and Bush I all served.
(Humphrey was rejected by the Navy _and_ the Army for
color blindness and a double hernia; Rockefeller was
in his 30s and tabbed by FDR for quasi-diplomatic work
with Latin America. Carter and Mondale were underage.)

Millions of other men served and received GI benefits
which enabled them to go to college or buy houses
after the war.

The economic effects of the war ended the Depression
in the U.S. and shifted U.S. industry into new areas,
notably the West Coast. It was a huge boost to the
aeronautical and electronics industries.

The U.S. in WW II assumed the position of the dominant
power in the world, intervening in countries all over
the world to keep the peace or ward off tyranny - a
role that had been unthinkable until after U.S. success
in WW II.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Robert Woodward
2017-07-20 04:52:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by pyotr filipivich
Interesting thought: How likely is the President of
the US in 1955 going to be a War Hero, there having
been no WW2?
If there is no WW II, the entire shape of later
history changes
OTL, almost every young adult American male who was not
disabled served in WW II.
At the Presidential level - Eisenhower, Nixon, Kennedy,
Johnson, Agnew, Ford, Reagan, and Bush I all served.
(Humphrey was rejected by the Navy _and_ the Army for
color blindness and a double hernia; Rockefeller was
in his 30s and tabbed by FDR for quasi-diplomatic work
with Latin America. Carter and Mondale were underage.)
Carter was NOT underage; he was attending the Naval Academy in Annapolis
and wasn't commissioned until after the war was over. He is only 4
months younger than Bush I (who became a Naval aviator at age 19).
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
‹-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
Rich Rostrom
2017-07-20 20:10:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Woodward
Carter was NOT underage; he was attending the Naval
Academy in Annapolis and wasn't commissioned until
after the war was over. He is only 4 months younger
than Bush I (who became a Naval aviator at age 19).
Underage in the sense that the war ended before
he would have got into it. If he had been a year
older, he would have seen active duty.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Rich Rostrom
2017-07-20 02:28:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Haven't you missed something - a Soviet Union that
DIDN'T fight WW2 probably DOESN'T have the atomic bomb
but then hasn't lost close to 20 million people either.
Soviet physicists saw the implication of reports on
nuclear fission as early as 1940, including the possibility
of atomic bombs of gigantic power.

If there is no WW II, it is very possible (and with
difficulty, practical) for the USSR to develop the Bomb.

It may take them longer than it did the U.S. (basically
four years of determined effort), but they can do it.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Rob
2017-07-20 02:51:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by The Horny Goat
Haven't you missed something - a Soviet Union that
DIDN'T fight WW2 probably DOESN'T have the atomic bomb
but then hasn't lost close to 20 million people either.
Soviet physicists saw the implication of reports on
nuclear fission as early as 1940, including the possibility
of atomic bombs of gigantic power.
If there is no WW II, it is very possible (and with
difficulty, practical) for the USSR to develop the Bomb.
It may take them longer than it did the U.S. (basically
four years of determined effort), but they can do it.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.
http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
I agree on the technical capability for the Soviets to develop an atomic bomb in a Hitler-less world, obviously.

But do you have any thoughts on how and around what time period atomic bombs and nuclear fission technology in general could have been plausibly introduced in a no WWII world.
jerry kraus
2017-07-18 15:35:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rob
I think "conquering Stalin", no matter how popular a theme of alternate history is not inevitable, and that it is actually rather unlikely without the permissive and stressful geopolitical circumstances created by WWII.
I think, unless provoked badly by Japan, the Soviet Union is probably going to keep its own powder dry till the 1950s or later. It would have reason to fear a powerful anti-Soviet coalition if it tries to revise any of its borders in Europe or the Middle East. Finland, Poland, Romania and Turkey are all substantial countries. Even the Baltic States would likely be safe from invasion through 1950 and beyond, because grabbing one of them still could cost more than it is worth in terms of generating possible backlash by larger powers.
After about 1950 the situation probably gets more permissive for Soviet aggression in Europe. By 1950, the Soviets will be *much* more industrialized, having gone through four and a half five years plans, and under mid 20th century conditions this is probably going to widen the Soviet advantages against its immediate western neighbors, and even Germany, quite a bit. Another factor potentially making the environment for Soviet aggression more permissive later in the 1950s or 1960s could be the development of atomic weapons and delivery systems.
Even if, as is likely, the USSR is not the first atomic power, and the US, Britain, France and Germany all achieve that status before the Soviets, the Soviets going to be far ahead of any of their immediate western neighbors. An atomic shield, in an era of relatively unilateral-ized military policies and no NATO-style guarantees, could embolden Moscow to use brute force to achieve some revisionist territorial aims.
Alternate conditions besides WWII that could prompt the Soviet Union to expand its territory in the 1940s could include grabbing Bessarabia if Bulgaria and Hungary end up at war with Romania, without German participation. Or limited gains could be made against Poland in the context of a Polish-Lithuanian War, Polish-Czech war, or war amongst the Baltic states, or Turkish involvement in war against another great power. Of course gains against Poland are possible in the event of a less than total German-Polish war that does not involve other major powers. A successful revolutionary movement or disorder so extreme in a neighbor that makes a modest military fait accompli look super easy could also tempt Stalin.
-----------------------------------------

You're making the mistake of assuming Stalin was another Hitler, Rob, he wasn't. Actually, Stalin was perfectly happy to rule over the Soviet Empire in peace. He already had plenty of territory. Sure, he promoted popular communist movements, to some degree, in other countries. But, while Americans tend to see this in military-imperialistic terms, the Soviets would have seen this in ideological terms, as an effort to improve the lives of other people.

The Soviet Union was no more likely to engage in military aggression than the United States was. Less likely, if anything.
Insane Ranter
2017-07-20 01:59:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rob
I think "conquering Stalin", no matter how popular a theme of alternate history is not inevitable, and that it is actually rather unlikely without the permissive and stressful geopolitical circumstances created by WWII.
So how are you getting rid of Hitler? You aren't keeping the USSR out of WW2 unless you get rid of Hitler.
Rob
2017-07-20 02:47:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Insane Ranter
Post by Rob
I think "conquering Stalin", no matter how popular a theme of alternate history is not inevitable, and that it is actually rather unlikely without the permissive and stressful geopolitical circumstances created by WWII.
So how are you getting rid of Hitler? You aren't keeping the USSR out of WW2 unless you get rid of Hitler.
It's not hard to find a PoD killing him off or keeping him relatively powerless. In fact it's so cliche I did not bother with that part.
pyotr filipivich
2017-07-20 17:21:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Insane Ranter
Post by Rob
I think "conquering Stalin", no matter how popular a theme of alternate history is not inevitable, and that it is actually rather unlikely without the permissive and stressful geopolitical circumstances created by WWII.
So how are you getting rid of Hitler? You aren't keeping the USSR out of WW2 unless you get rid of Hitler.
He was tossed out with the bath water. Stolen by gypsies and
plays drums in the rhythm section until the Pill is invented.
Has his life saved by two Zionists who wind up converting him to
Judaism, and he emigrates to Hebron.
Becomes a pacifist, and flees to Switzerland at the start of The
War.
Emigrates to New York and paints magazine covers for the Pulps
(and a few of the 'respectable' publications.)
Gets killed in the War. Shot, shelled, gassed, bad batch of
bratwurst, whooping pneumonia, terminal trench foot. Sent to the
Austrian-Italian front as an observer, crippled in freak skiing
accident, life saved by Italian medics of Jewish heritage.
Survives the war, gets killed crossing the street in Munich on his
way to investigate the DAP (German Worker Party).
Becomes Der Furher as in OTL, has heart attack and dies. Has
Stroke and is incapacitated. Is removed by the Army after French
policeman thwarts his attempt to reclaim the Rhineland.
--
pyotr filipivich.
For Sale: Uncirculated Roman Drachmas, feature Julius Ceaser's Portrait,
several dated 44 BCE. Comes with Certificate of Authenticity.
The Horny Goat
2017-07-20 18:51:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 10:21:29 -0700, pyotr filipivich
Post by pyotr filipivich
Post by Insane Ranter
Post by Rob
I think "conquering Stalin", no matter how popular a theme of alternate history is not inevitable, and that it is actually rather unlikely without the permissive and stressful geopolitical circumstances created by WWII.
So how are you getting rid of Hitler? You aren't keeping the USSR out of WW2 unless you get rid of Hitler.
He was tossed out with the bath water. Stolen by gypsies and
plays drums in the rhythm section until the Pill is invented.
Has his life saved by two Zionists who wind up converting him to
Judaism, and he emigrates to Hebron.
Becomes a pacifist, and flees to Switzerland at the start of The
War.
Emigrates to New York and paints magazine covers for the Pulps
(and a few of the 'respectable' publications.)
Gets killed in the War. Shot, shelled, gassed, bad batch of
bratwurst, whooping pneumonia, terminal trench foot. Sent to the
Austrian-Italian front as an observer, crippled in freak skiing
accident, life saved by Italian medics of Jewish heritage.
Survives the war, gets killed crossing the street in Munich on his
way to investigate the DAP (German Worker Party).
Becomes Der Furher as in OTL, has heart attack and dies. Has
Stroke and is incapacitated. Is removed by the Army after French
policeman thwarts his attempt to reclaim the Rhineland.
Several of these are hilarious.

A simpler "pro-Jewish Hitler" would be that he idolizes (and considers
him a mentor) the officer who recommended him for his Iron Cross - the
officer was Jewish and after 1933 was personally protected by Hitler.
Hitler was always very proud of his Iron Cross.

Specifically what he got it for has never been fully explained which
is interesting as it was a First Class award in a time when the Iron
Cross First Class was normally given only to commissioned officers
which Hitler emphatically was NOT.
pyotr filipivich
2017-07-20 22:36:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 10:21:29 -0700, pyotr filipivich
Post by pyotr filipivich
Post by Insane Ranter
Post by Rob
I think "conquering Stalin", no matter how popular a theme of alternate history is not inevitable, and that it is actually rather unlikely without the permissive and stressful geopolitical circumstances created by WWII.
So how are you getting rid of Hitler? You aren't keeping the USSR out of WW2 unless you get rid of Hitler.
He was tossed out with the bath water. Stolen by gypsies and
plays drums in the rhythm section until the Pill is invented.
Has his life saved by two Zionists who wind up converting him to
Judaism, and he emigrates to Hebron.
Becomes a pacifist, and flees to Switzerland at the start of The
War.
Emigrates to New York and paints magazine covers for the Pulps
(and a few of the 'respectable' publications.)
Gets killed in the War. Shot, shelled, gassed, bad batch of
bratwurst, whooping pneumonia, terminal trench foot. Sent to the
Austrian-Italian front as an observer, crippled in freak skiing
accident, life saved by Italian medics of Jewish heritage.
Survives the war, gets killed crossing the street in Munich on his
way to investigate the DAP (German Worker Party).
Becomes Der Furher as in OTL, has heart attack and dies. Has
Stroke and is incapacitated. Is removed by the Army after French
policeman thwarts his attempt to reclaim the Rhineland.
Several of these are hilarious.
Yep.
Post by The Horny Goat
A simpler "pro-Jewish Hitler" would be that he idolizes (and considers
him a mentor) the officer who recommended him for his Iron Cross - the
officer was Jewish and after 1933 was personally protected by Hitler.
Well, there you go.
Post by The Horny Goat
Hitler was always very proud of his Iron Cross.
Specifically what he got it for has never been fully explained which
is interesting as it was a First Class award in a time when the Iron
Cross First Class was normally given only to commissioned officers
which Hitler emphatically was NOT.
Which might explain why he was so proud of it. (My Dad cherish
his Combat Infantry Badge - "that one I _earned_" The Silver Star -
not so much. "What a bunch of hooey - makes it sound like I did
something dangerous!")
--
pyotr filipivich.
For Sale: Uncirculated Roman Drachmas, feature Julius Ceaser's Portrait,
several dated 44 BCE. Comes with Certificate of Authenticity.
Loading...