"The Stalin with no Hitler scenario" Topic

So the space bats have wiped Hitler from history and Stalin is now poised to strike at Europe, in most scenarios he steamrolls over Europe and the US without hardly a bump.

But is it going to be really that easy for Stalin ?

He purged many of his best officers who had worked out new tactics, without Germany to learn from, or the urge to recall the surviving officers he might well launch an offensive with the same kind of army that was defeated by the Poles and Finns. Imagine a Red Army trying to invade Europe with BT's, T26, T28 and lots of broken down T35 tanks stuck somewhere in Poland.

He has no lend-lease to grease his industrial output and no pressure to mass produce tanks like the T-34 to beat the Germans. No US trucks to support his offensives.

He might end up having to fight Britain, France, Poland, Czechoslovakia and a (hastily) rearmed Germany … All using tactics that are essentially improved 1918 operations. Stalin might well break his teeth on Europe if anyone manages to put up a stiff resistance.

So Russian Steamroller or paper tiger ?

So the space bats have wiped Hitler from history and Stalin is now poised to strike at Europe,

Why would Stalin want to do that? The Russians only went to war to protect their Motherland against the Germans. If the Germans aren't going to invade then no causus belli.

You have been skipping your Comintern meetings, Comrade.

Excellent post Patrick, very well thought out and reasoned.

Judging by the ineptitude shown by the Red Army against the Finns, I find it hard to justify the claim he could have simply marched his way across Europe.

I am very much enjoying thinking about this scenario :-)
My initial thought and gut-feeling tells me that his attack would have faltered somewhere west of East Prussia and east of Berlin (Oder-Neisse rivers?) due to the lack of a highly mobile strike force or the Blitzkrieg doctrine. Also, industrial output in a communist economy might not have had the power to support a longer advance into Europe. Finally, keep in mind the Sovjets weren't particularly loved by Russians themselves. i am sure Stalin's enemies would have made his days very difficult.

In which scenario does he steamroll Europe? WW2 was fought on survival against the invader, and then revenge. I doubt the early Russian army would have tolerated the huge initial losses if they were invading someone else, repeat of 1917 IMHO.
On the defence they had short lines of supply, how would they have supported an attack? First couple of setbacks would have robbed them of most of their motorised capacity. Then they would be on the defensive with modern armies all across the front, rather than a German army that had lost some of its best troops and couldn't keep up production to reinforce them. Bomber Command would have had great fun with their factories, something else the Germans didn't have the capacity to do.

An interesting what-if. I don't see Stalin managing to get an invasion of the West organised; and a lot depends on exactly how Germany develops. Still:
Stalin would probably still have been able to gobble up the Baltic States without any more opposition than he received historically, but perhaps the West would have given proper support to Finland.
And what would have happened in Spain, with no German intervention?
Where is Mussolini after his defeat by the Greeks in Albania?
Rather than an all-out attack on the West, who would have gone to the aid of Poland had it been invaded by Stalin in order to re-instate the 1914 boundaries?
While there are too many variables amongst all this to say what would have happened, there is scope for a good number of what-if scenarios here.

The Russian army became as strong as it did because of Hitler – lots of Allied help and all the old outdated equipment swept away. However, it would be difficult to think about this one – Fascist Italy, for example, might have been allies rather than enemies, Spain may have been a Communist state or still Fascist with help from Britain and and France as well as Italy – who can tell? Poland would have been harder for Russia to crack and Finland will almost certainly have taken part…

Can't see it ending well for Russia.

So, Poland will not be as big of a cake walk for Russia as it was for German. I suspect they end up taking horrendous casualties in the initial invasion but weight of numbers will tell. The other Balkan states might stand up better but probably won't march quickly to war with Russia.

Germany will be allowed to re-arm but with what? With no arms research to speak of, German will probably be using French and British equipment. German Spitfires anyone?

American will not likely get into it with Russia until they've eliminated the Japanese threat in the Pacific. I presume Pearl Harbor still happens right? So don't expect to see Good Old USA in the fight in Europe until 1944 at least. Of course, by that time the combined might of Europe might send Russia packing. maybe there won't even be a Cold War…at least not with USSR anyway.

Stalin was as expansionist as anybody if not more so.
After all, the Workers of the World blah blah blah …

Being a realist, the hallmark of a true Communist , he realized that he had to rebuild the Red Army after the "necessary" purges. He would have been ready to march West by 1943.
Without Hitler would Germany have rearmed? Almost certainly. They were secretly rearming in the 1920s.

Without Hitler the official animosities may have been different , but all of Western Europe feared the Bolshevik menace.

So maybe the war starts on 1943 with all sides ready and the Bolshies have T34s ready to go.

Stalin had established "Socialism in one country" as the policy though. They weren't going to be exporting revolution anywhere past the old Russian borders (and as we know, it took ww2 to get the Red Army back into fighting shape in any event).

Want a war? Move it back to the 20's. Poland loses at the Vistula and the Reds sweep into Germany to help out in the civil strife going on there.

Red army, German communists, Anarchists, Freikorps, Western interventionists, lots of cool colourful armies you can build.

Use a random morale system, to simulate everyone being war weary and exhausted and you're good to go.

Bonus: You get to use WW1 tanks, cavalry and all that good stuff.

But if the soviets move westward and run into trouble, what about civil war erupting in France and England along the lines of what happened in Spain, in order to help out the comintern by the faithful?

"Stalin was as expansionist as anybody if not more so."

Nope the lad you want for that is Trotsky so a bit of a rewrite of Soviet history to enable the scenario.

Weasel is quite right 'Socialism in one country' was the hallmark of Stalin(ism).

I understood that Stalin was preparing to attack Germany in 1941 or 1942 as a pre-emptive strike as he was expecting a German invasion (Mein Kampf might have been a hint). Would he have attacked without the German menace? I think he would have eventually. He'd attacked Finland. He was prepared to take half of Poland. The USSR had spies in the west – including UK and USA.

Stalin attached Poland & Finland, so any talk of Stalin NOT seeking to be an expansionist is baseless. The big question is what happens to Germany without Hitler? They had superior Generals & better weapons if only they had the economy to support the war effort.

France is a real wildcard as they were on the verge of Communism anyway. IMHO only DeGaul stopped that from happening.

I can see a Soviet Offensive bogging down in Poland & Finland and the Soviets having time to develop better armaments before the Brits & Germans gather ample strength to attempt pushing them back. I see France sitting it out until their borders are compromised & Musolini could just as easily aligned himself with Stalin as he did Hitler.

This is a thought provoking scenario since most Soviet vs Western hypotheticals follow the "1947 Patton doctrine" of just continuing the end of the war against the Soviets.

Want a war? Move it back to the 20's.

I doubt Russia would be in any kind of shape to carry on a war so close to the end of the Russian revolution. To recap, they lost millions in WWI and then Fought the Revolution in their country. The people would not stand for another fight then.

Poland and Finland were both part of old Russian territories though.
Same for the Baltics.

(and in both cases, they relied (or tried, in the case of Finland) on political bullying to achieve their aims).

Another question is: What happens to everyone else in this time line?

Hitler wasn't the only fascist around, eastern Europe was rife with them.
If a war breaks out between Poland and the USSR (and well, it has to, you can't walk to Germany), will the Hungarians or Romanians get interested in snatching some pieces?

The Poles are in an interesting position as well as they hated both the Germans and Soviets.

Of course, without Hitler, what does happen to Germany? A liberal democratic government?
Another Authoritarian regime ala Hungary and Italy?
A socialist one?

Depending on the setup, you might end up with 3 or 4 smaller wars rather than 1 big one (which sounds like it'd make for a fun gaming campaign in any event).

Who asked this joker –

That's going to be the case at any time though. There's no realistic point in the actual time line before 1945 where the Red Army has the ability to invade Europe, like a video game.

So post-civil war seems the most realistic chance to have some fighting going on.
You are correct though, everyone would be miserable.

So post-civil war seems the most realistic chance to have some fighting going on.

I wonder though. I could only imagine that the new Russian government would be quite fragile. The economy is probably in the dumper. Even if they could control the people and make them go to war, I think that the 30s might be a better bet for them…after the new regime has really taken hold. Plus there was a power change with the death of Lenin in 1924. Stalin really did not take command of the Soviet Union until 1929. I suspect he would be the driving force of war.

Yeah, the Russians had very little ability to sustain an army that far in the field.

The economy was destroyed by the combination of ww1 and the civil war and what little production remained was solely dedicated to the fighting ("War communism").

By the 30's, everything is getting rebuilt, and you start seeing new weapons coming online but I just don't see Stalin being that adventurous until he was good and ready.

If WW2 doesn't kick off, I might say move it up to mid 40's instead.

But of course, that depends again on what happens elsewhere in Europe. I don't think another dust-up between Poland and the USSR would be an impossibility.

This question can support whatever answer you want it to be assuming that everyone had the same trajectory. What is the nature of Germany without Hitler? What if the Kaiser is returned as a unifying factor AGAINST the Communistss. More, with regard to Stalin, what Stalin is most interested in day and in and day you it seeing tomorrow. He's a murderous monster, but so are the rest of them around that table in the Politburo. The Soviet Union in 1939 is extraordinarily weak and as several have pointed out the Soviet Union of 1945 was the creation of World War two and the exigencies demanded. Had there been no Hitler, I doubt Soviet Development was not going to move on the same path.

You cannot talk therefore about the Soviet Union without talking about Hitler. Hitler stood out among the leaders of the time for one thing. He was prepared not to take half-measures. He was willing to take huge risks and make bold leaps which no one else at the time, including Stalin was willing to do. This does not mean these "bold leaps" were good, or regular and certainly many were reprehensible. However, they were BOLD measures where all the rest of the countries, including the Soviet union were gong to pursue purely reactionary (that is waiting on events rather than seizing the moment) and probably quarter measures and band aids.

The Second World War and the consequences of same was produced by a madman and when you have that any sort of dependable "What-IF" goes right out the window.

"So Russian Steamroller or paper tiger ?"

Neither. I think within their logistical competence the Russian mass, armor and artillery would be pretty good. I think by the time they reach France it will be a damned interesting fight. Interesting to see how fascist Italy would do as well.

Interesting to see how fascist Italy would do as well.

What a funny notion it would be too. "Italy! Our fascist allies!"

If WW2 doesn't kick off, I might say move it up to mid 40's instead.

I'm thinking the same thing now. Some historians thought Russia was building for an invasion of the West anyway. They thought it would have only been a matter of time. Hitler may have been thinking along the same lines.

2worldwar2.com/russia.htm

Interesting article on Stalin's plan to invade Germany.

Yeah course he would have. He would of used all those mamouth tanks and tesla coil…..

Russia fought best when her back is against the wall. Going on the offensive in a scenario without Hitler will be much more difficult. It's hard to imagine that the mobilization which occurred would happen to the same extent when Russia's very survival wasn't at stake.

Should note that there's significant disagreement over that
link
I'd certainly trust Glantz over Suvorov (and Glantz is hardly a commie apologist)
The problem is it becomes tied up in present day politics (at best) and some unsavoury types (at worst).

In any event though, the Soviets didn't have the material capacity to make such an attack, even if they had wanted to do so.

You ain't getting to Paris in those old T26 that were abandoned by their thousands :-)

For that matter, facing off against French armour in said T26 is going to be a very unpleasant day out for the Reds.

Without a Germany lead by The Mule, I think it's more likely there would have been a series of small wars similar to Finland and Poland (overwhelming Soviet forces invading isolated nations or regions to annex them or "assist" a communist uprising), a big proxy war in China (Japan vs. communists vs. nationalists), and likely a Second Russo-Japanese War. It seems to me that Stalin was content to grow his power slowly and consolidate it carefully, and preferred to wage wars with limited scope and predictable outcomes. He kept the power of his own military in check, and without a WWII there probably would have been more purges like the 30s eventually.

If things went just right, I could imagine a mid-20th C. war sort of like the Crimean War – bloody but localized to a few hot spots. The desire to limit Russian expansion is a permanent fixture in European politics, but everybody was still recovering from the Great War. That might make an interesting wargame.

I happen to think an RJW2 could make a very interesting "what if" wargame campaign, if narrated right. My money says the Soviets annex some land from China, maybe get Port Arthur back, but lose another whole navy to Japanese planes.

- Ix

It's also not impossible that France and Germany would have it out again.

Without a Germany lead by The Mule, I think it's more likely there would have been a series of small wars similar to Finland and Poland (overwhelming Soviet forces invading isolated nations or regions to annex them or "assist" a communist uprising), a big proxy war in China (Japan vs. communists vs. nationalists), and likely a Second Russo-Japanese War. It seems to me that Stalin was content to grow his power slowly and consolidate it carefully, and preferred to wage wars with limited scope and predictable outcomes. …

This is the best scenario described so far.

Despite what we all may think about Stalin's megalomaniacal tendancies, there is no historical evidence to support the thesis that he wanted to roll over western Europe.

He liked small wars. Short and predictable, where diplomacy could play a dominant role. His mistrust of his own military leadership bordered on paranoia. Military dominance was not high on his agenda. Diplomatic dominance was.

Just look at the pre-WW2 list of Soviet grabs:
Romania: took about 1/3 of the country (Bessarabia). Settled it diplomatically.
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania: OK he rolled over 'em. But it was a non-violet invasion (the Baltic people saw the writing on the wall), and still he set them up as separate Soviet republics. Very "diplomatic", not very "military".
Poland: He took about 1/3 of the country. If Germany had not grabbed the other 2/3rds, he probably would still have limited himself to that much, and reached a diplomatic solution. Playing Poles off against Romanians, while playing Romanians off against Hungarians, was very much in Stalin's style. He didn't want to take any of the balancing forces out of the equation.
Finland: He took a big bite out of the country, but as much as it cost him, when he had completely shattered the Finn's defenses and they were essentially helpless he settled diplomatically. He wanted to dominate Finland, not destroy it. That also explains his post-war treatment of the Finns.
Mongolia: He could easily have absorbed Mongolia, but he didn't. He fought the Japanese, and beat them soundly at Khalkin Ghol. He defended Mongolia, and dominated it, but he didn't absorb it.

Might Stalin have caused a war against a western European nation or two? Surely it was possible. But how could France or England, neither of which had anything resembling a modern offensive land war capability in 1940, have done anything to hurt Stalin?

Bomber command? It could just about reach Berlin and return. How you gonna get to Stalingrad or Moscow? One-way trips?

Royal Navy? Well yes, Stalin had no fleet worthy of the name to counter the RN. But he also had nothing to protect in the way of overseas possessions, and most of his trade came by rail, not ship. (Remember that whole "no year-round European ports" thing?).

If not for Germany, Stalin was well positioned to take a bite here, a bite there, again and again, keeping the major powers at bay, and expanding Soviet control and influence in a measured and reliable process over a period of decades. He didn't need a war with the West, he didn't want a war with the West, and he could have gotten what he wanted without a war with the West.

The challenge would not have been Stalin motivating Red Army troops to fight in some far-off campaign. Rather it would have been the UK or France motivating their own forces and electorate(and staying in office through the next electoral cycle) after sending troops to fight and die for Poland, Finland or Romania, when there was no danger to their homeland, and no casus belli between their own nations and the Soviet Union that might resonate with the common man.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

'What a funny notion it would be too. "Italy! Our fascist allies!" '

Actually not at all funny/strange. Quite a few people in the West would have supported Fascism – I think that, to a significant extent, the enemy was originally considered to be more Hitler than the Nazis in the same way as Napoleon had been in the Napoleonic wars, If Italy had been the dominant Fascist state with no Nazi/Hitlerian Germany then the main enemy would have been considered to be Communism. It is very unlikely, for example, that there would have been much in the way of persecution of the Jews. Italian Fascism would have been much more acceptable.

('No racial laws were promulgated in Fascist Italy prior to 1938. William Shirer in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich suggests that Mussolini may have enacted the laws to appease his powerful German allies, rather than to satisfy any anti-Semitic sentiment among the Italian people.' – link )

Mark (Mark 1), yours is a great, well thought, sound contribution. Very fine, very few things can be added to that.

Maybe something can be considered about Hungary and Germany. In the first, communism had briefly ruled after WWI; in the second, communism was a main contender for power. There were strong communist bases in many european countries, as France and Spain (most as war went on; no German intervention could further war and tip the balance against the rebels), even Britain…

More than soviet aggression, what can't be ruled out is communist takeovers by inner forces, and civil wars…

Hungary would fight for whoever promised it the most of its old territories back, pre-Trianon. Easy to imagine a joint Russian/Hungarian carve up of Romania, then with those returned, next step Slovakia.
Russia would then be a 'friend' of Hungary and an internal takeover would be on the cards.

A third (fourth? I lose track) Balkan / East European war might not be off the books in such a scenario either.

Between the world wars, Poland, Romania and Czechoslovakia were allied in a 'Little Entente' that was supported by France. This alliance was intended both to prevent a German resurgence, and as a bulwark against Communist expansion.

The Hungarians had suppressed a Communist revolution post-WWI, shedding blood in both red and white terrors. It's hard for me to imagine Regent Horthy cutting a deal with Stalin, or being overthrown by Communist fellow-travellers.

Nazi German re-armament was rushed and economically unsustainable, requiring immediate conquests to prevent economic collapse. A non-Nazi German government would have rearmed much more slowly.

In our timeline, the Little Entente was undermined when Britain and France refused to back Czechoslovakia in a war with Germany. In an alternate timeline, a war between the Little Entente states and the USSR would be interesting and open-ended at the grand strategic level:

If the USSR attacked Poland, would Romania join the war? To what degree would Czechoslovakia participate? How much support would France provide? What would Germany and Hungary do? Could be a verrry interesstink Axis & Allies scenario.

This is a fantasy scenario.

Stalin has nowt to gain and everything to lose.

The Red Army without WW2 and lend lease is pretty rubbish – BIG but rubbish. Poland and the Baltic states plus Finland – OK that kind of makes sense and is not a big logistic stretch but Germany? Not unless it were to preempt a German attack.

That said – there is nothing wrong with fantasy scenarios.

Wait. 1936 soviet army was not rubbish. Even 1939 soviet army was not rubbish. Darn, ' 1941 soviet army was not rubbish. It was ill managed, both in Finland and in the nazi invasion. But its resources were good. In 39, T26, BT and bigger tanks were good both in number and in quality when compared to other european states, even Germany. Soviet aviation had good machines too. Soldiers were not badly equipped. Bad management was the soviet's doom, not bad equipment or quality.

No Hitler does not mean worse red army; soviet improvement before 1942 was not in response to nazis but in self development. T34 did n't depend on nazis, it would have happenned anyways. And, apart from Hotler's nazi Germany, no other state except for France had anything comparable to soviet army resources. Also attacking Finland was going to be a difficult thing not only for the USSR; any other european state would have had a very rough treatment.

IIRC when nazi Germany mutilated Czechoslovakia everybody was after a piece of the cake, including not only Hungary but Poland too. With no nazi Germany pressing for lebensraum, no agreement to "defend" Poland would bring the UK to war, and nobody would risk war with the USSR for some territorial claims on Finland, or the return of old Russian territories to the (now soviet) fold.Italy meddling in the Mediterranean could be more of a worry for both British and French, along the situation in Spain and Germany regarding communism growing, with an ongoing war in the latter and a possible one in the former. Also eastern european states going to war between themselves could prompt communist uprisings…

"Stalin was as expansionist as anybody if not more so.
After all, the Workers of the World blah blah blah …"

The basic premise here is flawed. The concept of exporting communism around the world died with Trotsky (there is reason he got an icepick in the head…).

Yes, Stalin was quite happy to grab odd bits of land around Russia, but not to take on all the western powers. So, in the absence of Hitler he would probably still try and grab the bits he did (Finland, eastern Rumania, the Baltic States etc). Look at a map to see why, particularly a map showing the boundaries of Tsarist Russia.

The people he really, really had a beef with were the Poles (see map of Tsarist Russia again), so yes, it is entirely likely he would have attacked Poland at some point.

Putin probably has a map of Tsarist Russia on his wall too.

I agree 'rubbish' exaggerates the situation but it was not well organized and IMO would have been incapable of any sustained offensive action without the experience of the Great Patriotic War and the logistical support of lend lease. Trucks especially. Without all those trucks the Soviets would likely not have made it into Poland before the Western Allies got to Berlin.

BTW – All interwar armies were pretty 'rubbish'- not just the Soviet Army. They'd had almost 20 years to atrophy and were mostly not getting the support and funding. France is the exception – but they had issues with organization and doctrine too. The US army during the interwar period was just ridiculously small and weak.

The Red Army steamroller over-ran eastern Poland quickly and efficiently in 1939. I don't recall stories of Russian tanks broken down by the side of the road or airplanes falling from the sky. Of course, if the Poles had been able to fight a single-front war against the Russians, the Reds would have had a real fight on their hands.

Nobody has mentioned the polish-soviet war of 1920. Poland won. That's why they weren't goin to invade in the 20s. Because they got their a## kicked already.

We british nearly went to war in support of the plucky finns anyhow. It's pretty much a given with no nasty nazis we'd have got involved in that one.

The nazis were remarkably bad at organising stuff. What with being routinely corrupt and favour orientated. Less wasteage on weird weapons seems likely. The german war machines could well be better designs. If they make them in time. No dictator to push re-armament through could be a bit of a downside.