Stalin and War

Stalin was paranoid about the Communist Party, the Red Army and the Soviet People even before you start worrying about foreigners. In that kind of climate you only do things when your extremely confident your going to win since any failure risks your position, your life and arguably the Soviet state, depending on whether you think Stalin had any loyalty to that. I think some of the attempts to "cut out" if you will Stalin from the Communist ideal does bely that he saw himself as the vanguard of a Communist movement and foremost defender of Lenin's legacy. He didn't see himself as merely a trumped up party boss who had somehow got above middle brutality.

Obviously you can make mistakes, the Winter War for one, but arguably a belief the Finns would capitulate wasn't unreasonable, the Baltic states had done so after all, and certainly it was difficult to imagine they would defend themselves so well and the Red Army would perform so badly.

So Stalin would be happy to gobble up Poland, so long as Germany was so weak they couldn't simply storm across the frontier to fight the Red Army, backed by British and French capital and other forces. The anti-Bolshevik crusade might look a bit silly given OTL, but its not that hard to imagine, certainly if Stalin were to rather inexplicably try it in the late 30's before western attitudes on Hitler had begun to sour. I don't think the German government would ever appear that weak unless it was wracked by civil war. Hostile Soviet actions would almost surely act to solidify a rightist German Government. With that in mind a Soviet invasion of Europe seems unlikely.
 
Originally posted by Dr Pervez Hoodboy
Poland started the war. Bolshevik Russia almost won it.

Not exactly. You probably mean Polish march to Kiev in 1920. However, Polish-Bolshevik conflict started in 1919, after the withdrawal of the Germans, when Poles pushed east, and Bolsheviks pushed west. Frankly, nobody is sure who actually started shooting, but when Piłsudski started his offensive in 1920, the Bolsheviks were already gathering forces against Poland.
However, you can not exactly blame Stalin for that war. At that time he was quite high in bolsheviks herarchy, but not high enough to make such big decisions. And the fact he supported it? Well, how could he not, if he wanted to survive?
 
I think we need to rewrok this idea of cautious, cool Stalin. This was the man who:

-Supported the invasion of Poland in 1920
-Supported the creation of a North Persian Soviet puppet
-Supporting the GMD in China to destroy British rule in Asia
-Supported a coup in Estonia in the 1920s
-Supported a coup in Germany.
-Blockaded Berlin, at a time when the US had a nuclear monopoly.
-Started the Korean War.
But when did Stalin ever risk the survival of the Soviet state by initiating total war with a major power?

Hitler did it four times. Went to war with France, Britain, USSR, and the USA. The latter he casually disregarded as decadent and weak, seemingly without doing any homework on its industrial might. There is no way Stalin would be that crazy. Stalin's biggest miscalculation was believing Hitler wasn't stupid enough to attack him.
 
No, but we know he supported them.

True, but had he any option if he wanted to be both alive an in charge?

Still, there is a tendency to overestimate cautiousness and wisdom of great comrade Stalin. He had made plenty of mistakes, it just happened that none of them were fatal. To him.

On the other hand, he was more cautious and wiser (or more cunning) comparing to some other prominent bolsheviks starting with Trotsky, who wanted a World Revolution and were critically unable to do anything constructive, however brilliant they may be on destruction.
 
I think we need to rewrok this idea of cautious, cool Stalin. This was the man who:

-Supported the invasion of Poland in 1920
-Supported the creation of a North Persian Soviet puppet
-Supporting the GMD in China to destroy British rule in Asia
-Supported a coup in Estonia in the 1920s
-Supported a coup in Germany.
-Blockaded Berlin, at a time when the US had a nuclear monopoly.
-Started the Korean War.

Note how in all of those cases he worked indirectly, with the only exception of 1920 - a time when every major power was tired with war. The Berlin blockade was brinkmanship, neither outright war nor a coup; and it would have left the burden of firing the first shot on the other party.


Hrmm. While this is how Hitler saw it, it doesn't seem like autarky itself was meritless in the 1930s. And since the rest of the great powers had vast hinterlands to fall back on...

The British and French metropolitan areas had no hinterland per se, they depended on food imports. From overseas (be it their own empire or elsewhere) = vulnerable to submarines, as amply demonstrated. Ditto for Japan. The Soviet Union was a great power but it barely qualified as an advanced industrial country. So I stand by my count; most of those (i.e. with the exception of the USA) imported food from overseas.

As to the merits of autarky, they exist when you want to have your hands free for making war, or at least for taking aggressive stances - as mentioned. Otherwise, trade has its merits.
 
True, but had he any option if he wanted to be both alive an in charge?

Still, there is a tendency to overestimate cautiousness and wisdom of great comrade Stalin. He had made plenty of mistakes,

Cautiousness and wisdom are not the same, and among those who credit him for his cautiousness there are those who can see that distinction.
 

Faeelin

Banned
But when did Stalin ever risk the survival of the Soviet state by initiating total war with a major power?

Arguably he risked the survival of the Soviet state by planning on Germany and the west to exhaust each other, but that's a different story. And this is why I find the idea of Stalin as this brilliant sage a bit odd.

Then there was the whole Locarno War Scare.

Stalin wasn't reckless, but his paranoia could and did work against him.
 

Faeelin

Banned
Note how in all of those cases he worked indirectly, with the only exception of 1920 - a time when every major power was tired with war. The Berlin blockade was brinkmanship, neither outright war nor a coup; and it would have left the burden of firing the first shot on the other party.

It wasn't outright war, but it was fairly clearly a hostile act that could have led to war, and almost did. Likewise, Korean escelation doesn't seem improbable, IMO...

The British and French metropolitan areas had no hinterland per se, they depended on food imports. From overseas (be it their own empire or elsewhere) = vulnerable to submarines, as amply demonstrated. Ditto for Japan. The Soviet Union was a great power but it barely qualified as an advanced industrial country. So I stand by my count; most of those (i.e. with the exception of the USA) imported food from overseas.

As to the merits of autarky, they exist when you want to have your hands free for making war, or at least for taking aggressive stances - as mentioned. Otherwise, trade has its merits.

I suppose I'm not really clear; given the protectionism of the 1930s by America, Britain, and France, it was inevitable that Germany could try to carve out an economic empire of its own in Europe.
 
Yes Stalin was a really opportunistic mass-murder, he was paranoid ... but his fanatism was diffferent from Hitler. For him humans were only tools which he can use, forget or throw away, this attitude leads to a more pragmatic (excuse the term) way of handling situations. He had good reasons not to start a war in the west, first the danger of japan, second he hopes the Nazi-beast and the decadent imperial powers of the west will destroy each other, so he can take over the devasted countries after such an war of the knife, he wants to take a seat, drink a glass of wodka and look on the game.
 
Stalin was coming west some time in the Late 40s early 50s.

I think it's more realistic to assume that Stalin would have tried to create/setup "communist uprising" in France, Germany, etc - than to directly attack major European powers (as mentioned, Stalin usually only attacked if his chances of winning were high).


_
 
Top