The spread of Communism in a scenario without the Fall of France?

[Futurist]

How (as in, to where) would Communism spread in a scenario where France wouldn't have fallen in 1940 (or later)? In such a scenario, the Soviet Union would have presumably still expanded into the Baltic countries, parts of Finland, western Belarus, western Ukraine, Bessarabia, and Bukovina, but where else (other than Tannu Tuva, which was annexed by the Soviet Union in 1944 in real life) could Communism have expanded to in this scenario, either in the form of a direct Soviet annexation or in the form of another independent Communist state, whether as a Soviet vassal or as being genuinely independent from the Soviet Union?

If Stalin would have, for instance, decided to enter World War II on the Anglo-French side in this scenario, could he have been able to get away with conquering Poland, Czechoslovakia, and eastern Germany and installing Communist regimes there? Or would the Anglo-French have been willing to go to war with Stalin--after they would have been done fighting the Germans, of course--in order to prevent the installation of Communist regimes in these places? In real life, the US and West were willing to allow Stalin to get away with doing this, but would the Anglo-French have actually had the same attitude towards this in this scenario? And what about Hungary? Stalin would be able to get Hungary to give up Subcarpathian Ruthenia to him under the threat of a Soviet invasion, wouldn't he? Though Stalin might have to leave the rest of Hungary--as well as Romania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia--alone since he wouldn't have a sufficient casus belli to conquer and occupy them in their entirety like he was able to do in real life. I also wonder whether the Anglo-French would have been more willing to allow Stalin to make a move on northeastern Turkey (Kars region, et cetera) after the end of World War II in comparison to the Americans in real life. In real life, Stalin made such a territorial claim but US opposition and presumably fear of war with the US caused Stalin to refrain from ever actually escalating this confrontation. But Yeah, if the Anglo-French will not be willing to fight Stalin over northeastern Turkey, then he might very well be able to conquer it and annex it to the Soviet Union:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 5-1953.png



And of course there is the question of China, Korea, and French Indochina: Just how much aid will the Soviet Union decide to give to the Communists in these countries/regions in the absence of a Japanese invasion of French Indochina and in the absence of Pearl Harbor and a US-Japan Pacific War? Their success might very well depend on just how much aid the Soviet Union would actually be willing to give them. And if there is some success, would Korea and/or Vietnam still get partitioned into a Communist north and a non-Communist south? Or would there have been some other arrangement here? And would the Soviet Union have ever actually conquered northern Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands from Japan in this scenario?

Any thoughts on all of this?

[wm]

Stalin wasn't going to join any wars - that would be highly unreasonable as gains were uncertain and risks huge.

We can maneuver, pit one side against the other to set them fighting with each other as fiercely as possible.
The non-aggression pact is to a certain degree helping Germany.
Next time we’ll urge on the other side.

That was the proper way to do it.

Of course, France and Britain weren't going to defend Poland against the Soviets. They literally wrote that in the military treaties signed with Poland.

[Futurist]

Stalin wasn't going to join any wars - that would be highly unreasonable as gains were uncertain and risks huge.

We can maneuver, pit one side against the other to set them fighting with each other as fiercely as possible.
The non-aggression pact is to a certain degree helping Germany.
Next time we’ll urge on the other side.

That was the proper way to do it.

Would the same logic apply in Asia? Or would he be willing to fund Communist movements there?

Of course, France and Britain weren't going to defend Poland against the Soviets. They literally wrote that in the military treaties signed with Poland.

They probably didn't envision the Soviet Union conquering ALL OF Poland when they made these agreements with Poland, though!

[Futurist]

Stalin wasn't going to join any wars - that would be highly unreasonable as gains were uncertain and risks huge.

We can maneuver, pit one side against the other to set them fighting with each other as fiercely as possible.
The non-aggression pact is to a certain degree helping Germany.
Next time we’ll urge on the other side.

That was the proper way to do it.

Of course, France and Britain weren't going to defend Poland against the Soviets. They literally wrote that in the military treaties signed with Poland.

BTW, do you see Stalin laying a claim on Kars region in Turkey? If so, would the Anglo-French be willing to use military force to back up Turkey in this dispute like the US apparently was after the end of World War II in real life?

[wm]

Turkey was the guardian of the strategic Dardanelles, the Allies wouldn't allow something bad to happen to it.

The key tenant of Marxism was that sufficiently advanced capitalism would lead to revolutions and socialism. There was no need for aggression because, according to natural laws, we would be all socialists in the end anyway.
All that was deadly serious stuff, the Soviet-Sino split happened when Mao said it wasn't entirely true.

So Stalin was ready to fund communist movements everywhere but he wasn't going to pull their chestnuts out of the fire. It was costly and actually wasn't needed.

[Futurist]

Turkey was the guardian of the strategic Dardanelles, the Allies wouldn't allow something bad to happen to it.

The key tenant of Marxism was that sufficiently advanced capitalism would lead to revolutions and socialism. There was no need for aggression because, according to natural laws, we would be all socialists in the end anyway.
All that was deadly serious stuff, the Soviet-Sino split happened when Mao said it wasn't entirely true.

So Stalin was ready to fund communist movements everywhere but he wasn't going to pull their chestnuts out of the fire. It was costly and actually wasn't needed.

That's why I'm talking about a limited Soviet conquest and annexation of Kars region here. The Straits would be left alone. Stalin had no problems with aggression against neighboring countries in real life, as 1939-1940 shows. But this aggression was often of a modest and limited character.

[wm]

I meant the usual costly, because of the resulting war, aggression.

A limited conquest was out of the question too. The Allies wouldn't allow Turkey to be weakened, humiliated. See what happened to Hungary post-Trianon, the country lost its soul.
The Turks could have rejected the secularists and ties with the West, could have succumbed to communism or fundamentalism.

[Futurist]

I meant the usual costly, because of the resulting war, aggression.

A limited conquest was out of the question too. The Allies wouldn't allow Turkey to be weakened, humiliated. See what happened to Hungary post-Trianon, the country lost its soul.
The Turks could have rejected the secularists and ties with the West, could have succumbed to communism or fundamentalism.

The Anglo-French would have been willing to allow Stalin to conquer the Baltic countries and to take territory at Finland's, Poland's, and Romania's expense, though. Why is Turkey cardinally different from these other countries?

[wm]

The strait is one of the most important strategic points on this planet. It keeps Russia in a bottle.
Because the Allies ruled the waves they could have easily inflicted crushing defeats on the Russians there.
That couldn't be done in Eastern Europe, and Eastern Europe, especially the Baltic countries, weren't that important.

[Futurist]

The strait is one of the most important strategic points on this planet. It keeps Russia in a bottle.
Because the Allies ruled the waves they could have easily inflicted crushing defeats on the Russians there.
That couldn't be done in Eastern Europe, and Eastern Europe, especially the Baltic countries, weren't that important.

Yes, but again, Kars region != the Straits. Russia won't get the Straits even if it does, in fact, get Kars region.

See the orange area on my map way above in this thread? That's Kars region. Rather far from the Straits, no?

[wm]

The Turks, the people themselves are not going to accept such a calamity, especially after all the calamities they experienced during the Ottoman Contraction.
If the major powers won't protect their rights they will become hostile to them, they won't cooperate anymore, they switch their allegiance to somebody else.
The straights were important because Russian warships weren't allowed to cross them, that would have changed overnight.

[Futurist]

The Turks, the people themselves are not going to accept such a calamity, especially after all the calamities they experienced during the Ottoman Contraction.
If the major powers won't protect their rights they will become hostile to them, they won't cooperate anymore, they switch their allegiance to somebody else.
The straights were important because Russian warships weren't allowed to cross them, that would have changed overnight.

So, you're saying that the Anglo-French will have to fight for Kars because otherwise the Turks would end up souring on the Anglo-French?

[wm]

Of course, didn't the Crimean War happen for the same reasons?
They didn't have to fight but at least strong political and military support is needed.

[Futurist]

Of course, didn't the Crimean War happen for the same reasons?
They didn't have to fight but at least strong political and military support is needed.

Yeah, the Crimean War sort-of happened for similar reasons.

And Yeah, makes sense. Meanwhile, I guess that Bessarabia, Bukovina, the Kresy, the Baltic countries, and southeastern Finland simply weren't as important to the Anglo-French as Turkey was, right?