glenn239 wrote: ↑
21 Dec 2019 16:43
ljadw wrote: ↑
21 Dec 2019 08:30
1 There was no Cold War in 1940
The Cold War between the Soviet Union and the USA was inevitable. You believe that a stronger USSR than historical, (not gutted by invasion) with a German and potentially Japanese ally, would be less
inclined to engage in establishing communist regimes throughout the European empires?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Sov ... on_of_Iran
2 It was impossible for the SU to intervene in the ME with 100 divisions because of logistical reasons : no country could operate in the ME with 100 divisions .
Even reeling from the body blows of Barbarossa, the Soviet Union was able to invade Iran with 3 armies spearheaded by 1,000 tanks.
The British, OTOH, managed just 3 divisions and 2.5 brigades. Without Barbarossa I'm assuming the Soviets could have easily doubled their establishment to 6 armies and 2,000 tanks. The idea the British could have stopped an invasion of that
magnitude (historical or ahistorical) is patently absurd.
3 There was no reason for Stalin to occupy a big region inhabited by anti communist Muslims : see what happened in Afghanistan ,besides Stalin had already enough troubles with the Muslims in the SU .
Ljadw, the idea that the Soviet Union had no interest in securing the oil fields of Iraq, Iran and Kuwait, and the Persian Gulf has to be the most infeasible suggestion imaginable.
1 There was no Cold War in 1940 .That there was one in 1948 is no proof that there was one in 1940 : situations were totally different.And if nazi Germany was an ally, the SU would be contained .Here also your argument is flawed : the SU could only occupy Eastern Europe because it was invaded by Germany and because it defeated Germany .
2 Three or 6 armies are not 100 divisions ,and your assumption is wrong : without the German invasion, the SU would not have the needed forces to invade Iran, neither would it invade Iran : it invaded Iran because the Shah was suspected of German sympathies . If there was no war with Germany, the sympathies of the Shah would be irrelevant .Without Barbarossa, no 3 Soviet armies to invade Iran .
That Britain would not be able to stop the Soviet invasion of Iran is irrelevant, as without war with Germany, the oil of Iran would not be important for Britain .
3 There were no oilfields in Kuweit or the Persian Gulf in 1940. Thus another reason for the SU not to invade Iran . Besides, the SU did not need the oil of the ME .
In the OTL,peace before 1939, the SU did not invade the ME . There is no serious reason why the SU would do it in an ATL during a war .
The truth is that Stalin did not invade a capitalist country,did not threaten Western interests before,during and even after WWII .
Reasons : the SU was still to weak,Stalin feared a coalition between Britain and Germany when he attacked ONE of both . He knew that the Wallies, Japan and Germany intervened during the Russian civil war to eliminate communism . The last thing he wanted was to provoke another intervention .
He did not intervene in the ME,he did not intervene in Afghanistan/India, he did not intervene in Eastern Europe : he did not invade Romania in 1940,what he could have done easily. he did not invade Greece in 1945,what he could have done easily .
The motto of Stalin was : socialism in one country . And ,without Barbarossa, he would have remained neutral and made money by selling war materials on both parties, as did Sweden, Switserland, Portugal and Spain .