Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stalin invades Romania & Iran, instead of Finland

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Anacreon View Post
    The difference is that Japan was, at least initially, viewed positively as a liberator who'd help rid the area of European influence. The SU was viewed as the enemy by these countries you so cavalierly recruit.
    It is irrelevant how much you appreciate or hate the aggressor invading your neighbor, the relevant fact is whether you are more likely to oppose a steamroller or to benefit from it. Thailand had the option to fight a small Japanese force along with China, Burma, etc, with British and American help, but knew that it would be isolated and defeated or at best become the battleground for years. The US, Britain, India, China, etc, are far more formidable enemies than the Japanese engaged in several fronts, yet certain defeat in the short term is hard to accept, even if there is victory atfter years. Thailand became an immediate enemy of the allies. In contrast, by invading Romania, Hungary is not antagonizing Germany but cooperating with its only de facto ally and benefitting just as Thailand did. Thailand also received some Ki 27s, etc, from Japan.

    Comment


    • The eventual invasion of Austria by the Balkan nations, Italy and the USSR. makes them Britain's allies.

      Historically, Hungary joined Germany reluctantly and not on 22 June, 1941, despite Germany occupying Yugoslavia and being allied with Italy, Finland and Romania (a very strong position opposing only the USSR).
      In contrast, Hungary, Italy and Yugoslavia invading Austria and Bohemia (without any German allies whatsoever) as part of a very powerful coalition that immediately includes Britain makes much more sense than attacking the mighty, huge USSR and antagonizing Britain.
      Last edited by Draco; 11 Sep 14, 12:54.

      Comment


      • Since the USSR has an alliance with Finland, it can afford to send some troops to northern Norway (where Germany has a very difficult time supplying troops, etc, and Norwegian resistance can help the Soviet advance). This allows British troops to land in Norway to advance south and British and Soviet planes to operate from Norwegian bases. Forcing Hitler to further dilute his forces and making KM operations more difficult.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Draco View Post
          It is irrelevant how much you appreciate or hate the aggressor invading your neighbor, the relevant fact is whether you are more likely to oppose a steamroller or to benefit from it. Thailand had the option to fight a small Japanese force along with China, Burma, etc, with British and American help, but knew that it would be isolated and defeated or at best become the battleground for years. The US, Britain, India, China, etc, are far more formidable enemies than the Japanese engaged in several fronts, yet certain defeat in the short term is hard to accept, even if there is victory atfter years. Thailand became an immediate enemy of the allies. In contrast, by invading Romania, Hungary is not antagonizing Germany but cooperating with its only de facto ally and benefitting just as Thailand did. Thailand also received some Ki 27s, etc, from Japan.
          And what happens to Hungary when Germany attacks the Soviet Union and starts crushing their remaining (and much weaker) forces in Poland and the Baltic not to mention massing on Hungary's border with Germany and now facing invasion and conquest by Germany?
          The US and Britain were thousands of miles away from Thailand not next door. Japan had taken a good chunk of China and had effectively seized French Indo-China. Japan was also giving Thailand back parts of Laos and Cambodia that were thought traditionally part of Thailand.
          Stalin and the Soviet union on the other hand proved repeatedly up to the point of departure to be far more virulent in land grabs. They annexed anything taken eventually. They forced regime changes on countries they occupied almost immediately. They stationed large masses of troops in those countries to ensure their "loyalty" to Moscow.
          Any European leader could easily see that siding with the Soviet Union would mean certain loss of office and the occupation and potentially even the loss of their nation.
          Germany on the other hand only took and occupied nations who opposed them. Allies like Italy would not be facing a forced German occupation and regime change like Stalin would demand then force on them.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Draco View Post
            Since the USSR has an alliance with Finland, it can afford to send some troops to northern Norway (where Germany has a very difficult time supplying troops, etc, and Norwegian resistance can help the Soviet advance). This allows British troops to land in Norway to advance south and British and Soviet planes to operate from Norwegian bases. Forcing Hitler to further dilute his forces and making KM operations more difficult.
            How could the Soviet Union force Finland into an alliance? That was what the Winter War was about. The Soviets wanted to occupy certain parts of Finland with troops. Finland refused.

            So, this is utter fantasy. You stated no Winter War so no Finnish participation. They would be neutral.
            Norway is likewise neutral. They wouldn't help the Soviets for a second. If the Soviets got to put troops in Norway they'd take the country and install a Communist puppet government.
            Isn't happening either.
            Total drivel on your part. And, as I said before just because you say it doesn't make it true.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
              And what happens to Hungary when Germany attacks the Soviet Union and starts crushing their remaining (and much weaker) forces in Poland and the Baltic not to mention massing on Hungary's border with Germany and now facing invasion and conquest by Germany?
              The US and Britain were thousands of miles away from Thailand not next door. Japan had taken a good chunk of China and had effectively seized French Indo-China. Japan was also giving Thailand back parts of Laos and Cambodia that were thought traditionally part of Thailand.
              Stalin and the Soviet union on the other hand proved repeatedly up to the point of departure to be far more virulent in land grabs. They annexed anything taken eventually. They forced regime changes on countries they occupied almost immediately. They stationed large masses of troops in those countries to ensure their "loyalty" to Moscow.
              Any European leader could easily see that siding with the Soviet Union would mean certain loss of office and the occupation and potentially even the loss of their nation.
              Germany on the other hand only took and occupied nations who opposed them. Allies like Italy would not be facing a forced German occupation and regime change like Stalin would demand then force on them.
              Again, on May 21, Hungary is not antagonizing Germany by invading Romania alonside Germany's ally and in the Soviet area of influence. Romania is actually a French ally and not a German ally (historically it only became one when Stalin occupied only part of Romania after France had fallen). Stalin and Horthy are not doing anything openly against Germany.

              Just like You do, Hitler is sure that regardless of the allies he has and the land occupied by the USSR, his will will cause the rotten building to collapse with a kick anyway, just like Holland has collapsed and Belgium and France are collapsing at the time. The idiot wanted to turn against the USSR immediately after the fall of France. When France fell his Generals had to explain that the Panzers had to be repaired and much more armament and munitions had to be produced and troops trained and that it was too late in the year in order to mobilize and attack the USSR.


              Thailand is nexdoor to Burma, Malaya and China and close to India, Ceylon and Philippines, so it risked a lot by joining the Japanese against the allies nextdoor. Thailand's tiny population is a joke compaired to China's, India's, the Philippines', DEI's, etc, and the tiny Japanese industry was a joke compaired to British and American industry. It makes much less sense for Thailand to join Japan than for Hungary, Yugoslavia, Italy, etc, to join the USSR and Britain and receive American help.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                How could the Soviet Union force Finland into an alliance? That was what the Winter War was about. The Soviets wanted to occupy certain parts of Finland with troops. Finland refused.

                So, this is utter fantasy. You stated no Winter War so no Finnish participation. They would be neutral.
                Norway is likewise neutral. They wouldn't help the Soviets for a second. If the Soviets got to put troops in Norway they'd take the country and install a Communist puppet government.
                Isn't happening either.
                Total drivel on your part. And, as I said before just because you say it doesn't make it true.
                Stalin's idea of putting troops in Finland without a German attack was absurd. I specified a mutual assistance alliance in case of a German invasion. The French and British had no troops in Poland, yet they guaranteed Poland's independence by fighting Germany at the same time that Poland did. Stalin should have pursued a similar alliance with Finland, instead of trying to occupy it for free. He does so in this scenario.

                Historically Stalin did not install a puppet communist government in Austria or even in Finland (which could not have stopped him in 1944), because it was outside his sphere of influence, he has no interest in holding on to Norway. He's only attacking there to bring British troops into the war against Germany (since they're not fighting in Africa, the army is not fighting at all). As soon as Britain is firmly established in Norway, Stalin will wthdraw.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Draco View Post
                  Stalin's idea of putting troops in Finland without a German attack was absurd. I specified a mutual assistance alliance in case of a German invasion. The French and British had no troops in Poland, yet they guaranteed Poland's independence by fighting Germany at the same time that Poland did. Stalin should have pursued a similar alliance with Finland, instead of trying to occupy it for free. He does so in this scenario.
                  Draco, you should read more and type less. In the words of a famous sage, "It is best to be silent, and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt." The crap you post is ridiculous.

                  In this case, you show you know nothing of Finland or the political reality of the period. Mannerheim was in charge. He was a White Russian officer, profoundly anti-Bolshevik, and there is no chance, zero, that he would ever consent to a deal with Stalin.

                  Regards
                  Scott Fraser
                  Ignorance is not the lack of knowledge. It is the refusal to learn.

                  A contentedly cantankerous old fart

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Draco View Post
                    Stalin's idea of putting troops in Finland without a German attack was absurd. I specified a mutual assistance alliance in case of a German invasion. The French and British had no troops in Poland, yet they guaranteed Poland's independence by fighting Germany at the same time that Poland did. Stalin should have pursued a similar alliance with Finland, instead of trying to occupy it for free. He does so in this scenario.
                    As others and I have pointed out Finland would never have agreed unless it was forced on them. Stalin didn't guarantee any nation's independence in making treaties. He either occupied them outright and then made them puppet states or he made agreements with other larger nations to allow neutrality where he couldn't get occupation accomplished.

                    Historically Stalin did not install a puppet communist government in Austria or even in Finland (which could not have stopped him in 1944), because it was outside his sphere of influence, he has no interest in holding on to Norway. He's only attacking there to bring British troops into the war against Germany (since they're not fighting in Africa, the army is not fighting at all). As soon as Britain is firmly established in Norway, Stalin will wthdraw.
                    Austria was within the Western sphere of influence and Stalin had no choice but to agree to neutrality because to occupy it would have caused a war with the US and Britain, something he couldn't afford in 1945.
                    Finland is the same way. They agreed to neutrality following WW 2 after being forced to surrender to the Soviet Union. They did oppose any occupation by Soviet troops and that is the only thing that kept them from becoming another communist state in the Warsaw pact. In 1944 Finland was a distraction from finishing Germany. The Soviets couldn't afford the manpower and divisions necessary to make a forced offensive military occupation of Finland. It was easier to just let them surrender, kick the Germans out, and remain neutral.
                    Between Sweden (neutral) and Finland there was a substantial buffer between the West and NATO and the Soviet Union. It was economically, politically, and militarily smart to not occupy them.
                    Yugoslavia likewise avoided that fate by barring Soviet occupation.
                    If Stalin could have moved in on Norway he'd have occupied it and then installed a Communist government just as he did in every other state he occupied.
                    What you propose is not alternate history but counter factual alternate universe history where Stalin and the Soviets are not the same person and state they are in this universe.

                    This is alternate history not counter factual alternate universe history.

                    Comment


                    • As has been pointed out, Finland is a staunch neutral. In the OTL Finland refused to accept Soviet terms because to do so would violate her declared neutrality. Finland lived up to those priciples and risked war.

                      Simply refusing to recognise that Hungary would never, not even for a moment, consider an alliance with the SU with German on her doorstep does not make this reality go away. The Soviet Union is attacking a "declared" German sphere of influence and the only major source of German oil. Any hostile minor state between Germany and Ploesti was going to pay the piper. Germany was not fully commited in the west. The OKH reserves was fully capable of deploying to the Hungarian border and 'correcting' the Hungarian attitude if this is required.

                      Italy, under Mussolini, is also never going to accept an alliance with the USSR. The idea is ridiculous. Nor would the onarchies of Bulgaria, Greece or Yugoslavia. They were all "monarchies", not something the communist system was going to let stand.

                      The idea of a Soviet attack on Romania is not totally unrealistic but all of Europe uniting under the Red Banner is nonsense. The firts Soviet boot into Modavia would probably see the Hungarians join Romania, under German guidance, in exchange for Transylvannia just as in the OTL. The Red Army might make it to Bucherest but they would find themselves struggling to go much further with no guarantee that Romania would surrender if the city did fall. Not with German troops arriving as well as beginning operations in the north.

                      One cannot simply waive off the challenges faced by the Red Army in 1940 any more than one could assume the Germans could defeat the Soviet attack without a good deal of fighting.

                      I will state it again - scenarios must remain within the realm of possibility or they simply degenerate into nonsense.
                      The Purist

                      Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Draco View Post
                        Again, on May 21, Hungary is not antagonizing Germany by invading Romania alonside Germany's ally and in the Soviet area of influence. Romania is actually a French ally and not a German ally (historically it only became one when Stalin occupied only part of Romania after France had fallen). Stalin and Horthy are not doing anything openly against Germany.
                        It doesn't matter what Hungary is or is not doing. If they throw in with Stalin and Germany wants to secure their oil supply from Romania then they are a door mat. You are oblivious to that fact. Hungary has two realistic choices here: Join Germany as an ally, even a reluctant one, or be a door mat. Stalin will use them as one and so will Germany.
                        The difference is that Germany won't overthrow the government and occupy the county if Hungary is allied with them.
                        Germany won't see Stalin's move that way. They will see Stalin has violated the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty and has also violated in effect the Soviet-German non-aggression pact. The Germans will attack.

                        Just like You do, Hitler is sure that regardless of the allies he has and the land occupied by the USSR, his will will cause the rotten building to collapse with a kick anyway, just like Holland has collapsed and Belgium and France are collapsing at the time. The idiot wanted to turn against the USSR immediately after the fall of France. When France fell his Generals had to explain that the Panzers had to be repaired and much more armament and munitions had to be produced and troops trained and that it was too late in the year in order to mobilize and attack the USSR.
                        Instead, the British and Italian situation became the distraction. Rebuilding the panzer divisions? Hardly. They had a few weeks respite and then were used to overrun Yugoslavia who refused passage to Germany, followed by Greece, then Crete. Germany then had to send forces to reinforce the Italians in North Africa.
                        That is what delayed the invasion of the Soviet Union. Your version is unsupported by historical fact.


                        Thailand is nexdoor to Burma, Malaya and China and close to India, Ceylon and Philippines, so it risked a lot by joining the Japanese against the allies nextdoor. Thailand's tiny population is a joke compaired to China's, India's, the Philippines', DEI's, etc, and the tiny Japanese industry was a joke compaired to British and American industry. It makes much less sense for Thailand to join Japan than for Hungary, Yugoslavia, Italy, etc, to join the USSR and Britain and receive American help.
                        What risk? Thailand knows Britain won't invade, China can't invade even if they wanted to, the US is a thousand miles away in the Philippines and not set for any sort of expeditionary force to anywhere.
                        They have every reason to accept Japanese alliance. They get military help. They prevent Japan, the dominant offensive military in the region from conquering them, get military help, and get back land they think is historically theirs.
                        Hungary can see what Stalin did in Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, during the Revolution, in Spain, and elsewhere. Hungary, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Finland all have reason to fear the Soviet Union as expansionist, ruthless, domineering, and to be distrusted.
                        Hitler on the other hand is on a roll. He occupied Austria peacefully and annexed what is considered German territory. He occupied Czechoslovakia peacefully and put in a friendly government. His attack on Poland (who itself has been less than dormant in molesting its neighbors) finished them in weeks.
                        He is in the middle of crushing Britain and France. He's already done Denmark, Belgium, Holland, and Norway in quick wins.
                        The Soviet invasion of Poland was a minor disaster. The Red Army proved only marginally competent against Japan mostly on the grounds of using massive numbers and suffering heavily. In the Spanish revolution Germany and Italy won while Russia lost militarily for all intents.
                        There is every reason in this scenario to see Hitler is the winning horse in the race in 1940 and that Stalin for his abrogating treaties is about to get one hell of an @$$ kicking by the Germans. Who would you back? The neighborhood bully (Soviets) who wins only by luck and massive size or the guy that knows martial arts and has put whupass on everyone he's gone up against not breaking a sweat. Now there is going to be a bully beat down and everyone is betting Germany is the one that beats the bully down.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by The Purist View Post
                          As has been pointed out, Finland is a staunch neutral. In the OTL Finland refused to accept Soviet terms because to do so would violate her declared neutrality. Finland lived up to those priciples and risked war.

                          Simply refusing to recognise that Hungary would never, not even for a moment, consider an alliance with the SU with German on her doorstep does not make this reality go away. The Soviet Union is attacking a "declared" German sphere of influence and the only major source of German oil. Any hostile minor state between Germany and Ploesti was going to pay the piper. Germany was not fully commited in the west. The OKH reserves was fully capable of deploying to the Hungarian border and 'correcting' the Hungarian attitude if this is required.

                          Italy, under Mussolini, is also never going to accept an alliance with the USSR. The idea is ridiculous. Nor would the onarchies of Bulgaria, Greece or Yugoslavia. They were all "monarchies", not something the communist system was going to let stand.

                          The idea of a Soviet attack on Romania is not totally unrealistic but all of Europe uniting under the Red Banner is nonsense. The firts Soviet boot into Modavia would probably see the Hungarians join Romania, under German guidance, in exchange for Transylvannia just as in the OTL. The Red Army might make it to Bucherest but they would find themselves struggling to go much further with no guarantee that Romania would surrender if the city did fall. Not with German troops arriving as well as beginning operations in the north.

                          One cannot simply waive off the challenges faced by the Red Army in 1940 any more than one could assume the Germans could defeat the Soviet attack without a good deal of fighting.

                          I will state it again - scenarios must remain within the realm of possibility or they simply degenerate into nonsense.
                          I am sorry, but Romania was in the Soviet sphere of influence and as I pointed out repeatedly, Germany cannot afford to antagonize its only fuel, chromium, manganese, rubber and grain supplier (precisely because Romania is at war and cannot suply it). Germany simply needs supplies to fight in the west and has to build up a large stock of supplies before antagonizing the USSR.

                          The idea that Hungary will simply join Romania (its enemy) against the USSR (without Germany, which cannot antagonize its sole supplier) or do nothing, while Romania collapses and allow the Soviets to occupy a large area bordering with Hungary is absurd. Even Imperial, s Romanian agrees with the idea of Hungarian cooperation with Stalin.

                          Comment


                          • As I pointed out, if Romania had thought that there was the least chance of fending off the USSR or receiving help from Hungary and Germany, it would never have yielded territory and population to Stalin without a fight.

                            Finland tried its best to accomodate Stalin. It was Stalin's absurd demands that forced the war and made Finland into a German ally.
                            A mutual assistance pact or at least a non aggression pact and border demilitarization is mutually benefitial and it was stupid of Stalin not to propose it.

                            It was just as stupid to invade only part of Romania and force Romania to become Germany's ally. Instead of invading the whole country.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Draco View Post
                              I am sorry, but Romania was in the Soviet sphere of influence and as I pointed out repeatedly, Germany cannot afford to antagonize its only fuel, chromium, manganese, rubber and grain supplier (precisely because Romania is at war and cannot suply it). Germany simply needs supplies to fight in the west and has to build up a large stock of supplies before antagonizing the USSR.
                              Germany can't afford to have the Soviet Union control its strategic supplies. Germany as of 21 May has all but won in the West and they know it. France is finished. Britain is on the ropes and almost surrounded at Dunkirk.
                              Germany already has large supplies of strategic materials stockpiled including enough fuel to last it until about mid 1941.
                              The USSR is already antagonizing Germany by breeching the treaties the two have and invading Romania. The Germans have every reason to attack now while the Soviets are occupied with Romania and out of position with only weak forces facing the Germans in Poland and the Baltic region. Germany gains by taking all of Poland, taking the Baltic states that will become allies, and taking advantage of the Soviet's poor strategic position.

                              The idea that Hungary will simply join Romania (its enemy) against the USSR (without Germany, which cannot antagonize its sole supplier) or do nothing, while Romania collapses and allow the Soviets to occupy a large area bordering with Hungary is absurd. Even Imperial, s Romanian agrees with the idea of Hungarian cooperation with Stalin.
                              Fine. Hungary becomes a door mat. The Germans invade to get at the Soviets and the Hungarian military lays down and lets them do it. Now the Soviets are even worse off. They have German forces bearing down on their exposed flank in Romania, the Germans crushing them in Poland and moving on their rear. The Italians will want a piece of that action no doubt if they can get in on it. Otherwise, they stay out of that part of the war and only attack France and Britain who are on the ropes.

                              Comment


                              • The USSR is Germany's strategic supplier. A million times more than Romania.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X