Could the Western Allies have gotten a better border deal in exchange for other concessions to Stalin?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
KatyPerry
New member
Posts: 1
Joined: 15 Feb 2023, 05:25
Location: USA

Re: Could the Western Allies have gotten a better border deal in exchange for other concessions to Stalin?

#16

Post by KatyPerry » 15 Feb 2023, 05:29

The "better bargain" would have been for the West to back and push Stalin to enable free, open, and fair elections to take place throughout Eastern Europe. This would have been the case if the West had supported Stalin. If that scenario had played out, almost the whole of Eastern Europe would have voted against the Communists and the Soviet regime. That would have left the Soviet Union, which was occupying Eastern Germany, with very few resources to maintain a significant military presence in that region.

At the end of the war in 1945, the Soviet Union was in no position to start a new conflict with the Western nations. At the very least, it was feasible to wage such a war, despite the fact that it would have been very unpopular in Western nations. That places Stalin in a position where he must either agree to such terms then possibly try to undermine them in any case, or he must potentially end up in another war with the front being in hostile territory with a large insurrection going on. Either way, he must choose one of two options: either he will try to undermine such terms in any case, or he will agree to such terms. For instance, a significant portion of Poland's armed forces is ideologically aligned with the West, as well as equipped, trained, and orientated by the West. cuphead

Russia was unable to withstand another wave of significant casualties in addition to the fact that it was receiving no material backing from the West.

All of this, of course, is contingent on the Western countries being able to reach an agreement and having at least some information of how dire the economic and personnel situations in the Soviet Union were.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Could the Western Allies have gotten a better border deal in exchange for other concessions to Stalin?

#17

Post by wm » 15 Feb 2023, 12:06

Although in 1945, the Allies were in no position to start a new world war either.
The American, the British people likely wouldn't accept that. They were tired of ww2 already.


Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Could the Western Allies have gotten a better border deal in exchange for other concessions to Stalin?

#18

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 16 Feb 2023, 19:21

Sludge Factory wrote:
18 Apr 2022, 06:27
Alas, any scenario that doesn't involve the Eisenhower's Army meeting the Red Army on the pre-war eastern Polish border ...

I don't see anyone here proposing much that realistically would have been negotiable. Stalins policy of 'moving Poland west' is difficult to disincentivise. if you want to avoid Poland drifting about like a continental plate the Red Army cant be occupying it. How to have the Reds stopped further east is a whole nother discussion. That leads to discussions of how to increase Allied cargo shipping in the North Atlantic, wreaking the Red Army without a Axis strategic victory, reducing the 3rd & 4th Protocols of the Lend Lease to the USSR, significantly reducing operations in the South Pacific, reducing resources to China-Burma 1943-44 & other politically challenging actions. Im trying to remember if there is a thread here dedicated to this question of getting Monty & Patton to the Curzon Line.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15588
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Could the Western Allies have gotten a better border deal in exchange for other concessions to Stalin?

#19

Post by ljadw » 17 Feb 2023, 14:42

KatyPerry wrote:
15 Feb 2023, 05:29
The "better bargain" would have been for the West to back and push Stalin to enable free, open, and fair elections to take place throughout Eastern Europe. This would have been the case if the West had supported Stalin. If that scenario had played out, almost the whole of Eastern Europe would have voted against the Communists and the Soviet regime. That would have left the Soviet Union, which was occupying Eastern Germany, with very few resources to maintain a significant military presence in that region.

At the end of the war in 1945, the Soviet Union was in no position to start a new conflict with the Western nations. At the very least, it was feasible to wage such a war, despite the fact that it would have been very unpopular in Western nations. That places Stalin in a position where he must either agree to such terms then possibly try to undermine them in any case, or he must potentially end up in another war with the front being in hostile territory with a large insurrection going on. Either way, he must choose one of two options: either he will try to undermine such terms in any case, or he will agree to such terms. For instance, a significant portion of Poland's armed forces is ideologically aligned with the West, as well as equipped, trained, and orientated by the West. cuphead

Russia was unable to withstand another wave of significant casualties in addition to the fact that it was receiving no material backing from the West.

All of this, of course, is contingent on the Western countries being able to reach an agreement and having at least some information of how dire the economic and personnel situations in the Soviet Union were.
I like to see why free and open elections in eastern Europe would be good for us ,besides why would these countries accept such elections imposed on them by the US?
Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary were German allies,thus why did they deserve free and open elections,and, where would the US get the manpower for occupation forces in Eastern Europe and forces on the border with the USSR?
Eastern Europe was a poisoned chalice for the Soviets and it would be also a poisoned chalice for the US .
How would the US impose law and order in a region where Poles and Ukrainians were killing each other, where Czechs were expelling 3 million Germans, where Serbs tried to reimpose their domination on Slovenia, Croatia, where they tried to annex parts of Austria and Italy ......?

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018, 06:52
Location: Europe

Re: Could the Western Allies have gotten a better border deal in exchange for other concessions to Stalin?

#20

Post by Peter89 » 17 Feb 2023, 18:17

ljadw wrote:
17 Feb 2023, 14:42
KatyPerry wrote:
15 Feb 2023, 05:29
The "better bargain" would have been for the West to back and push Stalin to enable free, open, and fair elections to take place throughout Eastern Europe. This would have been the case if the West had supported Stalin. If that scenario had played out, almost the whole of Eastern Europe would have voted against the Communists and the Soviet regime. That would have left the Soviet Union, which was occupying Eastern Germany, with very few resources to maintain a significant military presence in that region.

At the end of the war in 1945, the Soviet Union was in no position to start a new conflict with the Western nations. At the very least, it was feasible to wage such a war, despite the fact that it would have been very unpopular in Western nations. That places Stalin in a position where he must either agree to such terms then possibly try to undermine them in any case, or he must potentially end up in another war with the front being in hostile territory with a large insurrection going on. Either way, he must choose one of two options: either he will try to undermine such terms in any case, or he will agree to such terms. For instance, a significant portion of Poland's armed forces is ideologically aligned with the West, as well as equipped, trained, and orientated by the West. cuphead

Russia was unable to withstand another wave of significant casualties in addition to the fact that it was receiving no material backing from the West.

All of this, of course, is contingent on the Western countries being able to reach an agreement and having at least some information of how dire the economic and personnel situations in the Soviet Union were.
I like to see why free and open elections in eastern Europe would be good for us ,besides why would these countries accept such elections imposed on them by the US?
Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary were German allies,thus why did they deserve free and open elections,and, where would the US get the manpower for occupation forces in Eastern Europe and forces on the border with the USSR?
Eastern Europe was a poisoned chalice for the Soviets and it would be also a poisoned chalice for the US .
How would the US impose law and order in a region where Poles and Ukrainians were killing each other, where Czechs were expelling 3 million Germans, where Serbs tried to reimpose their domination on Slovenia, Croatia, where they tried to annex parts of Austria and Italy ......?
1. There were elections in Eastern Europe, like the election of 1945 in Hungary.
2. For example in Yugoslavia, the elections were not rigged and yet they voted for the communist party.
3. The Soviets peacefully withdrew from Austria in 1955.
4. The Soviet occupation of Central-Eastern Europe led to its downfall.
5. At the end of WW2, Central-Eastern Europe was a small game on the table; the key question was the colonial empires and the fate of the world economy.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Could the Western Allies have gotten a better border deal in exchange for other concessions to Stalin?

#21

Post by wm » 17 Feb 2023, 18:42

That's a nice idea that the "lesser people" of Eastern Europe didn't like democracy and free elections.
And that they were incapable of governing their countries post-war and required US occupation forces.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15588
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Could the Western Allies have gotten a better border deal in exchange for other concessions to Stalin?

#22

Post by ljadw » 17 Feb 2023, 23:05

wm wrote:
17 Feb 2023, 18:42
That's a nice idea that the "lesser people" of Eastern Europe didn't like democracy and free elections.
And that they were incapable of governing their countries post-war and required US occupation forces.
Who spoke of ''lesser '' people of Eastern Europe ?
And why would they like democracy and free elections ?It is not so that because Woodrow Wilson thought that every one liked democracy made in US ,that it was so .
Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovakia were German allies and had to be occupied ,if not by the Soviets, by the US .
And in 1949 there were only 2,TWO US divisions in Europe,where would the US get the forces needed to occupy the enemy countries and prevent the Soviets from attacking Poland and Czechia ?
Millions of Germans, Ukrainians and Poles were expelled from their homes in the new Polish state ,the whole country was a ruin : who would restore law and order ?
And what about the DDR ?If there were no Soviet military in Poland, who would occupy eastern Germany ?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15588
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Could the Western Allies have gotten a better border deal in exchange for other concessions to Stalin?

#23

Post by ljadw » 17 Feb 2023, 23:19

Peter89 wrote:
17 Feb 2023, 18:17
ljadw wrote:
17 Feb 2023, 14:42
KatyPerry wrote:
15 Feb 2023, 05:29
The "better bargain" would have been for the West to back and push Stalin to enable free, open, and fair elections to take place throughout Eastern Europe. This would have been the case if the West had supported Stalin. If that scenario had played out, almost the whole of Eastern Europe would have voted against the Communists and the Soviet regime. That would have left the Soviet Union, which was occupying Eastern Germany, with very few resources to maintain a significant military presence in that region.

At the end of the war in 1945, the Soviet Union was in no position to start a new conflict with the Western nations. At the very least, it was feasible to wage such a war, despite the fact that it would have been very unpopular in Western nations. That places Stalin in a position where he must either agree to such terms then possibly try to undermine them in any case, or he must potentially end up in another war with the front being in hostile territory with a large insurrection going on. Either way, he must choose one of two options: either he will try to undermine such terms in any case, or he will agree to such terms. For instance, a significant portion of Poland's armed forces is ideologically aligned with the West, as well as equipped, trained, and orientated by the West. cuphead

Russia was unable to withstand another wave of significant casualties in addition to the fact that it was receiving no material backing from the West.

All of this, of course, is contingent on the Western countries being able to reach an agreement and having at least some information of how dire the economic and personnel situations in the Soviet Union were.
I like to see why free and open elections in eastern Europe would be good for us ,besides why would these countries accept such elections imposed on them by the US?
Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary were German allies,thus why did they deserve free and open elections,and, where would the US get the manpower for occupation forces in Eastern Europe and forces on the border with the USSR?
Eastern Europe was a poisoned chalice for the Soviets and it would be also a poisoned chalice for the US .
How would the US impose law and order in a region where Poles and Ukrainians were killing each other, where Czechs were expelling 3 million Germans, where Serbs tried to reimpose their domination on Slovenia, Croatia, where they tried to annex parts of Austria and Italy ......?
1. There were elections in Eastern Europe, like the election of 1945 in Hungary.
2. For example in Yugoslavia, the elections were not rigged and yet they voted for the communist party.
3. The Soviets peacefully withdrew from Austria in 1955.
4. The Soviet occupation of Central-Eastern Europe led to its downfall.
5. At the end of WW2, Central-Eastern Europe was a small game on the table; the key question was the colonial empires and the fate of the world economy.
1 These elections were rigged
2 The elections organized by Tito were also rigged
3 Austria is irrelevant for this discussion
4 The Soviet occupation of Central-Eastern Europe led also to the downfall of the USSR
5 You believe the fables from Washington DC where the belief was / is that there were only 2 possible social,economic and political systems :that of the Communists and that of the US .
History has learnt us that this is totally wrong and that the majority of the world was hostile to the system of Moscow and Peking, but is also hostile to the system of the US .
This happend end happens in Africa, in the ME,in Asia, in Latin America, even in some countries of Eastern Europe .
Mankind was always living in dictatorial states and was satisfied,the intermezzo of liberal capitalism will not last long and the old ''international order '' will come back , very soon .
The present situation is an exception and exceptions prove the rule.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Could the Western Allies have gotten a better border deal in exchange for other concessions to Stalin?

#24

Post by wm » 26 Mar 2023, 00:16

ljadw wrote:
17 Feb 2023, 23:05
And why would they like democracy and free elections ?It is not so that because Woodrow Wilson thought that every one liked democracy made in US ,that it was so .
Because there were elections in those countries in the interbellum period?
Because in Poland, kings were elected since 1573 (and even earlier in Hungary and Czechia!)? And the Commonwealth was managed by an electable parliament?

ljadw wrote:
17 Feb 2023, 23:05
Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovakia were German allies and had to be occupied ,if not by the Soviets, by the US .
Since when surrender has to be accompanied by occupation? Was Germany occupied in 1918?

ljadw wrote:
17 Feb 2023, 23:05
Millions of Germans, Ukrainians and Poles were expelled from their homes in the new Polish state ,the whole country was a ruin : who would restore law and order ?
See? Lesser people.
Although the Poles restored law and order after ww1. When the country was more destroyed than after ww2.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15588
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Could the Western Allies have gotten a better border deal in exchange for other concessions to Stalin?

#25

Post by ljadw » 26 Mar 2023, 10:34

wm wrote:
26 Mar 2023, 00:16
ljadw wrote:
17 Feb 2023, 23:05
And why would they like democracy and free elections ?It is not so that because Woodrow Wilson thought that every one liked democracy made in US ,that it was so .
Because there were elections in those countries in the interbellum period?
Because in Poland, kings were elected since 1573 (and even earlier in Hungary and Czechia!)? And the Commonwealth was managed by an electable parliament?

ljadw wrote:
17 Feb 2023, 23:05
Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovakia were German allies and had to be occupied ,if not by the Soviets, by the US .
Since when surrender has to be accompanied by occupation? Was Germany occupied in 1918?

ljadw wrote:
17 Feb 2023, 23:05
Millions of Germans, Ukrainians and Poles were expelled from their homes in the new Polish state ,the whole country was a ruin : who would restore law and order ?
See? Lesser people.
Although the Poles restored law and order after ww1. When the country was more destroyed than after ww2.
Kings were not elected by the population .
1918 is not 1945 :Germany was occupied, thus her allies would be occupied .

gebhk
Member
Posts: 2623
Joined: 25 Feb 2013, 21:23

Re: Could the Western Allies have gotten a better border deal in exchange for other concessions to Stalin?

#26

Post by gebhk » 26 Mar 2023, 11:24

Kings were not elected by the population .
They were in Poland since 1572. Not by the entire population, of course (and WM did not say they were, he said they were elected) but by the entire electorate.
in the new Polish state ,the whole country was a ruin : who would restore law and order ?
Without the occupation of the Country by the Soviets, there would have been no new state, merely the return of the established state. And in any event, the Poles were quite capable of doing this themselves, as they did perfectly well in 1918. In fact the greatest challenge to law and order in the first post-war years in Poland were the bands of Soviet troops who robbed, raped and murdered, virtually at will and entirely beyond the reach of the Polish justice system which, in practice, more often than not, meant with complete impunity. Polish functionaries attempting to intervene even when a crime was being committed on Polish soil by Soviet troops or functionaries, did so at great risk.

Needless to say, the overwhelming preference for 'political reliability' over professional competence as criteria for police office and advancement; as well as the replacement of crime fighting and maintenance of law and order as the primary focus of police activity and resources, by the 'strengthening of government by the people' (ie persecution/terrorising of the opposition to communism) did not help either.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15588
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Could the Western Allies have gotten a better border deal in exchange for other concessions to Stalin?

#27

Post by ljadw » 26 Mar 2023, 14:53

gebhk wrote:
26 Mar 2023, 11:24
Kings were not elected by the population .
They were in Poland since 1572. Not by the entire population, of course (and WM did not say they were, he said they were elected) but by the entire electorate.
in the new Polish state ,the whole country was a ruin : who would restore law and order ?
Without the occupation of the Country by the Soviets, there would have been no new state, merely the return of the established state. And in any event, the Poles were quite capable of doing this themselves, as they did perfectly well in 1918. In fact the greatest challenge to law and order in the first post-war years in Poland were the bands of Soviet troops who robbed, raped and murdered, virtually at will and entirely beyond the reach of the Polish justice system which, in practice, more often than not, meant with complete impunity. Polish functionaries attempting to intervene even when a crime was being committed on Polish soil by Soviet troops or functionaries, did so at great risk.

Needless to say, the overwhelming preference for 'political reliability' over professional competence as criteria for police office and advancement; as well as the replacement of crime fighting and maintenance of law and order as the primary focus of police activity and resources, by the 'strengthening of government by the people' (ie persecution/terrorising of the opposition to communism) did not help either.
And what part of the entire population was composed by the electorate in 1572 ?
''Without the occupation of the country by the Soviets there would be the return of the established state '' :this is not true : old Poland disappeared in 1939, to never return :
the 3 million + Jews were gone
the Germans were expelled , not only those in the old Poland, but also those in Silesia and East Prussia
millions of Poles,Russians and Ukrainians were also expelled in the eastern regions
millions of homeless people were roaming and vagabondizing throughout the country
Warsaw was destroyed
A total new country had to be rebuild . There was also a social revolution .
The epoch of Pilsudski was over .

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018, 06:52
Location: Europe

Re: Could the Western Allies have gotten a better border deal in exchange for other concessions to Stalin?

#28

Post by Peter89 » 26 Mar 2023, 15:30

I think as we are talking on a forum dedicated to XX. century history, we can safely say that by far the greatest burden on Central-Eastern Europe after WW2 was the Soviet occupation. Although it is possible that even without a Soviet occupation, not a clean-cut, Anglo-Saxon style liberal democracy would follow WW2 (in 1945 no country was such a democracy, the colonial powers openly denied the same rights for their citizens and the US openly segregated the blacks and indians), the general direction of politics was that of modernization, democratization and liberalization. The Soviets had to use armed forces to quell rebellions as early as 1953-1956.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

gebhk
Member
Posts: 2623
Joined: 25 Feb 2013, 21:23

Re: Could the Western Allies have gotten a better border deal in exchange for other concessions to Stalin?

#29

Post by gebhk » 26 Mar 2023, 15:34

this is not true : old Poland disappeared in 1939, to never return :
In the context of this discussion, not really. Its constitutional, legal and administrative framework remained the same until 1944-45. It was the Soviets that made it 'disappear'.
the Germans were expelled, not only those in the old Poland, but also those in Silesia and East Prussia
millions of Poles,Russians and Ukrainians were also expelled in the eastern regions
By the Soviets, which makes it irrelevant in the context of this discussion
millions of homeless people were roaming and vagabondizing throughout the country
A problem hugely magnified by the displacements of people by the Soviets. Otherwise, there would have been far fewer people roaming and those that were would mostly have been returning to their own homes.
A total new country had to be rebuild .
Far less so before the Soviet state-sponsored and individual larceny, exploitation and destruction took its toll. It is an entirely realistic view that Poland's infrastructure suffered more from the Soviet 'liberation' than it did from the German occupation. In any event, the repair of damage and the regeneration of losses do not a 'new' country make.
There was also a social revolution
Which may or may not have taken place in a sovereign Poland, but that was for the Poles to decide. In the event, there was no revolution: a society was imposed on Poland by the Soviet Union.
The epoch of Pilsudski was over
.
That was over in 1935.

gebhk
Member
Posts: 2623
Joined: 25 Feb 2013, 21:23

Re: Could the Western Allies have gotten a better border deal in exchange for other concessions to Stalin?

#30

Post by gebhk » 26 Mar 2023, 16:08

we can safely say that by far the greatest burden on Central-Eastern Europe after WW2 was the Soviet occupation.
Difficult to argue with that. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Bloc, the GDP of the satellite countries has (with perhaps on or two exceptions) fairly consistently improved while that of the Russian Federation tanked for the first 10 years. This suggests (among other things no doubt), that the Soviet Union was geting more out of the Bloc at the expense of its satellites or at the very least was holding them back.
Last edited by gebhk on 26 Mar 2023, 18:41, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”