Finlandization v. 2.0

A couple years ago I posted a what-if about a fully Finlandized Eastern Europe which went nowhere. Here are some thoughts on what it might look like.


In countries from Poland to Bulgaria there is an understanding that local Communist parties end up in the ruling coalition even if they aren't needed for a majority.

Armies train for attacks from both East and West (though the generals may not actually find both threats equivalent).

Yugoslavia remains Communist (the Soviets didn't impose it there) and, with no Warsaw Pact, actually pays lip service to the brotherhood of Socialist states. Relations with the West are correspondingly poorer, though nothing like an Iron Curtain. In Albania, Hoxha temporarily allies himself with Tito before breaking with him once his regime is secure.

Germany and Austria are both unified but demilitarized (the four powers retain basing rights).The USSR is generously given transit rights across Poland by the grateful Polish people (or at least, that's how Pravda phrases it).

The Marshall Plan never occurs, the US offers debt relief, food aid and business investment across Europe but not in the quantities or quality of the Marshall Plan.

NATO is not formed. Western Europe forms a mutual defense alliance (I don't know if and when any Eastern countries would be included).

NORAD still exists, in fact the presence of a Central European buffer makes it even more crucial. Perhaps it includes Denmark (Bases in Greenland).

Turkey and Norway would not be neutral and their borders with the USSR would likely be more militarized than OTL. Each would also be a close ally of the United States.

Which reminds me, what about Greece? Is there a civil war? If so, the Communists will lose, they have no more access to international support than before (just Yugoslavia and Albania). A neutral Bulgaria will certainly not help them and with less focus on the Fulda Gap, the West has more resources to throw at the conflict. But is it possible for the war to be avoided. Could Greece too become part of the buffer states?

Far afield in East Asia, a Stalin more committed to his "socialism in one country" doesn't give a wink or a nod to Kim Il Sung and Taiwan falls.


How plausible is this? What other knock-on effects might there be? Most importantly, how does the world get there?
 
:rolleyes: Other than that, it's a well thought development, we only still have to find a POD...;)

I had thought that was what made Yugoslavia unique. The Soviets didn't impose Tito (not that he was chosen in free and fair elections or anything, but he imposed himself). Thanks for the correction.
 

abc123

Banned
I had thought that was what made Yugoslavia unique. The Soviets didn't impose Tito (not that he was chosen in free and fair elections or anything, but he imposed himself). Thanks for the correction.

If it were no Soviet tanks in Berlin ( and Belgrade for that matter ) Tito and partisans would have never set foot in Belgrade or imposed a communism in Yugoslavia.
;)
 
So, no Communist Yugoslavia either? I guess that also means no Communist Albania and no Greek civil war at all. This is turning into a very different Europe.
As an aside, would the Soviets allow the restoration of the Romanian and Bulgarian monarchies or would that be a bridge too far?
And most importantly, where's the POD? Reviewing history, the Finnish YYA treaty was signed in 1948, the Stalin Note (an offer of a unified neutral Germany, in questionable good faith) was not sent until 1952 and reunification of Austria took place in 1955 all well after Cold War attitudes had hardened. Negotiations of this nature would have to begin in 1946 at the latest in order for there to be any semblance of trust between East and West. Is it possible for these to be side agreements at Yalta?
 
Top