Why were the eastern bloc states not integrated into the USSR as soviet socialist republics?

How am I pol?

Ok, maybe there are some exceptions. But it doesn't make any sense in my opinion. Massive countries are more likely to disintegrate than a normal sized one. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me why countries like the DDR, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc should've been incorporated into the USSR as new SSRs when they have very different cultures, languages, etc instead of just being independent nations under soviet influence.

because your reasoning implies that people should be divided into countries based on culture, which is a very Zig Forums way of thinking

The DDR, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc. were not "massive" countries. Furthermore, they would still be permitted to have their own socialist republics with their own languages, cultures, and internal policies.

This seems like the most probable answer so far. Stalin didn't want to risk pissing off the west anymore.

That's kind of how countries work though. I mean can anyone here seriously believe a united Europe, regardless of its politics, could last for a long time? How would that even work? Do you think some portuguese guy and an estonian could consider themselves of the same nation/country just because someone said Europe is one country now? It's irrational to think this would ever be possible.

When I said massive countries I meant it as in if the USSR had annexed the entiriety of the eastern block. That country would've collapsed way sooner than the actual USSR did.

Because all these nations exists as sovereign entities, and had their own communist regimes with the intent of promulgating rule in these countries. Take the Baltic states (whose annexation I think was one of the USSR's greatest mistakes): they all had their own political systems, national identities ect. before soviet annexation in 1939: the result? They were a pain in the fucking arse to govern and the source of a lot of pain for the USSR. Now imagine that, times 10. Add to that the internal conflicts that existed (Czechoslovakia, Hungarians in Romania, fuckit Yugoslavia if you want to include them). It wasn't going to work.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement

The Comintern was also disbanded in 1943, most likely as part of a backroom deal with the West.

What makes you think they couldn't have retained their cultures entirely? This is a bit of a strange argument to me. They were just more politically independent. If they were incorporated as new SSRs they could have retained pretty much everything you're talking about.

The baltic states were a pain in the ass for the USSR.
I think the main issue is that the USSR was dominated by a single ethnicity and culture. They exported a lot of russians to the baltic states, so much so that they make up an incredibly high percentage of the population still today. It was not so much a union of socialist states as it was mainly the russian majority being a sort of Han chinese.
Annexing other countries would be more of a hassle than it would be worth, it would be easier for them to lets them exist as satellite states. Add to this that their planning was done by hand, which was hard enough already, without almost doubling the population.

This is a thing we need to be wary of as socialists in the future. We can see it today in the EU, although to a lesser extend, and with china. We CANNOT have a dominant ethnicity or dominant block in a union. All members ought to be roughly equal, or at the very least we ought to have enough equal larger powers that none can dominate, and smaller powers have more manoeuvrability. Having a majority, such as the han chinese in china, or the russians in the USSR, or to a lesser extend the germans in europe, only leads to friction and seperatist sentiment as other powers feel unable to influence dicisions and unable to have self determination.

We ought to have a singular union of socialist states, but we need to make sure we do not tip the balance in favour of a singular political entity, or let one entity dominate.

Kaliningrad. Also, Poland changed shape quite a bit.

I would say, reason was threefold:
1) resistance of the Allies to this idea (up to and including potential military invasion)
2) locals not being particularly in awe of the idea (Soviets were already framed as another Reich by the West)
3) Soviets themselves expecting to raise Communist movements peacefully and then use those movements to incorporate nations one way or another

I would say, this postponed incorporation. However, by the mid-50s direction of Soviet development changed qualitatively (shifting into SocDem gear) and Soviets lost political will to make major decisions like incorporating other nations.

Was not.

No. Not until late 80s.

Kaliningrad is a weird exception and I don't know why the USSR wanted it nor why the Allies let them have it.
to "change shape" and to make territorial gains aren't really the same.

Also, looking at the Atlantic Charter it seems that the actual document applied specifically only to the U.S. and U.K. but the understanding was that later it also applies to allied powers fighting the war. Anyway, my main point remains the same - the Allies did not want anyone making territorial gains or "territorial aggrandizement", which is implied in your point number one…

Come on now, the 'changed shape' comment was obviously tongue in cheek. Poland made immense territorial gains so poles could get back at the krauts and wouldn't complain so much about not being able to oppress the lithuanians, belorussians and ukrainians anymore

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1027x938, 359.74K)

Those gains were specifically sanctioned by the allies though: the Curzon line had been supported by the British since the 1920s and if you're gonna fight a war for Poland, they should gain something out of it. Not that I agree with the expulsion of Germans from German majority lands but still.

The Curzon line isn't relevant to territorial gains though but to territorial losses which are another thing entirely. Also the Anglos didn't support it 'since the 1920s'. They supported it in 1920 before the Polish Soviet-War, ignored it in 1921 after the Treaty of Riga, were outraged about it in 1939 and supported it again only in 1943 when it became clear that the Soviets would be the one's to btfo Hitler.

wot

Attached: 1539273494168.jpg (700x898, 25.59K)

I mean that's basically the United States. Smaller states have the same number of senators as bigger, more populated ones. The United Nations as well. There's no way you could convince Senegal to join the UN if its voting power was based on population.

Of course there's the Security Council which complicates things…

Poland was smaller after the war than before. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Because the Eastern bloc was liberated by the USSR, not Yugoslavia.