Yes, Bob, that thread does exist already but you have to take it into account that newcomers into this forum (Welcome abord, KTH, by the way
) don't have the obligation to follow scrupoulously all this forum's etiquette, with all it' quirks and written and unwritten laws. Speaking of which, here they go:
What If? Forum Rules
Anyway, this could be developed: a) What would Adolf do instead? b) What would Stalin do?
As b) is more my field than a) I'd like to insert a few words. Our Lady of Kazan help me because this is going to be touchy
Stalinist theory (simplifying) posited that Communism was very fine and dandy, but it was going to be difficult to generalise to all countries. Therefore as Socialism was already more or less implanted in the Soviet union (as a step towards full Communism), the idea was to lie low for a while and keep working for it where it had already been in it's way to success, and leave the export of Communism abroad (one of the tenets of Trotskyism - the Permanent Revolution) till later, after the Capitalist nations had destroyed themselves through their internal and external contradictions. This was also helped by a realistic view, whereby worker's movements had so far catastrophically failed everywhere, so it would be stupid keeping betting on the wrong horses. All the way the USSR would remain aloof, watching the fight. This line had the apt name of Socialism in One country *
At the very most the SU would keep the pot abroad simmering a bit by agitating and supporting a bit the local Communist Parties, but never daring to go so far as to threaten to take power, as this might provoke a backlash from the Capitalist Powers.
This did not preclude the SU to meddle a bit with what was felt to be adding strategic depth to some territories and/or returning some former Imperial lands back to the USSR. Hence the (initially negotiated) "acquisition" of border lands with Finland, the Baltic countries, "Romanian" Bessarabia, Poland eastern third. All these were seen as defensive moves, being no more than a return of previously owned territories. Also throwing a stick or two into the Capitalist World wheels wouldn't come amiss once in a while, see the Spanish Civil War intervention.
So in short the idea was to keep twiddling one's thumbs while the big powers choked in their own blood, a sort of WWI with Russia out this time, and waiting till later when a new version of Spartakists took over in Germany, acting as a spearhead of the Socialist movement.
All this was going famously well, especially with that madman Adolf at the head, acting as an unwitting Icebreaker (Vladimir Rezun/"Suvorov" has a point here, although I don't agree with the rest of the gibberish), setting Europe aflame, better and quicker than expected. This fits well with the German/Soviet pact policy, as Stalin was ready to sign any treaty with the Devil he didn't believe in, if it would keep the wolf away from his frontiers; moreover so with a technologically advanced nation, from which the USSR had a lot to benefit from.
All this started to look horribly wrong when instead of a classical bloodbath in "The Fields of Flanders" the Germans came up with that new military method whereby Denmark and Norway were conquered and France asked for an armistice in weeks, while England retreated in schock. Instead of a prolonged war away from the USSR's borders what was seen now was a Greater Germany with all Continental Europe's assets at it reach, ready and willing.
So all efforts went into appeasing this monster, never giving it the slightest provocation, fulfilling to the last dot and comma the commercial agreements, and allowing all sorts of provocations, such as not defending against overflights of Soviet territory by German planes, etc.
So. June 22nd 1941 comes and the Germans do not attack. Would the Soviet Union do anything about it, sooner or later? I doubt it.
*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_one_country , god bless Wikipedia!
http://www.marxist.com/LeninAndTrotsky/chapter08.html