It's not weird considering that Communism has posed the largest threat in the decades since WW2. And Marxist ideology has posed a larger threat globally than Nazism.
I definitly don't think they should have. It appears I was under the wrong impression that the West had similar animosity to the USSR as they did the Germans and was thinking that had history played a little differently if that would make a big impact, but it appears that was not the case.
The western hemisphere definitely had a lot of mistrust and suspicion toward the USSR. The full extent of Stalin’s crimes against humanity were not know at the outset of the war, and would not be for a long time. It should be noted that Stalin was something of a stage actor and knew how to put on the face he wanted people to see. It was really only toward the end of the war, with his armies occupying Eastern Europe, that he began to let the veneer drop and show his true intentions. But by then there was no going back.
It's not particularly weird, historical subreddit tend to be overrun with people fixated on exactly two points in history: WWII and the Roman Empire.
Wanna guess what kind of people care about WWII and the Roman Empire exclusively?
Hitler would win, defeat everybody and rule Europe because everyone else does the most stupid and impossible thing at the worst possible moment and he's moving them around like a puppeteer.
That's not a what if: it's just nonsense.
What have you been reading?
Yes, many nations weren't fans of the USSR and Communism, but in the 1930's Stalin and his "Socialism in One Country" seemed willing to stay in his borders, wasen't disrupting the interwar status quo, generally was someone who could be worked with. France in particular was absolutely fine with the USSR and was no stranger with cooperating with a government in Russia they had deep ideological disagreements with for the strategic purposes of containing the thinh they hated the most: a strong, agressive Germany.
It was absolutely the Fascists, National Socialists, and Showa Statists who were rocking the boat and actively trying to revise the post-Great War political order. Further, they wanted to do it in a way that directly stepped on the toes of the British and French. If the USSR wanted to expand into Eastern Europe? Fine, Western Europe had dealt with that being Czarist Russia's for the last century. Germany, Italy, and Japan wanted territory of direct strategic importance to the Western Powers and hegemony in regions they already dominated.
It is absolutely not viable, at least post-annexation of Czechoslovakia (when Hitler burned the last of his diplomatic credability with the Western Powers) to goad them into attacking the USSR over this. Hiding his involvement will not be possible as the Soviets will happily publish any documentation they used to try to trick them into attacking Poland and the Western Powers are not inclined to trust the Germans by this point. Certainly not to the point they're going to bankroll and spill a bunch of blood for them to conquer the USSR and then just let Germany sweep up all the marbles.
If anything, its likely the Western Powers who seize control of the situation and use it to make Hitler and Stalin bleed each other out. The German Army in 1939 is not in th3 position it would be 2 years later and something like Barbarossa levels of success is unlikely to occur. It becomes a war of grinding attrition much earlier with the British and French getting time to catch up on rearmament and war industry building while only engaging the Soviets peripherally in the event they fight at all. If Germany does get out on the other end a victor they're bloodly, limping, and worn down to a nub, though more likely the Western Powers dont fight the USSR and simply enter the war on Germany later after fullying rearming and Germany is exhausted.
“Socialism in One Country”???? What are you talking about, the USSR had invaded Poland in 1919-1921, the Red Army intervention in Afghanistan 1929, the Soviet invasion of Xinjiang 1934, Spanish Civil War 1936-1939, Winter War 1939-1940, Soviet–Japanese border conflicts 1932-39
The USSR also had violently suppressed multiple riots and breakaway movement within its own borders
1. That was before the normalization of relations, and arguably Poland invaded them. The new Polish government was trying to establish borders not yet agreed on internationally and explicitly against the advice and recommendation of the Allied and Associated Powers, who at the time were trying to reach a settlement with the White Movement/Directory
2. ... which was in support of the internationally recognized government: a monarchy by the way, not to install Socialism at all.
3. No one in Western Europe gave two pense about what was happening there at the time, and it was not as though Sheng Shicai was not the appointed military governor of the region.
4. The Britain and France were more sympathic to the Republicans then they were the Nationalists, and Soviet aid to and thus influence over the Republicans was small potatos over Italian and German support to the Nationalists. The last thing France wanted
5. Starts only after the historical invasion of Poland and thus not relevant in this context.
6. Japan was the agressor and operating out of territory that was internationally recognized as illegally occupied and openly condemned them for being in. Manchukuo did not legitimately exist as far as Britain and France were concerned so Japan was just pushing its illegal occupation and the Soviets were better at
7. Supressing breakaway movements is something thats bog standard among states of virtually every era and especially then. The Soviets were in no way violating norms or international agreements in that regards
I'm not a Communist by any means, nor going to defend Stalin's domestic policy, but one doesen't need to have a pro-Soviet bias to conclude thier actions were less of a concern than Nazi, Italian, and Japanese ones at that time.
I’ve never seen someone tankie so hard while also refusing to acknowledge that they’re pro-USSR starting with what is intrinsically “Poland was asking for it”
So the western powers didn’t like the Soviets but the idea that they viewed them as equal to the Nazis is soviet propaganda from the post war era. There is no universe where Britain and France join an unprovoked attack on the USSR. They were reluctant to invade a closer and arguably weaker Germany after they invaded an actual Ally.
The Western powers and USSR were on nominal terms (trade and the like) all the way up until the winter war (which started after the German-polish war).
This is basically impossible, at least for the major Western powers. The American citizenry were isolationist and did not want to become involved in a war, while Roosevelt and parts of Congress were interventionist only on the side of the Allies. Churchill was an anti-communist but had made an Anglo-Soviet pact in 1941, recognizing the Fascist bloc was the active threat at the time, and the USSR would blunt it.
Also, while the Soviets had spread past the borders of the Russian Empire post-WW1, it was nowhere near the scale of re-armed Germany. The atrocities the Soviets committed were primarily against their own people, and while they were committed to global revolution that could *theoretically* threaten Western Europe, it clearly took a backseat to the Nazi’s aggressive expansionist that was *actually* threatening Western Europe.
The reason why many of the Western allies were anti-Communist before the war, but became *militantly* anti-Communist after it is because exactly like Hitler lying about anything after Czechoslovakia, Stalin lied about Poland, and showed the post war world was going to be defined by conflict between the USSR and Western Allies. But at the time, they took the USSR at its word, as they had no evidence to support doing otherwise, and Hitler had shown he would break his word.
If the allies had wanted that fight they would have dowed both Germany and the USSR when they attacked Poland but instead the GoI was for attacks by Germany only.
Even more important, how in the hell was he going to attack a nation he did not border?
You kinda need to either share a border with that nation, or have another agree to let you pass through them. And no way in hell Poland was ever going to allow that.
that's highly unlikely because the USSR was isolationist and also had influence in western media through people like Walter Durante the head of the New York Times. also national socialist rhetoric was inherently hostile towards all nations that weren't germany so any scenario where the nazis did that would require them to not be nazis
Considering both country's governments were very much in the back pocket of wealthy industrialists and had their own issues of oppressing large segments of their populations, the US and England were both closer to the fascists than they were to the communists. Especially because of the Depression, they were legitimate fears of communist revolutions in the US and England.
I think Hitler, and all of Germany at some level was too blinded by their anger at France, England and the US because of how WWI ended and the oppressive terms of the Treaty of Versailles to realize their best option would have been to try to convince leaders in those countries that Stalin was the threat and that Germany needed their help to protect them against the big, mean Soviet bully intent on turning the world communist. I feel like he was skilled enough at misdirection, rhetoric and media manipulation to have pulled it off if he had wanted to.
It's been my contention that, had Germany gone through Romania and invaded the USSR instead of France and England, he could very well have beaten them.
Not sure if Germany could have defeated the Soviets, but if Hitler had kept moving east after taking Poland, its easy to see both England and France staying on the sidelines, and allowing Germany and the Soviets to bleed themselves, weakening each country and therefore both are less of a threat to France and England. No Lend/lease for Russia would be a huge game changer in the fight, throw in the extra aircraft and men that would not be lost in fighting in the west, it might be enough for Germany to defeat Russia in 1940/41
These historical reddits seem to have some weird fixation on the idea that the western Allies should have attacked tree USSR instead of Germany.
It's not weird considering that Communism has posed the largest threat in the decades since WW2. And Marxist ideology has posed a larger threat globally than Nazism.
Conservatism is the largest threat to humanity.
I mean not really I’d say advanced weaponry. But I guess politics in your opinion.
LOL Explain that to all the aborted humans and millions killed by Communism over the last 80 years.
I definitly don't think they should have. It appears I was under the wrong impression that the West had similar animosity to the USSR as they did the Germans and was thinking that had history played a little differently if that would make a big impact, but it appears that was not the case.
The western hemisphere definitely had a lot of mistrust and suspicion toward the USSR. The full extent of Stalin’s crimes against humanity were not know at the outset of the war, and would not be for a long time. It should be noted that Stalin was something of a stage actor and knew how to put on the face he wanted people to see. It was really only toward the end of the war, with his armies occupying Eastern Europe, that he began to let the veneer drop and show his true intentions. But by then there was no going back.
It's not particularly weird, historical subreddit tend to be overrun with people fixated on exactly two points in history: WWII and the Roman Empire. Wanna guess what kind of people care about WWII and the Roman Empire exclusively?
Hey, there's a lot of content about the American Civil War too! Ha, kinda disproves your point, doesn't it? /s
The west didn't want to fight period, much less allying with Hitler to fight the soviets.
Right, this is with the idea that if and what if Hitler could convince the West that Russia was going to invade and spread communism to the west.
Hitler would win, defeat everybody and rule Europe because everyone else does the most stupid and impossible thing at the worst possible moment and he's moving them around like a puppeteer. That's not a what if: it's just nonsense.
I do apologize it appears that I had a mistaken impression of the situation at the time.
What have you been reading? Yes, many nations weren't fans of the USSR and Communism, but in the 1930's Stalin and his "Socialism in One Country" seemed willing to stay in his borders, wasen't disrupting the interwar status quo, generally was someone who could be worked with. France in particular was absolutely fine with the USSR and was no stranger with cooperating with a government in Russia they had deep ideological disagreements with for the strategic purposes of containing the thinh they hated the most: a strong, agressive Germany. It was absolutely the Fascists, National Socialists, and Showa Statists who were rocking the boat and actively trying to revise the post-Great War political order. Further, they wanted to do it in a way that directly stepped on the toes of the British and French. If the USSR wanted to expand into Eastern Europe? Fine, Western Europe had dealt with that being Czarist Russia's for the last century. Germany, Italy, and Japan wanted territory of direct strategic importance to the Western Powers and hegemony in regions they already dominated. It is absolutely not viable, at least post-annexation of Czechoslovakia (when Hitler burned the last of his diplomatic credability with the Western Powers) to goad them into attacking the USSR over this. Hiding his involvement will not be possible as the Soviets will happily publish any documentation they used to try to trick them into attacking Poland and the Western Powers are not inclined to trust the Germans by this point. Certainly not to the point they're going to bankroll and spill a bunch of blood for them to conquer the USSR and then just let Germany sweep up all the marbles. If anything, its likely the Western Powers who seize control of the situation and use it to make Hitler and Stalin bleed each other out. The German Army in 1939 is not in th3 position it would be 2 years later and something like Barbarossa levels of success is unlikely to occur. It becomes a war of grinding attrition much earlier with the British and French getting time to catch up on rearmament and war industry building while only engaging the Soviets peripherally in the event they fight at all. If Germany does get out on the other end a victor they're bloodly, limping, and worn down to a nub, though more likely the Western Powers dont fight the USSR and simply enter the war on Germany later after fullying rearming and Germany is exhausted.
One country after helping conquering a bunch many countries to make that one country. Damn that man was a hypocrite
“Socialism in One Country”???? What are you talking about, the USSR had invaded Poland in 1919-1921, the Red Army intervention in Afghanistan 1929, the Soviet invasion of Xinjiang 1934, Spanish Civil War 1936-1939, Winter War 1939-1940, Soviet–Japanese border conflicts 1932-39 The USSR also had violently suppressed multiple riots and breakaway movement within its own borders
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_one_country
Ohh so it’s a BS think Stalin, the pathological lair and paranoid narcissist dictator said and then didn’t follow through with 😂😂😂
You clearly know what you're talking about.
1. That was before the normalization of relations, and arguably Poland invaded them. The new Polish government was trying to establish borders not yet agreed on internationally and explicitly against the advice and recommendation of the Allied and Associated Powers, who at the time were trying to reach a settlement with the White Movement/Directory 2. ... which was in support of the internationally recognized government: a monarchy by the way, not to install Socialism at all. 3. No one in Western Europe gave two pense about what was happening there at the time, and it was not as though Sheng Shicai was not the appointed military governor of the region. 4. The Britain and France were more sympathic to the Republicans then they were the Nationalists, and Soviet aid to and thus influence over the Republicans was small potatos over Italian and German support to the Nationalists. The last thing France wanted 5. Starts only after the historical invasion of Poland and thus not relevant in this context. 6. Japan was the agressor and operating out of territory that was internationally recognized as illegally occupied and openly condemned them for being in. Manchukuo did not legitimately exist as far as Britain and France were concerned so Japan was just pushing its illegal occupation and the Soviets were better at 7. Supressing breakaway movements is something thats bog standard among states of virtually every era and especially then. The Soviets were in no way violating norms or international agreements in that regards I'm not a Communist by any means, nor going to defend Stalin's domestic policy, but one doesen't need to have a pro-Soviet bias to conclude thier actions were less of a concern than Nazi, Italian, and Japanese ones at that time.
I’ve never seen someone tankie so hard while also refusing to acknowledge that they’re pro-USSR starting with what is intrinsically “Poland was asking for it”
Harry turtledove's war that came early features France and UK joining Hitler in his war against the Soviets
By 1939, Hitler had demonstrated himself as completely untrustworthy. Why would the west look to ally with him after Czechoslovakia
Perhaps I should have set this scenerio further back to before he did.
So the western powers didn’t like the Soviets but the idea that they viewed them as equal to the Nazis is soviet propaganda from the post war era. There is no universe where Britain and France join an unprovoked attack on the USSR. They were reluctant to invade a closer and arguably weaker Germany after they invaded an actual Ally. The Western powers and USSR were on nominal terms (trade and the like) all the way up until the winter war (which started after the German-polish war).
One possibility- Britain and France opt for armed neutrality in 1939. Germany attacks Russia in 1940. We leave them to fight it out among themselves.
This is basically impossible, at least for the major Western powers. The American citizenry were isolationist and did not want to become involved in a war, while Roosevelt and parts of Congress were interventionist only on the side of the Allies. Churchill was an anti-communist but had made an Anglo-Soviet pact in 1941, recognizing the Fascist bloc was the active threat at the time, and the USSR would blunt it. Also, while the Soviets had spread past the borders of the Russian Empire post-WW1, it was nowhere near the scale of re-armed Germany. The atrocities the Soviets committed were primarily against their own people, and while they were committed to global revolution that could *theoretically* threaten Western Europe, it clearly took a backseat to the Nazi’s aggressive expansionist that was *actually* threatening Western Europe. The reason why many of the Western allies were anti-Communist before the war, but became *militantly* anti-Communist after it is because exactly like Hitler lying about anything after Czechoslovakia, Stalin lied about Poland, and showed the post war world was going to be defined by conflict between the USSR and Western Allies. But at the time, they took the USSR at its word, as they had no evidence to support doing otherwise, and Hitler had shown he would break his word.
I think this could only have occurred in a world where the Left Opposition succeeded and Trotsky, rather than Stalin took over after Lenin’s death.
Go read Harry Turtledove's The War That Came Early
I feel like Turtledove wrote a book series with this as the main plot.
If the allies had wanted that fight they would have dowed both Germany and the USSR when they attacked Poland but instead the GoI was for attacks by Germany only.
Even more important, how in the hell was he going to attack a nation he did not border? You kinda need to either share a border with that nation, or have another agree to let you pass through them. And no way in hell Poland was ever going to allow that.
that's highly unlikely because the USSR was isolationist and also had influence in western media through people like Walter Durante the head of the New York Times. also national socialist rhetoric was inherently hostile towards all nations that weren't germany so any scenario where the nazis did that would require them to not be nazis
I guess I would have thought for the last part in their minds they would be sparing germans by sacrificing everyone else to weaken their enemies
Considering both country's governments were very much in the back pocket of wealthy industrialists and had their own issues of oppressing large segments of their populations, the US and England were both closer to the fascists than they were to the communists. Especially because of the Depression, they were legitimate fears of communist revolutions in the US and England. I think Hitler, and all of Germany at some level was too blinded by their anger at France, England and the US because of how WWI ended and the oppressive terms of the Treaty of Versailles to realize their best option would have been to try to convince leaders in those countries that Stalin was the threat and that Germany needed their help to protect them against the big, mean Soviet bully intent on turning the world communist. I feel like he was skilled enough at misdirection, rhetoric and media manipulation to have pulled it off if he had wanted to.
Stalin and Zhukov both said that without lend lease the USSR would have lost the war. So without the allies they would have lost.
It's been my contention that, had Germany gone through Romania and invaded the USSR instead of France and England, he could very well have beaten them.
Not sure if Germany could have defeated the Soviets, but if Hitler had kept moving east after taking Poland, its easy to see both England and France staying on the sidelines, and allowing Germany and the Soviets to bleed themselves, weakening each country and therefore both are less of a threat to France and England. No Lend/lease for Russia would be a huge game changer in the fight, throw in the extra aircraft and men that would not be lost in fighting in the west, it might be enough for Germany to defeat Russia in 1940/41
Just a reminder that in the OTL the soviet's allied with the Nazis before the Nazis turned on them
Just a reminder that the USSR asked France for an anti-German alliance well before the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and France refused.
Cool they still chose to ally with Nazis
Not really but I feel it's pointless to explain it to you.