/his/ - History

>>>15635

My money's on Hitler, Hiter saw some shit. Hirohito was a pansy ass baby man raised in Edo castle like a bitch.

>>19876

I laughed

>>15125

>Stalin, Hitler

This doesn't make sense

European countries would get rekt while US coul beat the shit out of everyone else

>>15125

Depends.

Is the USA in from the start or not?

I'm also assuming you mean the Third Reich and USSR and not literally just Stalin, Hitler and Japan.

I can think of two much more interesting scenarios anyway:

1. WW2 but Spain joins the Axis after France falls (or before I suppose). That would change the game in the Mediterranean and Africa.

2. Germany continues its pre-war relations with China instead of (rather idiotically) swapping to Japan. This is going to have an effect on the USSR (part of the reason they were able to deal with the Germans were the reserves they moved from the Jap front) and, of course, it would likely have kept the USA out for longer.

>>28998

Actually you also didn't give us a timeframe OP.

If we're talking 1939 then Germany has shit all in the way of tanks (France alone had more tanks which were also better in every way apart from radios) and a fairly forgettable navy. The USSR is in a similar situation.

>>28998

>1. WW2 but Spain joins the Axis after France falls (or before I suppose). That would change the game in the Mediterranean and Africa.

kek, tried that in HoI.III playing as Nationalist Spain barbarossa came way short, even though i sent most of my army to help germany, the soviets steamroll us after a while, good thig that when germany surrendered they liberated France so i had a buffer between me and the Soviets i never declared war to France or the UK kept playing cause reasons, The US tries two amphibious invasions, they fail, reached '48 little progress so i abandoned the game.

>2. Germany continues its pre-war relations with China instead of (rather idiotically) swapping to Japan. This is going to have an effect on the USSR (part of the reason they were able to deal with the Germans were the reserves they moved from the Jap front) and, of course, it would likely have kept the USA out for longer.

I'd still join the japs, i'd just make sure they support me one way or another when launching barbarossa, or at the very least not attacking Pearl Harbour.

>>29073

Honestly I think Spain would have been more important for taking Gibraltar and winning Africa by closing off the Med. This also, of course, prevents British use of the Suez Canal.

>I'd still join the japs, i'd just make sure they support me one way or another when launching barbarossa

This is the most important thing really.

>or at the very least not attacking Pearl Harbour.

The Japanese/American conflict was somewhat inevitable.

It would never work, Communism and Fascism are diametrically opposed.

>>29079

You'll find that any state with pragmatic leaders can get away with a lot of shit that might not fit whatever ideology they say they support.

It's not like the Soviets and Germans didn't come to agreements before when it suited their interests.

>>29079

Which is funny, because apparently Stalin was 100% legit surprised Hitler was blowing that treaty to bits by launching operation Barbarossa or whatever it's called.

To the point where he radio operators warning the germans were attacking to be arrested as disinfo spreading traitors.

I don't think they would have joined up, but Stalin for whatever reason sincerely thought Hitler was either a man of his word, or too smart to really wage a war on him at the time.

>>29079

But what about Communism and National Socialism?

I realise that (German) National Socialism was also characterised by an extreme opposition to Communism.

On a more serious note they signed a non-aggression pact, co-invaded Poland and the USSR helped the Germans train their pilots back when the Nazis where in charge but still following the Treaty of Versailles.

>>29088

>Communism and National Socialism?

It's like Catholics and Protestants. Very very similar, but the differences, while few, make them unable to stand each other.

>>29092

>>29088

>>29092

How are they similar? Having socialism in the name doesn't really mean anything in regards to the ideologies actually being similar.

But either way I agree that the conflicting beliefs don't really mean anything in terms of military alliances, that's pretty naive of an assumption

>>29087

Stalin was an extremly paranoid person, I don't think he trusted Hitler, the russian propaganda till 1938 also always portrayed germans as bunch of cheating savages, I know it's propaganda but it gives a general impression of the mood. The second reason is probably the most sensible, Stalin probably couldn't believe Hitler would attempt an attack at such an early date with the rearmend not being completed and a war on the western front. I think both were very well aware that the armistice was really just prolonging the inevitable clash between the two mayor european powers

>>29126

Stalin believed the German's weren't going to attack them, reason why he was building up for war was because he wanted East Europe, plus he was paranoid about war with Britain and Japan. When he was told that Hitler had invaded he sent the messenger back saying that he was an idiot and that Hitler would never invade. He then basically went into shock for a few days, hence why no effective attack was made by the Ruskies. But yeah, he believed in the Treaty, just because Hitler seemed so sincere. By the way, take Stalin being paranoid with a pinch of salt, he didn't personally write down names of everyone he wanted to kill, the NKVD just went out of control.

>>29076

>The Japanese/American conflict was somewhat inevitable

True, just as the german/soviet and axis/british, the point is not having them happen at the same time, once the axis were at war with the thre most powerful nations at the time they had no hope of winning.

To be fair, Italy was more useful than Japan. I mean Japan had one fucking job. And they blew it even lied to Hitler about their success too.

But ye, Stalin and Hitler, even though unlikely, would have won the war. Problem is that both saw each others as a threat

>>15135

>>15308

I doubt Stalin would have helped Japan in Asia, considering USSR was founding different warlords in China to keep them divided. Giving it all to Japan would just make it worse.

>>28998

>2. Germany continues its pre-war relations with China instead of (rather idiotically) swapping to Japan. This is going to have an effect on the USSR (part of the reason they were able to deal with the Germans were the reserves they moved from the Jap front) and, of course, it would likely have kept the USA out for longer.

Did USA really have a reason to intervene? I mean if Hitler continued to support the Nationalists that is? Both China and USA would be at war against Japan, and I highly doubt they would suddenly declare war on the Axis considering they already had good relations with ROC and Fascist Italy.

All the FED needed was a war, which Japan would happily supply. Also no US support to Soviet from Iran and Alaska

>>29124

Facism is not the same as National Socialism.

Speaking very broadly the former is almost like an extreme Conservatism while the latter is more of a middle class pseduo-socialism. Propaganda-wise they share the same messages but there are some major differences in other areas (religion in particular but also elites vs middle class).

>>29092

This nigger makes a fair analogy. More specifically something like Anglican or 'soft' Protestants instead of the 'hard' Protestants (Presbyterians in particular).

>>29141

The problem is the more Japan industrialised and engaged in warfare the sooner it had to fight the USA (and vice versa).

>>29147

>Did USA really have a reason to intervene? I mean if Hitler continued to support the Nationalists that is? Both China and USA would be at war against Japan, and I highly doubt they would suddenly declare war on the Axis considering they already had good relations with ROC and Fascist Italy.

That was my general idea. Japan didn't even declare war on the UK until 1941.

I'd imagine the Germans could also have made better friends in Vichy France if they'd been on the anti-jap side in the pacific.

The only reasonable situation in which the USSR loses to Germany is if it is threatened/invaded in the East. It is clear Japan was neither willing nor really capable of that given its problems with the USA.

>To be fair, Italy was more useful than Japan. I mean Japan had one fucking job. And they blew it even lied to Hitler about their success too.

They also had a solid Navy and not insignificant airforce.

If we're talking 1939 Germany has to fight Poland, Italy, France and the UK in Europe (not to mention the USA intervening earlier). Given the truly shit-tier speed of mobilisation for 1939 USSR Germany might even be dead before the Russians are a factor. Including Italy in the allies fucks up OP's scenario even more.

>>29149

Another point on Facism vs National Socialism:

it is important to make the distinction between National Socialism pre-Night of the Long Knives and post NotLK (Strasserism is a good thing to look up here). The SA, in particular, were rather working class revolutionary socialist and were even calling for a second revolution by name in 1934.

Classically the real 'working class' (not the Marxist influenced one) has always been a mixture of socialism and nationalism/racism (yes these two are not the same but ignore that for now). Look at, say, the BNP/NF in the UK or the French NF. These are honest movements that believe in a grassroots revolution, of sorts, from those on the bottom rungs of society.

Fascism, in the classical/Italian (or perhaps Spanish) sense, is more concerned with a traditional military coup style of takeover. Consider that both fascist Spain and Italy kept their royal family around while the Nazis had a very rocky relationship with the (ex)Kaiser.

Indeed the only prominent Nazi to get on with him was Goering: the only post-NotLK (important) Nazi from the classical 'elites' (in this case a Junker).

Basically Facism is more concerned with the current elites keeping power with a coup masquerading as a revolution. It looks backwards to the current norms as the upper-class would like to continue.

National-Socialism (pre-1934 anyway) was very much a working class/lower middle class movement that generally believed in a revolution of some sort. The Beer Hall Putsch is a good example. After the purge in 1934 (which, by the way, Hitler was more or less 'tricked' into by Himmler and co) Hitler was left as the only 'real' believer of the original Nazi ideology in the upper ranks.

If you want the tl;dr think of the (original) Nazis as UKIP or the Tea Party in that they truly believed in their revolution (not calling either of these groups Nazis just comparing their sense of conviction). Italian/Spanish fascism is more like classical pre-Thatcher Toryism or certain hardline American Republicans who care more about the end (Conservatism with a capital C) than the means.

National Socialism may have been partly a propaganda term (again particualrly aftert 1934) but Nazism and Neo-Nazism really is a mixture of both. Anyone who has interacted with the 'true' non-university working class (or indeed is a member of that rather vaguely defined group) will know their common opinion is a mixture of both Socialism and Nationalism.

None of this is trying to justify the actions of any parties involved but simply to explain the differences and similarities which I hope is obvious.

>>29153

Another comparison (I really need to wait before posting): the rise of the SNP and UKIP in the UK is easily compared to that of the Nazis.

They all have a charismatic leader of the middle class that appeared after the party was formed but manages to appeal to everyone of every class (Hitler, Farage, Salmond). All three had actual life experience before entering politics and were/are competing with incompetent career politicians. All three lead/led parties that mix Nationalism with some degree of Socialism or community policies.

All three parties target an unpopular foreign treaty and this seems to be their attraction (The Treaty of Versailles, The Act of Union (Westminster is still legally bound by this) and the various EU treaties). In reality they are popular because they seem sincere in comparison to the 'establishment' and existing parties who will say anything to win votes.

All three had semi-opportunistic and highly-intelligent people directly beneath them in the hierarchy and come from the hardline factions of their respective parties (Carswell who, literally, wrote the book on electoral reform in the UK, Sturgeon who has a degree in Scottish law and is further left than Salmond and Himmler/Goebbels who, if anything, were more into the truly extreme policies of the Nazi party than Hitler himself).

All three have also had to purge their oldest supporters and friends to keep themselves in power (Night of the Long Knives, anti-Nato purges in the SNP and a whole variety of shit in UKIP).

Finally all three benefited from a timly change in the economic situation (Wall Street Crash and the Credit Crunch or whatever the current term is directly for UKIP and indirectly for the SNP).

I'm sure there are many examples from other countries (in the USA the Tea Party and maybe the Libertarian movement) but it is very simple. Whenever the current parties have been in power too long and are filled with nothing but lying career politicians a grassroots movement will appear that mixes Nationalism with the majority opinion of the working class/(lower) middle class (which is really that countries' baseline 'socialism'). This movement will then go through a process of becoming electable in which the true believers come to lead the party and it is infiltrated by opportunistic elements that force a purge of the original members.

Or basically history always fucking repeats itself

>>29155

However, the Nazis came to power through violence and German civil war, that hasn't happened in the UK… however I can imagine a Scottish equivalent of the IRA coming to be if they lose their next election for independence.

>>29158

That Nazis really didn't use violence all that effectively and those who did (the SA) were actually a negative for their campaign (part of the reason they were purged).

When Hitler was finally made chancellor it was actually due to a major miscalculation by a bunch of out of touch upper class faggots who were afraid of communism.

If you are referencing the whole overthrow of the kaiser shit that predates the Nazis by a good few years (the Freikorps were active then). Regardless my comparisons were really just a depressing look at how quickly the anti-establishment party becomes the establishment (see: the USA 1-2 generations after the Revolution).

>however I can imagine a Scottish equivalent of the IRA coming to be if they lose their next election for independence.

Highly unlikely given anything short of removing Holyrood or some form of dictatorship in WM. Irrelevant also considering the next refferendum, if called for legitimate reasons, will almost certainly be a major yes or finally force the creation of an English parliament (which, by the way, is a breach of the Act of Union and would cause a shitstorm in Northern Ireland as they would suddenly no longer be part of the UK legally).

>But yeah, he believed in the Treaty, just because Hitler seemed so sincere

Yeah, I have a hard time believing that a man who purged his fellow bolsheviks and remained in power while consistently sending millions of people to die in labour camps would be stupid enough to simply trust the word of his ideological arch enemie. Even when taking his paranoia with a grain of salt, ignoring that he himself ordered executions aswell, it would just seem naiv and stupid to trust your enemy just because he signed a contract, maybe he thought Hitler was sincere, but this certainly wasn't the only reason he couldn't believe Hitler would attack at such an early date.

>>29218

>>29138

>>29218

Stalin was more or less insane.

And not in the cuddly Hitler way of crazy ideas but in the paranoid and sudden violent anger way.

>>29229

>I personally don't know any other reasons but there's bound to be some out there, any anons got the answer?

They cooperated against Poland for one. There were even some meetings beween the NKVD and Gestapo as late as 1940. They also, as I mentioned earlier, cooperated with Germany when they were secretly building an air force despite the Treaty of Versailles.

Also the idea that the Germans wouldn't attack the USSR without finishing his current wars is a reasonable one. Given his own tendency to bullshit about ideology Stalin would likely assume the Nazis would happily ignore their own propaganda about the inferior Slavs (they did already with the non-aggression pact and all) for pragmatic reasons.

Finally Stalin was a fucking idiot and paranoid to boot. He wasn't going to trust any intelligence reports saying things he didn't want to hear.

>He mainly grew insane because of an inferiority complex and he began to believe that he WAS the saviour of Russia and he WAS Uncle Joe. He just wasn't the right man for the job, he shouldn't have held so much power.

There was also his alcoholism etc. That shit often makes people paranoid about dying.

>>29232

>There were even some meetings beween the NKVD and Gestapo as late as 1940.

nice shit, I didn't know this, cheers anon.

>Given his own tendency to bullshit about ideology Stalin would likely assume the Nazis would happily ignore their own propaganda about the inferior Slavs (they did already with the non-aggression pact and all) for pragmatic reasons.

I'd think this sounds pretty legit, hadn't thought about it that way.

>>29229

>if you think Stalinist Russia was Communist in more than name then you obviously do not know what Communism is

call it marxist/leninism™ or whatever the fuck you want, the soviet union was governed in the idea of a socialist foundation, but turning this into a "what is real communism?" discussion would be futile. Stalin himself ruled as a dictator and as you've rightly said he was more of an opportunist than an ideological man. When I mentioned the bolshevik party I mean that he was devious enough to join and pretty much eredicate it while sizing power, you don't have to be intelligent but somewhat talented and not a complete moron to acomplish something like that. As for the arch nemisis part, it was primarly from Hitler point of view, Stalin thought of anyone as his potential enemy, Hitler activley proclaimed to fight "Judäo Bolschewismus" and by that he pretty much meant russia, so theres that. It's not important wether or not Stalin had ideological hatred towards Hitler, as long as he suspected Hitler to have ideological hatred towards him.

>I personally don't know any other reasons but there's bound to be some out there, any anons got the answer?

As I've mentioned before, the rearment wasn't completed and the 3. Reich was still involved in a war with Britan, I think those count as rather good reasons to feel save for the moment.

>>29218

I just assumed that he thought Hitler had bought his ruse that he was a good boi and not gonna dew nuffin so he was surprised Hitler turned on him so quickly to fuck his shit up.

>>29356

It's also worth noting the Bolsheviks only became the dominant revolutionary group iun the first place by accident.

As is often the case with those on the left some of the various other moderate groups threw a tantrum and (literally) walked out of one of the early meetings leaving the Bolsheviks to do everything. Look up the Second All-Russia Congress for more details if you like. Before this they had been a large but not consistently popular group and certainly not the only one. Stalin and co didn't seize power through a conspiracy as much as through luck and the sheer incompetence of those around them.

In fact the entire October Revolution was a fucking cock-up that accidentally produced results. Basically the revolutionaries sat around for a day talking and then outnumbered the government forces in the city so much they more or less just occupied every government building without firing a shot.

The entire revolution might not even have happened if the provisional government hadn't been so paranoid and pushed back the Congress.

A few years later the Bolsheviks/Soviets would produce a bunch of films depicting it as a full on conflict but really it was mostly a bloodless stand-off. If you want some fucking comedy gold look up the real 'Storming' of the Winter Palace. The niggers got lost inside it Scooby-Doo style after just walking in through the back door.

>>29367

Also good to know is that the KPD/Spartacists tried the same thing in Germany in 1919. Similarly they sat around talking instead of getting to work (far left always argues instead of getting shit done) but unlike in Russia they didn't outnumber the Freikorps. If, perhaps, the Spartacists had tried during the war instead of after it and therefore the troops attacking them were more demoralised (again like in Russia) they might have stood a better chance.

>>29356

>the soviet union was governed in the idea of a socialist foundation

The Soviet Union was not Socialist, socialism requires soviets which were completely banned under Stalin's rule.

>Stalin thought of anyone as his potential enemy

Which was why he was surprised and happy that Hitler had allied with him, he would have thought of it as Russia and Germany against the world, which sounds really cute when you think about it. He honestly trusted Hitler to keep to his word as Stalin believed that a NAP would be beneficial for the both of them; why would Hitler want to fight Stalin when they were at war with Britain and why would Stalin fight Hitler if Russia wasn't prepared for war?

> Stalin and co didn't seize power through a conspiracy as much as through luck and the sheer incompetence of those around them.

I think incompetence is a bit harsh, the Mensheviks supported the Provisional Government because they believed in traditional Marxism and believed Russia had to go through a period of capitalism before they could convert to communism. Bolsheviks disagreed (because fucking Lenin being a bit of a cunt) and, using the workers dislike and distrust towards the Provisional Government, they overthrew the Government. Also, I wouldn't say it was luck as they were able to seize power because they "opened up their borders", so to speak, and let tens of thousands of people into the previously small Bolshevik party to beef up their numbers a bit. Allying with the Kronstadt sailors also gave them a small, but hardcore, military force in Petrograd.

>Basically the revolutionaries sat around for a day talking and then outnumbered the government forces in the city so much they more or less just occupied every government building without firing a shot.

Depends on the way you look at this, the Kronstadt sailors had their ships on standby and, after firing a shell from their ship, they signalled the coup. You can argue that barely anyone died (seven people died) because of how well organised it was with sailors and workers at several positions all over the city, each ready to take their target.

>A few years later the Bolsheviks/Soviets would produce a bunch of films depicting it as a full on conflict but really it was mostly a bloodless stand-off.

These were produced during Stalinist Russia, mainly for Stalin to make the Bolshevik revolution become something legendary. Fun Fact: more people died filming these movies than the actual revolution, topkek.

>The niggers got lost inside it Scooby-Doo style after just walking in through the back door.

Haha, will HAVE to watch this anon

>Italy to the allies

Africa would be in full ally control, meaning that any army could just walk in and then embark for the Italian peninsula.

>Stalin to the axis

Manpower, loads of it, but we could also say that Stalin wouldn't just get a shit ton of conscripts on board and send them everywhere but rather create a more professional army in the vein of Germany's, to not also talk about the fact that they'd surely wouldn't have a defensive attitude like they did and instead attack.

>>29380

>Bolsheviks disagreed (because fucking Lenin being a bit of a cunt) and, using the workers dislike and distrust towards the Provisional Government, they overthrew the Government. Also, I wouldn't say it was luck as they were able to seize power because they "opened up their borders", so to speak, and let tens of thousands of people into the previously small Bolshevik party to beef up their numbers a bit. Allying with the Kronstadt sailors also gave them a small, but hardcore, military force in Petrograd.

Lenin was the only major Bolshevik who actually wanted to try for a revolution again after their first failure and he spent most of his time hiding in other countries. The Bolsheviks were reasonably reluctant to join up with the October Revolution until it was obvious they'd win.

Allying with the soldiers/sailors during the previous strikes was indeed very influential and gave them popularity in the major urban centres but they were never the majority over the entire country.

>Depends on the way you look at this, the Kronstadt sailors had their ships on standby and, after firing a shell from their ship, they signalled the coup. You can argue that barely anyone died (seven people died) because of how well organised it was with sailors and workers at several positions all over the city, each ready to take their target.

Believe me any claim they were organised came up afterwards. It's a common pattern for revolutions at the time (again the KPD in 1919) to sit around talking for fucking ages. The sailors were one of the few organised groups involved which is unsurprising given their nature as sailors.

>Haha, will HAVE to watch this anon

They didn't include it in the super serious fake propaganda film sadly. Read about it in proper sources though (not sure if wiki reports it but then wikipedia is shit).

It's worth remembering in all of this that the longest they even could have planned was 4 days given that this shit only took off after the government delayed the congress for 5 days (20th -> 25th). This sparked the various left groups to start mobilising since it looked like the provisional government wouldn't give up power willingly (probably true) and, in response, the provisional government started to shut down newspapers etc making the situation even less stable.

The incompetence comment is more of the other groups who walked out of the congress after winning the 'revolution'. This was overly dramatic and left the Bolsheviks in charge of almost everything.

>Fun Fact: more people died filming these movies than the actual revolution, topkek.

Fucking hilarious.

>>29391

You're forgetting the time it takes the USSR to mobilise was measured in years. This is increased if they aren't getting lend-lease since that provided a lot of their logistical shit.

>to not also talk about the fact that they'd surely wouldn't have a defensive attitude like they did and instead attack.

With what? Assuming it's 1939 they've got shit all in the way of effective tanks and even less that are reliable enough to make it to France.

>>29416

>Lenin was the only major Bolshevik who actually wanted to try for a revolution again after their first failure and he spent most of his time hiding in other countries.

yeah, even though he was a major figure he was rarely actually in Russia, only reason why he got to Russia for the Revolution was because Germany organised his travel to Russia because he wanted Russia to leave the war. A lot of the major Bolsheviks were really pissed off about Lenin's April Thesis because this guy didn't even put it past them that he was going to release it, he was pretty damn arrogant. However, you have to remember that the July Days may or may not have been caused by the Bolsheviks, it's matter of debate.

>Allying with the soldiers/sailors during the previous strikes was indeed very influential and gave them popularity in the major urban centres but they were never the majority over the entire country.

Yeah, the October Revolution was a coup, even though it can be argued that the peasants were revolting by taking the land of their land-owners, they were not revolting with the Bolsheviks but for their own sake.

>They didn't include it in the super serious fake propaganda film sadly. Read about it in proper sources though (not sure if wiki reports it but then wikipedia is shit).

They also went into the wine cellars and got stupidly drunk straight after taking over the palace.

>It's worth remembering in all of this that the longest they even could have planned was 4 days given that this shit only took off after the government delayed the congress for 5 days (20th -> 25th). This sparked the various left groups to start mobilising since it looked like the provisional government wouldn't give up power willingly (probably true) and, in response, the provisional government started to shut down newspapers etc making the situation even less stable.

Yeah that's true, good points.

>>29380

>Which was why he was surprised and happy that Hitler had allied with him, he would have thought of it as Russia and Germany against the world, which sounds really cute when you think about it. He honestly trusted Hitler to keep to his word as Stalin believed that a NAP would be beneficial for the both of them; why would Hitler want to fight Stalin when they were at war with Britain and why would Stalin fight Hitler if Russia wasn't prepared for war?

Have I ever said that he didn't expect Hitler to hold his promise for the moment? As you said, Hitler was in a war he wasn't even properly prepared for, the NAP was an advantage for both, those are good reasons to feel save, not personal trust towards the man that eagerly hates you.

>The Soviet Union was not Socialist, socialism requires soviets which were completely banned under Stalin's rule.

>"it's about people not about ideas"

Sure thing buddy. You could argue that under Stalin socialism was more or less overshadowed by tyranny but this does not negate the foundation on which the soviet union was governed before, after and to some exend during Stalins rule.

>>29418

I'd like to see an alternate history where the congress was held on the 20th. I'm suspicious that the fears of the far left were accurate, to be honest, and that the provisional government wouldn't have given up power even if not voted for.

>Yeah, the October Revolution was a coup, even though it can be argued that the peasants were revolting by taking the land of their land-owners, they were not revolting with the Bolsheviks but for their own sake.

I suppose it all comes down to how you define coup. Was it an organised coup by a group of those already in charge? Not exactly. Was it a proper revolution of the entire country? Also not exactly.

I think the issue is the Bolsheviks, again with the exception of Lenin (who as we've said was mostly in Finland) and maybe Trotsky, were arch opportunists. Certainly they took every chance they could get to turn it into their revolution despite the fact they weren't that big outside of the bigger cities.

I'm just not comfortable using coup for their hijacking of the revolution when they didn't plan it as much as get a lucky opportunity and run with it.

Is there not a French phrase (or perhaps, ironically, a Soviet one) for people who show up halfway through a revolution and put themselves in charge? I seem to remember there being one.

>>29474

>the NAP was an advantage for both, those are good reasons to feel save, not personal trust towards the man that eagerly hates you.

But that is why Stalin trusted the NAP, he saw it beneficial for both parties, he was definitely surprised when the NAP was broken.

> You could argue that under Stalin socialism was more or less overshadowed by tyranny but this does not negate the foundation on which the soviet union was governed before, after and to some exend during Stalins rule.

I didn't say anything about it being negated before and after Stalin's rule, I'm saying that socialism wasn't Stalinist Russia. Stalin's Russia was an absolutely brutal dictatorship that wasn't attempting socialism or leading to it, it used the idea of socialism and communism as propaganda, nothing more and nothing less.

>I'd like to see an alternate history where the congress was held on the 20th.

I'd say the Provisional Government would have carried on existing however with more legitimacy as the people would have actually had voted them in rather than the provisional government just assuming control.

>I'm just not comfortable using coup for their hijacking of the revolution when they didn't plan it as much as get a lucky opportunity and run with it.

I personally view it as a coup because of how centralised it was and the fact that they did get the power afterwards. However, I do understand why you'd disagree with me, like you said it's just how you define it.

>Is there not a French phrase (or perhaps, ironically, a Soviet one) for people who show up halfway through a revolution and put themselves in charge? I seem to remember there being one.

I'm not sure, I would personally see the person who gained control after a revolution or a coup as "the winners" so to speak.

>>29515

Fair enough.

It seems like we are really just agreeing on the facts and disagreeing on the precise terminology.

>>29553

I know, it's weird, you don't get people agreeing much on the internet, I'm surprised we haven't had "DA BOLSHEVIK JOOS" yet

>>29515

>But that is why Stalin trusted the NAP, he saw it beneficial for both parties, he was definitely surprised when the NAP was broken.

Oh than this has been quite the misunderstandig. I was under the impression that it was claimed that Stalins trust into the NAP had a personal foundation towards Hitler which is just utterly absurd

>I didn't say anything about it being negated before and after Stalin's rule, I'm saying that socialism wasn't Stalinist Russia. Stalin's Russia was an absolutely brutal dictatorship that wasn't attempting socialism or leading to it, it used the idea of socialism and communism as propaganda, nothing more and nothing less.

Well they certainly used them as propaganda, and stalin didn't give a shit about socialism but the very basics way the soviet union was governed certainly include socialist aspects. Of course real socialism™ is idealy not supposed to reduce the people to slaves so there's that, but among other things the widespread collectivism, the planed economy and the marxist-lenisist ideals of education and competition are certainly aspects of socialism or at least loaned. I know I know, that sounds a bit like the "cats have four legs, therefore a table is also a cat" argument, but all in all I'm trying to say that Stalinism wasn't entirley devoided of socialism

>>29554

> I'm surprised we haven't had "DA BOLSHEVIK JOOS" yet

I'm sure it's only a matter of time.

>>29559

>I was under the impression that it was claimed that Stalins trust into the NAP had a personal foundation towards Hitler which is just utterly absurd

Absurd sums it up well. I suppose you might argue (as indeed I did earlier) that Stalin judging Hitler to be an opportunist without ideology like he was himself was a factor but that isn't what I'd call anything personal.

Given the situation in the rest of Europe a pragmatic man (Stalin) would not have invaded the USSR in 1941. Only an ideological man (Hitler) would do so. This means Stalin, who was frankly not a smart man, would expect Hitler to act as he himself would in the given situation.

>Well they certainly used them as propaganda, and stalin didn't give a shit about socialism but the very basics way the soviet union was governed certainly include socialist aspects. Of course real socialism™ is idealy not supposed to reduce the people to slaves so there's that, but among other things the widespread collectivism, the planed economy and the marxist-lenisist ideals of education and competition are certainly aspects of socialism or at least loaned. I know I know, that sounds a bit like the "cats have four legs, therefore a table is also a cat" argument, but all in all I'm trying to say that Stalinism wasn't entirley devoided of socialism

You really need to be a little more careful with terminology. The ideological basis for the USSR came from the Bolsheviks who fall very much into the Marxist ideas of an industrial working class rising up. This one specific group of Socialists.

In fact the very origin of the name 'Bolshevik' comes from an ideological dispute over whether or not Russia even could have a Marxist revolution given its economic backwardness. The Mensheviks held that it was not possible to do so until there had been full industrialisation while the Bolsheviks reasoned, more or less, that they could have a revolution anyway but of a smaller group of super-revolutionaries (the Vanguard) who would all obviously have to come from the only industrialised parts of Russia: the large cities. This Vanguard concept, of course, is easily modified into the form of government by the more-equal because somebody has to represent the proletariat.

If, hypothetically, another of the far-left (or even moderate left) groups had gained power in the October Revolution we might have seen an entirely different type of propaganda and social policies (though still corrupt as all shit etc).

As an interesting side-note the urban origins of the Bolsheviks are part of the reason they could never work out agriculture effectively which is partly to do with your point on collectivism. Collectivisation, for example, would likely not have happened if one of the more moderate groups with support from the farmers had been involved.

These distinctions are particularly important because, as discussed earlier, during the time of the provisional government and immediately afterwards there were many groups active under the banner of Socialism including some of those in power in the Provisional Government(s) and many of these groups would go on to fight the Bolsheviks in open conflict.

tl;dr Particularly when discussing the Russian Revolution(s) and subsequently the USSR you must be more precise than just 'Socialist'.

>but all in all I'm trying to say that Stalinism wasn't entirley devoided of socialism

Stalinism is, as mentioned earlier, actually a rather extreme example of a Marxist ideology and cannot simply be written off as a dictator paying lip-service to the ideals of the left. Writing him off as a non-communist has long been a goal of anyone who still wants to propose real communism™ and therefore should be opposed.

Almost nothing he did was, on paper, anti-Marxist.

The rapid industrialisation of the USSR can be justified as needed to create a proper Marxist working class.

The rule by the more-equal party members can be justified as needed as part of the Vanguard concept and also because, again, somebody needs to represent the workers.

Collectivisation can be justified along similar grounds.

>>29595

Very informative, I guess that's a reason /his/ offers proper discussion, people know what they're talking about. Admitedly I haven't really looked into the Russian Revolution in depth, more on the development of socialism in the 19th century, could you recommend some reading material?

>>29595

>>29559

That was rather more of a tangential rant than intended and seems to have rather failed to make my point(s). Misuse of term terms Socialism, Liberalism and indeed Conservatism just causes issues and annoys me somewhat (not because of any personal stake in any of them as such but because they confuse conversation).

More simply then.

1. Stalinism is a form of far-left government and people who want to say otherwise normally have motives for doing so. His personal opportunism does not change the fact that his actions are, on paper anyway, compatible with a modified form of Marxist-Leninism.

2. You must be careful when using the term socialist. For example:

>but among other things the widespread collectivism, the planed economy and the marxist-lenisist ideals of education and competition are certainly aspects of socialism or at least loaned.

All of these points (collectivism, planned economy and Marxist(-Leninist) education) are not socialist but policies of specific sub-ideologies of socialism (the far-left). For example there were active groups that would be termed socialist in Russia from 1917 that were inherently opposed to collectivisation. In a similar manner there could easily be right-wing ideologies that involve collectivisation.

Given this one cannot say collectivisation is either necessary or sufficient for a group to be socialist though it is necessary for Stalinism and most major Marxist schools of thought.

>>29596

Reading material I'm afraid may not be my strong point (I have actually studied this throughout school and university). I would be careful when looking on wikipedia as the articles written on specific strands of political ideology are normally written by those either deeply for or against them.

>>29596

>>29597

I should add that if you do have access to academic journal databases for free (e.g. JSTOR) you can normally find interesting articles on there. Most University accounts will give you access to them free of charge.

Otherwise I suppose a library is always a good bet. Any book that tries to give an overview of the Russian Revolution(s) from an objective viewpoint will work too (i.e. textbooks). The Bolshevik-Menshevik split is well documented.

Do be careful to avoid any work by noted Marxists (always google the name of the authors for a start) or at least read it with the knowledge they are biased in mind.

Wikipedia will work too but as I said keep an eye out for bias while reading.

>>29598

Whenever I look for a book on a politicised topic, I look through the reviews that give them the worst rating. Just now I'm thinking about getting "a peoples tradegy, the russian revolution" the german version by Orlando Figes. The 1 star rating on amazon consists of a guy calling the author an "anti-communist" who is on a "personal politcal crusade", so the book is probably fine. So far that worked out pretty well. Seriously it's funny how angry some people get in thier reviews when it comes to thier ideological fixation.

>>29599

That's a smart way to look for books actually.

The Russian Revolution is an interesting look as it's really the only time a bunch of splintered left groups have managed to have a successfully uprising (I wouldn't term it a revolution personally).

I suggest reading up on the German situation from 1918-1934 after you've finished (if you have not already). The KPD/Spartacists and their uprisings are directly related and indeed were notorious for their pro-Soviet slant.

Particularly comparing the Spartacist uprising of 1919 and the October Revolution of 1917 is interesting as they are very similar on paper but with wildly different results in reality.

>>29595

>In fact the very origin of the name 'Bolshevik' comes from an ideological dispute over whether or not Russia even could have a Marxist revolution given its economic backwardness.

Side-note, Bolshevik means majority and Menshevik means minority as, originally, the Bolsheviks were larger. These groups were previously the Social Democrats.

>Almost nothing he did was, on paper, anti-Marxist.

But none of this actually led to communism, however they are good points and I learnt my history from a Communist and Trotskyist so what do I know.

>>29596

Go to your local library and look for old textbooks etc, they can be decent.

>>29622

Marxism (particularly Marxist-Leninism) =/= generic Communism.

Terminology and all that.

>I learnt my history from a Communist and Trotskyist so what do I know.

The fact you knew of his biases is a good sign. You can often learn more from a biased source you are aware of than from an objective source.

>Side-note, Bolshevik means majority and Menshevik means minority as, originally, the Bolsheviks were larger. These groups were previously the Social Democrats.

It is again important to note that while the name, pre-split, included Social Democrat they were not Social Democrats in the modern sense.

>>29623

Many libraries also give you free access to journal databases.

>>29624

In all likelihood it wouldn't have lasted. France, the UK and Poland were unlikely to tolerate such a block forming. Germany might have gotten lucky with war-weariness but it isn't a sure thing.

>>15125

If Hitler wasn't a total fucking MORON and behaved in a more level-headed manner and waited for rearmament to be finished in 1942, I would be speaking German now.

>>29624

>If only Germany had gone commie ;-;

Absolutely disgusting.

>>28998

>WW2 but Spain joins the Axis after France falls (or before I suppose). That would change the game in the Mediterranean and Africa.

This would end up being a disaster for the Axis. Spain at that time was hilariously backwards compared to the other powers, and would have required Germany propping them up, like they were forced to do for Italy.

That would result in more resources being diverted away from the Eastern Front. The big plus would have been that the Axis may have been able to take Gibraltar, aiding in the north africa campaigns.

>>29695

>Fourth post in a row

I need to get used to /his/ being significantly slower than some other boards. Anyway I'll clean this shit up into one clearer post.

Spain would really not need to do much. Lets assume that Franco does not make his territorial demands beyond Gibraltar (unreasonable but whatever). Gibraltar might take a long time to fall but in practical terms ceases being a strategically useful base in a very short time measurable in days. German support for this operation need not be excessive given that the Spanish have the artillery and planes around to do a fair bit of the work and a protracted siege works just as well as an assault since either way Gibraltar is worthless as a base.

Following this it isn't unreasonable to assume Germany would take Malta and Crete. This is another two big losses on top of Dunkirk and Gibraltar for the UK and makes the fighting in North Africa a fair bit bloodier for the British.

With Franco and Mussolini badgering him to deal with Africa Hitler might very well consider it a larger priority (he has to supply Spain now as agreed so a non-Russian source of oil would be a larger priority). Sure Spain would be useless beyond Gibraltar and mostly concerned with internal stability but whatever the main goal is achieved.

Other points on Spain outside of direct military matters then:

The addition of an extra dictator that needed to be kept happy and supplied might well have delayed even the rather unpredictable Hitler's ambitions in terms of the USSR. Remember that Germany was importing grain and oil from the USSR right up until the invasion (on rather favourable terms too). If if needed to supply Spain with grain and oil even Hitler might have had second thoughts about Barbarossa. Similarly a weaker Spain could have forced him to delay the invasion of Russia until Africa was dealt with and Europe generally more secure to keep both Mussolini and Franco happy not to mention Vichy France.

In most cases one should not mix up the leader of a country with its actions but the Eastern Front of WW2 is an exception: Hitler did make the major decisions there personally.

If all of the Mediterranean (including Egypt) falls before the USA enter the war and Hitler delays invading the USSR, ironically, as a result of Spain actually harming the German war machine the UK would be alone and without any hope (even the fucking FRENCH were fighting them in Africa). The Battle of Britain might be one area where Spain could help to a fair degree since they had plenty of experienced pilots and Civil War planes lying around (Britain was never that close to actually losing the air war militarily but morale is going to hurt). Similarly the Italian air force and navy were actually not horrendously useless (often rather effective) in WW2 but are largely ignored.

I doubt even Churchill could keep the UK in the war essentially alone given mass loss of colonies and the complete lack of any of the victories gained during the real war. Hitler, too, is likely to have offered very agreeable terms.

It isn't as unreasonable as it might seem to have Barbarossa delayed either. Stalin wasn't even considering a possible conflict with Germany in the near future so tempering Hitler's truly idiotic fixation on the USSR with an obvious sign the war in Europe wasn't over (i.e. a weaker Spain requiring support) would leave the USSR-Germany conflict for a few years at least. If you can persuade the Japs to hold off on Pearl Harbour (less likely I'll grant but conceivable) then the UK could be alone for a good few years.

tl;dr Spain being a drain might actually have force Hitler to act more sensibly (though with that unpredictable nigger you never know) and the UK could be knocked out of the war before either the USA or a delayed USSR enter through morale if nothing else. Taking (or at least besieging) Gibraltar isn't crushing in military terms since the UK could use the Canaries but you can bet it'd hurt morale.

>>29695

>The big plus would have been that the Axis may have been able to take Gibraltar, aiding in the north africa campaigns.

That big plus will very quickly become an even bigger minus, the problem is Spain would be even worse for Germany as now the Allied powers now have their pick of beaches to stage an invasion from. Any manpower Germany could free up because of this would be diverted into garrisoning Spanish beaches against an allied invasion.

>>29766

The only realistic way for the Axis to win WW2 is to focus on the med to knock out the UK and delaying invading the USSR.

This isn't going to happen without either replacing Hitler or forcing him to accept it as a necessity which might be doable if Spain was clearly in need of the help and the Mediterranean was going well. Taking Malta would help get supplies to Africa also and the Straights of Gibraltar were a horrible place to run U-Boats.

In a related note the Invasion of Spain is not practical (look at the distances involved). The sheer amount of materiel the allies had to ship to Normandy alone rules out the main invasion landing in Spain.

Operations Torch, Husky and Avalanche would also not have happened without Gibraltar and without the experience of them D-Day might well have been a massive failure.

You've got other what ifs here too. Maybe the entry of Spain/closing of Gibraltar and Malta would have made Churchill even more aggressive towards the French Fleets thus driving Vichy France into the arms of the Axis.

But again this all relies on Hitler not being an idiot and starting Barbarossa and crushing the British will to fight more than their entire Empire.

>>17292

Hitler with a pile driver.

>>29147

>Did USA really have a reason to intervene?

For USA it was mostly about grabbing British colonies. The formal victory was Atlantic Charter, the rest was making mess and mopping up thereof.

To this end in Europe someone very nice helped German industry, in a way that didn't make everyone there less cheesed off.

When Japan began to expand, it became a rival in the region where those colonies were actually located. Hence robbing them, provoking to the war they could not win. The only snag was that they turned out to be actually competent and instead of a cakewalk it was Pearl Harbor and much more losses than expected.

>>29595

>Given the situation in the rest of Europe a pragmatic man (Stalin) would not have invaded the USSR in 1941

I disagree with that. From Hitler's (or even most people's) perspective war between the Soviet Union and Germany was inevitable. Communist agitation had been happening throughout Europe for years (and whether the USSR was in practice communist is irrelevant, as they declared themselves to be communist; add in other reasons discussed above), and Stalin had done a massive land-grab with little justification in Finland, the Baltics, and elsewhere. From the perspective of Germany I don't doubt that they saw war as totally unavoidable, making a pre-emptive strike the strategically sensible move. Add in the fact that the Red Army had been vastly weakened but was slowly recovering to the point of eclipsing the Wehrmacht and invasion in 1941 seems pretty sensible for me. It was a gamble of the most risky kind, to be sure, but it was a gamble the Germans were more or less forced into taking.

I think there's also some merit to the belief that it wasn't starting a two-front war from the point of the Germans. By 1941 the Germans had no enemies on the continent and were not actively fighting anyone attempting to invade them. The only open front was North Africa, and I'm sure the Germans had assumed that Italy was capable enough to manage that front on their own with minimal German aid.

>>29624

>>>/leftypol/

This ain't the board for that shit.

>>29640

If Hitler had waited until 1942 the Red Army would probably have both eclipsed the Wehrmacht and been staffed with competent officers sooner, making defeat for the Germans before 1945 more or less inevitable.

>>29695

>>29766

Maybe Canaris wasn't as much of a traitor then. But treason rests in the intentions, not the results.

>>29760

>If you can persuade the Japs to hold off on Pearl Harbour

Perhaps by that point formalizing an alliance with the Chinese would have been a more sensible option.

>>29790

>delaying invading the USSR.

To be honest I think a more effective strategy would have been finding out a way to knock them out even faster, but I'm not sure that would have been possible. I suppose it depends how reliant the USSR was on central authorities — that is, whether cutting off the head would have rendered them a non-threat. I'm not sure this would have been possible.

Certainly the USSR would have been far easier to defeat without its food, raw materials, factories, clothes, engines, fuel, etc. but knocking them out is a tall order. Given its vastness I don't think knocking out its industry is a viable tactic. A more sensible one I think would have been spurring the anti-Soviet sentiment prevalent throughout Eastern Europe. In other words, I think the only way Germany wins WWII when the USSR exists is more manpower. If they got nationalists from Eastern Europe — most especially anti-Soviets within the USSR itself, perhaps wooing the military (if that's even possible post-purge) — I think defeating them may have been possible.

Most important elements besides that are:

>Not making an enemy of the US (maybe not possible)

>Increasing power in the east (China?) to draw power away from continental Europe

>Making sure allies are effective (for instance not making Italy fight a land war, or somehow wooing France, Spain, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Poland, Czechoslovakia, or Ukraine)

In my honest opinion though I think war was unavoidable (ever since the dynamics of the 1900s had been shaped, making WWI and then post-WWI inevitable) for Germany and defeat for them was more or less inevitable. That said, I think they did remarkably well in the situation they were in. People criticize them a lot but I think they did about as well as they possibly could have. That they didn't win is not necessarily either a sign of poor showing or poor strategic planning.

>>36126

>Perhaps by that point formalizing an alliance with the Chinese would have been a more sensible option.

Very difficult to do this when we consider how different the ideologies between China and Germany was, this would have also had pissed off Japan to no end, though that might not have been a problem to be fair.

> If they got nationalists from Eastern Europe — most especially anti-Soviets within the USSR itself, perhaps wooing the military (if that's even possible post-purge) — I think defeating them may have been possible.

They did try this but they treated the Russian people like shit during the invasion so many actually fought with the USSR rather than the Nazis. Some did fight with the Nazis though.>Perhaps by that point formalizing an alliance with the Chinese would have been a more sensible option.

>>15125

Sort of? While it's questionable whether or not the Nazis ever could've defeated the UK so long as they had the support of the US, they never stood a chance against the Soviets simply due to population differences. The Nazis did not have enough people to occupy all of that land. Access to Soviet oil would've been a huge boon to Rommel during the tank battles in North Africa, possibly enough to prevent the Axis defeats on that front. Now, the Soviets wouldn't have been especially capable of helping out with the invasion of the UK because neither their navy nor air force was all that much to write home about, but if the battle for North Africa went in favor of the Axis, it's questionable whether the allies ever could've done anything but stalemate on the western front.

On the other hand, the underdeveloped Soviet infrastructure in their far east makes it questionable how much pressure they could really put on the Chinese, and China was the Soviet Union of the Pacific front. Japan could never have beaten them because they didn't have enough people to occupy all of that land, especially not with Communist Party guerillas preventing them from every really controlling the territory that was nominally behind their front lines. The fact that the Soviet navy and air force aren't much to write home about would likewise mean that the entire Pacific front against the US would've gone pretty much exactly the same, so even if Japan hangs onto their Chinese holdings their homeland is still within nuking range of American bombers. Japan is going to lose the exact same way they lost historically.

But the underdeveloped infrastructure of eastern Russia cuts both ways. Just like the Soviets would have a hard time mobilizing enough troops to be a difference maker in the Chinese front (keep in mind that occupying China requires a fuckton of troops, so this isn't just a matter of getting an army in the area at all, but getting and supplying a fucknormously huge army for several years), the Americans would have a hard time mounting a respectable invasion through Siberia even if they captured all of China.

So the Pacific is likely still an Allied victory but the European front is probably a stalemate, with the UK holding out with US support but unable to mount a successful invasion of France - Operation Overlord has the same odds of success in this universe as Operation Unthinkable and there's a reason the British parliament shot that second one down. North Africa is anyone's game.

>>36242

>The Nazis did not have enough people to occupy all of that land

They didn't need to, they could've just sat up a puppet state in place, get their lebensbraum and leave the rest of russia to russian facist allies, same for China.

>>36261

In order to do this you must defeat the enemy army, otherwise they'll retake the land as soon as you leave. In order to defeat the enemy army you must either surround them, like they did to the French, or else run the enemy army out of places to retreat to. Neither of these is possible for an army as small as the Germans/Japanese fighting in a country as enormous as Russia or China. The Nazis didn't have enough troops to surround the Red Army unless the Red Army obligingly contracted itself to a tiny piece of Russia first, which it obviously wasn't going to do, and there was way the fuck too much of Russia to retreat into to ever destroy the army and eliminate the possibility of a counterattack against a puppet government. Even ignoring the nearly-inhospitable far northern parts of Russia, there's plenty of land left even after Moscow falls.