Do you think the Victory over Fascism in WWII was dependent on the USSR being a socialist society...

Do you think the Victory over Fascism in WWII was dependent on the USSR being a socialist society?⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣

Attached: 1v1.png (903x671, 258.23K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiwi_(volunteer)
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

what else but stalin's cold calculations could have prevented everything east of poland from becoming genocided?

Not decisively.

Russia before the revolution was a backward country on par with today's most undeveloped third world countries in terms of industrialization, education, health care, gross product, social services and military organization. Germany was a developing industrial powerhouse and advanced economy well before 1917, with a population which reflected that development in terms of education, employment and health. I am 100% certain that if Russia and the other republics had not been lead by the progressive policies of the communist parties and economic planning they would have succumbed to Nazi invasion and met the same fate as German occupied Poland.

Not a ☭TANKIE☭ but tbh thank god for stalin. It amazes me how western liberals can't understand how genuinely liked he was and still is by much of the eastern bloc population. He saved millions from genocide.

Basically these, I would like to add that in every country that Hitler took over there were willing collaborators who helped destabilize them and sabotage their resistance efforts before the troops rolled in. It wasn't just Quisling, everywhere that Germany set its sights on there were little quislings ready and able to assist the occupiers.

It wasn't just right-wing politicos, intellectuals and fascist grouplets who served a a social base for pro-German subversion and occupation as bourgeois historians often make it out to seem. In almost every country that the Germans occupied there was a major faction of the local bourgeois who sympathized with Nazism or who at the very least preferred guarantees of order and potential profit-making to chaos, revolt and revolution.

Louis Renault, for instance, was still making cars, trucks and vehicles for the Nazis even after the landings at Normandy. Due to the damage caused by Allied bombers it is also reputed that he moved production to "underground" factories during the War. He was actually abroad when France fell and was probably among a very small minority of people who left the United States to return to Nazi occupied France.

Many French capitalists had supported fascist organizations prior to the Occupation and so adapting their views to a more pro-German type of fascism did not take much convincing. Most people who have studied the issue know that whatever France's short-comings in 1940 that it was well-within France's capacity to continue resisting the Nazis beyond the measly six-weeks of the actual conflict. The French working class and peasantry was betrayed by their bourgeois anti-communist establishment.

Since it didn't take much effort for the Nazis to undermine a stable long-lasting bourgeois democratic state like France, I don't think it can be said that the Soviet Union would have fared any better if it was a capitalist state.

Britain is really the exception that proves the rule, since it was pretty much impossible to mount an invasion across the channel and Britain was backed up by the world's most powerful navy and the world's largest Empire it was a lot easier for British elites to proclaim they would fight it through to the end. There was that portion of the elite that favored a settlement or even capitulation to Hitler even in Britain. I doubt that Britain would have fought it out with Germany till the end, they just didn't have the economic, military, or demographic manpower. Britain and America would likely have been forced to broker a compromise ensuring a Europe dominated by Nazi Germany at the very least.

Britain and America's less-than-vigorous performance in the European theatre of WWII speaks to this fact, without the Soviets, a Anglo-American-Chinese victory would've been extremely unlikely.

The other canard played by some, which is that fascism wouldn't have existed without the Russian Revolution is also untrue. Mussolini started the fascist party in WWI prior to the Bolshevik revolution in Russia.

woah, source?

You are clearly over-estimating the ideological aspects of second world war and not looking at its material and political realities. Even If Hitler had not invaded Soviets they still would have lost the war simply by the factor of being out-produced by the Americans and having worse situation manpower wise than UK and Americans.

Additionally, French did not have the capabilities of resisting Germans after the encirclement`s in Cali and Dunkirk simply by the fact that 2/5ths of the French army were lost, the best and most capable units of their army were among them.

yes

Yeah that's when people get into trouble with counterfactual history, as it was a fact that the Bolshevik revolution did happen, and the Russian Empire did collapse. While I can believe that the revolution gave extra momentum to the interwar fascist movements – look at the labor revolts in the U.S. and the explosive growth of the second-wave Ku Klux Klan – it could also be said that these conflicts were inevitable given the total disaster that was World War I, and the resulting loss of legitimacy within Western states.

Quoting myself to clear up any confusion. Not saying the labor revolts were fascist (not at all!), but resulted from the crisis of the era, were inspired by the Bolshevik revolution, and the KKK backlash resulted from that. The second-wave Klan were quite different and had strong backing from the American bourgeoisie.

No, because Fascist societies are also socialist societies.

Self-contradictory question. Fascism wouldn't have existed if the USSR wasn't socialist.

t. brainlet

I would look into Annie Lacroix-Riz's book La Choix de La Défaite: Les élites françaises dans les années 1930 unfortunately she isn't published very often in English but you can find interviews, articles, and speeches by her that you can translate via google and YT if worse comes to worse.

France's army was considered the strongest and best armed in the world at the time. Even mainstream historians do not doubt that if the French had moved to stop the German reoccupation of the Rheinland they would have stopped Hitler dead in his tracks, Hitler himself was reputed to have ordered his commanders to pull back if they even heard the French sneeze.

While its true that the French sustained major losses and heavy casualties, they did have both the weapons and manpower to keep fighting even if they had to bring more civilians into the fold. If they had pursued a scorched-earth policy like the Soviets I have no doubt that it would have made a difference over the long-term but instead they passed over the fourth largest economy and industrial base in the capitalist world and the second largest on the European continent over to the Nazis.

Even De Gaulle had the temerity to taunt the French bourgeoisie by announcing to a group of French industrialists "Gentleman, I did not often see you in London" and he even admitted that the French resistance to the Germans failed in large part "because the bourgeoisie wanted to continue their dinner parties" The ability of the French to continue to resist existed but the will of the French bourgeoisie to continue it for the most part wasn't there.

As for the sabotaging of the War effort by pro-fascist elements I would again see Lacroix-Riz's works although she is not alone in making such claims. Another curiosity of the war period prior to the occupation is that French communists were arrested by Republican authorities on the grounds of subversion and insuffecient patriotism when the PCF reluctantly supported the war as one of defense against German fascism!


It just wasn't going to happen, sorry. Yes, its a counter-factual and I know we can debate it endlessly but the British and Americans faced 1/6th of the German army on the Western front and sustained massive casualties. I'll give the Brits credit for facing close to the full might of the Germans at the beginning of the war but they also got trounced and driven from the European continent for whatever that's worth. The North African and Italian campaigns were slow-going and very costly; whereas the later invasion of Normandy, in 1944 when the War was already lost for the Germans, would have been impossible if the Nazis and the rest of their fascist pals hadn't been tied up in a two-front war. Normandy very nearly came close to being halted by a German counter-attack as it was.

As for the point about being outproduced by the Americans, it was Soviet arms and industrial production that actually won the war. Without denying the important contributions of American industry to the War as it happened, no, I dont think American industry by itself was enough. The Germans had pretty much all of Europe's workforce and economy in their hands–this was a time when Europe, taken as a whole, still overshadowed the American colossus. American equipment, as it was, was not always very high-quality stuff, the Sherman tank is a good example of piss-poor but mass produced crap that found its way into the army. I doubt the Shermans could have stood up to the full weight of the German tank-corps, it was the Soviet T-42 that bested the iron beasts of the German army.

The UK and US paid a high blood-price in WWII that would've been much higher if the Soviets weren't in the War. I don't think WWI could have been won for the Allies without the Russian meat-grinder in the East btw. I just dont see a scenario where America, a country that wanted to stay out of the war, sacrifices say, 10 million soldiers to put a stop to the same racist reactionary ideologies that many Americans believed in in the 1940s.

Keep in mind that Britain and the US are also fighting a two-front war against Asia's most advanced economy and most formidable military. Maybe the KMT and the Maoists would have ground down the Japanese but that's a huge if, they had major aid from both powers and their presence forced the Japanese to divert their attentions from the mainland. Even if China pulled off a victory against Japan as UK-US focused all their energy against Germany, I dont think regime survival is a possibility. The KMT only lasted 4 years post-war anyways; it is not illogical to assume that the regime could have just completely collapsed during the War under harsher circumstances.

Americans outproduced Germans in tanks 2:1, airplanes 3:1 in Mechanized vehicles such as trucks 20:1, in Artillery 2.5:1

German entire supply of vital war material was tied to production outside of Germany that could have been easily disturbed, such as Swedish steal that encompassed half of Germans steel supply and was entirely relying on Allies not capturing the port of Narvik, since it was the only means for Germans to get this iron and steel that they desperately needed during winter months of year.

This all is considering the fact that Americans got the nuclear weapons first and had a steady stockpile of them and means to produce more.

Jesus Christ this thread.

And yet collaboration was common in the Soviet Union, Hundreds of thousands of soviets fought for Germany, and carried out the holocaust.

I'm pretty sure collaborators were at most about 200,000 which is a miniscule piece of the population in the USSR. Especially when compared to the over a million Partisans.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiwi_(volunteer)
600,000 in 1944, which is huge, especially after 100,000+ were killed in the encirclement at Stalingrad. These were just military volunteers as well, civilian collaborators were also important to German occupation. A comparison to the total population of the USSR is meaningless, since most people in the USSR never had an opportunity to collaborate. a Guy could be an OG Black Hundreds member, but if he's in Siberia he's not going to do much. Regardless, isn't the Stalinist narrative that Anti-soviet Sabotage, stemming from Trotsky and others, was common and pervasive in the USSR during the 30s?

Where do you people come from? Every thread about the USSR.

Attached: 1513124678889.png (630x504, 39.4K)

lol what

collaboration from pockets of soviet states =/= collaboration from the highest order

an equivalent for the french bourg would be the managers of soviet factories, which, were under stalins control, thus could not choose to defect to the Nazis

you severely underestimate America's industrial capacity. it was truly titanic. soviets could not seriously compete in this regard during or after the war. also shermans being poor quality is a meme afaik. they were more an all purpose tank that was very versatile. I'm not saying the soviets didn't contribute the most to the war, only that american production was what accelerated the war to a close

The centralized Soviet economic planning is what allowed the USSR to rapidly rebuild industry east of the Ural mountains. Then again you could certainly argue Stalin's crippling of the Soviet military is what led to such a mediocre performance early in the war and that things wouldn't have hit that low otherwise. Of course without Soviet industrialization it is questionable whether a Czarist or capitalist democracy would have industrialized to a degree that could challenge the German army. Perhaps western powers like the US would have more readily and heavily supported the Czar or a bourgeois government with equipment. Really there are too many unknowns to know for sure and I don't really see any value in discussing these kinds of alt-history what-ifs.

the USSR bled germany of it's best troops and equipment, facing the wehrmacht at full strength for America while taking on japan would have been very painful.

No such thing occurred. The western allies were fighting the cold war before WWII even ended.