While there are aspects of that narrative I agree with, I think there’s some pretty questionable claims as well.
Now, if Russia were to win this impending Russo-German war, there was no way in hell Stalin slows his roll after beating Germany and stops at the French border
What?? Even with support from the rest of the Allies, WWII was devastating for the Soviets, it required an extraordinary loss of life and resources to defeat the fascists. I’m not inclined to believe that Stalin would simply attack France out of nowhere in this timeline, and I certainly don’t agree that “there was no way in hell” they wouldn’t. What’s your reasoning or evidence for this idea?
So the West find themselves in a position where if they do nothing in this coming Russo-German war, they are screwed either way, and although a Nazi victory is preferable, they figure that through geopolitical fuckery they can get involved and alter the tides.
It’s quite a big brained move to try to alter the tides by siding with the larger threat lol.
I don’t think there’s reason or evidence to suggest that the West found German dominanation all that preferable to Soviet domination. Losing is losing, and while the fascists would preserve and extend the systems of capitalist exploitation, it likely wouldn’t be the same exploiters at the top. Germany posed a very real threat of dethroning and replacing the exploiters, which to the exploiters is just as bad as the system of exploitation being dismantled.
This narrative also neglects the Soviet perspectives of the time. The Soviets were more than happy to accept help from the Allies and if anything were critical of them not taking more territory faster. It was only once victory was a forgone conclusion that the rush to sieze land really kicked off. It’s also worth noting that the UK and France got involved before any fighting between Germany and the USSR broke out.
So D-Day wasn’t purely an anti-communist action
Wasn’t purely anti-communist?! It’s pretty absurd to imply that it was primarily anti-communist, the Soviets wanted D-Day to happen.
I find this whole narrative is very oversimplified, speculative, and not aligned with the actual history.
Actually the overwhelming majority of French resistance saw the Red Army as liberators in 1945. The last thing they wanted was to see the bourgeois collaborationist government come back, as were many countries in Europe. There was practically no resistance if the USSR wanted to move into France.
The problem that Stalin would face was whether the Americans would allow it, and if the situation would devolve into the US dropping atomic bombs in Europe (since there was no way that the Americans could fight the Red Army without losing support of the population of the entire continent i.e. practically handing Europe over to the Soviets, and also risking domestic dissent at home since, you know, dropping the A bomb on white people is not the same as dropping it on the Japanese).
Actually the overwhelming majority of French resistance saw the Red Army as liberators in 1945.
That’s a totally different scenario to what’s being discussed. We’re not talking about the USSR moving into France in the historical timeline. We’re talking about a timeline where France and the UK sit back and let Germany duke it out with the USSR, and then, after a long, bloody war, the USSR emerges victorious, and then decides to invade France for some reason. In this scenario, there is no French resistance because there is no Nazi occupation of France.
The USSR never invaded West Germany post-WWII, so with the benefit of hindsight, probably never.
However, if France and the UK were so concerned about that, then instead of going to war with the USSR’s #1 enemy, they could have sat back and built up their strength while letting the two fight. Then, once in this timeline the USSR finally defeats the Nazis singlehandedly, they could attack the USSR themselves, since it would’ve been considerably weakened while they were at full strength.
The reality of British and French motivations were more complex than a singular focus on defeating the USSR through the 5th dimensional chess move of forming an alliance with them. What they wanted was stability. They wanted to maintain their “rules based international order” (with themselves on top). The idea was to keep Germany on a leash as a guard dog against the Soviets, and they cut him an incredible amount of slack, just straight up handing him Czechoslovakia in spite of being in a formal alliance with them. But Hitler figured he could just get away with whatever and it turned out that there was, in fact, a line.
In this scenario there is no west Germany because the ussr extends out fast past the border the americnas wouldn’t have been there to create. The USSR would have been the only industrial power left in Europe which as a region would have been even further destroyed. So just pushing into the territory of the old empire to fix everything would have looked like a pretty good idea especially since it wouldn’t be risking a nuke from the US to do so.
In this scenario there is no west Germany because the ussr extends out fast past the border the americnas wouldn’t have been there to create.
I know, I’m saying that historically, the USSR did not expand westward into West Germany so it’s unlikely to think that they would expand westerward into France in the hypothetical. Certainly not inevitable.
The USSR would have been the only industrial power left in Europe which as a region would have been even further destroyed.
Are you considering France and the UK to not be industrial powers? The areas that would be destroyed in this scenario are limited to territories occupied by the USSR, since we’re talking about the UK and France staying out of the conflict.
So just pushing into the territory of the old empire to fix everything would have looked like a pretty good idea especially since it wouldn’t be risking a nuke from the US to do so.
Not sure why you’re assuming the US doesn’t get nukes here. Am I to believe that Germany would fall more quickly if it was just focused on fighting the Soviets?
Honestly this whole premise is completely ridiculous. It’s not like Germany was easy pickings for snatching up territory at the start of the war. What you’re doing is looking at the very end of the war, when Germany was defeated and everyone was rushing to seize more territory, and trying to extrapolate those conditions back to the start where they don’t apply. Going to war with Germany just to make sure the Soviets don’t get the territory means a prolonged war with a very real threat of losing for literally no reason when they could’ve just stayed out of it and mopped up the pieces later if that was their only goal. It’s nonsense.
Yes, it is a counterfactual that didn’t happen it is nonsense.
You have to consider that at the start of the war the USSR and Germamy have done the fewest number of genocides. So we have to project or knowledge backwards here.
I’m not talking about the counterfactual being nonsense I’m talking about the original claim about British and French motivations for going to war with Germany. I don’t really know what the number of genocides have to do with anything.
While there are aspects of that narrative I agree with, I think there’s some pretty questionable claims as well.
What?? Even with support from the rest of the Allies, WWII was devastating for the Soviets, it required an extraordinary loss of life and resources to defeat the fascists. I’m not inclined to believe that Stalin would simply attack France out of nowhere in this timeline, and I certainly don’t agree that “there was no way in hell” they wouldn’t. What’s your reasoning or evidence for this idea?
It’s quite a big brained move to try to alter the tides by siding with the larger threat lol.
I don’t think there’s reason or evidence to suggest that the West found German dominanation all that preferable to Soviet domination. Losing is losing, and while the fascists would preserve and extend the systems of capitalist exploitation, it likely wouldn’t be the same exploiters at the top. Germany posed a very real threat of dethroning and replacing the exploiters, which to the exploiters is just as bad as the system of exploitation being dismantled.
This narrative also neglects the Soviet perspectives of the time. The Soviets were more than happy to accept help from the Allies and if anything were critical of them not taking more territory faster. It was only once victory was a forgone conclusion that the rush to sieze land really kicked off. It’s also worth noting that the UK and France got involved before any fighting between Germany and the USSR broke out.
Wasn’t purely anti-communist?! It’s pretty absurd to imply that it was primarily anti-communist, the Soviets wanted D-Day to happen.
I find this whole narrative is very oversimplified, speculative, and not aligned with the actual history.
deleted by creator
Actually the overwhelming majority of French resistance saw the Red Army as liberators in 1945. The last thing they wanted was to see the bourgeois collaborationist government come back, as were many countries in Europe. There was practically no resistance if the USSR wanted to move into France.
The problem that Stalin would face was whether the Americans would allow it, and if the situation would devolve into the US dropping atomic bombs in Europe (since there was no way that the Americans could fight the Red Army without losing support of the population of the entire continent i.e. practically handing Europe over to the Soviets, and also risking domestic dissent at home since, you know, dropping the A bomb on white people is not the same as dropping it on the Japanese).
That’s a totally different scenario to what’s being discussed. We’re not talking about the USSR moving into France in the historical timeline. We’re talking about a timeline where France and the UK sit back and let Germany duke it out with the USSR, and then, after a long, bloody war, the USSR emerges victorious, and then decides to invade France for some reason. In this scenario, there is no French resistance because there is no Nazi occupation of France.
France was still France. How Long before the ussr answered the calls for aid from the French comunists?
The USSR never invaded West Germany post-WWII, so with the benefit of hindsight, probably never.
However, if France and the UK were so concerned about that, then instead of going to war with the USSR’s #1 enemy, they could have sat back and built up their strength while letting the two fight. Then, once in this timeline the USSR finally defeats the Nazis singlehandedly, they could attack the USSR themselves, since it would’ve been considerably weakened while they were at full strength.
The reality of British and French motivations were more complex than a singular focus on defeating the USSR through the 5th dimensional chess move of forming an alliance with them. What they wanted was stability. They wanted to maintain their “rules based international order” (with themselves on top). The idea was to keep Germany on a leash as a guard dog against the Soviets, and they cut him an incredible amount of slack, just straight up handing him Czechoslovakia in spite of being in a formal alliance with them. But Hitler figured he could just get away with whatever and it turned out that there was, in fact, a line.
In this scenario there is no west Germany because the ussr extends out fast past the border the americnas wouldn’t have been there to create. The USSR would have been the only industrial power left in Europe which as a region would have been even further destroyed. So just pushing into the territory of the old empire to fix everything would have looked like a pretty good idea especially since it wouldn’t be risking a nuke from the US to do so.
I know, I’m saying that historically, the USSR did not expand westward into West Germany so it’s unlikely to think that they would expand westerward into France in the hypothetical. Certainly not inevitable.
Are you considering France and the UK to not be industrial powers? The areas that would be destroyed in this scenario are limited to territories occupied by the USSR, since we’re talking about the UK and France staying out of the conflict.
Not sure why you’re assuming the US doesn’t get nukes here. Am I to believe that Germany would fall more quickly if it was just focused on fighting the Soviets?
Honestly this whole premise is completely ridiculous. It’s not like Germany was easy pickings for snatching up territory at the start of the war. What you’re doing is looking at the very end of the war, when Germany was defeated and everyone was rushing to seize more territory, and trying to extrapolate those conditions back to the start where they don’t apply. Going to war with Germany just to make sure the Soviets don’t get the territory means a prolonged war with a very real threat of losing for literally no reason when they could’ve just stayed out of it and mopped up the pieces later if that was their only goal. It’s nonsense.
Yes, it is a counterfactual that didn’t happen it is nonsense.
You have to consider that at the start of the war the USSR and Germamy have done the fewest number of genocides. So we have to project or knowledge backwards here.
I’m not talking about the counterfactual being nonsense I’m talking about the original claim about British and French motivations for going to war with Germany. I don’t really know what the number of genocides have to do with anything.