Seriously though, the USA is virtually always bad.

  • UnicodeHamSic [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • UnicodeHamSic [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.