#1
Kurdt
Post rating: ~
Same question for teh firebombing of dresden
#2
Post rating: -
lol wot? of course it was a positive, russia would have been overrun without

A) shipments of US material
b) the southern/western fronts being opened
#3
Kurdt
Post rating: ~
counterpoint: wasn't the US entry mainly undertaken after Soviet victory was all but assured so as to establish an outer frontier limiting the soviet advance
#4
Post rating: ~
When in February 1918 the German imperialist vultures hurled their forces against unarmed, demobilised Russia, who had relied on the international solidarity of the proletariat before the world revolution had fully matured, I did not hesitate for a moment to enter into an “agreement” with the French monarchists. Captain Sadoul, a French army officer who, in words, sympathised with the Bolsheviks, but was in deeds a loyal and faithful servant of French imperialism, brought the French officer de Lubersac to see me. “I am a monarchist. My only aim is to secure the defeat of Germany,” de Lubersac declared to me. “That goes without saying (cela va sans dire ),” I replied. But this did not in the least prevent me from entering into an “agreement” with de Lubersac concerning certain services that French army officers, experts in explosives, were ready to render us by blowing up railway lines in order to hinder the German invasion. This is an example of an “agreement” of which every class-conscious worker will approve, an agreement in the interests of socialism. The French monarchist and I shook hands, although we knew that each of us would willingly hang his “partner”. But for a time our interests coincided. Against the advancing rapacious Germans, we, in the interests of the Russian and the world socialist revolution, utilised the equally rapacious counter-interests of other imperialists. In this way we served the interests of the working class of Russia and of other countries, we strengthened the proletariat and weakened the bourgeoisie of the whole world, we resorted to the methods, most legitimate and essential in every war, of manoeuvre, stratagem, retreat, in anticipation of the moment when the rapidly maturing proletarian revolution in a number of advanced countries completely matured.
#5
Post rating: ~

gyrofry posted:

counterpoint: wasn't the US entry mainly undertaken after Soviet victory was all but assured so as to establish an outer frontier limiting the soviet advance



Are we assuming that conquering all of Europe is “good from a Stalinist perspective?”

#6
Kurdt
Post rating: ~
#7
Post rating: ~
"Socalism in One Country! How dare Trotsky say otherwise!"

*invades and occupies Europe*
#8
Post rating: ~

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

gyrofry posted:

counterpoint: wasn't the US entry mainly undertaken after Soviet victory was all but assured so as to establish an outer frontier limiting the soviet advance

Are we assuming that conquering all of Europe is “good from a Stalinist perspective?”



yes, exactly!

#9
Post rating: ~

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

"Socalism in One Country! How dare Trotsky say otherwise!"

*invades and occupies Europe*



correct!

#10
Post rating: ~
man, i've never seen you post more correct things. i thought your gimmick was posting completely incorrect things?
#11
Post rating: ~
U.S. involvement was mostly about Japan anyway and control of the Japanese sphere of influence.
#12
Post rating: ~
Definitely a neg. The US only contributed like 10% of Russian GDP anyway, and its intervention cost Stalin Western Europe. Just being serious here.
#13
Kurdt
Post rating: ~

babyhueypnewton posted:

U.S. involvement was mostly about Japan anyway and control of the Japanese sphere of influence.


ok sure but what about europe

#14
Post rating: ~

mustang19 posted:

Definitely a neg. The US only contributed like 10% of Russian GDP anyway, and its intervention cost Stalin Western Europe. Just being serious here.



This is kinda redundant because the US would have intervened regardless if the Commo’s had tried to take western Europe.

#15
Post rating: ~

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

mustang19 posted:

Definitely a neg. The US only contributed like 10% of Russian GDP anyway, and its intervention cost Stalin Western Europe. Just being serious here.

This is kinda redundant because the US would have intervened regardless if the Commo’s had tried to take western Europe.



But that wasn't the question.

#16
Post rating: ~
Ok well, I reckon it’s a positive anyway because Germany would have been a lot more effective without having to worry about a western front. I don’t know if they would have “won” but they may have been able to force a settlement with Russia
#17
[account deactivated]
#18
Post rating: ~

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

Ok well, I reckon it’s a positive anyway because Germany would have been a lot more effective without having to worry about a western front. I don’t know if they would have “won” but they may have been able to force a settlement with Russia



The war was already over in 1943 after Kursk, America was irrelevant.

#19
Post rating: ~

mustang19 posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

Ok well, I reckon it’s a positive anyway because Germany would have been a lot more effective without having to worry about a western front. I don’t know if they would have “won” but they may have been able to force a settlement with Russia

The war was already over in 1943 after Kursk, America was irrelevant.



*united $nake$ of ameriKKKa

#20
[account deactivated]
#21
Post rating: ~

tpaine posted:

mustang19 posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

Ok well, I reckon it’s a positive anyway because Germany would have been a lot more effective without having to worry about a western front. I don’t know if they would have “won” but they may have been able to force a settlement with Russia

The war was already over in 1943 after Kursk, America was irrelevant.

Agreed. Dave Kursk fucked up pretty much the whole opposing army with machine guns and win.



That's not even a person.

#22
[account deactivated]
#23
Post rating: ~

tpaine posted:

yeah he was. he was my great uncle asshole.



I did that in Nam.

#24
[account deactivated]
#25
Post rating: ~

mustang19 posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:
Ok well, I reckon it’s a positive anyway because Germany would have been a lot more effective without having to worry about a western front. I don’t know if they would have “won” but they may have been able to force a settlement with Russia


The war was already over in 1943 after Kursk, America was irrelevant.



um Kursk didn't even happen in this timeline because Hitlor had way more tanks killing ruskies because they weren't tied up in dumb adventures in Tunisia or Italy, pay attention

#26
Post rating: ~

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

mustang19 posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:
Ok well, I reckon it’s a positive anyway because Germany would have been a lot more effective without having to worry about a western front. I don’t know if they would have “won” but they may have been able to force a settlement with Russia


The war was already over in 1943 after Kursk, America was irrelevant.

um Kursk didn't even happen in this timeline because Hitlor had way more tanks killing ruskies because they weren't tied up in dumb adventures in Tunisia or Italy, pay attention



He didn't even open a second front dumbass, he spent 50% GDP on moon bases.

#27
Post rating: ~

mustang19 posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:
mustang19 posted:
Ironicwarcriminal posted:
Ok well, I reckon it’s a positive anyway because Germany would have been a lot more effective without having to worry about a western front. I don’t know if they would have “won” but they may have been able to force a settlement with Russia


The war was already over in 1943 after Kursk, America was irrelevant.
um Kursk didn't even happen in this timeline because Hitlor had way more tanks killing ruskies because they weren't tied up in dumb adventures in Tunisia or Italy, pay attention


He didn't even open a second front dumbass, he spent 50% GDP on moon bases.



stop being flippant about alternate history

#28
Post rating: ~

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

mustang19 posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:
mustang19 posted:
Ironicwarcriminal posted:
Ok well, I reckon it’s a positive anyway because Germany would have been a lot more effective without having to worry about a western front. I don’t know if they would have “won” but they may have been able to force a settlement with Russia


The war was already over in 1943 after Kursk, America was irrelevant.
um Kursk didn't even happen in this timeline because Hitlor had way more tanks killing ruskies because they weren't tied up in dumb adventures in Tunisia or Italy, pay attention


He didn't even open a second front dumbass, he spent 50% GDP on moon bases.

stop being flippant about alternate history



I've been posting here for two years, GTFO noob.

#29
[account deactivated]
#30
Post rating: ~
Also what would happen without Us involvement in WW2:

- Permanent Japanese co-prosperity sphere would be very wealthy and not too different to East Asia today....it essentially included all of what the tiger economies including coastal China are now.

- Germany takes western Europe, comes to armistice with USSR

- Greater Germany essentially becomes the EU as war fascism degenerates into liberalism

- Japan takes parts of Siberia

- I can't work out what would have happened to Britain
#31
Kurdt
Post rating: ~
51st state
#32
Post rating: +
DAE think tpaines and mustang16s avatars are too aesthetically similar at peripheral glance? because i do think that
#33
Post rating: ~
The world would've been a much, much better place if the US had joined the war a year earlier. The isolationists and America Firsters knew exactly what their obstructionism accomplished, and by mid-1941 they didn't bother hiding the pro-nazis in their ranks anymore.

Conservative commentator Pat Buchanan has praised America First and used its name as a slogan. "The achievements of that organization are monumental," writes Buchanan, "By keeping America out of World War II until Hitler attacked Stalin in June 1941, Soviet Russia, not America, bore the brunt of the fighting, bleeding and dying to defeat Nazi Germany."

#34
Post rating: ~

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

Also what would happen without Us involvement in WW2:

- Permanent Japanese co-prosperity sphere would be very wealthy and not too different to East Asia today....it essentially included all of what the tiger economies including coastal China are now.

- Germany takes western Europe, comes to armistice with USSR

- Greater Germany essentially becomes the EU as war fascism degenerates into liberalism

- Japan takes parts of Siberia

- I can't work out what would have happened to Britain



anarcho syndicalist commune

#35
Post rating: ~

tentativelurkeraccount posted:

DAE think tpaines and mustang16s avatars are too aesthetically similar at peripheral glance? because i do think that



Can mods change my name? I don't want to sound like a steroid truck driver, that's just my default forum name since I was lke 17.

#36
Kurdt
Post rating: ~
airstrip one of greater oceania
#37
Post rating: ~

tentativelurkeraccount posted:

DAE think tpaines and mustang16s avatars are too aesthetically similar at peripheral glance? because i do think that


yes I think that verily

#38
[account deactivated]
#39
Post rating: ~

tpaine posted:

mustang19 posted:

tentativelurkeraccount posted:

DAE think tpaines and mustang16s avatars are too aesthetically similar at peripheral glance? because i do think that

Can mods change my name? I don't want to sound like a steroid truck driver, that's just my default forum name since I was lke 17.

do you add one every birthday



is that algebra

#40
Post rating: +

gyrofry posted:

airstrip one of greater oceania



we're discussing alternate history dude