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.
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.