https://nitter.nl/Karl_Was_Right/status/1619050540113219584
Churchill and Roosevelt balked for years as Stalin begged them to open a western front to vent some pressure from the ostfront. I know Churchill considered it a win-win if the Nazi and Soviet menaces ground themselves down to nothing. Eventually, the weaker 2/3rds of the Allies tickled the Axis in Africa and Italy long before they landed at Normandy. It wasn't until a year and a half after the Soviets won at Stalingrad and had already made it clear they were headed to Berlin that the Allies decided to get serious about liberating Western Europe.
The US wanted a '43 invasion of France, it was the British that stalled it so hard because they were petrified of losing their own men. I'd say you have an accurate assessment of Churchill and the British but the Americans definitely wanted to be more active on the Western Front, you have to remember until Truman the climate around Roosevelt and his cabinet was that of a post-war partnership and collaboration with the USSR.
(In case it comes off that way, this isn't apologia for US imperialism or anything)
post-war partnership and collaboration with the USSR
:sicko-wistful:
I mean inevitably it would have fallen apart but the USSR would be in a much stronger position at the start of the Cold War had there been a short period of co-operation.
Exactly. The US understood the utility and need for a second front from day one. Eisenhower grew progressively pissed at the British for delaying
Even if you view it from a cynical imperialist lens, it was still benefitial to open a second front to secure a better position in post-war negotiations. If the Western Allies left the RKKA to do everything, then there likely would have been a full DDR encompassing the whole of Germany as part of the Warsaw Pact or whatever the Eastern Bloc would be called in this alt-history.
In the short, meme way, if the Normandy landings hadn't happened then Stalin would not have stopped at Berlin.
Capitalists use fascists as their attack dogs, and sometimes they go rabid.
Ultimately that's the rub, a lot of harsh things happened in that time, and there were other paths that could have less troublingly been followed to build socialism, but those always run up against this: could that version have survived the nazis/ whatever lapdog of imperialism was unleashed upon them. And looking at how bad things went the first years of the war, and then the complete reversal, a successful alternative is hard to imagine. Stalin certainly made mistakes here too but hindsight is 20/20. If the revolution in Germany had succeeded or at least an opposition to fascism there had been more effective, or really any number of changes that would result in the USSR's neighbors being less hostile, maybe we could talk. But that was the terrain to be navigated, and it does seem to come down to supporting what was done, perhaps with critiques but still with understanding, or saying you're fine with genocide and a far worse Holocaust.
The process of industrialization has been brutal in every instance. There is no counterexample in history. The Industrial Revolution in England, and particularly in the United States was marked with incredible exploitation and violence, up to and including open warfare between organized labor and the Capitalist state. Industrialization in the USSR and China also brought about incredible hardship. The hardships of Communist industrialization are wielded for propagandistic reasons, while the hardships of Capitalist industrialization lie comfortably outside of living memory. Unless we want to be vulgar luddites about it, a more important question is, what did people get in return? What purpose did this hardship serve?
Perhaps the USSR and China could have industrialized more gently, more humanely, or forgone it completely and driven towards some sort of agrarian Communism. But is that even a realistic possibility? When you have imperialism spreading like a cancer to commoditize every nook an cranny of the globe, when you have industrial and military superpowers doing everything in their power to pull the rug out from under you?
Ideally, Communism would look like what the Hippies were trying to do. Just run some communal farms, vibe, and enjoy life. But what do you do when these fucking guys with nukes, tanks, and aircraft carriers say no? Shit gets a lot more complicated.
Perhaps the USSR and China could have industrialized more gently, more humanely, or forgone it completely and driven towards some sort of agrarian Communism. But is that even a realistic possibility? When you have imperialism spreading like a cancer to commoditize every nook an cranny of the globe, when you have industrial and military superpowers doing everything in their power to pull the rug out from under you?
Had the USSR and China tried a slower, gentler, path to infustrialization the best case outcome would be ending up like big versions of Cuba and the DPRK - desperately trying to eke out what little quality of life is possible while trying to protect oneself from captialist siege while being unable to fight back on anything approaching equal terms.
Eternal quote https://twitter.com/stressbuilds/status/1446267873551388676?s=46&t=_sIaewHOjsWJhIx4s477QA
This is why I don't really get the fascination of Revolutionary Ukraine. They 100% would've been rolled by the Nazis in WWII, or even worse, actively collaborated with the Nazis in order to not get rolled. How is a peasant army and society supposed to stand against a mechanized military?
I think a lot of people figure that gumption and morals win wars, instead of things like money and resources.
Even the Bolsheviks experimented with measures like abolishing military rank and troops voting on orders. That was quickly dealt away with when idealism came up against the realities of battle. While you're being shot at, you don't have the luxury of voting on orders.
:xi-vote: me voting to flank left while an artillery shell rips my battle buddy into 8 pieces
Yes. I mean I have nuanced critiques of Stalin from a "let's understand mistakes of the past so we don't repeat them" perspective, but this is truth that I keep coming back to.
they evacuated 8 million people and rebuilt their entire industrial base up against the ural mountains in response to the nazi invasion. absolutely absurdly goated.
I just don't see the alternative path to Stalinism. If someone offered me something better, I wouldn't support the Soviet course in the 1930s-40s. Instead they offer Trotsky or worse. Stalin got results and he persecuted most of the people who deserved it.
I mean there are more than a few very awful mistakes or acts from that period. Lot of the purges are unjust and cannot be excused by them eventually defeating the fascists. Stuff like arresting educators for people with disability, as well as a lot of the foreign revolutionaries living in the USSR as expats. That often just hurt those movements and possibly harmed the war effort later, like the Finnish Reds. The mass deportations also often ended up being cruel, unnecessary, and a loss of manpower and waste of military resources.
I love Stalin and I try my damndest to uphold him and I do think he was at least 80% correct 20% incorrect, but that 20% is really fucking depressing and not because libs use it as a bludgeon for their BS. It sucks reading about a figure and seeing their death date as '37-39 and your heart sinking. They dont make up even the majority of those purged, most didn't die, most purged didn't even face jailtime, but that overblown number still in actuality is disheartening.
Which makes Trotsky as the sainted martyr so fucking funny. They pick the one guy who really was being traitorous and revisionist and posed a threat.
Well that and a lot of those purged who had been genuinely betrayed, had been loyal MLs who fit the "Stalinist" label right up to their execution. Even for those who did oppose Stalin they can hardly give actual focus to, they cannot say anything more about the likes of Kamenev or Zinoviev since they are "authoritarians." They can try to offhandedly say "look how Stalin treated even his allies", but would never justify men who truly agreed with his line like Krestinsky. Hell it is still kinda surprising that Bukharin is loved by guys like Gorbachev and somewhat rehabilitated in the west given he was an attack dog against Zinoviev.
No, my dad said the :amerikkka: Lend-Lease program is the reason the soviets beat the germans, and that's why Ukraine is going to win.
