• Parzivus [any]
    ·
    3 years ago

    The Nazi Germany stuff bothers me the most. Like, I think a lot of people don't realize how lucky the Germans were. They were never, ever going to win, they literally didn't have the equipment, fuel, etc to do so. It was just a question of how long they would last and how many people they would kill before that point. The USSR and the USA briefly being on the same team is just too much.
    People that do this about the Civil War are stupid for basically the same reasons btw

    • Windows97 [any, any]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Not to mention their ideology was basically a hundred contradictions in a trenchcoat

    • Barabas [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      The Battle of France is never one of the things that gets alternate historied. Not even Hitler expected it to go as well as it did.

      • Ho_Chi_Chungus [she/her]
        ·
        edit-2
        3 years ago

        That's the thing that really gets me about WW2. If the French actually took some precaution and preempted the idea that the Germans were going to pull off an extremely bold, risky offensive because The only conceivable way for Germany to have won the battle of France was a lightning fast offensive that took France out of the war before French Colonial and British troops and supplies made their way into France, then France could have easily won. Germany went with the only plan that COULD have won them the war, even though it was extremely unlikely to work, but it did and now human history has been changed forever. If the Germans slipped up or if the French actually could have predicted Germany's plans, the war could have been over by 1941, even without Soviet or American intervention

        Hell, the French and British could have started and ended the war by 1939 if they actually pulled up their fucking big boy pants and deposed Hitler for very blatantly violating the Treaty of Versailles by unifying with Austria, but no, because instead we just needed "appeasement"

        • SerLava [he/him]
          ·
          3 years ago

          Yeah the German and to some extent Japanese leadership had to go to war for the preservation of their own personal power.

          Hitler did a fake economic miracle by borrowing money at an incredible rate, so badly that German capitalism was bound to collapse again in just a couple years if Germany did not overthrow their debtors, enslave much of Europe, and steal gold.

          Of course Hitler's internal logic was "if I do nothing I definitely have to resign in disgrace, but hey if I kill 40, 50 million people then I have a chance!"

        • Gamer_time [he/him]
          ·
          3 years ago

          This is what a lot of a presentation for my history class was about, basically what if the Germans never got their Munich agreement and then got crushed by the combined arms of France, the USSR, and Czechoslovakia. German forces would get bogged down in the mountains of Czechia and would never get through the line. After a few months, the sheer military might of France and the Soviets would have beaten the Nazis back, and a red and gold flag would hang over the Reichstag 5 years earlier. Of course, no ww2 means a radical change in the course of history, which my presentation was mostly about. It's so interesting to think about how different it all could have gone if the Brits had some backbone/sense as to not give the Nazis everything they wanted.

          • Ho_Chi_Chungus [she/her]
            ·
            3 years ago

            While this is just some nerd on the internet speculating about history, I'm pretty sure that Germany STILL would have lost even if France/UK enforced the treaty if Versailles AND the Soviets stayed out of it. Germany wasn't in a place for a protracted war and could have been easily snipped in the bud if they went early

            • Gamer_time [he/him]
              ·
              3 years ago

              Oh yeah, Germany was a literal paper tiger in terms of their actual military strength, any real pressure on them in 1937-1938 would have caused either them backing down from their claims, or if they went to war on the Allies terms they would be swiftly defeated, whether through blockade ala ww1 or a full on invasion through France.

              At least that is what I assume, as our world allowed the Nazis to enforce their claims and get away with stupidly risky maneuvers,both political and militarily.

              • ferristriangle [he/him]
                ·
                3 years ago

                Thing is, there's a lot of potential win conditions for Germany. Imperial countries sue for peace, write up new treaties and draw new lines on the map, and wash your hands of the whole affair. All of Germany's newly obtained wealth off the back of that murder and brutality just becomes a footnote in the history books just like it is in the history books of every imperial power.

                There's a lot of potential endings to World War 2 that involve imperialists shaking hands in a smoke filled room and just agreeing on new borders while they all switch their attention towards how they're going to divide up Africa and South America and Asia. The Soviet Union entering the war changed that. And even then a tremendous amount of work was done to reform Germany's standing as a European power.

        • dave297 [none/use name]
          ·
          3 years ago

          The Belgians deliberately ensuring Hitler beat France is 100% what I would expect from the tbh

    • dinklesplein [any, he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      the nazis rolled basically the best land force at the time (them or the rkka) by doing something so inconceivably stupid it actually somehow worked

      • hexaflexagonbear [he/him]
        ·
        3 years ago

        The what ifs are always "what if they didn't do something inconceivably stupid at Dunkirk/Stalingrad", without asking the question "wait, why should the military that consistently makes incredibly dumb decisions, and is under equipped and faces resources shortages win?"

      • Parzivus [any]
        ·
        3 years ago

        The Nazis, I mean. Off the top of my head, having the rest of Europe play appeasement, having Spain not be communist, and taking both the French and the Soviets at least partially by surprise.
        Beyond that, their victory condition was to take over the USSR at an incredibly rapid pace. The window between the spring mud getting solid enough to drive on and winter coming is just too short to take over all of Russia. Even if they had taken Moscow, it's not like Stalin just says "oh well" and surrenders, fuck no.
        Sorry for the late & short response, today was busy and I have an early morning tomorrow as well

  • NotARobot [she/her]
    ·
    3 years ago

    I use to be like 8 of these and now I am proud to say I am only 2.

        • LeninWalksTheWorld [any]
          ·
          3 years ago

          Enlightened 15yr old: "I actually consider myself a syndicalist, following the steps of Jack Reed to be precise, though the French communard model is also fine with me"

          Anyone else: "A what and a who now?"

          • dave297 [none/use name]
            ·
            3 years ago

            the main problem with syndicalism is that syndicalists are often quite bad trade union officers as it makes an often incorrect assumption about what people want from a union

      • NotARobot [she/her]
        ·
        3 years ago

        bingo

        Sabaton is definitely problematic and all but I like it what can I say.

        • cophatersupreme [she/her,any]
          ·
          3 years ago

          i mean they're glorifying war and all but don't they have a bunch of songs about the night witches and the defense of moscow, framing both of those as good, and zero about the nazis?

          • NotARobot [she/her]
            ·
            3 years ago

            They have a few that, while don't glorify the nazis as a whole nor their ideology, do arguably glorify individuals who fought for them (Ghost Division, Soldier of 3 armies).

  • Grimble [he/him,they/them]
    ·
    3 years ago

    Isn't even a leftist but calls people "Tankie" (doesn't see the irony in supporting other "authoritarian" states like the USA)

  • zifnab25 [he/him, any]
    ·
    3 years ago

    only cares about military history history of conflict between western nations up until the end of the Cold War

    ignores 99% of history 100% of materialist conditions driving nations to war

  • ferristriangle [he/him]
    ·
    3 years ago

    invading Russia in the winter

    Okay, but have you considered that in Soviet Russia, country fights for you?

  • bananon [he/him]
    ·
    3 years ago

    This is just Reddit. Fuck I never realized how many children are on that website

  • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
    ·
    3 years ago

    All of this was me at 13 except replacing Hearts of Iron IV with Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 and the opinion communism = many food