Did fascism prevent communism from spreading farther into Europe or did it only accelerate it?

Did fascism prevent communism from spreading farther into Europe or did it only accelerate it?

The second one.

Britain and France were the ones implementing containment against the Soviets and the Germans raped that policy.

why do they look so uncomfortable in this picture?

>Ribbentrop Molotov pact
>shitload of military supplies such as weapons ammo and a cruiser ship delivered to soviet russia

yeah dude hitler was keeping the red plague at bay

Accelerate it. Fascism is inherently self-destructive, and communism needed the vacuum to spread.

Well, let's look at the historical record.

>Before Fascism, last attempt at Soviet expansionism was in 1921, against Poland

>Once Fascists gain power, you have Soviet expansionism once again within weeks of signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, all into areas that Germany recognized as within the Soviet sphere of influence.

accelerate it.

various communist movements would have come and gone. yet the failure of ww2, cemented communism into half of europe and asia for half a century.

fun fact: we should have sided with the nazis instead of the commies

Fun fact: the anglos didn't want a new military superpower nextdoor. So its logical for them to side with the commies

>its another 'britain hates white people' episode
no wonder london is turning into new pakistan

Any continental nation having too great an influence on continental resources means it being able to threaten the british mainland

Keeping off anyone who could do that is sound foreign policy, bruv.

I don't think you know what a "fact" is, user.

Which is why they decided to refuse Hitler's peace talks and join forces with the Soviets to defeat the fascists right?

Operation Unthinkable :^)

>Did fascism prevent communism from spreading farther into Europe?

It was called the brown plague against the red plague. WWII results are not the only things to consider. What also is important is that during the 20s and 30s, communist revolution attempts in Europe were stopped by the emerging fascists (Freikorps for example).

no it's an objective fact of life
i don't think you know what it means

>during the 20s and 30s, communist revolution attempts in Europe were stopped by the emerging fascists

They would have been stopped by any western state. What matters is that fascist states are where these revolutions were occurring.

>attack countries
>WHY ARE YOU FIGHTING ME I'M YOUR ONLY HOPE AGAINST COMMUNISM

Shouldn't you be killing yourself in a bunker?

Shuttup you commiejewnigger!

>declare war on Germany
>WTF WHY IS GERMANY ATTACKING US

Shouldn't you be getting circumcised?

> declaims war on a guaranteed nation
> Is declared war on by the guaranteer
> WHY ARE YOU DECLARING WAR ON ME!?
I left /pol/ because of goys like you

Well memed

Yeah, it's just a coincidence that the Germans had 60 divisions on the Polish border right after signing a secret agreement with the USSR to double-invade Poland right before the Polish decided to secretly attack Gleiwitz!

Definitely accelerate it with their pointless warmongering.
>Hitler's retreat created a vacuum in Eastern Europe.
>Nips wrecked ROC efforts in the civil war.

>I'm not a mouthbreather
>he said as he posted an uncited jpg referencing a tabloid magazine

Poland, a weak ass nation and history's equivalence of a raped child, would have declared war on Germany. The smallest things are facts when you have an all powerful conspiracy after you, I suppose.

To be fair, the KMT was struggling even before the Japanese attacked. Sure, the Encirclement Campaigns drove the Commies out of their bases (eventually), but they never actually managed to secure Jiangxi and make it an area they could draw support from. They lacked the basic political ability to make their battlefield success lead to control of the countryside, and if you don't have that, you're fucked, no matter how many commies you shoot.

Not an argument

>round up a shitload of starving peasants
>feed them if they agree to be in the army, shoot them if they don't
>put everyone in Maoist sympathizing areas in camps to starve off supplies to the guerrillas
>????????

Of course, I'm assuming Chiang is competent enough to do this.

>Declares war on a nation for declaring war on a guaranteed nation
>Proceeds not to even try to defend the guaranteed nation
>Don't even declare war on the OTHER nation that invaded the guaranteed nation along with the nation you actually declared war on
Yeah, France and Britain totally were only defending Poland. Definitely no desire to destroy Germany for going against the Jew.

it was a bulwark that no longer withstood.

tbf the practice of civilian reconcentration wasn't widespread at this time, only the brits and the americans had properly done it in conflict and they didn't write much about it at the time, it was something usually thought up in the field and known only as long as the conflict.

Most of the writing of insurgency and counter-insurgency, as a distinguishable field of military theory, begins with Mao.

>the only reason anyone would possibly want to avoid a war against both germany AND the soviet union is da (((((((jew)))))))

>hehe, the sun never sets of the British empire. Let's go and conquer/genecide some more unique cultures for monetary gain
>waaaaaaaat! The fucking Germans think they can invade this small piece of irrelevant land populated by ethnic Germans! Completely unacceptable. The only appropriate response to this is total war for the whole of Europe and civilian targeted terror bombings.

It's not like Britain let Germany completely disregard the Treaty of Versailles and betrayed one of their allies in a vain attempt to keep the peace or anything.

>you can't have soldiers stationed in your own lands.

That's why Britain accepted it and urged the French not to fight it.

So what's your point?

Prior to March 1939, Britain let Germany flagrantly disregard the Treaty of Versailles in the hopes that they could avoid war with Germany, and let them act as an anti-Soviet bulwark.

Bullshit. Churchill had every intention of going to war with Germany. Do you really think he when to war to save poor Polen? I think it would. Be more accurate to say that Britain wanted to delay war with Germany in order to prepare.

Churchill wasn't the Prime Minister in 1939, nor was he particularly relevant then. His popularity was largely the result of saying "I told you so" when Hitler decided to shit on the Munich Agreement.

Mind=blown
But I stand by what I said

Well, you're wrong. If Britain wanted war with Germany, they wouldn't have been nearly as lenient as they were. Had Hitler not broken the Munich Agreement, it's quite likely he would've eventually gotten similar concessions on Danzig & the Polish Corridor.

If Britain didn't want war, why did they start one over a small piece of irrelevant land in a country they didn't care about? If they hadn't thrown their weight behind Polen, the land probably would. Have been handed over without any bloodshed.

Because Germany proved that they couldn't be trusted when they invaded Czechoslovakia. Hitler was warned that invading Poland would lead to war, and he decided to call their bluff.

How is untrustworthiness a cause for war? Im sure the soviets weren't consider super trustworthy but they took no issue with their invasion of Polen.

>How is untrustworthiness a cause for war?
Because it's generally not a good idea to let a country break treaties to invade and plunder your allies.

>Im sure the soviets weren't consider super trustworthy but they took no issue with their invasion of Polen.
Gee, it's almost like they had their hands full with something else when the U.S.S.R. invaded Poland.

Not to mention the Soviets, at least, didn't have a long list of broken treaties with places like Britain and France and there was at least the possibility of some sort of recourse other than war.

fascism was not too unlike communism in the end but the period 33 to 45 probably prevented a spread of communism

question is if I really prefer the nazi model of tyranny over the soviet tyranny.
both are preferable to the tyranny we face now even if it is hard to see

You also had the fact that (prior to knowledge of the M-R treaty becoming public) it looked like the U.S.S.R. was taking advantage of Poland's collapse to annex territory they'd lost in the Polish-Soviet War.

Furthermore, there were plans for offensives against the U.S.S.R. after the invasion of the Baltics & Finland (Operation Pike), but they were cancelled when Hitler invaded France.

>following the decisive Soviet victory at the Battle of Stalingrad in 1943 and the resulting dire German military situation, Hitler and his Nazi propaganda proclaimed the war to be a German defence of Western civilization against destruction by the vast "Bolshevik hordes" that were pouring into Europe.

Top kek, Nazis couldn't even fool themselves.

>How is untrustworthiness a cause for war?

It's not about Germany being untrustworthy. It's about the UK guaranteeing the security of another nation. You don't draw a red line and then not enforce it, especially if you're an empire with territories all over the world

Or we could have done what we did and toppled both of them.