Why couldn't they get along?

Why couldn't they get along?

Other urls found in this thread:

voltairenet.org/article169488.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

but they did

they were controlled opposition

let me guess, by the jews?

North America and Eurasia can never get along.

Security dilemma. Each one had the ability to devastate the other with a unilateral decision. When you're existentially threatened by that, even normal, regular interactions take on a much more sinister tone, and you have to prepare for the worst, as the extra costs in doing so if you're wrong pale against the problem if you don't prepare and the worst really does happen.

So why didn't they manage to find a diplomatic solution to that dilemma?
Building weapons until one of them becomes bankrupt doesn't sound very efficient to me

Yes

Because diplomatic solutions don't change the underlying logic. They can kill you and yours by issuing the right orders. How are you ever going to build to that level of extreme trust?

this

fuck yuropoors

The ultimate U.S.A. strategy is to prevent the rise of a regional power in Eurasia. Russia (or USSR) was the only state which had the majority of the eurasian land under its control. If russians had the possibility to control a warm-water port well connected to global trade, or if they were able to avoid the various choke-points that blocks their fleets, and so their power projection, it would have been the end for the U.S.A.

One of them was born of an ideology that literally calls for an end to the others way of life.

both had the ability to dominate the world while havving conflicting ideologys

I sometimes wonder if the Cold War would have still happened if Tsarist Russia had somehow survived WW1. Thoughts?

It wouldn't be as ideologically driven (and therefore not as massive of a scale) but surely there'd be some tension

Yeah. How about that domino theory

Ultimately this. Both communism and fascism are incompatible with all other ideologies whilst liberalism is pretty chill

WW2 might not even have happened then

Nope. America and Tsarist Russia historically were on good terms. The same alliance would take place to combat Nazi Germany during WW2 and there wouldn't be a split on ideological grounds this time because the Tsar has no gain in usurping free elections across Eastern Europe.

>if they were able to avoid the various choke-points that blocks their fleets, and so their power projection, it would have been the end for the U.S.A.

>I sometimes wonder if the Cold War would have still happened if Tsarist Russia had somehow survived WW1. Thoughts?

No Bolshevik Revolution means Nicky II wasn’t a dumbass and Imperial Russia won WWI, in which case they’d more than likely control all the same territory that Soviet Russia controlled after WWII.

In the run up to WWI, the Poles for example were actually hoping the Russians would win, as they were seen as “our empire” where non-Russians could make a name for themselves, whereas the Germans (including the Hapsburg mountain krauts) were racist assholes.

So you're saying that everybody would have gotten along well enough that there wouldn't be a nuclear arms race?

>So you're saying that everybody would have gotten along well enough that there wouldn't be a nuclear arms race?

A stable and successful post-WWI Imperial Russia, that’s also in control of Eastern Europe and the Balkans, would have been too hard of a nut to crack for any alt-Nazis who may have arose in the 1930s.

On the other hand, a now even larger and stronger Imperial Russia would make Western Europe nervous, so maybe nuke tech happens earlier, though I can’t see the UK or France nuking Imperial Russia and going to war with them.

In this timeline, I'd guess the U.S. sits out WWI and wouldn't be the major power it became.

Russians and Americans were literally best buddies before communism.
voltairenet.org/article169488.html

I still think that the development of nukes would be inevitable, the question is whether or not the various world powers are able to limit the danger through international agreements.

One of them represents freedom and prosperity, the other represented the tyranny of communism.

>The ultimate U.S.A. strategy is to prevent the rise of a regional power in Eurasia.
Traditional British policy from the 1700s to date has been based on two core objectives: No state must become hegemonic on the European Continent and the sea lanes must remain open to British shipping at all costs. (Which explains why they still retain ports and strategic naval bases worldwide even as the rest of the Empire has broken away)

When the United States inherited Britain's mantle as the foremost trading power, securing the sea lanes for free trade became its main objective as well.

This economic cause explains modt of the wars Britain and later the USA have been involved in: The necessity to secure the markets and the means to export their products.

Likewise, now that China is becoming the foremost world exporter we will see them increasingly take a more active role in world affairs - This can be seen already as the purpose behind China's push to build aircraft carriers and its own blue water navy.

Ironically the role of defending free trade and open markets will now be upheld by a nominally communist country.

Americans are autistic cunts that just want to murder and pillage the world, soviets were autistic cunts that wanted to murder pillage their own country.

The autistic cunts that turned their aggressive autism to other countries won of course.

The colonies were a mistake, fuck the America's. I wish they could've been just like Africa, a perpetual shithole.

Autist

Destroying all other ways of life is part and parcel of marxist thought. Doing so is literally the end goal.

Tocqueville sorta proposes that in democracy in america. He suggests russia and americas large land masses will make them by far the strongest powers on the planet.

(((Lenin))) hated America and declared it the "Glavny Vrang", aka prime enemy.

Soviet Union: All capitalist countries must be toppled and replaced with communist regimes by any means necessary. We will attack them from all sides and send foreign saboteurs until the dictatorship of the proletarian is realized worldwide!

also Soviet Union: Ree! Why are you trying to fight me?! I dindu nuffin! Evil class cucks!

>le ebin (((meme)))
(((le))) (((XDDD)))

(((You)))

>making it easier to do historical research is a meme

>In this timeline, I'd guess the U.S. sits out WWI and wouldn't be the major power it became.

Militarily, perhaps. US military prowess is mostly due to WW2, not 1, but if the US hadn't been involved in 1 involvement in 2 (or heck, 2 even happening) is doubtful. But economically I think the US still would have become the dominant power regardless of war involvement. Even by WW1 the US was surpassing the British empire as the leading economy, and anybody in 3rd place (Germany) was far far behind.

I mean that's not wrong

They were financially incompatible with eachoter. Thats why

Capital literally cannot stop expanding.