Alternative World War 2

Could an alliance of France, Germany and UK beat the soviet union?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=3HUWUtTZvK4
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Germany were dangerously close to beating them, with UK and France AGAINST them.

So what do you think?

with the power of britain's knights anything is possible.

Thread theme.

youtube.com/watch?v=3HUWUtTZvK4

>A country whose army gets humiliated by northern mongolian soldiers armed with bottles and logs twice.
Any of the three listed could take them on provided they were not engaged in other wars at the same time.

With a proper supply line and no fuck ups, yes. Russia was just getting on its own feet during WWII which is why it sought peace with Germany, it was weak, with barely any infrastructure and war was the last thing it needed.

>an alliance of a heavily industrialized and eugenics practicing nation e8th the largest colonial empires.

Jesus I could see the brit and frenchies going full 14/88 too purging their billion of natives and other neighboring 3rd world to replace with tens of billions of anglo/german/aryan colonials instead t9 build a massive 3rd reich affiliated world superstate.

My biggest question is this:

If the winter hadn't been the coldest of the whole fucking century, could Germany have won?

>3rd Reich politics applied in the two biggest colonial empire of the time
Shit would have been brutal. The cold, industrialized german efficiency with the resources of the 2 empires would have conquered the world.

Germany nearly beat the USSR while having an air/sea war with the UK and while the UK was supplying the USSR with war materiel. Germany also had to invade the USSR later in the year than they would have liked due to fighting on several fronts.

If you combine the German Army with the French one while both are being supported by the UK its not even fair.

No, not unless the Krauts managed peace with the Allies.

>The cold, industrialized german efficiency
No, just no. Nazi weren't cold or efficient, they were ruthless and under drug.
I mean who the fuck use massive amount of ressource on camp when you're loosing the war?
>Germany nearly beat the USSR
Nop, nazi didn't sucess their bet(defeat the soviet) with Barbarossa, the moment they didn't bring Staline to negociate(and even then) they loose any hope of victory. After that it was just a long stalemate until the american lend lease and the URSS industry bring the axis down. And even without lend lease the axis got at beast a slow losing stalemate.

>cold, industrialized german efficiency
Under fucking Hitler? Hell no, he had most of his government fighting other bits of the government over who's job everything was and his chief of the Abwehr and his two seconds were all spies and saboteurs that were only caught by accident in the crackdown after July 20.

This.

And I'm not even that /pol/ but it would be kind of impressive to see that level of achievement.

One step closer to Wolfenstein level tech and dominance I suppose.

Germany attacked the Soviet Union at pretty much the perfect time. The Soviets were still reeling from officer losses and the T-34 was only being fielded in "limited" numbers.

>At the start of hostilities, the Red Army had 967 T-34 tanks and 508 KV tanks concentrated in five of their twenty-nine mechanized corps.

>The existence of the T-34 proved a psychological shock to German soldiers, who had expected to face an inferior enemy. The T-34 was superior to any tank the Germans then had in service. Initially, the Wehrmacht had great difficulty destroying T-34s in combat, as standard German anti-tank weaponry proved ineffective against its heavy, sloped armour.

So if they'd attacked any later the Soviets would have had better tanks and (presumably) time to implement better training. Really the SU didnt want to be fighting anyone for another 2 years iirc.

Lack of winter alone would not have been enough no. If they hadn't been switching forces between the 3 armies and concentrated on the drive for Moscow they would have had a much better chance. That would have crippled the SU's logistics making things far harder for them.

Things you'd need for it to not be a one sided fight:
1) A weak Germany
2) A war starting on the Soviet's terms

Without those France, Germany and UK would certainly win.

Depends, which one is getting the American bankroll? Is America doing any bankrolling? Does America not even exist? If not, then who is bankrolling who?

What else has changed?

>1) A weak Germany
>2) A war starting on the Soviet's terms

Communist rebellions in France and Germany?

>I mean who the fuck use massive amount of ressource on camp when you're loosing the war?
This is a common misconception, the Nazis did some 'pilot' scale mass killings early in the war, rolled out the industrial scale killings in 1941 and every year thereafter saw fewer killings because the worsening war saw fewer resources allocated to the mass killings programs.

>So if they'd attacked any later
They were likely to attack earlier, not later. Actual deadline for operation Barbarossa was in April, not June, and only Italian fuckups in the Balkans that created need for german intervention there caused the delay.

The moment German offensive was halted is the moment they have lost, yes, but they had a fair chance of getting deeper into Russia in the initial blitzkrieg, which could change a lot, even if the face of USSR's transural industry. Moscow was only saved from getting captured in '45 by last-minute troop transfer from Far East, which was only possible because Japan decided to focus on Murrica instead... and Russians got to know it beforehand thanks to lucky bit of espionage.

It's pretty hard to imagine even hypothetically. France and Britain had such a strong anti-fascist presence to begin with and neither would really be willingly absorbed into the German empire. Japan had some distance at least. France is right next door and both had too much national identity to submit. Not to mention the inherent instability of fascist thought. Its tendency to turn in on itself wouldn't help things.

Its way easier to imagine the US joining them desu. Not that that would really change much lmao. Nazis were pretty doomed to begin with. They would've inevitably destroyed themselves had the ussr not done it first. Only difference is how much more damage they could've done with the extra time.

Actually Britain has no qualms allying with Fascist dictatorships, they just don't like "Dirty" dictators.

See: Portugal one of our most steadfast allies, who had a Fascist dictatorship.

You could easily solve the issues of Britain not siding with a Genocidal Germany by having Germany simply expel all the Jews.

Perhaps to Israel given to them by Britain.

I always find it funny everyone assumes the Nazis are the dominant power. Imagine this

>WW1, Britain remained mostly neutral or joined later in the war like with America
>no depression, no lost infastructure
>Empire needs to become smaller, but financially still solid.

We might have still seen a large scale British Empire.

Honestly with the purges going on, Germany could've beaten Russia on their own. They didn't, but it was definitely within the realm of possibility. Hell, France and Britain probably could have done iuy if they struck at the right time. But that depends on how different your alternative setting is, if your alternative setting had a more competent Russian government, then Russia easily has the manpower and resource base to fight a good war against Germany and France.

>Implying that the judeomasonic banker cartel/cabal controlling British empire would have done anything with Hitler ever since he started printing his own money

They would propably try some shit. They wouldn't propably fare better than resistance in our WW2, since then there were also other resistance factions doing their thing and they also had foreign support from Great Britain and USA. German reds might fare better considering that they aren't located in the heart of this hypothetical alliance.

If Britain wasn't completely and utterly spent by the First World War, they'd have had the navy to basically make Russia it's bitch like they have had since forever.

Hell, they still do now, but MUH RUSSIA boogeymen makes it easier to justify more spending on the UK's navy, despite our fleet easily able to reduce the Russians to scrap.

Taking a step back for a second nazi Germany vs Soviet union 1v1

> Tl:Dr It's incredibly close.

In World War 2 the USSR had significant aid that cannot be overlooked.
Lend-Lease was incredibly important to the USSR. In order to focus resources on weapons production the USSR had to divert supplies from somewhere else. They virtually stopped all production of railroad equipment. In total, 92.7% of railroad equipment in the USSR was provided by Lend-Lease during the war. By 1945 almost a third of the Red Army's trucks were produced by America. The USA also provided countless shipments of coal, iron, ammunition, cable wire, etc... This fueled the Soviet Union's industry and allowed them to produce the vast amounts of tanks and artillery pieces that they did.
Nazi Germany also doesn't have to deal with the North African campaign which lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers, thousands of tanks, and aircraft. Or Allied bombing and naval blockade which crippled German industry and prevented them from building additional numbers of weaponry.
Operation Barbarossa happened in June 1941 but since 1v1 the invasion wouldn’t be delayed I assume the Germans will be able to attack on the intended start date and that the invasion isn't postponed due to the Greek diversion. This gives the Nazis an extra month before winter sets in.
The Soviet Union's main advantage is manpower. If they can mobilize their population than they very well could still swamp Germany with bodies. In a total war to annihilation The sheer reality of this struggle does not mean that the Soviets will simply give up if Moscow falls, nor does it mean that the Soviets will collapse if the Germans reach the Urals. The people of the Soviet Union proved well enough that they would not simply roll over and die in the face of fascism.

Pt 1.

>Judeomasonic banker cartel

Is this a joke? Most Large scale powers in the British Empire were notoriously Protestant.

That lady there is goddamn French.

Adding Britain to Germany pushes this to the extreme.

Imagine the tactical sidereels the British Army did in North Africa turned against the Russians, in a terrain Britain actually had better training for due to their long standing Swedish training camps.

You'd have the newly formed SAS dropped in from the Baltic sea, then allowed to become the proverbial ghosts of Vikings long past as they reave their way through the Russian countryside, bombing and poisoning everyone they wish.

Pt 2.

Germany also received some help in their invasion as well cnsidering if you really make this a 1 on 1 situation, the Soviet Union is only stuck having to fight the Germans. Hundreds of thousands of Hungarians, Italians, Romanians, Bulgarians, Slovakians, and even collaborators from the Baltic States, Ukraine, and Georgia bolstered the ranks of Germany's invasion. Without these allies, Germany's prospects of a successful invasion are drastically reduced. It was the Romanian army that bolstered Germany's southern flank in Ukraine during the push east to the Caucasus, and in the north it was the Finnish army that assisted the Wehrmacht in completing their encirclement of Leningrad.

Without the Western sallies and bombings the Germans would be able to shift even more material and men to the East since the Germans wouldn't have to focus on North Africa, Italy, and Western Europe, and without the bombing campaign the German factories can produce more equipment unimpeded and they could leverage their naval forces for whatever good it can do. Maybe spend more steel on tanks and drop their u-boat production?

Overall, this is going to be controversial but I'd give Nazi Germany a very slight edge. They have the capacity to simulate what they did otl. Only with less boots overall and with more advantages in everything else.

They should still be able to storm the Soviet’s western cities before the winter can set in If not, then it's going to be a long drawn out slug fest. If the Germans are smart they could pull back to the Vistula and try to stalemate like the Polish “did” in the German-Polish-Soviet assfucking. I would say that the two sides are too close for anyone to call with any certainty though but I think the Germans would still win out overall.

>That's just what London city wants you to believe
>Also the royal family.

Pretty sure alot of the trading companies even barred Jews and were highly Anti-semetic.

Unless you're trying to imply the counting houses owned the power in Imperial Britain, which is factually untrue as Land was more powerful than Money right up to the 1970ies even.

It's why all the Jews fled to New York. British Jews are actually notoriously Poor and extremely Orthodox.

DESU I'm not up to date on the modern situation but I'll take your word for it. Russia, France and Britain were all seriously hampered by the results of WW1 in their attempts to prosecute the war. Then again WW1 seriously affected every country in Europe, which is part of why the USA was important to the outcome of the sequel.

Basically the UK really loves Anti-Ship weapons, and has tons, While Russia has very outdated Aircraft carriers.

The UK could see a Russian Fleet moving before the Russians probably could.

I mean it's not "Muh Carriers" tier American navy, but most systems build for the US forces nowadays are built by the UK anyway.

It all depends on who does and does not get LendLease from America. Before anyone gets triggered I'm a Europoor myself, but even though America certainly entered the war late (again!) and tend to horribly overstate their military achievements (again!), economically they borderline singlehandedly financed the war effort. Britain's navy was kept afloat through LendLease, the Soviet Union would've collapsed after Stalingrad without LendLease and even De Gaulle told his countrymen not to despair because the Free French could always fall back on the "nigh limitless resources of the United States". In short, whatever side America supports (even indirectly) is the side with the best odds of winning.

If the US doesn't get involved, Germany alone would've been enough to take out the Soviet Union (see above). At this point having France and Britain join is overkill.

The Nazis were 'dominant' in the sense that they were the biggest military and industrial power, overtaking anyone that wasn't the US or the USSR (hence that "too big for Europe, too small for the world" spiel). What they did lack however was resources. You can analyze WW1 from a resource based perspective: on the one hand you had the Allies and Comintern (US, UK, France, USSR) who either through colonies or large territory effectively had the global resource market on lockdown. On the other hand you have the Axis (Germany, Italy, Japan) as new emerging powers that were isolated from those resources and wanted their own slice of the pie. This is why in both world wars Germany was most dangerous on the short term, and its long term threat depended on its short term progress. This is why Von Moltke declared WW1 lost after the Miracle of the Marne, and this is why we shouldn't give the French too much shit for losing in two months: if the Germans couldn't beat them that fast, they couldn't beat them at all!

The question is not "why did the Germans fail to take Moscow?". The actual question is how the hell did they manage it to get that close? It's actually puzzling how the Germans got to Moscow at all with the clusterfuck of logistics with dozens of incompatible non-interchangeable trucks for dozens of nations and the refusal of the Soviet Army to collapse even taking into account the purges.

Any serious historian will tell you that it was the Soviet refusal to surrender or collapse what ruined Barbarossa, not Winter.

Hitler fucks off to art school, Germany slowly digs itself out of the hole it was already on its way out of. War is delayed by two to fifteen years, SovUn invades west, league of nations (sans America who never joined)combine to combat red menace, Germany, Poland, Britain, and France are heroic allies and the Pax League is eventually enforced.

>Any commie dicksucker would have to believe Russias self-genocide was strong enough to stop the Germans, not the side effects of the self-genocide.

>the cold, industrialized german efficiency
German efficiency during this period is a meme.
at least to my understanding, i need to actually pick up and read wages of destruction but there's a lot of jank prewar in nazi germany and in the german war economy even more jank.
so many different models for the same vehicle, parts not working between the two even if they are cannibalized from a vehicle from the same factor.
then you have internal problems of empire building Hitler being an idiot and party squabbles.

the only thing worse would be france which would conveniently have NKVD in the industrial districts supporting stalin's work effort rather than anyone else.

You are somewhat right. But considering the whole transatlantic communication (same language, etc) between USA and Great Britain, were american bankers to influence european politics, Britain and british politics would have been their logical beachead

This combined with the fact that GB was efficently on the late stage of their imperial era, and still considered itself to be an end-all world power, they would have never considered to share europe with strong germany. And then see how things spilled to north africa even when germany was fighting near anyone who wasn't Italy and they might be considered to have been right.

Believe whatever you want. It's actually more sad and pathetic to be defeated by winter when it's not even a fucking surprise.

>Jesus I could see the brit and frenchies going full 14/88 too purging their billion of natives and other neighboring 3rd world to replace with tens of billions of anglo/german/aryan colonials instead t9 build a massive 3rd reich affiliated world superstate.

that is the biggest waste of resources I've ever seen someone ask for.
that's an accomplishment.
not likely they'd have to have cut off the red army at the volga would they not.
they only reason they were able to have a grip in Stalingrad was the Volga.

Actually, Britain was totally content to share continental power with the Germans. Even during the Nazi era, there were dozens of Joint German-British Industrial projects such as Cars.

What weakened Britain was WW1, basically forcing an extremely cutoff of the British Empire, instead of a slow trickle down effect that was planned after the colonies started becoming cost-ineffective.

If Britain survived in a similar way to America, places like South Africa and Zimbabwe would probably still be British protectorates.

We'd also probably see a Capitalist Far East too, as close ties with China and former Imperial Britain would stem the flow of communism.

>concentrated on the drive for Moscow they would have had a much better chance
leaving themselves open for attacks on the side?

>Implying that the judeomasonic
hey finn user how you doing?
also this is the dumbest thing I've heard

i mean the same is true for the blitz.
the nazis had blind luck for most of their entire existence

>finn user
SuperDupont makes me believe he's French. Among French (((royalists))) it's also a popular idea to blame the entire French revolution on some judeomasonic conspiracy against the royal family or even against France itself (at the expense of the coalition forces).

>close ties with China and former Imperial Britain
Were those ties between late imperial rule or just Tsiang Kai-sek and his guys ?

The biggest stroke of luck was probably that... I think the French prime minister died before he could arrange a mutual defense treaty with the Soviet Union. His successor was stupid enough to trust the Nazis more than the commies. If it weren't for that, the Nazis would be in a two front war from day one (like in WW1).

>tfw no China based on Sun Yat Sen's three principles
I'm still mad

>SuperDupont makes me believe he's French. Among French (((royalists))) it's also a popular idea to blame the entire French revolution on some judeomasonic conspiracy against the royal family or even against France itself (at the expense of the coalition forces).
oh.

>Even during the Nazi era,
CHAMBERLAIN!

>We'd also probably see a Capitalist Far East too, as close ties with China and former Imperial Britain would stem the flow of communism.
The world would be a much better place by the sound of it.
thrice damned germans starting ww1

Technically, it was the Serbs.

Literally the Serbs have caused all the problems.

I mean Chamberlain gets a bad rep, for a while people just thought the Nazis were plan White-focused National Socialists, which was okay by British Standards.

we've had our fair share of Communist problems though, which is why Communist Russia was naturally an enemy of Britain.

There was no blitzkrieg strategy. The 1940 campaign in the West may be considered par excellence. In reality, it was not planned AT all. Hitler was counting, instead on years-long struggle, as in the First World War.

The so-called "Blitzkrieg concept" (Blitzkrieg-Denken) developed only after the camping in the West. It was not the cause, but the consequence of the victory.

i know I'm just taking the piss.
though i'm not realy sure i would blame the serbs.
arguably it was just schlieffen because of the invasion of Belgium bringing England into the war.
or just europe having an ichy trigger finger

>We'd also probably see a Capitalist Far East too, as close ties with China and former Imperial Britain would stem the flow of communism.

This is delusional. China is not going to be friendly to Britain after the Opium War and the century of humiliation like ever.

Germany's army was also far from the well-equipped mechanized force that many people assume. For Barbarossa alone, it had 600,000 vehicles and 625,000 horses.

You may point out footage in documentaries. Well, most of the footage you see in documentaries is staged for propaganda.

And yet we still have Pro-British sentiment rising in Hong Kong.

Almost as if most of the Anti-Imperial sentiment was stirred up by Communist parties in northern China to help take over the country.

Hell, Japanese-British relations would never have decayed either, negating the momentum for the communist revolution in china completely.

That's like saying India hates Britain over the British Raj, nothing could be further from the truth.

>we've had our fair share of Communist problems though, which is why Communist Russia was naturally an enemy of Britain.
oh yeah but it's not undeserved.
and the war against Franco more or less allowed the Germans to rearm completely without notice.
the myth of the blitzkrieg
isn't there a long line of thought they borrowed from as well including Seeckt and the lighting war strategy going back to the 1800s.
also a good point.

and to add to that the point of the phoney war was to allow the industrial powers of France and England arm themselves and prepare for a long drawn out war.
the soviets were perhaps the only ones wit ha well defined armoured doctrine (thought i failed in spain)
and the interwar designs of the groups bar the later krupp marks were rushed and abortive

Except it does. There's a reason a democratic India chose the Soviet Union over the US, de-facto inheritor of the British Empire.

i think there's more going on in there then else where.
I wouldn't mind having the raj reinstated.
free railroads man
this sounds pretty interesting my dude, care to explain

And yet they're still members of the Commonwealth of Nations.

The most important strategic relationship that India had after gaining independence from Britain in 1947 was with the Soviet Union. There was some limited ideological affinity between them. India's fundamental national interest was not in Marxism, however, but in creating a state that was secure against a new round of imperialism. The Soviets and Americans were engaged in a massive global competition, and India was inevitably a prize. It was a prize that the Soviets could not easily take: The Soviets had neither an overland route to India nor a navy that could reach it.

The United States, however, did have a navy. The Indians believed (with good reason) that the United States might well want to replace Britain as a global maritime power, a development that might put India squarely in Washington's sights. The Indians saw in the United States all the same characteristics that had drawn Britain to India. Elsewhere, India saw the United States acting both to hurry the disintegration of the European empires and to fill the ensuing vacuum. India did not want to replace the British with the Americans — its fundamental interest was to retain its internal cohesion and independence. Regardless of American intent — which the Indians saw as ambiguous — American capability was very real, and from the beginning the Indians sought to block it.

If you think Chinese is going to bow to the British, you are out of your mind. You don't call yourself the Middle Kingdom for thousands of years only to bow your head to the people from an island thousands of miles away.

That's not how the commonwealth works.

The Commonwealth is also how India became such an explosive force.

>Actual deadline for operation Barbarossa was in April, not June, and only Italian fuckups in the Balkans that created need for german intervention there caused the delay.

There's been some revision in that area recently; now it looks like they would have delayed anyway. Attacking Russia during the rasputitsa of spring would not have gone well.

>If they hadn't been switching forces between the 3 armies and concentrated on the drive for Moscow they would have had a much better chance

That's only if taking Moscow meant the war was over. Napoleon did that and it didn't work, so it was by no means certain that Moscow falling meant the Soviets would throw the towel in. You'd need a complete collapse of the government and they'd already made plans to evacuate anyway. Plus the diversion towards Kiev netted 660,000 prisoners. It's hard to classify an operation like that as a failure, especially as those same troops would have been available to attack Germany's already over-extended supply lines.

Which is the real crux of the argument: logistics. The Germans simply didn't have the logistics to keep supplying those troops as they advanced, thanks to both lack of transport vehicles (they were mostly dependant on horses during Barbarossa) and Russia's appalling roads and railroads. So even if they take Moscow, they can't keep moving supplies indefinitely forward. Their tanks and aircraft are running out of spare parts and desperately need maintenance.

how much of this can we believe is the interest of maintaining autonomy as opposed to animosity towards the British?
with the soviets being separate they could effectively remain mostly autonomous and separate from the soviet union though i doubt it's for lack of trying the communists being the deranged imperialists (you call it global revolution i call it the creation of client states).

I've heard they've maintained a very positive out look of the British back home.

>and Russia's appalling roads and railroads
>Communist infrastructure is so bad it saves them from the nazis

The Actions of the Commonwealth literally kept India form devolving into a shithole, at least in some places.

As much as the Commonwealth is pretty much ignored across the world, one of it's biggest driving forces was maintaining the unity of the education centres of the previous British Empire.

Rich and Middle Class Indian families could go to University in India and learn well, because the Commonwealth league of education ensures the Indian Universities are kept to standard. It also allows them to be Student migrants.

I mean he's arguing it was "To keep away from the British" yet the Indians are one of the founding members of the Commonwealth.

I think the formation of the commonwealth is the biggest shot to your theory. Why would india found a club with someone it hated? Why would Britain host a club with someone who hates it?

>tfw no China based on Sun Yat Sen's three principles
It exists, it's called Taiwan, and it's fucking glorious.

>That's only if taking Moscow meant the war was over
It wouldn't, but it would cut the heart out of their railroad. Hence why I said it would make things far harder for the Soviets.

Because he has an American-centrist view of the world.

I mean for all the Brexit and EU talks, 17% of the world's entire monatary trade still goes between the Commonwealth, and a reinforced Commonwealth would be pretty strong.

Sure, but then you have a German force even more advanced and exposed to the same counter-attacks that happened at the end of 1941. As it was the Germans were able to contract their line which both helped with their supply situation and allowed them to better concentrate their forces to repel the Soviet attacks rather than trying to hold a longer line.

Hitler had an absolute mania about holding onto enemy capitals, so there's zero chance he would have authorised a retreat from Moscow if it had fallen, meaning that it could have been a far greater disaster than the end of 1941 already was.

As with just about all scenarios that involve Germany winning, they all run up against the fact that the Nazis were running the show. If the Germans had actually treated the populations of Russia humanely and cast themselves properly as liberators then they would likely have done much better. But then they wouldn't have been Nazis.

Have you seen Russia on a map? Even in modern times Russian and Kazakh crops occasionally rot before they can reach market.

If there's a central challenge to Russia's economy, be under the Tsars, Communists, or Modern Russia is managing the vast distances and keeping its vast infrastructure.

If the alliance forces Germany to not be genocidal shits, then yes. A large part of the difficulty faced by Germany in the East was the fact that they showed up as conquerers instead of liberators. Entire divisions surrendered in hopes they could fight to free the Ukraine from Soviet oppression and when German guns turned on them instead they went right back to the Soviets. A Germany willing to bite the bullet and support Ukrainian nationalism would've secured the entire eastern front and elminated substantial supply issues that plagued the later campaign. This isn't even taking into account the number of German Jewish scientists and engineers that could've improved German capabilities further

.The Blitzkrieg was so stunningly successful that we've somehow invented the myth that French defeat was inevitable. France being defeated in the opening months of the war was shocking to everyone. The fact that Germany took such care with occupied France shows that they knew damn good and well they hadn't really defeated the French so much as knocked it out and the second it came to it was going to hit back just as hard.

>ITT: Wehraboos show they can't into history once again

The Axis were not even a real alliance. It was more a balloon of hot air and at best a dysfunctional family with severe communications issues.There were no concrete agreements about global war aims or even functioning mechanism of coordinating the war effort against the Grand Alliance.

>China is not going to be friendly to Britain after the Opium War
Just like how Russia was never going to forgive France for the Crimean War, right? Or how Austria would never again ally Germany after the German-Austrian war?

To lift a quote from De Gaulle, nations do not have friends but only interests. You can easily fuck over a country in one year and ten years later consider them your dearest ally if your interests line up like that. Keep in mind that despite Churchill's myth of the "special relationship", America sided against Britain in the Suez Crisis because dismantling the colonial empires of Europe as in its best interests.

Explain why everyone hates, hates, hates Japan even its allies in Asia . Don't underestimate nationalism in Asia.

No they weren't.

Norks are commies, Chinks are commies, Viets are commies, I think with SK it's a conflict about Dokdo or something? I think their relationship with Taiwan is pretty solid though. Former PM Taro Aso called them an examplary nation once (much to the ire of the commie Chinks).

None of those are commies. Can we just ban all Americans and their retardation for good? Jesus Christ.

Japan is so hated, that even colonies wanted their previous European oppressors back. Japan current drive towards re-militarization is seen as an morally repugnant and evil by most Asia.

Yes, especially as seeing as most of the Soviet Unions railway locomotives in WW2 were given to them by the British.

>North Korea isn't communist
>China, the country where even the army swears allegiance to the communist party (not the state mind you), isn't communist
Is this one of those "no true commie" things?

Wait, really? I believe you, but can you provide some sauce for me to read up on?

Nonsense; the Brits were huge backers of the Chinese Republic; the loan to secure its creation was floated by London.

look up Kaiserreich

>Germany wins WW1
>France and Britain destroyed by communist revolutions
>The middle and upper British classes as well as most of the navy flee to Canada, the country becomes a superpower overnight
>Underground French monarchist resistance
>Germany helps the Russian republic win the civil war, but only barely
>Ottoman empire in shambles, Arabs are preparing a large scale revolt
>von Ungern-Sternberg preparing an invasion of China to establish the new Mongol Empire
>Communist France and Britain invade German dominated Central Europe, WW2 starts

Highly recommended

Communism is a stateless and classless society. If those things exist in the society then it's not communism. If you want to meme then sure, it's "no true commie" but by the actual definition of things (which matters over memes) then it's not communism.

Once again, I think Americans need to be banned for retardation.

Oh look it's a 'not true communism/socialism' idiot.

And I'm not an American, you're just idiotic and literally worse than a Nazi.

Alright then, technically you're right. Swap communist for socialist then and see if that changes anything.

I'm also not American, my flustered friend.

>I think the formation of the commonwealth is the biggest shot to your theory. Why would india found a club with someone it hated? Why would Britain host a club with someone who hates it?
uh i'm confused i think you are responding to someone else.
I was indicating that i don't believe the Indians hated the British but accepted the premises laid out by the person whom i was responding to.
I don't really have much of a theory, i just doubt the British were hated by the Indians
that's a very strange things because i'm pure commonwealth stock, quite a lot of it indian

I said it wasn't communism, not that it wasn't socialism.

Apologies for calling both of you Americans but let's be honest, being complete idiots who don't know anything about anything is their thing. Also when it comes to communism they know negative nothing.

>being complete idiots
There's no need to be upset, as these regimes are often referred to as communist in common parlance. This is on par with chewing someone out for calling America a democracy because the Federalist Papers specifically state that America isn't a democracy but a republic. But if it satiates your autism swap out communism for socialism and... lo and behold, nothing fundamentally changes.

>If those things exist in the society then it's not communism.
was it not stated by one of the two major orthodox writers (Marx or Engels) that regimes like the Stalinist ones would be necessary towards moving to the end point of communism as well as the cull of people who could not adapt to those societies.

>Once again, I think Americans need to be banned for retardation.
most people don't fucking know anything about communism, even fucking commies youtankie. communism is a fucking arcane ideal based heavily hack German philosophy, modernism and the most anti-scientific understanding of anthropology since the Nazis.
>let's remove hierarchies from a tournament species and live like bonobos, i bet that will work out just fine.

>. Also when it comes to communism they know negative nothing.
Agreed. some actually believe it can work and many think it's a good idea on paper
but the same is true for the british

>that regimes like the Stalinist ones would be necessary towards moving to the end point of communism as well as the cull of people who could not adapt to those societies.
Dictatorship of the Proletariat
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat

His problem is that communism refers to the end goal of these societies, which is technically correct. Technically as long as the end goal isn't reached, they're socialist rather than communist. Under communism, the totalitarian state would magically abolish itself after having sculpted its proles into the perfect Soviet Men who would willingly and without state pressure work to their maximum capacity and consume only what they need.

>but the same is true for the british
Come on, I'm not fond of the British but they work better in practice than communism :^)

>Dictatorship of the Proletariat
there we go
sounds so fucking stupid as a name but communism is 90% the name game.

> they're socialist rather than communist.
that's something annoying too, communists think they have market on socialist societies.
I hate both ideas but
>stalin is "red fascism"
>El Duce wasn't a real socialist
>nazis were capitalist guise
i had someone today conflate fascism and capitalism casually which makes my head spin. it likely makes sense within a communist world view (and only a communist one but even then it's the fascist are whatever bully i want them to be problem)

>communists think they have market on socialist societies
I'm not sure whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but Marx did entirely ursurp the 1830s French style socialism, who wanted to create a form of socialism that was more or less an extension of the French Revolution. The most famous self-proclaimed socialist of that school was probably Napoleon III, who was also at the same time a hardcore free market proponent. I still have no idea how those pre-Marx French schools of socialism work.