WW2 ideologies

>dying equally is equality
Lmao

>>3256455
You can't really separate the ideologies from the states that practiced them when it comes to creating threat profiles. Ultimately, Fascism was the greater threat to the other two for the very simple reason that Fascist states espoused armed conflict and exportation of such as a way of settling ideological disputes that liberalism decried and communism might have espoused but didn't really do in practice.

The thing is, you didn't actually need the Nazis to win to put a stop to Stalin's plans for a Soviet invasion of Europe in 1943, you just needed them to do a great deal of damage. The Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union severely damaged the Soviet economy, and put a stop to the building of a powerful war machine that would have quite easily swept the Western nations aside in a few years' time.

Hitler did not do this intentionally; his plans were just as crazy as Stalin's plans for Soviet world domination; however, since he didn't win, he just did enough damage to the Soviet Union to ensure the Western powers would win the Cold War.

>>3256506
>and put a stop to the building of a powerful war machine that would have quite easily swept the Western nations aside in a few years' time.
[citation seriously needed]

File: Soviet war preparations.png (12KB, 491x216px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 491x216px

>>3256514
Keep in mind, I'm not saying that the Nazis did something good, I'm a slavaboo myself, I'm just saying they did Western liberal countries a favor. That's why Churchill said that his hope would be that the last Russian would kill the last German.

All three were literal unironic supranational fascists bodies in practice and defacto and were simply fighting to secure resources.

This is how it will be analyzed 500 years from now. Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

File: U.S. military personnel.png (20KB, 714x306px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 714x306px

>>3256532
That doesn't prove anything except that the Soviets were engaged in a large military buildup. If you took the size of the American forces over the same period, you would find an even bigger increase. Can we infer from that that FDR was planning to conquer the world?

>>3256541
FDR's ideology didn't demand that he use his country as a base for spreading it through military force.

>>3256506
>and put a stop to the building of a powerful war machine that would have quite easily swept the Western nations aside in a few years' time.
Are you insane? How did they put a stop to it? Do you have any idea about the quantities of tanks and airplanes USSR produced DURING the German invasion? We're talking about hundreds of thousands.
>>3256532
Wow, it's almost like they prepared for an imminent German invasion or something.

Do you stormfags have any concrete proofs of eventual Soviet attack beside talking out of your ass?

>>3256547
Stalin's did, yet he somehow managed to not invade anywhere for the first 17 years after ascending to power, and purged all the people in the government who were up about spreading through military force.

When he did start militarily expanding, it was in an incredibly slow, cautious manner, attacking tiny minor powers after diplomatically isolating them and in the first case, invading after another major power had already attacked and was surrounding their capital. That sort of caution does not seem a part of someone who has a millinarian belief in a need to conquer the world.

And hell, look at the end of the war too. Why did Stalin withdraw from Iran and northern Greece? That again, does not seem in accord with plans of world conquest, to give up places your troops are patrolling. I'm not saying Stalin was a good guy or anything, but he was definitely a rational political actor who weighed the costs and risks before moving, and guys like that don't plunge headlong into conflicts with the rest of the world.

>>3256549
>We're talking about hundreds of thousands.
It wasn't quite that high.

>>3256562
>It wasn't quite that high.
Only IL2 Sturmovik was produced in 40,000 pieces, and that's just the single aircraft type.

>>3256549
Much of that equipment was destroyed in the war, and Soviet reserves and industry were depleted. Soviet agriculture was devastated until 1948. The Soviet Union was in very bad condition at the end of the war, which is why the Soviets put so much effort post war into building up a military alliance of puppet states that would keep any future war away from their industrial and agricultural heartland.

Not a stormfag, I'm a Bomber Harris poster.

Stalin's cooperation with Hitler was to weaken the Western powers. When Hitler overran the low countries and France, that plan was shattered, and the Soviet Union realized they were going to have to do the hard work in putting the rabid dog down.

The Soviets did little to prepare for an actual German invasion; however, Soviet ideology mandated that the Soviet Union be the base of the revolution, used to spread the ideology. This could be seen pre-war. It's pretty much agreed that war between the Soviet Union and the Western powers would have been inevitable had there not been the greater threat of the Nazis.

File: 1502973583531.gif (222KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 250x250px

>>3256539
Explain.

>>3256562
>yet he somehow managed to not invade anywhere for the first 17 years after ascending to power, and purged all the people in the government who were up about spreading through military force.
Because those people were retards who were dumb enough to try to do that while the Soviet Union's soft underbelly was exposed. Stalin still believed in spreading the revolution, he just thought that the Soviet Union had to be capable of defending itself to do that. To quote Stalin in 1931: "We are fifty or one-hundred years behind the advanced countries; we must make good on this gap in ten years, or they will destroy us."

Stalin withdrew from Greece because of US pressure, that's pretty well recorded. As I said in another post, after the war, it would be another seven years or so before the Soviet Union would have been able to tangle with the US and Britain, and, by that point, the US had nuclear weapons.

>>3256574
In neither case did tanks nor planes rise up to 200,000. Plus, Soviet wartime accounting was odd. They didn't make the same distinction between operational losses and total losses that most other militaries did, and that meant that things like

>Plane is on an airfield somewhere
>gets strafed by FW-190
>Can't get it to work, but with a few weeks in the shop, we can fix it.
>Gets it fixed

Counts as one plane lost and one plane built, which inflates the production numbers.

>>3256586
So, in other words, Stalin is not going to start a war he doesn't think he can win.

How the fuck do you reconcile that with

>OF COURSE STALIN WAS GOING TO INVADE! IT WAS JUST A MATTER OF TIME!

You do know that other states will react to Soviet militarization, almost certainly by militarizing on their own? And that the western world has considerably larger pools of manpower and industry than the USSR does? He's never going to catch up.

> it would be another seven years or so before the Soviet Union would have been able to tangle with the US and Britain, and, by that point, the US had nuclear weapons.
So would the Soviets. It's almost like deterrence works, and would have worked back before our hypothetical not ww2 fails to break out.

>>3256455
I like all charts that include communists as a separate faction since they switched side in 1941.

>>3256575
>Much of that equipment was destroyed in the war
Not true.
>Soviet reserves and industry were depleted
Is this why Stalin kept buidling heavy industry after the war like nothing happened?
>Soviet agriculture was devastated until 1948
Soviet agriculture wasn't that developed to begin with. They just returned to their old kolkhoz system.
>The Soviet Union was in very bad condition at the end of the war
In what way? If the war somehow progressed longer they could easily spam manpower and armament for as much it was needed. You seem to think SU had some lack of resources problem which is absolutely not true.
>which is why the Soviets put so much effort post war into building up a military alliance of puppet states that would keep any future war away from their industrial and agricultural heartland
And which is understandable from a geopolitical viewpoint.
>Stalin's cooperation with Hitler was to weaken the Western powers. When Hitler overran the low countries and France, that plan was shattered, and the Soviet Union realized they were going to have to do the hard work in putting the rabid dog down.
I agree, and this is exactly why any plans of future invasion fall off. I mean the Soviets couldn't even beat the Finns ffs, their army was plagued with purges, all good commaders killed or in prison.
>The Soviets did little to prepare for an actual German invasion
It's because Stalin personally believed Hitler will honor the pact. Hitler is in fact the first and only person Stalin believed to.
>Soviet ideology mandated that the Soviet Union be the base of the revolution, used to spread the ideology
Stalin's policy was socialism in one country. He specifically moved away from Trotskyst viewpoint of world revolution. It's just that Stalin was a pragmatic leader (despite his horrid paranoia) and couldn't resist what was ripe for the taking once the war was finished.

>>3256455
Communists and fascists didn't take their ideologies very seriously, they were just dictatorships with propaganda tailored to their society.

The communists had many peasants and laborers who want to blame their poverty on someone. The fascists had an educated mostly middle and lower-middle class population, they had to create enemies for people to get angry at.

>>3256597
Because Stalin did think he could win, and frankly, could have won. The French were in no position to defeat the Soviet Army.

What really threw a wrench in the Soviet plan for expansion was Germany's defeat of France. No one, including the Germans, Soviets, and western allies, expected that to happen.

Let's say that it's 1943 and the Germans and French had been fighting for years. What could possibly have stopped the Soviet Union.

It really doesn't make sense for Stalin to have signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler until you realize that Stalin's goal was for a general war in Western Europe that would pave the way for an attempted repeat of the 1920 invasion of Europe.

>>3256625
>Because Stalin did think he could win, and frankly, could have won.
[citation needed]

>The French were in no position to defeat the Soviet Army.
How's he going to get to France? With that Baltic sea navy of his?

>Let's say that it's 1943 and the Germans and French had been fighting for years. What could possibly have stopped the Soviet Union.
Well, let's see, AMERICA for one, which, by the way, would have been active in the ETO by 1943, and if France is holding on and negating the need for a D-Day like invasion and the colossal challenge that amphibious operations pose, means that you're probably looking at about 4 million American soldiers in France and pasting the shit out of Germany, meaning the war is quite probably already over, especially since without French resources, especially in the way of food, Germany is in a really shit position to continue a long term conflict.

Then you have the Franco-British alliance, which combined have an economy that dwarfs the USSR, and you always have the possibility of an ad hoc truce between Germany and the western allies if the Soviets really appear that overwhelming.

>It really doesn't make sense for Stalin to have signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler
Yes it does. Are you retarded? The diplomatic initiative that resulted in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact started shortly after Munich, when it became clear that Britain and France were incapable or at least unwilling to contain German expansionism. Time to switch horses and cut a deal that keeps you safe. Clear and simple.

>until you realize that Stalin's goal was for a general war in Western Europe that would pave the way for an attempted repeat of the 1920 invasion of Europe
Which you have brought a grand total of NOTHING to support your assertion that this is the case, other than Soviet mobilization figures, which themselves do not prove intent.

File: World War Two.png (361KB, 1914x908px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 1914x908px

>>3256607
Same. When people say allies not western allies it hurts my bones.
Should be Western Allies, Axis Powers, and Comintern.

File: hoi3.jpg (64KB, 550x412px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 550x412px

>>3256651
Hearts of Iron had the right idea.

Honestly recognizing Comintern as the third faction has its reasons. It doesn't mean that the wiki page should list three beligerents because the Soviets never fought two enemies at the same time except for the Polish Home Army but they had their own plans and their alliance with Axis and Allies was always a long distance relationship except for a few separate instances like this one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lw%C3%B3w_(1939)