In hindsight, should the WAllies not have helped the Soviets?

[NullPraxis]

Cuba under Batista was the richest country in the Caribbean, and European countries.

What a joke, it was an authoritarian shithole where poverty was at an extreme (1/3rd of the entire island) and had a comparable economy to Italy which was still recovering from WWII at the time and was saved largely by the Korean War. Batista ran the most corrupt country in the Caribbean, hence the favoured term 'Whorehouse of the Caribbean' and the fact Batista was a close ally with the fucking American Mafia. Your average family in the Caribbean lived on $6.00 a week, 15-20% unemployment rates, and 2/3rd of the country had no water infrastructure.

Batista's regime was more violent and repressive than Castro up to the end after seizing power by military coup, with a literal secret police attacking people by the thousands and committing mass shootings for suspected crimes; "Hundreds of mangled bodies were left hanging from lamp posts or dumped in the streets in a grotesque variation of the Spanish colonial practice of public executions."

Might I suggest, y'know, actually reading on Batista before you blindly defend an authoritarian fascist who ran an incredibly corrupt nation through repressions more brutal than Castro ever did?

and economically, are better than Haiti.

Tends top happen when you're sanctioned by the largest economy in the world, who deliberately bully other nations into not doing trade with you.

 

[marathag]

Might I suggest, y'know, actually reading on Batista before you blindly defend an authoritarian fascist who ran an incredibly corrupt nation through repressions more brutal than Castro ever did?

Except for the fact that Castro jailed and executed more in the first year of the revolution than for the entire term Batista was in charge, and expanded the police state even farther after that?

Corrupt? is that how Castro ended up being so rich, along with the rest of the Party elite?

 

[NullPraxis]

Except for the fact that Castro jailed and executed more in the first year of the revolution than for the entire term Batista was in charge, and expanded the police state even farther?

The actions of Castro does not cancel out the fact Batista ran a far more corrupt, violent, and muderous regime than Castro. I wonder how many Cubans died in poverty under Batista? Or how many babies and mothers died because of the infant mortality rate under his regime? Or perhaps we could look at the fact he slaughtered thousands in the countryside in the name of fighting a revolution that he himself created by acting this way. In absolute numbers, Batista killed more than Castro ever did by his policies and inaction against poverty and misery in Cuba outside of his fiefdoms loaned to his piggy mafia pals.

Corrupt? is that how Castro ended up being so rich, along with the rest of the Party elite?

Nice, you're deflecting. Stop trying to defend Batista. By the time he fled Cuba, Batista was filthy rich off plundering Cuba and died a pig in Portugal, and virtually every article I've seen on Castro being filthy rich was either by exiles (or their descendants) or had no definitive proof.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

If you're going to race to the bottom, at least pick some legit targets like Pol Pot and Idi Amin. Castro vs. Batista? That's like debating whether Chester Arthur or Rutherford B Hayes was a worse President. Blech.

 

[TruthfulPanda]

Cuba is again a whorehouse ...

 

[NullPraxis]

Cuba is again a whorehouse ...

No, it’s not, stop trying to redefine an already defined definition.

 

[LHB]

No, it doesn't.
Most would gladly trade a Pinochet over Pol Pot, a Papa Doc for Mao any day of the week, twice on Sunday, however.
Are Cambodian and Chinese lives worth less? Weakening what would become the 2nd World before it becomes a thing would be well worth it. The cast of horribles supported by China and the USSR were far, far worse than the SOBs the West supported

Would you want to live under Smith and Botha or Barre and Mugabe?

Funny you bring up Mao and Pol Pot as justifications for how many more tens of millions would've died, both military and civilian along with victims of the death camps, considering America's role in both of their rise to power. In the case of Mao as many other posters have pointed out in-thread Mao's rise was heavily dependent on how unbelievably incompetent and corrupt the Nationalists were. Extending the war in Eastern Europe will not change that in any significant way and may in fact make it easier for him by extending the war in the west, reducing the amount of resources available for the Pacific and keeping the Kwangtung Army intact in Manchuria for a far longer period of time. That also means a lot more Chinese civilians get to die in the name of your glorious no Cold War world.

As for Pol Pot he came to power because of Nixon's little Holiday in Cambodia during the Vietnam War. On top of that it was Communist Vietnam's military intervention that put a stop to him so I guess that's one to chalk up to US policies during the Cold War rather than evil commies.

I know this is an Alternate History site but I have to wonder if all the people who are being so blase about millions more people dying is breaking the site's rules against genocide apologism/advocacy. This stuff is just plain disgusting and ignores little things like a more thoroughly complete Holocaust, millions more Soviet citizens dead both on the battlefield and in the areas where Nazi Germany's Hunger Plan was in place, who knows how many people in China falling victim to Imperial Japan's Three Alls campaign and the high likelihood of the invasion of France being even nastier, longer and bloodier than OTL. All told that's probably going to kill even more people than Stalin did and come pretty close to Mao's death count while not actually guaranteeing the latter won't rise to power and that the former will be a much nastier, more vengeful and vicious SOB post-war. It also doesn't stop things like the Algerian War of Independence, the wars in Indochina or the umpteen million military dictatorships the US will be propping up since that was US policy in Latin America since well before the Cold War.

 

[Faeelin]

That all might be true, but the bomb is still a no-no. Whenever it all ends there would be a window in which the USSR would be hobbled in every way imaginable, so going for the bomb would only get them smashed worse.
Nothing is worse than getting nuked.

Why would going for the bomb get them smashed? Are we now adding a second POD where the USA nukes the USSR if it gets atomic weapons?

 

[Faeelin]

Cuba under Batista was the richest country in the Caribbean, and some European countries. Castro jailed tens of thousands more, and economically, are better than Haiti.

But hey, Doctors, Literacy, and 1956 DeSotos for the win, eh?

Oh Cuba's a clusterfuck, but you have to explain why if Batista was so great why everyone overthrew him to install the Communists, and US efforts to overthrow Castro failed. Rural Cuba was a mess, and prosperity in the cities (which weren't the majority of Cuba's population) masks that.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I have always wondered what a small percentage of the equipment sent to Russia in 1941 would have ment to the British Commonwealth forces in Malaya for example!

What differnce an extra wing or 2 of fighter planes and a Brigade of Matilda IIs would have made?

Still the loss of Malaya did not lose Britain the War and those Wings of Fighters and Brigade of Matilda II tanks might very well have made the differnce around Moscow whos loss might ultimately have lost Britain the war.

 

[Faeelin]

There's a lot of butterfly handwaving going on in this thread.

Second, once the allies land, the Germans need to move divisions from the eastern front to the western and they'll probably have to pull back to shorten their lines. On a percentage basis, the US and UK are much worse off than the Russians in terms of casualties. Fighting through the bocage is 10x more difficult let alone crossing France.

Third, there were a lot of communist sympathizers in the US during this time. I can easily imagine a situation where they are more apt to provide more assistance than OTL if the Soviets are hung out to dry.

Don't forget the French communists in the resistance!


I agree with your post 100% obviously.

 

[Tanc49]

I know this is an Alternate History site but I have to wonder if all the people who are being so blase about millions more people dying is breaking the site's rules against genocide apologism/advocacy. This stuff is just plain disgusting and ignores little things like a more thoroughly complete Holocaust, millions more Soviet citizens dead both on the battlefield and in the areas where Nazi Germany's Hunger Plan was in place, who knows how many people in China falling victim to Imperial Japan's Three Alls campaign and the high likelihood of the invasion of France being even nastier, longer and bloodier than OTL. All told that's probably going to kill even more people than Stalin did and come pretty close to Mao's death count while not actually guaranteeing the latter won't rise to power and that the former will be a much nastier, more vengeful and vicious SOB post-war. It also doesn't stop things like the Algerian War of Independence, the wars in Indochina or the umpteen million military dictatorships the US will be propping up since that was US policy in Latin America since well before the Cold War.

Couldn't agree more. The French decolonisation wars had nothing to do with communism. If it hadn't been Ho Chi Minh, it'd have been another one. The Algerian war is another bag of tricks. If anything, with a liberation of France that take more time and more blood, you might even see even bloodier decolonisation as the country tries to hang on. This would not be pleasant.
I'm from Normandy where my city was razed to the ground. I can only imagine the rest of France done in the same way if the war lasts for longer. I guess we can kiss Paris goodbye too, plus millions of citizens starvingor being executed like in Oradour sur Glane.
Communism was in many ways awful and Stalin not a good person but let's not act like the rest of the world were angels and like Capitalism is the saving light. In the free world, the French supported African dictatorship, the Americans poisonned their citizens and we burned half the planet through environmental damage

 

[longsword14]

Why would going for the bomb get them smashed? Are we now adding a second POD where the USA nukes the USSR if it gets atomic weapons?

No, even if they got the bomb they would not be capable of actually doing much with it in that window. If in some scenario they actually use their stockpile, as in aggressively, then they get bombed to oblivion.

Don't forget the French communists in the resistance!

What difference does that make ? Short of an allied landing they are not doing much.

Communism was in many ways awful and Stalin not a good person but let's not act like the rest of the world were angels and like Capitalism is the saving light. In the free world, the French supported African dictatorship, the Americans poisonned their citizens and we burned half the planet through environmental damage

None of this has go anything to do with WWII.
USSR is already doing what the West wanted, once the end is clear the future must be looked at, which means keeping the Reds away.
Nazism smashed together with communists sabotaged is a great thing.

 

[Tanc49]

No, even if they got the bomb they would not be capable of actually doing much with it in that window. If in some scenario they actually use their stockpile, as in aggressively, then they get bombed to oblivion.

What difference does that make ? Short of an allied landing they are not doing much.

None of this has go anything to do with WWII.
USSR is already doing what the West wanted, once the end is clear the future must be looked at, which means keeping the Reds away.
Nazism smashed together with communists sabotaged is a great thing.

Well, that just means that instead of two superpowers you can play against each other, you only have one, who isn't afraid to dictate things. Although I was more replying to the whole "as long as there's no cold war, a longer holocaust is worth it" posts, there's still the question of whether one would like living in a world utterly dominated by the States

 

[LHB]

None of this has go anything to do with WWII.
USSR is already doing what the West wanted, once the end is clear the future must be looked at, which means keeping the Reds away.
Nazism smashed together with communists sabotaged is a great thing.

Anything that involves cutting back Lend-Lease means the Red Army moves more slowly, fights less effectively and that in turn means more Nazis for the Anglo-Americans to fight in France and Italy along with more time for the death camps to keep killing people.

As to your fantasies of a pre-emptive nuclear strike I'm not even dignifying that madness with a response. Anyone who thinks unleashing nuclear hell is a good idea needs to have their head examined.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

If the Soviets can support a massive military to drive the Germans back, then they aren't that poor. And Eastern Europe was arguably more of a loss than a benefit. Does Conquest Pay makes the argument that the empire in Eastern Europe cost more than the Soviets got out of it. Meanwhile, the Eastern European states are a run of far right quasi-fascist regimes, assuming they're like Eastern Europe in OTL's 1920s-1930s....

But you sort of prove my point? The Soviets don't collapse! They just lose 20 million more people and are in the fight somehow! Then they collapse after the fact for some reason.

Wait what?

It would be a fine line between being able to keep in the war and avoid collapse and actually collapsing. Being part of the winning coalition doesn't mean they'd be in Poland by 1945 or 46 depending on the timeline to victory here.
The situation with Eastern Europe is that it initially was very profitable to the Soviets, but over the long run it proved a drain to have the empire. "Does Conquest Pay" covers the Soviet occupation until it collapsed in 1989, so that is a very long time period with differing conditions. It appears that at least until the 1950s that occupation paid more than it cost, but beyond that it hurt.

Also I didn't say the Soviets could lose 20 million more people, rather than they could lose more, end up further East, and potentially collapse after the war due to not looting Europe and getting frozen out of most of OTL LL and the Asian spoils (over $2 billion in 1940 value dollars worth of industrial equipment was looted from Manchuria in 1945).

A US liberated Eastern Europe is unlikely to return to Fascism unless you consider post-WW2 France, Italy, and West Germany Fascist.

But I guess it'll be real funny when a fascist KMT conquers most of Asia in this timeline in the 1960s.

Why would they even try? They'd have too much to do at home.

 

[longsword14]

As to your fantasies of a pre-emptive nuclear strike I'm not even dignifying that madness with a response. Anyone who thinks unleashing nuclear hell is a good idea needs to have their head examined.

The one person who needs to get his head examined is you, for you lack reading comprehension. The post you replied to was a reply to another post where the poster misread my post.
The only plausible use the USSR could do would be in self defence, which definitely would not have happened in my scenario because there would have been no attack.
Then Russian willingness to use bombs could only mean in an attack, something which they could never have done post war without getting burnt down.
A smaller combloc with nukes will not have advantages compared to OTL.

 

[Tanc49]

A US liberated Eastern Europe is unlikely to return to Fascism unless you consider post-WW2 France, Italy, and West Germany Fascist

"-You're mistaken, a dictatorship is when people are cold, have grey hats and shoes with zippers. That's what a dictatorship is Dolorès!
-Then, how do you call a country whose president is a soldier with absolute powers, a secret police, and whose information is entirely controlled by the State?
-I call that France young lady, and not any France! France of the General de Gaulle!"

 

[CalBear]

The one person who needs to get his head examined is you, for you lack reading comprehension. The post you replied to was a reply to another post where the poster misread my post.
The only plausible use the USSR could do would be in self defence, which definitely would not have happened in my scenario because there would have been no attack.
Then Russian willingness to use bombs could only mean in an attack, something which they could never have done post war without getting burnt down.
A smaller combloc with nukes will not have advantages compared to OTL.

Well that's kick # 2 for insults/attacks in the last nine weeks.

Might want to rethink that posting style when you return.

See ya' in 7.

 

[Broek]

In hindsight would the US and Britain not helping the Soviets prevent the Cold War and the Iron Curtain along with putting them in a better position in general post war?

Seen a lot of sniping here and do not want to get dragged into that so I am going from the OP.
Looking at the onset of the cold war and Iron curtain a reduction in LL would probably have benefited the western allies.

While the devil is in the details such as to what is exactly being delivered to the USSR. Had LL been reduced and with it a major source of food / transport/ spare parts / communication equipment in my opinion pivotal battles could have gone in favor of the Germans.

E.g. Leningrad might not have survived without western food supplies.

A weakened USSR would most likely have resulted in a prolonged German offensive on the Eastern front and with it an increase in casualties on both sides.
More Germans killed or engaged in Russia could potentially cut back Wallied losses in Italy and France.

Wallies would most likely occupy all of Germany in 1944 and liberate Eastern Europe. With Germany and Austria captured early it is likely that there are still significant German Forces engaged on Russian soil. Again, the devil is in the details.

How to go about the status of Finland, Ukraine, Baltic states and.

Without increased Wallied LL the cold war might be a lot more bitter since the USSR, despite having seen the majority of combat, cannot claim to have defeated Germany without raising a flag in Berlin. There is also a valid question if the communist regime can survive the significant losses without having a victory to show for it.

An Iron Curtain will most likely not materialize since soviet influence is much more contained.

So i my opinion, as distasteful the idea might be, a reduction in LL to the USSR would have benefited the western allies.