>Imagine a world where the October Revolution never happened.
>Russia would be better, as the Bolsheviks killed the scientist and intellectuals
>The US economy would be better as we would never spend so much money defending ourselves
>Yugoslavia's wars would have never happened.
>Poland and Hungary would be far richer and have better living standards.
>Belarus and Ukraine would have lower unemployment rates and would have better politicians
>Baltic states would have lower suicide rates
Fuck the USSR for destroying the world.
>>771301
Ehh, I have grave doubts as to whether or not the Whites could have ever formed anything that wasn't as equally repressive and incompetent.
Plus, an enormously weakened Russia is probably one of the few things that puts a German victory in WW2 into the realm of plausibility, although personally I still think it's unlikely, if nothing else, the Atomic Bomb is almost certain to end things.
>>771301
the cold war was pretty neat, it was a period of stability and global growth
the world kind of went all to shit after the berlin wall fell
It doesn't end there, because this bolshevist bullshit also devastated Asia.
Look at what a dystopia North Korea is.
>>771321
>the cold war was pretty neat, it was a period of stability and global growth
in what universe were the 45-89 years a period of stability?
>>771321
Kissinger detected
>The US economy would be better as we would never spend so much money defending ourselves
lol
>>771301
>The US economy would be better as we would never spend so much money defending ourselves
We're at our strongest when we've got men working and dying to fulfill out national imperative.
Kicking ass, fucking bitches, and making money.
>>771301
There is much more that the USSR fucked up than can be shown in one post. It completely ruined the potential of Eastern Europe. Look at Ukraine, the most fertile land in the world, and it is practically a third-world shithole.
Pre-WWI Russia was on the eve of massive industrialization and modernization and probably could have even stopped Nazi Germany if it had remained, so the idea that the USSR was worth it that gommies claim is absolutely retarded. The only country it really benefited was America and perhaps Western Europe.
>defending ourselves
The US and every other western power immediately attacked the Bolsheviks pretty much right after the Civil War began.
>Yugoslavia's wars would have never happened.
Yugoslavia wasn't created by USSR and there is no ideological reason for Yugoslavian wars. You can see how to blend three nations in one state can be bad idea even without commies.
I think it's safe to say the nazis never would've come to power without Bolshevik fear mongering.
>>771301
>Russia would be better
Stop swallowing Tzar propaganda
>>771301
>>Russia would be better, as the Bolsheviks killed the scientist and intellectuals
How does the Soviet stops existing? After the february revolution the political situation in Russia was pretty unstable, nearly certain it would end like China with regional warlords and shit.
>>The US economy would be better as we would never spend so much money defending ourselves
Once again, how does it happens, no WWII the US don't become a superpower, overall the economy is smaller.
>>Yugoslavia's wars would have never happened.
Interwar Yugoslavia was a powder-keg with Serbs and Croats clashing all the time, without Tito or similar leadership it wouldn't last long.
>>Poland and Hungary would be far richer and have better living standards.
Not certain, they could end up as German puppet states/colonies depending how stuff works out in a Soviet-less world.
>>Belarus and Ukraine would have lower unemployment rates and would have better politicians
Once again, depends how Russia works out.
>>Baltic states would have lower suicide rates
If they don't get swallowed by Germany, Russia or Poland that is.
>Bolshevik revolution fails and the Tzar remains in power
>Ioseb Djugashvili adapts Fascist ideology to Russian culture and overthrows the Tzar anyway
>Germany and Russia ally together during inevitable WWII
Congratulations, you have created a Nightmare Tier alternate universe
>>771301
There wouldn't be such a shit show in the Middle East as well
>>771314
>repressive and incompetent.
Far from blacks and yellows.
>>771301
The Cold War wasn't bad for the economy though, and it drove forward technological development.
>>771301
You fucking idiot, the best solution would have been the whites winning the Civil War. They were mostly soft left socialists and also the reason the Bolshies had to be so authoritarian.
>>775702
>he doesn't know what the October Revolution is
>>771301
>The US economy would be better as we would never spend so much money defending ourselves
>defending ourselves
>defending ourselves
>defending ourselves
Top kek
>>772384
>Russia would be better, as the Bolsheviks killed the scientist and intellectuals
The Provisional government made it clear that they were not going to surrender to the Germans. Lenin basically had to force his comrades to surrender, even Trotsky wanted to keep fighting. If the Provisional Government kept fighting then the Germans would have taken Petrograd and Russia would have collapsed into Warlord states like China.
>The US economy would be better as we would never spend so much money defending ourselves
Military spending and the Second World War sent the American economy from Great Power status to Super Power.
>Yugoslavia's wars would have never happened.
Yugoslavia was essentially a Serbian Empire and it was never sustainable.
>Poland and Hungary would be far richer and have better living standards.
Probably, but Poland would be busy oppressing it's eastern minorities and Admiral Horthy's Hungary would be very at odds with Romania.
>Belarus and Ukraine would have lower unemployment rates and would have better politicians
That's an unknown. With the collapse of Russia into warlordism, it's hard to see either Ukraine or Belarus being stable.The Ukrainian Reds and Blacks were hardly going to respect the rule of the Hetmanate once the Germans fall.
>>777532
>Yugoslavia was essentially a Serbian Empire and it was never sustainable.
>hurr I have no idea what I'm talking about but that won't stop me from talking
>>775702
Do you know what the Russian Civil War was?
Nobody capitalizes "whites" when talking about the race excepted retarded white nationalists.
>>777544
are you unfamiliar with the King Alexander and the Croatian question?
Would Operation Barbarossa have even happened in this case? Russia not being communist would completely change WW2, and modern history radically.
Bolsheivk Revolution is basically the French Revolution Part 2: And then it got worse boogaloo
>>777593
Oh, I assumed you were talking about the second Yugo given that the quote was about its wars, but now I see I'm an idiot who should've read the context. Sorry about that.
>>777606
>and then it got worse
Russian history crash course
>imagine no possession
>I wonder if you can
>no need for greed or hunger
>blyat or on rope you will hang
>>777606
interesting connection so I'll bite: explain your reasoning
>>777609
understandable.
I was operating under the assumption that there would be no second Yugoslavian state given that there would be no Soviet Union. The rise of the Nazi Party to power was so contingent to the existence of the USSR that I can't see them rising to power in a world where Russia is a patchwork of warlord states. Without the Second World War to interrupt the escalating tensions between the Croatians and the Serbians a civil war seems inevitable.
>>771376
>>771327
Not that guy, but it's true. So long as war is possible a bipolar world is the best. A stable world is best considered as one in which already secure states are not fighting one another. Every single major war of the Cold War somehow involved a revolution. Granted, there was instability, but it wasn't in already stable areas. Two superpowers keep the other in check and ensure that all-out war between states doesn't occur.
>>771301
A revolution WOULD have happened sooner or later anyway, as the revolutionary ideologies combined to the treatment of the serfs was the cause of the revolution, not Lenin or anything else.
So you would it a Russia that didn't suck ass in WW1. Which means an industrialised/westernised politically Russia.
Yeah, good luck with that.
>>771301
>Russia would be better, as the Bolsheviks killed the scientist and intellectuals
Implying that a technology-fearing Tsar would EVER allow for the innovation that occured during Soviet times
>The US economy would be better as we would never spend so much money defending ourselves
If it weren't for the fairly reasonable ideas you had after this one I would've thought you were shitposting, desu
>Yugoslavia's wars would have never happened.
See other posts on this. Yugoslavia was a bastard creation that never had enough economic stability to avoid the Yugoslav wars. Christ, have the conflict was between gangs and mercenaries, not military.
>Poland and Hungary would be far richer and have better living standards.
Eh, this I might actually buy. Poland would get smashed around mid-century but after the war Europe may welcome them. For Hungary, the Yugoslav shitzone would keep them in an insecure location and they'd be in deep trouble economically for a while.
>Belarus and Ukraine would have lower unemployment rates and would have better politicians
What is a Belarus? What is a Ukraine? Those nations would still be in the Russian Empire, jackass. Even if they did get independence with decolonization, you can sure bet the Tsar wouldn't relinquish political control over their leaders.
>Baltic states would have lower suicide rates
Like the 2 cent fuckdoll of Europe would ever have anything but high suicide rates regardless
>>775702
>>780508
But the Tsar was already deposed by the February Revolution
>>780797
Mhm. Not >>780508 but maybe you could make the case that a White victory would reinstate the Tsardom. That wouldn't be very likely, though, considering the myriad number of elements within it. Although if the October Revolution never happened the Russian Civil War may not have happened in the first place.
>>780797
kek. Now THAT'S a blundah
ITT guaranteed replies from assblasted communists
>>771301
>Bolsheviks killed the scientist and intellectuals
ebin?
I've thought about this, and honestly I think it would have actually been quite bad.
No USSR means a weak Russia by 1941. Not to say that the USSR wasn't weak, but the forced industrialization pushed by Stalin, even at the expense of his people and many lives, is what let the USSR survive WW2. If the Tzar remains in power or the Whites stop the Red Revolution they would not pursue such aggressive industrialization as the Communists did. They would have had a smaller army by the time of WW2, they would not have nearly as many factories, it's unlikely they would have developed some of their better vehicles like the T-34 or KV-1 on the same timetable they did. All in all, I think a non Communist Russia would get steamrolled by the Germans, and that leads to the British and Americans having a much harder time of making any landings into Europe. I just don't see D-Day being successful no matter how great the disinfo they feed the Germans is. They could have quintupled their French garrison with Russia out of the war.
This leads to an inevitable Allied victory whereby Germany is nuked into surrender while Operation Downfall occurs in Japan in late 1945, leading to at least 3 million deaths, likely much higher.
US casualties alone were expected to be 1 million.
Of course, this is assuming Hitler would still want to take out Russia. His main motivation for doing so was to destroy the Jewish Bolsheviks, and without them in power that goes out the window.
Of course, he could view Russia with its vast tracts of land and resources and their great weakness and invade anyways. Who really knows?
The USSR was bad, one of the worst things to happen to humanity in long term effects, but who honestly knows what would have happened without them?
>>781464
>WW2 would happen if Russia wasn't communist and Jew-controlled
Yeah no.
>>781478
>Of course, this is assuming Hitler would still want to take out Russia. His main motivation for doing so was to destroy the Jewish Bolsheviks, and without them in power that goes out the window.
>Of course, he could view Russia with its vast tracts of land and resources and their great weakness and invade anyways. Who really knows?
Read my whole post sempai.
>>781483
Sorry familia won't happen again.
>>781478
WW2 started because of Germany was bamboozled over Versail. How it is USSR fault?
>>781499
Hitler was elected to a large degree because he ran with a strongly anti-communist and anti-semitic platform.
Furthermore there's no reason for him to have attacked an imperial Russia, even in Mein Kampf he outright said Russian empire was ruled by Aryan of German extraction rather than filthy Jews, there would hardly be any quarrel unless the empire started one. Which I highly doubt would happen considering how terribly buttfucked they got in the first war.
>>781487
Yeah. Well either way WW2 likely sill happens. Hitler had delusions of a Fourth Reich after all, and not having to worry about Russia just makes his job of creating one a whole lot easier. He'd still "liberate" oppressed Germans in Yugoslavia and still want the land back from Poland. The question then is do the generals and himself think they can take on Poland without Russia's help? If not, would Russia as a democracy or monarchy be interested in invading Poland?
Would Britain and France be willing to ally with Russia against the Germans and all three commit to war with Germany should they invade Poland?
The main reason the countries did not talk with Russia was the country was Communist. A White Russia or Tzarist Russia would likely have been more agreeable for Churchill to make talks with, and in the event of that I do think Hitler would think twice about invading Poland.
It was one thing to fight France, England and Poland at the same time, but with a quad defensive pact he'd also have to deal with Russia with no way to end the two front war quickly as he did historically.
So many things could have happened differently without a Communist Russia in the picture. It's just hard to say which one would be most likely.
>>781499
Hitler fucked HATED the Bolsheviks. Long before he was in power he wrote about how much he wanted to destroy them. The end goal of all his expansions and military buildup was to destroy the Bolsheviks. It was not the whole reason he got started but it was a driving factor in his decision making throughout the 30s and 40s.
>>781517
Does Hitler get elected without all the Soviet-funded commies running amok in Germany?
>>771301
>Bolsheviks fail
>other revolutionary group takes over
>basically the same thing happens
>>781517
>If not, would Russia as a democracy or monarchy be interested in invading Poland?
You're kidding right? Of course they would.
>>781532
Maybe? Also hard to tell. There would still be Communists without them having taken over Russia, and without a legitimate government to point to they would have even less merit to base their ideals on.
If anything, it would just make Communists more hated, their only accomplishments being failed attempted overthrows of legitimate governments.
He could still run the whole anti Jew thing, still run on the Versailles was worse than me platform, still run on the Communists are trying to take over this country platform.
Maybe it doesn't win over as many people as fast, but the main reason Hitler rose to power is he appealed to the egos of a bunch of bitter, angry people who wanted someone to blame besides themselves for losing the Great War. I think Fascism was just too perfect in timing to NOT rise to power in Germany. The German people were begging for a strong leader to lead the great German people back into their deserved position of European dominance. Hitler whispered exactly that into the people's ears and got them all hot and bothered.
>>781537
In a vacuum, yes, but that would pit them against the British and French. It would also deny them the use of Poland as a buffer state as they so desired, because Germany would be getting half of it.
They would also be much more wary of Germany. Stalin by no means liked the Germans, but he trusted them because he felt Hitler would not backstab him while democracies opposed him, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
A Tzarist or White Russia would have been on decent enough terms with the democratic West but likely on bad terms with the Fascist Germany. And they would have had really nothing to favor the Germans for except a land grab in Poland that's really not in their favor, that would also spoil relations with the French and English.
>>781565
Germans and Russians might as well have been united against their ancient enemy, the Brits. Like you said, the existence of Poland was nothing more but a result of British interests.
>>771301
The Bolsheviks were authoritarians exercising collective leadership who used state direction to industrialize their country to catch up to the West. They also had an extremely repressive state apparatus which imprisoned people with outspoken political views and sent them to labor camps in Siberia.
They replaced the Tsar, whose brilliance was only matched by the keen intelligence and foresight of his ministers and bureaucracy, who had used state direction to begin industrializing their country to catch up to the West. He also had an extremely effective security apparatus which identified subversive terrorists and allowed them to pay for their crimes by supporting the Russian people with labor in Siberia.
Point is, they just filled a power vacuum, dude.
>>781576
It comes down to whether they fear German expansion more than they resent the British. If nothing else, German expansion greatly hurts their chances to exert Russian influence over neighboring countries.
They could ally with the West only to crush the Germans, then take advantage of their positioning to set up satellite states over the countries they "liberated" from the Fascists. They'd just be "democratic" puppets rather than communist ones.
Or perhaps they throw their lot in with Germany under the condition they get to exert influence on neighboring countries and the Germans don't interfere with that.
Hard to say really. I think a Tzarist Russia would be more likely to throw in with Germany, while a White Russia would be more likely to attempt to stay neutral or throw in with the West.
>>781565
>Stalin by no means liked the Germans, but he trusted them because he felt Hitler would not backstab him while democracies opposed him, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
That is not true, the war should happen in any case, Germans wanted more land and everybody knew that.
One more argument is that the war actually started in 1937, then Japan, the main German's ally, started the war against USSR in China. So, if USSR was in war with German's ally, doesn't it mean that there was a risk of war with Germany?
>>781779
>the war should happen in any case
It would have, Stalin was not an idiot. He was simply optimistic and not understanding just how much Hitler hated him and everything the USSR was.
Stalin was quite rational in believing that Germany would not invade the USSR when it did, he expected quite a bit more time to prepare. But Hitler's motivations were not rational or logical. He sent his country to war when his generals told him they were not ready, he expanded the war when his generals begged him not to, and he declared war on the US to top it all off for absolutely no real reason.
The German and Japanese defensive pact was just that, defensive. Neither had any obligation to come to the others' aid should THEY begin the hostilities. The Japanese violated the terms of their treaty with the Germans effectively nullifying it.
Hitler declaring war on the USSR was only outdone in stupidity by declaring war on the US less than a year later.
The meme of Hitler hating Slavs and Communism so much that he made the ~CRAZY~ decision to invade the USSR is total horseshit. The Soviet-Axis accession negotiations were real, prolonged, and made in good faith because Germany had a very real dependence on the USSR and assumed that their relationship up until then had been a pretty sweet deal for the Soviets. It's when Stalin adopted a bargaining position that revealed his true hand instead of a concessionary one that Hitler realized that letting Stalin continue to build his war machine that can just as easily stride across the North European Plain as Germany can would have lead to a dominant Soviet position in the alliance, which was unsustainable and politically nonviable. Germany needed security in the Baltics and the Balkans until they weren't so dependent on Soviet materials, and Stalin said no.
>>771301
Plot twist: Rasputin assinates Nicholas and hypnotizes his family into supporting his rule (and fucking him on the reg). Rasputin and his cult rule Russia like complete idiots, and Japan, Poland, and Finland take their shares. Then the Soviets stage a second revolution and win.
>>781863
>hitler's own claims, writing and aspirations are a meme
The end goal of it all was to destroy the Bolsheviks. If he could put that off until later, then great, but he jumped at the opportunity when he thought he could accomplish it.
>>782300
He had claims, writing, and aspirations towards the opposite as well (the "great worldwide coalition that stretched from Yokohama to Spain"). Shockingly, Hitler was ideologically pragmatic and flexible, which is why he didn't have a habit of writing things down very often.
>>781863
Where are you getting this from?
>>784028
It's constraint theory applied to the actual content and context of the Soviet-Axis talks.
>>784063
What bargaining position did Stalin take that "revealed his true hand"
>>784075
He demanded bases across the Danube and a German exit of Finland. Hitler thought that merely pressuring Turkey into giving Bosporus concessions to the USSR would have been enough. The German diplomatic corps and most of his military advisors who were let in on what was going down were ecstatic over the Soviet proposal, because they interpereted the demands as actually revealing a weak position, that Stalin urgently needed these security concessions to not feel threatened. Hitler and his inner circle however correctly understood it to mean that Stalin had military capacity far, far in excess of what had been assumed up until that point. Both parties had good reason to believe that one would betray the other, but ultimately the German geopolitical aim was just to secure both the eastern border and then win in the west with Soviet material, after which they could focus on sustaining a defensive war on two fronts if it ever needed to come to that.
It's a very sticky topic, because since the dismantling of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the fall of the Ottomans, Russian security has meant Western insecurity and vice versa. There are very few natural defenses in the border region.
>>784095
It seems like you're getting into dangerous Hitler dindu territory towards the end there, implying that there was never any German aggression planned towards the Soviets and that the Eastward expansion for Lebensraum was spontaneous and not like, a core NSDAP policy
How do you figure Generalplan Ost into this
>>784122
Just because the Nazis wanted something doesn't mean they were going to ignore geopolitical realities to achieve it. I'm sure they would have wanted to take over the entire world if they could. It was a set of documents passed among extremely few hands deliberating on a mostly ideological position, and an ideological position that ran directly counter to the optics the Nazis actually gave to Barbarossa both in Europe and among collaborators at that. It was both guideline and contingency.
>>782300
>everything Hitler wrote he 100% adhered to for his entire life
The guy was a fucking politician, that should tell you enough.
>>784132
Okay but... how do you then reconcile that with how brutal the Nazis were in the East? "Whoops"?
>>784146
Brutality doesn't figure into it at all. You're imagining that I'm arguing something I'm not. The Nazis were brutal and wanted to kill Slavs, and they saw Barbarossa as that opportunity. That doesn't change the fact that the principal reason for the invasion was plundering Soviet raw materials, food, and goods.
>>784164
My apologies; I'm too used to people downplaying Hitler's aggression as a means of Nazi apologia. I don't disagree with you there.
>>784146
Not him but a knee jerk reaction to large scale partisan insurgency mostly, similar to Americans in Vietnam or the French in Algeria. Also define "the east". They were quite civil in Slovakia and Croatia for example.
>>771301
>The US economy would be better as we would never spend so much money defending ourselves
Wouldn't we? Euro powers were pretty concerned about Russia circa WWI, as their economy was rapidly rising as they industrialized. Had Russia not collapsed WWI would have turned out very differently, which could in turn mean that US wasn't the only contender to take the torch of naval/economic hegemony from Britain after WWII, assuming WWII even happened.
>>781478
I'm pretty sure Stalin more or less liquidated the Jewish element in the Communist Party by the mid-30s.
I also think it's probably unfair to characterize the USSR as "Jew-controlled". Jews were heavily over-represented among the Bolsheviks, but they didn't absolutely dominate the revolutionary movement.
>>785267
>Stalin more or less liquidated the Jewish element
Stalin liquidated the old Bolsheviks most of whom were jews his pogrom was not race related.
>>785551
I know, but I'm saying that was the outcome of it, despite Stalin not targeting based on Jewish background.
>>771314
>Whites
You might want to learn last names of the leaders of the revolution.
I, for one, would welcome everything from Russia to China being renamed as WARRING ZONE in giant letters on all maps. We would get another Mongolian Empire!
>>785996
I meant exactly what I said. The internecine politics were relatively tame among the Bolsheviks. If Trotsky, Tucachevsky (sp?) and Dybenko all got the axe, what makes you think that in an alternate future, Kerensky, Lvov, or Khabalov would necessarily be around in an alternate future where the Bolsheviks don't come to power?
>>785996
Do you think he's talking about white people?
>The US economy would be better as we would never spend so much money defending ourselves
But the cold war led to an exponential increase in nuclear weapons and weapons in general? The economy benefits from war and weapons, look at the UK, the building up on weapons for the war boosted the economy and brought them out of the depression, the economy increases through war in most circumstances and america is a prime example.
>>785267
And in the field, where Jews were underrepresented, even the red army would be down for a little bit of pogromming before party leadership could properly administrate captured territory.
Do you reckon Tzarist Russia would be in an alliance with Nazi Germany had it survived until those times? Considering the Romanovs had German blood flowing within them.
>>771301
>killed the scientists
nigga naw, science was elevated to the only discipline worth studying. It was the humanities they got rid of.
>all those russian jews that fled to the US and other countries to escape communism, and created what nowadays are multibillion corporations
>modern America would literally be just a glorified Mexico without russian-american jews
>>787243
I don't know that Nazi Germany would have ever been born if the Soviet Union never was.
>>771301
You're going to be real pissed when you find out who was behind Marxist-globalism, and even more pissed when you find out where they defected to after the fall of their empire.
>>787358
>Jews move and act as a single entity
