Because they are as history proves, more competent and more inclinced to economically developing their nation (ie see Spain as opposed to any Eastern Bloc nation).
Why would they not join? Stalin has murdered millions of their countrymen and the Germans certainly would not create delibrate famines or send millions to gulags.
But the total number of Communist wars of domination or “liberation” exceeds or at least equals that of those started by fascist powers.
I have an uncle (adopted) who was born in Spain shortly after WWII, and grew up there. He’s just a hair over five feet tall, because Franco’s economy was so fucked he could get enough to eat for most of his life, until he was taken in by my dad’s family. And this wasn’t out in the hinterlands. He grew up in Madrid.
Another family friend made a small fortune as a smuggler while working as an airline steward during the same time period. I’m no economist, but it strikes me that a robust black market is generally a side-effect of a sickly legitimate economy.
And, of course, there’s the unavoidable fact that the actions of Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo led directly to the utter ruination of their respective nations.
Since the real Germans did, in fact, do just that sort of thing to the real Poles, why do you expect your hypothetical Poles to trust your hypothetical Germans?
:rolleyes: Excuse me? They sent millions to their deaths in concentration camps! It’s called the Holocaust, very famous, you may have heard of it.
If its in the '50s or so, Spain wouldn’t have fully recovered from the Civil War especially since it was ostracized by much of the West until the mid '50s.
Again quite a few things may go differently. Its been said on one thread, that if Hitler hadn’t went east, Stalin would have gone west.
We are discussing a hypothetical non-Nazi and thus non-genocidal Germany.
So it’s okay to oppress and murder your citizens as long as the economy is rolling along? :dubious:
Sounds like the old, “he made the trains run on time…”
Certainly not. I’m just answering your question on whether fascists are better than commies.
The Nazis didn’t invent genocide.
Would the world have been a better place if Hilter weren’t an anti-Semite? Probably not for Catholics, homosexuals, and Romani.
Why do you assume Germans would have been far less brutal to Russians if Hilter were not an anti-Semite?
Why do you assume anti-communism is the greatest good?
As history proves, Spain’s economic recovery occurred after Franco died, and his intended dictatorial heir Juan Carlos II allowed the Socialists to take power following a democratic election.
Where do you get the idea that the West ostracized Franco? He was fervently anti-communist, and any ostracism that occurred was the other way around, i.e. Franco’s resistance of democratic ideals.
Why would they join? Even using starvation as a motivator the historical Germans ‘recruited’ a million. For your edification: Nazi crimes against Soviet POWs. As for anti-communist, it hard to beat the Commissar Order.
I hear ya. I mean, the Nazis crushed the very spirit of their own people, made everyone live in utter dread of the all powerful Gestapo, ruled by the schlag, nationalized pretty much every industry, made extensive use of slave labour, and oh yes, declared war on the world… but at least they weren’t commies.
Do you realize it’s this very reasoning that led Hitler to power, and the rest of Europe to nod along ?
What Communist threat? The official Soviet foreign policy position under Stalin was “Socialism in one country”. If you suggested trying to expand communism, you were a Trotskyite.
My general point is that Hitler and Nazis were bigoted, totalitarian fanatics and a soberer and saner German regimes wouldn’t get particularly worked up over gypsies either. And why the hell would any German regime persecute Catholics-they made up a third of the population (yes Hitler persecuted certain members of the Catholic clergy but only if they opposed his polices)?
Because Hitler’s fanatical racist ideology included anti-Slavism along with anti-Semitism. A saner man would see the political benefits of supporting the anti-Communist Russians.
[/QUOTE]
Because communism of all the ideologies has the highest death toll.
Basically Franco was not allowed to join the UN and not given Marshall Aid among other things.
This is not the same as Nazi Germany! Thus they would not commit the above-mentioned war crimes. Nazism’s brutality was not part of the German cultural continuity.
Ie Finland.
Why is everybody acting as if this Germany would be as nasty as Germany although that was the exact opposite of my OP?
You’re talking of a fascist dictatorship. Note how I specifically omitted the bigoted/antisemite/racist/eugenic ideas that were unique to the Nazis. But trampling every last freedom, nationalizing “essential” businesses and ruling with a bludgeon are what fascism and dictatorships are. There are no benevolent dictators, or happy dovey Hello Kitty fascists.
Mass enslavement wasn’t part of other fascist dictatorships and Nazi Germany didn’t so much crush the German people’s spirit as grant them what they wished.
:rolleyes: You just used Spain as an example of relative economic success. Franco’s Spain, no less. I guess you think anything is better than the Warsaw Pact economies, but at this point you’re just trumpeting your anti-Marxist bias by assuming that Franco was better.
Except they did, in our timeline. OK, stalags. But yeah, stealing the food supply of the conquered has a long history. The English did it to the Irish, after all.
Not per year, it doesn’t. The Commies only have so “many” wars because their régime survived for so long. You know why the Nazis didn’t last so long? Because they invaded everybody! At once! The World War was in effect dozens of wars at once!
The Allies opposed Hitler not because he was a racist, certainly not because he was an anti-Semite, but because he was a warmonger. If he’d stayed only pointing east, would the West have left him alone? Maybe. Would he have won? I don’t think so.
Only because Nazism thankfully came to a quick death. Given time, they’d have killed far more than communism has. For only being in power for 12 years they built up quite a record of mass murders. They only began the ‘small plan’ of Generalplan Ost during WW2, the ‘large plan’ of exterminating or exiling to Siberia another 45 million was to occur post-war had they won.
Drang nach Osten long predates the Nazis. Why do you imagine a Germany so virulently anti-communist as to still invade the USSR (having to invade Poland first to get there mind you) wouldn’t commit ‘excesses’ like the Commissar Order? What would realistically be in it for Germany to carve out an independent Ukraine, Armenia, Kazakhstan, etc from the corpse of a de-communized USSR? If there is nothing in it for them, why would they do it?
I suppose you could find a Deutscher “nationalist” worthy of the name in the early 20th Century that would resist race consciousness & expansionist Geopolitik, & take a more pragmatic view. Because we aren’t all convinced we’re Nietzschean paladins.
But nationalist != anti-communist crusader! And pragmatic nationalist even less so!
And Nazism itself (as opposed to fascism) isn’t particularly exportable.
[/QUOTE]
Actually in World War I, the Germans did plan to carve out Poland, Ukraine, White Russia, etc. as puppet states to weaken Russia. The same principle would apply here. Plust the Commisarr order was opposed by most of the German officers in the East such as von Manstein.
Because in your hypothetical, they’re still fucking fascists! There are no benevolent fascist regimes. If you want to imagine a fairyland where there are well-meaning, kind hearted fascists, why not go ahead and imagine one where Communism is a functional road to a true utopian society? It’s every bit as far-fetched.