Why isn't Socialism/Communism as frowned upon as Fascism?

[Uxupox]

From what I understand the Japanese army completely underestimated the Soviet forces in Mongolia, the IJN by comparison was far more competent but lost the war of attrition against the USN, especially after Midway.

If the Axis Powers went together in an alliance and fighted the war together, then they could have won WW2. Japan could have attacked The Soviet Union from the east with the Germans in the west in 1941. Mussolini could have engaged more i think

One big mistake by Hitler was declaring war on the United States directly. Another factor was the lack of cooperation between axis units (replace this with a system of cooperation used by the allies and it would have been much more successful or heck just replace the Italian commanders with German battle hardened ones).

Now is it possible that a duo invasion of the Soviet Union by the Axis from the west and east would have been successful? I don't know honestly. Though I do know that it would severely limit the lend-lease agreement for the ports at Iran.

[Ceannairceach]

Looked pretty successful at the time but ultimately they failed since they don't exist today.

the point is, military success/defeat does not make an ideology a failure, it means your military sucked or you faced a superior military.

it's ridiculous to think otherwise.

When large scale militarization of society is literally the point of your ideology, yes, you absolutely can factor in military failures when considering the successful of an ideology. If fascism couldn't do what it set out to do - create a nation-state armed and capable of struggling mostly independent of foreign aid - then what *did* they do right, exactly?

[Ceannairceach]

If the Axis Powers went together in an alliance and fighted the war together, then they could have won WW2. Japan could have attacked The Soviet Union from the east with the Germans in the west in 1941. Mussolini could have engaged more i think

One big mistake by Hitler was declaring war on the United States directly. Another factor was the lack of cooperation between axis units (replace this with a system of cooperation used by the allies and it would have been much more successful or heck just replace the Italian commanders with German battle hardened ones).

Now is it possible that a duo invasion of the Soviet Union by the Axis from the west and east would have been successful? I don't know honestly. Though I do know that it would severely limit the lend-lease agreement for the ports at Iran.

Hitler had no choice but to declare war on America, unless he was extremely willing to let Britain slip from his inevitable grasp, seeing as American industry and shipping directly contributed to their survival.

[Kash Island]

the point is, military success/defeat does not make an ideology a failure, it means your military sucked or you faced a superior military.

it's ridiculous to think otherwise.

When large scale militarization of society is literally the point of your ideology, yes, you absolutely can factor in military failures when considering the successful of an ideology. If fascism couldn't do what it set out to do - create a nation-state armed and capable of struggling mostly independent of foreign aid - then what *did* they do right, exactly?

no ideology pans out completley to it's set goals, NONE

that still dosn't mean the ideology is a failure however, that's like saying because some people rights are violated under the constitution then the United States government is a failure, its fucking silly.

you can't hold that type of standard to a government because none would hold up to it.

[Painisia]

If the Axis Powers went together in an alliance and fighted the war together, then they could have won WW2. Japan could have attacked The Soviet Union from the east with the Germans in the west in 1941. Mussolini could have engaged more i think

No, they wouldn't have. Ignoring that the Japanese would have to have fought their way across Siberia, a losing battle if there ever was one, the war of attrition in the Eastern European front was so much that Germany was doomed the moment they failed to take Moscow in their first few years of campaigning, as once the Soviets regained their cohesion, they proved an unstoppable tide of manpower and industrial capacity that the Wehrmacht could not hope to equal. Add to that fact that America's entry to the war was all but assured, and the war was doomed from the start.

It was Hitler`s fault then. But its a mystery for me how the Soviets managed to fight back when they were suffering huge losses at the front

[Uxupox]

One big mistake by Hitler was declaring war on the United States directly. Another factor was the lack of cooperation between axis units (replace this with a system of cooperation used by the allies and it would have been much more successful or heck just replace the Italian commanders with German battle hardened ones).

Now is it possible that a duo invasion of the Soviet Union by the Axis from the west and east would have been successful? I don't know honestly. Though I do know that it would severely limit the lend-lease agreement for the ports at Iran.

Hitler had no choice but to declare war on America, unless he was extremely willing to let Britain slip from his inevitable grasp, seeing as American industry and shipping directly contributed to their survival.

Hitler was already being an idiot by diverting the critical missions of striking the airfields towards cities in what he called "successful terror bombing". If he had complete air superiority over Britain he could have directly bombed the ports as well making the arrival of shipments a logistical nightmare.

[Genivaria]

One big mistake by Hitler was declaring war on the United States directly. Another factor was the lack of cooperation between axis units (replace this with a system of cooperation used by the allies and it would have been much more successful or heck just replace the Italian commanders with German battle hardened ones).

Now is it possible that a duo invasion of the Soviet Union by the Axis from the west and east would have been successful? I don't know honestly. Though I do know that it would severely limit the lend-lease agreement for the ports at Iran.

Hitler had no choice but to declare war on America, unless he was extremely willing to let Britain slip from his inevitable grasp, seeing as American industry and shipping directly contributed to their survival.

Wasn't he already sinking American Merchant Marine ships before Pearl Harbor though?

[Kash Island]

to answer the OP question

Because the Socialists/Communists were among the victors of WW2

History is written by the victors, it's as simple as that. The one thing the allies and the soviets had in common, the defeat of Fascist nations.

so Fascism was considered the worst.

[Uxupox]

No, they wouldn't have. Ignoring that the Japanese would have to have fought their way across Siberia, a losing battle if there ever was one, the war of attrition in the Eastern European front was so much that Germany was doomed the moment they failed to take Moscow in their first few years of campaigning, as once the Soviets regained their cohesion, they proved an unstoppable tide of manpower and industrial capacity that the Wehrmacht could not hope to equal. Add to that fact that America's entry to the war was all but assured, and the war was doomed from the start.

It was Hitler`s fault then. But its a mystery for me how the Soviets managed to fight back when they were suffering huge losses at the front

Thank Zhukov and the dead Tukhachevsky for that.

[Baltenstein]

Germany and the US were already de facto at war in the Atlantic prior to Pearl Harbor. The official German war declaration was more a formality than a game changer.

[Sovaal]

Haven’t ha a war were we liberate hundreds of communist work and re-education camps.

Still, human nature in general is shitty, and no ideology/nation/society/etc. is innocent.

[Genivaria]

No, they wouldn't have. Ignoring that the Japanese would have to have fought their way across Siberia, a losing battle if there ever was one, the war of attrition in the Eastern European front was so much that Germany was doomed the moment they failed to take Moscow in their first few years of campaigning, as once the Soviets regained their cohesion, they proved an unstoppable tide of manpower and industrial capacity that the Wehrmacht could not hope to equal. Add to that fact that America's entry to the war was all but assured, and the war was doomed from the start.

It was Hitler`s fault then. But its a mystery for me how the Soviets managed to fight back when they were suffering huge losses at the front

Too many Soviets were escaping the Pincer maneuvers and it was taking too long to capture the strategic objectives.
It's easy to hold your ground when you've dug in and your enemy isn't used to being forced to fight a war of attrition.

Germany was expecting another decisive victory that they got in Poland and France, the Soviets early losses still managed to stall the Germans long enough for the rear lines to dig in and regroup.

[Sovaal]

Germany and the US were already de facto at war in the Atlantic prior to Pearl Harbor. The official German war declaration was more a formality than a game changer.

Eh, maybe not in 1941 or ‘42. However, with the invasion of Italy and later D-Day, along with supplying the soviets as well, well let’s just say it’s not a smart idea to declare war on two industrial super giants.

[Uxupox]

Germany and the US were already de facto at war in the Atlantic prior to Pearl Harbor. The official German war declaration was more a formality than a game changer.

They weren't. If Hitler refrained from declaring war on the United States then President FDR couldn't actually consent to actually engaging in the Western front.

[Ceannairceach]

No, they wouldn't have. Ignoring that the Japanese would have to have fought their way across Siberia, a losing battle if there ever was one, the war of attrition in the Eastern European front was so much that Germany was doomed the moment they failed to take Moscow in their first few years of campaigning, as once the Soviets regained their cohesion, they proved an unstoppable tide of manpower and industrial capacity that the Wehrmacht could not hope to equal. Add to that fact that America's entry to the war was all but assured, and the war was doomed from the start.

It was Hitler`s fault then. But its a mystery for me how the Soviets managed to fight back when they were suffering huge losses at the front

Because they had an essentially limitless pool of manpower as a result of the type of total war they were waging against the Nazis: ignoring the near-infinite amount of partisans created from it, Nazi attacks on the Soviet populace were used non-stop to portray it was a war of extinction. There's a reason WW2 is still known as the Great Patriotic War in Russia and some post-soviet countries: they weren't fighting for their ideology, they were fighting for their very survival, and no Soviet was exempt from that fight. When you frame it in that context, it is easy to understand why an authoritarian country could throw millions of men into the meat grinder and still be able to fight effectively.

Hitler had no choice but to declare war on America, unless he was extremely willing to let Britain slip from his inevitable grasp, seeing as American industry and shipping directly contributed to their survival.

Hitler was already being an idiot by diverting the critical missions of striking the airfields towards cities in what he called "successful terror bombing". If he had complete air superiority over Britain he could have directly bombed the ports as well making the arrival of shipments a logistical nightmare.

Perhaps true. But the terror bombing also might have been successful if America was never destined to enter the war, and Britain was genuinely alone in its fight against fascism. I can't fault Hitler for trying something again when it worked so well in France by comparison: his intelligence was wrong, and coupled with, as you said, his own idiocy, made a perfect recipe for disaster.

Hitler had no choice but to declare war on America, unless he was extremely willing to let Britain slip from his inevitable grasp, seeing as American industry and shipping directly contributed to their survival.

Wasn't he already sinking American Merchant Marine ships before Pearl Harbor though?

Yes and no. My knowledge of naval history is bleakly underdeveloped, but so far as I know, they were US ships flying UK colors, so as not to violate US neutrality.

[Painisia]

It was Hitler`s fault then. But its a mystery for me how the Soviets managed to fight back when they were suffering huge losses at the front

Thank Zhukov and the dead Tukhachevsky for that.

Nazi Germany fucked up when Hitler took command of the army in 1943. That he still insisted on victory in April 1945 is insane to me

[Baltenstein]

Germany and the US were already de facto at war in the Atlantic prior to Pearl Harbor. The official German war declaration was more a formality than a game changer.

Eh, maybe not in 1941 or ‘42. However, with the invasion of Italy and later D-Day, along with supplying the soviets as well, well let’s just say it’s not a smart idea to declare war on two industrial super giants.

What I mean is that the German war declaration in December 1941 did not provoke an American response that would otherwise not have come. Even with no German war declaration, the US would have declared war on them instead, and the timeline of the Allied landings in Africa and Europe would have remained pretty much the same.

[The Serbian Empire]

Would any would-be socialists in this thread care to explain Venezuela?

A prosperous South American democracy has collapsed into a dystopian hellhole where the majority of the populace is slowly starving to death, all under the banner of socialism.

Oil prices collapsed and having a bus driver as president is proof that some people should never be handed power.

[Genivaria]

Germany and the US were already de facto at war in the Atlantic prior to Pearl Harbor. The official German war declaration was more a formality than a game changer.

They weren't. If Hitler refrained from declaring war on the United States then President FDR couldn't actually consent to actually engaging in the Western front.

I have to agree, while FDR could push the envelope of neutrality with the Lend Lease any serious mobilization wouldn't have happened if Hitler hadn't declared war.

[Ceannairceach]

Thank Zhukov and the dead Tukhachevsky for that.

Nazi Germany fucked up when Hitler took command of the army in 1943. That he still insisted on victory in April 1945 is insane to me

To be fair, that was a matter of partial practicality and partial derangement. On the practical side, he knew that the only way the war would end would be with his death, and as such, surrender was futile for Nazi leadership. On the deranged side, he sincerely believed that if Germany lost the war, it was because of the undeserving nature of the German people, and that the loss should be total, such that Germany would never rise again or be worth conquering. It was a sickening reversal of the scorched earth tactics of the USSR, in a way, as he sabotaged what little good was left in his country simply to spite whoever was left to pick up the pieces.

Seriously, read up or watch some Hitler-focused docus if you get a chance. He was an absolute madman towards the end, but a fascinating character nonetheless.

[Kubumba Tribe]

to answer the OP question

Because the Socialists/Communists were among the victors of WW2

History is written by the victors, it's as simple as that. The one thing the allies and the soviets had in common, the defeat of Fascist nations.

so Fascism was considered the worst.

And rightfully so

[Ceannairceach]

Would any would-be socialists in this thread care to explain Venezuela?

A prosperous South American democracy has collapsed into a dystopian hellhole where the majority of the populace is slowly starving to death, all under the banner of socialism.

Oil prices collapsed and having a bus driver as president is proof that some people should never be handed power.

Seriously, it's like people forget that it was under so-called socialist rule that VZ became known as a prosperous South American democracy. The crisis there would likely still exist due to their over-reliance on the oil market to prop up their social services, regardless of who was in power.

[Baltenstein]

Germany and the US were already de facto at war in the Atlantic prior to Pearl Harbor. The official German war declaration was more a formality than a game changer.

They weren't. If Hitler refrained from declaring war on the United States then President FDR couldn't actually consent to actually engaging in the Western front.

Yes, they were. The US was already openly supplying Britain, and German and American vessels were enganged in hostilities prior to Pearl Harbor.

[Genivaria]

Thank Zhukov and the dead Tukhachevsky for that.

Nazi Germany fucked up when Hitler took command of the army in 1943. That he still insisted on victory in April 1945 is insane to me

I'm reminded of a scene from Downfall.
General Helmuth Weidling reported to German HQ to answer the charges that he had pulled back his line against orders when he had not.

Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Keitel: Your report impressed the Führer. He has appointed you commander of Berlin's defenses.

General der Artillerie Helmuth Weidling: I'd rather be shot than have this honor.

[Uxupox]

It was Hitler`s fault then. But its a mystery for me how the Soviets managed to fight back when they were suffering huge losses at the front

Because they had an essentially limitless pool of manpower as a result of the type of total war they were waging against the Nazis: ignoring the near-infinite amount of partisans created from it, Nazi attacks on the Soviet populace were used non-stop to portray it was a war of extinction. There's a reason WW2 is still known as the Great Patriotic War in Russia and some post-soviet countries: they weren't fighting for their ideology, they were fighting for their very survival, and no Soviet was exempt from that fight. When you frame it in that context, it is easy to understand why an authoritarian country could throw millions of men into the meat grinder and still be able to fight effectively.

Hitler was already being an idiot by diverting the critical missions of striking the airfields towards cities in what he called "successful terror bombing". If he had complete air superiority over Britain he could have directly bombed the ports as well making the arrival of shipments a logistical nightmare.

Perhaps true. But the terror bombing also might have been successful if America was never destined to enter the war, and Britain was genuinely alone in its fight against fascism. I can't fault Hitler for trying something again when it worked so well in France by comparison: his intelligence was wrong, and coupled with, as you said, his own idiocy, made a perfect recipe for disaster.

Wasn't he already sinking American Merchant Marine ships before Pearl Harbor though?

Yes and no. My knowledge of naval history is bleakly underdeveloped, but so far as I know, they were US ships flying UK colors, so as not to violate US neutrality.

Terror bombing was never successful against the British populace it only strengthen their will unlike the bombing of the airfields in which the RAF completely depended upon (And was almost close to complete annihilation).

Thank Zhukov and the dead Tukhachevsky for that.

Nazi Germany fucked up when Hitler took command of the army in 1943. That he still insisted on victory in April 1945 is insane to me

Hitler had some brilliant moments (Such as bypassing Army command and ordering the implementation of the sickle cut made by Erich von Manstein) but he I do have to agree he was completely delusional (Thinking that Soviet Communism as a Jewish conspiracy).