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

[Painisia]

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.

I have watched Der Untergang and other docs about Hitler`s life in the bunker. A fascinating, but tragic person he was.

[Uxupox]

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.

It would entagle a phony war similar to that of France and Germany around the Maginot line not a direct invasion of North Africa by the United States.

[The Ides of March]

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.

Σεμάντιξ

[Baltenstein]

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

It would entagle a phony war similar to that of France and Germany around the Maginot line not a direct invasion of North Africa by the United States.

Urm, why? FDR was looking for a way to fully enter the war and take the Axis powers, not just Japan, heads-on for years. He had already held war councils with Churchill on that matter.
Pearl Harbor gave him just that.

[Uxupox]

It would entagle a phony war similar to that of France and Germany around the Maginot line not a direct invasion of North Africa by the United States.

Urm, why? FDR was looking for a way to fully enter the war and take the Axis powers, not just Japan, heads-on for years. He had already held war councils with Churchill on that matter.
Pearl Harbor gave him just that.

Pearl Harbor gave him reasoning to go to war against Japan not Germany.

[Ceannairceach]

Urm, why? FDR was looking for a way to fully enter the war and take the Axis powers, not just Japan, heads-on for years. He had already held war councils with Churchill on that matter.
Pearl Harbor gave him just that.

Pearl Harbor gave him reasoning to go to war against Japan not Germany.

Yes, and Japan was allied to Germany. It was in effect a declaration of war against the entire Axis Powers.

[Genivaria]

Urm, why? FDR was looking for a way to fully enter the war and take the Axis powers, not just Japan, heads-on for years. He had already held war councils with Churchill on that matter.
Pearl Harbor gave him just that.

Pearl Harbor gave him reasoning to go to war against Japan not Germany.

While he might've personally wanted to go to war with both you're right that Pearl Harbor only gave Casus Belli against Japan, without Hitler declaring war Germany might not have had to deal with American forces.

[Genivaria]

Pearl Harbor gave him reasoning to go to war against Japan not Germany.

Yes, and Japan was allied to Germany. It was in effect a declaration of war against the entire Axis Powers.

JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.
Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America:

Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.[8]

Only Japan was ever named.
The American declaration of war was December 8th 1941, the German declaration was 4 days later on the 11th.

On 7 December 1941, Japan attacked the US naval bases in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. According to the stipulation of the Tripartite Pact, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were required to come to the defense of their allies only if they were attacked. Since Japan had made the first move, Germany and Italy were not obliged to aid her until the United States counterattacked. Nevertheless, expecting the US to declare war on Germany in any event,[186] Hitler ordered the Reichstag to formally declare war on the United States.[187] Italy also declared war on the U.S..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_powe ... ted_States

Germany was basically in the position that the US would be in if Turkey chose to invade Russia, we wouldn't be obligated to help Turkey in the slightest and imo we'd be better off leaving them high and dry.

[Uxupox]

Pearl Harbor gave him reasoning to go to war against Japan not Germany.

Yes, and Japan was allied to Germany. It was in effect a declaration of war against the entire Axis Powers.

No, it wasn't. It was collective defense. Something similar as to why Japan did not get involved in Operation Barbarossa.

[Ceannairceach]

snip

I think that's a remarkably simple way of analyzing the context, though. Yes, it was, in terms of the letter of the document, only a declaration of war against Japan. But by declaring war on Japan, and only Japan, America threatened to free up countless Allied resources from their campaigns in Asia and the Pacific, allowing them to be utilized in Britain's defense at home, coupled with the renewed American industrial capacity which would, in part, be turned towards keeping Britain afloat, whether America joined the war effort against Germany or not. In effect, Hitler had one of two options: ignore the increasing American involvement that directly contributed to the strength of his British enemy, or declare war.

[Uxupox]

snip

I think that's a remarkably simple way of analyzing the context, though. Yes, it was, in terms of the letter of the document, only a declaration of war against Japan. But by declaring war on Japan, and only Japan, America threatened to free up countless Allied resources from their campaigns in Asia and the Pacific, allowing them to be utilized in Britain's defense at home, coupled with the renewed American industrial capacity which would, in part, be turned towards keeping Britain afloat, whether America joined the war effort against Germany or not. In effect, Hitler had one of two options: ignore the increasing American involvement that directly contributed to the strength of his British enemy, or declare war.

The British would have never be able to conduct an amphibious invasion of Mainland Europe without direct American involvement.

[Genivaria]

snip

I think that's a remarkably simple way of analyzing the context, though. Yes, it was, in terms of the letter of the document, only a declaration of war against Japan. But by declaring war on Japan, and only Japan, America threatened to free up countless Allied resources from their campaigns in Asia and the Pacific, allowing them to be utilized in Britain's defense at home, coupled with the renewed American industrial capacity which would, in part, be turned towards keeping Britain afloat, whether America joined the war effort against Germany or not. In effect, Hitler had one of two options: ignore the increasing American involvement that directly contributed to the strength of his British enemy, or declare war.

And in declaring war all checks on American involvement in Europe suddenly came off, the American war economy started rolling hard.

[Ceannairceach]

I think that's a remarkably simple way of analyzing the context, though. Yes, it was, in terms of the letter of the document, only a declaration of war against Japan. But by declaring war on Japan, and only Japan, America threatened to free up countless Allied resources from their campaigns in Asia and the Pacific, allowing them to be utilized in Britain's defense at home, coupled with the renewed American industrial capacity which would, in part, be turned towards keeping Britain afloat, whether America joined the war effort against Germany or not. In effect, Hitler had one of two options: ignore the increasing American involvement that directly contributed to the strength of his British enemy, or declare war.

And in declaring war all checks on American involvement in Europe suddenly came off, the American war economy started rolling hard.

I agree, but that economy would have rolled hard in response to Japan alone. Essentially once America was attacked, the Axis was going to lose, one way or another.

I think that's a remarkably simple way of analyzing the context, though. Yes, it was, in terms of the letter of the document, only a declaration of war against Japan. But by declaring war on Japan, and only Japan, America threatened to free up countless Allied resources from their campaigns in Asia and the Pacific, allowing them to be utilized in Britain's defense at home, coupled with the renewed American industrial capacity which would, in part, be turned towards keeping Britain afloat, whether America joined the war effort against Germany or not. In effect, Hitler had one of two options: ignore the increasing American involvement that directly contributed to the strength of his British enemy, or declare war.

The British would have never be able to conduct an amphibious invasion of Mainland Europe without direct American involvement.

I think that's debatable. Would it have been extremely difficult? Absolutely. But impossible is overestimating America's involvement. More likely than not, though, whatever invasion they did manage would have been unsuccessful at securing the liberation of France before the Soviets would have been able to reach Berlin. But that also opens up the can of worms where the Soviets may not have been as stunningly successful without American involvement.

[Uxupox]

I think that's a remarkably simple way of analyzing the context, though. Yes, it was, in terms of the letter of the document, only a declaration of war against Japan. But by declaring war on Japan, and only Japan, America threatened to free up countless Allied resources from their campaigns in Asia and the Pacific, allowing them to be utilized in Britain's defense at home, coupled with the renewed American industrial capacity which would, in part, be turned towards keeping Britain afloat, whether America joined the war effort against Germany or not. In effect, Hitler had one of two options: ignore the increasing American involvement that directly contributed to the strength of his British enemy, or declare war.

And in declaring war all checks on American involvement in Europe suddenly came off, the American war economy started rolling hard.

Pretty much.

[Sovaal]

And in declaring war all checks on American involvement in Europe suddenly came off, the American war economy started rolling hard.

I agree, but that economy would have rolled hard in response to Japan alone. Essentially once America was attacked, the Axis was going to lose, one way or another.

The British would have never be able to conduct an amphibious invasion of Mainland Europe without direct American involvement.

I think that's debatable. Would it have been extremely difficult? Absolutely. But impossible is overestimating America's involvement. More likely than not, though, whatever invasion they did manage would have been unsuccessful at securing the liberation of France before the Soviets would have been able to reach Berlin. But that also opens up the can of worms where the Soviets may not have been as stunningly successful without American involvement.

D Day was already a logistical and strategic pain for the Allies even with both the American and British Navies. Impossible for just the Brits? Nothing’s impossible, but I find it improbable for any one nation to pull it off imho.

[Uxupox]

And in declaring war all checks on American involvement in Europe suddenly came off, the American war economy started rolling hard.

I agree, but that economy would have rolled hard in response to Japan alone. Essentially once America was attacked, the Axis was going to lose, one way or another.

The British would have never be able to conduct an amphibious invasion of Mainland Europe without direct American involvement.

I think that's debatable. Would it have been extremely difficult? Absolutely. But impossible is overestimating America's involvement. More likely than not, though, whatever invasion they did manage would have been unsuccessful at securing the liberation of France before the Soviets would have been able to reach Berlin. But that also opens up the can of worms where the Soviets may not have been as stunningly successful without American involvement.

Overestimating? The British did not have industrial capacity, nor did they have the men for the job (it is very interesting to note that their transfer of allied troops from Malaysia was a key and decisive factor it's loss) but they were capable of formulating small time raids.(Which was a complete massive failure).

[Ceannairceach]

I agree, but that economy would have rolled hard in response to Japan alone. Essentially once America was attacked, the Axis was going to lose, one way or another.



I think that's debatable. Would it have been extremely difficult? Absolutely. But impossible is overestimating America's involvement. More likely than not, though, whatever invasion they did manage would have been unsuccessful at securing the liberation of France before the Soviets would have been able to reach Berlin. But that also opens up the can of worms where the Soviets may not have been as stunningly successful without American involvement.

Overestimating? The British did not have industrial capacity, nor did they have the men for the job (it is very interesting to note that their transfer of allied troops from Malaysia was a key and decisive factor it's loss) but they were capable of formulating small time raids.(Which was a complete massive failure).

I'm not saying America wasn't crucial to the success of D-Day as it happened, rather, I'm saying an alternative plan could have also been varying degrees of successful if America was never involved. Desperation breeds creativity, and assuming the Soviet Union was not hindered by America's lack of involvement, their successes in the east could have led to increased British success in the west.

[Purpelia]

Overestimating? The British did not have industrial capacity, nor did they have the men for the job (it is very interesting to note that their transfer of allied troops from Malaysia was a key and decisive factor it's loss) but they were capable of formulating small time raids.(Which was a complete massive failure).

I'm not saying America wasn't crucial to the success of D-Day as it happened, rather, I'm saying an alternative plan could have also been varying degrees of successful if America was never involved. Desperation breeds creativity, and assuming the Soviet Union was not hindered by America's lack of involvement, their successes in the east could have led to increased British success in the west.

The western front was unnecessary to begin with. Fundamentally the threat of being invaded was already enough to tie down all the troops that the actual invasion tied up anyway. And the Red Army would have gotten to Berlin anyway. The only thing the whole affair did was shorten the war by maybe 6 months to a year.

[Uxupox]

Overestimating? The British did not have industrial capacity, nor did they have the men for the job (it is very interesting to note that their transfer of allied troops from Malaysia was a key and decisive factor it's loss) but they were capable of formulating small time raids.(Which was a complete massive failure).

I'm not saying America wasn't crucial to the success of D-Day as it happened, rather, I'm saying an alternative plan could have also been varying degrees of successful if America was never involved. Desperation breeds creativity, and assuming the Soviet Union was not hindered by America's lack of involvement, their successes in the east could have led to increased British success in the west.

Let me repeat this again. The British did not have capacity to open up a second front in Western Europe (Unless they decided to abandon the north African campaign).

[Ceannairceach]

I'm not saying America wasn't crucial to the success of D-Day as it happened, rather, I'm saying an alternative plan could have also been varying degrees of successful if America was never involved. Desperation breeds creativity, and assuming the Soviet Union was not hindered by America's lack of involvement, their successes in the east could have led to increased British success in the west.

The western front was unnecessary to begin with. Fundamentally the threat of being invaded was already enough to tie down all the troops that the actual invasion tied up anyway. And the Red Army would have gotten to Berlin anyway. The only thing the whole affair did was shorten the war by maybe 6 months to a year.

Which, if that was the only benefit, is mitigated by the fact that D-Day as a plan was delayed by roughly a year, meaning it probably actually extended the war. I recall reading the actual "war-shortener," such as it were, was King Michael I of Romania, whose coup probably shortened the war by that time as well. He sadly passed late last year, too.

[Claorica]

I'm not saying America wasn't crucial to the success of D-Day as it happened, rather, I'm saying an alternative plan could have also been varying degrees of successful if America was never involved. Desperation breeds creativity, and assuming the Soviet Union was not hindered by America's lack of involvement, their successes in the east could have led to increased British success in the west.

The western front was unnecessary to begin with. Fundamentally the threat of being invaded was already enough to tie down all the troops that the actual invasion tied up anyway. And the Red Army would have gotten to Berlin anyway. The only thing the whole affair did was shorten the war by maybe 6 months to a year.

And lower the death toll by maybe 10-25 Million. And that's not counting the fact that Soviet and British tanks, planes, and automobiles were built from american steel, the guns fired american lead with american gunpowder, and were carried to the front by American(-built) trucks.

[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.

And rightfully so

not really, if the soviets had kicked off WW2(hell, they had there own plans and were also responsible for dividing Poland) it would have been the other way around.

People just want to hear what they want to hear...

[Baltenstein]

FDR wanted to go to war with Japan and Germany both. He had laid out a coordinated strategy with Churchill on the matter, he had already authorized naval warfare against Germany in the Atlantic. The one and only thing hindering him from fully entering the war was the non-interventionist sentiment in the American populace and government, which pretty much disappeared in one night after Pearl Harbor.
I don't see why and how FDR would have gone to war with Japan but shied away from confronting Germany.

[War Gears]

Ironically Fascism could be considered a form of socialism.

[Uxupox]

And rightfully so

not really, if the soviets had kicked off WW2(hell, they had there own plans and were also responsible for dividing Poland) it would have been the other way around.

People just want to hear what they want to hear...

A very interesting line of thought. Would let's say the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is never signed, would the Axis at this point in time defend Poland?

The Allies wouldn't have (See secret clause in the 1939 Anglo-Polish treaty).