We have a thread for cringeworthy takes on real history.
What's the most Cringeworthy Alternate History you've ever read?
- Thread starter Silent Runner
- Start date
- Post-1900
- Location
- USS Enterprise CV-6
Compared to the Nazis they were. By themselves yeah they're at best neutral grey but compared to the fucking Nazis? I don't get why people get so fucking up in arms over the idea of "yeah they were bad but the people they were fighting were so evil that in comparison their morals are lighter then if we judged them on their own". I can not in good consciousness put the Wallies at anything higher than a neutral-light grey in terms of morals at worst when their opponents are the Nazis.
Terra Allias
World's only Magical Girl Spec Ops Asuka fan
- Location
- Cheverly
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Semi-related, I never got far enough in TNO to understand what the hell is happening in the Oil Crisis. The Germans backing the Baathists is the simplest part because they all want to form the United Arab Republic.
Axslashel
I am a pessimist not a realist.
- Location
- Land of the Midnight Sun
Evil acts are still evil even if used to stop a larger evil. Sometimes it is a necessary evil (most wallies evils are very much not) but it will never be considered a good act. "Cool motive. Still a crime against humanity."
- Location
- USS Enterprise CV-6
I never said some of the acts they committed weren't evil or bad though. It's just compared to the Nazi's and Japanese during the war if you're having to scale them it makes the bad things the Wallies did no where near as bad. Plus some of the really bad crap the Wallies did has at least some legitimate ambiguity over how much they actually meant for things to get VS how much it was the war fucking it up. For example the Bengal Famine depending on which school of thought you think makes more sense of the issues ranges the gauntlet from "Was more natural than man-made and the war prevented any ability to even try to effectively relieve it" to straight up "Churchill was trying to genocide the Bengali's".* Meanwhile there is none of that from the Axis side. The actions were almost always either ordered by high command itself or at least ok with them.
*Personally I'm of the belief that Churchill was was willing to let them suffer some level of pain for the war effort as a whole. However I don't believe he planned on it getting as bad as it did due the risk of Bengal revolting. Churchill was a racist SoB especially against the Indians but was also a staunch Imperialist. So anything that would truly risk the crown jewel of the empire I doubt he'd have done unless the Nazis were literally fighting in front of Parliament.
No, but they did rule India and a third of Africa. The British Empire is the bloodiest regime in human history, having killed more people in the course of a century and half more than two world wars combined, and that's a conservative estimate that only ranks the famines massacres, and genocides. If we were to include background radiation of death from poverty, malnourishment, worked to death, and outright execution by death penalty, we'd find that horrifying number even higher. 120 million dead in India from famines alone.
Britain didn't declare war on Germany because it disliked Nazism conceptually. Britain didn't even mind if Germany carved up Central and Eastern Europe so long as it was done on London and Paris's timetable with their approval. Britain declared war because Hitler wouldn't play ball. Lest we forget the millions of dollars in trade Britain, France, and especially America pumped into Italy and Germany that helped fund it's re-armament.
Well, you could have just said grey vs infinite black abyss to get the point across. Instead you explicitly said the Western Allies were "light grey" that sided with a very dark grey faction. The whitewashing of Allied regimes is eyebrow raising, especially since in the previous sentence you said they were "grey vs grey" in WW1. By what process did America, Britain, and France go from morally grey in 1914 to light grey moral paragon in 1939? Because those are the same empires fighting a similar war against Germany.
Also calling WW2 a worse case morals for the Western Allies because they had to work with the Soviet Union is equally as telling. It sounds like you're saying if the Nazis weren't around, the Soviets were the greatest moral evil to blight Europe because they're the "very dark grey" side in this equation. You're showing your whole ass with this remark.
You don't get to pull this moral relativism crap with the British, French, Belgian, Dutch, and American empires. They don't get a free pass on their shit because they fought the Nazis.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I would argue that the idea of Britian letting Germany carve up Central Europe completely was never on the table, the British were just that accomplished in hypocrisy seeing the reaction to Ethiopia, but their is no moral equaviation between the British and French Empires, and the new spheres influence between the Soviet Union and America of which the former was far worse
- Location
- Georgia, US
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Setting aside moral arguments, this is demonstrable untrue. Britain has always very firmly opposed a single continental hegemon. That's why they did so much to bring down Napoleon. They've always been aware that a united Europe would be a critical threat to their interests.
They were slow to stop Hitler sure but that wasn't because they were fine with him dominating Europe. That was never something they would accept.
Last edited:
- Location
- USS Enterprise CV-6
I'm sorry but where in the hell is calling the Soviets under fucking Stalin "very dark grey" at best not accurate? Give them any other leader and I could give you that but under Stalin I'm sorry but yes they were the second biggest blight on Europe morally at the time.
Comrade Future
Man from Zeerust
- Location
- USSR
- Pronouns
- He/His/Him
Even if Stalin is bad, the USSR is still good.
- Location
- Lost in the internet
The concept was light-grey, the execution... not so much
- Location
- USS Enterprise CV-6
The concept was good, I'll fully admit that even as someone who disagrees with the idea of Communism in general. But the USSR as it was and behaved wasn't good in just about any shape or form. Also I would argue Stalin was the USSR while he was in charge.
Comrade Future
Man from Zeerust
- Location
- USSR
- Pronouns
- He/His/Him
Of course, there were objective social and economic factors that predetermined the collapse of the Union, and there is no justification for "deportations of peoples". But there were still huge achievements, some of which have not been surpassed to this day. There really was a lot of good in the USSR, which is constantly overlooked.
But have you seen what Soviet people built? Have you read Soviet books, watched Soviet films, and talked to those who witnessed all of this? I know all of this well. There were too many problems, but I know one thing - even under freaking Stalin, we were taught to be People - we were preparing to be builders and creators of the New World. And now we are systematically being turned into dumb animals.
Check your interwar history, by 1928 the Entente had signaled officially and unofficially to Germany that they were open to the redrawing of Eastern European borders. Poland and Czechoslovakia were on the chopping block by the early to mid 30s as sacrifices the Entente were willing to make if it meant Germany bought into the post war system and acted as a bulwark against the Soviet Union. Hitler appeared to fall neatly into that role until Munich.
Or are we forgetting that Britain refused to back France in threatening Germany over remilitarizing the Rhineland, annexing Austria, or taking the Sudetenland? Or in pressuring Belgian to allow Entente troops to remain station there? Britain actively undermined France's system of continental Allies in favour of appeasing Germany. Britain wanted to be kingmaker and power broker in Europe, and in the process handed it to Hitler on a silver platter.
Well it's interesting you felt to need to single the Soviet Union out. Stalin was a brutal dictator that killed millions of people, certainly. Just why didn't you feel the need to use "dark grey" to describe the Central Powers or Entente? Surely the Herero and Nama genocide and Armenian genocide would warrant that label, though they are hardly the only European power with blood on their hands, as previously discussed.
You didn't answer my question about what the Entente did to go from grey to light grey in your eyes? You felt fine taking them to task by condemning the pointless slaughter they participated in when their opponents were also imperial powers when you called it a grey v grey conflict, yet when there's a communist state on the board suddenly we're grading on a curve.
France spent more of the war as an active collaborator than member of the Allies. You may argue that they count as abysmal black, but Vichy was the legitimate government supported by millions of people. It was effectively France, and eagerly collaborated in the holocaust and slave labour programs. What were they then? Not France? Was Free France the real France, so that you could claim it has the moral high ground over communism? How then do you square the circle that after the war the majority of the Vichy government faced no punishment for its war crimes. It's not a very "light grey" of the Allies to pardon all those "infinite black abyss" people and welcome them back into the military and civil service.
It's still rich to say the Soviets were the second greatest blight on Europe. Just really? The Soviets? On what basis? They're worst than "gassed women and children" Fascist Italy, "literally murdering tens of thousands of civilians" Nationalist Spain, "future fash collaborator" Kingdom of Hungary, "murdering Ukranian nationalists and many others" Poland, and Salazar's Portugal? Those are all pre-ww2 examples too, and dont touch on the ongoing massacres commited by the premier liberal powers of Britain, France, Belgian, and Netherlands.
I'm not singing the praises of Stalin here, but you've clearly got your priorities skewed if you think the Soviet Union is worse than the likes of Horthy and Mussolini. It's also ironic because the Soviets' foreign policy was isolation during the 20s and 30s. Their attempts to form an anti-fascist front were rebuffed by the Allies. The pivot to temporary understanding with Germany was entirely driven by desperation to not be the next victims of fascist aggression.
Stalin striking a trade deal with Hitler was a horrible decision, but are we supposed to pretend that American and British corporations didn't also provide millions of dollars worth of raw materials to Germany as well? Soviet plans during 39 to 41 was literally to wait out the war and see who won before intervening. Yes they wanted to sweep the continent in like 43 to establish a bunch of communist regimes, but that's hardly a unique evil.
TL: DR: Your anti-communist bias is showing hard. You hate the Soviets more than fascist collaborators, authoritarian military regimes, and genocidal liberal empires that plagued Europe during the interwar years. You can condem Hitler, then stumble at all the rest.
Curby
recovering analytic philosopher, still sensitive
- Location
- Most Serene Republic of Unwashed Brooklyn
- Pronouns
- He/They
Let's not forget that the British literally stopped the popular front government in France from sending aid to the Spanish Republicans, and in doing so doomed the country to thirty years of francoist terror. Have trouble seeing that as anything but a particularly dark shade of grey at the very best.
- Location
- USS Enterprise CV-6
Because for me personally if both sides are doing the same shit it defaults into a grey VS grey. I rarely go above that when its two sides with the same morals except for extreme circumstances.
The overton window shifted so fucking far to the right due to their opponents is the main reason reason. Think of it this way basically, WW1 was a bunch of people with various crimes to their names fighting, some may have been worse than others but they were all basically the same level of crime. WW2 another fight from mostly the same people. Some of the group from the either still doing those same crimes or starting to try and reform while the rest have become the world's most wanted criminals for having committed some of the most deplorable acts possible. The "good guys" in the second are still basically the same from the first but things shifted so far towards the dark with the rest it made them lighter in comparison.
First off I would argue it was a civil war to determine which was the real government, of course who won said war depend on who won WW2 as a whole. Second off France arguably did the most against it's collaborators and the Vichy Government. If Wikipedia is correct they sentence 6,763 people to death and while only in the end only 731 were actually executed IIRC it was most of the big names. Petain only escaped death because the man basically saved the French Army during WW1. As is if you were to press me on who I thought was the legitimate government I would go Free France and the French Resistance.
See I consider the Soviets the second biggest blight because they were the second biggest threat to Europe. I don't mean that in by being Communist themselves were they a threat. I mean in that they were the next biggest military threat towards Europe alongside the ones with the potential to kill the most people both internally and externally. Yes the others were shit but they weren't militarily a threat to the rest of Europe. So yeah when calling the Soviets the second biggest blight I'm not just talking about their internal action but how much of an actual threat they could pose to the rest of Europe both military and on the populace.
Neither side really started talking to each other until after Munich at which point the Nazi's basically went to Molotov and told him "Hey tell Stalin to side with us and we'll let him have half of Poland, the Baltics, Finland and Bessarabia". There isn't anything the Wallies realistically could've given to Stalin that could've topped that. Also a major issue in the Wallies trying to make a deal was specifically the Baltics and Poland. The Soviets were trying to include language that would basically mean if a German fly sneezed over the border they could occupy them. Meanwhile Poland was worried if they let the Soviets cross they'd never leave. You can argue whether or not they would've at the time but the Polish didn't think they would.
I'm sorry but you can't call Molotov-Ribbentrop just a fucking trade deal. Yes that was part of it but I literally listed the territory above the Germans basically sold to the Soviets to get them to sign. As for the American and British trade the former was trending down from the 2 billion dollar high in 1927 to only 300 million by 1938 and to basically zero after September 1st of 39. As for the British that was mainly government policy due to Chamberlain's appeasement attempts. Even then it was mainly scrap metal IIRC and not a lot of it.
bookwyrm
Doom of Public Libraries
- Location
- Wichita, Kansas
basically every power fell flat on their ass and fully beclowned themselves hypocritically attempting to secure their own most favorable positions and also quite reasonably attempting to avoid another great war and find some reasonable accommodation to be able to wait things out. The problem being that both those impulses clashed with each other and also with the unreasonably necessary cordon sanitaire and diplomatic and economic and everything siege required to beat Nazi Germany down in 1934 or whatever, each power falling into the prisoner's dilemma or, less charitably, just being run by a bunch of dumb amoral fuckers.
But when a unprecedented degree of international cooperation to contain Germany and Japan and everything is required to not have to do WW2- it kinda falls most of all on the powers also the most wrapped up in the League of Nations and what international systems were in place, America for abandoning everything with its hands in its ears, Britain for just turning it into the playhouse for the British Empire and pretty consciously choosing that over a genuine pan-European spark like the later UN and EU, and I guess the Soviets too a little for playing fuck-fuck games trying to both be the revolutionary pole of a nominally competing international system and then also trying to play loosely within the bounds of the old Interwar world and get its own pound of flesh.
But even then, I think Stalin's fuck-fuck games are kinda an inevitable downstream effect of so long being cut out of full participation in the international order and actually having some fairly effective cordon sanitaire pressures put on the USSR throughout the 20s and even some beyond. Though I guess the British Empire going full British Empire again was also a bit downstream of America never joining the LoN and abandoning Wilsonian interventionism to go grab a pack of cigs
But when a unprecedented degree of international cooperation to contain Germany and Japan and everything is required to not have to do WW2- it kinda falls most of all on the powers also the most wrapped up in the League of Nations and what international systems were in place, America for abandoning everything with its hands in its ears, Britain for just turning it into the playhouse for the British Empire and pretty consciously choosing that over a genuine pan-European spark like the later UN and EU, and I guess the Soviets too a little for playing fuck-fuck games trying to both be the revolutionary pole of a nominally competing international system and then also trying to play loosely within the bounds of the old Interwar world and get its own pound of flesh.
But even then, I think Stalin's fuck-fuck games are kinda an inevitable downstream effect of so long being cut out of full participation in the international order and actually having some fairly effective cordon sanitaire pressures put on the USSR throughout the 20s and even some beyond. Though I guess the British Empire going full British Empire again was also a bit downstream of America never joining the LoN and abandoning Wilsonian interventionism to go grab a pack of cigs
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- They/Them
So we come to the true answer at last, once again!
America's to blame!
America's to blame!
Azecreth
Giant Monster All Out Attack
- Location
- United States of America
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Clearly it was those dastardly Macedonians. Alexander ruined everything.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Oh god they found us out, quick make up another Stalin fact based on nothing but pop history uh uh uh he lit little people on fire
- Location
- USS Enterprise CV-6
I gotta admit I honestly have no idea why people think the US being in the LoN actually would've changed anything. Unless you radically change the US view of international affairs it'd just go with whatever route risks war the least.
Even if the Senate had passed the treaty and the US joined the LoN, Wilson's stroke would almost certainly still have occurred; and odds are getting the US into a more interventionist role via the League is something that Edith Wilson would have been nixing during her 'stewardship' of Woodrow's last year and change in office.
I know this is a late reply,but from what I've heard Maria is pretty nice.
I don't know, Stalin (although I guess this would be a case of him still going by Dzhugashvili?) as leader of an Orthodox theocracy sounds more interesting than a Romanov restoration.
The present day Romanovs can be perfectly nice people, because they have no power (that thing that famous corrodes empathy and warps perspective) but I've never heard of them ever actually apologizing for shit like their forefathers/cousins commissioning the Protocols
The present day Romanovs can be perfectly nice people, because they have no power (that thing that famous corrodes empathy and warps perspective) but I've never heard of them ever actually apologizing for shit like their forefathers/cousins commissioning the Protocols