NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, they'd probably control most of Europe, at least. I find the Harry Turtledove book 'Curious Notions' an interesting scenario, but I don't know that it would be that unadvanced...

What do you think?

Well, they'd probably control most of Europe, at least. I find the Harry Turtledove book 'Curious Notions' an interesting scenario, but I don't know that it would be that unadvanced...

What do you think?

I think it would have taken a LOT of luck and absolutely splendid tactics on Germany's part. Germany has this tendency to piss off everyone around it whenever it goes to war, so it tends to be surrounded. There's a reason that they lost both World War One and World War Two, you know.

If they'd won, Hitler would of never risen to power, though the world and politics would be vastly different.

You know i was wondering yesterday, what if i decided to leave a big mud monkey on those peoples' faces who have posted an alternative history thread?

Well, they'd probably control most of Europe, at least. I find the Harry Turtledove book 'Curious Notions' an interesting scenario, but I don't know that it would be that unadvanced...

What do you think?

Then Germany and its allies would have carved up Africa and the Middle East instead of Britain and its allies.

Then France would have started WW2, a french führer :eek:

Then France would have started WW2, a french führer :eek:
That would be sad. We'd no longer have our French surrenders jokes.

They lost WWI because of the British Blockade. At the Battle of Jutland, Britain could have lost the war in an afternoon.

Note my wordage - Britain could have lost the war, not Germany won it. At the time of WWI, for the first time, defensive capacities outstripped offensive by a significant margin. It became basically impossible for two tecnologically advanced nations to fight each other to a conclusion - all that would happen is both sides would be bled white for no progress.

Germany could have lasted just as long as Britain and France, had they been able to get overseas trade. More, with no blockade, Germany would not have been forced to unrestricted submarine warfare - thus virtually ensuring the United States' remaining neutral, despite that moron Wilson.

My guess? Peace treaty around 1920, acknowlegement of the Treaty of Brest/Litovsk, Germany remains a Great Power, Austro-Hungary resumes it's slow disintegration. When Ataturk stages his coup, he creates a "Turkish Federation" in the middle east, France and Britain are kept out. WWII happens about on time - but it's Russia vs. Europe and the US vs. Japan, with no real interconnection. The US wins against Japan, Russia gets to the English Channel.

Cue the Cold War.

Then France would have started WW2, a french führer :eek:

In that case the Second World War would have been about as significant as the Gulf war, and lasted half as long. And there would be a run on white flags. ;)

They lost WWI because of the British Blockade. At the Battle of Jutland, Britain could have lost the war in an afternoon.

Note my wordage - Britain could have lost the war, not Germany won it. At the time of WWI, for the first time, defensive capacities outstripped offensive by a significant margin. It became basically impossible for two tecnologically advanced nations to fight each other to a conclusion - all that would happen is both sides would be bled white for no progress.

Germany could have lasted just as long as Britain and France, had they been able to get overseas trade. More, with no blockade, Germany would not have been forced to unrestricted submarine warfare - thus virtually ensuring the United States' remaining neutral, despite that moron Wilson.

My guess? Peace treaty around 1920, acknowlegement of the Treaty of Brest/Litovsk, Germany remains a Great Power, Austro-Hungary resumes it's slow disintegration. When Ataturk stages his coup, he creates a "Turkish Federation" in the middle east, France and Britain are kept out. WWII happens about on time - but it's Russia vs. Europe and the US vs. Japan, with no real interconnection. The US wins against Japan, Russia gets to the English Channel.

Cue the Cold War.


Germany's economy was ready to collapse due to the war, but Britain was about to lose and would have if not for the fresh reinforcements of American troops. Hell, France was secretly considering signing a treaty of defeat with Germany...typical French move.

However, Germany would have been able to occupy Britain or even France for very long.

Honestly, I'm glad they lost, however, looking to the brighter side of things, there would be no France. :D

Honestly, I'm glad they lost, however, looking to the brighter side of things, there would be no France. :D

what is so bad about france?

Germany's economy was ready to collapse due to the way, but Britain was about to lose and would have if not for the fresh reinforcements of American troops. Hell, France was secretly considering signing a treaty of defeat with Germany...typical French move.

However, Germany would have been able to occupy Britain or even France for very long.

Kinda my point. Without the blockade, there would have been no winner at all. And certainly no occupations - after all, in RL Germany was never occupied post WWI. Britain and France had more important things to do, like try and resuscitate code-blue economies.

Honestly, I'm glad they lost, however, looking to the brighter side of things, there would be no France. :D
Why is that a good thing?

what is so bad about france?

I'd list everything but 1. I'm eating steak 2. Does the "One Stop Rules" have a limit on thread size? Surely, I couldn't list everything. 3. Very time consuming. 4. France, I thought says it all 5. etc... etc.... :D

I'd list everything but 1. I'm eating steak 2. Does the "One Stop Rules" have a limit on thread size? Surely, I couldn't list everything. 3. Very time consuming. 4. France, I thought says it all 5. etc... etc.... :D
that explains nothing. are ou just trying to up your postcount?

I'd list everything but 1. I'm eating steak 2. Does the "One Stop Rules" have a limit on thread size? Surely, I couldn't list everything. 3. Very time consuming. 4. France, I thought says it all 5. etc... etc.... :D
...

So, in other words, one of the most cultured nations in the world is horrible because you deem it so. Wonderful.

My theory is that business would have gone on as usual. Germany would hold france, but not for that long. Eventually, most boundary lines would have slipped back to normal. A few years later there would have been another war. The ferocity of WWII as brought on by the madman hitler was possibly the only thing that ended Europe's persistent petty squabbling and near ecstacy at the thought of war.

shits gon' 'splode

Well, they'd probably control most of Europe, at least. I find the Harry Turtledove book 'Curious Notions' an interesting scenario, but I don't know that it would be that unadvanced...

What do you think?

I think.. Europe would look much like the United States looks today [and we would have been minus one world war]

the Germans would of been kinder with there peace terms (which comes from not fighting the war in your own borders) the most the treaty would do is maybe take the odd colony and some reparations

I’m guessing we would just have another small colonial power but a powerful one none the less acting as Europe’s shield against Russia

that explains nothing. are ou just trying to up your postcount?

As I told you before, I was eating. I was hungry. Stand-by for sources to my claim.

...

So, in other words, one of the most cultured nations in the world is horrible because you deem it so. Wonderful.

You must have skipped my #1 reason which does have presedence over all.

Honestly, I'm glad they lost, however, looking to the brighter side of things, there would be no France. :D
Way to slag off the country that saved your arse twice in your revolutions against the British, and armed and trained a whole load of your troops in the first World War, handily preventing them from dying and such.

Oh and very little would be different, to be honest. The Kaiser would still have had to abdicate due to the Socialists in charge disliking him, and it'd all break up in about ten years anyway.

As I told you before, I was eating. I was hungry. Stand-by for sources to my claim.

As long as you don't post the French Military History site...

Kinda my point. Without the blockade, there would have been no winner at all. And certainly no occupations - after all, in RL Germany was never occupied post WWI. Britain and France had more important things to do, like try and resuscitate code-blue economies.

oh sorry, I meant to say I agree with you. :p

Well, if impossibilities could happen, and if God/Jesus/Muhammed decided to send divine aid to Germany, and if America had gone against its own character and decided to be a whining player, and if the Austro-Hungarians weren't so pitiful on the battlefield, then there would have been an autocratic regime in Germany that would have eventually overrun Austria-Hungary. In essence, WWII, but instead of Hitler, we would recall Kaiser Wilhem II and Kaiser Wilhem III. (Germans weren't good about varying their names. Case in point: the King Georges I-IV, all Hanovrians, all named George.)

Way to slag off the country that saved your arse twice in your revolutions against the British, and armed and trained a whole load of your troops in the first World War, handily preventing them from dying and such.

Oh and very little would be different, to be honest. The Kaiser would still have had to abdicate due to the Socialists in charge disliking him, and it'd all break up in about ten years anyway.

again minus 1 world war.. and on the subject of France.. didn't we enter WW1 becuase of france ? (handily saving them) and WW2 (again the same).. and didn't they also drag us into Vietnam (when they couldn't control their own colony) ...

As well I think the role of France is being overstated here in the revolutionary war... the colonists true victories were fought on the ground.. France at best played a support role.

Way to slag off the country that saved your arse twice in your revolutions against the British, and armed and trained a whole load of your troops in the first World War, handily preventing them from dying and such.

Oh and very little would be different, to be honest. The Kaiser would still have had to abdicate due to the Socialists in charge disliking him, and it'd all break up in about ten years anyway.

I have serious doubts about that. The Socialists took power primarily because they were the only organized political force after the Imperial Government fell, not because they were particularly liked by the populace. With a smoother transition to either a democratic or a constitutional monarchy governmental form (and I agree that such was definitely on the agenda), they might have wound up with a more sensible constitution, not to mention not being hampered by the perception that the politicians had "given away the country," as Hitler was apt to put it - when he wasn't outright calling them "traitors to the Fatherland."

Further, with either a win or a draw, Germany's population would not have been radicalised into the right/left divide Hitler ultimately exploited. This would have resulted in greater political stability and an honest chance for the Weimar Republic or it's equivalent.

again minus 1 world war.. and on the subject of France.. didn't we enter WW1 becuase of france ? (handily saving them)
Absolutely not.

World War one was entered by the US because it was rumoured that the Germans would attack through Mexico / the Mexicans would attack and the Germans also sank the Lucitania (sorry if the name's wrong) via U-Boot, and that kicked things off.
and WW2 (again the same)
No, the US entered the Western Front in 1944 because it wasn't up for the USSR controlling all of Mainland Europe. Nothing to do with helping the French, that was merely a handy biproduct and something which the US could say it did right - as well as making it able to get the French Government back in power and hence have its lend-lease money.
.. and didn't they also drag us into Vietnam (when they couldn't control their own colony) ...
Again, absolutely not.

The French stopped fighting in the early fifties. The US really started fighting in the early sixties, post-Tonkin.

The reason the US invaded was a fear of Communism (the Domino Effect) and the fact that the Vietnamese were going to vote in the Communists to run the whole state, and the US didn't want this to happen whatsoever, so they invaded and called the elections off.
As well I think the role of France is being overstated here in the revolutionary war... the colonists true victories were fought on the ground.. France at best played a support role.
I'm sure that the bucanneers that were blowing British ships up counted for nothing, and that Napoleon played absolutely no part in the war in 1812... yes... so very sure.

If Germany had won the battle of Jutland, the British would have been out of the fight. Russia, already fuming over their massive losses, would have pulled out the war in much the same way, leaving a vast area of new countries to be sat on by Germany and Austro-Hungary. A-H would then have divided up the Balkans with the Ottomans and Bulgaria, and claim territory from Italy, possibly even taking one of their colonies. Belgium would have lost a portion of their border, and France would most likely would have surrendered shortly after Britain fell out, and ceded a portion of the African (and possibly Carribean) colonies to Germany. France would probably become a socialist/communist state, Germany a slightly more liberal constitutional monarchy, and I believe the A-H's were planning on coming up with a monarchial "united states of Greater Austro-Hungary." Eventually, Russia would attempt invading, possibly with France's support, but most likely not. It would probably reclaim some territory, but not all. Japan would eventually go to war with the US, And the US would have taken nearly a decade to defeat Japan, but not over Fascism, but just over colonialism. Most Asian colonies and China would dissolve. Japan would probably stalemate the US, and the Ottomans would probably rule over Saudi Arabia.

Also, The French helped us out in the Revolutionary War, but only held the peace conferences for the War of 1812. We joined WWI to stop the unbarred submarine attacks by Germany. We joined WWII because we were attacked, though we most likely would have joined the war eventually. Vietnam was to do two thngs:1. Help France keep it's colony, and; 2. Stop the spread of communism.

And most Americans do not like the French due to their lack of support in the past few years, even though we have helped them so often.

Scandals: (Just a few of many)

http://ww1.transparency.org/working_papers/country/france_paper.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4965734.stm
http://www.odiousdebts.org/odiousdebts/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=14145

Colonization/Imperialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_1898_empires_colonies_territory.png
interesting how the USA has only colonized it's own nation.

The mighty Frenchmen (during WWI)......... http://www.worldwar1.com/france/tseng.htm
Colonization/Imperialism continues to the New World......http://alts.net/ns1625/7yw-timeline-m.html

In today's times....... http://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/read.php?idx=3064

again minus 1 world war.. and on the subject of France.. didn't we enter WW1 becuase of france ? (handily saving them) and WW2 (again the same).. and didn't they also drag us into Vietnam (when they couldn't control their own colony) ...

As well I think the role of France is being overstated here in the revolutionary war... the colonists true victories were fought on the ground.. France at best played a support role.

Actually the French were very dependent on their slaves and the people of Africa, the people that they colonized over.

They lost WWI because of the British Blockade. At the Battle of Jutland, Britain could have lost the war in an afternoon.

Note my wordage - Britain could have lost the war, not Germany won it. At the time of WWI, for the first time, defensive capacities outstripped offensive by a significant margin. It became basically impossible for two tecnologically advanced nations to fight each other to a conclusion - all that would happen is both sides would be bled white for no progress.

Germany could have lasted just as long as Britain and France, had they been able to get overseas trade. More, with no blockade, Germany would not have been forced to unrestricted submarine warfare - thus virtually ensuring the United States' remaining neutral, despite that moron Wilson.

My guess? Peace treaty around 1920, acknowlegement of the Treaty of Brest/Litovsk, Germany remains a Great Power, Austro-Hungary resumes it's slow disintegration. When Ataturk stages his coup, he creates a "Turkish Federation" in the middle east, France and Britain are kept out. WWII happens about on time - but it's Russia vs. Europe and the US vs. Japan, with no real interconnection. The US wins against Japan, Russia gets to the English Channel.

Cue the Cold War.

a very likely scenario.

Also, The French...only held the peace conferences for the War of 1812.
And Napoleon kept the British armies and navy occupied...
Vietnam was to do two thngs:1. Help France keep it's colony, and; 2. Stop the spread of communism.
The French had already lost it by the time the US joined in, and had lost it for a couple of years, too. It was Communist-bashing pure and simple.
And most Americans do not like the French due to their lack of support in the past few years, even though we have helped them so often.
The feeling is mutual, and the French deserve much more credit from a lot of US citizens than they get.

My theory is that business would have gone on as usual. Germany would hold france, but not for that long. Eventually, most boundary lines would have slipped back to normal.
A few years later there would have been another war. The ferocity of WWII as brought on by the madman hitler was possibly the only thing that ended Europe's persistent petty squabbling and near ecstacy at the thought of war.

Had Germany taken Paris in 1918, then most likely the Armistace would have simply been written the other way: with Britain, France & Italy paying massive sums to Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey. (If the US was involved, it would pay some indemnity as well.)

Hitler would almost certainly never have come into power: the Weimar Republic would never have existed, Kaiser Bill would still be on the throne, and he'd probably be a civil servant somewhere. Perhaps at a Department of Motor Vehicles or something.

What if the Schlieffen Plan was successful?

I think it would have taken a LOT of luck and absolutely splendid tactics on Germany's part. Germany has this tendency to piss off everyone around it whenever it goes to war, so it tends to be surrounded. There's a reason that they lost both World War One and World War Two, you know.

Actually, it's not as far fetched as you might think. The 1918 Spring Offensive very nearly took Paris.

The 50+ divisions the Germans were able to move from the Eastern Front after Russia withdrew were a huge blow to Allied morale, even with the entry of the Americans.

Had the Germans had a good signal corps, better provisions, or had the Germans pushed on instead of chasing the Allied Armies, then very likely Paris would have been captured.

What if the Schlieffen Plan was successful?

It was half right -- it did take Russia 5-6 weeks to mobilize.

Another (and perhaps better) question to me would be "What if von Moltke hadn't modified the 1905 version of the Schlieffen Plan?"

What if the Schlieffen Plan was successful?
Exactly. That's the question.

Germany had, strictly speaking, two chances to win the war. The first would have been for the generals to stick to the original Schlieffen Plan, giving the German Armies the numerical advantage at the Marne they would have needed to defeat the Allies.

In that case the war might really have been over by Christmas, France would've had to ask for peace, and Britain wouldn't have seen a point in fighting on, particularly as Germany would probably have given them pretty generous terms.

No idea what would've happened afterwards...no communism, no destruction of the old world order...

The second chance was late in the game during the Spring Offensives. It's a long shot, but with a bit of luck and Ludendorff not killing off the Stormtroopers in masses they might have pulled it off.

In that case, perhaps surprisingly, I'd agree with this article (http://www.johnreilly.info/wwi.htm) (good read!) that WWII would still have happened. The developments that led German society to accept the Nazis had already begun during the war. Except that this time there would have been a much stronger Germany to fight.

No idea what would've happened afterwards...no communism, no destruction of the old world order...
Nah, Communism would still be around. German socialists often snuck into French/British trenches and spilled on secrets as a form of secret protest.

i.e. Before the Second Battle of Ypres when a German socialist soldier warned some colonial forces that the Germans were preparing to gas them. The British scoffed at that idea, though. They were in for a surprise.

Then France would have started WW2, a french führer :eek:

exactly

the germans would have put such a world of hurt on france in the peace treaty process that a member of the bonaparte family....say napoleon the 4th? (5th? 6th?)... would become a dangerous meglomaniac and lead france into a disastrous quest for world dominance.

I'd say it all depends when that victory would have taken place.

In 1914, with a working Schlieffen plan and no drawing reinforcements from the West to the East, the war in the west would have ended fairly quickly, with Great Britain not really getting involved, for Belgium would "only" have been used as a transit country, not being occupied, and things returning to normal just like they did in 1870/71.
The war in the East would've been won accordingly with the only theatre left, but maybe the Russian Revolution wouldn't have taken place without Lenin being brought into Russia via Germany.

In 1916, after the Entente's deficient offensive at the Somme which had left the French army drained and depleted, a German "all or nothing" assault in the West might have tipped the war to Germany's favor, for the only offensive action the Germans had launched that far was the stalled one at Verdun.
If the German Highcommand could have been convinced of the true advantages the tank would have shown in the trenchwar battlefield, the use of which could have proven very successful indeed.
Dividing the British and French army groups and maybe successfully beating the French would have forced the British to retreat across the channel, with Paris captured by the Germans.
Also the development of newer and better, but especially the building of more aircraft might have helped the German military successes.
Things would have returned to normal in a timespan of about 5 years I'd guess, including new treaties and German colonial politics instead of French ones in Africa, as some colonies would definitely have become German after a victory.

In 1918, the war in the East would be over, one way or the other, and the only way to win the war in the West would have been a successful Operation Michael drawn up by Ludendorff, possibly including numerous German tanks and mobile artillery, but definitely including the Eighth Army in that operation, before the United States could deploy the mass of its troops strategically.
Not to forget that the Germans would have to have retaken the air superiority some time during that offensive to successfully control that theatre of war.
I'm pretty sure that the borders would not have changed all that much on the European continent, but globally Germany would have become a player to be reckoned with, definitely taking the French colonies in Africa and probably competing with the British over theirs.

It pretty much breaks down to mobile (motorized) warfare for which the Germans did not have the means or weapon systems - something that worked to the Germans' advantage in the Blitzkrieg maneuvers.

Who knows what would have happened after that. Maybe Adolf would have become a painter whose works would have been protrayed in the Kaiser's museums? The Reich might even have turned into a constitutional monarchy instead of the Weimar Republic? Who knows!
As for the rise of Communism in Russia - I'd wager it would have depended on when exactly the Germans had won the war, whether Lenin would have made it back to Russia, if at all, or if its rise would only have been postponed, or maybe even stalled.

Though, had Germany won that war, the one thing that would be well known throughout Europe would be this song (http://www.liedertafel.claranet.de/gloria.mp3)!

Nah, Communism would still be around. German socialists often snuck into French/British trenches and spilled on secrets as a form of secret protest.
But they wouldn't have taken over in Russia, thus removing the sort of driving force behind all the little revolutions, attempted revolutions and then the Cold War of the 20th century.

And besides, we're assuming Germany wins the Battle of the Marne and therefore the war, ergo there are no trenches.

Die andere Möglichkeit (The Other Possibility)
Erich Kästner - 1930

Wenn wir den Krieg gewonnen hätten,
mit Wogenprall und Sturmgebraus,
dann wäre Deutschland nicht zu retten
und gliche einem Irrenhaus.

Man würde uns nach Noten zähmen
wie einen wilden Völkerstamm.
Wir sprängen, wenn Sergeanten kämen,
vom Trottoir und stünden stramm.

Wenn wir den Krieg gewonnen hätten,
dann wären wir ein stolzer Staat.
Und preßten noch in unsern Betten
die Hände an die Hosennaht.

Die Frauen müßten Kinder werfen.
Ein Kind im Jahre. Oder Haft.
Der Staat braucht Kinder als Konserven.
Und Blut schmeckt ihm wie Himbeersaft.

Wenn wir den Krieg gewonnen hätten,
dann wär der Himmel national.
Die Pfarrer trügen Epauletten.
Und Gott wär deutscher General.

Die Grenze wär ein Schützengraben.
Der Mond wär ein Gefreitenknopf.
Wir würden einen Kaiser haben
und einen Helm statt einem Kopf.

Wenn wir den Krieg gewonnen hätten,
dann wäre jedermann Soldat.
Ein Volk von Laffen und Lafetten!
Und ringsherum wär Stacheldraht.

Dann würde auf Befehl geboren.
Weil Menschen ziemlich billig sind.
Und weil man mit Kanonenrohren
allein die Kriege nicht gewinnt.

Dann läge die Vernunft in Ketten.
Und stünde stündlich vor Gericht.
Und Kriege gäb's wie Operetten.
Wenn wir den Krieg gewonnen hätten-
zum Glück gewannen wir ihn nicht!




--------------

Hate to do this to you guys, but poetry is best read in its original language.

Hate to do this to you guys, but poetry is best read in its original language.
Awesome! Who wrote it?

Die andere Möglichkeit
(...)
Hate to do this to you guys, but poetry is best read in its original language.
Thanks for posting that. :fluffle: Yes, that might have been "the other possibility".
Awesome! Who wrote it?
Erich Kästner.

Exactly. That's the question.

Germany had, strictly speaking, two chances to win the war. The first would have been for the generals to stick to the original Schlieffen Plan, giving the German Armies the numerical advantage at the Marne they would have needed to defeat the Allies.

In that case the war might really have been over by Christmas, France would've had to ask for peace, and Britain wouldn't have seen a point in fighting on, particularly as Germany would probably have given them pretty generous terms.

No idea what would've happened afterwards...no communism, no destruction of the old world order...

The second chance was late in the game during the Spring Offensives. It's a long shot, but with a bit of luck and Ludendorff not killing off the Stormtroopers in masses they might have pulled it off.

In that case, perhaps surprisingly, I'd agree with this article (http://www.johnreilly.info/wwi.htm) (good read!) that WWII would still have happened. The developments that led German society to accept the Nazis had already begun during the war. Except that this time there would have been a much stronger Germany to fight.

The article seems to suggest that the leadership would be much more 'enlightened' (if that word can be used of Fascists) than the Nazi Party of our history.

Perhaps then that Nazi Party would not have crossed the line between Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism (if you get what I mean), while it would have been quite an unpleasant place for 'untermensch' to live, perhaps the Reich would not have resorted to killing them all, as genocide is ultimately not a very good idea.

Germany's history after that would very much depend on just how bad it treated its Jews, as it was a fair few German Jews, and other émigrés that introduced the breakthroughs of nuclear research in America, if they were not persuaded to leave it is possible that Germany would have split the atom and forged 'kliener Junge' and 'fetter Mann'.

There wouldn't have been a World War Two, or a Cold War. Maybe it would have been better for mankind if the Schleiffen Plan succeeded in 1914.

There wouldn't have been a World War Two, or a Cold War. Maybe it would have been better for mankind if the Schleiffen Plan succeeded in 1914.
And how do you know that?

Die andere Möglichkeit (The Other Possibility)
Erich Kästner - 1930

Hate to do this to you guys, but poetry is best read in its original language.

Ahhh, but it's not read at all if you don't speak the language. :D

Ahhh, but it's not read at all if you don't speak the language. :D

I fear I would do it a disservice, if I tried to translate it into English. I wouldn't be able to convey many of the ideas in the same way, and much of the poem would lose it's meaning.

And how do you know that?

World War 2 was a direct outgrowth of World War 1.

Russia became communist in 1917 as a result of the unpopularity of the war and the czarist regime that supported it.

World War 2 was a direct outgrowth of World War 1.
No, it wasn't.
Russia became communist in 1917 as a result of the unpopularity of the war and the czarist regime that supported it.
No, it didn't.

It became communist because the Bolsheviki took power by force, and set up a whole load of populist decrees to keep itself in power.

No, it wasn't.

No, it didn't.

It became communist because the Bolsheviki took power by force, and set up a whole load of populist decrees to keep itself in power.

1) Yes it was. The Germans were told by Hilter they weren't really beaten in WW1, it was the jooos that betrayed Germany. Also, the forced reparations didn't do much for the German economy unitl the nazis took over and ignored them.

2) The only reason the bolsheviks were able to take over is because of the weakining of the czarist regime due to the mass casualites of the war.

The Germans were told by Hilter they weren't really beaten in WW1, it was the jooos that betrayed Germany. Also, the forced reparations didn't do much for the German economy unitl the nazis took over and ignored them.
Ehmm... I don't see why this affects the overall relevance of my point...

No wai! Goebells said that you're wrong, it must be true!
2) The only reason the bolsheviks were able to take over is because of the weakining of the czarist regime due to the mass casualites of the war.
No, the reason they were able to take over was because they were a well organised group, with support in the cities, and access to weaponry (although in Petrograd, only one person died during the revolution, when a rifle went off in their hand).

Also, the forced reparations didn't do much for the German economy unitl the nazis took over and ignored them.
Strictly speaking, most of the reparations had been given up on during the depression. By the time Hitler took over Germany was already no longer paying the full amount, if anything.