Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "A Different Bias" channel.

@youtubefightsback535 The previous referendum was a cock up either way, that is why I talk about clearly defined rules before the referendum.
1
@Leszek.Rzepecki A recent interview from the capitol police chief, whose account has been collaborated by several others, showed that capitol police both before and during the attack requested national guard units as support. But either were refused or send on a long bureaucratic path with people having to ask permission from superiors who couldn't get it immediately to people talking about how national guard units in front of the capitol would look bad, ... In the end it took 3-4 hours for national guard units to respond in force after capitol police already made clear how bad their situation was. Moreover we don't really see police actively letting protestors pass, a lot can be misconstrued from the angle and wrongly interpreting the situation. Even with nearly all on duty capitol police deployed around the perimeter, you'd have 1 cop per 1m (+-1100m), that is easy to breach by protestors/rioters. Either by just attacking around the perimeter or even better concentrating numbers on just a few places, overwhelming the cops at that point. And the moment you are forced to retreat by such numbers, re-establishing a smaller strong enough line/perimeter is incredibly difficult if the rioters/protestors/whatever quickly push on. And ofcourse there might be a few bad apples therbad for the entire department. To condemn capitol police at large, due to some fragments/snippets or the fact they couldn't hold back nearly 10 000 people is just wrong.
1
@Leszek.Rzepecki Well, the Capitol police chiefs and sergeants-at-arms have resigned Yes, because of what happened, not necessaily because they or their subordinates didn't do the right thing. It is not unusual that after a failure, be it your fault or not, to take responsiblity and resign. The National Guard of Maryland says it offered twice and was refused, by Capitol police. And this goes directly against accounts of both the chief of capitol police and several other officials. So there either was miscommunication or someone from the Maryland national guard is lying. but police having selfies with rioters does raise more than a few questions. How many of those have you seen? I have only seen a picture of one agent doing that and like I said, there can always be a few bad apples. t's notable that Capitol security authorities have held no press conferences explaining their decisions and performance Why would they? They have to explain it to their superiors and investigators, not the public. And there are reports of rioters showing their police ID before being allowed in. It's probable, if these stories are true, that there were off-duty military and police among the rioters. This is something completely different, ofcourse there can be cops and military among the protestors. It is not like they are all immune to Trump fanaticism while many other parts of the population aren't. The US has 1,3 million active duty military personnel and around 700k police officers, even if just 0.1% of them are fanatic Trump supporters, it would still mean 2000 of them. Now they should just all be found, fired and charged if necessary. and the people responsible will have to await a thorough investigation, which won't happen till Trump and his henchmen are cleared out. I don't think so, the FBI is now apparently already busy arresting people. The president can't stop an investigation into this, just like he couldn't stop the FBI Russia investigation. Maybe the senators and house members implicated might not be targetted now, but that might also be more because their contribution is circumstantial at best legally speaking. Only the house and senate themselves can probably act against them. It is very notable, though, that the police preparation for the trumpanzees was a fraction of what it would have been - based on response to prior BLM demos - had the anticipated protests been by BLM. I don't entirely agree with these comparisons people make, obviously it could hold water, but if you want to compare this to BLM, you need to look at the very first days, during these the police in many places didn't respond well either and there was also a lot of chaos and police retreating to wider perimeters. That feels actually quite similar to this, underestimation of the situation, being overwhelmed and pulling back to regroup and get extra support, problem was, capitol police can only fall back in one direction: the capitol. Better comparisons would be to see what happens during future pro Trump protests. I believe the first largescale BLM protest at the capitol happened days after they started in general, so it was clear that these protests could erupt in violence (due to a few bad actors mostly), so they were better prepared. However there was no example for pro-trump protests in the days before the capitol push (unless I missed them?). And like I said, according to the interview of the capitol police chief (corroborated by other officials) he did actually request more support in the days before and asked the national guard to be on standby, to be ready and again requested support several times on the day in question. He claims calls for national guards were refused at least 6 times.
1
@Leszek.Rzepecki In my experience, officials resign when they have been caught doing something wrong, not just making a simple mistake It looks like your experience it quite limited then. Obviously it happens more that people resign because they just want to or make a mistake, but at that level, which such a responsability, it is expected you resign if something goes wrong, even if it is not your fault and did what you could. It looks better if they quit rather than being fired, or jailed. There is no way they would ever risk facing jail time unless they actively worked to support the riot. And in that case resigning wouldn't do anything. And yes, Pelosi would have demanded his resignation anyway, not necessarily because he personally failed, but because the capitol police failed in securing the capitol, whether they did what they could or not or whether they failed because of their mistakes or not doesn't really matter, something like what happened demands something to happen and usually it is the highest men in charge that become the fall guys. I think I'd rather trust the national guard And I rather trust someone whose story is corroberated by several other people from other departments/instances. But like I said, maybe there was just some miscommunication, or maybe the national guard (or people from it) are trying to safe face/shift the blame. They are still human afterall. Why would you trust them more than an experienced and respected person like the capitol police chief. It is not like there couldn't be some dishonest career people there. To be clear this is not an attack on the national guard in general, but even just one (or a few) person(s) there is enough. I don't really see why you would put their word over others just because they are in the national guard. That is similar to expecting the president to do what is right because he is president. Not everyone is as honorfull as his post/rank might make you assume. Usually, authorities do hold a press conference to explain their behaviour, if only to spin things their way. You said it right, usually. This isn't a usual circumstance and what would they say? "We were overwhelmed and didn't get the support we asked for, eventhough others say we didn't ask"? It would just turn into a blame game. Everything that had to be said in public was already said or speculated on, it makes much more sense for the capitol police to just stay quiet publically and report to congress and investigators. Capitol police is not the same as other police departments, their responsability is to congress, normal police departments is (or should be) to the public. Capitol police are more like guards/protection force. You aren't going to see the secret service bring out a press statement if something where to happen close to the president. No, they do their job, keep quiet themselves, have internal inquiries and leave it to the white house to decide what and how it should be made public. No, the reason they haven't held a press conference and resigned instead was because they know they were culpable. And this is a major assumption with the only evidence being your own opinion and others speculation. Honestly are you really this naive to think everything has to how you expect it to be/envision it or otherwise something nefarious is going on? Amazing. It didn't occur to any of these good police to arrest folk as they were expelled from the Capitol. Why would they? They were overwhelmed, the capitol was already breached. At that point their main goal is to clear out and secure the capitol, not let it become an even bigger 'warzone' where the rioters act like animals in a corner. More deaths are likely to occur if not that, then defintely more injured. What happens if rioters that felt cornered started a fire and the capitol went up in flames? yeah sure, there would be a fire surpression system, but what if they disable it somehow, or make the fires too intense? With the amount of security cams the capitol must have, images/video's from online, police cams, cellphone data, interrogation, ... It will be much more effective to pick them up one by one when they feel safe and are seperated from their 'comrades'. Clearly you don't know or underestimate what the situation actually was or you don't know how it is best to act in such a situation. De-escalation is paramount tactic, something the US police force is uses not often enough, causing all these tragic deaths/stories to happen due to police actions. In this case they used it right: first de-escalate and secure, investigate and arrest after. That's an astounding standard of policing you would never, ever, see applied to a BLM protest. roll eyes Did a BLM protest ever took the capitol or something similar, with the same number difference? Hell, even during BLM protests the main priorities were to disperse crowds, only arrest when possible, when you can do it in a (for them) safely manner. When the crowds can't overrun you. This is what mostly happens in huge crowds that turn violent (not just the US): make them disperse, identify them later, only arrest those you can in a good and safe manner. I actually did look at an analysis of BLM protests, it said 93% were peaceful, and 7% had violence associated, Obviously I refer to the violent ones. I thought this was a given no brainer. Yet here we have a WLMM (White lives matter more) riot where not only was there violence, but police death as well. And? Like I said, for so far I know this was the first of this kind (at least in the last several months), if I am wrong please show me. We'll see how police prepares and responds if they try something like this again in the future, for example on the 17th (I believe) they again want to do something. If you could provide references to the Capitol police chief asking for reinforcements Here you have his interview in full, open it in incognito and select free and you can read it fully https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sund-riot-national-guard/2021/01/10/fc2ce7d4-5384-11eb-a817-e5e7f8a406d6_story.html What I am saying is that Trump or his supporters had corrupted many, including in the leadership. This is a cancer that needs to be extirpated, starting with it's source, Trump. Don't disagree with you here, but the chief of capitol police is directly underneath congress, not Trump.
1
@Leszek.Rzepecki It still doesn't explain why the turn-outs for BLM protests a few months ago were much more robust than last week. I guess this might be because the capitol has never been charged at before even with threats in the past. This is likely something that would be asked at an inquiry. And police don't usually set out a perimeter of protests with agents in full riot gear, not unless there were events earlier leading up to it (like violent protests in the days before, there or in other places with similar protests). There is police visible in riotgear later on. Honestly it could also just be that capitol police doesn't have enough riot gear for every agent,, because they normally never need it. Unlike regular police departments their job usually is just guard duty etc, not look over violent protests. But this is ofcourse just speculation. as Republicans will obstruct it every step of the way. This isn't dissimilar from the Russia investigation, where GOP couldn't do much against, and now they don't even control the senate, house or presidency anymore. And also an investigation into what happened in the capitol is going to have much broader support from voters than something like the russia investigation ever did.
1
ger du A preferential vote is better than a second round. With a second round there is a much higher chance that the compromise (with deal) wins. Because in the first round (remain vs leave) the people in favour of deal and no deal will both vote leave, and if they get a majority, then in the second round (deal vs no deal) those who were for remain and deal would both chose leave with deal. However in a preferential vote "with deal" might be smallest of the three and a large amount of those choosing with deal might choose remain as second option, making remain win. However if you meant to have three options in the first round and the two with the most votes go to the second round, then it is just as good as preferential voting, because in essence you will have preferential voting, just split up over 2 referendums instead of 1.
1
@twat240 The problem in the US with the 2nd amendement is not necessarily that is difficult to change, but that a large amount of people (even those in favor of stricter regulations) don't want it to change. Any government that would try to get rid of it even if it was possible with a regular majority would stil never touch it. The 2nd amendement problem isn't really that it is part of the US constitution, but that it is enshrined in the mindset of the US population and that is the major reason why it wasn't removed or updated. Hell the supreme court should normally say that guns can only be owned by "well-regulated militia's", but they don't even do that, because the judges too have grown up with the popular idea. It shows a problem in the US, not with a constitution. Furthermore I personally think free speech is important, maybe they might add something along the lines of "as long as it doesn't promote hatred and ..." or something. But even this would in the US be limited, because spreading violence with you speech is actually necessary to overthrow a tyranicall government which should be the right and duty of the people according to their declaration of independence. Eitherway, using the US constitution isn't a good thing, because the US mindset is just different and it is this mindset keeping the constitution as it is.
1
@twat240 I mean, a minority of people argue for gun rights and they WRONGLY ignore all of the facts and even wrongly use a constitution as defense, and they still block legislation. It is definitely a very large minority who argue for gun rights and a majority that is against abolishing or changing the second amendement. There however is a large majority for stricter gun control, as long as it is in line with the 2nd.
1
@greeny202ab It was around 9 billion and if you want to pretend your trade and influence did not suffer from brexit, fine by me, it doesn't change reality though.
1
@greeny202ab Our influence obviously has not suffered in fact disassociating ourselves from the other Europeans has probably improved our influence around the globe And why would that be? In fact the newly formed Italexit party is actually using improved British influence after Brexit as one of its slogans. It is easy to state something like that, doesn't mean it is true. Furthermore it is likely more about british influence on internal affairs, rather than international influence and this new party isn't even being polled yet, it isn't impossible they'll completely flop, it is waiting untill the next election to know that, somewhere in 2023. and looking at the figures Which figures? Hopefully not just the ones the UK government promises, because promises can easily be made, but are much more difficult to keep. Erasmus was actually a British creation Ehm, no? The idea of erasmus originated from Italy and was advanced by a Belgian councilmember in the 80's. Germany, France and the UK were actually rather opposed to it, because they as large countries already had their own exchange programs and there are moves to allow Erasmus countries into the much larger Turing program Again, at this point everything about the Turing program are rhetoric lines, there is no actual layed out plan released yet, so why the hell would the EU even consider opting in to it at this stage? It would make much more sense for them to expand the erasmus program instead. How the UK will be able to get 30k students and more of all backgrounds in it with only 100 000 million pound in spending and to more regions accross the world is baffling. This would make around 3300 pound per exchange student. Even just the flight might (depending on the country, but considering they don't work with erasmus, most likely it will be focused on further destinations) take up a fifth of that budget, leaving around 2700 pounds for all other expenses, that is very low. And this obviously doesn't take into account administrative costs, getting exchange rights, ... From everything I read about the Turing program I can only get the feeling the UK government is, like with so many other things, underestimating everything or maybe they know it is bullocks and just want to have some speech lines.
1
I too live in Belgium and I agree compulsory voting is important. But I do have to make an adjustment to your statement. Votes for a party list aren't distributed among the candidates of that list proportionally, but are distributed in such a way that the order of the list is followed. This while enough preferential votes for a specific candidate can push this candidate higher on the party list to make him/her more likely to get a seat. But the system behind this is a bit more complicated than I want to explain here on youtube.
1
Long extension would be stupid for the EU at this point. The UK parliament couldn't make any real decision about how to move forward knowing there was a deadline twice already, why the hell would a third time be any different?
1
Actually, as long as a PM has been elected as an MP, they are elected. In all (or at least most) parliaments with a constitutional monarchy a prime minister is appointed after the elections during negotiations, therefor you don't really know for certain who will be PM, but normally it is a party leader (usually of the largest party but this depends) or at least an elected MP.
1
@andyinsuffolk One constituency choosing our executive leader That's why I am a proponent of PR and not FPTP. But you can hardly say he's elected by just his constituency, since the tory members also voted for him. However, yes it still would be better with PR. Do we need a PM? Yes, simply because you need someone to govern the country. Basically the PM is supposed to take care of day to day affairs and executing the laws, while parliament is supposed to create the laws, make the absolute important decisions and be a check on the PM. Honestly, I don't immediately know a nation that doesn't have one person as a "leader". Maybe smaller countries can try to use a council or something, but a large country? no, probably not. give veto The US president has veto powers, but for so far I know the PM doesn't, unless you are talking about something else than I am thinking off.
1
@triniwilson-wolfe8013 But how can a constitution bind future parliaments if future parliaments can change the constitution? They'll just need a larger majority to do so. Even if a written constitution was written today normally it should be either accepted in a referendum, or at least pass an equivalent large majority as future parliaments need (or at least that is what should happen). And this first constitution should just be the already existing unwritten constitution, maybe changed here and there to modernise it or to make sure everything is clear (like clear who has what power).
1
@Some Thing The Netherlands' full name is Kingdom of the Netherlands and their political system is NOT called Democracy but it's called Constitutional monarchy. It is still a democracy though. Constitutional monarchy is just like a federal republic a form of government. Whether it is democratic or not depends on how the government is formed, laws changed, ... and The Netherlands is definitely a democracy, saying otherwise is a serious insult. Britain has not got a Democracy either. What they've got is called Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy. I'd say the UK is half democratic imo. However this has nothing to do with their government form, but rather how their MP's are elected, the house of lords and the fact that they don't have a written constitution. And are you sure it is "unitary", because Scotland, NI and wales also have their own parliaments, which would make it more like federal. you cannot have an inherited head of state and call it Democracy. I am sorry, but you are confusing democracy with republicanism, it is not the same thing. A republic can still be undemocratic and a monarchy can be democratic.
1
@Some Thing Monarchy and Democracy are exact opposites. No, they are not. Monarchy and republic are opposite. Whether a nation is a democratic nation depends on where the power lies. Normally with a constitutional monarchy the power effectively lies with the parliament, which is elected by the people and thus it is democratic. Monarchy is a form of government in which a legal person, the monarch, holds sovereign authority until death or abdication. What you are talking about is an absolute monarchy, there is no such thing anymore in Europe. With constitutional monarchies the sovereign authority lies with parliament and the powers of the monarch are determined (and can be changed by) the parliament. Or in other words, the powers of the monarch are either symbolic or can't be used without permission of the government or parliament (depending on the constitution). But you cannot call it Democracy because Democracy (rule by people) is a system of government where the citizens exercise power by voting. Exactly, and if the power lies with the elected parliament and the government formed by this parliament, it is a democracy. In a representative democracy the citizens elect representatives from among themselves. These representatives meet to form a governing body, such as a legislature. In a liberal democracy the powers of the majority are exercised within the framework of a representative democracy, but the constitution limits the majority and protects the minority, usually through the enjoyment by all of certain individual rights This is correct and almost always the case in a constitutional monarchy, therefor these monarchies are ALSO representative democracies. I live in a country with a king AND a representative democracy. Just because you seem to think they can't be combined, doesn't mean that's the case, but just a (wrong) opinion. It's either Monarchy or Democracy. NOT BOTH! Again completely fucking wrong. There are many non-democracies that aren't monarchies and there are plenty of monarchies that are democraties. You are completely missing the connection between both. Now if you had said "it's either absolute monarchy or democracy" I agree, but constitutional monarchies can be (and most often are) democratic. And don't say again they can't be, because reality already has proven you wrong (and your own words for that matter).
1
@nautilusshell7837 The belgian king is also from the house of Saxe-Coburg though
1
I think you give Cameron's choice too much honor. Cameron didn't initiate the brexit vote because he realised that it entails more than the parliament could decide (there wasn't a decision necessary really, because there was no real issue and parliament has made a lot of other important decisions throughout history), but he rather saw it as a way to shut up the parts of the tories that were leaning to Ukip and anti-EU. He never really thought the people would vote to leave (no one did, not even the leave campaign thought they could win, but they hoped they could manage it nevertheless). Ofcourse they aren't going to put "Do you think we should start thinking about, talking about, or considering, leaving the EU." on the ballot, the entire campaign was meant to consider and talk about leaving or not. It would have been the most ridiculous and stupid referendum ever. The difference between manifesto mandate and referendum mandate, is that a manifesto mandate never asks the electorate a question. The general election is in my eyes more important, because you basically elect the people that will make a lot of decisions that can influence your live, not just one. The people responded in record numbers. That is called a mandate. And what if in another referendum you have a record number of voters and remain wins? Doesn't this give a stronger mandate to overturn the previous mandate? That is the problem with referendums, if the difference is too small, within a few years, the mandate can be invalid and different and because of the "the referendum needs to be followed, another referendum is undemocratic" bullshit you can't ask a mandate to overturn the previous one, even if you'd probably get one. Now if Leave won by 55%+, it would be different, because how is that going to be overturned in another referendum in a matter of years? It is the manifesto mandate that is an advisory No it is not, an elected MP can't be voted out untill the next election and untill then their vote has legal authority and definitely isn't advisory. If a referendum was the legal mandate and the election an advisory one, you'd need a referendum on basically every little thing. Every month there would be multiple referendums. However there is no set time between a referendum about a previous referendum and the previous referendum. Besides, if the outcome would be same, what's the harm? Similar outcomes in both referendums: case closed and decision undoubtably made, but if the previous referendum is overturned with either 1) a much larger majority or 2) a much larger voter turnout, the previous referendum should be overturned. There is a reason why referendums are so rare: it's inefficient governing because people are fickle and often don't even know the far reaching consequences of their vote. If Parliament has the power to overturn the power of the vote, then we have an Oligarchy, not a Democracy. If there isn't a general election between the referendum and the overturning, it would be foggy whether it be democratic. However if the parliament that overturns the vote is elected after the referendum, you could make the case that the people have voted in a parliament that is meant to overturn it (or at the very least offer another referendum) because people made a mistake/changed their minds, or at the very least that people took the risk of voting in people that might overturn the vote and therefor it is a risk they took willingly. If there is evidence of election fraude (be it in the campaign or voting booth) or the vote was really close there definitely is a reason to hold another referendum. In the end your entire post basically comes down to the fact that parliament should be disbanded (seeing that they apparently have no right to make decisions about the nations future) and the UK should only be ruled with referendums. Or am I wrong?
1
@peterfireflylund Actually building new nuclear weapons would be proliferation. Not building new ones, but just relying on your existing stockpile isn't.
1
@peterfireflylund It doesn't matter how you can theoretically interpret whatever articles, it is how it obviously is and how it will be seen. Building nuclear weapons is proliferation, no matter whether you already have some or not.
1
@peterfireflylund LMAO
1
But this fine isn't really followed up on anymore though
1
You seem to be talking more about US elections than the EU elections (Israel, military industrial complex, ...). If you don't like what a party does after you voted for them, vote for another party next time. This how representative democracy with repeated elections work.
1
@YourBeingParanoid I do not upvote my own comments, only losers do so. And if every party is funded by fascists or zionists, I'd say there is something wrong in your country to begin with. But if that is the case, the best thing to do is try and form your own party (their should be plenty of people willing to support you if all other parties are as you say) or you should support a small upcoming party. Often there are multiple small parties you don't even hear about because they are too small, but if enough people start supporting them, they can possible replace existing parties. Ofcourse if you have a two party system like the US, you need to try to change one of the parties by voting in new people (like what is happening to the democrats with the justice democrats). Ofcourse it isn't always easily fixed by just voting once every few years, if you want to change the system, rekindle/repair democracy in your country you sometimes might have to do more. How else would you do things?
1
@fergusdenoon1255 What? I can't follow what you're saying.
1
123 456 Why do you keep making irrelevant comments? Troll?
1
123 456 Funny, troll. Because I paid for this 1000 dollar computer myself, did you? Or are you a little child that still hides under the skirts of his mother?
1
123 456 Which one?
1
123 456 Especially since none of my lists are public :p
1
123 456 They never were :)
1
A further short extension is already denied. So May and parliament have until the 12th of april to get the agreement passed or until the 10th to get an adequate majority in parliament for another option. The second possibilities seems very unlikely, thus the only possibility I see to stop a no deal is that May puts forth her deal a fourth time on the 11th or so and that the opposition sees no other way to avoid a no deal brexit and thus to minimize brexit and will support her.
1
Why? The EU already said they were ready for a no deal happening now, it isn't in their best interests to drag it out even longer past the eu election.
1
@kimwarburton8490 well, you also need some tory MP's and they too don't want Corbyn, so it isn't just the LibDems.
1
@thepenguin305 You tell me, how much has the economic benefit been? Also remember that the US uses German bases not necessarily to improve the safety of Germany/Europe, but rather also as a hub to support their missions in the Middle East and Africa. If the US didn't had these bases in Germany, they'd just need to put them somewhere else in a similarly close and secure region and pay for it nonetheless. Unless agreements are written in black and white about something and not just a promise or such, a change in situation can allow this promise to change, be it a difference in government, economy, ... This is also why a new US president essentially always can just choose to get out of NATO, breaking the treaty and why it is important for a US president to iterate their standpoint on many different things (before and after the election), like NATO and article 5. No nation is completely bound to any agreement, they just need to deal with the backlash of changing it and a good argumentation is paramount. The 2008 economic crisis was a good reason for many countries to reneg on their earlier promise to up defence spending (especially considering the crisis mostly originated from the US).
1
ger du That is not playing the game, that is being stupid. Lets assume 3 options. If you don't fill in a second choice, and your first choice gets eliminated due to having the least amount of votes, it will just be like you never went to vote, and your "gaming the system" accomplishes nothing but you not having a say in the matter. And if your first choice doesn't get eliminated, then your second choice (filled in or not) doesn't even fucking matter.
1
@ADifferentBias You have a campaign before the vote, surely you can have decent explanations put out during this campaign, which also can debunk the idea that this system can be "gamed". And honestly is the voters make mistakes because they are stupid enough to try to "game" a system you can't actually "game", then these voters could be trying to game any sort of vote that isn't just two options. Preferential voting is the ONLY way you can be certain the winning side will have the support of a majority of the people when there are multiple options.
1
James D Robertson Stalin was going to invade Nazi-Germany either way. The problem was that he expected the war between the allies and Germany to last much longer, like a repeat of WW1. Then after that he could sweep in and easily take a weakened Germany and western Europe. But with the Germans taking France in weeks, the USSR was far from ready, Stalin had guessed (wrongly) that he would have at least 2 years to prepare. If Germany hadn't invaded the soviets, the soviets would have invaded Germany within 2 years, either in 1942 or 1943.
1
James D Robertson Why he didn't? Because he realised that if he took out the powerbases in Europe, taking their colonies would be much easier. Furthermore, you shouldn't forget that 1) Fascisme en communism were archrivals (which is the reason that the rest of the world was shocked of Germany-Soviet alliance), 2) Russia is more a part of Europe annd has its powerbase and largest cities rather close to Germany/europe, 3) he wanted to take out a weakened Germany that would be force to fight a two front war and definitely wouldn't want to give Germany time to regain their strength. From hindsight you idea might have been succesfull, but it might also have been catastrophic. What is the soviet got bogged down in de middle east like in Finland or much later in Afghanistan. What if Germany attacked them when their main force was bogged down in the middle east or even further? What if the soviets would themselves have had to fight a two front or maybe even threefront war against Germany, the allies and the Japanese? And then we aren't even talking about how the mindset was at that time. Europe and the US (but still more Europe) was the powerbase in the world, home of several great powers. Take over Europe and stopping the soviets would have been nearly impossible.
1
James D Robertson Febrile speculation based on evidence historians gathered, but sure, bye.
1