Stalin's Successful Strategy

[regent]

If your point was that Stalin was evil I agree, should that evilness have stopped the allies from using Stalin's evilness to defeat the evilness of Hitler? We held Stalin's coat while he had at it with Germany, was that evil of us? We came in at the end and bingo the USSR was now a major power.
Perhaps the tragedy is that Stalin survived and we didn't have Americans back then willing to continue the war to destroy Stalin. Today, we have Americans on these very boards that would have gone on to destroy Stalin. If only we had these braver than brave back then when Stalin was around.
Your move.

It would have cost us a half million casualties to destroy Stalin
Or we could have waited 40 years and let them collapse on their own

Guess which strategy was the best

Your erroneous opinion.

Learned opinion was very different.


When the (anticipated) event that Hitler would attack Stalin's Russia, as they did June 21st, 1941, America should have done nothing...no more than relaxing restrictions on exports to the Russians...but at the same time securing a quid pro quo for further assistance! Lend-Lease should not have been the automatic and unlimited buffet that it turned into!

"Finally, should the Soviet regime fall,...we should refuse to recognize a Communist government-in-exile, leaving the path clear for establishment for a non-Communist government in Russia after the war." These were the words of Loy Henderson, Soviet and Eastern European affairs expert and Foreign Service officer,
as quoted by Martin Weil in "A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service," p. 106.


Not so at the White House: there, it was all about the sacredness of the survival of Soviet Russia!
Loy Henderson: "Russia does not fight for the same ideals as the United States."
Nor, it seems, did Franklin Roosevelt.


Imagine the lives saved had the United States elected a President with the wisdom of a George Kennan, or Loy Henderson, instead of Franklin Roosevelt.




Roosevelt swore to the American public the exact opposite: he declared that Stalin fought for the same ideals! FDR was lying!

September 30, 1941, FDR claimed that there was freedom of religion in the USSR.

"The claim that Stalin's Russia allowed religious freedom was the first step in a massive pro-Soviet campaign that the White House coordinated for the duration of the war."
"Caught between Roosevelt and Stalin: America's Ambassadors to Moscow," by Dennis J. Dunn, p. 137

This is nuts.
So if the USSR fell our task would have been easier? Our whole program was to keep the USSR in the war.

 

[rightwinger]

Your erroneous opinion.

Learned opinion was very different.


When the (anticipated) event that Hitler would attack Stalin's Russia, as they did June 21st, 1941, America should have done nothing...no more than relaxing restrictions on exports to the Russians...but at the same time securing a quid pro quo for further assistance! Lend-Lease should not have been the automatic and unlimited buffet that it turned into!

"Finally, should the Soviet regime fall,...we should refuse to recognize a Communist government-in-exile, leaving the path clear for establishment for a non-Communist government in Russia after the war." These were the words of Loy Henderson, Soviet and Eastern European affairs expert and Foreign Service officer,
as quoted by Martin Weil in "A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service," p. 106.


Not so at the White House: there, it was all about the sacredness of the survival of Soviet Russia!
Loy Henderson: "Russia does not fight for the same ideals as the United States."
Nor, it seems, did Franklin Roosevelt.


Imagine the lives saved had the United States elected a President with the wisdom of a George Kennan, or Loy Henderson, instead of Franklin Roosevelt.




Roosevelt swore to the American public the exact opposite: he declared that Stalin fought for the same ideals! FDR was lying!

September 30, 1941, FDR claimed that there was freedom of religion in the USSR.

"The claim that Stalin's Russia allowed religious freedom was the first step in a massive pro-Soviet campaign that the White House coordinated for the duration of the war."
"Caught between Roosevelt and Stalin: America's Ambassadors to Moscow," by Dennis J. Dunn, p. 137

Is that what you believe or just more of your blind cut and paste?

When the Nazis invaded Russia we needed he Soviets to tie them up and beat the shit out of them.
Do nothing?
Allow Germany to maintain its control over Western Europe
You think we invade Normandy without an active Eastern front?

Say it isn't so PC

"You think we invade Normandy without an active Eastern front?"

This was Stalin's plan.....FDR said 'yes, boss.'

Oh....I get it now

It was Stalins plan that we should liberate France, Belgium and the Netherlands. I see, we had no interest otherwise. Who didn't love occupied France?

Without an Eastern front, Normandy doesn't happen.

 

[SmedlyButler]

I think so. By the way where does DDE fit in with Stalin's Master Plan? Just a couple of things for now, though I might take this opportunity to brush up on my WWll history and examine your post in more detail. I do love history. History based on fact, not paranoid fantasy.

So for now;
Normandy seems pretty logical for a new front. (and forcing your enemy to fight a multi front war is an age old strategy, yes?) An invasion would be a massive logistical operation. The short supply lines across the channel again are strategically logical.

And along the wayward tack to conspiracy you seem to overlook the simple fact (among many others) that the German's had concentrated their defense of the French coastline at Calais.

While I'm deciding whether to wade through your clip and paste ode to conspiracy you might want to brush up on some real history yourself. I don't mind helping you out;

LINK:"The Complete Idiots Guide to D-Day"

SB

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is that what you believe or just more of your blind cut and paste?

When the Nazis invaded Russia we needed he Soviets to tie them up and beat the shit out of them.
Do nothing?
Allow Germany to maintain its control over Western Europe
You think we invade Normandy without an active Eastern front?

Say it isn't so PC

"When the Nazis invaded Russia we needed he Soviets to tie them up and beat the shit out of them."


So....your view is that the Stalin needed to be convinced to resist the attack?


Do you realize the absurdity of the argument you're trying to make.



We both know you're clutching at straws to maintain your Leftist creds......you'd lose status if you actually applied logic to your view of Roosevelt.

Seems you are in a quandary PC

Germany invades Russia, which side do you want to win?

USMB wants to know.......the world hangs in the balance

Gotcha, huh?

You won't repeat the silliness that Stalin needed to be convinced to resist the attack?


Nor is there any proof that we needed Stalin to defeat Hitler: once Hitler attacked Stalin....the action was predetermined.

Or would you disagree?

Don't you believe that Stalin could have held his own?

From a book review of Suvorov's "The Chief Culprit"...
"Joseph Stalin brutalized the Russian people to produce the largest military machine the world has ever seen for one purpose -World Revolution....The typical history is that Russia was backward, their equipment poor, and the army badly trained. Suvorov goes into excruciating detail about the high quality and astronomical quantity of Soviet weaponry."




The truth is that Stalin used FDR....or maybe Roosevelt didn't need much convincing to side with the communist regime.
After all....he promoted Soviet agents in his administration....didn't he.


As Hitler marched into Poland, Whitaker Chambers arranged a private meeting with Adolf Berle, President Roosevelt’s assistant Sec’y of State. Chambers detailed the Communist espionage network, naming at least two dozen Soviet spies in Roosevelt’s administration, including Alger Hiss. Berle reported this to Roosevelt, who laughed, and told Berle to go f--- himself. (Arthur Herman, Joseph McCarthy: Reexaming the Life and Legacy of America’s Most Hated Senator, p. 60)
No action was taken, and in fact, Roosevelt promoted Hiss.


How do you explain that?

 

[PoliticalChic]

It would have cost us a half million casualties to destroy Stalin
Or we could have waited 40 years and let them collapse on their own

Guess which strategy was the best

Your erroneous opinion.

Learned opinion was very different.


When the (anticipated) event that Hitler would attack Stalin's Russia, as they did June 21st, 1941, America should have done nothing...no more than relaxing restrictions on exports to the Russians...but at the same time securing a quid pro quo for further assistance! Lend-Lease should not have been the automatic and unlimited buffet that it turned into!

"Finally, should the Soviet regime fall,...we should refuse to recognize a Communist government-in-exile, leaving the path clear for establishment for a non-Communist government in Russia after the war." These were the words of Loy Henderson, Soviet and Eastern European affairs expert and Foreign Service officer,
as quoted by Martin Weil in "A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service," p. 106.


Not so at the White House: there, it was all about the sacredness of the survival of Soviet Russia!
Loy Henderson: "Russia does not fight for the same ideals as the United States."
Nor, it seems, did Franklin Roosevelt.


Imagine the lives saved had the United States elected a President with the wisdom of a George Kennan, or Loy Henderson, instead of Franklin Roosevelt.




Roosevelt swore to the American public the exact opposite: he declared that Stalin fought for the same ideals! FDR was lying!

September 30, 1941, FDR claimed that there was freedom of religion in the USSR.

"The claim that Stalin's Russia allowed religious freedom was the first step in a massive pro-Soviet campaign that the White House coordinated for the duration of the war."
"Caught between Roosevelt and Stalin: America's Ambassadors to Moscow," by Dennis J. Dunn, p. 137

This is nuts.
So if the USSR fell our task would have been easier? Our whole program was to keep the USSR in the war.

What makes you think that Russia would have fallen?


...the largest army in the world.

And Hitler knew about Russia's three best generals: December, January, and February.
That why he attacked in June.


Did you know that Stalin removed the mines on the bridges, and the barbed wire.....

Guess why?

 

[rightwinger]

"When the Nazis invaded Russia we needed he Soviets to tie them up and beat the shit out of them."


So....your view is that the Stalin needed to be convinced to resist the attack?


Do you realize the absurdity of the argument you're trying to make.



We both know you're clutching at straws to maintain your Leftist creds......you'd lose status if you actually applied logic to your view of Roosevelt.

Seems you are in a quandary PC

Germany invades Russia, which side do you want to win?

USMB wants to know.......the world hangs in the balance

Gotcha, huh?

You won't repeat the silliness that Stalin needed to be convinced to resist the attack?


Nor is there any proof that we needed Stalin to defeat Hitler: once Hitler attacked Stalin....the action was predetermined.

Or would you disagree?

Don't you believe that Stalin could have held his own?

From a book review of Suvorov's "The Chief Culprit"...
"Joseph Stalin brutalized the Russian people to produce the largest military machine the world has ever seen for one purpose -World Revolution....The typical history is that Russia was backward, their equipment poor, and the army badly trained. Suvorov goes into excruciating detail about the high quality and astronomical quantity of Soviet weaponry."




The truth is that Stalin used FDR....or maybe Roosevelt didn't need much convincing to side with the communist regime.
After all....he promoted Soviet agents in his administration....didn't he.


As Hitler marched into Poland, Whitaker Chambers arranged a private meeting with Adolf Berle, President Roosevelt’s assistant Sec’y of State. Chambers detailed the Communist espionage network, naming at least two dozen Soviet spies in Roosevelt’s administration, including Alger Hiss. Berle reported this to Roosevelt, who laughed, and told Berle to go f--- himself. (Arthur Herman, Joseph McCarthy: Reexaming the Life and Legacy of America’s Most Hated Senator, p. 60)
No action was taken, and in fact, Roosevelt promoted Hiss.


How do you explain that?

Wow......all that and you still haven't answered the question

Germany invades Russia......who do you want to win?

Too hard a question?
Let me make it easier

A. Germany
B. USSR

 

[PoliticalChic]

Seems you are in a quandary PC

Germany invades Russia, which side do you want to win?

USMB wants to know.......the world hangs in the balance

Gotcha, huh?

You won't repeat the silliness that Stalin needed to be convinced to resist the attack?


Nor is there any proof that we needed Stalin to defeat Hitler: once Hitler attacked Stalin....the action was predetermined.

Or would you disagree?

Don't you believe that Stalin could have held his own?

From a book review of Suvorov's "The Chief Culprit"...
"Joseph Stalin brutalized the Russian people to produce the largest military machine the world has ever seen for one purpose -World Revolution....The typical history is that Russia was backward, their equipment poor, and the army badly trained. Suvorov goes into excruciating detail about the high quality and astronomical quantity of Soviet weaponry."




The truth is that Stalin used FDR....or maybe Roosevelt didn't need much convincing to side with the communist regime.
After all....he promoted Soviet agents in his administration....didn't he.


As Hitler marched into Poland, Whitaker Chambers arranged a private meeting with Adolf Berle, President Roosevelt’s assistant Sec’y of State. Chambers detailed the Communist espionage network, naming at least two dozen Soviet spies in Roosevelt’s administration, including Alger Hiss. Berle reported this to Roosevelt, who laughed, and told Berle to go f--- himself. (Arthur Herman, Joseph McCarthy: Reexaming the Life and Legacy of America’s Most Hated Senator, p. 60)
No action was taken, and in fact, Roosevelt promoted Hiss.


How do you explain that?

Wow......all that and you still haven't answered the question

Germany invades Russia......who do you want to win?

Too hard a question?
Let me make it easier

A. Germany
B. USSR

Sorry....you can't change the subject.....you can simply agree that Stalin manipulated Roosevelt, and Roosevelt jumped to follow every wish that Stalin suggested.


OK....except for one: Stalin opposed the 100,000 troops the Allies sent to oppose Rommel...





Back to your attempt to change the issue.

Tell me.....by what metric was Stalin any better than Hitler?
....aside from IQ.

 

[rightwinger]

Gotcha, huh?

You won't repeat the silliness that Stalin needed to be convinced to resist the attack?


Nor is there any proof that we needed Stalin to defeat Hitler: once Hitler attacked Stalin....the action was predetermined.

Or would you disagree?

Don't you believe that Stalin could have held his own?

From a book review of Suvorov's "The Chief Culprit"...
"Joseph Stalin brutalized the Russian people to produce the largest military machine the world has ever seen for one purpose -World Revolution....The typical history is that Russia was backward, their equipment poor, and the army badly trained. Suvorov goes into excruciating detail about the high quality and astronomical quantity of Soviet weaponry."




The truth is that Stalin used FDR....or maybe Roosevelt didn't need much convincing to side with the communist regime.
After all....he promoted Soviet agents in his administration....didn't he.


As Hitler marched into Poland, Whitaker Chambers arranged a private meeting with Adolf Berle, President Roosevelt’s assistant Sec’y of State. Chambers detailed the Communist espionage network, naming at least two dozen Soviet spies in Roosevelt’s administration, including Alger Hiss. Berle reported this to Roosevelt, who laughed, and told Berle to go f--- himself. (Arthur Herman, Joseph McCarthy: Reexaming the Life and Legacy of America’s Most Hated Senator, p. 60)
No action was taken, and in fact, Roosevelt promoted Hiss.


How do you explain that?

Wow......all that and you still haven't answered the question

Germany invades Russia......who do you want to win?

Too hard a question?
Let me make it easier

A. Germany
B. USSR

Sorry....you can't change the subject.....you can simply agree that Stalin manipulated Roosevelt, and Roosevelt jumped to follow every wish that Stalin suggested.


OK....except for one: Stalin opposed the 100,000 troops the Allies sent to oppose Rommel...





Back to your attempt to change the issue.

Tell me.....by what metric was Stalin any better than Hitler?
....aside from IQ.

Now, now PC
We all know you got your Masters at Columbia by learning how to cut and paste
But you never learned about multiple choice?

It's easy, you pick one
A. Germany
B. USSR

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Great topic!!!
In the west, WW II is recorded as a total win for the allies. And it was a classic "good vs. evil" - and the good guys kicked butt and the evil tyrant Hitler and the evil Japanese emperor was beaten - and the world was saved.
One one hand, this is true. Hitler was beaten, Japan was overthrown and Italy was returned to a democratic nation. Certainly the alternative, the entire half of the globe under tyranny would have been a very bad thing and would have been a great tragedy in anyone's book.
But...for some...oh...a few 100 million people, WW II was not a victory.
For some - it was merely an exchange of one tyrannical ruler - for another.
For some - things actually got worse. Much worse.

Who won?
To the victor goes the spoils? Russia hands down won. Stalin expanded his empire tremendously and created a world super power for 45 years.

 

[rightwinger]

Great topic!!!
In the west, WW II is recorded as a total win for the allies. And it was a classic "good vs. evil" - and the good guys kicked butt and the evil tyrant Hitler and the evil Japanese emperor was beaten - and the world was saved.
One one hand, this is true. Hitler was beaten, Japan was overthrown and Italy was returned to a democratic nation. Certainly the alternative, the entire half of the globe under tyranny would have been a very bad thing and would have been a great tragedy in anyone's book.
But...for some...oh...a few 100 million people, WW II was not a victory.
For some - it was merely an exchange of one tyrannical ruler - for another.
For some - things actually got worse. Much worse.

Who won?
To the victor goes the spoils? Russia hands down won. Stalin expanded his empire tremendously and created a world super power for 45 years.

Losing 20 million people to expand your empire for just 45 years is a good strategy?

We became a global power and only lost 400,000

 

[rightwinger]

How can a strategy in which you lose 27 million people and eventually your empire be called successful?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Great topic!!!
In the west, WW II is recorded as a total win for the allies. And it was a classic "good vs. evil" - and the good guys kicked butt and the evil tyrant Hitler and the evil Japanese emperor was beaten - and the world was saved.
One one hand, this is true. Hitler was beaten, Japan was overthrown and Italy was returned to a democratic nation. Certainly the alternative, the entire half of the globe under tyranny would have been a very bad thing and would have been a great tragedy in anyone's book.
But...for some...oh...a few 100 million people, WW II was not a victory.
For some - it was merely an exchange of one tyrannical ruler - for another.
For some - things actually got worse. Much worse.

Who won?
To the victor goes the spoils? Russia hands down won. Stalin expanded his empire tremendously and created a world super power for 45 years.

Losing 20 million people to expand your empire for just 45 years is a good strategy?

We became a global power and only lost 400,000

That happened after WWII.
After WWII the Soviet Union was creating hell in Eastern Europe. They were amassing a huge army, their military technology surpassed ours and there was certainly a real threat that they would invade, and easily conquer one country after another at will until all of the lands Hitler wanted - became Stalin's.
The world looked to America. The arms race began, we won..The Soviet Union collapsed under it's own corruption and gross overspending.

 

[rightwinger]

Great topic!!!
In the west, WW II is recorded as a total win for the allies. And it was a classic "good vs. evil" - and the good guys kicked butt and the evil tyrant Hitler and the evil Japanese emperor was beaten - and the world was saved.
One one hand, this is true. Hitler was beaten, Japan was overthrown and Italy was returned to a democratic nation. Certainly the alternative, the entire half of the globe under tyranny would have been a very bad thing and would have been a great tragedy in anyone's book.
But...for some...oh...a few 100 million people, WW II was not a victory.
For some - it was merely an exchange of one tyrannical ruler - for another.
For some - things actually got worse. Much worse.

Who won?
To the victor goes the spoils? Russia hands down won. Stalin expanded his empire tremendously and created a world super power for 45 years.

Losing 20 million people to expand your empire for just 45 years is a good strategy?

We became a global power and only lost 400,000

That happened after WWII.
After WWII the Soviet Union was creating hell in Eastern Europe. They were amassing a huge army, their military technology surpassed ours and there was certainly a real threat that they would invade, and easily conquer one country after another at will until all of the lands Hitler wanted - became Stalin's.
The world looked to America. The arms race began, we won..The Soviet Union collapsed under it's own corruption and gross overspending.

Did the fact that we came out of WWII in much better economic shape have anything to do with it?

 

[SmedlyButler]

How can a strategy in which you lose 27 million people and eventually your empire be called successful?

Maybe the answer would be obvious. In this Universe not so much.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Great topic!!!
In the west, WW II is recorded as a total win for the allies. And it was a classic "good vs. evil" - and the good guys kicked butt and the evil tyrant Hitler and the evil Japanese emperor was beaten - and the world was saved.
One one hand, this is true. Hitler was beaten, Japan was overthrown and Italy was returned to a democratic nation. Certainly the alternative, the entire half of the globe under tyranny would have been a very bad thing and would have been a great tragedy in anyone's book.
But...for some...oh...a few 100 million people, WW II was not a victory.
For some - it was merely an exchange of one tyrannical ruler - for another.
For some - things actually got worse. Much worse.

Who won?
To the victor goes the spoils? Russia hands down won. Stalin expanded his empire tremendously and created a world super power for 45 years.

Losing 20 million people to expand your empire for just 45 years is a good strategy?

We became a global power and only lost 400,000

Seems you didn't understand post #29.


He's correct....the Soviets won.


The fact that you fail to see that is actually proof.

 

[SmedlyButler]

Great topic!!!
In the west, WW II is recorded as a total win for the allies. And it was a classic "good vs. evil" - and the good guys kicked butt and the evil tyrant Hitler and the evil Japanese emperor was beaten - and the world was saved.
One one hand, this is true. Hitler was beaten, Japan was overthrown and Italy was returned to a democratic nation. Certainly the alternative, the entire half of the globe under tyranny would have been a very bad thing and would have been a great tragedy in anyone's book.
But...for some...oh...a few 100 million people, WW II was not a victory.
For some - it was merely an exchange of one tyrannical ruler - for another.
For some - things actually got worse. Much worse.

Who won?
To the victor goes the spoils? Russia hands down won. Stalin expanded his empire tremendously and created a world super power for 45 years.

Losing 20 million people to expand your empire for just 45 years is a good strategy?

We became a global power and only lost 400,000

That happened after WWII.
After WWII the Soviet Union was creating hell in Eastern Europe. They were amassing a huge army, their military technology surpassed ours and there was certainly a real threat that they would invade, and easily conquer one country after another at will until all of the lands Hitler wanted - became Stalin's.
The world looked to America. The arms race began, we won..The Soviet Union collapsed under it's own corruption and gross overspending.

To accept your version would gut PC's fantasy of Stalin as Puppet Master.

 

[rightwinger]

Great topic!!!
In the west, WW II is recorded as a total win for the allies. And it was a classic "good vs. evil" - and the good guys kicked butt and the evil tyrant Hitler and the evil Japanese emperor was beaten - and the world was saved.
One one hand, this is true. Hitler was beaten, Japan was overthrown and Italy was returned to a democratic nation. Certainly the alternative, the entire half of the globe under tyranny would have been a very bad thing and would have been a great tragedy in anyone's book.
But...for some...oh...a few 100 million people, WW II was not a victory.
For some - it was merely an exchange of one tyrannical ruler - for another.
For some - things actually got worse. Much worse.

Who won?
To the victor goes the spoils? Russia hands down won. Stalin expanded his empire tremendously and created a world super power for 45 years.

Losing 20 million people to expand your empire for just 45 years is a good strategy?

We became a global power and only lost 400,000

Seems you didn't understand post #29.


He's correct....the Soviets won.


The fact that you fail to see that is actually proof.

I do understand

And since you are enammored with a strategy of losing 27 million people ( your number) to make gains that lasted 45 years

How can you find that preferable to FDRs strategy that lost 400,000 an left us standing as the worlds only superpower just 45 years later?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Losing 20 million people to expand your empire for just 45 years is a good strategy?

We became a global power and only lost 400,000

Seems you didn't understand post #29.


He's correct....the Soviets won.


The fact that you fail to see that is actually proof.

I do understand

And since you are enammored with a strategy of losing 27 million people ( your number) to make gains that lasted 45 years

How can you find that preferable to FDRs strategy that lost 400,000 an left us standing as the worlds only superpower just 45 years later?

1. Stalin cared not for the loses.
Communism slaughtered almost 140 million Russians from the revolution through the Stalin era.


2. For communists and Leftists in general, the slaughter is secondary to world dominance.
That's where the United Nations comes in......


3. "...left us standing as the worlds only superpower just 45 years later?"
Because we are not the same nation we were before FDR allied us with the psychotic regime.
We are the collective that Stalin envisioned.

Do you know where 'ObamaCare' first appeared?

Obama wasn't the first Bolshevik to support socialized medicine. For context, there was Henry Sigerist: "He devoted himself to the study of history of medicine. Socialized Medicine in the Soviet Union (1937), and History of Medicine were among his most important works. He emerged as a major spokesman for "compulsory health insurance". ...He attacked the American Medical Association because of his conflicting views on socialized medicine." Henry E. Sigerist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. And, Sigerist was one of the apologists for Stalin, including his state-engineered famine in the Ukraine. 7 million perished (The History Place - Genocide in the 20th Century: Stalin's Forced Famine 1932-33).

b. Sigerist "shared with the architects of Soviet health policy under Stalin an outlook best described as medical totalitarianism. He really believed that humanity would be better off if every individual were under the medical supervision of the state from cradle to grave....[and] Sigerist's belief in the necessity for state control over all aspects of medicine ultimately made him an apologist for state control over most aspects of human life."
Fee and Brown, eds. "Making Medical History: The Life and Times of Henry E. Sigerist," p. 252


No....we are not the same nation that came before Franklin Roosevelt.


But you won't allow yourself to see that, will you.

 

[rightwinger]

Seems you didn't understand post #29.


He's correct....the Soviets won.


The fact that you fail to see that is actually proof.

I do understand

And since you are enammored with a strategy of losing 27 million people ( your number) to make gains that lasted 45 years

How can you find that preferable to FDRs strategy that lost 400,000 an left us standing as the worlds only superpower just 45 years later?

1. Stalin cared not for the loses.
Communism slaughtered almost 140 million Russians from the revolution through the Stalin era.


2. For communists and Leftists in general, the slaughter is secondary to world dominance.
That's where the United Nations comes in......


3. "...left us standing as the worlds only superpower just 45 years later?"
Because we are not the same nation we were before FDR allied us with the psychotic regime.
We are the collective that Stalin envisioned.

Do you know where 'ObamaCare' first appeared?

Obama wasn't the first Bolshevik to support socialized medicine. For context, there was Henry Sigerist: "He devoted himself to the study of history of medicine. Socialized Medicine in the Soviet Union (1937), and History of Medicine were among his most important works. He emerged as a major spokesman for "compulsory health insurance". ...He attacked the American Medical Association because of his conflicting views on socialized medicine." Henry E. Sigerist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. And, Sigerist was one of the apologists for Stalin, including his state-engineered famine in the Ukraine. 7 million perished (The History Place - Genocide in the 20th Century: Stalin's Forced Famine 1932-33).

b. Sigerist "shared with the architects of Soviet health policy under Stalin an outlook best described as medical totalitarianism. He really believed that humanity would be better off if every individual were under the medical supervision of the state from cradle to grave....[and] Sigerist's belief in the necessity for state control over all aspects of medicine ultimately made him an apologist for state control over most aspects of human life."
Fee and Brown, eds. "Making Medical History: The Life and Times of Henry E. Sigerist," p. 252


No....we are not the same nation that came before Franklin Roosevelt.


But you won't allow yourself to see that, will you.

And yet you somehow make the assertion that the killing of millions of your own people somehow makes a successful strategy

Please explain

 

[NoNukes]

Wow......all that and you still haven't answered the question

Germany invades Russia......who do you want to win?

Too hard a question?
Let me make it easier

A. Germany
B. USSR

Sorry....you can't change the subject.....you can simply agree that Stalin manipulated Roosevelt, and Roosevelt jumped to follow every wish that Stalin suggested.


OK....except for one: Stalin opposed the 100,000 troops the Allies sent to oppose Rommel...





Back to your attempt to change the issue.

Tell me.....by what metric was Stalin any better than Hitler?
....aside from IQ.

Now, now PC
We all know you got your Masters at Columbia by learning how to cut and paste
But you never learned about multiple choice?

It's easy, you pick one
A. Germany
B. USSR

I was accepted at Columbia for graduate school, but decided to go elesewhere. Political Chic always makes me realize what a good decision I made.