FDR cow towed to Stalin and the Russians.

[Correll]

I've seen plenty of people not happy about the Soviets getting half of Europe.

What would you have offered them?

Cold distain for their alliance with Hitler.

OK, then the Soviets would have presented less resistance in the east and Hitler could divert more forces to the west

Do you think FDR could have negotiated with Soviets to give up the territory they had fought and died for?

Oh, so the USA shouldn’t have given up Western Europe.

The Soviets had just suffered from a devastating invasion that cost them tens of millions of lives. Their cities and infrastructure were ruined.
They were not going to allow belligerent nations on their borders again.
They made sure those captured countries were in compliance with Soviet doctrine

We liberated France, Italy, West Germany and made sure that Western democracies took hold.

LOL!!! "in compliance".

 

[rightwinger]

What would you have offered them?

Cold distain for their alliance with Hitler.

OK, then the Soviets would have presented less resistance in the east and Hitler could divert more forces to the west

Do you think FDR could have negotiated with Soviets to give up the territory they had fought and died for?

Oh, so the USA shouldn’t have given up Western Europe.

The Soviets had just suffered from a devastating invasion that cost them tens of millions of lives. Their cities and infrastructure were ruined.
They were not going to allow belligerent nations on their borders again.
They made sure those captured countries were in compliance with Soviet doctrine

We liberated France, Italy, West Germany and made sure that Western democracies took hold.

Yet today Russia is surrounded by enemies, thanks to the USA.

Trying to justify Stalin’s tyrannical actions, is absurd. The Red Army was enormous and battle tested at the end of WWII. All of the other European nations were destroyed. No nation other than the US, could threaten their dominance. They had nothing to fear.

Very True

The Red Army was not going to pack up and go home after Berlin fell. For the US to drive them back would have killed hundreds of thousands on both sides and for what purpose?

The USSR fell on its own 40 years later

 

[rightwinger]

What would you have offered them?

Cold distain for their alliance with Hitler.

OK, then the Soviets would have presented less resistance in the east and Hitler could divert more forces to the west

Do you think FDR could have negotiated with Soviets to give up the territory they had fought and died for?

Oh, so the USA shouldn’t have given up Western Europe.

The Soviets had just suffered from a devastating invasion that cost them tens of millions of lives. Their cities and infrastructure were ruined.
They were not going to allow belligerent nations on their borders again.
They made sure those captured countries were in compliance with Soviet doctrine

We liberated France, Italy, West Germany and made sure that Western democracies took hold.

LOL!!! "in compliance".

Exactly. The Soviets made sure they were “friendly”
What do you propose FDR should have done differently?

 

[Correll]

Cold distain for their alliance with Hitler.

OK, then the Soviets would have presented less resistance in the east and Hitler could divert more forces to the west

Do you think FDR could have negotiated with Soviets to give up the territory they had fought and died for?

Oh, so the USA shouldn’t have given up Western Europe.

The Soviets had just suffered from a devastating invasion that cost them tens of millions of lives. Their cities and infrastructure were ruined.
They were not going to allow belligerent nations on their borders again.
They made sure those captured countries were in compliance with Soviet doctrine

We liberated France, Italy, West Germany and made sure that Western democracies took hold.

Yet today Russia is surrounded by enemies, thanks to the USA.

Trying to justify Stalin’s tyrannical actions, is absurd. The Red Army was enormous and battle tested at the end of WWII. All of the other European nations were destroyed. No nation other than the US, could threaten their dominance. They had nothing to fear.

Very True

The Red Army was not going to pack up and go home after Berlin fell. For the US to drive them back would have killed hundreds of thousands on both sides and for what purpose?

The USSR fell on its own 40 years later

1. To avoid world threatening Soviet Empire.

2. To avoid decades of oppression and mass murder of Eastern Europeans.

3. To avoid expense, human and treasure, of Cold War.

 

[Correll]

Cold distain for their alliance with Hitler.

OK, then the Soviets would have presented less resistance in the east and Hitler could divert more forces to the west

Do you think FDR could have negotiated with Soviets to give up the territory they had fought and died for?

Oh, so the USA shouldn’t have given up Western Europe.

The Soviets had just suffered from a devastating invasion that cost them tens of millions of lives. Their cities and infrastructure were ruined.
They were not going to allow belligerent nations on their borders again.
They made sure those captured countries were in compliance with Soviet doctrine

We liberated France, Italy, West Germany and made sure that Western democracies took hold.

LOL!!! "in compliance".

Exactly. The Soviets made sure they were “friendly”
What do you propose FDR should have done differently?

Declare the Soviets cobelligerents instead of allies.


Conduct the war with an eye to the Post War situation, and NOT help the Soviets conquer Eastern Europe.


After Berlin is nuked, and hopefully Hitler is dead, negotiate a surrender from the nazis, that don't give the Soviets shit.

 

[gipper]

Cold distain for their alliance with Hitler.

OK, then the Soviets would have presented less resistance in the east and Hitler could divert more forces to the west

Do you think FDR could have negotiated with Soviets to give up the territory they had fought and died for?

Oh, so the USA shouldn’t have given up Western Europe.

The Soviets had just suffered from a devastating invasion that cost them tens of millions of lives. Their cities and infrastructure were ruined.
They were not going to allow belligerent nations on their borders again.
They made sure those captured countries were in compliance with Soviet doctrine

We liberated France, Italy, West Germany and made sure that Western democracies took hold.

Yet today Russia is surrounded by enemies, thanks to the USA.

Trying to justify Stalin’s tyrannical actions, is absurd. The Red Army was enormous and battle tested at the end of WWII. All of the other European nations were destroyed. No nation other than the US, could threaten their dominance. They had nothing to fear.

Very True

The Red Army was not going to pack up and go home after Berlin fell. For the US to drive them back would have killed hundreds of thousands on both sides and for what purpose?

The USSR fell on its own 40 years later

I did not suggest the US go to war with the USSR, after Germany surrendered. You did. Straw man.

You are trying to justify Stalin’s tyranny. It can’t be justified. Never can. Plus as I stated, they had nothing to fear.

 

[rightwinger]

OK, then the Soviets would have presented less resistance in the east and Hitler could divert more forces to the west

Do you think FDR could have negotiated with Soviets to give up the territory they had fought and died for?

Oh, so the USA shouldn’t have given up Western Europe.

The Soviets had just suffered from a devastating invasion that cost them tens of millions of lives. Their cities and infrastructure were ruined.
They were not going to allow belligerent nations on their borders again.
They made sure those captured countries were in compliance with Soviet doctrine

We liberated France, Italy, West Germany and made sure that Western democracies took hold.

Yet today Russia is surrounded by enemies, thanks to the USA.

Trying to justify Stalin’s tyrannical actions, is absurd. The Red Army was enormous and battle tested at the end of WWII. All of the other European nations were destroyed. No nation other than the US, could threaten their dominance. They had nothing to fear.

Very True

The Red Army was not going to pack up and go home after Berlin fell. For the US to drive them back would have killed hundreds of thousands on both sides and for what purpose?

The USSR fell on its own 40 years later

1. To avoid world threatening Soviet Empire.

2. To avoid decades of oppression and mass murder of Eastern Europeans.

3. To avoid expense, human and treasure, of Cold War.

1. An empire that folded without a fight
2. Is mass murder justified in order to prevent mass murder.
3. The expense in lives and materiel of invading, controlling and rebuilding a destroyed Soviet Union would have vastly surpassed Cold War expenses

How can you justify a unprovoked full out war with the Soviets costing hundreds of thousands of deaths when we know the USSR folded on its own in 40 years

 

[rightwinger]

OK, then the Soviets would have presented less resistance in the east and Hitler could divert more forces to the west

Do you think FDR could have negotiated with Soviets to give up the territory they had fought and died for?

Oh, so the USA shouldn’t have given up Western Europe.

The Soviets had just suffered from a devastating invasion that cost them tens of millions of lives. Their cities and infrastructure were ruined.
They were not going to allow belligerent nations on their borders again.
They made sure those captured countries were in compliance with Soviet doctrine

We liberated France, Italy, West Germany and made sure that Western democracies took hold.

Yet today Russia is surrounded by enemies, thanks to the USA.

Trying to justify Stalin’s tyrannical actions, is absurd. The Red Army was enormous and battle tested at the end of WWII. All of the other European nations were destroyed. No nation other than the US, could threaten their dominance. They had nothing to fear.

Very True

The Red Army was not going to pack up and go home after Berlin fell. For the US to drive them back would have killed hundreds of thousands on both sides and for what purpose?

The USSR fell on its own 40 years later

I did not suggest the US go to war with the USSR, after Germany surrendered. You did. Straw man.

You are trying to justify Stalin’s tyranny. It can’t be justified. Never can. Plus as I stated, they had nothing to fear.

The idea that FDR should have somehow driven Stalin off of captured territory is the subject of the thread.

The allies ended up with Western Europe, the Soviet’s ended up with Eastern Europe and the Nazis were destroyed.
No other outcome was possible

 

[Correll]

Oh, so the USA shouldn’t have given up Western Europe.

The Soviets had just suffered from a devastating invasion that cost them tens of millions of lives. Their cities and infrastructure were ruined.
They were not going to allow belligerent nations on their borders again.
They made sure those captured countries were in compliance with Soviet doctrine

We liberated France, Italy, West Germany and made sure that Western democracies took hold.

Yet today Russia is surrounded by enemies, thanks to the USA.

Trying to justify Stalin’s tyrannical actions, is absurd. The Red Army was enormous and battle tested at the end of WWII. All of the other European nations were destroyed. No nation other than the US, could threaten their dominance. They had nothing to fear.

Very True

The Red Army was not going to pack up and go home after Berlin fell. For the US to drive them back would have killed hundreds of thousands on both sides and for what purpose?

The USSR fell on its own 40 years later

1. To avoid world threatening Soviet Empire.

2. To avoid decades of oppression and mass murder of Eastern Europeans.

3. To avoid expense, human and treasure, of Cold War.

1. An empire that folded without a fight
2. Is mass murder justified in order to prevent mass murder.
3. The expense in lives and materiel of invading, controlling and rebuilding a destroyed Soviet Union would have vastly surpassed Cold War expenses

How can you justify a unprovoked full out war with the Soviets costing hundreds of thousands of deaths when we know the USSR folded on its own in 40 years

1. Without a fight? Tell that to the Koreans. Or the Vietnamese. Or the Afghanistani.

2. Threatening war is not mass murder. That you equate the two, is you being very strange.

3. It is interesting that you changed the topic from Eastern Europe, to conquering and occupying and rebuilding the Soviet Union. WHy was that?

 

[rightwinger]

The Soviets had just suffered from a devastating invasion that cost them tens of millions of lives. Their cities and infrastructure were ruined.
They were not going to allow belligerent nations on their borders again.
They made sure those captured countries were in compliance with Soviet doctrine

We liberated France, Italy, West Germany and made sure that Western democracies took hold.

Yet today Russia is surrounded by enemies, thanks to the USA.

Trying to justify Stalin’s tyrannical actions, is absurd. The Red Army was enormous and battle tested at the end of WWII. All of the other European nations were destroyed. No nation other than the US, could threaten their dominance. They had nothing to fear.

Very True

The Red Army was not going to pack up and go home after Berlin fell. For the US to drive them back would have killed hundreds of thousands on both sides and for what purpose?

The USSR fell on its own 40 years later

1. To avoid world threatening Soviet Empire.

2. To avoid decades of oppression and mass murder of Eastern Europeans.

3. To avoid expense, human and treasure, of Cold War.

1. An empire that folded without a fight
2. Is mass murder justified in order to prevent mass murder.
3. The expense in lives and materiel of invading, controlling and rebuilding a destroyed Soviet Union would have vastly surpassed Cold War expenses

How can you justify a unprovoked full out war with the Soviets costing hundreds of thousands of deaths when we know the USSR folded on its own in 40 years

1. Without a fight? Tell that to the Koreans. Or the Vietnamese. Or the Afghanistani.

2. Threatening war is not mass murder. That you equate the two, is you being very strange.

3. It is interesting that you changed the topic from Eastern Europe, to conquering and occupying and rebuilding the Soviet Union. WHy was that?

Korea and Vietnam were involved in Civil Wars after decades of foreign occupation. We turned it into a Cold War battle

We would have had to physically attack the Red Army. Threats were not going to do it.

The Soviets occupied Eastern Europe. If we were to launch a full scale war we would be stuck with picking up the pieces. I doubt if we would be looked at as liberators

 

[Correll]

Yet today Russia is surrounded by enemies, thanks to the USA.

Trying to justify Stalin’s tyrannical actions, is absurd. The Red Army was enormous and battle tested at the end of WWII. All of the other European nations were destroyed. No nation other than the US, could threaten their dominance. They had nothing to fear.

Very True

The Red Army was not going to pack up and go home after Berlin fell. For the US to drive them back would have killed hundreds of thousands on both sides and for what purpose?

The USSR fell on its own 40 years later

1. To avoid world threatening Soviet Empire.

2. To avoid decades of oppression and mass murder of Eastern Europeans.

3. To avoid expense, human and treasure, of Cold War.

1. An empire that folded without a fight
2. Is mass murder justified in order to prevent mass murder.
3. The expense in lives and materiel of invading, controlling and rebuilding a destroyed Soviet Union would have vastly surpassed Cold War expenses

How can you justify a unprovoked full out war with the Soviets costing hundreds of thousands of deaths when we know the USSR folded on its own in 40 years

1. Without a fight? Tell that to the Koreans. Or the Vietnamese. Or the Afghanistani.

2. Threatening war is not mass murder. That you equate the two, is you being very strange.

3. It is interesting that you changed the topic from Eastern Europe, to conquering and occupying and rebuilding the Soviet Union. WHy was that?

Korea and Vietnam were involved in Civil Wars after decades of foreign occupation. We turned it into a Cold War battle

We would have had to physically attack the Red Army. Threats were not going to do it.

The Soviets occupied Eastern Europe. If we were to launch a full scale war we would be stuck with picking up the pieces. I doubt if we would be looked at as liberators

1. Funny how our presence in those wars were US making them into Cold War battles, but the Soviets involvement, was what? Just them being tourists?


2. If we had not given them so much Lend Lease, they would not have been starving and more ready to see reason.

3. After being occupied by the Red Fucking Army? I think we would have been seen as Liberators. Especially as we would not be setting up puppet regimes to oppress the people. People notice shit like that. Well, people other than modern liberals.

 

[rightwinger]

Very True

The Red Army was not going to pack up and go home after Berlin fell. For the US to drive them back would have killed hundreds of thousands on both sides and for what purpose?

The USSR fell on its own 40 years later

1. To avoid world threatening Soviet Empire.

2. To avoid decades of oppression and mass murder of Eastern Europeans.

3. To avoid expense, human and treasure, of Cold War.

1. An empire that folded without a fight
2. Is mass murder justified in order to prevent mass murder.
3. The expense in lives and materiel of invading, controlling and rebuilding a destroyed Soviet Union would have vastly surpassed Cold War expenses

How can you justify a unprovoked full out war with the Soviets costing hundreds of thousands of deaths when we know the USSR folded on its own in 40 years

1. Without a fight? Tell that to the Koreans. Or the Vietnamese. Or the Afghanistani.

2. Threatening war is not mass murder. That you equate the two, is you being very strange.

3. It is interesting that you changed the topic from Eastern Europe, to conquering and occupying and rebuilding the Soviet Union. WHy was that?

Korea and Vietnam were involved in Civil Wars after decades of foreign occupation. We turned it into a Cold War battle

We would have had to physically attack the Red Army. Threats were not going to do it.

The Soviets occupied Eastern Europe. If we were to launch a full scale war we would be stuck with picking up the pieces. I doubt if we would be looked at as liberators

1. Funny how our presence in those wars were US making them into Cold War battles, but the Soviets involvement, was what? Just them being tourists?


2. If we had not given them so much Lend Lease, they would not have been starving and more ready to see reason.

3. After being occupied by the Red Fucking Army? I think we would have been seen as Liberators. Especially as we would not be setting up puppet regimes to oppress the people. People notice shit like that. Well, people other than modern liberals.

I did not see Soviet ground troops in Korea or Vietnam. Only we were stupid enough to do that.

We would be looked at just like the Nazis and Soviets another foreign invading power.

For your information, it was liberals FDR and Truman who led us through WWII

 

[Pogo]

Here, finally, is FDR's cow arriving in Moscow

 

[rightwinger]

What would you have offered them?

Cold distain for their alliance with Hitler.

OK, then the Soviets would have presented less resistance in the east and Hitler could divert more forces to the west

Do you think FDR could have negotiated with Soviets to give up the territory they had fought and died for?

1. Maybe.

2. If they had not made the choice to present the Soviets as good allies, then yes, he could have, especially once the Bomb was in play.

In your alternative history, we provide no support to the Soviets in 1942, 1943, 1944 and they have to fight without our materiel. Could they have won without us? Possibly....but if they lost to the Nazis, we would not have been able to recapture Western Europe.
A Nazi controlled Europe is a worst scenario to a Cold War

Soooo, which is your position? That the nazis would steamroll them, and then be able to sent more units to the West, or that the Soviets would win and then hold Western Europe?

My scenario is what actually happened

Most of the German forces went to fighting the Soviets. This lessened the quality and quantity of troops to fight off the D Day invasion.

 

[Correll]

Cold distain for their alliance with Hitler.

OK, then the Soviets would have presented less resistance in the east and Hitler could divert more forces to the west

Do you think FDR could have negotiated with Soviets to give up the territory they had fought and died for?

1. Maybe.

2. If they had not made the choice to present the Soviets as good allies, then yes, he could have, especially once the Bomb was in play.

In your alternative history, we provide no support to the Soviets in 1942, 1943, 1944 and they have to fight without our materiel. Could they have won without us? Possibly....but if they lost to the Nazis, we would not have been able to recapture Western Europe.
A Nazi controlled Europe is a worst scenario to a Cold War

Soooo, which is your position? That the nazis would steamroll them, and then be able to sent more units to the West, or that the Soviets would win and then hold Western Europe?

My scenario is what actually happened

Most of the German forces went to fighting the Soviets. This lessened the quality and quantity of troops to fight off the D Day invasion.

You've forgotten what you said before, and instead of rereading your own words, you are just throwing shit at the wall.


What is wrong with you?

 

[rightwinger]

OK, then the Soviets would have presented less resistance in the east and Hitler could divert more forces to the west

Do you think FDR could have negotiated with Soviets to give up the territory they had fought and died for?

1. Maybe.

2. If they had not made the choice to present the Soviets as good allies, then yes, he could have, especially once the Bomb was in play.

In your alternative history, we provide no support to the Soviets in 1942, 1943, 1944 and they have to fight without our materiel. Could they have won without us? Possibly....but if they lost to the Nazis, we would not have been able to recapture Western Europe.
A Nazi controlled Europe is a worst scenario to a Cold War

Soooo, which is your position? That the nazis would steamroll them, and then be able to sent more units to the West, or that the Soviets would win and then hold Western Europe?

My scenario is what actually happened

Most of the German forces went to fighting the Soviets. This lessened the quality and quantity of troops to fight off the D Day invasion.

You've forgotten what you said before, and instead of rereading your own words, you are just throwing shit at the wall.


What is wrong with you?

Nope

 

[Correll]

1. Maybe.

2. If they had not made the choice to present the Soviets as good allies, then yes, he could have, especially once the Bomb was in play.

In your alternative history, we provide no support to the Soviets in 1942, 1943, 1944 and they have to fight without our materiel. Could they have won without us? Possibly....but if they lost to the Nazis, we would not have been able to recapture Western Europe.
A Nazi controlled Europe is a worst scenario to a Cold War

Soooo, which is your position? That the nazis would steamroll them, and then be able to sent more units to the West, or that the Soviets would win and then hold Western Europe?

My scenario is what actually happened

Most of the German forces went to fighting the Soviets. This lessened the quality and quantity of troops to fight off the D Day invasion.

You've forgotten what you said before, and instead of rereading your own words, you are just throwing shit at the wall.


What is wrong with you?

Nope

You just denied what your previous post was saying. YOU asked what I would have done instead, and then you said something would happen, and I asked you to clarify, and now you are insisting that you were not speculating?


Are you older than I thought? Are you confused?

 

[rightwinger]

In your alternative history, we provide no support to the Soviets in 1942, 1943, 1944 and they have to fight without our materiel. Could they have won without us? Possibly....but if they lost to the Nazis, we would not have been able to recapture Western Europe.
A Nazi controlled Europe is a worst scenario to a Cold War

Soooo, which is your position? That the nazis would steamroll them, and then be able to sent more units to the West, or that the Soviets would win and then hold Western Europe?

My scenario is what actually happened

Most of the German forces went to fighting the Soviets. This lessened the quality and quantity of troops to fight off the D Day invasion.

You've forgotten what you said before, and instead of rereading your own words, you are just throwing shit at the wall.


What is wrong with you?

Nope

You just denied what your previous post was saying. YOU asked what I would have done instead, and then you said something would happen, and I asked you to clarify, and now you are insisting that you were not speculating?


Are you older than I thought? Are you confused?

Dope

 

[Correll]

Soooo, which is your position? That the nazis would steamroll them, and then be able to sent more units to the West, or that the Soviets would win and then hold Western Europe?

My scenario is what actually happened

Most of the German forces went to fighting the Soviets. This lessened the quality and quantity of troops to fight off the D Day invasion.

You've forgotten what you said before, and instead of rereading your own words, you are just throwing shit at the wall.


What is wrong with you?

Nope

You just denied what your previous post was saying. YOU asked what I would have done instead, and then you said something would happen, and I asked you to clarify, and now you are insisting that you were not speculating?


Are you older than I thought? Are you confused?

Dope

You on dope? That would explain it.