Honoring The Sacrifices Of The Soviet Union in WWII….Really?

[Doc7505]

The war propaganda in support of the Marxists has never abated, and has led America to a precipice. Now, the truth.


1.An interesting and significant month, August.

August 20–25, 1944
Allied troops reach Paris. On August 25, Free French forces, supported by Allied troops, enter the French capital. By September, the Allies reach the German border; by December, virtually all of France, most of Belgium, and part of the southern Netherlands are liberated. World War II: Timeline.

Did you see any mention of Soviet troops there?


2. Government school propaganda provides two beliefs about the Soviets in WWII.

a. That they deserve gratitude and honor for their valiant efforts and great loses in the war

b. U.S. war propaganda had painted pipesmoking "Uncle Joe Stalin" as a friendly fellow, and the liberal propaganda left people to thinking of Communist Party members as lovable idealists.

Really???

There is no honor or credit due to the Soviet Union because they lost 20 million in the war. The glorification of the role that the Soviets played in WWII is unfounded, and almost entirely due to the neo-Marxist influence in our society due to Democrats/Liberals/Progressives doing public relations for them, as they share the same values and aims.

First: most of the Soviet loses were their troops killed by Stalin’s own forces. One reason they lost 20 million, while we lost 415,000 was due to the value that America placed on human life, and the lack of same interest by Bolsheviks: they don’t care about human life, a characteristic absorbed and propounded by the current Democrat Party.



3. "Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin"
Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin

And.....

World War II left over 27 million Soviet citizens dead....but only a fraction of them were killed by the Germans. Yet throughout the West. 'war crimes' is a phrase only attacked to the Nazis. When the Red Army marched, an NKVD army marched behind, with its own tanks, machine guns, firing forward....never allowing retreat. More than a million Soviet citizens joined the Nazis. Ask yourself this: why was it that the USSR, of all the Allies, had provided the enemy with thousands of recruits? Nearly one million Russian and other anti-Soviet men joined the enemy of their Soviet Army. "The Secret Betrayal" by Nikolai Tolstoy, p. 19-20.

And.....

"In 1945 Zhukov is reported to have said to US General Dwight D. Eisenhower, "If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there." The shear weight of numbers eventually drove the Germans back, along with the Soviet leadership's determination not to relent, whatever the cost."

Website no longer available | Heroes and killers of the 20th century

Website no longer available | Heroes and killers of the 20th century

www.moreorless.net.au

Tom Clancy has a hero combat soldier exclaim his opinion about the thugs who ran the Soviet Union, the communists:

"Misha waved his hand, looking in annoyance at the way it shook. "I have never had much respect for the chekisti. When I was leading my men, they were there-behind us. They were very efficient at shooting prisoners-prisoners that real soldiers had taken. They were also rather good at murdering people who'd been forced to retreat. I even remember one case where a chekist lieutenant took command of a tank troop and led it into a fucking swamp. At least the Germans I killed were men, fighting men. I hated them, but I could respect them for the soldiers they were. Your kind, on the other hand… perhaps we simple soldiers never really understood who the enemy was. Sometimes I wonder who has killed more Russians, the Germans-or people like you?" “The Cardinal of the Kremlin,”p. 383



So those ‘great loses’ were not at the hands of the Germans, they were by their own leaders. Someone should have told Roosevelt.

Oh…wait….they did!

Love is blind.

Excellent!! You've captured the essence of Marxist Socialist leadership.... Who will be the Chekists' of the future in America?

 

[Doc7505]

...

There is no honor or credit due to the Soviet Union because they lost 20 million in the war. The glorification of the role that the Soviets played in WWII is unfounded, and almost entirely due to the neo-Marxist influence in our society due to Democrats/Liberals/Progressives doing public relations for them, as they share the same values and aims.

First: most of the Soviet loses were their troops killed by Stalin’s own forces. One reason they lost 20 million, while we lost 415,000 was due to the value that America placed on human life, and the lack of same interest by Bolsheviks: they don’t care about human life, a characteristic absorbed and propounded by the current Democrat Party.

...

well, this is completely true, and a major and even possibly the primary factor,

it is worth noting that having the war in your country, as opposed to on the other side of an ocean, is going to increase civilian deaths. (America is blessed)

a better, fairer, comparison might be, comparing soviet losses to french or polish losses.


on the other hand, it is also worth noting that the soviet union did start wwii as an ally of hitler and only switched sides when hitler betrayed them, not because the soviets had any problem with anything he was doing.

To see where the honor belongs you have to separate the party and the people.

See post #4. Take notes on it.

Doesn't effect my post at all. Don't the people of Russia/SU deserve credit for their bravery? Being Soviet citizens is a historical fact that can't be changed barring a "memory hole".

~~~~~~
One can then believe that you hold Nikita Khrushchev: Butcher of the Ukraine. in high esteem. Khrushchev earned his title during the Red Terror when Stalin sent him to “earn his spurs” in Ukraine by managing the slaughter of and estimated 4.5 million Ukrainians of the “class enemy.”

 

[Doc7505]

in the scale of wwii, a similar nuking of Germany would have been completely acceptable to any reasonable person.
and yes, that would be far preferable to eastern europe not living under communism for 45 years, not to mention avoiding the terrible cost of the Cold War.

I can’t believe what a callous killer you are. You would rather nuke millions of people rather than have them live under communism for 45 years.

Hirohito saw the devastation of the bomb and quickly agreed to surrender. What makes you think Hitler would do the same?

Hitler already made it clear he was willing to fight to the last man to save his Nazi regime. He allowed the Soviets and US to slaughter German citizens even though it was obvious he had lost the war.

What makes you think a nuclear attack would have changed his mind?

change his mind or vaporize it, either way, the war would have ended, and western europe and eastern europe would have been liberated, like you said could not happen without stalin.

so, you're wrong.


your whining about the deaths is stupid, as the death toll in stopping the nazis would be, quite likely less, in that scenario, and certainly not more.

General Patton knew what the Bolsheviks were, and voiced his opinion loudly......that's why Stalin's BFF, Roosevelt, had him benched.


Patton saw the inevitability of a conflict with the Russians.

"It is a conflict that Patton believes will be fought soon. The Russians are moving to forcibly spread communism throughout the world, and Patton knows it. "They are a scurvy race and simply savages," he writes of the Russians in his journal. "We could beat the hell out of them."
"Patton," By Martin Blumenson, Kevin M. Hymel, p. 84


Can you imagine the chagrin in the Soviet-occupied Roosevelt administration???



The Red Army is relentless in its quest to control as much of Europe as possible, with Stalin taking full advantage of Dwight Eisenhower's timidity.The Russians are seizing more land, and more people are coming under their occupation.



Patton is incensed. "You cannot lay down with a diseased jackal," he recently insisted to a group of journalists."Neither can we ever do business with the Russians."


When Undersecretary of War Robert Patterson visited the Third Army, Patton openly lobbied for at least 30 percent of all American troops to remain in Europe, "Keeping our forces intact. Let's keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to these people.

This is the only language they understand and respect. If you fail to do this, then I would like to say to you that we have had a victory over the Germans but have lost the war."




Even Patton's nemesis, British field marshal Montgomery, agrees: when accepting the surrender of German soldiers, he ordered his troops to stack the Wehrmacht rifles in such a way that they could easily be redistributed should the Germans and British need to defend themselves against a Russian advance."




Yet the Harvard-educated undersecretary Patterson thinks Patton is delusional. He advises Eisenhower, army chief of staff Gen. George C. Marshall, and President Harry Truman continue to view the Russians benevolently.



In time, of course, Patton's predictions will come true, and the world will have to live with the consequences of American gullibility
"Killing Patton," O'Reilly and Dugard, p. 259-260


Of course, Marshall, Hopkins, et al openly wanted the Soviets to control Europe....and said so.

the US was not going to beat Russia--not even close

The American public never would have tolerated the carnage involved in beating the Soviets

We could have done it, but it never would have been worth it

Totally false. By the time we met at the Elba the US Army was the most accomplished, best equipped, best outfitted army in the world. Bar none. But what would have won the war for us is our airpower. The Soviets had no counter to us and we would have won air supremacy over the USSR in short order. Then, just like what we did with the Germans, the Soviet armies couldn't go anywhere without having the crap bombed out of them.

We would have demolished them in short order.

hitler thought the same thing

Yes, but he was crazy, and didn't follow the advice of his Generals who knew what they were doing. We did.

...oh and the other thing on transportation = they did well at the Hurtgen Battle in late 1944-45...transportation was more than adequate..they gave the US a whoopin

LOL, they only had to go a couple of miles! Hodges was worn out and shouldn't have been in command. He was the wrong man at the wrong time.

exactly---hahahahahah--then why is transportation so important ?

Ummmmm, the Hurtgen forest is IN Germany. Or did you not know that? And transportation was important for US. We had to get the supplies to our troops. And we did.

you just PROVED you don't know much at all
you fked up ---you didn't get to read my previous post--NO we didn't get supplies in--let me get my book on it -page 416 Three Battles by MacDonald and Mathews:
''''.....factors....to bring failure.......an inadequate and unprotected main supply route''''
...they lost numerous tanks BEFORE battle just trying to navigate the '''MSR''', it was so crappy ......

Perhaps the readers on this board might be interested in the following

Murmansk

www.armed-guard.com

XXXXXXXXXXXX​

Lend-Lease tanks and aircrafts

Lend-Lease tanks and aircraft for the Red Army 1941 to 1945. Figures of supplied armored vehicle and aircraft types from the United States and Britain to Soviet Union during the Second World War. The Red

ww2-weapons.com

 

[harmonica]

in the scale of wwii, a similar nuking of Germany would have been completely acceptable to any reasonable person.
and yes, that would be far preferable to eastern europe not living under communism for 45 years, not to mention avoiding the terrible cost of the Cold War.

I can’t believe what a callous killer you are. You would rather nuke millions of people rather than have them live under communism for 45 years.

Hirohito saw the devastation of the bomb and quickly agreed to surrender. What makes you think Hitler would do the same?

Hitler already made it clear he was willing to fight to the last man to save his Nazi regime. He allowed the Soviets and US to slaughter German citizens even though it was obvious he had lost the war.

What makes you think a nuclear attack would have changed his mind?

change his mind or vaporize it, either way, the war would have ended, and western europe and eastern europe would have been liberated, like you said could not happen without stalin.

so, you're wrong.


your whining about the deaths is stupid, as the death toll in stopping the nazis would be, quite likely less, in that scenario, and certainly not more.

General Patton knew what the Bolsheviks were, and voiced his opinion loudly......that's why Stalin's BFF, Roosevelt, had him benched.


Patton saw the inevitability of a conflict with the Russians.

"It is a conflict that Patton believes will be fought soon. The Russians are moving to forcibly spread communism throughout the world, and Patton knows it. "They are a scurvy race and simply savages," he writes of the Russians in his journal. "We could beat the hell out of them."
"Patton," By Martin Blumenson, Kevin M. Hymel, p. 84


Can you imagine the chagrin in the Soviet-occupied Roosevelt administration???



The Red Army is relentless in its quest to control as much of Europe as possible, with Stalin taking full advantage of Dwight Eisenhower's timidity.The Russians are seizing more land, and more people are coming under their occupation.



Patton is incensed. "You cannot lay down with a diseased jackal," he recently insisted to a group of journalists."Neither can we ever do business with the Russians."


When Undersecretary of War Robert Patterson visited the Third Army, Patton openly lobbied for at least 30 percent of all American troops to remain in Europe, "Keeping our forces intact. Let's keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to these people.

This is the only language they understand and respect. If you fail to do this, then I would like to say to you that we have had a victory over the Germans but have lost the war."




Even Patton's nemesis, British field marshal Montgomery, agrees: when accepting the surrender of German soldiers, he ordered his troops to stack the Wehrmacht rifles in such a way that they could easily be redistributed should the Germans and British need to defend themselves against a Russian advance."




Yet the Harvard-educated undersecretary Patterson thinks Patton is delusional. He advises Eisenhower, army chief of staff Gen. George C. Marshall, and President Harry Truman continue to view the Russians benevolently.



In time, of course, Patton's predictions will come true, and the world will have to live with the consequences of American gullibility
"Killing Patton," O'Reilly and Dugard, p. 259-260


Of course, Marshall, Hopkins, et al openly wanted the Soviets to control Europe....and said so.

the US was not going to beat Russia--not even close

The American public never would have tolerated the carnage involved in beating the Soviets

We could have done it, but it never would have been worth it

Totally false. By the time we met at the Elba the US Army was the most accomplished, best equipped, best outfitted army in the world. Bar none. But what would have won the war for us is our airpower. The Soviets had no counter to us and we would have won air supremacy over the USSR in short order. Then, just like what we did with the Germans, the Soviet armies couldn't go anywhere without having the crap bombed out of them.

We would have demolished them in short order.

hitler thought the same thing

Yes, but he was crazy, and didn't follow the advice of his Generals who knew what they were doing. We did.

...oh and the other thing on transportation = they did well at the Hurtgen Battle in late 1944-45...transportation was more than adequate..they gave the US a whoopin

LOL, they only had to go a couple of miles! Hodges was worn out and shouldn't have been in command. He was the wrong man at the wrong time.

exactly---hahahahahah--then why is transportation so important ?

Ummmmm, the Hurtgen forest is IN Germany. Or did you not know that? And transportation was important for US. We had to get the supplies to our troops. And we did.

you just PROVED you don't know much at all
you fked up ---you didn't get to read my previous post--NO we didn't get supplies in--let me get my book on it -page 416 Three Battles by MacDonald and Mathews:
''''.....factors....to bring failure.......an inadequate and unprotected main supply route''''
...they lost numerous tanks BEFORE battle just trying to navigate the '''MSR''', it was so crappy ......

Yeah, imagine that. Tanks hard a hard time in the WOODS! Jeezus, you are a simpleton. All you have are simplistic statements and insults. Grow up.

....not woods--hahahahhaha the poor MSR...tanks can't go through a bunch of trees
you've failed on all of your points....

 

[JohnHI]

The war propaganda in support of the Marxists has never abated, and has led America to a precipice. Now, the truth.


1.An interesting and significant month, August.

August 20–25, 1944
Allied troops reach Paris. On August 25, Free French forces, supported by Allied troops, enter the French capital. By September, the Allies reach the German border; by December, virtually all of France, most of Belgium, and part of the southern Netherlands are liberated. World War II: Timeline.

Did you see any mention of Soviet troops there?


2. Government school propaganda provides two beliefs about the Soviets in WWII.

a. That they deserve gratitude and honor for their valiant efforts and great loses in the war

b. U.S. war propaganda had painted pipesmoking "Uncle Joe Stalin" as a friendly fellow, and the liberal propaganda left people to thinking of Communist Party members as lovable idealists.

Really???

There is no honor or credit due to the Soviet Union because they lost 20 million in the war. The glorification of the role that the Soviets played in WWII is unfounded, and almost entirely due to the neo-Marxist influence in our society due to Democrats/Liberals/Progressives doing public relations for them, as they share the same values and aims.

First: most of the Soviet loses were their troops killed by Stalin’s own forces. One reason they lost 20 million, while we lost 415,000 was due to the value that America placed on human life, and the lack of same interest by Bolsheviks: they don’t care about human life, a characteristic absorbed and propounded by the current Democrat Party.



3. "Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin"
Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin

And.....

World War II left over 27 million Soviet citizens dead....but only a fraction of them were killed by the Germans. Yet throughout the West. 'war crimes' is a phrase only attacked to the Nazis. When the Red Army marched, an NKVD army marched behind, with its own tanks, machine guns, firing forward....never allowing retreat. More than a million Soviet citizens joined the Nazis. Ask yourself this: why was it that the USSR, of all the Allies, had provided the enemy with thousands of recruits? Nearly one million Russian and other anti-Soviet men joined the enemy of their Soviet Army. "The Secret Betrayal" by Nikolai Tolstoy, p. 19-20.

And.....

"In 1945 Zhukov is reported to have said to US General Dwight D. Eisenhower, "If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there." The shear weight of numbers eventually drove the Germans back, along with the Soviet leadership's determination not to relent, whatever the cost."

Website no longer available | Heroes and killers of the 20th century

Website no longer available | Heroes and killers of the 20th century

www.moreorless.net.au

Tom Clancy has a hero combat soldier exclaim his opinion about the thugs who ran the Soviet Union, the communists:

"Misha waved his hand, looking in annoyance at the way it shook. "I have never had much respect for the chekisti. When I was leading my men, they were there-behind us. They were very efficient at shooting prisoners-prisoners that real soldiers had taken. They were also rather good at murdering people who'd been forced to retreat. I even remember one case where a chekist lieutenant took command of a tank troop and led it into a fucking swamp. At least the Germans I killed were men, fighting men. I hated them, but I could respect them for the soldiers they were. Your kind, on the other hand… perhaps we simple soldiers never really understood who the enemy was. Sometimes I wonder who has killed more Russians, the Germans-or people like you?" “The Cardinal of the Kremlin,”p. 383



So those ‘great loses’ were not at the hands of the Germans, they were by their own leaders. Someone should have told Roosevelt.

Oh…wait….they did!

Love is blind.

Most of what You write is well researched and I like reading it,
but this is just a bunch disgraceful rubbish.

Yes the Russians were shooting their own not to retreat,
but the Russians, common Soviet folk fought HEROICALLY!

It's beyond disrespectful to present the cause of their death like that,
no better than the vulgar leftist one-sided propaganda.

Thank you for your words! I knew some people from russia\SU they told me " if you want to know little bit more about Soviet Union people bravery look at the Siege of Leningrad". Really,do you think civil people were not surrender to the nazis for 2 years and 4 months only because they fear to be shot by Stalin? And yes Soviets did shot their own, but as far as I know, they did this only in case of soldiers leaving field of battle without an order.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ike's forces were held outside of Berlin while the Russian hoard was allowed to loot the city and rape the women. Who made that decision, Marshall or FDR? Mobs of Russians overran Hitler's bunker and today we still don't have a definitive forensic profile on his death. FDR used to share private jokes with (uncle Joe) Stalin at Churchill's expense. Was the aging, dying president a victim of bad advice or was he a closet socialist?

I like your post a great deal, shows, succinctly, an understanding of FDR vis-a-vis Stalin.


"Who made that decision, "


The same one who decided that allied troops should attack Europe via Normandy, rather than straight up through Italy....where they were already conquerors.

Stalin insisted on Normandy, as far from Eastern Europe as possible, so the Red Army would be ready to take over half of Europe....exactly as Roosevelt agreed.


Stalin was also the driving force behind for the demand of 'unconditional surrender' rather than negotiated surrender for Germany.....as a cost of thousands more American lives.


FDR obey all of Stalin's orders....

...most....maybe not in North Africa.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ike's forces were held outside of Berlin while the Russian hoard was allowed to loot the city and rape the women. Who made that decision, Marshall or FDR? Mobs of Russians overran Hitler's bunker and today we still don't have a definitive forensic profile on his death. FDR used to share private jokes with (uncle Joe) Stalin at Churchill's expense. Was the aging, dying president a victim of bad advice or was he a closet socialist?

My vote is socialist. He loved Uncle Joe. The American progressives always did. They lauded Stalin as a hero for murdering millions of farmers during the collectivisation of the farms. Progressives are universally scum.

I hope you get to see "Mr. Jones" on Netflix.

 

[Correll]

in the scale of wwii, a similar nuking of Germany would have been completely acceptable to any reasonable person.
and yes, that would be far preferable to eastern europe not living under communism for 45 years, not to mention avoiding the terrible cost of the Cold War.

I can’t believe what a callous killer you are. You would rather nuke millions of people rather than have them live under communism for 45 years.

Hirohito saw the devastation of the bomb and quickly agreed to surrender. What makes you think Hitler would do the same?

Hitler already made it clear he was willing to fight to the last man to save his Nazi regime. He allowed the Soviets and US to slaughter German citizens even though it was obvious he had lost the war.

What makes you think a nuclear attack would have changed his mind?

change his mind or vaporize it, either way, the war would have ended, and western europe and eastern europe would have been liberated, like you said could not happen without stalin.

so, you're wrong.


your whining about the deaths is stupid, as the death toll in stopping the nazis would be, quite likely less, in that scenario, and certainly not more.

General Patton knew what the Bolsheviks were, and voiced his opinion loudly......that's why Stalin's BFF, Roosevelt, had him benched.


Patton saw the inevitability of a conflict with the Russians.

"It is a conflict that Patton believes will be fought soon. The Russians are moving to forcibly spread communism throughout the world, and Patton knows it. "They are a scurvy race and simply savages," he writes of the Russians in his journal. "We could beat the hell out of them."
"Patton," By Martin Blumenson, Kevin M. Hymel, p. 84


Can you imagine the chagrin in the Soviet-occupied Roosevelt administration???



The Red Army is relentless in its quest to control as much of Europe as possible, with Stalin taking full advantage of Dwight Eisenhower's timidity.The Russians are seizing more land, and more people are coming under their occupation.



Patton is incensed. "You cannot lay down with a diseased jackal," he recently insisted to a group of journalists."Neither can we ever do business with the Russians."


When Undersecretary of War Robert Patterson visited the Third Army, Patton openly lobbied for at least 30 percent of all American troops to remain in Europe, "Keeping our forces intact. Let's keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to these people.

This is the only language they understand and respect. If you fail to do this, then I would like to say to you that we have had a victory over the Germans but have lost the war."




Even Patton's nemesis, British field marshal Montgomery, agrees: when accepting the surrender of German soldiers, he ordered his troops to stack the Wehrmacht rifles in such a way that they could easily be redistributed should the Germans and British need to defend themselves against a Russian advance."




Yet the Harvard-educated undersecretary Patterson thinks Patton is delusional. He advises Eisenhower, army chief of staff Gen. George C. Marshall, and President Harry Truman continue to view the Russians benevolently.



In time, of course, Patton's predictions will come true, and the world will have to live with the consequences of American gullibility
"Killing Patton," O'Reilly and Dugard, p. 259-260


Of course, Marshall, Hopkins, et al openly wanted the Soviets to control Europe....and said so.

the US was not going to beat Russia--not even close

The American public never would have tolerated the carnage involved in beating the Soviets

We could have done it, but it never would have been worth it

if the public had not been lied to about what the soviets were or who stalin was, they could have been prepared for the possibility of it.

and with that leverage, stalin could have been pushed back into his own pre-war borders.


THAT would have been an accomplishment by fdr, worthy of the praise you heap on him.

The public understood what dead soldiers were and that this was not a war on our own territory or a war for our survival.

After 400,000 deaths, they would not have tolerated a million deaths in an ideological fight against communism.

You were not going to push the Soviets back from territory they lost 20 million people for without a savage fight.

The US public would not have stood for it.

if fdr was the leader that you claim he was, there would not have been 400k american deaths and the public would have been prepared for the possibility that defeating nazi german and japan was not the end, not with stalinist russia still in field.

 

[Correll]

Stalin was a POS.

Yes he was
But he managed to defeat the Nazis

ha, back to just repeated unsupported assertions of your original position?


accepted as an admission that you have utterly failed to support your conclusion and have given up.

How do you explain Stalingrad, Leningrad, Moscow, Kursk and countless other slaughters that defeated the Nazis?

same way i did before, and you failed to address then, so, why are you pretending to not remember? it was only earlier today.

You claim Stalin did not defeat the Germans......I provided examples. Battles far more destructive than the ones the US fought in.

yes, we covered all that before. when you pretended we did not and started over, that was you admitting that you lost the argument and now have nothing but the logical fallacy of proof by assertion to use to distract from that defeat.

 

[Correll]

in the scale of wwii, a similar nuking of Germany would have been completely acceptable to any reasonable person.
and yes, that would be far preferable to eastern europe not living under communism for 45 years, not to mention avoiding the terrible cost of the Cold War.

I can’t believe what a callous killer you are. You would rather nuke millions of people rather than have them live under communism for 45 years.

Hirohito saw the devastation of the bomb and quickly agreed to surrender. What makes you think Hitler would do the same?

Hitler already made it clear he was willing to fight to the last man to save his Nazi regime. He allowed the Soviets and US to slaughter German citizens even though it was obvious he had lost the war.

What makes you think a nuclear attack would have changed his mind?

change his mind or vaporize it, either way, the war would have ended, and western europe and eastern europe would have been liberated, like you said could not happen without stalin.

so, you're wrong.


your whining about the deaths is stupid, as the death toll in stopping the nazis would be, quite likely less, in that scenario, and certainly not more.

I really can’t believe you.

Scorched earth is your solution to everything. You take “Better Dead than Red” to a new level

You would rather kill people than to allow them to live in communism.

Why don’t you ask them?

Ummmm, because communism kills waaaaay the fuck more people than any other political system.

That's why. Far better to never let it get a foothold in this country. I am more than willing to fight against the commies trying to destroy this republic.

Show where post war USSR killed the tens of millions that nuclear war would have killed

I don't have to. The reports they issued tell us that. Did the Soviets bleed the Germans? Yup. Did we need the Soviets to bleed them? Nope. It's nice that they did, but it wasn't necessary. You also forget that it was the industrial might of the USA that kept them in the fight.

1. they didn't need the industrial might of the US--Russia was too big to conquer
2. most of the fighting was done on the Ost Front--without it, the Western Front would've had a lot more dead--a lot more time getting the Germany

The US provided them with millions of tons of food and munitions, thousands of aircraft and tanks, and we gave them 600,000 trucks. We mobilized their entire army.

You are factually wrong in all cases.

you don't know what you are talking about
.....the Germans were not going to beat Russia--with or without US industrial help

so, why help them then?

 

[PoliticalChic]

in the scale of wwii, a similar nuking of Germany would have been completely acceptable to any reasonable person.
and yes, that would be far preferable to eastern europe not living under communism for 45 years, not to mention avoiding the terrible cost of the Cold War.

I can’t believe what a callous killer you are. You would rather nuke millions of people rather than have them live under communism for 45 years.

Hirohito saw the devastation of the bomb and quickly agreed to surrender. What makes you think Hitler would do the same?

Hitler already made it clear he was willing to fight to the last man to save his Nazi regime. He allowed the Soviets and US to slaughter German citizens even though it was obvious he had lost the war.

What makes you think a nuclear attack would have changed his mind?

change his mind or vaporize it, either way, the war would have ended, and western europe and eastern europe would have been liberated, like you said could not happen without stalin.

so, you're wrong.


your whining about the deaths is stupid, as the death toll in stopping the nazis would be, quite likely less, in that scenario, and certainly not more.

General Patton knew what the Bolsheviks were, and voiced his opinion loudly......that's why Stalin's BFF, Roosevelt, had him benched.


Patton saw the inevitability of a conflict with the Russians.

"It is a conflict that Patton believes will be fought soon. The Russians are moving to forcibly spread communism throughout the world, and Patton knows it. "They are a scurvy race and simply savages," he writes of the Russians in his journal. "We could beat the hell out of them."
"Patton," By Martin Blumenson, Kevin M. Hymel, p. 84


Can you imagine the chagrin in the Soviet-occupied Roosevelt administration???



The Red Army is relentless in its quest to control as much of Europe as possible, with Stalin taking full advantage of Dwight Eisenhower's timidity.The Russians are seizing more land, and more people are coming under their occupation.



Patton is incensed. "You cannot lay down with a diseased jackal," he recently insisted to a group of journalists."Neither can we ever do business with the Russians."


When Undersecretary of War Robert Patterson visited the Third Army, Patton openly lobbied for at least 30 percent of all American troops to remain in Europe, "Keeping our forces intact. Let's keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to these people.

This is the only language they understand and respect. If you fail to do this, then I would like to say to you that we have had a victory over the Germans but have lost the war."




Even Patton's nemesis, British field marshal Montgomery, agrees: when accepting the surrender of German soldiers, he ordered his troops to stack the Wehrmacht rifles in such a way that they could easily be redistributed should the Germans and British need to defend themselves against a Russian advance."




Yet the Harvard-educated undersecretary Patterson thinks Patton is delusional. He advises Eisenhower, army chief of staff Gen. George C. Marshall, and President Harry Truman continue to view the Russians benevolently.



In time, of course, Patton's predictions will come true, and the world will have to live with the consequences of American gullibility
"Killing Patton," O'Reilly and Dugard, p. 259-260


Of course, Marshall, Hopkins, et al openly wanted the Soviets to control Europe....and said so.

the US was not going to beat Russia--not even close

The American public never would have tolerated the carnage involved in beating the Soviets

We could have done it, but it never would have been worth it

if the public had not been lied to about what the soviets were or who stalin was, they could have been prepared for the possibility of it.

and with that leverage, stalin could have been pushed back into his own pre-war borders.


THAT would have been an accomplishment by fdr, worthy of the praise you heap on him.

The public understood what dead soldiers were and that this was not a war on our own territory or a war for our survival.

After 400,000 deaths, they would not have tolerated a million deaths in an ideological fight against communism.

You were not going to push the Soviets back from territory they lost 20 million people for without a savage fight.

The US public would not have stood for it.

if fdr was the leader that you claim he was, there would not have been 400k american deaths and the public would have been prepared for the possibility that defeating nazi german and japan was not the end, not with stalinist russia still in field.

And this:

Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:" 'There is no doubt whatsoever that it would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'
Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"

 

[PoliticalChic]

The war propaganda in support of the Marxists has never abated, and has led America to a precipice. Now, the truth.


1.An interesting and significant month, August.

August 20–25, 1944
Allied troops reach Paris. On August 25, Free French forces, supported by Allied troops, enter the French capital. By September, the Allies reach the German border; by December, virtually all of France, most of Belgium, and part of the southern Netherlands are liberated. World War II: Timeline.

Did you see any mention of Soviet troops there?


2. Government school propaganda provides two beliefs about the Soviets in WWII.

a. That they deserve gratitude and honor for their valiant efforts and great loses in the war

b. U.S. war propaganda had painted pipesmoking "Uncle Joe Stalin" as a friendly fellow, and the liberal propaganda left people to thinking of Communist Party members as lovable idealists.

Really???

There is no honor or credit due to the Soviet Union because they lost 20 million in the war. The glorification of the role that the Soviets played in WWII is unfounded, and almost entirely due to the neo-Marxist influence in our society due to Democrats/Liberals/Progressives doing public relations for them, as they share the same values and aims.

First: most of the Soviet loses were their troops killed by Stalin’s own forces. One reason they lost 20 million, while we lost 415,000 was due to the value that America placed on human life, and the lack of same interest by Bolsheviks: they don’t care about human life, a characteristic absorbed and propounded by the current Democrat Party.



3. "Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin"
Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin

And.....

World War II left over 27 million Soviet citizens dead....but only a fraction of them were killed by the Germans. Yet throughout the West. 'war crimes' is a phrase only attacked to the Nazis. When the Red Army marched, an NKVD army marched behind, with its own tanks, machine guns, firing forward....never allowing retreat. More than a million Soviet citizens joined the Nazis. Ask yourself this: why was it that the USSR, of all the Allies, had provided the enemy with thousands of recruits? Nearly one million Russian and other anti-Soviet men joined the enemy of their Soviet Army. "The Secret Betrayal" by Nikolai Tolstoy, p. 19-20.

And.....

"In 1945 Zhukov is reported to have said to US General Dwight D. Eisenhower, "If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there." The shear weight of numbers eventually drove the Germans back, along with the Soviet leadership's determination not to relent, whatever the cost."

Website no longer available | Heroes and killers of the 20th century

Website no longer available | Heroes and killers of the 20th century

www.moreorless.net.au

Tom Clancy has a hero combat soldier exclaim his opinion about the thugs who ran the Soviet Union, the communists:

"Misha waved his hand, looking in annoyance at the way it shook. "I have never had much respect for the chekisti. When I was leading my men, they were there-behind us. They were very efficient at shooting prisoners-prisoners that real soldiers had taken. They were also rather good at murdering people who'd been forced to retreat. I even remember one case where a chekist lieutenant took command of a tank troop and led it into a fucking swamp. At least the Germans I killed were men, fighting men. I hated them, but I could respect them for the soldiers they were. Your kind, on the other hand… perhaps we simple soldiers never really understood who the enemy was. Sometimes I wonder who has killed more Russians, the Germans-or people like you?" “The Cardinal of the Kremlin,”p. 383



So those ‘great loses’ were not at the hands of the Germans, they were by their own leaders. Someone should have told Roosevelt.

Oh…wait….they did!

Love is blind.

Most of what You write is well researched and I like reading it,
but this is just a bunch disgraceful rubbish.

Yes the Russians were shooting their own not to retreat,
but the Russians, common Soviet folk fought HEROICALLY!

It's beyond disrespectful to present the cause of their death like that,
no better than the vulgar leftist one-sided propaganda.

Thank you for your words! I knew some people from russia\SU they told me " if you want to know little bit more about Soviet Union people bravery look at the Siege of Leningrad". Really,do you think civil people were not surrender to the nazis for 2 years and 4 months only because they fear to be shot by Stalin? And yes Soviets did shot their own, but as far as I know, they did this only in case of soldiers leaving field of battle without an order.

The Russian people know what savages their Bolshevik leaders were:

Russians would do anything not to return to Roosevelt's pal's 'paradise.'

The 850,000 strong army of Gen. Andrei Andreyevich Vlasov, having gone to the other side, Germany, "to save their country from Stalin" and having later surrendered to US forces, "formed the core of those forcebly repatritated between 1944 and 1947."
"Operation Keelhaul; The Story of Forced Repatriation from 1944 to the Present.by Julius Epstein p.27, 53.



Gen. Deniken, former commanding general of the White Russian armies which were supported by the USA in 1917-1920, explained that none of these men served in the Nazi army out of love for Germany..."they hated the Germans" he wrote....rather, they knew what awaited them in the 'Soviet paradise.'



More than a million Soviet citizens joined the Nazis. Ask yourself this: why was it that the USSR, of all the Allies, had provided the enemy with thousands of recruits? Nearly one million Russian and other anti-Soviet men joined the enemy of their Soviet Army. "The Secret Betrayal"byNikolai Tolstoy, p. 19-20.

How badly did these individuals not want to go to Stalin's USSR?

From the NYTimes, January 20, 1946:
"Ten renegade Russian soldiers, in a frenzy of terror over their impending repatriation to the homeland, committed suicide today during a riot in the Dachau prison camp...."


Those Russians who hated the communists understood more than do Democrat voters in America.
With their control of the schools and the media, many Americans don’t realize what the Democrat Party is, what it has become. And may not until it is too late.

 

[harmonica]

in the scale of wwii, a similar nuking of Germany would have been completely acceptable to any reasonable person.
and yes, that would be far preferable to eastern europe not living under communism for 45 years, not to mention avoiding the terrible cost of the Cold War.

I can’t believe what a callous killer you are. You would rather nuke millions of people rather than have them live under communism for 45 years.

Hirohito saw the devastation of the bomb and quickly agreed to surrender. What makes you think Hitler would do the same?

Hitler already made it clear he was willing to fight to the last man to save his Nazi regime. He allowed the Soviets and US to slaughter German citizens even though it was obvious he had lost the war.

What makes you think a nuclear attack would have changed his mind?

change his mind or vaporize it, either way, the war would have ended, and western europe and eastern europe would have been liberated, like you said could not happen without stalin.

so, you're wrong.


your whining about the deaths is stupid, as the death toll in stopping the nazis would be, quite likely less, in that scenario, and certainly not more.

General Patton knew what the Bolsheviks were, and voiced his opinion loudly......that's why Stalin's BFF, Roosevelt, had him benched.


Patton saw the inevitability of a conflict with the Russians.

"It is a conflict that Patton believes will be fought soon. The Russians are moving to forcibly spread communism throughout the world, and Patton knows it. "They are a scurvy race and simply savages," he writes of the Russians in his journal. "We could beat the hell out of them."
"Patton," By Martin Blumenson, Kevin M. Hymel, p. 84


Can you imagine the chagrin in the Soviet-occupied Roosevelt administration???



The Red Army is relentless in its quest to control as much of Europe as possible, with Stalin taking full advantage of Dwight Eisenhower's timidity.The Russians are seizing more land, and more people are coming under their occupation.



Patton is incensed. "You cannot lay down with a diseased jackal," he recently insisted to a group of journalists."Neither can we ever do business with the Russians."


When Undersecretary of War Robert Patterson visited the Third Army, Patton openly lobbied for at least 30 percent of all American troops to remain in Europe, "Keeping our forces intact. Let's keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to these people.

This is the only language they understand and respect. If you fail to do this, then I would like to say to you that we have had a victory over the Germans but have lost the war."




Even Patton's nemesis, British field marshal Montgomery, agrees: when accepting the surrender of German soldiers, he ordered his troops to stack the Wehrmacht rifles in such a way that they could easily be redistributed should the Germans and British need to defend themselves against a Russian advance."




Yet the Harvard-educated undersecretary Patterson thinks Patton is delusional. He advises Eisenhower, army chief of staff Gen. George C. Marshall, and President Harry Truman continue to view the Russians benevolently.



In time, of course, Patton's predictions will come true, and the world will have to live with the consequences of American gullibility
"Killing Patton," O'Reilly and Dugard, p. 259-260


Of course, Marshall, Hopkins, et al openly wanted the Soviets to control Europe....and said so.

the US was not going to beat Russia--not even close

The American public never would have tolerated the carnage involved in beating the Soviets

We could have done it, but it never would have been worth it

if the public had not been lied to about what the soviets were or who stalin was, they could have been prepared for the possibility of it.

and with that leverage, stalin could have been pushed back into his own pre-war borders.


THAT would have been an accomplishment by fdr, worthy of the praise you heap on him.

The public understood what dead soldiers were and that this was not a war on our own territory or a war for our survival.

After 400,000 deaths, they would not have tolerated a million deaths in an ideological fight against communism.

You were not going to push the Soviets back from territory they lost 20 million people for without a savage fight.

The US public would not have stood for it.

if fdr was the leader that you claim he was, there would not have been 400k american deaths and the public would have been prepared for the possibility that defeating nazi german and japan was not the end, not with stalinist russia still in field.

And this:

Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:" 'There is no doubt whatsoever that it would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'
Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"

but Germany declared war on US,--and they were in a pact with Japan....
..and they did fight themselves to ''a frazzle''

 

[harmonica]

in the scale of wwii, a similar nuking of Germany would have been completely acceptable to any reasonable person.
and yes, that would be far preferable to eastern europe not living under communism for 45 years, not to mention avoiding the terrible cost of the Cold War.

I can’t believe what a callous killer you are. You would rather nuke millions of people rather than have them live under communism for 45 years.

Hirohito saw the devastation of the bomb and quickly agreed to surrender. What makes you think Hitler would do the same?

Hitler already made it clear he was willing to fight to the last man to save his Nazi regime. He allowed the Soviets and US to slaughter German citizens even though it was obvious he had lost the war.

What makes you think a nuclear attack would have changed his mind?

change his mind or vaporize it, either way, the war would have ended, and western europe and eastern europe would have been liberated, like you said could not happen without stalin.

so, you're wrong.


your whining about the deaths is stupid, as the death toll in stopping the nazis would be, quite likely less, in that scenario, and certainly not more.

I really can’t believe you.

Scorched earth is your solution to everything. You take “Better Dead than Red” to a new level

You would rather kill people than to allow them to live in communism.

Why don’t you ask them?

Ummmm, because communism kills waaaaay the fuck more people than any other political system.

That's why. Far better to never let it get a foothold in this country. I am more than willing to fight against the commies trying to destroy this republic.

Show where post war USSR killed the tens of millions that nuclear war would have killed

I don't have to. The reports they issued tell us that. Did the Soviets bleed the Germans? Yup. Did we need the Soviets to bleed them? Nope. It's nice that they did, but it wasn't necessary. You also forget that it was the industrial might of the USA that kept them in the fight.

1. they didn't need the industrial might of the US--Russia was too big to conquer
2. most of the fighting was done on the Ost Front--without it, the Western Front would've had a lot more dead--a lot more time getting the Germany

The US provided them with millions of tons of food and munitions, thousands of aircraft and tanks, and we gave them 600,000 trucks. We mobilized their entire army.

You are factually wrong in all cases.

you don't know what you are talking about
.....the Germans were not going to beat Russia--with or without US industrial help

so, why help them then?

see post # 313
..like I said, you people are thinking unrealistically/board games/etc

 

[harmonica]

in the scale of wwii, a similar nuking of Germany would have been completely acceptable to any reasonable person.
and yes, that would be far preferable to eastern europe not living under communism for 45 years, not to mention avoiding the terrible cost of the Cold War.

I can’t believe what a callous killer you are. You would rather nuke millions of people rather than have them live under communism for 45 years.

Hirohito saw the devastation of the bomb and quickly agreed to surrender. What makes you think Hitler would do the same?

Hitler already made it clear he was willing to fight to the last man to save his Nazi regime. He allowed the Soviets and US to slaughter German citizens even though it was obvious he had lost the war.

What makes you think a nuclear attack would have changed his mind?

change his mind or vaporize it, either way, the war would have ended, and western europe and eastern europe would have been liberated, like you said could not happen without stalin.

so, you're wrong.


your whining about the deaths is stupid, as the death toll in stopping the nazis would be, quite likely less, in that scenario, and certainly not more.

General Patton knew what the Bolsheviks were, and voiced his opinion loudly......that's why Stalin's BFF, Roosevelt, had him benched.


Patton saw the inevitability of a conflict with the Russians.

"It is a conflict that Patton believes will be fought soon. The Russians are moving to forcibly spread communism throughout the world, and Patton knows it. "They are a scurvy race and simply savages," he writes of the Russians in his journal. "We could beat the hell out of them."
"Patton," By Martin Blumenson, Kevin M. Hymel, p. 84


Can you imagine the chagrin in the Soviet-occupied Roosevelt administration???



The Red Army is relentless in its quest to control as much of Europe as possible, with Stalin taking full advantage of Dwight Eisenhower's timidity.The Russians are seizing more land, and more people are coming under their occupation.



Patton is incensed. "You cannot lay down with a diseased jackal," he recently insisted to a group of journalists."Neither can we ever do business with the Russians."


When Undersecretary of War Robert Patterson visited the Third Army, Patton openly lobbied for at least 30 percent of all American troops to remain in Europe, "Keeping our forces intact. Let's keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to these people.

This is the only language they understand and respect. If you fail to do this, then I would like to say to you that we have had a victory over the Germans but have lost the war."




Even Patton's nemesis, British field marshal Montgomery, agrees: when accepting the surrender of German soldiers, he ordered his troops to stack the Wehrmacht rifles in such a way that they could easily be redistributed should the Germans and British need to defend themselves against a Russian advance."




Yet the Harvard-educated undersecretary Patterson thinks Patton is delusional. He advises Eisenhower, army chief of staff Gen. George C. Marshall, and President Harry Truman continue to view the Russians benevolently.



In time, of course, Patton's predictions will come true, and the world will have to live with the consequences of American gullibility
"Killing Patton," O'Reilly and Dugard, p. 259-260


Of course, Marshall, Hopkins, et al openly wanted the Soviets to control Europe....and said so.

the US was not going to beat Russia--not even close

The American public never would have tolerated the carnage involved in beating the Soviets

We could have done it, but it never would have been worth it

if the public had not been lied to about what the soviets were or who stalin was, they could have been prepared for the possibility of it.

and with that leverage, stalin could have been pushed back into his own pre-war borders.


THAT would have been an accomplishment by fdr, worthy of the praise you heap on him.

The public understood what dead soldiers were and that this was not a war on our own territory or a war for our survival.

After 400,000 deaths, they would not have tolerated a million deaths in an ideological fight against communism.

You were not going to push the Soviets back from territory they lost 20 million people for without a savage fight.

The US public would not have stood for it.

if fdr was the leader that you claim he was, there would not have been 400k american deaths and the public would have been prepared for the possibility that defeating nazi german and japan was not the end, not with stalinist russia still in field.

MORE fairytale/unrealistic thinking---
prepare for MORE war??? with our ALLY!!!!!?????!!!!!!
MORE wasted US deaths???????!!!!!!?= idiocy

 

[harmonica]

in the scale of wwii, a similar nuking of Germany would have been completely acceptable to any reasonable person.
and yes, that would be far preferable to eastern europe not living under communism for 45 years, not to mention avoiding the terrible cost of the Cold War.

I can’t believe what a callous killer you are. You would rather nuke millions of people rather than have them live under communism for 45 years.

Hirohito saw the devastation of the bomb and quickly agreed to surrender. What makes you think Hitler would do the same?

Hitler already made it clear he was willing to fight to the last man to save his Nazi regime. He allowed the Soviets and US to slaughter German citizens even though it was obvious he had lost the war.

What makes you think a nuclear attack would have changed his mind?

change his mind or vaporize it, either way, the war would have ended, and western europe and eastern europe would have been liberated, like you said could not happen without stalin.

so, you're wrong.


your whining about the deaths is stupid, as the death toll in stopping the nazis would be, quite likely less, in that scenario, and certainly not more.

General Patton knew what the Bolsheviks were, and voiced his opinion loudly......that's why Stalin's BFF, Roosevelt, had him benched.


Patton saw the inevitability of a conflict with the Russians.

"It is a conflict that Patton believes will be fought soon. The Russians are moving to forcibly spread communism throughout the world, and Patton knows it. "They are a scurvy race and simply savages," he writes of the Russians in his journal. "We could beat the hell out of them."
"Patton," By Martin Blumenson, Kevin M. Hymel, p. 84


Can you imagine the chagrin in the Soviet-occupied Roosevelt administration???



The Red Army is relentless in its quest to control as much of Europe as possible, with Stalin taking full advantage of Dwight Eisenhower's timidity.The Russians are seizing more land, and more people are coming under their occupation.



Patton is incensed. "You cannot lay down with a diseased jackal," he recently insisted to a group of journalists."Neither can we ever do business with the Russians."


When Undersecretary of War Robert Patterson visited the Third Army, Patton openly lobbied for at least 30 percent of all American troops to remain in Europe, "Keeping our forces intact. Let's keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to these people.

This is the only language they understand and respect. If you fail to do this, then I would like to say to you that we have had a victory over the Germans but have lost the war."




Even Patton's nemesis, British field marshal Montgomery, agrees: when accepting the surrender of German soldiers, he ordered his troops to stack the Wehrmacht rifles in such a way that they could easily be redistributed should the Germans and British need to defend themselves against a Russian advance."




Yet the Harvard-educated undersecretary Patterson thinks Patton is delusional. He advises Eisenhower, army chief of staff Gen. George C. Marshall, and President Harry Truman continue to view the Russians benevolently.



In time, of course, Patton's predictions will come true, and the world will have to live with the consequences of American gullibility
"Killing Patton," O'Reilly and Dugard, p. 259-260


Of course, Marshall, Hopkins, et al openly wanted the Soviets to control Europe....and said so.

the US was not going to beat Russia--not even close

The American public never would have tolerated the carnage involved in beating the Soviets

We could have done it, but it never would have been worth it

if the public had not been lied to about what the soviets were or who stalin was, they could have been prepared for the possibility of it.

and with that leverage, stalin could have been pushed back into his own pre-war borders.


THAT would have been an accomplishment by fdr, worthy of the praise you heap on him.

The public understood what dead soldiers were and that this was not a war on our own territory or a war for our survival.

After 400,000 deaths, they would not have tolerated a million deaths in an ideological fight against communism.

You were not going to push the Soviets back from territory they lost 20 million people for without a savage fight.

The US public would not have stood for it.

if fdr was the leader that you claim he was, there would not have been 400k american deaths and the public would have been prepared for the possibility that defeating nazi german and japan was not the end, not with stalinist russia still in field.

..why would we be preparing to fight our ALLY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????

 

[harmonica]

Ike's forces were held outside of Berlin while the Russian hoard was allowed to loot the city and rape the women. Who made that decision, Marshall or FDR? Mobs of Russians overran Hitler's bunker and today we still don't have a definitive forensic profile on his death. FDR used to share private jokes with (uncle Joe) Stalin at Churchill's expense. Was the aging, dying president a victim of bad advice or was he a closet socialist?

I like your post a great deal, shows, succinctly, an understanding of FDR vis-a-vis Stalin.


"Who made that decision, "


The same one who decided that allied troops should attack Europe via Normandy, rather than straight up through Italy....where they were already conquerors.

Stalin insisted on Normandy, as far from Eastern Europe as possible, so the Red Army would be ready to take over half of Europe....exactly as Roosevelt agreed.


Stalin was also the driving force behind for the demand of 'unconditional surrender' rather than negotiated surrender for Germany.....as a cost of thousands more American lives.


FDR obey all of Stalin's orders....

...most....maybe not in North Africa.

.....hahahah--if no unconditional surrender and pounding of Germany--you get the same thing that happened after WW1---and that was WW2
..if they weren't totally defeated, you get the same shit
..they start the most destructive and deadly war ever--with 6 million gassed to death, and you don't want unconditional surrender!!!!???????

 

[harmonica]

Ike's forces were held outside of Berlin while the Russian hoard was allowed to loot the city and rape the women. Who made that decision, Marshall or FDR? Mobs of Russians overran Hitler's bunker and today we still don't have a definitive forensic profile on his death. FDR used to share private jokes with (uncle Joe) Stalin at Churchill's expense. Was the aging, dying president a victim of bad advice or was he a closet socialist?

.....so what if they looted and raped?????!!!!!!! godamn---they did a LOT worse than that, before they got there
...it saved a lot of US lives

 

[harmonica]

in the scale of wwii, a similar nuking of Germany would have been completely acceptable to any reasonable person.
and yes, that would be far preferable to eastern europe not living under communism for 45 years, not to mention avoiding the terrible cost of the Cold War.

I can’t believe what a callous killer you are. You would rather nuke millions of people rather than have them live under communism for 45 years.

Hirohito saw the devastation of the bomb and quickly agreed to surrender. What makes you think Hitler would do the same?

Hitler already made it clear he was willing to fight to the last man to save his Nazi regime. He allowed the Soviets and US to slaughter German citizens even though it was obvious he had lost the war.

What makes you think a nuclear attack would have changed his mind?

change his mind or vaporize it, either way, the war would have ended, and western europe and eastern europe would have been liberated, like you said could not happen without stalin.

so, you're wrong.


your whining about the deaths is stupid, as the death toll in stopping the nazis would be, quite likely less, in that scenario, and certainly not more.

I really can’t believe you.

Scorched earth is your solution to everything. You take “Better Dead than Red” to a new level

You would rather kill people than to allow them to live in communism.

Why don’t you ask them?

Ummmm, because communism kills waaaaay the fuck more people than any other political system.

That's why. Far better to never let it get a foothold in this country. I am more than willing to fight against the commies trying to destroy this republic.

Show where post war USSR killed the tens of millions that nuclear war would have killed

I don't have to. The reports they issued tell us that. Did the Soviets bleed the Germans? Yup. Did we need the Soviets to bleed them? Nope. It's nice that they did, but it wasn't necessary. You also forget that it was the industrial might of the USA that kept them in the fight.

1. they didn't need the industrial might of the US--Russia was too big to conquer
2. most of the fighting was done on the Ost Front--without it, the Western Front would've had a lot more dead--a lot more time getting the Germany

The US provided them with millions of tons of food and munitions, thousands of aircraft and tanks, and we gave them 600,000 trucks. We mobilized their entire army.

You are factually wrong in all cases.

you don't know what you are talking about
.....the Germans were not going to beat Russia--with or without US industrial help

Had Stalin not recovered, they had a real chance. But they had to do it early, and they simply ran out of time. Had they invaded earlier, instead of attacking the Balkans, there is a 50/50 chance they could have won. That extra time before the Soviet winter came and halted them in their tracks was key.

WOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ..you fk up again
..we have these threads on WW2F
hahahahahh

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF I FIFI IFIFI IF IF IF I FI IF IF
IF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
wrong..if they did that IF that did this
1. bullshit babble
2. there is always a COUNTER to any IF scneario
3. again, you are playing board games

No, no board games. Though they might help you. No, like I said, I work with some of the best historians on the planet. You get angry when you shouldn't. This is a discussion. Either discuss the facts, and stop whining, or go away.

westy is so good, he can see emotions over the internet!!!! hahahahahahhaa
..you are just babbling = you've got nothing

 

[harmonica]

in the scale of wwii, a similar nuking of Germany would have been completely acceptable to any reasonable person.
and yes, that would be far preferable to eastern europe not living under communism for 45 years, not to mention avoiding the terrible cost of the Cold War.

I can’t believe what a callous killer you are. You would rather nuke millions of people rather than have them live under communism for 45 years.

Hirohito saw the devastation of the bomb and quickly agreed to surrender. What makes you think Hitler would do the same?

Hitler already made it clear he was willing to fight to the last man to save his Nazi regime. He allowed the Soviets and US to slaughter German citizens even though it was obvious he had lost the war.

What makes you think a nuclear attack would have changed his mind?

change his mind or vaporize it, either way, the war would have ended, and western europe and eastern europe would have been liberated, like you said could not happen without stalin.

so, you're wrong.


your whining about the deaths is stupid, as the death toll in stopping the nazis would be, quite likely less, in that scenario, and certainly not more.

General Patton knew what the Bolsheviks were, and voiced his opinion loudly......that's why Stalin's BFF, Roosevelt, had him benched.


Patton saw the inevitability of a conflict with the Russians.

"It is a conflict that Patton believes will be fought soon. The Russians are moving to forcibly spread communism throughout the world, and Patton knows it. "They are a scurvy race and simply savages," he writes of the Russians in his journal. "We could beat the hell out of them."
"Patton," By Martin Blumenson, Kevin M. Hymel, p. 84


Can you imagine the chagrin in the Soviet-occupied Roosevelt administration???



The Red Army is relentless in its quest to control as much of Europe as possible, with Stalin taking full advantage of Dwight Eisenhower's timidity.The Russians are seizing more land, and more people are coming under their occupation.



Patton is incensed. "You cannot lay down with a diseased jackal," he recently insisted to a group of journalists."Neither can we ever do business with the Russians."


When Undersecretary of War Robert Patterson visited the Third Army, Patton openly lobbied for at least 30 percent of all American troops to remain in Europe, "Keeping our forces intact. Let's keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to these people.

This is the only language they understand and respect. If you fail to do this, then I would like to say to you that we have had a victory over the Germans but have lost the war."




Even Patton's nemesis, British field marshal Montgomery, agrees: when accepting the surrender of German soldiers, he ordered his troops to stack the Wehrmacht rifles in such a way that they could easily be redistributed should the Germans and British need to defend themselves against a Russian advance."




Yet the Harvard-educated undersecretary Patterson thinks Patton is delusional. He advises Eisenhower, army chief of staff Gen. George C. Marshall, and President Harry Truman continue to view the Russians benevolently.



In time, of course, Patton's predictions will come true, and the world will have to live with the consequences of American gullibility
"Killing Patton," O'Reilly and Dugard, p. 259-260


Of course, Marshall, Hopkins, et al openly wanted the Soviets to control Europe....and said so.

the US was not going to beat Russia--not even close

The American public never would have tolerated the carnage involved in beating the Soviets

We could have done it, but it never would have been worth it

Totally false. By the time we met at the Elba the US Army was the most accomplished, best equipped, best outfitted army in the world. Bar none. But what would have won the war for us is our airpower. The Soviets had no counter to us and we would have won air supremacy over the USSR in short order. Then, just like what we did with the Germans, the Soviet armies couldn't go anywhere without having the crap bombed out of them.

We would have demolished them in short order.

hitler said the same thing--and they had the best military in 1941:
''''''So confident was he of this that he ignored such inexorable military truths as the vast distances of Russia, the early and cruel winters, the lack of paved roads for his mechanized troops.'''''

''We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down,'' Adolf Hitler told his generals.'''''

HITLER'S RUSSIAN BLUNDER (Published 1981)

www.nytimes.com