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

[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!"

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

You really don't get the meaning of Baldwin's words?

It appears that a facility with the English language is not one of your gifts.

 

[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''

You really don't get the meaning of Baldwin's words?

It appears that a facility with the English language is not one of your gifts.

great rebuttal!!! ---you didn't even have one word relating to my post
hahahhahaha
..so when Germany starts sinking our ships, we should not join in the war--just let them sink our ships........?????

 

[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!!!!???????

The only other individual I've observed constantly using this sort of thing .... ".....hahahah-- "....are mental defectives.


I guess that's redundant in your case.

so, I ask you, your NYT buddy wants to let Germany sink our ships and we do nothing.............you AGREE with that?

 

[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!!!!???????

The only other individual I've observed constantly using this sort of thing .... ".....hahahah-- "....are mental defectives.


I guess that's redundant in your case.

..I love being mentally defective--I still know more than you
hahahahhahahahaha

 

[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.

.....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!!!!???????

The only other individual I've observed constantly using this sort of thing .... ".....hahahah-- "....are mental defectives.


I guess that's redundant in your case.

so, I ask you, your NYT buddy wants to let Germany sink our ships and we do nothing.............you AGREE with that?

You left out ".....hahahah-- "



My "NYT buddy."...you moron.


Hanson Weightman Baldwin (March 22, 1903 – November 13, 1991) was the long-time military editor of The New York Times. He won a Pulitzer Prize "for his coverage of the early days of World War II". He authored or edited numerous books on military topics.

Hanson W. Baldwin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You have no clue who Baldwin was, and this ignorance appears to extend to every subject at issue.


Please get lost.

 

[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!!!!???????

The only other individual I've observed constantly using this sort of thing .... ".....hahahah-- "....are mental defectives.


I guess that's redundant in your case.

so, I ask you, your NYT buddy wants to let Germany sink our ships and we do nothing.............you AGREE with that?

You left out ".....hahahah-- "



My "NYT buddy."...you moron.


Hanson Weightman Baldwin (March 22, 1903 – November 13, 1991) was the long-time military editor of The New York Times. He won a Pulitzer Prize "for his coverage of the early days of World War II". He authored or edited numerous books on military topics.

Hanson W. Baldwin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You have no clue who Baldwin was, and this ignorance appears to extend to every subject at issue.


Please get lost.

..so, according to you and that Baldwin idiot, we DON'T help our ally---and after we don't help them, then we ATTACK our ally...............??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SMART
ahahahahhahahahahahahahahah

 

[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!!!!???????

The only other individual I've observed constantly using this sort of thing .... ".....hahahah-- "....are mental defectives.


I guess that's redundant in your case.

so, I ask you, your NYT buddy wants to let Germany sink our ships and we do nothing.............you AGREE with that?

You left out ".....hahahah-- "



My "NYT buddy."...you moron.


Hanson Weightman Baldwin (March 22, 1903 – November 13, 1991) was the long-time military editor of The New York Times. He won a Pulitzer Prize "for his coverage of the early days of World War II". He authored or edited numerous books on military topics.

Hanson W. Baldwin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You have no clue who Baldwin was, and this ignorance appears to extend to every subject at issue.


Please get lost.

..Baldwin is also an idiot---he is not thinking realistically - he's just trying to sell books

 

[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!!!!???????

The only other individual I've observed constantly using this sort of thing .... ".....hahahah-- "....are mental defectives.


I guess that's redundant in your case.

so, I ask you, your NYT buddy wants to let Germany sink our ships and we do nothing.............you AGREE with that?

You left out ".....hahahah-- "



My "NYT buddy."...you moron.


Hanson Weightman Baldwin (March 22, 1903 – November 13, 1991) was the long-time military editor of The New York Times. He won a Pulitzer Prize "for his coverage of the early days of World War II". He authored or edited numerous books on military topics.

Hanson W. Baldwin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You have no clue who Baldwin was, and this ignorance appears to extend to every subject at issue.


Please get lost.

.....answer the question or are you a coward--in your own thread!!!???
..were we to just like Germany sink our ships and do nothing??
..not go into North Africa? or Italy
Italy would still be in the war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[westwall]

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

Yeah, hitler was an idiot. The whole world knows this. The difference between us and them was we had the production to back up our words.

I have friends who were falschirmjaeger at Cassino. They were incredibly brave, and as we were eating in the square, and talking about the battle they always remarked on how much ammunition we had. They related how they had to be very careful and they could only fire their mortars when they had a good target because every time they fired a round, hundreds would come back.

That's the reality. We not only had the troops, we had the supply to back it up.

Hitler never came close.

 

[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?

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

You pointed out that size differences between germany and russia. It is not unrealistic to judge FDR, for not noticing that too.

It is not unrealistic to judge a war time President, for not giving any consideration for the post war situation.


We, (America and Soviets) had a mutual enemy. That might have made us "allies". FDR acted like it made us friends.

That was unrealistic of him.

 

[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.

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

Alliances end, and former allies can become enemies. Indeed, that is exactly what happened.

Hell, if Stalin had been less trusting of Hitler, millions of russian lives could have been saved.

 

[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.

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

Because they were only our ally because the nazis invaded them. Their national security interests and their ideological beliefs placed them in conflict with our interests, other of course than the immediate problem of nazi germany.

AND, it should read, "preparing for a possible fight, with our ally".


I'm not talking about betraying our ally, but being prepared for them to betray us.

 

[Correll]

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!!!!???????

to be fair, we did not know about the holocaust when that policy was set upon.

and it was 6 million jews. 10 million total. lots of commies and gays and poles and gypsies too.

let's not forget about them.

 

[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!!!!???????

to be fair, we did not know about the holocaust when that policy was set upon.

and it was 6 million jews. 10 million total. lots of commies and gays and poles and gypsies too.

let's not forget about them.

...yes we did know about the Jews--my uncle was at Dachau BEFORE the war was over..and there were many reports about it BEFORE that
..and there were many other atrocities KNOWN before that--especially in Russia

 

[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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????

Because they were only our ally because the nazis invaded them. Their national security interests and their ideological beliefs placed them in conflict with our interests, other of course than the immediate problem of nazi germany.

AND, it should read, "preparing for a possible fight, with our ally".


I'm not talking about betraying our ally, but being prepared for them to betray us.

so---we are going to go to war with Russia-------------------------------for WHAT exactly????!!!! why are we going to fight Russia?

 

[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

Alliances end, and former allies can become enemies. Indeed, that is exactly what happened.

Hell, if Stalin had been less trusting of Hitler, millions of russian lives could have been saved.

.....you are BABBLING now .........alliances end, former allies become enemies!!!!!!

....HEY---ANSWER the question--I've asked many times--this is the LAST time = why are we going to war with Russia???!!! wars are VERY serious--you just don't/shouldn't go to war because you don't like the other country

 

[Correll]

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!!!!???????

to be fair, we did not know about the holocaust when that policy was set upon.

and it was 6 million jews. 10 million total. lots of commies and gays and poles and gypsies too.

let's not forget about them.

...yes we did know about the Jews--my uncle was at Dachau BEFORE the war was over..and there were many reports about it BEFORE that
..and there were many other atrocities KNOWN before that--especially in Russia

The policies on lend lease, the decisions to open the "second fronts", ect, all took place before the Holocaust was understood.

that is what i meant. it is important to judge people on what they knew, not what we know now.

 

[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.

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

Because they were only our ally because the nazis invaded them. Their national security interests and their ideological beliefs placed them in conflict with our interests, other of course than the immediate problem of nazi germany.

AND, it should read, "preparing for a possible fight, with our ally".


I'm not talking about betraying our ally, but being prepared for them to betray us.

so---we are going to go to war with Russia-------------------------------for WHAT exactly????!!!! why are we going to fight Russia?

Not go to war, be prepared to go to war with russia, to prevent a rise of a continental hegemon, that would be opposed to and hostile to us and our interests.

 

[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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????

Because they were only our ally because the nazis invaded them. Their national security interests and their ideological beliefs placed them in conflict with our interests, other of course than the immediate problem of nazi germany.

AND, it should read, "preparing for a possible fight, with our ally".


I'm not talking about betraying our ally, but being prepared for them to betray us.

so---we are going to go to war with Russia-------------------------------for WHAT exactly????!!!! why are we going to fight Russia?

Not go to war, be prepared to go to war with russia, to prevent a rise of a continental hegemon, that would be opposed to and hostile to us and our interests.

....bullshit--you people are talking about Patton attacking the Russians, and how the border should've been on the other side of Poland, etc
..now you are tripping over yourself----
...so, then, Russia did not and was not opposed to and hostile to us and out interests?? --why prepare then??

..god fucking dam!!!!!!!!!!!! if we went to war with every country like that, we be at war with half the world!!!!!!!!

1. we ''''lost'' MANY countries to communism -Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, etc--no change to America--no harm to America
2. the Russians WERE in control east of the Iron Curtain---so what?? no harm to the US

3. no, that is no reason to go to war........


and --the BIG one ==== and ---so you are saying we should be prepared for war--BUT not go to war...................????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!what is that?????
.....????
prepare ---how???
--we were ALREADY ramped up militarily

gota go, but you people are tripping

 

[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.

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

Because they were only our ally because the nazis invaded them. Their national security interests and their ideological beliefs placed them in conflict with our interests, other of course than the immediate problem of nazi germany.

AND, it should read, "preparing for a possible fight, with our ally".


I'm not talking about betraying our ally, but being prepared for them to betray us.

so---we are going to go to war with Russia-------------------------------for WHAT exactly????!!!! why are we going to fight Russia?

Not go to war, be prepared to go to war with russia, to prevent a rise of a continental hegemon, that would be opposed to and hostile to us and our interests.

....bullshit--you people are talking about Patton attacking the Russians, and how the border should've been on the other side of Poland, etc
..now you are tripping over yourself----
...so, then, Russia did not and was not opposed to and hostile to us and out interests?? --why prepare then??

..god fucking dam!!!!!!!!!!!! if we went to war with every country like that, we be at war with half the world!!!!!!!!

1. we ''''lost'' MANY countries to communism -Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, etc--no change to America--no harm to America
2. the Russians WERE in control east of the Iron Curtain---so what?? no harm to the US

3. no, that is no reason to go to war........


and --the BIG one ==== and ---so you are saying we should be prepared for war--BUT not go to war...................????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!what is that?????
.....????
prepare ---how???
--we were ALREADY ramped up militarily

gota go, but you people are tripping

A lot of people, rightwinger for one example, like to hold up historical figures, such as FDR and Stalin,

as basically role models, to be looked up to, and learned from.


The idea of doing that, imo, is valid.


BUT, if we are going to do that, we need to look at what they actually did, and what lessons there are to be learned from it.

Rightwinger would have America idolize FDR and use that to support socialism, for one example.


I would have him judged as a mixed bag, with limited lessons to be learned, and certainly not a justification for socialism.


that is what this thread is about.