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.

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.

I don't believe he was 'trusting' of Hitler.

Evidence is he was using Hitler, just as he used Roosevelt.


. When Hitler began his advances on other countries, Stalin refused to join the nations talking of stopping him. Stalin was, in fact, pleased that Hitler was destroying the old order throughout Europe. "There will be no parliaments, no trade unions, no armies, no governments....then Stalin will come as the liberator...millions of people will be sitting in concentration camps, hoping someone will liberate them, then Stalin and the Red Army will come and liberate them. That was his plan." Vladimir Bukovsky.


It always was and is a world domination scheme.

The psychopath Stalin was just far smarter than either Hitler or Roosevelt.

Just look at the gains he has made in our nation.

 

[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.

..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.

It's questionable as to how much of an ally the Soviet entity actually was.

While American presence in Russia was modest and equivocal, Russian presence in wartime America was so large that they had to set up a corporate headquarters on Sixteenth Street in Washington. One of the executives in the huge staff was Victor Kravchenko, metallurgist, engineer, executive, and captain in the Red Army. And the first Soviet “defector.”
You can read his book on line.



‘Moreover, it is obvious that a penetration so complete would have been impossible if the Communists had not been able to depend on the blindness or indifference of many of the far larger number of ordinary liberals who dominated the Roosevelt Administration. As early as the late 1930s, even known Communists in government were often regarded by their colleagues as merely "liberals in a hurry." And during the war, of course, they could be excused as simply enthusiasts for America's doughty ally, "good old Joe." Small wonder, then, that liberals, after the onset of the Cold War with the Soviet Union in 1946, dreaded so profoundly the disclosure of the appalling degree of governmental penetration that they now began to suspect the Communists had achieved on their watch in the 1930s and the first half of the 1940s.’
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1375/article_detail.asp


On April 1, 1944, Victor Kravchenko left Washington for New York, where, at a press conference arranged by the NYTimes, he revealed the truth about the Soviet Union. Two years later he published “I Chose Freedom,” which played a crucial role in the formation of public opinion in the formation of the incipient Cold War.

The front-page article that began, "Accusing the Soviet Government of a 'double-faced' foreign policy with respect to its professed desire for collaboration with the United States and Great Britain and denouncing the Stalin regime for failure to grant political and civil liberties to the Russian people, Victor A. Kravchenko….” Fleming, Op.Cit.[ p. 182-183]

 

[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.

It's questionable as to how much of an ally the Soviet entity actually was.

While American presence in Russia was modest and equivocal, Russian presence in wartime America was so large that they had to set up a corporate headquarters on Sixteenth Street in Washington. One of the executives in the huge staff was Victor Kravchenko, metallurgist, engineer, executive, and captain in the Red Army. And the first Soviet “defector.”
You can read his book on line.



‘Moreover, it is obvious that a penetration so complete would have been impossible if the Communists had not been able to depend on the blindness or indifference of many of the far larger number of ordinary liberals who dominated the Roosevelt Administration. As early as the late 1930s, even known Communists in government were often regarded by their colleagues as merely "liberals in a hurry." And during the war, of course, they could be excused as simply enthusiasts for America's doughty ally, "good old Joe." Small wonder, then, that liberals, after the onset of the Cold War with the Soviet Union in 1946, dreaded so profoundly the disclosure of the appalling degree of governmental penetration that they now began to suspect the Communists had achieved on their watch in the 1930s and the first half of the 1940s.’
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1375/article_detail.asp


On April 1, 1944, Victor Kravchenko left Washington for New York, where, at a press conference arranged by the NYTimes, he revealed the truth about the Soviet Union. Two years later he published “I Chose Freedom,” which played a crucial role in the formation of public opinion in the formation of the incipient Cold War.

The front-page article that began, "Accusing the Soviet Government of a 'double-faced' foreign policy with respect to its professed desire for collaboration with the United States and Great Britain and denouncing the Stalin regime for failure to grant political and civil liberties to the Russian people, Victor A. Kravchenko….” Fleming, Op.Cit.[ p. 182-183]


View attachment 377292

yes, fdr and liberals in general, were far to friendly with the commies.

 

[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.

..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.

It's questionable as to how much of an ally the Soviet entity actually was.

While American presence in Russia was modest and equivocal, Russian presence in wartime America was so large that they had to set up a corporate headquarters on Sixteenth Street in Washington. One of the executives in the huge staff was Victor Kravchenko, metallurgist, engineer, executive, and captain in the Red Army. And the first Soviet “defector.”
You can read his book on line.



‘Moreover, it is obvious that a penetration so complete would have been impossible if the Communists had not been able to depend on the blindness or indifference of many of the far larger number of ordinary liberals who dominated the Roosevelt Administration. As early as the late 1930s, even known Communists in government were often regarded by their colleagues as merely "liberals in a hurry." And during the war, of course, they could be excused as simply enthusiasts for America's doughty ally, "good old Joe." Small wonder, then, that liberals, after the onset of the Cold War with the Soviet Union in 1946, dreaded so profoundly the disclosure of the appalling degree of governmental penetration that they now began to suspect the Communists had achieved on their watch in the 1930s and the first half of the 1940s.’
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1375/article_detail.asp


On April 1, 1944, Victor Kravchenko left Washington for New York, where, at a press conference arranged by the NYTimes, he revealed the truth about the Soviet Union. Two years later he published “I Chose Freedom,” which played a crucial role in the formation of public opinion in the formation of the incipient Cold War.

The front-page article that began, "Accusing the Soviet Government of a 'double-faced' foreign policy with respect to its professed desire for collaboration with the United States and Great Britain and denouncing the Stalin regime for failure to grant political and civil liberties to the Russian people, Victor A. Kravchenko….” Fleming, Op.Cit.[ p. 182-183]


View attachment 377292

yes, fdr and liberals in general, were far to friendly with the commies.

Servants of.

The major player in the Alger Hiss saga was fellow Communist, Whitaker Chambers. In his book, Witness, Chambers explains his disillusionment as follows. In 1938, he determined not only to break with the Communist Party, but to inform on the Party when he could. The reason was that he was informed that Stalin was making efforts to align with Hitler, in 1939, and “from any human point of view, the pact was evil.”

As Hitler marched into Poland, Chambers arranged a private meeting with Adolf Berle, President Roosevelt’s assistant Sec’y of State. Chambers detailed the Communist espionage network, naming at least two dozen Soviet spies in Roosevelt’s administration, including Alger Hiss. Berle reported this to Roosevelt, who laughed, and told Berle to go f--- himself. (Arthur Herman, Joseph McCarthy: Reexaming the Life and Legacy of America’s Most Hated Senator, p. 60)

No action was taken, and in fact, Roosevelt promoted Hiss. Almost a decade later, Chambers was called before the HUAC and named Hiss as a Soviet agent. Hiss sued Chambers, at which time Chambers presented “… four notes in Alger Hiss's handwriting, sixty-five typewritten copies of State Department documents and five strips of microfilm, some of which contained photographs of State Department documents. The press came to call these the "Pumpkin Papers"(Whittaker Chambers - Wikipedia) And, of course, all doubt was removed in 1995, when the Venona Soviet cables were decrypted.

 

[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.

It's questionable as to how much of an ally the Soviet entity actually was.

While American presence in Russia was modest and equivocal, Russian presence in wartime America was so large that they had to set up a corporate headquarters on Sixteenth Street in Washington. One of the executives in the huge staff was Victor Kravchenko, metallurgist, engineer, executive, and captain in the Red Army. And the first Soviet “defector.”
You can read his book on line.



‘Moreover, it is obvious that a penetration so complete would have been impossible if the Communists had not been able to depend on the blindness or indifference of many of the far larger number of ordinary liberals who dominated the Roosevelt Administration. As early as the late 1930s, even known Communists in government were often regarded by their colleagues as merely "liberals in a hurry." And during the war, of course, they could be excused as simply enthusiasts for America's doughty ally, "good old Joe." Small wonder, then, that liberals, after the onset of the Cold War with the Soviet Union in 1946, dreaded so profoundly the disclosure of the appalling degree of governmental penetration that they now began to suspect the Communists had achieved on their watch in the 1930s and the first half of the 1940s.’
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1375/article_detail.asp


On April 1, 1944, Victor Kravchenko left Washington for New York, where, at a press conference arranged by the NYTimes, he revealed the truth about the Soviet Union. Two years later he published “I Chose Freedom,” which played a crucial role in the formation of public opinion in the formation of the incipient Cold War.

The front-page article that began, "Accusing the Soviet Government of a 'double-faced' foreign policy with respect to its professed desire for collaboration with the United States and Great Britain and denouncing the Stalin regime for failure to grant political and civil liberties to the Russian people, Victor A. Kravchenko….” Fleming, Op.Cit.[ p. 182-183]


View attachment 377292

Russia was NOT an ally of the US in WW2?????!!!!!!

Allies and Axis: Who's Who in WWII? | The National WWII Museum Blog

Photograph of Phot Phahonyothin (far left) with Hideki Tojo (center) in Tokyo 1942) On this day in 1941, Thailand allied with Japan. Thailand was valuable for the Axis powers, as their airfields, ports, and railways would be instrumental in planned invasions of Malaya and Burma. The partnership...

www.nww2m.com

hahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[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.

more IF s and IFs and IFs.......doesn't matter if he trusted him or not ......that's just another IF scenario--which can be countered by other IFs

 

[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.

more IF s and IFs and IFs.......doesn't matter if he trusted him or not ......that's just another IF scenario--which can be countered by other IFs

if we let the marxists like rw write history, they will be teaching the kids that Stalin and FDR deserve the credit for stopping Hitler and we can learn from them.


That is what rightwinger and tommy taint want to do.

pointing out that their heroes did not do nearly as well as they pretend, is a valid exercise.


if you don't want to participate, then don't.

But, IF you are going to discuss FDR accomplishments, then you have to consider them, against what he alternatives were.

 

[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.

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.

more IF s and IFs and IFs.......doesn't matter if he trusted him or not ......that's just another IF scenario--which can be countered by other IFs

if we let the marxists like rw write history, they will be teaching the kids that Stalin and FDR deserve the credit for stopping Hitler and we can learn from them.


That is what rightwinger and tommy taint want to do.

pointing out that their heroes did not do nearly as well as they pretend, is a valid exercise.


if you don't want to participate, then don't.

But, IF you are going to discuss FDR accomplishments, then you have to consider them, against what he alternatives were.

"... IF you are going to discuss FDR accomplishments, ...."


And along those lines....


1. Roosevelt offered up the lives of everyone in Eastern Europe to his lord and master, Joseph 'Koba' Stalin



2. He made certain that Stalin's plans continued after his death: the creation of the United Nations



3. He extended the Depression by years.



4. He disposed of the Constitution



5. He imposed Mussolini's Fascist policies and called it 'the New Deal



6. He turned over command of our military actions in WWII to Stalin, and cost multiple thousands of US soldiers' deaths.



7. He made certain that communism survived the war, and thrived afterwards.



8. Without his efforts, there would be no Red China, no Korean War, and no Vietnamese War



9. ...and he is the proximate explanation for the cultural Marxism prevalent in society today.



10. He was a racist and a bigot how wanted only those ‘with the right sort of blood.’ Sounds like a Nazis, huh?

 

[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.

more IF s and IFs and IFs.......doesn't matter if he trusted him or not ......that's just another IF scenario--which can be countered by other IFs

if we let the marxists like rw write history, they will be teaching the kids that Stalin and FDR deserve the credit for stopping Hitler and we can learn from them.


That is what rightwinger and tommy taint want to do.

pointing out that their heroes did not do nearly as well as they pretend, is a valid exercise.


if you don't want to participate, then don't.

But, IF you are going to discuss FDR accomplishments, then you have to consider them, against what he alternatives were.

"... IF you are going to discuss FDR accomplishments, ...."


And along those lines....


1. Roosevelt offered up the lives of everyone in Eastern Europe to his lord and master, Joseph 'Koba' Stalin



2. He made certain that Stalin's plans continued after his death: the creation of the United Nations



3. He extended the Depression by years.



4. He disposed of the Constitution



5. He imposed Mussolini's Fascist policies and called it 'the New Deal



6. He turned over command of our military actions in WWII to Stalin, and cost multiple thousands of US soldiers' deaths.



7. He made certain that communism survived the war, and thrived afterwards.



8. Without his efforts, there would be no Red China, no Korean War, and no Vietnamese War



9. ...and he is the proximate explanation for the cultural Marxism prevalent in society today.



10. He was a racist and a bigot how wanted only those ‘with the right sort of blood.’ Sounds like a Nazis, huh?

right off the bat your # 1 is bullshit
and # 8 is bullshit----FDR is not stopping the Chinese civil war--or any other civil war....you don't know your history
NO ONE is going to stop those civil wars

 

[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.

more IF s and IFs and IFs.......doesn't matter if he trusted him or not ......that's just another IF scenario--which can be countered by other IFs

if we let the marxists like rw write history, they will be teaching the kids that Stalin and FDR deserve the credit for stopping Hitler and we can learn from them.


That is what rightwinger and tommy taint want to do.

pointing out that their heroes did not do nearly as well as they pretend, is a valid exercise.


if you don't want to participate, then don't.

But, IF you are going to discuss FDR accomplishments, then you have to consider them, against what he alternatives were.

"... IF you are going to discuss FDR accomplishments, ...."


And along those lines....


1. Roosevelt offered up the lives of everyone in Eastern Europe to his lord and master, Joseph 'Koba' Stalin



2. He made certain that Stalin's plans continued after his death: the creation of the United Nations



3. He extended the Depression by years.



4. He disposed of the Constitution



5. He imposed Mussolini's Fascist policies and called it 'the New Deal



6. He turned over command of our military actions in WWII to Stalin, and cost multiple thousands of US soldiers' deaths.



7. He made certain that communism survived the war, and thrived afterwards.



8. Without his efforts, there would be no Red China, no Korean War, and no Vietnamese War



9. ...and he is the proximate explanation for the cultural Marxism prevalent in society today.



10. He was a racist and a bigot how wanted only those ‘with the right sort of blood.’ Sounds like a Nazis, huh?

right off the bat your # 1 is bullshit
and # 8 is bullshit----FDR is not stopping the Chinese civil war--or any other civil war....you don't know your history
NO ONE is going to stop those civil wars

i have heard/read that we encouraged a ceasefire between the nationalists and the communists so they could focus on fighting the japanese.

good for the war effort.

bad for the post war world.


short term thinking vs long term thinking.

 

[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.

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.

more IF s and IFs and IFs.......doesn't matter if he trusted him or not ......that's just another IF scenario--which can be countered by other IFs

if we let the marxists like rw write history, they will be teaching the kids that Stalin and FDR deserve the credit for stopping Hitler and we can learn from them.


That is what rightwinger and tommy taint want to do.

pointing out that their heroes did not do nearly as well as they pretend, is a valid exercise.


if you don't want to participate, then don't.

But, IF you are going to discuss FDR accomplishments, then you have to consider them, against what he alternatives were.

"... IF you are going to discuss FDR accomplishments, ...."


And along those lines....


1. Roosevelt offered up the lives of everyone in Eastern Europe to his lord and master, Joseph 'Koba' Stalin



2. He made certain that Stalin's plans continued after his death: the creation of the United Nations



3. He extended the Depression by years.



4. He disposed of the Constitution



5. He imposed Mussolini's Fascist policies and called it 'the New Deal



6. He turned over command of our military actions in WWII to Stalin, and cost multiple thousands of US soldiers' deaths.



7. He made certain that communism survived the war, and thrived afterwards.



8. Without his efforts, there would be no Red China, no Korean War, and no Vietnamese War



9. ...and he is the proximate explanation for the cultural Marxism prevalent in society today.



10. He was a racist and a bigot how wanted only those ‘with the right sort of blood.’ Sounds like a Nazis, huh?

right off the bat your # 1 is bullshit
and # 8 is bullshit----FDR is not stopping the Chinese civil war--or any other civil war....you don't know your history
NO ONE is going to stop those civil wars

i have heard/read that we encouraged a ceasefire between the nationalists and the communists so they could focus on fighting the japanese.

good for the war effort.

bad for the post war world.


short term thinking vs long term thinking.

Let me clarify: the Soviet spies that Roosevelt welcomed warmly into his administration worked assiduously against Chiang, and to the benefit of Mao.



FDR's insistence on the Soviet agents who infiltrated his administration resulted in the United States sabotage of Chaing Kai-Shek and the Nationalists in China in favor of the Mao and the Communists.

From the book “Blacklisted From History,” by M. Stanton Evans: Soviet agents in the U.S. State department (and Treasury) worked actively to damage confidence of our government, in the (Nationalist) Chinese fighting in their own country, as our allies against the Japanese, and in favor of the Communist unsurgency of Mao Tse-Tung and Chou En-Lai.
While Chiang Kai-Shek was busy as our ally fighting the Japanese, White, Currie, Coe, Glasser, and Hiss were doing all they could to undermine him in favor of Mao and the communists.


a. “Another example of [Harry Dexter] White acting as an agent of influence for the Soviet Union was his obstruction of a proposed $200 million loan to Nationalist China in 1943, which he had been officially instructed to execute,[52] at a time when inflation was spiraling out of control.”
Harry Dexter White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b. [Owen] Lattimore was leaking information to the Soviets while he was an advisor to Chiang Kai-shek and that the Soviets considered Lattimore to be "working for them". Freedom of Information/Privacy Act | Federal Bureau of Investigation

c. The spies that FDR put in place continued to move Democrats in the Communist Direction. This, from a newspaper at the time:

"Mr. Truman said that the nationalists should have surrendered because they didn't have a chance to win...the opinion of American ambassador Leighton Stuart was that the failure of American aid to come at the opportune moment was the real cause of the weakness of nationalists and the disintegration of their armies....many military commanders went over to the enemy because they saw the United States withdrawing moral support from Chiang Kai-shek. Mr. Truman boldly defends what Treasury did. He doesn't mention Harry Dexter White, mentioned in congressional hearings as a communist spy, sat at Treasury with full power to say when the money promised Chiang Kai-shek would be forwarded or withheld." Toledo Blade, Toledo Blade - Google News Archive Search




I'd be happy to prove any of the items I listed in the previous post.

 

[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.

more IF s and IFs and IFs.......doesn't matter if he trusted him or not ......that's just another IF scenario--which can be countered by other IFs

if we let the marxists like rw write history, they will be teaching the kids that Stalin and FDR deserve the credit for stopping Hitler and we can learn from them.


That is what rightwinger and tommy taint want to do.

pointing out that their heroes did not do nearly as well as they pretend, is a valid exercise.


if you don't want to participate, then don't.

But, IF you are going to discuss FDR accomplishments, then you have to consider them, against what he alternatives were.

"... IF you are going to discuss FDR accomplishments, ...."


And along those lines....


1. Roosevelt offered up the lives of everyone in Eastern Europe to his lord and master, Joseph 'Koba' Stalin



2. He made certain that Stalin's plans continued after his death: the creation of the United Nations



3. He extended the Depression by years.



4. He disposed of the Constitution



5. He imposed Mussolini's Fascist policies and called it 'the New Deal



6. He turned over command of our military actions in WWII to Stalin, and cost multiple thousands of US soldiers' deaths.



7. He made certain that communism survived the war, and thrived afterwards.



8. Without his efforts, there would be no Red China, no Korean War, and no Vietnamese War



9. ...and he is the proximate explanation for the cultural Marxism prevalent in society today.



10. He was a racist and a bigot how wanted only those ‘with the right sort of blood.’ Sounds like a Nazis, huh?

right off the bat your # 1 is bullshit
and # 8 is bullshit----FDR is not stopping the Chinese civil war--or any other civil war....you don't know your history
NO ONE is going to stop those civil wars

i have heard/read that we encouraged a ceasefire between the nationalists and the communists so they could focus on fighting the japanese.

good for the war effort.

bad for the post war world.


short term thinking vs long term thinking.

1. Chic man or girl doesn't seem to want to respond--he-she is a coward in their own thread
2. FDR did NOT offer up the lives of everyone in East Europe--that's just plain bullshit
3. you are not thinking realistically -doesn't matter what we encouraged --they are going to do what they want!!

4. MOST of your posts and Chics/etc sound like we should have been concentrating on POST war --and not THE war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????????????????????????????????????
WTF??
..so enact policies and tactics/strategy NOT to defeat the Axis, but to help us out post war!! this IS what you are saying
=which we didn't have any idea what was going to really happen post war

 

[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.

more IF s and IFs and IFs.......doesn't matter if he trusted him or not ......that's just another IF scenario--which can be countered by other IFs

if we let the marxists like rw write history, they will be teaching the kids that Stalin and FDR deserve the credit for stopping Hitler and we can learn from them.


That is what rightwinger and tommy taint want to do.

pointing out that their heroes did not do nearly as well as they pretend, is a valid exercise.


if you don't want to participate, then don't.

But, IF you are going to discuss FDR accomplishments, then you have to consider them, against what he alternatives were.

"... IF you are going to discuss FDR accomplishments, ...."


And along those lines....


1. Roosevelt offered up the lives of everyone in Eastern Europe to his lord and master, Joseph 'Koba' Stalin



2. He made certain that Stalin's plans continued after his death: the creation of the United Nations



3. He extended the Depression by years.



4. He disposed of the Constitution



5. He imposed Mussolini's Fascist policies and called it 'the New Deal



6. He turned over command of our military actions in WWII to Stalin, and cost multiple thousands of US soldiers' deaths.



7. He made certain that communism survived the war, and thrived afterwards.



8. Without his efforts, there would be no Red China, no Korean War, and no Vietnamese War



9. ...and he is the proximate explanation for the cultural Marxism prevalent in society today.



10. He was a racist and a bigot how wanted only those ‘with the right sort of blood.’ Sounds like a Nazis, huh?

right off the bat your # 1 is bullshit
and # 8 is bullshit----FDR is not stopping the Chinese civil war--or any other civil war....you don't know your history
NO ONE is going to stop those civil wars

i have heard/read that we encouraged a ceasefire between the nationalists and the communists so they could focus on fighting the japanese.

good for the war effort.

bad for the post war world.


short term thinking vs long term thinking.

you MUST be joking hahahhahahahahahahahahahah
concentrate on post war and not winning WW2
..no, you are NOT joking, because that's what you've been posting before = concentrate on post war and not the war

 

[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.

more IF s and IFs and IFs.......doesn't matter if he trusted him or not ......that's just another IF scenario--which can be countered by other IFs

if we let the marxists like rw write history, they will be teaching the kids that Stalin and FDR deserve the credit for stopping Hitler and we can learn from them.


That is what rightwinger and tommy taint want to do.

pointing out that their heroes did not do nearly as well as they pretend, is a valid exercise.


if you don't want to participate, then don't.

But, IF you are going to discuss FDR accomplishments, then you have to consider them, against what he alternatives were.

"... IF you are going to discuss FDR accomplishments, ...."


And along those lines....


1. Roosevelt offered up the lives of everyone in Eastern Europe to his lord and master, Joseph 'Koba' Stalin



2. He made certain that Stalin's plans continued after his death: the creation of the United Nations



3. He extended the Depression by years.



4. He disposed of the Constitution



5. He imposed Mussolini's Fascist policies and called it 'the New Deal



6. He turned over command of our military actions in WWII to Stalin, and cost multiple thousands of US soldiers' deaths.



7. He made certain that communism survived the war, and thrived afterwards.



8. Without his efforts, there would be no Red China, no Korean War, and no Vietnamese War



9. ...and he is the proximate explanation for the cultural Marxism prevalent in society today.



10. He was a racist and a bigot how wanted only those ‘with the right sort of blood.’ Sounds like a Nazis, huh?

right off the bat your # 1 is bullshit
and # 8 is bullshit----FDR is not stopping the Chinese civil war--or any other civil war....you don't know your history
NO ONE is going to stop those civil wars

i have heard/read that we encouraged a ceasefire between the nationalists and the communists so they could focus on fighting the japanese.

good for the war effort.

bad for the post war world.


short term thinking vs long term thinking.

1. Chic man or girl doesn't seem to want to respond--he-she is a coward in their own thread
2. FDR did NOT offer up the lives of everyone in East Europe--that's just plain bullshit
3. you are not thinking realistically -doesn't matter what we encouraged --they are going to do what they want!!

4. MOST of your posts and Chics/etc sound like we should have been concentrating on POST war --and not THE war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????????????????????????????????????
WTF??
..so enact policies and tactics/strategy NOT to defeat the Axis, but to help us out post war!! this IS what you are saying
=which we didn't have any idea what was going to really happen post war

If we want to discuss the people and the polices of the time, looking at the results of the polices, but short term and longer term is fair and reasonable.


yes, getting the commies and the nationalists to not fight each other and to fight the japanes, I'm sure helped.


but it greatly benefited the commies relative to the nationalists.


THat led to the Korean War, or at least to it being a lot worse than it could have been.

 

[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.

more IF s and IFs and IFs.......doesn't matter if he trusted him or not ......that's just another IF scenario--which can be countered by other IFs

if we let the marxists like rw write history, they will be teaching the kids that Stalin and FDR deserve the credit for stopping Hitler and we can learn from them.


That is what rightwinger and tommy taint want to do.

pointing out that their heroes did not do nearly as well as they pretend, is a valid exercise.


if you don't want to participate, then don't.

But, IF you are going to discuss FDR accomplishments, then you have to consider them, against what he alternatives were.

"... IF you are going to discuss FDR accomplishments, ...."


And along those lines....


1. Roosevelt offered up the lives of everyone in Eastern Europe to his lord and master, Joseph 'Koba' Stalin



2. He made certain that Stalin's plans continued after his death: the creation of the United Nations



3. He extended the Depression by years.



4. He disposed of the Constitution



5. He imposed Mussolini's Fascist policies and called it 'the New Deal



6. He turned over command of our military actions in WWII to Stalin, and cost multiple thousands of US soldiers' deaths.



7. He made certain that communism survived the war, and thrived afterwards.



8. Without his efforts, there would be no Red China, no Korean War, and no Vietnamese War



9. ...and he is the proximate explanation for the cultural Marxism prevalent in society today.



10. He was a racist and a bigot how wanted only those ‘with the right sort of blood.’ Sounds like a Nazis, huh?

right off the bat your # 1 is bullshit
and # 8 is bullshit----FDR is not stopping the Chinese civil war--or any other civil war....you don't know your history
NO ONE is going to stop those civil wars

i have heard/read that we encouraged a ceasefire between the nationalists and the communists so they could focus on fighting the japanese.

good for the war effort.

bad for the post war world.


short term thinking vs long term thinking.

1. encourage doesn't mean it happened = you are wrong = because it did not affect post war
2. ALL groups ALL over were fighting each other during the war
Yugoslavia
Italy
France
etc

 

[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.

more IF s and IFs and IFs.......doesn't matter if he trusted him or not ......that's just another IF scenario--which can be countered by other IFs

if we let the marxists like rw write history, they will be teaching the kids that Stalin and FDR deserve the credit for stopping Hitler and we can learn from them.


That is what rightwinger and tommy taint want to do.

pointing out that their heroes did not do nearly as well as they pretend, is a valid exercise.


if you don't want to participate, then don't.

But, IF you are going to discuss FDR accomplishments, then you have to consider them, against what he alternatives were.

"... IF you are going to discuss FDR accomplishments, ...."


And along those lines....


1. Roosevelt offered up the lives of everyone in Eastern Europe to his lord and master, Joseph 'Koba' Stalin



2. He made certain that Stalin's plans continued after his death: the creation of the United Nations



3. He extended the Depression by years.



4. He disposed of the Constitution



5. He imposed Mussolini's Fascist policies and called it 'the New Deal



6. He turned over command of our military actions in WWII to Stalin, and cost multiple thousands of US soldiers' deaths.



7. He made certain that communism survived the war, and thrived afterwards.



8. Without his efforts, there would be no Red China, no Korean War, and no Vietnamese War



9. ...and he is the proximate explanation for the cultural Marxism prevalent in society today.



10. He was a racist and a bigot how wanted only those ‘with the right sort of blood.’ Sounds like a Nazis, huh?

right off the bat your # 1 is bullshit
and # 8 is bullshit----FDR is not stopping the Chinese civil war--or any other civil war....you don't know your history
NO ONE is going to stop those civil wars

i have heard/read that we encouraged a ceasefire between the nationalists and the communists so they could focus on fighting the japanese.

good for the war effort.

bad for the post war world.


short term thinking vs long term thinking.

1. encourage doesn't mean it happened = you are wrong = because it did not affect post war
2. ALL groups ALL over were fighting each other during the war
Yugoslavia
Italy
France
etc

Chinese Civil War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The alliance of CPC and KMT was in name only.[30] Unlike the KMT forces, CPC troops shunned conventional warfare and instead engaged in guerrilla warfare against the Japanese. The level of actual cooperation and coordination between the CPC and KMT during World War II was at best minimal.[30] In the midst of the Second United Front, the CPC and the KMT were still vying for territorial advantage in "Free China" (i.e., areas not occupied by the Japanese or ruled by Japanese puppet governments such as Manchukuo and the Reorganized National Government of China).[30]

The situation came to a head in late 1940 and early 1941 when clashes between Communist and KMT forces intensified. Chiang demanded in December 1940 that the CPC's New Fourth Army evacuate Anhui and Jiangsu Provinces, due to its provocation and harassment of KMT forces in this area. Under intense pressure, the New Fourth Army commanders complied. The following year they were ambushed by KMT forces during their evacuation, which led to several thousand deaths.[31] It also ended the Second United Front, which had been formed earlier to fight the Japanese.[31]

As clashes between the CPC and KMT intensified, countries such as the United States and the Soviet Union attempted to prevent a disastrous civil war. After the New Fourth Army incident, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt sent special envoy Lauchlin Currie to talk with Chiang Kai-shek and KMT party leaders to express their concern regarding the hostility between the two parties, with Currie stating that the only ones to benefit from a civil war would be the Japanese. The Soviet Union, allied more closely with the CPC, sent an imperative telegram to Mao in 1941, warning that civil war would also make the situation easier for the Japanese military. Due to the international community's efforts, there was a temporary and superficial peace. Chiang attacked the CPC in 1943 with the propaganda piece China's Destiny, which questioned the CPC's power after the war, while the CPC strongly opposed Chiang's leadership and referred to his regime as fascist in an attempt to generate a negative public image. Both leaders knew that a deadly battle had begun between themselves.[32]

In general, developments in the Second Sino-Japanese War were to the advantage of the CPC, as its guerrilla war tactics had won them popular support within the Japanese-occupied areas. However, the KMT had to defend the country against the main Japanese campaigns, since it was the legal Chinese government, and this proved costly to Chiang Kai-shek and his troops. Japan launched its last major offensive against the KMT, Operation Ichi-Go, in 1944; this resulted in the severe weakening of Chiang's forces.[33] The CPC also suffered fewer losses through its guerrilla tactics. By the end of the war, the Red Army had grown to more than 1.3 million members, with a separate militia of over 2.6 million members. About one hundred million people lived in CPC-controlled zones."

 

[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.

more IF s and IFs and IFs.......doesn't matter if he trusted him or not ......that's just another IF scenario--which can be countered by other IFs

if we let the marxists like rw write history, they will be teaching the kids that Stalin and FDR deserve the credit for stopping Hitler and we can learn from them.


That is what rightwinger and tommy taint want to do.

pointing out that their heroes did not do nearly as well as they pretend, is a valid exercise.


if you don't want to participate, then don't.

But, IF you are going to discuss FDR accomplishments, then you have to consider them, against what he alternatives were.

"... IF you are going to discuss FDR accomplishments, ...."


And along those lines....


1. Roosevelt offered up the lives of everyone in Eastern Europe to his lord and master, Joseph 'Koba' Stalin



2. He made certain that Stalin's plans continued after his death: the creation of the United Nations



3. He extended the Depression by years.



4. He disposed of the Constitution



5. He imposed Mussolini's Fascist policies and called it 'the New Deal



6. He turned over command of our military actions in WWII to Stalin, and cost multiple thousands of US soldiers' deaths.



7. He made certain that communism survived the war, and thrived afterwards.



8. Without his efforts, there would be no Red China, no Korean War, and no Vietnamese War



9. ...and he is the proximate explanation for the cultural Marxism prevalent in society today.



10. He was a racist and a bigot how wanted only those ‘with the right sort of blood.’ Sounds like a Nazis, huh?

right off the bat your # 1 is bullshit
and # 8 is bullshit----FDR is not stopping the Chinese civil war--or any other civil war....you don't know your history
NO ONE is going to stop those civil wars

i have heard/read that we encouraged a ceasefire between the nationalists and the communists so they could focus on fighting the japanese.

good for the war effort.

bad for the post war world.


short term thinking vs long term thinking.

1. Chic man or girl doesn't seem to want to respond--he-she is a coward in their own thread
2. FDR did NOT offer up the lives of everyone in East Europe--that's just plain bullshit
3. you are not thinking realistically -doesn't matter what we encouraged --they are going to do what they want!!

4. MOST of your posts and Chics/etc sound like we should have been concentrating on POST war --and not THE war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????????????????????????????????????
WTF??
..so enact policies and tactics/strategy NOT to defeat the Axis, but to help us out post war!! this IS what you are saying
=which we didn't have any idea what was going to really happen post war

If we want to discuss the people and the polices of the time, looking at the results of the polices, but short term and longer term is fair and reasonable.


yes, getting the commies and the nationalists to not fight each other and to fight the japanes, I'm sure helped.


but it greatly benefited the commies relative to the nationalists.


THat led to the Korean War, or at least to it being a lot worse than it could have been.

.....it's like politics everywhere and today!! give and take ..scratch my back, I scratch yours
PLUS FDR had advisors/Congress/Military/politicians/etc to listen to and fight with = it's called reality !!!!!!!

 

[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.

more IF s and IFs and IFs.......doesn't matter if he trusted him or not ......that's just another IF scenario--which can be countered by other IFs

if we let the marxists like rw write history, they will be teaching the kids that Stalin and FDR deserve the credit for stopping Hitler and we can learn from them.


That is what rightwinger and tommy taint want to do.

pointing out that their heroes did not do nearly as well as they pretend, is a valid exercise.


if you don't want to participate, then don't.

But, IF you are going to discuss FDR accomplishments, then you have to consider them, against what he alternatives were.

"... IF you are going to discuss FDR accomplishments, ...."


And along those lines....


1. Roosevelt offered up the lives of everyone in Eastern Europe to his lord and master, Joseph 'Koba' Stalin



2. He made certain that Stalin's plans continued after his death: the creation of the United Nations



3. He extended the Depression by years.



4. He disposed of the Constitution



5. He imposed Mussolini's Fascist policies and called it 'the New Deal



6. He turned over command of our military actions in WWII to Stalin, and cost multiple thousands of US soldiers' deaths.



7. He made certain that communism survived the war, and thrived afterwards.



8. Without his efforts, there would be no Red China, no Korean War, and no Vietnamese War



9. ...and he is the proximate explanation for the cultural Marxism prevalent in society today.



10. He was a racist and a bigot how wanted only those ‘with the right sort of blood.’ Sounds like a Nazis, huh?

right off the bat your # 1 is bullshit
and # 8 is bullshit----FDR is not stopping the Chinese civil war--or any other civil war....you don't know your history
NO ONE is going to stop those civil wars

i have heard/read that we encouraged a ceasefire between the nationalists and the communists so they could focus on fighting the japanese.

good for the war effort.

bad for the post war world.


short term thinking vs long term thinking.

1. Chic man or girl doesn't seem to want to respond--he-she is a coward in their own thread
2. FDR did NOT offer up the lives of everyone in East Europe--that's just plain bullshit
3. you are not thinking realistically -doesn't matter what we encouraged --they are going to do what they want!!

4. MOST of your posts and Chics/etc sound like we should have been concentrating on POST war --and not THE war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????????????????????????????????????
WTF??
..so enact policies and tactics/strategy NOT to defeat the Axis, but to help us out post war!! this IS what you are saying
=which we didn't have any idea what was going to really happen post war

If we want to discuss the people and the polices of the time, looking at the results of the polices, but short term and longer term is fair and reasonable.


yes, getting the commies and the nationalists to not fight each other and to fight the japanes, I'm sure helped.


but it greatly benefited the commies relative to the nationalists.


THat led to the Korean War, or at least to it being a lot worse than it could have been.

.....it's like politics everywhere and today!! give and take ..scratch my back, I scratch yours
PLUS FDR had advisors/Congress/Military/politicians/etc to listen to and fight with = it's called reality !!!!!!!

And he did the obvious and politically acceptable.

but that is not the "Great Leader" that people like rw want to paint him as.

a GREAT LEADER, could have walked and chewed gum at the same time, ie fought the war with an eye to the post war situations.

 

[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.

more IF s and IFs and IFs.......doesn't matter if he trusted him or not ......that's just another IF scenario--which can be countered by other IFs

if we let the marxists like rw write history, they will be teaching the kids that Stalin and FDR deserve the credit for stopping Hitler and we can learn from them.


That is what rightwinger and tommy taint want to do.

pointing out that their heroes did not do nearly as well as they pretend, is a valid exercise.


if you don't want to participate, then don't.

But, IF you are going to discuss FDR accomplishments, then you have to consider them, against what he alternatives were.

"... IF you are going to discuss FDR accomplishments, ...."


And along those lines....


1. Roosevelt offered up the lives of everyone in Eastern Europe to his lord and master, Joseph 'Koba' Stalin



2. He made certain that Stalin's plans continued after his death: the creation of the United Nations



3. He extended the Depression by years.



4. He disposed of the Constitution



5. He imposed Mussolini's Fascist policies and called it 'the New Deal



6. He turned over command of our military actions in WWII to Stalin, and cost multiple thousands of US soldiers' deaths.



7. He made certain that communism survived the war, and thrived afterwards.



8. Without his efforts, there would be no Red China, no Korean War, and no Vietnamese War



9. ...and he is the proximate explanation for the cultural Marxism prevalent in society today.



10. He was a racist and a bigot how wanted only those ‘with the right sort of blood.’ Sounds like a Nazis, huh?

right off the bat your # 1 is bullshit
and # 8 is bullshit----FDR is not stopping the Chinese civil war--or any other civil war....you don't know your history
NO ONE is going to stop those civil wars

i have heard/read that we encouraged a ceasefire between the nationalists and the communists so they could focus on fighting the japanese.

good for the war effort.

bad for the post war world.


short term thinking vs long term thinking.

1. Chic man or girl doesn't seem to want to respond--he-she is a coward in their own thread
2. FDR did NOT offer up the lives of everyone in East Europe--that's just plain bullshit
3. you are not thinking realistically -doesn't matter what we encouraged --they are going to do what they want!!

4. MOST of your posts and Chics/etc sound like we should have been concentrating on POST war --and not THE war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????????????????????????????????????
WTF??
..so enact policies and tactics/strategy NOT to defeat the Axis, but to help us out post war!! this IS what you are saying
=which we didn't have any idea what was going to really happen post war

If we want to discuss the people and the polices of the time, looking at the results of the polices, but short term and longer term is fair and reasonable.


yes, getting the commies and the nationalists to not fight each other and to fight the japanes, I'm sure helped.


but it greatly benefited the commies relative to the nationalists.


THat led to the Korean War, or at least to it being a lot worse than it could have been.

.....it's like politics everywhere and today!! give and take ..scratch my back, I scratch yours
PLUS FDR had advisors/Congress/Military/politicians/etc to listen to and fight with = it's called reality !!!!!!!

And he did the obvious and politically acceptable.

but that is not the "Great Leader" that people like rw want to paint him as.

a GREAT LEADER, could have walked and chewed gum at the same time, ie fought the war with an eye to the post war situations.

holy SHIT!!!!!!!!!!
....do you have any idea how IMMENSELY complicated that was????!!!
you had the Allies--France with de Gaullle --and then much complicated politics and military within just France!! --such as Admiral Darlan/the Free French vs Vichy/etc
--same with Yugoslavia ..same with Italy
....all over
AND you have much discord/arguing among his OWN generals!!! Mac vs Halsey .... and then among the Allied generals--Monty/Patton/etc
....VERY COMPLICATED to say the least -military strategy and politics --WORLD wide---not just in the US....
etc etc
...hahahhahahahahahahahahah
wooooohoooooooooo
Correl and Chic are GODS!!!! like never before!!!!!
FDR could've done it better!!!!! woooohooooooo
a WORLD wide war and politics ---he could've done it better!!!!!!!!!!

 

[rylah]

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.

Regurgitating Stalinist propaganda with a renewed Western twist,
doesn't look especially enlightened...

How does pulling to other ridiculous extreme,
disregarding the Russian warriors of WWII,
distinguish you from Stalinists?

Following your logic, Stalin and you share a common enemy - simple Russian folk,
only difference being the means of attack.