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

[harmonica]

Did we need the Soviets to bleed them? Nope. It's nice that they did, but it wasn't necessary

More RW revisionist history

The Soviets did 90 percent of the fighting and dying. We would not have conquered Western Europe without the Soviets tying up most of the German Armies and resources.

We fought against second tier troops and defeated them mostly because they lacked the fuel to maneuver effectively. Germany allocated most of their Divisions to fighting the Soviets.
Allowing us to invade France and the west with comparatively minimal losses.

Panzer Lehr, 12th SS, 9th SS and 10thSS were far from 2nd tier troops. Michael Wittman, the most successful tank commander in the world, was certainly not a 2nd tier soldier.

The problem you have dumbwinger, is all you know is Howard zinn revisionist bullshit while there are people here who have studied it seriously, for years.

Like me.

the Panzers were not there at DDay

All four of those divisions were within a hundred miles of the invasion beaches as were a number of other first line units. The second line units were the ones actually manning the beach fortifications. You don’t need your best troops to hold concrete emplacements that must be taken by frontal assaults from the sea.

.....hitler/etc didn't release them for some time --until it was too late--so they were worthless

 

[PoliticalChic]

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


1.An interesting and significant month, August.

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

Did you see any mention of Soviet troops there?


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

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

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

Really???

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

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



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

And.....

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

And.....

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

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

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

www.moreorless.net.au

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

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



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

Oh…wait….they did!

Love is blind.

As always, you make no sense. Keep posting propaganda for PUTIN.

Why do you Leftists keep writing what is clearly counterintuitive?

The only party we have evidence of associating with the Kremlin, is the Democrat Party.

Here's a quid pro quo by Hussein...






Try not being so stupid.

 

[Oz and the Orchestra]

Oh? You seem to forget North Africa, Sicily, and Italy. 1942 and 1943 respectively.

Good example

Could Patton and Montgomery have defeated Rommel if Rommel was fully supplied? Germany diverted his support to Russia and Yugoslavia.
Rommel didn’t lose, he ran out of gas.

Germany was overextended and had to make military trade offs
North Africa and Italy were part of that.

Rommel didn’t run out of gas, he ran out of tanks. He wasn’t short of supplies and reinforcements because of the ostfront he was short of supplies because the Italian Navy couldn’t keep the sea lanes open from Italy to Libya. He was short of reinforcements because they were all going to Kesselring to face the American and British forces from Torch. Neither Monty or Rommel had the logistic ability to defeat the other, both sides regularly outran their ability to supply their forces and had to halt offensives.

Von Rusntdedt (Battle of the Bulge) certainly did run out of fuel and the assault came to an abrupt halt. Doesn't matter how many tanks, reinforcements or logistical prowess you have or haven't got
if you ain't got no fuel.

 

[harmonica]

Did we need the Soviets to bleed them? Nope. It's nice that they did, but it wasn't necessary

More RW revisionist history

The Soviets did 90 percent of the fighting and dying. We would not have conquered Western Europe without the Soviets tying up most of the German Armies and resources.

We fought against second tier troops and defeated them mostly because they lacked the fuel to maneuver effectively. Germany allocated most of their Divisions to fighting the Soviets.
Allowing us to invade France and the west with comparatively minimal losses.

Panzer Lehr, 12th SS, 9th SS and 10thSS were far from 2nd tier troops. Michael Wittman, the most successful tank commander in the world, was certainly not a 2nd tier soldier.

The problem you have dumbwinger, is all you know is Howard zinn revisionist bullshit while there are people here who have studied it seriously, for years.

Like me.

the Panzers were not there at DDay

All four of those divisions were within a hundred miles of the invasion beaches as were a number of other first line units. The second line units were the ones actually manning the beach fortifications. You don’t need your best troops to hold concrete emplacements that must be taken by frontal assaults from the sea.

1. they didn't hold them!! not enough for reinforcement/Panzers
-a. second rate troops have to hold until reinforcements get there--and they didn't
2. the Panzers were too far away and not released in time to stop the Allies on the beach = like Rommel said = game over = Panzers worthless
3. some did not get there till weeks after DDay = worthless

 

[harmonica]

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.

As always, you make no sense. Keep posting propaganda for PUTIN.

Why do you Leftists keep writing what is clearly counterintuitive?

The only party we have evidence of associating with the Kremlin, is the Democrat Party.

Here's a quid pro quo by Hussein...






Try not being so stupid.

..you made a really goofy mistake/etc in equating politics with military
..the soldiers did not make the decisions---Stalin, etc did
..so, if you don't want to honor Stalin/etc fine--but honor the soldiers or shut up--you are pissing on their graves

 

[Oz and the Orchestra]

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.

As always, you make no sense. Keep posting propaganda for PUTIN.

Why do you Leftists keep writing what is clearly counterintuitive?

The only party we have evidence of associating with the Kremlin, is the Democrat Party.

Here's a quid pro quo by Hussein...






Try not being so stupid.

Svetlana you need to quite now.
Another of your fans 'westwall', who gives all your posts the thumbs up, has completely contradicted himself and you, by saying between 7.5 & 10. million soviet troops were killed by the Nazi's and the Holocaust definitely DID take place.

As that destroys the whole premise of your thread, Time to hang your head and troddle off.

Bye bye!

 

[westwall]

.....the US will just ''push back'' the Russians...........................?????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the Germans had MORE power than the US had and it was the Germans who got pushed back

Both the German and Red army were largely horse-drawn and lacked the mobility the fully mechanized US and largely mechanized British armies had. Neither the Red or German armies had the logistical ability to make the fast, long range advances that the Wallies made. That’s why the huge fleet of lend lease trucks were so valuable to the Red Army when it was finally able to go on the all out offensive late on the war.

Yup. We gave the Russians 600,000 trucks. In one fell swoop, they were mobilized.

 

[PoliticalChic]

.....the US will just ''push back'' the Russians...........................?????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the Germans had MORE power than the US had and it was the Germans who got pushed back

Both the German and Red army were largely horse-drawn and lacked the mobility the fully mechanized US and largely mechanized British armies had. Neither the Red or German armies had the logistical ability to make the fast, long range advances that the Wallies made. That’s why the huge fleet of lend lease trucks were so valuable to the Red Army when it was finally able to go on the all out offensive late on the war.

Yup. We gave the Russians 600,000 trucks. In one fell swoop, they were mobilized.

... a tire plant, an oil refinery, pipe-fabricating works, over a million miles of copper wire, switchboard-panels, lathes and power tools, textile machinery, woodworking, typesetting, cranes hoists, derricks, air compressors, $152 million in women's 'dress goods,' 18.4 million pounds of writing paper, cigarette cases, jeweled watches, lipstick, liquor, bathtubs, and pianos.


George Kennan wrote: "there is no adequate justification for continuing a program of lavish and almost indiscriminate aid to the Soviet Union at a time when there was increasing reason to doubt whether her purposes in Eastern Europe, aside from the defeat of Germany, would be ones which we Americans could approve and sponsor." George C. Herring, "Aid to Russia," p. xvii.

I challenge FDR apologists to explain government largesse to Soviet Russia, even superseding Allied, or even American military needs. Or American civilian needs: 217,660,666 pounds of butter shipped to the USSR during a time of strict state-side rationing. John R. Deane, "The Strange Alliance: The Story of Our Efforts at Wartime Cooperation With Russia," p.94-95.

a. "The President has directed that 'airplanes be delivered in accordance with protocol schedules by the most expeditious means.' To implement these directives, the modification, equipment and movement of Russian planes have been given first priority, even over planes for US Army Air Forces." From the diaries of Maj. George Racey Jordan, supervisory 'expediter' of Soviet Lend-Lease aid, p. 20.

 

[PoliticalChic]

August 23rd, 1939: Germany and the Soviet Union signed a nonaggression pact dividing eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence.


This was the official announcement......they were allies long before this, both having grown from the warped mind of Karl Marx.



The major player in the Alger Hiss saga was fellow Communist, Whitaker Chambers. In his book, Witness, Chambers explains is 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.

 

[Silver Cat]

Does not matter should we respect Russian sacrifices in WWII or not. The practical question is simple - are they "ready to repeat" or it is a mere bluff? Another question - are we ready to lose twenty millions of Americans to win the war against China?

 

[AZrailwhale]

Oh? You seem to forget North Africa, Sicily, and Italy. 1942 and 1943 respectively.

Good example

Could Patton and Montgomery have defeated Rommel if Rommel was fully supplied? Germany diverted his support to Russia and Yugoslavia.
Rommel didn’t lose, he ran out of gas.

Germany was overextended and had to make military trade offs
North Africa and Italy were part of that.

Rommel didn’t run out of gas, he ran out of tanks. He wasn’t short of supplies and reinforcements because of the ostfront he was short of supplies because the Italian Navy couldn’t keep the sea lanes open from Italy to Libya. He was short of reinforcements because they were all going to Kesselring to face the American and British forces from Torch. Neither Monty or Rommel had the logistic ability to defeat the other, both sides regularly outran their ability to supply their forces and had to halt offensives.

Von Rusntdedt (Battle of the Bulge) certainly did run out of fuel and the assault came to an abrupt halt. Doesn't matter how many tanks, reinforcements or logistical prowess you have or haven't got
if you ain't got no fuel.

The Germans never had the supplies for Watch on the Rhine. They were hoping to capture allied supplies and their planning expected the Americans and British to fold like the French and British did when the Germans invaded through the Ardennes in 1940. The whole operation was one of Hitler’s wild ideas expecting his enemies to behave in the manner most advantageous to Germany.

 

[Quasar44]

It was the Russian Army that defeated the far more powerful Germans
Russia won ..not USA
USA beat the Japs

 

[PoliticalChic]

It was the Russian Army that defeated the far more powerful Germans
Russia won ..not USA
USA beat the Japs

It was the Russian Army that defeated the far more powerful Germans
Russia won ..not USA
USA beat the Japs

Have you ever read a book?

FDR turned over control of United States troops and material to Stalin.

Stalin dictated where the invasion of Europe would be, using American troops, and saving this Red Army for occupation after America defeated Germany.
And Stalin demanded 'unconditional surrender' costing thousands of US lives.


And....you should find out the vast amount of material given to Stalin in Lend Lease.



Really.

 

[Quasar44]

It was the Russian Army that defeated the far more powerful Germans
Russia won ..not USA
USA beat the Japs

It was the Russian Army that defeated the far more powerful Germans
Russia won ..not USA
USA beat the Japs

Have you ever read a book?

FDR turned over control of United States troops and material to Stalin.

Stalin dictated where the invasion of Europe would be, using American troops, and saving this Red Army for occupation after America defeated Germany.
And Stalin demanded 'unconditional surrender' costing thousands of US lives.


And....you should find out the vast amount of material given to Stalin in Lend Lease.



Really.

USA turned over American troops to Stalin lol
What an ignoramus, you’re

 

[PoliticalChic]

It was the Russian Army that defeated the far more powerful Germans
Russia won ..not USA
USA beat the Japs

It was the Russian Army that defeated the far more powerful Germans
Russia won ..not USA
USA beat the Japs

Have you ever read a book?

FDR turned over control of United States troops and material to Stalin.

Stalin dictated where the invasion of Europe would be, using American troops, and saving this Red Army for occupation after America defeated Germany.
And Stalin demanded 'unconditional surrender' costing thousands of US lives.


And....you should find out the vast amount of material given to Stalin in Lend Lease.



Really.

USA turned over American troops to Stalin lol
What an ignoramus, you’re

OK, moron....here comes an education: take notes.



Stalin was adamant about it forming via the northwestern edge of the continent rather than abide by Churchill's wish, Italy.


a. Consider the analysis of NYTimes Russia expert, Edwin James:
" ALLIED FRONT IN ITALY NOT SO FAR FROM REICH; In Other Words, It Is Just as Close to Germany From Any Peninsula Point As It Is From Dnieper THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE"
By EDWIN L. JAMES
September 12, 1943
Pay Articles from September 1943 Part 4 - Site Map - The New York Times
So....why did Stalin insist on the Allies opening the front at Normandy rather than the bases already conquered in Italy?

Here's why: he wanted the Red Army to cut Europe in half , as he would be able to occupy same.

And Roosevelt agreed with him....Roosevelt wanted to give all of Eastern Europe over to this homicidal maniac who slaughtered and oppressed millions!



b.Don't believe that that was the reason for Stalin's insistence on the "second front" being as far west as possible?

"Any time or any place where German forces are engaged by the American and the British represents good luck for Stalin. That is true because Hitler's strength is taxed just as much by fighting to the south as it would be fighting to the west."
Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 266.
How can one argue with that?

Well.....only if "taxing Hitler's strength" wasn't the aim.....gaining the territory of central Europe for the Red Army was.



c. 'To withdraw from the European continent [Italy] to re-invade the European continent was simply crazy.'
Dunn, "Caught Between Roosevelt and Stalin," p.195-196
Yet, Roosevelt sided with Stalin over Churchill, and over General Mark Clark, commander of the 5th US Army, in Italy.
Why?



Still care to deny that Stalin was in charge of Roosevelt's war efforts?
...and Stalin would get his way down to the last American casualty?

In the effort to install world-wide communism, any loss to either America, or to Germany, was a gain for Stalin.

Thank you, Franklin Roosevelt

 

[yidnar]

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.

It was a tough time for people on the Eastern Front. Communists? Nazis? What a choice!

How can we judge not being in their shoes...G-d forbid.

And yes, many of those "Nazi collaborators" were simple folk caught and escaped,
only to be shot at sight, or worked to death as traitors by default.

It takes more than a brain to understand Russia,
as much as its geographical width is their width of heart, despite all that was during war.

the second amendment keeps us from being human mine sweepers for the government ....

Don't you get the feeling that, under Democrats, the Constitution is honored more in the breach than in the observance?

yes.

 

[AZrailwhale]

what do you think of a nation that only turned on their allies the nazis, when the nazis invaded their country?

The Soviets did nothing for the Western Allies. Stalin regarded the Western Allies as much enemies as he did the Nazis. Everyone involved were the class enemies of the Soviets.

Before Hitler turned on Stalin, Stalin planned to get rich selling the Germans resources while waiting for the capitalists to weaken each other for easy overthrow or capture by communists. Once Stalin was forced into the war by Hitler’s betrayal, he spent the next four years extorting money and supplies from the Western Allies while treating their active personnel and internees as prisoners.
He stole western tech, to the point of making direct copies of the three B-29s that he interned while treating their crews like prisoners instead of returning, at least, the crews to US forces. Calling the USSR an ally is really stretching things. Japan was more of a ally to Germany than the USSR was to the Western Allies.

 

[AZrailwhale]

..you can say same the same thing about Churchill/Roosevelt/Allied Generals/etc
Rapido River
Market Garden
Battle of the Bulge
Hurtgen Forest
Anzio-Rangers
etc etc
ALL mismanaged battles --idiotic strategies/etc-so the Allied generals/leaders killed their own men
..like I said, you don't know shit about WW2
...more to come

Show me one battle where Allied troops were forced to advance by “friendly” tanks and machine guns pointed at their backs.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Once again, our resident Nazi Political Chic advocates we should have let the Nazis win.

The Soviets were our enemies as much as the Germans were. So yes we should have let them fight and weaken each other and then dictated terms to the exhausted “victor”.

 

[harmonica]

The Soviets did nothing for the Western Allies. Stalin regarded the Western Allies as much enemies as he did the Nazis. Everyone involved were the class enemies of the Soviets.

Before Hitler turned on Stalin, Stalin planned to get rich selling the Germans resources while waiting for the capitalists to weaken each other for easy overthrow or capture by communists. Once Stalin was forced into the war by Hitler’s betrayal, he spent the next four years extorting money and supplies from the Western Allies while treating their active personnel and internees as prisoners.
He stole western tech, to the point of making direct copies of the three B-29s that he interned while treating their crews like prisoners instead of returning, at least, the crews to US forces. Calling the USSR an ally is really stretching things. Japan was more of a ally to Germany than the USSR was to the Western Allies.

..the Russians are the ones who gave hitler the biggest defeats/etc ......22 June 1941 was the day that determined the outcome of the war ....yes, they were our Allies