on america's history with uncle joe

[CrusaderFrank]

"The (Russian) officers with few exceptions give the appearance of recently civilized Mongolian bandits. The men pass in review with a very good imitation of the goose step. They give me the impression of something that is to be feared in future world political reorganization." -- Gen. George S Patton
------------------------------------------

Zhukov: My Dear General Patton, you see that tank, it carries a cannon that can throw a shell seven miles

Patton: Indeed? Well my dear field Marshall Zhukov let me tell you this, if any of my gunners started firing at your people before they closed to less than 700 yards, I'd have them court-martialed for cowardice.

Major Merle-Smith observed: "It was the first time I saw a Russian commander stunned into silence"

 

[rightwinger]

"The (Russian) officers with few exceptions give the appearance of recently civilized Mongolian bandits. The men pass in review with a very good imitation of the goose step. They give me the impression of something that is to be feared in future world political reorganization." -- Gen. George S Patton
------------------------------------------

Zhukov: My Dear General Patton, you see that tank, it carries a cannon that can throw a shell seven miles

Patton: Indeed? Well my dear field Marshall Zhukov let me tell you this, if any of my gunners started firing at your people before they closed to less than 700 yards, I'd have them court-martialed for cowardice.

Major Merle-Smith observed: "It was the first time I saw a Russian commander stunned into silence"

Those "Mongolian Bandits" managed to kill 100 times more Nazis than Patton ever did

Your second quote shows how ignorant Patton was on tank warfare. Having an effective firing range beyond that of your enemy is one of the reasons US tanks have such an impressie kill ratio.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"The (Russian) officers with few exceptions give the appearance of recently civilized Mongolian bandits. The men pass in review with a very good imitation of the goose step. They give me the impression of something that is to be feared in future world political reorganization." -- Gen. George S Patton
------------------------------------------

Zhukov: My Dear General Patton, you see that tank, it carries a cannon that can throw a shell seven miles

Patton: Indeed? Well my dear field Marshall Zhukov let me tell you this, if any of my gunners started firing at your people before they closed to less than 700 yards, I'd have them court-martialed for cowardice.

Major Merle-Smith observed: "It was the first time I saw a Russian commander stunned into silence"

Those "Mongolian Bandits" managed to kill 100 times more Nazis than Patton ever did

Your second quote shows how ignorant Patton was on tank warfare. Having an effective firing range beyond that of your enemy is one of the reasons US tanks have such an impressie kill ratio.

I'm certain Patton said it for the same reason I posted it, to put Communists (and the people who love them) into a choking fit.

Yeah, Patton was ignorant on tank warfare. Bet that at OTB.

 

[rightwinger]

"The (Russian) officers with few exceptions give the appearance of recently civilized Mongolian bandits. The men pass in review with a very good imitation of the goose step. They give me the impression of something that is to be feared in future world political reorganization." -- Gen. George S Patton
------------------------------------------

Zhukov: My Dear General Patton, you see that tank, it carries a cannon that can throw a shell seven miles

Patton: Indeed? Well my dear field Marshall Zhukov let me tell you this, if any of my gunners started firing at your people before they closed to less than 700 yards, I'd have them court-martialed for cowardice.

Major Merle-Smith observed: "It was the first time I saw a Russian commander stunned into silence"

Those "Mongolian Bandits" managed to kill 100 times more Nazis than Patton ever did

Your second quote shows how ignorant Patton was on tank warfare. Having an effective firing range beyond that of your enemy is one of the reasons US tanks have such an impressie kill ratio.

I'm certain Patton said it for the same reason I posted it, to put Communists (and the people who love them) into a choking fit.

Yeah, Patton was ignorant on tank warfare. Bet that at OTB.

The reason Patton had to get within 700 yards is because Shermans were little pieces of shit. Anyone knowlegeable about tank warfare knows that if I can hit you from a mile away and you have to get within a half mile to hit me, I am going to pound the shit out of you before you can get into range.
Just another stupid Patton quote....there are alot of them
Trying to imply that the Russians were cowards after what they accomplished in the war again shows what an ass Patton was

 

[Gadawg73]

Those "Mongolian Bandits" managed to kill 100 times more Nazis than Patton ever did

Your second quote shows how ignorant Patton was on tank warfare. Having an effective firing range beyond that of your enemy is one of the reasons US tanks have such an impressie kill ratio.

I'm certain Patton said it for the same reason I posted it, to put Communists (and the people who love them) into a choking fit.

Yeah, Patton was ignorant on tank warfare. Bet that at OTB.

The reason Patton had to get within 700 yards is because Shermans were little pieces of shit. Anyone knowlegeable about tank warfare knows that if I can hit you from a mile away and you have to get within a half mile to hit me, I am going to pound the shit out of you before you can get into range.
Just another stupid Patton quote....there are alot of them
Trying to imply that the Russians were cowards after what they accomplished in the war again show what an ass Patton was

right, what we are dealing with here are younguns with no knowledge of historical fact.
They get their opinions from Rush and Sean.
A true conservative knows that Joe McCarthy was a liar.
Patton would go miles off course, dispbeying direct orders, to take ground that was from some ancient battle he studied.
Putting American soldiers in the grave while doing so. Brilliant tactician and many of his views did come true. However, it is fact that his radio communications were often tapped into in the American zone when we defeated Germany. His lax security in that regard was a breach of intelligence rules.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm certain Patton said it for the same reason I posted it, to put Communists (and the people who love them) into a choking fit.

Yeah, Patton was ignorant on tank warfare. Bet that at OTB.

The reason Patton had to get within 700 yards is because Shermans were little pieces of shit. Anyone knowlegeable about tank warfare knows that if I can hit you from a mile away and you have to get within a half mile to hit me, I am going to pound the shit out of you before you can get into range.
Just another stupid Patton quote....there are alot of them
Trying to imply that the Russians were cowards after what they accomplished in the war again show what an ass Patton was

right, what we are dealing with here are younguns with no knowledge of historical fact.
They get their opinions from Rush and Sean.
A true conservative knows that Joe McCarthy was a liar.
Patton would go miles off course, dispbeying direct orders, to take ground that was from some ancient battle he studied.
Putting American soldiers in the grave while doing so. Brilliant tactician and many of his views did come true. However, it is fact that his radio communications were often tapped into in the American zone when we defeated Germany. His lax security in that regard was a breach of intelligence rules.

What you have done is prove that there are dishonest 'old-uns' who get their lack of knowledge from...what, imagination? Pop culture?

I have studied a great deal on this subject, and documented all of my points, and used said documentation to destroy your post.

You should be ashamed to continue to post such drivel as though I had never answered yours.

You represent the worst kind of liar. Glad that I exposed you.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm certain Patton said it for the same reason I posted it, to put Communists (and the people who love them) into a choking fit.

Yeah, Patton was ignorant on tank warfare. Bet that at OTB.

The reason Patton had to get within 700 yards is because Shermans were little pieces of shit. Anyone knowlegeable about tank warfare knows that if I can hit you from a mile away and you have to get within a half mile to hit me, I am going to pound the shit out of you before you can get into range.
Just another stupid Patton quote....there are alot of them
Trying to imply that the Russians were cowards after what they accomplished in the war again show what an ass Patton was

right, what we are dealing with here are younguns with no knowledge of historical fact.
They get their opinions from Rush and Sean.
A true conservative knows that Joe McCarthy was a liar.
Patton would go miles off course, dispbeying direct orders, to take ground that was from some ancient battle he studied.
Putting American soldiers in the grave while doing so. Brilliant tactician and many of his views did come true. However, it is fact that his radio communications were often tapped into in the American zone when we defeated Germany. His lax security in that regard was a breach of intelligence rules.

Another good one pulled by Patton was when his son-in-law was in a POW camp and he sent a Company of 300 men 50 miles into German held territory to try to spring him. The Company got pounded by the Germans and suffered heavy casualties

 

[Gadawg73]

The reason Patton had to get within 700 yards is because Shermans were little pieces of shit. Anyone knowlegeable about tank warfare knows that if I can hit you from a mile away and you have to get within a half mile to hit me, I am going to pound the shit out of you before you can get into range.
Just another stupid Patton quote....there are alot of them
Trying to imply that the Russians were cowards after what they accomplished in the war again show what an ass Patton was

right, what we are dealing with here are younguns with no knowledge of historical fact.
They get their opinions from Rush and Sean.
A true conservative knows that Joe McCarthy was a liar.
Patton would go miles off course, dispbeying direct orders, to take ground that was from some ancient battle he studied.
Putting American soldiers in the grave while doing so. Brilliant tactician and many of his views did come true. However, it is fact that his radio communications were often tapped into in the American zone when we defeated Germany. His lax security in that regard was a breach of intelligence rules.

What you have done is prove that there are dishonest 'old-uns' who get their lack of knowledge from...what, imagination? Pop culture?

I have studied a great deal on this subject, and documented all of my points, and used said documentation to destroy your post.

You should be ashamed to continue to post such drivel as though I had never answered yours.

You represent the worst kind of liar. Glad that I exposed you.

Sticks and stones.....oh I am so ashamed.
You believe that the fluoridation of the water system, mental health clinics and vaccination of children against disease are all communist plots because Uncle Joe tells you so.
You just exposed your self chic. You finally admit you have no evidence, never have had any evidence and will never will be able to come up with any evidence.
You stooped to name calling and anyone with any skills, experience and knowledge of civil debate knows that is the first sign of weakness and defeat.

Wham it zero on set. EP team get ready but stay away from the gatorade cooler. There may be communists there that have been vaccinated mixing tap water into the powder.

 

[editec]

Yeah well it didn't work out all that well for the Soviets, did it?

I'm not getting your point: is the sympathy for the commissars or the victims?

I'm a philosopher enough that my sympathy ultimately lies with the TRUTH.

The Soviets fought a long hard war (far longer and far harder than the USA fought in Europe).

And then FDR and Uncle Joe divided up Europe.

Note that pretty much anyplace that was Germanic (except East Germany) ended up in the Soviet sphere?

Now part of that is that the Soviets troops were already there, since it was they who fought for that land.

But the other part of it is was, I think, a kind of Anglo racism that FDR and WC accepted as the normal way things were done.

They gave what they thought of as lands in the SLAVIC sphere to the Soviets and lands of the Teutonic sphere to the West.

Let's remember, shall we, how the FROGS AND LIMIES betrayed the Czechs.

And then they betrayed all the Slavic people at Yalta, once again.

From “The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression,” which is a compilation of research edited by French scholar Stephane Courtois, totals over 100 million victims of Communist murder during the 20th Century.

I have no love of the Soviets, sport. You're preaching to choir.

“[The] relationship [between communism and Nazism] may never be fully understood. But the Russian Red Terror, in its emphasis on the elimination of entire classes of peoples, in its description of opponents as "vermin" to be exterminated, does seem like a precursor of the German concentration camps. Moreover, Nazism profited greatly not only from Lenin's and Stalin's Gulag system--Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz, solicited reports about the operations of Soviet camps--but also from Bolshevism itself, which served as both a whipping boy and, at times, a political idea that could be collaborated with. The two ideologies validated each other.
After World War II, the prestige of the Soviet Union was at its height. The country had fought on the side of the democracies, U.S. war propaganda had painted pipesmoking "Uncle Joe Stalin" as a friendly fellow. In Europe, communists made a comeback in France, Italy and Germany with the flowering of the myth that communists were merely heroic anti-fascist freedom fighters. Thus the gruesome Soviet record was suppressed.

[/quote]

Pappa Joe was a monster...as was Hitler.

The West was in bed with one monster in order to kill another.

Thank GOD that Hitler was dumb enough to think he could crush the Soviet.

Had Hilter not made that mistake, there might still be a Third Reich dominating most of Europe.

 

[rightwinger]

Pappa Joe was a monster...as was Hitler.
The West was in bed with one monster in order to kill another.
Thank GOD that Hitler was dumb enough to think he could crush the Soviet.
Had Hilter not made that mistake, there might still be a Third Reich dominating most of Europe.

How true....one of histories ultimate "What ifs?"

Hitler actually had an alliance with the Soviets and they could have easily carved up Eastern Europe and Scandinavia.

I think France, Belgium and the Netherlands would have eventually been given their "freedom" but under much different political structures than they have today.

 

[American Horse]

Considering that Russia had just lost over 10% of their population, it is understandable how paranoid they would be. Russia wanted to ensure they would never be invaded again. I doubt if they would have wavered on that point. Russia also felt that they bore the bulk of the burden against the Nazis and deserved most of the spoils.
FDR could have fought it, but it would have involved removing Russia from already occupied territory

Bullshit.

Patton for one wanted to beat the Soviets to Prague and Berlin and the Germans would have gladly helped him in that effort. But Ike was under orders from Stalin's favorite sock puppet, FDR, as to disposition of Europe; that is, Uncle Joe get a lot of the prime real estate. FDR was advised by Communist spies. Joe McCarthy told the embarrassing truth that US State was overrun with Communist spies. History bears out McCarthy.

In his journals and letter Patton calls WWII a huge strategic failure for the USA because it left "major European capitals in the hands of the descendants of Genghis Khan"

50 years later, thanks to Ronald Reagan, Eastern Europe broke the yoke of Communist oppression.

Patton was a great military leader. However, his combat losses at times were for meaningless territory at great loss. His ego put soldiers in the grave for no militaty reason at all many times.
McCarthy used the shotgun effect. Accuse EVERYONE and see what sticks. Roy Cohn was his assistant and accomplice at that along with Bobby Kennedy at times.
McCarthy could have cared less about the American doctrine of innocent until proven guilty. For every spy he may have revealed 1000 innocent people had their lives ruined.

McCarthy's "list" came from the FBI. About everyone he had on his list was proven to be Soviet Agents by Venona papers. He did not accuse for reasons of bringing them to justice, he did it to remove them from sensitive positions in government where they had great influence because of the spirit of the time; that the Soviet Union was a trusted ally. They had great affect on US govt. policy going into the “Cold War” before we were even aware of it’s beginning in approximately 43-44. In some cases it wasn't about their influence but that they had access to highly classified communications, like in a code-room for instance. He was forced to "name names" by his senate colleagues, but that was not his intention. He would've preferred to not have had to do that.

 

[editec]

There WERE Soviet spys, no doubt.

Still...there was NO EXCUSE for McCarthy.

He did nothing to insure US security.

Meanwhile, he ruiined thousands of innocent people's lives.

Where's he buried?

Some day, if I'm in the neighborhood and it's not too much trouble, I'll piss on his grave.

 

[American Horse]

<SNIP>
McCarthy called Lena Horne, Charlie Chaplin, Arthur Miller, Leonard Bernstein, Lillian Hellman and hundreds of others in film, theatre and media before his "House Un American Activities Committee" accusing them,with no evidence of course as bozos like you require no evidence, of being communists and/or communist supporters.
You may believe Charlie Chaplin and Lena Horne werecommunist spies and I will allow you to be a dumbass and believe it.
However, I will always call you out and demand proof all the while allowing you to be a dumbass.
To date you have no proof.

Are you not aware that Senator Joe McCarthy was a US Senator and not a member of any House Committee? Only US Representatives serve on House Committees. Gadawg you need to back up your assertions with accurate historical infomation, and that requires that you do some reading and not just fly with opinion, ardent though they may be.

 

[Ringel05]

Total baloney.

That is quite a buffer zone when one includes say, Cuba and Syria and Egypt.

They must have been paranoid about the dangers posed by Mars.

Obviously you missed what I wrote. Look at the second to last sentence, it covers Cuba, Syria and Egypt. Reading the whole post before making a unwise comment is, well, wise. Oh, and you might want to do some reading covering world history as relating to soviet Russia from 1918 through the 70s.
And yes, after WWII, they were paranoid about the dangers posed by Mars - The war god. At that point they were just as tired of war as everyone else.

No, I didn't miss same.

"Reading the whole post before making a unwise comment is, well, wise."
That would be AN unwise comment, as is yours.

I considered the sentence to be that of an apologist for the inhuman, imperialist, totalitarian philosophy that is responsible for some hundrend million murders.
Nowhere do I find you taking those adverbs into consideration in your presentation, and felt the need to balance on the other side.

"Oh, and you might want to do some reading covering" the various command and control 'isms' up to and including Islamofascism.


BTW, Bugs is my fav.

Yes, you missed the entire point and decided to make up your own interpretation, how nice. Have you ever tried reading something at face value instead of playing Freudian, partisan politics with the post contents? I was addressing the historically documented record not chasing the apologetics line. Stalin makes Hitler look like a choir boy in comparison but it doesn't change the completely documented reality of what Uncle Joe was after at the end of WWII as a direct result of Germany's invasion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There WERE Soviet spys, no doubt.

Still...there was NO EXCUSE for McCarthy.

He did nothing to insure US security.

Meanwhile, he ruiined thousands of innocent people's lives.

Where's he buried?

Some day, if I'm in the neighborhood and it's not too much trouble, I'll piss on his grave.

You post indcates a total lack of understanding of the nature of the service that Senator McCarty performed for this country...and a willingness to accept the left wing propaganda that has permeated the culture for a half century.

"Meanwhile, he ruiined thousands of innocent people's lives."
Really? How many can you name.
Clearly you didn't read my post exposing this nonsense.
Since no one has been able to corroborate this falsity, you might want to reconsider same.

I have seen your posts, and recognize that you have a literate background. Venona Papers, 'Denial,' a bunch of books on McCarthy and the period in question come to mind.
I have listed at least a half dozen books in my posts in this thread that I recommend...


Unlike the fool who argued against McCarthy, I'm betting that you would be interested in the truth.
I hope you find the time to correct your understanding of the period; it will shed a great deal of light on current matters, as well.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Obviously you missed what I wrote. Look at the second to last sentence, it covers Cuba, Syria and Egypt. Reading the whole post before making a unwise comment is, well, wise. Oh, and you might want to do some reading covering world history as relating to soviet Russia from 1918 through the 70s.
And yes, after WWII, they were paranoid about the dangers posed by Mars - The war god. At that point they were just as tired of war as everyone else.

No, I didn't miss same.

"Reading the whole post before making a unwise comment is, well, wise."
That would be AN unwise comment, as is yours.

I considered the sentence to be that of an apologist for the inhuman, imperialist, totalitarian philosophy that is responsible for some hundrend million murders.
Nowhere do I find you taking those adverbs into consideration in your presentation, and felt the need to balance on the other side.

"Oh, and you might want to do some reading covering" the various command and control 'isms' up to and including Islamofascism.


BTW, Bugs is my fav.

Yes, you missed the entire point and decided to make up your own interpretation, how nice. Have you ever tried reading something at face value instead of playing Freudian, partisan politics with the post contents? I was addressing the historically documented record not chasing the apologetics line. Stalin makes Hitler look like a choir boy in comparison but it doesn't change the completely documented reality of what Uncle Joe was after at the end of WWII as a direct result of Germany's invasion.

Wow... got a bit of spirit there! I love it.

Perhaps you are correct, and I missed the substance of your point. If so, it may be because you didn't articulate it fully.

So, let's see what I find in our two sets of posts.
1. "...instead of playing Freudian, partisan politics with the post contents..."
First, politics is partisan in nature, or else it is merely an echo chamber.
Second, one cannot understand the essential difference between the totalitarian thinking that fuels Soviet actions vis-a-vis United States, without the psychological underpining.

Let me help you here.

The Constitution commemorates our revolution, and, as Madison states in the ‘Federalist,’ is the greatest of all reflections on human nature…human beings are not angels.”
Humans are not perfectible, but are capable of self government. The republican form of government presupposes this idea of humans. Our government is not a controlling government, but must itself be controlled: by the Constitution.

Communist Revolution is based on the idea of transforming human nature. “The New Soviet man or New Soviet person (Russian: &#1085;&#1086;&#1074;&#1099;&#1081; &#1089;&#1086;&#1074;&#1077;&#1090;&#1089;&#1082;&#1080;&#1081; &#1095;&#1077;&#1083;&#1086;&#1074;&#1077;&#1082, as postulated by the ideologists of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, was an archetype of a person with certain qualities that were said to be emerging as dominant among all citizens of the Soviet Union, irrespective of the country's long-standing cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity, creating a single Soviet people, Soviet nation.
Leon Trotsky wrote in his Literature and Revolution :
"The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens, will once again enter the stage of radical reconstruction and become in his own hands the object of the most complex methods of artificial selection and psychophysical training... Man will make it his goal...to create a higher sociobiological type, a superman, if you will"
New Soviet man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If one believes this, above, they one may be moved to impose, to use force...
So much for your criticism of my 'Freudian...' interpretation.

2. "Stalin makes Hitler look like a choir boy " and "...doesn't change the completely documented reality of what Uncle Joe was after at the end of WWII as a direct result of Germany's invasion."
What, exactly, was 'uncle joe' after the war? Was he now a choir boy? What changes are you supposing?
Don't you see that the two parts of the same sentence are syncretic?

I say that Stalin remained Stalin: the same man who starved millions to death, who gladly shook hands with Hitler, slaughtered the Poles in the Katyin Forest, and would have happily divvied up the world with uncle adolph,...and not as any buffer. As booty, human plunder.
I suggest you review your understanding of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.


3. He certainly had no 'paranoid fear' of the west: he ran rings around FDR, and thoroughly infiltrated the government.
Truman's VP, Wallace, was another Stalin stooge...
Fear? Be serious.

So, to summarize:
a) I feel you have not shown a full understanding of Soviet malevolence.
b) My claim that your post was as an 'apologist..' perhaps unwitting...still stands
c) The above refers to your historical accuracy, not to you personally.
d) Knowledge of historical events must be combined with a fuller knowledge that includes psychological motivations in order to understand the reality that each side sees.
It is a mistake to assume that each side is using language with exactly the same shades of meaning as the other...without understanding the subjective, or consealed motivations.

I had a lot of fun...I hope we do this again.

 

[Ringel05]

No, I didn't miss same.

"Reading the whole post before making a unwise comment is, well, wise."
That would be AN unwise comment, as is yours.

I considered the sentence to be that of an apologist for the inhuman, imperialist, totalitarian philosophy that is responsible for some hundrend million murders.
Nowhere do I find you taking those adverbs into consideration in your presentation, and felt the need to balance on the other side.

"Oh, and you might want to do some reading covering" the various command and control 'isms' up to and including Islamofascism.


BTW, Bugs is my fav.

Yes, you missed the entire point and decided to make up your own interpretation, how nice. Have you ever tried reading something at face value instead of playing Freudian, partisan politics with the post contents? I was addressing the historically documented record not chasing the apologetics line. Stalin makes Hitler look like a choir boy in comparison but it doesn't change the completely documented reality of what Uncle Joe was after at the end of WWII as a direct result of Germany's invasion.

Wow... got a bit of spirit there! I love it.

Perhaps you are correct, and I missed the substance of your point. If so, it may be because you didn't articulate it fully.

So, let's see what I find in our two sets of posts.
1. "...instead of playing Freudian, partisan politics with the post contents..."
First, politics is partisan in nature, or else it is merely an echo chamber.
Second, one cannot understand the essential difference between the totalitarian thinking that fuels Soviet actions vis-a-vis United States, without the psychological underpining.

Let me help you here.

The Constitution commemorates our revolution, and, as Madison states in the ‘Federalist,’ is the greatest of all reflections on human nature…human beings are not angels.”
Humans are not perfectible, but are capable of self government. The republican form of government presupposes this idea of humans. Our government is not a controlling government, but must itself be controlled: by the Constitution.

Communist Revolution is based on the idea of transforming human nature. “The New Soviet man or New Soviet person (Russian: &#1085;&#1086;&#1074;&#1099;&#1081; &#1089;&#1086;&#1074;&#1077;&#1090;&#1089;&#1082;&#1080;&#1081; &#1095;&#1077;&#1083;&#1086;&#1074;&#1077;&#1082, as postulated by the ideologists of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, was an archetype of a person with certain qualities that were said to be emerging as dominant among all citizens of the Soviet Union, irrespective of the country's long-standing cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity, creating a single Soviet people, Soviet nation.
Leon Trotsky wrote in his Literature and Revolution :
"The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens, will once again enter the stage of radical reconstruction and become in his own hands the object of the most complex methods of artificial selection and psychophysical training... Man will make it his goal...to create a higher sociobiological type, a superman, if you will"
New Soviet man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If one believes this, above, they one may be moved to impose, to use force...
So much for your criticism of my 'Freudian...' interpretation.

2. "Stalin makes Hitler look like a choir boy " and "...doesn't change the completely documented reality of what Uncle Joe was after at the end of WWII as a direct result of Germany's invasion."
What, exactly, was 'uncle joe' after the war? Was he now a choir boy? What changes are you supposing?
Don't you see that the two parts of the same sentence are syncretic?

I say that Stalin remained Stalin: the same man who starved millions to death, who gladly shook hands with Hitler, slaughtered the Poles in the Katyin Forest, and would have happily divvied up the world with uncle adolph,...and not as any buffer. As booty, human plunder.
I suggest you review your understanding of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.


3. He certainly had no 'paranoid fear' of the west: he ran rings around FDR, and thoroughly infiltrated the government.
Truman's VP, Wallace, was another Stalin stooge...
Fear? Be serious.

So, to summarize:
a) I feel you have not shown a full understanding of Soviet malevolence.
b) My claim that your post was as an 'apologist..' perhaps unwitting...still stands
c) The above refers to your historical accuracy, not to you personally.
d) Knowledge of historical events must be combined with a fuller knowledge that includes psychological motivations in order to understand the reality that each side sees.
It is a mistake to assume that each side is using language with exactly the same shades of meaning as the other...without understanding the subjective, or consealed motivations.

I had a lot of fun...I hope we do this again.

Uuummmm.... I make a simple statement concerning historical fact and it doesn't fit your propagandized, emotive view of the subject so I'm wrong. Okay. Please feel free to psychoanalyze this post, not that you need my permission you'll do it anyway.
Oh and yes, I understand the cultural, political and international aspects as applied in context of the times. Nice try. I was clear enough for the majority, ask yourself why it wasn't for you and here's a hint, it wasn't my delivery.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes, you missed the entire point and decided to make up your own interpretation, how nice. Have you ever tried reading something at face value instead of playing Freudian, partisan politics with the post contents? I was addressing the historically documented record not chasing the apologetics line. Stalin makes Hitler look like a choir boy in comparison but it doesn't change the completely documented reality of what Uncle Joe was after at the end of WWII as a direct result of Germany's invasion.

Wow... got a bit of spirit there! I love it.

Perhaps you are correct, and I missed the substance of your point. If so, it may be because you didn't articulate it fully.

So, let's see what I find in our two sets of posts.
1. "...instead of playing Freudian, partisan politics with the post contents..."
First, politics is partisan in nature, or else it is merely an echo chamber.
Second, one cannot understand the essential difference between the totalitarian thinking that fuels Soviet actions vis-a-vis United States, without the psychological underpining.

Let me help you here.

The Constitution commemorates our revolution, and, as Madison states in the ‘Federalist,’ is the greatest of all reflections on human nature…human beings are not angels.”
Humans are not perfectible, but are capable of self government. The republican form of government presupposes this idea of humans. Our government is not a controlling government, but must itself be controlled: by the Constitution.

Communist Revolution is based on the idea of transforming human nature. “The New Soviet man or New Soviet person (Russian: &#1085;&#1086;&#1074;&#1099;&#1081; &#1089;&#1086;&#1074;&#1077;&#1090;&#1089;&#1082;&#1080;&#1081; &#1095;&#1077;&#1083;&#1086;&#1074;&#1077;&#1082, as postulated by the ideologists of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, was an archetype of a person with certain qualities that were said to be emerging as dominant among all citizens of the Soviet Union, irrespective of the country's long-standing cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity, creating a single Soviet people, Soviet nation.
Leon Trotsky wrote in his Literature and Revolution :
"The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens, will once again enter the stage of radical reconstruction and become in his own hands the object of the most complex methods of artificial selection and psychophysical training... Man will make it his goal...to create a higher sociobiological type, a superman, if you will"
New Soviet man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If one believes this, above, they one may be moved to impose, to use force...
So much for your criticism of my 'Freudian...' interpretation.

2. "Stalin makes Hitler look like a choir boy " and "...doesn't change the completely documented reality of what Uncle Joe was after at the end of WWII as a direct result of Germany's invasion."
What, exactly, was 'uncle joe' after the war? Was he now a choir boy? What changes are you supposing?
Don't you see that the two parts of the same sentence are syncretic?

I say that Stalin remained Stalin: the same man who starved millions to death, who gladly shook hands with Hitler, slaughtered the Poles in the Katyin Forest, and would have happily divvied up the world with uncle adolph,...and not as any buffer. As booty, human plunder.
I suggest you review your understanding of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.


3. He certainly had no 'paranoid fear' of the west: he ran rings around FDR, and thoroughly infiltrated the government.
Truman's VP, Wallace, was another Stalin stooge...
Fear? Be serious.

So, to summarize:
a) I feel you have not shown a full understanding of Soviet malevolence.
b) My claim that your post was as an 'apologist..' perhaps unwitting...still stands
c) The above refers to your historical accuracy, not to you personally.
d) Knowledge of historical events must be combined with a fuller knowledge that includes psychological motivations in order to understand the reality that each side sees.
It is a mistake to assume that each side is using language with exactly the same shades of meaning as the other...without understanding the subjective, or consealed motivations.

I had a lot of fun...I hope we do this again.

Uuummmm.... I make a simple statement concerning historical fact and it doesn't fit your propagandized, emotive view of the subject so I'm wrong. Okay. Please feel free to psychoanalyze this post, not that you need my permission you'll do it anyway.
Oh and yes, I understand the cultural, political and international aspects as applied in context of the times. Nice try. I was clear enough for the majority, ask yourself why it wasn't for you and here's a hint, it wasn't my delivery.

Not much of a defense, considering how precise my post was.

But, carry on.

 

[Ringel05]

Wow... got a bit of spirit there! I love it.

Perhaps you are correct, and I missed the substance of your point. If so, it may be because you didn't articulate it fully.

So, let's see what I find in our two sets of posts.
1. "...instead of playing Freudian, partisan politics with the post contents..."
First, politics is partisan in nature, or else it is merely an echo chamber.
Second, one cannot understand the essential difference between the totalitarian thinking that fuels Soviet actions vis-a-vis United States, without the psychological underpining.

Let me help you here.

The Constitution commemorates our revolution, and, as Madison states in the &#8216;Federalist,&#8217; is the greatest of all reflections on human nature&#8230;human beings are not angels.&#8221;
Humans are not perfectible, but are capable of self government. The republican form of government presupposes this idea of humans. Our government is not a controlling government, but must itself be controlled: by the Constitution.

Communist Revolution is based on the idea of transforming human nature. &#8220;The New Soviet man or New Soviet person (Russian: &#1085;&#1086;&#1074;&#1099;&#1081; &#1089;&#1086;&#1074;&#1077;&#1090;&#1089;&#1082;&#1080;&#1081; &#1095;&#1077;&#1083;&#1086;&#1074;&#1077;&#1082, as postulated by the ideologists of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, was an archetype of a person with certain qualities that were said to be emerging as dominant among all citizens of the Soviet Union, irrespective of the country's long-standing cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity, creating a single Soviet people, Soviet nation.
Leon Trotsky wrote in his Literature and Revolution :
"The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens, will once again enter the stage of radical reconstruction and become in his own hands the object of the most complex methods of artificial selection and psychophysical training... Man will make it his goal...to create a higher sociobiological type, a superman, if you will"
New Soviet man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If one believes this, above, they one may be moved to impose, to use force...
So much for your criticism of my 'Freudian...' interpretation.

2. "Stalin makes Hitler look like a choir boy " and "...doesn't change the completely documented reality of what Uncle Joe was after at the end of WWII as a direct result of Germany's invasion."
What, exactly, was 'uncle joe' after the war? Was he now a choir boy? What changes are you supposing?
Don't you see that the two parts of the same sentence are syncretic?

I say that Stalin remained Stalin: the same man who starved millions to death, who gladly shook hands with Hitler, slaughtered the Poles in the Katyin Forest, and would have happily divvied up the world with uncle adolph,...and not as any buffer. As booty, human plunder.
I suggest you review your understanding of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.


3. He certainly had no 'paranoid fear' of the west: he ran rings around FDR, and thoroughly infiltrated the government.
Truman's VP, Wallace, was another Stalin stooge...
Fear? Be serious.

So, to summarize:
a) I feel you have not shown a full understanding of Soviet malevolence.
b) My claim that your post was as an 'apologist..' perhaps unwitting...still stands
c) The above refers to your historical accuracy, not to you personally.
d) Knowledge of historical events must be combined with a fuller knowledge that includes psychological motivations in order to understand the reality that each side sees.
It is a mistake to assume that each side is using language with exactly the same shades of meaning as the other...without understanding the subjective, or consealed motivations.

I had a lot of fun...I hope we do this again.

Uuummmm.... I make a simple statement concerning historical fact and it doesn't fit your propagandized, emotive view of the subject so I'm wrong. Okay. Please feel free to psychoanalyze this post, not that you need my permission you'll do it anyway.
Oh and yes, I understand the cultural, political and international aspects as applied in context of the times. Nice try. I was clear enough for the majority, ask yourself why it wasn't for you and here's a hint, it wasn't my delivery.

Not much of a defense, considering how precise my post was.

But, carry on.

Believe what you want, duh, of course you will. The difference is I'm stating historical fact without making judgments (it's frequently my posting style in these instances). You're making judgments about me and my post utilizing construed applications of readings. Again, duh.
It's not fun dealing with a fanatic, i.e. you. In this instance you've managed to put yourself on a par with rdean. I don't argue with him either when he gets that way. Enjoy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wow.

Anyone else notice how the useful idiots act like Dracula bathing in Holy Water whenever we say anything disparaging about their Soviets?

I mean WOW!

Want to hear about the time Patton ordered 3 divisions to attack East when the Russians demanded that he turn over captured Germans equipment to them?