The Soviet Union & Iran: Then and Now

[Moonglow]

The US populace wanted nothing to do with another war, they wanted war to end..Even if it meant letting Stalin have what his armies fought for..

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. The foreign policy blunders and miscalculations of Franklin Roosevelt's with respect to the Soviet Union are mirrored in Barack Obama's, with respect to Iran.
And the amazing similarity of the two bear witness to Mark Twain's famous quip about history:
'Historydoesn't repeat itself, but it doesrhyme.'


A more ominous warning, from the American philosopher Santayana, also applies:
'Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'


a. The consequence of Roosevelt's failures include Red China, the Korean War, and the Cold War.
The handwriting is already on the wall from Obama's Iran treaty.

Mistakes based on a lack of understanding human nature, and of the existence of evil itself.
The Founder's used checks and balances to resist both...Roosevelt had none. cowed the Supreme Court, and disregarded the Constitution.
As a result, he changed the course of history....and not for he better.




2. The communist Soviet Union began based on Karl Marx's idea that international communism/socialism and domination of the world was the nonnegotiable goal.
Although the Russians signed agreements with Roosevelt agreeing to give up this dream, it was well known that this was simply a lie so that Roosevlet could offer this pap to the public.


3."Moreover, Roosevelt’s indulgence of Stalin has been noted and judged by too many close observers to be questioned as fact. Averell Harriman-close friend, wartime adviser, and envoy-writes: “He was determined, by establishing a close relationship with Stalin in wartime, to build confidence among the Kremlin leaders that Russia, now an acknowledged power, could trust the West.. . . Churchill had a more pragmatic attitude. . He turned pessimistic about the future earlier than Roosevelt and he foresaw greater difficulties at the end of the war.”’

So, it must be added,’ did Harriman himself.

George Kennan’s view of Roosevelt’s performance during the war is considerably harsher than Harriman’s. After commenting bitterly on the “inexcusable body of ignorance about the Russian Communist movement, about the history of its diplomacy, about what had happened in the purges, and about what had been going on in Poland and the Baltic States,” Kennan turns more directly to FDR alone:

I also have in mind FDRs evident conviction that Stalin, while perhaps a somewhat difficult customer, was only, after all, a person like any other person; that the reason we hadn’t been able to get along with him in the past was that we had never really had anyone with the proper personality and the proper qualities of sympathy and imagination to deal with him, that he had been snubbed all along by the arrogant conservatives of the Western capitals; and that if only he could be exposed to the persuasive charms of someone like FDR himself, ideological preconceptions would melt and Russia’s cooperation with the West could be easily arranged.

For these assumptions there were no grounds whatsover; and they were of a puerility that was unworthy of a statesman of FDRs stature."
http://www.mmisi.org/ma/30_02/nisbet.pdf


Get that???

Kennan was calling Roosevelt a fool!!!


The very same analysis applies to Obama.
Obama should read Santayana.

Stalin 'planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact'
Stalin was 'prepared to move more than a million Soviet troops to the German border to deter Hitler's aggression just before the Second World War'


By Nick Holdsworth in Moscow

5:16PM BST 18 Oct 2008


Papers which were kept secret for almost 70 years show that the Soviet Union proposed sending a powerful military force in an effort to entice Britain and France into an anti-Nazi alliance.

Such an agreement could have changed the course of 20th century history, preventing Hitler's pact with Stalin which gave him free rein to go to war with Germany's other neighbours.

The offer of a military force to help contain Hitler was made by a senior Soviet military delegation at a Kremlin meeting with senior British and French officers, two weeks before war broke out in 1939.

The new documents, copies of which have been seen by The Sunday Telegraph, show the vast numbers of infantry, artillery and airborne forces which Stalin's generals said could be dispatched, if Polish objections to the Red Army crossing its territory could first be overcome.

But the British and French side - briefed by their governments to talk, but not authorised to commit to binding deals - did not respond to the Soviet offer, made on August 15, 1939. Instead, Stalin turned to Germany, signing the notorious non-aggression treaty with Hitler barely a week later.

Stalin 'planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact'

Totally false.

Stalin was supplying Hitler with the resources for his Blitzkrieg...and the two attacked Poland together in 1939.


You know nothing...so you'll believe anything


I dare you to challenge me on this.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've destroyed every one of your uneducated posts....and this is your response.

Sorry, but there's no use in arguing with someone who doesn't know what she's talking about

You must be a reliable Democrat voter, huh?

No matter how many times I tell you that I'm a reliable socialist, not a liberal, fascist, nazi, muslim or whatever..you're still in denial. I guess it just doesn't fit in your black and white worldview.

And what is worse, she regurgitates this spam on a weekly basis, which means she can only handle one subject...

If you cannot find any other thread in which the thesis has been the similarities between FDR's Soviet policies and Obama's Iran policies, then you are either a fool or a liar.



Or both.

This is your FDR should have declared war on the Soviet Union in 1945 rant.

You need to sit down with a historian and a therapist to have it explained to you how insane you are.

"This is your FDR should have declared war on the Soviet Union in 1945 rant."

Can you find any post of mine where I stated that?

Or are you a liar who just lost another debate?

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. The foreign policy blunders and miscalculations of Franklin Roosevelt's with respect to the Soviet Union are mirrored in Barack Obama's, with respect to Iran.
And the amazing similarity of the two bear witness to Mark Twain's famous quip about history:
'Historydoesn't repeat itself, but it doesrhyme.'


A more ominous warning, from the American philosopher Santayana, also applies:
'Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'


a. The consequence of Roosevelt's failures include Red China, the Korean War, and the Cold War.
The handwriting is already on the wall from Obama's Iran treaty.

Mistakes based on a lack of understanding human nature, and of the existence of evil itself.
The Founder's used checks and balances to resist both...Roosevelt had none. cowed the Supreme Court, and disregarded the Constitution.
As a result, he changed the course of history....and not for he better.




2. The communist Soviet Union began based on Karl Marx's idea that international communism/socialism and domination of the world was the nonnegotiable goal.
Although the Russians signed agreements with Roosevelt agreeing to give up this dream, it was well known that this was simply a lie so that Roosevlet could offer this pap to the public.


3."Moreover, Roosevelt’s indulgence of Stalin has been noted and judged by too many close observers to be questioned as fact. Averell Harriman-close friend, wartime adviser, and envoy-writes: “He was determined, by establishing a close relationship with Stalin in wartime, to build confidence among the Kremlin leaders that Russia, now an acknowledged power, could trust the West.. . . Churchill had a more pragmatic attitude. . He turned pessimistic about the future earlier than Roosevelt and he foresaw greater difficulties at the end of the war.”’

So, it must be added,’ did Harriman himself.

George Kennan’s view of Roosevelt’s performance during the war is considerably harsher than Harriman’s. After commenting bitterly on the “inexcusable body of ignorance about the Russian Communist movement, about the history of its diplomacy, about what had happened in the purges, and about what had been going on in Poland and the Baltic States,” Kennan turns more directly to FDR alone:

I also have in mind FDRs evident conviction that Stalin, while perhaps a somewhat difficult customer, was only, after all, a person like any other person; that the reason we hadn’t been able to get along with him in the past was that we had never really had anyone with the proper personality and the proper qualities of sympathy and imagination to deal with him, that he had been snubbed all along by the arrogant conservatives of the Western capitals; and that if only he could be exposed to the persuasive charms of someone like FDR himself, ideological preconceptions would melt and Russia’s cooperation with the West could be easily arranged.

For these assumptions there were no grounds whatsover; and they were of a puerility that was unworthy of a statesman of FDRs stature."
http://www.mmisi.org/ma/30_02/nisbet.pdf


Get that???

Kennan was calling Roosevelt a fool!!!


The very same analysis applies to Obama.
Obama should read Santayana.

Stalin 'planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact'
Stalin was 'prepared to move more than a million Soviet troops to the German border to deter Hitler's aggression just before the Second World War'


By Nick Holdsworth in Moscow

5:16PM BST 18 Oct 2008


Papers which were kept secret for almost 70 years show that the Soviet Union proposed sending a powerful military force in an effort to entice Britain and France into an anti-Nazi alliance.

Such an agreement could have changed the course of 20th century history, preventing Hitler's pact with Stalin which gave him free rein to go to war with Germany's other neighbours.

The offer of a military force to help contain Hitler was made by a senior Soviet military delegation at a Kremlin meeting with senior British and French officers, two weeks before war broke out in 1939.

The new documents, copies of which have been seen by The Sunday Telegraph, show the vast numbers of infantry, artillery and airborne forces which Stalin's generals said could be dispatched, if Polish objections to the Red Army crossing its territory could first be overcome.

But the British and French side - briefed by their governments to talk, but not authorised to commit to binding deals - did not respond to the Soviet offer, made on August 15, 1939. Instead, Stalin turned to Germany, signing the notorious non-aggression treaty with Hitler barely a week later.

Stalin 'planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact'

Totally false.

Stalin was supplying Hitler with the resources for his Blitzkrieg...and the two attacked Poland together in 1939.


You know nothing...so you'll believe anything


I dare you to challenge me on this.

You need to read posts before you respond to them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The US populace wanted nothing to do with another war, they wanted war to end..Even if it meant letting Stalin have what his armies fought for..

As is the case with just about every post you send....this is not the case.

The truth is that FDR had every intention of ceding half of Europe to the tender mercies of Joseph Stalin.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I've destroyed every one of your uneducated posts....and this is your response.

Sorry, but there's no use in arguing with someone who doesn't know what she's talking about

You must be a reliable Democrat voter, huh?

No matter how many times I tell you that I'm a reliable socialist, not a liberal, fascist, nazi, muslim or whatever..you're still in denial. I guess it just doesn't fit in your black and white worldview.

And what is worse, she regurgitates this spam on a weekly basis, which means she can only handle one subject...

If you cannot find any other thread in which the thesis has been the similarities between FDR's Soviet policies and Obama's Iran policies, then you are either a fool or a liar.



Or both.

This is your FDR should have declared war on the Soviet Union in 1945 rant.

You need to sit down with a historian and a therapist to have it explained to you how insane you are.

"This is your FDR should have declared war on the Soviet Union in 1945 rant."

Can you find any post of mine where I stated that?

Or are you a liar who just lost another debate?

Yes. Back in your praise of Patton thread. Look it up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The US populace wanted nothing to do with another war, they wanted war to end..Even if it meant letting Stalin have what his armies fought for..

As is the case with just about every post you send....this is not the case.

The truth is that FDR had every intention of ceding half of Europe to the tender mercies of Joseph Stalin.

Oh, so now you admit you believe that FDR should have taken the US to war with the Soviets in 1945.

 

[Moonglow]

The US populace wanted nothing to do with another war, they wanted war to end..Even if it meant letting Stalin have what his armies fought for..

As is the case with just about every post you send....this is not the case.

The truth is that FDR had every intention of ceding half of Europe to the tender mercies of Joseph Stalin.

Hardly, as FDR could do nothing to stop it....

 

[Jantje_Smit]

Do you subscribe to the totalitarian view "the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’"
(Goldberg)


Sure you do.

I could try to explain the difference between socialism and a totalitarian, communist, police state but I guess that would be a waste of time

Therefore any claim of that you are a 'socialist' rather than a Liberal, fascist, Nazi, communist, etc., is simply a distinction without a difference.


Face the truth.

Oh, but I do

Truth is, you're a brainwashed tea puppet who cheerfully agreed to a lobotomy in order to join the collective. Wasn't a great loss anyway and letting Ann Coulter do the "thinking" instead of trying yourself saves you a lot of headaches.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sorry, but there's no use in arguing with someone who doesn't know what she's talking about
No matter how many times I tell you that I'm a reliable socialist, not a liberal, fascist, nazi, muslim or whatever..you're still in denial. I guess it just doesn't fit in your black and white worldview.

And what is worse, she regurgitates this spam on a weekly basis, which means she can only handle one subject...

If you cannot find any other thread in which the thesis has been the similarities between FDR's Soviet policies and Obama's Iran policies, then you are either a fool or a liar.



Or both.

This is your FDR should have declared war on the Soviet Union in 1945 rant.

You need to sit down with a historian and a therapist to have it explained to you how insane you are.

"This is your FDR should have declared war on the Soviet Union in 1945 rant."

Can you find any post of mine where I stated that?

Or are you a liar who just lost another debate?

Yes. Back in your praise of Patton thread. Look it up.

No...you look it up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The US populace wanted nothing to do with another war, they wanted war to end..Even if it meant letting Stalin have what his armies fought for..

As is the case with just about every post you send....this is not the case.

The truth is that FDR had every intention of ceding half of Europe to the tender mercies of Joseph Stalin.

Hardly, as FDR could do nothing to stop it....

"FDR could do nothing to stop it"

Are you nuts???

He gave everything from fighter planes to bathtubs....literally....to Stalin.

Where do you think Stalin got the jeeps he rode into Berlin with???

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you subscribe to the totalitarian view "the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’"
(Goldberg)


Sure you do.

I could try to explain the difference between socialism and a totalitarian, communist, police state but I guess that would be a waste of time

Therefore any claim of that you are a 'socialist' rather than a Liberal, fascist, Nazi, communist, etc., is simply a distinction without a difference.


Face the truth.

Oh, but I do

Truth is, you're a brainwashed tea puppet who cheerfully agreed to a lobotomy in order to join the collective. Wasn't a great loss anyway and letting Ann Coulter do the "thinking" instead of trying yourself saves you a lot of headaches.

" join the collective."

The warcry of every Liberal, socialist, communist, Nazi, fascist."

Geeeezzzz....you make this easy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The US populace wanted nothing to do with another war, they wanted war to end..Even if it meant letting Stalin have what his armies fought for..

As is the case with just about every post you send....this is not the case.

The truth is that FDR had every intention of ceding half of Europe to the tender mercies of Joseph Stalin.

Oh, so now you admit you believe that FDR should have taken the US to war with the Soviets in 1945.

Could you supply any such "admission," NYLiar?

 

[Moonglow]

Do you subscribe to the totalitarian view "the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’"
(Goldberg)


Sure you do.

I could try to explain the difference between socialism and a totalitarian, communist, police state but I guess that would be a waste of time

Therefore any claim of that you are a 'socialist' rather than a Liberal, fascist, Nazi, communist, etc., is simply a distinction without a difference.


Face the truth.

Oh, but I do

Truth is, you're a brainwashed tea puppet who cheerfully agreed to a lobotomy in order to join the collective. Wasn't a great loss anyway and letting Ann Coulter do the "thinking" instead of trying yourself saves you a lot of headaches.

" join the collective."

The warcry of every Liberal, socialist, communist, Nazi, fascist."

Geeeezzzz....you make this easy.

Yep, even you have admitted that Stalin could have defeated Hitler by himself...Yet the US was in no position to take Eastern Europe...

 

[CremeBrulee]

What does any of this have to do with President Obama and Iran?

 

[PoliticalChic]

What does any of this have to do with President Obama and Iran?

So glad you asked.

The first part of the thread was to remind all of the debilitation caused by Roosevelt....


5. Although Obama has lied about his foreign policy constantly, he gave away his desire to make Iran a nuclear power early on. Just as Franklin Roosevelt gave the communist state recognition in his first year as President- something every other President and Secretaries of State declined to do- in his first year, Barack Obama went abroad and said this:

"On June 4, 2009 in Cairo, Obama said about Iran: “In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons.”
Obama: American in name only




"It appeared to be a go-ahead for Iran—far more than any other country—to militarize and nuclearize. And it also appeared to be consent for the rest of the Middle East to do the same.

The Middle East is the most unstable region in the world, and it is getting worse [due to Obama's policies], even as you read this. It is on a path toward chaos that will spread far beyond that region.

The reality is, this downward spiral is being accelerated by America’s foreign policy—specifically, America’s extraordinary reversal of its foreign policy toward its long-time enemy, Iran."
Made in America: A Nuclear Middle East



At least the wars that Roosevelt facilitated didn't involve nuclear weapons.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The US populace wanted nothing to do with another war, they wanted war to end..Even if it meant letting Stalin have what his armies fought for..

As is the case with just about every post you send....this is not the case.

The truth is that FDR had every intention of ceding half of Europe to the tender mercies of Joseph Stalin.

Oh, so now you admit you believe that FDR should have taken the US to war with the Soviets in 1945.

Could you supply any such "admission," NYLiar?

Right after you deny it. On the record.

Afterall, how can you rag on FDR for letting the Soviets occupy much of Eastern Europe if you didn't support the only alternative which would have been to oppose them by force?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The US populace wanted nothing to do with another war, they wanted war to end..Even if it meant letting Stalin have what his armies fought for..

As is the case with just about every post you send....this is not the case.

The truth is that FDR had every intention of ceding half of Europe to the tender mercies of Joseph Stalin.

Oh, so now you admit you believe that FDR should have taken the US to war with the Soviets in 1945.

Could you supply any such "admission," NYLiar?

Right after you deny it. On the record.

Afterall, how can you rag on FDR for letting the Soviets occupy much of Eastern Europe if you didn't support the only alternative which would have been to oppose them by force?

So you made a post that you can't back up.

No surprise....after all, you are the NYLiar.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

" join the collective."

The warcry of every Liberal, socialist, communist, Nazi, fascist."

Geeeezzzz....you make this easy.

It's really a shame you 'muricans don't do irony


But just for humor, if nazis and commies are just the same why did the nazis attack their communist brothers?

 

[Camp]

Perhaps you might consider actually posting about a subject you have more knowledge than simply imbibing Liberal bumper-stickers.

Perhaps?

Eh, I thought we were assuming that FDR didn't do anything against the evil Germans.

Do you know how close Hitler came to defeating Russia? Probably not or else you wouldn't be posting this revisionist nonsense of armchair generals.

I still don't see what this has to do with Obama and Iran though

"Do you know how close Hitler came to defeating Russia?"

OMG.

What a maroon.


Unlike the prior world war,Stalin and the Russians were ready and able....The Germans, less so.


"The Soviets appeared to have carefully observed and analyzed the German Blitzkrieg successes of 1939 and 1940 and to havelearned useful lessons.They must have noticed that in May 1940 the French had massed their forces right at the border as well as in Belgium, thus making it possible for the German war machine to encircle them in a major Kesselschlacht. (British troops were also caught in this encirclement, but managed to escape via Dunkirk.)

The Soviets did leave some troops at the border, of course, and these troops predictably suffered the Soviet Union’s major losses during the opening stages of Barbarossa.But – contrary to what is claimed by historians such as Richard Overy[16] – the bulk of the Red Army was held back in the rear, avoiding entrapment.It was this “defence in depth” that frustrated the German ambition to destroy the Red Army in its entirety.

As Marshal Zhukov was to write in his memoirs, “the Soviet Union would have been smashed if we had organized all our forces at the border.


.. when Barbarossa started on June 22,the available (German) supplies of fuel, tires, spare parts etc., were only good enough for about two months.....

The Wehrmacht continued to advance, albeit very slowly, and by mid-November some units found themselves at only 30 kilometers from the capital. But thetroops were now totally exhausted, and running out of supplies. Their commanders knew that it was simply impossible to take Moscow.
Hitler s Failed Blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union. The Battle of Moscow and Stalingrad Turning Point of World War II Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
72 Years Ago, December 1941: Turning Point of World War II
'The Victory of the Red Army in front of Moscow was a Major Break'…
by Jacques Pauwels



By attacking in June, Hitler had planned to avoid Russia's three greatest generals....December, January, and February.
He didn't.

Stalin was ready, and had his puppet in the White House to back his every move.

Pick up a book once in a while.

PC should read history books about WWll by military historians instead of political scientist. Moscow was saved by blunders made by Hitler. His staff advised him to bypass Stalingrad, cut it off, starve it and move the 6th Army into the fight for Moscow. Various decisions made by Hitler left his troops vulnerable to attack and defeat, including the use of weak Romanian and Italian forces to protect the flanks of the German forces at Stalingrad which were defeated and enabled the Russians to surround the 6th Army. He also disregarded intelligence reports and warning signs such as large numbers of Russian forces being able to hide and maneuver from German forces, particularly those responsible for resupply, transport and communications. Entire books are written about this single campaign of WWII.
As weak as Jacques Pauwels interpretations of military history are, he does agree with the importance of Russia defeating Germany on the Eastern Front and lends support for the importance of US lend lease and alliance with Stalin to achieve victory over the German military.