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

[harmonica]

Everything I post is linked, sourced and documented,

But it's your opinions that are hot garbage. Of course, since you are too cowardly to state them outright, it has to be done for you.

Everything I post is linked, sourced and documented, while you, on the other hand are our best source of greenhouse gases.


I REALLY need a higher caliber of opposition.

Your cherry picked facts are just your cowardly way of relating your preference for nazis over marxists. Everyone knows this.

She unravels very quickly when challenged. her weekly creationism rants are USMB gold.

/—-/ Yet you refute nothing PC posts.

Well I dont really have to. She gets shot down every time.. I guess she passes for intelligent on the right but this thread is distasteful. Russians were fighting nazis while Americans were playing golf.

/——/ Americans were building weapons and shipping them off to Britain. Plenty of Americans died as the Nazi Uboats sank the supply ship almost as fast as we could launch them. We also sent volunteers to help the RAF, and many died.

20 MILLION vs 500,000--there is NO arguing that

 

[harmonica]

....the Russians did MUCH more than in beating Germany than the other allies put together

 

[harmonica]

in the scale of wwii, a similar nuking of Germany would have been completely acceptable to any reasonable person.
and yes, that would be far preferable to eastern europe not living under communism for 45 years, not to mention avoiding the terrible cost of the Cold War.

I can’t believe what a callous killer you are. You would rather nuke millions of people rather than have them live under communism for 45 years.

Hirohito saw the devastation of the bomb and quickly agreed to surrender. What makes you think Hitler would do the same?

Hitler already made it clear he was willing to fight to the last man to save his Nazi regime. He allowed the Soviets and US to slaughter German citizens even though it was obvious he had lost the war.

What makes you think a nuclear attack would have changed his mind?

change his mind or vaporize it, either way, the war would have ended, and western europe and eastern europe would have been liberated, like you said could not happen without stalin.

so, you're wrong.


your whining about the deaths is stupid, as the death toll in stopping the nazis would be, quite likely less, in that scenario, and certainly not more.

General Patton knew what the Bolsheviks were, and voiced his opinion loudly......that's why Stalin's BFF, Roosevelt, had him benched.


Patton saw the inevitability of a conflict with the Russians.

"It is a conflict that Patton believes will be fought soon. The Russians are moving to forcibly spread communism throughout the world, and Patton knows it. "They are a scurvy race and simply savages," he writes of the Russians in his journal. "We could beat the hell out of them."
"Patton," By Martin Blumenson, Kevin M. Hymel, p. 84


Can you imagine the chagrin in the Soviet-occupied Roosevelt administration???



The Red Army is relentless in its quest to control as much of Europe as possible, with Stalin taking full advantage of Dwight Eisenhower's timidity.The Russians are seizing more land, and more people are coming under their occupation.



Patton is incensed. "You cannot lay down with a diseased jackal," he recently insisted to a group of journalists."Neither can we ever do business with the Russians."


When Undersecretary of War Robert Patterson visited the Third Army, Patton openly lobbied for at least 30 percent of all American troops to remain in Europe, "Keeping our forces intact. Let's keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to these people.

This is the only language they understand and respect. If you fail to do this, then I would like to say to you that we have had a victory over the Germans but have lost the war."




Even Patton's nemesis, British field marshal Montgomery, agrees: when accepting the surrender of German soldiers, he ordered his troops to stack the Wehrmacht rifles in such a way that they could easily be redistributed should the Germans and British need to defend themselves against a Russian advance."




Yet the Harvard-educated undersecretary Patterson thinks Patton is delusional. He advises Eisenhower, army chief of staff Gen. George C. Marshall, and President Harry Truman continue to view the Russians benevolently.



In time, of course, Patton's predictions will come true, and the world will have to live with the consequences of American gullibility
"Killing Patton," O'Reilly and Dugard, p. 259-260


Of course, Marshall, Hopkins, et al openly wanted the Soviets to control Europe....and said so.

the US was not going to beat Russia--not even close

 

[harmonica]

The Soviets would round up a village, march them at gunpoint to a battlefield, and make them run at german machinegun nests to run them out of bullets.

Do you have a valid historical link to verify that?
Sounds like propaganda

Yes, there are multiple sources for it. Both Russian and German. I suggest you crack open a book.

You don't think that that one knows the truth?????

....you never even served and are pissing on brave soldiers' graves????!!!!!!!
...you are worse than BLM/Dems/etc

 

[harmonica]

in the scale of wwii, a similar nuking of Germany would have been completely acceptable to any reasonable person.
and yes, that would be far preferable to eastern europe not living under communism for 45 years, not to mention avoiding the terrible cost of the Cold War.

I can’t believe what a callous killer you are. You would rather nuke millions of people rather than have them live under communism for 45 years.

Hirohito saw the devastation of the bomb and quickly agreed to surrender. What makes you think Hitler would do the same?

Hitler already made it clear he was willing to fight to the last man to save his Nazi regime. He allowed the Soviets and US to slaughter German citizens even though it was obvious he had lost the war.

What makes you think a nuclear attack would have changed his mind?

change his mind or vaporize it, either way, the war would have ended, and western europe and eastern europe would have been liberated, like you said could not happen without stalin.

so, you're wrong.


your whining about the deaths is stupid, as the death toll in stopping the nazis would be, quite likely less, in that scenario, and certainly not more.

I really can’t believe you.

Scorched earth is your solution to everything. You take “Better Dead than Red” to a new level

You would rather kill people than to allow them to live in communism.

Why don’t you ask them?

Ummmm, because communism kills waaaaay the fuck more people than any other political system.

That's why. Far better to never let it get a foothold in this country. I am more than willing to fight against the commies trying to destroy this republic.

Show where post war USSR killed the tens of millions that nuclear war would have killed

I don't have to. The reports they issued tell us that. Did the Soviets bleed the Germans? Yup. Did we need the Soviets to bleed them? Nope. It's nice that they did, but it wasn't necessary. You also forget that it was the industrial might of the USA that kept them in the fight.

1. they didn't need the industrial might of the US--Russia was too big to conquer
2. most of the fighting was done on the Ost Front--without it, the Western Front would've had a lot more dead--a lot more time getting the Germany

 

[harmonica]

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.

exactly--not only did they have the supplies, they had the intel--

Ultra and the Battle for North Africa (1941-43) | World History

worldhistory.us

 

[harmonica]

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,

The Soviets bore most of the burden fighting the Nazis. While we waited two and a half years to finally launch D Day, the Soviets had already been fighting three years.

The Soviets destroyed most of the German Army and inflicted most of the casualties. The Battles of Stalingrad, Leningrad, Moscow, Kursk all exceeded our D Day and Battle of the Bulge.

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

Not my problem.

I am only commenting on the role the Soviets played in defeating the Nazis. They bore most of the burden and won most of the war

While we invaded Normandy, most of the German Army was dedicated to fighting the Soviets

if your goal is to glorify the commies, which it seems to be your goal, then examining the context of their fighting, is your problem.


the actions of the soviet union were a big part of the whole set up and start of wwii.

who knows, if hitler could not have been reassured by stalin, that his eastern front was secure, thanks to his alliance with the soviets, he might never have been able to pull the trigger and start wwii.

that might have prevented the holocaust.

It is not a glorification of Communism but an acknowledgement that our Soviet allies did most of the fighting and dying to defeat the Nazis.
Hitler outplayed Stalin with a fake alliance when it suited him. Stalin paid by almost losing his country.

The fact is, if Hitler and beaten the Soviets, we would never have regained Western Europe. The US would not have sacrificed the million lives it would take to liberate Western Europe.

the world paid, by having to fight wwii, and the holocaust. stalin having a hard job for a few years, was not much payment for his sins.


and we would have liberated all of europe. come 1945, we would have nuked the shit out of germany and that would have been that.

Nuclear war is your answer?

Killing tens of millions of people is preferable to Eastern Europe living under communism for 45 years?

the nuking of Japan killed at most 260,000.

in the scale of wwii, a similar nuking of Germany would have been completely acceptable to any reasonable person.


and yes, that would be far preferable to eastern europe not living under communism for 45 years, not to mention avoiding the terrible cost of the Cold War.


how many people do you think the fucking russian army killed as they rolled over eastern europe?

the way you give anyone not an American a pass for everything, while holding America to account for everything,


shows that you are an anti-America pos.

The Germans voted Hitler into power. The Japanese folk of Hiroshima, Nagasaki never had a say in their governments war. Yet what ever is said the allies would have never 'nuked' Berlin.
One of the reasons (there were many) racism! They are too much like us. Jabs on the other hand na not remotely.

funny, that wacism never stopped us from bombing the shit out of them in real life. we hit them with everything we had. night and day.


thousand bomber raids. on cites. and we would not use nukes, on them because suddenly we would start thinking of them as our "white brothers" because, ....


yeah, no, that would not happen.

soviets fall, come 1946 berlin is a glowing parking lot.

Yes we'd wage conventional war on them, London was lit up like the suns surface by them and so limited retaliation fine, but nuclear weapons on Europeans? Na a step far too far.

Completely unsupported by fact. Bomber Harris would have completely and utterly destroyed Germany had he been given the opportunity.

He was systematically destroying German cities one at a time whether they had military value, or not.

..German production went UP during the bombing--bombing wasn't going to win the war

 

[Correll]

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,

The Soviets bore most of the burden fighting the Nazis. While we waited two and a half years to finally launch D Day, the Soviets had already been fighting three years.

The Soviets destroyed most of the German Army and inflicted most of the casualties. The Battles of Stalingrad, Leningrad, Moscow, Kursk all exceeded our D Day and Battle of the Bulge.

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

Not my problem.

I am only commenting on the role the Soviets played in defeating the Nazis. They bore most of the burden and won most of the war

While we invaded Normandy, most of the German Army was dedicated to fighting the Soviets

if your goal is to glorify the commies, which it seems to be your goal, then examining the context of their fighting, is your problem.


the actions of the soviet union were a big part of the whole set up and start of wwii.

who knows, if hitler could not have been reassured by stalin, that his eastern front was secure, thanks to his alliance with the soviets, he might never have been able to pull the trigger and start wwii.

that might have prevented the holocaust.

It is not a glorification of Communism but an acknowledgement that our Soviet allies did most of the fighting and dying to defeat the Nazis.
Hitler outplayed Stalin with a fake alliance when it suited him. Stalin paid by almost losing his country.

The fact is, if Hitler and beaten the Soviets, we would never have regained Western Europe. The US would not have sacrificed the million lives it would take to liberate Western Europe.

the world paid, by having to fight wwii, and the holocaust. stalin having a hard job for a few years, was not much payment for his sins.


and we would have liberated all of europe. come 1945, we would have nuked the shit out of germany and that would have been that.

Nuclear war is your answer?

Killing tens of millions of people is preferable to Eastern Europe living under communism for 45 years?

the nuking of Japan killed at most 260,000.

in the scale of wwii, a similar nuking of Germany would have been completely acceptable to any reasonable person.


and yes, that would be far preferable to eastern europe not living under communism for 45 years, not to mention avoiding the terrible cost of the Cold War.


how many people do you think the fucking russian army killed as they rolled over eastern europe?

the way you give anyone not an American a pass for everything, while holding America to account for everything,


shows that you are an anti-America pos.

The Germans voted Hitler into power. The Japanese folk of Hiroshima, Nagasaki never had a say in their governments war. Yet what ever is said the allies would have never 'nuked' Berlin.
One of the reasons (there were many) racism! They are too much like us. Jabs on the other hand na not remotely.

funny, that wacism never stopped us from bombing the shit out of them in real life. we hit them with everything we had. night and day.


thousand bomber raids. on cites. and we would not use nukes, on them because suddenly we would start thinking of them as our "white brothers" because, ....


yeah, no, that would not happen.

soviets fall, come 1946 berlin is a glowing parking lot.

Yes we'd wage conventional war on them, London was lit up like the suns surface by them and so limited retaliation fine, but nuclear weapons on Europeans? Na a step far too far.

Completely unsupported by fact. Bomber Harris would have completely and utterly destroyed Germany had he been given the opportunity.

He was systematically destroying German cities one at a time whether they had military value, or not.

..German production went UP during the bombing--bombing wasn't going to win the war

the point being discussed was whether or not we would have used nukes on a white country.

the obvious answers is yes. the lefty cries wacism.

 

[harmonica]

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,

The Soviets bore most of the burden fighting the Nazis. While we waited two and a half years to finally launch D Day, the Soviets had already been fighting three years.

The Soviets destroyed most of the German Army and inflicted most of the casualties. The Battles of Stalingrad, Leningrad, Moscow, Kursk all exceeded our D Day and Battle of the Bulge.

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

Not my problem.

I am only commenting on the role the Soviets played in defeating the Nazis. They bore most of the burden and won most of the war

While we invaded Normandy, most of the German Army was dedicated to fighting the Soviets

if your goal is to glorify the commies, which it seems to be your goal, then examining the context of their fighting, is your problem.


the actions of the soviet union were a big part of the whole set up and start of wwii.

who knows, if hitler could not have been reassured by stalin, that his eastern front was secure, thanks to his alliance with the soviets, he might never have been able to pull the trigger and start wwii.

that might have prevented the holocaust.

It is not a glorification of Communism but an acknowledgement that our Soviet allies did most of the fighting and dying to defeat the Nazis.
Hitler outplayed Stalin with a fake alliance when it suited him. Stalin paid by almost losing his country.

The fact is, if Hitler and beaten the Soviets, we would never have regained Western Europe. The US would not have sacrificed the million lives it would take to liberate Western Europe.

the world paid, by having to fight wwii, and the holocaust. stalin having a hard job for a few years, was not much payment for his sins.


and we would have liberated all of europe. come 1945, we would have nuked the shit out of germany and that would have been that.

Nuclear war is your answer?

Killing tens of millions of people is preferable to Eastern Europe living under communism for 45 years?

the nuking of Japan killed at most 260,000.

in the scale of wwii, a similar nuking of Germany would have been completely acceptable to any reasonable person.


and yes, that would be far preferable to eastern europe not living under communism for 45 years, not to mention avoiding the terrible cost of the Cold War.


how many people do you think the fucking russian army killed as they rolled over eastern europe?

the way you give anyone not an American a pass for everything, while holding America to account for everything,


shows that you are an anti-America pos.

The Germans voted Hitler into power. The Japanese folk of Hiroshima, Nagasaki never had a say in their governments war. Yet what ever is said the allies would have never 'nuked' Berlin.
One of the reasons (there were many) racism! They are too much like us. Jabs on the other hand na not remotely.

funny, that wacism never stopped us from bombing the shit out of them in real life. we hit them with everything we had. night and day.


thousand bomber raids. on cites. and we would not use nukes, on them because suddenly we would start thinking of them as our "white brothers" because, ....


yeah, no, that would not happen.

soviets fall, come 1946 berlin is a glowing parking lot.

Yes we'd wage conventional war on them, London was lit up like the suns surface by them and so limited retaliation fine, but nuclear weapons on Europeans? Na a step far too far.

Completely unsupported by fact. Bomber Harris would have completely and utterly destroyed Germany had he been given the opportunity.

He was systematically destroying German cities one at a time whether they had military value, or not.

..German production went UP during the bombing--bombing wasn't going to win the war

the point being discussed was whether or not we would have used nukes on a white country.

the obvious answers is yes. the lefty cries wacism.

.....VE day was May--Trinity test was July

 

[Correll]

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,

The Soviets bore most of the burden fighting the Nazis. While we waited two and a half years to finally launch D Day, the Soviets had already been fighting three years.

The Soviets destroyed most of the German Army and inflicted most of the casualties. The Battles of Stalingrad, Leningrad, Moscow, Kursk all exceeded our D Day and Battle of the Bulge.

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

Not my problem.

I am only commenting on the role the Soviets played in defeating the Nazis. They bore most of the burden and won most of the war

While we invaded Normandy, most of the German Army was dedicated to fighting the Soviets

if your goal is to glorify the commies, which it seems to be your goal, then examining the context of their fighting, is your problem.


the actions of the soviet union were a big part of the whole set up and start of wwii.

who knows, if hitler could not have been reassured by stalin, that his eastern front was secure, thanks to his alliance with the soviets, he might never have been able to pull the trigger and start wwii.

that might have prevented the holocaust.

It is not a glorification of Communism but an acknowledgement that our Soviet allies did most of the fighting and dying to defeat the Nazis.
Hitler outplayed Stalin with a fake alliance when it suited him. Stalin paid by almost losing his country.

The fact is, if Hitler and beaten the Soviets, we would never have regained Western Europe. The US would not have sacrificed the million lives it would take to liberate Western Europe.

the world paid, by having to fight wwii, and the holocaust. stalin having a hard job for a few years, was not much payment for his sins.


and we would have liberated all of europe. come 1945, we would have nuked the shit out of germany and that would have been that.

Nuclear war is your answer?

Killing tens of millions of people is preferable to Eastern Europe living under communism for 45 years?

the nuking of Japan killed at most 260,000.

in the scale of wwii, a similar nuking of Germany would have been completely acceptable to any reasonable person.


and yes, that would be far preferable to eastern europe not living under communism for 45 years, not to mention avoiding the terrible cost of the Cold War.


how many people do you think the fucking russian army killed as they rolled over eastern europe?

the way you give anyone not an American a pass for everything, while holding America to account for everything,


shows that you are an anti-America pos.

The Germans voted Hitler into power. The Japanese folk of Hiroshima, Nagasaki never had a say in their governments war. Yet what ever is said the allies would have never 'nuked' Berlin.
One of the reasons (there were many) racism! They are too much like us. Jabs on the other hand na not remotely.

funny, that wacism never stopped us from bombing the shit out of them in real life. we hit them with everything we had. night and day.


thousand bomber raids. on cites. and we would not use nukes, on them because suddenly we would start thinking of them as our "white brothers" because, ....


yeah, no, that would not happen.

soviets fall, come 1946 berlin is a glowing parking lot.

Yes we'd wage conventional war on them, London was lit up like the suns surface by them and so limited retaliation fine, but nuclear weapons on Europeans? Na a step far too far.

Completely unsupported by fact. Bomber Harris would have completely and utterly destroyed Germany had he been given the opportunity.

He was systematically destroying German cities one at a time whether they had military value, or not.

..German production went UP during the bombing--bombing wasn't going to win the war

the point being discussed was whether or not we would have used nukes on a white country.

the obvious answers is yes. the lefty cries wacism.

.....VE day was May--Trinity test was July

correct. which is why it did not happen. the lefty claims that it would NOT have happened, because we would never use nukes on a white country. because wacism.


pretty fucking stupid, huh?

 

[harmonica]

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,

The Soviets bore most of the burden fighting the Nazis. While we waited two and a half years to finally launch D Day, the Soviets had already been fighting three years.

The Soviets destroyed most of the German Army and inflicted most of the casualties. The Battles of Stalingrad, Leningrad, Moscow, Kursk all exceeded our D Day and Battle of the Bulge.

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

Not my problem.

I am only commenting on the role the Soviets played in defeating the Nazis. They bore most of the burden and won most of the war

While we invaded Normandy, most of the German Army was dedicated to fighting the Soviets

if your goal is to glorify the commies, which it seems to be your goal, then examining the context of their fighting, is your problem.


the actions of the soviet union were a big part of the whole set up and start of wwii.

who knows, if hitler could not have been reassured by stalin, that his eastern front was secure, thanks to his alliance with the soviets, he might never have been able to pull the trigger and start wwii.

that might have prevented the holocaust.

It is not a glorification of Communism but an acknowledgement that our Soviet allies did most of the fighting and dying to defeat the Nazis.
Hitler outplayed Stalin with a fake alliance when it suited him. Stalin paid by almost losing his country.

The fact is, if Hitler and beaten the Soviets, we would never have regained Western Europe. The US would not have sacrificed the million lives it would take to liberate Western Europe.

the world paid, by having to fight wwii, and the holocaust. stalin having a hard job for a few years, was not much payment for his sins.


and we would have liberated all of europe. come 1945, we would have nuked the shit out of germany and that would have been that.

Nuclear war is your answer?

Killing tens of millions of people is preferable to Eastern Europe living under communism for 45 years?

the nuking of Japan killed at most 260,000.

in the scale of wwii, a similar nuking of Germany would have been completely acceptable to any reasonable person.


and yes, that would be far preferable to eastern europe not living under communism for 45 years, not to mention avoiding the terrible cost of the Cold War.


how many people do you think the fucking russian army killed as they rolled over eastern europe?

the way you give anyone not an American a pass for everything, while holding America to account for everything,


shows that you are an anti-America pos.

The Germans voted Hitler into power. The Japanese folk of Hiroshima, Nagasaki never had a say in their governments war. Yet what ever is said the allies would have never 'nuked' Berlin.
One of the reasons (there were many) racism! They are too much like us. Jabs on the other hand na not remotely.

funny, that wacism never stopped us from bombing the shit out of them in real life. we hit them with everything we had. night and day.


thousand bomber raids. on cites. and we would not use nukes, on them because suddenly we would start thinking of them as our "white brothers" because, ....


yeah, no, that would not happen.

soviets fall, come 1946 berlin is a glowing parking lot.

Yes we'd wage conventional war on them, London was lit up like the suns surface by them and so limited retaliation fine, but nuclear weapons on Europeans? Na a step far too far.

VE Day was May...Trinity was July

 

[Indeependent]

...

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.

...

well, this is completely true, and a major and even possibly the primary factor,

it is worth noting that having the war in your country, as opposed to on the other side of an ocean, is going to increase civilian deaths. (America is blessed)

a better, fairer, comparison might be, comparing soviet losses to french or polish losses.


on the other hand, it is also worth noting that the soviet union did start wwii as an ally of hitler and only switched sides when hitler betrayed them, not because the soviets had any problem with anything he was doing.

To see where the honor belongs you have to separate the party and the people.

See post #4. Take notes on it.

Doesn't effect my post at all. Don't the people of Russia/SU deserve credit for their bravery? Being Soviet citizens is a historical fact that can't be changed barring a "memory hole".

Many Russians had no choice.
Stalin sent them into battle without weapons and told them to take the rifles of German soldiers after they froze to death.
Stalin was a POS.

This was earlier in the thread:

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.

2This was earlier in the thread:

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

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

As I already pointed out the article refers to 20 million killed in the purges, gulags, etc in the 20's & 30's and has nothing to do with WWll.

And to 'westwall' Why do you give 'political fruitcake' the thumbs up for this post?

Are you seriously saying the Nazi's killed "very few" Soviets?
And (just as a matter of interest) are you also a Holocaust denier?

Id think carefully before replying your credibility is at stake.

Sending millions of your citizens to war ill-equipped and ill-dressed is murder.

 

[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

 

[harmonica]

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,

The Soviets bore most of the burden fighting the Nazis. While we waited two and a half years to finally launch D Day, the Soviets had already been fighting three years.

The Soviets destroyed most of the German Army and inflicted most of the casualties. The Battles of Stalingrad, Leningrad, Moscow, Kursk all exceeded our D Day and Battle of the Bulge.

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

Not my problem.

I am only commenting on the role the Soviets played in defeating the Nazis. They bore most of the burden and won most of the war

While we invaded Normandy, most of the German Army was dedicated to fighting the Soviets

if your goal is to glorify the commies, which it seems to be your goal, then examining the context of their fighting, is your problem.


the actions of the soviet union were a big part of the whole set up and start of wwii.

who knows, if hitler could not have been reassured by stalin, that his eastern front was secure, thanks to his alliance with the soviets, he might never have been able to pull the trigger and start wwii.

that might have prevented the holocaust.

It is not a glorification of Communism but an acknowledgement that our Soviet allies did most of the fighting and dying to defeat the Nazis.
Hitler outplayed Stalin with a fake alliance when it suited him. Stalin paid by almost losing his country.

The fact is, if Hitler and beaten the Soviets, we would never have regained Western Europe. The US would not have sacrificed the million lives it would take to liberate Western Europe.

the world paid, by having to fight wwii, and the holocaust. stalin having a hard job for a few years, was not much payment for his sins.


and we would have liberated all of europe. come 1945, we would have nuked the shit out of germany and that would have been that.

Nuclear war is your answer?

Killing tens of millions of people is preferable to Eastern Europe living under communism for 45 years?

the nuking of Japan killed at most 260,000.

in the scale of wwii, a similar nuking of Germany would have been completely acceptable to any reasonable person.


and yes, that would be far preferable to eastern europe not living under communism for 45 years, not to mention avoiding the terrible cost of the Cold War.


how many people do you think the fucking russian army killed as they rolled over eastern europe?

the way you give anyone not an American a pass for everything, while holding America to account for everything,


shows that you are an anti-America pos.

The Germans voted Hitler into power. The Japanese folk of Hiroshima, Nagasaki never had a say in their governments war. Yet what ever is said the allies would have never 'nuked' Berlin.
One of the reasons (there were many) racism! They are too much like us. Jabs on the other hand na not remotely.

funny, that wacism never stopped us from bombing the shit out of them in real life. we hit them with everything we had. night and day.


thousand bomber raids. on cites. and we would not use nukes, on them because suddenly we would start thinking of them as our "white brothers" because, ....


yeah, no, that would not happen.

soviets fall, come 1946 berlin is a glowing parking lot.

Yes we'd wage conventional war on them, London was lit up like the suns surface by them and so limited retaliation fine, but nuclear weapons on Europeans? Na a step far too far.

lol!!! thousand bomber raids is limited retaliation?!


View attachment 376446

....can you give that page number and who said that, please?..I see it in the later posts--about the racism

 

[Indeependent]

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.

The Soviet winter killed tons Nazis.
What's a 2nd Tier Troop? You think everyone who goes to war is Jason Bourne?

 

[harmonica]

in the scale of wwii, a similar nuking of Germany would have been completely acceptable to any reasonable person.
and yes, that would be far preferable to eastern europe not living under communism for 45 years, not to mention avoiding the terrible cost of the Cold War.

I can’t believe what a callous killer you are. You would rather nuke millions of people rather than have them live under communism for 45 years.

Hirohito saw the devastation of the bomb and quickly agreed to surrender. What makes you think Hitler would do the same?

Hitler already made it clear he was willing to fight to the last man to save his Nazi regime. He allowed the Soviets and US to slaughter German citizens even though it was obvious he had lost the war.

What makes you think a nuclear attack would have changed his mind?

change his mind or vaporize it, either way, the war would have ended, and western europe and eastern europe would have been liberated, like you said could not happen without stalin.

so, you're wrong.


your whining about the deaths is stupid, as the death toll in stopping the nazis would be, quite likely less, in that scenario, and certainly not more.

General Patton knew what the Bolsheviks were, and voiced his opinion loudly......that's why Stalin's BFF, Roosevelt, had him benched.


Patton saw the inevitability of a conflict with the Russians.

"It is a conflict that Patton believes will be fought soon. The Russians are moving to forcibly spread communism throughout the world, and Patton knows it. "They are a scurvy race and simply savages," he writes of the Russians in his journal. "We could beat the hell out of them."
"Patton," By Martin Blumenson, Kevin M. Hymel, p. 84


Can you imagine the chagrin in the Soviet-occupied Roosevelt administration???



The Red Army is relentless in its quest to control as much of Europe as possible, with Stalin taking full advantage of Dwight Eisenhower's timidity.The Russians are seizing more land, and more people are coming under their occupation.



Patton is incensed. "You cannot lay down with a diseased jackal," he recently insisted to a group of journalists."Neither can we ever do business with the Russians."


When Undersecretary of War Robert Patterson visited the Third Army, Patton openly lobbied for at least 30 percent of all American troops to remain in w:st="on">Europe, "Keeping our forces intact. Let's keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to these people.



This is the only language they understand and respect. If you fail to do this, then I would like to say to you that we have had a victory over the Germans but have lost the war."




Even Patton's nemesis, British field marshal Montgomery, agrees: when accepting the surrender of German soldiers, he ordered his troops to stack the Wehrmacht rifles in such a way that they could easily be redistributed should the Germans and British need to defend themselves against a Russian advance."




Yet the Harvard-educated undersecretary Patterson thinks Patton is delusional. He advises Eisenhower, army chief of staff Gen. George C. Marshall, and President Harry Truman toclass=apple-converted-space> continue to view the Russians benevolently.class=apple-converted-space>



In time, of course, Patton's predictions will come true, and the world will have to live with the consequences of American gullibility

"Killing Patton," O'Reilly and Dugard, p. 259-260


Of course, Marshall, Hopkins, et al openly wanted the Soviets to control Europe....and said so.

we americans tend to short term thinking. we were facing the nazis and we were happy to have the russians fighting them too.


but the cost, ,was very, very high. half of europe and a new war, starting immediately after.

1. enemy of my enemy is my friend--Russia did MOST of the fighting
2. so they had half of Europe--so what? and then the US went into an economic BOOM--up!!
3. it saved thousands of US lives =immeasurable $$$$$

The Postwar Economy: 1945-1960 < Postwar America < History 1994 < American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond

www.let.rug.nl

 

[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.

Ha ha ha - you stupid twisted imbecile.

You just can't resist it can you? Taking the well documented historical record WWll and twisting,restructuring, airbrushing and wholly misrepresenting it. All because your extreme right wing views, fondness of the Nazi's and hatred of communism you feel compels you.

"1.An interesting and significant month, August."

Isn't it! You then outline the allied achievements in liberating North Western Europe even including the Free French, de Gaulle and a few officers who basically flew from London to Paris backed by the allies. Wow!

You obviously have absolutely no knowledge of Geography-

" Did you see any mention of Soviet troops there?"

Ha ha.......NO, Did you expect me to?

Perhaps it might be because the soviets were over 500 miles away having liberated - Crimea, Hungary, Belarus, Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland single handedly, and were approaching Germany's eastern border.

The only possible way they could have been in France, Holland etc, is if they had already occupied Germany in which case the war would be over.

I am quite shocked by your ignorance!

Need to be somewhere now, but don't run away as I haven't even started your thrashing and have much to add.

Everything is linked, sourced and documented.

proven by your pissing on brave soldiers' graves

 

[Correll]

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,

The Soviets bore most of the burden fighting the Nazis. While we waited two and a half years to finally launch D Day, the Soviets had already been fighting three years.

The Soviets destroyed most of the German Army and inflicted most of the casualties. The Battles of Stalingrad, Leningrad, Moscow, Kursk all exceeded our D Day and Battle of the Bulge.

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

Not my problem.

I am only commenting on the role the Soviets played in defeating the Nazis. They bore most of the burden and won most of the war

While we invaded Normandy, most of the German Army was dedicated to fighting the Soviets

if your goal is to glorify the commies, which it seems to be your goal, then examining the context of their fighting, is your problem.


the actions of the soviet union were a big part of the whole set up and start of wwii.

who knows, if hitler could not have been reassured by stalin, that his eastern front was secure, thanks to his alliance with the soviets, he might never have been able to pull the trigger and start wwii.

that might have prevented the holocaust.

It is not a glorification of Communism but an acknowledgement that our Soviet allies did most of the fighting and dying to defeat the Nazis.
Hitler outplayed Stalin with a fake alliance when it suited him. Stalin paid by almost losing his country.

The fact is, if Hitler and beaten the Soviets, we would never have regained Western Europe. The US would not have sacrificed the million lives it would take to liberate Western Europe.

the world paid, by having to fight wwii, and the holocaust. stalin having a hard job for a few years, was not much payment for his sins.


and we would have liberated all of europe. come 1945, we would have nuked the shit out of germany and that would have been that.

Nuclear war is your answer?

Killing tens of millions of people is preferable to Eastern Europe living under communism for 45 years?

the nuking of Japan killed at most 260,000.

in the scale of wwii, a similar nuking of Germany would have been completely acceptable to any reasonable person.


and yes, that would be far preferable to eastern europe not living under communism for 45 years, not to mention avoiding the terrible cost of the Cold War.


how many people do you think the fucking russian army killed as they rolled over eastern europe?

the way you give anyone not an American a pass for everything, while holding America to account for everything,


shows that you are an anti-America pos.

The Germans voted Hitler into power. The Japanese folk of Hiroshima, Nagasaki never had a say in their governments war. Yet what ever is said the allies would have never 'nuked' Berlin.
One of the reasons (there were many) racism! They are too much like us. Jabs on the other hand na not remotely.

funny, that wacism never stopped us from bombing the shit out of them in real life. we hit them with everything we had. night and day.


thousand bomber raids. on cites. and we would not use nukes, on them because suddenly we would start thinking of them as our "white brothers" because, ....


yeah, no, that would not happen.

soviets fall, come 1946 berlin is a glowing parking lot.

Yes we'd wage conventional war on them, London was lit up like the suns surface by them and so limited retaliation fine, but nuclear weapons on Europeans? Na a step far too far.

lol!!! thousand bomber raids is limited retaliation?!


View attachment 376446

....can you give that page number and who said that, please?..I see it in the later posts--about the racism

oz said it, post 96

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

in the scale of wwii, a similar nuking of Germany would have been completely acceptable to any reasonable person. and yes, that would be far preferable to eastern europe not living under communism for 45 years, not to mention avoiding the terrible cost of the Cold War. I can’t believe what a...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[harmonica]

It's been estimated that 90% of all the German soldiers killed in combat during WWll were killed on the Russian front. ...

What does that have to do with whether the Soviets deserve any credit or gratitude?


Here's the lesson you haven't learned yet"


1. What could, should have happened?
When the (anticipated) event that Hitler would attack Stalin's Russia, as they did June 21st, 1941, America should have done nothing...no more than relaxing restrictions on exports to the Russians...but at the same time securing a quid pro quo for further assistance! Lend-Lease should not have been the automatic and unlimited buffet that it turned into!

"Finally, should the Soviet regime fall,...we should refuse to recognize a Communist government-in-exile, leaving the path clear for establishment for a non-Communist government in Russia after the war." These were the words of Loy Henderson, Soviet and Eastern European affairs expert and Foreign Service officer, as quoted by Martin Weil in "A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service," p. 106.


2. In a letter to FDR, dated January 29, 1943, William Bullitt (Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Bullitt the first US ambassador to the Soviet Union, a post that he filled from 1933 to 1936.) warned Roosevelt about what would happen if he continued pursuing the policies of appeasement toward Stalinthat formed the foundation of the American war strategy. He pleaded with FDR not to 'permit our war to prevent Nazi domination of Europe to be turned into a war to establish Soviet domination of Europe.'

He predicted the Soviet annexation of half of Europe; George Kennan identified that letter as the earliest warning of what would be the result of FDR's policies.
"For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt," Orville H. Bullitt, p. 575-590


3. Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:" 'There is no doubt whatsoever that it would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'
Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"

..you post 25 MILLION deaths and they don't deserve credit?? you PROVE they do
hahahahhahahahahahahahah

 

[harmonica]

in the scale of wwii, a similar nuking of Germany would have been completely acceptable to any reasonable person.
and yes, that would be far preferable to eastern europe not living under communism for 45 years, not to mention avoiding the terrible cost of the Cold War.

I can’t believe what a callous killer you are. You would rather nuke millions of people rather than have them live under communism for 45 years.

Hirohito saw the devastation of the bomb and quickly agreed to surrender. What makes you think Hitler would do the same?

Hitler already made it clear he was willing to fight to the last man to save his Nazi regime. He allowed the Soviets and US to slaughter German citizens even though it was obvious he had lost the war.

What makes you think a nuclear attack would have changed his mind?

change his mind or vaporize it, either way, the war would have ended, and western europe and eastern europe would have been liberated, like you said could not happen without stalin.

so, you're wrong.


your whining about the deaths is stupid, as the death toll in stopping the nazis would be, quite likely less, in that scenario, and certainly not more.

General Patton knew what the Bolsheviks were, and voiced his opinion loudly......that's why Stalin's BFF, Roosevelt, had him benched.


Patton saw the inevitability of a conflict with the Russians.

"It is a conflict that Patton believes will be fought soon. The Russians are moving to forcibly spread communism throughout the world, and Patton knows it. "They are a scurvy race and simply savages," he writes of the Russians in his journal. "We could beat the hell out of them."
"Patton," By Martin Blumenson, Kevin M. Hymel, p. 84


Can you imagine the chagrin in the Soviet-occupied Roosevelt administration???



The Red Army is relentless in its quest to control as much of Europe as possible, with Stalin taking full advantage of Dwight Eisenhower's timidity.The Russians are seizing more land, and more people are coming under their occupation.



Patton is incensed. "You cannot lay down with a diseased jackal," he recently insisted to a group of journalists."Neither can we ever do business with the Russians."


When Undersecretary of War Robert Patterson visited the Third Army, Patton openly lobbied for at least 30 percent of all American troops to remain in w:st="on">Europe, "Keeping our forces intact. Let's keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to these people.



This is the only language they understand and respect. If you fail to do this, then I would like to say to you that we have had a victory over the Germans but have lost the war."




Even Patton's nemesis, British field marshal Montgomery, agrees: when accepting the surrender of German soldiers, he ordered his troops to stack the Wehrmacht rifles in such a way that they could easily be redistributed should the Germans and British need to defend themselves against a Russian advance."




Yet the Harvard-educated undersecretary Patterson thinks Patton is delusional. He advises Eisenhower, army chief of staff Gen. George C. Marshall, and President Harry Truman toclass=apple-converted-space> continue to view the Russians benevolently.class=apple-converted-space>



In time, of course, Patton's predictions will come true, and the world will have to live with the consequences of American gullibility

"Killing Patton," O'Reilly and Dugard, p. 259-260


Of course, Marshall, Hopkins, et al openly wanted the Soviets to control Europe....and said so.

we americans tend to short term thinking. we were facing the nazis and we were happy to have the russians fighting them too.


but the cost, ,was very, very high. half of europe and a new war, starting immediately after.

We made a choice.

We were willing to sacrifice Eastern Europe to save Western Europe

i agree. that is the choice we made. we sacrificed eastern europe to secure soviet help against the nazis.

it saved american lives, in the short term, at the cost of the cold war, later.

would've been a Cold War no matter what