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

[Correll]

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

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

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

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

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

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

so, you're wrong.


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

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


Patton saw the inevitability of a conflict with the Russians.

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


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



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



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


When Undersecretary of War Robert Patterson visited the Third Army, Patton openly lobbied for at least 30 percent of all American troops to remain in 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

this thread is about the way, even today, that that alliance born of a common enemy is used today by lefties to glorify the commies and to distact from the historical fact that communism is just as genocidal and oppressive as fascism.

some of that has wandered into examining the actual history and actions of people like fdr and whether what they did was brillant, or barely adequate or worse.

for instance, rightwinger gave credit to fdr for getting the soviets to fight and kill so many nazis.


except, fdr did not cause that. stalin was a loyal friend and ally to hitler, right up to the moment nazi forces crossed into the soviet union with genocidal intent.


thus, ,giving fdr credit for that, is, imo, utterly uncalled for.

 

[Correll]

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

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

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

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

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

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

so, you're wrong.


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

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


Patton saw the inevitability of a conflict with the Russians.

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


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



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



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


When Undersecretary of War Robert Patterson visited the Third Army, Patton openly lobbied for at least 30 percent of all American troops to remain in 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

a cold war, with the border on the far side off poland, would have been very different from one with the border in the middle of germany.

 

[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

this thread is about the way, even today, that that alliance born of a common enemy is used today by lefties to glorify the commies and to distact from the historical fact that communism is just as genocidal and oppressive as fascism.

some of that has wandered into examining the actual history and actions of people like fdr and whether what they did was brillant, or barely adequate or worse.

for instance, rightwinger gave credit to fdr for getting the soviets to fight and kill so many nazis.


except, fdr did not cause that. stalin was a loyal friend and ally to hitler, right up to the moment nazi forces crossed into the soviet union with genocidal intent.


thus, ,giving fdr credit for that, is, imo, utterly uncalled for.

no, it's about honoring the SACRIFICES of Russia--that's the title
25 MILLION is a lot of sacrifice --more than any other country gave

 

[Correll]

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

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

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

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

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

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

so, you're wrong.


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

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


Patton saw the inevitability of a conflict with the Russians.

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


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



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



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


When Undersecretary of War Robert Patterson visited the Third Army, Patton openly lobbied for at least 30 percent of all American troops to remain in 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

this thread is about the way, even today, that that alliance born of a common enemy is used today by lefties to glorify the commies and to distact from the historical fact that communism is just as genocidal and oppressive as fascism.

some of that has wandered into examining the actual history and actions of people like fdr and whether what they did was brillant, or barely adequate or worse.

for instance, rightwinger gave credit to fdr for getting the soviets to fight and kill so many nazis.


except, fdr did not cause that. stalin was a loyal friend and ally to hitler, right up to the moment nazi forces crossed into the soviet union with genocidal intent.


thus, ,giving fdr credit for that, is, imo, utterly uncalled for.

no, it's about honoring the SACRIFICES of Russia--that's the title
25 MILLION is a lot of sacrifice --more than any other country gave

the op clarifies it quite a bit.

 

[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

a cold war, with the border on the far side off poland, would have been very different from one with the border in the middle of germany.

hey Pal, the Cold War was mostly fought nowhere near there:
Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos
Cuba
Afghanistan
Korea
etc etc
not counting non-combat areas like:
Pakistan

https://scholarworks.arcadia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=agsjournal

 

[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

this thread is about the way, even today, that that alliance born of a common enemy is used today by lefties to glorify the commies and to distact from the historical fact that communism is just as genocidal and oppressive as fascism.

some of that has wandered into examining the actual history and actions of people like fdr and whether what they did was brillant, or barely adequate or worse.

for instance, rightwinger gave credit to fdr for getting the soviets to fight and kill so many nazis.


except, fdr did not cause that. stalin was a loyal friend and ally to hitler, right up to the moment nazi forces crossed into the soviet union with genocidal intent.


thus, ,giving fdr credit for that, is, imo, utterly uncalled for.

no, it's about honoring the SACRIFICES of Russia--that's the title
25 MILLION is a lot of sacrifice --more than any other country gave

the op clarifies it quite a bit.

....no he doesn't--he's PISSING on soldiers' graves--what a jackass--he/she never served either

 

[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

this thread is about the way, even today, that that alliance born of a common enemy is used today by lefties to glorify the commies and to distact from the historical fact that communism is just as genocidal and oppressive as fascism.

some of that has wandered into examining the actual history and actions of people like fdr and whether what they did was brillant, or barely adequate or worse.

for instance, rightwinger gave credit to fdr for getting the soviets to fight and kill so many nazis.


except, fdr did not cause that. stalin was a loyal friend and ally to hitler, right up to the moment nazi forces crossed into the soviet union with genocidal intent.


thus, ,giving fdr credit for that, is, imo, utterly uncalled for.

no, it's about honoring the SACRIFICES of Russia--that's the title
25 MILLION is a lot of sacrifice --more than any other country gave

oh yeah, in the Middle East also--
so--like I said--doesn't matter where the border was

 

[rightwinger]

Stalin was a POS.

Yes he was
But he managed to defeat the Nazis

 

[Correll]

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

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

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

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

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

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

so, you're wrong.


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

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


Patton saw the inevitability of a conflict with the Russians.

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


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



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



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


When Undersecretary of War Robert Patterson visited the Third Army, Patton openly lobbied for at least 30 percent of all American troops to remain in 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

a cold war, with the border on the far side off poland, would have been very different from one with the border in the middle of germany.

hey Pal, the Cold War was mostly fought nowhere near there:
Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos
Cuba
Afghanistan
Korea
etc etc
not counting non-combat areas like:
Pakistan

https://scholarworks.arcadia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=agsjournal

even so. flipping all of eastern europe would have made the cold war, a lot less scary.

the soviet union had a real ability to roll the tanks over west germany and france, thus ending up, with world domination.


double the distance required for a clear win, and the possibility of a victory becomes more remote making the temptation to even try, far less.


that would have been a better world.

hell, maybe if the balance of power was in our favor enough, the cold war would not have happened at all.

 

[Correll]

Stalin was a POS.

Yes he was
But he managed to defeat the Nazis

ha, back to just repeated unsupported assertions of your original position?


accepted as an admission that you have utterly failed to support your conclusion and have given up.

 

[Correll]

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

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

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

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

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

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

so, you're wrong.


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

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


Patton saw the inevitability of a conflict with the Russians.

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


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



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



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


When Undersecretary of War Robert Patterson visited the Third Army, Patton openly lobbied for at least 30 percent of all American troops to remain in 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

this thread is about the way, even today, that that alliance born of a common enemy is used today by lefties to glorify the commies and to distact from the historical fact that communism is just as genocidal and oppressive as fascism.

some of that has wandered into examining the actual history and actions of people like fdr and whether what they did was brillant, or barely adequate or worse.

for instance, rightwinger gave credit to fdr for getting the soviets to fight and kill so many nazis.


except, fdr did not cause that. stalin was a loyal friend and ally to hitler, right up to the moment nazi forces crossed into the soviet union with genocidal intent.


thus, ,giving fdr credit for that, is, imo, utterly uncalled for.

no, it's about honoring the SACRIFICES of Russia--that's the title
25 MILLION is a lot of sacrifice --more than any other country gave

oh yeah, in the Middle East also--
so--like I said--doesn't matter where the border was

tens of millions of people not living under totalitarian oppression and instead being on the side of the west, doesn't matter?


i respectfully disagree.

 

[harmonica]

Stalin was a POS.

Yes he was
But he managed to defeat the Nazis

ha, back to just repeated unsupported assertions of your original position?


accepted as an admission that you have utterly failed to support your conclusion and have given up.

Russia didn't defeat Germany? !!??

 

[Correll]

Stalin was a POS.

Yes he was
But he managed to defeat the Nazis

ha, back to just repeated unsupported assertions of your original position?


accepted as an admission that you have utterly failed to support your conclusion and have given up.

Russia didn't defeat Germany? !!??

not the way rightwinger means it.


ie as a solitary achievement that should be used to glorify communism and diminish the American contributions.


except for fdr of course. he deserves a lot of glorification too.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

If there is any question as to which dictatorship would have won......there is no question.

Germany would not have conquered the USSR.

Hitler knew that....and so must have Roosevelt.

Here are the facts:
.. when Operation Barbarossa started on June 22, 1941, the available (German) supplies of fuel, tires, spare parts etc., were only good enough for about two months.....

Stalin, in fact, had been supplying resources to Hitler.

The Wehrmacht continued to advance, albeit very slowly, and by mid-November some units found themselves at only 30 kilometers from the capital. But the troops 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.


So....once one recognizes that Stalin was going to be the winner.....
....why did FDR send him supplies that the Allies could have used?

The schools hide the truth to shield FDR from richly deserved contumely.

Same reason so many universities eschew teaching the French Revolution....students might recognize that it gave birth to every totalitarian revolution in modern times.





"....realistically middle sized Germany could not defeat the much larger Ussr in the long term. Germany would have eventually surrendered to the western allies to prevent total occupation by the USSR ..."
So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich Stuff I Done Wrote - The Michael A. Charles Online Presence (comment)


"Between June 22, 1941, and January 31, 1942, the Germans had lost 6,000 airplanes and more than 3,200 tanks and similar vehicles; and no less than 918,000 men had been killed, wounded, or gone missing in action, amounting to 28.7 percent of the average strength of the army, namely, 3,2 million men.[33]

(In the Soviet Union, Germany would lose no less than 10 million of its total 13.5 million men killed, wounded, or taken prisoner during the entire war; and the Red Army would end up claiming credit for 90 per cent of all Germans killed in the Second World War.)
Clive Ponting, 'Armageddon: The Second World War,' p. 130; Stephen E. Ambrose 'Americans at War,' p. 72. ”

 

[rightwinger]

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

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

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

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

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

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

so, you're wrong.


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

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


Patton saw the inevitability of a conflict with the Russians.

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


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



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



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


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

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




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




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



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


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

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

The American public never would have tolerated the carnage involved in beating the Soviets

We could have done it, but it never would have been worth it

 

[Dick Foster]

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.

Well they did have a tough time of it after Hitler played Stalin like a fish. But then Stalin probably killed as many as Hitler did in the Ukrane and both of the bastards killed off Poles like there was no tomorrow. In the end we should have listened to both Churchill and Patton. Of course FDR being a commie asshole himself didn't help any.

 

[Correll]

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

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

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

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

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

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

so, you're wrong.


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

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


Patton saw the inevitability of a conflict with the Russians.

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


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



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



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


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

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




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




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



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


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

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

The American public never would have tolerated the carnage involved in beating the Soviets

We could have done it, but it never would have been worth it

if the public had not been lied to about what the soviets were or who stalin was, they could have been prepared for the possibility of it.

and with that leverage, stalin could have been pushed back into his own pre-war borders.


THAT would have been an accomplishment by fdr, worthy of the praise you heap on him.

 

[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

this thread is about the way, even today, that that alliance born of a common enemy is used today by lefties to glorify the commies and to distact from the historical fact that communism is just as genocidal and oppressive as fascism.

some of that has wandered into examining the actual history and actions of people like fdr and whether what they did was brillant, or barely adequate or worse.

for instance, rightwinger gave credit to fdr for getting the soviets to fight and kill so many nazis.


except, fdr did not cause that. stalin was a loyal friend and ally to hitler, right up to the moment nazi forces crossed into the soviet union with genocidal intent.


thus, ,giving fdr credit for that, is, imo, utterly uncalled for.

no, it's about honoring the SACRIFICES of Russia--that's the title
25 MILLION is a lot of sacrifice --more than any other country gave

oh yeah, in the Middle East also--
so--like I said--doesn't matter where the border was

tens of millions of people not living under totalitarian oppression and instead being on the side of the west, doesn't matter?


i respectfully disagree.

1. there will always be and have been millions of people living under oppression---
--2. not worth US lives
3. Korea was not worth 50,000 US lives
--a. now we are competing with SKorea economically
4. the US CAN'T save the world!!! CAN'T change POLITICS and cultures of other countries
a. we go in to help and a lot of those people think we are invaders/colonialist:
==let me end this point [ undeniably ] with a PERFECT example of how we MURDERED/killed hundreds of thousands and FKd up totally--by trying to save oppressed people--while getting 50,000 American lives WASTED:
Vietnam

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

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

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

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

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

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

so, you're wrong.


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

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


Patton saw the inevitability of a conflict with the Russians.

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


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



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



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


When Undersecretary of War Robert Patterson visited the Third Army, Patton openly lobbied for at least 30 percent of all American troops to remain in 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

this thread is about the way, even today, that that alliance born of a common enemy is used today by lefties to glorify the commies and to distact from the historical fact that communism is just as genocidal and oppressive as fascism.

some of that has wandered into examining the actual history and actions of people like fdr and whether what they did was brillant, or barely adequate or worse.

for instance, rightwinger gave credit to fdr for getting the soviets to fight and kill so many nazis.


except, fdr did not cause that. stalin was a loyal friend and ally to hitler, right up to the moment nazi forces crossed into the soviet union with genocidal intent.


thus, ,giving fdr credit for that, is, imo, utterly uncalled for.

no, it's about honoring the SACRIFICES of Russia--that's the title
25 MILLION is a lot of sacrifice --more than any other country gave

You imbecile......the Soviets killed those Russians.


If stupidity were an element on the Periodic Chart, the symbol would be your picture.

 

[rightwinger]

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

a cold war, with the border on the far side off poland, would have been very different from one with the border in the middle of germany.

What choice did we have in getting the Soviets to give up an Eastern Europe that they fought and died to win?


How do you propose to dislodge them?