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

[rightwinger]

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.

How do you explain Stalingrad, Leningrad, Moscow, Kursk and countless other slaughters that defeated the Nazis?

 

[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

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


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

the Germans had nothing to do with it????!!!!
ahahahahahhahahahahahahaha

 

[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.

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

a valid ideological position. but one that was completely defeated in the wwii and cold war eras.


the question(s) being discussed here, are based on the assumption that we got involved in wwii, and there was likely going to be a post wwii conflict with the su.

 

[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.

How do you explain Stalingrad, Leningrad, Moscow, Kursk and countless other slaughters that defeated the Nazis?

same way i did before, and you failed to address then, so, why are you pretending to not remember? it was only earlier today.

 

[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

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.

1. pushed back at what cost in lives???!!! --and what for? I just pointed out there would be no difference where the border was
2. do you understand the MONUMENTAL differences in manpower between Russia and the West???!!!--it's NOT going to be ''pushed back'''
3. JESUS CHRIST----!! you think we attack Russia and they will stop fighting when the US wants to stop [ at the border ]?????????!!!!!!
WOW!!
..when you start a war, you don't know where it will go or how long--like Vietnam

 

[Indeependent]

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.

How do you explain Stalingrad, Leningrad, Moscow, Kursk and countless other slaughters that defeated the Nazis?

same way i did before, and you failed to address then, so, why are you pretending to not remember? it was only earlier today.

I actually believe RWer remembers nothing.

 

[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

a valid ideological position. but one that was completely defeated in the wwii and cold war eras.


the question(s) being discussed here, are based on the assumption that we got involved in wwii, and there was likely going to be a post wwii conflict with the su.

sounds like babble---
--we are discussing saving oppressed people --saving the world

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Germany had many Divisions that were ill trained, ill equipped and poorly led. Germany was overextended on many fronts.

Their main priority was the Eastern Front

 

[harmonica]

..I've been reading and researching WW2 for over 40 years
..I'm on WW2Forum and even some of those ''experts'' make the mistake a lot of people do and you people= you are thinking like it's a board game--unrealistically

 

[harmonica]

..I've been reading and researching WW2 for over 40 years
..I'm on WW2Forum and even some of those ''experts'' make the mistake a lot of people do and you people= you are thinking like it's a board game--unrealistically

'''pushing back''' the Russians .....THAT is board gamish--unrealistic

 

[harmonica]

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

 

[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

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.

The public understood what dead soldiers were and that this was not a war on our own territory or a war for our survival.

After 400,000 deaths, they would not have tolerated a million deaths in an ideological fight against communism.

You were not going to push the Soviets back from territory they lost 20 million people for without a savage fight.

The US public would not have stood for it.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

How do you explain Stalingrad, Leningrad, Moscow, Kursk and countless other slaughters that defeated the Nazis?

same way i did before, and you failed to address then, so, why are you pretending to not remember? it was only earlier today.

You claim Stalin did not defeat the Germans......I provided examples. Battles far more destructive than the ones the US fought in.

 

[PoliticalChic]

..I've been reading and researching WW2 for over 40 years
..I'm on WW2Forum and even some of those ''experts'' make the mistake a lot of people do and you people= you are thinking like it's a board game--unrealistically

Nothing stuck, huh?

A learning disability????

 

[westwall]

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

The US provided them with millions of tons of food and munitions, thousands of aircraft and tanks, and we gave them 600,000 trucks. We mobilized their entire army.

You are factually wrong in all cases.

 

[westwall]

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

Yes, but their transportation went DOWN. And, the Germans didn't enter full war production till the end of 1944.

 

[westwall]

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

Actually, they were. But one very brave British Paratrooper knocked out the lead tank as it was approaching Pegasus Bridge.

Once again you are wrong

 

[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

Yes, but their transportation went DOWN. And, the Germans didn't enter full war production till the end of 1944.

doesn't refute the point
bombing was not going to win the war
they transported a lot to get Wacht Am Rhein going in late 1944
...the German lines of communication were SHORTENING, not lengthening

 

[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

Actually, they were. But one very brave British Paratrooper knocked out the lead tank as it was approaching Pegasus Bridge.

Once again you are wrong

hahahhahahaha
babble

 

[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

The US provided them with millions of tons of food and munitions, thousands of aircraft and tanks, and we gave them 600,000 trucks. We mobilized their entire army.

You are factually wrong in all cases.

you don't know what you are talking about
.....the Germans were not going to beat Russia--with or without US industrial help