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

[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.

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

Russia didn't sacrifice. They SQUANDERED their people. The leadership didn't give two shits about their soldiers. Know why you can't find Soviet uniforms from WWII? Because they made them super cheap because their life expectancy was 4 weeks. Or how about their penal battalions? Piss off the commissar and get sent to one of those where they make you link arms and march you through minefields to clear them.

They didn't sacrifice shit, they used people up because they didn't care about them. A tank was more valuable than the people inside it.

 

[westwall]

Stalin was a POS.

Yes he was
But he managed to defeat the Nazis

No, he won in spite of himself. His actions almost led to the collapse of the USSR in the first months of the German invasion. Fortunately for him he had a few really great generals left, that he hadn't ordered murdered in his purges. Koniev was probably the best followed by Tukachevsky. They saved his incompetent ass.

 

[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.

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

Totally false. By the time we met at the Elba the US Army was the most accomplished, best equipped, best outfitted army in the world. Bar none. But what would have won the war for us is our airpower. The Soviets had no counter to us and we would have won air supremacy over the USSR in short order. Then, just like what we did with the Germans, the Soviet armies couldn't go anywhere without having the crap bombed out of them.

We would have demolished them in short order.

 

[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.

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?

Easy. Tell them to leave. Then, if they chose to fight you destroy their airforce, and then their tank forces. After that it is a simple walk.

 

[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

Totally false. By the time we met at the Elba the US Army was the most accomplished, best equipped, best outfitted army in the world. Bar none. But what would have won the war for us is our airpower. The Soviets had no counter to us and we would have won air supremacy over the USSR in short order. Then, just like what we did with the Germans, the Soviet armies couldn't go anywhere without having the crap bombed out of them.

We would have demolished them in short order.

you are out of your mind if you think we could beat Russia
..the Germans had airpower also
...AND Germany was fighting on TWO fronts--against the 2 largest countries
..the US is not going to beat Russia
..please give us a scenario of the US taking over Russia
..there are very, very few instances of a country totally taking over another in war--especially post WW1

 

[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.

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?

Easy. Tell them to leave. Then, if they chose to fight you destroy their airforce, and then their tank forces. After that it is a simple walk.

you, also, think it's a board game/etc
..just like people think we would could've cakewalked into Hanoi

 

[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

Totally false. By the time we met at the Elba the US Army was the most accomplished, best equipped, best outfitted army in the world. Bar none. But what would have won the war for us is our airpower. The Soviets had no counter to us and we would have won air supremacy over the USSR in short order. Then, just like what we did with the Germans, the Soviet armies couldn't go anywhere without having the crap bombed out of them.

We would have demolished them in short order.

hitler thought the same thing

 

[westwall]

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?

Those defeats were mainly do to Hitler and his stupid Fuhrer orders. Had he been killed early, Generals Like Manstein and Balck, not to mention Strachwitz, would have been able to bleed to Soviet armies dry. Balck alone destroyed a force ten times his size with minimal losses. Strachwitz, while a colonel led four MK IV panzers into Russian territory and destroyed at least 105 T-34's for no loss. There simply was no one on the Soviet side who could match their ability at mobile warfare.

 

[westwall]

.....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

No, they didn't. The US had air supremacy over germany. Nothing moved during the day. Nothing.

 

[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.

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

Those defeats were mainly do to Hitler and his stupid Fuhrer orders. Had he been killed early, Generals Like Manstein and Balck, not to mention Strachwitz, would have been able to bleed to Soviet armies dry. Balck alone destroyed a force ten times his size with minimal losses. Strachwitz, while a colonel led four MK IV panzers into Russian territory and destroyed at least 105 T-34's for no loss. There simply was no one on the Soviet side who could match their ability at mobile warfare.

you have proof of that?
more game board playing by you

There simply was no one on the Soviet side who could match their ability at mobile warfare.

but the Germans LOST

 

[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

No, they didn't. The US had air supremacy over germany. Nothing moved during the day. Nothing.

again--and to close this discussion:
hitler thought the same thing

 

[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

No, they didn't. The US had air supremacy over germany. Nothing moved during the day. Nothing.

but you said:
There simply was no one on the Soviet side who could match their ability at mobile warfare.

 

[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.

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

I never said it was. At least the strategic bombing. The 2nd Tactical Airforce though, they were the most effective unit we had for the destruction of German Panzers. Guess what, they destroy Soviet ones too. And just as easily.

 

[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.

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

Had Stalin not recovered, they had a real chance. But they had to do it early, and they simply ran out of time. Had they invaded earlier, instead of attacking the Balkans, there is a 50/50 chance they could have won. That extra time before the Soviet winter came and halted them in their tracks was key.

 

[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

Had Stalin not recovered, they had a real chance. But they had to do it early, and they simply ran out of time. Had they invaded earlier, instead of attacking the Balkans, there is a 50/50 chance they could have won. That extra time before the Soviet winter came and halted them in their tracks was key.

hitler said the same thing you are saying now --and Germany got beat

 

[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.

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

Totally false. By the time we met at the Elba the US Army was the most accomplished, best equipped, best outfitted army in the world. Bar none. But what would have won the war for us is our airpower. The Soviets had no counter to us and we would have won air supremacy over the USSR in short order. Then, just like what we did with the Germans, the Soviet armies couldn't go anywhere without having the crap bombed out of them.

We would have demolished them in short order.

you are out of your mind if you think we could beat Russia
..the Germans had airpower also
...AND Germany was fighting on TWO fronts--against the 2 largest countries
..the US is not going to beat Russia
..please give us a scenario of the US taking over Russia
..there are very, very few instances of a country totally taking over another in war--especially post WW1

No, the Germans didn't. You claim to be on the WWII forum but you don't seem to know too much. And the USA didn't need to beat Russia. All we needed to do was kick them out of western Europe. That is all we needed to do. And we could have.

 

[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

Had Stalin not recovered, they had a real chance. But they had to do it early, and they simply ran out of time. Had they invaded earlier, instead of attacking the Balkans, there is a 50/50 chance they could have won. That extra time before the Soviet winter came and halted them in their tracks was key.

WOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ..you fk up again
..we have these threads on WW2F
hahahahahh

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF I FIFI IFIFI IF IF IF I FI IF IF
IF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
wrong..if they did that IF that did this
1. bullshit babble
2. there is always a COUNTER to any IF scneario
3. again, you are playing board games

 

[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.

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?

Easy. Tell them to leave. Then, if they chose to fight you destroy their airforce, and then their tank forces. After that it is a simple walk.

you, also, think it's a board game/etc
..just like people think we would could've cakewalked into Hanoi

No, I don't. I have walked the battlefields with the soldiers who fought at those places. I also work with some of the best WWII researchers in the world. The US Army Air Force was the most powerful single military unit in the world. The 8th Airforce alone would have been sufficient to deal with the remnants of the Soviet Air force. And we had the 9thAF, the 12thAF, the 15thAF, the 2nd Tactical Airforce, plus the RAF to throw in to the mix. We would have swept the skies clear in short order.

And no one with a brain think that hanoi would have been a cake walk.

 

[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.

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

Totally false. By the time we met at the Elba the US Army was the most accomplished, best equipped, best outfitted army in the world. Bar none. But what would have won the war for us is our airpower. The Soviets had no counter to us and we would have won air supremacy over the USSR in short order. Then, just like what we did with the Germans, the Soviet armies couldn't go anywhere without having the crap bombed out of them.

We would have demolished them in short order.

hitler thought the same thing

Yes, but he was crazy, and didn't follow the advice of his Generals who knew what they were doing. We did.

 

[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.

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?

Easy. Tell them to leave. Then, if they chose to fight you destroy their airforce, and then their tank forces. After that it is a simple walk.

you, also, think it's a board game/etc
..just like people think we would could've cakewalked into Hanoi

No, I don't. I have walked the battlefields with the soldiers who fought at those places. I also work with some of the best WWII researchers in the world. The US Army Air Force was the most powerful single military unit in the world. The 8th Airforce alone would have been sufficient to deal with the remnants of the Soviet Air force. And we had the 9thAF, the 12thAF, the 15thAF, the 2nd Tactical Airforce, plus the RAF to throw in to the mix. We would have swept the skies clear in short order.

And no one with a brain think that hanoi would have been a cake walk.

..if hitler got the ABomb AND a long range bomber AND a huge naval force AND 200,000 thousand more men, AND this and That