Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?
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.
Sunni man, Ha ha you are such a hypocrtical and slippery fish.I am also a big fan of PoliticalChik's posts, but she is way off base on this topic. ...Yes the Russians were shooting their own not to retreat,
but the Russians, common Soviet folk fought HEROICALLY!
So your a big fan of 'political chic' - could it have anything to do with the fact that she is an anti- Semite?
I See your still including that Holocaust denial vid in every post.
Wonder with her Christian creationist credentials she accepts Allah and the Islamic faith?
Wonder if she agrees with you about the Holocaust?
No point wondering I'd better ask her!
Another lie from the Left.
Amazing how many lies you could get into one post.
I've been to the Holy Land, and like to consider myself a zionist.
And...no, I don't accept 'Allah' as being the same as God.
And I've never claimed to be a Christian creationist...never stated my religion, either.
Anything else?
Your previous post leaves me even more confused!A bit off topic but I'm fascinated to know.5. Now…..the value of those millions of Russians slaughtered?
And the result of those millions of loses?
Wasted lives.
The Soviet Union didn’t liberate anybody, nor try to leave intact democracies with great capitalist systems, as the United States did once Roosevelt was replaced by the American, Truman, who aided France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, and the rest of Western Europe.
Instead, Eastern Europe, bequeathed to the tender mercies of Stalin by Franklin Roosevelt, had to wait for Republican President Ronald Reagan for their freedom from under communism’s boot.
And, of course, Japan, to which we gifted democracy, free market capitalism, and self-determination…and not wholesale liquidation of dissidents. Compare that to this, the 'honored' Soviet Union:
“The Katyn massacre[a] was a series of mass executions of nearly 22,000 Polish military officers and intelligentsia carried out by the Soviet Union, specifically the NKVD ("People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs", the Soviet secret police) in April and May 1940…. 8,000 were officers imprisoned during the 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland, another 6,000 were police officers, and the remaining 8,000 were Polish intelligentsia the Soviets deemed to be "intelligence agents, gendarmes, landowners, saboteurs, factory owners, lawyers, officials, and priests" Katyn massacre - Wikipedia
Stalin murdered those who represented not only the flower of the Polish military but of Polish society as well. Stalin’s minions had executed them all, in one of the worst single episodes of mass execution in the blood-soaked 20th Century, in order to destroy any Polish capacity for resisting a Russian occupation. And Franklin Roosevelt covered it up, and had Stalin’s propaganda broadcast.
Yet the neo-Marxists who control the Democrat Party, the media and the schools......demand gratitude and honor for their blood drenched predecessors.
'Political chic', Where does Allah and the Islamic faith fit into your view of the universe- serious question?
And are you also a Holocaust denier like Sunni Man?
You're admitting your post was filled with the sort of lies you Leftists are infamous for?
Excellent.
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.
The war propaganda in support of the Marxists has never abated, and has led America to a precipice. Now, the truth.
1.An interesting and significant month, August.
August 20–25, 1944
Allied troops reach Paris. On August 25, Free French forces, supported by Allied troops, enter the French capital. By September, the Allies reach the German border; by December, virtually all of France, most of Belgium, and part of the southern Netherlands are liberated. World War II: Timeline.
Did you see any mention of Soviet troops there?
2. Government school propaganda provides two beliefs about the Soviets in WWII.
a. That they deserve gratitude and honor for their valiant efforts and great loses in the war
b. U.S. war propaganda had painted pipesmoking "Uncle Joe Stalin" as a friendly fellow, and the liberal propaganda left people to thinking of Communist Party members as lovable idealists.
Really???
There is no honor or credit due to the Soviet Union because they lost 20 million in the war. The glorification of the role that the Soviets played in WWII is unfounded, and almost entirely due to the neo-Marxist influence in our society due to Democrats/Liberals/Progressives doing public relations for them, as they share the same values and aims.
First: most of the Soviet loses were their troops killed by Stalin’s own forces. One reason they lost 20 million, while we lost 415,000 was due to the value that America placed on human life, and the lack of same interest by Bolsheviks: they don’t care about human life, a characteristic absorbed and propounded by the current Democrat Party.
3. "Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin"
Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin
And.....
World War II left over 27 million Soviet citizens dead....but only a fraction of them were killed by the Germans. Yet throughout the West. 'war crimes' is a phrase only attacked to the Nazis. When the Red Army marched, an NKVD army marched behind, with its own tanks, machine guns, firing forward....never allowing retreat. More than a million Soviet citizens joined the Nazis. Ask yourself this: why was it that the USSR, of all the Allies, had provided the enemy with thousands of recruits? Nearly one million Russian and other anti-Soviet men joined the enemy of their Soviet Army. "The Secret Betrayal" by Nikolai Tolstoy, p. 19-20.
And.....
"In 1945 Zhukov is reported to have said to US General Dwight D. Eisenhower, "If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there." The shear weight of numbers eventually drove the Germans back, along with the Soviet leadership's determination not to relent, whatever the cost."
Website no longer available | Heroes and killers of the 20th century
Website no longer available | Heroes and killers of the 20th centurywww.moreorless.net.au
Tom Clancy has a hero combat soldier exclaim his opinion about the thugs who ran the Soviet Union, the communists:
"Misha waved his hand, looking in annoyance at the way it shook. "I have never had much respect for the chekisti. When I was leading my men, they were there-behind us. They were very efficient at shooting prisoners-prisoners that real soldiers had taken. They were also rather good at murdering people who'd been forced to retreat. I even remember one case where a chekist lieutenant took command of a tank troop and led it into a fucking swamp. At least the Germans I killed were men, fighting men. I hated them, but I could respect them for the soldiers they were. Your kind, on the other hand… perhaps we simple soldiers never really understood who the enemy was. Sometimes I wonder who has killed more Russians, the Germans-or people like you?" “The Cardinal of the Kremlin,”p. 383
So those ‘great loses’ were not at the hands of the Germans, they were by their own leaders. Someone should have told Roosevelt.
Oh…wait….they did!
Love is blind.
Most of what You write is well researched and I like reading it,
but this is just a bunch disgraceful rubbish.
Yes the Russians were shooting their own not to retreat,
but the Russians, common Soviet folk fought HEROICALLY!
It's beyond disrespectful to present the cause of their death like that,
no better than the vulgar leftist one-sided propaganda.
I really can’t believe you.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.
The Soviets would round up a village, march them at gunpoint to a battlefield, and make them run at german machinegun nests to run them out of bullets.
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.
I really can’t believe you.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.
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?
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 really can’t believe you.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.
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?
The Soviets would round up a village, march them at gunpoint to a battlefield, and make them run at german machinegun nests to run them out of bullets.
Do you have a valid historical link to verify that?
Sounds like propaganda
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
The Soviets would round up a village, march them at gunpoint to a battlefield, and make them run at german machinegun nests to run them out of bullets.
Do you have a valid historical link to verify that?
Sounds like propaganda
Yes, there are multiple sources for it. Both Russian and German. I suggest you crack open a book.
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.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.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.
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.
I really can’t believe you.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.
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.
The Soviets would round up a village, march them at gunpoint to a battlefield, and make them run at german machinegun nests to run them out of bullets.
Do you have a valid historical link to verify that?
Sounds like propaganda
Yes, there are multiple sources for it. Both Russian and German. I suggest you crack open a book.
If that is the case......Show me
Telling others to prove your point for you is usually an indication you don’t have a point.
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.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.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.
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.
One of the reasons (there were many) racism! They are too much like us. Jabs on the other hand na not remotely.
I am not advocating nuking anyone.....that is youI really can’t believe you.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.
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?
it is interesting that you can't distinguish between nuking nazi germany and nuking poland or the ukraine.
or, are you just talking shit, like the troll you are?
my point stands. you said we could not win with out stalin.
obviously we could. we had nukes in 1945. that ends wwii, no matter what is going on is russia.
that you could not admit to being wrong and now want to change the subject to how bad of a person I am,
is just you being a liberal. ie an asshole.
