In Charge: Eisenhower or Stalin?

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
125,095
60,651
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
Who determined the war plans of the Allies...Eisenhower or Stalin?
Who ran the show?




1. The American soldiers who fought in WWII, correctly known as " The Greatest Generation," were true believers in America and the values of the Founders. How ironic, how truly pathetic, that just a few generations later, 65 million Americans would be convinced to vote for the representative of every desire that communism endorsed.

But, back to that war....here is a glimpse into the power that sociopath Joseph Stalin had during that war itself.....
Stalin actually delivered the orders that were followed in pursuit of WWII.




2. Stalin demanded 'a second front' be opened in Europe, to hinder Hitler's attacks on Russia....and a major question was whether it would be via Italy, or from northern France, i.e., Normandy.

Since Stalin's agenda had always been to occupy Eastern Europe, he ordered that it be via France, leaving the middle of Europe to the occupation by the Red Army.








3. It is unlikely that historians ever will be able to determine the proportionate share of responsibility which must be attributed collectively to Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Hopkins and George Marshall.... Roosevelt had the power, but he was influenced by Hopkins and Marshall. Hopkins also influenced Marshall, and therefore was the dominant member of the triumvirate.

Of the three, Marshall's record is the most tragic and incomprehensible. Throughout World War II and the postwar years, down to 1951, when he was largely responsible for the removal of General MacArthur from command in the Far East and for the strategy of appeasement which resulted in our defeat in the Korean War.... The record of his service to the communist cause, however innocent, is appalling, and hardly could have been worse if he had consciously acted on instructions from the Kremlin.
Chesly Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.118





4. The actual plans for the invasion of Europe "was the brain child of the United States army," meaning General Eisenhower, a Marshall protégé, who was in charge of the planning (according to Henry Stimson's book, "On Active Service in Peace and War").

The evidence is conclusive, however, that if Eisenhower's ideas had not been in full accord with those conceived before the war by Marshall and Hopkins, the planning assignment, the supreme command of the allied expeditionary forces, and the five stars that adorned his shoulders would have gone to some other general.
Chesly Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.119



As we will prove, Eisenhower changed his view to accord with Marshall's.




a. Churchill strongly opposed the cross channel invasion both on military and political grounds. He was thinking about the future of Europe and the world, with Germany destroyed and triumphant communism dominating the Eurasian heartland. This prompted a difficulty for American "Russia First" strategists." A major factor in all American thinking of that time," writes General Eisenhower, "was a lively suspicion that the British contemplated the agreed-upon cross-channel concept with distaste and with considerable mental reservations. . . ."

b. Eisenhower told Marshall that he favored a limited operation on the northwest coast of France in the fall of 1942 to capture an area which later would serve as a bridgehead for a large-scale invasion. ( "Crusade in Europe," by Dwight D. Eisenhower) He further states that in June, 1942, "the great bulk of the fighting equipment, naval, air and ground, needed for the invasion did not exist."

Hanson Baldwin declares: "It is obvious that our concept of invading western Europe in 1942 was fantastic; our deficiencies in North Africa, which was a much needed training school, proved that."





Eisenhower, the military expert, favored a limited probe via France and the real attack elsewhere, and Hanson Baldwin, long-time military editor of the New York Times, thought the the western attack 'fantastic,' and Churchill was opposed as well.

But Stalin favored it....so, therefore did his agent, Harry Hopkins.





So, why was the invasion through France, rather than Italy?

Answer: Franklin Roosevelt was a Stalin sympathizer; Harry Hopkins, a Soviet agent; George Marshall, a willing accomplice.

Joseph Stalin dictated the Allies invasion plans.
 
Who determined the war plans of the Allies...Eisenhower or Stalin?
Who ran the show?




1. The American soldiers who fought in WWII, correctly known as " The Greatest Generation," were true believers in America and the values of the Founders. How ironic, how truly pathetic, that just a few generations later, 65 million Americans would be convinced to vote for the representative of every desire that communism endorsed.

But, back to that war....here is a glimpse into the power that sociopath Joseph Stalin had during that war itself.....
Stalin actually delivered the orders that were followed in pursuit of WWII.




2. Stalin demanded 'a second front' be opened in Europe, to hinder Hitler's attacks on Russia....and a major question was whether it would be via Italy, or from northern France, i.e., Normandy.

Since Stalin's agenda had always been to occupy Eastern Europe, he ordered that it be via France, leaving the middle of Europe to the occupation by the Red Army.








3. It is unlikely that historians ever will be able to determine the proportionate share of responsibility which must be attributed collectively to Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Hopkins and George Marshall.... Roosevelt had the power, but he was influenced by Hopkins and Marshall. Hopkins also influenced Marshall, and therefore was the dominant member of the triumvirate.

Of the three, Marshall's record is the most tragic and incomprehensible. Throughout World War II and the postwar years, down to 1951, when he was largely responsible for the removal of General MacArthur from command in the Far East and for the strategy of appeasement which resulted in our defeat in the Korean War.... The record of his service to the communist cause, however innocent, is appalling, and hardly could have been worse if he had consciously acted on instructions from the Kremlin.
Chesly Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.118





4. The actual plans for the invasion of Europe "was the brain child of the United States army," meaning General Eisenhower, a Marshall protégé, who was in charge of the planning (according to Henry Stimson's book, "On Active Service in Peace and War").

The evidence is conclusive, however, that if Eisenhower's ideas had not been in full accord with those conceived before the war by Marshall and Hopkins, the planning assignment, the supreme command of the allied expeditionary forces, and the five stars that adorned his shoulders would have gone to some other general.
Chesly Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.119



As we will prove, Eisenhower changed his view to accord with Marshall's.




a. Churchill strongly opposed the cross channel invasion both on military and political grounds. He was thinking about the future of Europe and the world, with Germany destroyed and triumphant communism dominating the Eurasian heartland. This prompted a difficulty for American "Russia First" strategists." A major factor in all American thinking of that time," writes General Eisenhower, "was a lively suspicion that the British contemplated the agreed-upon cross-channel concept with distaste and with considerable mental reservations. . . ."

b. Eisenhower told Marshall that he favored a limited operation on the northwest coast of France in the fall of 1942 to capture an area which later would serve as a bridgehead for a large-scale invasion. ( "Crusade in Europe," by Dwight D. Eisenhower) He further states that in June, 1942, "the great bulk of the fighting equipment, naval, air and ground, needed for the invasion did not exist."

Hanson Baldwin declares: "It is obvious that our concept of invading western Europe in 1942 was fantastic; our deficiencies in North Africa, which was a much needed training school, proved that."





Eisenhower, the military expert, favored a limited probe via France and the real attack elsewhere, and Hanson Baldwin, long-time military editor of the New York Times, thought the the western attack 'fantastic,' and Churchill was opposed as well.

But Stalin favored it....so, therefore did his agent, Harry Hopkins.





So, why was the invasion through France, rather than Italy?

Answer: Franklin Roosevelt was a Stalin sympathizer; Harry Hopkins, a Soviet agent; George Marshall, a willing accomplice.

Joseph Stalin dictated the Allies invasion plans.

My committee has tried to find a member of the Greatest Generation that was not a communist nor took orders from Stalin. We think we found one in Iowa. His name is still confidential because the home would not release him or his name, but already we are laying the base for his statue. Strangely enough, he also wears a cape, makes funny noises and insists the entire ward is filled with communists. Just the other day he waved a paper in his hand and said something about having the names of sixty people that were communists and all worked in the hospital.
 
Who determined the war plans of the Allies...Eisenhower or Stalin?
Who ran the show?




1. The American soldiers who fought in WWII, correctly known as " The Greatest Generation," were true believers in America and the values of the Founders. How ironic, how truly pathetic, that just a few generations later, 65 million Americans would be convinced to vote for the representative of every desire that communism endorsed.

But, back to that war....here is a glimpse into the power that sociopath Joseph Stalin had during that war itself.....
Stalin actually delivered the orders that were followed in pursuit of WWII.




2. Stalin demanded 'a second front' be opened in Europe, to hinder Hitler's attacks on Russia....and a major question was whether it would be via Italy, or from northern France, i.e., Normandy.

Since Stalin's agenda had always been to occupy Eastern Europe, he ordered that it be via France, leaving the middle of Europe to the occupation by the Red Army.








3. It is unlikely that historians ever will be able to determine the proportionate share of responsibility which must be attributed collectively to Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Hopkins and George Marshall.... Roosevelt had the power, but he was influenced by Hopkins and Marshall. Hopkins also influenced Marshall, and therefore was the dominant member of the triumvirate.

Of the three, Marshall's record is the most tragic and incomprehensible. Throughout World War II and the postwar years, down to 1951, when he was largely responsible for the removal of General MacArthur from command in the Far East and for the strategy of appeasement which resulted in our defeat in the Korean War.... The record of his service to the communist cause, however innocent, is appalling, and hardly could have been worse if he had consciously acted on instructions from the Kremlin.
Chesly Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.118





4. The actual plans for the invasion of Europe "was the brain child of the United States army," meaning General Eisenhower, a Marshall protégé, who was in charge of the planning (according to Henry Stimson's book, "On Active Service in Peace and War").

The evidence is conclusive, however, that if Eisenhower's ideas had not been in full accord with those conceived before the war by Marshall and Hopkins, the planning assignment, the supreme command of the allied expeditionary forces, and the five stars that adorned his shoulders would have gone to some other general.
Chesly Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.119



As we will prove, Eisenhower changed his view to accord with Marshall's.




a. Churchill strongly opposed the cross channel invasion both on military and political grounds. He was thinking about the future of Europe and the world, with Germany destroyed and triumphant communism dominating the Eurasian heartland. This prompted a difficulty for American "Russia First" strategists." A major factor in all American thinking of that time," writes General Eisenhower, "was a lively suspicion that the British contemplated the agreed-upon cross-channel concept with distaste and with considerable mental reservations. . . ."

b. Eisenhower told Marshall that he favored a limited operation on the northwest coast of France in the fall of 1942 to capture an area which later would serve as a bridgehead for a large-scale invasion. ( "Crusade in Europe," by Dwight D. Eisenhower) He further states that in June, 1942, "the great bulk of the fighting equipment, naval, air and ground, needed for the invasion did not exist."

Hanson Baldwin declares: "It is obvious that our concept of invading western Europe in 1942 was fantastic; our deficiencies in North Africa, which was a much needed training school, proved that."





Eisenhower, the military expert, favored a limited probe via France and the real attack elsewhere, and Hanson Baldwin, long-time military editor of the New York Times, thought the the western attack 'fantastic,' and Churchill was opposed as well.

But Stalin favored it....so, therefore did his agent, Harry Hopkins.





So, why was the invasion through France, rather than Italy?

Answer: Franklin Roosevelt was a Stalin sympathizer; Harry Hopkins, a Soviet agent; George Marshall, a willing accomplice.

Joseph Stalin dictated the Allies invasion plans.

My committee has tried to find a member of the Greatest Generation that was not a communist nor took orders from Stalin. We think we found one in Iowa. His name is still confidential because the home would not release him or his name, but already we are laying the base for his statue. Strangely enough, he also wears a cape, makes funny noises and insists the entire ward is filled with communists. Just the other day he waved a paper in his hand and said something about having the names of sixty people that were communists and all worked in the hospital.




Good ol' reggie!

…countered these mountains of hard facts with a big helping of the usual supercilious sneering. …a mountain of unassailable empirical data…

....and, from you Roosevelt apologist, an attempt at what passes for humor.


A feeble attempt at that.



Throughout the day I'll bury you with more in this thread.




Roosevelt took orders from Harry Hopkins, who took his orders from Joseph Stalin.
 
Stalin screamed for the allies to open a second front for three years while the Soviets suffered millions of casualties

We were hardly jumping to his bidding

Why not tell us how Eisenhower did what DeGaulle ordered him to?
 
Stalin screamed for the allies to open a second front for three years while the Soviets suffered millions of casualties

We were hardly jumping to his bidding

Why not tell us how Eisenhower did what DeGaulle ordered him to?

Give her time, I'm sure she's working on it.
 
So, why was the invasion through France, rather than Italy?

Answer: Franklin Roosevelt was a Stalin sympathizer; Harry Hopkins, a Soviet agent; George Marshall, a willing accomplice.

Joseph Stalin dictated the Allies invasion plans.

You need to read some different books. The invasion of Europe didn't begin in France, it began in Itlaly with the invasion of Sicily on 9 July 1943 followed by the invasion of the mainland on 3 September 1943. The last battle of Monte Cassino had barely ended when the D-Day invasion of France occured. There was still more fighting to come in Italy and victory wouldn't be declared until September of 1944, three months after the Normandy invasion.
Stalin and his wishs had nothing to do with when and where the invasion took place. It was all about terrain. The German's were the defenders. An offensive campaign against an entrenced defender is extremely costly. Defenders entrenced on farmlands, plains and rolling hills are much easier and less costly in casualties to defeat that defenders dug into mountains. The allies designed a campaign of armor and maneuver, not charging up mountainsides in suicide assaults the way they had to fight in the mountainous regions of Italy (Monte Cassino). Any movement out of Italy would have meant even more casualty costly mountain warfare.
 
Last edited:
The Problem with PC and her ilk is that they are mad that WWII, a Liberal endeavor, successfully dispatched one of the most evil Christian leaders ever to be "saved" by Christ.

Adolf "Me loves me some Jesus" Hitler.
 
PC is compelled by her mental illness (Narcissistic Personality Disorder), always and in every thread she posts, to attack the intelligence and character of anyone who dares to challenge her. Her use of logical fallacies in lieu of rational argument is a lesson in informal logic: Poisoning the Well, Appeal to Ridicule, Abusive Ad Hominem, Appeal to Common Belief, Assertion (you say that X is true. Therefore X is true) and others show her true metal, and it is tin foil much like the hats worn by those who feed her obese ego.
 
Last edited:
Stalin screamed for the allies to open a second front for three years while the Soviets suffered millions of casualties

We were hardly jumping to his bidding

Why not tell us how Eisenhower did what DeGaulle ordered him to?






Well....there was a "second front"....it was in North Africa.

But....for the reasons stated in the OP, that was not where Stalin wanted it.....



5. All of the efforts of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Hopkins, and George Marshall went into opening a "second front" to reduce the tribulations of 'Uncle Joe' Stalin.

Robert E. Sherwood, in "Roosevelt and Hopkins," notes the
"contradictory circumstance of the American representatives [Hopkins and Marshall] constantly sticking to the main topic of the war against Germany while the British representatives were repeatedly bringing up reminders of the war against Japan."
'It was a policy that dominated American military and political decisions throughout the war-decisions that insured victory for communism. The American policy called for support of the Soviet Union on all European and FarEastern questions.'
Manly, p. 114-115.




a. Harry Hopkins would not consider the arguments of the British, that the attack be up from Italy and the Adriatic.

"Hopkins said very positively that once the decision was taken to go ahead with the trans-Channel Operation it could not be reversed. "Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History," volume 2, p. 542, Robert E. Sherwood

b. Even after this:
"September 8th, 1943... Italy has signed an unconditional armistice with the Allies, General Dwight D Eisenhower has announced." BBC ON THIS DAY | 8 | 1943: Italy's surrender announced


Nine months before the Normandy invasion.


Bad news to good communists.



But Stalin still held three 'aces:'
Roosevelt, Hopkins, and Marshall
 
Stalin screamed for the allies to open a second front for three years while the Soviets suffered millions of casualties

We were hardly jumping to his bidding

Why not tell us how Eisenhower did what DeGaulle ordered him to?






Well....there was a "second front"....it was in North Africa.

But....for the reasons stated in the OP, that was not where Stalin wanted it.....



5. All of the efforts of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Hopkins, and George Marshall went into opening a "second front" to reduce the tribulations of 'Uncle Joe' Stalin.

Robert E. Sherwood, in "Roosevelt and Hopkins," notes the
"contradictory circumstance of the American representatives [Hopkins and Marshall] constantly sticking to the main topic of the war against Germany while the British representatives were repeatedly bringing up reminders of the war against Japan."
'It was a policy that dominated American military and political decisions throughout the war-decisions that insured victory for communism. The American policy called for support of the Soviet Union on all European and FarEastern questions.'
Manly, p. 114-115.




a. Harry Hopkins would not consider the arguments of the British, that the attack be up from Italy and the Adriatic.

"Hopkins said very positively that once the decision was taken to go ahead with the trans-Channel Operation it could not be reversed. "Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History," volume 2, p. 542, Robert E. Sherwood

b. Even after this:
"September 8th, 1943... Italy has signed an unconditional armistice with the Allies, General Dwight D Eisenhower has announced." BBC ON THIS DAY | 8 | 1943: Italy's surrender announced


Nine months before the Normandy invasion.


Bad news to good communists.



But Stalin still held three 'aces:'
Roosevelt, Hopkins, and Marshall

1. Stalin wanted to stophaving to fight the brunt of the Nazi Army by himself





a North Africa did not do that. Neither did Italy
 
Last edited:
PC is compelled by her mental illness (Narcissistic Personality Disorder), always and in every thread she posts, to attack the intelligence and character of anyone who dares to challenge her. Her use of logical fallacies in lieu of rational argument is a lesson in informal logic: Poisoning the Well, Appeal to Ridicule, Abusive Ad Hominem, Appeal to Common Belief, Assertion (you say that X is true. Therefore X is true) and others show her true metal, and it is tin foil much like the hats worn by those who feed her obese ego.






1. ".... to attack the intelligence and character of anyone who dares to challenge her."


Pleeeezzzeee.....don't suggest that "... intelligence and character ...." refers in any way to you.


That would be a reliance on facts not in evidence.






2. "...show her true metal, and it is tin foil much like the hats worn by those who feed her obese ego."

I'm really easy to get along with once you learn to worship me.






3. "....Her use of logical fallacies in lieu of rational argument..."

First of all, I don't argue....I simply explain why I'm right.

Secondly, the evidence for my rectitude is clear: you have failed to contest even one of the items I've posted.






4. "...Abusive Ad Hominem..."

Really.

You’re such a delicate child….you must wash in Woolite.

Let me remind, there is no problem with ad hominem descriptions as long as they are true....as is the case with everything I've reported about you....e.g., A brain like a BB in a boxcar.

...you dope.
 
So, why was the invasion through France, rather than Italy?

Answer: Franklin Roosevelt was a Stalin sympathizer; Harry Hopkins, a Soviet agent; George Marshall, a willing accomplice.

Joseph Stalin dictated the Allies invasion plans.


The claims of a disintegrating mind.
 
Stalin screamed for the allies to open a second front for three years while the Soviets suffered millions of casualties

We were hardly jumping to his bidding

Why not tell us how Eisenhower did what DeGaulle ordered him to?






Well....there was a "second front"....it was in North Africa.

But....for the reasons stated in the OP, that was not where Stalin wanted it.....



5. All of the efforts of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Hopkins, and George Marshall went into opening a "second front" to reduce the tribulations of 'Uncle Joe' Stalin.

Robert E. Sherwood, in "Roosevelt and Hopkins," notes the
"contradictory circumstance of the American representatives [Hopkins and Marshall] constantly sticking to the main topic of the war against Germany while the British representatives were repeatedly bringing up reminders of the war against Japan."
'It was a policy that dominated American military and political decisions throughout the war-decisions that insured victory for communism. The American policy called for support of the Soviet Union on all European and FarEastern questions.'
Manly, p. 114-115.




a. Harry Hopkins would not consider the arguments of the British, that the attack be up from Italy and the Adriatic.

"Hopkins said very positively that once the decision was taken to go ahead with the trans-Channel Operation it could not be reversed. "Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History," volume 2, p. 542, Robert E. Sherwood

b. Even after this:
"September 8th, 1943... Italy has signed an unconditional armistice with the Allies, General Dwight D Eisenhower has announced." BBC ON THIS DAY | 8 | 1943: Italy's surrender announced


Nine months before the Normandy invasion.


Bad news to good communists.



But Stalin still held three 'aces:'
Roosevelt, Hopkins, and Marshall

1. Stalin wanted to stophaving to fight the brunt of the Nazi Army by himself





a North Africa did not do that. Neither did Italy






Was Stalin losing on the Eastern front?


You are simply a moron clutching at straws to save the reputation of the pro-Soviet Roosevelt.

"The Battle of Kursk was a Second World War engagement between German and Soviet forces on the Eastern Front between July and August 1943. The German offensive, codenamed Operation Citadel (German: Unternehmen Zitadelle), sought to destroy large Soviet forces near the Russian city of Kursk ....one of the largest armoured clashes in history, ...

The German offensive was countered by two Soviet counteroffensives, Operations Polkovodets Rumyantsev (Russian: Полководец Румя́нцев) and Kutuzov (Russian: Кутузов), that decisively defeated the German military. "
Battle of Kursk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



If you knew history I'd call you a liar....but you're simply an ignorant ideologue.



I just picked up "Inside The Soviet Army," by Sudorov.
One reviewer writes: "...the most ruthless use of millions of its own citizens in 'penal battalions' and human wave assaults were the Reds able to stem the German advance, not through strategy but simply by choking the Nazis with blood and eventually, washing them away with it. This lesson was not lost on the postwar Communist leadership, and it is a damn good job we never went to war with Soviet Russia. People who view tens of millions of military and civilian deaths as a necessary part of any wartime equation would not have been hesitant to let the nuclear missles fly."


Still believe Uncle Joe was at death's door?
 
Well....there was a "second front"....it was in North Africa.

But....for the reasons stated in the OP, that was not where Stalin wanted it.....



5. All of the efforts of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Hopkins, and George Marshall went into opening a "second front" to reduce the tribulations of 'Uncle Joe' Stalin.

Robert E. Sherwood, in "Roosevelt and Hopkins," notes the
"contradictory circumstance of the American representatives [Hopkins and Marshall] constantly sticking to the main topic of the war against Germany while the British representatives were repeatedly bringing up reminders of the war against Japan."
'It was a policy that dominated American military and political decisions throughout the war-decisions that insured victory for communism. The American policy called for support of the Soviet Union on all European and FarEastern questions.'
Manly, p. 114-115.




a. Harry Hopkins would not consider the arguments of the British, that the attack be up from Italy and the Adriatic.

"Hopkins said very positively that once the decision was taken to go ahead with the trans-Channel Operation it could not be reversed. "Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History," volume 2, p. 542, Robert E. Sherwood

b. Even after this:
"September 8th, 1943... Italy has signed an unconditional armistice with the Allies, General Dwight D Eisenhower has announced." BBC ON THIS DAY | 8 | 1943: Italy's surrender announced


Nine months before the Normandy invasion.


Bad news to good communists.



But Stalin still held three 'aces:'
Roosevelt, Hopkins, and Marshall

1. Stalin wanted to stophaving to fight the brunt of the Nazi Army by himself





a North Africa did not do that. Neither did Italy






Was Stalin losing on the Eastern front?


You are simply a moron clutching at straws to save the reputation of the pro-Soviet Roosevelt.

"The Battle of Kursk was a Second World War engagement between German and Soviet forces on the Eastern Front between July and August 1943. The German offensive, codenamed Operation Citadel (German: Unternehmen Zitadelle), sought to destroy large Soviet forces near the Russian city of Kursk ....one of the largest armoured clashes in history, ...

The German offensive was countered by two Soviet counteroffensives, Operations Polkovodets Rumyantsev (Russian: Полководец Румя́нцев) and Kutuzov (Russian: Кутузов), that decisively defeated the German military. "
Battle of Kursk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



If you knew history I'd call you a liar....but you're simply an ignorant ideologue.



I just picked up "Inside The Soviet Army," by Sudorov.
One reviewer writes: "...the most ruthless use of millions of its own citizens in 'penal battalions' and human wave assaults were the Reds able to stem the German advance, not through strategy but simply by choking the Nazis with blood and eventually, washing them away with it. This lesson was not lost on the postwar Communist leadership, and it is a damn good job we never went to war with Soviet Russia. People who view tens of millions of military and civilian deaths as a necessary part of any wartime equation would not have been hesitant to let the nuclear missles fly."


Still believe Uncle Joe was at death's door?

1. Stalin was losing millions of troops




b. There were several times that Nazis came close to breakthroughs on numerous fronts




4. His people were starving



m. Kursk helped turn the war for the Soviets. If anything, the Invasion of Normandy prevented the Soviets from marching straight through Western Europe
 
1. Stalin wanted to stophaving to fight the brunt of the Nazi Army by himself





a North Africa did not do that. Neither did Italy






Was Stalin losing on the Eastern front?


You are simply a moron clutching at straws to save the reputation of the pro-Soviet Roosevelt.

"The Battle of Kursk was a Second World War engagement between German and Soviet forces on the Eastern Front between July and August 1943. The German offensive, codenamed Operation Citadel (German: Unternehmen Zitadelle), sought to destroy large Soviet forces near the Russian city of Kursk ....one of the largest armoured clashes in history, ...

The German offensive was countered by two Soviet counteroffensives, Operations Polkovodets Rumyantsev (Russian: Полководец Румя́нцев) and Kutuzov (Russian: Кутузов), that decisively defeated the German military. "
Battle of Kursk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



If you knew history I'd call you a liar....but you're simply an ignorant ideologue.



I just picked up "Inside The Soviet Army," by Sudorov.
One reviewer writes: "...the most ruthless use of millions of its own citizens in 'penal battalions' and human wave assaults were the Reds able to stem the German advance, not through strategy but simply by choking the Nazis with blood and eventually, washing them away with it. This lesson was not lost on the postwar Communist leadership, and it is a damn good job we never went to war with Soviet Russia. People who view tens of millions of military and civilian deaths as a necessary part of any wartime equation would not have been hesitant to let the nuclear missles fly."


Still believe Uncle Joe was at death's door?

1. Stalin was losing millions of troops




b. There were several times that Nazis came close to breakthroughs on numerous fronts




4. His people were starving



m. Kursk helped turn the war for the Soviets. If anything, the Invasion of Normandy prevented the Soviets from marching straight through Western Europe




1. Was Stalin losing on the Eastern front?



Why so afraid to answer?




2. As far as losing millions......he didn't care.
Communists are just fine with slaughter.....they killed over 100 million in the last century.
Stalin killed more Soviets than the Germans did.


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.

The Soviet Union killed more than twenty million of its own men, women and children.



"Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin"
Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin - NYTimes.com




So what have we learned?

a. Allied attack via Italy would have defeated Stalin's plan to occupy Eastern Europe. So he wouldn't allow it.

b. Stalin wasn't losing on the Eastern Front, so ANY second front would have been acceptable.

c. The loss of Soviet citizens was of no concern to the maniac Stalin.

d. You know nothing, except that you must defend Franklin Roosevelt.
 
1. Stalin wanted to stophaving to fight the brunt of the Nazi Army by himself





a North Africa did not do that. Neither did Italy






Was Stalin losing on the Eastern front?


You are simply a moron clutching at straws to save the reputation of the pro-Soviet Roosevelt.

"The Battle of Kursk was a Second World War engagement between German and Soviet forces on the Eastern Front between July and August 1943. The German offensive, codenamed Operation Citadel (German: Unternehmen Zitadelle), sought to destroy large Soviet forces near the Russian city of Kursk ....one of the largest armoured clashes in history, ...

The German offensive was countered by two Soviet counteroffensives, Operations Polkovodets Rumyantsev (Russian: Полководец Румя́нцев) and Kutuzov (Russian: Кутузов), that decisively defeated the German military. "
Battle of Kursk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



If you knew history I'd call you a liar....but you're simply an ignorant ideologue.



I just picked up "Inside The Soviet Army," by Sudorov.
One reviewer writes: "...the most ruthless use of millions of its own citizens in 'penal battalions' and human wave assaults were the Reds able to stem the German advance, not through strategy but simply by choking the Nazis with blood and eventually, washing them away with it. This lesson was not lost on the postwar Communist leadership, and it is a damn good job we never went to war with Soviet Russia. People who view tens of millions of military and civilian deaths as a necessary part of any wartime equation would not have been hesitant to let the nuclear missles fly."


Still believe Uncle Joe was at death's door?

1. Stalin was losing millions of troops




b. There were several times that Nazis came close to breakthroughs on numerous fronts




4. His people were starving



m. Kursk helped turn the war for the Soviets. If anything, the Invasion of Normandy prevented the Soviets from marching straight through Western Europe




"His people were starving."


So?

Before Hitler attacked him, Stalin was taking the food from starving Russians and giving it to the Nazis.


1. When Hitler began his advances on other countries, Stalin refused to join the nations talking of stopping him. Stalin was, in fact, pleased that Hitler was destroying the old order throughout Europe. "There will be no parliaments, no trade unions, no armies, no governments....then Stalin will come as the liberator...millions of people will be sitting in concentration camps, hoping someone will liberate them, then Stalin and the Red Army will come and liberate them. That was his plan."
Vladimir Bukovsky.


2. But Hitler didn't have the supplies nor resources he needed, so August 23, 1939, Soviet Russia' Foreign Minister Molotov signs the Nazi-Soviet Non-aggression Pact while German Foreign Minister Von Ribbentrop and Soviet leader Josef Stalin look on, while standing under a portrait of Lenin –materials to be provided in later economic agreements.
- The Soviet Story (Docu) - Full Movie / English - LivingScoop
 
Was Stalin losing on the Eastern front?


You are simply a moron clutching at straws to save the reputation of the pro-Soviet Roosevelt.

"The Battle of Kursk was a Second World War engagement between German and Soviet forces on the Eastern Front between July and August 1943. The German offensive, codenamed Operation Citadel (German: Unternehmen Zitadelle), sought to destroy large Soviet forces near the Russian city of Kursk ....one of the largest armoured clashes in history, ...

The German offensive was countered by two Soviet counteroffensives, Operations Polkovodets Rumyantsev (Russian: Полководец Румя́нцев) and Kutuzov (Russian: Кутузов), that decisively defeated the German military. "
Battle of Kursk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



If you knew history I'd call you a liar....but you're simply an ignorant ideologue.



I just picked up "Inside The Soviet Army," by Sudorov.
One reviewer writes: "...the most ruthless use of millions of its own citizens in 'penal battalions' and human wave assaults were the Reds able to stem the German advance, not through strategy but simply by choking the Nazis with blood and eventually, washing them away with it. This lesson was not lost on the postwar Communist leadership, and it is a damn good job we never went to war with Soviet Russia. People who view tens of millions of military and civilian deaths as a necessary part of any wartime equation would not have been hesitant to let the nuclear missles fly."


Still believe Uncle Joe was at death's door?

1. Stalin was losing millions of troops




b. There were several times that Nazis came close to breakthroughs on numerous fronts




4. His people were starving



m. Kursk helped turn the war for the Soviets. If anything, the Invasion of Normandy prevented the Soviets from marching straight through Western Europe




1. Was Stalin losing on the Eastern front?



Why so afraid to answer?




2. As far as losing millions......he didn't care.
Communists are just fine with slaughter.....they killed over 100 million in the last century.
Stalin killed more Soviets than the Germans did.


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.

The Soviet Union killed more than twenty million of its own men, women and children.



"Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin"
Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin - NYTimes.com




So what have we learned?

a. Allied attack via Italy would have defeated Stalin's plan to occupy Eastern Europe. So he wouldn't allow it.

b. Stalin wasn't losing on the Eastern Front, so ANY second front would have been acceptable.

c. The loss of Soviet citizens was of no concern to the maniac Stalin.

d. You know nothing, except that you must defend Franklin Roosevelt.

1. Is losing millions of people losing?



a> Losing is defined as:


lose
[looz] Show IPA



verb (used with object), lost, los·ing.


1.
to come to be without (something in one's possession or care), through accident, theft, etc., so that there is little or no prospect of recovery: I'm sure I've merely misplaced my hat, not lost it.




2.
to fail inadvertently to retain (something) in such a way that it cannot be immediately recovered: I just lost a dime under this sofa.




3.
to suffer the deprivation of: to lose one's job; to lose one's life.




4.
to be bereaved of by death: to lose a sister.



5.
to fail to keep, preserve, or maintain: to lose one's balance; to lose one's figure.



c. How could he not care about losing millions?



6. It was destroying his workforce. The bulk of his economy. A generation of male workers
 

Forum List

Back
Top