Think You Know Who Won WWII?

[PoliticalChic]

Losing the 20 million was no problem to Stalin. He could twist the screws a bit more on dissidents and gave the low level Russians at least something they could rally around (that whole save Motherland Russia thing). Plus the sheer amount of territorial gains and a buffer zone in East Europe the Soviets ended up with made it worthwhile.

Obviously France and Britain lost far more than any gains. Both countries were effectively bombed flat, economies in ruins, and their colonial empires began being dismantled in the process of rebuilding.

I'm not even sure how much I would count the US in the winner's column to be honest. With the Pax Britania over, someone had to step into the void to ensure stability and the only western nation left was the US. The US economy hummed along for the next 25 years, but that was more because nobody else had any manufacturing capabilities left at all. Then with the US being transformed into a world peacekeeper at odds with Soviet expansion we did get into that military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about, constant low level war (either as an active player like in Korea or Vietnam or by using another conflict as a proxy war like with Afghanistan). It forced the US to get into bed with some very nasty characters like Diem and Saddam and Pinochet and hurt US images overseas. Plus all the foreign entanglements that came along with NATO, SEATO, and the UN. How much money and lives did the next 50 years worth of WW2 victory really cost Americans?

Do we put too much faith in wars anymore? Seems wars never turn out the way one planned, even by winning. In fact, today's wars might be laying the ground work for tomorrow's problems.

Spoken like a true pacifist!


War does not determine who is right - only who is left.

 

[regent]

Losing the 20 million was no problem to Stalin. He could twist the screws a bit more on dissidents and gave the low level Russians at least something they could rally around (that whole save Motherland Russia thing). Plus the sheer amount of territorial gains and a buffer zone in East Europe the Soviets ended up with made it worthwhile.

Obviously France and Britain lost far more than any gains. Both countries were effectively bombed flat, economies in ruins, and their colonial empires began being dismantled in the process of rebuilding.

I'm not even sure how much I would count the US in the winner's column to be honest. With the Pax Britania over, someone had to step into the void to ensure stability and the only western nation left was the US. The US economy hummed along for the next 25 years, but that was more because nobody else had any manufacturing capabilities left at all. Then with the US being transformed into a world peacekeeper at odds with Soviet expansion we did get into that military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about, constant low level war (either as an active player like in Korea or Vietnam or by using another conflict as a proxy war like with Afghanistan). It forced the US to get into bed with some very nasty characters like Diem and Saddam and Pinochet and hurt US images overseas. Plus all the foreign entanglements that came along with NATO, SEATO, and the UN. How much money and lives did the next 50 years worth of WW2 victory really cost Americans?

Do we put too much faith in wars anymore? Seems wars never turn out the way one planned, even by winning. In fact, today's wars might be laying the ground work for tomorrow's problems.

Spoken like a true pacifist!


War does not determine who is right - only who is left.

For my military duty I'm waiting for my father to run for president and then I'll help him with his presidential campaign, and bingo my duty to country will be over and done with.

 

[Moonglow]

Russia has no shortage of oppressive despotic, cruel killing tyrants in her history.I don't believe that Stalin was any worse than the Romanov Dynasty or those of preceding rulers to Ivan the terrible, to include the Khanates of the Mongrels.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do we put too much faith in wars anymore? Seems wars never turn out the way one planned, even by winning. In fact, today's wars might be laying the ground work for tomorrow's problems.

Spoken like a true pacifist!


War does not determine who is right - only who is left.

For my military duty I'm waiting for my father to run for president and then I'll help him with his presidential campaign, and bingo my duty to country will be over and done with.

You seem to have skipped over Obama's service.


Not to worry.....historians will tell you what to make of that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Russia has no shortage of oppressive despotic, cruel killing tyrants in her history.I don't believe that Stalin was any worse than the Romanov Dynasty or those of preceding rulers to Ivan the terrible, to include the Khanates of the Mongrels.

This won't come as a new experience for you: you're wrong.

Your cavalier attitude with respect to the slaughter of millions of human beings marks you as ....what....a Liberal?


But, on to the numbers...

You should read the speech Solzhenitsyn gave on the subject.


1. Before the Russian Revolution, the number of execution by the czarist government came to seventeen (17) per year, according to Solzhenitsyn.

He pointed out that, in comparison, the Spanish Inquisition, at its height, destroyed 10 people per month.


a. But, during the revolutionary years 1918-1919, Marxist Lenin's Cheka executed, without trial, more than one thousand (1,000) people a month.


At the height of Stalin's terror, 1937-1938, tens of thousands of people were shot per month. Solzhenitsyn, "Warning To The West."


2. From Solzhenitsyn's "Warning To The West,"... "Here are the figures: 17 a year, 10 a month, more than 1 ,000 a month, more than 40,000 a month! Thus, that which had made it difficult for the democratic West to form an alliance with pre-revolutionary Russia had, by 1941, grown to such an extent and still did not prevent the entire united democracy of the world — England, France, the United States, Canada, and other small countries — from entering into a military alliance with the Soviet Union, How is this to be explained? How can we understand it? " Full text of "Solzhenitsyn: The Voice of Freedom"




Possibly not you, but many wonder how Franklin Roosevelt could have overlooked this.....'situation.'

Perhaps he had your attitude.

 

[regent]

Spoken like a true pacifist!


War does not determine who is right - only who is left.

For my military duty I'm waiting for my father to run for president and then I'll help him with his presidential campaign, and bingo my duty to country will be over and done with.

You seem to have skipped over Obama's service.


Not to worry.....historians will tell you what to make of that.

Obama must have about six years in by now, I mean being commander-in-chief must be as important as being a private. The C in C will get a pension and may even be elgible for VA care?
The thing was that Romney never was commander in chief so his son's helping on Romney's campaign may not qualify as military service. What do you think?

 

[PoliticalChic]

For my military duty I'm waiting for my father to run for president and then I'll help him with his presidential campaign, and bingo my duty to country will be over and done with.

You seem to have skipped over Obama's service.


Not to worry.....historians will tell you what to make of that.

Obama must have about six years in by now, I mean being commander-in-chief must be as important as being a private. The C in C will get a pension and may even be elgible for VA care?
The thing was that Romney never was commander in chief so his son's helping on Romney's campaign may not qualify as military service. What do you think?

Because the nation made the mistake in the election.....a mistake becoming evident even to many on your side of the aisle.

 

[regent]

You seem to have skipped over Obama's service.


Not to worry.....historians will tell you what to make of that.

Obama must have about six years in by now, I mean being commander-in-chief must be as important as being a private. The C in C will get a pension and may even be elgible for VA care?
The thing was that Romney never was commander in chief so his son's helping on Romney's campaign may not qualify as military service. What do you think?

Because the nation made the mistake in the election.....a mistake becoming evident even to many on your side of the aisle.

If the people made a mistake you should inform the people of their error, but that does not change Obama's military status? Obama is still Commander in Chief and neither Romney, nor his sons are elegible for VA benefits at this time. Of course the Republicans might write a law saying that sons that help their fathers run for president is considered to be military service and is retroactive to the 2012 election. Buy War Bonds.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Obama must have about six years in by now, I mean being commander-in-chief must be as important as being a private. The C in C will get a pension and may even be elgible for VA care?
The thing was that Romney never was commander in chief so his son's helping on Romney's campaign may not qualify as military service. What do you think?

Because the nation made the mistake in the election.....a mistake becoming evident even to many on your side of the aisle.

If the people made a mistake you should inform the people of their error, but that does not change Obama's military status? Obama is still Commander in Chief and neither Romney, nor his sons are elegible for VA benefits at this time. Of course the Republicans might write a law saying that sons that help their fathers run for president is considered to be military service and is retroactive to the 2012 election. Buy War Bonds.

Absurd criticism of Romney.

Really absurd.

 

[Toro]

Did we....really?


Or are we the victims of hugely successful manipulation by the Soviets, tied to politicians, weak of mind and/or character?


Were we fighting the Nazis, with the aid of our Soviet ally?

Or were these two 'bad cop- good cop' playing the rubes of America?
Rather than prove your case by referring to 'historians' or 'textbooks,' let's look at the final result.






1. Background on the two "mortal enemies," Communists and Nazis.

A year after Lenin's death, 1924, the NYTimes published a small article about a newly established party in Germany, the National Socialist Labor Party, which "...persists in believing that Lenin and Hitler can be compared or contrasted...Dr. Goebell's....assertion that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler....and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight...."
NYTimes, November 27, 1925.

a. "Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism."
George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.

b. "Socialists in Germany were national socialists, communists were international socialists."
Vladimir Bukovsky.

2. 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.

3. 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.





4. September 1, 1939, Hitler attacked Poland....on September 17, Stalin attacks from the East. The Soviet radio transmitter in Minsk guided the Nazi bombers attacking Polish cities. Newsreel footage showed the Red Army in Nazi helmets, marching side by side with the SS. One photo shows the hammer and sickle along side the swastika.

a. The Soviet press depicted the battle as a fight against Polish fascism, with the peace-loving Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union fighting aggressive Polish fascism.

5. Hitler and Stalin signed secret protocols to divide up Europe. First, Stalin moved against Finland, November 1939....for the aggression, the USSR was expelled from the League of Nations. Hitler attacked to the West.

a. Norway was invaded with the direct help of the Soviet Union, providing the Soviet naval base near Murmansk. "German Admiral Raeder sent a letter of thanks to the Commander of the Soviet Navy, Kuznetsov."






6. Viktor Suvorov " is a Soviet Army Cold War-era Soviet military intelligence officer who defected to the United Kingdom, eventually becoming a famous writer and historian." Viktor Suvorov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In his 2008 "The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II," Suvorov explains that Stalin materially assisted Nazi Germany in its aggression so that the Soviet Union could intervene at the proper time and seize all of continental Europe for itself. Hopefully, Germany and the West would exhaust themselves fighting each other.



So....their doctrines were essentially the same, they attacked the same targets, they used the same methods of governance....and agreed to split Europe between themselves.
Stalin 'used' Hitler....but expected to, ultimately,overpower him.
The aim of communism was, and is, world domination.


7. Move forward:
The war ended with the Soviet military occupation of half of Europe. There is no possible argument that could conclude that Joseph Stalin was any better than Adolph Hitler. None. Yet, "Nazi" produces a visceral response. "Communist," none such.

Yet many answer the title of the OP with "democracy won."





8. Lies, cover-up, censorship by American leaders cloud the true nature of the victory of WWII.
"This [the results of WWII] was, after all, the Kremlin dream, the Communist grail. Now it was real, its headquarters rising in concrete and steel over Turtle Bay in New York City, brought into existence by a bevy of Soviet agents lodged deep in the vitals of the United States and other Western governments.....Think about what [Harry] Hopkins, [Alger] Hiss and [Harry Dexter] White actually accomplished."
West, "American Betrayal," p.255.

9. "Thus the world found itself in 1945 at the conclusion of catastrophe with a whole series of international institutions- ranging from commercial agreements , to exchange rates, to war credits and loans, to the administration of territories without governments, to the ambulating world without citizenship, to the United Nations itself- which had been imposed by the United States. But even more important was the fact that all the "charters" and constitutions of these world institutions had been composed by America's leading Soviet agents."
Gregor Dallas, "1945: The War That Never Ended," p. 413-414





10. In a letter to FDR, dated January 29, 1943, Ambassador (to Moscow) William Bullitt warned Roosevelt about what would happen if he continued pursuing the policies of appeasement toward Stalin that formed the foundation of the American war strategy. He pleaded with FDR not to 'permit our war to prevent Nazi domination of Europe to be turned into a war to establish Soviet domination of Europe.' He predicted the Soviet annexation of half of Europe; George Kennan identified that letter as the earliest warning of what would be the result of FDR's policies.
"For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt," Orville H. Bullitt, p. 575-590

FDR replied: "Bill, I don't dispute your facts, they are accurate, I don't dispute the logic of your reasoning. I have just had a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man. Harry [Hopkins] says he's not and that he doesn't want anything in the world but security for his country, and I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace."
William C. Bullitt, "How We Won The War and Lost The Peace," Life Magazine, August 30, 1948, p. 94




So....who won WWII?

We did.

Next question.

 

[Toro]

Please "prove your case by referring to 'historians' or 'textbooks,'"

Your suggestion to not do so is as sensible as review committees by non-scientists of scientific findings.

1. World domination and control under one government....The United Nations formed through the efforts of Soviet agents in the United States Government
The end of national sovereignty.

2. Heavy progressive taxation and taxation of inheritances.
Mandated in chapter two of The Communist Manifesto
Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2)

3. Control of education...resulting in a population that is unaware of the dominance of collectivism at the cost of individualism....e.g., you.
Ibid.



Had it not been for President Reagan, Stalin's plan would have been totally and irrevocably successful.




Now, as for "Your suggestion to not do so is as sensible as review committees by non-scientists of scientific findings."

Herein you highlight perhaps the major difference between the two of us.
I am eminently equipped to research and make judgments about any.....any.....topic, whether it be science, or social science.


Unlike you, lazy and ill-equipped in ability, I take all challenges and accept no answer that I have not investigated.
That is why you are no more than a follower, a lock-step Liberal.

And will remain so.

Your conclusion is silly.

If "the only reason" why the USSR fell is because of "Reagan," then you tacitly admit that communism works.

The reason why the USSR fell isn't because of Reagan (put those Pom-poms down, girl!), though he certainly was a catalyst. The reason why it fell was because communism, unlike capitalism, will eventually collapse unto itself due to the gross misallocation of resources. That was the fundamental reason why the USSR collapsed. It probably would have collapsed earlier had OPEC not been created since oil was the USSR's primary earner of hard currency.

 

[Toro]

A comment - I think Reagan was a good President, but its amusing to see conservatives make fun of liberals worship of messiah Obama while they elevate Reagan to God-like status for Saving the World.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Rather than prove your case by referring to 'historians' or 'textbooks,' let's look at the final result.

LOL - so let's argue this historical topic with referring to history?????

 

[PoliticalChic]

A comment - I think Reagan was a good President, but its amusing to see conservatives make fun of liberals worship of messiah Obama while they elevate Reagan to God-like status for Saving the World.

Isn't saving the world worth that?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Please "prove your case by referring to 'historians' or 'textbooks,'"

Your suggestion to not do so is as sensible as review committees by non-scientists of scientific findings.

1. World domination and control under one government....The United Nations formed through the efforts of Soviet agents in the United States Government
The end of national sovereignty.

2. Heavy progressive taxation and taxation of inheritances.
Mandated in chapter two of The Communist Manifesto
Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2)

3. Control of education...resulting in a population that is unaware of the dominance of collectivism at the cost of individualism....e.g., you.
Ibid.



Had it not been for President Reagan, Stalin's plan would have been totally and irrevocably successful.




Now, as for "Your suggestion to not do so is as sensible as review committees by non-scientists of scientific findings."

Herein you highlight perhaps the major difference between the two of us.
I am eminently equipped to research and make judgments about any.....any.....topic, whether it be science, or social science.


Unlike you, lazy and ill-equipped in ability, I take all challenges and accept no answer that I have not investigated.
That is why you are no more than a follower, a lock-step Liberal.

And will remain so.

Your conclusion is silly.

If "the only reason" why the USSR fell is because of "Reagan," then you tacitly admit that communism works.

The reason why the USSR fell isn't because of Reagan (put those Pom-poms down, girl!), though he certainly was a catalyst. The reason why it fell was because communism, unlike capitalism, will eventually collapse unto itself due to the gross misallocation of resources. That was the fundamental reason why the USSR collapsed. It probably would have collapsed earlier had OPEC not been created since oil was the USSR's primary earner of hard currency.

1. "...then you tacitly admit that communism works."

Figures for slaughter by communist regimes runs between 100 million and 138 million.

Where do you see "works" in there?




2. "...communism, unlike capitalism, will eventually collapse unto itself due to the gross misallocation of resources."

"Early socialists publically advocated genocide, in the 19th and 20th centuries. It first appeared in Marx's journal, Rheinishe Zeitung, in January of 1849. When the socialist class war happens, there will be primitive societies in Europe, two stages behind- not even capitalist yet- the Basques, the Bretons, the Scottish Highlanders, the Serbs, and others he calls 'racial trash,' and they will have to be destroyed because, being two stages behind in the class struggle, it will be impossible to bring them up to being revolutionary."
George Watson, Historian, Cambridge University.

Its evil nature is the reason it fell.

 

[regent]

Gorby offered Reagan a deal to end the cold war and Reagan grabbed it. Both Reagan and Gorby are to be commended for making the deal. It was a deal that would never have been offered under Stalin. It was also fortunate that Reagan was a Republican or the boards would be filled with posts explainng how the Democratic president sold out America and worse, was a commie lover and all the rest of the usual tripe.

 

[Toro]

1. "...then you tacitly admit that communism works."

Figures for slaughter by communist regimes runs between 100 million and 138 million.

Where do you see "works" in there?

I didn't say I thought it worked. I said that believing Communism fell "because of Reagan" tacitly implies that Communism as a socioeconomic system works because it assumes that the gross misallocation of resources can continue forever. That's the argument you are making. If Carter had beaten Reagan, your argument infers that Communism would have continued on and on. I'm telling you that communism as an economic system is inherently unstable and will eventually collapse.

Communism didn't fall because one man was once President, though Reagan was one catalyst of many. Communism doesn't work because it creates gross distortions and misallocations of economic resources. What that means is that communism diverts resources to useless and wasteful functions, which eventually destroys the capital stock of the country. That's a pro-free market argument.

If Reagan had never been President, communism would have collapsed eventually anyways.

2. "...communism, unlike capitalism, will eventually collapse unto itself due to the gross misallocation of resources."

"Early socialists publically advocated genocide, in the 19th and 20th centuries. It first appeared in Marx's journal, Rheinishe Zeitung, in January of 1849. When the socialist class war happens, there will be primitive societies in Europe, two stages behind- not even capitalist yet- the Basques, the Bretons, the Scottish Highlanders, the Serbs, and others he calls 'racial trash,' and they will have to be destroyed because, being two stages behind in the class struggle, it will be impossible to bring them up to being revolutionary."
George Watson, Historian, Cambridge University.

Its evil nature is the reason it fell.

Yes, yes, genocide is bad, but imperialism by Western powers killed tens of millions of people in the 19th century also and capitalism didn't fall because of it. Simply because a lot of people die does not mean a socioeconomic system will inevitably collapse.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "...then you tacitly admit that communism works."

Figures for slaughter by communist regimes runs between 100 million and 138 million.

Where do you see "works" in there?

I didn't say I thought it worked. I said that believing Communism fell "because of Reagan" tacitly implies that Communism as a socioeconomic system works because it assumes that the gross misallocation of resources can continue forever. That's the argument you are making. If Carter had beaten Reagan, your argument infers that Communism would have continued on and on. I'm telling you that communism as an economic system is inherently unstable and will eventually collapse.

Communism didn't fall because one man was once President, though Reagan was one catalyst of many. Communism doesn't work because it creates gross distortions and misallocations of economic resources. What that means is that communism diverts resources to useless and wasteful functions, which eventually destroys the capital stock of the country. That's a pro-free market argument.

If Reagan had never been President, communism would have collapsed eventually anyways.

2. "...communism, unlike capitalism, will eventually collapse unto itself due to the gross misallocation of resources."

"Early socialists publically advocated genocide, in the 19th and 20th centuries. It first appeared in Marx's journal, Rheinishe Zeitung, in January of 1849. When the socialist class war happens, there will be primitive societies in Europe, two stages behind- not even capitalist yet- the Basques, the Bretons, the Scottish Highlanders, the Serbs, and others he calls 'racial trash,' and they will have to be destroyed because, being two stages behind in the class struggle, it will be impossible to bring them up to being revolutionary."
George Watson, Historian, Cambridge University.

Its evil nature is the reason it fell.

Yes, yes, genocide is bad, but imperialism by Western powers killed tens of millions of people in the 19th century also and capitalism didn't fall because of it. Simply because a lot of people die does not mean a socioeconomic system will inevitably collapse.

"Communism didn't fall because one man was once President, though Reagan was one catalyst of many."

I certainly agree that I can name three others who deserve credit...none of them Soviets.


But this is the essence of why Reagan deserves the largest share of the credit:

"Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart. His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in 1986, where Gorbachev would not budge on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving. He recalls in An American Life how he stood up from the table to proclaim that the meeting was over. Then he turned to his Secretary of State: "Let's go, George. We're leaving." Like any good diplomat, Shultz was crushed by so much roughness, but Reagan was completely unfazed. Later on, he explained: "I went to Reykjavik determined that everything was negotiable except two things, our freedom and our future."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_3/?tag=content;col1

 

[namvet]

who dropped the last bomb??? case closed

 

[Steven_R]

Communism is best described as rust covered by fresh paint. The USSR didn't fall because of anything more than the laws of economics coming up against an untenable economic system. If Reagan did anything it was push the timetable up when the Soviets had to make the choice between guns and butter because they couldn't do both.