FWIW we started to sabotage our russian “allies” as early as 1944 via Stephan Bandera and other Ukranian separatists groups. It took Stalin alot longer to realize he was being played by the US.[/quote]
I’m sorry but you are totally incorrect as to Bandera’s activities, and who was supporting him in 1944. In 1944, he established a new HQ in Berlin to manage anti-Soviet guerrilla operations in Ukraine, for the RSHA.
They began supplying anti-Soviet UIA forces later that year.
Pure speculation and opinion, not fact. But I digress.[/quote]
So, let me understand you - the idea that FDR (and Churchill) allied with Russia in order to build a coalition against the Axis under the premise of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is pure speculation?
I’m curious - if that wasn’t FDR’s motivation, what was?
You probably meant “materially”, but in any event, this is nonsense. Stalin was committing his “purges” and murderous campaigns long before the US began any material support of the Eastern front.
And there was never “unwavering” support. Ridiculous.
FDR willingly and knowingly colluded with, and supplied a regime that conducted mass murder, torture and oppression. I hope that crippled fuck is burning right along with his buddy Joe.[/quote]
FDR made a decision of realpolitik to leverage Russia into a fight to defeat the Axis powers. These are the kinds of choices that occasionally have to be made, especially in existential wars. Difficult? Yes. Problematic going forward after the Axis powers were defeated? No doubt. The right decision at the time to get the best result in WWII? Yup.
What you wrote is garbage. Congratulations on being a contender in the contest.
[/quote]
Actually Churchill made the decision to aid the USSR immediately after Operation Barbarossa which was 6 months before the US entered the war. He also sent a warning to Stalin about his allie’s intentions prior to the invasion which Stalin thought was a Capitalist trick and ignored. Churchill stated in parliament ‘If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons’.
Another point to note is that FDR never declared war on Germany. He waited until a raving Hitler declared war on the US to the dismay of the OKW.
Also, Stalin’s pre-war atrocities were also well known however I was just giving examples of his recent wartime activities which FDR knew about. FDR had several love-ins with Stalin at Yalta where Churchill was excluded and Stalin went to work on the sad man, manipulating him like a string puppet. After FDR’s ‘re-education camp’ at Yalta, Churchill was excluded from the strategic planning of the allied war effort thenceforth. The ‘big three’ became the fellow-travelling two.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
So, let me understand you - the idea that FDR (and Churchill) allied with Russia in order to build a coalition against the Axis under the premise of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is pure speculation?
I’m curious - if that wasn’t FDR’s motivation, what was?[/quote]
I’m sorry, you’ve misunderstood. You cannot state as fact the outcome of things had the US not supported the USSR, or not entered the war at all. So, assuming things like the outcome as we know it being the best possible is ridiculous.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You probably meant “materially”, but in any event, this is nonsense. Stalin was committing his “purges” and murderous campaigns long before the US began any material support of the Eastern front.
And there was never “unwavering” support. Ridiculous.[/quote]
Yes, Stalin was murdering and invading motherfuckers like an animal years before Hitler came into power. Which is even more damning that FDR knew this, and still backed him. As for unwavering, my factual statement stands. Up until that cripple finally died, he was on Uncle Joe’s nut sack like a Bangkok hooker. Churchill tried telling him about the dangers. Churchill gave him more info about the crimes the Soviets were still committing, and he didn’t give a fuck. His fucking VP took a tour of the Gulag, and came back with a great big hard on over it.
FDR and Stalin were fucking comrades through and through. The US should be thankful he died when he did. Who knows what that fuck had up his sleeve.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
If I had to pick who did the most damage out of Hitler, Stalin and FDR, I would have a hard time choosing.[/quote]
What if you had to VOTE for Hitler, Stalin or FDR? Psychotic/sociopathic mass murderers or a mentally deficient Democrat in a wheelchair? Hmmm…tricky one that.
I’m sorry, you’ve misunderstood. You cannot state as fact the outcome of things had the US not supported the USSR, or not entered the war at all. So, assuming things like the outcome as we know it being the best possible is ridiculous.[/quote]
But I didn’t do that. I certainly stated that is what FDR did (along with Churchill), and that it was a good idea, given the options. And, empirically, it turned out to be exactly that.
Of course, FDR wisely recognized that an immensely powerful country with incredibly strategic geography (an expanse from Europe to Asia), an army backed by an industrial economy and ideological fervor was suddenly jilted by the very enemy he was trying to destroy - and he leveraged them.
Now, since you’ve got it all figured out - what was your better alternative? What to do with a jilted and angry USSR if not ally with them to crush Nazi Germany, Italy and Imperial Japan if not join forces with them? Can’t wait to hear your answer.
No one stated “as fact the outcome of the things had the US not supported the USSR” - learn to read.
[quote]Yes, Stalin was murdering and invading motherfuckers like an animal years before Hitler came into power. Which is even more damning that FDR knew this, and still backed him. As for unwavering, my factual statement stands. Up until that cripple finally died, he was on Uncle Joe’s nut sack like a Bangkok hooker. Churchill tried telling him about the dangers. Churchill gave him more info about the crimes the Soviets were still committing, and he didn’t give a fuck. His fucking VP took a tour of the Gulag, and came back with a great big hard on over it.
FDR and Stalin were fucking comrades through and through. The US should be thankful he died when he did. Who knows what that fuck had up his sleeve. [/quote]
Idiocy. Stalin, of course, was no ally until Hitler turned on him, and then of course, the Allies acquired new help on the Eastern Front.
Also, you claim to be a man of “facts” - you state “his fucking VP took a tour of the Gulag, and came back with a great big hard on on over it” - oh yeah? Do tell. Let’s see your facts supporting this tale about FDR’s vice-president coming back excited about a gulag. Can’t wait for the “facts”.
And, no FDR and Stalin were “comrades”. They used each other to get what they wanted in geopolitics. And at the time, the alliance was useful - dangerous, especially post-WWII, but useful.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
But I didn’t do that. I certainly stated that is what FDR did (along with Churchill), and that it was a good idea, given the options. And, empirically, it turned out to be exactly that.[/quote]
You wrote:
You’re assuming an awful lot here, and you aren’t even doing it correctly. You cannot prove the outcome had the US not supported the USSR, or entered the war at all. No one can. Thus, your “right decision at the time to get the best result” is pure speculation. Especially considering the FACT, and there is documented proof in his own words, that Hitler had zero intent on going to war with the US (nor the UK for that matter), and realized the folly of it. It wasn’t until the US declared war on Japan, and continued with its illegal supply of arms to the UK that Hitler did so.
Entertaining…The USSR at the time of Barbarossa was a fucking shell. It’s armed forces had been purged, and it’s general staff was complete shit. Industrial powerhouse? Laughable. Why then, did it need MASSIVE lend/lease aid if it was such a powerhouse? Ideological fervor? Peoples from Belrus to Ukraine to the Baltic pissed their pants with glee when the Panzers rolled in. Because the Nazis were pussy cats compared to Uncle Joe and his crew. Entire Soviet armies defected…pause, consider that for a minute…then begged to be drafted into the Wehrmacht to fight against the Soviets. Lol…ideological fervor…Their political officers machine-gunned those who didn’t advance enough…Oh boy.
As in ww1, the US had no business in the European theater during ww2. None. The population didn’t support it. There was no looming threat. Hitler expressed his desire NOT to go to war with the US until the US forced his hand.
This was addressed at the beginning of the post. Your words, not mine.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Also, you claim to be a man of “facts” - you state “his fucking VP took a tour of the Gulag, and came back with a great big hard on on over it” - oh yeah? Do tell. Let’s see your facts supporting this tale about FDR’s vice-president coming back excited about a gulag. Can’t wait for the “facts”.[/quote]
Sure:
In 1944 Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s vice president, Henry Wallace, visited one of the worst and most brutal of the Soviet penal camps, Magadan, lauding its sadistic commander, Ivan Nikishov, and describing Magadan as “idyllic.”
Wallace wrote enthusiastically about everything he saw. In his book, he maintained that the United States had much to learn from people like Nikishov, despite the reports Churchill apparently sent to the Americans about Stalin’s camps, Kolyma included. Churchill had his facts from the Poles Stalin had released from the camps and allowed to travel to Great Britain. Perhaps Wallace knew no better. But at least it could have been explained that he tried not to know any better. It branded his story for ever. Wallace was big enough to apologise for his book and to withdraw it from the market.
Wallace believed that both the American and the Russian revolution were part of “the march to freedom of the past 150 years.” After having met Molotov, he arranged a trip to the “Wild East” of Russia. On May 23, 1944, he started a 25-day journey accompanied by Owen Lattimore. Coming from Alaska, they landed at Magadan where they were received by Sergei Goglidze and Dalstroi director Ivan Nikishov, both NKVD generals. The NKVD presented a fully sanitized version of the slave labor camps in Magadan and Kolyma to their American guests, convinced them that all the work was done by volunteers, charmed them with entertainment, and left their guests impressed with the “development” of Siberia and the spirit of the “volunteers”. Lattimore’s film of the visit tells that " a village … in Siberia is a forum for open discussion like a town meeting in New England."[3] The trip then continued to China
The Vice President reported back that he had been impressed with the ‘‘big, husky’’ miners, the fair wages they were paid, the can-do spirit of the place. And the quality of the Kolyma River fish served to the visitors, he said, ‘‘led me to inquire about the presiding chef of this mining camp.’’
[quote]Lowe-1 wrote:
The Vice President reported back that he had been impressed with the ‘‘big, husky’’ miners, the fair wages they were paid, the can-do spirit of the place. And the quality of the Kolyma River fish served to the visitors, he said, ‘‘led me to inquire about the presiding chef of this mining camp.’’
I can go on if those aren’t acceptable.
[/quote]
if he thought slave laborers were paid, he was obviously decieved. Auschwitz had a wing which was used to decieve the Red Cross as well.
here’s a quote from your own article:
"During the heyday of the camps, the administrators sometimes took extraordinary pains to hide the brutal conditions, which included starvation diets, work schedules of up to 16 hours a day and clothing inadequate against winters that often hit 60 degrees below zero Fahrenheit.
According to Robert Conquest’s history, ‘‘Kolyma: The Arctic Death Camps,’’ Vice President Henry A. Wallace passed through here in 1944, when the United States and the Soviet Union were allies in World War II.
Mr. Wallace was presented with an elaborately staged show of happy pioneers. Prisoners were confined to their barracks, watch towers were taken down, and robust-looking guards were dressed up as prisoners to impress the American with the humane conditions.
The Vice President reported back that he had been impressed with the ‘‘big, husky’’ miners, the fair wages they were paid, the can-do spirit of the place. And the quality of the Kolyma River fish served to the visitors, he said, ‘‘led me to inquire about the presiding chef of this mining camp.’’"
so, the only prisoners he saw were healthy guards dressed as “happy pioneers”? Yep, he was decieved. He obviously thought it was a mining outpost, not a freaking death camp.
[quote]Lowe-1 wrote:
Peoples from Belrus to Ukraine to the Baltic pissed their pants with glee when the Panzers rolled in. Because the Nazis were pussy cats compared to Uncle Joe and his crew. Entire Soviet armies defected…pause, consider that for a minute…then begged to be drafted into the Wehrmacht to fight against the Soviets. Lol…ideological fervor…Their political officers machine-gunned those who didn’t advance enough…Oh boy.
[/quote]
Whilst many slavs were happy to ‘see the Panzers roll in’, they soon changed their minds when the Einsatzgruppen(Gestapo basically) and SS ‘rolled in’ after them and proceeded to murder several million of them.
Secondly, ‘entire Russian armies’ did NOT defect to Germany. Whilst the Gestapo and SS burnt villages down and rounded up slavic peasants into death camps, the Wehrmacht were taking a different approach by attempting to recruit volunteers. The results weren’t good:
‘Following a series of mutinies attempted or successful and a surge in desertions, they decided in September 1942 that the reliability of these units had fallen to levels where they were more a liability than an asset. In an October 1943 report, 8th Army concluded grimly: “All local volunteers are unreliable during enemy contact. Principal reason of unreliability is the employment of these volunteers in the East.”’
These units did not become official until late 1944 when everyone bar Hitler and his dog knew the war was lost. They comprised many Russian POWs who ‘volunteered’ to get out of the starvation camps they were held in.
Lastly, whilst Russian commanders were overly brutal(they got shot themselves for losing battles), shooting yellow bellies who refuse to advance is a necessity for maintaining discipline in any Army.
if he thought slave laborers were paid, he was obviously decieved. Auschwitz had a wing which was used to decieve the Red Cross as well.
here’s a quote from your own article:
"During the heyday of the camps, the administrators sometimes took extraordinary pains to hide the brutal conditions, which included starvation diets, work schedules of up to 16 hours a day and clothing inadequate against winters that often hit 60 degrees below zero Fahrenheit.
According to Robert Conquest’s history, ‘‘Kolyma: The Arctic Death Camps,’’ Vice President Henry A. Wallace passed through here in 1944, when the United States and the Soviet Union were allies in World War II.
Mr. Wallace was presented with an elaborately staged show of happy pioneers. Prisoners were confined to their barracks, watch towers were taken down, and robust-looking guards were dressed up as prisoners to impress the American with the humane conditions.
The Vice President reported back that he had been impressed with the ‘‘big, husky’’ miners, the fair wages they were paid, the can-do spirit of the place. And the quality of the Kolyma River fish served to the visitors, he said, ‘‘led me to inquire about the presiding chef of this mining camp.’’"
so, the only prisoners he saw were healthy guards dressed as “happy pioneers”? Yep, he was decieved. He obviously thought it was a mining outpost, not a freaking death camp.[/quote]
I would completely agree with you re: deception, if not for three things;
1)Churchill had presented the US with information on the labor camps prior to this oxygen robber’s trip. You honestly believe the VP of the US wouldn’t be privy to that information?
2)Stalin’s camps were widely known about before the war.
3)Wallace was kicked out by Truman, because he just couldn’t stop busting a nut over relations with the Soviets. Not to mention he was endorsed by the…wait for it…communist party in the US when he ran in '48.
So, either this guy was a total fucking retard, or like his boss, wet dreams of Uncle Joe made him blind to reality.
You’re assuming an awful lot here, and you aren’t even doing it correctly.[/quote]
No, it is a fair assumption - why? The Nazis, Italy and Imperial Japan were defeated. That as the aim of the alliance, and it worked. That’s easy enough.
Nope, see above. The alliance worked. And, of course, I asked you for a better alternative - still waiting.
Hmm. Let’s hang on to the tone of this paragraph…and revisit it below…
Utter nonsense. The Soviets benefits from materiel, but this idea that the Soviets weren’t an effective ally against the Nazis is idiocy. If they weren’t, the Allies wouldn’t have bothered with the alliance in the first place. And anyone familiar with the military events on the Eastern Front knows damn well the strategic importance of the Soviets in that theatre of Europe.
More idiocy.
But let’s revisit this issue from a different angle - we know your stated opinion of FDR and Stalin, what is your opinion of Hitler?
From your own source, genius:
Mr. Wallace was presented with an elaborately staged show of happy pioneers. Prisoners were confined to their barracks, watch towers were taken down, and robust-looking guards were dressed up as prisoners to impress the American with the humane conditions.
So Wallace was duped (in a precursor to Potemkin villages) into seeing a happy, prosperous camp with all the horrors swept under the rug.
But let’s have some more fun. You primary source, the Institute for Historical Review, asks for donations because its message is being attacked by “Hate groups are subjecting the IHR to a new wave of intimidation, harassment and smears. This is the most intense targeting of the IHR in years. The Jewish Defense Organization, a militant Zionist outfit founded by a convicted criminal named Mordechai Levy, along with the “Anti-Racist Action,” another thuggish group with a long record of intimidation and violence, have been targeting us and our landlord, who declines to renew our lease.”
Hmm. Further, the site itself offers up all sorts of goodies you can buy, such as books on Holocaust denial, Hitler hagiographies, tributes to Rudolf Hess (by his son), memoirs on an officer’s happy role in putting down an overthrow of Hitler, and anti-Semitic propaganda.
Oh, happy day, now I get it - you’re a revisionist and a Nazi sympathizer. No wonder your written idiocy is so ridiculous. I had a suspicion, given your avatar. Well done - in record time, your credibility (to the extent you had any, diminished to zero or less.
The Nazis, Italy and Imperial Japan were defeated.
[quote/]
Defeating Italy could’ve been achieved with a platoon or two. They were a laughing stock. Not disparaging their national character, just their military performance/lack thereof in WWII. The Italian people didn’t really want to get into a war with Britain/US. The fascist soldiers were happier chasing Ethiopians around with tanks. When they attempted to invade a country that had conventional forces(Greece) they failed abysmally. Note also the allied entry into Libya where Graziani’s 200,000+ men were defeated by 36,000 Brits who took 130,000+ Italian POWs.
[quote]Lowe-1 wrote:
FDR willingly and knowingly colluded with, and supplied a regime that conducted mass murder, torture and oppression. I hope that crippled fuck is burning right along with his buddy Joe.[/quote]
The Nazis, Italy and Imperial Japan were defeated.
[quote/]
Defeating Italy could’ve been achieved with a platoon or two. They were a laughing stock. Not disparaging their national character, just their military performance/lack thereof in WWII. The Italian people didn’t really want to get into a war with Britain/US. The fascist soldiers were happier chasing Ethiopians around with tanks. When they attempted to invade a country that had conventional forces(Greece) they failed abysmally. Note also the allied entry into Libya where Graziani’s 200,000+ men were defeated by 36,000 Brits who took 130,000+ Italian POWs.[/quote]
My grandfather (italian army) told me stories of how they weren’t even supplied with boots for the winter (he was with the Germans in Russia) or coats. They had to steal these from the dead Ukranian/Belarussian peasants and their rifles were from the first war with ethiopia int he late 19th century
The Nazis, Italy and Imperial Japan were defeated.
[quote/]
Defeating Italy could’ve been achieved with a platoon or two. They were a laughing stock. Not disparaging their national character, just their military performance/lack thereof in WWII. The Italian people didn’t really want to get into a war with Britain/US. The fascist soldiers were happier chasing Ethiopians around with tanks. When they attempted to invade a country that had conventional forces(Greece) they failed abysmally. Note also the allied entry into Libya where Graziani’s 200,000+ men were defeated by 36,000 Brits who took 130,000+ Italian POWs.[/quote]
My grandfather (italian army) told me stories of how they weren’t even supplied with boots for the winter (he was with the Germans in Russia) or coats. They had to steal these from the dead Ukranian/Belarussian peasants and their rifles were from the first war with ethiopia int he late 19th century[/quote]
Yeah well, in Russia they used to stack 2-3 men and give them one rifle with orders to pick up the rifle if the first man happened to be shot.
Also, during WWI, Russian soldiers fired on Russian airplanes due to the not entirely stupid idea that Russia could not build such things, therefore they simply had to be German.
Also, as an Austrian, I have to say that there is a slight WTF !?! element in that Italy somehow started both great wars on our side and yet ended up on the other.
Also, during WWI, Russian soldiers fired on Russian airplanes due to the not entirely stupid idea that Russia could not build such things, therefore they simply had to be German.
The Nazis, Italy and Imperial Japan were defeated.
[quote/]
Defeating Italy could’ve been achieved with a platoon or two. They were a laughing stock. Not disparaging their national character, just their military performance/lack thereof in WWII. The Italian people didn’t really want to get into a war with Britain/US. The fascist soldiers were happier chasing Ethiopians around with tanks. When they attempted to invade a country that had conventional forces(Greece) they failed abysmally. Note also the allied entry into Libya where Graziani’s 200,000+ men were defeated by 36,000 Brits who took 130,000+ Italian POWs.[/quote]
My grandfather (italian army) told me stories of how they weren’t even supplied with boots for the winter (he was with the Germans in Russia) or coats. They had to steal these from the dead Ukranian/Belarussian peasants and their rifles were from the first war with ethiopia int he late 19th century[/quote]
True. Like I said, I’m not disparaging the Italians. My point was there was very little support for the war effort(against the allies) from 95% of Italians and their military was poorly equipped and led. In addition their political leaders were completely divorced from reality.
The Nazis, Italy and Imperial Japan were defeated.
[/quote]
Defeating Italy could’ve been achieved with a platoon or two. They were a laughing stock. Not disparaging their national character, just their military performance/lack thereof in WWII. The Italian people didn’t really want to get into a war with Britain/US. The fascist soldiers were happier chasing Ethiopians around with tanks. When they attempted to invade a country that had conventional forces(Greece) they failed abysmally. Note also the allied entry into Libya where Graziani’s 200,000+ men were defeated by 36,000 Brits who took 130,000+ Italian POWs.[/quote]
My grandfather (italian army) told me stories of how they weren’t even supplied with boots for the winter (he was with the Germans in Russia) or coats. They had to steal these from the dead Ukranian/Belarussian peasants and their rifles were from the first war with ethiopia int he late 19th century[/quote]
True. Like I said, I’m not disparaging the Italians. My point was there was very little support for the war effort(against the allies) from 95% of Italians and their military was poorly equipped and led. In addition their political leaders were completely divorced from reality.[/quote]
Yes. But if Mussolini had been run over by a bus in 1939 he would be remembered as one of Italy’s greatest leaders. He provided a huge amount of infrastructure - my grandfather remembered Mussolini as an idiot but also the person who drained the marsh round his village, connected a paved road to it (before that there was a dirt track which had been there since Roman times) and helped provide irrigation systems to the farms. To be fair my family’s village in Italy is a nondescript farming place on the banks of the Po utterly removed from anywhere entertaining or fun to go and is pretty backward but having seen pictures of what it was like before Mussolini I have to admit even though he was an utter bastard at least here he helped.
Anyway… What’s with all the people saying Lincoln is one of the worst leaders ever?