Originally posted by jimb888:

"You have a misperception of what the truth is regarding WW2. I'd suggest you read Viktor Suvorvos work, and these other 2 as well, but Suvorovs first:
These 3 worthwhile books are different from the false conventional historical belief taught in American schools as truth, yet these significant works all seem to agree with each other."


So you believe Herbert Hoover was an underappreciated genius and the Jewish Conspiracy tricked us into helping the Soviets knock off Hitler?

quote:

Originally posted by JoseyWales2:

Yeah, it's amazing how a few people here seem to think what wonderful guys the Russians were in WWII and how they won it all by themselves, meanwhile conveniently forgetting how they helped kick the whole thing off by helping the Germans conquer Poland back in Sept. 1939.

I don't see ANYBODY saying how 'wonderful' the Soviets were. That is a straw-man argument.

We also are not 'forgetting' they helped start the war by siding with Germany.

quote:

Maybe even remember the tens of millions killed by that nice guy Stalin in the purges and forced famines in the 1930's. Heck yeah, Stalin was so much better than the mean old Germans. I guess we're supposed to conveniently forget the war they helped start and everyone they killed and subjugated because they eventually fought against their former ally. Sounds like some people need to read some more books.

Show us ANYWHERE in this thread (or anywhere else on the Forum) where ANYBODY made ANY laudatory comments about Stalin.

You have created a falsehood about how we supposedly admire Stalin, and are attacking people based on this falsehood. Most of us here know our history, and needn't be lectured on how Stalin and the Soviet Union were utter monsters.

quote:

Let's not forget that the Western Allies were fighting the Axis in North Africa and Italy long before D-day, so the poor Russians weren't on their own from June 1941 to June 1944 like some would like to portray. We also had to get all our stuff across a damn ocean first and beat the U-boats. The Russians didn't have to do this. Not to mention the fact that we were also fighting a whole other war in the Pacific and basically being the supply warehouse for every Allied nation. The Russians weren't fighting a two front war and they sure as hell weren't supplying anyone else. They did their part in fighting Germany, but so did everybody else, especially the US.

Your argument might be a tad more convincing if you didn't show such blatant bias. 'Poor Russians,' indeed. . .

No matter what we did in North Africa or Italy, the main fight would always be in Western Europe. So we killed a bunch of Germans in North Africa - that was simply a preliminary action that gave us an excuse to tell the Soviets and the public at home that we were 'doing something' in the European theater. Also, invading Italy was not the best idea, since that country was ideal for German defenses. We had to fight our way through a thin peninsula using direct frontal assaults (no real room to use maneuver warfare or flanking attacks) through mountainous territory. These conditions favored the defense, and the Germans made these advances extremely costly.

Britain drug its feet, since they already got their butts kicked off the continent in 1940 at Dunkirk. They feared that a failed attempt would set back the war by years. They had to be constantly prodded and pushed to agree to the 1944 date. Meanwhile, the Soviets were taking part in the only ground offensive that would threaten Germany. Sure, the US and Britain were bombing Germany, but that never proved decisive, nor could it (even if we used nukes, unless we got ALL the top Nazi fanatics/leadership, Germany would not have quit).

The Soviets believed that the other allies were content to let the Red Army bleed while sitting back and making excuses. The Soviets did have a point, as many US and Brit politicians and military leaders actually argued for this approach. They wanted the US in the ground war immediately, and were not impressed by our excuses about U-boats and 'not enough supplies' (the Soviets fought for years without 'enough supplies').

The Soviet Army killed WAY more Germans than the other Allies did. To ignore this contribution to ultimate Allied victory is foolish. Nobody here is saying the Soviets did it all by themselves, but you are determined to claim the opposite - that the US/Brits/Free French won the war without Soviet assistance. We get it - you don't like the Soviets. NOBODY here does, either. But, without the Soviet Army, the war in Europe would have lasted YEARS longer.

quote:

Originally posted by jimb888:

It is interesting that if you do a copy - paste to the internet on most of the duplicitous characters he roots out as traitors or involved in traitorous activities, they are jewish. If you copy-paste and source anyone who is supportive of a traitorous persons actions or ignores them in a historical work, they are almost always also jewish.

Yes, "THE JEWS!!!!@1111!!."

"The Jews" caused WWII. THAT explains it. Somebody should have rounded them all up and gassed them.

quote:

2nd) Operation Snow". Former President Hoover focused on the many US government officials betrayals that caused the war in Europe and China falling to the communists. He had suspected something like what occurred in Operation Snow had occurred, but the facts did not come out until 1995 after the USSR fell and we got first hand accounts and documentation from Former Soviet NKVD agents that the USSR had a Jewish agent high up in the Roosevelt administration which the Russians had directed to get the US into war with Japan. That traitor, Harry Dexter White (original name Weiss) with a few other Soviet agents working in the US Government (in the early 50's there were over 20,000 US government workers fired for being "security risks") was wildly successful in his efforts as he literally brought about Pearl Harbor and the millions of deaths and horrors that followed. He was able to get the US into the war, and most importantly, there was no significant blame directed towards him or to any other jews. To this day, few Americans know the truth, the rest believing the lies that jewish dominated media enforces.

3rd) "The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II" by Viktor Suvorov. One of only 2 USSR GRU agents who defected to the west, Suvorov, a jew himself, explains in minute and factual detail why Germany had to attack USSR as a defensive move. At the end you'll say: "Ahaahaha! THAT EXPLAINS IT!"

Wow, this reads like some 'manifesto' by some nut-case water-tower sniper. . .

Explain how "The Jews" caused Japan's government to fall under control of a radical military faction bent on imperialism, caused the US to place embargos on imports of fuel, steel, and other imports to Japan, and convince Japan their best course of action to solve this import problem was to seize the territory and resources for themselves, starting with a surprise attack at Pearl to negate the US battleship fleet, while picking a fight with the two largest naval powers on the planet (at the same time). . .

Oh, 'The Jews' did it. Right.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
But, without the Soviet Army, the war in Europe would have lasted YEARS longer.

And quite possibly would have been lost by the “democracies” and Europe would be under Nazi domination to this day. It doesn’t take too many “What if”s to veer off into the totally unknown and unknowable, but if there was one absolute certainty it was that without the success of the Red Army (albeit with massive US aid) the results would have been far different.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

I don't see ANYBODY saying how 'wonderful' the Soviets were. That is a straw-man argument.

Show us ANYWHERE in this thread (or anywhere else on the Forum) where ANYBODY made ANY laudatory comments about Stalin.

Really, okay done. How about this post on page 1 by Joel9507 "Long answer is, read "Mein Kampf" and "Hitler's Second Book" and get back to me about whether you think Hitler running Eurasia would have been better than Stalin running Russia." That seems to be saying that Stalin is a better option than Hitler. I'm sure the people in Eastern Europe after the war could hardly tell the difference. Stalin and the Commies killed a heck of a lot more innocent people than Hitler ever did. Not such a straw-man argument now is it. Like I said before there were no good guys on the Eastern Front, end of story.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
We also are not 'forgetting' they helped start the war by siding with Germany.

Well you and no one else mentioned it other than me, meanwhile you rattle on about how the poor Russians were double crossed and allegedly did all the heavy lifting in fighting the Germans. We're told all the Western Allies intentionally dragged their feet and did essentially nothing. That's a nice piece of propaganda. As far as I'm concerned, the Russians got a bit of karma for helping to start the war.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
You have created a falsehood about how we supposedly admire Stalin, and are attacking people based on this falsehood. Most of us here know our history, and needn't be lectured on how Stalin and the Soviet Union were utter monsters.

I created no falsehood. The fact that you keep loudly defending them against any sort of criticism speaks volumes.
That's right, most of us here DO know our non-revisionist history and we don't need to be hectored or lectured by you either.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
Your argument might be a tad more convincing if you didn't show such blatant bias. 'Poor Russians,' indeed. . .

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
Britain drug its feet, since they already got their butts kicked off the continent in 1940 at Dunkirk. They feared that a failed attempt would set back the war by years. They had to be constantly prodded and pushed to agree to the 1944 date. Meanwhile, the Soviets were taking part in the only ground offensive that would threaten Germany.

Well I guess my bias isn't any more blatant than your bias. Pot meet kettle. Sounds like someone really doesn't like the British.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
The Soviets believed that the other allies were content to let the Red Army bleed while sitting back and making excuses. The Soviets did have a point, as many US and Brit politicians and military leaders actually argued for this approach. They wanted the US in the ground war immediately, and were not impressed by our excuses about U-boats and 'not enough supplies' (the Soviets fought for years without 'enough supplies').

Wow, you're quite the defender of the Soviets and showing your anti-Western bias to boot. As I said earlier, maybe that's some karma for helping to start the war. Now why should the West jump feet first into a invasion before they are ready and incur massive casualties to help bail out a party that was half responsible for starting the whole mess in the first place? I don't give a rat's rear end that they want the US in the ground war immediately nor do I care that they don't like our "excuses" or have enough supplies. Plenty of Western Allied personnel died getting supplies to them via the Arctic. Then they repaid that help after the war by continuing on the same path of aggression and occupation as they were on before their war with Germany started. A leopard doesn't change his spots.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
The Soviet Army killed WAY more Germans than the other Allies did. To ignore this contribution to ultimate Allied victory is foolish. Nobody here is saying the Soviets did it all by themselves, but you are determined to claim the opposite - that the US/Brits/Free French won the war without Soviet assistance. We get it - you don't like the Soviets. NOBODY here does, either. .

Now who is creating straw man arguments? Show me where I said the US/Brits/Free French won the war without Soviet assistance? Why in fact the last thing I said was "They did their part in fighting Germany, but so did everybody else, especially the US." It is you who are determined to claim the opposite - that Russia won the war without any assistance.
It's pretty obvious you just don't like anyone countering your pro-Russian narrative in any way, shape or form.

quote:

Originally posted by JoseyWales2:

blah blah blah

argue argue argue

. . . blah blah something about anti-British and anti-western bias blah blah blah

argue some more, argue some more, argue some more, . . .

You just want to argue.

As I said - read a history book or two. You might learn something along the way.

Stating (the obvious) that the Soviets made a major contribution to ultimate Allied victory in Europe does NOT make one 'anti-western;' and stating (the obvious) that the British were hesitant to open a second front in Europe does NOT make one 'anti-British.'

This discussion about easily researched history sure went off the rails.

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
This discussion about easily researched history sure went off the rails.

True. but I think threads like these really do serve a purpose. They show you a lot about some people.

quote:

Originally posted by JoseyWales2:

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

I don't see ANYBODY saying how 'wonderful' the Soviets were. That is a straw-man argument.

Show us ANYWHERE in this thread (or anywhere else on the Forum) where ANYBODY made ANY laudatory comments about Stalin.

Really, okay done. How about this post on page 1 by Joel9507 "Long answer is, read "Mein Kampf" and "Hitler's Second Book" and get back to me about whether you think Hitler running Eurasia would have been better than Stalin running Russia." That seems to be saying that Stalin is a better option than Hitler.

'Better than Hitler' is a very low bar that Stalin creeps over. Along with everyone who ever lived. There is no approval in stating this.

OTOH, are you saying Stalin was worse than Hitler? If you think there is anyone worse than Hitler, you really, really need to read more history books, starting with the two mentioned.

If Hitler had had time, and unlimited power over Russia and all of Europe for an essentially unlimited period, his body count even just counting Russians would have more than exceeded Stalin's. Stalin killed a huge number of Russians, but a lot were left. Hitler had no need for any Russians - his plan was to work them to death, export what they produced to Germany, and not feed them, then after they died assign racial Germans to farm their land - and the number of Russians left would have been very, very close to zero.

This is of course over and above the other Eurasians/Europeans he'd have killed.

Stalin was horrible. End of sentence.

That said, it was a damn good thing he beat hell out of the Germans.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

quote:

Originally posted by JoseyWales2:

blah blah blah

argue argue argue

. . . blah blah something about anti-British and anti-western bias blah blah blah

argue some more, argue some more, argue some more, . . .

You just want to argue.

As I said - read a history book or two. You might learn something along the way.

Stating (the obvious) that the Soviets made a major contribution to ultimate Allied victory in Europe does NOT make one 'anti-western;' and stating (the obvious) that the British were hesitant to open a second front in Europe does NOT make one 'anti-British.'

blah blah blah, something about the Russians won the war all by themselves with essentially no help at all....
argue some more, argue some more....
right back at you pal

I refuted your own narratives by quoting your own comments and facts and you don't like it.
From where I'm standing, you're the one that needs to read a few books, maybe talk to a few survivors too.
Once again, no where did I state that the Soviets didn't make a major contribution to Allied victory.
You accuse me of bias against the "poor Russians". Yeah, I kind of have a bias against someone 50% responsible for starting the war, then trying to play the victim card when their former partner in crime turns on them. No sympathy at all.
Meanwhile you make comments about the British getting their "butts kicked" and dragging their feet. But that's not bias at all is it?

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:

'Better than Hitler' is a very low bar that Stalin creeps over. Along with everyone who ever lived. There is no approval in stating this.

OTOH, are you saying Stalin was worse than Hitler? If you think there is anyone worse than Hitler, you really, really need to read more history books, starting with the two mentioned.

If Hitler had had time, and unlimited power over Russia and all of Europe for an essentially unlimited period, his body count even just counting Russians would have more than exceeded Stalin's. Stalin killed a huge number of Russians, but a lot were left. Hitler had no need for any Russians - his plan was to work them to death, export what they produced to Germany, and not feed them, then after they died assign racial Germans to farm their land - and the number of Russians left would have been very, very close to zero.

I've read plenty of books including the ones you mention and am perfectly familiar with his plans for "inferior races". Stalin's body count was far higher, stating that it took more years to accomplish it doesn't make it better. His pre and post war records of aggression don't do him any favors either. It's splitting hairs at best to say who was worst. Equally bad in my opinion.

Speculating on what would have happened had Hitler had more time, unlimited power and territory is pointless, although it likely wouldn't have been good if it had happened. No one can foresee the future. Besides we're told by some people here that the Russians would have inevitably beaten the Germans on their own, so that alternate future wouldn't have happened anyway. Would it have been a picnic for the rest of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa if the Russians beat Germany and occupied all of that? The Russians have their own history of ethnic cleansing and relocation, and it isn't pretty.

But my main point in this thread is to say, yet again, there were NO good guys on the Eastern Front. None. I'll give them partial credit for doing their share to beat Germany, but that doesn't cleanse the books of all their own crimes against humanity. Not by a long shot. A lot of others helped to accomplish the job of winning the war too. The Russians are 50% responsible for starting the war in the first place, but a lot of people are completely unaware of that. So if they or someone else tries to portray them as poor victims of aggression, after their former partner in crime turns on them, and that they did all the heavy lifting to win the war in Europe, I'm going to stand up and refute that.

quote:

Originally posted by JoseyWales2:
So if they or someone else tries to portray them as poor victims of aggression, after their former partner in crime turns on them, and that they did all the heavy lifting to win the war in Europe, I'm going to stand up and refute that.

If you think anyone in this thread has done that, reread. They did most of the heavy lifting against Germany, but not all and nobody said they did. The 'poor victims of aggression' may be a figment of your imagination - I don't see that in this thread till your post.

Noting the Western Allies would have been fighting steeply uphill against the Soviets going after them right after the war is not saying the Western Allies did nothing against Germany. They did a hell of a lot, actually, especially given the supply constraints.

So you think Stalin was equally bad. Interesting.

quote:

But my main point in this thread is to say, yet again, there were NO good guys on the Eastern Front. None. I'll give them partial credit for doing their share to beat Germany, but that doesn't cleanse the books of all their own crimes against humanity. Not by a long shot. A lot of others helped to accomplish the job of winning the war too. The Russians are 50% responsible for starting the war in the first place, but a lot of people are completely unaware of that.

You are punching into air. Nobody has said anything about any 'good guys' being there.

Anyone who studies military history (unless born in the Soviet Union, where knowledge of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was strictly hidden) knows about the pact, that the Russians came into eastern Poland during the German invasion, and that without that pact the Germans wouldn't have invaded Poland in the first place. And then they took Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, part of Romania, and went after Finland. Plus their Gulags, plus their starving the Ukrainians, plus the NKVD, plus, plus. Not nice guys. Nobody has said they were.

As it happened, and as the relative strengths of the economies and resources (including population base) of the combatants predicted would be the outcome in a long war, the second worst of the main Eastern Front combatants - a mainstay of the Allies at the time - prevailed. The prevailing of that second-worst, and the combat strength they produced and deployed meant the Western Allies never had to face the full strength of the Germans.

And, over and out. This thread is going nowhere fast, and I'm out.

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:
So you think Stalin was equally bad. Interesting.

Yeah I do.
Let's see, both started World War II.
Both acted with aggression against multiple other countries
- occupied them
- subjugated them
- oppressed them
- had slave labor camps,
- gulags/concentration camps
- "cleansing of undesirables"
- purges
- forced relocations
- secret police terrorizing people
- killed many millions of their own people

What am I missing here? How are Stalin/the Russians not equally as bad? Is it that difficult to admit? I'm not even including all their post-war activities around the world.

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:
You are punching into air. Nobody has said anything about any 'good guys' being there.

Well some people here can't seem to tolerate any criticism of Russia/Stalin and can't admit they were just as bad as someone else. Your own comments of "So you think Stalin was equally bad. Interesting." support this very notion.

But you are right on one thing, this thread has likely run it's course.