Members sethlover Posted May 5, 2009 Members Share Posted May 5, 2009 Maybe if the USA had gotten off their ass earlier, Hitler wouldn't have gotten as far as he did. I suppose you're the type of guy to ignore the Russian effort to in the defeat of Hitler. Comparing Hitler to Stalin is like comparing apples to apples. It was part strategy on Roosevelt's part to let Germany take Europe. It was known that Stalin was massing a campaign to sack Europe and nothing would have stopped it, as no one was prepared for it except the Germans. What were the lesser of the two evils? By then it was known worldwide of the Millions killed by Stalin in the Ukraine genocide and in the rest of his government. Communism was spreading like a cancer worldwide. The Nazi's atrocities were not found out until after the war. To Roosevelt the Nazi's were capitalists, you let the communists sack Europe and you send the free markets plummeting even more than they already were at the time, remember we were in the midsts of the great depression. As crazy as it sounds there were German owned factories in the USA making product for the US and US factories in Germany making product for Germany during the war. I remember reading that Ford had plants making tanks for the Germans and those factories were off limits to Allied bombing. So what do you do? You let the Germans fight the Russians until both are out of gas, then you come in and make a clean sweep of the place. And that's what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members whiteop Posted May 5, 2009 Members Share Posted May 5, 2009 There's plenty of countries out there with nukes, some of them who you'd rather didn't too but no one is dumb enough to use them. This is just scare mongering to promote a never ending war.If the unlikely happened and the Taliban did get hold of them nothing would happen, they'd mouth off for sure and threaten us but they're not stupid, they don't want to get fried in retaliation, no one does. I thought it was to keep the nuke manufacturers busy building bombs...:poke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Blitzraptor007 Posted May 5, 2009 Members Share Posted May 5, 2009 Winston Churchill said that Stalin was a greater threat to Europe than Hitler was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Blitzraptor007 Posted May 5, 2009 Members Share Posted May 5, 2009 The Cold War started the minute we dropped the second bomb and started divvying up Germany. The Soviet Union becoming nuclear capable was inevitable. We took half of the German scientists and they took the other half. Very true...When they took over Berlin they took a lot of intel and weapons (i.e. the german MP-444 was a model used for the development of the russian AK-47) My history is kind of hazy right now but weren't the Germans in the process of splitting uranium as well? We just did it faster. Many experts said that if the war would have progressed for another year or two, they would have had nuclear capabilities... the Germans had "Heavy Water" (Link to definition) facilities in Norway that the Norwegians sabotaged throughout the war (Source) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members matterday Posted May 5, 2009 Members Share Posted May 5, 2009 Winston Churchill said that Stalin was a greater threat to Europe than Hitler was Where did he say that? Russia did not have the capabilities of mobilizing their troops efficiently enough to even take on Europe during WWII. The only reason they were able to push on to Germany was because the Germans were retreating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HeartfeltDawn Posted May 5, 2009 Members Share Posted May 5, 2009 all good points indeed.... i just was hearing whiffs off " america is to blame for all the worlds troubles " which is just very untrue and make me crazy...We are the most generous nation on earth with both treasure and our sons blood. are we perfect ?? No. But we crossed the atlantic and went to a different continent to help a europe in need, that's all i was pointing out... We've helped you too with Iraq on both situations, the second going against world opinion. America isn't to blame for the world's problems. {censored}, Britain marched across the globe with Victorian impunity and made you guys look like amateurs. The colonial past is not one I'm proud of. Every country needs to recognise their positives and their flaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members onyxrhino Posted May 5, 2009 Members Share Posted May 5, 2009 The Cold War started the minute we dropped the second bomb and started divvying up Germany. The Soviet Union becoming nuclear capable was inevitable. We took half of the German scientists and they took the other half.My history is kind of hazy right now but weren't the Germans in the process of splitting uranium as well? We just did it faster. The Germans had a project to do something along those lines, which is what spurred the US to start the Manhatten Project, but as the project went along, the intelligence assessments concluded that the Germans weren't really very close to developing an atomic bomb. The US already had the project going though, so they pushed ahead. But records released since the fall of the USSR have shown that many of the people working on the project in Los Alamos were sympathetic to the USSR and did give them information. One British scientist in particular, whose name escapes me now, is documented as having provided Soviet agents with quite a bit of the research. Also, Oppenheimer was regularly meeting with Soviet agents at the time, though I don't think there's any specific evidence that he gave them info about the atomic bomb. He did definitely hire several scientists with communist sympathies and Soviet connections to head up research at Los Alamos, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Blitzraptor007 Posted May 5, 2009 Members Share Posted May 5, 2009 Where did he say that?Russia did not have the capabilities of mobilizing their troops efficiently enough to even take on Europe during WWII. The only reason they were able to push on to Germany was because the Germans were retreating. It wasn't a direct quote...I would recommend for you to read this article on Churchill and the Soviet Union in WWII:http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=531 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HeartfeltDawn Posted May 5, 2009 Members Share Posted May 5, 2009 Comparing Hitler to Stalin is like comparing apples to apples. It was part strategy on Roosevelt's part to let Germany take Europe. It was known that Stalin was massing a campaign to sack Europe and nothing would have stopped it, as no one was prepared for it except the Germans. What were the lesser of the two evils? By then it was known worldwide of the Millions killed by Stalin in the Ukraine genocide and in the rest of his government. Communism was spreading like a cancer worldwide. The Nazi's atrocities were not found out until after the war. To Roosevelt the Nazi's were capitalists, you let the communists sack Europe and you send the free markets plummeting even more than they already were at the time, remember we were in the midsts of the great depression. As crazy as it sounds there were German owned factories in the USA making product for the US and US factories in Germany making product for Germany during the war. I remember reading that Ford had plants making tanks for the Germans and those factories were off limits to Allied bombing. So what do you do? You let the Germans fight the Russians until both are out of gas, then you come in and make a clean sweep of the place. And that's what happened. I wasn't comparing Hitler to Stalin, more pointing out that the Russians did actually lose a hell of a lot of people in WWII compared to most nations. You're very much right with the mention of the capitalist element to Nazi Germany. Anyone doing Political Studies will see how much Hitler's methods of persuasion have influenced modern politicians and advertising in general. The Ford factories weren't hugely profitable thanks to the nationalistic fervour. The US got in at the right time and consequently ended up top dog financially after the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members H.R. Shove and Stuff Posted May 5, 2009 Members Share Posted May 5, 2009 This is actually a really cool thread. You guys are good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Blurillaz Posted May 5, 2009 Members Share Posted May 5, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Ted Hall was passing high level atomic secrets to the Soviets during the development of The Bomb at Los Alamos. The Rosenbergs were amateurs by comparison. A great book on the subject is Bombshell. Venona is also worth a read in terms of WWII / early cold war Soviet intelligence operations and American counter-intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sethlover Posted May 5, 2009 Members Share Posted May 5, 2009 I wasn't comparing Hitler to Stalin, more pointing out that the Russians did actually lose a hell of a lot of people in WWII compared to most nations. You do know that 80,000,000 people lost their lives under Stalin's reign of terror? A formal apology was given to the world by Mikhail Gorbachev while leader of the Soviet Union. He released documented evidence that confirmed that total. Maybe if the Russians would have lost more people they would have overthrown Stalin like they did the Czar in WWI? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members attic Posted May 5, 2009 Members Share Posted May 5, 2009 Good thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Stalin was pretty ruthless in terms of eliminating anyone he suspected of being a political threat. In fact, his massive purges of his own officer corps circa 1937 (upwards of 50% of their officers, with higher ranks being the most affected) nearly cost them WWII in the early days of the Eastern Front invasion, due to the lack of experienced, qualified leadership. Heck, Finland did far better against the Soviets in 1939-40 than most people would have expected, especially considering the balance of forces. IMO, the Soviets were in no position to over-run all of Europe in the early 1940s. The strategy of trading space for time, and a willingness to accept massive combat losses, and most importantly, the Russian winters (even Napoleon had issues with that) is what ultimately saved them. Certainly help from the other Allies didn't hurt... but they were in no position to go it alone, and we (UK / USA) would have had far more casualties had we had to battle the Nazis without Soviet assistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members companyman Posted May 5, 2009 Members Share Posted May 5, 2009 seriously...we should be paying more attention to former Soviet military stores of nuclear materials and technology...black market activities regarding these things is as great a threat as religious extremists, where do we think they are going for their WMD material ? Not to mention all of the nuclear bases that are being neglected , degenerating computer systems, missiles and early warning systems...the money just isn't there for upkeep, and if it is, it is being redirected to organized crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HeartfeltDawn Posted May 5, 2009 Members Share Posted May 5, 2009 IMO, the Soviets were in no position to over-run all of Europe in the early 1940s. The strategy of trading space for time, and a willingness to accept massive combat losses, and most importantly, the Russian winters (even Napoleon had issues with that) is what ultimately saved them. Certainly help from the other Allies didn't hurt... but they were in no position to go it alone, and we (UK / USA) would have had far more casualties had we had to battle the Nazis without Soviet assistance. Hell yes. The Soviet winters were harsh and the Soviets used that home advantage. It's comparable to the Afghanistan mujahideen being able to use their knowledge of the Afghan mountains and territory in order to defeat the more powerful USSR forces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HeartfeltDawn Posted May 5, 2009 Members Share Posted May 5, 2009 You do know that 80,000,000 people lost their lives under Stalin's reign of terror? A formal apology was given to the world by Mikhail Gorbachev while leader of the Soviet Union. He released documented evidence that confirmed that total. Maybe if the Russians would have lost more people they would have overthrown Stalin like they did the Czar in WWI? I'm totally aware of Stalin's evil. I had it drummed into me by a particularly vocal history teacher a decade ago! I'm not making a case for Stalin being some glorious saviour angel at all. I go on the simple facts alone that Russia lost a hell of a lot of people fighting against Hitler's forces and that their sacrifice, irrespective of the wanton nuttiness of Stalin, should not be brushed over. Without their sacrifice, the war would have turned out far different than it did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Taylor. Posted May 5, 2009 Members Share Posted May 5, 2009 The Pakistani President is on CNN right now. He says that the Taliban is "sixty, seventy" miles away from Islamabad, and that he doesn't think that the US needs to know where Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is stored, but that he thinks we should be doing more to help them. He just said that Pakistan has a history of fighting and overthrowing dictators, but he isn't worried that the Taliban or a potentially unstable military might do the same to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Northstar Posted May 5, 2009 Members Share Posted May 5, 2009 A raid by the US to retrieve all Pakistani nukes would quickly degenerate in all-out war in the region because I don't think Obama (or any president for that matter) would be subtle in how the job gets done. I could envision the Pakistani government breaking down in various factions and a hyper-nationalist Pakistani rogue general throw a nuke against an advancing US army... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 He says that the Taliban is "sixty, seventy" miles away from Islamabad, and that he doesn't think that the US needs to know where Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is stored, but that he thinks we should be doing more to help them. Did he specify what form that additional "help" should take? My guess would be he wants more financial and military equipment aid. They really haven't wanted much in terms of direct military support in the past, and if we were to do so, there would be political ramifications within Pakistan. As far as knowing where they have their nuclear arsenal stored, I'd imagine we already know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Northstar Posted May 5, 2009 Members Share Posted May 5, 2009 Stalin was pretty ruthless in terms of eliminating anyone he suspected of being a political threat. In fact, his massive purges of his own officer corps circa 1937 (upwards of 50% of their officers, with higher ranks being the most affected) nearly cost them WWII in the early days of the Eastern Front invasion, due to the lack of experienced, qualified leadership. Heck, Finland did far better against the Soviets in 1939-40 than most people would have expected, especially considering the balance of forces. IMO, the Soviets were in no position to over-run all of Europe in the early 1940s. The strategy of trading space for time, and a willingness to accept massive combat losses, and most importantly, the Russian winters (even Napoleon had issues with that) is what ultimately saved them. Certainly help from the other Allies didn't hurt... but they were in no position to go it alone, and we (UK / USA) would have had far more casualties had we had to battle the Nazis without Soviet assistance. Seems like you read "Stalin - The court of the red tsar" by Simon Sebag Montefiore. Whether you did or not, excellent book. Early on, you get a very good idea about the kind of person Stalin was. Everyone was afraid of Stalin and at the bottom core of it, Stalin was afraid of everyone... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members echodeluxe Posted May 5, 2009 Members Share Posted May 5, 2009 great discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Andre XXX Posted May 5, 2009 Members Share Posted May 5, 2009 great discussion.indeed.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Taylor. Posted May 5, 2009 Members Share Posted May 5, 2009 He says that the Taliban is "sixty, seventy" miles away from Islamabad, and that he doesn't think that the US needs to know where Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is stored, but that he thinks we should be doing more to help them.Did he specify what form that additional "help" should take? My guess would be he wants more financial and military equipment aid. They really haven't wanted much in terms of direct military support in the past, and if we were to do so, there would be political ramifications within Pakistan. As far as knowing where they have their nuclear arsenal stored, I'd imagine we already know that. Actually he said something like the following, sounding rather irritated: "Just look at the situation and YOU decide what we need!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.