 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.58.2.83
[Has anyone else ever wondered why the greatest evil of the Twentieth Century -- Stalin and his USSR -- always seem to get a pass from Hollywood? Always it's the Nazis. Anyway, here's the WSJ on a home-grown Russian movie that tackles the topic.
Oh, yes: Ninotchka. That great movie did, in a long sequence, fabulously portray the dullness of Soviet life and the irritable passivity of Soviet subjects.
Now, excerpts.]
MOSCOW -- For nearly a decade, director Alexei Balabanov and producer Sergei Selyanov have ridden a rising wave of nationalism in Russia to box office success with tales of local heroes triumphing over Chechen separatists, American crime bosses, and underworld hit men.
But their latest film, set in 1984, has left audiences feeling uncomfortable by taking aim at a new target: the Soviet Union. The gritty thriller, set in 1984 in the USSR's twilight years, has triggered controversy with an unremittingly bleak and violent portrayal of the period.
- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118239157195142942-search.html?KEYWORDS=russia+without+love&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month (Open in New Window)
Follow Ups:
seemed confined to bordering states which had at one time or another been buffer states, provinces. Those that weren't historically had been troublesome for Mother Russia. Hardly justifies his aggression but, compared to... let's say post-WWII American foreign troop actions (well, between the wars, too, the Marines were mighty busy in foreign nations far, far away from our homeland) Joe was almost benevolent.
To his own people, tens of millions of whom died by his hand, he was a rapacious beast.
"To his own people, tens of millions of whom died by his hand, he was a rapacious beast."
You mean that to those who were not victims of his brutality, he was not a beast? That to consider someone like Stalin a beast, one needs to be victim of his brutality?
He killed tens of millions of his own people because he perceived them a political threat. For all the U.S. imperfections, our history is devoid of such conduct. Also, the fairly recent film of Czech fighter pilots who escaped to England to fight for the allies against Hitler, returned home after the war, only to be incarcerated and brutally tortured by Russian forces because they fought for the allies.
I would agree that Stalin's methods of invading countries to spread Lenin's philosophy was not similar to Hitler, but then again, Truman agreed to give Stalin eastern block countries, and with that deal, the lives of millions of people who could not choose their own destiny, eliminating the need for invasion. Fact is, not much separates Stalin from Hitler, no matter how some on the left try to differentiate the two.
"Truman agreed to give Stalin eastern block countries, and with that deal, the lives of millions of people who could not choose their own destiny, eliminating the need for invasion."
Truman gave Stalin nothing, those were lands taken by the Red Army at the cost huge casualties at the hands of the Germans. And there wasn't a dmaned thing we could do about it either except fight ANOTHER war with the Soviets, a war we might very well have been whipped in.
Perhaps you think the Red Army should have stopped at the Russian borders and The United States should have lost a couple of million men beating the Germans in east Germany, Poland, the Baltic states, Hungary, and so on?
"Perhaps you think the Red Army should have stopped at the Russian borders and The United States should have lost a couple of million men beating the Germans in east Germany, Poland, the Baltic states, Hungary, and so on?"
No. I think that each of those countries were sovereign entities, and should have been treated as such. The U.S. liberated France and Italy, and did not treat those nations as satellites. And let's not forget that Stalin and Hitler entered a non-aggression treaty, whereby Stalin allowed Hitler to run roughshod over the eastern block countries, as long as Hitler did not invade the Soviet Union. Until Hitler broke the pact, Stalin was more than content to give those lands to Hitler. And now you essentially argue that Stalin should have been rewarded for interfering only after he was attacked, and then lost significantly more men than he would have had he stopped Hitler when Hitler first began his European tour? Nice.
"Truman gave Stalin nothing, those were lands taken by the Red Army at the cost huge casualties at the hands of the Germans."
So, the Soviet Union finally entering the fray, entitled them to subjugate those peoples? See above. They "took" those lands only because Hitler made the fatal mistake of attacking the Soviet Union. Apparently, you feel there is no difference between "liberation" and "occupation." Spoils of war, huh? Nice to read that educated people here defend a nation reducing people to pawns in chess. Bush seems to think the same way you do.
"And there wasn't a dmaned thing we could do about it either except fight ANOTHER war with the Soviets, a war we might very well have been whipped in."
Not true. While the Soviets had many ground forces, they did not have the Navy and Air Force that the U.S. had. Plus, they had no allies. Plus, and here is the big one, they did not have the atomic bomb at that time. Given no comparative Air Force to prevent the U.S. planes, I am not sure how they could have survived the drop. Stalin was no dummy. He knew what happened to Japan. Perhaps if Truman had send Stalin a picture of another bomb emblazened with Stalin's name on it, history may have been different. Who knows? But Truman seemed to have taken the same view you do, and as a result mnany more millions of people were stripped of their basic liberties and freedoms.
.
they might have put a whoop-a** on the Americans if Patton had had his way. And yes, the Soviet's did have an Air Force which played a large role in decimating the Luftwaffe. And who needs a Navy in Europe ?
The Atomic bomb ? How many could the USA produce ? Keep in mind the Hiroshima bombs were little kiloton affairs (if that) which would be considered "tactical" nukes in modern parlance. I bet numbers-wise they would be of little use in slowing down a Soviet Juggernaut intent on overrunning Paris.
I think it could have been a magnificent fight but the ending might have been a Soviet-dominated Europe, not a liberated Eastern Europe.
"And yes, the Soviet's did have an Air Force which played a large role in decimating the Luftwaffe."
I'd like to see your facts on this. I believe the Luftwaffe was generated decimated from Germany's failed assault on England, and by the U.S. after France was liberated. Czeh pilots escaped to England to fight for the Royal Air Force. I would imagine if the Soviet Union had such a lethal Air Force, they would have saved themselves some travel time and left for the Soviet Union rather than England.
"Keep in mind the Hiroshima bombs were little kiloton affairs (if that) which would be considered "tactical" nukes in modern parlance."
We are not discussing "modern parlance." They were strong enough to cause Japan to surrender. Would several million deaths, or potential deaths, have cause Stalin to decide that maintaining control over the Eastern Block countries was not worth the potential cost to Soviet lives, given that they were incapable of delivering a similar blow? We'll never know because Truman never played the card. And millions suffered.
"I think it could have been a magnificent fight but the ending might have been a Soviet-dominated Europe"
If Stalin thought he could do the job, he would have done so. You may be more sure of the Soviets ability than they were.
The Red Army had a very powerful air force used mainly as tactical support for the ground forces. They had first rate attack bombers and excellent fighters.
German losses in the Battle of Britain were soon made good. The Luftwaffe was destroyed in Russia AND when it had to come up to fight improved American fighters escorting daylight bomber raids in 1944.
The Red Army was the best of the war. They were unequalled in operational doctrine and deep striking power. And the Russian soldier had an incredible capacity for hardship and very strong motivation. Had we fought them immediately after the fall of Germany they may very well have whipped us, in any event American losses would probably have been higher than those inflicted by the Germans.
You're mixing dates and facts to suit your notions.
Sorry, I couldn't resist!
When Germany invaded the USSR, the major difference was that effectively every last citizen of the USSR became a soldier.
The hideous conditions were endured by the entire nation. The Germans were just an army. The Russians destroyed everything as they retreated, literally destroying their own country as they lured the Germans further and further away from regular supplies.
This was the original rope-a-dope.
The Russian people made modern suicide bombers look like hopeless sissies.
As otherwise noted, Soviet industry was very outdated and was being brought rushing through the advances that had happened over a couple of centuries in other countries in around 50 years. Then they allowed whole tracts of their country to be burned flat.
And started again.
The Russians sacrificed, the Americans introduced lend-lease.
I am no defender of totalitarianism whether of the government or corporate variety, but in the same way that it is said Mussolini made the trains run on time, I doubt a western democracy could have rebuilt its industry in the time and manner the Soviets did.
That strength has also proved to be their weakness as the paranoia of the dictator shut down innovation and centralised all decision making.
From Wikipedia:
World War Two
At the outbreak of World War II, the Russian military was not yet at a level of readiness suitable for winning a war: Stalin had said in 1931 that Russian industry was "50 to 100 years behind" [1] the Western powers. By the end of the war, Russian aircraft production outstripped that of Germany- Soviet aircraft production is estimated to have risen to an impressive 4,700 aircraft at this time.
In 1939, the VVS used its bombers to attack Finland in the Winter War, but the losses inflicted on them by the relatively small Finnish army showed the shortcomings of these forces, mainly due to the Great Purge in the 1930s.
The main reason of the great number of aircraft lost was not the lack of modern tactics, but time to improve them was short, because the German offensive of 1941 (Operation Barbarossa) pushed the air force into a defensive position, while being confronted with more modern German aircraft. In the early days of Operation Barbarossa the Luftwaffe destroyed some 2000 Soviet aircraft, at a loss of only 35 planes (of which 15 were non-combat-related).[2]
As with many allied countries in the Second World War the Soviet Union received western aircraft by lend-lease.
There was Soviet Volunteer Group in China before 1941.
Having failed to achieve victory in the Soviet Union in 1941 or 1942, the Luftwaffe was drawn into a war of attrition which would extend to North Africa and the Channel Front. The entry of the United States into the war and the resurgence of the Royal Air Force's (RAF) offensive power created the Home Front, known as Defense of the Reich operations. The Luftwaffe's strength was slowly erroded and by 1944 had virtually disappeared from the skies of Western Europe leaving the German Army to fight without air support. It continued to fight into the last days of the war with revolutionary new jet fighters in small numbers, such as the Messerschmitt Me 262, Messerschmitt Me 163 and the Heinkel He 162, even though the war was already hopelessly lost.
What do think happened to the Soviet Union after they survived the initial onslaught ? They ramped up the vast Soviet natural resources to put together tremendous war production capacity. By the end of the war they building warplanes, tanks, artillery, ammunition, etc at a far higher rate than the rate of destruction at the hands of the Wehrmacht and probably at a higher rate than the American military buildup.
What everyone glosses over is the Soviet Union took on arguably the World's finest war machine (and probably 80% of the Wehrmacht, the rest being spread over the piddly Western and southern fronts fighting the Americans/Britsh) toe-to-toe for three (3) years and eventually beat them with sheer numbers. Vast numbers of battle-hardened troops who would have certainly given the Americans a tough fight. "Normandy" ? "Battle of the Bulge" ? mere sideshows compared to the battles on the Eastern front (e.g. Kursk, Stalingrad, Moscow).
I think the gist of the article is that at the beginning of the German invasion, Russia lost a lot of planes. After the U.S. landed in Europe, combined with Germanies failed assault on England, Germanies air force was basically a non-factor through the rest of the war. The argument that the Soviets ended the Luftwaffe is specious. When the German air force was crippled, the Soviets were able to build their air force, and the U.S. gave them planes. Further, the Soviet's victories on the ground can be attributed to a significant degree to the lack of the German air force to protect their ground troops once the U.S. and the British essentially ended the Luftwaffe.
However, having planes is not the same thing as having a lethal air force. The argument that their pilots were as capable as those of the U.S. and the British, which is as, if not more, important than the number of planes a country possesses, is wrong. That, I think, is the gist of the article.
which source is only as good as the people who contributed to it.
Here's a link to one historian's take on the Eastern front battles:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1373719.htm
Below is a link to a book on the Eastern front air warfare which looks to be worth reading.
- The eastern front consumed over half of the German Luftwaffe's frontline strength from June 1941 (Open in New Window)
The first article you reference seems to support my view. Relative to the portion which discusses the relative air forces, apparently Stalin felt he needed American bomber support, and apparently the American bombing in Germany diverted German aircraft from the S.U., aiding the Soviets in their fight against the Germans on the ground. And Stalin needed American bomber help, why?
I fail to see how what you quote from Wikipedia contradicts what I said. I have better sources at my disposal than Wikipedia by the way.
The Red Army was weak and ill prepared in 1941. By 1944 it had improved and was the best. That's the march of time.
v
May I suggest you and Mr. Garvin go to your nearest Borders or B&N and purchase a copy of Max Hastings' Armageddon which is an excellent account of the fighting in Europe from mid-44 through to the end the war.
Hastings, a leading military historian and former editor of the UK's Daily Telegraph and an unlikely closet Stalinist, examines all the main combatants and their armies and pretty much offers the same judgement as Mr. Brennan does - that the Red Army was probably the best of the ground armies by the end. The Wehrmacht was possibly superior at it's peak (pre-Stalingrad) and he gives the edge in overall generalship to the Germans. He doesn't have very much good to say about the Western Armies (US, British, French), troops or generals with the exception of Patton.
I've also recently read Anthony Bevor's book about the fall of Berlin & he does seem to concur re the quality and power of the Soviet armies late in the war.
PS BTW re Soviet air power, I think the air ace with highest numbers of kills in aerial combat on all sides, in all theatres of WW2, is a Soviet fighter pilot. Need to check on this.
The issue is not the superiority of the ground troops. The issue is the superiority of the air force. I posited that the Soviet air force was no match for the U.S. and the British air forces. Particularly if they are combined.
Let's look at what happened in Japan. The U.S. planned a ground invasion of Japan, and the generals determined there was only one place on the island that enough ground troops could land for an invasion of Japan. For some unexplained reason, prior to the planned invasion, Japan fortified that area (I believe it was on the Southwest corner of the island) prior to the invasion. At that point, the generals went back to Truman, informed him of the movement, and determined that to land in that area with the fortified troops would now cause many times the losses of life which were lost on Normandy.
Truman then determined that the cost of American life was too high, and decided to drop the bomb. Relevance? Japan's location and troop strenghts precluded an invasion. But there were other ways to skin the cat. Drop the bomb. All the troop strength in the world would not counteract the effect of such a device. The bomb forced Japan to capitulate. I doubt they knew how many devices the U.S. had - they only knew that IF the U.S. had another, there was no way for them to prevent another bomb because of the U.S.s superior air force and navy.
Now, move to Europe. While a ground invasion against the Soviets would have been bloody as hell, and victory questionable, the Soviets know that the U.S. has a techonology they do not possess, and, because of a superior navy, a means of delivery they do not possess. Let's assume another bomb is in the offing. Given the U.S. and British superiority in the sky and on the water, I postulate there is not much the Soviets could have done to prevent the U.S. dropping one on Moscow. If they had the will. Which Truman did not.
At the end of the day, the Soviets were handed Eastern Block countries as a spoil of war - hey they lost a lot, let's give them some countries in return. Nobody has yet to comment on whether a country should be rewarded in such a fashion.
"PS BTW re Soviet air power, I think the air ace with highest numbers of kills in aerial combat on all sides, in all theatres of WW2, is a Soviet fighter pilot. Need to check on this. "
Sure. Kobe Bryant scores a ton of points. Where are the Lakers?
American/British air power at the end of the war ? Upon what basis do you make this assessment ? Granted instead of fighting Luftwaffe aircraft, the Soviet Union would be engaging P51s and B-17s. If Soviet fighter aircraft outnumbered their Allie counterparts 10:1, there would have been zero chance of B29s with nukes getting anywhere near Warsaw, let alone Moscow. Come back to us when you've crunched the numbers.
It's all moot anyway, there wasn't a fight.
My kids can count. They can't reason. Most of the time, reasoning is more important. So here goes. The Soviet air force, at the beginning of the war, was years behind technologically. At least according to Stalin. The U.S. gave the S.U. aircraft under the Lend-lease. Those are facts. If the Soviet air force was all that, no need for Stalin's statement, and no need for loaners. Therefore, the air force was lacking. If there is no air force to speak of, there are no pilots to speak of, because, well, on what do they train? That is called reasoning.
Consequently, at the beginning of the war, the S.U. air force is not equivalent to the U.S. and Britain air force. Britain gave the Luftwaffe more than it could handle in the Battle of Britain. Remember, the Luftwaffe, at the beginning of the battle with the S.U., gave the S.U. heavy losses. That is fact. Britain's air force gave the Luftwaffe heavy losses. That is fact. Consequently, the Royal Air Force was better than the Soviet air force. That is reasoning. Same thing that tells me San Antonio is a better team than Detroit, though they never faced each other in the finals.
Both the Royal and U.S. Air forces were responsible for putting the final nails in the Luftwaffe, which is fact. Consequently, their air forces were superior to the Luftwaffe, which were also superior to the S.U. air force, which had been defeated by the Luftwaffe. Reasoning.
After the Luftwaffe were neutralized, the S.U. built a lot of planes. Fact. However, they had not many experienced pilots, because their air force was not a factor during the war, as the Luftwaffe were largely neutralized when they re-built their air force, and, to the best of my knowledge, they never fought the Japanese, so there was little combat experience. As opposed the Britain and the U.S. Reasoning.
I could likely cite the numbers of planes each side owned, but how to quantify the combined years of combat experience of their respective pilots? Flight time? Kills? Skill? You may be the same person who looks at the U.S. News and World Report's edition on colleges, finds the college with the most volumes in the library, and concludes that is the best college. Crunching numbers are easy. Thinking is difficult because it requires real work. Get back to me when you are ready to think instead of regurgitate.
"It's all moot anyway, there wasn't a fight."
Then why are you posting?
s
The Soviets had built a LOT of airplanes to provide tactical support for ground operations on the Eastern front. And dont' discount the expertise and experience of those who flew those airplanes against the Luftwaffe for years.
You continue to discount the magnitude of the battles on the Eastern front; I wouldn't be so quick to totally dismiss Soviet Air capabilities vs. the Allies. Necessity drove large improvements in Soviet miliary aircraft capabilities during WWII. Even today, MIGs and SUs are still some of the best combat airframes even today. The US only edge is in Stealth and electronics technologies.
Surely the knowledge and generosity of the Wiki is universally admired and acknowledged or else the world will come tumbling down...
The bomb was still a couple of months away when Germany was beaten.
"The bomb was still a couple of months away when Germany was beaten."
Certainly, when the allies defeated Germany. But when the time came to parse the European pie, which was after the Japanese defeat, America had developed the bomb. How long would it have taken America to build another? I suspect that the U.S. could have built another in sufficient time to land one in the Soviet Union. The question is, though, would the Soviet Union have receded from the Eastern Block territories if they knew Truman would drop one on them?
And what does The United States gain by beating the Soviets in this war you envision? We had no important interest there.
The pie divison in eastern Europe was a done deal by the time of Potsdam anyway (while we were still fighting the Japanese). The Russians were boss in the territories they were in and that was that.
"And what does The United States gain by beating the Soviets in this war you envision? We had no important interest there."
The same interest that caused us to commit numerous troops and resources in fighting Germany, which never attacked the U.S. Perhaps you also believe that the U.S. had no interest in figthing Germany. Just defeat Japan, and stop. If we had an interest in preventing tyranny and aggression from one country to another when Germany was the culprit, we also had the same interest when the Soviets attempted to do the same thing. Unless you believe that Stalin's massacre of, and stripping the rights from, his own people and those of the Eastern Block countries was justified whereas Hitler's was not. Given Stalin's treatment of his own people prior to WWII, the U.S. had ample notice of his behavior.
And I do not envision a war with the S.U. Given that Stalin's interest was occupation, not liberation, which conflicted with the other allies' interests, the U.S. should have held have maintained their ground that the war was not fought so that any of the allies could enrich themselves that Hitler's victims expense. This does not involve invading the S.U. If Stalin was as aggressive, and potent, as you assert, he would not have signed a treaty with Hitler to avoid a fight - he would simply have taken the fight to Hitler. I submit that had the other allies stuck together, convinced the S.U. that countries like Poland, East Germany, and the other Eastern Block Countries were not for barter, and used the threat of the atom bomb, the S.U. may have backed down, as it obviously did with a very tenacious enemy in Japan, things may have been different and better in Europe for millions of people.
The same unwillingness to confront the S.U. was the same unwillingness to confront Hitler, and we know what happened there.
I am curious as to what interest we had in fighting Germany, and how it differs in out interests following the WWII?
I've always wondered about that. Also, seeing as how Stalin's brutal murders and starvations of thirty or forty million preceded Hitler's more modest activity, why were we on *his* side? Not to mention that Stalin soon became our implacable enemy. Did Dean Acheson foresee nothing of this?
"Things may have been different and better in Europe for millions of people." No kidding. (Except, make that "tens of millions".) Stalin apologists refuse to look at such circumstances.
clark
a
... I would venture that entry into the war finally lifted the US economy out of the depression.
The lend-lease agreements were in place or would be as soon as the USA came to the table.
And according to Eisenhower it was agreed that Allied forces would stand down at several points and allow Stalin to advance, which is how the Red Army was able to capture so much territory. Germany might never have been split!
clark
Dividing Germany was the best thing that could have been done and should have been done after the Great War, and was considered then.
So tell me Clark, how many American lives would capturing Berlin and Prague been worth? 500,000? A million? Give me a number.
I love the way the Yanks turned up late and then assumed it was their war...
really, please remember that there were a couple of other countries fighting that war.
"I love the way the Yanks turned up late and then assumed it was their war...
really, please remember that there were a couple of other countries fighting that war."
I know that very well Dave.
And with that I'm done with this off-topic history business.
...is difficult for some, I realize.)
It began with a movie. Then it moved to a partially-false allegation, which I countered. Then along came Tom Brennan.
The fact remains, Eastern Europe was carved up by an agreement at Yalta among the Big Three Allies. It had nothing to do with the heroism of the Red Army. Not only that, Germany's Western front at that time was less well-defended; nor would the battle have been down to the Americans.
As for the gruesome math you wish me to do, let's toss in the thirty or forty million East Germans and Ukrainians that Stalin murdered and see how the equation balances.
clark
"As for the gruesome math you wish me to do, let's toss in the thirty or forty million East Germans and Ukrainians that Stalin murdered and see how the equation balances."
These numbers that Stalin supposedly killed just get bigger and bigger. Give me a reliable source for forty million Germans and Ukrainians killed after the end of the war.
You failed to answer my question, how many American lives would it have worth to capture eastern Germany. Personally, to paraphrase Bismarck, I don't think the whole of Germany would be worth the life of one American grenadier.
Beethoven.
Want another: Goethe.
A third: Schiller.
... the German atomic and rocket scientists?
The German rocket guys were very good but we already had the best atomic guys. The Germans were nowhere near developing the bomb.
of civilians. Think they may have had a bit of a resulting paranoia about leaving easy avenues to invasion open again?
Napoleon, Hitler... one can imagine the desire to prevent a "three-pete."
One really can, without too much effort, sympathize with the poor Polish, getting brutally ravaged from both sides.
typical of you, James!
I don't know many "left" who justify Stalin's conduct in ANY way. It's time for the ridiculous "liberals" are soft on communism bullshit to be allowed to decompose in the shithole.
Need I remind you that McGovern was a heavily decorated Air Force hero? Or that Reagan skipped military service for a ridiculous reason which would have gotten any small town man ridden out of town? You are also free to recall the serious wounds of JFK and the death of his older brother Joe during a secret mission of extreme danger.
You do know what Jimmy Carter's occupation was in the Navy? Hint: it's the most dangerous in the services, except for Navy and Marine pilots.
Gene McCarthy, John Kerry, Al Gore... the list goes on and on. Now, conservatives... well, let's just say they (the overwhelming percentage) took WWII and Vietnam "off."
You misunderstand. I am not suggesting that all liberals give Stalin a free pass. Only that they do not equate him with Hitler, I suspect, because each of them falls on different sides of the political spectrum. Stalin's reign of terror outlasted Hitler's. I dare say that more people were killed, imprisoned, and tortured during Stalin's reign than Hitler's. In my book, that makes him as evil.
s
a
Read more of his delusions at Outside.
... but you will find few who think Stalin was actually left wing at all.
He was an opportunist totalitarian.
And a hideously effective one.
After the second world war, which as an aside, it can reasonably be argued, the USSR was the single most important part of the defeat of Hitler, achieved at a hideous domestic cost to the USSR, it wasn't just the atomic scientists whom were chopped between the USSR and the USA, it was also the marketeers and philosophies.
"After the second world war, which as an aside, it can reasonably be argued, the USSR was the single most important part of the defeat of Hitler, achieved at a hideous domestic cost to the USSR, it wasn't just the atomic scientists whom were chopped between the USSR and the USA, it was also the marketeers and philosophies."
The problems is this: (1) Why did the U.S.S.R. enter World War II? Because they were attacked, and not to liberate other countries. (2) You mean, as others appear, to suggest that one of the spoils of war from loosing many men on the battlefield is to occupy another country, stripping its people of basic freedoms and liberties? How about do the noble thing, accept some thanks and parades, and go home, satisfied that you made life better for countless other people. Stalin saw it as an opportunity, which, apparently, is fine with some here.
Those who do should stop bitching that Bush is doing the same thing in Iraq.
bleep
The major difference is that the U.S. did not enter into a contract with Japan whereby the U.S. tells Japan "take what you want, kill as many as you want, just do not attack us." Stalin does a deal with the devil, and then should be rewarded when the devil bit his ass?
But I suggest that the price for the Soviets entering WWII should not be the liberty of millions of people, and the consensus here seems to be that those costs are justified. I'd appreciate a response to that query. Certainly, the U.S. did not install puppet governments in France and Italy, and then restrict those people liberties. In Japan, the U.S. only removed the emperor, but the process itself was largely left untouched.
I think the USA was very happy for Stalin to put various east European countries under his control.
It gave an easy enemy to keep the USA's military budgets blooming. It moved the USA out, way out, of the depression.
As for installing puppet governments, you are right. The USA only picked up on that tactic after WW2.
The reasons for Stalin's deal with Hitler are various, but do you also include Britain among the condemned for dealing with Hitler?
Before WW@ started, everybody knew what Hitler was already doing to the Jews. But who cared enough to do anything?
And why would the USA not be interested in entering WW2 in order to protect those European democracies, stop the massacres of the Jews/socialists/gays across the countries that Germany invaded?
I think the USA grew up a lot in the ways to run an empire during this period.
Even though they became top nation earlier, the domestic economy had been in tatters for a decade and it was only really then that they moved into the deals necessary to become a superpower. (Who came up with that word?).
The Nazi era in Germany was a relatively short period ending in a war that offers the chance of an action film. Stalinist USSR was a slow grind of totalitarianism that offers only unending gray bleak hopelessness, none of which are a Hollywood speciality.
Personally I find no need to a Top 10 of the worst aspects of recent history.
I hope the film gets some sort of release here. Have you actually seen it, clark?
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
