Was Patton right? (communist related)

8,687 Views | 95 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by JABQ04
Smokedraw01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Im curious how you conclude that Germany would have been a lesser long-term threat?
"If you run into an ******* in the morning, you ran into an *******. If you run into *******s all day, you're the *******." – Raylan Givens, "Justified."
cbr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Smokedraw01 said:

Im curious how you conclude that Germany would have been a lesser long-term threat?
a country of 70 million people bound up in a cult of personality and an ideology of 'german only' socialism?

versus a country of 200 million that spans half the world, bound up in a pervasive and insidious 'workers of the world' international socialist ideology bent on ruling the world?

it was never any contest.

the soviets murdered more innocents than the nazi's, would always project more political, military and intelligence capability than the nazis, their ideology is even more evil than the nazis, and they had infinitely more resources than the nazis.

i cant even comprehend how this could be considered a debate.

even if the nazis had won and dominated europe, their ideology was self-limiting. they were never going to fully engage their resources, as 'slave labor' is never very effective long term.

further, the germans would have moderated after hitler died, whereas the communists just went international and started destroying good institutions across the globe.


cbr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
i would venture to say that the only reason for the soviets to be allied in ww2 was that england was more aware of what the nazis were doing, and underestimated the soviets badly, just as hitler did. by the time churchill was in power who understood the situation, the germans were already at war and his hands were tied. and make no mistake, churchill hated hitler just as much as stalin; but realpolitik left him no options.
TheFirebird
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CBR, you are aware that Nazi Germany spent two years trying to bomb the UK to smithereens before they ever went to war with the Soviets? I'd argue that the Brits had a very good handle on who posed the bigger threat beyond knowing "what the Nazis were up to."

I think you're conflating how the USSR behaved internally during the early years of revolution and then Stalinism with how it behaved geopolitically. We have a historical record of how the Soviets behaved after the war and it is nothing similar to how the Nazis did.

Along the front-line zones of competition the USSR maintained the status quo and did not attempt aggressive expansion into the U.S. core sphere of influence, excepting the Cuban misadventure. Within their satellites, they supported and maintained repressive authoritarian regimes but unlike the Nazis they did not establish death camps, commit genocide, or attempt to replace local populations with Russians or Soviets (once they completed immediate postwar population exchanges and border stabilization). They did not establish direct colonial governments. The Nazis did all of these things. The Soviets were content to conduct limited persecution of internal dissidents and intervene to prevent full-scale revolt against their puppet governments (Hungary and Czechoslovakia). They even tolerated limited foreign policy independence from ostensibly aligned satellites (Yugoslavia and Romania).

For the most part, both the Soviets and the U.S. limited aggressive, kinetic completion to the non-aligned periphery ("Third World") in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. This is the complete opposite of the behavior seen from Nazi Germany. You can chalk it up to nuclear restraint if you wish, but the fact remains that neither side started a world war.

This isn't to apologize or justify Soviet atrocities internally or externally. Just a statment of fact the USSR was a much more stable and responsible global player than Nazi Germany.
Smokedraw01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cbr said:

Smokedraw01 said:

Im curious how you conclude that Germany would have been a lesser long-term threat?
lol, seriously? a country of 70 million people bound up in a cult of personality and an ideology of 'german only' socialism?

versus a country of 200 million that spans half the world, bound up in a pervasive and insidious 'workers of the world' international socialist ideology bent on ruling the world?

it was never any contest.

the soviets murdered more innocents than the nazi's, would always project more political, military and intelligence capability than the nazis, their ideology is even more evil than the nazis, and they had infinitely more resources than the nazis.

i cant even comprehend how this could be considered a debate.

even if the nazis had won and dominated europe, their ideology was self-limiting. they were never going to fully engage their resources, as 'slave labor' is never very effective long term.

further, the germans would have moderated after hitler died, whereas the communists just went international and started destroying good institutions across the globe.



I didn't think the question was foolish. Sorry if it was.

The issue I see is you are ignoring the Nazi expansion and Hitler's other plans for the world once he was done. The Soviets did expand but that was mostly after the Nazi's made them more paranoid than they already were. Also, I shudder to think of all the death and destruction the German's would have handed out if they had lasted 50 or 60 years.

I think it's a fairly large leap to say that the Nazis wouldn't have continued expanding into Africa and the Middle East if they had been successful. Or that Germany would have been more moderate after Hitler died. Lenin was brutal on the Russians and it only got worse when Stalin took over.
"If you run into an ******* in the morning, you ran into an *******. If you run into *******s all day, you're the *******." – Raylan Givens, "Justified."
cbr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Smokedraw01 said:

cbr said:

Smokedraw01 said:

Im curious how you conclude that Germany would have been a lesser long-term threat?
lol, seriously? a country of 70 million people bound up in a cult of personality and an ideology of 'german only' socialism?

versus a country of 200 million that spans half the world, bound up in a pervasive and insidious 'workers of the world' international socialist ideology bent on ruling the world?

it was never any contest.

the soviets murdered more innocents than the nazi's, would always project more political, military and intelligence capability than the nazis, their ideology is even more evil than the nazis, and they had infinitely more resources than the nazis.

i cant even comprehend how this could be considered a debate.

even if the nazis had won and dominated europe, their ideology was self-limiting. they were never going to fully engage their resources, as 'slave labor' is never very effective long term.

further, the germans would have moderated after hitler died, whereas the communists just went international and started destroying good institutions across the globe.



I didn't think the question was foolish. Sorry if it was.

The issue I see is you are ignoring the Nazi expansion and Hitler's other plans for the world once he was done. The Soviets did expand but that was mostly after the Nazi's made them more paranoid than they already were. Also, I shudder to think of all the death and destruction the German's would have handed out if they had lasted 50 or 60 years.

I think it's a fairly large leap to say that the Nazis wouldn't have continued expanding into Africa and the Middle East if they had been successful. Or that Germany would have been more moderate after Hitler died. Lenin was brutal on the Russians and it only got worse when Stalin took over.
sorry, should not have implied that it was foolish - it isnt of course. it is frankly conventional wisdom. i think hindsight has proven it wrong however, and i've spent some time researching it, so i am a bit contrarian.

i think they would have expanded as best they could, but hitler was not going to live long, no matter what. none of the other leaders were as motivated - goering in particular would have calmed everything down dramatically.
cbr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TheFirebird said:

CBR, you are aware that Nazi Germany spent two years trying to bomb the UK to smithereens before they ever went to war with the Soviets? I'd argue that the Brits had a very good handle on who posed the bigger threat beyond knowing "what the Nazis were up to."

I think you're conflating how the USSR behaved internally during the early years of revolution and then Stalinism with how it behaved geopolitically. We have a historical record of how the Soviets behaved after the war and it is nothing similar to how the Nazis did.

Along the front-line zones of competition the USSR maintained the status quo and did not attempt aggressive expansion into the U.S. core sphere of influence, excepting the Cuban misadventure. Within their satellites, they supported and maintained repressive authoritarian regimes but unlike the Nazis they did not establish death camps, commit genocide, or attempt to replace local populations with Russians or Soviets (once they completed immediate postwar population exchanges and border stabilization). They did not establish direct colonial governments. The Nazis did all of these things. The Soviets were content to conduct limited persecution of internal dissidents and intervene to prevent full-scale revolt against their puppet governments (Hungary and Czechoslovakia). They even tolerated limited foreign policy independence from ostensibly aligned satellites (Yugoslavia and Romania).

For the most part, both the Soviets and the U.S. limited aggressive, kinetic completion to the non-aligned periphery ("Third World") in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. This is the complete opposite of the behavior seen from Nazi Germany. You can chalk it up to nuclear restraint if you wish, but the fact remains that neither side started a world war.

This isn't to apologize or justify Soviet atrocities internally or externally. Just a statment of fact the USSR was a much more stable and responsible global player than Nazi Germany.
my point was before the war, the soviets were underestimated, and by the time the war started, the chess pieces were already set.

stalin's geopolitical ambitions were to crush western europe and install a soviet system. that's what their offensive military was designed to do, and their deployment was offensive, which is why they lost so much in the early months of the war. hell, they invaded poland when germany did.

the fact that the soviets were recovering from czarism malaise, ww1 disaster, the revolution, and the civil war through the depression and COULDN'T yet go on the offensive doesnt change their brutal goals.

the fact that a soviet country that lost tens of millions of people and was facing an opponent with nukes and a massive army as well was deterred from further aggression in the late 40's is no sign of benevolence either.

even hitler would not have started a major war if the allies had had nukes in 39. nukes ended traditional major power wars. they made the cost-benefit balance unwinnable.

but hitler's ideology was incapable of international subversion, proxy wars, etc., no one wants to fight for an ideology that says they are inferior to germans.

however, lots of poor people can be suckered into fighting for international socialism, and generally dont see the disaster coming until it is too late.

further, the soviets most certainly started death camps, and put their people in charge of their satellite states, complete with secret police and the works.
TheFirebird
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CBR, your history is wrong and so it's tough to engage in a meaningful discussion on this. The theory that the Soviets were planning an offensive war against Nazi Germany is controversial at best and in any case glosses over the fact that the actual men and metal Soviet Army was in no condition to launch such an offensive until well into the actual, defensive war that Nazi Germany started.

I live and work in the former Warsaw Pact and have for six years. Soviet satellite states certainly had secret police, show trials, political executions, political prisoners, repression of civil society and labor camps. To argue that these ever existed on the scale and scope of the internal Soviet GULAG system of the late 1920s to mid 1950 much less the type of carnage the Nazis inflicted on civilian populations between 1939-1945 at their death camps or killing fields is just ludicrous and at complete odds with the historical record. Nothing comparable to Belzec or Treblinka ever existed anywhere in postwar Warsaw Pact Europe.

Ironically, the bloodiest and most repressive non-Soviet Eastern Bloc states were two that the Soviets had the least control over: Hoxha's Albania and Romania.

It really seems like you're arguing from a place of preconceived political biases instead of actually looking at what happened.
Smokedraw01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I agree with much of your assessment but you forget the starvation of the Ukrainian kulaks.
"If you run into an ******* in the morning, you ran into an *******. If you run into *******s all day, you're the *******." – Raylan Givens, "Justified."
TheFirebird
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
cbr said:

Smokedraw01 said:

Im curious how you conclude that Germany would have been a lesser long-term threat?
lol, seriously? a country of 70 million people bound up in a cult of personality and an ideology of 'german only' socialism?

versus a country of 200 million that spans half the world, bound up in a pervasive and insidious 'workers of the world' international socialist ideology bent on ruling the world?

it was never any contest.



You're ignoring the long historical record of how nations actually behave. Insecure, weaker states that are attempting to establish great power status have a well-established track record of starting completely ruinous, un-winnable conflicts simply because they are the ones that end up feeling backed into a corner with a fight or die mentality.

In the twentieth century alone Germany did it twice and Japan once. Secure great powers are plenty likely to blunder into un-winnable wars against obviously weaker states, but far less likely to stumble into a true fight to the death against a near-equal for the simple reason that they do not feel pressed into doing so.
TheFirebird
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Smokedraw01 said:

I agree with much of your assessment but you forget the starvation of the Ukrainian kulaks.
Yes, this was a true atrocity and completely inexcusable but important to note that it occurred inside the USSR (and inside what had also been Tsarist Russia for centuries) and not in a satellite state, and that it happened in pre, not post-war Europe. I am analyzing how the USSR behaved towards nations outside of its borders whether within the Eastern Bloc or outside.

It was far worse to be an average Soviet citizen than it was to be an average German citizen under the Reich. No doubt about that. It was also far worse to live under Nazi German occupation East of the Oder as an average non-German than it ever was to live as an average Warsaw Pact nation citizen post-1945.
Smokedraw01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TheFirebird said:

Smokedraw01 said:

I agree with much of your assessment but you forget the starvation of the Ukrainian kulaks.
Yes, this was a true atrocity and completely inexcusable but important to note that it occurred inside the USSR (and inside what had also been Tsarist Russia for centuries) and not in a satellite state, and that it happened in pre, not post-war Europe. I am analyzing how the USSR behaved towards nations outside of its borders whether within the Eastern Bloc or outside.

It was far worse to be an average Soviet citizen than it was to be an average German citizen under the Reich. No doubt about that. It was also far worse to live under Nazi German occupation East of the Oder as an average non-German than it ever was to live as an average Warsaw Pact nation citizen post-1945.


Agreed. I misread what you wrote. The poor Poles got by both.
"If you run into an ******* in the morning, you ran into an *******. If you run into *******s all day, you're the *******." – Raylan Givens, "Justified."
cbr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TheFirebird said:

CBR, your history is wrong at odds with mainstream propaganda and so it's tough to engage in a meaningful discussion on this.

FIFY

The theory that the Soviets were planning an offensive war against Nazi Germany is controversial at best and in any case glosses over the fact that the actual men and metal Soviet Army was in no condition to launch such an offensive until well into the actual, defensive war that Nazi Germany started.


that's why they didnt plan to start until 41 or 42... doesnt mean that wasnt the plan. It is not particularly controversial anymore, though certainly some documents remain classified to cover it up. The fundamental strategic deployment of soviet forces in the summer of 1941 is militarily and logistically offensive. Further, more and more documents have come out since 1990 that illustrate this was not coincidence. It remains debatable, but the bottom line is soviet russia maintained an offensive mobilization plan, period. All the winners of ww2 want history to show that germany simply attacked an unprovoked russia, but that is simply not true. hitler's window of possible success was closing rapidly, which is why he went when he did. Germany at the time knew that russia would be difficult or impossible to stop by 42-3 at their rate of mobilization.



I live and work in the former Warsaw Pact and have for six years. Soviet satellite states certainly had secret police, show trials, political executions, political prisoners, repression of civil society and labor camps. To argue that these ever existed on the scale and scope of the internal Soviet GULAG system of the late 1920s to mid 1950 much less the type of carnage the Nazis inflicted on civilian populations between 1939-1945 at their death camps or killing fields is just ludicrous and at complete odds with the historical record. Nothing comparable to Belzec or Treblinka ever existed anywhere in postwar Warsaw Pact Europe.

i wont dispute the exact extent or pervasiveness of post ww2 oppression in eastern europe, just note that there is no disputing the severe oppression, despite the fact that, just as the nazi's should not have oppressed eastern europe, the soviets were incentived to avoid more severe oppression as well.

Ironically, the bloodiest and most repressive non-Soviet Eastern Bloc states were two that the Soviets had the least control over: Hoxha's Albania and Romania.

i dont see how that is relevant, the point is the soviet union oppressed its people and its sattellites.


It really seems like you're arguing from a place of preconceived political biases instead of actually looking at what happened.

No, i looked at what actually happened, and over time it educated me that there is much more to the story than 'nazi's were the worst and everyone else was our ally.' I also came to realize that every single player left in the world has incentives to fall back on that false simplicity and turn it into dogma.

my great uncles all died in europe. i am lucky to be alive, my grandfather was saved from that by being so good at football the army air corp instead let him stay stateside. one of my mentors fought at guadalcanal.

my perspective takes nothing away from my appreciation for our american greatest generation, but i think being truthful about the situation does them more honor than perpetuating misleading simplicities.

the cold war and current events certainly dictate that international socialism originated and perpetuated by soviet russia is the scourge of american ideals and freedom around the world. nazi germany could not have perpetrated such evils.


cbr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
you also made the statement that germany started ww1, which is EXTREMELY misleading.

britain was the power with the most culpability in starting ww1. germany trying to build a massive fleet was threatening to put england in a box. their maneuvering actually put germany in a box, and when the sparks ignited germany had limited options.

germany, despite its bellicose prussian bluster, was the LEAST militant european power after 1871, and did the most of any major power to try to keep the serbian conflict from becoming WW1.

while they did technically invade belgium and france per the Schlieffen plan, that was a tactical offensive. the strategic position was defensive.

anyway, without derailing too much, i think ww1 is the greatest tragedy in human history. If america and europe had done better, the world would be one hell of a better place, never having seen nazis or soviets at all.



fwiw here is the order of formal declarations of ww1;

July 28: Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia
Aug. 1: Germany and Russia declare war on each other
Aug. 3: Germany and France declare war on each other
Aug. 4: Germany declares war on Belgium, United Kingdom declares war on Germany
Aug. 6: Austria-Hungary declares war on Russia, Serbia declares war on Germany
Aug. 12: United Kingdom and France declare war on Austria-Hungary
Aug. 22: Austria-Hungary declares war on Belgium
Aug. 23: Japan declares war on Germany
Aug. 25: Japan declares war on Austria-Hungary
Aug. 28: Austria-Hungary declares war on Belgium
Nov. 2: Russia and Serbia declare war on the Ottoman Empire
Nov. 5: United Kingdom and France declare war on the Ottoman Empire

1915
May 23: Italy declares war on Austria-Hungary
Aug. 21: Italy declares war on the Ottoman Empire
Aug. 28: Italy declares war on Germany
Oct. 14: Bulgaria declares war on Serbia
Oct. 15: United Kingdom declares war on Bulgaria
Oct. 16: France declares war on Bulgaria
Oct. 19: Russia and Italy declare war on Bulgaria
1916
March 9: Germany declares war on Portugal
March 15: Austria-Hungary declares war on Portugal
Aug. 27: Italy declares war on Germany, Romania declares war on Austria-Hungary
Aug. 28: Germany declares war on Romania
Aug. 30: Ottoman Empire declares war on Romania
Sept. 1: Bulgaria declares war on Romania
1917
April 6: United States declares war on Germany
June 27: Greece declares war on Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Germany and the Ottoman Empire
Aug. 14: China declares war on Germany
Dec. 7: United States declares war on Austria-Hungary
TheFirebird
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
cbr said:

TheFirebird said:

CBR, your history is wrong at odds with mainstream propaganda and so it's tough to engage in a meaningful discussion on this.

FIFY

The theory that the Soviets were planning an offensive war against Nazi Germany is controversial at best and in any case glosses over the fact that the actual men and metal Soviet Army was in no condition to launch such an offensive until well into the actual, defensive war that Nazi Germany started.


that's why they didnt plan to start until 41 or 42... doesnt mean that wasnt the plan. It is not particularly controversial anymore, though certainly some documents remain classified to cover it up. The fundamental strategic deployment of soviet forces in the summer of 1941 is militarily and logistically offensive. Further, more and more documents have come out since 1990 that illustrate this was not coincidence. It remains debatable, but the bottom line is soviet russia maintained an offensive mobilization plan, period. All the winners of ww2 want history to show that germany simply attacked an unprovoked russia, but that is simply not true. hitler's window of possible success was closing rapidly, which is why he went when he did. Germany at the time knew that russia would be difficult or impossible to stop by 42-3 at their rate of mobilization.



I live and work in the former Warsaw Pact and have for six years. Soviet satellite states certainly had secret police, show trials, political executions, political prisoners, repression of civil society and labor camps. To argue that these ever existed on the scale and scope of the internal Soviet GULAG system of the late 1920s to mid 1950 much less the type of carnage the Nazis inflicted on civilian populations between 1939-1945 at their death camps or killing fields is just ludicrous and at complete odds with the historical record. Nothing comparable to Belzec or Treblinka ever existed anywhere in postwar Warsaw Pact Europe.

i wont dispute the exact extent or pervasiveness of post ww2 oppression in eastern europe, just note that there is no disputing the severe oppression, despite the fact that, just as the nazi's should not have oppressed eastern europe, the soviets were incentived to avoid more severe oppression as well.

Ironically, the bloodiest and most repressive non-Soviet Eastern Bloc states were two that the Soviets had the least control over: Hoxha's Albania and Romania.

i dont see how that is relevant, the point is the soviet union oppressed its people and its sattellites.


It really seems like you're arguing from a place of preconceived political biases instead of actually looking at what happened.

No, i looked at what actually happened, and over time it educated me that there is much more to the story than 'nazi's were the worst and everyone else was our ally.' I also came to realize that every single player left in the world has incentives to fall back on that false simplicity and turn it into dogma.

my great uncles all died in europe. i am lucky to be alive, my grandfather was saved from that by being so good at football the army air corp instead let him stay stateside. one of my mentors fought at guadalcanal.

my perspective takes nothing away from my appreciation for our american greatest generation, but i think being truthful about the situation does them more honor than perpetuating misleading simplicities.

the cold war and current events certainly dictate that international socialism originated and perpetuated by soviet russia is the scourge of american ideals and freedom around the world. nazi germany could not have perpetrated such evils.



You're right, if you dismiss all the serious historians who disagree with you as "mainstream propaganda", then your theory is not controversial at all.


And it's completely obvious that Hitler just started the war to defend Germany as long as you ignore the reams of paper he wrote in which he explained years in advance that he wanted to invade Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union and turn that territory into a German colony with enslaved local labor.

And of course, it's plain that Nazi Germany could never have perpetrated the evils that the Soviet Union did as long as you ignore the fact that Nazi Germany spent a half decade burning millions of Jews, Roma, the disabled, and homosexuals in ovens and raping and enslaving the "lucky" Slavs. At great cost to their own war effort, incidentally. Clearly, the Nazis were the J.V. of evil. Or maybe their version of evil just squared more with American mom and apple pie than the Soviet conception.

Like I said, you've picked your interpretation based on ideology and current events, not facts. I'm disengaging.
TheFirebird
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
cbr said:

you also made the statement that germany started ww1, which is EXTREMELY misleading.

britain was the power with the most culpability in starting ww1. germany trying to build a massive fleet was threatening to put england in a box. their maneuvering actually put germany in a box, and when the sparks ignited germany had limited options.

germany, despite its bellicose prussian bluster, was the LEAST militant european power after 1871, and did the most of any major power to try to keep the serbian conflict from becoming WW1.

while they did technically invade belgium and france per the Schlieffen plan, that was a tactical offensive. the strategic position was defensive.

anyway, without derailing too much, i think ww1 is the greatest tragedy in human history. If america and europe had done better, the world would be one hell of a better place, never having seen nazis or soviets at all.



fwiw here is the order of formal declarations of ww1;

July 28: Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia
Aug. 1: Germany and Russia declare war on each other
Aug. 3: Germany and France declare war on each other
Aug. 4: Germany declares war on Belgium, United Kingdom declares war on Germany
Aug. 6: Austria-Hungary declares war on Russia, Serbia declares war on Germany
Aug. 12: United Kingdom and France declare war on Austria-Hungary
Aug. 22: Austria-Hungary declares war on Belgium
Aug. 23: Japan declares war on Germany
Aug. 25: Japan declares war on Austria-Hungary
Aug. 28: Austria-Hungary declares war on Belgium
Nov. 2: Russia and Serbia declare war on the Ottoman Empire
Nov. 5: United Kingdom and France declare war on the Ottoman Empire

1915
May 23: Italy declares war on Austria-Hungary
Aug. 21: Italy declares war on the Ottoman Empire
Aug. 28: Italy declares war on Germany
Oct. 14: Bulgaria declares war on Serbia
Oct. 15: United Kingdom declares war on Bulgaria
Oct. 16: France declares war on Bulgaria
Oct. 19: Russia and Italy declare war on Bulgaria
1916
March 9: Germany declares war on Portugal
March 15: Austria-Hungary declares war on Portugal
Aug. 27: Italy declares war on Germany, Romania declares war on Austria-Hungary
Aug. 28: Germany declares war on Romania
Aug. 30: Ottoman Empire declares war on Romania
Sept. 1: Bulgaria declares war on Romania
1917
April 6: United States declares war on Germany
June 27: Greece declares war on Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Germany and the Ottoman Empire
Aug. 14: China declares war on Germany
Dec. 7: United States declares war on Austria-Hungary
You don't find at all odd that the Germans keep "technically" invading various countries but are really just defending themselves? Call it the Mike Leach theory of defensive war, I guess.

In one sentence you note that the Germans were trying to build a massive fleet to rival the British and in the next claim they were the least militant European power. Upsetting the balance of power and starting an arms race in an attempt to wring diplomatic concessions from your rival is the textbook definition of militant behavior.
cbr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TheFirebird said:





i dont know why you seem irate?


You're right, if you dismiss all the serious historians who disagree with you as "mainstream propaganda", then your theory is not controversial at all.

'serious historians' helped cement these stereotypes because they were largely limited to information released by the US government, or US and sometimes german veterans who were from the western front.

if you study german and neutral sources on the eastern front, it seems quite clear. certainly soviet sources were absolute propaganda, and all those in the planning were gone by the time the wall fell, so you will see limited credible information from that side; what has been dug up is generally supportive of the russian offensive strategy.

there are 'serious historians' on both sides of this debate, but how many historians line up in the face of deliberately limited information for an unpopular revelation? more recent historians generally support the russian offensive theory, which is conclusively established, IMO simply by the deployment itself.

you act like lenin didnt invade poland in 1919, stalin forcibly annexed Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan in the 20's, basically facilitated the spanish civil war, started kicking up conflicts with japan in 1939, flat out invaded finland and poland, all leading up to ww2.





And it's completely obvious that Hitler just started the war to defend Germany as long as you ignore the reams of paper he wrote in which he explained years in advance that he wanted to invade Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union and turn that territory into a German colony with enslaved local labor.

i think you misread my post. hitler always wanted lebensraum in the east. however, that doesnt change the fact that by the time hitler was in power, he was being dramatically out mobilized by the soviet union, and if he was not going to lose a defensive war which they started later, at their convenience, he was going to have to start an offensive war while victory was possible.



And of course, it's plain that Nazi Germany could never have perpetrated the evils that the Soviet Union did as long as you ignore the fact that Nazi Germany spent a half decade burning millions of Jews, Roma, the disabled, and homosexuals in ovens and raping and enslaving the "lucky" Slavs. At great cost to their own war effort, incidentally. Clearly, the Nazis were the J.V. of evil.

Nazis were certainly the JV of evil, if your varsity has soviet russia and imperial japan on the roster. good god. nazis did the same evil things they did, just didnt do it to as many people, across as big an area, or for as long, for whatever that's worth.

the point isnt minimizing that germans committed all kinds of atrocities. the point is that germans could never have inflicted the damage to the US or rest of the world that the soviets have since.





Or maybe their version of evil just squared more with American mom and apple pie than the Soviet conception.

well now, that sounds like you have some sort of emotional/ideological trigger going....here it is: SOCIALISM CAN'T BE RECONCILED WITH AMERICA. This is true whether its' nazis or russian soviets, or anyone else. SOCIALISM is inherently evil, it demands and allows for no other result than evil. it is authoritarian, and therefore is corrupt, and it can never not be corrupt. Ever. It requires evil every time, and it will result in evil every time.

My point is that soviet socialism is much more capable, much more widespread, much more harmful to america than german nationalist socialism ever could have been.



Like I said, you've picked your interpretation based on ideology and current events, not facts. I'm disengaging. ' projection is a common tactic of socialists.
cbr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TheFirebird said:




In one sentence you note that the Germans were trying to build a massive fleet to rival the British and in the next claim they were the least militant European power. Upsetting the balance of power and starting an arms race in an attempt to wring diplomatic concessions from your rival is the textbook definition of militant behavior.


england based its power on the world's biggest fleet, mercantilism, imperialism, and playing divisive politics and occasionally intervening on the continent to prevent any one power from rising to challenge it. Britan, france, russia, the ottomans, austria hungary, etc. were all CONSTANTLY building up arms and engaging in violent conflicts from 1871-1914.

germany was a constant victim of that, but near the turn of the century they had the unity and economic power to start getting into the imperial game and becoming an equal power. that isnt 'starting an arms race' or being aggressive. germany was involved in by far the fewest and least significant conflicts of any major power during that period.

None of this ww1 stuff is particularly difficult to grasp at all, germany CLEARLY was not the primary culpable party in that one, as opposed to ww2.



Smokedraw01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Which source would you recommend that supports that version of history?
"If you run into an ******* in the morning, you ran into an *******. If you run into *******s all day, you're the *******." – Raylan Givens, "Justified."
cbr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Smokedraw01 said:

Which source would you recommend that supports that version of history?
Ill go back and put a list
CT'97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TheFirebird said:

CT'97 said:

That makes sense, the Soviets had massive logistics issues in Afghanistan. Living conditions and food for their troops was bad and there are stories of them sustaining themselves off of the local economy. A lot of equipment got parked and left because they couldn't get parts to repair it on site nor had the ability to transport it to a higher level repair facilities back in Russia.
Logistics of getting materiel and support into Afghanistan versus into Europe from the USSR is a completely different ball-game and level of difficulty even given 40 years of technical advances. Even with much of Europe in ruins. The infrastructure, terrain, proximity to the supply points....every single thing is worse with Afghanistan. Not to mention that the Soviets never pacified the countryside.

Standing on the Friendship Bridge across the Amu Darya (Oxus) between Uzbekistan and Afghanistan, you truly grasp the phrase "ends of the earth." That's where the images of Soviet tanks retreating home comes from.
I understand that, my point was logistics was never a priority despite the decade plus they where there. What was acceptable for troop living conditions and food lead to a less than functioning army . It's not a priority in their military structure to provide for troops. You even see it in today's Russian military in forward deployed areas.
Texas A&M - 144 years of tradition, unimpeded by progress.
TheFirebird
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
cbr said:

TheFirebird said:




In one sentence you note that the Germans were trying to build a massive fleet to rival the British and in the next claim they were the least militant European power. Upsetting the balance of power and starting an arms race in an attempt to wring diplomatic concessions from your rival is the textbook definition of militant behavior.


england based its power on the world's biggest fleet, mercantilism, imperialism, and playing divisive politics and occasionally intervening on the continent to prevent any one power from rising to challenge it. Britan, france, russia, the ottomans, austria hungary, etc. were all CONSTANTLY building up arms and engaging in violent conflicts from 1871-1914.

germany was a constant victim of that, but near the turn of the century they had the unity and economic power to start getting into the imperial game and becoming an equal power. that isnt 'starting an arms race' or being aggressive. germany was involved in by far the fewest and least significant conflicts of any major power during that period.

None of this ww1 stuff is particularly difficult to grasp at all, germany CLEARLY was not the primary culpable party in that one, as opposed to ww2.




CBR, there were no great power wars in Europe (not counting wars between a European great power and the Ottoman Empire) between 1871-1914. Historians call the period between the Second Franco-Prussian War and the First World War "Second Concert of Europe" for precisely that reason. As I've mentioned before-- your history is just wrong-- Britain, France, Russia, Germany, and Austria-Hungary were not engaging in violent conflicts with each other at all.

The colonial empires did engage in overseas conflict and war. Unsurprisingly, Prussia/Germany was not a big player. Prussia/Germany was a land-based great power with tiny overseas holdings with no border on the periphery of Europe. All of its competitors-- the British, the French, the Austrians, and the Russians-- did have either overseas empires or bordered non-European nations-- and that is where the wars were.

Germany was the non-status quo power that sought to get into the colonial game and in particular upset the balance of naval power. You are using emotionally charged language to describe what they did. It's not a question of victims and villains but the record is clear on who was looking to maintain the status quo and who was dissatisfied.

You also keep using the term "defensive war/strategy" inaccurately. Sending troops marching across borders before your rival has fired a shot is never defensive. It can't even be called "counter-offensive," which is a type of defense. It is an offensive strategy that might be justified as "preventative war", although the issue there is that falling back on the preventative war justification is pretty much a non-falsifiable argument.
ttu_85
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BQ_90 said:

I think nobody had the stomach for that fight. There wasn't any support anywhere in the US or Europe for that war.
True but it was a missed opportunity. We had the B-29, the bomb, and bases in Germany, Iran, and Japan. The three things need to burn the Stalinist pigs to ashes in 1946 or '47. By '48 the B29's would have been easy pray for newer high altitude fighters.

Then you could argue the world got to see the lines for moldy bread, ****ty apartments, and garbage cars that had waiting list of 10 years. Post WWII USSR let us all see the many warts of the "Workers Paradise."

But the numbnuts of today have forgot these lessons.
JABQ04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ttu_85 said:

BQ_90 said:

I think nobody had the stomach for that fight. There wasn't any support anywhere in the US or Europe for that war.
True but it was a missed opportunity. We had the B-29, the bomb, and bases in Germany, Iran, and Japan. The three things need to burn the Stalinist pigs to ashes in 1946 or '47. By '48 the B29's would have been easy pray for newer high altitude fighters.

Then you could argue the world got to see the lines for moldy bread, ****ty apartments, and garbage cars that had waiting list of 10 years. Post WWII USSR let us all see the many warts of the "Workers Paradise."

But the numbnuts of today have forgot these lessons.

I don't see it at as a missed opportunity. I could see us getting our ass kicked. The Reds would have rolled us all the way of Germany and possibly back off the continent. We only had one bomb after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Maybe if a B29 did a kamikaze run over Moscow they you could have gotten a new government installed and sued for peace.
-Our bases would have been overrun in Germany.
-The Red Army had a **** ton of people and material in the East after Germany capitulated And they prepped to go to wet with Japan.
- The Red Air Force of 1945 was no joke
ttu_85
How long do you want to ignore this user?
JABQ04 said:

ttu_85 said:

BQ_90 said:

I think nobody had the stomach for that fight. There wasn't any support anywhere in the US or Europe for that war.
True but it was a missed opportunity. We had the B-29, the bomb, and bases in Germany, Iran, and Japan. The three things need to burn the Stalinist pigs to ashes in 1946 or '47. By '48 the B29's would have been easy pray for newer high altitude fighters.

Then you could argue the world got to see the lines for moldy bread, ****ty apartments, and garbage cars that had waiting list of 10 years. Post WWII USSR let us all see the many warts of the "Workers Paradise."

But the numbnuts of today have forgot these lessons.

I don't see it at as a missed opportunity. I could see us getting our ass kicked. The Reds would have rolled us all the way of Germany and possibly back off the continent. We only had one bomb after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Maybe if a B29 did a kamikaze run over Moscow they you could have gotten a new government installed and sued for peace.
-Our bases would have been overrun in Germany.
-The Red Army had a **** ton of people and material in the East after Germany capitulated And they prepped to go to wet with Japan.
- The Red Air Force of 1945 was no joke
Note my dates in my post. Note I did not say 1945. In '46 and '47 we would have reloaded. The USSR did not have the A-bomb until 1949.

By the way most of the Red Airforce was composed of tactical units whose job was to support the Red Army. I dont think they had the hardware to contend with high altitude strategic air forces. Granted they could have adapted. We will never know.
Eliminatus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think everyone here keeps discounting the fighting spirit of the Russian people, as seen throughout pretty much all of recorded history. ESPECIALLY if they see themselves as the plucky, aggrieved defenders.

We run into the same damn problems as the Nazis did. We would have to roll them back across conquered Europe and THEN started an invasion into their homeland. I am fairly positive that high level bombing would not have accomplished the job either. How many years of wiping out German cities did it take to bring them down?? Russia also shifted huge amounts of their industry to the Urals during the initial German invasion. There is no way we are penetrating that deep into Russia at the crucial start.

On the ground level, the idea that Russia was still using that drafted farmer with the family rifle to conduct their war in 1944 onward is so incredibly wrong. The Russian army which pushed into Germany was arguably one of the most experienced, battle hardened, extremely well led, and just straight powerful armies this world has ever seen. On just paper, they were easily a match for the Allies and then you add in that intangible of fighting spirit and ability to accept and absorb losses and I would sway the outcome in their favor when talking pure tactical warfare.

Strategic side is much more complicated of course and mostly covered already. I just don't see the Reds buckling under nuke attack. Probably more akin to shoving a stick into an anthill. Tactical nukes on the other hand.....hmmmm.....

We might have could launched an eastern front with our Pacific units but the need to resupply across an entire ocean would have gotten to a point of diminishing returns in regards to actual effective outcomes that could sway a ground war.
JABQ04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That was one thing I wanted to touch on a day or so ago just got busy at work. The Russian people were ALL in on this war where as we were getting tired of it. If we would have been dumb and attacked the Reds after WWII it would ha e been the Great Patriotic War part II. It would have taken a Pearl Habor - esque event to get the public back into it. And yes I agree completely, the Red Army from Operation Bagration on was a world class fighting force.

As far as allies, other than the UK, I don't really see any that are effective, and the UK wouldn't want any part of this one.

And maybe it was this thread but one way to put it into perspective is the Russians lost more at Stalingrad than we did the ENTIRE war (both fronts) and just shrugged it off.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.