Betrayal

Discussion in 'Poland' started by Polish_Street_Soldier, Jun 26, 2004.

Tags:
  1. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

     
  2. Herroberst

    Herroberst Senior Member

    </div><div class='quotemain'>Uncle Joe[/b]
    ...And uncle Ho....and Jane Fonda.

    Thanks you answered my question images/smilies/default/ph34r.gif
     
  3. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    I thought this forum was for disussion or education of members on WW2 not for throwing insults.

    The term "gross ingorance" is not a derogatory term as used above. It intends in my view to show that there is an opinion that there is a misunderstanding of/or awareness of some facts by a large number of people. (to many the extent or number of deaths attributed to Stalin's attrocities would not be known)

    The direct response to someone being ignorant IS insulting and is not the theme of this forum. There does not need to be a slanging match when putting forward your view if your facts are correct and reputable sources are provided.

    Remember that others read your posts with interest even if they are not involved.


    Sorry to nitpick here Spidge but saying to be one of the few who knows the real extent of Stalin's atrocities in a WW2 forum, without really any proofs to sustain that claim, is just as deliberetely insulting. Shall I even mention here the many other times when such a tactic was used by the same poster in a futile attempt to tarnish the many people who disagreed with him (and I dont really think Im alone in there, see the former Sealion thread).
     
  4. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    (Exxley @ Feb 9 2006, 05:33 PM) [post=45454]
    I thought this forum was for disussion or education of members on WW2 not for throwing insults.

    The term "gross ingorance" is not a derogatory term as used above. It intends in my view to show that there is an opinion that there is a misunderstanding of/or awareness of some facts by a large number of people. (to many the extent or number of deaths attributed to Stalin's attrocities would not be known)

    The direct response to someone being ignorant IS insulting and is not the theme of this forum. There does not need to be a slanging match when putting forward your view if your facts are correct and reputable sources are provided.

    Remember that others read your posts with interest even if they are not involved.


    Sorry to nitpick here Spidge but saying to be one of the few who knows the real extent of Stalin's atrocities in a WW2 forum, without really any proofs to sustain that claim, is just as deliberetely insulting. Shall I even mention here the many other times when such a tactic was used by the same poster in a futile attempt to tarnish the many people who disagreed with him (and I dont really think Im alone in there, see the former Sealion thread).
    [/b]

    There are quite a few people who do disagree with "the poster" and his strong opinions however his opinions are there for all to agree or disagree without....................................
     
  5. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    (spidge @ Feb 9 2006, 10:31 AM) [post=45459](Exxley @ Feb 9 2006, 05:33 PM) [post=45454]
    I thought this forum was for disussion or education of members on WW2 not for throwing insults.

    The term "gross ingorance" is not a derogatory term as used above. It intends in my view to show that there is an opinion that there is a misunderstanding of/or awareness of some facts by a large number of people. (to many the extent or number of deaths attributed to Stalin's attrocities would not be known)

    The direct response to someone being ignorant IS insulting and is not the theme of this forum. There does not need to be a slanging match when putting forward your view if your facts are correct and reputable sources are provided.

    Remember that others read your posts with interest even if they are not involved.


    Sorry to nitpick here Spidge but saying to be one of the few who knows the real extent of Stalin's atrocities in a WW2 forum, without really any proofs to sustain that claim, is just as deliberetely insulting. Shall I even mention here the many other times when such a tactic was used by the same poster in a futile attempt to tarnish the many people who disagreed with him (and I dont really think Im alone in there, see the former Sealion thread).
    [/b]

    There are quite a few people who do disagree with "the poster" and his strong opinions however his opinions are there for all to agree or disagree without....................................
    [/b]
    Maybe "the poster" should be told to refrain himself from posting slanders like :

    I think here on this forum with a number of people, there is a gross ignorance of just how incredibly ruthless and evil Stalin was, extensively because he was allied with our nations.

    This is not an opinion about an historical fact, but rather an unsubstantiated statement about what other people knows or doesnt know. If you want civility to be respected by everyone, make sure the point is clear for everyone (how about not deliberately misquoting other people's posts for instance). And if you want this place to be informative, make sure the point is clear for everyone (how about giving some checkable sources for instance ?).
    Lastly, it has never been my policy to withdraw whenever I met some weirdos on the Net. And those lads are most of the time immune to civility and reason. So if they're game, better give them what they want: a good whacking.
     
  6. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

     
  7. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    Exxley,

    I am only a member of this forum....... I am not a moderator of this topic or any other and my post to you was in the interest of the forum.

    You are taking a defensive position with me because I pointed out that you had erred in calling a member ignorant.

    Im not taking a defensive position. Im just explaining why I dont have any problem judging some poster knowledge since that other poster is kinda eager to do the same to other folks. And I note you dont make any more comments about the fact that I merely quoted a biased judgement, not an historical observation.

    You can't be serious! If a misquote occurs - you call him on it. When sources are not forthcoming - you call for them to be presented or as in any debate, those with unsubstantiated sources lose. (In theory anyway)

    Why should I be not serious ? So far, Im still waiting for many explanations about some lines I'm supposed to have been written (once again, check the Sealion thread). Im not holding my breath though. Im not even expecting any kind of apologizes either. From what I've seen on the THC, this is not really the kind of SOP those blokes follow.

    Up to you.

    a verbis ad verbera!

    Debating with people who doesnt really want to debate, who deliberately misquotes you, and who kepts spamming the same clueless bollocks might be your idea of how informative and civil a WW2 forum should be. Its not mine.
     
  8. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (spidge @ Feb 9 2006, 07:36 AM) [post=45475]a verbis ad verbera!
    [/b]
    How elequent! My complements!

    Exxley, it is my personal policy to ignore your posts because you cannot debate logically. Your responses are always inflammatory, infantile and pedantic so when you plaster me, you should in no wise expect me to answer. I have fallen in your trap too many times and I don't care if you disagree with me as you seem to have no civil way to go about it.

    But since spidge had posted, he is a man of honor and I feel obligated (for that reason only) to respond.

    I don’t support my claims with one single reference or a single point of view. If you post somebody’s opinion, then you simply parrot them. If they are wrong so are you. I make it a point to create a mosaic of something because a mosaic much less suspect of having reached an improper conclusion than one single tile of that mosaic. To me there is no implicit strength in numbers but there is strength in an amalgam of numerous views.

    Unlike spidge, I am not a soft sell. I am quite different, I am right to the point. If there is something I don’t have confidence in that I tend to not be dogmatic but rather yielding. You disagree with my view and want to straighten me out, then do so logically and intellectually and above all civilly.

    Now, as far as the true numbers of deaths caused by both Hitler and Stalin, the numbers are always in doubt and have been debated for years. But, the traditional numbers tend to be in the range of 11 million for Hitler and between 20-30 million for Stalin. Having watched a special on Stalin on the History Channel, I became curious if he was as ruthless as it led on. As a result, I have just purchased a book on Stalin called "Stalin: A biography" by Robert Service. As usual I am behind in my reading, I order books long before I have a chance to read them and this one is one of those. I do always peruse the books to see their content and look at the pictures of course. I also read the introduction to sequence it in my reading order. I don’t know if Robert Service is full of crap or not since I have not read the book. It is a very large book, almost 800 pages. In this introduction and parts of the first chapter I read, Service says that the number of Stalin’s kills, not including the gulags and war dead from the fact he killed all his generals and they used stupid tactics like human waves, was around 26 million. Now I hardly think that Hitler’s kills could have been above 11 million or the 6 million Jews would have been a minority group of his dead and the holocaust a minor issue relative his full list of atrocities. Other than that, I don’t think anyone has an exact count.

    I have stated before that what was really cruel about the death camps was not the gas chambers or the guns to the head of people at the sides of ditches or other instant mass killings, but what was up and over cruel was letting people starve to death which is one of the most prolonged and torturous deaths possible. I have always thought that if I had been in that situation that I would have fled, in order to be shot instantly or charged one of the armed guards. But then again those people had no idea what they were in for. How could they have? I think Hitler would have rather instantly killed these people in his camps to free the resources up but he was afraid of the potential fall out of such a venture. I don’t think he got off on the actual torture of the people. Insolent toward it, yes, but sadistic to the point of enjoying a good tour through the camps, not buying that at all. I have read Hitler’s biographies and that was simply not his bag. Himmler, he may have enjoyed it and probably did, but Hitler, for the most part, was very busy finding ways to lose a war and didn't bother with such things. That's was Himmler's job.

    Stalin’s ruthlessness was somewhat different. He had no love for his people at all, nor they him. He had no concern of fallout from mass killings. He ruled by terror alone. He had no need for propaganda. I am not talking about just in killing dissidents but rather just the average Ivan farmer. He would do crazy things like execute scientists that failed to come up with something he wanted and would also kill them if they came up with something he didn’t like. Hitler did at least love the German that he believed to be true Germans and the Germans, for the most part, loved Hitler. To Hitler killing and death camps were a means to an end, a sick means yes, but a means nonetheless. But to Stalin, killing was often completely arbitrary and pointless.

    So, I do believe there is substance to my claim that Stalin made Hitler look like a lightweight and it is not a statement necessarily of a lightweight quantitatively, though it is that to, but more so qualitatively. It was not an offhand remark. I don't make offhand remarks even if it seems to some that I do. It's not my style. If you are interested in how I come up with conclusions that go against conventional wisdom or popular opinion, then ask. I am glad to explain them. But as I stated, do it civilly or don't expect an answer.
     
  9. Kiwiwriter

    Kiwiwriter Very Senior Member

    (jimbotosome @ Feb 8 2006, 05:09 PM) [post=45430](Kiwiwriter @ Feb 8 2006, 10:15 AM) [post=45422]Second, there was not much the Allies could do to check Stalin in 1944 and 1945. He was a master of the double-cross, and the British and Americans had to rightly fear that he could pull another switch and sign an armistice with Germany, which would create a repeat of the 1918 situation, where the Germans were able to launch a massive offensive with troops pulled from Russia, after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Given how fiercely the Germans fought and counterattacked, right up to the last day of the war, it was a legitimate fear. Poland's martyrdom is a horror, but it was hard to avoid. I do think the free Polish veterans who couldn't go home deserved a better deal from their allies...certainly they should have been in the parade. I'm also disturbed that the Battle of Britain memorial 50 years later did not include the Polish Squadron symbols initially. [/b]
    Kiwi, virtually all Germans including those in the Nazi party viewed WWII as being with Russia. To them and with Hitler, the war with Britain was unfortunate, not merely because he was losing resources to the fight with them but because he viewed them through the "Evolutionist Spectacles" of them being a higher breed of human and in his idealistic view regretted having to fight them for that reason mostly. He believed he was the mechanism of Natural Selection and it went against his ideals to kill the British as they were a "higher" race and the Jews were to be extinguished because they were a lower race and Natural Selection dictates that. At least that's what he said he believed. Near the end of the war, most Germans were bitter that we did not rearm them and send them to destroy Russia. Of course most didn't know about Hitler's 6 million genocide but they didn't know about Stalin’s 26 million genocide either. That is why they always wanted to surrender to the Allies even in east Germany. They believed the British and Americans to be civil and advanced races where the Russians or Slavs were a subspecies just like the Jews supposedly were. This indoctrination was pervasive. It was not anecdotal. No way in Hades the Germans would have ever allied with Russia beyond 1941. No way Stalin would have allied with the Germans either. This is why he wanted to conquer Germany to completely destroy the people as he did his own dissidents. Had the allies left Germany to Stalin then he would committed a complete genocide of all the Germans as well. I think here on this forum with a number of people, there is a gross ignorance of just how incredibly ruthless and evil Stalin was, extensively because he was allied with our nations.

    After German capitulated, Patton wanted to attack Russia because he could see what they were trying to do. It was Truman who was ignorant beyond words in thinking that the end of aggression in Europe had happened in Germany. It reminds me of President Bush – 41 (Sr) thinking that Hussein would behave and be a good boy simply because the coalition wiped out most of his army. Communism is not static. Dictators are not trustable. If a communist nation is forced to be static it implodes into a state like North Korea. It is a consumer (waster) of productivity unlike capitalism. Patton said that Russia would easily destroyed where they were because their army had spent its resources driving to Germany and they could be trapped in Germany by a pincer move to cut them off from any reinforcement and then we could have easily bombed them into collapse. He wanted to do this immediately in eastern Europe while we still had the army there to easily do it.

    (Kiwiwriter @ Feb 8 2006, 10:15 AM) [post=45422]Third, it's worth noting that in 1939, while the British and French did not declare war on Russia, their planning was aimed at attacks on Russia, not Germany. They were revving up intervention in Norway and Sweden on the side of Finland, to battle the Reds and occupy the iron fields, as well as a bombing raid on the oil facilities at Baku. It was amazing that they planned more aggressive action against a nation that was ostensibly neutral and the one with which they were at war.
    [/b]
    I really don’t get your point here. If Britain and France were on the brink of invasion, they had the perfect incentive they needed in the co-invasion of Poland to do just that. If what you said was true and if Britain and France was to choose one of the two invading nations to arbitrarily declare war on, then Russia would be the no-brainer choice. Hitler wouldn’t have given a crap. He would have joined the fray and have pulled out of Poland just as an act of solidarity. That was my point. Russia would have been easier to conquer than Germany, especially in 1940. To me it seems your argument is non-sequitur.
    [/b]
    Well, to answer your first point, yes, the Allies could probably have fought a war with the Soviets in 1945, but I think we've discussed this topic on this forum, where I pointed out that such a situation would have been seen largely by the public in the West, the East, and neutarls, as a double-cross that would rob both the Soviets and the Allies of their moral ground.

    As for the second point, yes, you did not get it. I'm not sure if I said it badly, or if you read it badly. My point was that in the Phoney War period, the Allies refrained from offensive action against Germany, a nation on whom they had declared war. They wouldn't even bomb the Black Forest or Ruhr with explosives, because Air Minister Kingsley Wood said, "That's private property!" The French "offensive" in the Saar took 15 miles of empty villages, halted, and then turned tail behind the Maginot Line. Plans to mine the Rhine River were also shelved.

    However, the French and British dreamed up considerable offensive action against the Soviet Union during this period, which included intervening on Finland's side in Scandinavia and plans to bomb Baku and Batum.

    There are indications from the books I've read that despite the outbreak of war, many leaders in Britain and France regarded the Soviet Union as the "real enemy" and not Germany, and that the quarrel with Germany could be settled without too much bloodshed, perhaps with more appeasement.

    I find an irony that the British and French were reluctant to fight a declared enemy, but showed more energy in fighting a nation with which they were not at war.

    I hope that makes me clearer.
     
  10. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (Kiwiwriter @ Feb 9 2006, 09:31 AM) [post=45485]I hope that makes me clearer.
    [/b]
    Yes, it does. Thanks for clarifying that. There is one point I don’t follow you in that you said that the war between the Allies and Russia would have threatened their moral ground. I am not sure that it is a matter of me not following your case, it may be simply not agreeing with it. The premise of your argument was a “phony war”. I got that. But, is a phony war worse than a “phony alliance”? I see where the Allies bent over backwards to treat Russia as coequal ally (heck Stalin even got Time Magazine’s “Man of the Year” in 1940). We can debate whether they should have been an enemy from the outgo (which is the purpose of my original statement) but can the case be made where Russia EVER accommodated the Allies? Russia wouldn’t even do the basic obligatory ally things like they wouldn’t let long range bombers and fighters land and refuel there, Stalin never made any civil gesture toward the Allies (saving getting Churchill his favorite cigars and booze at the Yalta Conference). The west instead bailed him out with Lend-Lease, food to keep them from starving to death, etc. In what way could ever make a case for Russia being an ally other than the hollow philosophy of the “enemy of my enemy is my friend”? What moral ground would be surrendered? Was this not surrendered with the blockaded of Berlin and other post war provocations like that?
     
  11. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    (jimbotosome @ Feb 9 2006, 03:26 PM) [post=45484](spidge @ Feb 9 2006, 07:36 AM) [post=45475]a verbis ad verbera!
    [/b]
    How elequent! My complements!
    Exxley, it is my personal policy to ignore your posts because you cannot debate logically.
    [/b]Yup. So says the lad who claimed that the EP was issued at the end of the US civil war. Or who based his point of view about the Air to Sea capacity of the Luftwaffe without having ever heard of the Crete Campaign. Do you know what logic is ?

    </div><div class='quotemain'>
    Your responses are always inflammatory, infantile and pedantic so when you plaster me, you should in no wise expect me to answer. I have fallen in your trap too many times and I don't care if you disagree with me as you seem to have no civil way to go about it.
    [/b]
    Better than being dishonest like you chap.

    </div><div class='quotemain'>
    I don’t support my claims with one single reference or a single point of view. If you post somebody’s opinion, then you simply parrot them. If they are wrong so are you. I make it a point to create a mosaic of something because a mosaic much less suspect of having reached an improper conclusion than one single tile of that mosaic. To me there is no implicit strength in numbers but there is strength in an amalgam of numerous views.
    [/b]
    Patton and Rommel diaries arent likely to be seen as amalgam of numerous view.

    </div><div class='quotemain'>
    Unlike spidge, I am not a soft sell. I am quite different, I am right to the point. If there is something I don’t have confidence in that I tend to not be dogmatic but rather yielding. You disagree with my view and want to straighten me out, then do so logically and intellectually and above all civilly.
    [/b]
    Dishonest weirdos have that effect on me.

    </div><div class='quotemain'>
    Now, as far as the true numbers of deaths caused by both Hitler and Stalin, the numbers are always in doubt and have been debated for years. But, the traditional numbers tend to be in the range of 11 million for Hitler and between 20-30 million for Stalin. Having watched a special on Stalin on the History Channel, I became curious if he was as ruthless as it led on. As a result, I have just purchased a book on Stalin called "Stalin: A biography" by Robert Service. As usual I am behind in my reading, I order books long before I have a chance to read them and this one is one of those. I do always peruse the books to see their content and look at the pictures of course. I also read the introduction to sequence it in my reading order. I don’t know if Robert Service is full of crap or not since I have not read the book. It is a very large book, almost 800 pages. In this introduction and parts of the first chapter I read, Service says that the number of Stalin’s kills, not including the gulags and war dead from the fact he killed all his generals and they used stupid tactics like human waves, was around 26 million. Now I hardly think that Hitler’s kills could have been above 11 million or the 6 million Jews would have been a minority group of his dead and the holocaust a minor issue relative his full list of atrocities. Other than that, I don’t think anyone has an exact count.
    [/b]
    So wrong again. Like I posted beforehand, Hitler can be certainly be held responsible for more than 6 million deaths :

    - 5,1 to 6 Million Jews
    - 6 to 7 Million non Jewish civilians (mostly Poles and Soviets)
    - 200,000 Homosexuals
    - 250,000 Gypsies
    - 275,000 Handicapped

    Not to mention the other deaths caused by the War in Europe which can be blamed on Hitler to one extent or another.
    Wether you like it or not, those figures are well accepted by anyone having done some research about the crimes of the Third Reich. So between 1939 and 1945, Adolf managed to kill at least 15 millions people (not taking into account the many millions other European deaths of WW2), while it took Uncle Joe 29 years (1924-1953) to kill 30 millions people.
    Had actually Adolf won WW2, there is no doubt he would have added some other tens of millions of deaths to its record.

    </div><div class='quotemain'>
    Stalin’s ruthlessness was somewhat different. He had no love for his people at all, nor they him. He had no concern of fallout from mass killings. He ruled by terror alone. He had no need for propaganda. I am not talking about just in killing dissidents but rather just the average Ivan farmer. He would do crazy things like execute scientists that failed to come up with something he wanted and would also kill them if they came up with something he didn’t like. Hitler did at least love the German that he believed to be true Germans and the Germans, for the most part, loved Hitler. To Hitler killing and death camps were a means to an end, a sick means yes, but a means nonetheless. But to Stalin, killing was often completely arbitrary and pointless.
    [/b]
    Sorry to disappoint you chap but Stalin was hardly a pointless dictator. Getting rid of your enemies is definitively the best way to keep your job. Not to mention, how many 20th July Stalin did go through ?

    </div><div class='quotemain'>
    So, I do believe there is substance to my claim that Stalin made Hitler look like a lightweight and it is not a statement necessarily of a lightweight quantitatively, though it is that to, but more so qualitatively. It was not an offhand remark. I don't make offhand remarks even if it seems to some that I do. It's not my style. If you are interested in how I come up with conclusions that go against conventional wisdom or popular opinion, then ask. I am glad to explain them. But as I stated, do it civilly or don't expect an answer.[/b]
    Im not really "interested" in someone who deliberately misquotes or exagerates other people's posts. And Im not expecting an answer either.
     
  12. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    Dang! Not again. Will I ever learn? Pr 26:4
     
  13. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    (jimbotosome @ Feb 9 2006, 04:12 PM) [post=45491]Dang! Not again. Will I ever learn? Pr 26:4
    [/b]

    Im afraid chap you've shown quite some remarkable talent at not being able to learn anything of historical value.
     
  14. Kiwiwriter

    Kiwiwriter Very Senior Member

    (jimbotosome @ Feb 9 2006, 09:54 AM) [post=45487](Kiwiwriter @ Feb 9 2006, 09:31 AM) [post=45485]I hope that makes me clearer.
    [/b]
    Yes, it does. Thanks for clarifying that. There is one point I don’t follow you in that you said that the war between the Allies and Russia would have threatened their moral ground. I am not sure that it is a matter of me not following your case, it may be simply not agreeing with it. The premise of your argument was a “phony war”. I got that. But, is a phony war worse than a “phony alliance”? I see where the Allies bent over backwards to treat Russia as coequal ally (heck Stalin even got Time Magazine’s “Man of the Year” in 1940). We can debate whether they should have been an enemy from the outgo (which is the purpose of my original statement) but can the case be made where Russia EVER accommodated the Allies? Russia wouldn’t even do the basic obligatory ally things like they wouldn’t let long range bombers and fighters land and refuel there, Stalin never made any civil gesture toward the Allies (saving getting Churchill his favorite cigars and booze at the Yalta Conference). The west instead bailed him out with Lend-Lease, food to keep them from starving to death, etc. In what way could ever make a case for Russia being an ally other than the hollow philosophy of the “enemy of my enemy is my friend”? What moral ground would be surrendered? Was this not surrendered with the blockaded of Berlin and other post war provocations like that?
    [/b]
    In 1945, Stalin was at the peak of his overseas reputation, regarded by many citizens of Allied countries and their leaders as valiant fighters against Nazism. More than 20 million Russians had died at the hands of the Nazis, many of them civilians, many of them Jews at the hands of the Einsatzgruppen, and much of the Soviet Union's most productive areas had come under German occupation or destruction. Leningrad had been besieged for 900 days, Stalingrad the epicenter of a horrific battle, Kiev, Kharkov, Rostov, Smolensk, Minsk, and others occupied and ravaged. The fact that the Soviets had not accommodated the Allies very much, or recognized their achievements, was not seen as important as these sacrifices. The break came later, with the postwar provocations and Berlin.

    But if the Western Allies had followed up the defeat of Germany by attacking the Soviets in 1945, such a move would have been seen by many citizens of Britain, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and France, and the other allies, as being a crass betrayal of an ally that had shed vast amounts of blood in the common cause. It would have also reduced the Anglo-American alliance's moral standing. Instead of being loyal allies against a vicious dictatorship, they would look more like self-serving conspirators. They would become what they beheld, and democracies should not imitate the action of their enemies and rivals.

    That is what I meant...I hope.

    I seem to be doing a lousy job of explaining myself to you. This is not the first time I've had to re-explain something I've written to you, and I don't understand where the failure is. I have a Master of Fine Arts in Creative Writing, have been a published journalist and historian for 25 years, so that means I have some ability to convey information in a manner that editors and published authors say is appropriate and accurate. But when I write for other folks, I seem to get one of three things:

    1. Incomprehension
    2. Vilification
    3. Ridicule

    There must be something wrong with the way I write. :(

    (jimbotosome @ Feb 9 2006, 09:54 AM) [post=45487](Kiwiwriter @ Feb 9 2006, 09:31 AM) [post=45485]I hope that makes me clearer.
    [/b]
    Yes, it does. Thanks for clarifying that. There is one point I don’t follow you in that you said that the war between the Allies and Russia would have threatened their moral ground. I am not sure that it is a matter of me not following your case, it may be simply not agreeing with it. The premise of your argument was a “phony war”. I got that. But, is a phony war worse than a “phony alliance”? I see where the Allies bent over backwards to treat Russia as coequal ally (heck Stalin even got Time Magazine’s “Man of the Year” in 1940). We can debate whether they should have been an enemy from the outgo (which is the purpose of my original statement) but can the case be made where Russia EVER accommodated the Allies? Russia wouldn’t even do the basic obligatory ally things like they wouldn’t let long range bombers and fighters land and refuel there, Stalin never made any civil gesture toward the Allies (saving getting Churchill his favorite cigars and booze at the Yalta Conference). The west instead bailed him out with Lend-Lease, food to keep them from starving to death, etc. In what way could ever make a case for Russia being an ally other than the hollow philosophy of the “enemy of my enemy is my friend”? What moral ground would be surrendered? Was this not surrendered with the blockaded of Berlin and other post war provocations like that?
    [/b]
    Some other points on your note:

    Stalin got "Man of the Year" in 1940 for his war with Finland. He got it in 1942 for Stalingrad. "Man of the Year" is not always an honor. It is merely Time magazine's judgment on which person in the world had the greatest impact on it for that year. Other folks who have gained the distinction include Hitler himself and the Ayatollah Khomeini, neither of which had a positive impact on humanity.

    The Soviets did a poor job of accommodating the Western Allies, but they did so occasionally, usually when it was in their own interest, like joining to invade Iran or allowing the RAF 617 Squadron to base out of Russia for its attacks on the Tirpitz. And the blockade of Berlin and postwar provocations were, as you say, postwar. The Berlin blockade landed in 1948, three years after the war. On V-E Day and immediately thereafter, Stalin's reputation stood higher in the West.

    I don't think I'm making myself clear to you in any way.
     
  15. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    Well, it may be that we simply disagree. But one thing that stands out is the issue of perspective. I don't know where you hail from but the US has had a great distrust of the Russians since the 1940s. The perspective of our culture here is that the Russian government is insolent toward humanity and their every action since then has been guided by self-interest. If there be some serendipitous advantage to the West of one of their actions of manifold greed, then I think they would simply be ambivalent toward it, maybe spitefully restrain the action for that reason, but that would not do anything that didn't self-serve.

    Communism is a consumer not a producer. Communist nations must consume other nation's wealth and resources or it degrades into a state of utter chaos similar to that of the Barbarians. The mentality is an asymptote toward that of Attila the Hun. As Lord Acton said, "power corrupts and absolute power absolutely" (or was it Disraeli) and this you see wherever communism is practiced on the planet. So far Communism is “batting a 1000”, as a disaster, which I know you know what that means since you quote “The Rocket” (as a Yank, a Red Sox, or an Astro?) in your signature.

    Russia was no different but the mentality of the typical European toward them is much more amicable (in a relative sense). Certainly there was vilification in the US. But with the change in relations we see little that contradicts that vilification. It is our perspective the same as you pointed out by Time magazine’s perspective of Stalin, Hitler, etc.

    It seems that you and maybe others have marginalized Stalin’s brutality though from what I know from reading your posts I doubt that is your intent. So, I will consider that a possible short-sightedness in my perspective. But at the risk of sounding insolent to Hitler’s atrocities, and from my study (though the jury is out on my study of Stalin), Hitler was much more reasonable of the two. The objection that I have against Hitler was his hate for "a race" (make that "a heritage" lest we be Evolutionists just like him) of people. It seems so arbitrary and stupid. I really do believe Hitler’s problem was more idealism rather than greed. If I had a Jew’s or a gypsy’s, or dissident’s perspective I might feel quite a bit different about that. But Hitler was also trying to save Europe from the spread of Communism and his people from utter economic ruin. Not everything he did was wicked, or self-serving at least not in the beginning. And by that I am not trying to marginalize Hitler’s brutality either.

    But by comparison, Stalin’s motivations appear to be primarily if not completely greed and zero idealism. Just ask Trotski. So, disregarding numbers both they murdered, Hitler didn’t try to abolish religions or kill all intelligent/educated people who would have been a threat to him (except those of the Jews, but again that was from his idealism). He would not have stand for his armies raping women and even forbad his own SS from that activity with the Jewish women interned which would have been a temptation to some of them. Stalin’s ruthlessness was seemingly without bounds.

    I don’t know if I am getting off topic here or not but I do enjoy a good intellectual debate, Kiwi. It is however so very hard on me to have to live with being right all the time. images/smilies/default/biggrin.gif

    (I wasn't sure to mark that last statement with the humor indicator. I don't know if the Brits appreciate tongue-in-cheek humor or not but I decided I had better because it has backfired on me a few times!)
     
  16. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    (jimbotosome @ Feb 10 2006, 10:27 PM) [post=45580]It seems that you and maybe others have marginalized Stalin’s brutality though from what I know from reading your posts I doubt that is your intent. So, I will consider that a possible short-sightedness in my perspective. But at the risk of sounding insolent to Hitler’s atrocities, and from my study (though the jury is out on my study of Stalin), Hitler was much more reasonable of the two. The objection that I have against Hitler was his hate for "a race" (make that "a heritage" lest we be Evolutionists just like him) of people. It seems so arbitrary and stupid. I really do believe Hitler’s problem was more idealism rather than greed. If I had a Jew’s or a gypsy’s, or dissident’s perspective I might feel quite a bit different about that. But Hitler was also trying to save Europe from the spread of Communism and his people from utter economic ruin. Not everything he did was wicked, or self-serving at least not in the beginning. And by that I am not trying to marginalize Hitler’s brutality either.
    [/b]

    So which one is it ? Arbitrary and stupid or reasonable ? All the historical evidences point on the contrary that Stalin was definitively the more reasonable of the 2. Who was the idiot that allowed so many of its scarce country resources for a campaign that deprived him of valuable workpower (and indirectly, manpower), not to mention the moral cost of that same campaign (the Final Solution) ? And who was the brilliant genius who declared war on the United States, at a time when he was still busy fighting the British AND the Soviets?

    </div><div class='quotemain'>
    But by comparison, Stalin’s motivations appear to be primarily if not completely greed and zero idealism. Just ask Trotski. So, disregarding numbers both they murdered, Hitler didn’t try to abolish religions or kill all intelligent/educated people who would have been a threat to him (except those of the Jews, but again that was from his idealism). He would not have stand for his armies raping women and even forbad his own SS from that activity with the Jewish women interned which would have been a temptation to some of them. Stalin’s ruthlessness was seemingly without bounds.
    [/b]

    And on the other hand, Hitler had his Einsatzgruppen shot more than 750,000 Soviet Jews, men and women, adults and children. Seems as barbaric to me.
    And that same Hitler had 2,771 Priests arrested and sent to Dachau alone (which means a lot more were rounded up and sent to other KZ lagers). The Nazis did persecute Churches as well and they banned all kind of Christian youth organizations. One of the reason why quite some Germans went from optimism to disillusionment and dismay, then to Resistance.
    And talking of ruthlessness, anyone with some knowledge of the repression that followed the 20th July 1944 would not say that Hitler would be a lightweight compared to Stalin. Not to mention again, Stalin never went through such attempt. Guess he was indeed more careful in fact.

    To sum it up, Stalin was definitively a paranoid bloodthirsty murderer, the difference is he didnt shot himself with his wife in the ruins of his capital city, he was in fact enjoying VE day. That says a lot about who was actually more reasonable.
     
  17. Herroberst

    Herroberst Senior Member

    </div><div class='quotemain'>That says a lot about who was actually more reasonable.[/b]

    Does this mean you admire Stalin and consider him reasonable?
     
  18. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    (Herr Oberst @ Feb 11 2006, 05:41 AM) [post=45606]</div><div class='quotemain'>That says a lot about who was actually more reasonable.[/b]

    Does this mean you admire Stalin and consider him reasonable?
    [/b]
    I was merely answering to the brilliant mind who claimed that Hitler was the more reasonable of the 2. And I dont admire Stalin, or you might quote me saying it. He was a bloodthirsty paranoid moron, with a bloodthirsty sadistic henchman Beria. The thing that saved his legacy was that Hitler was a total loony.
     
  19. ourbill

    ourbill Senior Member

    Clausewitz
    "All the business of war, and indeed all the business of life, is to endeavour to find out what you don't know from what you do."

    On the subject of knows from a famous American:
    There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know.
    There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things we know we don't know.
    But, there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we don't know we don't know.


    Roger
     
  20. Kiwiwriter

    Kiwiwriter Very Senior Member

    Well, it may be that we simply disagree. But one thing that stands out is the issue of perspective. I don't know where you hail from but the US has had a great distrust of the Russians since the 1940s. The perspective of our culture here is that the Russian government is insolent toward humanity and their every action since then has been guided by self-interest. If there be some serendipitous advantage to the West of one of their actions of manifold greed, then I think they would simply be ambivalent toward it, maybe spitefully restrain the action for that reason, but that would not do anything that didn't self-serve.

    Communism is a consumer not a producer. Communist nations must consume other nation's wealth and resources or it degrades into a state of utter chaos similar to that of the Barbarians. The mentality is an asymptote toward that of Attila the Hun. As Lord Acton said, "power corrupts and absolute power absolutely" (or was it Disraeli) and this you see wherever communism is practiced on the planet. So far Communism is “batting a 1000”, as a disaster, which I know you know what that means since you quote “The Rocket” (as a Yank, a Red Sox, or an Astro?) in your signature.

    Russia was no different but the mentality of the typical European toward them is much more amicable (in a relative sense). Certainly there was vilification in the US. But with the change in relations we see little that contradicts that vilification. It is our perspective the same as you pointed out by Time magazine’s perspective of Stalin, Hitler, etc.

    It seems that you and maybe others have marginalized Stalin’s brutality though from what I know from reading your posts I doubt that is your intent. So, I will consider that a possible short-sightedness in my perspective. But at the risk of sounding insolent to Hitler’s atrocities, and from my study (though the jury is out on my study of Stalin), Hitler was much more reasonable of the two. The objection that I have against Hitler was his hate for "a race" (make that "a heritage" lest we be Evolutionists just like him) of people. It seems so arbitrary and stupid. I really do believe Hitler’s problem was more idealism rather than greed. If I had a Jew’s or a gypsy’s, or dissident’s perspective I might feel quite a bit different about that. But Hitler was also trying to save Europe from the spread of Communism and his people from utter economic ruin. Not everything he did was wicked, or self-serving at least not in the beginning. And by that I am not trying to marginalize Hitler’s brutality either.

    But by comparison, Stalin’s motivations appear to be primarily if not completely greed and zero idealism. Just ask Trotski. So, disregarding numbers both they murdered, Hitler didn’t try to abolish religions or kill all intelligent/educated people who would have been a threat to him (except those of the Jews, but again that was from his idealism). He would not have stand for his armies raping women and even forbad his own SS from that activity with the Jewish women interned which would have been a temptation to some of them. Stalin’s ruthlessness was seemingly without bounds.

    I don’t know if I am getting off topic here or not but I do enjoy a good intellectual debate, Kiwi. It is however so very hard on me to have to live with being right all the time. images/smilies/default/biggrin.gif

    (I wasn't sure to mark that last statement with the humor indicator. I don't know if the Brits appreciate tongue-in-cheek humor or not but I decided I had better because it has backfired on me a few times!)

    First off, where I come from in the United States should have no relevance or bearing on my views on any subject. I have found liberals from Alabama and conservatives from Brooklyn. For all of its liberalism, New York has had some ghastly race riots, one as recently as 1992.

    It might surprise you, but I have an intense dislike for Communism as I do for Nazism. I dislike all forms of tyranny, and I think we should not be trying to negotiate with North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, or any other tin-pot dictators. In the age of nuclear, biological, and radiological weapons, the world cannot long survive when such weapons can get in the hands of egomaniacs, fanatics, and demented ideologues. Four guys with a truck, an atomic bomb, and a penknife to grind, can cause more chaos in one hour than Hitler did in 12 years...and with longer-lasting consequences. Technology and fanaticism are deadly combinations, and this world cannot long survive both of them, unchecked by rationality and civil behavior.

    I regard Hitler as worse than Stalin because his program of extermination was aimed at the destruction of entire ethnicities. Amon Goeth makes a speech in "Schindler's List" about how after the SS has cleaned out the Krakow Ghetto, 1,500 years of Jewish history will become "rumor." That speech was probably fiction, but that was Hitler's intent...to make the entire history and existence of the Jewish people into rumor. There would be no Jews. There would, however, be a "Jewish type," an extinct race of caftan-wearing, hook-nosed, filthy, bearded, sneering, conspiring pornographers/bankers/Communists, whose machinations in the dark were responsible for all the miseries of the Aryan Race in the past (and possibly in the present, had the Nazis won the war and faced postwar peacetime troubles).

    The idea of the extinction and permanent elimination of an ethnicity of people based on their heritage and bloodline is a frightening concept. And yet neo-Nazis still espouse it...read their literature, study their websites, hear their speeches. Hitler wanted a world where there were no Jews, none at all. It would eliminate Spinoza, Mendelsohn, Einstein, and even the Marx Brothers.

    Stalin did a similar thing with his enemies (and friends), but again, it was not an entire ethnicity. That is the central difference to me...the destruction of an entire ethnicity, from pole to pole.

    I do not in any way "marginalize" Stalin's cold-blooded butchery. However, I find nothing more "idealistic" or "reasonable" about Hitler than Stalin in any way. I don't know what you've read about Hitler, but there was nothing "idealistic" or "reasonable" about any of his beliefs or actions, except perhaps his conviction that he was executing the will of Divine Providence, and that his great dreams were being betrayed by his incompetent or traitorous subordinates, as seen in the melodrama of his final days.

    Nor did he care very much for his own people...he gave lip service to saving them from economic ruin, but he wasn't much interested in economics. He was more interested in destruction. He was fascinated by destruction, death, and decay, going as far as to issue instructions on how the Brobdingnagian buildings Albert Speer planned for Berlin were to be built of stone, so as to make more impressive ruins thousands of years hence. Speer duly presented him with sketches of the buildings as ruins. In the end, his major final orders were the complete destruction of the German nation, as he regarded his own German people as being unworthy of his own Providence-directed mission. If he was to be destroyed, the whole world was to be destroyed...a world in flames.

    His bans against SS men raping and sexually exploiting captured Jewesses was not motivated from the idea of protecting these women from rape, but from protecting his own SS men from having their precious Aryan bloodline poisoned by the Jewish race. As matters developed, they raped women and forced them into prostitution anyway.

    Hitler was moving to abolish religion, and the SS in particular, under their creepy boss, Himmler, were creating a pseudo-Nordic religion to replace Christianity, once the Third Reich was fully established. This led to some of the SS's more bizarre operations, like the expedition to Tibet and the study of twins, and a lot of postwar cheap fiction. However, he couldn't go the full distance in eliminating religion from Germany. 12 years was not enough time.

    You are drifting off-topic, and I do NOT enjoy a "good intellectual debate." I don't have the time for it. In addition, I don't like debates. They result in winners and losers, and are based on making forensic points to obliterate the other person's stand, so as to gain grades or votes. I prefer "discussions," in which it is seen that there are no winners or losers, no final votes, and the atmosphere is one of mutual respect.

    The reason I answer you is simply because of my programming from my childhood...I was taught at home and at school that when I was asked a question, no matter what, when, where, or why, it MUST BE ANSWERED IN FULL. Failure to provide the full, complete, correct, answer, by "pencils down" would result in dire consequences and public humiliation.

    If I gave wrong answers, my interlocutor would berate me for the mistake and my colleagues would humiliate me for weeks.

    If I gave semi-complete answers, my interlocutor would berate me for failing to include the point I missed, and my colleagues would humiliate me for weeks.

    If I gave a full, complete, answer, my interlocutor would smirk, ask me, "What color was Napoleon's white horse," and my colleagues would humiliate me for months or years.

    So to this day, when asked anything from "What time is it" to "What is the meaning of life," I still give comprehensive answers, omitting as little as possible, on the theory that if I give the little smirking questioner the name of the fifth man from the right on Sword Beach (Sapper), at the very least, he'll shut his mouth, make the notation on his big book that I answered the question, and leave me alone. That rarely happened, but just often enough for me to find that such a tactic worked...when others simply do not. They usually worked after a few go-rounds of the first three varieties, which often ended with me in the assistant principal's office, being accused of "insolence," threatened with "transfer to Automotive High School," and being lectured on "the greatness of America," which had very little to do with the color of Napoleon's white horse.

    Somehow, my failure to give the exact answer my teacher was looking for was endangering the "greatness of America," and I had to uphold it by somehow knowing the color of Napoleon's white horse.

    As we see here, it still goes on.

    I don't think I'm getting through to you, but I do NOT enjoy this "intellectual debate," and while I do see the intended humor in your statement that "I hate being right all the time," I don't find it that funny. It comes over to me, at least, as smug. And I really hate smugness.

    I'm tired of this endless debate. Please put an end to this.
     

Share This Page