Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I said it was obnoxious, disagreed with it, and have written some laudatory comments regarding the UK.
What else shall I do? Find the OP and give him a beat down?
During my nearly 50 years on this planet, I have read and heard much, much worse from Britons.
So please, spare me the faux outrage and nationalistic wankfest.
I am totally pissed off with this attitude that "The USA won WW2" all on its own, it seems to be a national obsession, it was a combined effort by "the allies" and don't you all forget it.
I have a strong impression, having read extensively on the topic of WW2 and post-war years (has always been an interesting subject for me, both grandparents fought and one was killed in that war) that the Allies had secretly divided Europe into the Soviet and Western spheres of influence, and basically stabbed the Eastern European democracies in the back. Granted, of these the only true European democracies I can think of were Finland, Czechoslovakia and, to a lesser extent, Poland. Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria were basically fascist dictatorships.
In the end, Stalin occupied precisely what he'd agreed to occupy, and pulled the Soviet troops out of Austria and the parts of Germany that were supposed to be part of the Allied zone. Makes one wonder how much of what happened next was really a big surprise for the Allies.
Funnily enough, given the state that its in today, the only place that the western Allies took a forceful stand against Stalin was Greece.
Okay Stalin didnt have any actual Soviet troops there but he was controlling and supplying the communist forces who tried to seize control.
Churchil was personally determined that the cradle of democracy would not fall under Stalins control and sent in British troops to wipe out the communist forces.
I think that might have been the only time that western allied troops took on Stalinist backed forces on such a large scale during the whole conflict.
Of course it didnt stop that nation turning into a vicious semi fascist military dictatorship within about 20 years and then after the fall of that regime a series of incredibly corrupt and criminal "democratic" governments laid waste to its finances with the connivance of the EU among others to leave it in the pitiful state its in today.
Last edited by BarringtonNI; 04-25-2015 at 03:29 AM..
In the end, Stalin occupied precisely what he'd agreed to occupy, and pulled the Soviet troops out of Austria and the parts of Germany that were supposed to be part of the Allied zone. Makes one wonder how much of what happened next was really a big surprise for the Allies.
The Eastern European countries were supposed to get free, fair elections. Stalin plunged them into chaos to avoid that.
Maybe there was some secret understanding consenting to their enslavement. If so we had a right to kn ow about it.
In reality, neither FDR nor Churchill entirely trusted Stalin, but felt they had little recourse to simply hope he kept to his agreements. And both were optimistic that he would, in fact, do so.
.....
In February 1945, the Soviets had the boots on the ground. They weren't handed Eastern Europe; they were there already as part of the Allied war effort. The only way they were leaving was by being ejected in a hideously bloody war that would have likely killed another million-plus (Western) allied soldiers and dragged on for some time, or by voluntarily leaving on their own. With the Red Army basically a Sword of Damocles hanging over Western Europe and Japan yet to be defeated (with Soviet assistance being counted on to that end, and no way for the non-physicist Western leaders to really be sure the as-yet-untested atomic bombs would work or what a game-changer they could be, not to mention British and American populaces that would have absolutely revolted over extending an exhausting war that looked to be winding up in order to attack a power that Western propaganda had portrayed for four years as a jolly and trustworthy ally), any threat of war would have accurately rung completely hollow to Stalin. Really, the only feasible option for the West was to hope for Stalin's adherence to all of his agreements. The notion that much could be done to actually compel it is fantasy.
Spot on.
So many people think that Churchill and Roosevelt gave away Eastern Europe at Yalta that it's almost taken as a given in historical discussions, but the truth is very different. They gave away basically nothing of Europe at Yalta. The Curzon Line (the division of Poland) had already been tacitly agreed to at the Teheran Conference in 43, and the agreement was simply formalized at Yalta. Beyond that, everything else that Stalin did in terms of seizing territory in Europe after the war was simply a bald-faced betrayal by Stalin.
He promised, and then he broke his promises. Neither Churchill nor Roosevelt fully believed or trusted him, but at that point they had no choice but to accept those assurances at face value. What were they supposed to do, make him hold his hands out in front of himself to make sure he wasn't crossing his fingers?
And as you say, once it became inescapably obvious that he had no intention of keeping his agreement, what were they supposed to have done at that point? Keep attacking eastward from Germany? This was simply not an option; the Brits were out of troops and the Yanks were fed up with war and still had Japan to finish off. I can't imagine any circumstances under which the American people would have tolerated an even more complete, and even more catastrophic, commitment to saving countries they couldn't even spell from being occupied by the Soviet Union, a country which had been our ally for years. It simply was not going to happen, period.
Edited to add:
Oh... and as long as I'm posting in the thread, I may as well comment on the OP, eh?
The idea that the US "bailed the Brits out" is silly. Bailed them out from what? Granted, they could never have defeated Hitler without us, because they could not have invaded Europe on their own any more than we could have done it without them - but at the same time, Hitler had no way of defeating them, because he could not have invaded Britain. Had we not entered the war, Britain and Germany would at some point have come to a truce. They would not have won the war without us, but they would not have lost it either.
Last edited by Mr. In-Between; 04-25-2015 at 06:48 PM..
The Eastern European countries were supposed to get free, fair elections. Stalin plunged them into chaos to avoid that.
Maybe there was some secret understanding consenting to their enslavement. If so we had a right to kn ow about it.
To think that Stalin would allow the Soviet occupied... sorry, liberated countries to have free elections, after working for years to support the subversive communist movements in these countries, would be absolutely, outrageously naive. Neither Churchill nor FDR were naive.
I am sure that Stalin promised free election, and they left it at that. There was no guarantees, nor there could be. The division line between the Soviet and Allied spheres of influence just so happened to separate the traditional Russian sphere of interest going back to Imperial times (Baltic states, Slavic states, and Finland, Hungary just happened to go for a ride it seems) and the Western traditional spheres of influence (Austria, Italy, France). Obviously Germany had to be divided. As I said, Stalin had scrupulously withdrawn his forces from Austria and Western Germany, just as was agreed to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarringtonNI
Funnily enough, given the state that its in today, the only place that the western Allies took a forceful stand against Stalin was Greece.
Actually, it's very telling. The entire second half of XIX century European politics was basically centered around Russian Empire trying to take Dardanelles and Constantinople from Turks and the Western powers intervening to not let it happen. Making a stand over Greece seems to be neatly following the same century old game - the Soviets trying to gain access into Mediterranean / Aegean seas and the Western powers trying to not let it happen.
I am totally pissed off with this attitude that "The USA won WW2" all on its own, it seems to be a national obsession, it was a combined effort by "the allies" and don't you all forget it.
Well I've just re-read my post again and for the life of me I can't see where I have 'dismissed' the American role in WW2!? I'm sorry but the attitude of (some) Americans with regards to that war stinks, many are completely dismissive of all of the other allies, of course American propaganda is partly to blame but its not really an excuse, the fact that (some) people are starting to resent Americans is all to do with Moderator cut: expletive deleted attitudes. Attitudes like yours towards the Russians for example, ask yourself this, how would the people in Chicago or New Orleans have coped the way they did in Stalingrad? How would the people in New York have coped with being 'blitzed'? If they were then perhaps your view of the Russians might just be different!
What are you on about?
Attitude towards the Russians? Was that a serious statement or yet another lame attempt at rabble rousing?
Stalin collaborated with Hitler. The Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact is a historical fact. Stalin's purge of his officers is a historical fact. Stalin hesitating as the Wehrmacht invaded is a historical fact.
Is it now chauvinistic to note historical facts?
The good peoples of Chicago, New Orleans, and New York would never have to have coped with a Blitz because we are not naïve enough to cut a deal with a man like Hitler.
Tis a shame your boy Stalin or Chamberlain did not see things that way.
Attitude towards the Russians? Was that a serious statement or yet another lame attempt at rabble rousing?
Stalin collaborated with Hitler. The Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact is a historical fact. Stalin's purge of his officers is a historical fact. Stalin hesitating as the Wehrmacht invaded is a historical fact.
Is it now chauvinistic to note historical facts?
The good peoples of Chicago, New Orleans, and New York would never have to have coped with a Blitz because we are not naïve enough to cut a deal with a man like Hitler.
Tis a shame your boy Stalin or Chamberlain did not see things that way.
I couldn't give a toss whether Stalin collaborated with Hitler or not, your comment hat he 'pissed his pants,there's Russians for you' is a very American thing to say, I suggest that what the Russians did deserves somewhat more credit than that. Whether they initially collaborated or not, the Russians faced the bulk of the German army head on and went through hell, perhaps they deserve just a little bit of respect for that don't you think? Do you think New Yorkers would have gone through hell and come out the other side the way the people of Stalingrad did? Let's hope we never have to find out, but if they did perhaps people like you may just have a different attitude.
I couldn't give a toss whether Stalin collaborated with Hitler or not, your comment hat he 'pissed his pants,there's Russians for you' is a very American thing to say, I suggest that what the Russians did deserves somewhat more credit than that. Whether they initially collaborated or not, the Russians faced the bulk of the German army head on and went through hell, perhaps they deserve just a little bit of respect for that don't you think? Do you think New Yorkers would have gone through hell and come out the other side the way the people of Stalingrad did? Let's hope we never have to find out, but if they did perhaps people like you may just have a different attitude.
No, it was a very honest statement.
You may not give a toss about Stalin's collaboration with Hitler, but it the Poles sure did.
Is that a very British thing to say?
As for Stalingrad (love it when a living dictator names a city after himself), changing the subject is most often a sign that someone has lost the argument.
what "the allies" is a lot of nonsense is it> typical yank attitude.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Find the OP and give him a beat down?
