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.
Re:
"It is any refined sarcasm? It all the same, that to take out Latino to Alaska and to create there New California Republic for them"
Something from Yalta on this.
In discussion, Roosevelt mentioned to Stalin he was going to the Middle East to discuss the formation of a Jewish state. Stalin noted ' the Jewish problem was a very difficult one'. Going on to say the Soviets tried a state there in Birobidzhan but ...'they had only stayed there two or three years and then scattered to the cities'. It was apparent the move didn't work. But he tried to make the best of it: 'Jews were natural traders but much had been accomplished by putting small groups in some agricultural areas'. Roosevelt then went on to say he was a Zionist and asked Stalin whether he was one. He replied he ' was one in principle but he recognized the difficulty'.
The interesting thing here is that when Israel became a state in '48 and the USSR got its nationalities where they wanted them namely Germans exiled, Poles resettled and the Ukrainians and Belorussians reunited Jews from then on were more apt now to be viewed by Stalin as a fifth-column allied with the US against him.
Re:
"It is any refined sarcasm? It all the same, that to take out Latino to Alaska and to create there New California Republic for them"
Something from Yalta on this.
In discussion, Roosevelt mentioned to Stalin he was going to the Middle East to discuss the formation of a Jewish state. Stalin noted ' the Jewish problem was a very difficult one'. Going on to say the Soviets tried a state there in Birobidzhan but ...'they had only stayed there two or three years and then scattered to the cities'. It was apparent the move didn't work. But he tried to make the best of it: 'Jews were natural traders but much had been accomplished by putting small groups in some agricultural areas'. Roosevelt then went on to say he was a Zionist and asked Stalin whether he was one. He replied he ' was one in principle but he recognized the difficulty'.
The interesting thing here is that when Israel became a state in '48 and the USSR got its nationalities where they wanted them namely Germans exiled, Poles resettled and the Ukrainians and Belorussians reunited Jews from then on were more apt now to be viewed by Stalin as a fifth-column allied with the US against him.
Not quite true, because Stalin actually was a "midwife" at the birth of Israel. The US didn't even want initially to recognize the Jewish state. It was Stalin who gave Israel hand.
Sure but he always had anti-Semitic attitudes buried in himself. When situations with the Jewish community arise either during the war and post -war Stalin's attitude would always blow with whether or not the Jews posed a threat to the Russian state.
Sure but he always had anti-Semitic attitudes buried in himself. When situations with the Jewish community arise either during the war and post -war Stalin's attitude would always blow with whether or not the Jews posed a threat to the Russian state.
That's not necessarily anti-Semitism. What you are describing is a dictator protecting his aims, which he sees as nationalist aims. Stalin targeted individuals and/or groups according to their opposition to his plans, not simply because they were ethnically/socially/religiously outside the mainstream of "Russian" identity. Stalin did not target Ukranians just because they were Ukranians, but because many of them resisted his plans.
I remember seeing on TV about the ocean liner MS St. Louis which was full of Jewish refugees from Germany seeking to escape to any nation that would accept them. The Roosevelt administration refused to let them in the USA because of an underlining belief that European Jews were inherently radical leftists that would pose a threat to the Capitalist dominant ideology of the US by fomenting Socialist labor revolt in the United States. The one nation that was going to accept that ship was the Dominican Republic but the US pressured the Dominican Republic deny the refugees entry. Hitler taunted the Jews saying that no nation on earth wanted them after this ship had no choice but to sail back to Europe.
Let s be honest, everyone was to blame. Any civilization who believes any group of people based on color, race, religion
is inferior to themselves is wrong. Look at yourselves honestly and admit your predjudices. While we all have them the
majority of society does not act on obliterating any group through murder or war. It is the failure of society and politics to
not accept the differences in people and accept those differences. No true religion and civilized person would condone killing
another human being because of those differences. We try to impose our beliefs, etc on others trying to make them adhere
to our standards....there in is the crime. Many in all countries were guilty of hatred, indifference and just plain denial not
just of the concentration camps but of all the atrocities of war.
We are still guilty. We did not learn. It has continued again and again since WWII and will continue until we truly become
"civilized". It is happening now between Muslim extremists and the rest of the world. Everyone must STOP trying to be superior over
others, and having such hatred for each other. I know it will not happen in my lifetime, maybe never. But unless it does
we will be responsible for our own destruction.
After reading through all the posts (very engrossing hearing all the points of views here), I think one option we have all left out is Option C: The US getting rid of both Hitler AND Stalin. Once Hitler and Japan had been defeated, the US could have thrown everything into getting rid of Stalin. In 1945, the USSR may have won the second world war, but it was hanging by a thread. Tens of millions dead, whole cities destroyed, meanwhile the US would have had the resources (as well as the nuclear bomb) to have one last go once the true nature of the Soviets had been revealed.
Botticelli points out the loss of eastern Europe to the Soviets as one down side of the war, but one other aspect that doesn't get talked about much is the effect of the cold war on countries around the world ever since. In the race for Cold War dominance around the world, the West was forced to embrace as "allies" dictators around the world who brutally murdered their own peoples, and the list is long. Pinochet in Chile, Nicaragua, Honduras, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Iraq. At one point in time all of these countries were western allies because their leaders "opposed" communism. The reality being that these dictators didn't give two hoots about either side, just wanting to be rewarded for terrorizing and looting their own countries.
I'm from Nigeria, a country that had been ruled by military dictators for decades. I distinctly remember the government murdering anyone who dared to speak out against the lack of democracy. I also remember the U.S and the U.K. barely raising a peep about it, because the military leaders had pledged to be allies of the West (and we had a lot of oil that the West did not want to fall into the hands of the Soviets). I lived it. Saw just how dirty the West was willing to get in the name of winning the Cold War. Would that have happened if there was no Soviet Union? hopefully not. Add up all the people killed by all these dictators during the Cold War, it might surprise you.
re: ' Saw just how dirty the West was willing to get in the name of winning the Cold War'
I'd suggest communism wasn't all fun and games. We can look at the post-war history of Europe and see how some countries had to succumb to it. Communism was like an iceberg.
There was much 'fraternal' and 'peaceful coexistence' in its publicly tiresome orations but underneath it operated brutally with respect to political rights of individuals and institutions.
When one looks at the Cold War it's almost as if we see the same condition that the West had in the fight against Hitler and that was seeing another instance of totalitarianism marching once again with communistic ideology taking places with Nazism. Not an enticing idea by any means. in any case, the ideology died and packed itself in. But others seem to be taking its place. It remains to be seen how the West will tackle this one.
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.
