World War 2 Talk - View Single Post

jimbotosome · 20-10-2005, 04:35 PM

I don't think that was a record for killing. Does anyone know how long it took Stalin to kill 15 million of his own fellow countrymen? I fail to see any nobility in anything the USSR did. Had there have been nobility they would have joined the fray the three months of heavy fighting before the surrender like the other Allies, instead of waiting to the point of collapse where they were afraid there was some territory they wouldn't be able to get a foot into to enslave people. The Soviets only interest in WWII was not for the brotherhood of the Grand Alliance, but for survival. Can anyone name an unselfish act committed by the Soviets in WWII that didn’t reek of self-interest? They wouldn’t even let US bombers land in their bases near Berlin or let Doolittle raiders land in Russia! Some Alliance partners they were!

Is there anybody that was convinced that Stalin was better than Hitler? If you make the case that Stalin was better than Hitler, it has to be based on the fact that Stalin was on the winning side alone. To me the Soviets in WWII were simply a distraction to Hitler. That was the only redeeming quality of them being in the Alliance. In fact, didn’t Britain and France reject them as treaty partners before the war? I think Monty should have captured Berlin and let the Patton attack the oncoming Soviets. Think of how many German and Russian lives that would have saved, as well as much less stress there would have been to Europe in the decades to come. Berlin would have fallen to the British in two or three days, maybe less. The only problem would have been Patton and Monty fighting over who got to finish off the Russian Army. But with Churchill there, we most certainly would have arrived at an amicable compromise and ended up rearming the German’s and letting them do it as they wanted us to in the first place.

I think there has always been an unfortunate myth that Stalin was a miscreant to the Germans because of how they treated his people. This, I believe, is completely wrong. Stalin was instead, simply a miscreant, what had happened to his “people” had no affect on him at all.

Don't mean to sound bitter here, because I am not. I am simply stating the facts as I see them.

20-10-2005, 04:35 PM	#4 (permalink)
jimbotosome Very Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,019	I don't think that was a record for killing. Does anyone know how long it took Stalin to kill 15 million of his own fellow countrymen? I fail to see any nobility in anything the USSR did. Had there have been nobility they would have joined the fray the three months of heavy fighting before the surrender like the other Allies, instead of waiting to the point of collapse where they were afraid there was some territory they wouldn't be able to get a foot into to enslave people. The Soviets only interest in WWII was not for the brotherhood of the Grand Alliance, but for survival. Can anyone name an unselfish act committed by the Soviets in WWII that didn’t reek of self-interest? They wouldn’t even let US bombers land in their bases near Berlin or let Doolittle raiders land in Russia! Some Alliance partners they were! Is there anybody that was convinced that Stalin was better than Hitler? If you make the case that Stalin was better than Hitler, it has to be based on the fact that Stalin was on the winning side alone. To me the Soviets in WWII were simply a distraction to Hitler. That was the only redeeming quality of them being in the Alliance. In fact, didn’t Britain and France reject them as treaty partners before the war? I think Monty should have captured Berlin and let the Patton attack the oncoming Soviets. Think of how many German and Russian lives that would have saved, as well as much less stress there would have been to Europe in the decades to come. Berlin would have fallen to the British in two or three days, maybe less. The only problem would have been Patton and Monty fighting over who got to finish off the Russian Army. But with Churchill there, we most certainly would have arrived at an amicable compromise and ended up rearming the German’s and letting them do it as they wanted us to in the first place. I think there has always been an unfortunate myth that Stalin was a miscreant to the Germans because of how they treated his people. This, I believe, is completely wrong. Stalin was instead, simply a miscreant, what had happened to his “people” had no affect on him at all. Don't mean to sound bitter here, because I am not. I am simply stating the facts as I see them.