Okay now that's a shit take. First off, the thing nazis are most famous for, the whole holocaust thing? Inspired by Stalin's Holodomor in early 30s where he starved several million ukrainians to death. The Soviets also had a share in the butchering of people including jews in eastern europe - the holocaust just being the two german camps is a common misunderstanding. Both nations committed acts of butchery across eastern Europe. Stalin then went on to find far more death and psychosis than Hitler ever did.
The only reasonable take on "hitler or stalin" was George Patton's: fuck it, we'll get em both. He would have had th third army rolling over moscow within weeks.
Okay now that's a shit take. First off, the thing nazis are most famous for, the whole holocaust thing? Inspired by Stalin's Holodomor in early 30s where he starved several million ukrainians to death. The Soviets also had a share in the butchering of people including jews in eastern europe - the holocaust just being the two german camps is a common misunderstanding. Both nations committed acts of butchery across eastern Europe. Stalin then went on to find far more death and psychosis than Hitler ever did.
No one in 1941 cared about the Holocaust, which had not even been started anyway (at least, not the gas chambers). What they cared about was preventing Hitler becoming a world power.
Yes, Stalin killed a lot of people. Perhaps his actions led to more deaths than Hitler's, the war excepted. That said, most of his killings took place before World War II. Considering that Hitler was planning on exteriminating all Slavs, was it really bad for them that Stalin won and not Hitler? I'd say that it is very good that Stalin won and not Hitler.
The only reasonable take on "hitler or stalin" was George Patton's: fuck it, we'll get em both. He would have had th third army rolling over moscow within weeks.
If the unopposed might of the Wehrmacht failed to do that, what makes you think the Allies could? It was not possible, the populations and army would not stand for it, and it's a stupid plan overall.
Patton's death was under extremely suspicious circumstances.
As for: could the US on a war footing at basically full strength have beaten the soviets who were nowhere near full strength? Yes, if we had attacked immediately as Patton suggested, we could have wrecked them. We had better chances than any time after they got the nuke, that's for sure.
Patton's death was under extremely suspicious circumstances.
Yeah, I'm sure of that. In right-wing mythology, everyone who dies is murdered. From Andrew Breitbart to Scalia.
As for: could the US on a war footing at basically full strength have beaten the soviets who were nowhere near full strength?
By all accounts, the Soviet army was vastly more powerful than those of all allies put together. So yes. Besides, the US was still fighting Japan.
But I'm not even solely talking about practicalities. World politics is not a game of Risk where you can turn on your ally in a war of aggression after years of portraying it positively. The American public and military simply would not have stood for it.
Yes, if we had attacked immediately as Patton suggested, we could have wrecked them. We had better chances than any time after they got the nuke, that's for sure.
You think we didn't know about the horrors the soviets had inflicted on the people they conquered? They were an ally of convenience, not ideology. They worked with Germany until Hitler went full retard. The soviets didn't just go dark side after the war, they were butchers from the start and people knew that. Stopping the soviets BEFORE they got the bomb, while we were still on a war footing with an untouched industrial base, while we still had operational momentum, would have been far easier than waiting for them to recover and get the bomb. People in the past weren't stupid, don't make that mistake. That kind of logical fallacy is beneath you.
Patton, along with anybody else who understood them, knew the soviets would be our enemy soon. That the soviets and the international communist organization (that was instrumental in the Spanish civil war as well as the rise of Hitler and the Soviets) could not coexist peacefully with the western world. He saw what was coming to the people of eastern Germany, and he wasn't alone in wanting to move on the Soviets. He was the most influential person at the time arguing for it.
You have made clear that you don't have the depth of knowledge on that historical period to be arguing this. Patton had logical reasons to want to attack the Soviets - he wasn't insane, and the allies were witness to soviet war crimes. We were no great friends of the soviets despite some late war propaganda. And finally, historical hindsight CLEARLY vindicates him.
U.S. leadership, at the time when the CIA was growing in power, saw him as a problem, and he died in a vehicle accident under strange circumstances far too conveniently.
Okay now that's a shit take. First off, the thing nazis are most famous for, the whole holocaust thing? Inspired by Stalin's Holodomor in early 30s where he starved several million ukrainians to death. The Soviets also had a share in the butchering of people including jews in eastern europe - the holocaust just being the two german camps is a common misunderstanding. Both nations committed acts of butchery across eastern Europe. Stalin then went on to find far more death and psychosis than Hitler ever did.
The only reasonable take on "hitler or stalin" was George Patton's: fuck it, we'll get em both. He would have had th third army rolling over moscow within weeks.
They killed him for saying it.
No one in 1941 cared about the Holocaust, which had not even been started anyway (at least, not the gas chambers). What they cared about was preventing Hitler becoming a world power.
Yes, Stalin killed a lot of people. Perhaps his actions led to more deaths than Hitler's, the war excepted. That said, most of his killings took place before World War II. Considering that Hitler was planning on exteriminating all Slavs, was it really bad for them that Stalin won and not Hitler? I'd say that it is very good that Stalin won and not Hitler.
If the unopposed might of the Wehrmacht failed to do that, what makes you think the Allies could? It was not possible, the populations and army would not stand for it, and it's a stupid plan overall.
You were talking sense up to this point.
Patton's death was under extremely suspicious circumstances.
As for: could the US on a war footing at basically full strength have beaten the soviets who were nowhere near full strength? Yes, if we had attacked immediately as Patton suggested, we could have wrecked them. We had better chances than any time after they got the nuke, that's for sure.
Yeah, I'm sure of that. In right-wing mythology, everyone who dies is murdered. From Andrew Breitbart to Scalia.
By all accounts, the Soviet army was vastly more powerful than those of all allies put together. So yes. Besides, the US was still fighting Japan.
But I'm not even solely talking about practicalities. World politics is not a game of Risk where you can turn on your ally in a war of aggression after years of portraying it positively. The American public and military simply would not have stood for it.
And get millions killed for literally no reason.
You think we didn't know about the horrors the soviets had inflicted on the people they conquered? They were an ally of convenience, not ideology. They worked with Germany until Hitler went full retard. The soviets didn't just go dark side after the war, they were butchers from the start and people knew that. Stopping the soviets BEFORE they got the bomb, while we were still on a war footing with an untouched industrial base, while we still had operational momentum, would have been far easier than waiting for them to recover and get the bomb. People in the past weren't stupid, don't make that mistake. That kind of logical fallacy is beneath you.
Patton, along with anybody else who understood them, knew the soviets would be our enemy soon. That the soviets and the international communist organization (that was instrumental in the Spanish civil war as well as the rise of Hitler and the Soviets) could not coexist peacefully with the western world. He saw what was coming to the people of eastern Germany, and he wasn't alone in wanting to move on the Soviets. He was the most influential person at the time arguing for it.
You have made clear that you don't have the depth of knowledge on that historical period to be arguing this. Patton had logical reasons to want to attack the Soviets - he wasn't insane, and the allies were witness to soviet war crimes. We were no great friends of the soviets despite some late war propaganda. And finally, historical hindsight CLEARLY vindicates him.
U.S. leadership, at the time when the CIA was growing in power, saw him as a problem, and he died in a vehicle accident under strange circumstances far too conveniently.