So the tens to hundreds of millions dead thanks to the influence of the USSR don't matter at all then.
No, they don't. Unfortunately, politicians don't care about millions of dead, now or then. They'll pretend to in order to lure you into supporting their wars, but that is never their actual motivation for starting a war.
The fact that Russia is still basically a dictatorship
And how are Europe and the US different? You think we have any say about how we are governed? Think again.
The oppression inflicted on Eastern Europe, the cover they gave to China which is still a genocidal dictatorship, the millions dead from proxy wars all over the world and the psychotic regimes they propped up.
If the problem is China, or the proxy wars in part sponsored by the US, then you should propose that. Certainly, you can prevent the Guomindang's defeat without removing Stalin.
In terms of how much actual butchery was done in the USSR itself and Eastern Europe after 1945, that certainly does not justify any war. Most of the deaths in the USSR took place between 1929 and 1939, and 1918-1922. But that was long gone by 1945.
It's cute you think that communism actually died when the USSR collapsed.
Yes. Because I don't call everything I don't like "commie".
Now you're just trying to win points at any cost, not actually examining things in good faith - or you really do lack empathy, to ignore the century of crimes and lasting damage the communist machine wrought.
I'm not ignoring a thing. I know full well what they have done. My point is that going to war with the USSR in 1945 would have nothing to prevent that, and probably would have inflicted millions of extra needless deaths.
What the soviets were doing was horrific, and Patton's army would have followed him to Moscow.
Unfortunately, there were battle-hardened, vastly superior divisions in his way. And taking Moscow would not have decapitated the USSR leadership - remember the moment when Stalin was about to be evacuated to past the Urals.
What the USSR did afterwards was more than half a century of brutal oppression that caused tens of millions of deaths in Eastern Europe alone
Tens of millions of deaths? You're vastly exaggerating. 1945 and beyond was not the time of mass killings. There were some relatively small purges within the party, but there was no killing of millions. After the thaw, the USSR became just a run-of-the-mill police state.
Without the USSR backing them, the Cuban communist regime could have been stopped - they are still a problem.
How are they a 'problem' for you? They're mostly a problem for their own people (in part because of the 60 years of sanctions).
Without the USSR shielding them, the Chinese communists wouldn't have the power they do today.
The funny thing is that Stalin actually initially backed the Guomindang and ordered Mao to do so as well. But if China is your issue, and in terms of mass deaths, it's certainly the one that is most justifiable, then "stop the CCP from winning in China" is way easier than "remove Stalin to stop the CCP".
Also, like I said before, the American government didn't care about deaths. In fact, I'm pretty sure they were happy that the Chinese kept killing their own. That weakens America's enemies, after all. Nixon went to China in the midst of the Cultural Revolution.
Communism didn't lose the cold war. That is propaganda peddled to the ignorant. The soviets did when they collapsed, but the ideological war is far more complex than that.
Not everything you and I dislike is 'communism' though.
No, they don't. Unfortunately, politicians don't care about millions of dead, now or then. They'll pretend to in order to lure you into supporting their wars, but that is never their actual motivation for starting a war.
See, this is what I'm talking about. I'm not arguing whether the politicians would have agreed with it, I'm arguing that Patton was right and that taking on the soviets would have been the morally and logically correct thing to do, assuming the basic moral framework that recognizes all the shit that came after as bad.
no killing of millions because of the USSR after 1945
The soviet afghan war caused 7 digit civilian casualties alone. That single proxy war also spawned al-qaeda thanks to the CIA, that single event proves your ignorance, or your lie. That was one of many sources of death from the communist regimes during the cold war era.
And as you admit, the USSR was a murderous police state known for disapppearing their dissidents. They suppressed rebellions and participated in proxy wars. The total death toll attributed to the soviets internally post 1945 is unknown, and they are partially responsible for Korea, Vietnam, and the citizens dead from those regimes and the Cuban regime as well. Without the USSR to support them, it is likely those conflicts would have played out very differently if at all.
No, they don't. Unfortunately, politicians don't care about millions of dead, now or then. They'll pretend to in order to lure you into supporting their wars, but that is never their actual motivation for starting a war.
And how are Europe and the US different? You think we have any say about how we are governed? Think again.
If the problem is China, or the proxy wars in part sponsored by the US, then you should propose that. Certainly, you can prevent the Guomindang's defeat without removing Stalin.
In terms of how much actual butchery was done in the USSR itself and Eastern Europe after 1945, that certainly does not justify any war. Most of the deaths in the USSR took place between 1929 and 1939, and 1918-1922. But that was long gone by 1945.
Yes. Because I don't call everything I don't like "commie".
I'm not ignoring a thing. I know full well what they have done. My point is that going to war with the USSR in 1945 would have nothing to prevent that, and probably would have inflicted millions of extra needless deaths.
Unfortunately, there were battle-hardened, vastly superior divisions in his way. And taking Moscow would not have decapitated the USSR leadership - remember the moment when Stalin was about to be evacuated to past the Urals.
Tens of millions of deaths? You're vastly exaggerating. 1945 and beyond was not the time of mass killings. There were some relatively small purges within the party, but there was no killing of millions. After the thaw, the USSR became just a run-of-the-mill police state.
How are they a 'problem' for you? They're mostly a problem for their own people (in part because of the 60 years of sanctions).
The funny thing is that Stalin actually initially backed the Guomindang and ordered Mao to do so as well. But if China is your issue, and in terms of mass deaths, it's certainly the one that is most justifiable, then "stop the CCP from winning in China" is way easier than "remove Stalin to stop the CCP".
Also, like I said before, the American government didn't care about deaths. In fact, I'm pretty sure they were happy that the Chinese kept killing their own. That weakens America's enemies, after all. Nixon went to China in the midst of the Cultural Revolution.
Not everything you and I dislike is 'communism' though.
See, this is what I'm talking about. I'm not arguing whether the politicians would have agreed with it, I'm arguing that Patton was right and that taking on the soviets would have been the morally and logically correct thing to do, assuming the basic moral framework that recognizes all the shit that came after as bad.
The soviet afghan war caused 7 digit civilian casualties alone. That single proxy war also spawned al-qaeda thanks to the CIA, that single event proves your ignorance, or your lie. That was one of many sources of death from the communist regimes during the cold war era.
And as you admit, the USSR was a murderous police state known for disapppearing their dissidents. They suppressed rebellions and participated in proxy wars. The total death toll attributed to the soviets internally post 1945 is unknown, and they are partially responsible for Korea, Vietnam, and the citizens dead from those regimes and the Cuban regime as well. Without the USSR to support them, it is likely those conflicts would have played out very differently if at all.