Thread: Stalin - "We" supported him - Could never trust him!

Makea the reasons why Britain nearly went to war with Russia in 1939/1940 more understandable:

http://ww2chat.com/forums/showthread.php?t=675

Spidge, I do not support your guessing exercise.

Politics is a dirty thing altogether, but it is clear that it was western politics (British, French and American) which made WW2 possible in the first place. Read Churchill (Second world war, vol.1). And after the despicable Munchen pact where western powers chopped Chekhoslovakia into pieces, the war became imminent.
See also (WW2 in Color History Forum - View Single Post - USSR in alliance with nazi Germany - 10k -)
Britain was as big an enemy of communism as Germany, if not more. There was no trust whatsoever.

You should be bit more careful with "land grab"- do not forget that
1. Russia lost territiries as a result of WW1,
2. Buffer territories in the west and north-west were considered essential for the defence due to mounting threat from Germany

Stalin commited crimes against humanity, but let us also then put Churchill and Truman into one line! Churchill- for bombing of Dresden, Koln and other German cities, and Truman- for nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Originally Posted by spidge

Stalin - "We" supported him - Could never trust him!
The "allies" could never have trusted Stalin as far as they could throw him.

Can anyone remember this blokes name?

Do you remember who cut ties with France and Britain so he could jump into bed with Hitler?
Do you remember September 1939?
Do you remember who made a pact with Hitler so he was free to start his war in Europe?
Do you remember who continued to trade with Germany after the war commenced against the Allies in 1939?
Do you remember who signed a secret protocol with Germany that they would not assist Britain and France against Germany if Germany invaded Poland.
Do you remember that during the first years of the war, this economic agreement helped Germany bypass the British blockade.
Do you remember who invaded Poland with Hitler and agreed on a carve up of that country?
Do you remember who slaughtered thousands of those Polish soldiers and citizens in his grab for a "Sphere of Influence" in Poland.
Do you remember who took over the countries of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia in his grab for land?
Do you remember the 150,000 people in those Baltic states he sent to their deaths by massacre and deportation to labour camps in the first year.

Te answer, Joseph Stalin.

Without the assistance of the allies in men and materiel and the loss of 140,000 allied airmen over Germany destroying their ability to wage war, the Soviet Union would most likely have been defeated.

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by atau

Spidge, I do not support your guessing exercise.

No guessing at all. It is all provable FACT!

See also (WW2 in Color History Forum - View Single Post - USSR in alliance with nazi Germany - 10k -)

He seems to have been enjoying his little rant however nothing here to change the facts that I have presented.

Britain was as big an enemy of communism as Germany, if not more. There was no trust whatsoever.

This seemed to be proven correct however it still does not alter the facts of what I have stated. Stalin jumped into bed with Germany and when they invaded, Stalin screamed for help from the Allies.

You should be bit more careful with "land grab"- do not forget that
1. Russia lost territiries as a result of WW1,
2. Buffer territories in the west and north-west were considered essential for the defence due to mounting threat from Germany

Russia ceded back lands to the Ottomans and guaranteed the independence of Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and the Ukraine however this treaty was broken in 1918 and not until after WW1:

The fate of the region, and the location of the eventual western border of the Soviet Union was settled in violent and chaotic struggles over the course of the next three and a half years, most notably the Polish - Soviet War terminated by the Treaty of Riga in 1921. Although most of Ukraine fell under Bolshevik control and eventually became one of the constituent republics of the Soviet Union, Poland and the Baltic States emerged as independent countries. This state of affairs in turn lasted until 1939, when as a consequence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact the Soviet Union advanced its borders westward, by first invading Poland and Finland in 1939 then annexing the Baltic States and Bessarabia in 1940, thus in large measure finally overturning the territorial losses incurred at Brest-Litovsk.

Stalin committed crimes against humanity, but let us also then put Churchill and Truman into one line! Churchill- for bombing of Dresden, Koln and other German cities, and Truman- for nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Please please please Atau, the bombing of Dresden etc during wartime is nothing like what Stalin was responsible for - Murder in the millions of his own people. Stalin committed crimes of Genocide and protracted murder of anybody he thought was a threat to his position of power.

Germany bombed British cities and reaped the whirlwind of response from the allies on other German cities which were legitimate war targets. I hope you are not one of those who believe the deaths in Dresden to be over 40,000.

Truman took the correct action on Hiroshima and Nagasaki which ended the war, saved the lives of millions of Japanese women and children and yes, kept Stalin out of Japan. This action set Japan on their way to being a prosperous country. If carpet bombing had continued and invasion was necessary, many millions of needless deaths on both sides would have been the result.

Of course, facts are facts- but need to be looked at in a historic context.
[QUOTE=spidge;32653][QUOTE]

]

Stalin jumped into bed with Germany and when they invaded, Stalin screamed for help from the Allies..

Of course, he did! It was all about saving own skin- not for the 'just cause'. But at first, Stalin negotiated with Britain and France about forming a block against Germany and defending Poland- but these negotiations failed.
I would not say he "screamed for help" though. After the invasion Churchill immediately declared that Britain is on the Soviet side, and Stalin started to "demand" help- in his usual manner

]

Please please please Atau, the bombing of Dresden etc during wartime is nothing like what Stalin was responsible for - Murder in the millions of his own people. Stalin committed crimes of Genocide and protracted murder of anybody he thought was a threat to his position of power..

Totally agree with you here. Stalins crimes are staggering and almost anything else would fade in comparison

]

Germany bombed British cities and reaped the whirlwind of response from the allies on other German cities which were legitimate war targets. I hope you are not one of those who believe the deaths in Dresden to be over 40,000. .

It is well understood that the destruction of Dresden and other defenceless cities was not justified from military point of view- even English Queen recently presented formal apology.
That was the British revenge (retaliation) for Coventry (that is what I think- based on Churchill book again)
Estimates of casualties- from 40,000- to 1000,000 (who counted them?) I do not think that modest British estimate (40,000) is correct

]

Truman took the correct action on Hiroshima and Nagasaki which ended the war, saved the lives of millions of Japanese women and children and yes, kept Stalin out of Japan. This action set Japan on their way to being a prosperous country. If carpet bombing had continued and invasion was necessary, many millions of needless deaths on both sides would have been the result.

Sure enough, americans were not conserned with "lives of millions of Japanese women and children". The idea was:
1. Keep Stalin out
2. End the war without further loss of american lifes. They were mortally scared of japanese after the Okinawa battle.

Let us not hide from it- using mass murder weapons against civilians is a crime.

[QUOTE=atau;32700]Of course, facts are facts- but need to be looked at in a historic context.
[QUOTE=spidge;32653][QUOTE]

I would not say he "screamed for help" though. After the invasion Churchill immediately declared that Britain is on the Soviet side, and Stalin started to "demand" help- in his usual manner

Terminology may be different however he received the assistance. The worst part that he was warned of the German double cross and did not take the advice from his own people or from the British.

It is well understood that the destruction of Dresden and other defenceless cities was not justified from military point of view- even English Queen recently presented formal apology.

Queen: both sides suffered in the war

No apology for Dresden on state visit to Germany, but appeal to treasure peace in Europe and abandon 'stereotypes'



The Queen last night used the occasion of a state visit to Germany to say that she recognised the "appalling suffering of war on both sides". Speaking at a banquet hosted by President Horst Köhler, the Queen shrugged off demands by the mass-circulation tabloid Bild that she say sorry for the destruction of Dresden by allied bombers.
Instead she spoke of the need for "reconciliation" between Britain and Germany. "In remembering the appalling suffering of war on both sides, we recognise how precious is the peace we have built in Europe since 1945," she said.

That was the British revenge (retaliation) for Coventry (that is what I think- based on Churchill book again)

You are entitled to your opinion however you need proof above speculation. There is no doubt that Dresden was a tragedy but it was a target nonetheless. I think the number of war industries in Dresden was in the 90's and also a stepping off point for soldiers to go to the front. I will have to get the book which dispels much of the Goebels hype that some people prefer to believe.

Estimates of casualties- from 40,000- to 1000,000 (who counted them?) I do not think that modest British estimate (40,000) is correct

Again I will look up the latest book from the writer who is fluent in German and went through the archives.

Found it!

A new book by Frederick Taylor clears up a few myths about Dresden. It was a legitimate military target.

Taylor has benefited from the opening up of the former East German archives and, as a German speaker, he has been able to research his subject thoroughly. He has looked at the history of the city (large parts were destroyed by war several times before 1945) and its social and cultural background. The myth has it that Dresden was full of harmless, arts-loving innocents concerned only with manufacturing luxury goods such as cameras and china. In fact, Dresden was a Nazi stronghold before Hitler even took power. Martin Mutschmann became the regime's longest-serving Gauleiter (governor), and one of its most brutal. Anti-Semitism was a popular policy pursued with gusto. In 1938 the people of Dresden sacked the synagogue, one of the city's most beautiful and arresting buildings. And though the city was known around the world as "Florence on the Elbe", by 1945 it was home to no fewer than 127 factories employed in war work – work that occupied the vast majority of the population and that, in the context of the war, made it a legitimate military target.

By February 1945, Dresden had also become an important railhead, with hundreds of thousands of troops heading to the rapidly approaching Russian front - and it was for this reason, officially, that Dresden was bombed: we were helping the Russians. As Taylor proves, the Nazis were every bit as keen on wiping out cities as the Allies, but by 1945 we were better at it. Over Dresden, the conditions were perfect: the anti-aircraft defences had largely been removed, the sky was clear, and the targeting as precise as the technology of the day allowed. __________________

Sure enough, americans were not concerned with "lives of millions of Japanese women and children". The idea was:
1. Keep Stalin out
2. End the war without further loss of american lifes.

Correct on both counts. The saving of the lives of Japanese civilians was a bonus of the "bomb".

They were mortally scared of japanese after the Okinawa battle.

This statement sounds a bit childish. Of course they would have been scared of having 1,000,000 casualties.

The bomb saved that carnage, saved at least 5,000,000 Japanese lives as a result and allowed Japan to rebuild in a very short time. Whether intended or not, that was the result.

Let us not hide from it- using mass murder weapons against civilians is a crime.

War production cities are legitimate targets. The ability of your enemy to wage war against you has to be stopped.

This mass murder weapon actually saved lives and those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki died so that millions of their fellow population did not have to!

[QUOTE=spidge;32701][QUOTE=atau;32700]Of course, facts are facts- but need to be looked at in a historic context.
[QUOTE=spidge;32653][QUOTE]

Queen: both sides suffered in the war

No apology for Dresden on state visit to Germany, but appeal to treasure peace in Europe and abandon 'stereotypes'

Ok, it was not a formal apology for Dresden bombing, but certainly sounded like an apology. The Queen always has to be "politically correct"

You are entitled to your opinion however you need proof above speculation. There is no doubt that Dresden was a tragedy but it was a target nonetheless.

Again, it was from Churchill reminiscences- his visit to Coventry after the bombing early in the war and his promise to revenge. And he did. It is well understood that there was no need to wipe up the entire city.

War production cities are legitimate targets. The ability of your enemy to wage war against you has to be stopped.

Civilians are not legitimate targets. Neither were the wounded in hospitals. Dresden was very convenient for bombing though- it was defenceless.

This mass murder weapon actually saved lives and those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki died so that millions of their fellow population did not have to!

It is propaganda- still based on "what if" assumptions. In fact, I think I have a better argument to the defence of americans. The bomb was first created (tested) in the beginning of July 1945, and it is only one month after that it was dropped on Hiroshima. Perhaps no one at the time could think of the scale of devastation and the long- lasting effects of radiation. Nuclear bomb was looked at as simply very Big Bomb. But of course, it is not a justification to use it against civilians.
Point is, that Americans tried to avoid land combat with japanese at any cost. They remembered the Okinawa battle, when encircled japanese killed themselves- to avoid being captured. The commanders commited harakiri, the soldiers- blew themselves up using hand granades. This level of self- determination was not something americans were up to. Land operations against Japanese did not promise them any good.
At the same time, the Soviets (only 2 weeks into the war) were beating hell out of them (Japanese army), and the prospects of invading Japan by Soviets were very real.

In fact, I think I have a better argument to the defence of americans. The bomb was first created (tested) in the beginning of July 1945, and it is only one month after that it was dropped on Hiroshima. Perhaps no one at the time could think of the scale of devastation and the long- lasting effects of radiation. Nuclear bomb was looked at as simply very Big Bomb. But of course, it is not a justification to use it against civilians.

Atau, I think you're right about not knowing the long-lasting effects of radiation but I don't agree about not knowing the scale of devastation. If the Americans had not known how effective the bomb was from its tests, they would have sent more than one to Hiroshima.

Point is, that Americans tried to avoid land combat with japanese at any cost. They remembered the Okinawa battle, when encircled japanese killed themselves- to avoid being captured. The commanders commited harakiri, the soldiers- blew themselves up using hand granades. This level of self- determination was not something americans were up to. Land operations against Japanese did not promise them any good.

If battles were ended by the Japanese blowing themsleves up, how is this bad for the Americans? Ah, I see, you mean the Japanese would fight to the end thereby holding the advance up. I can't see how this is any different to the resistance encountered during the island-hopping campaign.

However, I think bringing the war to a swift end was vitally important on several fronts including saving millions of lives AND preventing the eternal opportunists, the Soviets, from taking further Japanese territory at the death knell.