• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Poland plans to tear down hundreds of memorials of Soviet - "russian " occupants

EMNofSeattle said:
The west may have suffered heavier casualties but the war was unwinnable for Germany the moment the US entered the war.

The Soviet Union chronically faced logistical and supply problems throughout the war, they were dependent on US trucks and industrial machinery and spare parts, they depended on the US for lubricants, they depended on the US to keep their Air Force flying, and on top of that the Soviet Navy was nothing to speak of. Also we would’ve had the atomic bomb in 1945 and so by 45 Germany was toast in a war with or without the Soviets.

And let’s assume one of two scenarios.

Soviet Union does not invade Poland, Hitler invades USSR.

The Soviet Union is much more likely to break, but even if they don’t it doesn’t change the outcome of the war, but the Germans starting from a more eastern position inflict more casualties on the Soviet Union and take more ground before a counter offensive.

Soviet Union does not invade Poland, Hitler does not invade USSR.

The Germans still have to keep a massive occupying force in Poland and keep significant numbers of troops on the eastern front to deter Stalin from invading Poland in the future.

In either scenario the genocides do not go on longer because Germany will be forced to surrender due to strategic bombing with nuclear weapons in May of 1945.

In both scenarios Poland is likely liberated without betrayal to the communists.

OTL one of the most shameful episodes was the western betrayal of the Poles and Czechs. We should’ve immediately shifted to a war footing and threatened full scale offensives including with Nuclear weapons against the USSR if they did not withdraw to their borders Status Quo Antebellum
Click to expand...

Declaring it “unwinnable” does not change the fact that the Germans were not going to surrender until someone took Berlin, and with far more resources to them available the allies would have had a much harder time doing anything. They still had to actually land in Europe. Hell, when the US entered the war even North Africa hadn’t been decided. With so many more troops available Rommel likely gets a much larger supply and reinforcement boost....and that’s very bad news for the Allies. It’s entireky possibly they get pushed back to the Suez....and perhaps further.

That’s not even getting into the fact that Japan is still going to war with the allies. The Allies are therefore facing an enemy which has been able to concentrate his forces while still needing to divide their’s between Europe and Asia. In case you missed it, that’s a huge issue.

The Soviet Navy was irrelevant to the eastern front. The fight was never going to decided at sea. The Russians also produced a number of highly effective domestic aircraft as the war went on. The lend lease aircraft were largely older models which, while a whole lot better than nothing, only made up a fraction of the Red Air Force. Allied logistical support in the form of trucks was essential, but it wasn’t the deciding factor.

Assuming, of course, that the German nuclear program doesn’t deliver results first, or that the allies don’t get tired of the bloodbath and decide to negotiate for peace before ‘45 even rolls around. Also assuming the Luftwaffe, which again has been able to be concentrated due to the lack of an Eastern front, is sufficiently weakened by 1945 for the mission to be risked in the first place. Counting on nukes isn’t a guarantee of success.

Oh look, more wishful thinking. First off, Hitler not invading the USSR would mean, in a very fundamental sense, he’s not Hitler; the destruction of communism and the conquest of lebensraum was seen by him and his cronies as Germany’s destiny. The only way to advert that is for Hitler to be either taken out before 1941 or the USSR being brought in as a co-belligerent on the German side— perhaps after Operation Pike, in which case Poland— and the rest of the Allies— are throughly ****ed.

Strategic bombing alone is incapable of winning a war, and I already addressed the issue of counting on nukes.

The second the allies pull off a successful landing those troops are going to be shifted west, so the fundamental problem remains the same.

This is also ignoring, of course, that Stalin is going to hammer west as soon as the Germans look like they might lose.... and Poland is far closer to the USSR than whatever beach the allies storm is.

So, like I said before....wishful thinking.

Which would have sparked off a war the Allied public was totally uninterested in after years of fighting, ignores the fact that the Soviets had agents in the Manhattan Project, and generally could have led to full scale mutiny. Short of a Soviet invasion of Western Allied controlled Europe we were not going to war with them, period. There’s a reason it was called Operation Unthinkable
 
EMNofSeattle said:
The west may have suffered heavier casualties but the war was unwinnable for Germany the moment the US entered the war.

The Soviet Union chronically faced logistical and supply problems throughout the war, they were dependent on US trucks and industrial machinery and spare parts, they depended on the US for lubricants, they depended on the US to keep their Air Force flying, and on top of that the Soviet Navy was nothing to speak of. Also we would’ve had the atomic bomb in 1945 and so by 45 Germany was toast in a war with or without the Soviets.

And let’s assume one of two scenarios.

Soviet Union does not invade Poland, Hitler invades USSR.

The Soviet Union is much more likely to break, but even if they don’t it doesn’t change the outcome of the war, but the Germans starting from a more eastern position inflict more casualties on the Soviet Union and take more ground before a counter offensive.

Soviet Union does not invade Poland, Hitler does not invade USSR.

The Germans still have to keep a massive occupying force in Poland and keep significant numbers of troops on the eastern front to deter Stalin from invading Poland in the future.

In either scenario the genocides do not go on longer because Germany will be forced to surrender due to strategic bombing with nuclear weapons in May of 1945.

In both scenarios Poland is likely liberated without betrayal to the communists.

OTL one of the most shameful episodes was the western betrayal of the Poles and Czechs. We should’ve immediately shifted to a war footing and threatened full scale offensives including with Nuclear weapons against the USSR if they did not withdraw to their borders Status Quo Antebellum
Click to expand...

Seriously, going “you know those guys who’ve been shooting at you for the past couple years and killed your buddies? Well, we’re re-arming them and you’re heading east to fight another continent wide war literally right after just finishing the last one, and against a country you still see as an ally” instead of rebuilding and demobilizing would have exactly zero support from anyone in the West.

Unthinkable only has any degree of success if there’s total surprise, and The Soviets knew it was potentially coming.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Declaring it “unwinnable” does not change the fact that the Germans were not going to surrender until someone took Berlin, and with far more resources to them available the allies would have had a much harder time doing anything. They still had to actually land in Europe. Hell, when the US entered the war even North Africa hadn’t been decided. With so many more troops available Rommel likely gets a much larger supply and reinforcement boost....and that’s very bad news for the Allies. It’s entireky possibly they get pushed back to the Suez....and perhaps further.

That’s not even getting into the fact that Japan is still going to war with the allies. The Allies are therefore facing an enemy which has been able to concentrate his forces while still needing to divide their’s between Europe and Asia. In case you missed it, that’s a huge issue.

The Soviet Navy was irrelevant to the eastern front. The fight was never going to decided at sea. The Russians also produced a number of highly effective domestic aircraft as the war went on. The lend lease aircraft were largely older models which, while a whole lot better than nothing, only made up a fraction of the Red Air Force. Allied logistical support in the form of trucks was essential, but it wasn’t the deciding factor.

Assuming, of course, that the German nuclear program doesn’t deliver results first, or that the allies don’t get tired of the bloodbath and decide to negotiate for peace before ‘45 even rolls around. Also assuming the Luftwaffe, which again has been able to be concentrated due to the lack of an Eastern front, is sufficiently weakened by 1945 for the mission to be risked in the first place. Counting on nukes isn’t a guarantee of success.

Oh look, more wishful thinking. First off, Hitler not invading the USSR would mean, in a very fundamental sense, he’s not Hitler; the destruction of communism and the conquest of lebensraum was seen by him and his cronies as Germany’s destiny. The only way to advert that is for Hitler to be either taken out before 1941 or the USSR being brought in as a co-belligerent on the German side— perhaps after Operation Pike, in which case Poland— and the rest of the Allies— are throughly ****ed.

Strategic bombing alone is incapable of winning a war, and I already addressed the issue of counting on nukes.

The second the allies pull off a successful landing those troops are going to be shifted west, so the fundamental problem remains the same.

This is also ignoring, of course, that Stalin is going to hammer west as soon as the Germans look like they might lose.... and Poland is far closer to the USSR than whatever beach the allies storm is.

So, like I said before....wishful thinking.

Which would have sparked off a war the Allied public was totally uninterested in after years of fighting, ignores the fact that the Soviets had agents in the Manhattan Project, and generally could have led to full scale mutiny. Short of a Soviet invasion of Western Allied controlled Europe we were not going to war with them, period. There’s a reason it was called Operation Unthinkable
Click to expand...

Well by the time we’d have to deal with the Soviets we already have the bomb. And in fact this is actually a blessing if leftists mutiny on the Manhattan project because it would provide a pretext to round up and intern communist sympathizers and far leftists in the United States and proceed with mass treason trials that would force the leftist elements in intelligentsia to go deep under ground

I know Pro-Soviet revisionists love to claim the Red Army was some massive unstoppable juggernaut and that any aid the US and UK provided was inconsequential, this is simply not true. Not even Stalin believed that.

Had the Soviets recieved no support Stalin would’ve been overthrown in domestic upheaval and there would’ve been demands to sue for peace.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Well by the time we’d have to deal with the Soviets we already have the bomb. And in fact this is actually a blessing if leftists mutiny on the Manhattan project because it would provide a pretext to round up and intern communist sympathizers and far leftists in the United States and proceed with mass treason trials that would force the leftist elements in intelligentsia to go deep under ground

I know Pro-Soviet revisionists love to claim the Red Army was some massive unstoppable juggernaut and that any aid the US and UK provided was inconsequential, this is simply not true. Not even Stalin believed that.

Had the Soviets recieved no support Stalin would’ve been overthrown in domestic upheaval and there would’ve been demands to sue for peace.
Click to expand...

Oh, it wouldn’t be “leftists” mutinying. It’d be the general public, and especially the people in the armed forces. No one wanted to go to war with the Soviets in 1945 or 1946. People were exhausted. They were sick of fighting. They wanted to get on with their lives. Morale would have been in the ****ter. And that’s not even taking into account that the Soviets expected us to try and head east, so the operation would have been a bloodbath on an epic scale.

In the Manhattan Project it would be less “mutiny” and more “sabotage”. And we certainly didn’t have the arsenal at that point to afford that.

Yeah, mass purges is not a “blessing” bud.

The facts of the matter is that the main soviet armored and aircraft models were all domestic designs. Lend lease was useful, but not decisive. And in 1945 the Red Army was a behemoth. Allied forces would be hard pressed to hold their ground, much less not get kicked back across the Rhine.

Uh.....no, he wouldn’t have, especially since the atrocities the Nazis were committing was public knowledge. Stalin was very good at controlling domestic dissent, and the idea that they were fighting a great patriotic war for Russia was a strong motivator.

Man, you “traditionalists” just can’t let go of that fantasy that one kick would send the whole thing toppling down.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
The west may have suffered heavier casualties but the war was unwinnable for Germany the moment the US entered the war.

The Soviet Union chronically faced logistical and supply problems throughout the war, they were dependent on US trucks and industrial machinery and spare parts, they depended on the US for lubricants, they depended on the US to keep their Air Force flying, and on top of that the Soviet Navy was nothing to speak of. Also we would’ve had the atomic bomb in 1945 and so by 45 Germany was toast in a war with or without the Soviets.

And let’s assume one of two scenarios.

Soviet Union does not invade Poland, Hitler invades USSR.

The Soviet Union is much more likely to break, but even if they don’t it doesn’t change the outcome of the war, but the Germans starting from a more eastern position inflict more casualties on the Soviet Union and take more ground before a counter offensive.

Soviet Union does not invade Poland, Hitler does not invade USSR.

The Germans still have to keep a massive occupying force in Poland and keep significant numbers of troops on the eastern front to deter Stalin from invading Poland in the future.

In either scenario the genocides do not go on longer because Germany will be forced to surrender due to strategic bombing with nuclear weapons in May of 1945.

In both scenarios Poland is likely liberated without betrayal to the communists.

OTL one of the most shameful episodes was the western betrayal of the Poles and Czechs. We should’ve immediately shifted to a war footing and threatened full scale offensives including with Nuclear weapons against the USSR if they did not withdraw to their borders Status Quo Antebellum
Click to expand...
It was very US-like to blow off the Poles and Czechs. That’s what we do.
 
Carjosse said:
The Russian SSR had all of the power in the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...

like in Times of Ivan the terrible (creator of Muscovite state) all power was located in Moscow all 75 years
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom