• 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!

We defeated the wrong enemy - General George S. Patton . read We d take bandit Koba down first

maxparrish said:
I thought the meaning in my reply more than sufficiently obvious, even for the low-end of average persons. However, as you need it spelled out for you: NO, I am not pretending liberals are sympathetic to communism. I am assuming that there must be some good liberals, somewhere, that are not so.

Having had a life-time of listening to liberals yammer about "the good things people overlook" in communism, preaching "blame America first" in cold war issues, and defending every barefoot, one-party state "socialist" dictator supported by Moscow as the next coming of Christ for the poor and oppressed, the only difference I have found between liberals and communists is the first is naïve about communism and the second utterly ruthless and realistic about the gullibility of liberals.

Got it?
Click to expand...

You don't know what liberal means.
 
maxparrish said:
If you were conversant in left-wing, cold war and intellectual history you'd know how foolish that statement is. The "conservative" active sympathy for fascism has been negligible when compared to the well known history of liberal-left fawning in American political journals, American public intellectuals, liberal membership in hundreds of communist fronts, and the celebrity gaga romance over communism. I suggest you read: "The Fellow Travelers" by (liberal) David Caute, and "The Red Decade" by Eugene Lyons.
Click to expand...

Henry Ford providing substantial propaganda and material support to Nazism was not “negligible”.

Literally thousands of Nazis were able to escape into the United States after the war, with the OSI estimating as many as 10,000. The German American Bund was able to attract thousands of people and had great support for years

When Nazis Took Manhattan : Code Switch : NPR

American conservatives desperately tried to prevent the US from engaging in any activities whatsoever to fight the Nazis under the banner of “isolationism”. People like Charles Coughlin blared Hitler’s message of anti semitism from whatever stage they could find. Millions of Americans supported deporting Jews “humanely”

How Hitler’s ‘fake news’ assault on America came perilously close to succeeding | The Times of Israel

And then, of course, we have the conservative love affair with the Confederacy and with domestic terrorist groups like the KKK.
 
Tigerace117 said:
We’ve already been over this bud.....Unthinkable was simply not workable. The vast majority of people in the west were sick of war by 1945. They were not going to turn around and start another world war right after finishing the last one. They wanted to move on with their lives.

As for Patton.....he was the kind of guy who always hoped to die with the last bullet in the last battle of the last war.

From your own source: “The plan was taken by the British Chiefs of Staff Committee as militarily unfeasible due to an anticipated 2.5 to 1 superiority in divisions of Soviet land forces in Europe and the Middle East by 1 July, where the conflict was projected to take place.[5] The majority of any offensive operation would have been undertaken by American and British forces, as well as Polish forces and up to 10 divisions of the former German Wehrmacht, re-mobilized from POW status. Any quick success would be due to surprise alone. If a quick success could not be obtained before the onset of winter, the assessment was that the Allies would be committed to a protracted total war. ”
Click to expand...

Not to mention the fact that we were still fighting the World War. Japan still had to be taken out.

The Allies were already preparing for the first part of that invasion, Operation Coronet. That would by far have been the largest amphibious operation in history, making Operation Overlord look like a boy scout campout. Operation Overlord used 12 divisions of Infantry, about 700,000 men. Just the first phase of Operation Downfall was going to use an estimated 40 divisions, around 500,000 men. That is over 1.1 million men. And before the end, it was expected that over 3 million men would be required.

So what were we to do, completely ignore the war we were fighting with Japan and start an invasion of another ally? That is not even insane and retarded, it is completely impossible. And no matter how often you bring this up, the answer is always going to be the same.
 
Litwin said:
We defeated the wrong enemy - General George S. Patton . read We´d take commie bandit Koba down first

i have 2 questions
1) how General George S. Patton came to this conclusion ?
2) and why USA/UK did not liberate Eastern Europe from Stalinist , totalitarian, commie, satanic occupation in 1945? even thought the West ( centralization ) had such plans

"Operation Unthinkable were two related but unrealised plans by the Western Allies against the totalitarian Soviet Union. They were ordered by British prime minister Winston Churchill in 1945 and developed by the British Armed Forces' Joint Planning ... and the perception that the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin (koba) was unreliable, there ... "
Click to expand...

The Allies didn't declare war on the Soviets because they probably would have lost.
 
maxparrish said:
There isn't a double edge blade. From the 1930s into the 1950s (and sometimes longer) America was infested with an intelligentsia and a arts culture of communist stooges and fellow travelers to international communism, supporters of Lenin and then Stalinist methods of concentration labor camps and mass killings (as well as the genocide and ethnic cleansing of many peoples in the Soviet Empire). Moreover, as agents of the Soviets against the survival of their own countries none of them, on a moral level, deserved a hearing of more than 10 minutes on a hangman's gallows.

Naturally, liberals went into overtime defending this scum, whining about their innocence and unfair treatment - promoting anti-communism as the real threat to America. Fortunately the West survived long enough, in spite of these relentless termites efforts, to see the fall of European and Russian communism.

In any event, there are dozens (perhaps hundreds) that never received the punishment, let alone full punishment, so richly earned.
Click to expand...

For someone who claims to hate communism, you're advocating for some very stalinesque purges. Without respect for due process and freedom of speech, what makes you better than Stalin.
 
Irredentist said:
The Allies didn't declare war on the Soviets because they probably would have lost.
Click to expand...

USA produced more than 50% world GDP, ussr & world commies had 0 chances against USA&UK & France
 
maxparrish said:
If you were conversant in left-wing, cold war and intellectual history you'd know how foolish that statement is. The "conservative" active sympathy for fascism has been negligible when compared to the well known history of liberal-left fawning in American political journals, American public intellectuals, liberal membership in hundreds of communist fronts, and the celebrity gaga romance over communism. I suggest you read: "The Fellow Travelers" by (liberal) David Caute, and "The Red Decade" by Eugene Lyons.
Click to expand...

Not all leftists are liberals, my guy. I'm not, the guy annotating Marx's writings isn't, and neither is the guy that worked as a correspondent to the Soviet Union.
 
Irredentist said:
For someone who claims to hate communism, you're advocating for some very stalinesque purges. Without respect for due process and freedom of speech, what makes you better than Stalin.
Click to expand...

I'd say it's team colors, but even that isn't applicable; Republicans are red, too.
 
Irredentist said:
Yeah? If GDP wins wars then why are we losing in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

in a-stan (which is not a state , ussw was an empire ) condoms lost against its demography , still a-stan is much more modern than it was before we came with light and bread there
 
Litwin said:
in a-stan (which is not a state , ussw was an empire ) condoms lost against its demography , still a-stan is much more modern than it was before we came with light and bread there
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? The US hasn't been able to win in Afghanistan, despite an overwhelming advantage in technology and economy, any more than Russia or Britain before them. So what makes you think that economic superiority guarantees success?
 
Irredentist said:
What are you talking about? The US hasn't been able to win in Afghanistan, despite an overwhelming advantage in technology and economy, any more than Russia or Britain before them. So what makes you think that economic superiority guarantees success?
Click to expand...

i dont want to talk about bamboostans , you can believe that pushtoon tribals won if you want so , why do you think ussr´d win the war with why much bigger , more way much more devolved and stronger Western states?
 
Litwin said:
USA produced more than 50% world GDP, ussr & world commies had 0 chances against USA&UK & France
Click to expand...

The UK and France were both in ruins in 1945. They also both were totally spent politically and militarily. A war with the Soviets would have meant kissing a solid chunk of their colonial empire goodbye and outright rebellion in places like India which were counting the days until independence.
 
Ask Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Adolf Hitler how well a land invasion of Russia works out.
 
some more stalinist propaganda "The UK and France were both in ruins in 1945. They also both were totally spent politically and militarily. " just switch UK and France to commie sovok you will the see the truth
 
Deuce said:
Ask Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Adolf Hitler how well a land invasion of Russia works out.
Click to expand...

Alexander the Great has invented "russia! are taking bad quality drugs right new?
 
Litwin said:
some more stalinist propaganda "The UK and France were both in ruins in 1945. They also both were totally spent politically and militarily. " just switch UK and France to commie sovok you will the see the truth
Click to expand...

No, it is not “Stalinist propaganda” to point out that France has just been liberated after a long campaign and years of occupation, and England had been bombed flat.

The Soviet military was not even remotely close to spent, whereas both England and France were.

Not to mention the fact that the colonies—-like India—-were not even slightly willing to fight another global war just after the last one.
 
Litwin is lucky that he has no real political or military power. If he did he would become the Lithuanian Stalin/Koba in his eternal efforts to eradicate the Russian/JuChi Mongol-Moscovite-complex he despises so much. He is regrettably past reason or persuasion as his warped convictions blind his eyes, deafen his ears and harden his heart to the fact that he is relentlessly advocating for wars of genocide against the Russian people. In that respect he has become the powerless Koba in all but his deeds. It is sad really that someone can become so consumed by hate that even in times of peace they shed their humanity like an old snake skin and surrender to their reptilian brain's bestial drives. I've seen it happen in war/conflict zones too often but rarely in peace time.

Peace be upon you Litwin.
Evilroddy.
 
Irredentist said:
The Allies didn't declare war on the Soviets because they probably would have lost.
Click to expand...

Especially since that would have not only prevented the Soviets from invading Japan, it would have caused them more than likely to upgrade the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Treaty into an outright alliance.

Siphoning off men and resources from the invasion of Japan, and give that nation a "second wind" to try and advance their territory again.
 
Evilroddy said:
Litwin is lucky that he has no real political or military power. If he did he would become the Lithuanian Stalin/Koba in his eternal efforts to eradicate the Russian/JuChi Mongol-Moscovite-complex he despises so much. He is regrettably past reason or persuasion as his warped convictions blind his eyes, deafen his ears and harden his heart to the fact that he is relentlessly advocating for wars of genocide against the Russian people. In that respect he has become the powerless Koba in all but his deeds. It is sad really that someone can become so consumed by hate that even in times of peace they shed their humanity like an old snake skin and surrender to their reptilian brain's bestial drives. I've seen it happen in war/conflict zones too often but rarely in peace time.

Peace be upon you Litwin.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

"wars of genocide against the Muscovite people" you know who do genocide against the Muscovite people? their czars and beklerbeks on the daily base, reaD this В России солдат случайно опрокинул артустановку. Ему придется заплатить 400 тысяч долларов | 42.TUT.BY
 
Churchill was correct in that instead of the Normandy invasion we should have continued up from Italy and Greece thru "the soft underbelly of Europe." This would have cut off the Soviets from Eastern Europe - denying Stalin all the power conquering them brought, honored our promises to those nations to be liberated rather than shifting from Nazi subjugation and occupation to Soviet subjugation and occupation - and probably saved a millions of lives including American lives.

There was NO morality or military purpose it fighting across all of Western Europe for the purpose of giving Eastern Europe to Stalin. The USA betrayed and screwed Poland and Eastern Europe in collusion with Stalin.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
You have an unhealthy obsession with killing Soviets.
Click to expand...
Tigerace117 said:
One look at those unhinged rants about “mongols” and “anti christ asians” and whatever else he decides to spew pretty clearly shows otherwise.
Click to expand...
I see the Stalin apologists wasted no time jumping into this thread.
 
phattonez said:
I see the Stalin apologists wasted no time jumping into this thread.
Click to expand...

I see you're back to spread your uneducated opinion.

Go ahead and take your place next to Litwin so he can share his obsession with killing the Mongol Muscovite Satanist Stalinist Asiatic Asian Soviet hordes.
 
joko104 said:
Churchill was correct in that instead of the Normandy invasion we should have continued up from Italy and Greece thru "the soft underbelly of Europe."
Click to expand...

We invaded Normandy precisely because of our inability to punch through Italy. The Soft underbelly was nonsense to anyone with a basic understanding of European geography.

A smarter decision would have been to invade Normandy in 42 or 43
 
Last edited:
phattonez said:
I see the Stalin apologists wasted no time jumping into this thread.
Click to expand...


“Stalin apologist”

What a load of crap

I see “traditionalists” are still pissed we didn’t help their hero Adolf.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom