maqroll Posted May 15, 2014 Author Share Posted May 15, 2014 Roosevelt was a weak man , Stalin hoodwinked him and Roosevelt unfortunately has a lot of blood on his hands , whatever his good intentions Can you expound on that point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Roosevelt was a weak man , Stalin hoodwinked him and Roosevelt unfortunately has a lot of blood on his hands , whatever his good intentions Can you expound on that point? The Yalta accord in effect Roosevelt conceded everything to Stalin , against Churchill's advise , often in secret without the knowledge of his own advisor's ..maybe Roosevelt thought that he could make a few concessions to Stalin and then Stalin would be everyone's friend .. but history shows he got played ... he may have though he was acting in everyone's best interest ( though i struggle to see how ) maybe he just wanted to get American troops home and leave Europe to Europe unfortunately his actions whatever the intention were catastrophic there is a book online called the Roosevelt myth that covers it quite well ... search for the Final betrayal and it starts at page 387 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Sure but Stalin's argument was that Russia had won the war, and it's hard to disagree. Impossible, if fatalities is the measure of effort in wartime. 20 Russian soldiers died for every Yank, more than 25 for every Brit, and almost the same number again of civilians due to famine etc. Roosevelt and Churchill were lucky to even be invited to a conference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 i dont think ze germans would have surrendered to the russians though, theres a reason they went to eisenhower to surrender when oliver stone did that untold history thing he suggested that japan surrendered because of the russians had invaded sakhalin island and not because of the bombs, which i found really interesting but havent seen much else on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Sure but Stalin's argument was that Russia had won the war, and it's hard to disagree. Impossible, if fatalities is the measure of effort in wartime. 20 Russian soldiers died for every Yank, more than 25 for every Brit, and almost the same number again of civilians due to famine etc. Roosevelt and Churchill were lucky to even be invited to a conference. The Soviets lost more soldiers than all the other allies combined in the whole war because they were poorly equipped and poorly trained ...That, however, doesn't make them pivotal in winning ..the Soviets had brute force , Britain and US (etc) had implemented a correct strategy to win the war The Allies (USA /Britain etc i.e non Russian) were making decisive victories and conquering Nazi territory. They eliminated the Italians from helping the Nazi's, freed the French people, broke through the German's defenses etc If the Red Army hadn't of stormed Berlin, the other Allies simply would. It was no secret at that time that Germany was going to fall. The Soviets happened to get their first ( I believe they were allowed to for political reasons (against Churchill's arguments) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 I agree that Stalin sold Russian lives far more cheaply than everyone else's, but even if you ignore the huge Russian casualty figures in the end it was about how many German casualties they inflicted. I don't know the figures but I'd be amazed if the Russians inflicted less than five times the casualties on German soldiers than the other allies did. Keeping the Germans fighting on the plains of the Western USSR for four years was what won the war. Sure, the bombing helped, those Arctic convoys contributed more to the Russian war effort than Stalin would admit, and the little (compared to Stalingrad or Kursk) battles here and there in Africa and Italy must have been tiresome for Germany, but Russia really won the war. I think your patriotism is clouding your view. Hell, I like to think the war was won by us colonials, with help from Britain, the US and Russia (in that order!), but the reality is different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 I agree that Stalin sold Russian lives far more cheaply than everyone else's, but even if you ignore the huge Russian casualty figures in the end it was about how many German casualties they inflicted. I don't know the figures but I'd be amazed if the Russians inflicted less than five times the casualties on German soldiers than the other allies did. Keeping the Germans fighting on the plains of the Western USSR for four years was what won the war. Sure, the bombing helped, those Arctic convoys contributed more to the Russian war effort than Stalin would admit, and the little (compared to Stalingrad or Kursk) battles here and there in Africa and Italy must have been tiresome for Germany, but Russia really won the war. I think your patriotism is clouding your view. Hell, I like to think the war was won by us colonials, with help from Britain, the US and Russia (in that order!), but the reality is different. communist I haven't really said it wasn't a joint effort or understated the Russian involvement .. I was more countering your argument that we and America were lucky to even be invited to a conference ... you were close with your 5 times figure ..estimates are 2.7m killed by the soviets v 530,000 killed by allies however .. the allies took roughly 7m prisoners v 3m prisoners taken by the soviets , so if you argue that a POW has been removed from combat just as effectively as one killed that swings it in the allies favour Importantly The Red Army held off the Germans at the critical point in the war, allowing the Americans and Brits to get organized and open up a second front .. arguably one couldn't have won without the other 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Although bear in mind that the Germans were desperate to become prisoners in the West rather than Russia, and with very good reason. I'd be interested in how many of those prisoners were captured in the last six months of the war, and especially after the Russians entered Germany. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 I guess another question would be how many German pow's the Russians took that we don't know about !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PussEKatt Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 I still say that, if Hitler: Had not started a second front. Had let people who know what they are doing control technology. Had let people who know what they are doing control armements. Had not gone out of his way to make enemies eg wanting to exterminate just about anything on 2 legs. Had not let the British escape Dunkirque. Had let Rommel control the panzers on D- day. Had let his generals in the field decide wheather to advance/retreat or dig in. Had not done absoutely stupid things like " declare a town etc a fortress " and think it is now safe. Etc etc etc. Jack of all trades, master of none. Ja Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 What a crap poem. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 How can you call roosevelt a weak man I seen the bloke bench a panzer tank Bro do you even lift? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 The Red Army held off the Germans at the critical point in the war... With the aid of the same Russian Winter that did for Napoleon. History ain't bunk. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 (edited) What a crap poem. Stll better than his jokes... Edited May 16, 2014 by AVFCforever1991 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers13 Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 The reason hitler didn't have more patience is likely that he thankfully had major health problems. He probably wouldn't have survived that much longer, so for his domination dream to come to fruition, it had to happen quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFC_Hitz Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Yeah, Hitler had major health problems during his last days. He had his own pastry chef down in the bunker and most probably had diabetes which he massively ignored. He'd nearly lost control of his left arm and he was walking with the aid of a stick. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 My mum just told me something that I thought was amusing. My great-grandfather went to Papua New Guinea one time and as the plane landed, some pygmies who had never seen a plane before ran out from the undergrowth to investigate the underside of the plane. Apparently they were trying to work out the gender of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Yeah, Hitler had major health problems during his last days. He had his own pastry chef down in the bunker and most probably had diabetes which he massively ignored. He'd nearly lost control of his left arm and he was walking with the aid of a stick. He had Parkinson's disease I believe Read a decent medical article yesterday that detailed his health issues and fact from fiction ... There was a rumour he had a deformed penis after it goat bitten by a goat during childhood ( wtf) Nothing that made him pathological mad was the final verdict , but some of the drugs he took may not have helped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Yeah, Hitler had major health problems during his last days. He had his own pastry chef down in the bunker and most probably had diabetes which he massively ignored. He'd nearly lost control of his left arm and he was walking with the aid of a stick. He had Parkinson's disease I believe Read a decent medical article yesterday that detailed his health issues and fact from fiction ... There was a rumour he had a deformed penis after it goat bitten by a goat during childhood ( wtf) Nothing that made him pathological mad was the final verdict , but some of the drugs he took may not have helped Apparently he only had one ball... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Yeah, Hitler had major health problems during his last days. He had his own pastry chef down in the bunker and most probably had diabetes which he massively ignored. He'd nearly lost control of his left arm and he was walking with the aid of a stick.He had Parkinson's disease I believe Read a decent medical article yesterday that detailed his health issues and fact from fiction ... There was a rumour he had a deformed penis after it goat bitten by a goat during childhood ( wtf) Nothing that made him pathological mad was the final verdict , but some of the drugs he took may not have helped Apparently he only had one ball... Another myth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts