Is it moral for our governments to impose poverty on us?

Started by Greatest I am, July 25, 2019, 03:49:55 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Cavebear

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 15, 2019, 06:42:54 AM

Are you kidding? Hitler gave a thousand speeches in which he declared he would destroy communism. Sorry you've got it wrong. Stalin knew that Hitler knew that alliance was temporary.

You might want to be careful of that.  From what I've read, Stalin was profoundly shocked when Hitler attacked his Soviet Union, and went in a deep withdrawal for several days afterwards.  When he came out of it, he through Soviet armies into the German armies like wood chips into a raging fire.  But enough wood can choke a fire and Stalin did. 

Make no mistake about it, Stalin was a hideous bastard among the top hideous bastards in all of history.  And this won't come across well, but Stalin is really the one who defeated Hitler.  By sheer ferocious insanity and will, he broke the German armies. 

I despise the lunatic (both of them of course), but if Hitler and Stain had maintained a mutually fearful peace, I'm not sure the Western Allies could have invaded Europe successfully without mass nuclear weapons.  And even those are not very good on battlefields. 

I have often thought that, without Stalin's rage and uncaring sacrifice of Soviet soldiers, the Cold War would have been between The US and The Continental Nazis.  "Brexit" might have an entirely different meaning today...  More like Poland leaving the Warsaw Pact.

Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Quote from: Cavebear on August 15, 2019, 07:05:18 AM
You might want to be careful of that.  From what I've read, Stalin was profoundly shocked when Hitler attacked his Soviet Union, and went in a deep withdrawal for several days afterwards.  When he came out of it, he through Soviet armies into the German armies like wood chips into a raging fire.  But enough wood can choke a fire and Stalin did. 

Make no mistake about it, Stalin was a hideous bastard among the top hideous bastards in all of history.  And this won't come across well, but Stalin is really the one who defeated Hitler.  By sheer ferocious insanity and will, he broke the German armies. 

I despise the lunatic (both of them of course), but if Hitler and Stain had maintained a mutually fearful peace, I'm not sure the Western Allies could have invaded Europe successfully without mass nuclear weapons.  And even those are not very good on battlefields. 

I have often thought that, without Stalin's rage and uncaring sacrifice of Soviet soldiers, the Cold War would have been between The US and The Continental Nazis.  "Brexit" might have an entirely different meaning today...  More like Poland leaving the Warsaw Pact.

Correct.  My grandfather participated in the physical lend-lease thru Iran into the Soviet Union.  I hope Joe doesn't condemn him for supporting Stalin, on orders from FDR.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

josephpalazzo

Quote from: Baruch on August 15, 2019, 08:07:17 AM
Correct.  My grandfather participated in the physical lend-lease thru Iran into the Soviet Union.  I hope Joe doesn't condemn him for supporting Stalin, on orders from FDR.
Yes I am. When Hitler took power in 1933, Stalin had already murdered over 10 millions of people in the USSR. Hitler is a monster, but Stalin is a humongous monster. That Churchill, along with Roosevelt, decided to help Stalin is a major blunder that turned into a catastrophe - half of Europe was given to Stalin. These countries had to wait another 50 years to free themselves from Russian oppression. So I don't consider Churchill to be a hero but a fumbling foolish warmonger.

Cavebear

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 15, 2019, 08:44:07 AM
Yes I am. When Hitler took power in 1933, Stalin had already murdered over 10 millions of people in the USSR. Hitler is a monster, but Stalin is a humongous monster. That Churchill, along with Roosevelt, decided to help Stalin is a major blunder that turned into a catastrophe - half of Europe was given to Stalin. These countries had to wait another 50 years to free themselves from Russian oppression. So I don't consider Churchill to be a hero but a fumbling foolish warmonger.

I despise Stalin as a human being.  But, out of curiosity, what part of WWII do you think would have gone well without his nearly insane attacks on the Nazis?
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

josephpalazzo

Quote from: Cavebear on August 15, 2019, 07:05:18 AM
You might want to be careful of that.  From what I've read, Stalin was profoundly shocked when Hitler attacked his Soviet Union,


Wrong conclusion. He was in a shock because his troops had buckled down under the initial invasion. Stalin had prepared for this invasion. In the aftermath of the Polish invasion, Stalin moved quickly into the Baltic forcing those countries to align themselves with Russia. Ditto with Finland, but the Finns refused and he went to war against them. 



QuoteMake no mistake about it, Stalin was a hideous bastard among the top hideous bastards in all of history.  And this won't come across well, but Stalin is really the one who defeated Hitler.  By sheer ferocious insanity and will, he broke the German armies.


Stalin won the battle of Stalingrad because the Allies had broken German secret code and were feeding him intel. In fact, Hitler was so outraged that his convoys of supply were attacked precisely where it was at the exact time. He falsely concluded that the only way Stalin knew all of this was that some of his generals were plotting against him, which he then proceed to fire some and the others were threatened of execution if they would ever pull back. So the Germans were left to fight with hardly any reinforcement. It was just a question of time that the Russians would win by attrition.




Cavebear

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 15, 2019, 09:10:00 AM

Wrong conclusion. He was in a shock because his troops had buckled down under the initial invasion. Stalin had prepared for this invasion. In the aftermath of the Polish invasion, Stalin moved quickly into the Baltic forcing those countries to align themselves with Russia. Ditto with Finland, but the Finns refused and he went to war against them. 

Stalin won the battle of Stalingrad because the Allies had broken German secret code and were feeding him intel. In fact, Hitler was so outraged that his convoys of supply were attacked precisely where it was at the exact time. He falsely concluded that the only way Stalin knew all of this was that some of his generals were plotting against him, which he then proceed to fire some and the others were threatened of execution if they would ever pull back. So the Germans were left to fight with hardly any reinforcement. It was just a question of time that the Russians would win by attrition.

Well, yes, the Western allies helped with intell and supplies.  For our benefit.  The more Nizis soldiers the Soviets killed, the fewer to attack us, right?  I didn't say we did it out of glory  to the Soviets.

From what I can find quickly, the Soviets killed about 2 million Nazi soldiers, and about 750,000 died fighting the Western Allies.

By official German statistics, over 75% of German army deaths appear to have occurred on the Eastern Front from 1939 to 1944.

Is that sufficient?
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

josephpalazzo

Quote from: Cavebear on August 15, 2019, 09:27:59 AM
Well, yes, the Western allies helped with intell and supplies.  For our benefit.  The more Nizis soldiers the Soviets killed, the fewer to attack us, right?  I didn't say we did it out of glory  to the Soviets.

From what I can find quickly, the Soviets killed about 2 million Nazi soldiers, and about 750,000 died fighting the Western Allies.

By official German statistics, over 75% of German army deaths appear to have occurred on the Eastern Front from 1939 to 1944.

Is that sufficient?

I'm not disputing those facts. My argument with Baruch is that he idolizes Churchill. My counter-point is that Churchill made a major blunder with respect to Stalin. My claim is that if the Allies had abstained in the conflict between Hitler and Stalin, the two would have fought for many more years, and by that time both Germany and Russia would have been exhausted, and the Allies would not have been in the position of ceding half of Europe to Stalin. With the huge help, in the billions of dollars, which in today's currency, trillions of dollars, Stalin repelled the Germans but also was in a strong position to demand a huge prize - half of Europe. Had you been born in one of those countries, and suffered for the next 50 years Russian oppression, you would be of a different opinion. That I know for sure.

Cavebear

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 15, 2019, 09:38:21 AM
I'm not disputing those facts. My argument with Baruch is that he idolizes Churchill. My counter-point is that Churchill made a major blunder with respect to Stalin. My claim is that if the Allies had abstained in the conflict between Hitler and Stalin, the two would have fought for many more years, and by that time both Germany and Russia would have been exhausted, and the Allies would not have been in the position of ceding half of Europe to Stalin. With the huge help, in the billions of dollars, which in today's currency, trillions of dollars, Stalin repelled the Germans but also was in a strong position to demand a huge prize - half of Europe. Had you been born in one of those countries, and suffered for the next 50 years Russian oppression, you would be of a different opinion. That I know for sure.

As England and France declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland, and the initial war was among those 3, what you seem to be suggesting is they (England and France)  should have actually "undeclared" war after Hitler and Stalin went apeshit at each other. 

Oh but wait, France was conquered by then and Hitler was bombing English cities!

It was only June 1941 when Hitler attacked the Soviets.  Your timeline is completely wrong.  Please do check things before you type...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

josephpalazzo

Quote from: Cavebear on August 15, 2019, 09:48:47 AM
As England and France declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland, and the initial war was among those 3, what you seem to be suggesting is they (England and France)  should have actually "undeclared" war after Hitler and Stalin went apeshit at each other. 

Oh but wait, France was conquered by then and Hitler was bombing English cities!

It was only June 1941 when Hitler attacked the Soviets.  Your timeline is completely wrong.  Please do check things before you type...

The alliance between Hitler and Stalin was temporary. Both knew this. When they did invade Poland in 1939, it was England and France that declared war on Germany, not the other way around. The odd thing is that if they had been consistent, they should have declared war on the Soviet Union, but they didn't even though they had signed a pact with Poland that in any aggression, France and England would come to Poland's help. Now it turned out that in both France and England there was no appetite to go to war. So after the invasion of Poland, France moved a few troops on its border, England was prepared to send its troops into Europe but deferred seeing France was hesitant. In the meantime Hitler prepared his forces to attack France, which he did the following year in spring 1940. He made multiple attempts to secure a peace with England, which Churchill declined - famous speech, we will fight them everywhere, blah, blah... Hitler had no intention to invade England, just force them to sign a peace treaty, hence the bombardment of London and other cities. Churchill was stubborn, and so Hitler decided it was time to do what he had promised time and time again to his troops: invade Russia and destroy communism. So Churchill made the decision to help Stalin. But make no mistake in thousands of speech, Hitler called out for the destruction of communism. That Russians had blood on their hands with millions killed by Stalin. The real battle in Hitler's mind was not Germany versus England, but Germany versus Russia. Of course Churchill played Roosevelt to come to England's hand. At first he was unsuccessful, but Pearl Harbor changed all that. The rest is history.

Cavebear

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 15, 2019, 10:12:06 AM
The alliance between Hitler and Stalin was temporary. Both knew this. When they did invade Poland in 1939, it was England and France that declared war on Germany, not the other way around. The odd thing is that if they had been consistent, they should have declared war on the Soviet Union, but they didn't even though they had signed a pact with Poland that in any aggression, France and England would come to Poland's help. Now it turned out that in both France and England there was no appetite to go to war. So after the invasion of Poland, France moved a few troops on its border, England was prepared to send its troops into Europe but deferred seeing France was hesitant. In the meantime Hitler prepared his forces to attack France, which he did the following year in spring 1940. He made multiple attempts to secure a peace with England, which Churchill declined - famous speech, we will fight them everywhere, blah, blah... Hitler had no intention to invade England, just force them to sign a peace treaty, hence the bombardment of London and other cities. Churchill was stubborn, and so Hitler decided it was time to do what he had promised time and time again to his troops: invade Russia and destroy communism. So Churchill made the decision to help Stalin. But make no mistake in thousands of speech, Hitler called out for the destruction of communism. That Russians had blood on their hands with millions killed by Stalin. The real battle in Hitler's mind was not Germany versus England, but Germany versus Russia. Of course Churchill played Roosevelt to come to England's hand. At first he was unsuccessful, but Pearl Harbor changed all that. The rest is history.

I said that England and France declared war on Germany.  That you suggest I didn't is inaccurate.

Hitler and the Soviets both invaded Poland in Sept 1939, but the Germans did it first, hence the declaration of war required by English and French treaties.  After Hitler invaded Poland and continued into the Soviet Union, the Soviets were no longer in Poland (at the time) and hence no need to declare war about that. 

And the Germans were considered the threat to peace.  Bad hindsight maybe but if you get the enemy on 3 fronts, you usually win.

I agree that Churchill managed his affairs well from a weak position and he kept England independent.  Kudos to him.  I'm not positive that he quite guessed how the US would support him well enough when the Japanese attacked, but it was his only chance. 

The rest of it is just standard war stuff...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

josephpalazzo

Quote from: Cavebear on August 15, 2019, 10:43:50 AM
I said that England and France declared war on Germany.  That you suggest I didn't is inaccurate.


I wasn't suggest that. I was emphasizing it to go on to the fact they didn't declare war on Russia. IMO, they should have.

QuoteHitler and the Soviets both invaded Poland in Sept 1939, but the Germans did it first, hence the declaration of war required by English and French treaties.


There were a few days apart. Germany Sept 1, Russia Sept 17.


QuoteAfter Hitler invaded Poland and continued into the Soviet Union, the Soviets were no longer in Poland (at the time) and hence no need to declare war about that.
Not exactly the same year. Germany invaded Russia in June 1941, a little less than two years after the invasion of Poland. 

QuoteAnd the Germans were considered the threat to peace.  Bad hindsight maybe but if you get the enemy on 3 fronts, you usually win.


More than bad insight. Hitler had been giving speeches from 1923, took power in 1933, prepared Germany for war between 1933 and 1939, but against who? His speeches give no reasons for doubt. It was communist Russia. Nobody else.

QuoteI agree that Churchill managed his affairs well from a weak position and he kept England independent.  Kudos to him.  I'm not positive that he quite guessed how the US would support him well enough when the Japanese attacked, but it was his only chance. 

The rest of it is just standard war stuff...


That he sold out half of Europe to Stalin, a known mass murderer since the 1920's, doesn't bother you?!? That Churchill was instrumental in the course of those events should be recognized as one of the greatest blunder of all times.

Cavebear

I come across people who think they understand everything about WWII from time to time.  Many of them focus on specific dates or battles or treaties or whatnot.  What I seldom see are people who grasp a whole picture. 
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

josephpalazzo

Quote from: Cavebear on August 15, 2019, 11:27:29 AM
I come across people who think they understand everything about WWII from time to time.  Many of them focus on specific dates or battles or treaties or whatnot.  What I seldom see are people who grasp a whole picture. 

Most Americans know a very narrow view of WW2. Talk to people who lived in those countries, who lost everything, and after it was over, were condemned under a Soviet oppression for nearly 50 years. So indeed, most people don't have a grasp of the whole picture. It's not their concerns, who cares...

Cavebear

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 15, 2019, 11:35:43 AM
Most Americans know a very narrow view of WW2. Talk to people who lived in those countries, who lost everything, and after it was over, were condemned under a Soviet oppression for nearly 50 years. So indeed, most people don't have a grasp of the whole picture. It's not their concerns, who cares...

You are confusing the direct events with the aftermath.  The Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe was brutal and horrid almost beyond belief.  I don't contest that in the least bit.  What you are failing to understand is that it could have been worse (Nazi death camps from England to Siberia) and that struggling with one insane brutal dictator was better than 2 in competition for who could kill the most.

Hitler:  I killed 4 million last year
Stalin:  I killed 8 million
Hitler: Verdamft, how?
Stalin:  Siberia and rat poison in all the food.
Hitler:  Can I get a bit of Siberia?
Stalin, No, its all mine.  Go melt in Germany..
Hitler: Oh I envy you so...
Stalin:  You should see Mao.
Hitler:  Why?
Stalin: Claimed 20 million.
Hitler: No way.
Stalin:  Way, he just works them to death.

Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

josephpalazzo

Quote from: Cavebear on August 15, 2019, 11:53:58 AM
You are confusing the direct events with the aftermath.  The Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe was brutal and horrid almost beyond belief.  I don't contest that in the least bit.  What you are failing to understand is that it could have been worse (Nazi death camps from England to Siberia) and that struggling with one insane brutal dictator was better than 2 in competition for who could kill the most.

Hitler:  I killed 4 million last year
Stalin:  I killed 8 million
Hitler: Verdamft, how?
Stalin:  Siberia and rat poison in all the food.
Hitler:  Can I get a bit of Siberia?
Stalin, No, its all mine.  Go melt in Germany..
Hitler: Oh I envy you so...
Stalin:  You should see Mao.
Hitler:  Why?
Stalin: Claimed 20 million.
Hitler: No way.
Stalin:  Way, he just works them to death.



No, not possible, there was no cooperation possible. Hitler hated Stalin and considered him a vermin to be exterminated.