Warning: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in ..../includes/class_bbcode.php on line 2958

Warning: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in ..../includes/class_bbcode.php on line 2958

Warning: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in ..../includes/class_bbcode.php on line 2968

Warning: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in ..../includes/class_bbcode.php on line 2958
U.S. helped Soviets to beat Nazis, then U.S. 'battled' Soviets decades
Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 72

Thread: U.S. helped Soviets to beat Nazis, then U.S. 'battled' Soviets decades

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    348

    Default U.S. helped Soviets to beat Nazis, then U.S. 'battled' Soviets decades

    Funny how the history goes...

    U.S. helped Soviet Union to beat Nazi Germany, then U.S. 'battled' Soviet Union decades (and hired nazi monsters like Klaus Barbie to do that). Wouldn't it have been easier to support Nazi Germany to beat the Soviet Union in the first place? ;-D

    And funny how Hitler wanted to unify (in his own special way ;-D) Europe so it could have more power in the world. Well, no we have European Union.


    _
    Amazing Metal Detector Finds.
    Hand-picked World War II and Third Reich news every day.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,081

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alephh View Post
    Funny how the history goes...

    U.S. helped Soviet Union to beat Nazi Germany, then U.S. 'battled' Soviet Union decades (and hired nazi monsters like Klaus Barbie to do that). Wouldn't it have been easier to support Nazi Germany to beat the Soviet Union in the first place? ;-D

    And funny how Hitler wanted to unify (in his own special way ;-D) Europe so it could have more power in the world. Well, no we have European Union.


    _
    He He He alephh
    Good irony
    But USA helped not soviets but MOSTLY and FIRSTLY its european ally- Britain.
    So if they helped the Mazy to finish the Soviets- the next would be the Britain
    And after Hitlers cupturing the whole Europe - he joined with the Japanes in Middle Asia or Near East - the Next "target" would the the USA itself
    And sure the European Fascist Union sould be the most powerful state in the world.

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chevan View Post
    But USA helped not soviets but MOSTLY and FIRSTLY its european ally- Britain.
    If you go back to the American grand strategic assessments in the 1930's, you'll find that the American reasoning was that it was in America's interests not to have Nazi Germany as a major power for a whole host of power and trade reasons. It followed that American interests required opposing Germany, which meant supporting Britain.

    America didn't support Britain because they were mates, but purely because that was in America's interests, which is how all nations work.

    It was a fine run thing. Serious elements in corporate America were perfectly happy to trade with the Nazis and even supported them as bulwarks against communism. Some, like Henry Ford, also supported their anti-Semitic policies. There were also significant elements at all levels of American society, government and military who were anti-British. Not to mention Americans who, despite getting off fairly lightly in WWI compared with Britain and European nations, had no desire to get involved in another European war.

    The Soviets got American help for the same reason that Britain got it. Because it was in America's interests.

    Same as Soviets got British help. Because it was in Britain's interests.

    Same as Stalin kept pressing America and Britain for an early second front. Because it was in USSR's interests.

    Nations don't act out of altruism.

    That's left to the poor bloody grunts on the land, sea and in the air who believe the propaganda their nations feed them, to encourage them to fight and die for interests and profits they'll never share in, and perform acts of great heroism just by fronting up for duty day after grinding day while the fat cats in their nation sip champagne and lick caviar out of high class whores' navels, or elsewhere, while the rest of the nation struggles on under rationing.

    How much weight did Stalin, or Churchill, lose during WWII?

    Know what Hitler's biggest health problem was, according to his doctor? Over-indulging in pastry, which caused his gastric problems. How many average Germans could over-indulge in pastry during WWII? They couldn't get the fat to make pastry, for a start.

    Who came out of the war bigger and better? Industrialists in all countries, or the poor bloody infantry in all countries?

    And which industrialists and capitalists came out best, from the war and the interests it preserved? America's.

    And, oddly enough, probably Australia's as the next, very small, cab off the rank. We ended up with Lend Lease credits and various profits from supplying the other Allies.

    Meanwhile Britain buggered itself fighting the good fight and never went close to recovering its former glory.

    America put more into Germany after WWII than it did to its British ally.

    A simple example. A lot of Brits were still short of food when the Berlin air lift was on. They didn't get the food, while the Germans did, because it was politically important for America to do it. It wasn't politically important for America to feed the Brits who'd fought the war alone for a few years before America got seriously involved.

    And after Hitlers cupturing the whole Europe - he joined with the Japanes in Middle Asia or Near East - the Next "target" would the the USA itself
    No.

    Geographically it's not a launching point for an attack on the US.

    It just gave Germany and Japan access to Middle East oil, which excluded the RN from it. USN didn't need it.

    Hitler had no intention of invading the US. Given he couldn't even manage to attempt to invade England, he was no threat to the US.

    Japan couldn't invade the US.

    Japan and Germany together couldn't get a toehold in the US.

    The end result would have been an accord, assuming America didn't want to keep fighting. So far as Japan was concerned, there wasn't going to be an accord.

    And sure the European Fascist Union sould be the most powerful state in the world.
    Sorry, I thought you were talking about the point we've come close to nowadays.

    But I missed Fascist in European Fascist Union.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,081

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
    America didn't support Britain because they were mates, but purely because that was in America's interests, which is how all nations work.

    The Soviets got American help for the same reason that Britain got it. Because it was in America's interests.

    Same as Soviets got British help. Because it was in Britain's interests.

    Same as Stalin kept pressing America and Britain for an early second front. Because it was in USSR's interests.

    Nations don't act out of altruism.
    Oh really mate World leaders nations are not of bunch of the altruists
    I though the USA spread the democraty absolutly free - to improve the world life.
    But this is just a "their interests". I didn't know itThank you for frankness
    And BTW so you want to say that comride Stalin acted according Soviet interests too - even signed the Pact with GErmans in 1939?

    Sorry, I thought you were talking about the point we've come close to nowadays.

    But I missed Fascist in European Fascist Union.
    Nobody tells about nowadays mate.
    I mean the situation if the Hitler has won the WW2 in the Europe.

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,534

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chevan View Post
    Oh really mate World leaders nations are not of bunch of the altruists
    I though the USA spread the democraty absolutly free - to improve the world life.
    But this is just a "their interests". I didn't know itThank you for frankness
    And BTW so you want to say that comride Stalin acted according Soviet interests too - even signed the Pact with GErmans in 1939?
    Yup! Because signing a pact with Germany was in the Soviet Union's best interest...

    Nobody tells about nowadays mate.
    I mean the situation if the Hitler has won the WW2 in the Europe.
    Yeah, because it would have been exactly the same. However, Europe has been moving towards an economic unification for decades and this was hardly the dream of Hitler. I think his unification plan was more of a Germany and everybody else unification...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Frankfurt / Germany / Europe
    Posts
    527

    Default

    This EFU would've definatly been less of a pain in the *** than today, at least for us germans
    Last EU gag, they wanted to standartize, that only wine from grapes may be called wine. Coincidentally I live in an area where we have a form of cidre called
    Apfelwein (apple wine), first surviving recipes with that name dating back to 1200 ad. and there was quite a bit of outrage here in the region about it
    Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Russia, Moscow
    Posts
    1,855

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    Yup! Because signing a pact with Germany was in the Soviet Union's best interest...
    Exactly! Thank you very much! I am glad you see this now too.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paramilitary wing of CAMRA
    Posts
    4,099

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
    A simple example. A lot of Brits were still short of food when the Berlin air lift was on. They didn't get the food, while the Germans did, because it was politically important for America to do it. It wasn't politically important for America to feed the Brits who'd fought the war alone for a few years before America got seriously involved.
    To be exact, rationing got MORE severe in the UK after the end of the war. The country was bankrupt (the economy was severely damaged by WW1, and pretty much destroyed by WW2) and with the end of lend-lease could no longer afford to import enough food. It was nearly a decade before the economy had recovered enough to end rationing.

    Still, it could have been worse. I'm told that food rationing in Romania ended in 1990, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that other eastern bloc countries were the same.
    I have neither the time nor the inclination to differentiate between the incompetent and the merely unfortunate - Curtis E LeMay

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    3,857

    Default

    I though the USA spread the democraty absolutly free - to improve the world life.
    Couldnt help notice this. I'd like to know of any other nation who put so much of its own money into re-building Europe after ww2. The Marshall Plan cost a fortune. At the same time as the US was carrying out its aid plan the USSR was sucking the East of Europe dry in its attempt for revenge and war reparations.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    3,857

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pdf27 View Post
    To be exact, rationing got MORE severe in the UK after the end of the war. The country was bankrupt (the economy was severely damaged by WW1, and pretty much destroyed by WW2) and with the end of lend-lease could no longer afford to import enough food. It was nearly a decade before the economy had recovered enough to end rationing.

    Still, it could have been worse. I'm told that food rationing in Romania ended in 1990, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that other eastern bloc countries were the same.
    Although perversely. Rationing actually increased peoples health as they couldnt pop into Burger King and eat themselves in to a big fat coma [not that thewe was a BK then of course]. You hardly see any fatties in movies and photos from the late 40s early 50s.

    Maybe thats what we need today, some old fashoined rationing, thats keep the Doodlebugs away!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Russia, Moscow
    Posts
    1,855

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firefly View Post
    Couldnt help notice this. I'd like to know of any other nation who put so much of its own money into re-building Europe after ww2. The Marshall Plan cost a fortune.
    Do you mean that Marshall plan had purely altruistic aims?
    What were the conditions when a help was provided?

    At the same time as the US was carrying out its aid plan the USSR was sucking the East of Europe dry in its attempt for revenge and war reparations.
    Sucking what from what countries?
    Who payed the war reparations to USSR after 1945?

    Thanks in advance for the answers.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firefly View Post
    Although perversely. Rationing actually increased peoples health as they couldnt pop into Burger King and eat themselves in to a big fat coma [not that thewe was a BK then of course]. You hardly see any fatties in movies and photos from the late 40s early 50s.

    Maybe thats what we need today, some old fashoined rationing, thats keep the Doodlebugs away!
    It wasn't always better in the old days, e.g. London smogs in immediate post-war years.

    But the food and diets probably were better, despite all the modern science that assures us that everything we eat will give us cancer or, at the very least, incurable ingrown penile warts.

    As for the modern explosion of fatties, true, but fatties were scarce long before the rationing of WWII and the scarcities of the 1930's Depression, in all developed countries.

    Today's bloated American poor, and not so poor, with their gallon buckets of Coke and half gallon buckets of fries (and two gallon buckets of buttered popcorn - with 'butter' which doesn't have anything that came out of a cow in it - just to watch a movie) didn't exist even thirty to forty years ago.

    The rest of the developed world is going the same way, and so will the rest of the world in time.

    Partly we've got wrong ideas. Compare the chorus girls in a Busby Berkeley musical and the clothes models of the 1930's with today's. The sheilas in the past were fat, by today's anorexic standards. Which lot got it wrong? Which standard is nearer normal?

    Partly we've changed our food production and eating habits so that it's a lot easier to get fat.

    I don't remember when I had my first hamburger, but it was probably some time in the early 1970's when I was in my early twenties. From a fish and chip shop, that was diversifying.

    Sometimes as kids in the fifties and sixties we had take away deep fried fish and chips and sometimes Chinese take away that we got in saucepans we took to the shop before plastic containers were invented, after waxed paper containers that tainted the food were available. It was a real treat, maybe three or four times a year, at best.

    Some people had fish and chips every pay day, being Thursday or Friday, but it was still only a weekly treat.

    The rest of the time we had meat (often mutton, but the luxury of a lamb roast on Sundays in spring, a bit of beef from time to time, chicken on special occasions, a duck some special Christmases) and two or three veg, usually boiled. Roast chicken was actually a special occasion dish, not something you could grab at KFC any time you felt like it.

    Butter (no preservatives, GM canola oil, additives with three digit numbers, hydrolised vegetable protein etc etc) pretty much just churned milk cream from cows with a bit of salt.

    Bread. No 2XX preservatives and flour enhancers and all the other crap on the label.

    We just didn't have the high calorie, high fat, high sugar diets available then to reach today's bloated bodies that are now regarded as normal. Unless they're stick figure sheilas modelling crap that all the teenage girls want to look like.

    I'm rambling,

    It was post that or not post the last few minutes of considered thought above.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Egorka View Post
    Who payed the war reparations to USSR after 1945?
    German POW's, for a start, until the last were repatriated about 1956.

    Stalin took his reparations in flesh and labour, by agreement with the other Allies.

    Pretty much the same way he'd taken 'reparations' within the USSR, in the gulags for the lucky ones, for other things that upset him within the USSR before the war.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Egorka View Post
    Do you mean that Marshall plan had purely altruistic aims?
    No.

    Not purely.

    But unlike anything before, and largely since, it aimed to avoid the causes of war by economic reconstruction.

    It did a bloody sight more good than any other plan, before or since, has managed in any other wars.

    Given Germany's development and actions since then, it seems to have worked quite well.

    Maybe it's a pity that the USSR didn't get a Marshall plan.


    What were the conditions when a help was provided?
    How about we identify just one nation other than America which did anything every remotely similar?

    Russia's major immediate post-war activity was to ship industrial equipment from Germany to Russia, and impose a dark system on East Germany.

    Compare the post-war development of the two Germanies, and say which was the better under the sponsorship of the USSR and America.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,081

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firefly View Post
    Couldnt help notice this. I'd like to know of any other nation who put so much of its own money into re-building Europe after ww2. The Marshall Plan cost a fortune. At the same time as the US was carrying out its aid plan the USSR was sucking the East of Europe dry in its attempt for revenge and war reparations.
    Sucing the Eastern Europe?Do you think ONLY Britain could have its colonies
    Well mate we was needed of our "colonies" too.
    Or you think the ONLY british are the WHITE peoples

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •