Scooby Doo
Well-known member
Found the 2023 Cocksucker champion for the Biden Administration.
He gives the big suk
He gives the big suk
United States Biden administration policies and actions - megathread
- Thread starter Tyzuris
- Start date
All True - BUT,FDR AND TRUMAN GAVE US TO SOVIET FOR NOTHING.When they should bomb soviets to stone age in interest of USA and remain as only world power.
Instead,they decide to made soviets other world power,which later almost destroyed USA.
SO,IT IS NOT OBSESSION - BUT FACTS.DEMOCRATS DID IT ALREADY TWICE,SO WHY NOT DO THAT AGAIN ?
P.S do not ask why Democrats helped soviets become another superpower when they could easily destroy them.All we knew is they did so.
Blasterbot
Well-known member
presumably because they liked their style of government and thought they could ally with them. stuff like the Holodomor and the Gulag wasn't widely spread and they liked the idea of a highly centralized control style economy. FDR was willing to ally with and prop up the soviets for the war and the only reason they did not fall is because of how much material we sent them. seriously look at the lend lease we did there. not sure about Truman admittedly as he is too old for my dad to ever mention but wasn't really in the school books.
5 time as much as Manchattan Project.Soviets win on USA trucks and trains using american ammo.
And USA could get entire world for them - but no,they must gave half to genocidal morons who wanted them dead.
I am not even mad about Poland fate,but how USA could gave up power over entire world for nothing.
Blasterbot
Well-known member
because for all everyone whines about it the US really didn't want to be an empire. Most americans don't want to be an empire. we got nominated to head of the free world by default since we didn't get ravaged by the world wars. We are the hegemon by default because we outlasted the USSR and couldn't afford to lose to them. we set up our "empire" by saying trade with us dammit or we will fuck you over economically, and occasionally having the CIA do bond villain plots to overthrow governments to lets just say mixed results. which was a weird way to go about it but arguably the Vassals are happier. even if they are stronger and also constantly trying to backstab us while getting free shit from us.
Still do not reason to help soviets.Why help them at all? becouse they would made peace with Hitler? they tried it till 1943,Hitler always refused.
So,let them bleed with little help,and bomb germans to notching with B.29 and later B.35.Even without A bombs it would still worked.
And,if you want Empire - just help brits keep theirs.And France,too.
Scooby Doo
Well-known member
I don't think the US wants to rule the world its politicians want to set up a Global World order and live like it's a Monarchy so slavery with extra steps so they can live like royalty.
Blasterbot
Well-known member
you were asking why we gave up the whole world and did not try and press the USSR right after WW2? that is why. americans in general do not want empire. you want why we temp allied with them and gave them so much support? because as long as we did they fed bodies into the meat grinder that was the eastern front for germany. it was a similar if significantly worse situation to why many insist we fight to the last Ukrainian. after WW2 none of europe was in a situation to hold onto their colonies. Brits gave theirs up willingly and had a lot less bloodshed. France tried to hold on for longer and we got Vietnam. we tried to help france hold on there. did not work and they gave up before we did.
What fightiong? ask soviets to go from Poland and other countries,when they refuse start dropping A bombs on them.
First target - Baku refineries.
If they attack in germany - retreat there massacring them from air.
After 3-4 months soviets take germany and are out of oil,when USA is destroing one city per month.
Europe would be destroyed? so what? goal was take down soviets,not save Poland.
Blasterbot
Well-known member
yeah see the goal at the time wasn't that. the goal at the time was rebuild europe. Patton wanted to. other generals wanted to. some hawkish types and people who understood what Communism would lead to wanted to. The gulags were not well known. the Holodomor was not well known. most were tired and done with war. you are talking as someone from a country that suffered under soviet occupation and as their vassal with more than half a century of hindsight. that we could have won had we pressed them then is likely correct. it would have completely reshaped the history of the world and required a very different civilian leadership stateside. one unlikely to maintain support for long if they pressed then.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
A-bombs might have been enough to let the Western Allies win against the USSR but it would not have been easy. Nazi Germany had just finished proving the ability of fanatical totalitarian states to fight till the bitter end and in 1945 the United States would much rather pack up and go home than do it all over again with Stalinist Russia. And it's not like Stalin would just sit there and let the allies bomb him into oblivion without using the fuckhuge army at his disposal. You say he would run out of supplies but not before he did incalculable damage.
What did Truman get in return for not fighting Russia? He got to not fight the second part of WWII. What do I mean by second part? I mean 1939-1945 would be remembered as the first part if the Western Allies had chosen differently. You could break it up into more parts but you get what I mean. This wasn't the USA walking away from a freebie.
It's pretty incredible that this is supposed to be a serious question. The US gave aid to the USSR because it was deemed the most effective way to bleed the Nazi war machine. Even if they were wrong, that was the reasoning. But if you want to argue that strategic bombing was more effective at doing that job than the Red Army, I really have to question what evidence you are looking at. Certainly a lot more lives were lost in the Red Army, but if your metric is American lives lost then it's infinitely better than USAAF strategic bombing.
if we wanted that we probably would not have voluntarily let the Philippines go.
Sergeant Foley
Well-known member
Looks like the US Supreme Court will be hearing cases over student loan debt forgiveness plan pushed by the Biden administration.
1.Soviets,not russians.REAL RUSSIANS WAS FIGHTING FOR HITLER.A-bombs might have been enough to let the Western Allies win against the USSR but it would not have been easy. Nazi Germany had just finished proving the ability of fanatical totalitarian states to fight till the bitter end and in 1945 the United States would much rather pack up and go home than do it all over again with Stalinist Russia. And it's not like Stalin would just sit there and let the allies bomb him into oblivion without using the fuckhuge army at his disposal. You say he would run out of supplies but not before he did incalculable damage.
What did Truman get in return for not fighting Russia? He got to not fight the second part of WWII. What do I mean by second part? I mean 1939-1945 would be remembered as the first part if the Western Allies had chosen differently. You could break it up into more parts but you get what I mean. This wasn't the USA walking away from a freebie.
It's pretty incredible that this is supposed to be a serious question. The US gave aid to the USSR because it was deemed the most effective way to bleed the Nazi war machine. Even if they were wrong, that was the reasoning. But if you want to argue that strategic bombing was more effective at doing that job than the Red Army, I really have to question what evidence you are looking at. Certainly a lot more lives were lost in the Red Army, but if your metric is American lives lost then it's infinitely better than USAAF strategic bombing.
And,they were slaves,not fanatical troops.Kill their handlers from NKWD from air,and average unit would surrender.
And even if tey fought only till fuel end.And those damage? done to occupied Germany,becouse american army would widraw from one river to another.
Why Truman should care about hisgerman enemies,if he do not cared about poles who was his allies?
2.Sight.SOVIETS,NOT RUSSIANS.And they would keep germans anyway,becouse they have no other choice - Hitler do not agree to peace proposals.So,50% of germans or more would be still tied there.
3.Bullshit.Soviets bleed them anyway.But,without Lend-Lease they could not advance.
4.Then why gave Poland to soviet empire? we were your allies.
Scooby Doo
Well-known member
Nazis are bad
Germans.Nazis are german try for hide from responsobility.It worked,as your case showed.
Scooby Doo
Well-known member
Blasterbot
Well-known member
yes yes. good boy. nazis bad. this is in no way controversial.
Scooby Doo
Well-known member
9/11
To be precise - germans did it in two stages:
1.1956 - replace germans camps with nazi camps
2.After 1970 - replace nazi camps with polish camps.
Hence why average victim of puplic school who remember about WW2 think,that Holocaust was made by bad poles.