How Soviet Russia Won World War II

If by "won" you mean "caused"

Published on May 23, 2005 By stutefish In World War II

SETTING: A bar.

CAST:
Bartender
Patrons
Lion

BARTENDER: What can I get you?

PATRON: Draft beer, please.

BARTENDER: Here you go.

PATRON pays, takes beer back to table.

BARTENDER: What can I get you?

LION: Actually, do you mind if I rampage in here a bit?

BARTENDER: I dunno... a rampaging lion isn't really what the bar scene is all about.

LION: I'll let you loot the bodies of any victims too maimed or dead to resist.

BARTENDER: Oh, well. In that case, be my guest.

LION goes on a rampage, maiming and killing many PATRONS.

PATRONS: Aah! The pain! The teeth! The agony! Save us, please!

BARTENDER stops wiping bar to pick the pocket of a horribly maimed PATRON.

LION: Okay, enough rampaging on the Patrons. Now it's your turn, Barkeep.

BARTENDER: It's BarTENDER, stupid cat.

LION: Whatever. Now comes the rampage!

BARTENDER produces shotgun, shoots LION dead.

PATRONS: Yay! You saved us! Thank you so much!

BARTENDER: Whatever. My shotgun says anybody I haven't looted yet needs to give me all their valuables right now.

THE END.

Comments (Page 2)

Dr Guy

on May 25, 2005

Roosevelt declared neutrality because Congress would not let him declare war. Shameful? Maybe. But understandable. While he waited for public opinion to come around, Roosevelt passed the time by committing a huge number of impeachable offenses in support of the British War effort. These acts of support kept Britain alive and gave hope to nations who saw the gradual approach of the U.S. towards belligerent status as an Ally.

Bingo!

You get another insightful!

Well done!

stutefish

on May 25, 2005

bigrickstallion,

America is a free country, full of private citizens. These citizens are human beings, expressing all the good and evil that is present in human beings. Am I shocked that some U.S. firms were doing business with the Nazis in 1933? No.

And please keep in mind that while rearming Germany was a bad idea, fascism didn't have the negative connotations it does today. Also, Germany was far from belligerent in 1933.

Furthermore, since there was no war on in 1933, and since the U.S. was therefore not at war in 1933, no treason was committed.

Hrm.

Let me simplify it for you:

1933.

Would you happen to have any examples of U.S. perfidy dating from, say, 1943? Or even 1939, the year that an allied Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia invaded Finland, Poland, Norway, and the Baltic States?

Please try to be serious, here. Germany invades Poland, gives half of it to Russia as blood payment for their cooperation, and the best you can come back with is some story about how six years earlier the family of some politician you don't like invested in a company that invested in a company that sold some soft coal to Germany--the year before Hitler became supreme overlord? Not very impressive, that.

bigrickstallion

on May 25, 2005

Germany invades Poland, gives half of it to Russia as blood payment for their cooperation, and the best you can come back with is some story about how six years earlier the family of some politician you don't like invested in a company that invested in a company that sold some soft coal to Germany--the year before Hitler became supreme overlord? Not very impressive, that.

Yeah fair point. I'll have to look into it a little further than that in order to support my case. The six years however is no biggy. The current Iraq occupation has been on the books for about 12 years.

jfp3

on May 26, 2005

I wonder why no one has mentioned "The Marshal Plan" vs. "The Iron Curtain"?

Or compared North Korea to South Korea.

Or why the Vietnamese hastened to their boats to leave in droves starting in '75, but no Indonesian, Phillipino, Malasian or Thailanders started flooding into the Ho Chi Min City to join the "Workers Paradise"

stutefish

on May 26, 2005

bigrickstallion, what, exactly, is your case?

It seems to me that you are looking for data to support a case that the U.S. participation in World War 2 was every bit as shameful as Soviet Russian participation in World War 2, and that both nations either deserve equal credit for winning the war, or else both nations deserve equal blame for causing the war.

You also seem to be somewhat impatient about moving from your case for Soviet/American moral equivalency during World War 2 to your case for showing that American action in Iraq today is equally as deserving of blame as American and Soviet Russian action during World War 2. I'm sure you have many interesting arguments lined up, but I think you may be getting ahead of yourself here.

You're welcome to present whatever evidence and cases you like in this discussion thread. Alternatively, if you'd like to write your own article, arguing these cases, I'd be happy to continue our conversation in the comments on that article.

bigrickstallion

on May 26, 2005

It seems to me that you are looking for data to support a case that the U.S. participation in World War 2 was every bit as shameful as Soviet Russian participation in World War 2, and that both nations either deserve equal credit for winning the war, or else both nations deserve equal blame for causing the war.

Yes thats pretty much it although somewhat exaggerated. I wouldn't go to the extreme of suggesting it was either the US or the USSR. Obviously Hitlers Germany was the primary instigator with their imperialistic plans for Europe and beyond. If you skoot back up to the comment i dropped in on you'll be reminded that it was this.

That anybody would praise the bartender for stopping the lion, or Russia for stopping Hitler, baffles and disgusts me.

My response to that was i didn;t understand how you could be baffled. I think it clearly follows from Russias war time efforts they had a major impact on the outcome of the war. In fact with a neutral or opposing Russia the war very well might have been lost. I then went onto to question if you're disgust was founded in anti-commie thought and then attempted (albeit teneously) to demonstrate that there were other parties with which you could be similiarly disgusted.

You also seem to be somewhat impatient about moving from your case for Soviet/American moral equivalency during World War 2 to your case for showing that American action in Iraq today is equally as deserving of blame as American and Soviet Russian action during World War 2.

This is completely false. Im not sure how you arrive at this point. All i said was that the current Iraq occupation has been 12 years in the planning. This was in response to your suggestion that 6 years was a significant period of time such that war couldn;t have possibly been on the books in 1933.

Also, Germany was far from belligerent in 1933

I have already posted a quote from a Commercial Attaché, U.S. Embassy in Berlin, Germany, January 1933. Simply because Germany did not have the capacity in 1933 to attack in 1933 does mean they had no intention of doing so once such capacity had been obtained.
Clearly they had the intention to rearm and rewar. My point was that given that this was obviously on the cards i find it just as disgusting that Western backed corporations helped her do it.

Far more disguting than the heroic efforts of a nation who surrenders millions of its people to the battlefield in order to ensure Allied victory. I also think you watered down the "this company sold to that company analogy". However as above i will have to concede that point for now until i have looked into it further.

The blurring of blog entry boundaries between something Iraq and something WWII however is your own doing. Something you needn;t bother trying to credit me with.

Dr Guy

on May 26, 2005

Far more disguting than the heroic efforts of a nation who surrenders millions of its people to the battlefield in order to ensure Allied victory. I also think you watered down the "this company sold to that company analogy". However as above i will have to concede that point for now until i have looked into it further.

No, there was no watering. It is history. The only noble country here is Poland. AMerica did not do as much as it could, but then back in the 30s and 40s, we were not the country of last resort. We did today, and we are vilified. How quickly those forget. How easily the Eropeans are to roll over and expose their tender bellies for peace. Maggots dont understand the concept, and they always devour the host.

kingbee

on May 26, 2005

Yeah fair point. I'll have to look into it a little further than that in order to support my case

you need only look at the entire document from which your quote was excerpted.

for example:

"When war broke out was Prescott Bush stricken with a case of Waldheimers disease, a sudden amnesia about his Nazi past? Or did he really believe that our friendly Dutch allies owned the Union Banking Corporation and its parent bank in Rotterdam? It should be recalled that in January 1937, he hired Allen Dulles to "cloak" his accounts. But cloak from whom? Did he expect that happy little Holland was going to declare war on America? The cloaking operation only makes sense in anticipation of a possible war with Nazi Germany. If Union Bank was not the conduit for laundering the Rockefeller's Nazi investments back to America, then how could the Rockefeller-controlled Chase Manhattan Bank end up owning 31% of the Thyssen group after the war?

It should be noted that the Thyssen group (TBG) is now the largest industrial conglomerate in Germany, and with a net worth of more than $50 billion dollars, one of the wealthiest corporations in the world. TBG is so rich it even bought out the Krupp family, famous arms makers for Hitler, leaving the Thyssens as the undisputed champion survivors of the Third Reich. Where did the Thyssens get the start-up money to rebuild their empire with such speed after World War II?

The enormous sums of money deposited into the Union Bank prior to 1942 is the best evidence that Prescott Bush knowingly served as a money launderer for the Nazis. Remember that Union Banks' books and accounts were frozen by the U.S. Alien Property Custodian in 1942 and not released back to the Bush family until 1951. At that time, Union Bank shares representing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of industrial stocks and bonds were unblocked for distribution. Did the Bush family really believe that such enormous sums came from Dutch enterprises? One could sell tulip bulbs and wooden shoes for centuries and not achieve those sums. A fortune this size could only have come from the Thyssen profits made from rearming the Third Reich, and then hidden, first from the Nazi tax auditors, and then from the Allies.

The Bushes knew perfectly well that Brown Brothers was the American money channel into Nazi Germany, and that Union Bank was the secret pipeline to bring the Nazi money back to America from Holland. The Bushes had to have known how the secret money circuit worked because they were on the board of directors in both directions: Brown Brothers out, Union Bank in.

Moreover, the size of their compensation is commensurate with their risk as Nazi money launderers. In 1951, Prescott Bush and his father in law each received one share of Union Bank stock, worth $750,000 each. One and a half million dollars was a lot of money in 1951. But then, from the Thyssen point of view, buying the Bushes was the best bargain of the war."

link

bigrickstallion

on May 26, 2005

you need only look at the entire document from which your quote was excerpted

Ahah, very good. I lost the link and then for whatever reason couldn;t find it. Im sure ive posted it elsewhere in this blog or someone elses? Anyway thanks.

bigrickstallion

on May 26, 2005

we were not the country of last resort. We did today, and we are vilified

Yes but today you're not the country of last resort but instead the imperialist. And if you think im from Europe then you're mistaken.

Dr Guy

on May 26, 2005

Yes but today you're not the country of last resort but instead the imperialist. And if you think im from Europe then you're mistaken.

That is your Bush hatred. We did today what we should have 60 years ago. By your own words.

Different time, different president. Same results. and you vilify him.

You are the Grima.

bigrickstallion

on May 27, 2005

We did today what we should have 60 years ago.

Anyone comparing the Iraq of today to the Germany of the 1940's is a total Noddy which in this case Dr Guy is you. Keep trying though. We appreciate you have real world issues and will make the appropriate allowances.

Dr Guy

on May 27, 2005

Anyone comparing the Iraq of today to the Germany of the 1940's is a total Noddy which in this case Dr Guy is you. Keep trying though.

Whatever a noddy is, remember the 3 fingers. And I would suggest you read up more on the Germany of 1930, and the Iraq of 1990. The Parallels are very compelling, and the rhetoric almost the same.

stutefish

on May 31, 2005

Whatever, rick.

Let's start over, shall we?

Here's my thesis: The Soviet Union, under Stalin, allied with Nazi Germany, enabling and empowering Hitler to perpetrate his crimes against humanity. Not only that, but Stalin even supported Hitler's offensives with offensives of his own, notably against Finland and Poland. I'll go ahead and repeat that: the Soviet Union, as a matter of government policy, invaded Finland and Poland and killed a great many people, in direct support of Hitler's war effort.

When Hitler betrayed Stalin and invaded Russia, no one can deny that the Russian people fought heroically and to great effect in defense of their motherland. Nor can anyone deny that their brave sacrifices were a significant factor in turning the tide of the war. What I do deny, however, is that the Soviet leadership, and especially Stalin, deserve any credit for helping to win the war.

Let's say Tony Soprano and Johnny Sack agree to split New Jersey between their two families. Let's further say that Johnny Sack breaks the agreement, betrays Tony Soprano, and tries to take over his territory. Tony is finally forced to whack Johnny, in order to restore peace and rebuild his mob empire. Does the FBI give Tony credit for fighting crime? Do we say to each other, "well, Tony did sacrifice a lot of his best earners, fighting that turf war, so let's give him a medal"?

Let's see where we stand on the whole Soviet Russia thing first, before we move on to whether or not the U.S. deserves any credit for winning the war.

LeftBehind4Ever

on Sep 26, 2007

Couldn't agree more with you.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!