Stop the America-bashing!

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by jasev

BTW, during the cold war I rode a story in the Reader's Digest

I think you mean "read", same spelling in past tenses as in the present tense, just pronounced differently - "reed" present vs "red" past).

Rode is the past tense of ride. As in riding a horse.

[Serb]

Originally posted by jasev
NOTE: I'll talk about the allies (USA, UK) and about the russians sepparatly, trying to be clearer.

I see. So... Germany surrenders 7th may. This means that "After victory" means 4 means after... curious. I know that Russia is big to cross, but...

First of all, war was declared after less then 3 months. There nothing curious in that, I don’t think that someone was possible to move such huge army from Germany to Japan, and make all preparations within shorter period. For example Allies (as you are I mean USA and GB as Allies) make preparation during 3 years before they started invasion in Normandy. I think 3 years more curios period then 3 months.

No oil. Destroyed industrial capacity. No more ships. Almost no planes. And that was BEFORE the A-bombs. Japanese might have fought for the last man, but they were defeated and everybody knew it.

Then tell why at this case Truman dropped the bombs?

If the CCCP continued fighting to achieve territorial conquests, it was not because of the japanese courage but Stalin's refusal to stop the fight. Maybe he wanted to have his flag over the Imperial Palace just like in Berlin.

Who knows? But Russians has had to many “questions” to Japan. They (Japanese) took some of our territory after their intervention during Russian civil war, and Stalin wanted those lands back and actually he tacked them back.

BTW, during the cold war I rode a story in the Reader's Digest (I don't know if it was true or just american propaganda) talking about japanese efforts to achieve peace before knowing about the A-bomb; they contacted with Stalin (still neutral) to ask the allies for the peace terms. But when Stalin knew about the american intentions to throw the bomb, the contacts stopped; and soon after the bombs were dropped, he declared the war to Japan. I'll look for the book, it was really interesting.

Do you see any logic in that?
It was just American propaganda. Everybody knows that fact that Truman informed Stalin that bombs were dropped. And I wish to repeat that SU had to declare war vs Japan because it was part of agreement between SU, USA and GB.

Well, I don't know why should I be grateful, my country was not at war. The war in Spain stopped on 1939.

Do you know about that fact that many soviet soldiers were killed at this war fighting against regime of general Franco? We fought on your side at 1936-1939. How about little gratitude for that?

[Dry]

Originally posted by Serb
The frontier between our countries was too close to Russian’s “Northern capital”- Leningrad; it was so close that Finns long-range artillery was able to reach Leningrad. Stalin seriously thought that Hitler might use Finland as bridgehead for attack on Soviet Union, and future events shows that Stalin was absolutely right.

Sorry man, but no, no. No.
This Stalin speach is the speach of a paranoiac leader.
The so-called need to take pre-emptive action for some imaginary threat is pure paranoia.
And the a posteriori excuse of "and the future showed us that it was right" is just plain bulls###.
If I go in the street and grab some man, hold him fast, gag him and if someone ask me "why do you do that?", and my answer is "because he was about to hit me, and call his friends to help him in his evil deeds". If the people say that I am just a paranoiac, they will be right.
And if afterward, the guy I am holding fast tries to escape, call for help, and in his attempt to escape he hits me, in my paranoiac logic, I will say "Hey, look, I was right, he tried to hit me with the help of his friends, it was my right to take pre-emptive action for my own security". Will you say that I was right?

This logic is unfortunately a too common logic that you will find today. Look at almost all hot points in the world of today and you will find paranoiac leaders, taking some kind of "pre-emptive action" and justifying them by "what happen now show that we were right".

I can perfectly well imagine the Finnish government of that time, concerned by they big neighbour and its unpredictable leader, that *they*, rightfully, take some pre-emptive action like conclude an alliance/mpp with another "powerfull" country - even with the devil if their survivance is in the balance.

When SU say that they are threaten by a small country like Finland, sorry, but it sound as laughable as when USA are say they are threaten by a cigar-maker.
Understand me well: I am NOT saying that Finland (Cuba) did not became a thread, I am saying that Finland just as Cuba *had* (were forced) to conclude an alliance with the devil, because *they* had more to fear from their big neighbors.

I am really sorry, but I do not see 1 reason for a small country all alone to threaten a big one.
When the ratio is big, the small country fights for its life, the big one fight for not being spit at.

Imagine:
Luxembourg poker-game toward France:
- Give me this-or-that or I allow China to install guns on my territory to bombard Metz.
France:
- Oh, this is a real potential threat for my population, so I will take pre-emptive action by invading/blocading Luxembourg.
Uhh?
And you ask me to believe that? To say that Luxembourg is a threat to France? I will much more believe that *if* Luxembourg ask the help of China, it is because *France* threat Luxembourg.

Great Finn conspiration against poor peacefull Ivan:
- First, let's build an unbreakable fortress
- then, let's call Hans and propose him to spit at Ivan
- great fun here and if Ivan gets angry, no problem, we are behind wall.
- We have really a great plan
Jezus, those Finns are really pure evil. And Father Stalin was right!!

Sorry Serb, but no, no, no.

[Ironikinit]

The nuclear missles that were in Cuba were a poor defense, given that it would've got everybody killed. Nearly did, too.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Dry


Sorry man, but no, no. No.
This Stalin speach is the speach of a paranoiac leader.
The so-called need to take pre-emptive action for some imaginary threat is pure paranoia.

Well in that case you should think that president Kennedy was the “paranoiac leader” too. He did the same thing during Caribbean crisis.
But I think that actions of Kennedy was actions of strategist but not actions of “paranoiac leader”.

If I go in the street and grab some man, hold him fast, gag him and if someone ask me "why do you do that?", and my answer is "because he was about to hit me, and call his friends to help him in his evil deeds". If the people say that I am just a paranoiac, they will be right.

Of course their will be right, it’s actions of madman, no doubt. You know why? Because you know nothing about that man who you wanted to grab. If you was absolutely sure that this man is danger for you then your actions will be different.
If you prefer so poetic examples, so I can get another one. Imagine: you are walking at night time in very dangerous district. You see a man who started to taking out his gun, you see also friends of this man who standing behind this man and saying to him what he have to do. First of all you tried to make an agreement with this man, you offer him money for his gun, but he rejected your offer. What will you do if you see that his next move will be to shoot in your head? Surrender? Try to run away? I think the actions of real man will be to punch or kick your opponent, real man will try to defend yourself, he will not be standing in waiting before it will be late.

This logic is unfortunately a too common logic that you will find today. Look at almost all hot points in the world of today and you will find paranoiac leaders, taking some kind of "pre-emptive action" and justifying them by "what happen now show that we were right".

Sorry, I don’t see your point. Are you talking about NATO’s aggression against Yugoslavia? This actions has absolutely different reasons, I can explain it as I see it, if you wish.

I can perfectly well imagine the Finnish government of that time, concerned by they big neighbour and its unpredictable leader, that *they*, rightfully, take some pre-emptive action like conclude an alliance/mpp with another "powerfull" country - even with the devil if their survivance is in the balance.

You’ll never convince me that agreement with Devil is right.

When SU say that they are threaten by a small country like Finland, sorry, but it sound as laughable as when USA are say they are threaten by a cigar-maker.
I am really sorry, but I do not see 1 reason for a small country all alone to threaten a big one.

Agreed. Small country trying to threaten the big one at less is silly. But I’ve never said that Soviet Union was threaten by Finland. I’ve said that Stalin thought that Hitler may use Finland as bridgehead for attack on Soviet Union. And actually Hitler did it! Hitler threat us in Finland just like soviets threaten USA in Cuba.

Imagine:
Luxembourg poker-game toward France:
- Give me this-or-that or I allow China to install guns on my territory to bombard Metz.
France:
- Oh, this is a real potential threat for my population, so I will take pre-emptive action by invading/blocading Luxembourg.
Uhh?

I think at this case France will make serious pre-emptive actions.

And you ask me to believe that? To say that Luxembourg is a threat to France? I will much more believe that *if* Luxembourg ask the help of China, it is because *France* threat Luxembourg

Give my 1 reason for occupaton of Finland. Do you know that GB almost declared war against SU because of the events in Finland? Tell me why you think that Stalin wanted to occupy Finland?

Great Finn conspiration against poor peacefull Ivan:
- First, let's build an unbreakable fortress
- then, let's call Hans and propose him to spit at Ivan
- great fun here and if Ivan gets angry, no problem, we are behind wall.
- We have really a great plan
Jezus, those Finns are really pure evil. And Father Stalin was right!!

I’ve never said that we were peaceful or that Finn’s were evil. Actually I respect Finn’s bravery, but respect bravery of our soldiers too. This war was the prologue before the major war, war with Hitler’s Germany. And you misplaced few lines in your thread. It should be:
-The Han comes who proposed to destroy Ivan
-He order to build an unbreakable fortress, and friends of this Han helped to build this fortress.
-But Ivan saw the conspiracy and destroyed this fortress before it was too late for him.

P.S. You can call Stalin a paranoiac leader, you can call him a madman, you can call him anyhow. I am not fan of this bustard. My grand grandfather- colonel of Red army, and his wife- my grand grandmother were killed during Stalin’s purges. But thinking that Stalin was not politician is big mistake.
P.S.S. All I wanted to said in my previous post is that “fiasco” is not the proper word for description of results of this war for Soviet union.

[jasev]

Originally posted by Serb
Then tell why at this case Truman dropped the bombs?

Don't laugh at me, you know it perfectly: it was cheaper. Japan was already defeated (and the allies would have won the war anyway), but launching bombs saved a lot of american (and russian) lives. Actually, the japanese lives weren't important.

actually he tacked them back.

Hey, Dolphin! I'm not the only one who has problems with irregular verbs!
take --- took --- taken

Do you see any logic in that?
It was just American propaganda. Everybody knows that fact that Truman informed Stalin that bombs were dropped. And I wish to repeat that SU had to declare war vs Japan because it was part of agreement between SU, USA and GB.

Actually, I see a lot of logic. But as I wrote, I don't know if it was true or false. Just a theory. I'll look for the book anyway.

Do you know about that fact that many soviet soldiers were killed at this war fighting against regime of general Franco?

Of course. By the way, my grandfathers were officers of Franco's army.

We fought on your side at 1936-1939. How about little gratitude for that?

Of course, a lot of gratitude for that. Really. The SU was the only country that helped the spanish democracy to fight against fascism, while british and french ignored us. But that's not the subject.

The subject is that you wrote:

Well, in this case I’m gone surprise you; Soviet Union declares war on Japan before the bombs were dropped. As you might know bombs were dropped at August 6 and August 9. Never ask yourself why in this case Japan surrender in September than?

I already answered that on my last post.

Red army took big part in defeat of Japan

And I can't believe you're talking seriously.

[Deathwalker]

The bombs were not dropped to save lives. The were dropped for two reasons. Scare the Russians and make is easier to deal with over Euprope. And the other was to make sure that Japan. Who already wanted to surrender, would do so with out any condisions

[Dry]

Originally posted by Serb
Well in that case you should think that president Kennedy was the “paranoiac leader” too. He did the same thing during Caribbean crisis.

No, once again, you start the story too late. The story of Cuba start when Castro threw away the Westerns from the island. At that time - sorry, I am no US president specialist - the US president went crazy angry of being kicked out from some slave country, and to legimimate the actions against it, they showed Castro as pure evil (he was a commy!!).
Castro, whose first goal was independence of the isle -communism was only a tool, not a goal -, could not get help from any democratic country, so he turned to the only competitors of the US: the Soviets.
By stupidly scaring/blocading Castro, the US pushed him in the arms of the Soviets.
At the beginning, I think there was only a "US go home" will, as it happened most western europe. US were just 'bad losers' in that land. The more they bugged him, the more he get close to Moscow. I deeply think that Catro is a US creation... more by stupidity and stubborness than by some 'Great Satanic US Evilness'.
At the time of the crisis, things were already too late.

You see a man who started to taking out his gun, you see also friends of this man who standing behind this man and saying to him what he have to do.

I am not speaking of 1 man vs 1 man - like France against Germany, WW1 - I am speaking about 1 single man against 20. I am speaking about a man drawing with shaking hands a plastic butter knife against a gang of 15 men. Yes, he drew first, so the 15 are in self-defense, well, that's a point of view.

Sorry, I don’t see your point. Are you talking about NATO’s aggression against Yugoslavia?

I was more speaking about Sharon. Remember, I am not speaking about people, I am speaking about leaders!!

You’ll never convince me that agreement with Devil is right.

I was trying to quote Churchill:

extract of http://rwebs.net/dispatch/output.asp?ArticleID=56
In the early morning hours of June 22, 1941, German forces invaded the Soviet Union, and suddenly, Churchill and other Allied leaders found themselves with a new ally against
Hitler – Communist dictator Joseph Stalin. The night before, with intelligence reports forecasting the German move against Russia, Churchill was asked by his personal secretary how he would reply to the attack in Parliament, should it come. The Prime Minister, an arch anti-Communist and longtime opponent of Stalin, calmly replied "I have only one purpose, the destruction of Hitler, and my life is much simplified thereby. If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons."

I’ve said that Stalin thought that Hitler may use Finland as bridgehead for attack on Soviet Union.

And I ask myself "why the Finns/Cubans/Belgians allowed the German/Soviets/Allied to do that, if it is not because they felt threaten?" You said it is not because "they were evil". Why then?

Tell me why you think that Stalin wanted to occupy Finland?

Either because, as you said, it was part of SU before, or (my theory) as many countries in this time, he thought he needed some buffer land between him and his ennemies, something that in the middle age was called a 'march'.

P.S. You can call Stalin a paranoiac leader, you can call him a madman, you can call him anyhow. I am not fan of this bustard. My grandfather- colonel of Red army, and his wife- my grandmother were killed during Stalin’s purges. But thinking that Stalin was not strategist is big mistake.

No, I don't agree. he was a great politician. And unlike Hitler, he was smart enough to stay behind, and let Zhukov lead, when the things went really bad. Zhukov saved the ass of Moscow, not Stalin.

P.S.S. All I wanted to said in my previous post is that “fiasco” is not the proper word for description of results of this war for Soviet union.

Beside the fact that I don't agree on that point - but that's democracy: we disagree, but remain friendly -, my point was that in the case of Finland, I just don't believe in the righteous self-defense theory.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by jasev
Hey, Dolphin! I'm not the only one who has problems with irregular verbs!
take --- took --- taken

Reading Serb's text with a Russian accent makes it understandable.

I though its worth pointing out a single point of refinement on one error that you may find useful. Ironically, if you had made several grammar errors I would have let it go.

[datakodin]

Originally posted by Serb
Privet zemliak.

I tebe zdorovo Ya sam rodom iz Sibiri

Really, take it easy. When they say something like Stop your co-operation with Iran or send their spies in our cities - this shoud be unacceptable for you, me and all of us. But when anybody is trying to re-write world history, just wish him/her good luck. May be he/she will win the idiot of the year title

Regards.

[Dry]

Ok, yesterday evening I checked in my history dictionnary (*) and here is what I found.
What you said Serb about the SU position, the dictionnary confirm it at 80%. SU was indeed concerned by the possibility for the Germans to attack through Finland, but - and here are the 20% that confused me - not, because of some Finn free collaboration, but because of their supposed unability to maintain their neutrality against German pressions. And *indeed*, after they had been attacked by the SU, it was easy for the Germans to ask for a right of passage. How could Finland refuse that to someone promissing them to get their territory back?
Finns *refused* to go further when they got back their territory in 41. Not one Finn shot a single bullet against Leningrad!!! The only Russian territory they took, was some seemingly contested Carelian territory just as contested territories exists all over the world.

So indeed, SU proposed, not even to buy territory, but to rent some for 30 years or to exchange some others. It may looks like a nice proposal, coming from a nice guy, but...

About the Finn position.
The problem was that Finland got independence from Russia (or SU most probably... don't know) in 1918... just like the baltic states, and that the territories asked by the SU were
- small islands in the gulf of Finland to allow SU ships to sail out. No big deal, could be agreed
- land access to Petsamo and the nickel mines, strategic for SU, including against a potential naval blocade from GB. Could be agreed.
- 70 km band in east-Carelie, nearing the SU border from the Finn city of Viborg.
This last one, from SU vision was - maybe - indeed to get some room for Leningrad, but at the Finn eyes, it was at the expense of room for Viborg. And the Finns saw what happened to the baltic states. They didn't want it to happen to Finland. In their mind, this nearing of the border, was only to facilitate SU taking back of Finland. They were indeed fighting for their independence, not for the Germans.

(*) Serb, as I know, you like to know "What kind of historian said that?", I just want to say it is a french Larousse WW2 historical dictionnary. Larousse has a good reputation of objectiveness. He always try to present both versions of a fact. Just some say the owners of the company have right tendencies and you may feel it. So, being french, he may sometimes have pro-russians tendencies, being owned by right thinking persons, he may sometimes have on some anti-soviets tendencies.

[Arrian]

A couple of quick thoughts:

I think we all should keep in mind that just about every action taken by either the USA or USSR during the cold war must be viewed through the prism of the cold war. In other words, both countries were attempting to best the other, not in direct battle, but through proxies. Cuba is an example of a country used by the USSR as a check against the USA (just imagine if we had managed to get say.... Finland to install Minuteman missles pointed at Moscow).

As for how Cuba and the USA became estranged... it all goes back to the fall of Batista (not a real nice guy, if memory serves, but pro-American, particularly American business) and rise of Castro. I agree that Castro turned to the USSR in order to protect himself from the USA... without Soviet protection, it is entirely possible that we would have just launched a full invastion of Cuba.

Afganistan (during the 1980s) is a perfect example of a proxy for the USA. Afganistan did not ask for our assistance because they really wanted to become a satelitte state, but because they were being invaded by the Red Army, and were willing to do just about anything to get money and weapons...and my government was all too happy to give the USSR a bloody nose.

Dry - GREAT Churchill quote. I remember that one.

Serb - Sorry, but I think your claim that the Red Army played a "major" role in Japan's defeat in WWII is an exaggeration. There were really two countries who played major roles: the U.S. and China. Honorary mention to the Brits, for the battles in Burma.

Further, why is it hard to believe that Stalin attacked Finland to create a buffer zone? The alliance between Stalin and Hitler, which resulted in the conquest and division of Poland, had its roots in Stalin's desire to acquire land to his west as a buffer. After WWII, Eastern Europe (those countries behind the "iron curtain" as Churchill put it) were buffer states vs. Nato. The one country that attempted to remove itself from that role (Hungary) found out what Red Army Tanks look like up close. I'd say Stalin had a thing for buffer zones.

Peace, y'all

-Arrian

[TacticalGrace]

Why is everyone using SU as an abbreviation for the Soviet Union when there is a perfectly good and official abbreviation...

USSR

... or CCCP if you are that way inclined.

[Dry]

Originally posted by TacticalGrace
Why is everyone using SU as an abbreviation for the Soviet Union when there is a perfectly good and official abbreviation...

USSR

... or CCCP if you are that way inclined.

SU: 2 letters
USSR: 4 letters

both uppercase. I hate to "hold the SHIFT key", so the fewest, the best.

[Rosacrux]

Just a couple of thoughts on the - quite interesting - subject of this thread (not the original subject but the way the discussion has twisted):

- You can call Stalin paranoid (probably he was) dictator (he was) homicidal maniac (for sure) but he most certainly was a great politician. NOT a great strategist, though: His strategical moves were flawed to the point of suicide. He was an amateur military commander and as such at best he was inadequate.

- The drop of the A-bombs served a range of purposes. Some of them: Scare off Stalin ("look, we got the bomb! Don't advance beyond the Yalta agreement borders or you'll taste it yourself") save time/money/lives that would take to actually conquer Japan, not to have to "share" Japan and it's colonies with USSR, the impact on the world opinion ("we got the A-bomb, we are strong, we are here to guarantee the peace worldwide") and a number of others. Any attempt to leave one of those purposes out, condemns the analysis of Truman's true motivations and renders it inadequate.

- Finnland. A small country, with some bonds between their population and the Germans (they and Norvegian and Dutch and also the Croatians the Khazaks and the people of the Baltic states were at most "pro German" historically) and a huge, very strong country (USSR) at it's borders. It's silly to think that they wouldn't turn for help to the Germans, since Brits and Franks turned their heads and whistled when they were asked to help during the first invasion by USSR.

- Cuba. Well, despite what is thought generally, Cuba would be at great terms with USA if the American corporations that lost money when Castro nationalized everything, didn't push the administration to take drastic measures "against the commies".
Despite the rhetoric, Castro's movement was preliminary nationalistic (and then communist) so USA could make Cuba a valuable ally. Instead, it enemized it from day 1 till now. Stupid corporate international politics.