Posted on 03/05/2019 6:36:59 PM PST by Rummyfan
Some would say…it’s not nice to celebrate the death of someone. They say that…in that person’s own way, they were just doing the best they could to get through the shit-show that is adulthood and life. Those people who’d say that…when speaking of Joseph Stalin, can go f*** themselves with a chainsaw. Joseph Stalin will always be remembered, at least by people that read books and shit, as one of the worst people to ever live and one of the most murderous pieces of shit in the 21st century. Mao beat him out. It’s like the worst people always seem to flock to Communism…hmm what a trend.
On this day in 1953, that mustachioed tyrant died. And we’re going to celebrate. As should you. Because f*** Stalin and f*** Communism. If you’re curious as to why we’re so happy about this day, it’s because that walking, talking shithead killed anywhere between ten and twenty million of his own people…because you know Communism is totes for the people. What a f***in’ Utopia!
(Excerpt) Read more at americangrit.com ...
No, he didn’t “take the allies side in wwii” - he took Hitler’s side while Germany and Italy invaded France, and Germany bombed Britain. AFTER the Axis invaded the USSR (half a year before Pearl Harbor and our entry into the war) he took Allied aid, and for four years fought on the Eastern Front while observing a cease-fire with Japan until the final months of the war.
When you see footage of war in the Pacific, understand the only reasons those Japanese are killing Americans (and others) is that Stalin “got their back”. AS the war wound down, he invaded Manchuria and set the stage for the fall of China and the subsequent Korean and Vietnam wars.
He saved nobody; he enslaved the Poles the Brits and France had gone to war to protect.
Without the Soviets in the war, the Germans could have manned the West Wall with 100 divisions. How do you think he Normandy invasion would have played out under those circumstances. We paid the price of victory in Europe with treasure and machines. The Soviets paid the price in blood.
Don’t know this for a fact, but supposedly 9 out of 10 German soldiers were killed by Soviet soldiers.
The German losses in the Battle of Britain weren’t that traumatic; they just made invasion impractical. They still had air power in Africa, France, and the USSR for years. They had plenty of planes and pilots, but they were planes designed for war on the European continent - few long-range planes, few heavy bombers. Once the USSR moved its manufacturing east of the Urals, Germany had no way to stop the production that eventually overwhelmed them in the USSR.
What destroyed their ability to defend their cities from Allied bombers was the later ability of American fighters to fly all the way to the targets (using newer planes with drop tanks and such). Until we did that, they were inflicting heavy casualties on our bombers.
I seriously doubt the 90% losses in the USSR for a few reasons: The figure given for staffing difference was one soldier in the west for every four in Russia, the war in Russia started later than other theaters (France, North Africa, Balkans), and a year before Normandy the Germans were responsible for defending Italy itself (and did so until the end of the war). Also, plenty of Ukrainians joined the war against Stalin, so those “Soviet” losses shouldn’t be tallied in the same manner.
The Soviets paid the price in blood fighting a former ally they helped arm, and who cooperated with them in the division of Eastern Europe early in the war (invading Poland and the Baltic states from the east). There was nothing praiseworthy in them having to defend themselves against a monster they helped create; before hostilities they helped the Germans develop weapons and train pilots to evade the eyes of Versailles Treaty inspectors (that is why some of their plane designs were similar).
Germany was a continental powerhouse with no global war capabilities; regardless of the eastern Front, they had no way of defeating the Allies. Britain had an empire to bring to bear against them, and they couldn’t harm US interests in any meaningful way.
The Russians paid the price in blood. Of the 42 million or more deaths from WWII, Russians absorbed the lion’s share as cannon fodder. Every German soldier at the time feared being sent to the Russian front, of course. But they were fighting a war on how many fronts? The whole world? Stupid Nazis.
It required the combined resources of the United States, the British Empire and the Soviet Union to defeat German in Europe.
It is true there was no way German could defeat the United States. However, without war in the Soviet Union, the probability of making in significant inroads in Western Europe until sometime after mid 1945 would have been problematic at best. Highly doubtful that there would have been a D day 1944.
The war would have been longer, but the outcome the same. When France fell in mid-1940, Germany, Italy, and Japan fought Britain alone for a year without winning.
D-Day’s importance is a myth; we already had a “foothold in Europe” a year before (Italy), and D-Day was just to reduce the losses there. As another FReeper pointed out, Rome fell before D-Day.
What was the plan to get over the Alps into France and Germany.
Italy invaded southern France in 1940 with a lackluster military - not a problem. In WWI Germany had to send troops to help Austria-Hungary defend the Alps (Italy was on the Western Allies side in that one), not a problem there, either.
The German defense of Italy (led by Kesselring) was simply a costly way to advance; they went to a virtually undefended Atlantic coast and opened up a second “foothold in Europe” instead. For all of the hype in the media, the Normandy invasion in terms of losses was much easier than many island battles in the Pacific; Americans were at the German border 3 months after landing. Guadacanal lasted longer...
The Germans had 100 divisions fighting the Soviet Union. Had they not been at war with the Soviets, How many of those divisions would have been deployed to the Italian theater. What would the Italian campaign looked like if a large portion of Army Group Center was in Italy instead of Central Russia.
If German troops were in Italy instead of the USSR, no problem - it was their ally. Before they were fighting Stalin, all those German troops were unable to take Britain, and with Italian help, were unable to take even Egypt. They certainly had no way to take Canada, Australia, India, South Africa, British East AND West Africa, British Caribbean possessions, etc. - they couldn’t even take many of FRANCE’S colonies after Paris fell.
Are you counting “Axis” divisions as Germans in the USSR? Plenty of other countries were fighting (and lost heavily) there; don’t include Finns, Hungarians, Romanians, and Italians in those numbers. Germany couldn’t even pacify the Balkans - and don’t overlook the fact that Soviet intervention initially HELPED Germany (the dual invasion of Poland being the most glaring example).
Oh it was more than 20 million. It was more like 25 million.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung......day, anybody notice all the biggest mass murderers are some flavor of socialist?
We lost a heckuva lot of bombers in late 1942 and into mid-1943. No fighter escorts in that period. We lost almost one third of our forces in the Schweinfurt raids alone. It was only later in '43 and into 1944 with the arrival of the P-51s as escorts that our bombers were really able to be a lot more effective. And the Luftwaffe could not so readily replace either aircraft or pilots.
The Germans never developed a four-engine bomber.
Rome fell 4 June 1944. D-Day was June 6th.
Not the case. The Germans modified the FW-200 4 engine passenger plane to carry bombs. The “Condor” had a range of 2200 miles and could carry either 2200 lbs. of bombs internal to the fuselage or 11,000 lbs. of bombs on wing pylons.
They built prototypes but never mass-produced them; I believe it was Goering who said, “The Fuehrer asks how many planes I have, not what kind”. One flew within eyesight of NYC, then turned back; to do so it had to be stripped and turned into a giant fuel tank (no arms).
Yes - Rome fell before D-Day; the myth of a “foothold in Europe” falls apart, doesn’t it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.