A must see! You can get it on iTunes....warning though, the ending is brutal.
Posted on 05/17/2012 1:56:58 AM PDT by se99tp
The American communists joined in the Soviet propaganda campaign. Corliss Lamont, a millionaire communist propagandist, wrote “Soviet Russia’s severance of relations with the Polish Government-in-Exile, over the Nazi-inspired charge that the Russians murdered 10,000 Polish army officers, shows clearly the danger to the United Nations of the splitting tactics engineered by Hitler and definitely helped along by the general campaign of anti-Soviet propaganda carried on during recent months in Britain and America. According to the London Bureau of the New York Herald Tribune, ‘It is a safe assumption that the Poles would not have taken so tough an attitude toward the Soviet Government if it had not been for the widespread support Americans have been giving them in the cases of Henry Ehrlich and Victor Alter.’”
(Excerpt) Read more at christianconceptsdaily.com ...
Yep. Even the ones who were given a few rounds of ammo and told to pick up their weapons from the dead guys.
But isn’t it nice that the Commies did all that dying, rather than us running up even more casualties? Dead Nazis, dead Commies - both are good things!
Not aware of it, but I wouldn’t be surprised.
A must see! You can get it on iTunes....warning though, the ending is brutal.
Interesting insight, and I’ve got to agree with you. Explains all the deception it took to get us involved in it as well.
I am with you 1000% on that.
I thought Joe McCarthy laid it out perfectly in his book “America’s Retreat From Victory” where he outlined how we screwed them at Yalta.
I firmly believe Alger Hiss had a hand in it.
It was shameful.
If France & Britain had done nothing the Nazis would have probably just gone to war with the Soviet Union; that way everybody wins!
“Stalin never would have left Eastern Europe just because you asked him to do so.”
Stalin halted his armies after the Soviet territory had been cleared, then asked the Western Allies what incentive he had to continue a war that had already cost so many Russian lives. In order to keep the pressure up on the Eastern Front while the allies came in from the west, they gave him Eastern Europe.
The Soviet Union was spent by that time, anyway; most of the ethnic Russians for that generation were killed, and replaced by Far Eastern minorities; they even had women in combat roles (the effect of that loss of life can be seen even today). The move into Eastern Europe was behind a rolling artillery barrage, as they had more shells than men.
Americans didn’t go to war to liberate Eastern Europe/Poland; we probably had the least reason of any combatants to fight in Europe.
In my neck of the woods there are many Eastern Europeans, and you quickly realize they have a very different take on “The Great Crusade” than Americans learn in school.
They lived through the consequences.
“Arguably, the Soviets did do most of the heavy lifting on the land campaigns against the Third Reich.”
It isn’t even arguable; they did. How that translates into keeping territories of other countries that had been victimized by the Nazis is beyond me; by what right would they keep Poland?
Our collusion with the USSR guaranteed that we would fight wars in Korea and Vietnam because we rescued Stalin while selling out Europe.
Churchill was the one leader who understood at the time that his country had wasted all those lives for nothing, and in the end all they had to show for it was the breakup of their empire.
While American Marines were dying in the Pacific, and Americans at home dealt with rationing so that we could supply the Soviet Union with food and weapons, the USSR and Japan observed a cease-fire until the last months of the war.
One of my ex-wife’s childhood friends was of Polish descent, never knowing her grandfather who a Polish officer killed at Katyn.
You said: "...they have a very different take on “The Great Crusade” than Americans learn in school..."
Can you elaborate on that for me? Are you speaking of the sentiment: "...“the war served a generation of Britons and Americans as a myth which enshrined their essential purity, a parable of good and evil...”?
Poland had not existed since the 18th century. After WWI it was reconstituted out land taken from Germany and Russia. As far as the Russians were concerned, they were getting some of their own back. I’m not saying it was right, just that they saw it that way (sorta like the Chinese believing that every land that ever paid them tribute is actually a stray part of “Greater China” or something like that...).
If we wanted to fight Germany, we had to collude with the Soviets. There was an example of the Russians signing a separate peace with Germany in WWI. If the Russians had signed a separate peace in WWII, the Germans would have been able to double the forces facing us. If didn’t want to fight Germany, well, we were not offered that choice.
Hitler and Stalin both signed the Non-Aggression Pact assuming certain things would happen, that didn’t turn out for them.
Stalin expected a long protacted war in the West, which would deplete the armies of Britain, France and Germany, allowing the Soviets to swoop in and conquer all of Europe.....but what he didn’t count on was France falling in just six weeks.
Hitler thought the Non-Aggression Pact would get Britain and France to call off the dogs, and give him free rein in Eastern Europe, which also didn’t happen.
Hitler was obsessed with eliminating every single Jew on the planet....certainly conquering the US and eliminating her Jews was going to be something Hitler would do, if he was in position to do so.
I don’t think so. There weren’t enough GERMANS to conquer the entire world. I think he was looking for room in Russia - that other miscalculation - where he thought France and UK would back off - indicates his real intentions.
But, even he did, we had a bit of time before he’d be able to stage an invasion of the US... Something about not having much of a navy outside the Ubootwaffe.
True, but remember, Hitler had Ukrainians, Romanians, etc. fighting for him. And he had Vlasov's Army potentially at his disposal had he defeated Russia. Some speculate, out of admiration for Stalin, he would have offered Stalin a chance to keep command of a puppet state, though I certainly doubt he would have accepted it. Over time as Nazi Europe became more consolidate, certainly there would also be French troops fighting for the Nazis.
I was just saying that the only reason we didn't have the same anti-war protests like we did during Vietnam was because the Left desperately needed to save their hero-nation.
“As far as the Russians were concerned, they were getting some of their own back.”
Germany (and Austria) used the same logic; Poland was re-created from territory of all three after WWI. That same defense could be used by the USSR for keeping the Baltic states (and trying for Finland); all four were created from Tsarist Russian territory.
“If we wanted to fight Germany, we had to collude with the Soviets.”
As with WWI, we had little reason to fight Germany. In any case, Germany achieved its goal (domination of Europe) and the views held by the Nazis (post-Christian paganism) also dominate.
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.