Skip to comments.The post-war crimes of the Allies
Posted on 06/11/2012 2:29:57 PM PDT by .454Puma
This is the story about the forced deportation of hundred of thousands of Cossacks from Western Europe (and according to some witnesses even from the US) to face execution squads and death in extermination camps in Stalin's USSR.
(Excerpt) Read more at transsylvaniaphoenix.blogspot.com ...
I am now convinced that the best-case scenario in WWII would have been for Hitler to take Moscow, which most likely would have resulted in the overthrow of the Bolsheviks, and Russia’s defense being taken over by General Vlasov...I still think ultimately Russia would have won, and as a bonus, the Bolsheviks would have been gone.
I’m not one of the great minds of our time, but what was the West to do with these Cossacks?
The Russian front was brutal beyond description, and these men were not boy scouts.
I’m just asking, isn’t it possible the same article could be written, some day, about the terrorists at Guantanimo (sp?) when memories have faded about the terrorism we live with today?
Again, I’m just asking.
Well, obviously it was unPC of them to not submit to homosexual communist MO.
Great Britian royally screwed over the Lienz Cossacks, leading them to believe they would not be turned over to the Soviets.
Is the timing of this article signifigant considering all the moves to degrade our military under Obama?
First point to remember is that WWII killed about 80 million people, all told, including 23 million Soviets, 20 million Chinese, 8 million Germans, 6 million Poles of whom 3 million were Jews, plus another 3 million Jews (6m total), 3 million Japanese, 2 million Indians, 3 million Indonesians, among many others.
How all those people died is impossible to even imagine -- some in battle, but far more from the effects of war, disease, starvation, exposure and random acts of brutality.
Among all those 80 million deaths, the fate of refugees from Stalin at war's end seems relatively small.
It is usually accepted that in terms of human numbers Communists like Stalin and Mao eventually killed more than Hitler did.
But the fact remains that neither Soviets nor Chinese started WWII, and without Stalin's all-out efforts, the Western Allies would have lost many times the numbers of our soldiers killed.
Both Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill well understood that if Russia collapsed -- as it did in the First World War -- ultimate defeat of Germany would become more difficult, if not impossible.
So they gave Stalin just about anything he wanted.
Who agreed to carve up Poland with Hitler to begin WWII?
No Non-Agression Pact, no invasion of Poland.
Stalin wanted war every bit as much as Hitler.
Not likely. Stalin already had a command center built east of the Urals. If the Germans got that far, their supply lines would have been severely overstretched. They were already severely overstretched. Stalin had millions more troops ready...much more than Hitler realized. However, the Allies could have defeated Stalin after Hitler and the other top Nazis were dead and the German forces had surrendered. Even Russia could only fight for so long. But the Allies were in no mood to fight another war with millions more casualities. So eastern Europe and Russia remained enslaved for another 45 years.
My theory is that there could have been a military coup, that took out Stalin and Beria. Losing Moscow would have been a deep psychological blow. They already blamed Stalin for the disastrous beginning of the war, and I believe the loss of Moscow would have led to a revolt amongst the Red Army and the Politburo.
Maybe. But Stalin had shot most of the officer corps, including Tukhashevsky, before the war. He wanted a docile officer corps with no plotters. Zhukov was even given short shrift after the war. Doubtless, Stalin had a lot of people who wouldn’t have minded seeing him gone.
So you would prefer a Nazi Europe to the one we have today?
So you would prefer a Nazi Europe to the one we have today?
What does this have to do with the prison at Guantanamo?
Nothing. I was asking a question about context.
You misunderstood, I think there is no way Nazi Germany defeats Russia in the long run, I was just looking at a situation where potentially Stalin and the Bolsheviks could be removed from the picture before the Russians ultimately pushed back the Nazis. And I do believe the Soviet Union defeated Germany IN SPITE of Stalin.
I wonder if the opportunity was there for him, if it could have been Khrushchev, that could have been the one capable of engineering the coup against Stalin. He certainly was one guy who had Stalin fooled as to what his true feelings about Stalin were.
That’s what I was asking, in what context did you think to bring up Guantanamo in relation to this topic?
Guantanamo is merely a small, clean, warm, well run, healthful prison, run by a responsible government.
Thats what I was asking, in what context did you think to bring up Guantanamo in relation to this topic?
We’re talking about war, OK? Yucky stuff no matter what team we’re on. The Russians were animals, in part, because life in Russia was brutal. Populations fled before them, and were relieved to be taken in by anyone who wasn’t Russian.
My question was concerning the men themselves, not their POW camp conditions.
The camp is liberated. There are these Russian soldiers...they are not nice guys. Seriously, what do you do with them? My reference to Camp Gitmo: I was only asking if the day will come when we will forget their terrorism, and their character, and think of them as unfortunate men just trying to get back to their families....
I was hoping someone with an excellent grasp of that history would respond and maybe give some balance to the article.
The article is very interesting. I don’t trivialize innocent, good people being murdered, and I’m not denying the story.
BroJoeK put it in context.
I don’t get it.
Guantanamo is just a simple, clean, well run prison that currently holds about 170 guys.
I did a lousy job of asking my initial question.
Probably. Anything to make the Western world look bad.
Stalin initiated neither negotiations for a non-aggression pact, nor the war itself, those were Hitler's doing.
Stalin was forced to chose sides -- Hitler versus Neville Chamberlain.
He chose the obviously stronger ally, who offered him the better deal: Hitler.
Had he chosen Chamberlain, it could mean war against Germany in 1939 or 1940, instead of 1941.
And Stalin had no confidence in the West's ability, or even willingness, to help him.
Yes, of course, to your specific point: Stalin hoped to profit from Germany's war against the West.
What he expected was a repeat of the First World War, with Germany, France and Britain bleeding each other and growing so weak the Communists would simply walk in and take over.
And unlike Hitler, Stalin had all the patience in the world to sit back and wait for events.
In the end it turned out events did not unfold quite as he expected, but in their moments of desperation, Churchill, Roosevelt and Company were eager to forgive the Soviets', ahem, "indiscretions" with Hitler, and welcome "Uncle Joe" as our great wartime ally.