Posted on 07/08/2018 6:27:45 PM PDT by CondoleezzaProtege
> The troops were exhausted and we, and Germany, were running out of young men to draft <
Plus the Red Army of 1945 was not the Red Army of 1940. The Red Army of 1945 was a tough, experienced force lead by very capable commanders.
The United States probably would have won a US - Soviet war in 1945, but it would have been an awful, very bloody mess. Atomic bombs might have been necessary.
The US public never would have stood for any of that. Truman would have been impeached and removed from office.
“The US public never would have stood for any of that.”
Some ideas just don’t make sense——and going into the Soviet Union in 1945 as an enemy is one of them.
.
Yes, the American public would not have supported a war against the USSR in 1945. When Germany surrendered, the war against Japan was expected to last quite a while longer—the public in May 1945 did not know about the atomic bombs. We had lost more than 400,000 men in the war—how many more would have been lost in a war with the Soviets, and how would victory have been achieved?
“The troops were exhausted and we,and Germany, were running out of young men to draft————who would you suggest should have barreled ahead into The Soviet Union?”
//
how about the Empire of Great Japan? Korean peninsula was officially part of Japan during WWII. Maybe many russophobia Koreans were willing to die for Emperor Hirohito.
The Japanese people were practically starving at the end of the war——I don’t imagine that the Koreans were in much better shape.
.
How do Russians feel about Ivan the Terrible?
Because that’s how many feel about Stalin. Stalin stands out from the other Communist leaders, most Russians don’t even think of Stalin as a “Communist”, but just as another in a long line of Russian Authoritarian leaders.
You can cooperate with democrats to get Trump impeached.
Mike Pence will be the President.
they just get tenure.
The key difference is Putin’s nationalism is not fueled by Marxist-Leninism which not only demanded, but preached the inevitability of worldwide revolution. As a nationalist Putin longs for the days when Russia was more powerful, and he strives to make it more powerful again, but he’s not out to spread a hostile ideology worldwide. Nationalist Russia is not the Soviet Union.
You are absolutely right. By the way, I see you’ve encountered ETL and his “wall of text” propaganda posts :)
And the truth of the matter is, the weak and feckless foreign policy of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has awakened an aggression in Russia that first appeared a few years ago with their move in Georgia, now their move into Crimea, now their move into the wider Middle East."--VP Mike Pence
You can cooperate with democrats to get Trump impeached. Mike Pence will be the President.
Who are you trying to fool? You're not pro-Trump, or pro-US. You're pro-Putin, pro-Russia.
Donald Trump: ‘Putin has eaten Obama’s lunch, therefore our lunch, for a long period of time’
Mar 13, 2014
Eun Kyung Kim: TODAY SHOW (NBC)
Donald Trump slammed President Obama Thursday on TODAY for failing to take a stronger line against President Vladimir Putin in dealing with Ukraine, saying he feared Obama would now make up for lost time with imprudent moves to “show his manhood.”
The real estate mogul and reality-TV star, who has criticized Putin for sending military troops into Crimea, said Obama must now take fierce steps to prevent the situation from escalating further.
“We should definitely do sanctions and we have to show some strengths. I mean, Putin has eaten Obama’s lunch, therefore our lunch, for a long period of time,” Trump said. ...”
http://www.today.com/news/donald-trump-putin-has-eaten-obamas-lunch-ukraine-2D79372098
_______________________________________________
Here’s the interview w/ Matt Lauer on YouTube...
Donald Trump (2014): ‘Vladimir Putin Has Eaten Obama’s Lunch’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzURUENf1ns
___________________________________________________
JULY 2017...
Trump, in Warsaw Speech, Criticizes Russia’s ‘Destabilizing’ Role in Ukraine, Syria
The president also reaffirmed his commitment to NATO’s mutual-defense pact
Jul 6, 2017
President Trump called Russia a “destabilizing” influence in Europe and the Middle East, and urged it to “join the community of responsible nations,” in his strongest remarks yet against the regime of Vladimir Putin, whom he is scheduled to meet Friday in Hamburg for the first time.
His remarks in Warsaw’s Krasinski Square, which marks the 1944 Warsaw uprising against the Nazis, came after the U.S. agreed to sell Patriot missiles to Poland. The president also used the opportunity to reiterate the NATO commitment to mutual defense, a declaration he did not make during the NATO summit in May, prompting consternation among U.S. allies wary of Russia’s ambitions.
“To those who would criticize our tough stance, I would point out that the United States has demonstrated—not merely with its words but with its actions—that we stand firmly behind Article 5, the mutual-defense commitment,” Trump said Thursday. “Words are easy, but actions are what matters. And for its own protection, Europe, and you know this, everybody knows this, everybody has to know this, Europe must do more.”
Trump has repeatedly said NATO members must spend more on defense—a position in line with past U.S. administrations. But he has been criticized because he appeared to suggest U.S. commitment to mutual defense was predicated on its allies’ defense spending. ...”
https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/07/trump-russia/532761/
___________________________________________________
November 11, 2017, NPR
‘Asked Saturday whether he believes Putin’s denials, President Trump initially suggested the question of election interference needed to be set aside to focus on other concerns.
“Well, look, I can’t stand there and argue with him,” Trump said. “I would rather have him get out of Syria; I would rather get to work ... on the Ukraine.” And, “he could really help us on North Korea,” Trump pointed out.’
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/11/563481331/trump-putin-issue-joint-statement-on-defeating-syria
___________________________________________________
Trump says NATO is obsolete but still ‘very important to me’
January 16, 2017
LONDON (Reuters) - U.S. President-elect Donald Trump said NATO was obsolete because it had not defended against terror attacks, but that the military alliance was still very important to him, The Times of London reported.
“I took such heat, when I said NATO was obsolete,” Trump told the newspaper in an interview. “It’s obsolete because it wasn’t taking care of terror. I took a lot of heat for two days. And then they started saying Trump is right.”
Trump added that many NATO members were not paying their fair share for U.S. protection.
“A lot of these countries aren’t paying what they’re supposed to be paying, which I think is very unfair to the United States,” Trump said. “With that being said, NATO is very important to me. There’s five countries that are paying what they’re supposed to. Five. It’s not much.”
_______________________________________________________________________________
Feb 9, 2017:
Exclusive: In call with Putin, Trump denounced Obama-era nuclear arms treaty - sources
By Jonathan Landay and David Rohde
February 9, 2017
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In his first call as president with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads as a bad deal for the United States, according to two U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call.
When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said.
Trump then told Putin the treaty was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, saying that New START favored Russia. ...”
or,
Yes and no. Yes: Putin is not spreading Marxism/Leninism. BUT Russia is still hostile.
What is Russia spreading? Doubt. Doubt in Western values enshrined in our constitutions and creeds. Doubt in the triumph of freedom. Doubt in the rule if law. Doubt in Western Christianity. And doubt in our cultural and democratic institutions.
Doubt in America's sacred electoral system. Doubt in (and resentment of) America's victorious place of leadership over the current global order that history granted us following World War II.
It is vital to understand the nature of our current conflict with them because it is not as clear-cut as during the Cold War. It is vital we see how they view us in light of what has unfolded in the past century and a half, and how they view themselves. David Satter's article reminds us that they do not accept responsibility for any negative past. They do not accept any "ending" less than victory and expect the world to bend to their reality. To them: the Cold War is not over. And they are owed the fruits of victory in World War II, which the West has looted and took credit for. (In their mind.)
We also must understand Russia's approach to their former Soviet or imperial spheres of influence, which include everyone from Syria to North Korea to Cuba -- not just Ukraine or nextdoor neighbors. They have a vested interest not so much in keeping these places communist, but in keeping them anti-American, unstable, and threatening to the West.
Russia operates differently from China and with different motives, which is why they have not made the same economic gains. And which ie why economic pressures alone do not inspire them to adjust or rein in their aggressive behavior.
“What is Russia spreading? Doubt. Doubt in Western values enshrined in our constitutions and creeds. Doubt in the triumph of freedom. Doubt in the rule if law. Doubt in Western Christianity. And doubt in our cultural and democratic institutions.”
“Doubt in America’s sacred electoral system. Doubt in (and resentment of) America’s victorious place of leadership over the current global order that history granted us following World War II.”
Anything Russia can do in that regard is a drop in the ocean compared to what American leftists do every day.
One more thing, as far as Russia’s “aggressive” behavior, who is being more aggressive, America (especially under Democrat administrations) or Russia? Under Clinton we attacked a Russian ally (the country Russia went to war over in WWI), bombed the civilian population into submission, and gave a part of their historical homeland to radical Islamists. That humiliated the friendly Yeltsin and led to Putin. It also destroyed any moral credibility we might have had in complaining about the sanctity of sovereign nations vis-à-vis Ukraine. Then under Obama we attempted to overthrow Syria, where Russia had been allied with the government and had a navy base for 50 years, and then claimed they were “interfering”.
As for Russia’s “aggression” with Ukraine, from the Russian perspective it’s not so clear cut. Crimea had been Russian going back to the 1850s when they fought the great powers of Europe to keep it. It was the USSR under Kruschev who gave it to Ukraine. Moreover, whether the globalists in DC liked it the Ukraine elected a pro-Russian president, and we supported the coup that overthrew him, leading to the “civil war” or “invasion” (take your pick) by Russia. And we complain about Russian “interference in our democracy” from a few internet trolls. Russia may be backing anybody who is anti-American but who is carrying out “aggression” is in the eye of the beholder.
Some of the realities of what has taken place on the ground in Crimea are shameful. A whole convent of Catholic nuns had to leave (that’s just one example) after being assaulted by the onslaught of draconian measures and registration laws courtesy of Kremlin and the Moscow Patriarchate wing of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Ukrainian Orthodox clergy have been physically been beaten up by Russian-separatists. I suggest you look up what is happening to Christian minorities.
But in terms of ongoing “hot war” bloodshed and violence, look not to Crimea but to Donbass, East Ukraine.
Sounds like we all forgot what the Cold War plan was.
And how many Orthodox churches were destroyed in Kosovo? Like I said, Clinton and their neo-con Pub supporters destroyed our credibility on the issue. I predicted at the time it would come back to bite us.
Not nearly as many as in USSR under Lenin/Stalin/inc. And yet in the days following the Crimea annexation referendum, people celebrated by singing USSR anthems, holding Stalin portraits, waving Sickle and Hammer flags, and laying flowers in Lenin Square in Simferopol.
:(
And yes former Yugoslavia still has many issues to contend with. I think Croatian Catholics also have hostility with Serbian Orthodox.
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.