This recording may not be around for long. But you want to get hold of it because there is a lot of nonsense talked about World War II.
I was completely put-upon by a fellow who can never be a decent historian i.e doverbeach. I’ve never forgiven him for his persistent stupidity on this matter. His view on the war was self-contradictory.
His view contained the following propositions.
1. The Germans could never have beaten the Soviet Union.
2. The Soviet Union didn’t need any allied fighting to beat the Germans. Nor any allied aid.
3. Despite never budging on 2. He contends that all the aid to the Soviet Union was the right thing for the Americans and British to do. This despite his contention that this aid was ineffectual. Since they didn’t need this aid to beat the Germans.
4. D-Day was necessary to get to Germany before Stalin did. On the other hand it was important not to have pulled the aid to the Soviets prior to that because this would have made the Soviets angry.
5. Though the aid to the Soviets was totally ineffectual (in dovers view) it ought not have been a great deal less and cut off a whole lot earlier. And these resources ought not have been used to reinforce Singapore, aid other allies, or make sure that your own people had more materiel to work with.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well of course the above is just lunacy. However every time you go to talk about World War II to dispel some of the myths of it, well there is the dover-beach knowitalls, with all their specific details of the war, but their self-contradictory conclusions gathered from it.
Its most important that we overcome this stupidity. Because we cannot have our leaders making the exact same mistakes again by thinking that these decisions were fine. They were not fine. The decisions were wrong. The decision to help the Soviets at all was questionable. But what is clear is that the Americans helped the Sovietes TOO LONG. As well their ought never have been any propaganda effort in their favour.
Actually the situation was much worse than that. Because this idiotic and self-contradictory take on the situation hides our sides war-crimes, and hides the ability of communists in Washington to skew war policy in favour of gratuitous wickedness in support of Stalins whims and Soviet expansion.
The fact is the Americans screwed it up at head office. They gave much of Europe to the Soviet Union. They did this on purpose and it simply didn’t need to happen.
Book TV – No Simple Victory: World War II in Europe, 1939-1945
Subsequent argumentation on this thread has proved my case utterly. Has proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that this sort of idiocy is prevalent in our understanding of World War II. And that these matters ought to be resolved in a non-contradictory way.
This is important because the best way to preserve our own lives and liberty is to let two tyrants fight it out, if we are lucky enough for this to happen. If we were to intervene it would be in a measured way to keep the weaker side in the field.
This is so obvious, you would think it was beyond denial by even the drooling idiot set. But you will see below that this is not the case. That people will go on arguing in favour of the communist cause no matter how foolish their arguments are.
A Better World: Graeme Bird For High Office 
Yes its illogical. Because that aid has to come from someone. And it means that soldiers were fighting the Japanese under-equipped. That Singapore cannot have as much resources as otherwise. And that Europe was overun by communists. Which all means that allied soldiers had to die for this aid inevitably. If we accept dovers idiotic contention that the aid was ineffectual.
You see what this would have meant is that we did not need to fight beyond Barbarossa. But dover doesn’t accept that either. So he’s being an idiot.
But I don’t expect you to understand this Edney. Because you are a complete moron also.
By: graemebird on December 7, 2008
at 11:50 pm
I do understand the difference between NEED and EFFECTIVENESS Edney you moron. Its you that don’t.
You see dover argued that the Soviets would have beaten Hitler without allied fighting and without allied aid.
That means they would have EFFECTIVELY BEATEN HITLER.
How could they beat him INEFFECTUALLY. You are a moron Edney.
So neither the British nor the Americans needed to aid the Soviets in dovers view. Since the Soviets would have been EFFECTIVE in beating Hitler without all that help. Hence by dovers own admission the aid wasn’t necessary. Nor was our fighting beyond Barbarossa. Yet he will not accept these conclusions though they follow directly.
By: graemebird on December 7, 2008
at 11:57 pm
So what is your argument Edney you fucking moron? That the Soviets would have beaten the Germans without allied aid or allied fighting. But in beating the Germans they would have done so INEFFECTUALLY?
You are such a fucking dumb shit mate.
And so my criticisms of dovers ineptitude in the field of history stands.
This is not unimportant. Since dover has never come to grips with operation keelhaul and the unnecessary civilian bombing in that war.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 12:01 am
It dovers opinion and not mine. And that is that the aid was all ineffectual (from the point of view of the allied side) since the Soviets would have beaten Hitler no matter what. This is stupid. But if we grant this stupidity, there are implications to it. And one of them was we didn’t need to fight Hitler at all after Barbarossa was launched. And indeed might have been able to cut a deal with him to stop him killing Jews and others.
I don’t accept the latter conclusion exactly. But my point is that dover must accept it or back away from his other idiocy.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 12:03 am
I’m not going to put up with you advocating the mass murder of war prisoners and their families you fascist Jason Soon. You can go to some Nazi site to advocate such a thing. Not here.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 12:09 am
So Edney’s argument is that had the Soviets beaten Hitler without allied aid or allied fighting well they could have done so. But they would have been ineffectual in doing so. Or they could have beaten Hitler. But not EFFECTIVELY beaten Hitler.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 12:16 am
Clearly you weren’t even so much as attempting to make a serious argument were you Edney you lunatic. But you ought to have, Its a very serious matter sending all your own people to die. It has to be considered that our politicians have acted like psychopaths in the past and may well act that same way in the future.
It has to be considered that leftist networks have influenced policies in horrible ways in the past and are likely to do so in the future.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 12:23 am
Not in this case there isn’t. So its a dumb argument. We are arguing about the logical plausibility of dovers case you moron.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 3:44 am
Obviously the idea is to have SUCCESSFULLY defended Singapore dopey. Or if that was impossible to have defended some strategic point further back from there but SUCCESSFULLY.
It took manpower to invade neutral Iran as a staging post for aid to the Soviets. So your argument makes no sense.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 3:45 am
“His point is clear – Did they need it. No they would have beaten him anyway.”
You are a such a fuckwit mate. That means our side were wrong to give them the aid. CAPICHE you fucking moron? Do you not understand that?
I mean its a stupid argument anyway. That all of the rest of us could just stop fighting and not given any aid and the Soviets STILL WIN. Thats ridiculous. But if its true it means we made a mistake aiding them. And obviously so.
Don’t come here to just be a fucking moron in dovers stead. You are saying that we ought to have laid down the lives of our own people merely to make it a bit easier for Stalin?
Fuck off idiot and save me the trouble of having to wipe your stupidity.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 3:49 am
Ahura Mazda people are dimwitted at Catallaxy. Secure in their feeling that their centre-right posture is what its all about they no longer feel the need to ever make a valid argument about anything.
That stupid wog cunt argues against me by conflating me with a leftist malarial-holocaust denying lunatic. Thats his argument. Conflates me with a lunatic. No other argument than that. What a complete fuckwit Cambria is when it comes down to it.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 3:55 am
“Shines is a smoking/tobacco lobby expert/maven while Bird…”
This is the technique of this primitive wog cunt the whole way down the line. Conflates me with “shiny”. Whereas in reality the simplistic wog idiot spends his whole time fully endorsing what the wicked dwarf advocates. So that stupid wog cunt Cambria went so far as to advocate spending money to fly James Hansen here in order to have him advocate for a carbon tax?
What a fuckwit Cambria. He’s a fucking moron. He ought to just admit that the dwarf is his god and the architect of all his policy positions.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 4:00 am
You can’t seriously argue against anything but proposition 1, and in that respect you only need the qualification that the Jerries couldn’t have won unless the Sovs kept suffering from disasterous generalship.
Some things that are obvious with hindsight and later knowledge weren’t obvious at the time.
By: pedro on December 8, 2008
at 4:28 am
What is your argument pedro? The Soviets had an enourmous amount of trouble even dealing with little Finland. What I’m saying is that dovers overall point of view contradicts itself.
If the Soviets could have beaten him on their own then what did all our people die for? Just to make Eastern Europe communist?
You are not coming through with a comprehensible argument here.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 4:37 am
“Some things that are obvious with hindsight and later knowledge weren’t obvious at the time.”
Right. My argument was that it was understandable how the Americans helped the the Soviets out right at the beginning. But that we ought to be able to say, without contradiction, that the assistance went on way too long. You see what we need to do is understand how influential a small group of communists can be, not in controlling policy, but skewing it in their favour, by influencing the general climate of opinion in Washington-taxeater circles. But we can never get that far if people are taking self-contradictory and basically idiotic positions on the matter.
Dover, the complete prick, basically filibustered me, for days on end on this one. And he didn’t end up with a point of view any less stupid then what he started off with.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 4:48 am
The arguments are simple:
1 Sov production and manpower were way above the germans. While the germans had a tactical experience advantage that could not last as the sovs got better. Sov weapons were good. Relative tank production was a hugely greater on the sov side and sov tanks superior over all.
2 Before and during the war the US and UK did not know the full details and so probably could not make the judgement I just expressed.
3 Western material supplies still made the war end earlier. By the way, I understand the main contributions of manufactured items were trucks. Not so much in the way of weapons, but don’t quote me on that. They didn’t know how long it would be before hiteler had an Abomb, which would have changed the war with the sovs and so it was in our interest tohelp beat them quick.
4 If the west had not invaded france then the sovs would have ended up in control of the Uboat pens on the French coast.
Also, the US could produce material much more quickly than they could trained men, so the western armies were not disadvantaged by the support for the USSR.
The loss of singapore would have been nothing compared to the loss of moscow. Have you read Churchill’s war memoirs to see his thinking on the issue of supporting the sovs in 41/42?
By: pedro on December 8, 2008
at 4:53 am
Part of what I was arguing is that the Reagan strategy was pretty much the right one under most circumstances. That the Reagan strategy would have worked for pretty much all the wars they had. But instead they put their own boys on the front lines for extended times in WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam. One tries to avoid this if one can but at the same time you have to be powerful enough to be able to avoid this.
Hence my strategy is that you try and be an underwriter for extremely persuasive negotiations. But we cannot get to the rightness of this strategy if people filibuster us on what ought to be the simple stuff.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 4:55 am
“Beginning in the summer of 1941, the United States contributed the following materials to the USSR: 2,680,000 tons of steel 170,400 tons of aluminum 29,400 tons of tin 240,000 tons of copper, 330,000 telephone sets and some one million miles of cable 2,000 radar sets 5,000 radio receivers 900,000 tons of projectiles and explosives 3,786,000 tires 49,000 tons of leather 18 million pairs of shoes more than six million tons of provisions three million tons of gasoline 900,000 tons of chemical products and 700,000 trucks. ”
Can’t vouch for the source
By: pedro on December 8, 2008
at 5:06 am
Right. So what is your point? Are you saying that their tank production is independent from the aid in transport and materials? Like are you saying that you can just have an economy producing tanks and not have the trucks to transport things around with?
Their production only came good after the aid. Which was mostly in the form of producer goods. What is the point that you are trying to make here?
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 5:08 am
Attempt to think for yourself here pedro. The allies give them aid. Some in weapons. But a great deal in producer goods. And their production comes good after previous chaos and famine. Just a coincidence here?
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 5:09 am
“Also, the US could produce material much more quickly than they could trained men, so the western armies were not disadvantaged by the support for the USSR.”
Thats ridiculous. Now attempt to think for yourself. Plenty of allied soldiers went into battle undersupplied. Plenty of soldiers fought without maximum air cover. Patton didn’t even have enough fuel often and had to steal it.
Go again and attempt not to be an idiot.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 5:11 am
See pedro. This is the same idiocy we were getting from dover. What is your argument?
The Soviets had famine conditions. Their production picked up when they got mountain-loads of producer goods from the Americans. As you would expect. If you get all your producer-goods free you can devote a lot of resources to production.
What exactly is your argument?
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 5:13 am
Lets go over it again. The Soviets had famine conditions. And when they started WWII along with Hitler, but without American aid, they performed appallingly. They were not able to subdue Finland even. Hence Churchill went so far as to declare war on Finland. That was prior to any aid getting through. They were still unable to beat Finland prior to getting allied aid.
Then they get all this aid, which you claim they didn’t need to beat Hitler, and you rightly show that a lot of it was in the form of producer goods. Now in your mind their subsequent marvellous production of tanks and things bears no relation to the free input of producer goods?
So thats the dumb view of the situation. We know thats the view that dover took. But what is your argument in favour of it?
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 5:18 am
They couldn’t beat Finland prior to the aid. So the claim goes that without the aid of allied fighting they could have beaten Hitler….. although when they didn’t have the aid they couldn’t beat Finland.
So its just crazy-talk by zombies.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 5:20 am
See these communists skew policy. And the dover position is basically covering for them.
Its self-contradictory. If we didn’t need to assist these guys to beat Hitler then we didn’t need to fight from Barbarossa onwards. The idea then was to help the weaker side at the cost of stopping them from murdering civilians.
Its important that we get this right.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 5:26 am
Ignorant as well as Moronic.
1) Soviets did badly against Finland but were beating them in the end, and forced them to conceed a large amount of territory.
2) Churchill didn’t declare war on Finland until after they allied with Germany. Rather they british and french sent them aid.
3) There is no doubt that the USSR army was in a bad state in 1940-41 which is why they got such and initial beating by the germans.
4) This is different however to the fact that they would have lost the war.
By: Steve Edney on December 8, 2008
at 5:31 am
Edney you haven’t said anything that contradicts my position. The Soviets couldn’t beat Finland until they got allied aid.
Yet you guys insist that they could have beaten Germany without allied aid.
You point out that they got this enourmous allied aid in free producer goods as well as weapons. And you point out that the Soviets started producing this vast output of really good tanks. But apparently you really dumb shits don’t make the connection between one fact and the other.
So there we have it. They couldn’t beat Finland prior to getting allied aid. Yet the claim is they could have beaten Germany without allied aid or continued allied fighting….. YET AFTER MAKING THESE CLAIMS you idiots contradict these claims and make the further claim that the allies would not have been right to cut the aid off earlier.
So we are talking drooling idiocy here.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 5:46 am
So we are still back to the same thing. Their ability to fight prior to the aid was pathetic. After the aid their ability in both production and fighting became a lot better. But you guys see the supply of free producer goods as totally independent from their sudden miracles of tank production?
Why?
Did your mother drop you on your head?
So they couldn’t beat Finland prior to the aid but you say they could beat Hitler without the aid and without continued allied fighting. And you say that this is just a fact. Something entirely obvious.
But if that isn’t irrationality enough, or at least high presumptuousness you turn around and say that the allies didn’t aid them too long?
So the position if one of obvious drooling idiocy and we must get beyond this. Because all the dying and depravation that our soldiers and people went through. Well it didn’t need to happen.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 5:55 am
Steve is correct. Sovs beat finland, who had attacked in the aftermath of the big purges when the sovs were particularly disorganised. Finland was whipped before any significant aid arrived. IN fact finland was whipped well before Barbarosa. The fins took advantage of barbarosa to attack the sovs again to get some dirt back, but they did not become a full ally of the germans.
Sovs were out-building the germans without the aid, not because of it. You are completely wrong on this. The aid made it easier, as compared to possible.
The point about the producer goods thing is that the sovs had quality weapons. It wasn’t panzers against sticks.
If patton or anyone was short of fuel or other supplies then that would have been local conditions and not a general lack of resources. There will be logistic bottlenecks in a battlefield no matter how much stuff you’ve got stored back at base.
As I said earlier, the german army was a superior fighting force but the weight of material and improvements in sov tactics and generalship did them in, and, with hindsight, clearly was always very likely to.
By: pedro on December 8, 2008
at 6:00 am
Its not just in world war II history that we see this relentless clinging to unreason. I just went down to the shops and saw a headline in the Australian. And the headline was that the recipients of this stimulus cash are being urged to spend it on consumer goods.
So we still have this unreason that increased spending on consumer goods via fiscal policy or moral suasion is what can help us get out of recession. The exact opposite of the truth. Yet Jason, Sinclair, and none of these other dummies are going to come out against this crazed anti-economics.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 6:00 am
Graeme, the T34 was developed before barbarosa. Sovs were outbuilding germans in 1940 and 41 before any aid arrived.
By: pedro on December 8, 2008
at 6:07 am
Does the change in topic mean you give in?
By: pedro on December 8, 2008
at 6:08 am
Yep it took until late 43 before the Germans had anything to match the T34, and that (the Pather) was essentially a design knock off. The russians had basically the best tank and produced it in vast numbers.
By: Steve Edney on December 8, 2008
at 6:10 am
A good description of how the Finns whipped the Sovs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
The Winter War (Finnish: Talvisota, Russian: Советско-финляндская война – official, Зимняя война- unofficial[10], Swedish: Vinterkriget) began when the Soviet Union ruled by dictator Joseph Stalin attacked Finland on 30 November 1939, three months after the invasion of Poland by Germany that started World War II. Because the attack was judged as illegal, the Soviet Union was expelled from the League of Nations on 14 December.[11]
The Soviet forces had four times as many soldiers as the Finns, 30 times as many aircraft and 200 times as many tanks.[4] However, the Red Army had recently been subjected to a drastic purge in 1937 that crippled it, reducing its morale and efficiency shortly before the outbreak of hostilities.[12] With up to 50% of army officers executed, including the vast majority of those of the highest rank, the Red Army in 1939 had many inexperienced senior officers.[13] Thus, the Finns were able to resist the invasion of their country with great success and for far longer than the Soviets had expected.
Finland held out until March 1940, when it signed the Moscow Peace Treaty, ceding about 9% of its pre-war territory and 20% of its industrial capacity to the Soviet Union.
By: pedro on December 8, 2008
at 6:12 am
Well I would have thought that the T34 was developed prior to barborosa. So what is your point?
You are claiming that the producer goods given to them for free did not affect their production is that right? I don’t suppose that it would be impossible for them to be outproducing Germany in one item prior. Although I suspect you are just as likely making it up. Afterall. Germany had to devote resources to fighting the allies. Hence its not that surprising that they might outproduce the Germans in this one item.
What is your point?
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 6:13 am
See we are back to the same facts. Prior to the aid they couldn’t even beat Finland. Yet the claim is that they could have beaten Germany without Germany having to fight on many fronts and without allied aid.
Where are you drooling idiots getting this from? From tank-building statistics alone? Face it. You guys are fucking drooling idiots?
SO YOU HAVE LOST THE ARGUMENT.
They’ve lost the argument. And if they don’t concede or come up with something worthwhile they’ll just get wiped.
This is important. Its important generally that we don’t cling onto idiotic notions based on daily tank production or based on stupid shit more generally.
Never have I heard an argument made that rested on tank production alone.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 6:17 am
“Yep it took until late 43 before the Germans had anything to match the T34, and that (the Pather) was essentially a design knock off. The russians had basically the best tank and produced it in vast numbers.”
You fuckwit Edney. So your claim is that the Germans having to fight on all these different fronts had nothing to do with that?
Like they’ve got all their men cast all over the world having to hold territory or fight, and they are being carpet bombed, and this had no effect at all on their ability to produce?
You are a lunatic man. A moron. And pedros version of how badly the Soviets performed against Finland is entirely in keeping with what I’ve said here.
Come up with an argument or concede you are wrong.
You are saying that the allies ought to have continued the aid as long as they did, and you are claimming at the same time that the aid was not necessary as the Soviets would have won anyway.
You cannnot claim both. They are contradictory claims.
WHICH IS IT??????
Should the allies have aided them or not? Should they have aided them early and cut off the aid earlier then they did?
I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH SUCH FUCKING IDIOTS.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 6:23 am
So you claim that the vast free producer goods input had no effect on the vast production that the Soviets managed to pull off.
And you claim also that the relatively poor production that the Germans were able to come up with had nothing to do with having to fight allies on a number of fronts and put up with carpet bombing?
You are a fuckwit mate.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 6:25 am
Its not just the lunacy of thinking that the sudden Soviet turnaround in performance was nothing to do with being awash in free producer goods.
They go further than this. They say that even though the Soviets could win on their own and no doubt about it in their view, that we ought still have aided them and it wasn’t a mistake to aid them on that basis?
WHICH IS IT YOU FUCKING MORONS?
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 6:26 am
PEDRO. YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON MAN. WHICH IS IT?????
Did they need the aid to beat Hitler or not? If they didn’t than we made a mistake fighting after Barbarossa. But you disagree with that also.
This just proves you are a fucking moron mate.
YOU CANNOT HOLD ALL THESE CONTRADICTORY POSITIONS AT ONCE WITHOUT PROVING UTTERLY THAT YOU ARE A PATHETIC ZOMBIE.
Make a fucking case one way or another you stupid cunt.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 6:29 am
Graeme, you are a shocking verballer.
“You are claiming that the producer goods given to them for free did not affect their production is that right?” I made no such claim. I expressly said that the aid helped, I also said they would have won anyway, but more slowly. During which time the germans might have developed the A-bomb for all anyone new at the time.
Dispite seeing that the finnish was was over in 1940 when the sovs were still german allies, you still are saying the sovs could not win it without aid. Who’s the drooling idiot?
Still, I’m glad to see that the polite facade has dissolved to reveal the pop-eyed spittle-flicked maniac we’ve all come to love.
By: pedro on December 8, 2008
at 6:37 am
I didn’t say that the Soviets COULDN’T beat the Finnish without aid. But they didn’t beat them at all.
But your position is just idiotic.
We have to make it clear to people that the idea when two evil dictators fight is to stay out of it or help the weaker side. Your irrationality in this matter is attempting to overturn this contention. But you haven’t overturned it. And your view are ridiculous. Since if as you wrongly contend, that the Soviets could beat Germany without allied fighting and aid, the unavoidable conclusion is that we ought not have fought or aided them.
There is no getting around that you complete fuckwit.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 7:10 am
I’m really pissed off with you for being such a cunt. Just admit you are wrong already.
You are claiming that we have to send all these people to their deaths for no reason at all. So the Americans had to steal off people and send all these other people to die. And you won’t come up with a reason for it.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 7:11 am
Fucking pedro you cunt. You have proved wrong. Admit you are wrong.
Why are you being such a cunt.
Just admit you are wrong!!!!!!!!
This is what dover did. He too acted like complete cunt. He too didn’t have a case. He too wouldn’t admit that he was wrong.
So what is this.
Just stop being a cunt and admit you are wrong.
This is not even funny. This is enslavement of all of Eastern Europe.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 7:14 am
So all these allied people had to die. And all of Eastern Europe had to be enslaved?
And what for? Dover and pedro have no answer to that question.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 7:16 am
No Jason I’m not having you come here and advocate mass-slaughter.
You are a cunt Jason. What a cunt act to come out in favour of the mass-slaugher of women and children at the behest of Stalin. This is a cunt act on your part.
Go home Jason. You don’t belong here.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 7:18 am
“I’m one of the few people here that have been silent as he’s descended into madness and he in the end devotes a post that mischaraterises what I argued previously simply because he has a perverse hatred of FDR and knows next to nothing about military history. What’s more, I couldn’t care less.”
No you are a fucking liar dover. You took the exact same point of view as pedro above.
No-ones going to believe your bullshit any more mate.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 8:38 am
Descent into madness hey?
Look dover. You are a moron. You are a fucking idiot mate. You took exactly the same position as pedro and Edney. You held to it, though its obvious idiocy, for days and weeks. You kept it up for weeks mate.
You are an idiot dover.
It was a contradictory position. You cannot justify it to this day. Pedro has proved that it wasn’t your idea in the first fucking place.
You are just a fucking idiot mate. Pedro has very adequately stood in for your moronic point of view here.
You are a fucking moron mate.
And a dishonest cunt too.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 8:44 am
Come on dover you stupid lying cunt. Square this circle.
Your reckon that the Soviets needed no aid to beat Hitler. So why did our guys have to fight and die with two bullies locked in a death fight?
You are a liar mate. This was your view. You made the exact same cloned fuckwit argument as pedro.
You are a fuckwit mate.
I didn’t misrepresent anything you said.
You are lying.
So what was your view then? How did it differ from pedro’s?
I didn’t.
Your a fucking idiot mate.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 8:47 am
I cannot tell you or pedro apart at Catallaxy. Because the fact is you are both stupid cunts who cannot think for yourselves hence the same cloned story about WWII.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 8:48 am
And consider what a cunt Jason Soon is. To this day he strenuously supports operation keelhaul. I cannot get him to stay quiet about his support of this ourtage.
Go home you gook cunt. If thats how you feel you don’t belong in this country. You are an inhuman monster if you believe this. And the fact is I haven’t been able to get you to stay quiet about this.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 8:50 am
It’s increasingly difficult to lionise Roosevelt. He extended the Depression by about seven years and after going to war in Europe to liberate that continent from tyranny ended up giving the whole joint to the communists. Then he died. Thanks, Frank.
By: C.L. on December 8, 2008
at 10:24 am
Well thats right. And its not only right its straight undeniable history. But according to dover you have to be insane to believe such a thing.
What do you make of Jason and his relentless support for operation keelhaul. You wouldn’t believe the number of posts of his that I’ve had to delete supporting this sickening outrage. Furthermore he’s expressed his support of this to me in person. Almost makes me want to puke. These leftists really are a sickening bunch. They’d have us all locked up and pumped full of drugs if it was up to them.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 10:33 am
I haven’t read Jason’s take on Keelhaul but I am aware the episode has frequently been the subject of mirth and/or admiration at Catallaxy – usually via the retired hurt Tillman. His usual rhetorical trick was to accuse critics of Churchill and Roosevelt of being Nazis – as if supporting millions of freedom-seeking Eastern Europeans was something Himmler would have done. The argument is so ridiculous as to constitute evidence of derangement. But that was the debate shut-down strategy Tillman used and most Catallaxians bailed rather than commit to the days-long task of hammering Tillman back into oblivion. (Where, happily, he now seems to reside quietly in a beer can and Picture magazine-strewn bachelor’s pad with MichaelF). Keelhaul was no joke and it was certainly the point at which the Allies surrendered the European field to a tyranny every bit as destructive as Nazism. I’d be interested to know what the libertarian case for Keelhaul is because I can’t, for the life of me, see it. I’m guessing some libertarians might be inclined to use it as a manly proof of their pragmatic realpolitic in relation to nation-building.
By: C.L. on December 8, 2008
at 12:37 pm
Hello Dear GMB,
This thread is even better than your “debate with David Horowitz” drama. Who are you talking to my friend?
From what I understand reading through the Catallaxy forum, you delete their posts but nevertheless answer them. If true, this sure is an innovative conversation technique.
You seem a little angry with yourself. May I recommend a hot stone massage, with relief.
Keep on the good work, you are hilarious.
Yours truly.
Murray
By: mabraham on December 8, 2008
at 12:50 pm
Right. I delete their posts if they tell lies. Or if they are flippant about the subject. The problem is that these guys are such compulsive liars that I wind up with just my replies and none of their gear.
THEY HAVE GROWN LAZY IN THEIR THINKING.
They have taken a centre-rightest point of view these guys. This is not out of stringent logical exactitude. But simply on the basis that they are leftists who want to extort some free enterprise street cred. And because the general thrust of centre-right thinking is usually pretty close to the mark, they have lost the will, and forgotten the art, of clear rigourous thought.
They have grown lazy. They have grown lazy and their toenails have become like claws. Their nose-hairs sprout long, like the sort of grass that cuts (in the snow). None of them have been to the dentist this millenium. So full of ennui are they, that it is, relatively speaking, a vigourous and bustling day for these people, if they get to have a good long pee and a good solid crap before 9.00AM. Thats a relatively full days work for these guys right there. And these days a long uninterrupted pee, and a good solid crap, takes out of them, just about all the mental energy they can muster, in any given 24 hour period.
The problem is that none of these guys have the motivation to get out of bed before 10.00AM.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 8:03 pm
Listen mabraham. You reckon we cannot win right? You reckon that its all quixotic and Caliph Barrry I (The Usurper) is already home and hosed.
Well if you are so sure of that cut us some slack will you? What’s in it for you?
“Hope, Change, Yes We Can, Thankyou and Goodnight”. Thats a mandate right there I can see. A firm electoral mandate and something to tie the nebulous concept of “the will of the people” to right?
I can see the depth of the message and the breadth of learning that created it. But if you reckon we cannot win why not just enjoy the spectacle of conservatives fighting amongst eachother. No need to be showing up to grind our side down. Just sit back and enjoy the fun.
You will regret it one day fella. Caliph Barry is not your friend.
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 8:18 pm
Graeme
Here is where I exploded your delusions many posts ago:
“The arguments are simple:
1 Sov production and manpower were way above the germans. While the germans had a tactical experience advantage that could not last as the sovs got better. Sov weapons were good. Relative tank production was a hugely greater on the sov side and sov tanks superior over all.
2 Before and during the war the US and UK did not know the full details and so probably could not make the judgement I just expressed.
3 Western material supplies still made the war end earlier. By the way, I understand the main contributions of manufactured items were trucks. Not so much in the way of weapons, but don’t quote me on that. They didn’t know how long it would be before hiteler had an Abomb, which would have changed the war with the sovs and so it was in our interest tohelp beat them quick.
4 If the west had not invaded france then the sovs would have ended up in control of the Uboat pens on the French coast.
Also, the US could produce material much more quickly than they could trained men, so the western armies were not disadvantaged by the support for the USSR.
The loss of singapore would have been nothing compared to the loss of moscow. Have you read Churchill’s war memoirs to see his thinking on the issue of supporting the sovs in 41/42?”
Your statement that we should let two dictators fight it out would be fine if not for the simple fact that one of the dictators was also fighting our team and therefore we had to make sure he was beaten. Especially as he was trying to develop nuclear weapons, a point you keep failing to address.
If the germans had beaten the sovs, which you seem to think a good thing, then they would have had all those additional resources to prosecute the war against us. Though their manpower shortage would have been a problem for a few years, it remains the case that a victorious nazi army could have much more easily defended the french coast because of the men and material that could have been removed from the eastern front. Normandy was a relatively close run thing as it was.
Also, how many more jews and slave workers would have been murdered while we waited for hitler and stalin to slug it out? Or is that not a problem for you?
By: pedro on December 8, 2008
at 11:52 pm
So are you saying the allies ought to have aided them? Or ought to have aided them early and then pulled the aid early?
Or are you saying they ought to have aided whoever was the weaker side?
What exactly is your claim here?
(this will be good folks).
By: graemebird on December 8, 2008
at 11:57 pm
Dear GMB,
Don’t be afraid of Barack Obama. Remember he is President-Elect of … the United States.
You, as Kiwi living in Australia, can always ask your Australian conservative friends to get the Queen to suspend Parliament as they just did in Canada.
Don’t be afraid. Stay strong.
Murray
By: mabraham on December 9, 2008
at 12:19 am
No he isn’t.
He cannot be President-elect. Because he’s not eligible. Don’t be an idiot. He’s just a stupid little boy, backed by international money, playing a juvenile con-game.
I aint afraid of him yet. But its nothing to be flippant about when his backers are likely towel-heads who pay for the murder of women and children.
By: graemebird on December 9, 2008
at 12:33 am
Graeme, I never expressed a personal view, I just challenged your assertions about Dover’s views. But yes, we should have done everything reasonably possible to beat the Nazis as quickly as possible.
That does not mean I support Yalta decisions, which I recall reading were motivated by the desire to get the sovs to pitch in against the japs. I think FDR made a big mistake there, but hey, he made lots of big mistakes.
By: pedro on December 9, 2008
at 12:44 am
So you’ve got no answer. But you are missing the point. No matter how much I faithfully suspend disbelief and accept everything that dover and you claim, your conclusions are idiotic, since they refuse to fit with your own claims of the matter.
If the Soviets could do the job without us fighting and without our aid then we ought not have fought nor given them aid. This is a lot of peoples uncles and grandfathers dead that you are talking about.
Without hindsight that amounts to helping them for a little while. Helping the weaker side if it looked like that side was going to collapse. But otherwise acting to beef up rather then use our fighting capacity. And otherwise acting in a way so as to preserve the lives of our boys.
By: graemebird on December 9, 2008
at 12:56 am
Dover did support the Yalta decisions. And vehemently so.
By: graemebird on December 9, 2008
at 12:59 am
“He’s just a stupid little boy,”
Southern racists used to call blacks ‘boys’
By: Operation Keelhaul Was The Worst Moral Outrage Of The Allies. on December 9, 2008
at 1:02 am
Right. Well he’s not black. He hasn’t even got that going for him. He’s Barry Two-White.
By: graemebird on December 9, 2008
at 1:13 am
Look, I’ll try and keep this simple.
1 Is the risk of Hitler getting an A-Bomb not sufficient in your view to justify us fighting the germans?
2 Do you think the extra dead jews and slave workers a price worth paying if we’d have kept out of the fighting?
3 Who would you have preferred won between hitler and stalin?
Now, just answer the damned questions.
By: pedro on December 9, 2008
at 1:34 am
Hang on a minute. You haven’t answered my questions yet.
And the general principle is that if you have built up your kick-ass, but don’t have it sunken in the field, you have more to negotiate with in diplomacy.
They didn’t do a real good job saving those jews did they! Nor those poles. Nor the Ukranians. And for that matter they did a hopeless job at preventing mass-murderers from getting the a-bomb.
So go ahead and answer my questions. And the stupidity of the dover position will become manifest if you do so to the best of your abilities.
By: graemebird on December 9, 2008
at 1:39 am
Graeme, I’m sure you will get bored if I keep repeating myself, but the fact is that I already answered your question. Indeed, I just tried to do it again with 3 questions of my own.
You asked, why not let the 2 dictators slug it out and I told you why not.
You’ve continued to say the sovs couldn’t beat the finns without aid from the west despite my pointing out that the finns had been beaten while the sovs were still a german ally.
You completely ignore everything said against your position. It just descends into this:
By: pedro on December 9, 2008
at 2:06 am
No I didn’t say that. But the fact is when they didn’t have aid from the West they didn’t beat Finaland yet you guys are saying that they could beat Germany without aid and without allied fighting against Germany.
Now where is this coming from? The assumption makes no sense. Rather it would appear that they would get themselves creamed.
By: graemebird on December 9, 2008
at 2:47 am
You would agree that The Germans were more powerful than the Fins right. And so you look at the way the Russians dealt with the Fins, and you don’t assume that they would make light work of the Germans.
By: graemebird on December 9, 2008
at 2:48 am
You do understand the concept here don’t you?
You see they went to fight the Fins right? With me so far? And the Fins kicked the crap out of them. This was BEFORE they got the aid right.
And then after they got the aid right? Following this so far? Well they performed a great deal better. So we have performance prior to aid. And then we have the performance after aid.
Then we have the mental effort of imagining if the Germans weren’t being carpet bombed and blockaded and fought on many fronts, contrasted with the fact that they were carpet-bombed, blockaded and having to fight on many fronts.
So it ought not be that difficult a concept to grasp. Apparently its just that little bit too hard for you, dover and Edney.
By: graemebird on December 9, 2008
at 2:52 am
Bear in mind that the French had more men and materiel than the Germans. And the Polish had almost as much as well. So its not just about Soviet reported tank building statistics. Their capacities cannot be brought down to some Soviet report on how many tanks they allegedly produced.
Its unbelievable how many people fixate on tank production. And as well how many talk about the Soviet economic performance divorced from the input of free producer goods. Communism is not known for it masterful productive ability.
By: graemebird on December 9, 2008
at 3:03 am
You would agree that the French didn’t whip the Germans is that right? You’d agree that the Polish didn’t beat the Germans right? And you would agree also that the allies, not including the Soviets had more men and materiel then the Germans did is that right?
Suddenly the Russians and tank production becomes the ultimate metric in successful war fighting. But its all a big tendentious lot of baloney.
By: graemebird on December 9, 2008
at 3:07 am
“1 Is the risk of Hitler getting an A-Bomb not sufficient in your view to justify us fighting the germans?”
Well thats a moronic question isn’t it. When your own contention is that Hitler could not beat the Soviets. So he wouldn’t be around to develop his nukes since the Soviets would beat the crap out of him, without our help. by your own estimation.
By: graemebird on December 9, 2008
at 3:11 am
I’m telling you. The pedro-dover point of view is absolutely water-tight in its idiocy. Its an impenetrable rubicks cube of stupidity that is self-contradictory no matter which angle you approach it from.
By: graemebird on December 9, 2008
at 3:13 am
Graeme, let’s try this again. The winter war ended in March 1940. How much western aid did the sovs get before that date?
By: pedro on December 9, 2008
at 3:48 am
“Well thats a moronic question isn’t it. When your own contention is that Hitler could not beat the Soviets.”
What was the first thing I said? Here, I’ll remind you:
“Some things that are obvious with hindsight and later knowledge weren’t obvious at the time.”
But the question was for you, and your assessment is that the germans would have won. And your position is that the germans should have been allowed to beat the sovs before we fought the germans. And this despite you not denying:
1 the lengthened war would have given the germans more time to work on an A-Bomb;
2 more dead slaves and jews;
3 more germans soldiers to man the western wall.
You’ve not been talking to Homer have you? You both seem so much in favour of Hitler.
By: pedro on December 9, 2008
at 3:52 am
“Bear in mind that the French had more men and materiel than the Germans.”
Sure, and the germans one through tactical and strategic excellence, same thing as got them so far into the soviet union. Problem is that the area of the USSR the conquered, which was far greater than the area of france, still wasn’t enough to beat the sovs and the germans destroyed their army doing it. You should read some history on this stuff, the german army staff did not think they could win.
“And the Polish had almost as much as well. ” Well that’s the silliest thing yet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland_(1939)#Opposing_forces
By: pedro on December 9, 2008
at 4:02 am
Right. So what is your argument exactly. You are saying that the Germans could not win….. EXCEPT THAT they might have gotten the A-Bomb and then what? Then they would have won? So is your point of view dependent on the A-Bomb?
Is that right? Because that is not an argument that dover made.
Now the other thing. We see that the way they handled things 6 million Jews got killed and maybe 20 million others. And many tens of millions that the Soviets murdered. So you would have to agree that the way that they did things they didn’t do real well with protecting civilians.
So what is wrong with maintaining a flexible approach and helping the weaker side. Whomever that weaker side might be?
By: graemebird on December 9, 2008
at 4:07 am
How would you have gotten Hitler to stop killing so many civilians? How would you have managed to get Stalin to stop killing so many civilians? Surely pulling out of the fight after Barborrossa and helping the weaker side would have been far more effectual as to this cause.
You would then have been in a much better position to apply diplomacy. A fait accompli is the opposite of diplomacy.
I have argued this often. And it is the preserving of innocent life that was the point of this strategy.
By: graemebird on December 9, 2008
at 4:11 am
You would agree then that a fait accompli is the end of diplomacy and you could not have hoped to stop Stalin killing civilians and prisoners on that basis right?
Or Hitler either right?
By: graemebird on December 9, 2008
at 4:16 am
Gawd, so now you wish we’d simply waiting till December 1941 to see who was on top and then we could have helped the other side?
Ummm, did you notice that we were fighting the germans in Africa and over the skies or western europe and in the Atlantic? A fight they picked and wanted to continue unless we surrendered.
So, in your fantasy land its Christmas eve 1941 and Winston gets on the blower to Adolf: “Hey Bud, I know you’ve been kicking our butt and stuff, but we want to see you last as long as possible in a bitter fight with Josef, so here’s the thing, as long as you keep fighting we’ll give you just enough help to not quite win, and all you gotta do in return is send the U-boats and Rommel home. We won’t even ask for France and belgium back and we didn’t like those pesky dutch or the herring-suckers anyway. So Dolfy boy, how bout it?”
By: pedro on December 9, 2008
at 5:06 am
Also, I see you’ve dropped that silliness about the winter war being won with our help. You should be man enough to admit when you’re wrong about stuff, instead of just changing the subject and looking sheepishly at your feet.
By: pedro on December 9, 2008
at 5:08 am
What are you talking about? Churchill started the aid right from the getgo. Soon as Hitler attacked he put together an alliance with the Soviets. They invaded Iran to have a place to send all the aid through. Hence the aid was coming through right from the start.
By: graemebird on December 9, 2008
at 5:13 am
So your contending that we ought to have aided them… and at the same time, by your own admission, the aid was useless, in helping them in the early fighting?
So why help them. Why not, at least with hindsight, agree that helping them was a mistake.
By: graemebird on December 9, 2008
at 5:14 am
“What are you talking about? Churchill started the aid right from the getgo. Soon as Hitler attacked he put together an alliance with the Soviets. They invaded Iran to have a place to send all the aid through. Hence the aid was coming through right from the start.”
What date did hitler attack the sovs? (Hint 22/6/1941)
When did the winter war end? (Hint march 1940)
How much aid do you thing Churchill got to the sovs before Decembert 1941? By which time the jig was up for your mate.
By: pedro on December 9, 2008
at 5:16 am
“Ummm, did you notice that we were fighting the germans in Africa and over the skies or western europe and in the Atlantic? A fight they picked and wanted to continue unless we surrendered.”
Its your position that the Soviets would have won no matter what. So there was no point in fighting in North Africa by your own view of reality. Since the Germans would have had to abandon North Africa once the Soviets had beaten them.
THIS IS YOUR VIEW YOU FUCKWIT. I’m not saying this you are?
This is my point. The pedro/dover viewpoint is idiotic no matter how you dice it.
By: graemebird on December 9, 2008
at 5:17 am
Regardless of the material quantities (and you are wrong the germans had more and fouoght their enemies sequentially), it much easier in a short smaller war to overwhelm an opponent, with decisive tactics. In russia depsite the early victories they still had vast reserves of manpower, equipment and a huge base to keep producing it and a vastly longer time scale to apply it. Not to mention the geography dispersing the germans advantage in elite forces.
The type of warfare in russia made the material a much more important factor.
By: Steve Edney on December 9, 2008
at 5:20 am
Ever heard of the Suez canal and its importance to British trade and strategic access to India and the pacific.
By: Steve Edney on December 9, 2008
at 5:22 am
Edney this is your position. This is not my position According to you the British could have lifted their blockade, let Germany make all the progress they wanted up there, and simply reclaimed everything when the lethal Germans had buggered off to defend their homeland from the unstoppable unaided Soviets.
This is YOUR VIEW. Not mine.
By: graemebird on December 9, 2008
at 5:24 am
2nd to last post. Right Edney. So its not just all about announced Soviet tank production figures right Edney? Because that statistic was getting real old.
By: graemebird on December 9, 2008
at 5:26 am
This is really getting delusional. The germans landed in north africa to help the italians who had attacked the french and brits. Churchill did not choose to fight in north africa, he had to.
If you want to debate war strategy you’ve got to read a bit beyond this level:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Sven%20Hassel
I asked earlier who you wanted to win between germans and sovs, so who is it?
By: pedro on December 9, 2008
at 5:29 am
Right. But it was all unnecessary in your view. Because it was only a matter of time and the Germans would have had to go home to defend the fatherland.
This is your stated view. See there is not getting around it. This is your view not mine.
By: graemebird on December 9, 2008
at 5:32 am
Obviously either the Soviets or the Germans winning and accumulating nuclear weapons is a disaster. The Germans were more lethal fighters in my view. Hence they may have been worse. But in your view the Soviets were more lethal. On that basis you ought to have wanted the Germans to win.
By: graemebird on December 9, 2008
at 5:34 am
So you wanted the sovs to win? Now how come you’re against us helping them. this doesn’t make anysense at all.
By: pedro on December 9, 2008
at 5:37 am
No of course I didn’t want the Soviets to win. I wanted our side to win and the Soviets and Nazis to be toppled. Or weakened to the point of not being a threat, and micronised into small principalities.
You see we failed. And there is just no doubt about it.
The only way to do this was to keep building our own capacity. Try to fight as little as possible. And let the two tyrants fight helping the weaker side.
By: graemebird on December 9, 2008
at 5:40 am
We are talking about the Edney/pedro/dover view of things. Which is just completely self-contradictory, no matter what way you look at it.
It cannot be sustained. Its loony-toons stuff.
By: graemebird on December 9, 2008
at 5:42 am
But you just said you wanted the sovs to win cause you think the germans were more dangerous. Now you want the nazis to win. You have to take a stand on some point. You can’t just fluff around with this stuff. Lives are at stake!
By: pedro on December 9, 2008
at 6:20 am
Look I’m discussing the pedro, dover point of view. And showing it to be internally self-contradictory. I didn’t say I wanted to Soviets to win at all. I didn’t want either side to win.
I WANTED OUR SIDE TO WIN.
But your point of view was that the Soviets were the most lethal. Would have won no matter what we did. Hence for them to be the crowd who won and got nuclear weapons is by your own admission, the ultimate disaster hence the war policy was a total failure. On the other hand you don’t think its a failure. Hence your own view of the situation is drooling nutballery.
We are not discussing my point of view here. I wanted our side to win and the Soviets and the Nazis to lose. This appears to be a completely foreign idea to you.
But your own view makes no sense at all. Don’t change the subject.
By: graemebird on December 9, 2008
at 6:36 am
Well if you want our side to win we’ve got to get in there and fight. You can’t just run around the ring hoping the other guy gets tired. I don’t think the rope-a-dope works in geopolitics.
How could the soviets winning be a disaster for our war policy. The policy was to beat the germans and that’s what happened. We won, yippee!!!
By: pedro on December 9, 2008
at 6:42 am
No thats not right. Thats the last thing we want to do if we want to win. And by your own view of the situation that is entirely wrong.
Since you say that the Soviets would have won no matter what, then in your world, whatever colour the sky may have been in your world, then the idea was that we would have to get behind the Nazis. And assist them, them being the weaker side in your view. And perhaps we could do a deal that they would stop killing innocents for ten years in return for 3 years of some sort of aid. And pull out of Western Europe also. This latter we would presumably be in a position to insist once the Soviets were winning. On account of them being so vastly superior. Which is your strident position.
But thats going on your view of the situation. Since you keep on insisting that the Soviets would win no matter what.
By: graemebird on December 9, 2008
at 6:46 am
We didn’t win pedro. Don’t be an idiot. We defeated one tyranny and brought another to power. Thats not a win, thats a loss. Since Hitler had no designs on the British Empire.
See the idea is just to not believe fairy tales. Not to have these dumb ideas in the first place.
Your position has been untenable from the start. As was that of dover all the way through.
By: graemebird on December 9, 2008
at 6:49 am
“Well if you want our side to win we’ve got to get in there and fight.”
You really don’t have any fucking idea do you? The above is pure idiocy.
By: graemebird on December 9, 2008
at 6:51 am
graeme is quite correct here. The Germans lost the war in the east rather than the Soviets winning. The fact that Hitler’s strategy changed at the gates of Moscow and the lack of planning by OKW are two examples that point to German indecision and ineptitude rather than great Soviet strategies or advantages in materiel and or production. Without allied assistance on a number of fronts the Soviets would have been in even greater difficulty than they already were. It seems a rewrite of the actual history to suggest that the Soviet victory was a foregone conclusion from June of 1941. Unfortunately this subject of the war in the east has been colored too much by ideology rather than rigorous study and therefore is prone to a rewrite based on myth rather than fact.
By: Wilson on December 9, 2008
at 6:54 am
Ok, this really is my last word.
You said, and I responded basically as follows:
“His view contained the following propositions.”
“1. The Germans could never have beaten the Soviet Union.” – That’s essentially correct as demonstrated many times above, though I doubt Dover was so categorical. By Christmas 1941 the germans were bogged down in front of moscow and they’d lost their roll of the dice. Read any history of the war and it will say exactly that. Western aid to the sovs did not start until after June 1941 and that clearly shows the germans had stuffed up before any signifcant amounts of aid could get through.
“2. The Soviet Union didn’t need any allied fighting to beat the Germans. Nor any allied aid.” – That’s correct, but the war would have gone on some years longer if we’d just stood on the sidelines, during which time many more jews and slaves would have died, not to mention germans and russions. Of course nothing is completely certain and the extra time might have meant that the germans developed an A bomb and won the war.
“3. Despite never budging on 2. He contends that all the aid to the Soviet Union was the right thing for the Americans and British to do” Yes, to shorten the war and because at the time it would not have been so certain that the germans would not win against the sovs.. “This despite his contention that this aid was ineffectual. Since they didn’t need this aid to beat the Germans.” Not “despite” at all, the conclusion does not follow from your premise.
“4. D-Day was necessary to get to Germany before Stalin did. On the other hand it was important not to have pulled the aid to the Soviets prior to that because this would have made the Soviets angry.” Surely you are happy that the ruskies didn’t get western europe as well?
“5. Though the aid to the Soviets was totally ineffectual (in dovers view) it ought not have been a great deal less and cut off a whole lot earlier. And these resources ought not have been used to reinforce Singapore, aid other allies, or make sure that your own people had more materiel to work with.“ He didn’t say it was ineffectual because clearly, and you agree with this, the aid made a difference to the soviet war effort and thus made it easier and quicker to beat hitler.
“Well of course the above is just lunacy.” No, the lunacy is thinking it the slightest bit sensible of possible that the western allies should have abandoned fighting and sat back to see who between hitler and stalin won the war and thus control of the whole of europe and the near east.
You then went all over the shop completely refusing to accept any facts or arguments while imagine the winter war ended in a finnish victory despite massive western aid to the soviet union. And you didn’t care at all about the extra jews murdered because of you sill strategies.
By: pedro on December 9, 2008
at 6:56 am
I am sorry I’m coming late to this but the supposition that ‘The Germans could never have beaten the Soviet Union” is patently untrue and any serious assessment of Barbarossa and it’s immediate aftermath that comes to that conclusion must be viewed with great suspicion. There are just too many elements in a war as complicated as WWII to believe that is a reasonable conclusion to the events up to Kursk. After the German catastrophe at Kursk that is something altogether different.
By: Wilson on December 9, 2008
at 7:12 am
I think the Commies should’ve taken a licking in 45 wehn we had the bomb. We should’ve nuked the goddam lot of them and built a McDonalds where Moscow used to be. But them pussy fucking liberal shitheads in the goddamed White House were to busy trying on pink dresses and sucking each other faggot dicks.
By: Doghouse Reilly on December 9, 2008
at 7:20 am
Look what I’ve shown pedro is that the dover position, which you share entirely, is on its face ridiculous. Since you not only contends that the Soviets would have won without allied fighting and aid. But you then follows that up by saying we ought to have given them the aid and continued fighting, when by your own testimony that was unnecessary.
There’s no getting around the idiocy of your point of view. It makes no sense. Its internally wrong. Quite apart from its relation to reality. Its internally idiotic.
By: graemebird on December 9, 2008
at 7:21 am
The goddam commies were worse at least the NAzis dressed like men and got rid of the fuckin retards. they should’ve taken the Limeys out and then we would’ve carved up the goddam empire between us and nuked the Japanese and the Rooskies and the fucking French. We shoukld still nuke the fuckin French. And the Canadians. Faggots!
By: Doghouse Reilly on December 9, 2008
at 7:23 am
I like your spirit doghouse. But the fact is that the problem could have been solved before that.
By: graemebird on December 9, 2008
at 7:23 am
Before the nukes? Sure. A bunch of marines, God and a few thousand Thompsons would’ve whipped the goddam yellow hilarity from Tojo’s smirking puss. Them Nazis were a bit tougher and the Rooskies, ignorant fuckin peons that they were, are hard as fuckin’ nails and twice as much of a pian in the ass. But it’s those Senate faggots and the pussies in the Capitol.
Ask me and we should’ve all gone in for total war in Iraq, moved on to Iran. We wouldn’t worrying about Pakistan now. Pakistan would be a goddam crater full of towelhead turds.
I love the corp.
By: Doghouse Reilly on December 9, 2008
at 8:47 am
And another goddam thing – fuckin Candadians. Goddamn communist heathen pieces of shit. We should go to war. But now that that polecate Bush’s testicles have retreated and that Jihadi wannabe pussy liberal twinkletoed cocksucker’s gonna come in and turn this great country into a slimepit of socialist shinola it ain;t gonna happen.
The corp wants more. The corp should take over and set freedom loose in this goddam US of A once more.
By: Doghouse Reilly on December 9, 2008
at 9:23 am
DOVER STILL INSISTING THE ENSLAVEMENT OF EASTERN EUROPE UNDER COMMUNISM WAS THE RIGHT OPTION.
Dover speaks. But he lies. He is an idiot who can never be an historian.
Lets go through it all:
“Pedro, I’m amazed you hung-on for so long. And no, you’re right, I was never so categorical……”
He lied right there. He was utterly categorical. As categorical as pedro was. And as categorical as I said he was. It is only the appearance of Wilson that has him scrambling for cover now. Instead of admitting he was wrong the moron took the position of simply lying. He persisted with this idiocy far longer than pedro has.
“I still think the Germans might have one in 1942 if they ignored Stalingrad and the Caucasus and instead concentrated the majority of their mobile force in enveloping Moscow from the south. But even this would have been tight since the petroleum stocks were by then so low (which was one of the reasons Hitler thought it necessary to capture the oil fields in Maikop which the Soviets sabotaged so effectively before leaving anyway that it took 10 or so years before any oil flowed from the wells again).”
Why were their oil stocks low? If but for the efforts of the allies. Whom dover insisted were irrelevant to the Soviets ability to make traction against the Nazis.
“By 1943, the best the Germans could have hoped for was to grind the Soviets to a stalemate and to peace talks.Lets imagine that the Western Allies had not allied with the Soviets. What advantage would we have gained from a complete victory by the Nazis or Soviets? None whatsoever. ”
Right. It was best that the two giants were fighting eachother. I’ve certainly never contradicted that point. Hence what follows is based on dover lying.
“And what advantage would we have from a armistice agreement to the effect that the Nazi’s attain Western and Central Europe and the Soviets Eastern Europe and Central Asia? Nothing again.”
Right? I never once mentioned such an armistice. Dover never once mentioned any armistice. Dover insisted that the Soviets would have won no matter what. He stuck with this assertion 100% all the way and would not consider any alternative whatsoever. He never spoke of any such armistice. It just shows the lengths this moron will go to to not admit he was wrong.
Exactly the same as pedro and Edney. Their views have been totally categorical and without any deviation whatsoever.
Clearly dover you are an idiot. And whats more even with the above feeble excuse you are STILL insisting that no mistake was made and orchestrating Stalins victory and enslavement of Eastern Europe was unavoidable and the right thing to do.
It wasn’t. It was a horrible and unacceptable outcome.
By: graemebird on December 9, 2008
at 10:03 am
Bird,
The Germans would probably have taken Russia if not for Stalingrad. Had they marched on Moscow and taken Leningrad, rather than getting bogged down needlessly in the Volga, it would have been all over for the Soviets. In a long war of attrition, in the frozen, Russian steppe, the Soviets always would have had the advantage, but the loss of Moscow and Leningrad would have been utterly disastrous.
By: THR on March 13, 2011
at 6:29 am
You see you are trying to bullshit me and yourself.
That American producer goods made no difference.
That they made no difference but that the Americans
ought to have sent these producer goods anyhow.
ATTEMPT NOT TO BE AN IDIOT
By: graemebird on March 13, 2011
at 9:22 am
Also, the Russians paid a terrible price for WWII. I’m not sure what possesses you to denigrate their efforts. You should be sending commemorative wreaths to our comrades in Leningrad, Volgograd, and Yekaterinburg.
By: THR on March 13, 2011
at 6:46 am
It wasn’t the Russians who paid that price.
It was the people that the Russians had been murdering.
By: graemebird on March 13, 2011
at 9:18 am
I’m so angry reviewing this thread, and looking at people who feel they have a right to be illogical. Its global warming all over again. It makes me very angry. Its not okay. And its never fucking going to be okay.
By: graemebird on October 14, 2011
at 8:33 am