What if... Patton invaded the Soviet Union

[Crna Legija]

@Kilgor



1) The Sovietunion was among the victors. And the loser pays it all. Wether it comes to land, power, money...or the place in history. The loser has started it. Alone of course. He is responsible. Everyone else is clean. From the USA to the UdSSR, from Norway to Greece, from Britain to the sorriest colony of the Empire...always the same. All are a crossbreed of an innocent lamb with a dragonslayer.


2) Realpolitik. Within the Soviet state there was of course no question who of Hitler and Stalin had been the one who was more evil...even to pose the very question would have meant to sign your death warrant as long as Josef ruled.
And outside the Warsaw Pact the Soviets may have fastly become the new enemy...but they still were a very real power with whom one still had to negotiate at times. Therefore, Realpolitik dictates to treat them with a certain consideration. Look how Hitler had been treated by the world outside Germany before WWII. With more respect than the Weimarian Republic had been given. The Olympic Games in Munich 1936 are the prime example. Concentration camps already existed in Germany and the anti-semitic Nuremberg race laws had been enacted one year before that. Yet none of the democratic states, neither France nor the USA nor Britain did even so much as boycott the games. But then, political troublemakers were interned in many states of Europe (and also in British/French colonies) and Jews were fleeing in high numbers from Poland to Nazi-Germany to be better off (!) and nobody cared about that either.
But if one considers how weakly the world reacted to the Ruandan Holocaust of the 90ties this has to be classified as normal human behaviour.

3) The Soviets had been allies of America, Britain, France during the war. Therefore the Nazis simply HAD to be the Great Evil. Otherwise somebody could come to the conclusion that Roosevelts USA supported the bigger monster against the smaller one. Or that Britain stabbed a people in the back that is quite similiar to them. That the result of the war-efforts of the Western Allies was an incredible damage to the region that is commonly called as "the West". That they did not save the world but *censored**censored**censored**censored*ed it up by helping the most totalitarian, imperialist power in existence to survive and prosper, so that it aftewards could continue to expand and expand. A power that is willing to priorize everything military to an degree as no Western state would. Something like that. How do you like that?
I can only say, if I were an American who had sacrificed sweat and blood in WWII, I would prefer the "we killed Hitler the hyper-dictator and saved the world" version. Sounds much better.

4) Leftist press. For the intelectuals of the media "Socialism" had always an far higher appeal than Faschism. This is easy to understand, communism encompasses many progressive ideas like equality of men, race, sex, religion (because they are all crap) and such. Especially the NS idology was in many ways a countermovement containing reactonary ideas like: "man are not equal", "some races are superior to others", "the genders have different roles" and so forth. That has not so much appeal for intellectuals. Of course, when it came down to it the Socialism as practiced in Stalin's Sovietunion had not much to do with the ideals mentioned above. While men were equal, some were definitely more equal than others, in other words, the system was super-hierachic with the Soviet Commisars ruling over life and death. The workforce of women was exploited (like the one of the men) but members of the fair gender did not really make it to really important positions (how many KPDSU general secretaries have ever been women? How many leaders of NKVD/KGB? How many Soviet Army generals?)
In the end the "will of the people" ammounted basically to the will of the dictator, like in Germany. And actually Stalin could enforce his will even better (in Germany for example the army and the secret service were politically neutral - whereas the Red Army was a political organisation technically more like the Waffen-SS than the Wehrmacht. On German universities some historians openly teached that the Nazi worldview was wrong...that was not without risk, but in Stalin's Sovietunion nobody dared, it would have been suicide). But that all was conveniently overlooked by the intellectuals.
And in the end, even after the illusions were gone, only very few ex-sovietunion supporters ever openly declared something like "man, was I wrong earlier!" Who likes to do that, anyway?



In the end, this amounted to Nazi Germany/Hitler receiveing a far worse press than Stalin's Sovietunion. Over time the dictator Hitler became a demonlord of downright supernatural proportions.
(Who, if not stopped, surely would have conquered the US, eradicated all Slavs and generally all non blonds everywhere. He then would have fitted the rest with behaviour control implants and turned them into soulless Nazimonsters. And of course, the region where he rules would be permanently covered in dark clouds risen up from Mount Doom. Something like that. *Shudder*).
In contrast to this, Stalin faded into oblivion...to be "rediscovered" as the the vanquisher of "true evil" (RomanS, sry).
But that has not much to do with realism.

5) The Soviets were always masters of double-talk and espionage.

p.s just picked up on another Lokos classic word, revisionism. Laughable in every sense of the term. How he could argue that in the same post as believing the history of the world according to old KGB propaganda crew I will never know. The sov’s revised more history then anyone else, not including the stories they tell when they are pissed on vodka lol

[ed316]

Revisionism? Didn't Stalin had people totally wipe out ie. erase all traces of them by altering written records and had them remove from pics. As stated below, USSR were masters at revisioism and double talk.

[RomanS]

Revisionism? Didn't Stalin had people totally wipe out ie. erase all traces of them by altering written records and had them remove from pics. As stated below, USSR were masters at revisioism and double talk.

and how did it affect your personal life?

[Ea$y-8]

Well said, Kitsune!

[ed316]

It didn't affect crap. It's just hilarious to see how people defending the old system that murders many of it's own citizens. Roman you are no different from the people that worship Hitler if you have that much of a hard on for Stalin.

[Lokos]

Thousands of churches were destroyed, priests were sent to the gulags and even executed.

And?

Does that mean the church wasn't 'redeemed' in the autumn of 1941?

Its only after the GPW started that Stalin realised the church did perform a service and then allowed it. This is far worse than anything hitler did to the church.

Wonderful.

The great purges made hitlers "night of the long knives" look like a sunday picnick. The climate of fear and suspicion in the soviet union at the time probably had no equal in history.

And? What is your point?

There was the unkrianian genocide, and then the war on the kulaks. Two different things buddy.

Kilgor, you don't know much about this subject. Look up Stephen Wheatcroft's thesis on the so-called 'Kulak' class - an invention of White Russian revisionists now widely accepted as gospel in many segments of Western historiography, and one that just doesn't fly on the facts.

The 'Ukrainian Genocide'... Get a grip. Whilst the Ukrainian people certainly suffered due to the food shortages caused by the collectivisation of agrarian enterprises, they were certainly not the only ones. Russians suffered very similarly. Whilst a tragedy, calling the famine a 'genocide' is deceitful and dishonest.

t is common knowledge that the Soviet union collected every scrap of grain and there was even exporting at the time.

Common knowledge, huh? Source it for me, then.

Hitler didn't "kill 38 million people". Hell, you even mentioned the victims of the Italian/meditarrenean part of the war

There were Italian/Romanian/Hungarian/Spanish forces on the Eastern Front, as well as in the Mediterrenean, fighting alongside German units. Was Hitler less at fault for the fighting in North Africa and Italy than for the fighting on the Eastern Front? Hardly. If you believe so, though, prove it.

Why not add the dead of the Pacific War during WWII.

Because the Japanese went to war of their own accord.

And don't forget the suffering of the Japanese detainees in America during that time. All of it Hitler's fault, of course.

Hopelessly facetious, hopelessly uninformed.

Have I to mention again things like France and Britain declaring war on Germany?

LOL. And Hitler wasn't aware of the guarantee granted to Poland by those countries? The HELL he wasn't. Look at the August negotiations, before opening your mouth. It was his intention to go to war with Poland, despite knowing full well that its independence and territorial integrity were guaranteed.

For Germany AND the Sovietunion invading Poland?

The Soviets attacked when the Polish forces in the field were already largely defeated, and attacked mostly to assert Soviet interests in Eastern Poland, as per the Pact. That they were not EXPECTING to fight in Poland is evidenced by the fact that out of the numerous field armies operating in the Western Military District, only a few motorized rifle battalions could be scratched together in the opening days of the offensive to take to the field. And they had to be aerially resupplied because the logistics network was not in place.

Or haven't you yourself agreed that Stalin would have attacked west in 1942?

Absolutely. Does that change what happened? No.

Do you want really to state that Stalin's Soviet state with it's super-sized army operating under an strictly offenisve doctrine was actually nice and peaceful?

Have I ever said this?

As is your idiotic apologetic stance for the Stalinist horror.

I don't apologise for Stalin, I explain the context of the actions undertaken and the events that occured. I cannot, for the life of me, stand baseless exagerration and uninformed assertions based on so-called 'common knowledge', which is in actuality hearsay and heavily biased assessment by parties not priviliged with access to required data.

that Stalin ruled MORE brutally than Hitler.

So WHAT? Hitler treated his own people well. At least until the very end, when 'traitors' were being hung from lamp posts. Does that make him less a murderous, psychopathic pig? No. In my humble opinion, it does not.

Hell, just take the time until WWII broke out...do you know how many people were murdered by the Nazis between January 1933 and September 1939?

Relevance?

Was there a sudden transformation in Hitler's psyche in September 1939, when he suddenly decided to become a genocidal maniac? The intent can be ecked out as far back as the early twenties, in his dictation of Mein Kampf.

But how many died in the Sovietunion in that time? Hmmm? The truth? Hundreds of times that number!

The truth? You have no idea.

In peacetime, without any war).

What an absolutely ignorant statement. The Soviet Union perceived itself to be at war with the entire world from 1924 until 1941. The ENTIRE world. It was a state born in the throes of a socialist revolution rejected and assailed on all fronts by capitalist liberal democracies. Armed conflict is not vital to the perception of the existence of conflict itself. The Soviet Union was rearming and reindustrialising in order to foster the strength its leadership believed was vital to the state's continued survival. It surely was not because the money and energy could not be spent elsewhere.

There was no 'peace' in the interwar Soviet Union.

But you go on claiming the man would be not comparable to Hitler, the super-monster.

Of course.

No he would have not. Where do you guys get this from? There was no plan to eradicate all Slavs.

I'm sorry, I should rephrase. Hitler was the only one of the two to justify the killing of persons of Slavic heritage based solely on that heritage. Whether that was done or not is immaterial. The racial hiearchy established by Hitler put Germans at the top, and the Slavs together at the bottom with Jews and Gypsies. Yes, of course, Hitler wasn't truly evil, because it was impractical to kill every single one of us. Instead, he'd make do with a 'race' of slaves.

How do you exactly imagine that could have been realized, anyway, after the Sovietunion had been defeated?

Generalplan Ost spells it out with relative clarity.

And if you were ukrainian you would have starved.

LOL. Of course, all Ukrainians starved. Gosp. Timoshenko would be interested in this tidbit, I'd wager.

Kulak, shot.

Kulak? Again, why don't you define this mystical 'Kulak' grouping for me?

Factory head or working in a political department, shot or thrown in the gulag.

Sweet Jesus Christ, what are you smoking?

Source it!

Stop with the moral aurthority over nazi germany lokos, its quite sickening because the soviet fanboys here have no authoirty in that area.

No moral authority, hmm? If I said I was enamoured of the Soviet Union, you'd look at me with distaste. If I said I was a Neo-Nazi or mystified by the SS, you'd look at me with horror. But, of course, there's no difference.

1) The Sovietunion was among the victors. And the loser pays it all. Wether it comes to land, power, money...or the place in history. The loser has started it. Alone of course. He is responsible. Everyone else is clean. From the USA to the UdSSR, from Norway to Greece, from Britain to the sorriest colony of the Empire...always the same.

If that helps you sleep at night.

BTW why do you all sympathise with Kulaks, those were well off peasants that didn't give a damn about their starving neighbors (litteraly), in other words cheap bastards.

Ahh, is that how we're defining 'Kulak'? A well-off peasant? Is this something you'd agree with, Kilgor?

Didn’t hear of our boys in black getting blown away by Hitler because they were slavic.

No, but I did hear your boys in black were actually 'members of a lost Gothic tribe', tiger.

p.s. I see you love to use the throw-away line 'get the hell out of my thread’. Don’t see your name on the top of this forum. Arrogant & ignorant at the same time.

I am afforded arrogance by the fact that I can dance circles around you on this topic. At a leisurely pace, too. Ignorance? Where?

Hey, I've got an idea. Instead of injecting the thread with your own special brand of trolling for attention - and giggling like a little girl about it - why don't you - you know - say something of substance? Then, if I disagree, I'll show you just how 'ignorant' I am.

Laughable in every sense of the term.

Yes? Revising 6 million dead Jews to 3-4 million without any basis in fact is laughable for you? Were you also this disinterested about the revising of the dead at Jasenovac (down from a million to 'merely' several hundred thousand)? Revision has the potential to be a positive or a negative development. Revision with an agenda, clearly, is an example of the latter.

Didn't Stalin had people totally wipe out ie. erase all traces of them by altering written records and had them remove from pics.

No?

Well said, Kitsune!

Says who?

Lokos

[ed316]

No?





Lokos

In the 1930s Stalin began to rewrite the history of Russia and the Soviet Union in the twentieth century - school books and encyclopaedias were destroyed or altered, and children in school had to paste over pages in their books with the new versions of what had happened. This became known as the "Revision of History". Stalin wanted to destroy the reputations of the other Bolshevik leaders, like Bukharin and Kamenev. This would explain why he had put them on trial and had them executed. He picked on Trotsky in particular, because Lenin had chosen him as his successor. He accused him of treason and said that he had done nothing to help Russia or the Soviet Union. Stalin claimed that he alone had been responsible for the successes in the Civil War in 1918 to 1920. Stalin wanted to make out that only he knew what Lenin had intended to do in Russia. This would help Stalin justify why he became the leader and would make Russians accept him. Stalin had many paintings produced, which showed him close to Lenin. He had Lenin's body preserved in a huge mausoleum in Red Square and encouraged Soviet citizens to visit it. In fact Lenin had not wanted this to happen; he had requested a small burial. Stalin wanted to build himself up to be all-powerful and stop anyone opposing his ideas. This became known as the "Cult of Personality". Stalin made out that he was a superman who never made any mistakes. He was called the "wisest man alive", and the "genius of the age".

http://www.fatherryan.org/holocaust/...opposition.htm

[Lokos]

Your link, in no instance, shows your statement to be anything but a fallacy.

Lokos

[ed316]

Your post shows you revisionist tendencies. The only fallacy here is people like you who defends a regime that murdered millions of it's own people. Look up how Stalin wipe people from pics and rewrite history to make it look like Russia invented everything. I can see the Soviet propaganda worked on you.

[Lokos]

Your post shows you revisionist tendencies. The only fallacy here is people like you who defends a regime that murdered millions of it's own people. Look up how Stalin wipe people from pics and rewrite history to make it look like Russia invented everything. I can see the Soviet propaganda worked on you.

LOL. I'm sorry, but anyone who read that is now dumber for having done so. You are a child, intellectually, and I don't have the energy to waste in constructing a proper response to this trash, so that you can invalidate my efforts by waving a magic wand, and calling me an apologist.

If you want to be taken seriously, put in the effort.

Lokos

[ed316]

It's not suprising that people who are apologist and revisionist will never admit that they might be wrong. If they did that means they were just another sheep in the flock of propaganda believers.

[Crna Legija]

Yes? Revising 6 million dead Jews to 3-4 million without any basis in fact is laughable for you? Were you also this disinterested about the revising of the dead at Jasenovac (down from a million to 'merely' several hundred thousand)? Revision has the potential to be a positive or a negative development. Revision with an agenda, clearly, is an example of the latter.

Ah yes, but it looks like you and you cohorts are the ones that usually do the revising. If that isn’t an agenda I don’t know what is. As for the old Jasenovac chestnut, I’ll start respecting that when you respect what happened at Bleiburg. I won’t hold my breath…


Yet again Lokos, you paint yourself and your Russian masters as innocent parties. Let’s not fark around here champ. We ALL did nasty things during times of war. The only difference is that we lost and had to live with it while your mob went about on their merry way till the 90’s. But as you can attest to now, all your dirty laundry has been aired out for the world to see. We admit it, it’s about time cetnik apologists (ooh I love writing those ist words) like yourself do to.


p.s dance away pedere, e-arguing with you amuses me

[Asheren]

Hmm at end of war 50% of shermans had 76mm gun. With soviet T34,76,2 gun wasn't able to penetrate sherman frontal armour from 1000m acording to penetration tables. While sherman APCR round would penetrate T34/76,2 from 1828m. T-34/85 had comparable penetration values. Both countries had doctrine of leaving tank killer tasks to tank destroyers. Infantry Piat would penetrate T34 armour from 100m. While bazooka would have very limited effectivnes.

[Lokos]

Ah yes, but it looks like you and you cohorts are the ones that usually do the revising.

In what sense?

Yet again Lokos, you paint yourself and your Russian masters as innocent parties.

LOL. You open your mouth, and poopy flows freely. It's a precious gift. Nurture it!

We admit it, it’s about time cetnik apologists (ooh I love writing those ist words) like yourself do to.

I've apologised for the Chetniks? When? Where?

I’ll start respecting that when you respect what happened at Bleiburg. I won’t hold my breath…

If you're talking about the systemic slaughter of several tens of thousands of Ustasha POWs and civilians caught fleeing with them, as well as those representing the instruments of the NDH state, I am fully aware of it. What about it?

Lokos

[Lokos]

Both countries had doctrine of leaving tank killer tasks to tank destroyers.

The Soviets actually saw a tank v tank engagement as a failure of doctrinal application.

Lokos