U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Login ] [ Active ]

The USSR has lost the Second World War

Log-in to remove advertisement.
Post 19 Aug 2015, 09:09
The USSR has lost the Second World War. The USA and Stalin won that war. There was technology transfer from the USA to Stalin during the war; that is what has made Stalin so powerful after the war.
Post 21 Aug 2015, 00:27
The USSR won WWII by sacrificing 27 million people and pinning down 2/3 of German forces in the East. If it had remained neutral, or if Hitler had not attacked it, then the Germans would likely have completely overrun Western Europe.

Of course, a German occupation of England would have brought the USA into the war much sooner.
Last edited by Comrade Gulper on 21 Aug 2015, 00:31, edited 1 time in total.
Post 21 Aug 2015, 00:29
The title for some reason reminds me of those Japanese soldiers who didn't know the war was over and kept fighting until several decades later.
Post 23 Aug 2015, 13:07
The USSR did not have brains, technologies, money, etc. to win the Second World War. Soviet people and Russians are like small kids, compared to Westerners. It is very hard to find a skillful and smart Russian, almost all of them are alcoholics, drug abusers, etc. because they are mentally ill. Russians are the only nation in the world that believes the lies about the Second World War. This is a technology used by Russian government to recruit cheap soldiers to fight on behalf of Russian government today in Ukraine, Syria, etc.
Post 23 Aug 2015, 13:21
Will someone please ban this troll?
Post 23 Aug 2015, 13:29
I am not a troll. I express my opinion. I am a proponent of the USSR, Russian Empire, China and all other alternatives to the West. The West has too much power, which must be challenged. The best way to achieve that is to find the truth. It is important to find the truth. The easiest way to find the truth is to analyze all information, especially all opinions of the people who studied the subject for many years.
Post 31 Aug 2015, 13:40
mike how do you explain 90% of German casualties on Eastern Front ? The USSR was the only country fighting on one front. All others were fighting on two. Sane. A review hope of some use.
This Will Podmore review is from: Stalin: Revolutionary in an Era of War (European History in Perspective) K. McDermott

Stalin's single purpose was, as Professor Richard Overy has noted, "to preserve and enlarge the revolution and the state that represented it." His policies were forged in war and revolution. How could World War One's slaughter of Russians be stopped? How could the counter-revolutionary war of 1917-21 be defeated? How could a feudal peasant society be modernised? How could the kulaks be defeated? How could the fifth column linked to Hitler be defeated? How could Hitler's invasion be defeated? How could the Soviet Union be rebuilt after the war's devastation? Capitalism caused all these problems; liberalism compounded them. Stalin's answer was class war - war against the warmongers. How else could Russia have survived these lethal threats?

So, without a capitalist class, without profits from exploiting people in other countries, without investment by foreign firms, and without foreign aid, the Soviet people built an economy that transformed their country from the backward semi-colonial land of the tsars into the world's second industrial, scientific and military power. They collectivised agriculture and created an iron and steel industry, tractors, machine tools, agricultural machinery and aircraft. They brought electricity to the whole country and built coal and oil industries. There was no unemployment, and people had free housing, free education and free health care: children got free vitamins. The late Lord Bullock, not the friendliest witness, wrote, "the achievement of the Russian people on the economic front, under the Soviet system and Stalin's leadership, was remarkable."

The supreme test was the Second World War. Soviet forces inflicted 90% of Nazi Germany's military casualties. As Albert Seaton wrote of Stalin, "he must be allowed credit for the amazing successes of 1944", which are "among the most outstanding in the world's military history."

General Alan Brooke, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, judged that Stalin had `a military brain of the very highest order'. The veteran American diplomat Averell Harriman wrote of Stalin's "high intelligence, that fantastic grasp of detail, his shrewdness and the surprising human sensitivity that he was capable of showing, at least in the war years. I found him better informed than Roosevelt, more realistic than Churchill, in some ways the most effective of the war leaders." Henri Michel, the French historian of the war, wrote, "The Soviet victory was the Red Army's victory, but it was also the victory of the Soviet economy and of the Bolshevik regime ... finally, this victory was Stalin's victory."

As they say in Russia, Stalin found the country a wreck and left it a superpower; Gorbachev found it a superpower and left it a wreck. Without Stalin's leadership of the Soviet Union, Hitler could have defeated the Soviet Union, then occupied Britain and won the war, so we owe Stalin and the Soviet people a huge debt.
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Privacy.
[ Top ]