http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44210

In the Bush vs. Putin debate on World War II, Putin had far the more difficult assignment. Defending Russia's record in the "Great Patriotic War," the Russian president declared, "Our people not only defended their homeland, they liberated 11 European countries."

Those countries are, presumably: Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Finland.

To ascertain whether Moscow truly liberated those lands, we might survey the sons and daughters of the generation that survived liberation by a Red Army that pillaged, raped and murdered its way westward across Europe. As at Katyn Forest, that army eradicated the real heroes who fought to retain the national and Christian character of their countries.

To Bush, these nations were not liberated. "As we mark a victory of six decades ago, we are mindful of a paradox," he said:

For much of Eastern and Central Europe, victory brought the iron rule of another empire. V-E day marked the end of fascism, but it did not end the oppression. The agreement in Yalta followed in the unjust tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable. ... The captivity of millions in Central and Eastern Europe will be remembered as one of the greatest wrongs in history.

Bush told the awful truth about what really triumphed in World War II east of the Elbe. And it was not freedom. It was Stalin, the most odious tyrant of the century. Where Hitler killed his millions, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot and Castro murdered their tens of millions.

Leninism was the Black Death of the 20th Century.

The truths bravely declared by Bush at Riga, Latvia, raise questions that too long remained hidden, buried or ignored.

If Yalta was a betrayal of small nations as immoral as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, why do we venerate Churchill and FDR? At Yalta, this pair secretly ceded those small nations to Stalin, co-signing a cynical "Declaration on Liberated Europe" that was a monstrous lie.

As FDR and Churchill consigned these peoples to a Stalinist hell run by a monster they alternately and affectionately called "Uncle Joe" and "Old Bear," why are they not in the history books alongside Neville Chamberlain, who sold out the Czechs at Munich by handing the Sudetenland over to Germany? At least the Sudeten Germans wanted to be with Germany. No Christian peoples of Europe ever embraced their Soviet captors or Stalinist quislings.

Other questions arise. If Britain endured six years of war and hundreds of thousands of dead in a war she declared to defend Polish freedom, and Polish freedom was lost to communism, how can we say Britain won the war?

If the West went to war to stop Hitler from dominating Eastern and Central Europe, and Eastern and Central Europe ended up under a tyranny even more odious, as Bush implies, did Western Civilization win the war?

In 1938, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain refused. In 1939, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Poland. Chamberlain agreed. At the end of the war Churchill wanted and got, Czechoslovakia and Poland were in Stalin's empire.

How, then, can men proclaim Churchill "Man of the Century"?

True, U.S. and British troops liberated France, Holland and Belgium from Nazi occupation. But before Britain declared war on Germany, France, Holland and Belgium did not need to be liberated. They were free. They were only invaded and occupied after Britain and France declared war on Germany – on behalf of Poland.

When one considers the losses suffered by Britain and France – hundreds of thousands dead, destitution, bankruptcy, the end of the empires – was World War II worth it, considering that Poland and all the other nations east of the Elbe were lost anyway?

If the objective of the West was the destruction of Nazi Germany, it was a "smashing" success. But why destroy Hitler? If to liberate Germans, it was not worth it. After all, the Germans voted Hitler in.

If it was to keep Hitler out of Western Europe, why declare war on him and draw him into Western Europe? If it was to keep Hitler out of Central and Eastern Europe, then, inevitably, Stalin would inherit Central and Eastern Europe.

Was that worth fighting a world war – with 50 million dead?

The war Britain and France declared to defend Polish freedom ended up making Poland and all of Eastern and Central Europe safe for Stalinism. And at the festivities in Moscow, Americans and Russians were front and center, smiling – not British and French. Understandably.

Yes, Bush has opened up quite a can of worms.

His logical argument is impressive and unassailable :) What do you think?

I think the article is amusing to say the least.

It *could* be said that an awful lot of that could be rephrased as a criticism of George Bush's own recent foreign policies - after all, if it's not worth killing 50 million people to have everyone else living under Communism, perhaps it's not worth killing 100,000 to have everyone else living in fear of daily terror attacks. However, I won't be the one to make that point, or to draw anyone's attention to the comment at the bottom of that piece, that its author has also written "'The Death of the West,'" an eye-opening exposé of how immigration invasions are endangering America" which I can't say endears him to me. Because these points aren't relevant to assessing what he says in this article.

More to the point: what does this author think Churchill and co *should* have done? It seems to me his point is not that the war shouldn't have been fought so much as that the wrong decisions were made at the end of it. That's a question that can legitimately be debated; I'm not sure if asking "was the war worth it?" really achieves anything, given that it's simply a fact of history and it's impossible to know what would have happened otherwise.

Pat Buchanan, the author of the above article, is a right wing extremist who has been repeatedly accused of antisemitism and support for Hitler. (http://slate.msn.com/id/1003886/) Even his fellow American conservatives have attacked his apparent pro-Nazi opinions. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/buchanan092499.htm)

Wow, an author worse than Irving? :D

Well mudslinging will happen in any political campaign. He can't be too much of an extremist if he's been a founding panelist of like 4 CNN shows, co-host of an MSNBC show, and presently an MSNBC analyst, not to mention that he has Jewish friends. But could we stick to the topic?

.
nevermind


.

But could we stick to the topic?

Certainly we can if you wish, feel free to adress the points of Plotinus' second paragraph.

It *could* be said that an awful lot of that could be rephrased as a criticism of George Bush's own recent foreign policies - after all, if it's not worth killing 50 million people to have everyone else living under Communism, perhaps it's not worth killing 100,000 to have everyone else living in fear of daily terror attacks.

He was very much against the Iraq war so that should endear him to you.

However, I won't be the one to make that point, or to draw anyone's attention to the comment at the bottom of that piece, that its author has also written "'The Death of the West,'" an eye-opening exposé of how immigration invasions are endangering America" which I can't say endears him to me.

Um you just DID draw people's attention to it by mentioning it! There's actually a word for this kind of thing. It's where you say: "I won't mention the fact that blah blah blah" when actually you just mentioned it!

Anyway, that's just WND's description of the book. They are obviously making it sound a little sensationalistic in order to make a buck. It's not Pat Buchanan's description of it. His books have all been best sellers -- he's written like 5 or 7 books.

Because these points aren't relevant to assessing what he says in this article.

Good, I'd prefer that this thread not get sidetracked into a discussion about him. But his politics would probably appeal to you except his views on immigration.

More to the point: what does this author think Churchill and co *should* have done? It seems to me his point is not that the war shouldn't have been fought so much as that the wrong decisions were made at the end of it. That's a question that can legitimately be debated; I'm not sure if asking "was the war worth it?" really achieves anything, given that it's simply a fact of history and it's impossible to know what would have happened otherwise.

I believe wikipedia has an entry on something called "counterfactual history." Apparently this is a field within history.

His logical argument is impressive and unassailable :) What do you think?By early 1945, everyone in the US government was resigned to the fact that Stalin could not be stopped from taking over Eastern Europe unless a new war was to be started against the USSR. Such a war would have been impossible to sell to the American people. "Remember the Russians who were our allies for the last several years? Well, we want to go to war against them." The American voters would have responded "I don't care who rules Bulgaria, I want my husband home."

The US would have gotten no help from the Brits, because the British economy had been ruined by the war. There is no way that Atlee would have aided a war against Stalin.

Also, you should remember the conferences at Yalta and Potsdam. Prior to Yalta, the Soviets had done essentially nothing in the war against Japan. At Yalta in February 1945, Roosevelt was pushing for Russian troops in the upcoming invasion of Japan. Stalin's price for those troops was a free hand in Eastern Europe and the opportunity to ransack Germany.

At Potsdam in July, the situation had changed. First, Roosevelt was dead and Truman was president. Second, Truman knew that the atom bomb was just about ready. (The successful Trinity Test occurred while the conference was going on.) Now, Truman had a different agenda from Roosevelt. He did not want Stalin to remove industrial goods and resources from Germany. Truman believed that without Germany, Western Europe could not be rebuilt. Thus, it was important to keep the Russians out of western Germany.

Also, because of the bomb, Truman (and Secretary of State Stimson), felt that Russian help in invading Japan was no longer necessary. Indeed, it was quite undesirable. He wanted to keep the Russians out of Japan.

At that time, the Soviet army was occupying Eastern Europe and eastern Germany. The Americans were driving towards Japan, hoping to bring it to its knees before Russians get any troops there.

So, the problem for Truman was: How do you negotiate the Russian army out of its positions in Eastern Europe? This was something that Truman could not solve, not even with the atomic bomb. He could not figure out how to play what Stimson called his "royal straight flush", the atomic bomb, to keep Stalin out of Eastern Europe.

One must also keep in mind the fact that the US had only two bombs in the inventory after Trinity, and the next ones would not be available until late in the year (November, as it turned out). Truman was a skilled enough poker player to know that if you try to bluff with cards you don't have, you will not be taken seriously if your bluff is called.

True, U.S. and British troops liberated France, Holland and Belgium from Nazi occupation. But before Britain declared war on Germany, France, Holland and Belgium did not need to be liberated. They were free. They were only invaded and occupied after Britain and France declared war on Germany – on behalf of Poland.

When one considers the losses suffered by Britain and France – hundreds of thousands dead, destitution, bankruptcy, the end of the empires – was World War II worth it, considering that Poland and all the other nations east of the Elbe were lost anyway?

I think its ignorant to say France and Britain would have been free and safe if they did not declare war on Germany after the invasion of Poland. Germany was certainly going to destroy the British and French empires. There was no choice.

His logical argument is impressive and unassailable :) What do you think?

Hmmm... current situation or Nazism + Japanese military empire intact...

...only a complete moron would have to think about it. Yes it was worth it.

Agreed Blindside. This guy's implying basically that if we had left Hitler alone he'd have played nice and stopped invading/annexing neutral countries, would never have started the holocaust, and would in fact have reversed his dictatorial policies and become a hippie in later life :lol:

As I said previously, Buchanan is an admirer of Hitler. His major complaint isn't that Stalin took over Eastern Europe, but that Hitler wasn't allowed to keep his spoils.

This article is highly selective and comes to some dubious conclusions. It clearly forgets that Britain and America fully condoned the Soviet actions because they needed them in order to win the war. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a bit of revision of history. But this is distorting things to quite a degree. I mean suggesting that Hitler would not have invaded the Netherlands, France and Belgium if Britain hadn't gone to war? :lol: Also Plotinus has rightly pointed out that this could all well apply today.

Well, is a soviet occupied better than a nazi occupied one? ofcourse. We had to match evil w/ another kind of evil

Had germany taken europe it would have resulted in a different kind of cold war.
Personally there's a saying about WW1

World war 1 was a tragic war but not a futile war, It signal the end of the old and ushered in the new age"

As for who would have been worse ruling Europe, Hitler or Stalin, we could probably make arguments either way. Both were ideologically driven, paranoid, sociopathic, totalitarian dictators. Their ideologies were quite a bit different, but the end result was very similar. It wouldn't make much difference who was running the camps, the NKVD or the Allegemeine SS, the camps would still be there.

I think that if any war was ever worth fighting, that would be WW2.
That said, it is undeniable that the soviets replaced one brutal dicatorship in Eastern Europe for another. The author claims that the soviet dictatorship was worse, I disagree. They were equally brutal.

And I really find the Yalta conference to be disgusting. The Soviet Union was overstimated. Their forces were streched to the limit. Had the US talked tough in Yalta, I'm sure Stalin would allow at least part of EE to be free. Roosevelt was short-sighted.

His logical argument is impressive and unassailable :) What do you think?

I think you need to look up those 2 words in the dictionary.

After the defeat of the Nazis there have been no major wars in Europe for 60 years.

This article is full of innacuracies and half truths.An American accusing Ho Chi Minh of war crimes after what they did to his country. What a joke!

i'd say it was worth it, if i had to choose nazism or communism, i'd choose communism. the very slightly less evil.

pat buchanan is an anti-semite.

ho chi minh didnt commit war crimes?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44210



His logical argument is impressive and unassailable :) What do you think?

I think he has an interesting speech writer.

One thing to remember about Yalta was that Roosevelt was a very sick man. He died a month later. He was not in any condition, physically or mentally, to deal with Stalin.

The only I can say though, is that although they didn't liberate the east, they did liberate Norway, Denmark, Neatherlands and Greece noen of which declared war on Germany. The germans also didn't vote Hitler in. He was appointed by Hindenburg, another casual oversight by many.

That being said, the war would have to be fought eventually. If not in 1939 because of Poland, then in 1940 because of Norway. If not 1940 Norway, then 1941 in France. Hitler would have brought world war sooner or later, and later would have cost more than sooner.

Not true, Hitler was voted to be chancellor, he was appointed to be president.

Actually, neither did the majority of German voters elect Hitler, nor was he appointed by Hindenburg in an unusual way.
Fact is, the Weimar democracy did end already in 1930. From here, chancellors without majority were appointed by the president and ruled with so-called 'Notstandsverordnungen', without needing to consult the parliament. And the decay was a gradual one; Brüning was a borderline acceptable politician by standards of that time, von Papen and Schleicher more dictators, and Hitler not that differnt from especailly Schleicher.
It also needs to be said that Hindenburg was even supported by the SPD in the 1932 presidential elections, as the only candidate able to win against Hitler. Again, not because the majority of Germans indeed wanted Adolf as president - but because he did have the most supporters otherwise.
Also, if considering the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe: With the notable exception of Czechoslovakia, there was not a single democracy left there in the late 1930ies...in fact, in the eve of WW2, only a handful of democracies was left in continental Europe at all (France, Benelux, Swiss, the Scandinavian countries).
Compared to those regimes (or the Spanish/Portuguese Facism), the post-Stalin communism wasn't considerably worse...
Even if we imagine a Nazi Europe becoming more moderate within some decades ('Fatherland' is a great what-if scenario), compared to how Europe as a whole evolved instead, that would have been a horror.
So yes, WW2 was absolutely worth it.

He was very much against the Iraq war so that should endear him to you.

Yes, but the author of the article was apparently simply expanding on something that George Bush said. And I'm fairly sure that Bush was in favour of the war in Iraq - hence the irony of him, of all people, choosing to make such comments at such a time.

By the end of 1932 the Nazi party was the largest political party in the Reichstag with 230 seats. President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor (i.e., Prime Minister) of a coalition government of Nazis and conservatives on January 30, 1933. This was in accordance with the Weimar Republic's constitution.

During 1933 and 1934, Hitler centralized all state power in his own hands. On February 27, 1933, the Reichstag building was set on fire. Hitler used this as an excuse to discredit the socialist and communist opposition and to pass the Enabling Act which gave him dictatorial powers and the right to issue edicts with the force of laws. After Hindenburg's death on August 2, 1933, Hitler got the Reichstag to appoint him as "intirim President." He then issued an edict combining the positions of Chancellor and President, this office given the title of Reichsführer.

The seat distributions in the Reichstag after the 1928 elections can be used to prove almost anything.
In fact, in 1930 Hindenburg made something like a legalCoup d'Etat to eliminate the influence of the SPD
[1928: SPD-29.8%; Zentrum (Catholics)-12.1%; Communists-10.6%; NSDAP-2.6%], and installed Brüning in a way he would no longer require the parlament at all.
Brüning was a comparably integer personality; anti-SPD, but not really undemocratic. Responsible for desastrous economy politics, though. Ironically, he lost Hindenburg's goodwill exactly because the SPD could tolerate him.
The Reichstag elections of 1930 were technically meaningless; anyone interested in politics at that time could see that the parlament had no power.
Together with the 1930 crash, the entire election was dominated by protest; not only did the NSDAP score 18.7%, the KPD reached 13.1% as well. Add the DNVP, and the majority of seats was hold by dedicated anti-democratic parties. But, even a 100% SPD Reichstag wouldn't have mattered...
On a sidenote, in the Juli '32 elections the NSDAP reached 37.4%, and the KPD 14.6%. In the Nov '32 ones, the NSDAP lost 4.3%, and the KPD gained.

I'm the last one who apologizes the German electors - but as a matter of fact, from 1930 on the Reichstag was as powerful as the EU parliament a decade ago ;). A democratic voter simply had nothing to vote for, aside from symbolical votes. Still, they are to blame for not caring...

The real problem of course was the Weimar constitution, which effectively enabled Hindenburg and his camarilla to abolish the Democracy by using nothing but rights granted by the constitution.
A really interesting topic; I have my doubts that many constitutions are more waterproof here once strong groups with lots of influence (ex-military, royalists, industry) want to establish their own rule...

Something is wrong when an article claim that Stalin was worse than Hitler.

And putting Castro, together with Stalin and Mao?

Both Stalin and Mao were responsible for many, many deaths. However, Castro has only been responsible for some 500 deaths, and those executed were war criminals and high ranking members of the Batista regime.

The Cuban revolution eradicated the illiteracy. Over 23 percent of the Cuban population were illiterate, before the revolution. In just a few years, everyone could read and write. They nationalized american corporation, and tried to create a more independent economy. Cuba made a lot of mistakes, but to compare Castro to Stalin and Mao in terms of deaths, is in my opinion, silly and infantile.

Something is wrong when an article claim that Stalin was worse than Hitler.

And putting Castro, together with Stalin and Mao?

Both Stalin and Mao were responsible for many, many deaths. However, Castro has only been responsible for some 500 deaths, and those executed were war criminals and high ranking members of the Batista regime.

The Cuban revolution eradicated the illiteracy. Over 23 percent of the Cuban population were illiterate, before the revolution. In just a few years, everyone could read and write. They nationalized american corporation, and tried to create a more independent economy. Cuba made a lot of mistakes, but to compare Castro to Stalin and Mao in terms of deaths, is in my opinion, silly and infantile.

Indeed Castro cannot be compared to Stalin or Mao in number of deaths(though the nature of the cuban regime is definately stalinistic), but the number of people executed by Fidel and his thugs is much closer to 15,000 then to 500. Of course, 15,000 is nothing when compared to the over 20 millions murders of Stalin, but within Latin America it makes Castro the most bloody dicator of his time(Pinochet killed something like 9,000).

Was World War II worth it?

God only knows, but there wasn't a clear cut choice to just ditch Poland and sit back and relax. With so many aggressive totalitarian states out there, something was going to kick off. Better to get started once the value of British promises still meant something, the real shame was that Britain was not in a position to gain Poland her independence after the War, but we hadn't the strength and the Americans didn't want to force the issue with the Russians.

Indeed Castro cannot be compared to Stalin or Mao in number of deaths(though the nature of the cuban regime is definately stalinistic), but the number of people executed by Fidel and his thugs is much closer to 15,000 then to 500. Of course, 15,000 is nothing when compared to the over 20 millions murders of Stalin, but within Latin America it makes Castro the most bloody dicator of his time(Pinochet killed something like 9,000).

15 000? Do you have a source?


I would really like to see that, because I have seen no such numbers before...


"The thug" who actually led the executions of the war criminals were Ernesto Guevara, the guy on your avatar. Ernesto was actually one of the more hardline in the Cuban revolution. Fidel was more pragmatic.

Guevara said, during the revolution:

"I've always considered Fidel as an authentic leader of the leftist bourgeois", and warned Castro "we will have confront uncle sam" .





Wikipedia writes:

"In 1959, Guevara was appointed commander of the La Cabana Fortress prison. During his term as commander of the fortress from 1959–1963, he oversaw the hasty trials and executions of many former Batista regime officials, including members of the BRAC secret police (some sources say 156 people, others estimate as many as 500)."



But yeah, I agree, Cuba was largely based on leninism (ie "stalinism").

Take a closer look at luiz's avatar. He is mocking Guevara, not praising. I have never heard as much as 15,000 before but luiz is a hardline anti-communist so the number ought to be questioned.

15 000? Do you have a source?

I would really like to see that, because I have seen no such numbers before...

"The thug" who actually led the executions of the war criminals were Ernesto Guevara, the guy on your avatar. Ernesto was actually one of the more hardline in the Cuban revolution. Fidel was more pragmatic.

Guevara said, during the revolution:

"I've always considered Fidel as an authentic leader of the leftist bourgeois", and warned Castro "we will have confront uncle sam" .

If you never saw such numebers before, then you were not looking. Fact is 15,000 is decent stimative. David Horowitz very conservative number is of 10,000 executions since the cuban revolution. You can find numbers as high 70,000, depending on where you look. Look here (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF), for exemple.

As for Guevara, I agree he was a thug much worse then Fidel. Take a closer look at my avatar.

The death of 50 million people and the eastern european countries to be put under an oppressive and murdering regime is never worth it.

And why is Finland listed in the countries that the USSR supposedly "liberated"? :hmm:

Yes because it would be much better to leave the whole of europe to fall under an opressive regime :hmm:

Simple answer to your question though, the author is ignorant.

It'd be better if the war had not happened at all. But it had to happen eventually, you can't have two expantionist dictators on the same continent expanding their empires without a war. America was right to get involved, especially after Pearl Harbor.

World War 1 - that's another story entirely.

ho chi minh didnt commit war crimes?

I'm just saying its a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

I'd say the US would be responsible for more civilian deaths in Vietnam than Ho Chi Minh.

I didn't notice it before now, thanks.


If you never saw such numebers before, then you were not looking. Fact is 15,000 is decent stimative. David Horowitz very conservative number is of 10,000 executions since the cuban revolution. You can find numbers as high 70,000, depending on where you look. Look here, for exemple.

Non biased sources, please?

Names, dates, location, background?


So basically, anti-cuban sources vary with 60 000? Why would we consider such sources credible, when even anti-communists can't get their figures straight?

I didn't notice it before now, thanks.
Non biased sources, please?

Names, dates, location, background?

So basically, anti-cuban sources vary with 60 000? Why would we consider such sources credible, when even anti-communists can't get their figures straight?

Do you have any reasons to believe that the University of Hawaii is particularly anti-communist?
Follow that link into their complete study, I think they show the methodology employed.

As I said, the number ranges from 10,000 to 70,000. My guess would be something like 15,000-18,000.

"There are no good wars, with the exception of Star Wars and World War II."

This isn't even a question. Of course it was worth it.

How many people wpuld have died without none instead of around 60000000.If apeasement had worked then we would never have had the cold war either and 60000000 people who didnt die in it.Obviously we would have had 3 extra dictatorship but when you look at what Hitler did before the war some of it was good and helped Germany considerably.Things such as the autobans, a huge decrease in unemployment, all Germans were well fed and all children had an education all be it a nazi one.After the nazis began to become a bit to nazi they probaly would have been topeled anyway in a koo or uprising.Mousilini wasnt that bad a guy just a very poor leader.The Japanese dictatorship could stioll be controlled by the emperor so not to much evil could have been done.Sowas it worth it yes and no if apeasement had worked then no it was'nt woth it but as it didnt yes it was we couldn'tjust sit there and wastch as the axis had there way with europe and asia and killed many people and limited the freedom of everyone else in the world.

Things such as the autobans,

Already under construction during Weimar, and they were finished under Hitler. So he took all credit.

a huge decrease in unemployment,

Same as above with a slight alteration.

all Germans were well fed

Except minorites, Jews, Communists, Trade Unionists. Etc. The list goes on.

and all children had an education

Same as above.

I'd like to make a comment about the A-Bomb. Truman, or anyone else wasn't completely confident that it would work. We only had three at the time and no one was sure tat it would work or even if it did, that it would compel a peace agreement. We still needed Russian troops to invade, right up until the end in August 1945.

At the time they didn't want WW3 from the ashes of WW2 ie a war with the Soviets. The only alternatives to a Soviet dominated western Europe was.

1. Germany surrendering in 43/43
2. Bring D-Day forward a year
3. War with the USSR after Germany's defeat.

No real option another words.

Already under construction during Weimar, and they were finished under Hitler. So he took all credit.



Same as above with a slight alteration.



Except minorites, Jews, Communists, Trade Unionists. Etc. The list goes on.



Same as above.
Hitler oversaw one of the greatest expansions of industrial production and civil improvement Germany had ever seen, mostly based on debt flotation and expansion of the military.The unemployment rate was cut substantially.Hitler also oversaw one of the largest infrastructure improvement campaigns in German history,with the construction of dozens of dams, autobahns, railroads and other civil works.Theres some quotes to back up my claims.

I have heard about his public works programs. They were little better than slave labor. And if anyone complained, they disappeared.

Hitler oversaw one of the greatest expansions of industrial production and civil improvement Germany had ever seen, mostly based on debt flotation and expansion of the military.The unemployment rate was cut substantially.Hitler also oversaw one of the largest infrastructure improvement campaigns in German history,with the construction of dozens of dams, autobahns, railroads and other civil works.Theres some quotes to back up my claims.

Did Hitlers economical programs lift Germany out of Depression? Yes, but was it worth all the dead people in Germany? No.

Weren't alot of Hitlers public works funded by borrowing money? Go to war and avoid paying it back.

Weren't alot of Hitlers public works funded by borrowing money? Go to war and avoid paying it back.

Military spendings are always a way to help deflation (since you dumb lots of cash into project with zero payback, at least until you use them to claim more territory...).
In the first years of Hitler's rule, the entire economy was based on debths. Calculating from that data, it becomes obvious that Nazi Germany needed to go to war in 1943, or goes bankrupt.
The financial situation improved not because of the recovering economy. But because the 3rd Reich found new, more creative ways to earn money:
Robbery and cheating. Don't forget, the majority of German jews were among the richer. Anyone who wanted to exile had to transfer his entire possessions to the state or to certain party members...that were billions of Reichsmarks...
Add in the cheat of the Germans who paid for in anticipation of a KdF Wagen.
Oh, and of course - all occuped nations officially had to pay for that pleasure...

If there is one thing modern states could learn from the Nazis, then it would be how to wage war without having to pay for it (in the pure, financial meaning) - as long as you win, of course.
For any other nation in the 20th century, wars were highly expensive instead - how much do the US pay every day in the Iraq?

Aside from that, anyone claiming Hitler was good for the German economy has no clue what he's talking about.

As I said, the number ranges from 10,000 to 70,000. My guess would be something like 15,000-18,000.

What kinds of executions? A lot of countries execute their criminals. My guess is that the numbers of people executed in the US in the same period also ranges in the thousands.

Churchill had wanted to land a force to the East of Germany to cut the Russians off rather than land at Normandy. This course was not agreed with by the Americans who obviously did not foresee, or did not care about, Russia occupying Europe for half a century

Churchill had wanted to land a force to the East of Germany to cut the Russians off rather than land at Normandy.

Never ever heard of this. Any (none biased) sources that might confirm this? Since i for one do not see as that as the line of thinking for Churchill. And I'm more then certain that he was in favour of the Normandy plan.

Americans who obviously did not foresee, or did not care about, Russia occupying Europe for half a century

Shows how much you know. Why do you think they landed in Normandy in the first place? One of the (many) reasons was to prevent Western/Central Europe from falling to Russian hands. And landing in East Germany/Poland was not really an option, it would be much much more harder to pull off anyway. And would probably cause more allied casualties that way, since in that scenario the Axis would only have two fronts to fight at insted of three.

And by three fronts i also consider the Italin front as one front. So by July 1944 Germany was locked in three sides Italy, France/Low Countries and the Eastern Front.

Back in college I took an advanced history class on WWII. One time, I'm not sure if it was '43 or '44 Churchill flew over to see Stalin. This meeting decided the fate of post war europe. Roosevelt wasn't there. The two leaders sat up late into the night drinking vodka over a large map of europe. Neither one spoke the other's language very well so Churchill drew a line on the map and Stalin drew a large check on it to signify his aproval. The line represented the post war sphere of influence of east and west. So at some point in time, Churchill agreed to the post war alignment. I think later on he grew to regret the decision and would have been on of the ones to support a boundary that was much closer to russia.

Never ever heard of this. Any (none biased) sources that might confirm this? Since i for one do not see as that as the line of thinking for Churchill. And I'm more then certain that he was in favour of the Normandy plan.


Neither have I. The only thing I know that comes remotely close to this was Churchills proposal to land troops in the Balklans, but the Americans went against this.

I'd always thought that the Americans didnt care about the geo-political situation in Europe after WW2, they just wanted to finish the war in Europe quickly to take on Japan.

Never ever heard of this. Any (none biased) sources that might confirm this?

I didn't realise I had to back up an opinion but
Gilbert, P. (2000) Churchill: A Life London: Pimlico Press



Why do you think they landed in Normandy in the first place? One of the (many) reasons was to prevent Western/Central Europe from falling to Russian hands.


Churchill had originally wanted to attack via the "soft underbelly" of the Axis by coming up through the Med and arriving to the East of Germany to cut off the Russians. The Americans wanted to land at Normandy as it was the easiest option. What I meant by "didn't care" was simply that the quick destruction of Germany was their only concern. This is understandable since this is the reason the Americans declared war. It is obvious that they cared little about the Soviet's occupying Eastern Europe as otherwise they would have pushed for Berlin. Instead, quite rightly, they held back to avoid casualities.

Churchill on the other hand had wanted post-war Europe to be a "United States of Europe" acting as an international police against the Russians who he wanted to be as far East as possible

Shows how much you know.

Disagree with me if you want, that's fine its your porogative. History is about conflicting arguements and opinions, no-one can claim to know exactly what the Ally Leaders planned and no doubt they changed their mind once or twice before coming to such a huge decision anyway. But please refrain from posting quotes like the one above. They serve only to antagonise me.

Churchill's motives for securing eastern europe are a little more self serving than that. To be more specific he wanted to invade the 'soft underbelly' in order to keep soviet influence out of the balkans and to keep the soviet navy out of the med.

I didn't realise I had to back up an opinion but
Gilbert, P. (2000) Churchill: A Life London: Pimlico Press

Any links that might confirm your theory? Other then a name of a book wich i have no chance to read.

This is understandable since this is the reason the Americans declared war.

After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, it was Hitler in support of his Japanese ally that declared war.

acting as an international police against the Russians who he wanted to be as far East as possible

This was not seing in his actions, in the agreenments at Yalta and the others. Churchill made a dividing line in countries. For example in Greece the Soviets agreed to let the Western Allies take controll for exchange of Romania where the Soviets were allowed by the Allies to take controll. Hungary was roughtly 50/50 on both sides (Soviet/W. Allies) controll, but that was changed by a communist coup in 1946. in Yugoslavia the sittuation was roughtly 25/75 (Soviet/ W. Allies) And in Bulgaria it was 75/25 (Soviet/W. Allies) the last controll (of the allies) over these countries was lost in communist coups in 1945-49.

So if Churchill wanted the Soviets as far east as possible like you said. Then why make these agreenments in the first place? I know that the W. Allies where in no condition to fight immediatly after ww2, but still they could have atleast done something.

Any links that might confirm your theory? Other then a name of a book wich i have no chance to read.

Unfortunately not, since I get what knowledge I have from what is written in books rather than downloading it from the internet.

After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, it was Hitler in support of his Japanese ally that declared war.

I'm glad you agree with my point that it was for this reason, and not to stop the Russians from occupying Europe that America went to war.

Any links that might confirm your theory? Other then a name of a book wich i have no chance to read.

That seems pretty harsh. When did the Internet become a more authoritative source than the printed page?

Was World War II worth it?

Well ****, yes.

That seems pretty harsh. When did the Internet become a more authoritative source than the printed page?

I never said that the book as a source meant nothing, i was just saying if he had any other sources since i have no way to read that book here. (Since the mentioned book is not translated to finnish)

since I get what knowledge I have from what is written in books rather than downloading it from the internet.

I read most of my info as well it does not matter whether it's a book or a page in the internet.

I'm glad you agree with my point that it was for this reason, and not to stop the Russians from occupying Europe that America went to war.

Nope, since what i said was that it was Germany (in support of Japan) that declared war not America. But don't get me wrong, most Yanks are very anti-German (I'm part German) and thus i have no desire to debate about wether or not Yanks cared about Soviet accopuation of Eastern Europe.

thus i have no desire to debate about wether or not Yanks cared about Soviet accopuation of Eastern Europe.

Thank god for that, so I can put the books down and stop having to reference everything I say now can I (Leigh 4:2005)

At the time they didn't want WW3 from the ashes of WW2 ie a war with the Soviets. The only alternatives to a Soviet dominated western Europe was.

1. Germany surrendering in 43/43
2. Bring D-Day forward a year
3. War with the USSR after Germany's defeat.

No real option another words.

War with the Soviets happened anyway in what is known as the Cold War. If war had not been declared against Germany, Germany may have set her sights east instead of west. If the point was to defend the east, well that's no good since the east was going to be lost anyway to the Soviets. If the point was to defend the west, the way to do it is not to invite attack but have the potential attacker set his sights elsewhere. Germany and the Soviets going at each other without oustide interference would have been an ideal result because whoever the victor, both would be very weakened by it and thus the ultimate victor if there even is one would be easier to take on or defend against as may or may not be necessary.