Oliver Stone: 'Jewish-Dominated Media' Prevents Hitler from Being Portrayed 'in Context'

[Atencio 43]

praps he didn't want to fight the red army

very wise considering what they had done to the german armies

You really think we were afraid of the Red Army to the point that we didn't want to beat them to Berlin in case we pissed them off?

Really? You do know that we eventually linked up with Soviet troops all across the border? Why would we do that if we were afraid?

Wait, did Kennedy mention that as the reason?

Did you ever read about the bombing of Dresden?

Oh that's right, you don't trust books.

OK, well anyway, there is support of evidence that the City of Dresden was sacrificed as a warning to the Soviets (who were within viewing of the city) of our military might.

[Captain Oates 911]

It's well known that Eisenhower did not care about American casuaties because spread out over the USA they were nothing. The Brits were very wary in Normandy as they could not afford huge losses - the Americans were critical of that and roasted Montgomery and they pressed on despite losses.

That's why this idea that Eisenhower held off on Germany to avoid American casualties does not ring true.

What, they would plunge all of Eastern Europe into communism for 50 years to avoid casualties ?

Was that really the plan ?

That ain't the Americans

[Captain Oates 911]

You really think we were afraid of the Red Army to the point that we didn't want to beat them to Berlin in case we pissed them off?

Really? You do know that we eventually linked up with Soviet troops all across the border? Why would we do that if we were afraid?

Wait, did Kennedy mention that as the reason?

Did you ever read about the bombing of Dresden?

Oh that's right, you don't trust books.

OK, well anyway, there is support of evidence that the City of Dresden was sacrificed as a warning to the Soviets (who were within viewing of the city) of our military might.

I don't trust one book

I am not so gullible

jeez conspiracy theories/theorists do my head in

So putting eastern europe under communism despite our 'military might' was part of the plan ?

What say you to that mr one book.

Edited July 26, 2010 by saywhat

[Atencio 43]

They wanted all Eastern Europe to go communist. It was a clever plan to er er er

Nope I don't buy that

Of course not. You don't have enough money to buy any common sense.

Other than Churchill who fought hard for Poland to have democratic elections the rest of the west(read: Roosevelt) let Stalin annex

the eastern bloc countries to preserve the Yalta peace agreement.

[Atencio 43]

I don't trust one book

I am not so gullible

jeez conspiracy theories/theorists do my head in

So putting eastern europe under communism despite our 'military might' was part of the plan ?

What say you to that mr one book.

I know you don't like books one can only assume because you don't read well.

What part of this that I wrote did you miss?

this was a decision that many feel was made because the zones of occupation for Germany and the sectors of occupation for Berlin had been agreed upon by the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union. Why fight and lose lives in something you wouldn't keep anyway.

Also read about the Yalta Conference to see what happened the eastern countries. And besides, the Soviets all ready controlled most of eastern Europe. What were going to do attack them?

[Captain Oates 911]

Of course not. You don't have enough money to buy any common sense.

Other than Churchill who fought hard for Poland to have democratic elections the rest of the west(read: Roosevelt) let Stalin annex

the eastern bloc countries to preserve the Yalta peace agreement.

That's right it was deliberate - like I 'let' the IRS take money from me - same deal.

I have been reading about this since 4th July 1954 when I finally threw my food ration card away and had anything I wanted to eat - so praps I am not as uninformed as you think.

[Atencio 43]

so praps I am not as uninformed as you think.

I seriously doubt that.

You have just disagreed but provided no actual reasoning on why besides mentioning Kennedy and conspiracies.

You get your information from the X-Files?

[Captain Oates 911]

I seriously doubt that.

You have just disagreed but provided no actual reasoning on why besides mentioning Kennedy and conspiracies.

You get your information from the X-Files?

I don't believe the Americans would let Eastern Europe from the Baltic to Trieste go under the communist heel if they had the power to prevent it.

Do you ?

Does it ring true to you ?

Tell me again - what would be the Americans motive ? - just to save some American's lives on a one off campaign ?

If the Americans could squander 50,000 dead and half a million wounded psychologically and physically in Vietnam for ---nothing ? then surely saving Europe from Communism would have been worth a few casualties - especially if they had a superior force as you claimed.

I can't see the benefit of letting the Russians take Europe on a voluntary basis IF the Americans could prevent it with their military. The British who committed the Dresden slaughter were all for it - so why not have a bash ?

Put your book down and look at this rationally - what did it benefit the Americans to allow the communist takeover when they could have prevented it according to you ?

Edited July 27, 2010 by saywhat

[Peikko 1,575]

What treaties were these?

Not saying you are wrong but curious on what they were.

Gosh, now you're asking, it's a long time since I studied all of this stuff - I may just be thinking in generall terms in that the Ruhr produced most of the heavy industrial steel at the time - and ball bearings, or was that Coventry?

Edited July 27, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Pooky 3,849]

I don't believe the Americans would let Eastern Europe from the Baltic to Trieste go under the communist heel if they had the power to prevent it.

Do you ?

Does it ring true to you ?

Tell me again - what would be the Americans motive ? - just to save some American's lives on a one off campaign ?

If the Americans could squander 50,000 dead and half a million wounded psychologically and physically in Vietnam for ---nothing ? then surely saving Europe from Communism would have been worth a few casualties - especially if they had a superior force as you claimed.

I can't see the benefit of letting the Russians take Europe on a voluntary basis IF the Americans could prevent it with their military. The British who committed the Dresden slaughter were all for it - so why not have a bash ?

Put your book down and look at this rationally - what did it benefit the Americans to allow the communist takeover when they could have prevented it according to you ?

Got to side with Atencio on this one.

The deal for the make-up of Europe, East and West, was political in nature. The Western European half of the war stopped at the Elbe and there is a famous photograph of the handshake between Soviet and American officers there. When/if I get the time, I'll try and find it.

[Captain Oates 911]

Got to side with Atencio on this one.

The deal for the make-up of Europe, East and West, was political in nature. The Western European half of the war stopped at the Elbe and there is a famous photograph of the handshake between Soviet and American officers there. When/if I get the time, I'll try and find it.

yes seen that footage a million times but what I am asking is what was the motive of the Americans in letting Russia take Eastern Europe and make it communist ?

Why did the Americans think that was a good idea ?

I think it's because the Americans didn't want a war with the Russian super power.

Atencio will not give me a motive

[Pooky 3,849]

yes seen that footage a million times but what I am asking is what was the motive of the Americans in letting Russia take Eastern Europe and make it communist ?

Why did the Americans think that was a good idea ?

I think it's because the Americans didn't want a war with the Russian super power.

Atencio will not give me a motive

Best guess, as I haven't had time to do the requisite research.

Stalin wanted a Western Front as early as 1942, to take the pressure off the Soviet Army, which, although holding its own, was taking heavy losses. Britain and the US were in no shape to mount such an operation taking on the German Army direct, hence the "soft" option of an invasion of Italy, to keep momentum going until enough troops were amassed to mount an invasion of France. Stalin did not appreciate bearing the brunt of the casualties for two full years.

The payback for this was a political agreement, made at the Yalta conference in 1945, defining the spheres of influence in Europe. Germany, as the main protagonist, was to be divided, and the other countries were to be either in the Eastern Zone, or the Western Zone. Stalin, paranoid as he was about the West, insisted that the Eastern Zone formed a buffer around the Soviet Union.

The main driver of this compromise was President Roosevelt, who wanted Stalin to feel satisfied in Europe, so that he would enter the war in the Pacific on the Allied side. I believe President Truman determined this part of Roosevelt's strategy too risky, with the likelihood of Soviet troops invading mainland Japan, and so he authorised use of the A-Bomb to speed the end of the war.

As for the American military being scared of the Soviet Army, I believe General Patton didn't want to stop at the Germans and indicated an eagerness to take on the Russians and get WWIII over and done with early. He was, of course, over-ruled by more cautious minds.

[Captain Oates 911]

Best guess, as I haven't had time to do the requisite research.

Stalin wanted a Western Front as early as 1942, to take the pressure off the Soviet Army, which, although holding its own, was taking heavy losses. Britain and the US were in no shape to mount such an operation taking on the German Army direct, hence the "soft" option of an invasion of Italy, to keep momentum going until enough troops were amassed to mount an invasion of France. Stalin did not appreciate bearing the brunt of the casualties for two full years.

The payback for this was a political agreement, made at the Yalta conference in 1945, defining the spheres of influence in Europe. Germany, as the main protagonist, was to be divided, and the other countries were to be either in the Eastern Zone, or the Western Zone. Stalin, paranoid as he was about the West, insisted that the Eastern Zone formed a buffer around the Soviet Union.

The main driver of this compromise was President Roosevelt, who wanted Stalin to feel satisfied in Europe, so that he would enter the war in the Pacific on the Allied side. I believe President Truman determined this part of Roosevelt's strategy too risky, with the likelihood of Soviet troops invading mainland Japan, and so he authorised use of the A-Bomb to speed the end of the war.

As for the American military being scared of the Soviet Army, I believe General Patton didn't want to stop at the Germans and indicated an eagerness to take on the Russians and get WWIII over and done with early. He was, of course, over-ruled by more cautious minds.

This doesn't add up - what did America get out of it ?

I see the bit about the US wanted Russia to attack Japan... as Roosevelt knew his A-bomb was going well, and that Japan was well outnumbered in the Pacific, this seems unlikley as an essential requirement - certainly not enough for him to turn over all Easter Europe to Communism. If they didn't want Russia in Japan, why would they encourage them to take on Japan ?

I see the contention that Stalin didnt want Russian casualties . Joe Stalin ? - since when did he give a hoot ?

What worried the more 'cautious minds' in the pentagon ? This whole set of explanations doesn't make sense on so many levels. Russia wanted this and Russia wanted that - what did the US want ?

The ease with which a tiny country like Vietnam was able to defeat the US (500,000 soldiers)a few years later brings me to the conclusion that it was indeed the Russians who fought the majority of the war against Germany and that the US was wary of trying to attack them after Germany surrendered

The Germans lost a quarter of a million men at Stalingrad whereas the Americans really struggled with the battle of the bulge which was essentially a mopping up operation by that stage.

Certainly the British troops had had enough after 6 years of it and just wanted to get home and vote Churchill out by a landslide. He was seen as a war monger. The people wanted houses and jobs and free health care. Perhaps this was a factor in deciding not to liberate the communist part of Europe.