Mao didn't like the USSR want to control all the Communist activities. 500 something or others?
Mao knew the peasants were the key to a revolution, not the city workers because there weren't alot of city workers!
Printable View
Mao didn't like the USSR want to control all the Communist activities. 500 something or others?
Mao knew the peasants were the key to a revolution, not the city workers because there weren't alot of city workers!
I can simply not understand the tendency in Russia and partially here in the Monastery to hail Stalin. He commited so many crimes that one has a hard time to keep an overview of them.
While Hitler is rightly seen as the one which kicked of WWII I always wonder why Stalin seems to be portrayed as a peaceloving father of his peoples. He attacked Finland and the Baltic States and Poland and yet poor old Stalin is seen as a victim - just because another dictator attacked him before he could possibly attack him...
-------------------------------------------------------------
The USA is partly responsible for the Cold War - and for avoiding a new hot war in Europe. It helped and meddled in Europe for it's advantage but also for it ideals. In the end Western Europe became free and wealthy - by initial help from the USA and the lack of USA direct domination. Sounds alot better than the scoring card of the CCCP in Eastern Europe
OA
Marx turns in his grave.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
Not exactly the Allies wanted to give some power to the communists who were universally disliked, even hated - at least since the war of 1920, later terrorist activities and collaboration with Soviets and Germans ( YES even during the war e.g. joint operation of Gestapo and NKVD undercover agents in Warsaw in 1944 against the real underground) - later they had to recruit anyone they could including criminals and native Russians 'imported' from the SU.
They put the legal authorities under great pressure to recognise the communists as a legitimate force.
Most of the leaders didn't do it - since they seen any deals with the communists as accepting them as real, Polish supported force.
Some led the fight against the new occupants (already started in 1944 by the Soviets who tried to eliminate any non-Soviet organisations).
Several tried to negotiate with the Soviets (remember Poland was officially on the same side after all), but got arrected and were accused for 'collaboration with the Nazis' during a show trial in Moscow.
The prime minister Stanislaw Mikolajczyk was one of those who tried to deal with the communists as the Allies 'insisted', but after 2 years of political oppression with the rigged elections later hehad to run away to save his life.
Technically the legitimate government was still that in London's exile - it represented ALL political parties except the communists and was chosen in the legal way.
Basically the country was too weak after losing about 34 % of citizens to fight without any real aid against another world power.
Even Stalin claimed that Poland is impossible to turn into a communist state - nevertheless it was decided to do so.
This way the 4th largest contributor to the allied cause ended as occupied state - if you are British or American and appear in Poland never, I mean NEVER try to say that 'we saved Poland during the 2nd WW' unless you like the feeling of absolute disgust targeted at you or something more 'material' in less civilised place.:smash:
You realize that right after the section of my post that you turned bold I say that the immediate post-WW2 countries in Eastern Europe was a compromise between the Soviet puppets and the old pre-war, exiled governments? ~;)Quote:
Not exactly the Allies wanted to give some power to the communists who were universally disliked, even hated - at least since the war of 1920, later terrorist activities and collaboration with Soviets and Germans ( YES even during the war e.g. joint operation of Gestapo and NKVD undercover agents in Warsaw in 1944 against the real underground) - later they had to recruit anyone they could including criminals and native Russians 'imported' from the SU.
Too true. The hard-driving Polish armored division liberated the Netherlands, and fought like lions to push for Poland as soon as possible, but thanks to the Allied logistical situation, not to forget the Battle of the Bulge, the Soviets got there first. They were left without anything for all their bravery and effort, even being mistreated and ignored after the war by their erstwhile allies in the West.Quote:
Even Stalin claimed that Poland is impossible to turn into a communist state - nevertheless it was decided to do so.
This way the 4th largest contributor to the allied cause ended as occupied state - if you are British or American and appear in Poland never, I mean NEVER try to say that 'we saved Poland during the 2nd WW' unless you like the feeling of absolute disgust targeted at you or something more 'material' in less civilised place.
It never hurts to add some details since the avarage level of knowledge in this thread is pretty low.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
Two good remarks are better than onw.:2thumbsup:
Since the Warsaw Uprising of 1944 was started Polish units in the west started suffering from problems with morale.Quote:
Too true. The hard-driving Polish armored division liberated the Netherlands, and fought like lions to push for Poland as soon as possible, but thanks to the Allied logistical situation, not to forget the Battle of the Bulge, the Soviets got there first. They were left without anything for all their bravery and effort, even being mistreated and ignored after the war by their erstwhile allies in the West.
The western inability to act as they should, to do anything in fact made so many realise that they are fighting for nothing.
The worst situation was in the Parachute Brigade which was created and trained to support the Uprising, but instead was sent to fight in the useless battle for Arnhem. The unit almost revolted, but as in other Polish units the sense of duty and soldiers' honour prevailed and the units fought to the end and with some sort of grim desperation of people without any hope left.
As thank you they of course were refused their part to march in the Victory Parade in 1945, (as well as in later years untill 2004...) not to 'annoy Stalin', though the British proposed them to march in Moscow...:furious3:
Actually the most memorable moment to me is the ill-fated visit of the Polish PM in Moscow. Here he tried to negotiate with Stalin the situation in the eastern part of Poland which the Soviets decided to annex.
The shocking fact here is that when Mikolajczyk started talking Molotov suddenly answered 'but it was decided in Teheran in 1943'. To his amazement he learnt that the entire situation of Poland was already resolved over 15 months earlier...
The whole thing happened with Churchill and an US envoy present next to him and both stood in silence, too afraid or too ashamed to deny Molotov statement.
The sad truth is that either because they were too naive, or to careless, but both the USA and the UK already served Stalin half of Europe on a silver dish.
It is simply incredible how grown men with great access to all possible sources about the SU behaved as careless childred when dealing with Stalin.
It makes even atheists pray for some special hell for those political morons.:thumbsdown:
And that is the reason why there is some resentment in several parts of Eastern Europe (not just Poland), when people come and claim that the West liberated, or helped them, from under the nazis.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegorach
Because the US and the UK literally sold them to Stalin.
The original question is not who started the cold war, but who was responsible for it, i.e. who caused it to be started. In my mind there is no doubt that this was the Soviet Union, a dictatorship with an expansionist attitude and philosophy intent on dominating the world since 1917. The WWII alliance was but a temporary (and necessary) reprieve. The Soviet subjugation of a large part of Europa after 1945 made a renewed and direct confrontation inevitable.Sorry but this is nonsense. You are suggesting a profitable 'deal' between the US and UK on the one hand and Stalin on the other. There was no 'sale', nor was there any profit in the deal except that it prevented another world war, something that would have been inconceivable to the western negotiators at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blodrast
Feel free to look at it any way you want - I did not present it as a 'sale', or a 'deal'. What it feels like to me is more like a combination of apathy, appeasement, and another thing:Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
You say that they placated Stalin in order to prevent a world war ?
How on earth can you say that this is a justification with a straight face ?
The same people who did NOT appease Hitler, go against their "principles", and appease Stalin just to prevent a world war ? They go to war against Hitler so that he doesn't get all of Europe, but they hand Stalin half of it on a platter, so they don't have to go to war. :dizzy2:
Then why didn't they appease Hitler as well, after all, it was bloody obvious it would cause a world war. They should have just let him get what he wanted, and, there you go, no world war, everybody's happy. Right ?
No, sorry, your argument doesn't fly.
Well, it's not like they had a choice. War was over and USSR came out as the world's strongest country, militarily. A new order was to be established. It is naive to think that the USSR would have been pleased with table scraps, or did it would back down too much considering it's strength and the fact that they did a lion's share of fighting.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegorach
Yeah right. Face it the Allies did NOTHING to stop Stalin and they could at least try to do so - Lend Lease help could be used to put some pressure at least in some areas and more aggressive military approach could cave at least a couple of countries more.
When you see how they dealed with Stalin it is plain, 'old, good' appeasement combined with almost suicidal trust in Stalin's goodwill and pragmatism.
The only thing they achived this way was to tempt the Soviets to demand more and more as the result they thought they can get away with EVERYTHING.:wall:
[QUOTE=Blodrast]
The same people who did NOT appease Hitler, go against their "principles", and appease Stalin just to prevent a world war ? They go to war against Hitler so that he doesn't get all of Europe, but they hand Stalin half of it on a platter, so they don't have to go to war. :dizzy2:
Then why didn't they appease Hitler as well, after all, it was bloody obvious it would cause a world war. They should have just let him get what he wanted, and, there you go, no world war, everybody's happy. Right ?
QUOTE]
IIRC, France & Britain did try to appease Hitler, by letting him get away with the remilitarising of Rhineland and the Anschluss. They didn't want another war in Europe. Even when it was apparent that the Nazis wouldn't be stopped, they let Hitler get away with it. It is an embarassing part of History, knowing what Hitler was up to, but after WW1, who wanted to start another World War? Then Hitler decided to invade Poland, and the governments finally decided to stop him. But still only because of their alliance with the aforementioned country.
Well, europe was in ruin from the atlantic to the oural.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blodrast
Britain was barely breathing, France was trying to recover from the vichy regime and the anarchy that followed liberation, germany was torn from east to west, all european countries were completely disorganized economicaly, had suffered huge populations deportations/losses and plundering of all usable ressources, the different regimes that were in place during the war had shatered letting pre-revolutionary or at least very unstable situations.
The populations lived in ruins, spent a big part of their time to search for food and were sick of the war.
So in case of war, this would have meant a us-ussr war on european ground with ressources having to cross the atlantic to feed both a huge army and an immense population.
With so dizorganized countries it would have been impossible to have better than small armed forces to support the us army.
The european populations, sick of war, having to support even more suffering and loses would very certainly have been favourable to the communist/soviet propaganda claiming the will of peace of the little father of the peoples.
All of this does not make a very favorable situation to launch a war.
You also have to considere that the soviet army was by far the most powerfull and the most efficient armed force in the world.
The us army was not a mercenary army, it was a citizen army and i doubt the opinion in the us would have shown a big fervour to go to war against what had been a major allied just a few days before. In fact i do not think a us president would have had enough power to launch such a war.
So i think the will of preventing another world war against soviet union was very reasonable and probably the only possible solution the allied had.
[QUOTE=Warmaster Horus]We're talking about two different things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blodrast
Yes, France tried to appease Hitler, but France did not decide things at Yalta and/or Potsdam. UK and US did.
Yes, Britain tried to appease Hitler, BUT it was Chamberlain, not Churchill. Chamberlain did not represent Britain at Yalta/Potsdam, Churchill did. Churchill never tried to appease Hitler, he was for war all the time.
So your arguments are valid, but you're referring to a different problem than what we're talking about here. For THIS problem, they are not valid.
Excuse me, you did exactly that. You wrote that the western allies 'literally sold' Eastern Europe to Stalin. Maybe you should have chosen your words more carefullyQuote:
Originally Posted by Blodrast
Exactly. I said they wanted to prevent another world war. One had been quite enough, and even that one they had entered most reluctantly. Remember they did appease Hitler initially.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blodrast
It is no use to blame Stalin's handling of Eastern Europe on the Americans and the Brits simply because they did not enough to stop him. And it is nonsense to suggest a betrayal or 'sell-off' of Eastern Europe. By doing so, you make it appear as if it would have been in their interest to leave half or Europe in Stalin's hands, which it obviously wasn't.
They did not do enough ? What did they do ? Nothing. There's a difference between not doing enough, and not doing anything about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
No, I'm not trying to claim it was in their interest to give half of Europe to Stalin. Not sure how you inferred that from my post. What I am trying to claim is that they didn't care enough about it to do any effort to prevent what happened. Stalin wanted it, they let him have it.
When I said "literally sold", yes, I expressed myself poorly. "Selling" implies getting something in exchange, which wasn't really the case. "They let him have it" is more semantically accurate, ok ? "Selling" also implies ownership of the object of the exchange. That was not the case either. Indeed, I chose my words poorly - my mistake.
So let's try to agree on "they simply let him have it".
As simple as that.
Moreover, I think that while their physical conditions may have been a factor in their apathy to try and thwart Stalin, it's not really an excuse. If you're not in a good shape, then send somebody else who is, to decide the fate of half a continent, and a few tens of millions of people.
On the contrary, they waged a cold war over it. Which they won. Even with full hindsight, I think that this outcome is preferable to the devastation wrought by another world war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blodrast
Of course this was not the outcome as envisaged by democratic forces in Eastern Europe at the time. But the Soviet armed forces were three times as strong as the American forces at that moment, the Lend-Lease days were long over and Roosevelt, who did not yet know if the atomic bomb would prove an effective weapon, needed the Soviets to support American efforts in the Pacific. Don't forget that the Pacific was a larger and possibly more important theatre than Europe.
Obviously I can't know what their plans might have been - I sure hope they had some plans - , but I find it hard to believe they were along the lines of "We'll start an arms race, and in 50 years we'll wipe the dirty commies off the face of the earth by bankrupting them".Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
(emphasis mine) To the US, quite possibly, not to Eastern Europeans though. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
"They let him have it"? Do you really believe that they could have done anything else? Say no? And than Stalin would say "Sheesh, at least I tried... Can I have something else instead?"...Quote:
Originally Posted by Blodrast
They couldn't have called his bluff and said no because Stalin wasn't bluffing. He had no need to. He had the worlds strongest military at his disposal. You don't bluff when you hold a royal flush in your hands. You can raise as much as you like.
I don't know why you are wasting so much time and energy discussing about the situation in 1945.
The appeasement is much longer policy started at least in 1943 (Teheran), possibly earlier (1941-42) - the Allies simply acted too naive treating Stalin as som sort of good drinking buddy - especially the pathetic (in this area) FDR.
Another thing is that even after 1945 so DURING the Cold War some people were still treated as 'rightfully' Soviet-dominated.
Perhaps the war-time propaganda could not adjust easily from 'Uncle Jo' to tyrant, but it still doesn't explain little, humilating details as refusing the Polish soldiers any rights to march in annual victory parades in London, to what ? 2004.:no:
The so called Anglo-American vision of history was kept for many years after 1945 - the Allies were all good guys, the Axis and its alllies or anyone fighting any of the Allies were completelly evil, anything that doesn't fit is ignored or forgotten - it might be the effect of left-wing fascination with the Soviet Union, but the usual conservatism of some influential people meant that the SU got as many apologists as they ever wanted.:wall:
To the US, definitely. For Europeans WWII started in September 1939. For Americans it started only in December 1941 with the attack on Pearl Harbour. And the US waged war against Germany only because Germany declared war on the US, not because of any concerns about nazi domination, the freedom of small nations or the fate of the Jews.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blodrast
For Americans the main concern and primary war theatre continued to be the Pacific, where they were engaged longer and at a higher cost than elsewhere. The sands of Iwo Jima topped the beaches of Normandy, both in military planning and in the public perception.
As for Britain and France, they entered the war very reluctantly in September 1939 because of the German attack on their ally Poland, a two-bit dictatorship ruled by a couple of Pilsudki's successors with whom they had, equally reluctantly, concluded a military accord only in May 1939.
Maybe the Poles should have taken up Stalin's offer of an anti-German pact, an offer he made repeatedly in the course of 1939. It would have created a buffer against the German onslaught, or at least made an attack on Poland much more costly for Hitler.
It is rather useless for Poles to blame the western allies for choosing the lesser of two evils, i.e. an alliance with Stalin, where they could have done so themselves in order to avoid the worst for Poland. The vehemence with which nations put the blame for their misery at the feet of others often hides their own mistakes, lack of initiative and absence of wisdom. My own country is a good example. The Dutch used to blame the post-war loss of their colonies Indonesia and Papua New Guinea on an American 'betrayal', too, whereas in the last analysis they had only themselves to blame.
Erm, the Soviets weren't tempted into demanding more and more as a result of encouragement from appeasement. They knew what they wanted, they demanded it and no less, and they declined the offer of even more (when the Communists in Greece asked for Soviet help, Stalin shopped them to the British). After being invaded 4 times in the last 30 years (WW1, Civil War, Polish War, WW2), they wanted a buffer between the west and the USSR, with special demands for Germany. A look on the map shows that the countries that formed the Iron Curtain all bordered the Soviet Union, with the exception of Germany (Bulgaria as well, but few people cried for them). Could the Allies have done anything about this? Probably not much more than what Churchill did, which was to extract an implicit promise from Stalin not to be too blatant about his business. As Stalin pointed out, there were Soviet troops in these countries, but there were no Allied troops. Therefore the Allies were in no position to prevent him from doing whatever he wanted.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegorach
Could the lure of lend lease have helped get concessions from Stalin? No, since the more generous Marshall Aid was later turned down. Could direct military action or the support of indigenous military action have got concessions by force? No, the British and American people wouldn't have stood for war with their erstwhlile allies, while large parts of the military would likely have mutinied if they had to continue fighting after Nazi Germany had been vanquished. The Americans had always been more interested in the Pacific theatre (and even then there was much bellyaching about being switched to fight the Japanese), while the British were sick of all fighting, and were in any case bankrupt.
A couple of small corrections...
We were in a de facto state of war prior to Germany's declaration and that was by our doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
It's important to note the vast differences in an Island campaign and an invasion for the establishment of a beachhead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
If you take into account the beach invasion and the establishment of the beachhead then Normandy took much more planning, logistically and and tactically.
If you just look at the campaigns of the invasions, the Western Front was greater in its scope then the operation of Iwo Jima.
You have to remember that the campaign in Western Europe had the additional obstacle of allied nations working together .
If you want to compare theaters, the Pacific Theater was on equal scale with that of the western front for the sole reason of naval logistics this theater was larger in scope.
In western europe the U.S. contributed a greater amount of troops and logistics than another other allied country. In the Pacific Theater the operation was almost entirely a U.S. operation.
[QUOTE=Pannonian]Compare what they wanted in 1943 to what they demanded in 1944 and later.Quote:
Erm, the Soviets weren't tempted into demanding more and more as a result of encouragement from appeasement.
4 invasions, huh ?:inquisitive:Quote:
After being invaded 4 times in the last 30 years (WW1, Civil War, Polish War, WW2), they wanted a buffer between the west and the USSR, with special demands for Germany.
WW1 in the Eastern Front started as we know by Russian attack on Eastern Prussia and attack in Galizia (from both sides) - so it doesn't count.
Civil War ? So the 'Whites' are not Russians ? They were legitamate force as well and doubt they would talk of any Entante invaders who helped them after all. Good bye to the second invasion.
The war with Poland started in 1919 or even 1918 and was the effect of two sides filling the vacuum left by the Ober Ost.
If you see the first clashes of the conflict you will notice they happened in Vilnius/Wilno region betwen local Polish militias and the invading Red Army which took the entire territory out there.
If you are refering to the third phase of the conflict - i.e. from the March-April offensive in 1920 in Ukraine you will notice there was a different agenda - creating independent ukrainian state which corresponded to the Prometheism movement and 'Miedzymorze' idea of central-eastern european federation.
Also as invasion of Russia - it is questionable unless all territories of the former Russian Empire are treated the same way - so any form of independent states on its territory would count as invading it well as.
Please define what is Russian territory ?
Four. 2nd WW ? Well surely attacking Poland and Finland + annexing the Balts and blackmailing Romania helped a lot.:juggle2:
The Soviets are hardly peaceloving people who are innocent victims of Nazi aggression. Are they ?
Besides I wonder if you are aware how close the Soviets were to start a war in 1920s and 1930s - not because of alleged Polish imperialism but because their paranoid authorities seen themselves as under siege and under threat of foreign invasion.
A sort of paranoia with extreme self-centred way of thinking i.e. 'the capitalist world wishes nothing else to destroy the workers' paradise' - this was shown for example during the show trials of the 30s where people were accused for working with ... Swiss imperialists (not a joke !) or in Bulkhakov works -( the rumours of a Polish conspiracy etc).
To see how those people thought check Soviet agents' reports from Warsaw during the uprising of 1944 - they actually believed that the Allies drop supplies to the Germans.
Quote:
As Stalin pointed out, there were Soviet troops in these countries, but there were no Allied troops. Therefore the Allies were in no position to prevent him from doing whatever he wanted.
Not exactly. It is justified to say that the appeasement was started long before ANY Soviet troops entered to those territories.
FDR was especially interested in his ludicious idea of new world order where Soviet Union was supposed to 'secure' half of Europe - ludicious because based on two assumptions
- that Stalin is pragmatic and tends to cooperate in sustaining world peace,
- that he will honour the agreements made before.
The grevious mistake of the Allies was to treat Stalin's Soviet Union as one of the 'good guys' with full trust that he will honour agreements and proceed as every western leader would do.
@Adrian II
The only thing which stops me from trashing the comments is the fact that you are the only person in the whole web whom I despise and ignore.Quote:
As for Britain and France, they entered the war very reluctantly in September 1939 because of the German attack on their ally Poland, a two-bit dictatorship ruled by a couple of Pilsudki's successors with whom they had, equally reluctantly, concluded a military accord only in May 1939.
Maybe the Poles should have taken up Stalin's offer of an anti-German pact, an offer he made repeatedly in the course of 1939. It would have created a buffer against the German onslaught, or at least made an attack on Poland much more costly for Hitler.
It is rather useless for Poles to blame the western allies for choosing the lesser of two evils, i.e. an alliance with Stalin, where they could have done so themselves in order to avoid the worst for Poland. The vehemence with which nations put the blame for their misery at the feet of others often hides their own mistakes, lack of initiative and absence of wisdom. My own country is a good example. The Dutch used to blame the post-war loss of their colonies Indonesia and Papua New Guinea on an American 'betrayal', too, whereas in the last analysis they had only themselves to blame.
That was only to explain why I won't engage in discussion with this person - not because the arguments are ohhh sooo powerfull.:smash:
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The general attitude of the european nations toward ussr since wwI was a very strong argument for stalin to justify his buffer-state requests.
The very aggressive attitude of the polish army leaders and government in london and their absolute refusal of any form of compromise probably also favoured stalin's manoeuvre by forcing the us diplomacy to make a choice between something that could seem reasonable - ussr requests - and a dead end - polish requests.
Zones of influence and buffer states were something common at that time and the end of wars was usually a period of diplomatic competition to try to gain specific advantages : the same things had happened after WWI when former allies confronted diplomatically about the ottoman empire, the remains of the habsbourg empire etc ...
These diplomatic competitions were based upon the relative amount of troops of each of the competitor in a geographic area and the importance competitors gave to that area.
A sort of bargain based upon relative military power and governments objectives that ended with the definition of political/economic/military zones of influence.
That's what happened in the end of WWII and the result of this bargain corresponded to the general military situation in europe at the end of the fight.
Oh sure, my reference to sands and beaches was a pars pro toto. I guess you and I could argue about the relative importance of the Pacific and European theatres till we are blue in the face, but something tells me we are too reasonable for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
I just made the point that the European theater was part of a much wider American war effort, something that is often forgotten or underestimated by Europeans. By Americans too, by the way, since there is a growing tendency in the US as well to depict WWII as essentially a struggle between the civilised world and an absolute evil, represented by nazi Germany, and not much more.
:2thumbsup:
I wonder what cegorach expected the Allies to have done. In 1943, when he says Churchill and FDR sold out the Polish, the Allies weren't even on the continent. By the time the Allies landed in France, the Soviets were about to launch their own major offensive. By the time the Allies had broken out of the Normandy pocket, the Soviets had already entered Poland and were just outside Warsaw. At no point did the Allies have anything significant in hand to force the Polish solution they wanted. With Roosevelt blocking Churchill (he regarded the imperialist British as a greater post-war threat than the Soviets), what could Churchill do? Hell, he had his hands full trying to keep De Gaulle in the picture against FDR's opposition.
About the banning of British airdrops to Warsaw - Stalin was quite aware who was the main architect of foreign intervention during the wars in the early days of the USSR, and teased Churchill about it. While he may have forgiven the man and respected him as the leader of a foreign power allied to his own, he wasn't going to forgive the perfidious British and give them a free hand in his patch. Therefore the British were free to drop whatever they wanted to the besieged Poles in Warsaw, but they were forbidden from landing in Soviet held territory, and would be held as prisoners if they did.
Figure of speech he used there; fact of the matter is that the USSR took half the pie when Europe was divvied up, and gobbled it up like it was starved. The Americans gave most of the pieces of their half to their liberated allies, after which they took their own slice and discreetly enjoyed it in the background.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Lot less provocation going on there to start the Cold War, methinks. I mean, hey, it's kinda rude to eat half the pie on your own.
~D
I have to say I feel bad for the Polish resistance fighters. They were all about freeing Poland, and they end up in camps, being indoctrinated about how the Soviet Union is great, and why they should lay down their arms.
I have to say that the U.S. was really more about the Pacific Theater, not so much the European Theater.
I think that Stalin was responsible for the Cold War with the Berlin Blockade. It really shook the Americans, French, and British into action. Airlifting goods into Berlin to show Stalin that he can't get what he wants.
I'm sure that some will point to the unification of the 3 areas, but that isn't threatening the death of thousands of Berliners with a blockade of the area. If the Soviets hadn't tried to do that, then I think we may have been on more agreeable terms.