Yep the Russians broke the back of the German war machine. The German generals on the Eastern Front knew by 1943 that the war was lost. Stalingrad was the real turning point, Kursk sealed the deal. After that it was one way traffic to Berlin.
Yep the Russians broke the back of the German war machine. The German generals on the Eastern Front knew by 1943 that the war was lost. Stalingrad was the real turning point, Kursk sealed the deal. After that it was one way traffic to Berlin.
why get mad at Carter for telling the truth? Carter WAS the worst prez in the last 50 years, but Bush utterly knocked him out of the spot and is the worst in all of American history- GWB is Al-Quaeda's number one supporter and fundraiser...think Barry Bonds and his fake home-run record earned on steroids knocking a real American hero's record down.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,251
- 8
- 0
There is NO proof of all of any type of deal of that nature.
Do the research, hit Google etc etc you will find some stories and accusations, but nothing that comes close to proof.
I would guess that the timing of their freedom rested on two things.
1. Freed of not having to run for reelection Carter was able to negotiate without worrying about what he doing or saying.
2. The Iranian fear of what Reagan would do if they still held the hostages.
Carter is far from the worst President. He faced a very crummy economic situation when the chickens came home to roost after the Vietnam war. Carter fought rampant inflation and succeeded in taming the dollar. He was the last reality based President. The ones after him have been crooks or imbeciles or both.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,251
- 8
- 0
Iran-Contra happened WAY after the elections.
You are talking about the Iranian hostage crisis that ended in Jan of 1981.
The first arms sale did not take place till 1985, during Reagan's second term.
Would you care to find some proof of what you said about the hostage release and the election, or are you going to throw up another smoke screen?
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 63,012
- 11,399
- 136
Well, as with much that surrounds the Neocons, actual proof may be difficult to obtain, ESPECIALLY considering GHW Bush's ties into the intelligence community...(too bad his son didn't inherit any of that intelligence 
)
BUT, there are far too many stories like this one for people to just write it off as coincidence:
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/coupreaganbush.htm
"Suspicions about a deal between the Reagan campaign and Iran over the hostages have circulated since the day of President Reagan's inaugural, when Iran agreed to release the 52 American hostages exactly five minutes after Mr. Reagan took the oath of office. Later, as it became known that arms started to flow to Iran via Israel only a few days after the inauguration, suspicions deepened that a secret arms-for-hostages deal had been concluded. Five years later, when the Iran-contra affair revealed what seemed to be a similar swap of hostages for arms delivered through Israel, questions were revived about the 1980 election. In a nice, ironic twist, the phrase `October surprise,' which Vice Presidential candidate George Bush had coined to warn of possible political manipulation of the hostages by Jimmy Carter, began to be applied to the suspected secret activities of the 1980 Reagan-Bush campaign... In a Madrid hotel in late July 1980, an important Iranian cleric, Mehdi Karrubi, who is now the speaker of the Iranian Parliament, allegedly met with Mr. Casey [Reagan's campaign manager and later his Director of the CIA] and a U.S. intelligence officer who was operating outside authority. The same group met again several weeks later.... From Oct. 15 to Oct. 20, events came to a head in a series of meetings in several hotels in Paris, involving members of the Reagan-Bush campaign and high-level Iranian and Israeli representatives. Accounts of these meetings and the exact number of participants vary considerably among the more than 15 sources who claim direct or indirect knowledge of some aspect of them. There is, however, widespread agreement on three points: William Casey was a key participant: the Iranian representatives agreed that the hostages would not be released prior to the Presidential election on Nov. 4; in return, Israel would serve as a conduit for arms and spare parts to Iran. At least five of the sources who say they were in Paris in connection with these meetings insist that George Bush was present for at least one meeting. Three of the sources say that they saw him there... Immediately after the Paris meetings, things began to happen. On Oct. 21, Iran publicly shifted its position in the negotiations with the Carter Administration, disclaiming any further interest in receiving military equipment.... Between Oct. 21 and Oct. 23, Israel sent a planeload of F-4 fighter aircraft tires to Iran in contravention of the U.S. boycott and without informing Washington. Cyrus Hashemi, using his own contacts began privately organizing military shipments to Iran. On Oct. 22, the hostages were suddenly dispersed to different locations. And a series of delaying tactics in late October by the Iranian Parliament stymied all attempts by the Carter Administration to act on the hostage question until only hours before Election Day... On Jan. 15, Iran did an about-face, offering a series of startling concessions that reignited the talks and resulted in a final agreement in the last few hours of Jimmy Carter's Presidency. The hostages were released on Jan. 21, 1981, minutes after Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President. Almost immediately thereafter, according to Israeli and American former officials, arms began to flow to Iran in substantial quantities... Moshe Arens, the Israeli Ambassador to Washington in 1982, told The Boston Globe in October 1982 that Israeli's arms shipments to Iran at this time were coordinated with the U.S. Government `at almost the highest of levels.' ... The allegations of these individuals have many disturbing implications for the U.S. political system. One is the tampering with foreign policy for partisan benefit. That has, of course, happened before and it may well happen again, but it assumes special poignancy in this case since it would have involved tampering with the lives and freedom of 52 Americans. Another implication is that leaders of the U.S. exposed themselves to the possibility of blackmail by Iran or Israel. Third, the events suggest that the arms-for-hostage deal that in the twilight of the Reagan Presidency became known as the Iran-contra affair, instead of being an aberration, was in fact the re-emergence of a policy that began even before the Reagan-Bush Administration took office."
AND:
http://www.historyguy.com/iran-us_hostage_crisis.html
"On July 27, 1980, the former Shah died. Then, in September, 1980, President Saddam Hussein of Iraq invaded Iran. These two events led the Iranian government to enter into negotiations with the U.S., with Algeria acting as a mediator.
Domestically, the Hostage Crisis ruined President Carter's presidency. Unfortunately for him, the one-year anniversary of the embassy takeover fell on the same day as the United States Presidential election of 1980. Carter lost that election to former California Governor Ronald Reagan, who, though never publicly criticizing Carter over the hostage crisis, promised to rebuild American power and influence in the world.
The negotiations between Iran and the U.S. culminated in a deal that released the hostages and the eight billion dollars worth of frozen Iranian assets. Moments after Ronald Reagan took the oath of office on January 20, 1981, the hostages were allowed to fly out of Iran after 444 days of captivity."
http://lawnorder.blogspot.com/2005/04/how-reagan-bush-campaign-sabotaged.html
Are you still contending that it was pure coincidence that they were released within MINUTES after Reagan was sworn in as president? OR, could it be that they were bought out of captivity by behind-the-scenes negotiations by the Reagan and Neocon camp ?
)BUT, there are far too many stories like this one for people to just write it off as coincidence:
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/coupreaganbush.htm
"Suspicions about a deal between the Reagan campaign and Iran over the hostages have circulated since the day of President Reagan's inaugural, when Iran agreed to release the 52 American hostages exactly five minutes after Mr. Reagan took the oath of office. Later, as it became known that arms started to flow to Iran via Israel only a few days after the inauguration, suspicions deepened that a secret arms-for-hostages deal had been concluded. Five years later, when the Iran-contra affair revealed what seemed to be a similar swap of hostages for arms delivered through Israel, questions were revived about the 1980 election. In a nice, ironic twist, the phrase `October surprise,' which Vice Presidential candidate George Bush had coined to warn of possible political manipulation of the hostages by Jimmy Carter, began to be applied to the suspected secret activities of the 1980 Reagan-Bush campaign... In a Madrid hotel in late July 1980, an important Iranian cleric, Mehdi Karrubi, who is now the speaker of the Iranian Parliament, allegedly met with Mr. Casey [Reagan's campaign manager and later his Director of the CIA] and a U.S. intelligence officer who was operating outside authority. The same group met again several weeks later.... From Oct. 15 to Oct. 20, events came to a head in a series of meetings in several hotels in Paris, involving members of the Reagan-Bush campaign and high-level Iranian and Israeli representatives. Accounts of these meetings and the exact number of participants vary considerably among the more than 15 sources who claim direct or indirect knowledge of some aspect of them. There is, however, widespread agreement on three points: William Casey was a key participant: the Iranian representatives agreed that the hostages would not be released prior to the Presidential election on Nov. 4; in return, Israel would serve as a conduit for arms and spare parts to Iran. At least five of the sources who say they were in Paris in connection with these meetings insist that George Bush was present for at least one meeting. Three of the sources say that they saw him there... Immediately after the Paris meetings, things began to happen. On Oct. 21, Iran publicly shifted its position in the negotiations with the Carter Administration, disclaiming any further interest in receiving military equipment.... Between Oct. 21 and Oct. 23, Israel sent a planeload of F-4 fighter aircraft tires to Iran in contravention of the U.S. boycott and without informing Washington. Cyrus Hashemi, using his own contacts began privately organizing military shipments to Iran. On Oct. 22, the hostages were suddenly dispersed to different locations. And a series of delaying tactics in late October by the Iranian Parliament stymied all attempts by the Carter Administration to act on the hostage question until only hours before Election Day... On Jan. 15, Iran did an about-face, offering a series of startling concessions that reignited the talks and resulted in a final agreement in the last few hours of Jimmy Carter's Presidency. The hostages were released on Jan. 21, 1981, minutes after Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President. Almost immediately thereafter, according to Israeli and American former officials, arms began to flow to Iran in substantial quantities... Moshe Arens, the Israeli Ambassador to Washington in 1982, told The Boston Globe in October 1982 that Israeli's arms shipments to Iran at this time were coordinated with the U.S. Government `at almost the highest of levels.' ... The allegations of these individuals have many disturbing implications for the U.S. political system. One is the tampering with foreign policy for partisan benefit. That has, of course, happened before and it may well happen again, but it assumes special poignancy in this case since it would have involved tampering with the lives and freedom of 52 Americans. Another implication is that leaders of the U.S. exposed themselves to the possibility of blackmail by Iran or Israel. Third, the events suggest that the arms-for-hostage deal that in the twilight of the Reagan Presidency became known as the Iran-contra affair, instead of being an aberration, was in fact the re-emergence of a policy that began even before the Reagan-Bush Administration took office."
AND:
http://www.historyguy.com/iran-us_hostage_crisis.html
"On July 27, 1980, the former Shah died. Then, in September, 1980, President Saddam Hussein of Iraq invaded Iran. These two events led the Iranian government to enter into negotiations with the U.S., with Algeria acting as a mediator.
Domestically, the Hostage Crisis ruined President Carter's presidency. Unfortunately for him, the one-year anniversary of the embassy takeover fell on the same day as the United States Presidential election of 1980. Carter lost that election to former California Governor Ronald Reagan, who, though never publicly criticizing Carter over the hostage crisis, promised to rebuild American power and influence in the world.
The negotiations between Iran and the U.S. culminated in a deal that released the hostages and the eight billion dollars worth of frozen Iranian assets. Moments after Ronald Reagan took the oath of office on January 20, 1981, the hostages were allowed to fly out of Iran after 444 days of captivity."
http://lawnorder.blogspot.com/2005/04/how-reagan-bush-campaign-sabotaged.html
Are you still contending that it was pure coincidence that they were released within MINUTES after Reagan was sworn in as president? OR, could it be that they were bought out of captivity by behind-the-scenes negotiations by the Reagan and Neocon camp ?
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,251
- 8
- 0
Boomer... have any real news sources to back up the claims about?
try going here wikipedia article on this.
try going here wikipedia article on this.
This was a Democrat controlled house and senate.
FYI The New Republic is a liberal magazine.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,251
- 8
- 0
Algiers Accords set the ground work for the release of the hostages. It was signed the day BEFORE Reagan took office.
Did Reagan manipulate Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher to sign them on that day as well?
When you are done with this can you tell us who really killed JFK?
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 63,012
- 11,399
- 136
LFK? Hmmm, lots of likely candidates there...
CIA:
to keep him from withdrawing us from Vietnam
Because of his affair with Marylin Monroe
Because he woudlnt support them more in the Cuban affairs
Mafia...just because...(although there ARE several different theories regarding this as well)
Cubans...because of the Cuban affairs
Russians...how many reasons did the Ruskies have to want Kennedy dead?
Johnson...(he never did like that little bahstahd from Massachusetts)
Let's leave that one alone for now...and go back to Reagan...Doesn't it seem odd that he chooses a former CIA director as his vice-president...then, for some reason, the US agrees to release $8 billion in Iranian funds in exchange for the hostages...and it occurs ONLY after Reagan is elected and they are released AFTER he is inagurated? Isn't it also a funny coincidence that just a couple of years later, Reagan and his administration are caught selling arms to the Iranians to fund yet another covert war...this time in Nicaragua...
MAYBE it's true...that he was out of the loop...many people suspected his Alzheimer's way before it was ever made public...and it was common knowledge about Nancy and her astrologer along with rumors that he wasn't allowed to make important decisions until Nancy consulted with that astrologer.
CIA:
to keep him from withdrawing us from Vietnam
Because of his affair with Marylin Monroe
Because he woudlnt support them more in the Cuban affairs
Mafia...just because...(although there ARE several different theories regarding this as well)
Cubans...because of the Cuban affairs
Russians...how many reasons did the Ruskies have to want Kennedy dead?
Johnson...(he never did like that little bahstahd from Massachusetts)
Let's leave that one alone for now...and go back to Reagan...Doesn't it seem odd that he chooses a former CIA director as his vice-president...then, for some reason, the US agrees to release $8 billion in Iranian funds in exchange for the hostages...and it occurs ONLY after Reagan is elected and they are released AFTER he is inagurated? Isn't it also a funny coincidence that just a couple of years later, Reagan and his administration are caught selling arms to the Iranians to fund yet another covert war...this time in Nicaragua...
MAYBE it's true...that he was out of the loop...many people suspected his Alzheimer's way before it was ever made public...and it was common knowledge about Nancy and her astrologer along with rumors that he wasn't allowed to make important decisions until Nancy consulted with that astrologer.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 110,638
- 29,292
- 146
Well, I do feel that the Russians account for ~70%+ of the victory over the Germans. The only backtracking I attempted was in reclaiming the use of the Russians "alone" statement. I can't discredit the Western effort at D-day and onwards, although it is reasonable to imagine the Germans would eventually succumb after their colossal defeats at Moscow and Stalingrad.
This is one of those quirky issues in history where a Soviet-era education teaches you that only Russia participated in WW2 (my GF was raised in the Soviet Union), and the western perspective is that they were involved, but not very significant. The quirky aspect being that the Russian perspective is probably more accurate
Pens1566
Lifer
- Oct 11, 2005
- 11,653
- 8,144
- 136
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Well, I do feel that the Russians account for ~70%+ of the victory over the Germans. The only backtracking I attempted was in reclaiming the use of the Russians "alone" statement. I can't discredit the Western effort at D-day and onwards, although it is reasonable to imagine the Germans would eventually succumb after their colossal defeats at Moscow and Stalingrad.
This is one of those quirky issues in history where a Soviet-era education teaches you that only Russia participated in WW2 (my GF was raised in the Soviet Union), and the western perspective is that they were involved, but not very significant. The quirky aspect being that the Russian perspective is probably more accurate
I'm not so sure that the russians could have done it without us. Take Lend lease out of the equation and they would have been in trouble.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,251
- 8
- 0
I think the war would have had a very different outcome.
Unlikely that Germany could win against the Soviets, but it is very likely that they would have reached some peace agreement to end the fighting.
They probably would have returned to the Hitler-Stalin pact that split Poland in two and then rearmed and prepared for round two (three actually).
The best thing about the outcome of WW 2 was the fact that we forced Germany and Japan to surrender without conditions and therefore allowed us to go in and remake the countries.
Thump553
Lifer
- Jun 2, 2000
- 12,689
- 2,450
- 126
Final word on this subject-in this weeks Newsweek there is a reprint of a political cartoon I think all will find hilarious, regardless of political bent. (going from memory here) Bush is seated at his desk in the Oval Office, an ad comes in and says" Carter says you are the worst President in history. Oh, and here is the thank you note he sent you."
Well lend-lease didn't take effect until after 1941 for the Russians, the period of greatest danger for them, and as an example lend-lease supplied about 7,000 tanks for the Russians during all of WW2. The Russians produced and captured north of 100,000 tanks during this time period, so we're talking about 7% of their total equipment (weighted heavily towards the end of the war) I think they could have managed without it. Britain needed the material far more then they did.
John may be right that they would have concluded a peace agreement without our involvement though, it's hard to say considering how different the political atmosphere would have been otherwise... but I wouldn't have put it out of the question.
Pens1566
Lifer
- Oct 11, 2005
- 11,653
- 8,144
- 136
Lend lease to russia started in '41, and gave them a whole lot more than just tanks. There were far more important contributions to their effort like trains, trucks, and other support items. What good are the tanks if you can't get ammo/fuel/men/equipment to them?
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,251
- 8
- 0
The book D-day talks a lot about the politics behind the invasion and the pressure by Stalin to help him by easing up the pressure on his forces.
Now imagine if D-day had been a failure and the Germans had driven us back into the sea. It would have been spring of 1945 before we could have tried again. (Build up forces, retrain, reequip etc etc.)
This would have freed up a lot of German units to head over to the Eastern front and really made life difficult of the Russians.
At this point Stalin could have decided to end the war with a negotiated peace treaty.
Then we would have been stuck trying to pry Hitler out of Western Europe by ourselves, what a mess that would have been.
Now imagine if D-day had been a failure and the Germans had driven us back into the sea. It would have been spring of 1945 before we could have tried again. (Build up forces, retrain, reequip etc etc.)
This would have freed up a lot of German units to head over to the Eastern front and really made life difficult of the Russians.
At this point Stalin could have decided to end the war with a negotiated peace treaty.
Then we would have been stuck trying to pry Hitler out of Western Europe by ourselves, what a mess that would have been.
That seems very unlikely to me, after Hitler broke their previous agreement and killed millions of Russians in some of the most visious battles in the war, starvation etc.
Do you know anything of how bitter the hatred of the Germans was by the Russians later in the war? Consider the Russian army's mass rape of the women in Berlin.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 11K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 8K
-
Facebook
Twitter