WW2 question: how was Stalin better than Hitler?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Mar 11, 2004
23,444
5,852
146
The sad truth is that history is written by the victors. If you would all pull your head out of your asses for a sec and read a real history book you'd find out WW2 was fabricated. Pearl harbor was not bombed by the Japanese but was in fact staged by the US government just like 9/11. The US had already developed the atomic bomb and needed a location to drop it on and Europe wasn't exactly a great place with so many allies around. So the looked to a little remote island of Japan and started this whole thing and now they spy on you and watch you change your underwear because they are just protecting you. :ninja:

Talk about head in ass. That's what they want you to believe. Open your eyes, especially your third one fucktard and you'll see.
 

mmntech

Lifer
Sep 20, 2007
17,501
12
0
When the allies came together, it was decided to let Stalin have control of the eastern front. This was before we knew about the Final Solution and concentration camps.

I understand wanting to have a second front but why weren't controls put in place so that Stalin would have to relinquish the territory he conquered like the allies did?

In hind sight, he took over more territory than Hitler. He was just as cruel, if not more so. What made the allies decide to make him an equal?

There were attempts at controls. This is part of why the United States dropped the atomic bomb on Japan. Yes, there fear of a bloody war for the home islands. However, the Americans were also concerned that the Soviet Union would attempt to overrun Asia as they had with Eastern Europe. Which of course they attempted to do. In August of 1945, Russia invaded Manchuria. The Japanese army stationed there was wiped out in less than two weeks.

So the United States pushed harder for a quick surrender, including concessions that Japan would keep the current Emperor, and that the US would rebuild. By August of 1945, we begin to see what would eventually evolve into the Cold War policies of Containment, the Truman Doctrine, and the Marshall Plan.

Japan also had significant strategic value as for military bases. It was also a modern, industrialized nation before the war so reconstruction went quickly. It paid off in spades when East Asia became a major theatre of the Cold War.

In Europe, the alliance with the Soviets was more one of convenience. Make no mistake that the western Allies were leery of them. But, when any sane man is given the option to bring a quick end to a brutal war, he will always take it. The details can be hashed out later. Besides, breaking the alliance with Stalin could have convinced the USSR to simply keep going. It was decided that Germany would be divided into sectors. Following the war, the Allies, now NATO, made it clear that they weren't going to let Stalin step beyond the Iron Curtain he had been assigned. This was accomplished via the Berlin Airlift, and later the Marshall plan.

Whether containment actually worked is debatable. Communism did expand rapidly during the Cold War despite attempts to stop it. However, most countries had abandoned it when the USSR fell in 1991. As far as bad economic policy goes, communism is the poster child. I think Marx may have taken an overly optimistic view on human nature, and assumed that there would be nobody who wanted to be in charge, or take advantage of the system. Read Animal Farm to see how that happens. Needless to say, it's just economically and politically unstable.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,783
6,341
126
Hitler and Japan were running amok conquering everything they could. Stalin was not.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,869
10,658
147
Following the war, the Allies, now NATO, made it clear that they weren't going to let Stalin step beyond the Iron Curtain he had been assigned.

Stalin wasn't "assigned" the countries of Eastern Europe. He got to control postwar events there because they were occupied by the Red Army, which won that territory from the Germans at great cost in men and material.

Short of going to war with Russia, there's was nothing effective that we could do about that. Not that we didn't try. We even offered all the countries of Europe, East and West, the Marshall Plan. Which brings me to:

This was accomplished via the Berlin Airlift, and later the Marshall plan.

The Marshall Plan predated the Berlin airlift by a couple of years, at least.

We did have one success liberating a country in which there were Russian troops. In 1955, the Russians left their part of Austria, for a complex series of reasons, including that they had pillaged as much as they could have from their zone (it was divided into 4 zones after the war just like Germany), the inability of the Austrian communist party to make much headway in relatively fair, country wide elections, and probably because it made Khrushchev (the kinder, gentler commie who was the first Russian to dare to publicly diss the hagiographic memory of Papa Joe) look good and gain some status internationally.

Though you probably won't find it in most history books, there was probably a quid pro quo that we wouldn't more actively support the restive native populations of some other Eastern European countries (see Hungary in 1956) in exchange for a totally free Austria.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,869
10,658
147
The sad truth is that history is written by the victors. If you would all pull your head out of your asses for a sec and read a real history book you'd find out WW2 was fabricated. Pearl harbor was not bombed by the Japanese but was in fact staged by the US government just like 9/11. The US had already developed the atomic bomb and needed a location to drop it on and Europe wasn't exactly a great place with so many allies around. So the looked to a little remote island of Japan and started this whole thing and now they spy on you and watch you change your underwear because they are just protecting you. :ninja:

It's the underwear thing that bothers me the most. :'(
 

VulgarDisplay

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2009
6,188
2
76
I actually did a research paper on this very topic back in college. Was interesting shit. They were very similar in a lot of ways.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Hitler and Japan were running amok conquering everything they could. Stalin was not.

He tried but his army was poorly trained. They took the baltic nations and got embarassed in Finland. He took the eastern half of Poland after the Germans took care of the Polish army. It isnt like the communists werent on the move during that time period. They just happened to have run into a more motivated ideology that pointed the gun at them.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
As for the question. I dont think there is a better or worse among these mass murderers.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
12,032
1,132
126
Stalin wasn't "assigned" the countries of Eastern Europe. He got to control postwar events there because they were occupied by the Red Army, which won that territory from the Germans at great cost in men and material.

Short of going to war with Russia, there's was nothing effective that we could do about that. Not that we didn't try. We even offered all the countries of Europe, East and West, the Marshall Plan. Which brings me to:



The Marshall Plan predated the Berlin airlift by a couple of years, at least.

We did have one success liberating a country in which there were Russian troops. In 1955, the Russians left their part of Austria, for a complex series of reasons, including that they had pillaged as much as they could have from their zone (it was divided into 4 zones after the war just like Germany), the inability of the Austrian communist party to make much headway in relatively fair, country wide elections, and probably because it made Khrushchev (the kinder, gentler commie who was the first Russian to dare to publicly diss the hagiographic memory of Papa Joe) look good and gain some status internationally.

Though you probably won't find it in most history books, there was probably a quid pro quo that we wouldn't more actively support the restive native populations of some other Eastern European countries (see Hungary in 1956) in exchange for a totally free Austria.

There were those that suggested the Allies keep pushing through Germany and push the Soviets back to their border. Might had even gained traction if it wasn't for the Pacific front.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
The Russian army wouldn't have stopped until it reached the English Channel.
They had two and a half times the men, more tanks, more ground attack and low level fighters, more artillery than the US and Britain. They beat German armies twice as big as the one the Allies faced in the West.
The Russian equipment was also far better than the Allies. The T-34 was far superior to the Sherman and the Russians had more of them. Their ground attack aircraft were superior to the allies. Their low level fighters were at least the equals of the Allies.

Oh, and the US President would have been impeached if he tried to attack the Russians.

Their armed forces were also very rigid. They can throw more men and equipment at the allies initially in Europe. But I question how effective they would had been. Also, once hostilities opened up the Soviets would be facing the combined economies of Britain, United States, and resurgent Germany.

Soviet equipment was not "far" superior. Their ground attack aircraft wouldnt be very effective if their fighters are swept from the skies. They lacked a high altitude interceptor to deal with our bombers. The Sherman was outclassed the entire war but did its job. And at that point was being phased out by the Pershing.

Strategically we were on their eastern, southern, and western borders. Our armed forces were barely scathed during 4 years of fighting. Our manpower pool was barely touched as well. And our industry was in perfect working order.

A hypothetical WWIII imo wouldnt had been an easy victory for the Soviets.
 

mammador

Platinum Member
Dec 9, 2010
2,120
1
76
meh, Stalin is only considered "lesser" than Hitler because his ideology and allegiance was different.

Stalin killed more people than Hitler, I'd have thought that was common knowledge.
 

OlafSicky

Platinum Member
Feb 25, 2011
2,364
0
0
Some of you missed a big point Germany and Russia were allies in 1939 and attacked Poland on two fronts. They had a spat and Germany attacked Russia so no one let Russia take care of Hitler they were going at it since june 1941
 

chucks1

Junior Member
May 26, 2011
3
0
0
Seriously, why did the US have to drop two atomic bombs on Japan?



Because we didn't have three...
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
Seriously, why did the US have to drop two atomic bombs on Japan?



Because we didn't have three...


Be honest...you've been waiting since your initial registration date to find a spot for that joke. Hey, it would probably give my grandfather a small chuckle!
 

Vdubchaos

Lifer
Nov 11, 2009
10,408
10
0
This is a classic example of American propaganda and poor education.

Every American should watch The War by Ken Burns.

Everyone wanted to end the war vs fight over territory. US basically handed over the West Europe. Stalin the east over.

The vary people that attacked Poland at the beginning of WW2 were in charge "when the war was over".

:(
 
Last edited:

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,857
31,346
146
to be fair, if Patton hadn't steered his jeep into a ditch in Luxemburg, he probably would have defied orders and driven the 3rd Army up Stalin's ass.

:D


(at least, I like to think that's what would have happened. :|)
 

ultimatebob

Lifer
Jul 1, 2001
25,134
2,450
126
The sad truth is that history is written by the victors. If you would all pull your head out of your asses for a sec and read a real history book you'd find out WW2 was fabricated. Pearl harbor was not bombed by the Japanese but was in fact staged by the US government just like 9/11. The US had already developed the atomic bomb and needed a location to drop it on and Europe wasn't exactly a great place with so many allies around. So the looked to a little remote island of Japan and started this whole thing and now they spy on you and watch you change your underwear because they are just protecting you. :ninja:

This might be the craziest thing I ever read in ATOT!

That said, I've seen worse in the P&N forum :)
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
688
126
to be fair, if Patton hadn't steered his jeep into a ditch in Luxemburg, he probably would have defied orders and driven the 3rd Army up Stalin's ass.

:D


(at least, I like to think that's what would have happened. :|)

Patton wasn't driving. Obviously, a Russian spy was driving his jeep and ran it into that truck they hit as a kamikaze move.