Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Putin Travels to Poland to Defend Russian Role in World War II

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Heidi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 01:26 AM
Original message
Putin Travels to Poland to Defend Russian Role in World War II
Source: Reuters

Aug. 31 (Bloomberg) -- Prime Minister Vladimir Putin travels to Poland today as Russia seeks to defend the role of the Soviet Union in eastern Europe during World War II.

Putin will join other European leaders in the Baltic port city of Gdansk to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Nazi invasion of Poland, which sparked the deadliest war in history and set the stage for the Cold War division of Europe.

Russia, the legal successor of the U.S.S.R., claims that former Soviet republics such as Ukraine and the three Baltic states are trying to rewrite history by equating Soviet ruler Joseph Stalin with Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler. The two leaders sealed a non-aggression pact only days before Germany invaded Poland on Sept. 1, 1939, secretly agreeing to carve up eastern Europe between the two of them.

“The first goal of the trip is to counter attempts at revising the history of World War II,” Putin’s deputy chief of staff Yury Ushakov told reporters in Moscow before the trip. “The second is to give an impulse to Russian-Polish relations.”



Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=alSlDK99fqds
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 01:35 AM
Response to Original message
1. Adolf and Joseph were both brutally authoritarian.
If you could get them into a discussion of how to hold onto power or how to control the population, they would find much in common. They disagreed only on economic issues. Joe would rather the state run everything. Adolf preferred collaboration between the state and the industrialists who owned the factories and businesses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Posteritatis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 01:48 AM
Response to Original message
2. "Counter attempts at revising..." wtf?
Edited on Mon Aug-31-09 01:48 AM by Posteritatis
Pretty sure the official stance in the Russian ministry of defense as of a couple of months ago is that WWII was actually Poland's fault. That's a pretty damn big revision to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bumblebee1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-01-09 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #2
35. How will this play in Nizhny Novgorod? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 02:38 AM
Response to Original message
3. but will it play in Peoria?
:grr: stay the fuck home putin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 04:29 AM
Response to Original message
4. Marshal Zhukov & the Russian people deserve most of credit for
defeating Hitler, but Stalin was a paranoid, genocidal bungler.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David__77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 04:34 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Zhukov acted on Stalin's orders.
The Soviet Union was the only country invaded by Hitler that did not have a powerful fifth column. There is a reason for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 04:57 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Who was the man at the top
early in the war, Stalin tried to control military operations against the Germans. These efforts were dismal failures. He learned from that lesson. From then on he allowed Stavka to direct the war effort. Thus men like Marshals Vasilevsky and Zhukov ran the military operations of the Soviet Army, subject to Stalin's operational approval. Imagine how the Soviet war effort would have progressed if Stalin interfered in military operations to the same degree that Hitler interefered with OKW operations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 05:06 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Only to be accused of "Bonapartism" once the fighting ended
After 1945, any Soviet Army general who tried to claim his share of the credit, or deny that Stalin was responsible for the Nazi downfall, was swiftly smeared for being a "Bonapartist," i.e. a militarist trying to exploit his war record for political advancement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David__77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 05:22 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. They were Bonapartist.
The army serves the government, not the other way around. The Red Army generals, including Zhukov, indeed did interfere in Soviet politics. They, for instance, played a role in Khushchev's coup against Molotov et al in 1957.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. What's the cause and what's the effect?
You don't think the generals in question might have been more than a little miffed at Stalin as a result of his hogging the glory after 1945? Strikes me as a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martymar64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #6
28. Plus, Stalin had killed off his best officers in the Purges
He slaughtered many thousands of veterans of the Revolution and the Civil War, not to mention a large portion of the officers and general staff of the Red Army. By the time Hitler invaded, the Red Army was a hollow shell of it's former self. Had Stalin not done so much damage to his own military, Hitler's advance into Russia would've been much shorter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 05:21 AM
Response to Original message
8. Will Putin also be in Poland on September 17th?
Because that's the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland, as arranged per the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. How about the 70th anniversary of the Katyn Forest Massacre next March? I also believe October 3rd will be the 65th anniversary of the end of the Warsaw Uprising, which the Germans managed to up down because the Sovs sat on their arses on the other side of the Vistula for two months and left the Poles to twist in the wind.

Nah, the Poles don't have reason to still be sore at the Russians, Lord no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David__77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 05:27 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Why should the Red Army have its movements dictated by anti-Soviet Poles?
The "Warsaw Uprising" was a calculated attempt to thwart the Red Army from liberating Warsaw. They could have conserved their forces and the Warsaw would have been liberated shortly. Why on earth would the Soviets deviate from their successful military plan because of this? And the Polish Jews who made their way into Soviet-occupied Poland in 1939 certainly knew the greater evil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #10
19. Yeah, damn those Poles for wanting to liberate their own capital
...rather than having the same government that snatched the eastern half of their country and murdered 22,000 of their countrymen at Katyn do it, thereby cementing its control over the country's political future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David__77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #19
27. No, not saying "damn them."
But they shouldn't have expected the Red Army to provide support when they chose not to coordinate their activities with them.

That said, I do think that the formal occupation of the eastern part of Poland was a mistake. I DO think that the Red Army sweeping in with the correct thing though, both in order to protect Poles from fascism, especially Jews, and to provide a cordon against German fascism. But there should have been an independent state established in eastern Poland. The exigencies of the time did not probably allow that if the non-aggression treaty was to be maintained. If the Soviets had not entered the non-aggression treaty with Germany, it is very likely it would have had even less time to prepare for war, and its existence would have been threatened. I'm sure you don't care, because maybe you think the Soviets' defeat by fascism would have been a good thing; I think it would have been a world-historic tragedy for humanity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BobtheBob Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. Coordinating "activities" the Soviet Style
Unfortunately much of your "history" (whatever it is you are reading) is refuted by facts. Couple of examples for you ...

1) Comrade Stalin refused to permit refueling and landing to US / British / Polish / South African AF to drop ammunition, supplies, medicines to the Polish fighters in Warsaw. The tragic outcome of Warsaw Raising is well known.
2) As to what the cooperation with the Red Army looked like you need to take a look at what took place in and around Vilnius in 1944. I encourage you to study Operations "Tempest" and "Ostra Brama" where Polish Home Army Soldiers were rounded up, executed, and / or sent to the Gulag after cooperating with front-line Russian units. I will gladly share with you other examples, if you wish. Would you like me to quote some excerpts from official, classified NKVD / SMERSH documents that pertain to these very specific issues?

Robert
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BobtheBob Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #10
20. History you haven't known about
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8230387.stm

Comrade Putin sez:

"But after all," he added, "a year earlier France and England signed a well-known agreement with Hitler in Munich, destroying all hope for the creation of a joint front for the fight against fascism."

I sure as hell didn't know anything about it! Thank God for Mr. Putin's succinct, learned, and all encompassing clarification. Now, I am sure we will all know why this inferno known as the Second World War began in the first place. Whmmm, one would think that the countless victims of communism who perished during and after ww2 in the Soviet Gulag and in the NKVD-ran dungeons in each and every “liberated” nation of Central and Eastern Europe didn’t know anything about this monstrous French and British conspiracy either.

"Joint front for the fight against fascism?" And this "joint" front was to consist of ... ? This one is sure to become a classic!

"They could have conserved their forces and the Warsaw would have been liberated shortly".

You need to read up on what the "liberation" soviet-style looked like in Central and Eastern Europe.

Bob
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David__77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. We disagree, that is all. I've read your "history."
There WAS a joint front against fascism. The UK was dragged into it kicking and screaming, and the US was standing a middle ground - better than the UK certainly. The Western powers only intervened when it became clear that the Red Army, in alliance with European progressives would destroy fascism on their own if they failed to join the alliance.

The Yalta conference was all about the joint front against fascism. It is too bad that Truman did not continue that FDR progressive policy for post-war cooperation with the Soviet Union.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BobtheBob Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #8
22. September 17 Anniversary of Soviet Invasion on Poland and Mr.
Edited on Mon Aug-31-09 04:03 PM by BobtheBob
Mr. "P" will have to figure out how to "unexist" 1, 2, 3 million Poles who perished in the "worker's paradise" aka "Gulag", and that, "ain't" gonna be easy even for comrade "P" to pull.

Bob
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harmonicon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 08:06 AM
Response to Original message
11. a Czech friend of mine was talking about this just the other week
He basically said "Without Stalin, we wouldn't be here. I wouldn't be here - I would have never been born." It doesn't mean that Stalin didn't do horrible things, but that without the USSR defeating Germany in WWII, the world would be far different and far worse than it is today.

He also doesn't like constantly hearing about things like "Nazi occupation". As he says, this was the legal, elected, German government. It was German occupation and slaughter. To deny that is to give a free pass to the millions complicit in the crimes and to deny the possibility that it could happen again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Hitler was not "elected"! He was
Edited on Mon Aug-31-09 08:36 AM by coalition_unwilling
"appointed" by President Hindenburg, following parliamentary elections in 1933 in which the Nazi Party's share of the vote actually declined!

The old-line Prussian Junkers thought they would be able to keep Hitler in line. Oops!

On edit: Nazi Germany was "legal" in the same way Bush's appointment by the Supreme Court was "legal."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harmonicon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. well, yeah, but that's it, isn't it?
The rest of the world accepted Bush as the elected leader of the US, as did Americans. This wasn't some sort of rouge movement that just happened to be in Germany. It was the official, legal, German government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. It was the "official, legal German government," provided one
Edited on Mon Aug-31-09 10:00 AM by coalition_unwilling
acknowledges that, first and foremost, Hitler and the Nazi Party never received a simple majority in any free election held in Germany. I believe the highest percentage the Nazi Party got was approximately 36%, and this was after Hitler already enjoyed the power of incumbency.

Large numbers of Germans were victims of Hitler and the Nazis, just as large numbers of Ukrainian peasants were victims of Stalin and the Communist Party in the U.S.S.R.

Still, I think your Czech friend is on to something. Brutal though he may have been, Stalin is NOT the moral equivalent of Hitler by any stretch. When you consider that the British and the French supported anti-Soviet elements up until 1921 and that they dallied as though it did not matter with the USSR in the spring and summer of 1939 over an alliance against Hitler, Stalin's moves in signing the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact have a certain geo-political logic.

Edited for typo in original.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MellowDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #16
30. I don't know about comparing the morality of two people...
especially like Hitler and Stalin. I believe it is impossible really. Suffice it to say they were both very cruel people and I can't honestly see how Stalin was any "better" in any way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MellowDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #11
29. If the USSR hadn't defeated Germany...
The Western Powers would have eventually. The arrival of the Bomb would have made sure of that. And I can't say that Poland or any other eastern European country would have been any worse off under German occupation for decades than under Soviet occupation for decades. They were both damn brutal regimes that slaughtered millions of their own people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harmonicon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. well, I'm not so sure about that
The allies had plans drawn up for the possibility that they'd fail which would have given most of Europe to Germany. For all that's said about what the allies did in Europe (and my grand father was one of the people on the ground fighting, for which I have unending respect), not enough time is given to the role that the USSR played - they were far more important to the defeat of Germany than all of the other powers combined.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MellowDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. I agree with you generally...
I just don't think that even with Russia out of the picture that Germany would have been ever able to win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. I have my doubts that the Western Allies, on their own, could have defeated Hitler after 1940
With the Fall of France, the only land power that could confront the German Army in Europe was the Russian Army. The atomic bombs was only available come July 1945, and then only two by August and two more by November 1945 (The US was planning to use gas on Tokyo as part of its invasion plan for Japan, given the limitation imposed do to the lack of fissionable materials to make more bombs). In fact there is a constant rumor, denied often but never truly refuted, that said the Bomb used in Hiroshima used Uranium from a German Submarine sent to Japan in the Spring of 1945 with strategic supplies but that had surrendered to the Allies after Germany surrendered on May 7th, 1945. The amount of weapons grade uranium was limited, in many ways more limited then Plutonium used in the Nagasaki bomb.

Thus the Western Powers would have NOT had the ability to challenge German control over Europe till August 1945. Thus Hitler would have had control over all of Europe from Russia to Spain till August 1945. No Invasion would have been possible for the German Army could send more troops by rail to any location the Western Allies could land troops by sea. Allied forces could have landed and lasted 3-4 days, but then the Full might of the German Army would have arrived to finish them off. Given that sad fact of life no full scale invasion would have occurred, not even in Sicily (Through French North Africa would have been invaded in the fall of 1942, German had no fleet to oppose the US Invasion and to far to send troops by rail).

One other factor comes into play, the German Army from 1939 till the invasion of Russia in June 1941 was dependent on Russia for its oil. The invasion of Russia was a gamble, Germany betting it could take Russia before it ran out of oil it had stored up over the previous year in anticipation of the invasion (This dependency as known to Stalin and appears to be the #1 reason he did NOT think Hitler would attack Russia, once the oil was gone the German Army's ability to maneuver would have disappeared with it). Hitler had three other sources of oil, Romania (These were small compared to Soviet and US oil supplies but important and shut off with Romania falling to the Russians in the fall of 1944), conversion of Coal to oil, and finally importation via Spain from the US (Which was only cut off with the liberation of France in the summer and fall of 1944).

Now, with no war with Russia, the Germans would have had full access to Russian Oil. With that oil, Germany could train and field more planes to intercept the British and American bombers then it had when oil was short after 1941. The ME-109 was one of the best fighters of 1939-1941 period, but was slowly becoming obsolete (being replaced by the FW-190 and then the Jets as the war progressed). Roughly the ME-109 was the same generation as the Spitfire and the American P-40 fighters. The FW-190 was of the same generation as the Mustangs and Thunderbolts. The Germans did not have the fuel to fully train their pilots on the FW-109 and this lack of training came to hurt their ability to shoot down the US and British Bombers in the Bombing attacks of 1942-1945 (The Cut off of Romania and Spain and the destruction of the Coal to oil plants did more to grown the German Air Force then the Air Forces of the Western Allies and the Soviet Union).

My point is no war with Russia, the Air War over Germany would have been a clear failure by 1943. To many bombers were being lost by the US Air Force in its Daylight Campaign and it was becoming more and more clear that the British Night time Campaign was helping the Germans more then hurting the Germans (The Nazis had a hard time convincing Germans to move out of the inner cities to the Suburbs during the 1930s and the early years of the War, with the workers not willing to move, neither were their employer, the bombing campaign provided the push for the Germans to move out of the inner City to the new suburbs around the new Factories, which dispersed the workers and factories and made the British Bomber Campaign harder to show any real effect on German war efforts. Post WWII analysis of the Bombing Campaign confirmed the above, the only effective air campaign was one against the transportation system and that was only implemented in 1945 as part of the Air Forces efforts to support the Ground war.

Thus by August 1945 you would have had a stalemate of over four years in duration. The Germans had no fleet so any invasion of British was risky for them. On the other hand the Germans could defeat any allied invasion within a week of its landing. The Germans would have had peace to fully train its Army, fuel to equip and train its army and Air Force for over four years before the Atomic Bomb is available for use.

One last factor must be considered, the only plane capable of carrying the Atomic Bomb of 1945-1950 (In the 1950s a lighter bomb was invented but that was AFTER the Russian had one themselves and German had the Technology to have one about the same time period) was the B-29. The Atomic Bomb was to heavy for the B-17s and B-24s used in Europe. The B-36 only came into service in 1946 and it only had the ability to hit Europe from the US with an Atomic Bomb. Thus any atomic Bomb would have had to be carried to Britain to be dropped by a B-29, a plane the Germans, unlike the Japanese in 1945, could have intercepted and shot down (especially with no war with the Russians to deny them oil). The US had a limited number of B-29s in 1945 and even the B-29s had to be modified to carry these huge weapons.

Thus the US could have dropped the Atomic Bombs on 2-4 German Cities between August 1945 and November 1945. Then nothing for about another six months (Yes, the US had a limited number of Atomic Bombs in the period 1945-1950, each had to be custom made and this production of fuel for them was also limited). Four bombs would NOT have destroyed the German Ability to retaliate, and in that regard the German had the perfect weapon and target. Only Germany had Nerve Gas during WWII, Hitler refused to use it for he had been gassed during WWI, but Nerve gas was available. In retaliation for an Atomic Bombing Hitler would have overcome his objection to Gas warfare and ordered a full scale Gas attack on London. Remember we are talking about a German NOT tied down with the Russians. Germany would have had the planes to launch such an attack and it would have been deadly, if aimed at London would have cost more English Lives then the Atomic Bombs would have killed Germans. The Western Allies would have responded with Mustard Gas, but it is NOT as effective as Nerve Gas AND German Gas Masks were effective against Mustard, a gas known since WWI, but British and American Gas Masks were NOT design for Nerve gas for the simple reason neither country had determined HOW to make Nerve Gas (the Allies would find out about it as they took over Germany in the Spring of 1945 and were unpleasantly surprised).

Would Churchill have permitted an Atomic Bombing of Germany fully expecting a Gas retaliation? Maybe, but once it was done I see Churchill using unofficial Channels to then end the exchange of weapons. The cost of the Nerve Gas Attack would have been to high, and the value of the Atomic Bombings to low given the German policy of dispersing production after the start of the Air War in 1940.

One last Comment, all of the above is ignoring the U-Boat War in the Atlantic. No Russia, the U-Boats would have had full access to fuel. The Germans would have put more efforts in expanding their Air Force to reach into the Atlantic to stop convoys to Britain. People forget Britain was on its knees in 1943 when Churchill gambled. Churchill gambled that the German would still be using their Enigma Code system no matter HOW often it became clear to the Germans that the only way the British were avoiding their U-Boats (and finding those U-Boats) were do to the code being broken. i.e. the Allies planes were watching at the location the U-boat had said it would be making its next transmission, the U-boat came up and promptly sunk by a B-24. Without the enigma machine being broken the Allies would have lost the War in the Atlantic and sometime in 1943 Churchill would have sued for peace with Hitler. You can NOT go to war when the children at home are starving to death and that was what Churchill was facing when he ordered that all restrictions on the use of the Intercepts from the Enigma be abolished. The fear was that if the Germans put two to two together the enigma would be replaced by an equally complex but different machine. Britain only had the Enigma Machine for the Poles had obtained one and when Poland fell in 1939, transported it to Britain. With use of the first Electronic Computer and the Enigma Machine Britain was able to read the messages sent by the Enigma throughout most of the War (The Classic Case was the German Invasion of Crete, the British Commander made the comment that the Germans promptly followed their own plan). Now Crete also shows the limitation on reading the other side plans, sometime you can NOT do anything to stop them as what happened in Crete in the Spring of 1941 (The British were driven out). In regards to Axis conveys to North Africa, the Allies had to make an effort that they found the conveys via normal search patterns instead of by intercepting the messages. By 1943, the situation in the Atlantic was bad, and something had to be done and Churchill ordered no further efforts to cover up for breaking the Code be made if it meant a delay in attacking an U-Boat OR diverting a Convoy from a U-Boat Pack. This was risky, someone in German Intelligence could have figure this out and ordered new machines (In this regard we have to thank the head of German Intelligence, who more then any other person tried to get rid of Hitler and apparently did all he could do to make sure all evidence that the enigma machine was compromised was covered up, he was part of the July 20th plot to kill Hitler and was hanged for his efforts, but by then the Western Allies were in France and Hitler was doomed).

Yes, the Western allies would have had the Atomic Bomb by August 1945, but Germany would have controlled ALL of Europe AND may even had forced Britain to sue for Peace in 1943-1944 to end the U-Boat war in the North Atlantic. No Western invasion without the Atomic Bomb was possible, thus no invasion even of Italy till Summer of 1945. The 4-6 bombs the US would have had by 1946 (if none used in 1945) would NOT have changed the military situation that much. The last thing an invading army wants is to destroy the transportation system of the country it is invading (other then to deny the enemy transport). The Atomic Bombs could have been used to isolate an invasion beach, but then the roads out of the beach would also have been destroyed, limited transport either way. Britain out do to the U-boat menace would have made even that invasion impossible.

No you have to ignore the fact HOW much of the German Army was tied in with the War with Russia (2/3rds of all German losses were on the Eastern Front, and that includes the period 1939-1941 when their was no Eastern Front). You have to ignore how the access to oil from Russia would have strengthen the German Navy and Air Force in regards to the U-Boat war in the Atlantic. You also have to ignore the fact how limited the production of Atomic Bombs were before the 1950s. If you ignore those three sets of facts, then the Atomic Bombs could have forced Hitler to Surrender in late 1945, but with those three sets of facts, Britain would have sued for peace in 1943-1944. No Surrender by either side but negotiated peace with German Forces being pulled out of France along with the U-boats in exchange for Germany having a free hand in the rest of Europe. Once the atomic Bomb would have been invented in 1945, the Germans like the Russians would have found out about it and start their own crash program.

All of the above was undone by the simple fact Hitler invaded Russia in June 1941. He cut off his best source of oil, he tied up his ground forces, he withdrew financial support for the U-boat arm to strengthen the army. He withdrew financial support for development of a long range bomber (that could have been used in the North Atlantic) in favor of more tactical air support planes. All of these are the result of the German's invasion of Russia. While an invasion of North Africa in the fall of 1942 was possible, maybe even an invasion of Sicily (and maybe even Greece) was possible, but even an invasion of Italy would have been out of the question with a German Army NOT tied up in Russia. Britain would NOT have been able to feed itself if all German effort was converted to the U-Boat war in the Atlantic and be force to come to some sort of agreement by 1944 with Hitler. By the time an Atomic bomb would have been ready, peace would have been declared over Europe for over a year (Japan would have been another story, but we are talking about the case if Russia had NOT been at war with Germany 1941-1945).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 08:35 AM
Response to Original message
13. Yeah, good luck with that, Putin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
15. Why not give the speech at Katyn and have done with it?
A sociopathic assclown defending the "legacy" of the deadliest sociopath of all time. Great.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
18. Why don't they just start calling him Don and drop the PM bullshit!?
Don Putin or Czar Putin would be more appropriate. Fucking soft porn dictator by any other stripe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxsolomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
21. Nationalism is a helluva drug
smoke up, Putin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BreweryYardRat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
23. That's going to go over real well.
Edited on Mon Aug-31-09 04:35 PM by BreweryYardRat
"Russia, the legal successor of the U.S.S.R., claims that former Soviet republics such as Ukraine and the three Baltic states are trying to rewrite history by equating Soviet ruler Joseph Stalin with Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler."


Given that Stalin artificially engineered a famine (seizing and/or burning grain, and banning imports of grain) in the Ukraine that killed literally millions of Ukrainians as punishment for the GRAND crime of not wanting to follow the Soviet collective farm system (shock! horror! :sarcasm:), I'd say the Russian government needs to shut the fuck up.

Stalin and Hitler were two sides of the same evil coin, and both are spending all eternity in the deepest pits of Hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
24. The BBC has given a better coverage to Putin's surprising article
Putin condemns Nazi-Soviet pact

Page last updated at 16:47 GMT, Monday, 31 August 2009 17:47 UK


Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has condemned the Nazi-Soviet pact signed a week before Germany's 1939 invasion of Poland as "immoral".

In a piece for the Polish paper Gazeta Wyborcza, he also expressed sorrow over the massacre of Polish army officers by Soviet forces at Katyn in 1940.

His words are seen as a bid to ease tensions with Poland over World War II.

But he also argued the Munich agreement signed by France and Britain wrecked efforts to build an anti-Nazi alliance.

Mr Putin is among several statesmen attending a service in the Polish port city of Gdansk on Tuesday to mark the 70th anniversary of Poland's invasion.

"Our duty is to remove the burden of distrust and prejudice left from the past in Polish-Russian relations," said Mr Putin in the article, which was also published on the Russian government website.

"Our duty... is to turn the page and start to write a new one."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8230387.stm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
25. Revision of history? The feeling 70 years ago was they were carving up Europe between them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 07:57 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC