Soviet-Anglo/American Air War in the ruins of Europe

Agreed for the most part.

As for the capture of Berlin, the decision of who would claim the ultimate prize was decided upon one year earlier by all parties involved. So while advancing slower, im not sure how the ending would have been any different.

All the best.

 

The reason I stated that the last two paragraphs were drivvel, is because they are not true.

Russia was never an ally of Germany or Japan.

Stalin never stated he wanted to take over the world or continue a war with the U.S.

Hopkins was not in the KGB or a KGB agent.

This is why I stated that it is drivvel and I suspect that anyone else who is familiar with actual historical events would come up with the same conclusion.

As for the materials listed above, they seem accurate to me, but I am not an expert and may very well be mistaken.

Brad, there is nothing wrong with being a nationalist, but one must also be realist. As a realist one has to except facts, even if they may conflict with your personal beliefs.

As I have said before, facts contradict your reasoning.

 

Hopkins was the top American official charged with dealing with Soviet officials during WWII and spoke with many Russians, from middle ranks to the very highest. He often explained to Stalin what Roosevelt was secretly planning in order to enlist Soviet support for American objectives. As a major decision maker in Lend Lease, he expedited the sending of as much war material as possible to Russia, as Congress had ordered. As was common in totalitarian societies, Soviets who spoke to Hopkins reported the contact to the KGB. Despite the fact that no one has ever identified any secrets that Hopkins gave away that he should not have, or any decision in which he distorted American priorities in order to help Communism, attempts have been made over the years to smear him as a Soviet sympathizer or indeed active agent.

A May 1943 Venona report signed by Ahkmerov revealed that secret discussions between Roosevelt and Churchill had been reported by an agent identified as "19", who was also present at the meeting. Military historian Eduard Mark, after examining Venona material, concluded that "19" was Harry Hopkins, on the grounds that only Hopkins would have been allowed to attend secret meetings with Churchill.[4]

(Harry Hopkins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

......

Well let's suffice it to say that : Your interpetation of the facts and mine differ.

I have a nice avatar of a man beating a dead horse that I can not seem to load........in lieu of that I suggest we let this die.

Brad

 

Then what do you call what happened with Poland? Sure looks like an alliance to me.

Stalin certainly didn't want to continue the war with the US. However it's clear he believed that Communism would eventually become the dominant form of government and pretty clear he saw the Soviets as the leaders of the Communist movement. I suspect there are a number of quotes by him that are something to the effect of "we will rule the world". Even if not it was a fundamental component of Communsim and well understood by freinds and foes alike.

 

Yes, perhaps this is best.

Cheers

 

Not quite. More of a mutual agreement to take back what they considered formally theirs. If it was an alliance, Stalin would have declared war on France and Great Britain. Plus, remember that Stalin had read Mein Kampf and was aware of Hitlers intentions. He needed time to build up his military and also counted the newly acquired territory as a buffer zone for the inevitable war between them in the future.

The very same thing could be said about leaders of democracy's. Surely you dont think that Roosevelt wanted Communism to rule the world or Stalin a Democracy? In fact it was Patton, a general of a Democratic state and not of a Socialistic one, who openly and publicly stated that it is the U.S. and Great Britain who were destined to rule the world and even suggested going to war with Russia, for which he was demoted and relieved ( I forget his exact words and punishment, sorry ).

 

Sorry doesn't cut it. Finland didn't declare war on France and the US didn't declare war on Finland even though Finland was allied with Germany and the Soviets with the US in their respective cases. The alliance didn't call for it and the Soviets didn't see any reason to stick their necks out further than necessary. Doesn't mean there wasn't an alliance.

There's a considerable difference here. Communism ruleing the world the way the Soviets understood it was clearly the Soviets rulling the world. Having the world ruled by Democracies doesn't mean that there are not considerable number of independent states or that one country rules them all.

However it's questionable if he ment it in the litteral sense and in any case he was clearly not in the majority. Very different from Stalin saying the same thing.

 

Im not aware of Finland being in full alliance with Germany. From what I always understood, Finland joined Germany just to get back the territory which she lost to Russia earlier. Im not sure I understand what you wrote about "The Soviets with the US", if an alliance is what you are referring to, then aside from their difference in political ideologies, that is exactly what the two had. An agreement with a common goal for the time being. This is why Stalin after Germany turned his tanks around and sent them to Manchuria, as that was his end of the deal ( sounds like a temporary alliance to me ). If this not what you meant, please help me understand.

Perhaps the reason behind this is that the birth of communism took place in Russia? She was after all the first country to adopt this form of Govt. and united many smaller countries under the same banner. The U.S. after all does consider herself to be the leader of democracies.... And rightfully so. When a country forms a democracy it usually looks at the U.S model, the same thing was with the Soviet system. A country ( Cuba for example ) looked at Russia for guidance.

Yes, im sure Stalin wanted Communism to rule the world and said this to his people. On the other hand, im also sure that Roosevelt wanted Democracy to rule the world and also made similar announcements to his people... Im not sure I fully understand what we are discussing here?

 

This thread was supposed to be about a Soviet/Anglo-American AIR WAR in post-WW2 Europe. It has gotten off track and has deteriated into a sometimes ugly, yet thought provoking, in addition to being a fratricidal and low to moderate intensity borderline flame war. Wrap it up and either move on or start another thread about WW3 starting in the mid to late 1940s gentlemenses. It could be an interesting enough "what if" topic if everyone tempered their responses accordingly. Time to bury the hatchets, and not in each other's heads....

 

I find this course of action agreeable and I accept your terms

 

Exactly but even though the Finns were fighting the Soviets the US did not declare war on them.

It's pretty clear that the Soviet model called for more than looking to for guidance. They wanted control/

You said Stalin wasn't interested in world control or something to that effect. I maintain he was and that the Western allies were not.

 

Well, in January the US Army was 450 klicks from Berlin. The Red Army was 50 klicks away so if the Western Allies went on a race the Red Army would most likely beat them anyway.

 

BtW, the Soviets signed an Non-Agression Pact with Germany, not an alliance. The difference is cut and dry.

 

Not when there are agreements for simultaneously attacking and dividing up a third country.

 

So what?

A military alliance obligates mutual defensive or offensive actions. All members of the United Nations renounced wars of aggression against each other. Does that make us all allies?

 

If you are acting in a coordinated manor to achieve a common goal your allies.

 

Are you seriously espousing the belief that either Hitler or Stalin believed that they will coddle and share the blanket? Stalin was tooling up for war, which he saw coming, just not so soon. Hitler... well, we knew what he was up to.

The Germans and the Russians have no common interest after dividing Poland. Alliance is an obligatory relationship requiring the pursuit of mutual interests. Even during the invasion of Poland, Russia was pursuing its interests and its interests alone. Stalin could do damn well what he pleased short of invading Germany.

 

Doesn't that sound remarkably like the so-called Non-Aggression Pact between the Soviet Union and Germany, where they agreed to divide Poland between them ?

 

Am I having Deja Vu on this? LOL

 

This is totally pointless. If anyone of you wish to believe that the Soviets are allied with the Germans, even though neither are obliged to perform any action to assist the other, that both nations were starting up their war machines to crush one another, and that after Poland the two had absolutely no common military, polical or economic goal, you are free to do so. On the meanwhile, untill the Soviet-Nazi Alliance of 1939-1941 is added to the history books, I will stick up to my own.

I am done here.