Nearly 1 In 5 Millennials Consider Joseph Stalin And Kim Jong Un ‘Heroes’

[Ace Nova]

1 minute ago, Chris 55 said:

You do realize that it's not a Fox News study, right?  They just reported it.  And it's been reported in various other media outlets as well.  

[Graeme]

Using the USSR and North Korea to criticise socialism is a bit like trying to use Friday by Rebecca Black to illustrate that all popular music is terrible.

 

[Chris 55]

1 hour ago, Kasanova King said:

You do realize that it's not a Fox News study, right?  They just reported it.  And it's been reported in various other media outlets as well.  

[Jakey Styley]

I am sorry, I have not read the research methodology (although I plan to)  but there is simply no way in hell this is true. Absolutely no way. I am of college age, lived in Philadelphia all my life, nearly my entire peer group are liberals, attended a liberal high school and an overwhelmingly liberal university  and have never encountered a single person who would even consider calling these people heroes. 

[Pishy]

A

Edited November 10, 2017 by Pishy

[Georgy Zhukov]

3 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

The Soviet Union did defeat the Third Reich but one important factor which is often overlooked is lend-lease supplies: Britain and America kept the Soviets supplied via artic convoys during her darkest period. I suspect the (western) allied contribution of the Mediterranean and north-west Europe contributed in much the same manner as the Duke of Wellington's campaign in the Peninsular War did against Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon's Grande Armée  suffered its crippling losses (400,000 including practically the entirety of mounts) in Russia in 1812 but underneath that was a 'running sore' between 1808 - 1814, which tied French soldiers down (c. 250,000) in the Iberian Peninsular and drained away supplies - and, offered something of a propaganda victory to Napoleon's enemies. 

 

Lend-Lease is given way too much credit. The Soviets produced most of their own material. Allies threw money at them because they wanted to avoid direct action against the Germans. That is why at first they focused on the Atlantic, North Africa, Mediterranean, Italy. It wasn't until 1944 when pressure from the Soviets and people at home to end the war, the Allied finally planned the Normandy Invasion. By then, the Soviets were already winning the war. Germany's failed offensives of 1941, 1942 and 1943 cost them dearly. They could no longer mount another offensive. With the exception of some SS Panzer divisions, such as Das Reich, most German units in France were under strength. 

 

Lend-Lease may have shortened the war a bit, but between 80 and 90% of all German losses were on the Eastern Front. They were provided trucks but the Soviet industries in the Urals and Siberia provided enough to make the Red Army fully mobilized. They also shortened the war in the Far East with their surprise invasion of Manchuria. I believe Vasilevsky's pincer movement was the largest in history.

[DieselDaisy]

18 minutes ago, Georgy Zhukov said:

 

Lend-Lease is given way too much credit. The Soviets produced most of their own material. Allies threw money at them because they wanted to avoid direct action against the Germans. That is why at first they focused on the Atlantic, North Africa, Mediterranean, Italy. It wasn't until 1944 when pressure from the Soviets and people at home to end the war, the Allied finally planned the Normandy Invasion. By then, the Soviets were already winning the war. Germany's failed offensives of 1941, 1942 and 1943 cost them dearly. They could no longer mount another offensive. With the exception of some SS Panzer divisions, such as Das Reich, most German units in France were under strength. 

 

Lend-Lease may have shortened the war a bit, but between 80 and 90% of all German losses were on the Eastern Front. They were provided trucks but the Soviet industries in the Urals and Siberia provided enough to make the Red Army fully mobilized. They also shortened the war in the Far East with their surprise invasion of Manchuria. I believe Vasilevsky's pincer movement was the largest in history.

Preparations for what would become Operation Overload had commenced practically following the British evacuation of Dunkirk 1940! It is not as if D-Day was something the allies suddenly conjured-up, created and implemented over a pub lunch following a particularly frosty phone call from Uncle Joe! There were locations to be decided upon, inventions to invent (Landing Craft, 'funnies', Mulberry Harbours), logistics to overcome, reconnaissance, deception. There was Dieppe and the Torch landings (1942) which were seen as a sort of dress rehearsals in amphibious warfare. Overload was the most technically complicated military operation in global history. It still is!

It was Churchill who focused on a Mediterranean strategy, the ''soft underbelly', the merits of which is a source of debate for historians. (Certainly a 1942 invasion was off the cards). Regardless, both America and Great Britain were committed to a 1944 invasion by May 1943.

I think you are underestimating Lend-Lease. The Soviets re-built their entire rail infrastructure using Lend-Lease!

[Ace Nova]

14 hours ago, Pishy said:

A

B?

[Chewbacca]

On ‎08‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 6:46 PM, soon said:

State Communism is trash.  However just because Marx and Engels were wrong about some things, doesnt necessarily mean they weren't correct about some things.  

Best to just take their critic of Capitalism and leave their prescriptions.  

If you have weekends off.  Or maybe work weekends but your employer cant force you to work more than 40 hours a week.  If you get holidays.  If your life is in anyways improved by a union.  If you had govt support after an injury or health crisis, If there are health and safety standards keeping you safe at work... thank those two crazies!  

What is "State Communism"? Don't you mean socialism? Who coined this term?

[soon]

13 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

What is "State Communism"? Don't you mean socialism? Who coined this term?

Not sure who coined it, but it means Communism at the State level.  That the Nation is run by a communist hierarchy. Some people would identify as Communists but not agree with State Communism. Often the difference is referred to like: 'Jonny is a Statist Commie'

No, I dont mean socialism - why do you think that?

Edited November 11, 2017 by soon

[Pishy]

On 11/9/2017 at 4:45 PM, DieselDaisy said:

The Soviet Union did defeat the Third Reich but one important factor which is often overlooked is lend-lease supplies: Britain and America kept the Soviets supplied via artic convoys during her darkest period. I suspect the (western) allied contribution of the Mediterranean and north-west Europe contributed in much the same manner as the Duke of Wellington's campaign in the Peninsular War did against Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon's Grande Armée  suffered its crippling losses (400,000 including practically the entirety of mounts) in Russia in 1812 but underneath that was a 'running sore' between 1808 - 1814, which tied French soldiers down (c. 250,000) in the Iberian Peninsular and drained away supplies - and, offered something of a propaganda victory to Napoleon's enemies. 

It's astonishing the amount of lies and revisionism that is taught in the US and Britain.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/history-of-world-war-ii-americas-was-providing-military-aid-to-the-ussr-while-also-supporting-nazi-germany/5449378

And @Kasanova King is right, the Brits have been involved in every single US invasion and filthy action , but you guys act as if you did a few naughty things in the past then evolved . Brit history is obscene, harrowing , something that no horror film can dream of demonstrating. Just because the Brits now nip at the US master's ankles to get a slice of the war spoils, doesn't make them any less culpable . 

Edited November 11, 2017 by Pishy

[soon]

32 minutes ago, Pishy said:

It's astonishing the amount of lies and revisionism that is taught in the US and Britain.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/history-of-world-war-ii-americas-was-providing-military-aid-to-the-ussr-while-also-supporting-nazi-germany/5449378

And @Kasanova King is right, the Brits have been involved in every single US invasion and filthy action , but you guys act as if you did a few naughty things in the past then evolved . Brit history is obscene, harrowing , something that no horror film can dream of demonstrating. Just because the Brits now nip at the US master's ankles to get a slice of the war spoils, doesn't make them any less culpable . 

Out of likes but thanks for posting this article!  

(Perhaps unsurprisingly a good spot for accurate US and UK info is a website for a research centre located in French Canada/ Turtle Island)

[Pishy]

18 minutes ago, soon said:

Out of likes but thanks for posting this article!  

(Perhaps unsurprisingly a good spot for accurate US and UK info is a website for a research centre located in French Canada/ Turtle Island)

There is a link in there for part I

Out of the almost $46 billion that was spent on all lend-lease aid, the US allocated only $9.1 billion, i.e., only a little more than 20% of the funds, to the Red Army, which defeated the vast majority of the divisions from Germany and her military satellites.

During that time the British Empire was given more than $30.2 billion, France – $1.4 billion, China – $630 million, and even Latin America (!) received $420 million. Lend-lease supplies were distributed to 42 different countries.

American scholars and military and government officials themselves (Raymond Goldsmith, George Herring, and Robert H. Jones) acknowledge that allthe Allied aid to the USSR was equal to no more than 1/10 of the Soviets’ own arms production, and the total quantity of lend-lease supplies, including the familiar cans of Spam sarcastically referred to by the Russians as the “Second Front,” made up about 10-11%.

i cut and paste , the color changes and highlights are beyond my abilities to either create or correct 

Edited November 11, 2017 by Pishy

[DieselDaisy]

I have said it before that I cannot regard lend-lease as anything other than a businesslike arrangement between mutual interests - I do not believe in 'special relationships' between any of the allies. It does not alter the fact that the cause was the 'moral' cause, that the axis's defeat was also in that country's interest.

[DieselDaisy]

57 minutes ago, soon said:

he Brits have been involved in every single US invasion and filthy action

That is garbage and I'm a critic of our closeness to America; I've already even mentioned Vietnam during which Harold Wilson kept us out!

[soon]

12 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

That is garbage and I'm a critic of our closeness to America; I've already even mentioned Vietnam during which Harold Wilson kept us out!

I dont know how this happened, but those words were posted by @Pishy

I will let her respond.

I did mention you in a friendly thing about pub culture though  

Edited November 12, 2017 by soon

[Pishy]

19 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I have said it before that I cannot regard lend-lease as anything other than a businesslike arrangement between mutual interests - I do not believe in 'special relationships' between any of the allies. It does not alter the fact that the cause was the 'moral' cause, that the axis's defeat was also in that country's interest.

You said the lend-lease saved the day , your point was to mitigate the Soviet victory and to cast US and Brits as heros. I didn't argue whether it was a moral v business arrangement , no kidding the US works in the interest of the ruling class, the articles clearly state how little was loaned and what US demanded in return , furthermore , that the US was providing aid to the Nazis simultaneously!  

[Ace Nova]

2 minutes ago, Pishy said:

You said the lend-lease saved the day , your point was to mitigate the Soviet victory and to cast US and Brits as heros. I didn't argue whether it was a moral v business arrangement , no kidding the US works in the interest of the ruling class, the articles clearly state how little was loaned and what US demanded in return , furthermore , that the US was providing aid to the Nazis simultaneously!  

The U.S. was providing aid to the Nazis? 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Pishy said:

You said the lend-lease saved the day , your point was to mitigate the Soviet victory and to cast US and Brits as heros.

No I didn't and no I wasn't. My opening sentence even began, ''the Soviet Union did defeat the Third Reich''.

[Pishy]

20 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

That is garbage and I'm a critic of our closeness to America; I've already even mentioned Vietnam during which Harold Wilson kept us out!

I've seen you gassing up that pile of shit Churchill more than once , and claiming that the Brits have such a minor role in today's US invasions and what was done in the past is somehow tempered by the tantalizing tales of the royal brothers and sisters and first cousins fucking one another . Not only are the Brits actively involved in much of US foreign policy , in fact this very moment in seven states in the MENA alone, but they set the foundation that the US is able to build their terror on.

It's not about a "close relationship", cut the crap, Brits are soaking in the blood of millions , not just past, present day. 

[Pishy]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

No I didn't and no I wasn't. My opening sentence even began, ''the Soviet Union did defeat the Third Reich''.

Followed by how not to overlook that the US and Brits supplied the Soviet, meaning , they couldn't have done it without them and painting a picture that the US and the Brits were anti Nazi and some saviors against the Holocaust.  Giving an important role to the very people that colluded with the Nazis before , during and after !

The Soviets saved the world from fascism , despite the US and Brits

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

The U.S. was providing aid to the Nazis? 

The Nazis supplied aid to USSR until practically the minute Barbarossa was launched because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Literally the last convoys of oil crossed before seconds before the first German solders crossed.

[Ace Nova]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

The Nazis supplied aid to USSR until practically the minute Barbarossa was launched because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Literally the last convoys of oil crossed before seconds before the first German solders crossed.

How does that translate to the United States aiding the Nazis?

[DieselDaisy]

4 minutes ago, Pishy said:

Followed by how not to overlook that the US and Brits supplied the Soviet, meaning , they couldn't have done it without them and painting a picture that the US and the Brits were anti Nazi and some saviors against the Holocaust.  Giving an important role to the very people that colluded with the Nazis before , during and after !

The Soviets saved the world from fascism , despite the US and Brits

You said ''the Brits have been involved in every single US invasion and filthy action''. I pointed out Vietnam which demonstrates you erred.

4 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

How does that translate to the United States aiding the Nazis?

Fuck knows. Coca cola maybe in the 30s haha

[Pishy]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

You said ''the Brits have been involved in every single US invasion and filthy action''. I pointed out Vietnam which demonstrates you erred.

The vast majority , better? You had minimized it down to just a couple of chums going out for some beers and knocking down a few old ladies for their purse every once in a while .