posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 07:54 AM
originally posted by: Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
What did the US have to do with NVA vs SVietnam before Gulf of Tonkin? I was pointing out the reason how the US got itself involved, and the reason
why was to stop the spread of global communism. I'm quite aware that the NVA was already fighting before the US got involved, otherwise the US
wouldn't have much of a reason to interfere (common sense I assumed).
A lot of people seem to forget that communism was spread at the end of a gun barrel, and not through popular action of the people supposedly
liberated by the communists.
For all ther terrrible things that happened during the conflict why is it that the communsits get a pass for all of the atrocities they commited, and
against their own people.
I'm sure just as many people died at the end of gun barrels for the sake of "democratic liberation", specifically by the US. The only difference
is that American democracy really means the rich get the power and Soviet communism is when the peasants have their turn to rule.
Without the almost impossibley huge amount of material assistance that the us gave the soviet union during the war, they would have lost.
I suggest that you do alittle reading about this little thing called the lend lease program.
I'm quite aware of the program. It did indeed provide assistance to the Soviets. However, you are very misguided if you think that American support
was enough to even make a dent in the Soviet war effort. Whatever American assistance given to the Soviets was just a benefit from the Yalta
conference and considering the big three all foresaw the cold war, no serious assistance was granted.
Did the US provide the USSR with its millions of conscripts? What about their massive tank forces? Their guns? The US gave the Soviets assistance
just like how the Soviets gave the US assistance, but neither gave the other anything very important.
The Soviets survived being raped on their home soil by the Nazi elite armies and they managed to scramble as much war resources and soldiers together
as possible and launched a bloody but effective counter strike to take back their ruins of cities. They won with their cheap and effective technology
and brutal tactics, plus the occasional talents (Soviet snipers with over 500 kills, you can't go wrong with that).
On top of their counter attack, they regrouped with their new T-34 battle groups and steamrolled all the way to Berlin while the Nazis froze their
balls off because they were not allowed to surrender to such "subhumans". The Russians proved their ability to match a much powerful enemy with
specialized tactics that always adapted to the warzone, as opposed to a standard.
Interestingly enough the modern russian airforce acknowledges the contribution of lend lease
Russian airforce site about the Lend Lease.
Who said it never happened? It's part of history. It's just not a big of deal as you make it sound.
Yah right, what happened to soviet communism? Oh thats right it fell apart.
That 1/3 of the people you claim, didnt have a choice at being communists, or have you forgotten that the soviets absorbed several independant
nations, formented violent revolutions in many others. And foced the sattelite states into submission through force of arms.
Or have you not learned that lenninist/stalinist ussr's goal was world domination.
Come on and stopp with the drivel.
Dude, you're being extremely hypocritical of your own American views. If you think the US does not regularly engage in violence to force it's
unilateral views on the rest of the world, then I feel sorry for you.
The Soviets were top of their game until they got hung up trying to landgrab Afghanistan. They lost that conflict not because they were inadequate,
but because Afghanistan will never be conquered by a single force. The Soviet politburo decided that it would be arrogant for their superpower to
carry on with such outdated views (rebellion is so 20th century) and decided to reform their country.
They did not collapse, they simply restructured for the better of their people. Of course with the break up of something as major as the Soviet
Union, there were many problems in the transition. Internal nationalist forces wanted to continue the Soviet wet dream, breakaway states wanted as
much independence and weapons as possible, and external factors like the CIA destroyed the Russian economy to ensure that Russia would not become
another threat to their global power.
So really, believe what you want. I believe that Russia designed itself to be more free and modern from obselete Soviet ideals. As I look at Russia
today, I see the vision that was made 20 years ago coming true. It has a rising economy, it controls a vast amount of energy, it has a strong and
traditional culture, it continues to develop new technology, and it is modernizing its vast military. To me, that is the rebirth of a modern
superpower while its rival has hit its full potential years ago and is now starting to fall.
A bit off topic, but the Soviet Union would not have succeeded in WWII without material support form the US--Railroad stock, fuel, parts, raw
materials, food, trucks, jeeps, machine parts, etc, etc. You can't make a T-34 without machines and steel and it won't run without oil and you
can't make anything with your workforce in the battle and all of your major industrial cities either in ruin or in the hands of your enemy.
Without US materiel support, the Eastern Front would have ended as a stalemate.
It's laughable to say that Soviet Communism was where "the peasant got to be in charge." There was no equality in the Soviet Union. Party Members
took the place of those evil exploitive capitalists you hate and, instead of gathering wealth, one became "rich" in the Soviet Union by climbing up
the ladder of party hierarchy. High ranking party members had the best food, didn't have to wait in line for anything, had cars, had vacations,
could travel freely, could read western books and listen to western music, had large houses and country homes whereas the common person was faced with
shortages, travel restrictions, cramped quarters without amenities, and restrictions on what he could read and see. To say that "the peasant was in
charge" of the Soviet Union is not true.
The CIA did not orchestrate economic hardship in the Soviet Union...economic failure of the Soviet Union was a failure of their economic system and
bloated bureaucracy--central planning is the most inefficient way to run an economy and the Soviet system crushed innovation and ingenuity.
The party did not restructure squat--the shift from a communist to a capitalist system was not a planned event. The Soviet Union failed and the people
finally gave enough flack that the old system fell apart. The success of Russia today has much more to do with the youth rejecting the old Soviet
system than any sort of "restructuring." To say so is such an incredible attempt at revisionist history in a reaching way to preserve one's
steadfast belief in a failed system.