Thought the buds might enjoy this little diddy I got in my e-mail this morning.
> A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a Naval conference
> that included admirals
> from the U.S., English, Canadian, Australian and
> French Navies. At a
> cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a
> group of half dozen or
> so officers that included personnel from most of the
> Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped
> their drinks but a
> French admiral suddenly complained that, whereas
> Europeans learn many
> languages, Americans learn only English. He then
> asked: "Why is it that we
> always have to speak English in these conferences
> rather than speaking
> Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied:
> "Maybe it's because the
> Brits, Canadians, Aussies, Irish and Americans
> arranged it so you wouldn't have to
> speak German."
> Suddenly the group became very quiet.
The argument was about the Soviet's domination of eastern Europe and whether Roosevelt could have done something about it at Yalta. Are you suggesting that the U.S. was in a position to launch an all-out war against the Soviet and Chinese Red Armies before victories over Germany and Japan had even been declared? Otherwise, of what relevance were the subsequent internal events of those two countries?
Don't pick and choose which countries fit your argument. The Cold War was worldwide just like WW2, Vietnam was an integral part of it, China also.
Your argument consequently is fallacious, you see the tree but not the forest fer sherr.
Your intelligence is exceeded only by your arrogance. The Soviet Red Army had already "liberated" the eastern bloc countries by February 1945 (when Yalta took place) and was advancing rapidly toward the Oder River. I may have been careless in my language when I used the word "occupied", but the salient fact is that the U.S. was in no position to take on the Red Army in order to "re-liberate" eastern Europe.
You are allowing some of the more conservative members on this board goad you into needless anti-Americanism. Rise above it.
Well, it doesn't matter whether Roosevelt sold out at Yalta or was fooled as the results would be the same. If he sold out that means we must have gotten something in return. What was it?
We were talking about Eastern Europe being dominated by the Soviets, not Asia. So when I said there was less blood and destruction during the Cold War, I was referring to the Iron Curtain countries of Eastern Europe, not what went on inside either China or the Soviet Union. That stuff (Cultural Revolution and Gulag) would've happened anyway, unless you were planning for the U.S. to take on half the world (USSR and China) just after spending 4 years at war with Germany and Japan.
(BTW, it's not often spoken of, but Truman actually did send 50,000 Marines into China in the late 40s when things began to look bleak for Chiang's Nationalist forces. It wasn't nearly enough to stem the tide. The masses supported Mao and the rest is history. Now the "Communist" Chinese have found a way to beat us at our own game: capitalism!)
� The Cold War may have taken longer, but there was a lot less blood and destruction, and those peoples are now free of Soviet domination anyway. �
Not true, the Cultural Revolution in China killed over 60 million people. Stalin killed alsmost half as many in the gulags.
The CW saw more people killed than WW1 and WW2 combined fer sherr. These are facts, not fiction.
Check 6! Kiki
OK, it's my turn.
Ortho, funny story, I admit I chuckled when I read it, but Ponte is right, it IS arrogant. Minor historical correction: while Irish Americans fought bravely during the War, the Irish themselves were neutral during WW II. I don't think they could bring themselves to fight on the same side as the English whose arrogance is second only to the French.
The Battle of Stalingrad is considered by most military historians to be the turning point in the War in Europe, but Ponte exaggerates when he says we'd be speaking German were it not for the Soviets. After the Battle of Britain (which was 2 or 3 years prior to Stalingrad), the Luftwaffe was never the same. Germany could not even defeat Britain, let alone the U.S. The War no doubt would have lasted many years longer were it not for the Soviets, but eventually Nazi Germany would have collapsed anyway.
Roosevelt did not sell out anyone at Yalta. By the time of Yalta, the Soviet Red Army's occupation of Eastern Europe was already a fact. It wasn't as if those countries were either free or occupied by the Germans. Yalta merely recognized what was already a fact of life.
And Ponte, while I may agree with you about the Wars in Vietnam and Iraq, to blame the U.S. for giving away Eastern Europe is ridiculous. You seem to want it both ways. On the one hand, you extol the virtues of the brave Soviet people whom you want to credit for defeating Nazi Germany. But on the other hand, you seem to be saying the war weary U.S. should have taken on those same brave people in a war in Eastern Europe. Sorry, I don't buy it. The Cold War may have taken longer, but there was a lot less blood and destruction, and those peoples are now free of Soviet domination anyway.
And every bit of war materiel that could be,was shipped to Europe;
To be total honest untill the AMI came into the war Hitler was kicking ass and taken names in Europe.\
Now 50yrs later, the blood sucker of Europe and the far east want to rewrite the history books.
It would not surprise me if we didn't give them the ink and paper to do so.