Howard Schultz for President 2020?
Smedley said:
nan said:I like his story. Schultz seems like a straight shooter, a smart, pragmatic guy who would focus on solutions rather than ideology. At Starbucks, in addition to the company being a tremendous success, I think he’s also done a good job emphasizing corporate responsibility, more so than the average corporation.
Smedley said:Really? Why? He seems like a total POS to me and I drink tons of Starbucks coffee.
I think Schultz is an intriguing possibility at this early juncture. I don't know a ton about him but overall I have a favorable impression of him.
This is all very preliminary of course and who knows if he’ll even run, and if he does, if he’ll be any good as a candidate. But for now I’m constructive on the guy.
And being as you pleasantly referred to Schultz as a “total POS”, I also refer you to my June 6 1:40 pm post on this thread about electability. Go ahead and nominate Sanders or Warren or some other give-away-the-store type. MOL will be fired up, and you’ll rack up the votes in CA, NJ, NY and VT, but you’ll also get a Trump landslide in 2020.
Right, cause running an establishment candidate worked out so well in 2016. Let's not change a thing. Meanwhile, Sanders is way more popular than other Democrats and his policies such as Medicare for All, a living wage and free college are liked even by Republicans. Schultz, on the other hand, says there is no money for social programs. He does not seem to have the same problem with the bloated military budget. Why would any working person vote for that? Makes me not want to even drink his coffee.
Smedley said:
nan said:I like his story. Schultz seems like a straight shooter, a smart, pragmatic guy who would focus on solutions rather than ideology. At Starbucks, in addition to the company being a tremendous success, I think he’s also done a good job emphasizing corporate responsibility, more so than the average corporation.
Smedley said:Really? Why? He seems like a total POS to me and I drink tons of Starbucks coffee.
I think Schultz is an intriguing possibility at this early juncture. I don't know a ton about him but overall I have a favorable impression of him.
This is all very preliminary of course and who knows if he’ll even run, and if he does, if he’ll be any good as a candidate. But for now I’m constructive on the guy.
And being as you pleasantly referred to Schultz as a “total POS”, I also refer you to my June 6 1:40 pm post on this thread about electability. Go ahead and nominate Sanders or Warren or some other give-away-the-store type. MOL will be fired up, and you’ll rack up the votes in CA, NJ, NY and VT, but you’ll also get a Trump landslide in 2020.
wow, do you even know what happened in 2016?
Trump collected votes (I can't use the word "won") by promising stuff like better health care, higher taxes on the rich, more help for economically struggling communities, no cuts to SS or Medicare, blah blah blah. (I'm putting his racist appeal to the side for now.)
The problem is that the people who believed him were too freaking stupid to understand he's a con man and would do none of those things.
But the fact remains, it's those policies, decidedly and unabashedly liberal ones, that won people over and won their votes.
Now, why wouldn't you give a chance to a liberal candidate who promised those same things, but was actually sincere about getting them done?
Instead you want Schultz, whose ideology seems to be - "no sorry, you can't have nice things". Yeah, that's a sure winner if you ask me.
We shall see. Anything can happen in the next 2 years 4 months. But if the economy stays strong and Trump doesn’t implode, you’re kidding yourself if “unabashedly liberal policies” are going to win over the swing states that cost Hillary the election in 2016.
Smedley said:
We shall see. Anything can happen in the next 2 years 4 months. But if the economy stays strong and Trump doesn’t implode, you’re kidding yourself if “unabashedly liberal policies” are going to win over the swing states that cost Hillary the election in 2016.
The economy is strong for the 1%. The rest of us not so much. Half the country is poor and most people don't have $1K for an emergency. Hillary ignored that and that is why she lost. Trump pretended to care and he won.
Smedley said:
We shall see. Anything can happen in the next 2 years 4 months. But if the economy stays strong and Trump doesn’t implode, you’re kidding yourself if “unabashedly liberal policies” are going to win over the swing states that cost Hillary the election in 2016.
I guess you're right. What a crazy idea. Running on policies that the majority support and will help them to boot.
Nuts.
Somewhere between the views of nan and Smedley lies the truth.
nan said:
Meanwhile, Sanders is way more popular than other Democrats
This is one of the problems with polls. They are fluid, yet once a result is out there, it keeps being repeated long after it’s outdated.
Not that I put stock in them, but the latest polls show Biden well ahead of Sanders.
author said:
It was the Soviet Union that suffered and contributed the most in defeating the Nazis in Wold War 2
The war was several years old before the Allies landed at Normandy.........the 2nd front which the Russians waited so long. The stand at Stalingrad was the turning point.........and the beginning of the long retreat for the Germans
What to see in Russia............tons of art work in many places such as the Hermitage
My brother in law and his wife have been there . Maybe they are Reds. Don't think so......he is the biggest proponent of free markets I know
Besides Bernie makes better coffee than Schultz
Prior to WWII, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany signed a non-aggression pact (known as the "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact") in August 1939. Shortly thereafter, both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union then invaded Poland (albeit they invaded different sections of Poland). In 1940, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany executed the German-Soviet Commercial Agreement whereby the Soviet Union would deliver various commodities (such as oil, raw materials and grain) to Germany. This match made in heaven (between Hitler and Stalin) was only broken when Hitler attacked the then friendly Soviet Union in an operation known as Operation Barbarossa in June of 1941.
Your assertion is more than misleading: "The war was several years old before the Allies landed at Normandy.........the 2nd front which the Russians waited so long." The Soviet Union, with Stalin leading, helped to start WWII by invading Poland. Further, the Soviet Union had agreed not to intervene on behalf of those being attacked by Germany through the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact . In addition, the Soviet Union was supplying war materials to Germany under the German-Soviet Commercial Agreement. Extreme leftists in the US, such as Pete Seeger, did everything that they could to prevent the US from entering WWII.* Pete Seeger, like other extreme leftists, changed their mind on the question of the whether the US should enter WWII only after Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union in Operation Barbarossa.
Yes the Soviet Union lost 20 million people in WWII (an enormous amount of loss of life). However, the Soviet Union has culpability for its invasion of Poland, supplying war material to Germany, murdering, raping and torturing civilians. You may want to think twice before proclaiming: i.) the Soviet Union as the victim of the US delay in entering WWII, and ii.) contributed the most (hard to say whether you offset such contribution with effects of invading Poland, supplying war material to Germany and raping/torturing civilians.
.
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact
German-Soviet Commercial Agreement Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Commercial_Agreement_(1940)
Soviet Invasion of Poland Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland
Operation Barbarossa Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa
.*- Pete Seeger affirmed this fact when I met him at South Street Seaport in June or July of 2000.
PS Much of the artwork in the Hermitage was looted by the Red Army when Berlin fell. After Berlin fell, the Red Army went on a drunken, murderous rape of the civilians that compares to the Japanese rape of Nanking.
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:This is one of the problems with polls. They are fluid, yet once a result is out there, it keeps being repeated long after it’s outdated.
Meanwhile, Sanders is way more popular than other Democrats
Not that I put stock in them, but the latest polls show Biden well ahead of Sanders.
No, that was just one bogus poll:
nan said:
No, that was just one bogus poll:
I was referring to national polling, not a New Hampshire poll. Also, I know enough to disregard a poll with a six-point margin of error, like that one, with or without Ron giving me my news.
If you want to keep going backwards in time and stating what in history contributed to what war you may as well go back to when caveman A clubbed caveman B over what ever grievance was current.
It was the US intervention that prevented the Japanese Empire from continuing to be supplied with vital oil supplies........this was done in reaction to thr Japanese attack on China
The Empire of Japan had only a 6 month of fuel oil remaining when they attacked Pearl Harbor.
This whole war thing is pretty much like a snake devouring its own tail
In terms of Hostilities.........Germany invaded the Soviet Union on Jun22,1941
Pearl Harbor and our entry into the conflict was Dec 7, 1941
The Russians held at Stalingrad from July 7, 1942 through Feb2, 1943 Most military historians
consider it the bloodiest battle ever fought........approximately 2 million civilian and military casualties
The Allies opened a second front at Normandy on June 6, 1944
reality-for-all blames Pete Seger and leftists for preventing USA from entering WW 2.
I guess Lindbergh, the American Bund and America First had nothing to do with it.
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:I was referring to national polling, not a New Hampshire poll. Also, I know enough to disregard a poll with a six-point margin of error, like that one, with or without Ron giving me my news.
No, that was just one bogus poll:
I listened to what Ron had to say anyway. After he decided (in real time) that it might be better to look at the poll itself, rather than depend entirely on an article about it, he wondered why only the Democratic voters were getting the attention.
Because when you look at a poll of New Hampshire, you’re interested in how the first primary of the nomination season might turn out. If you were interested in potential November results among all voters, you wouldn’t poll just one state.
Ron also complained that half the Democrats in the poll were 50 or older.
In the 2016 New Hampshire Democratic primary, nearly 60 percent of the voters were 45 or older, according to exit polling. (Exit polling has its own accuracy issues, but it does give some context that Ron didn’t appear to consider.)
Ron questioned the wisdom of asking which party the respondents identified with, noting that he himself would not identify as a Democrat, so someone like him wouldn’t be counted.
The poll asked how the voters were registered (see: primary, above), not how they “identified.”
Finally, Ron cast shade on the plurality who said later in the poll (the part that did ask for a self-description) that they were moderate, saying we all know that these days that means conservative.
A critic is entitled to his opinion.
While I’m not vouching for the value of this particular poll, Ron’s analysis didn’t impress me.
Ditto.
Formerlyjerseyjack said:
reality-for-all blames Pete Seger and leftists for preventing USA from entering WW 2.
I guess Lindbergh, the American Bund and America First had nothing to do with it.
Author apparently identifies with the extreme left. The extreme left (including Pete Seger who personally discussed this me the fact that the extreme left worked to prevent US entry into WWII until Hitler attacked Stalin) actively worked to delay US entry into WWII. I never said the extreme left worked alone. Irony= group with which you identify is the cause (or one of the causes of which you complain (namely, delay of US entering WWII).
As far as I can tell author does NOT identify with Lindbergh or the Bund. Thus, not relevant.
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:I was referring to national polling, not a New Hampshire poll. Also, I know enough to disregard a poll with a six-point margin of error, like that one, with or without Ron giving me my news.
No, that was just one bogus poll:
I could not find the full poll results that they said would be posted on that but I did see this analysis: ‘”The results show the broad constituency of the party favoring someone who has an appeal to the Working Class voters that Trump captured,” Penn said. “While early leads mean little, the results show Biden is well positioned this time for a run. " ‘
Have to wonder how they define Biden's appeal to the Working Class since he is probably only a tiny bit more progressive than Obama or Hillary. In Nevada recently, he backed the establishment candidate over the Progressive. He famously said, “The rich are as patriotic as the poor” and got mad at Bernie Sanders for demonizing corporations. Those are some clues.
Biden was for the Iraq war, takes corporate donations (law firms for private equity, real estate, and Wall Street), and is against Medicare for All. He has some charm and supports some good causes, has photo ops with homeless people and supports women especially but those might not be enough for "Middle-Class Joe" to get the votes in the end. His record shows otherwise. Although he takes the Amtrak, he voted for NAFTA in 1993, and later voted for fast track authority for the TPP. and other trade agreements. Obama appointed him key pitchman for the TPP. People are not going to like it when they find out that loveable Uncle Joe wanted to let the big banks write trade deals that would get rid of middle class jobs.
He might understand the middle class better than other establishment politicians, but he does not vote that way. People in the rust belt are waking up and I doubt they are going to go from Trump to Biden.
author said:
If you want to keep going backwards in time and stating what in history contributed to what war you may as well go back to when caveman A clubbed caveman B over what ever grievance was current.
It was the US intervention that prevented the Japanese Empire from continuing to be supplied with vital oil supplies........this was done in reaction to thr Japanese attack on China
The Empire of Japan had only a 6 month of fuel oil remaining when they attacked Pearl Harbor.
This whole war thing is pretty much like a snake devouring its own tail
In terms of Hostilities.........Germany invaded the Soviet Union on Jun22,1941
Pearl Harbor and our entry into the conflict was Dec 7, 1941
The Russians held at Stalingrad from July 7, 1942 through Feb2, 1943 Most military historians
consider it the bloodiest battle ever fought........approximately 2 million civilian and military casualties
The Allies opened a second front at Normandy on June 6, 1944
Author please explain how the Soviet Union is NOT culpable for the following:
1. The Soviet Union, with Stalin leading, helped to start WWII by invading Poland.
2. The Soviet Union had agreed not to intervene on behalf of those being attacked by Germany through the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact .
3. Soviet Union supplied war materials to Germany under the German-Soviet Commercial Agreement.
4. Rape and torture of civilians by Red Army when Berlin fell.
Extreme leftists in the US, such as Pete Seeger, did everything that they could to prevent the US from entering WWII. Pete Seeger, like other extreme leftists, changed their mind on the question of the whether the US should enter WWII only after Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union in Operation Barbarossa. My theory is that extreme leftists would never have supported US entry into WWII ABSENT violation of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact by Germany.
DaveSchmidt said:
DaveSchmidt said:I listened to what Ron had to say anyway. After he decided (in real time) that it might be better to look at the poll itself, rather than depend entirely on an article about it, he wondered why only the Democratic voters were getting the attention.
nan said:I was referring to national polling, not a New Hampshire poll. Also, I know enough to disregard a poll with a six-point margin of error, like that one, with or without Ron giving me my news.
No, that was just one bogus poll:
Because when you look at a poll of New Hampshire, you’re interested in how the first primary of the nomination season might turn out. If you were interested in potential November results among all voters, you wouldn’t poll just one state.
Ron also complained that half the Democrats in the poll were 50 or older.
In the 2016 New Hampshire Democratic primary, nearly 60 percent of the voters were 45 or older, according to exit polling. (Exit polling has its own accuracy issues, but it does give some context that Ron didn’t appear to consider.)
Ron questioned the wisdom of asking which party the respondents identified with, noting that he himself would not identify as a Democrat, so someone like him wouldn’t be counted.
The poll asked how the voters were registered (see: primary, above), not how they “identified.”
Finally, Ron cast shade on the plurality who said later in the poll (the part that did ask for a self-description) that they were moderate, saying we all know that these days that means conservative.
A critic is entitled to his opinion.
While I’m not vouching for the value of this particular poll, Ron’s analysis didn’t impress me.
Ditto.
I agree with Ron, since the results predictably reflect what I would expect given the narrow range of people questioned. The fact that there was low youth turnout in the past election does not mean the same will happen in 2020. A good candidate could fire everyone up. Trump and Hillary were both horrible and lots of people just stayed home. Also, more and more people are independents, and they were left out of the poll entirely.
RealityForAll said:
author said:Author please explain how the Soviet Union is NOT culpable for the following:
If you want to keep going backwards in time and stating what in history contributed to what war you may as well go back to when caveman A clubbed caveman B over what ever grievance was current.
It was the US intervention that prevented the Japanese Empire from continuing to be supplied with vital oil supplies........this was done in reaction to thr Japanese attack on China
The Empire of Japan had only a 6 month of fuel oil remaining when they attacked Pearl Harbor.
This whole war thing is pretty much like a snake devouring its own tail
In terms of Hostilities.........Germany invaded the Soviet Union on Jun22,1941
Pearl Harbor and our entry into the conflict was Dec 7, 1941
The Russians held at Stalingrad from July 7, 1942 through Feb2, 1943 Most military historians
consider it the bloodiest battle ever fought........approximately 2 million civilian and military casualties
The Allies opened a second front at Normandy on June 6, 1944
1. The Soviet Union, with Stalin leading, helped to start WWII by invading Poland.
2. The Soviet Union had agreed not to intervene on behalf of those being attacked by Germany through the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact .
3. Soviet Union supplied war materials to Germany under the German-Soviet Commercial Agreement.
4. Rape and torture of civilians by Red Army when Berlin fell.
Extreme leftists in the US, such as Pete Seeger, did everything that they could to prevent the US from entering WWII. Pete Seeger, like other extreme leftists, changed their mind on the question of the whether the US should enter WWII only after Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union in Operation Barbarossa. My theory is that extreme leftists would never have supported US entry into WWII ABSENT violation of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact by Germany.
Stalin did not trust Hitler one iota.......the German appeasements are examples of him buying time to prepare for the inevitable German attack and building a slight buffer from same. Supplying war materials is a puzzlement but I would have to question how effective any of those materials were. By the way, through out occupied Europe the most effective Partisans were the Reds. Tito in Yugoslavia alone was credited with holding down two German divisions
The rape and torture of civilians.....Probably the most unfortunate by product of any war.
Soldiers are in in for the duration not civilians......The Japanese rape of Nanking and our incident at My Lai come to mind.
It was the fortitude of the Russian soldier and military that turned the tide in Europe and saved many American lives.
While Civilian America was experiencing shortages of coffee , sugar and rubber for their tires,
The Russians formed guerilla bands and knew they would persevere or die
RealityForAll said:Author please explain how the Soviet Union is NOT culpable for the following:
1. The Soviet Union, with Stalin leading, helped to start WWII by invading Poland.
This is the first time I have ever encountered that contention! It has always been my understanding that the German Invasion of Poland caused Great Britain to declare War against Germany.
If the invasion of Poland by both the Soviet Union and Poland started the War at what point did the "extreme Left" come out against the US entering the War and at what point did they change?
This summary supports what I said:
http://www.historynet.com/world-war-ii
When did World War II begin?
The two dates most often mentioned as “the beginning of World War II” are July 7, 1937, when the “Marco Polo Bridge Incident” led to a prolonged war between Japan and China, and September 1, 1939, when Germany invaded Poland, which led Britain and France to declare war on Hitler’s Nazi state in retaliation. From the invasion of Poland until the war ended with Japan’s surrender in September 1945, most nations around the world were engaged in armed combat.
Left-Wing opposition to WWII
Socialism[edit]
Socialists were divided in the 1930s. There was a strong element of pacifism in the socialist movement, for example in Britain's Independent Labour Party. The commitment to pacifism, however, was balanced by militant anti-fascism. During its Popular Front period, the Comintern allied with other anti-fascist parties, including right-wing parties. This policy was terminated by the Comintern when the Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler in August 1939.
The Communist front organizations opposed the war during the period of the Nazi-Soviet pact. Most dutifully followed orders from Moscow. In 1940, Britain's Daily Worker referred to the Allied war effort as "the Anglo-French imperialist war machine."[10] At the same time, Joseph Stalin ordered a series of military attacks on Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Romania. He used Communist parties and front groups to oppose the war and military preparations to prepare for the war in other countries so the Allies (Britain and France) were less able to resist aggression and to keep the US out of the war.
In the US, organizations like the American Peace Mobilization and veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade protested in opposition to the war, conscription, and the Lend-Lease Act. They said of Lend-Lease, "Roosevelt needs its dictatorial powers to further his aim of carving out of a warring world, the American Empire so long desired by the Wall Street money lords."[11]
Communist parties around the world reversed course when Germany invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, and then advocated that material support be extended to the Soviets.
A small number of socialists (but very few Comintern members, who obeyed Moscow) continued to oppose the war. Leon Trotsky had drawn up the Proletarian Military Policy, calling for opposition to the war and support for industrial action during it. Left communists took a similar position, as did many anarchists.[citation
Formerlyjerseyjack said:
reality-for-all blames Pete Seger and leftists for preventing USA from entering WW 2.
I guess Lindbergh, the American Bund and America First had nothing to do with it.
In 1940, just as the Nazis were occupying France, a group called the National Committee to Keep America Out of Foreign Wars ran full page advertisements urging the GOP to adopt an isolationist, anti-war platform during their Presidential convention. Representative Hamilton Fish, a Republican from upstate New York, and Representative Harold Knutson, a Republican of Minnesota were the chairmen of this committee. Money for the ads was partially paid by Nazi Germany.
The details can be read, at length, in Lynne Olsen's well researched book, Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America's Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941.
author said:
It was the fortitude of the Russian soldier and military that turned the tide in Europe and saved many American lives.
This is interesting.... my recollection is that there were machine guns placed in back of the Russian forces. Any soldier heading away from the battles was threatened with murder.
wharfrat said:
Formerlyjerseyjack said:In 1940, just as the Nazis were occupying France, a group called the National Committee to Keep America Out of Foreign Wars ran full page advertisements urging the GOP to adopt an isolationist, anti-war platform during their Presidential convention. Representative Hamilton Fish, a Republican from upstate New York, and Representative Harold Knutson, a Republican of Minnesota were the chairmen of this committee. Money for the ads was partially paid by Nazi Germany.
reality-for-all blames Pete Seger and leftists for preventing USA from entering WW 2.
I guess Lindbergh, the American Bund and America First had nothing to do with it.
The details can be read, at length, in Lynne Olsen's well researched book, Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America's Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941.
History does not repeat itself, but Putin rhymes with Hitler, Ukraine with Poland, Manafort/Carter with Fish/Knutson, and GOP with GOP.
Formerlyjerseyjack said:
author said:This is interesting.... my recollection is that there were machine guns placed in back of the Russian forces. Any soldier heading away from the battles was threatened with murder.
It was the fortitude of the Russian soldier and military that turned the tide in Europe and saved many American lives.
At the beginning of the German invasion the Soviet Union suffered heavy loses and desertion.
However the Reds knew that they were number 2 on the list of those to be exterminated.
Again, at Stalingrad there was no place to retreat. Had the city fallen it would have been a crushing blow to the Russians. Civilians in the city boiled shoes for a meal. And it is always the dogs in a besieged city that disappear first.
Guns held to their backs.....I don't know? Check the desertion rate in our own civil war.
In any case, any military historian will tell you that it was Stalingrad that broke the back of the 3rd
Reich
And then came the long march to Berlin
They have both gone to a kinder, gentler place but I think Charles Schultz wouldd be ideal to head the ticket with Mr.Rogers as his running mate.
Let Trump dare attack them.
RealityForAll said:Yes the Soviet Union lost 20 million people in WWII (an enormous amount of loss of life). However, the Soviet Union has culpability for its invasion of Poland, supplying war material to Germany, murdering, raping and torturing civilians. You may want to think twice before proclaiming: i.) the Soviet Union as the victim of the US delay in entering WWII, and ii.) contributed the most (hard to say whether you offset such contribution with effects of invading Poland, supplying war material to Germany and raping/torturing civilians.
.
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact
German-Soviet Commercial Agreement Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Commercial_Agreement_(1940)
Soviet Invasion of Poland Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland
Operation Barbarossa Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa
.*- Pete Seeger affirmed this fact when I met him at South Street Seaport in June or July of 2000.
That's largely ********. Stalin would have much preferred a meaningful alliance with France and Britain to contain Germany but France and Britain weren't all that interested. So Stalin cut a deal with Germany to buy time and some territory.
And to think that given a strong response to the remilitarization of the Rhineland or a firm stand with Czechoslovakia, things would have been quite different.
tjohn said:
RealityForAll said:That's largely ********. Stalin would have much preferred a meaningful alliance with France and Britain to contain Germany but France and Britain weren't all that interested. So Stalin cut a deal with Germany to buy time and some territory.
Yes the Soviet Union lost 20 million people in WWII (an enormous amount of loss of life). However, the Soviet Union has culpability for its invasion of Poland, supplying war material to Germany, murdering, raping and torturing civilians. You may want to think twice before proclaiming: i.) the Soviet Union as the victim of the US delay in entering WWII, and ii.) contributed the most (hard to say whether you offset such contribution with effects of invading Poland, supplying war material to Germany and raping/torturing civilians.
.
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact
German-Soviet Commercial Agreement Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Commercial_Agreement_(1940)
Soviet Invasion of Poland Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland
Operation Barbarossa Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa
.*- Pete Seeger affirmed this fact when I met him at South Street Seaport in June or July of 2000.
And to think that given a strong response to the remilitarization of the Rhineland or a firm stand with Czechoslovakia, things would have been quite different.
Stalin was so untrustworthy that the Finns were unable to negotiate meaningfully with Stalin regarding Finn/Soviet Union borders in 1938. Excerpt from Wikipedia on lead-up to Winter War between Soviet Union and Finland:
"Negotiations continued throughout 1938 without results. Finnish reception of Soviet entreaties was decidedly cool, as the violent collectivisation and purges in Stalin's Soviet Union resulted in a poor opinion of the country. Most of the Finnish communist elite in the Soviet Union had been executed during the Great Purge, further tarnishing the USSR's image in Finland." See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
If the Finns did not trust Stalin (and they had an extensive history of dealing with him and his emissaries) what makes you think that the French or British believed that Stalin was trustworthy enough to negotiate with. Stalin's behavior of killing millions in the Soviet Union for political differences coupled with his well documented treachery (for example, Holodomor - intentional starvation in the Ukraine, and the Great Purge of 1936-8) created a situation where no one could trust Stalin and thus negotiate with him.
Let me ask you a question. Why do you deny Stalin's evils?
Stalin killed more people than Hitler. We have a word of those who deny Hitler's evils.
You're very confused. Nobody is justifying Stalin's murderous regime. I am faulting France, Britain and the U.S. for allowing the situation is Europe to unfold as it did. Handled differently, the Allies could have:
1. Stood up to Hitler and emboldened conservative Army officers to get rid of him.
2. Ended up at war earlier while preventing Germany from overrunning France and the Low Countries.
Edited to add that Hitler was enabled by capitalists who preferred Nazism to Communism. Our intense struggle with Communism was fueled by the fear of the wealthy of the working classes. In the beginning, it was all about rich fear and not at all about any particular foreign threat. It was only starting in the 30's that the Russian Communist threat started to emerge.
Rentals
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
The purpose of an ideology is to offer a solution to problems. If one does not have a basic philosophy how can he choose between different solutions?
I do not know anyone who wants to "print money" to fund programs, but many wish to re-coup some of the money that has gone to the very rich over the last few decades as a result of government policies favorable to them as well as their own avarice, manipulation and exploitation.