has been lazy as of the asshat episode

nice job people

LOL. I’m saying you have FAILED to provide evidence that Stalin was considered a threat to international security. All you have shown, was that Stalin was a threat to MINOR regions whose losses did not have significant impact on the rest of the world.

Now, unless you can refute that, you sir, have lost.

Yes Hitler mad alliances therefore he must have been pulling the strings…just like how Churchill was pulling FDR’s and Uncle Joes’s. Honestly man the Axis was about as hollow an alliance as you can get Germany and Japan never really did much for each other and the Italians were the weakest link in the chain having defected in 1943. As if Hitler was giving orders to the Japanese and Italians, ah… You sir have made my day, memos and all.

Doesn’t matter if he was pulling the strings or if the axis was hollow.

The point is, (Which you continue to miss) that Hitler was considered (and is still considered by nearly every Historian) a greater threat to the world than Stalin.

Unless you can prove otherwise, you sir, have lost.

Now it might be your “opinion” that Stalin was a bigger threat to the world, but that is not supported by historical facts. Hitler is, was, and always will be considered the larger threat not just by me, but by the majority of the world at large.

Yes Hitler mad alliances therefore he must have been pulling the strings…just like how Churchill was pulling FDR’s and Uncle Joes’s. Honestly man the Axis was about as hollow an alliance as you can get Germany and Japan never really did much for each other and the Italians were the weakest link in the chain having defected in 1943. As if Hitler was giving orders to the Japanese and Italians, ah… You sir have made my day, memos and all.

Oh I see you want UN resolutions… well I don’t care much for the UN never really thought of them as anything more than a toothless institution that really just gives words instead of actions. Well wow I see, well then there is no point in arguing because the UN will never condemn China so long as the CCP has a spot on the security council (the only part that has some significance given how they are deadlocked most of the time). Stalin was never declared a threat by the UN because well he could veto such a measure. Same reason why China will never be a threat in you view because they can veto such a measure or any resolution leveled against them.

I specifically added “Or some other document”, it doesn’t have to be a UN Resolution, but since the UN was created to mediate international conflicts they would be the authority on whether or not a country could be considered a threat to international security. While a UN declaration would be PREFERRED, it is not MANDATORY. Other sources are acceptable also.

Touche with the UN there is never an official threat from anything else other than a international pariah. Again if the UN is the ruling authority then I can’t possibly argue that there is ever a threat to world security from any of the Big Five. Again had I known that UN resolutions and League of Nations debates were the basis of threat assessment I would have conceded the point earlier. Ah well good for you if you believe in the UN, I stopped believing in them long ago…

The basis of threat assessment is not the UN, as the UN was not created until after Germany lost the UN. The basis of threat assessment is action by an international coalition to combat a significant threat to security. There was no such coalition or alliance concerned with the threat of Stalin.

Was Communism viewed as a threat to international security? Yes. Was Stalin, himself, viewed as a threat to international security? No. There’s no evidence to support that argument.

Italy and Japan were of little use to Germany as allies. Italy especially given how the Soviets preferred to smash them to break through German lines. Japan never did help Germany, the Eastern Front was where their aid was needed most and Japan was at peace with the USSR until 1945.

That doesn’t negate the fact that Germany, through its alliances, posed a significant threat to 2/3rds of the World’s population!

So many of your paragraphs start with “Look,” haha.

Italy and Japan were of little use to Germany as allies. Italy especially given how the Soviets preferred to smash them to break through German lines. Japan never did help Germany, the Eastern Front was where their aid was needed most and Japan was at peace with the USSR until 1945.

Look your remark about China was a tangent I stayed within what Stalin was doing.

It’s not a tangent. China is VERY similar to the criterion you listed for Stalinist Russia. It has all the same elements you already defined for why you considered Stalinist Russia a threat, and yet no one in the world considers China to be a threat to world security. Why is that?

In the 1960s China was supporting revolts in Africa, that helped make that continent what it is today, a place of nearly endless conflict. Nevertheless I guess these activities don’t really count since they do not affect the required 2/3s of the world to be considered a threat to the world.

These activities don’t count because NO ONE CONSIDERS CHINA TO BE A THREAT TO WORLD SECURITY.

I defy you to provide one example, in the form of a UN Declaration, or other comparable document which illustrates how China is a threat to international security.

The examples you listed, while admirable, still do not address the central issue of “If China shares the same ideological, military and technological capability of Stalinist Russia, why are they then not considered a threat to world security by your previously established criterion?”.

You’re going outside the bounds of the argument.

As for the loss of Eastern Europe the influx of people who left there did contribute a cultural gain for the countries which gave them refuge. Israel did get a good number of Eastern European Jews which added significantly to their man power so that they could better fight off their Arab neighbors. Many former Soviet satellite states still remember the Soviet occupation and are at times at odds with Russia. Many of those states ave joined or are trying to join NATO and that has caused a few problems with Russia as well.

This does nothing to illustrate how within the specified time frame (1947 – 1953) , how the loss of these countries affected the WORLD. The only argument you might possibly have is that it affected the population of Israel.

But that still doesn’t have a significant impact on the rest of the world. These examples that you’re citing have a limited REGIONAL impact, not a GLOBAL one.

Hitler declared war on most of the world by going against the British Empire and the USSR. However he never did have any troops in North America, thus his actual threat to North America was minimal.

Germany might not have been a large threat to the US but there were still a threat, nonetheless.
Hitler was also in conflict with the greatest colonial power so by declaring war on two regimes Hitler was technically at war with most of the world even if he never posed a significant threat to places like Australia. I guess you want to say that a declaration of war alone is sufficient threat, fair enough, but from my view a purely military view Hitler was not a threat to 2/3s of the world.

That’s fair enough. I can agree that Hitler may not have had the military infrastructure to PERSONALLY attack 2/3rds of the world, but through his alliances with Japan and Italy, he certainly did pose a significant threat to most of the world’s populated areas.

Hitler never needed to declare war on the US his entire General Staff thought that he was nuts, but Hitler did need to show Japan that it was a good ally and did so in the vain hope that the Japanese would attack the Soviet Union. After being slapped silly by Zhukov in Mongolia scant years before the Japanese Army was unwilling to go to war. Up until the the US had no reason to declare war on Germany and had Hitler done nothing after Pearl Harbor the US would have been at war with Japan only.

FDR was supporting the UK by supplying them with weapons. Everybody and their grandmother knows FDR was itching to get involved in WWII. What prevented him from getting involved sooner was the isolationist view that Congress had at the time. That and the overwhelming disapproval the public had for going to war.
For FDR, Pearl Harbor was like a gift from god because it finally gave him an excuse to actively participate in the war.

For further evidence, you need only look at Roosevelt’s “Arsenal of Democracy” radio transmissions delivered on December 29, 1940. A full year before the Pearl Harbor incident. There’s also Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms” speech delivered on Jan of 1941.

Roosevelt was already indirectly involved in the War by providing the Allied Powers with “all aid short of war”. See: Churchill’s book “The Grand Alliance” written in 1977 for further proof.

It was Hitler’s declaration of war that brought the US in.

This is patently false as I’ve already described above.

Britain, and the US only became Allies of the Soviets after the invasion which made them Allies of Convenience.

That doesn’t negate the fact that Britain and the US saw Hitler as a greater threat than Hitler was.

Declaring war on the US and the USSR before he finished his business with the British was not a smart move by and stretch of the imagination, hence he was “stupid” for doing so.

He really had no choice but to declare war on the US. What was the alternative? Allow Japan to lose the war against the US and thus deprive him of a foothold in the Pacific? Hitler tried his best to avoid open-war against the Americans until the Japanese went and jumped the gun. The plan was initially to secure Europe and ally with Russia to dominate the Western Hemisphere. Russia was noncommittal to the Germans and grew increasingly nervous over the Germans constant incursions into Eastern Europe.

He may have done something militarily stupid, but that by no means makes him a stupid person. It makes him a politican, not a military tactician.

Hitler also had a propensity to reject everything remotely Jewish hence all the people who could have helped him build a atom bomb had already left because they were Jewish leaving him with a small remnant of physicists who were reluctant to help him build a bomb. Again by kicking out some seriously talented physicists because of they were Jews, does not constitute “intelligence.” Hitler also had a fondness for big huge and impractical weapons such as the Ratte and Maus super heavy tanks, only Albert Speer was able to stop such wasteful projects from making the situation on the front any worse than it already was. Again building super heavy tanks that the Heer never asked for was not very “intelligent.”

The reason the atomic bomb was never built wasn’t because of a lack of scientists. It was because it was determined (Wrongly) that the nuclear energy project would not make a “decisive contribution to ending the war effort” in the near-term and the army relinquished control of the program in 1942.

The Western Allies were wary of Stalin all the governments in exile that held de jure sovereignty east of the Rhine were sidelined once it because clear that if the US and Britain were to win the war thrust upon them they would have to keep the USSR on their side. Sikorski leader of the Poles in exile was not liked by Stalin thus relations between the two remained soured. The West looked the other way when the Soviets allowed the Home Army to be slaughtered. We never really trusted Stalin, but necessity dictated that we keep him as our erstwhile ally, and they never really trusted us. The Soviets refused to be a team player and do anything about Japan until we gave them concessions at the expense of Nationalist China. We had a common cause but they were a threat once it became clear in 1944 what kind of post war world Stalin was planning. The US and the UK basically sold out the Eastern European Governments in Exile at the end of the war. At the time it was decide that conflict with the Soviet Union was untenable, and after 1944 we were already leering at one another suspiciously.

This makes sense ^^

But you’re still not explaining how you came to the conclusion that Stalin was a greater threat than Hitler =P

I won’t comment on your hierarchy of worthwhile countries but honestly you are sounding kind of arrogant and somewhat racist declaring them as people and nations that have no significance.

I’m not saying they have “no significance”. What I have said is that they do not hold any strategic value. That their existence or political status does not have a significant impact on the rest of the world.

If you can provide evidence to how the world is dependent on their existence or safety for international security, I’ll be happy to recant my prior determination.

Fair enough I suppose if all that matters to you are certain nations and not others then I guess the USSR was never a threat to the part of the world you care about. I concede Stalin was never a threat to the part of the world you deem important.

Stalin was never a threat to the world, because the -newly created- United Nations (remember that new international government authority that’s supposed to mediate conflicts between nations?) did not consider them a threat to the world.

What you illustrated, with your examples, was that Stalin was a threat to parts of the world. Not the entire world, or even the majority of the world but small pockets of barely recognized regions and countries (MIND YOU NOW, it’s not ME that barely recognizes them but the INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY as a whole). Considering that he doesn’t pass that critical test, it’s fairly impossible to compare him to Hitler in terms of how much of a threat he posed to international security.

What WAS considered a threat was the spread of Communism as a political ideology, not Stalin in specific. Stalin was just the public face of Communism (and only up until 1953, which doesn’t even really cover the “Red Scare” of McCarthyism that followed after Stalin’s death).

The issue here was never whether Stalin was a threat, but whether he could be considered a GREATER threat to International Security than Hitler did.

You provided no basis to support that determination.

Well sorry for wasting your time.

It wasn’t a waste for me. I enjoyed myself. It was rather entertaining. I’m sure Calawain enjoys the traffic this debate has generated to his Geass post

I can see why you think Stalin IS a threat, but you were unable to articulate WHAT made Stalin a greater international threat than Hitler. Hitler, by all accounts, is considered one of the greatest threats in all of History. It’s a tall order to top the most reviled human being in all of history.

As for the loss of Eastern Europe the influx of people who left there did contribute a cultural gain for the countries which gave them refuge. Israel did get a good number of Eastern European Jews which added significantly to their man power so that they could better fight off their Arab neighbors. Many former Soviet satellite states still remember the Soviet occupation and are at times at odds with Russia. Many of those states ave joined or are trying to join NATO and that has caused a few problems with Russia as well.

Hitler declared war on most of the world by going against the British Empire and the USSR. However he never did have any troops in North America, thus his actual threat to North America was minimal. Germany had a few units of Luftwaffe in the Middle East but they were quickly expelled once the Vichy French there were overwhelmed. The caveat here is whether we can consider the USSR to be part of Asia or part of Europe, because other than that token to hold Hitler never presented a significant threat to the Far East, though they had a few U-Boats and surface ships, all of which were destroyed one after the other. More over Hitler declared war on the most populous nation on Earth so yes he presented a threat to a lot of people just by going to war with the USSR. So yes Hitler was a threat to most of the world’s population by being hostile to Russia alone. Hitler was also in conflict with the greatest colonial power so by declaring war on two regimes Hitler was technically at war with most of the world even if he never posed a significant threat to places like Australia. I guess you want to say that a declaration of war alone is sufficient threat, fair enough, but from my view a purely military view Hitler was not a threat to 2/3s of the world.

Hitler never needed to declare war on the US his entire General Staff thought that he was nuts, but Hitler did need to show Japan that it was a good ally and did so in the vain hope that the Japanese would attack the Soviet Union. After being slapped silly by Zhukov in Mongolia scant years before the Japanese Army was unwilling to go to war. Up until the the US had no reason to declare war on Germany and had Hitler done nothing after Pearl Harbor the US would have been at war with Japan only. It was Hitler’s declaration of war that brought the US in. Britain, and the US only became Allies of the Soviets after the invasion which made them Allies of Convenience. Declaring war on the US and the USSR before he finished his business with the British was not a smart move by and stretch of the imagination, hence he was “stupid” for doing so.

Hitler also had a propensity to reject everything remotely Jewish hence all the people who could have helped him build a atom bomb had already left because they were Jewish leaving him with a small remnant of physicists who were reluctant to help him build a bomb. Again by kicking out some seriously talented physicists because of they were Jews, does not constitute “intelligence.” Hitler also had a fondness for big huge and impractical weapons such as the Ratte and Maus super heavy tanks, only Albert Speer was able to stop such wasteful projects from making the situation on the front any worse than it already was. Again building super heavy tanks that the Heer never asked for was not very “intelligent.”

The Western Allies were wary of Stalin all the governments in exile that held de jure sovereignty east of the Rhine were sidelined once it because clear that if the US and Britain were to win the war thrust upon them they would have to keep the USSR on their side. Sikorski leader of the Poles in exile was not liked by Stalin thus relations between the two remained soured. The West looked the other way when the Soviets allowed the Home Army to be slaughtered. We never really trusted Stalin, but necessity dictated that we keep him as our erstwhile ally, and they never really trusted us. The Soviets refused to be a team player and do anything about Japan until we gave them concessions at the expense of Nationalist China. We had a common cause but they were a threat once it became clear in 1944 what kind of post war world Stalin was planning. The US and the UK basically sold out the Eastern European Governments in Exile at the end of the war. At the time it was decide that conflict with the Soviet Union was untenable, and after 1944 we were already leering at one another suspiciously.

I won’t comment on your hierarchy of worthwhile countries but honestly you are sounding kind of arrogant and somewhat racist declaring them as people and nations that have no significance. Fair enough I suppose if all that matters to you are certain nations and not others then I guess the USSR was never a threat to the part of the world you care about. I concede Stalin was never a threat to the part of the world you deem important.

Well sorry for wasting your time.

Uranium alone is not sufficient for a bomb, a dirty bomb [perhaps but you need a cyclotron to make a fission bomb.

My point was that, Russia did not even have Uranium to conduct a nuclear weapons test until they stole Germany’s supply after the war.

You specifically said, Stalin was a bigger threat than Hitler because Russia had a nuclear arsenal. I already gave you sufficient historical evidence to prove that Russia did not have anything close to an “arsenal” within Stalin’s lifetime.

You logic is odd so it’s okay to overrun a good number of Third World countries and not be a threat to global stability? You sir have the callousness I cannot begin to describe. This debate is pointless since you care about some places but not about others. I have made my statements and stand by them for you Hitler is the ultimate big bad you have no idea and never will understand what Stalin really was.

You have not provided sufficient evidence to prove why Stalin was a bigger threat than Hitler. Nor have you clearly expressed what your criterion or basis for what that determination was.

Hitler declared War on 4 out of 6 habitable continents (Europe, North America, Asia and Africa). That’s nearly 2/3rds of the world’s population. Unless you can come up with a convincing argument of how Stalin posed a GREATER threat to that same 2/3rds of the World (between 1947 and 1953) you’re fighting a losing battle.

The USSR, as I’ve said before, only became a comparable threat to Germany AFTER Stalin had passed away.

Present evidence to the contrary or yield your statement of position.

And yes, overrunning a country (or multiple countries) which has/have no impact on the rest of the world’s economic, military or political resources does not constitute a threat to world security. A threat to the world means a, uh threat to the entire world, not just a subset or specific region of the world.

You’ve yet to make the argument on how Stalin was a threat to the ENTIRE world as Hitler was. Not just tiny portions of it.

The loss of Eastern Europe was keenly felt just because you have never met any one who had to flee their home land does not mean that they were unimportant and had no bearing on the rest of the world.

Keenly felt by who? Clearly it wasn’t too keenly felt, as the rest of the allied powers were too concerned with rebuilding and reconstruction in the aftermath of WWII to openly oppose Stalin.

And this is where we come back to my old friend Context. The British were economically and militarily devastated upon the conclusion of WWII and couldn’t even hold onto their own colonies. They were certainly not concerned with the fate of a few satellite countries which held no strategic value or usable resources.

As morally opposed as you may be to the “weaker” countries being dominated by a stronger country, this does not mean that the stronger country constitutes a significant threat to the rest of the world.

If that was the case, we’d be attacking China for holding Tibet hostage and trying to reclaim Taiwan as part of their territory.

The Soviet demobilization was uncharacteristically fast, and the most important reason why Stalin wanted to reduce the size of the Red Army was that well all those formerly scarred and oppressed people now all had guns, tanks, and airplanes. Stalin never did trust the Red Army and as soon ans they were no longer needed disarmed them. Let’s not forget that Zhukov was viewed by Stalin as a threat and soon had Marshall Victory exiled to some remote post. You see it was a move more to protect Stalin form a mass mutiny than anything else.

That still doesn’t address my point. You specifically said that Stalin had posed a “great threat to world security” because of the size of his army.

I replied by showing you the size of his army had decreased drastically within a 3 year span. Now, if you’re turning around and saying “Stalin reduced his army because he was afraid of a big army he couldn’t control” how does that support your EARLIER statement that he was a larger threat than Hitler because of his army?

It’s a self-defeating point.

I was merely demonstrating that Stalin was more than just a single threat, but that no longer matters because you have declared it out of context because those countries do not matter. So long as you dismiss everything I have to say as out of context the point is moot.

I’ve already addressed each and every one of your contentions of the magnitude of Stalin’s threat. Most of which you have ignored, or gone on tangents about.

You haven’t even responded as to why CHINA which meets all of your previous criterion of (Largest Army in the World, Nuclear Arsenal, Communist) isn’t considered a threat to the world’s security?

Again, you specifically said “Stalin was a threat because he had a nuclear arsenal and he had the world’s largest army”.

Both points were proven false and you continue to fail to prove HOW Stalin is considered a larger threat to World Security than Hitler was (Let me again remind you that Stalin died in 1953, right after the conclusion of the Korean War in which the USSR halted their advance at the 38th parallel per their post-war agreement with the Americans).

Now, I can’t for the live of me find any historian, alive or dead, who would agree with you that Stalin was much more of a threat than Hitler.

If you’re going to make that claim, you’re going to have to back it up. History appears to agree with me, thus far.

This is pointless you obliviously can turn a blind eye to Stalin like you can with Lulu.

It’s not about “turning a blind eye”. It’s about recognizing which is the greater threat. Just like the Allied Powers recognized Hitler was a greater threat than Stalin (Which is why even though he killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS during his Purge, no Allied Power EVER EVER EVER EVER opposed him).

I’m not saying Stalin wasn’t a threat. I’m saying, Hitler was the larger threat which needed to be dealt with. Which is why the US and UK allied with Stalin, against Hitler.

Similarly how Charles vi Britannia is the larger threat than Lelouch, which is why all of his former enemies (Rolo, Orange-kun, Viletta, and soon to be your beloved Cornelia-hime) are joining Lelouch in his crusade to end Charles’ tyranny.

Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, you have lost this point.

Congratulations you sir win an internet.

This was evident before we engaged in this debate

Now I suggest you read up on your history since you don’t seem to have mastery of the subject matter in the slightest.

I never claimed to have a “mastery” on history. I merely provided evidence to counter your claims on how Stalin was a larger threat than Hitler.

You’ve yet to produce one sound logical argument to refute that which I have previously provided to you.

Your lack of knowledge when it comes to the USSR and Stalin.

This is rather funny

Also please do read up on how an atom bomb is made for good measure.

LOL I know it can’t be made without fissible material and that Stalin did not have any domestic sources of fissible material. That is more than enough knowledge to counter your baseless claims of a “nuclear arsenal”.

You focus merely on the political history and have no idea how many talented actors there were that made Germany powerful.

No, I focus on military history also but the argument here isn’t “what made Germany powerful”. The argument here is “Why Stalin is more of a threat than Hitler”.

Remember my earlier comment about unrelated tangents? This is a prime example of you going away from the main topic into something completely irrelevant to your argument.

Hitler you see is not the evil genius you make him out to be.

Where did I say he was an “evil genius”? I said he was intelligent. I didn’t say he was a German Stephen Hawking or anything close to that. YOU’RE the one who called him “stupid” because he wasn’t militarily competent. There’s more to intelligence than military aptitude.

I am utterly aghast at how you basically said that none of those countries mattered. I am through with this farce.

Prove how the loss of any of those countries significantly affected the rest of the world.

I dare you to.

You logic is odd so it’s okay to overrun a good number of Third World countries and not be a threat to global stability? You sir have the callousness I cannot begin to describe. This debate is pointless since you care about some places but not about others. I have made my statements and stand by them for you Hitler is the ultimate big bad you have no idea and never will understand what Stalin really was.

The loss of Eastern Europe was keenly felt just because you have never met any one who had to flee their home land does not mean that they were unimportant and had no bearing on the rest of the world.

Himmler and Goering eventually tried to sell Hitler out, but the Allies were not keen on taking them up. Some Loyalty eh? Albert Speer was the man most responsible for German’s military industry, not Hitler. I hope you read more history for it seems that you are forgetting some very big names.

The Soviet demobilization was uncharacteristically fast, and the most important reason why Stalin wanted to reduce the size of the Red Army was that well all those formerly scarred and oppressed people now all had guns, tanks, and airplanes. Stalin never did trust the Red Army and as soon ans they were no longer needed disarmed them. Let’s not forget that Zhukov was viewed by Stalin as a threat and soon had Marshall Victory exiled to some remote post. You see it was a move more to protect Stalin form a mass mutiny than anything else.

I was merely demonstrating that Stalin was more than just a single threat, but that no longer matters because you have declared it out of context because those countries do not matter. So long as you dismiss everything I have to say as out of context the point is moot.

This is pointless you obliviously can turn a blind eye to Stalin like you can with Lulu. Congratulations you sir win an internet. Now I suggest you read up on your history since you don’t seem to have mastery of the subject matter in the slightest. Your lack of knowledge when it comes to the USSR and Stalin. Also please do read up on how an atom bomb is made for good measure. You focus merely on the political history and have no idea how many talented actors there were that made Germany powerful. Hitler you see is not the evil genius you make him out to be.

I am utterly aghast at how you basically said that none of those countries mattered. I am through with this farce.

Look at this point arguing any more about Lulu is like arguing about religion it’s pointless.

LOL My question isn’t about Lulu though. It’s about Cornelia!! Stop ducking me!! :p

Also you have already been using CAPS LOCK long enough, I know cruise control for cool.

I use capslock for emphasis

Just because FDR was President does not mean that he was the victor at Midway.

It does mean that FDR was the victor of the War though as, ultimately, it is the leader who is held accountable for winning or losing.

You fail to understand that Hitler was able to do what he did because the German military was world class, the Wehrmacht was the harbinger of modern warfare.

Again, context. You fail to understand that before Hitler’s rise to power Germany was a shell of its former self. After losing WWI and being subjected to insurmountable reparations, Germany was subject to abject poverty. It was Hitler who rebuilt Germany into a formidable fighting force.

Without Hitler, Germany would not have had the infrastructure to become a world-class military threat. It was Hitler who was able to mobilize the Germans and give them a sense of patriotism after the Germans lost WWI.

If Hitler had only the Italian Army he would not have conquered much at all. Hitler had the will to use a world class military for conquest. He was ambitious and he did surround himself with reliable cronies and sack any one who was a threat to him regardless of their expertise.

LOL Doesn’t that mean that he was intelligent? I mean sacking threats and surrounding yourself with loyal allies doesn’t seem “stupid” to me at all. Does that sound stupid to you?

Your definition of context is funny and strange the events I mentioned all involved Stalin, but sure… In 1944 Stalin was a biggest threat to global security because the German defeat was a forgone conclusion after Normandy, and Kursk.

How was the USSR a Global Threat in 1944? You mentioned that Stalin was a greater threat because they had a nuclear arsenal. He didn’t. They only tested their first atomic bomb in 1949. So how are you determining that Stalin was the bigger threat? LOL

In 1944 the Soviet Military machine was vastly larger than any other and its armies were already entrenching themselves into Eastern Europe. In 1945 they swept through Northern China in Operation August Storm and began setting up radical regimes one of which still haunts us today.

From 1945 to 1948, the size of the Soviet Armed Forces drastically declined from 11.3 Million to 2.8 Million.

Is the size of a land army the sole determinate of a country’s threat to the world? If that’s so, why isn’t China considered the biggest threat to world security? They currently have the largest standing army on the world.

Your logic doesn’t pass muster. At the time, the USSR was still allied with the US and the UK. The Cold War didn’t even start until 1947. So to say that Stalin was a bigger threat in 1944 and 1945 is contradictory.

So in effect Stalin was already threatening world security, but we just did not care enough about such places.

We did not care about such places because they had no strategic value. Losing those countries didn’t mean a significant risk to the rest of the world. And compared to Hitler, Stalin was much less of a threat, as Hitler was attacking and conquering industrialized nations with significant value.

Attacking third-world countries that have no economic, political or military influence on the rest of the world does not make you a World Security Threat. It’s when you start attacking countries that can have an economic, military, or political effect on the REST of the world, that it becomes a threat to world security.

As you can see, the loss of those 3rd World Countries had no impact on the World. So how does that make it a “World Threat”? Is it a threat to those 3rd world countries if they are attacked? Yes. Is it a threat to the rest of the world? No.

In China Stalin was supporting a Communist Insurgency under Mao Zedong and further destabilizing China. He was building spy rings across the globe, the Cambridge Five were recruited in the 1930s. In 1930 the Stalin was supporting extremist groups against their erstwhile coalition allies of the Spanish Republic. Stalin was committing terrorism abroad as he sent hitmen across the globe to kill critics like Trotsky in territories where he had no sovereignty.

You fail to acknowledge that at the time Japan had already conquered and occupied Manchuria, deposed the current Chinese Emperor and installed a puppet figurehead to rule the rest of the country. China was already destabilized by the time the Russians started supporting Mao.

But wait, I can already hear you say, those events happened before 1939 they are completely out of context, well then I suggest you look up the History of Poland and Finland. For you see Stalin waged two wars before joining the Allies. In Poland Stalin invaded his neighbor in League with Hitler. Soon after overrunning the Poles Stalin massacred those who posed a threat to Soviet Hegemony which included the usual gamut of the religious leaders, members of political parties, any one associated with the Polish Army, and any one who dared to speak up. In Finland he tried to make them a satellite state and annex more territory. Again this was during WWII so you see Stalin was a threat to global peace and stability. It’s just that people like you never heard or care about such places, Stalin was a threat, he was just adroit enough to threaten the places no one cared about. Back then all those places like Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldavia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Finland, Poland, and the Ukraine, were states no one really cared to do anything about. They were back then, what Africa is now. Shit happens, but we never talk of such things as often as other topics, nor do we really care enough to do much about it.

That still has no bearing on your claim that Stalin was a bigger threat than Hitler.

You said Stalin was a bigger threat because he had a nuclear arsenal. I already showed you that

1. Stalin would’ve never had any fissible nuclear material to use for his atomic bomb test had Germany not been defeated.
2. Stalin was dead by the time the Soviets acquired a usable nuclear weapon.

Are you changing your position on WHY Stalin was a threat?

Also you do not need a hydrogen bomb to become a nuclear power.

You said he had a nuclear arsenal. There’s no evidence to support that. The Soviet Atomic Bomb Project didn’t even start its first test in 1949. The program was still in its testing phase. They did not obtain a usable weapon until after Stalin had already died.

As I mentioned before, the Soviets did not discover domestic sources of Uranium until much later. All of the uranium obtained for their first test were taking from Germany’s Atomic Bomb Project.

So if you compare Hitler(who had uranium and an atomic bomb research program) and Stalin (who had no sources of uranium and an atomic bomb project), Hitler was the bigger threat.

Stalin essentially had a gun with no bullets. It wasn’t until after the Germans were defeated that Stalin stole Germany’s bullets.

As you said the Soviets detonated a bomb in 1949 and since then Stalin did have a nuclear arsenal, a modest one, but he had one nonetheless to qualify as a nuclear power. India and Pakistan have only announced that they have fission bombs, but are considered nuclear powers despite the fact that the US and Russia hold 96% of all nuclear weapons.

See above.

The issue here isn’t whether or not Stalin was a threat, the Truman Doctrine already confirmed that, it’s whether Stalin was a greater threat to World Security than Hitler.

He was not.

Now, if you want to argue that after the fall of Hitler, the Soviet Union became a significant threat to world security, that might be debateable. But to claim that the USSR under the rule of Stalin was a greater threat to World Security than Germany under the rule of Hitler is just plain false.

Stalin only lived 8 years more than Hitler. He would’nt have acquired Uranium if Hitler didn’t lose. He didn’t even test a nuclear bomb until 1949 (4 years before dying). The first hydrogen bomb test didn’t even occur until after he died. To say that Stalin had a nuclear arsenal (a mass of weapons) when only 1 nuclear bomb test had been conducted during the remainder of Stalin’s lifetime is just incorrect.

The closest the Soviets became to becoming a comparable threat to World Security was in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis and that was nearly 10 years after Stalin had already died.

Just because FDR was President does not mean that he was the victor at Midway. Germany conquered much of Europe in spite of Hitler not because of him. The military build up was already underway long before 1933. Hitler loved to take credit for everything that went right, but you will find that beyond his honeyed lies is some lesser known commander. By your reasoning Hitler was responsible for all of Rommel’s victories because Hitler was Fuhrer. You fail to understand that Hitler was able to do what he did because the German military was world class, the Wehrmacht was the harbinger of modern warfare. The Heer was ahead in doctrine, communications, unit tactics, and combined arms attacks. If Hitler had only the Italian Army he would not have conquered much at all. Hitler had the will to use a world class military for conquest. He was ambitious and he did surround himself with reliable cronies and sack any one who was a threat to him regardless of their expertise.

Your definition of context is funny and strange the events I mentioned all involved Stalin, but sure… In 1944 Stalin was a biggest threat to global security because the German defeat was a forgone conclusion after Normandy, and Kursk. Strategic initiative was lost to Germany, their attempt at the Bulge to regain it was opposed by every sane commander left in the Heer. In 1944 the Soviet Military machine was vastly larger than any other and its armies were already entrenching themselves into Eastern Europe. In 1945 they swept through Northern China in Operation August Storm and began setting up radical regimes one of which still haunts us today.

If we look earlier Stalin was executing purges, persecuting every religion, and forcibly deporting minority groups to Siberia in states out side of Russia prior to 1939. In the Soviet occupation, prior to the USSR joining the Allies, included such states as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldavia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and the Ukraine. While these states may not exist for you they were part of the world and their security was compromised. So in effect Stalin was already threatening world security, but we just did not care enough about such places. In China Stalin was supporting a Communist Insurgency under Mao Zedong and further destabilizing China. He was building spy rings across the globe, the Cambridge Five were recruited in the 1930s. In 1930 the Stalin was supporting extremist groups against their erstwhile coalition allies of the Spanish Republic. Stalin was committing terrorism abroad as he sent hitmen across the globe to kill critics like Trotsky in territories where he had no sovereignty.

But wait, I can already hear you say, those events happened before 1939 they are completely out of context, well then I suggest you look up the History of Poland and Finland. For you see Stalin waged two wars before joining the Allies. In Poland Stalin invaded his neighbor in League with Hitler. Soon after overrunning the Poles Stalin massacred those who posed a threat to Soviet Hegemony which included the usual gamut of the religious leaders, members of political parties, any one associated with the Polish Army, and any one who dared to speak up. In Finland he tried to make them a satellite state and annex more territory. Again this was during WWII so you see Stalin was a threat to global peace and stability. It’s just that people like you never heard or care about such places, Stalin was a threat, he was just adroit enough to threaten the places no one cared about. Back then all those places like Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldavia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Finland, Poland, and the Ukraine, were states no one really cared to do anything about. They were back then, what Africa is now. Shit happens, but we never talk of such things as often as other topics, nor do we really care enough to do much about it.

Also you do not need a hydrogen bomb to become a nuclear power.As you said the Soviets detonated a bomb in 1949 and since then Stalin did have a nuclear arsenal, a modest one, but he had one nonetheless to qualify as a nuclear power. India and Pakistan have only announced that they have fission bombs, but are considered nuclear powers despite the fact that the US and Russia hold 96% of all nuclear weapons.