Churchill's Alliance with the Genodical Murderer, Stalin

[sondagefaux]

We do need reminding of Stalin's evil.

And of Churchill's alliance with him.

But do you seriously think Churchill would have aligned with Stalin unless it was absolutely necessary?

Once Hitler was defeated Churchill - who did commit genocide in India by the way and deserves to be disgraced for that - did nonetheless everying he could to help those in Eastern Europe.

Only saying that the man's options weren't easy ones.

Would ye gobsh*tes who dig up five month old threads ever fúck off? I've said all I've got to say on this thread - read the previous 20 pages if ye want. Otherwise píss off.

[Ireniall]

Its quite simple really. Without Stalin's USSR the Nazis would have defeated Britain.
War Between Nazi Germany and USSR was inevitable - and whats more both Hitler and Stalin knew it. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed because it allowed the Nazi's time to defeat Western Europe before turning on the USSR, and allowd Stalin time to up-arm and reorganize his army before 1943, when they assumed the Nazis would attack.
You must also realise that while from a western point of view the war was about democracy etc, but from the point of view of the USSR it was about the very survival of its peoples and cultures. It was a war launched by the Nazis on the premise of "annhilation". However, it is interesting, and ironic, that Josef Stalin did more for democracy than anyone else.
Anyway, there is an old Mayan proverb which perhaps gives the simplest explanation - 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'.[/QUOTE]-------------------------------------- I disagree on two points-I dont agree that the Nazis would have defeated Britain having lost the BoB and I think it's well established that the evil Stalin refused to believe, in the face of all the evidence, that Germany was about to attack even chastising one of his generals with the question 'do you want a war -is that it'.I agree entirely with the rest of your post
The op ,on the other hand, is entirely without any merit or intelligence.The idea that Britain and France should declare war on the Soviets, while eyeballing a belligerent Germany whom they were ill-equipped to deal with, is just infantile.If you are going to protect the tiny area of the world which was democratic at that time you are obliged to actually try.You dont cast around to see if there's someone else around to declare war on while your at it like it's some sort of a game instead of a deadly fight to the death.It's a bit like the argument Vincent Browne used to attack the NATO intervention in Kosovo-'if Kosovo is right then why are you not attacking China so that Tibet might be liberated'-grand if you want to win a childish argument in the local cafe while your having your morning latte.Eoghan Harris countered this nonsense with this analogy-A couple of thugs drag a local girl from your street to a laneway to rape her-Do you gather a few of the hardy locals and sort them out or ,like the superficial Browne,do you say to yourself-well I failed to stop a rape on the other side of the city recently so I therefore dont have the right to interfere in this one-what a load of rubbish.
The reality of what happened was that the western allies ,more by accident than design,managed to get the two delinquent powers of the time to flog themselves on each other and thereby secure Western Europe for the free world.If we can survive our present economic crisis this will ensure a democratic Europe into the foreseeable future.If Britain and France had followed the OPs idiotic suggestion who knows where we would be now but I think there would be a lot of jackboots and goosestepping involved