moonbattery.gif


« George Moonbat, Tim Flannery Rattled by ClimateGate | Main | Unconvincing Defenses of the Global Warming Hoax »


November 25, 2009

Stalin Added to D-Day Memorial

Posted by Van Helsing at November 25, 2009 10:11 AM

With the fifth column having taken control of our government, now is a perfect time to reconstruct America's worst enemies — who also tend to be humanity's worst enemies — as heroes.

Arguably the second-worst tyrant in human history (after Mao Zedong, a favorite in Obama's set; see Bill Ayers and Anita Dunn) was Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, who killed as many as 43 million of his own people, subjected the rest to the most wretched extremes of state slavery, and helped launch WWII by invading Poland, an event Chairman Zero commemorated last September 17 by yanking away Poland's promised missile defense.

One thing Stalin did not do is send even a single soldier to take part in D-Day — which is why a patriot might wonder why his statue has been added to the National D-Day Memorial. Maybe it's because liberal hero FDR affectionately regarded his fellow leftist as "Uncle Joe."

stalin_famine_victims.jpg
Uncle Joe's handiwork.

On a tip from Anonymous Countermoonbat.


Comments

Monica Crowley was saying on her radio show on Monday, quoting someone else (I forget who, a historical figure): "What fresh hell is this?" Every day and every afternoon presents a fresh hell.

Posted by: Karin at November 25, 2009 11:12 AM


So i agree that Stalin was a dictator in the worst form of dictators. And I also agree that adding Stalin to the D-Day memorial is worthless, however, if full fairness to the Russian people one must remember the reason they did not fight in D-Day was because they were busy fighting to defend their homeland and had been for several years before D-Day happened. getting upset over Stalin being added to the memorial is fine, however don't insult the Russian people or soldiers who were defending their homeland, by implying that they were doing nothing because they were not at D-Day

Posted by: browncoat at November 25, 2009 11:16 AM


They just love these collectivist tyrants, don't they.

Stalin didn't have anything to do with D-Day, but the Red Army was gearing up for a Operation Bagration against Nazi Army Group Center at the time. With his usual disregard for his own subjects, Stalin launched a massive frontal attack with a couple million soldiers incurring 800,000 casualties (200k dead, 600k wounded). They managed to destroy 3/4 of Army Group Center and ensure Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe after the war.

I guess the result of two progressive regimes going at it is millions of dead people and trading one malignant regime for another.

Posted by: forest at November 25, 2009 11:23 AM


We should have let them Nat-zees kill off more of them commies before we went in and took out Hitler, instead we should have gone after the Japs first.

Posted by: Winston Smith - Ministry of Truth at November 25, 2009 11:32 AM


"General Turgidson, I think I've heard quite sufficient from you, thank you very much" - President Muffly

Posted by: forest at November 25, 2009 11:48 AM


The moonbats blew it by moving too fast on this one.

They could have gotten away with slowly adding photos of Stalin, in context, to various museums, followed by a more progressive Stalinization elsewhere. Instead, they tipped their hand as to their true objective by placing an honorific bust of Stalin where it does not belong and has no historical context in which to reside.

Predictably, the moonstream media is nowhere to be found, and the screeching bloggers are offering a flimsy excuse for Stalin being "relevant" to anything connected to WWII. They still can't explain what he has to do with D-Day, or why an explanatory photo wouldn't suffice in place of an honorary bust.

Stay tuned, I'm looking into whether any stimulus funding or Congressional earmarks funded this travesty. Don't be surprised if this is included on a Democrat's pork barrel wish list.

Posted by: Anonymous Countermoonbat at November 25, 2009 11:52 AM


Winston Smith,

"We should have let them Nat-zees kill off more of them commies before we went in and took out Hitler, instead we should have gone after the Japs first."

After WWII, General Mark Clark stated that during the WWII he always advocated not opening up a Western Front in Europe. Let the Nat-zees and Commies slug it out to the East. His thoughts, like yours, was that they may kill each other off.
You Betcha, Kill off those frigging Nat-zees and Commies, Darn it.

Posted by: Eneils Bailey at November 25, 2009 11:56 AM


You want to put a statue of a WW2-era Soviet soldier in there? OK. Those poor bastards got MURDERED during the war. 20 million of 'em. Fought like hell against the Nazis, too.

But STALIN? I am SO SICK OF THIS! We have unashamed commies in the administration. Total leftist 'progressives' in congress. IT'S TIME FOR (taking a page out of Uncle Joe's book) A PURGE...and not to some "Dem Light" Republicans, either. We need conservative patriots that will restore this country to it's greatness.

Posted by: Wyatt's Torch at November 25, 2009 11:59 AM


I bet Obama thinks Stalin should be treated as an American hero.
You Betcha, Obama is a commie jerk, Darn it.

Posted by: Eneils Bailey at November 25, 2009 12:02 PM


In the large aspect Stalin had pressed the allies to open up a second front to force Germany to split its defenses. But that's pretty much where his involvement came to an end. He had nothing to do with the planning or his people dying on the beaches. There is no historical reason for him to be mentioned at the memorial.

Posted by: IOpian at November 25, 2009 12:17 PM


Seriously, everyone needs to see "The Soviet Story"...

Some interesting facts academia has buried:

The USSR was Germany's primary supplier of raw materials, particularly oil, right up until Hitler broke their pact...

Germany sent officers of the SD to the Soviet Union for *training*.... in how to set up concentration camps (this was in '36 or '37), as the Soviets already had 20 years experience.

The German invasion of Norway was launched from Soviet ports... there was even a letter of gratitude sent from Admiral Raeder to his Soviet counterpart, that was printed in PRAVDA (but later sent down the memory hole, scrubbed from the archives and even cut from copies in the library stacks).

Ever wonder how when Hitler broke the pact in '41, he was able to press so far into Soviet territory without resistance? Stalin saw him as an ALLY... and refused to believe that Hitler would attack him. Stalin's plan was to *use* Hitler to take down the Western democracies, and once they'd bashed themselves to pieces, he could sweep in from the east and take ALL of Europe.

Stalin and Hitler: two peas in a pod.

Posted by: hiram at November 25, 2009 12:23 PM


So BILL AIRHEAD and ANITA DUMB thinks JOE STALIN was a great man huh Well left-wing actor RED ED ASNER(who brainwashed us with his crap series LOU GRANT) is also a big admirer of JOE STALIN

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at November 25, 2009 12:26 PM


That reminds me- isn't about time this country did something to honor Pol Pot?

Posted by: Reaganite Republican at November 25, 2009 12:30 PM


How would a real hero respond:hhmmm

Patton often got into trouble. In addition to the slapping incident, towards the end of the war he voiced his detestation and mistrust of the Soviet Union and his desire to fight it.


Now that is more like it

Posted by: penguin at November 25, 2009 12:33 PM


Tying this idiotic move by Mcintosh, the president of the memorial, to Obama is pretty low. He has nothing to with this. The soldiers that traveled through Russia, through Poland and the Ukraine and open the eastern front should be honored. Stalin's crimes were that he felt his soldiers had become westernized. The decision to honor his choice to send soldiers is warranted, but not in this way.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 25, 2009 12:41 PM


Browncoat has it right. Russia may not have been directly involved in D-Day, but the war against Germany would not have been won (or at least, won as "easily") if Germany had not sacrificed so many resources on the Eastern Front against Russia.

Posted by: I'm A Lasagna Hog at November 25, 2009 12:46 PM


The European theater would still have fallen to the Allies by September or October of 1945, even if the Nazi-Soviet pact remained intact.

The resources of Barbarossa, directed against the UK, would have resulted in increased casualties for the UK, and probably, the loss of the island.

By that time, however, America was too invested in the cause of freedom to pull out.

The completion of the atomic bomb was a game changing, deus ex machina event that was not dependent on any result of what might have happened had the Nazi-Soviet alliance remained intact.

Had the Nazis and Soviets remained allies in the fight against freedom, the war still would have concluded in favor of the Allies in late 1945, albeit with a few more vaporized cities.

Posted by: Anonymous Countermoonbat at November 25, 2009 1:05 PM


Alternate history is often interesting to consider. If the Soviets had remained allies of the Nazis, and faced the same atomic annihilation from the forces of freedom, would the USSR remained alive and tyrannical in the post-war world? Probably not.

Ironically, Stalin's decision to fight alongside the forces of freedom against a rival form of tyranny probably was the difference between the USSR being retaken by freedom, and Stalin (and the communist dictators after him) remaining able to kill tens of millions of their own people, repress their own people, bring the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation, and set the cause of global peace and freedom back by decades.

Posted by: Anonymous Countermoonbat at November 25, 2009 1:09 PM


Germany still would have been defeated. We instead would have nuked Berlin since by late 1945 or early 1946 we would have had enough bombs - after taking care of the Japs first.

Posted by: Winston Smith - Ministry of Truth at November 25, 2009 1:12 PM


We could solve this problem with a simple standing order: no busts, statues, or other monuments to any world leader who began the war as an ALLY and PARTNER of the Nazis.

Posted by: Dr. Sarf at November 25, 2009 1:14 PM


The famous WW II cartoonists BILL MUALDIN best known for his two GIs WILLIE & JOE won a pulitzer for a cartoon after stalin died in 1953 showing a figure of the grime reaper standing over stalin and saying YOU ALWYS WERE A GOOD FREIND OF MINE JOSEPH

Posted by: Flu-Bird at November 25, 2009 2:01 PM


OK, lets honor the Russian people and soldiers too, who were defending their homeland, and shit-can the Stalin bust...........Or give him a place next to tyrants Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo (after all they started war)…………Stalin was pure evil.

Posted by: G at November 25, 2009 2:03 PM


Agree with browncoat. Stalin as heinous as he was was the leader of Russia, who paid in enormous amounts of blood resisting and then chasing the Nazis back into Germany. Had the Russia not been able to withstand the Nazi onslaught, the Nazis would have been free to use all its resources against the allies, with the result, arguably different or at least much more costly than it was.

Posted by: Expat in Va at November 25, 2009 2:48 PM


Thread drift, the point is, whether or not Stalin deserves any respect or honor elsewhere, he does NOT belong at D-Day.

Posted by: Mr Evilwrench at November 25, 2009 2:53 PM


Posted by: Expat in Va at November 25, 2009 2:48 PM- "Agree with browncoat. Stalin as heinous as he was was the leader of Russia, who paid in enormous amounts of blood resisting and then chasing the Nazis back into Germany. Had the Russia not been able to withstand the Nazi onslaught, the Nazis would have been free to use all its resources against the allies, with the result, arguably different or at least much more costly than it was."


Bunk. The Soviets were no less an enemy. The Red Army deserves no more than Stalin. The communists cost many allied lives in France, in 1940 alone, through sabotage and propaganda. The Red forces skirmished with the allied advance, in an attempt to occupy Paris, in the wake of the Wehrmacht retreat. The west should have let them both have at it. What happened on the Eastern Front only affected who occupied Europe- The Wehrmacht or the RKKA. People have this bizarre notion, due to marxist historian dominance, that the Soviet Union was some kind of noble ally. It was not. By WW2, the Governments and War dept.'s of the West had been thoroughly penetrated by the Soviets, and were serving communist interests. A number of commanders knew the real score, in relation to the threat from the Soviet and Maoist forces. So the RKKA fought the bulk of the Wehrmacht in the East? If they had not, the Allies would have been confronted by a Soviet occupied west. While Stalin continued to make token contributions to Germany, from 39 to 41, they served a purpose. Germany did likewise. The Soviets, through the use of the memory hole, and postwar marxist analysis, have projected the notion that the USSR "gallantly" tried to buy time, with the alliance, in order to ready itself for the defence of the east. Both Germany and the USSR were simply maneuvering for opportunity. The USSR was preparing a full invasion of western Europe. The opening month of Barbarossa was a result of Stalin's strategic policy- offence. This has been confirmed by files, since the fall of the USSR. Marxist history analysis has portrayed the RKKA rout in 1941 as being the result of "wrong headed" defence. The position of the RKKA was not intended for defence. The USSR had the bulk of it's entire western forces, parked on the line, awaiting a typical Red Army broad advance into Europe. It was a classic offensive position, with no little defence in depth, and armoured units ready for breakthrough. Much like the Wehrmacht lines in june 1941. Hitler knew this, and acted before Stalin did. Stalin's reluctance to act decisively was in part due to his belief that the Germans would not launch a full offensive, as they were nowhere near ready to do so, by regular standards. Stalin believed that Hitler was attempting to spoil Stalin's strategy, with a limited attack, intended to commit the RKKA's forces, to a distraction, which would have delayed Stalin's plan for broad offensive for another year, at least. This would have served the Wehrmacht's desire for more time. As it turned out, OKH went for an all out, deep blitz, that almost succeeded, resulting in the war on the eastern front, instead of in the west.

Posted by: chairman soetoro's oprichniki at November 25, 2009 7:01 PM


Stalin was a great, great man. Just like Chairman Mao and Idi Amin.

Posted by: Lao at November 25, 2009 7:47 PM


They were all mass murders but MAO and STALINS were the worse even worse then hitler

Posted by: REPLENDENT QUETZAL at November 25, 2009 9:25 PM


Thanks "Lao" for more of your ignorance.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 25, 2009 9:39 PM


So chairman soetoro.
Nobody was trying to deny that given the chance the Soviets would of taken more of Europe than they did. No one denied that Stalin and the communists were just as evil as the Nazis. The Russians fought with the allies because it was more beneficial for them, that no one denies.
My only point was that there is an implication that the Russian soldiers did nothing, because they were not at D-Day. Although the Russians may of been untrustworthy allies, and not so much interested in liberation, one should give them their due. The Russian army for all the faults of their leadership and views, did fight bravely against who was at the time the enemy, and there actions did help end the war.

Posted by: browncoat at November 25, 2009 10:26 PM


I ♥ Stalin!

Posted by: Lao at November 25, 2009 10:55 PM


Posted by: browncoat at November 25, 2009 10:26 PM- "...My only point was that there is an implication that the Russian soldiers did nothing, because they were not at D-Day. Although the Russians may of been untrustworthy allies, and not so much interested in liberation, one should give them their due. The Russian army for all the faults of their leadership and views, did fight bravely against who was at the time the enemy..."


But what has any of this, got to do with Operation Overlord? What did they do? This was the defining event during WW2 for US, British and Canadian forces. Plus Free French and Polish units that followed the initial assault. How many RKKA battalions were there? How about Red Navy or Rad Army Air Force support? They were doing something else, altogether, a continent away. The Soviets didn't even manage to co-ordinate to help the Western Allies, in any meaningful way. Time and again, Allied operations were conducted to take the heat of the RKKA, but rarely was this this reciprocated. If one is going to start erecting statues, at Normandy, to honour what some other non-participating army, was doing around the same time, somewhere else, on the globe, how about Australia and New Zealand? They weren't at Normandy either. They were pretty busy themselves, they co-ordinated, and they weren't scum sucking communists.


Posted by: chairman soetoro's oprichniki at November 26, 2009 12:23 AM


Posted by: browncoat at November 25, 2009 10:26 PM- "...and there actions did help end the war."

The War never did end. We are still paying for that today.

Posted by: chairman soetoro's oprichniki at November 26, 2009 12:26 AM


"But what has any of this, got to do with Operation Overlord?"

In case you didn't read my first post I do think it is stupid to add Stalin to a D-Day memorial

Posted by: Anonymous at November 26, 2009 7:35 AM


So i forgot to put my name in the post above

Posted by: browncoat at November 26, 2009 9:03 AM


Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)