More WWII revisionism on TuCa
-
Clickbait.
I honestly can't tell whether some of the people responding to the thread in X are actual Nazi sympathisers or are being ironic.
-
I couldn’t read any responses as I am not registered on X. I could view the short video clip.
Nothing novel or new with his distorted view. The view that Harry Hopkins was a Soviet asset has been bandied for decades. Most recently, in Sean McKeen’s well written and researched, Stalin’s War. Personally I do not believe Hopkins was a traitorous Soviet asset . Rather, he, like many Americans in WWII, actually believed the Soviets were allies in the same way as Britain and being the only remaining continental power in to fight the Nazis deserved all the support the US could provide. Stalin, was the Allied forces co-belligerent against the Nazis and later, Japanese Empire. Nothing more. I believe deep down Churchill understood that, although Hopkins and possibly Roosevelt did not. They instead saw Stalin as a true ally.
-
I couldn’t read any responses as I am not registered on X. I could view the short video clip.
Nothing novel or new with his distorted view. The view that Harry Hopkins was a Soviet asset has been bandied for decades. Most recently, in Sean McKeen’s well written and researched, Stalin’s War. Personally I do not believe Hopkins was a traitorous Soviet asset . Rather, he, like many Americans in WWII, actually believed the Soviets were allies in the same way as Britain and being the only remaining continental power in to fight the Nazis deserved all the support the US could provide. Stalin, was the Allied forces co-belligerent against the Nazis and later, Japanese Empire. Nothing more. I believe deep down Churchill understood that, although Hopkins and possibly Roosevelt did not. They instead saw Stalin as a true ally.
@Renauda said in More WWII revisionism on TuCa:
I couldn’t read any responses as I am not registered on X. I could view the short video clip.
Nothing novel or new with his distorted view. The view that Harry Hopkins was a Soviet asset has been bandied for decades. Most recently, in Sean McKeen’s well written and researched, Stalin’s War. Personally I do not believe Hopkins was a traitorous Soviet asset . Rather, he, like many Americans in WWII, actually believed the Soviets were allies in the same way as Britain and being the only remaining continental power in to fight the Nazis deserved all the support the US could provide. Stalin, was the Allied forces co-belligerent against the Nazis and later, Japanese Empire. Nothing more. I believe deep down Churchill understood that, although Hopkins and possibly Roosevelt did not. They instead saw Stalin as a true ally.
I'm sure Churchill saw Stalin for what he was. Roosevelt may also have been suspicious of Churchill's post-war imperialist ambitions, and suspected his opinions on Stalin partly of a result.
-
@Renauda said in More WWII revisionism on TuCa:
I couldn’t read any responses as I am not registered on X. I could view the short video clip.
Nothing novel or new with his distorted view. The view that Harry Hopkins was a Soviet asset has been bandied for decades. Most recently, in Sean McKeen’s well written and researched, Stalin’s War. Personally I do not believe Hopkins was a traitorous Soviet asset . Rather, he, like many Americans in WWII, actually believed the Soviets were allies in the same way as Britain and being the only remaining continental power in to fight the Nazis deserved all the support the US could provide. Stalin, was the Allied forces co-belligerent against the Nazis and later, Japanese Empire. Nothing more. I believe deep down Churchill understood that, although Hopkins and possibly Roosevelt did not. They instead saw Stalin as a true ally.
I'm sure Churchill saw Stalin for what he was. Roosevelt may also have been suspicious of Churchill's post-war imperialist ambitions, and suspected his opinions on Stalin partly of a result.
Quite possible. I think though that FDR was hell bent on bringing Stalin into the Pacific war should the Japanese Kwantung Army remain a fighting force on the Chinese mainland. When the Big Three Tehran summit took place, FDR was still not certain that the then still assumed secret to the Soviets, atomic bomb would be ready to bring a quick end to the war with Japan following a defeat of the Nazis. Should the war continue on in China he wanted very much to count on battle ready Soviet ground forces (well provisioned with US Lend Lease equipment) to mop up the Japanese. IOW, it was a question of expediency with minimal cost in American lives. Surplus war material from Europe was cheap.
