This cartoon clearly illustrates just how hypocritcal the UN really is and why I am fed up with its anti-America policies…
By: Geforce - 29th September 2002 at 14:01
RE: UN vs US
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/UnitedNationsSaddam/BESYUnitedNations/c…
By: plawolf - 28th September 2002 at 14:31
RE: UN vs US
intresting mix
By: Arabella-Cox - 28th September 2002 at 04:54
RE: UN vs US
“Well i could agree with that.. holding France could prove troubelsome in long run.. “
As time has shown I think all “occupied countries” proved troublesome… either straight away or in time. Stalin already had the largest country in the world at that time and didn’t do that great of a job managing it so I doubt he would have wanted more territory without reason. The reason for Eastern europe of course was to keep Germany divided and to keep access to it. Borders in that area move or are created so often it would be rather difficult to say where they really belong. (perhaps the best solution will be no borders in a common EU.).
Regarding Tito he seemed intelligent enough to not rock the boat too much. If he played his cards right and did not align himself too much with the west and act beligerent to the east then stalin might not have cared very much about Yugoslavia in the sense that there would be no attempts to seriously interfere with it politically or militarily. ie much as the case with Finland… basically a pro Soviet neutralitry…
The west probably burned its bridges with Tito by supplying his rivals who tended to use more of that support fighting Tito (ie communists) than fighting the Nazis.
By: Geforce - 28th September 2002 at 00:07
RE: UN vs US
lol
Attachments:
By: Geforce - 28th September 2002 at 00:07
RE: UN vs US
lol
Attachments:
By: Geforce - 27th September 2002 at 23:58
RE: UN vs US
you want more you say
Attachments:
By: plawolf - 27th September 2002 at 22:06
RE: UN vs US
haha, u europeans have a great scence of humour.
but dont u think this over does it a little? he is after all the head of a state, like him or not, we should show a bit of respect, if only for the benefit of not having to spend another dozn posts fighting with our american friends. }>
By: keltic - 27th September 2002 at 19:21
RE: UN vs US
Great Geforce. Really funny.
By: Geforce - 27th September 2002 at 17:48
RE: UN vs US
more cartoons?
Attachments:
By: JAG - 27th September 2002 at 04:28
RE: UN vs US
Well i could agree with that.. holding France could prove troubelsome in long run.. what do you think would happend to Benelux nations.. would they be taken as a part of germany.. and what about Greece and Yugoslavs.. In Yugo.. Tito and his Commies were greatly opposed to stalin.. and after ww2 they got some US help in late 40s early 50s.. if USA was not there.. would Tito join the warsaw pact??
By: Arabella-Cox - 27th September 2002 at 01:58
RE: UN vs US
“I somehow i dont think hed leave volunterily “
The Soviets and the French were on pretty good terms during WWII… I don’t think Stalin had any real need to hold on to all of Europe.
Most of German industry would have moved east as compensation for damage and he’d probably hang on to all of Germany to make sure it never threatens to do again what it had just done but in the same sense that he didn’t need to leave Austria but he did he would probably do the same with most of western europe, though he’d want a tighter grip on the eastern european states so that he could keep the leash on Germany taut. (Not only as a buffer, but also to keep the neighbours friendly…)
By: JAG - 26th September 2002 at 16:36
RE: UN vs US
Comon Arthur … Brits,Canucks and Ozzies were not in condition to face Nazis on the European Soil.. Even that African Defeat of Romell wa caused simply because Desert Fox wasnt supplied properly.. what he asked for 100+ tigers and got some 15-20?? And still he did some major ass whooping until his supplies run out, while american Shermans (or Tommy Cookers) kept comming to brits. Even when they were led by Yanks they only landed AFTER red army had crushed gerries who were retreating. To me its clear that with out USA.. by the rime brits would land.. Ivan would be there on the French side to meet them. I somehow i dont think hed leave volunterily 😉
By: Arthur - 25th September 2002 at 13:32
RE: UN vs US
Yes ture.. but do you think hed widraw from Austria if there
was no Alied force on the other side of divade??
Austria was considered ‘wrong’ by the Allies during WW2 – after all, that little corporal who was Time’s Man of the Year 1937 was Austrian and not German, and Austria volountarily merged with Germany in 1938. It would most likely have been occupied, and after a while left ‘independent’ with a pro-Soviet regime.
Remember we are talking what would happend if USA did not enter European theatre…
Too simple assumption. The British, Canadians, Australians and others could still have come. Just as the Soviets. And what about US industrial support?
By: JAG - 25th September 2002 at 13:13
RE: UN vs US
Yes ture.. but do you think hed widraw from Austria if there was no Alied force on the other side of divade?? Remember we are talking what would happend if USA did not enter European theatre…
By: Arabella-Cox - 25th September 2002 at 02:32
RE: UN vs US
“Austria — To close to western nations (germany).. if he attacked it would have resulted in ww3.”
Stalin wouldn’t have needed to attack Austria all he would have had to have done was not withdraw his troops that occupied it.
(Look on a map… the southern part of his pincer force that entered Germany came through Hungary and through Austria to get to Germany.)
“Finland– well he did try didnt he?? Only fins gave him good kick in the but.. mainly due to crapy Soviet equipment and tactic.. after ww2 when Soviets greatly improved in both.. the Finland was out of reach for same reason as was austria.”
The Fins fought very well just before the Soviets entered WWII and earned the respect of the Soviets. They still lost the short war, and were forced to sign. In the same sense that the Vietnamese lost battles but won the war against the French and the Americans and the Afghans lost many battles but won against the British three times and the Soviets once.
Finland signed a treaty with Stalin to help the Soviet Union against any agressor trying to attack the Soviet Union over Finnish soil.
It is not as if stalin would have cared about losing 3 million more men taking Finland if he really wanted it and at the end of the war his troops were much much better trained and equipped than when they started the war. The treaty was enough…
By: JAG - 24th September 2002 at 18:27
RE: UN vs US
Austria — To close to western nations (germany).. if he attacked it would have resulted in ww3.
Finland– well he did try didnt he?? Only fins gave him good kick in the but.. mainly due to crapy Soviet equipment and tactic.. after ww2 when Soviets greatly improved in both.. the Finland was out of reach for same reason as was austria.
I
By: Arabella-Cox - 24th September 2002 at 01:54
RE: UN vs US
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 24-09-02 AT 01:56 AM (GMT)]Sorry… double post..
By: Arabella-Cox - 24th September 2002 at 00:39
RE: UN vs US
“.. I think the Europe would be speaking russian now tavarish comrade .”
I doubt that.
If Stalin was really after land for conquest why wasn’t Austria and Finland part of the Soviet empire?
He might have taken all of Germany but I doubt he would have kept any other parts of Europe that he “liberated”.
All he wanted was a divided, weakened Germany (considering what Germany inflicted on Russia during the two world wars this is understandible) and controlable buffer states between them and him… just like the US policy in the ME… }>
By: Cyrus_666 - 23rd September 2002 at 18:53
RE: UN vs US
No offense taken. 🙂
Êðàñíûé ìåäâåäü òåïåðü ñïèò ñ ðûáàìè …, è Åâðîïà ìîæåò ñêîðî ïðèñîåäèíÿòüñÿ ê íèì 😉
By: JAG - 23rd September 2002 at 18:22
RE: UN vs US
I do like NASCAR.. just for the crashes 🙂 .. no offence was ment by the redneck term.. just a figure of speach.
And as for the German/Jap language thing.. I disagre .. I think the Europe would be speaking russian now tavarish comrade ;).
Sign In
September 19, 2002 at 9:06 pm
