Re: Russia, ISS, and the New Cold War

On Sep 30, 7:46 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 30, 4:48 pm, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

There is absolutely no reason the war could not have been fought
without USA involvement whatever -

You're absolutely right.

However, there are plenty of reasons why the war might not have been
*won* without USA involvement.

No, this is not the case. Stalin and Hitler and Mussolini would have
been at each other's throats without an American threat to unite
them. The population that toiled under these dictators could easily
have been supported covertly, and efficiently,and they would do the
heavy lifting in getting rid of these assholes. The Russians didn't
report attempts on Stalin's life, but SOMETHING provoked the
assasination of Trotsky in August 1940 - just before the Battle for
Britain got hot. We know of Claus von Stauffenberg's assasination
attempt at Wolfsschanze, there likely were many others. Diara Petacci
and Benio Mussolini was killed by his own people while attempting to
escape with retreating German troops.. This suggests that without
American and British declarations of war, that these dictators would
have had trouble keeping power for very long and that intelligence
operations within the country and at the periphery where oil and other
materials needed for the war machines were imported, would have had
tremendous effect with very little loss or cost to the USA.

Obviously, America's message of peace and goodwill combined with
covert working with British Intelligence and Charles DeGaulle's
Provisional Government of France,and rebels within each belligerent
nation would have kept the three dictators in disarray without a major
enemy to fight and losses all around.

Now,I do believe that the dictators would CLAIM victory,and actually
believe it. This would lead naturally to them fighting each other.
It would also lead to an impatient population wanting to SEE the
results of victory in their own lives and hometowns. Both of these
outcomes could be exploited by a peaceful US intelligence to defeat
them from within by covert assistance of rebels.

I said earlier the fighting would be horrendous. Britain would have
been bombarded longer,but that isn't the major damage. Fighting would
have horrendous over the oil fields of Russia and the Middle East -
BETWEEN the three dictators as their alliances broke down in the face
of internal resistance. .

Britain, Canada, and Australia could
only do so much on their own, even with the limited U.S. assistance in
the form of Lend-Lease.

The US could have continued this,support and expanded it tremendously
following the sinking of Yamamoto's fleet at Pearl Harbor. America
would loom in the minds of many within each nation, as unbeatable - so
big and powerful as not to be concerned with the petty squabbling of
children. A very powerful message of strength and stability that
would have united the world in peace.

That is we could be the arsenal for democracy without directly
fighting the war and been far more effective.

And, just as the USA defeating Yamamoto AT Pearl Harbor would have
given caution to the Japanese, so too did the Battle of Britain -
which occured the August BEFORE Pearl Harbor - give caution to Hitler
- and put severe strain on the Molotov Ribbetrop Pact of 1939. Hitler
eventually invaded Russia. Had Russia NOT had the USA to side with,
they may have been defeated by the Germans and the fighting may have
been more horrendous - with maybe 40 million Russians and Germans and
others dead -, but more likely with a well organized intelligence
operation within each country, BOTH would have been defeated by rebels
within their own ranks at this massive breakdown of order..


John Savard

.

Quantcast