I think if we hadn't fought Germany/Italy/Japan when we did we likely would have fought the Soviet Union in the 1950's. Stalin was every bit a fanatical as Hitler. Those that followed Stalin were all cut from the same cloth as Stalin. The big difference is that the Soviets would likely have had the atomic bomb and we wouldn't have had it. The Manhattan project would have never happened without WWII. Stalin would have relentlessly pursued nuclear weapons once he realized they were possible.
Books
- Thread starter Dpad
- Start date
A communist revolution and takeover of Germany was a very real fear of the British, French, and Americans when they were drawing up the Treaty of Versailles, almost as much as a rearmed and resurgent Germany. The Soviets did not have a common border with Germany after WWI, and there was no Warsaw Pact yet. The creation of the new states of central and eastern Europe provided what Georges Clemenceau called a "cordon sanitaire" to contain communism within the Soviet borders. Moreover, the French had defense treaties with Poland and Czechoslovakia in the event of Soviet or German aggression. To intervene directly, the Soviets would have had to cross at least those two countries, which would have in theory drawn in the French and possibly the British.
True, but Stalin wouldn't care. To him, lives were expendable.
Very much so
I don't know if we will ever have a truly accurate accounting of how many of his own citizens that Stalin murdered. I have always felt that he was just as bad as Hitler, but he was better at hiding the bodies.
Stalin and Mao are considered worst. In terms of body count.
I haven't thought about Mao for awhile, but he is very likely right up there with Hitler and Stalin. Like Stalin he was good at hiding the bodies.
They were good at suppressing the press.
There is actually a book by the title "What if? It is a collection of about 19 essays by a number of noted military historians. It is edited by Robert Cowley. It is not a book that that had wide appeal, but for anyone really interested in military history it is a fascinating read. It was published by G.P. Putnam's Sons ISBN 0-399-14576-1. I have a first and likely only edition that was printed in 1999. Larger public libraries might have it. In some states it you have a public library card you can get access to University libraries if you ask.
Thanks
Another good one is "The Sellout" by Charles Gasparino ISBN-978-0-06-169717-3. It cover about 30 years of Wall Street greed and government stupidity. It's not a bad read and does a pretty good job of explaining in detail how Wall Street screwed us.
I too love the Roman era. I minored in Humanaties Lit. 2nd-6th century. Via! Roma!
Illa
Female
instead now in the Western world we're so lucky because the press is totally free, right?
Last edited:
Great reading, but my preference is the Republic Era
The press is bought now. I mean how newsmen were terrified for their life under Stalin and Mao
One thing that has really changed the game is the internet. Pretty much anyone can start a blog, social media is readily available and dirt cheap. Nobody wants to publish your book just put it online
TorontoBased
Male
I haven't read any of the books yet but my friend recently referred me to the author Robert Greene who is known for his books based on strategy, power and seduction.
Anybody had the pleasure of reading anything by Robert Greene?
Anybody had the pleasure of reading anything by Robert Greene?
Similar threads
