@dorkvalized @Nimbius666 @dagda @irie

> I’m getting confused. Who’s he and what other side?

Stalin was allied with Hitler until Barbarossa (that is, until long after the fall of Warsaw, and Stalin kept Poland after the war), after which he changed to the Allies.

> Because the Soviets knew about how surrendered German divisions are not being disbanded, and instead put on rations and train for something.

That is what halted the Soviet expansion, yes.

> What incursions?

All of the ones that were obvious from the USSR expansion that persisted until the wall came down. Poland, Germany, attempts at Romania, etc.

> “The general political goal [of the operation] is to foist the will of the United states and the British empire upon the Russians.”

Yes, FDR was (explicitly) attempting to set up global governance...just like Stalin, who was actually under discussion. I'm not taking FDR's side of anything: I view FDR, Hitler, and Stalin as essentially terrible.

> They didn’t get to choose.

Yes. Stalin made this a condition.

> because the Anglos and the Americans have bought a high-ranked army general (Rommel?) and convinced him to surrender and betray the painter in the bomb shelter.

Doesn't sound plausible, but feel free. Hitler suggested that they surrender to US/UK wherever possible and I think it's reasonable to say that the PoWs taken by the US/UK had better treatment.

> That’s interesting. But where from the south?

I think they thought he'd gotten to the woods: the USSR hadn't made it there yet and there were a lot of areas that hadn't been brought under control in the weeks after Germany attempted to surrender.

> Remembering how you and the British turned Montecassino into a pile of rocks, it doesn’t seem like the rest of the places could survive better.

Well you can't burn all the forests in Europe. But I'm not sure what you're contesting. I say that their thinking was that they hadn't occupied all of Germany yet and were concerned that Hitler was marshalling forces away from the front and that his death was faked as a cover for an escape: that is what they thought, and you can speculate that it's not reasonable to think this but we have hindsight.

> Hmm, I would think that “FDR loved Stalin” is his opponents smearing dirt on him

No, you can look at what Churchill said; FDR didn't want a war with Stalin, however you want to paint it.

> being a “socialist”.

His wife was in the goddamn socialist club in New York. I don't know what you want.

> The primary goal was… it’s hard to tell.

If I take his word for it, technocratic Malthusian nihilism, including population control. You just have to read what he said and what his friends (Dulles, Rockefeller, et al) said: they didn't expect this would get published on the internet and you could back then take for granted that it was easier to control the flow of information. It was easy for people not to notice things that had been stated explicitly. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's just the shit the people in question were explicit about pushing, and they were explicit about the means and methods and motivation.

> And as for “FDR would never…” our books say it was either because on the day when the attack on the USSR should’ve happened (July 1st), the US and UK found, that Soviet positions have suddenly changed

Contemporary writing from the generals in question had FDR focused on Japan and Churchill as the only one that wanted a war with the USSR.

> because when in the USA they counted what would it cost to fight Japan without USSR, they’ve already postponed the idea.

This is one of the reasons the US would never have attacked the USSR. The Manchuria push was critical to stopping Japan.