Instead of disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing how about simply explaining why this particular thought happens to be wrong.

_________________

False. Never said "singlehandedly"

Actually its primarily because of World War II that it is easy to view them that way.

As opposed to you who quite obviously knows neither

_________________

The word menace means a threat. Clearly you believe they were the most powerful army in Europe at least at the end of the war. At the very least they were the second. That means they were a threat. They also showed no qualms about occupying their neighbors hence they are a threat to expand military occupations if leaders saw fit.

While you can say that Stalin did not believe in a worldwide revolution that is debatable. And at the core of communist belief is a worldwide revolution. So this means there is a powerful army, under a non-democratically elected government where predicting the next leader is a complete spin of the wheel. And they are governed by a doctrine calling for worldwide domination by their style of government. It seems to me based on those factors, and their support for expanding communist regimes around the world that the Soviet army was a menace and not something just made up by conservatives, which is where everyone of your off the wall conspiracy theories end.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

Power in of itself doesn't make a country "threatening". If that is the case then every nation on earth should feel "threatened" by the U.S. and any actions that they take as a result is justifiable correct? After all being powerful constitutes "menace" according to you.

"Most powerful" is a relative term. All of the other countries of Europe had been ravaged by the war remember? The Soviets were nothing more than the last man standing in this instance. They all were decimated. Soviets included. With this being the case there was no way that they were going to engage anyone in war

Yes they did occupy, influence, and threaten their neighbors. This just means that they were a threat.... to their neighbors.

Supporting political movements is a whole different than fomenting world wide war. I hope you can understand the difference

Always remember you aren't partisan. None of what you posted establishes that they were particularly threatening. The U.S. was much more concerned with worldwide hegemony than the Soviets happened to be. Have you ever considered them to be particularly "menacing"? We both know the answer don't we.

The Soviets were concerned mostly with dominating and controlling Eastern Bloc countries. They provided military and economic support to left leaning socialist types for the purpose of turning them communist but they weren't going around starting wars if it were outside of the Eastern bloc.

Afghanistan debunked the myth of the "Soviet Menace" quite effectively. If you want to say Cuban Missile Crisis then yeah that constituted a threat. However the Cuban Missile Crisis inly serves to further validate my point.

Which is that the Soviet position was always one of defense. That's why they established the iron curtain in the first place. They'd been invaded 3 or 4 times in their recent history and hoped to prevent it from occurring again. The establishment of Soviet Satellites was done with this in mind.

That doesn't excuse them for treating the people of Eastern Europe like crap because they did. They deserved to be overthrown if for no other reason than that. As far as "worldwide revolution" goes it wouldn't take long to demonstrate how U.S. designs on the world were much more pervasive.

_________________

Honestly, by the time of WW2 it was too late. Patton and Churchill had the right idea, but had it at the wrong time. The time to stop communism was after the Great War and actually meaningfully intervene to save Russia (and by extension save Eastern Europe and Central Asia). Didn't happen, the world was war weary and the USA was eager to crawl back into its isolationist hole.

The US could have stomped out communism at the end of World War 2. But honestly having the Soviets was good for us. Made us focus and compete. When they fell we eroded into this decadent mess where making sure "women" with dicks could use the ladies room became our top priority.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

So you mean before it even started? The Bolshevik Revolution didn't really take shape until the end of the war.

Truman had it right with the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan was implemented as a means of thwarting Soviet advances in Europe. That was the smart and correct play. Everything else was largely exaggerated

_________________

Stomp it how? Like we did in China? Or Korea? Or Vietnam? Yeah we really could have "stomped" it out couldn't we?
Sure they were. Having them around allowed us to become the largest debtor nation in the world, start wars unabated, and overthrow govts without "patriotic" guys such as yourself so much as batting an eyelash.


This is simply right wing Ollie North/Sean Hannity inspired propaganda

_________________

After the Great War.

The USA sent troops to fight for the Whites in the Russian Civil War, so did the British Empire. Quite a few Baltic Germans volunteered too, to the point where it nearly qualifies as official intervention. Nobody wanted to see it through.

When you are already ravaged by war its usually the right way to go.

_________________

The USA in 1919 was anything but ravaged.

Yeah how could they be when they entered the war (use that term loosely) when all of the other nations were on the bus ride home?

I was mostly referring to the European nations.

There is still no way in hell that the U.S. was going to go into Russia and fight a protracted war.

_________________

Stirring debate. It's pretty clear that one party lacks the understanding of the words: propaganda, menace, and ravaged. No worries just dismiss it with "no way".

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

Totally agree

_________________

Bus ride home? The two largest offensives of the war were in 1918. The German Spring Offensive had a reasonable shot of ending the war (France likely would've capitulated were they not confident of American reinforcements) and the Hundred Days Offensive was bigger than Somme and Verdun combined.

I know that you get off fetishizing black men, but this is pathetic even for you.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

Says the projector.

_________________

It was hyperbolic. US didn't have much skin in the game on that one. We entered late. Nice revisionism however.

_________________

You told the unemployed that post here to do yard work for landscapers if they need a job. You bragged about making cash selling mask stockpiles when there were shortages. The only thing liberal about you is your desire to blow LTG to show how woke you are.

Not either add something to the discussion or get on with your business.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

Eh, I reckon you dont have the understanding of this period that you wish you did. The US was instrumental in ending the war, may not have suffered the losses of the other belligerents but its hard to envision the battered remains of what was once the Entente winning.

The German Empire had beaten Russia. Austria-Hungary had beaten Italy at Caporetto, effectively knocking them out of the war. von Falkenhayn had dispatched Romania pretty effortlessly. The French Army's morale was, to put it lightly, shaken.

I know you've got that "People's History of the USA" contrarian viewpoint that America's role in history is overblown, but you probably are applying that rule a bit too broadly here.

Thank the Tea Baggers for pushing an isolationist agenda and blocking $Bs of loans to American companies, allowing the Chinese to fill the vacuum.

_________________

That didn't really take all that long.All it takes is a Couple of body shots and your status as a mental midget will always come to the fore.

That is what happens when you are ignorant of the facts all of time. You spout a few talking points in the Hope's that no one will challenge you on it. Once that doesn't work you start lying and promoting outright falsehoods.

At least Antarctica attempts to support the stuff he says with facts or things he can source. All you do is spout whatever Fox,PJ Media, and Breitbart tells you to spout

_________________

I do what I can to help the common good.

_________________

Their early declaration of neutrality sure did accomplish a lot in terms of ending it didn't it?

My essential point is this. Laying wait and entering only after many of the casualties have been suffered is a WHOLE lot different than being the point man on a protracted war in Russia. A whole lot different and for the record there were no winners and losers in WWI.

Both sides agreed to stop fighting so what did the U.S. accomplish in terms of "winning" the war exactly?

_________________

Shit you got me on the Zinn stuff though. He was one of the guys that I decided to knock out when I took comps years ago.

Not a huge follower but I have read some of his stuff over the years.

_________________

He's mad because once again he has been exposed as a lightweight hack whose act only plays well when surrounded by others that do nothing but spew lies, falsehoods, and propaganda all the time.

_________________

As RR and I agreed earlier....our China situation is very much bi-partisan.

_________________

My goodness. Just when you think that a person cannot get another thing wrong, LTG tops the cake with saying that the Soviet Union was "Never much of a menace". I seem to recall my teachers showing us how to crawl under our desks in the event of a nuclear attack. I remember our cities building underground shelters and having drills in office buildings on how to take cover in the event of a Soviet attack. I remember some bald guy named Krushchev banging his shoe on the table and yelling at our UN ambassador, Adlai Stephenson, that "WE WILL BURY YOU".

Then there was the matter of the Cuban Missile crisis and those missiles potentially pointed at us from just 90 miles off of our coast. I was old enough to know how scared my mother was that we were in danger of all being killed by that maniac Krushchev. For a nation in which many of the adults at the time had fled countries that were threatened by the Soviet Union, this was a very scary time. So please don't talk about shit that you have no understanding of for a change.

_________________
An Ode to the Texas man who shot an Antifa terrorist:

Oh, he might have went on livin'
But he made one fatal slip
When he tried to match the Ranger
With the big iron on his hip

Hawk I know you are just playing your customary role of the clapping seal but try and support what it is that you claim for a change.

I already cited the Cuban Missile Crisis so that's not news. That was legit everything else was bogus.

To show you how much a two bit fraud that guys like you and WFR happen to be if I were to argue about the legitimacy of the Soviet threat you two Yahoos would have taken the opposite viewpoint and began spouting all of that rah rah Ollie Notth Fox News Bullshit regarding invincibility of America just to take the opposite viewpoint.

It's why rubes like you are so full of shit. You disagree merely for the sake of disagreeing

_________________

I know. I heard that same stories about that from my golf buddy who fought in the Civil War.

_________________
(REDACTED)