sad thoughts on poly posters

[KrazyHorse]

Got shut down a couple of years back by Senators with panties in a bunch about torture/terrorist training.

Luckily they just called it something else. And the issue went away.

[MrFun]

That's wonderful that my country insists on the democratic principle of being able to train others to torture and terrorize people in other countries.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by MrFun
Notyou, about whether or not the Cold War presidents really believed what they were doing was right--Hitler thought what he was doing was right?

So what was your point?

I'm not sure MrFun, but I think your guys got slightly better results than Hitler.

And anyway, when someone hauls out the Hitler references to compare with Truman, Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan... Mr. Godwin applies, unless you are intentionally trying to end the thread that was petering out on it's own.

[Serb]

What a crap!!! I can't beleive I missed it.

David,
You know what I think. bs.BSBS. Show me one single evidence that battle of Moscow was won by American tanks. It's PBS, pure bullsh*t. In 1941 you have less then 500 tanks in your army, most of them were obsolete. In compare with 24 000 of Soviet tanks it's nothing. I wonder if for five months since the beggining of Barbarosa untill Moscow battle, SU recieved more or less serious help. It's simply imossible to deliver such amount of cargo during such short period of time. No matter what you think American aid wasn't critical for victory in Moscow battle. We won it by ourselves.

And sure we would won WW2 without any help. It cost us more lifes and time, but we would still won.

DarkCloud,
You showed great knowledge of history and especially Russian history. I love this one:

But Moscow was a symbol- the unassilable point, unable to be taken by Napoleon, etc.

Since long time I didn't read such stupid and idiotic bullsh*t as your posts. It was very funny, thank you. You have no idea wtf you are talking about. Your shity theories is no more then BS speculations. Napoleon took Moscow and burn it to the ground. Did it help him? No. We won this war. Even if Hitler took Moscow in 1941, it doesn't help him too. He was doomed since the moment when he invaded us.

Dan Severn,
Super-mega-bullsh*ter.
What a fairytale:

We should've kept going east the spring of 45 and crushed the Soviet Empire while we had the chance. Then we would never have seen our ideals corupted by fear. Dictatorships would never have been sponsored. The world would have come out a helluva lot better, and it is doubtful Nuclear weapons would ever have been made in nearly such numbers as they were. The US would have been able to pull out of world affairs again after an occupation period similar to the historical one, and I doubt there would be such strife as there is today. The only flashpoint I can think of that was not directly related to the cold war would be Israel. Granted, science would not be nearly what it is today, but I think it would have been a much better trade.

You never have balls for this. This is the only reason why you didn't made this.
It's pretty funny to see how modern American, who rised on Hollywood sh*t, make a suggestions how US should have been act. You beleive you were strong, as now? If you dared something against SU, Red Army easily torned you apart.
Even when you had nuckes while Russians don't, you don't dare to do something, because you (not you, but your ancesters) saw how Russians destroyed unbeatable Hitler's war machine. In compare with Hitler's war machine, USA as enemy was a piece of cake for Red Army.


Joined Japan-German attack on USSR,
Why do you think Japan attacked USA instead of SU?
Because we teached them a lesson TWICE before 1941. They were defeated twice, and only after those defeats they turned their heads in US direction, which pathetic 100 000 army were much easier target for Japanese.
First Japan was defeated in 1938 near Hassan lake when Japanese attacked SU. Then Japan was crushed in 1939 in Manchuria, near Halkhin Gol river by Zhukov. Those two lessons were enough for Japan to realize that SU is hard target for them.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Serb
What a crap!!! I can't beleive I missed it.

David,
You know what I think. bs.BSBS. Show me one single evidence that battle of Moscow was won by American tanks. It's PBS, pure bullsh*t. In 1941 you have less then 500 tanks in your army, most of them were obsolete. In compare with 24 000 of Soviet tanks it's nothing. I wonder if for five months since the beggining of Barbarosa untill Moscow battle, SU recieved more or less serious help. It's simply imossible to deliver such amount of cargo during such short period of time. No matter what you think American aid wasn't critical for victory in Moscow battle. We won it by ourselves.

And sure we would won WW2 without any help. It cost us more lifes and time, but we would still won.

Lend-lease began in March of 1941. The amount of aid received by the time that the Nazi offensive was slowed it not the point. The point is that Soviet industrial production could be tasked in anticipation of the assistance to come. This is a simple planning process that seems to be over the head of some of our Russian posters.

Without Allied help the Soviet Union would have been overun. No nation of the time could have resisted Nazi Germany without allies or an intervening body of water.

Even with allied help the Soviets were saved only by the worst winter in years.

[Serb]

Typical American ignorance and true example of Hollywood vision of history.
Especially I love this one:

Lend-lease began in March of 1941.

You mean three months before Hitler attacked USSR?
Are you sure this help was sended to USSR? Perhaps in GB?

No nation of the time could have resisted Nazi Germany without allies or an intervening body of water.

No nation of the time could have resisted Nazi Germany without allies or an intervening body of water.

We could. It was easier with your help, but we could done it anyway, or we could die. Aside you, we hasn't an intervening body of water and we has no choice.


And the winter of 1941-42 wasn't the worse winter in years. The most common temperature of this winter was about -30C. Worse winter in years was the winter of 1939-40, when Red army broken the Manergheim line within 100 days. The most common temperature of that winter was about -40C. So, cold is not an excuse. If you can't fight when your ass is frozen you shouldn't attack our country.

[TheStinger]

Russia suffered enourmaously during WW2, that doesn't mean they would have won on their own.

Gemany used up vital resourecs in maritime warfare and air defence which could have been used to fight russia.

[David Floyd]

David,
You know what I think. bs.BSBS. Show me one single evidence that battle of Moscow was won by American tanks. It's PBS, pure bullsh*t.

Of course US tanks didn't win the battle. I'm just saying that at the end of 1941, there was a large number of them in the Red Army. The vital US help that allowed Russia to win didn't deal with tanks - it was other stuff that Russia couldn't produce and still produce the number of tanks that they did.

In 1941 you have less then 500 tanks in your army, most of them were obsolete. In compare with 24 000 of Soviet tanks it's nothing.

Very true, but another good point is that of those 24,000 tanks, only 947 of them were equal to German tanks, and none of those entered the war until after Smolensk fell. German armored doctrine was also much better, as initially the Red Army didn't deploy armored formations larger than brigades, because of the "lessons" they learned in the Spanish Civil War. In the late 1930s, they disbanded their 7 mechanized corps. Your tanks didn't do a thing to stop the Germans either.

I wonder if for five months since the beggining of Barbarosa untill Moscow battle, SU recieved more or less serious help. It's simply imossible to deliver such amount of cargo during such short period of time. No matter what you think American aid wasn't critical for victory in Moscow battle. We won it by ourselves.

Yes, that's mostly true, and I've never said otherwise. I'm talking about 1942, though, and beyond, where you wouldn't have lasted without Lend Lease.

And sure we would won WW2 without any help. It cost us more lifes and time, but we would still won.

What? That's ridiculous. Even as late as 1944, the German Army on the Eastern Front was inflicting a kill/loss ratio of almost 6 to 1. At the time of Zhukov's final offensive into Germany, he was told by Stalin that there would be no replacements. The Soviet Union was out of men, and their railway system was stretched to the breaking point and probably couldn't have kept up much longer anyway.
But remember, this is not the entire German Army - there were well over a million Germans in Italy and the West, even at the end of the war, and this was after massive American/British captures in the Ruhr and France.

There's no way Russia could have defeated Germany on her own.

Napoleon took Moscow and burn it to the ground. Did it help him? No. We won this war. Even if Hitler took Moscow in 1941, it doesn't help him too. He was doomed since the moment when he invaded us.

Actually the Russians burned it to the ground, but that's beside the point

You beleive you were strong, as now? If you dared something against SU, Red Army easily torned you apart.

Here's a couple more interesting facts for you. The only nation to come out of WW2 richer (and in fact substantially richer) was the USA, whose gold reserves increased from $20 billion to $33 billion. Further, while the industrial production of every other nation was at its height, and could only go down, America's was still expanding. But even though our production was still expanding, we were still the number one industrial power in the world, and the American GNP counted for almost 50% of the that of the entire world. In terms of the military, the US military still had plenty of room for expansion, and the US had only suffered 430,000 deaths in the war. The US military had not peaked, by any means. On the other hand, the Red Army was at the end of its manpower reserves, and could not sustain large losses anymore, as has been pointed out above. The US T26 Pershing was starting to enter production in 1945, with heavier tanks planned, and it was one of the heaviest and best tanks in the world (well, the German Maus was heavier, of course), and with US industrial production, it could have been produced in greater numbers than any Soviet heavy tank. Once Lend Lease was cut off, the Soviet Union could not survive a war with the greatest industrial and economic power in the world, especially considering that they were also fighting the greatest military power in the world as well.

Why do you think Japan attacked USA instead of SU?
Because we teached them a lesson TWICE before 1941. They were defeated twice, and only after those defeats they turned their heads in US direction, which pathetic 100 000 army were much easier target for Japanese.
First Japan was defeated in 1938 near Hassan lake when Japanese attacked SU. Then Japan was crushed in 1939 in Manchuria, near Halkhin Gol river by Zhukov. Those two lessons were enough for Japan to realize that SU is hard target for them.

Yes, you are correct in this - Japanese ground forces were ****, in terms of fighting a modern mobile war. But don't make the mistake of comparing the IJA and the US Army.

[TheStinger]

In some respects the US came out richer because they demanded nearly every asset britain has in return for their assistance.

Econmicaly the war was a disaster for Britain

[Heresson]

Any sad thoughts about me?

[DarkCloud]

Napoleon took Moscow and burn it to the ground.

He didn't burn it to the ground.

And just so you don't think that I'm BSing.

"Although the army had strict orders against pillage, the men could not be controlled and they forced themselves into the palaces and rich houses. Some time after Napoleon's arrival in Moscow some fires started to show up in various locations in the city. At first these were though to be accidents but when the fires started swallowing large parts of the city, it was obvious that the Russian army was setting fire to the city to avoid the French raiding on the riches.

The fires spread to such extent that napoleon hardly escaped the torched city. The fire lasted from 15 to 18 September. Four fifths of the city burned down and the rest was saved by a sudden change of direction of wind and a following shower. Kremlin was saved since it stood above the city and the guards remaining in Kremlin extinguished and threatening fires nearby."
From: http://www.ddg.com/LIS/InfoDesignF96...xt/moscow.html

-
I apologize for my misconceptions about Napoleon in Russia.
I had THOUGHT that I had remembered that Napoleon had reached moscow... Then the russians burned it and for some idiotic reason I thought that they thought that they could do guerilla tactics there- Yes, I know that I am an Idiot. The usual tactics of that century were for a reserve force to wait, and the others to merely charge... I had a chart on it once and must find it and study the Napoleonaic tactics against.

I apologize that FIRST: I became confused and SECOND: I 'remembered' something that never happened.

There's no way Russia could have defeated Germany on her own.

I agree with this for David's reasons and those that I stated earlier.

However, I also agree with Serb but not for the same reasons.
#1- The american people WOULD NOT STAND for their nation attacking an ally so close after the end of a war.
The americans wanted the war over. They had enough trouble declaring war on Japan/Germany.
#2- Russia is HUGE! It could be easy to defeat conventional armies, but guerrila war would be horrible as would supplies if the USA landed a force in the north and attacked through Siberia... What type of idiots attack through siberia?
#3- The Allies (if I remember correctly) were just as tattered as the Soviets marched into Berlin (and I seem to remmber that the Soviets were a bit more powerful, which Is why the Allies didn't really contest the Soviets taking of Eastern Russia that much)
The allies weren't in a position to fight the Soviets.
And, as we see today, it is a good thing that they didn't.

[MrFun]

I want to see how Apolyton hyper-patriot Americans sugar coat the school we have that trains Latin American soldiers to torture and terrorize their people.

And Notyou -- no American president has been as horrible as Hitler.
BUT, the fact is simply that even when people do bad things, they believe they are doing the right thing.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun
I want to see how Apolyton hyper-patriot Americans sugar coat the school we have that trains Latin American soldiers to torture and terrorize their people.

And Notyou -- no American president has been as horrible as Hitler.
BUT, the fact is simply that even when people do bad things, they believe they are doing the right thing.

Huh? I was unaware that such a school existed. Are you sure?

[KrazyHorse]

http://www.ciponline.org/facts/soa.htm

[David Floyd]

However, I also agree with Serb but not for the same reasons.
#1- The american people WOULD NOT STAND for their nation attacking an ally so close after the end of a war.
The americans wanted the war over. They had enough trouble declaring war on Japan/Germany.

This is true. Also, Roosevelt's lies painting the Soviet Union has good and the Soviet people as just like Americans didn't help either. But we're talking hypothetically. IF they fought, the US would win - but in real life a war was quite unlikely.

#2- Russia is HUGE! It could be easy to defeat conventional armies, but guerrila war would be horrible

Who's talking about invading Russia? Obviously, the war aims of the West would be to kick the Soviets out of Eastern Europe, not take Moscow. The reason guerilla warfare worked against the Nazis is because the Nazis were occupying Soviet territory and the guerillas operated in Soviet territory.

as would supplies if the USA landed a force in the north and attacked through Siberia... What type of idiots attack through siberia?

Who's advocating that?

#3- The Allies (if I remember correctly) were just as tattered as the Soviets marched into Berlin

Actually that's not correct. The British were at the end of their manpower, same as the Russians, and their industry had maxed out, same as the Russians. But internal British communications and transportation was in much better shape than that of Russia.

But the United States was nowhere near the end of its manpower, and its industrial production and economy were still growing by large amounts.

(and I seem to remmber that the Soviets were a bit more powerful, which Is why the Allies didn't really contest the Soviets taking of Eastern Russia that much)

They were only more powerful in terms of numbers of troops and tanks on the front. The West would certainly have had an advantage in the air (especially with strategic bombers), and a much greater potential warfighting capacity.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Heresson
Any sad thoughts about me?

Yes! You should be ashamed of yourself for not arguing like everyone else!

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Of course US tanks didn't win the battle. I'm just saying that at the end of 1941, there was a large number of them in the Red Army. The vital US help that allowed Russia to win didn't deal with tanks - it was other stuff that Russia couldn't produce and still produce the number of tanks that they did.

Then withdraw your argument that" In 1941 in Red Army were more American tanks then Russian tanks", because it's not correct.

Very true, but another good point is that of those 24,000 tanks, only 947 of them were equal to German tanks, and none of those entered the war until after Smolensk fell. German armored doctrine was also much better, as initially the Red Army didn't deploy armored formations larger than brigades, because of the "lessons" they learned in the Spanish Civil War. In the late 1930s, they disbanded their 7 mechanized corps. Your tanks didn't do a thing to stop the Germans either.

Not exactly, 947 tanks you are refering to as I beleive is T-34. There also were about 500 KV- the butt-kicking heavy tanks, which were more then equal to German tanks. But in general, yes. The majority of Soviet tank forces consisted of light tanks. As for formations, you are correct too. After the death of Tuhachevskii, Soviets deployed tanks in brigadeas and our tank warfare doctrines stagnated. But after the start of war, the situation changed, and tank forces were reorganised.

Yes, that's mostly true, and I've never said otherwise. I'm talking about 1942, though, and beyond, where you wouldn't have lasted without Lend Lease.

The 1941 was the most hard year for us. We survived it by ourselves, stoped Hitler's forces, throwed them back from our capital and inflicted an amount of damage to them they never faced before. Unbeatable concquers of Europe were defeated for the first time. In 1942 it was a much better situation for us. Our evacueted industry started to work on its full capacity. If we survived first, the most hard year without Lend-Lease, then we would survive other years without it.

What? That's ridiculous. Even as late as 1944, the German Army on the Eastern Front was inflicting a kill/loss ratio of almost 6 to 1. At the time of Zhukov's final offensive into Germany, he was told by Stalin that there would be no replacements. The Soviet Union was out of men, and their railway system was stretched to the breaking point and probably couldn't have kept up much longer anyway. But remember, this is not the entire German Army - there were well over a million Germans in Italy and the West, even at the end of the war, and this was after massive American/British captures in the Ruhr and France.

Lol.
You think Germany had more manpower then Soviets? At least in 1944 we didn't conscript 14 years old boys into regiments like "Hitler yougent". In 1944 nothing could stop us. Germany was doomed after Kursk.

There's no way Russia could have defeated Germany on her own.

As you wish. We'll never agree about this.

Actually the Russians burned it to the ground, but that's beside the point

It's questionable. Different sources tells different versions. Some says it was burned by drunk French marauderes, some by Russians who prefer to burn their houses then to gave it to French. I guess the truth is between. But the fact is that Moscow was burned in 1812.

Here's a couple more interesting facts for you. The only nation to come out of WW2 richer (and in fact substantially richer) was the USA, whose gold reserves increased from $20 billion to $33 billion. Further, while the industrial production of every other nation was at its height, and could only go down, America's was still expanding. But even though our production was still expanding, we were still the number one industrial power in the world, and the American GNP counted for almost 50% of the that of the entire world.

Tell me something new. Sure this war was profitable for you. While Europe destroyed itself in the most terrible bloodbath in human history, you was doing what you always do- making money. Sure it's not your fault that we were killing each other, but you used this opportunity to become richer very well. Sure, money doesn't have smell, but as for me it in't so honorable to make money while other people are suffering. The SU payed its debt to you for Lend-Lease up to 70s.

In terms of the military, the US military still had plenty of room for expansion, and the US had only suffered 430,000 deaths in the war. The US military had not peaked, by any means. On the other hand, the Red Army was at the end of its manpower reserves, and could not sustain large losses anymore, as has been pointed out above. The US T26 Pershing was starting to enter production in 1945, with heavier tanks planned, and it was one of the heaviest and best tanks in the world (well, the German Maus was heavier, of course), and with US industrial production, it could have been produced in greater numbers than any Soviet heavy tank. Once Lend Lease was cut off, the Soviet Union could not survive a war with the greatest industrial and economic power in the world, especially considering that they were also fighting the greatest military power in the world as well.

Was Pershing somehow equal to JS-3? I doubt. In terms of military, the SU union had the largest, the most powerfull and most experienced army in the world. In civ's terms we had a much larger army consisted of veteran and elite units, while you had lesser army consisted of conscripts and regulars. There was no a single chance for you to wipe out Red army from East Europe.

Yes, you are correct in this - Japanese ground forces were ****, in terms of fighting a modern mobile war. But don't make the mistake of comparing the IJA and the US Army.

I don't. In 1941 Japan turned its head into Pacific direction, because they consider USA, British and French colonial forces as much easier target then SU. I guess they understimated USA production capacity.

[MrFun]

double post

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned


Huh? I was unaware that such a school existed. Are you sure?

If you have not noticed, Frogger provided a link to answer your question.


And I'm disappointed -- I wanted to hear opinions from hyper-patriots like Chris62, or MichaeltheGreat about this institution of "democracy."

Seems like they avoid tough questions like these.

[Serb]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
I apologize that FIRST: I became confused and SECOND: I 'remembered' something that never happened.

I guess I was a bit rude yesterday. I'm sorry. Don't take it so hard.

#1- The american people WOULD NOT STAND for their nation attacking an ally so close after the end of a war.
The americans wanted the war over. They had enough trouble declaring war on Japan/Germany.
#2- Russia is HUGE! It could be easy to defeat conventional armies, but guerrila war would be horrible as would supplies if the USA landed a force in the north and attacked through Siberia... What type of idiots attack through siberia?
#3- The Allies (if I remember correctly) were just as tattered as the Soviets marched into Berlin (and I seem to remmber that the Soviets were a bit more powerful, which Is why the Allies didn't really contest the Soviets taking of Eastern Russia that much)
The allies weren't in a position to fight the Soviets.
And, as we see today, it is a good thing that they didn't.

Agreed.
David just have a strange desire to see Russia conquered. He beleive in general shitness of Russian army.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd
IF they fought, the US would win - but in real life a war was quite unlikely.

You would win with the same success as nazi won.
We crushed Hitler's war machine and we would crushed USA if you dared something. The Russian bear was awaken in 1945, and when it's awake nothing could stop him. In 1945 our military was in MUCH, MUCH better shape then in 1941. Our industry produced weaponry 24 hours a day, an exellent weaponry, in many terms supreme weaponry. Our military was much experienced then yours. Overall we were in much better shape then when we crushed Hitler. If you dared something, your two million forces in Europe were crushed by six million Red army without any question. And there is no way that you could wipe out Red army from East Europe.

Who's talking about invading Russia? Obviously, the war aims of the West would be to kick the Soviets out of Eastern Europe, not take Moscow. The reason guerilla warfare worked against the Nazis is because the Nazis were occupying Soviet territory and the guerillas operated in Soviet territory.

No way. With wich forces you would kicked Soviets out of Europe? Before you gather enough forces for fight in USA, the Soviets would already took all Europe, including Britain.

Actually that's not correct. The British were at the end of their manpower, same as the Russians, and their industry had maxed out, same as the Russians. But internal British communications and transportation was in much better shape than that of Russia.

So, what? In Europe Soviets already had superiority in forces 3-1 in compare with USA+GB forces. 3-1 is more then enough for successfull campaign, no need for additional reinforcements.

But the United States was nowhere near the end of its manpower, and its industrial production and economy were still growing by large amounts.

And nowhere close in terms of war wearines The war with Russia would cost you millions of lifes. Are you sure you society would accept such losses in agressive war vs. former close ally?

They were only more powerful in terms of numbers of troops and tanks on the front. The West would certainly have had an advantage in the air (especially with strategic bombers), and a much greater potential warfighting capacity.

And superiority in ground forces would lead to occupation of entire Europe by Soviets. From where you could bomb Soviets then? And btw, Russians were pretty good in anti-aircraft deffense.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Serb
No way. With wich forces you would kicked Soviets out of Europe? Before you gather enough forces for fight in USA, the Soviets would already took all Europe, including Britain.

Sorry Serb, but the bolded bit has to be a finalist for the silliest thing said in this thread.

[David Floyd]

Then withdraw your argument that" In 1941 in Red Army were more American tanks then Russian tanks", because it's not correct.

You're right, I misspoke. There were still a large proportion of US and British tanks in the Red Army, with some units made up entirely of these tanks.

Not exactly, 947 tanks you are refering to as I beleive is T-34. There also were about 500 KV- the butt-kicking heavy tanks, which were more then equal to German tanks.

Actually, no the number is 947 tanks equal to or better than German models.

But in general, yes. The majority of Soviet tank forces consisted of light tanks. As for formations, you are correct too. After the death of Tuhachevskii, Soviets deployed tanks in brigadeas and our tank warfare doctrines stagnated. But after the start of war, the situation changed, and tank forces were reorganised.

Yes, but the point I'm making is they had no practice operating together as units, and were heavily outclassed in tactics and doctrine.

The 1941 was the most hard year for us. We survived it by ourselves, stoped Hitler's forces, throwed them back from our capital and inflicted an amount of damage to them they never faced before. Unbeatable concquers of Europe were defeated for the first time. In 1942 it was a much better situation for us.

Of course it was - Lend-Lease was coming in, in significant amounts. Without Lend-Lease (and also Operation Torch), 1942 could have seen the Caucasus and Stalingrad fall, and the Germans cross the Volga.

Our evacueted industry started to work on its full capacity. If we survived first, the most hard year without Lend-Lease, then we would survive other years without it.

Not really - Russia survived the first year by the skin of its teeth, and its winter counteroffensive, while successful in pushing back the German line, also succeeded in killing hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops and thousands more tanks. This means in 1942 you were really not that much better off, but the Germans were still good enough (and big enough) in relation to the Red Army to manhandle them in pitched battles. But, US Lend Lease allowed the SU to concentrate on things like tanks and warplanes, and almost totally ignore things such as trucks, tires, rail tracks, locomotives, boots, uniforms, etc. Basically this freed up a huge number of factories and workers for tank production (while, I remind you, the US was still outproducing the USSR in virtually every area, in addition to supplying them with large quantities of goods), giving you a large advantage over Germany.

You think Germany had more manpower then Soviets? At least in 1944 we didn't conscript 14 years old boys into regiments like "Hitler yougent". In 1944 nothing could stop us. Germany was doomed after Kursk.

I didn't say that. I said that AS THINGS WERE, you had no free manpower left in 1945 outside of the military and factories, and this was fighting about 70%-80% of the Wehrmacht (depending on the timeframe). The remaining German forces in the West, Italy, Balkans, etc. - which included some of the best German divisions in 1944 - would have been significant, both in their ability to push the offensive in 1941, but more importantly, to hold back Soviet advances and advance in 1942. With proper reserves, for example, Manstein had a good chance of extricating the 6th Army from Stalingrad. If he'd done that, Stalingrad would have essentially been a Russian military defeat, because the Germans killed a much, much higher ratio of Russians than they lost themselves. The only reason it was a Soviet victory was because they were able to capture or kill over 300,000 Germans, making the loss ratio acceptable. Without this, the Soviet loss ratio would have been unacceptably high, and offensive operations against an Army Group South that retained a good portion of 6th Army would have been difficult to say the least.

As you wish. We'll never agree about this.

Probably not.

Tell me something new. Sure this war was profitable for you. While Europe destroyed itself in the most terrible bloodbath in human history, you was doing what you always do- making money. Sure it's not your fault that we were killing each other, but you used this opportunity to become richer very well. Sure, money doesn't have smell, but as for me it in't so honorable to make money while other people are suffering. The SU payed its debt to you for Lend-Lease up to 70s.

OK, but the point is the size of a country's economy, and their industrial might, are two of the three most important factors in a war such as WW2 (the other is population, in which both sides were closely matched except for the fact that 90%+ of Russians 18-21 were dead), and from this perspective, the US had an overwhelming advantage in any war with the Soviet Union directly following WW2.

Was Pershing somehow equal to JS-3?

Probably not, but the US could have produced enough to overcome the difference, similar to how the German army's Tigers were overwhelmed by Shermans and/or T-34s.

I doubt. In terms of military, the SU union had the largest, the most powerfull and most experienced army in the world.

Largest, yes. Most powerful, that's much more questionable when you look at the complete picture. Power doesn't necessarily equate to numbers. The US had an advantage in the air, and an overwhelming one in the area of strategic bombing. Thousands of B-29s could have carpet bombed Russian supply lines into Europe, for example. The US also had atomic weapons, and if this war had started prior to August 1945 they would have been available for use. The Red Army's power also declined with every soldier or tank they lost, because they didn't have replacements, while the US did. The US also had a navy more powerful than the rest of the world's combined, and while you may think this is irrelevant it is worth noting that in the history of warfare, the nation with the largest navy always, always wins. The US also had greater access to jet technology, and was in a better position to utilize it quickly. Speaking of air power, the USAAF and USN also deployed primitive air-to-ground rockets.
So, while the Soviet Union had more troops, the United States had a ton of other advantages.

[David Floyd]

We crushed Hitler's war machine and we would crushed USA if you dared something.

Actually you crushed Hitler's war machine using a large degree of luck and a large amount of Western Lend Lease. There would be no way for you to actually crush the US, because you had no way to get to the US - in that respect the US enjoyed one of the ultimate advantages, in that the US itself would have been in no danger at any time.

The Russian bear was awaken in 1945, and when it's awake nothing could stop him.

Yeah, but armies tend to slow down when they run out of replacements. The Red Army in 1945 still relied far too much on human wave-type tactics to be successful in fighting an army such as that of the United States.

In 1945 our military was in MUCH, MUCH better shape then in 1941.

Of course it was, no one disputes this. But between the two, the US Army had come far further in terms of improvement.

Our industry produced weaponry 24 hours a day, an exellent weaponry, in many terms supreme weaponry.

Fine, but that's all you produced - weaponry. You did NOT produce locomotives, motorized vehicles, tires, railway tracks, trucks, tractors and construction vehicles, boots, uniforms, or anything of the kind to any great degree, because the US gave you all you needed. But even in spite of this, US production still outweighed Soviet production. As just one example, in 1944, the US produced 96,318 warplanes, as compared to 40,300 for the Soviet Union. In the first half of 1945, the US produced 49,761 warplanes, as opposed to 20,900 for the Soviets. This meant that at the end of the war, US production was still going up, while Soviet production was staying the same - it had already peaked.
As another example, in 1944 the US produced 9.2 million tons of merchant marine, and in the first half of 1945 produced 5.8 million tons, showing that US industry was increasing in this area. In fact, this is a rather glaring example of the discrepancy, in that the Soviet Union was not producing any such amount of shipping, and the US would not even need to keep up this level of production, and would be able to shift to other areas.
These are just two examples, which are readily available, and I won't bother listing other areas. The point is that IN SPITE of the large amount of goods produced for the Soviet Union, the US was still outproducing the SU in aircraft by more than 2 to 1, and increasing, at the end of the war, and was producing an almost infintely higher amount of shipping.

Our military was much experienced then yours. Overall we were in much better shape then when we crushed Hitler. If you dared something, your two million forces in Europe were crushed by six million Red army without any question.

Actually I seriously doubt it. It tooks two and a half or three years for a larger Red Army than that to push back Hitler's forces, which had already lost the initiative and were beaten, in many respects, so what makes you think you could do any better against a victorious US Army, especially given that you had no possibility of significant replacements, to say nothing of new units?

No way. With wich forces you would kicked Soviets out of Europe? Before you gather enough forces for fight in USA, the Soviets would already took all Europe, including Britain.

Please tell me you don't really believe that, because that's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Right now, I'm only talking about the US against the Soviet Union, but even assuming you started advancing in Europe, you start facing rearmed Germans, the British, the French, and probably the Italians. And to take Britain, you would need a navy capable of beating the combined US and British fleets, while you didn't even have one that could successfully fight one US or British carrier group.

So, what? In Europe Soviets already had superiority in forces 3-1 in compare with USA+GB forces. 3-1 is more then enough for successfull campaign, no need for additional reinforcements.

There certainly is when the other side is receiving reinforcements as fast or faster than they are losing men.

And nowhere close in terms of war wearines The war with Russia would cost you millions of lifes. Are you sure you society would accept such losses in agressive war vs. former close ally

And who's to say that Russian civilians would have accepted millions more losses against THEIR former close allies? You may wave your flag and say that Russians don't care how many men die so long as they defeat their enemies, but we both know that's not true.

And superiority in ground forces would lead to occupation of entire Europe by Soviets. From where you could bomb Soviets then?

First tell me how you are going to take over every country in Europe. You can't, of course.

And btw, Russians were pretty good in anti-aircraft deffense.

Not against strategic bombers 30,000 feet up - you had no experience fighting those types of aircraft.

[Serb]

Originally posted by notyoueither




Sorry Serb, but the bolded bit has to be a finalist for the silliest thing said in this thread.

Yep. I though long before typed this word. But David said it's hypothetical. Why I can't mad a single speculation and hypothetical theory, if people here doing this all the time?

[David Floyd]

Why I can't mad a single speculation and hypothetical theory, if people here doing this all the time?

Because even if you disagree with mine, you have to admit that mine is much more reasonable than your idea of invading England.

[David Floyd]

Oh, and I certainly hope your synthetic rubber industry is in shape, too. I have no figures on that, perhaps someone else does, but natural rubber would suddenly become quite rare in Russia during a war with the US in 1945.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun


If you have not noticed, Frogger provided a link to answer your question.


And I'm disappointed -- I wanted to hear opinions from hyper-patriots like Chris62, or MichaeltheGreat about this institution of "democracy."

Seems like they avoid tough questions like these.

Actually, the site says the training that was "suspect" ended in 1991. Your post said "trains." I assume this was a typo or such.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Actually, no the number is 947 tanks equal to or better than German models.

And you based this statement on which source?

Yes, but the point I'm making is they had no practice operating together as units, and were heavily outclassed in tactics and doctrine.

Perhaps your doctrines were more superior then German? maybe Brit's? French doctrines? Our army showed much better performance then others. And don't start your bs, about weather, luck and superior in numbers. In 1941 German army was larger then Soviet.

I didn't say that. I said that AS THINGS WERE, you had no free manpower left in 1945 outside of the military and factories, and this was fighting about 70%-80% of the Wehrmacht (depending on the timeframe). The remaining German forces in the West, Italy, Balkans, etc. - which included some of the best German divisions in 1944 - would have been significant, both in their ability to push the offensive in 1941, but more importantly, to hold back Soviet advances and advance in 1942. With proper reserves, for example, Manstein had a good chance of extricating the 6th Army from Stalingrad.

In 1945, when the war was over.
Are you trying to say that during war Germany had more manpower the SU?
Are you trying to say that during war Germany out produced SU?
If yes, I will not countinue this talk anymore because it's useless. If no, then explain why do you constanly saying that you are 100% sure that USA could wipe the floor with Russia, because it could out produce Russia and it have greater population, and at the same time you deny that SU was able to wipe the floor with Germany alone, when SU out produced Germany and had much greater population then Germany? Isn't it is the same situation? Where is logic here?

[QUOTE]Not really - Russia survived the first year by the skin of its teeth, and its winter counteroffensive, while successful in pushing back the German line, also succeeded in killing hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops and thousands more tanks. QUOTE]
And also inflicting million+ casualty to Germany during this counter-offence. It was the first defeat of ubeatable counquerors of the Europe. Never before the Moscow battle Wermacht received such casualties. You better read a couple of dairies of German officiers who participated in Barbarosa. Most of them describe campaign in Russia alike. A quote from one of such dairy, it was something like this: " This campaign is absolutely different from any previous, from what I saw in France. It's resistance here, everywhere and always resistance, hopeless but resistance."
As time showed it wasn't so hopeless resistance. We have won, because we fought, the rest is bullsh*t and your fantasies.

This means in 1942 you were really not that much better off, but the Germans were still good enough (and big enough) in relation to the Red Army to manhandle them in pitched battles. But, US Lend Lease allowed the SU to concentrate on things like tanks and warplanes, and almost totally ignore things such as trucks, tires, rail tracks, locomotives, boots, uniforms, etc. Basically this freed up a huge number of factories and workers for tank production (while, I remind you, the US was still outproducing the USSR in virtually every area, in addition to supplying them with large quantities of goods), giving you a large advantage over Germany.[/

Do you have any idea how many trains needs such big country as Russia? Are you trying to say that Russian soldiers weared American uniforms? You have no idea HOW MUCH RESOURCES WE'VE SPENT IN THIS WAR. You think that less then 200 Lend-Lease convoys during those four years could supply SU with all nesessary trains, trucks, rails, uniforms, etc? Perhaps for you Lend-Lease looks significient, but in copmare with quantity of the same things produced by our own industry during this war it isn't.

Of course it was - Lend-Lease was coming in, in significant amounts. Without Lend-Lease (and also Operation Torch), 1942 could have seen the Caucasus and Stalingrad fall, and the Germans cross the Volga.

You exaggerate leand-lease. It was helpfull, very helpfull. When your house is under fire you will accept any possible help, and no one will deny any help. But it doesn't mean that we survived only because of lend-lease.
Operation Torch?
Don't make me laugh. 100 000 German troops from North Africa couldn't bring any serious difference into Russian front.

If he'd done that, Stalingrad would have essentially been a Russian military defeat, because the Germans killed a much, much higher ratio of Russians than they lost themselves. The only reason it was a Soviet victory was because they were able to capture or kill over 300,000 Germans, making the loss ratio acceptable. Without this, the Soviet loss ratio would have been unacceptably high, and offensive operations against an Army Group South that retained a good portion of 6th Army would have been difficult to say the least.

Bullsh*t.
During 199 days of Stalingrad battle Germany and its allies lost more then 1 500 000 soldiers and officiers. The Red army lost 1 100 000 soldiers and officiers.

Probably not.

Then I see no reason to continue this conversation.

OK, but the point is the size of a country's economy, and their industrial might, are two of the three most important factors in a war such as WW2 (the other is population, in which both sides were closely matched except for the fact that 90%+ of Russians 18-21 were dead), and from this perspective, the US had an overwhelming advantage in any war with the Soviet Union directly following WW2.

Fine, if you could out produce SU, then for sure you could out produce Germany. THEN WHAT THE F*CK YOU WERE WAITING FOR? If you were so strong, so industrialised, so damn great warriors then it should be a peice of cake for you to crush Germany within a year since Germany declared war on you. Wtf you were waiting for 1944, while Germans were almost destroyed by Russians?

Probably not, but the US could have produced enough to overcome the difference, similar to how the German army's Tigers were overwhelmed by Shermans and/or T-34s.

Yep, sure and how you suggest to deleiver greater quanties of heavy tanks on European theater?

Largest, yes. Most powerful, that's much more questionable when you look at the complete picture. Power doesn't necessarily equate to numbers. The US had an advantage in the air, and an overwhelming one in the area of strategic bombing. Thousands of B-29s could have carpet bombed Russian supply lines into Europe, for example. The US also had atomic weapons, and if this war had started prior to August 1945 they would have been available for use. The Red Army's power also declined with every soldier or tank they lost, because they didn't have replacements, while the US did. The US also had a navy more powerful than the rest of the world's combined, and while you may think this is irrelevant it is worth noting that in the history of warfare, the nation with the largest navy always, always wins. The US also had greater access to jet technology, and was in a better position to utilize it quickly.

Numbers means nothing. But Red army was much better both in numbers and in quality of weaponry. And it was MUCH expirienced.
And stop to portray it as we didn't have an air forces.
Your thousands of bombers would meat with thousands of Russian fighters. Your only advantage is nuclear bombs. But bomb it is not a weapon yet. Without means of delivery it's nothing. You didn't have ICBM or strategic bombers capable to deliver bomb on Russian territory. With deep Russian anti-air defences chances of your bombers toacomplish its mission were tiny. And you don't have much bombs anyway.

Speaking of air power, the USAAF and USN also deployed primitive air-to-ground rockets.

Which Russians deployed in middle of 30s.

P.S. David, next time you'll gonna invade Russia, check this article. Especially last paragraph.
http://www.russian-life.com/article.cfm?Number=603

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Because even if you disagree with mine, you have to admit that mine is much more reasonable than your idea of invading England.

It's the same bullsh*t