Is Russia really any better with Democracy/Capitialism?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Vince278


Don't like Poland, do we?

Why should we like this shame of Slavic brotherhood?
They do everything what their new master command them to do. Their government like a cheap whore is always ready to do whaterver you ask them.
It's a shame that I have 1/16 of Polish blood in my viens.
Heresson would not like this, I guess.

Haven't heard about the penguins yet. Thanks for the assist.

You are welcome. I think FOX will tell you alike story about Russia sooner or later.

The Russian fighter in Rocky was tough too.

"Rocky-4 was" the worse of all five movies. It was a crappy piece of anti-Russian propaganda sh!t, just like Rambo 2,3.
Pure crap. The only more or less good part of this movie was its soundtrack (except this crappy "Living in America" song of course). I liked the episode when Rocky (obviously being pretty high) driving his car, having a hallucinations about Appolo and singing "There is no easy way out".
And Dolph Lungren speaking Russian is notorious.

Use a "C" as the first letter and you get dangerously close to an American slang word.

I'm sure you don't wont to hear how we call USA on Russsian here.

Don't you think Lend-Lease had something to do with that?

A bit for sure. But four years of constant and fierce warfare against such strong enemy as Germany contributed much more for this.

Quoting Khruschev again?

It's not Khrushev. It's the old Russian saying.

Thank-you. We're praying for you.

Didn't you notice a smile after that?

The Soviet Union was also not even present for the vote concerning Korea in 1950. Have a problem making difficult decisions?

Nope. It was Saddam's fault. He was stupid enough to fell into your trap. So what should we do? DOW you over him?

That not a whistle you're hearing.

We could always return if they'll ask.

I'm afraid I'll have to say something nice about Russia for a change. Stoly is the best, hands down.

It's OK, but the best vodka we produce and keep for ourselves.

Best defense is a good offense, eh?

Absolutely.

More like I re-educated them.

Tell us more. How many bears did you kill to earn their respect? Do they live in a caves?

According to the Geneva Convention people who take up arms are legitimate targets.

Then Grozny was full of such people.

So, you leveled your own city with your precision artillery?

You are doing the same with foreign cities. What is worse?

Red, white, and blue?

Cute.

Its been said virtually everywhere except for a few countries that are in denial.

Communism will win someday.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

That's the best one. Soviet planes were known for their crappitude.

The magnitude is the right word here. Why should I educate Americans how to speak English. Is your education system really that bad?

The tactical bombers were fine, there was no strategic bombing force to speak of,

Because there was no need in such force for the Soviets.

and the fighters would have been assraped by the P-51s.

Yeah, right. Next thing you gonna tell me is that your Sabres assraped Migs in Korea.

Plus, the Allies plane factories were outproducing the USSR in a 3 to 1 ratio.

Any accurate statistic to prove that?

Soviet tanks were better, but that's about all. The Allies had a much better intendance organization and their soldiers were 100% motorized or mechanized. And by the end of 44' the Americans started to produce a decent tank model which was a match for the T-34.

Oh great! In 1945 you finally made Pershing with characteristics close enough to T-34 (which Russians created in 1939). Good for you. Bad thing for you, is that in 1945 USSR had ****loads of JS-2 and already started a mass-production of heavy JS-3 tank, which was unmatched tank for over decade (untill T-54 appeared of course).

3 to 1, BTW, was pretty much a minimum for the Red Army to be succesful in any operation.

It was a normal ratio for any army performing an offensive operation.

Even at this rate, it took them 3 years to take back what had been conquered in a summer by a much less numerous army.

You forget one small thing. During those years, while you were getting your crap together beyond the ocean, Soviets destroyed 3/4 (and best 3/4 I should add) of German force.

The Allies had more than 15 millions men mobilized, they just weren't deployed in Europe. It's true however that disembarking them in WE would have been a pain.

15 millions it's more than 10% of your total population in 1945. If only about 2 millions were in Europe, were where the rest?

Why do you have to be a nationalist ******? The pride you take in defending people you have never known is bordering on moronism. We're in 2004 dude, ethnic nationalism is outdated. You sound like a Russian Texan.

I'm from the middle of Siberia, dude. What do you think Siberia is, if not the Russian Texas?

This said, I do believe that the Red Army would have beaten the Allies initially, but it's unclear what the long-term outcome would have been, because of their lack of navy.

Agreed.

Next time try to be more objective.

What are you talking about? I'm objective as hell. I'm just full of objections.
"Objection your honor!!!" (c).

[Serb]

Originally posted by Vince278


I'm sorry. To make it American slang you have to pronounce (Cocc) in English. Need I replace the last "c" with a 'k"?
Nevermind, it really wasn't all that funny anyway.

Stop this or I'll tell how we call Yanks on Russian.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Serb
"Rocky-4 was" the worse of all five movies. It was a crappy piece of anti-Russian propaganda sh!t, just like Rambo 2,3.
Pure crap. The only more or less good part of this movie was its soundtrack (except this crappy "Living in America" song of course). I liked the episode when Rocky (obviously being pretty high) driving his car, having a hallucinations about Appolo and singing "There is no easy way out".
And Dolph Lungren speaking Russian is notorious.

I imagine you probably hate the Rambo movies Stallone did too. I believe Dolph also played the part of a Spetsnaz officer in another movie.

Originally posted by Serb
I'm sure you don't wont to hear how we call USA on Russsian here.

Land of the free and home of the brave?

Originally posted by Serb
A bit for sure. But four years of constant and fierce warfare against such strong enemy as Germany contributed much more for this.

Good thing you had help. Russia would have been toast if Germany managed to take England out first. It would have been harder to get the U.S. motivated to help the Russians.

Originally posted by Serb
Didn't you notice a smile after that?

Originally posted by Serb
Nope. It was Saddam's fault. He was stupid enough to fell into your trap. So what should we do? DOW you over him?

Well, I was referring to the UN vote to intervene in Korea in 1950. As far as I know Saddam had little involvement with Russia then.

Originally posted by Serb
Tell us more. How many bears did you kill to earn their respect? Do they live in a caves?

We don't need to kill to earn respect. That would be too easy. One of our early pioneers, Daniel Boone, tamed bears with a grin.

Originally posted by Serb
Then Grozny was full of such people.

So is Fallujah and Najaf.

Originally posted by Serb
You are doing the same with foreign cities. What is worse?

I'd say leveling your own city is worse than someone else's.

Originally posted by Serb
Communism will win someday.

Doing a great job so far.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Serb
Stop this or I'll tell how we call Yanks on Russian.

I must admit to being curious.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Serb
Because there was no need in such force for the Soviets.

True. But the Allies had some, and could have unleashed their fury against USSR. Don't evade the point - this was a card the USSR couldn't play.

Yeah, right. Next thing you gonna tell me is that your Sabres assraped Migs in Korea.

Soviet plane designs of the 50s were built upon stolen plans of German aircraft. Back in 45, the SU was nowhere near having jet planes, while the Allies had functional ones. That is not counting that the Yak was a sitting duck for any traditional P-51.

Any accurate statistic to prove that?

It's from a book in French, 'Chronique de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale'. The Soviets were producing 30,000 planes a year. America was producing 70,000 and Britain 25,000. That is not counting other Allies, like Canada and Australia.

Face it, the Allies had a much stronger industrial base than the USSR.

Oh great! In 1945 you finally made Pershing with characteristics close enough to T-34 (which Russians created in 1939). Good for you. Bad thing for you, is that in 1945 USSR had ****loads of JS-2 and already started a mass-production of heavy JS-3 tank, which was unmatched tank for over decade (untill T-54 appeared of course).

The IS-2 and IS-3 were unpractical and heavy tanks, just like the Tiger. The T-34 85 made the bulk of the Red Army, and for a reason.

It was a normal ratio for any army performing an offensive operation.

True. Except the Germans though.

You forget one small thing. During those years, while you were getting your crap together beyond the ocean, Soviets destroyed 3/4 (and best 3/4 I should add) of German force.

True, but at what cost? That victory wasn't glorious at all.

15 millions it's more than 10% of your total population in 1945. If only about 2 millions were in Europe, were where the rest?

Waiting in England or fighting in the Pacific. Together, the Allies had more men at arms than the USSR. However, as I said earlier, the problem was about supplying and deploying them.

What are you talking about? I'm objective as hell. I'm just full of objections.
"Objection your honor!!!" (c).

Honestly, I don't really care whether the SU would have beaten the Allies (I already said they probably would). Just stop telling lies to yourself and let the facts speak.

BTW it would be good to tell you that I'm not American, and I don't like America at all.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
...I don't like America at all.

Liar.

[The Mad Monk]

You are doing the same with foreign cities. What is worse?

Really? Which ones?

[Saras]

Originally posted by Serb

From legal (I'm not taling about morality now,) point of view, those invasions were more or less legalized. USSR was invited there by recognized govermnets of those countries.

Serb, the governments in the Baltics that "invited" the Soviets were not legitimate. If you believe they were, then you believe elections in N.Korea are fair and democratic.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Vince278


I imagine you probably hate the Rambo movies Stallone did too.

Rambo-1 was great, other two movies were complete anti-Russian sh!t.

I believe Dolph also played the part of a Spetsnaz officer in another movie.

Yep. It was the "Red scorpion". The same piece of anti-Russian propaganda sh!t.

Land of the free and home of the brave?

Well... not exactly.

Good thing you had help. Russia would have been toast if Germany managed to take England out first. It would have been harder to get the U.S. motivated to help the Russians.

1) I've never denied that this help saved many Russian lives and made the war shorter.
2) As for England, who knows? Hitler was crazy enough to attack Soviets before finishing-off the Brits. If he wasn't so crazy, perhaps he would never be Hitler we know and would never came to power? Anyhow, Sealion more probably would fail anyway.

Well, I was referring to the UN vote to intervene in Korea in 1950. As far as I know Saddam had little involvement with Russia then.

Ok, What's the story about USSR's voting over Korea?

We don't need to kill to earn respect. That would be too easy.

Oh, really?

So is Fallujah and Najaf.

Well, AFAIK Geneva's convetion regulates the rules of warfare between countries that involved in war. Please remind me when you declared war on Iraq.

I'd say leveling your own city is worse than someone else's.

It depends for whom it's worse.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Vince278


I must admit to being curious.

I can assure you, you'll not like it.

[Saras]

Note how comfortably Serb ignores my point.

[Serb]

What point?
I just don't have time right now.
if you you wish a short reply, ok then:

Serb, the governments in the Baltics that "invited" the Soviets were not legitimate. If you believe they were, then you believe elections in N.Korea are fair and democratic.

Ok, if those governmets weren't legitimate, then where were the legitimate ones?
AFAIK, there were referendums in Baltic states about joining the USSR. I bet, you'll say those referendums were flawed, then please explain to me how the hell SU could forge the results of those referendums? The Balitic states were independent countries at those times. How technically SU could forge the results of those referendums?

[DinoDoc]

I'm still interested in an answer to my question Saras. Get in line.

[David Floyd]

I doubt you could deliver remaining 4 into Russian core territory.

The US and British essentially had a monopoly on heavy bombers in the entire world, and had been using them for years against the Germans. They had developed tactics that had defeated an air defense system much more capable than that of the Soviet Union - the Soviets never really had to face large numbers of heavy bombers, and didn't really have tactics to deal with them. The US had thousands of the most advanced heavy bomber in the world, the B-29, which could have attacked the Soviet Union from bases in Europe, the Middle East, and possibly even China.

You're right, Moscow would have been a tough target to hit, since it was so deep in Soviet territory. But Leningrad, for example? Not too difficult. The Caucasus oil fields? Even easier, if more difficult to damage. Soviet armies in the field? Forget about it - the US wouldn't even need to waste an atomic bomb on those forces. The US tactical air force and the RAF were the best in the world.

And even if you could somehow, I doubt you had balls to do this. In this case Soviets would retaliated with their chem weapons.

Why? The Germans never retaliated against the firebombing of their cities with chemical weapons. The Japanese didn't retaliate at all - they just surrendered. In 1945, no one really considered an A-bomb a WMD - for that matter, no one considered chemical or biological weapons as WMDs. Those weapons just weren't used, because of the terrible experience of WW1 that no one wanted to repeat. The Germans didn't even pull them out to save Berlin.

Naval -yes. Air- I doubt.

I have already established that US strategic air power was far more powerful than Soviet strategic air power. It is also generally accepted that US (and British) tactical air was superior as well - Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Typhoons, etc. I don't have specific numbers on me, as I'm at school right now, but I know that the US had a far bigger reserve of trained pilots, a far bigger reserve of aircraft, and was outproducing the Soviet Union in aircraft, by 1944, by a factor of greater than 2:1.

Not so far in terms of military production.

Not correct. The US produced far more military equipment than anyone else, even the Soviet Union. The US outproduced all of the Axis powers combined by quite a bit, and also outproduced all of the other Allied powers combined by quite a bit. Yes, the Soviet Union produced more tanks and artillery than the US, but that was about it, and that fact was due only to production priorities - the US didn't NEED that many tanks, and in fact, the US actually cut BACK on tank production between 1943 and 1944 (from ~27,000 to ~18,000). Surely you won't argue that reduction was a result of the US running out of raw materials? In 1945, the US possessed more than 50% of the world share of manufacturing. The Soviet Union didn't even have half of the REMAINING half in 1945. And, not to beat on a dead horse, but Lend Lease provided invaluable resources that enabled the Soviet Union to reach the level of production that it actually reached.

If you want to talk about economic strength, in 1945 the US had over 50% of the world's GNP, and over 2/3s of the world's gold. The US was able to afford a two front war, while still supplying Britain and the Soviet Union with billions of dollars worth of equipment, and at the same time financing the most expensive weapons development program in history - the atomic bomb, at a cost of $2 billion - with what was left. Throughout history, economic strength has always translated into greater military strength, and the US in 1945 was not an exception.

Soviets outnumbered western allied forces in Europe how much? 3:1?

What does this have to do with military production? Nothing. It simply means that the Soviet Union had more men at the front. Incidentally, the Soviet Union lost almost 45 times the amount of military manpower that the US lost (~13,000 vs. less than 300,000). So, even though the Soviet Union had more men in 1945, the Soviet Union was also just about out of men - it had no replacements for that force. Even Britain was probably in better shape, with regards to its ability to replace combat losses, especially given the fact that the Soviet Union would have taken far larger losses in any attack on the Allies than the US and Britain would have taken. And sure, you can respond by saying that the Red Army lost so many men because it fought alone for years, etc., but that doesn't address the point I'm making.

It is very likely.

Not with atomic bombs being dropped on, say, Leningrad, the Caucasus, and vital logistics centers, and with Allied tactical air power not only destroying massed Soviet armored formations (as they did to German formations), but also interdicting Soviet supplies and transportation.

Please, please, tell me more about this. I really wish to know more about English equipping Russian soldiers with weapons and paying their salaries.

Well, my exact figures are at home, where I am not. However, it is a fact that the primary way England fought wars was to create coalitions of weaker powers, in order to overwhelm the strong power threatening to dominate Europe. It would do this by funding a large part of the coalition war effort. The reason England could do this was because it had such an incredible credit rating on the international money markets, that it could borrow far more money, much more quickly, and at far lower rates of interest, than any other nation.

Now, I never said England directly equipped the Russian army, but it IS true that England provided millions of pounds worth of subsidies not only to Russia, but also to all of the powers that fought against Napoleon, and that this financial support was crucial to Napoleon's final defeat.