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 ****y 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.