Russian army as good as the US army????? - Page 4 - GoFuckYourself.com

_Richard_ · 05-16-2013, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

Whaaaat???

just a punk · 05-16-2013, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

Probably murdering officers at Katyn, Poland, which you invaded with your Nazi allies.

Not me, but Stalin and I believe it was a small revenge for this

Rochard · 05-16-2013, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

There's a documentary called 'The Truth About Killing' (actually it's on Youtube, I may watch it again) which is about how, in the wake of the Vietnam war, the US military (successfully) attempted to stamp out soldiers' normal, innate aversion to killing other people.

Apparently in the Vietnam war, WWII and other prior wars, something like 90% (or some equally surprising number) of soldiers either didn't shoot or deliberately missed the enemy.

This is still a problem in the military. Every one thinks they can just shoot another person in cold blood for no reason because they are "told to do it". This is what gun nuts don't understand - not every one has the balls to shoot and kill another man when suddenly faced with that decision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

Out of curiosity, where would you stand if you were resisting a powerful enemy that invaded the US? The middle of a parking lot?

I don't understand the question. Why would I stand in the middle of a parking lot?

I am a former US Marine who taught combat tactics to officers, I have multiple assault rifles, enough food to last months, and two four wheel drive trucks....

I'm ready!

2013 · 05-16-2013, 01:37 PM

i like pooo

helterskelter808 · 05-16-2013, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

This is still a problem in the military. Every one thinks they can just shoot another person in cold blood for no reason because they are "told to do it". This is what gun nuts don't understand - not every one has the balls to shoot and kill another man when suddenly faced with that decision.

Yep. Richard posted a link which suggests the research has been discredited, but I'm not so sure. Plus I like the idea that even soldiers find it difficult to kill. In the documentary I mentioned I think they said something like only 2% of people had what it takes to be a bad ass killing machine who you might want on your side in the heat of battle. 1% was the professional hero type, and the other 1% were flat out sociopaths.

Quote:

I don't understand the question. Why would I stand in the middle of a parking lot?

Okay how about a military base. Is that where you'd hang out if the North Koreans came to town?

Why not use a(n unoccupied) school building, if it's a strategic location? I don't buy the idea that they "hide behind" "human shields". If a battle takes place in an urban area then obviously there are going to be lots of civilians around. It's hardly the right of the aggressor to be moralistic about that, or cry about the enemy "hiding", just because they're not out there like sitting ducks. Not killing citizens is easy, you just don't drop bombs on cities.

Quote:

I am a former US Marine who taught combat tactics to officers, I have multiple assault rifles, enough food to last months, and two four wheel drive trucks....

I'm ready!

Wolverines!

dyna mo · 05-16-2013, 02:04 PM

didn't they all die in the end? after their group went coocoo on each other and the 1 dude shot and killed his best friend/traitor?

rogueteens · 05-16-2013, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

When exactly the second front was opened? Where the Soviet army was at that times?

not a second front - a first front, while the UK stood alone against the Nazi's the Russians had a non-aggression pact with the Germans.

helterskelter808 · 05-16-2013, 02:18 PM

^ Ironic, really. The only country Hitler wanted to be allies with, or at least didn't want to fight, and the country he had the greatest admiration for, was the one country that had the cojones to stand up to him.

If you'd allied with Hitler you'd have remained a superpower, alongside Germany and Japan.

You'd have your Empire, the Krauts would have their lebensraum in the East, the Japs would have whatever parts of Asia you hadn't already carved up, the Italians would have Italy, and we'd be speaking Canadian.

rogueteens · 05-16-2013, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

^ Ironic, really. The only country Hitler wanted to be allies with, or at least didn't want to fight, and the country he had the greatest admiration for, was the one country that had the cojones to stand up to him.

If you'd allied with Hitler you'd have remained a superpower, alongside Germany and Japan.

You'd have your Empire, the Krauts would have their lebensraum in the East, the Japs would have whatever parts of Asia you hadn't already carved up, the Italians would have Italy, and we'd be speaking Canadian.

yes, you are right. WW2 destroyed Great Britain and we are still feeling it even now. It cost us immensely to ensure the freedom of Europe and it brought us to our knees only for our greatest ally to shaft us good and proper.

_Richard_ · 05-16-2013, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogueteens

yes, you are right. WW2 destroyed Great Britain and we are still feeling it even now. It cost us immensely to ensure the freedom of Europe and it brought us to our knees only for our greatest ally to shaft us good and proper.

what history is this called?

rogueteens · 05-16-2013, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

what history is this called?

I don't understand your problem with this? If Britain had fallen or if had joined up with Germany then who would have stood up to Hitler (remember at this point, Britain stood alone)? A Europe under Hitler would have left him able to throw everything at the east and remember he had allies in south America where they could build forces. If the US had decided to enter the war with no European allies (which they wouldn't have done) then what would have stopped Hitler from gobbling up south America and working upwards towards Canada?

The UK lost its empire due to world war 2 and was so broke afterwards that it had to come up with desperate measures to keep up with its payments to the US even considering giving up everything and applying to become a US state - things were that bad.

MaDalton · 05-16-2013, 02:56 PM

even if it cost me like 1/4 of my fathers family - i am pretty thankful that Hitler was stopped. I can't imagine to live in a world like it was from 1933-45

_Richard_ · 05-16-2013, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogueteens

I don't understand your problem with this? If Britain had fallen or if had joined up with Germany then who would have stood up to Hitler (remember at this point, Britain stood alone)? A Europe under Hitler would have left him able to throw everything at the east and remember he had allies in south America where they could build forces. If the US had decided to enter the war with no European allies (which they wouldn't have done) then what would have stopped Hitler from gobbling up south America and working upwards towards Canada?

The UK lost its empire due to world war 2 and was so broke afterwards that it had to come up with desperate measures to keep up with its payments to the US even considering giving up everything and applying to become a US state - things were that bad.

no problem; i just wanted to know if there was some form of classification for that version

victors write the history yes?

UK 'lost it's empire', but WW2, at best, was 'one of the reasons'. Expensive thing, 'empire'. Much better, and cheaper, and less reputation staining, letting them run themselves, eh ol'chap

Germany was owned, almost entirely, but foreign interest.. any clue on who did the owning? or facilitating?

one of your colonies, btw, aren't very happy about Dieppe. at all.

Rochard · 05-16-2013, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

Okay how about a military base. Is that where you'd hang out if the North Koreans came to town?

Why not use a(n unoccupied) school building, if it's a strategic location? I don't buy the idea that they "hide behind" "human shields". If a battle takes place in an urban area then obviously there are going to be lots of civilians around. It's hardly the right of the aggressor to be moralistic about that, or cry about the enemy "hiding", just because they're not out there like sitting ducks. Not killing citizens is easy, you just don't drop bombs on cities.

I see what you are getting. Well, I wouldn't be hiding in a school for sure.

If battle takes place in an urban area, at a certain point in time everything is fair game. But if you start stockpiling weapons in classrooms and parking an anti aircraft gun in the middle of the school playground, well, it's no longer a school. It's pretty simple for me - If you shoot from a building or hide in a building, that building is fair game.

You said "You don't drop bombs on cities". Yeah, no, it doesn't work that way. Look at what is happening in Syria right now - they are bombing the shit out of each other. War does not stop because a city gets in the war. War goes right through it.

Rochard · 05-16-2013, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

didn't they all die in the end? after their group went coocoo on each other and the 1 dude shot and killed his best friend/traitor?

Some of them lived. It was in the final scene... They made it to the "free zone".

Mutt · 05-16-2013, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogueteens

I don't understand your problem with this? If Britain had fallen or if had joined up with Germany then who would have stood up to Hitler (remember at this point, Britain stood alone)? A Europe under Hitler would have left him able to throw everything at the east and remember he had allies in south America where they could build forces. If the US had decided to enter the war with no European allies (which they wouldn't have done) then what would have stopped Hitler from gobbling up south America and working upwards towards Canada?

The UK lost its empire due to world war 2 and was so broke afterwards that it had to come up with desperate measures to keep up with its payments to the US even considering giving up everything and applying to become a US state - things were that bad.

The Russians weren't being beaten by anybody, wouldn't have mattered if Great Britain had been defeated by Germany and forced to fight the Russians or allied themselves with Germany voluntarily. Russia lost 27 million people in WWII and if they had to lose 127 million they still wouldn't have given in. The little gutless bitch Hitler double crossed Stalin on the Molotov Pact and invaded Russia by total surprise - Russia was totally unprepared but soon enough they gathered their wits and resources and dug in like no country ever dug in, had to, Stalin ordered ANYBODY showing any cowardice to be shot on the spot. Hitler was an absolute moron, people in general and historians as well dwell on how evil he was and his psychopathology - what isn't talked enough about is that he was borderline retarded and his decisions proved it. He was never going to win against Russia, Hitler was idiotic enough to think the Russians would surrender fast before winter came. This is the same idiot who actually believed the Brits were going to ally themselves with him.

And boo fucking hoo about Britain losing its empire - its empire was built on evil, racism and greed as well and the United States by default got stuck with the mess the British Empire left behind in the Middle East, got stuck with the mess the French left behind in Vietnam, stuck with the mess the Japanese and Chinese left behind in Korea. The US wanted no part of WWII and if not for the idiot Hitler declaring war on America they may have stayed out of Europe completely and let the mighty Canadians and Brits open up a second front on their own.

dyna mo · 05-16-2013, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Some of them lived. It was in the final scene... They made it to the "free zone".

oh yeah, i need to watch that again, i've only seen it on tv.

Rochard · 05-16-2013, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

The Russians weren't being beaten by anybody, wouldn't have mattered if Great Britain had been defeated by Germany and forced to fight the Russians or allied themselves with Germany voluntarily. Russia lost 27 million people in WWII and if they had to lose 127 million they still wouldn't have given in. The little gutless bitch Hitler double crossed Stalin on the Molotov Pact and invaded Russia by total surprise - Russia was totally unprepared but soon enough they gathered their wits and resources and dug in like no country ever dug in, had to, Stalin ordered ANYBODY showing any cowardice to be shot on the spot. Hitler was an absolute moron, people in general and historians as well dwell on how evil he was and his psychopathology - what isn't talked enough about is that he was borderline retarded and his decisions proved it. He was never going to win against Russia, Hitler was idiotic enough to think the Russians would surrender fast before winter came. This is the same idiot who actually believed the Brits were going to ally themselves with him.

And boo fucking hoo about Britain losing its empire - its empire was built on evil, racism and greed as well and the United States by default got stuck with the mess the British Empire left behind in the Middle East, got stuck with the mess the French left behind in Vietnam, stuck with the mess the Japanese and Chinese left behind in Korea. The US wanted no part of WWII and if not for the idiot Hitler declaring war on America they may have stayed out of Europe completely and let the mighty Canadians and Brits open up a second front on their own.

Tell us how you really feel!

Hitler was going to double cross everyone, it was just a matter of when. He made promises to everyone and eventually violated all of them.

And Russia really didn't need anyone's help. Russia was magically creating entire divisions out of thin air... Just when it looked like Russia was going to loose a battle, presto, twenty brand new divisions suddenly popped up.

It's amazing really that such small countries - Germany and Japan - thought they could take on such huge vast countries with unlimited resources.

Imortyl Pussycat · 05-16-2013, 09:56 PM

russians are better at hacking than americans, that much i know

2013 · 05-16-2013, 10:15 PM

5000 terrorists

just a punk · 05-16-2013, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogueteens

not a second front - a first front, while the UK stood alone against the Nazi's the Russians had a non-aggression pact with the Germans.

Ah I see now. I thought you were talked about the second front.

rogueteens · 05-17-2013, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

The Russians weren't being beaten by anybody, wouldn't have mattered if Great Britain had been defeated by Germany and forced to fight the Russians or allied themselves with Germany voluntarily. Russia lost 27 million people in WWII and if they had to lose 127 million they still wouldn't have given in. The little gutless bitch Hitler double crossed Stalin on the Molotov Pact and invaded Russia by total surprise - Russia was totally unprepared but soon enough they gathered their wits and resources and dug in like no country ever dug in, had to, Stalin ordered ANYBODY showing any cowardice to be shot on the spot. Hitler was an absolute moron, people in general and historians as well dwell on how evil he was and his psychopathology - what isn't talked enough about is that he was borderline retarded and his decisions proved it. He was never going to win against Russia, Hitler was idiotic enough to think the Russians would surrender fast before winter came. This is the same idiot who actually believed the Brits were going to ally themselves with him.

And boo fucking hoo about Britain losing its empire - its empire was built on evil, racism and greed as well and the United States by default got stuck with the mess the British Empire left behind in the Middle East, got stuck with the mess the French left behind in Vietnam, stuck with the mess the Japanese and Chinese left behind in Korea. The US wanted no part of WWII and if not for the idiot Hitler declaring war on America they may have stayed out of Europe completely and let the mighty Canadians and Brits open up a second front on their own.

okay, if you like. Germany made great strides into southern Russia and got very, very close to the vital oilfields. (Russia may have a huge army but if they cannot move it then what good would that do?), it was the Russian winter that gave Russia the time to counter attack. Again, if Hitler didn't have two major fronts to fight on, how much further could he have got into Russia before the important winter if he had the full might of the German army pushing into Russia?

The US's rise in the second half of the 20th century was built entirely on how it fucked over its allies during and after the war. You may have your opinion on the British empire but really, have a look at how the US has conducted itself since its late entry into the second world war up until today.

nico-t · 05-17-2013, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZiggiZiggiCrew

Even hot sluts being used as cannon fodder by corrupt governments. Hot sluts exist because they're.. hot sluts who can be fucked. Not to abuse for retarded war agendas and get them killed. Evolution has become confused.

Antonio · 05-17-2013, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nico-t

I'm ghey

no shit

.

CDSmith · 05-17-2013, 10:11 AM

Yes, because in order to know if today's modern militaries in Russian and USA are comparable or superior to one another we must first talk for 8 pages about soldier from 70 yrs ago and who beat Hitler.

Answering of question GFY style. Nowhwere else on interwebs is topic fleshed out so fervently.

Das is goot!

Rochard · 05-17-2013, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Yes, because in order to know if today's modern militaries in Russian and USA are comparable or superior to one another we must first talk for 8 pages about soldier from 70 yrs ago and who beat Hitler.

Answering of question GFY style. Nowhwere else on interwebs is topic fleshed out so fervently.

Das is goot!

And the space race too!

That's what message boards are about - going off subject!

dyna mo · 05-17-2013, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Yes, because in order to know if today's modern militaries in Russian and USA are comparable or superior to one another we must first talk for 8 pages about soldier from 70 yrs ago and who beat Hitler.

Answering of question GFY style. Nowhwere else on interwebs is topic fleshed out so fervently.

Das is goot!

so you are saying the russian army is not as good as the u.s. army yes?

CDSmith · 05-17-2013, 10:30 AM

Space race. Ha! Now that cold war has ended long ago it should be time the two main entrants in all these races work together instead of competing. Twice the brain power, half the cost.

Too bad neither is smart enough to do it.

CDSmith · 05-17-2013, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

so you are saying the russian army is not as good as the u.s. army yes?

Easy way to find out. Pit 500 Russian troops against 500 US troops on the world's largest paintball course and let them sort it out.

Then later, after the group shower, bond over vodka.

RKLover · 05-17-2013, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

If you like to do it your way of the way of Rochard, sure, do it. I.e.:

1) We won WWII! (ok, how many German tank divisions were destroyed by the USA? how many German soldiers were killed by the USA? who and when hoisted the US flag on the Reichstag)?

I would submit that Russia did a good job of picking the winning side. Oops. Wait. No, they didn't. They began the war as Axis allies, then did such a shitty job, they were kicked out of the club.

First off Russia began their Alliance with Germany badly by losing to Finland. Why? Because Stalin had executed over 60% of the Officer Corp and 70% of the General staff.

Hitler saw how weak the Russian Army had become and decided the time was right to double-cross Stalin. Turned out to be a good idea, poorly executed. The Axis had wiped out 59% of the Russian Army by the end of 1941. They never even needed to capture Volgagrad, it had no strategic value and they could have gone by it, but Hitler wanted to rub the capture of "Stalingrad" in Stalins face.

The U.S. Sent Military Aid, including Tanks & Planes to the tune of $20 Billion in 1940's dollars to Russia, on American Merchant ships that had to convoy through the German U-boat controlled shipping routes. The Russian Navy was almost no help here, as the Germans had destroyed it. You had more Amercan Merchant Marine sailors drinking beer in Murmansk on any given night than Russia had left in it's Navy.

How many German Tank divisions did the U.S destroy? Besides the German, Italian AND Japaneses Tanks on the ground in Africa, Italy, France, Germany and all across the Pacific; the USA also carried the brunt of the Air War over Germany. Half of our 400,000 military causalties were U.S. Aviators who died, mostly carrying out the daylight bombing raids that destroyed Germany's production capacity and transportation systems. The U.S.A wiped out the German Tanks before they could be built and destroyed the roads and railroads they would have been shipped on.

There is no doubt, that neither Britain or Russia had the ability to provide the Aircraft and crews of Airmen the USA invested. Germany would not have been destroyed without this effort, Russia and Britain probably would have negotiated a truce and the French would be speaking German today.

As for raising the flag over the Reichstag. Wow. Would you say there was ton of strategic value in doing that? Would you say it was the most significant moment of the war?

Or would you say that it did not even matter, as the Yalta Conference had determined who would possess and govern every bit of Germany, Italy and Japans territories?

Still, there is no doubt in my mind that Russia suffered more horribly than any other nation during the course of WWII. The USSR's total casualties are estimated at 22 to 30 million people. Thats almost as many people as Stalin had killed (estimates suggest 35 million) before the war. The courage and endurance of the people was incredible. A million died of starvation alone in Leningrad, and no one knows all the numbers for Volgagrad.

To Mutt's point, sure, maybe some of that courage was artificial. The casualty figures for the battle of Stalingrad report that 14,000 Russian soldiers were executed by their own people.

dyna mo · 05-17-2013, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Easy way to find out. Pit 500 Russian troops against 500 US troops on the world's largest paintball course and let them sort it out.

Then later, after the group shower, bond over vodka.

this should be the rules of engagement for allwars, except for the showering part.

Rochard · 05-17-2013, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RKLover

I would submit that Russia did a good job of picking the winning side. Oops. Wait. No, they didn't. They began the war as Axis allies, then did such a shitty job, they were kicked out of the club.

First off Russia began their Alliance with Germany badly by losing to Finland. Why? Because Stalin had executed over 60% of the Officer Corp and 70% of the General staff.

Hitler saw how weak the Russian Army had become and decided the time was right to double-cross Stalin. Turned out to be a good idea, poorly executed. They never even needed to capture Volgagrad, it had no strategic value and they could have gone by it, but Hitler wanted to rub the capture of "Stalingrad" in Stalins face.

The U.S. Sent Military Aid, including Tanks & Planes to the tune of $20 Billion in 1940's dollars to Russia, on American Merchant ships that had to convoy through the German U-boat controlled shipping routes. The Russian Navy was almost no help here, as the Germans had destroyed it. You had more Amercan Merchant Marine sailors drinking beer in Murmansk on any given night than Russia had left in it's Navy.

How many German Tank divisions did the U.S destroy? Besides the German, Italian AND Japaneses Tanks on the ground in Africa, Italy, France and Germany; the USA also carried the brunt of the Air War over Germany. Half of our 400,000 military causalties were U.S. Aviators who died, mostly carrying out the daylight bombing raids that destroyed Germany's production capacity and transportation systems. The U.S.A wiped out the German Tanks before they could be built and destroyed the roads and railroads they would have been shipped on.

There is no doubt, that neither Britain or Russia had the ability to provide the Aircraft and crews of Airmen the USA invested. Germany would not have been destroyed without this effort, Russia and Britain probably would have negotiated a truce and the French would be speaking German today.

As for raising the flag over the Reichstag. Wow. Would you say there was ton of strategic value in doing that? Would you say it was the most significant moment of the war?

Or would you say that it did not even matter, as the Yalta Conference had determined who would possess and govern every bit of Germany, Italy and Japans territories?

Still, there is no doubt in my mind that Russia suffered more horribly than any other nation during the course of WWII. The USSR's total casualties are estimated at 22 to 30 million people. Thats almost as many people as Stalin had killed (estimates suggest 35 million) before the war. The courage and endurance of the people was incredible. A million died of starvation alone in Leningrad, and no one knows all the numbers for Volgagrad.

To Mutt's point, sure, maybe some of that courage was artificial. The casualty figures for the battle of Stalingrad report that 14,000 Russian soldiers were executed by their own people.

Very interesting....

Rochard · 05-17-2013, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Space race. Ha! Now that cold war has ended long ago it should be time the two main entrants in all these races work together instead of competing. Twice the brain power, half the cost.

Too bad neither is smart enough to do it.

This is what is happening now. Being as the US no longer has the Space Shuttles, the US relies on Russia to get Americans and supplies to the International space station.

Eventually society will look back at all of this bickering... And laugh.

What's slowly happening now is that all countries are becoming the same. Russia is no longer communist, and even China is changing too. Eventually it will no longer be "one country is better than the other" but instead "how have we helped each other".

Fuck, we bicker about the Space Race when the truth is the only reason anyone did what they did was because of the work the Germans did.

CDSmith · 05-17-2013, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

this should be the rules of engagement for allwars, except for the showering part.

No no, the showering is important. Makes for a better hockey team, I'm sure it will work for the military.

:D

dyna mo · 05-17-2013, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

No no, the showering is important. Makes for a better hockey team, I'm sure it will work for the military.

:D

maybe that's why i've never gotten into hockey?

Antonio · 05-17-2013, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RKLover

First off Russia began their Alliance with Germany badly by losing to Finland.

You should learn the difference b/n fiction and reality. The Finish war is yet another war the Russians didn't lose ? true, they went there extremely ill prepared and the Fins put up tremendous fight, but if memory serves me right, the war ended with the Russians taking territory from the Fins. I am pretty sure that this is portrayed as the Russians losing the war by every single US or Western media, but it simply did not happen.

You are 100% correct about Stalin crippling his own army and you are 100% correct about the US helping the Russians during the war. "In total, the US deliveries through Lend-Lease amounted to $11 billion in materials: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks); 11,400 aircraft and 1.75 million tons of food"

alex.missyouth · 05-17-2013, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nico-t

Even hot sluts being used as cannon fodder by corrupt governments. Hot sluts exist because they're.. hot sluts who can be fucked. Not to abuse for retarded war agendas and get them killed. Evolution has become confused.

This is profound.

Rochard · 05-17-2013, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogueteens

The US's rise in the second half of the 20th century was built entirely on how it fucked over its allies during and after the war. You may have your opinion on the British empire but really, have a look at how the US has conducted itself since its late entry into the second world war up until today.

How exactly has the use fucked over it's allies?

rogueteens · 05-17-2013, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RKLover

There is no doubt, that neither Britain or Russia had the ability to provide the Aircraft and crews of Airmen the USA invested. Germany would not have been destroyed without this effort, Russia and Britain probably would have negotiated a truce and the French would be speaking German today.

A couple of minor points, Churchill had plenty of chances to negotiate a truce and even during "The Darkest Hour" refused.
Yes America did provide (sell) loads of hardware but their troops were badly trained and their leaders refused point blank to learn the lessons learnt the hard way by the British in the war with Germany. an example being that the USAF insisted on restarting day raids, ignoring the RAF advice to fly by night resulting in huge losses.

just a punk · 05-17-2013, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nico-t

I'm ghey

We know. However this is not something to be proud of

_Richard_ · 05-17-2013, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alex.missyouth

This is profound.

thought so too

just a punk · 05-17-2013, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

so you are saying the russian army is not as good as the u.s. army yes?

I can second it. Our army is not as good as the US one. Yours at least much bigger than ours. On the other hand, in case of war, the strength will not mean anything because of nukes. It's like a slim guy against a huge bodybuilder on steroids when both have guns

just a punk · 05-17-2013, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antonio

You are 100% correct about Stalin crippling his own army and you are 100% correct about the US helping the Russians during the war. "In total, the US deliveries through Lend-Lease amounted to $11 billion in materials: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks); 11,400 aircraft and 1.75 million tons of food"

Yep, but not for free. It was done in exchange of gold. That's just a business

Rochard · 05-17-2013, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogueteens

A couple of minor points, Churchill had plenty of chances to negotiate a truce and even during "The Darkest Hour" refused.

Churchill saw the wisdom in standing his ground. Hilter was a one trick pony - he would promise he wouldn't attack, would stage "incidents" and then claim he was protecting "Germans and German interests" and then would attack.

Sure, Churchill could have signed a peace treaty... And then watched as Germany build up in invasion force in France while Hilter start complaining loudly about how "Germans were being treated" in the UK.

He did the right thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogueteens

Yes America did provide (sell) loads of hardware but their troops were badly trained and their leaders refused point blank to learn the lessons learnt the hard way by the British in the war with Germany. an example being that the USAF insisted on restarting day raids, ignoring the RAF advice to fly by night resulting in huge losses.

Not at all. Americans believed in brute force, not hiding in the darkness of night and maybe hitting the target. They wanted to destroy their targets, not play guessing games.

Rochard · 05-17-2013, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

I can second it. Our army is not as good as the US one. Yours at least much bigger than ours. On the other hand, in case of war, the strength will not mean anything because of nukes. It's like a slim guy against a huge bodybuilder on steroids when both have guns

Nukes don't come into play in such discussions. Once one side uses them, the other side would too. This is why we've been fighting proxy wars for the past fifty years.

dyna mo · 05-17-2013, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

I can second it. Our army is not as good as the US one. Yours at least much bigger than ours. On the other hand, in case of war, the strength will not mean anything because of nukes. It's like a slim guy against a huge bodybuilder on steroids when both have guns

i was just fucking with my buddy, cdsmith, richard style, i figured he'd appreciate that.

nevertheless, i'm not so sure. ultimately it depends where and why. you guys invade us and y'all will have some probs, we invade y'all, we'll have issues. this happens in some shithole somewhere, it will be a who can't shoot who the most.

it's also hard to gauge how russia would do since the union broke-up. not much experience to draw on.

also, i am not so sure we all settled things at the end of the cold war and our governments are now buddy buddy.

just like when we were all buddy buddy with apollo-soyuz yet spying like crazy on each other and who knows what else.

helterskelter808 · 05-17-2013, 02:05 PM

Operation Drumbeat was a prime example of us knowing better than countries with experience, when we refused to black out coastal areas, allowing U-Boats free reign to attack whatever they liked. Seems absolutely staggering and ubelievable, but this was the decision of Admiral Ernest King, perhaps motivated by an intense hatred of Britain.

The British warned us about Operation Drumbeat (after cracking Enigma, something Hollyweird thinks we did before we were even in the war), but were ignored. End result:

Quote:

A few German U-boats were responsible for the sinking of a total of 397 ships in the first six months of 1942. There were 171 ships sunk off the Atlantic Coast from Maine to Florida, 62 sunk in the Gulf of Mexico, and 141 in the Caribbean. A total of 2,403 persons were killed and 1,178 were wounded.

Explosions could be heard and burning wrecks could be seen from the shoreline at night. Dead bodies, debris and oil washed ashore on east coast beaches. Despite all of this, blackouts were never implemented as they were along the coasts of England and Germany.

This gave the German submarine crews a tremendous advantage in being able to spot cargo ships running along the coast at night with their lights extinguished. A "dim-out" was eventually mandated, but even with the lights dimmed out, patrol boats were able see the glow of New York from a distance of 25 miles off shore.

Not sure where that text is originally from, but it's not Wikipedia. Wikipedia though says the Brits eventually had to build ships and supply them to us because we wouldn't just turn out the lights; as it describes, a kind of "reverse Lend Lease".

Speaking of which, since people have been talking about Lend Lease, you can read about "reverse Lend Lease" here:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=16340

Quote:

Under reverse lend-lease, the British have provided our bomber and fighter commands with many necessary items.

Specially heated winter flying clothing to protect bomber crews from the intense cold suffered at high altitudes was supplied by the British to our Air Forces.

When certain United States fighter gun sights proved less effective than the sights employed by British fighters, the Royal Air Force provided a substantial number of British-type sights for immediate installation.

American bombers have been equipped by the British with photographic equipment effective in obtaining photographs of the target during the bomb run.

The British have also provided facilities for the development and production of a new type of protective body armor designed by our medical authorities.

A variety of other aid has also been provided for our Air Forces by the United Kingdom.

Mobile repair shops located throughout the United Kingdom recondition American bombers forced to make crash landings.

A one-man dinghy, developed by the British for parachute landings at sea, provides pilots of American planes with a one-man floating raft.

Specialized British radio equipment has been installed in American planes which has given greater safety to our bomber crews, and has improved the effectiveness of our bombing missions.

For purposes of recognition training, the Royal Air Force has delivered to the United States Air Forces more than 60,000 items of aircraft, warship, and armed vehicle recognition devices.

These are but a few instances of the aid which has been provided to our Air Forces under reverse lend-lease and without payment by us.

Although Great Britain depends upon imports for a large portion of her curtailed food supply, she is providing American forces with substantial amounts of foodstuffs as reverse lend-lease aid. These range from fresh vegetables, flour, and potatoes to corn-on-the-cob and soft drinks.

Australia, New Zealand, and India have also provided United States forces in those areas with substantial reverse lend-lease aid, including most of their food.

[...]

Recreational needs of American soldiers have been met by an Australian program which calls for every type of game and accessory from boxing gloves to medicine balls- in all, more than 420,000 items of such equipment.

Numerous hospitals, including the newest and most modern in the country, have been made available to the United States Army for its exclusive use.

Official air, rail, and water passenger costs and freight, and cable and telegraph expenses of our troops are paid by the Commonwealth Government as reverse lend-lease aid.

A large number of small ships of various types has been turned over to American authorities, and Australian shipyards are now turning out landing barges and small vessels for the combat use of our forces.

On September 29, 1943, the Australian Minister of Finance introduced the Commonwealth Budget for the current fiscal year in the Australian Parliament. He estimated that Australia will spend approximately $323,000,000 for reverse lend-lease during the year July 1, 1943, to June 30, 1944.

New Zealand, no less than Australia and the United Kingdom, has supplied its share of reverse lend-lease aid. For the period ending June 30, 1943, the New Zealand Government has officially reported having expended $51,000,000 for reverse lend-lease aid to the United States

[...]

American requirements under reverse lend-lease have also occasioned shortages in many other phases of New Zealand's civilian life. Nevertheless, the Dominion continues greatly to expand the scope and volume of her reverse lend-lease to the United States

[...]

While no official report has yet been received from the Government of India, our Army reports total expenditures by India for reverse lend-lease aid of approximately $56,900,000

Canada has received no lend-lease aid from the United States. She has paid cash for the supplies obtained in this country. It may be noted, however, that Canada has already made a billion dollars' worth of aid available without payment to the United Kingdom and is now engaged in making available another billion dollars' worth of aid to the United Kingdom, Russia, China, and the other United Nations on a mutual-aid program similar to our lend-lease program.

This statement of the expenditures made by the British Commonwealth of Nations for reverse lend-lease aid furnished to the United States, and of the expansion of this program so as to include exports of materials and foodstuffs for the account of United States agencies from the United Kingdom and the British colonies, emphasizes the contribution which the British Commonwealth has made "to the defense of the United States" while taking its place on the battle fronts.

just a punk · 05-17-2013, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Nukes don't come into play in such discussions. Once one side uses them, the other side would too. This is why we've been fighting proxy wars for the past fifty years.

Nukes will be used in case of any direct (non-proxy) Russia-vs-USA conflict. We just have no other weapon against your aircraft carriers. I.e. one US aircraft carrier == one Russian tactical nuke missile. I mean that non-nuclear war is just impossible. At least, according to our military doctrine. Telling you that as the Russian officer in reserve.

dyna mo · 05-17-2013, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

Nukes will be used in case of any direct (non-proxy) Russia-vs-USA conflict. We just have no other weapon against your aircraft carriers. I.e. one US aircraft carriers == one Russian tactical nuke missile. I mean that non-nuclear was is just impossible. At least, according to our military doctrine. Telling you that as the Russian officer in reserve.

i'd bet the u.s. won't be the next entity firing off a nuke. that's some pretty bad publicity to deal with.

_Richard_ · 05-17-2013, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

Operation Drumbeat was a prime example of us knowing better than countries with experience, when we refused to black out coastal areas, allowing U-Boats free reign to attack whatever they liked. Seems absolutely staggering and ubelievable, but this was the decision of Admiral Ernest King, perhaps motivated by an intense hatred of Britain.

The British warned us about Operation Drumbeat (after cracking Enigma, something Hollyweird thinks we did before we were even in the war), but were ignored. End result:

Not sure where that text is originally from, but it's not Wikipedia. Wikipedia though says the Brits eventually had to build ships and supply them to us because we wouldn't just turn out the lights; as it describes, a kind of "reverse Lend Lease".

Speaking of which, since people have been talking about Lend Lease, you can read about "reverse Lend Lease" here:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=16340

find the 'iceships' yet?

that was the plan for the uboats. build 'icebergs' as ships.

no joke.

05-16-2013, 02:56 PM	#162
MaDalton I am Amazing Content! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 39,826	even if it cost me like 1/4 of my fathers family - i am pretty thankful that Hitler was stopped. I can't imagine to live in a world like it was from 1933-45 __________________ AmazingContent.com - providing only the best content and service since 2003 Monetize your content on Veegaz.com - one of Germanies largest VOD sites Got German traffic? We convert it into money for you! Skype: madalton02826 - Email: oltecconsult [at] gmail [dot] com

05-16-2013, 09:56 PM	#169
Imortyl Pussycat Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Cali Posts: 5,449	russians are better at hacking than americans, that much i know __________________ Julie Larson julie {at} juicyads.com skype: imortylpussycat Buy & Sell Ads on The Most Sexy Advertising Network on the Planet available ad spots \| sign up now

05-17-2013, 10:11 AM	#175
CDSmith Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: My network is hosted at TECHIEMEDIA.net ...Wait, you meant where am I located at? Oh... okay, I'm in Winnipeg, Canada. Oops. :) Posts: 51,460	Yes, because in order to know if today's modern militaries in Russian and USA are comparable or superior to one another we must first talk for 8 pages about soldier from 70 yrs ago and who beat Hitler. Answering of question GFY style. Nowhwere else on interwebs is topic fleshed out so fervently. Das is goot! __________________ *Promote Wildmatch, ImLive, Sexier.com, and more!!* ALWAYS THE HIGHEST PAYOUTS: Big Bux/ImLive SIGNUP ON NOW!!! Put some PUSSYCA$H in your pocket. ICQ me at: 31024634

05-17-2013, 10:30 AM	#178
CDSmith Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: My network is hosted at TECHIEMEDIA.net ...Wait, you meant where am I located at? Oh... okay, I'm in Winnipeg, Canada. Oops. :) Posts: 51,460	Space race. Ha! Now that cold war has ended long ago it should be time the two main entrants in all these races work together instead of competing. Twice the brain power, half the cost. Too bad neither is smart enough to do it. __________________ *Promote Wildmatch, ImLive, Sexier.com, and more!!* ALWAYS THE HIGHEST PAYOUTS: Big Bux/ImLive SIGNUP ON NOW!!! Put some PUSSYCA$H in your pocket. ICQ me at: 31024634

05-16-2013, 01:37 PM	#154
2013 So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: lollling Posts: 4,390	i like pooo

05-16-2013, 02:04 PM	#156
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 64,840	didn't they all die in the end? after their group went coocoo on each other and the 1 dude shot and killed his best friend/traitor?

05-16-2013, 02:18 PM	#158
helterskelter808 So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 3,405	^ Ironic, really. The only country Hitler wanted to be allies with, or at least didn't want to fight, and the country he had the greatest admiration for, was the one country that had the cojones to stand up to him. If you'd allied with Hitler you'd have remained a superpower, alongside Germany and Japan. You'd have your Empire, the Krauts would have their lebensraum in the East, the Japs would have whatever parts of Asia you hadn't already carved up, the Italians would have Italy, and we'd be speaking Canadian.

05-16-2013, 10:15 PM	#170
2013 So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: lollling Posts: 4,390	5000 terrorists