Yet another WW2 thread

[Lizardbreath]

You know if America had just not been lazy and gone to defeat germany when Britain/france first declared war there wouldn't be so much controversy over the war. The fact is that we waited waaaay to long. It would have been over in like half the time if we had joined in earlier on. Same goes with russia. how stupid can you be. Signing a treaty that says you wont attack eachother when germany is attacking everything next to it...they knew russia was next.

 

[Homem mAIOR]

Well, Russia had no officers to controll the army since Estaline assassinated 3000 of them and had just come out from a war with finland that was not very pleasent for them... That's the main reason for the treaty to be sign...

Ashigaru; I've lost my sleep thinking about your wrath...
browse this books there are some you might enjoy...

 

[Tipsy]

This thread has sunken to an all time low. Let's all attack each other because English is not their first language, let's attack each other out of spelling mistakes, let's attack each other out of grammar. Not to mention attacking people by using the words "French" and "British" instead of France an Britain. What's next? Attack people because you don't like their name?

As for Kuzmich's source, it is biased, but that does not means it is automatically wrong. You should easily be able to pick through what is biased and what is not. For example, take a look at the first sentence.
"As a result of its combat operations the Red Army advanced up to 500-1300 km and destroyed 218 enemy divisions."
You can't turn numbers to be biased unless you add stuff to it. I read this, what I got out of it is that the Soviet Army advanced up 500-1300km and destroyed 218 enemy divisions. Where this counts towards this argument is not biased, it is statistics. Unless you want to go into what Russians think of it, but that is not the case, we are looking at statistics here.

Maybe if you look at:
"The key outcome of the Great Patriotic War is that the Soviet people and their armed forces withstood the extremely fierce and violent struggle, smashed Germany's mighty war machine and beat the nazi ideology, a spiritual basis for planning and waging annexation wars..."
Maybe that is biased, but what does that have to do with this debate? We are looking for who was the most significant country in World War II, not the outcomes or whatever. His source has it where it counts.

And yes, our media is biased. Our media does not go out to tell us the facts of the world, they take the facts and bend them to what sells. Find the facts and you can use it, but use pretty much any media fully is just setting yourself up for disaster. This applies to both the United States' and Russia's Media.

Also, for the sake of my sanity, please stop using the words owned and ignorance.

Edit:
@ Pan

The united stats still had its thumb up it's ass when they got attacked because they are jsut a bunch of pussys.

Is there any stance that the United States takes that isn't wrong in your opinion? Being the so called 'Leaders of the Free World' doesn't float your boat and neither does being an isolationist country. The United States will either do what it thinks is right in the international community, or it will leave it alone. It seems you are choosing the third option saying that the United States is always wrong no matter what is chooses.

 

[Ashigaru]

The US goes to war, people bitch about it. The US refuses to go to war, people bitch about it. :rolleyes

I didn't "attack" anyone, simply criticized.

 

[DB]

As for Kuzmich's source, it is biased, but that does not means it is automatically wrong. You should easily be able to pick through what is biased and what is not. For example, take a look at the first sentence.
"As a result of its combat operations the Red Army advanced up to 500-1300 km and destroyed 218 enemy divisions."
You can't turn numbers to be biased unless you add stuff to it. I read this, what I got out of it is that the Soviet Army advanced up 500-1300km and destroyed 218 enemy divisions. Where this counts towards this argument is not biased, it is statistics. Unless you want to go into what Russians think of it, but that is not the case, we are looking at statistics here.

Although the site fails to mention where the statistics were obtained. Which leads me to believe that it is inaccurate.

 

[Tipsy]

Although the site fails to mention where the statistics were obtained. Which leads me to believe that it is inaccurate.

And what you said leads me to see that you did not look into the site. It blatantly says, whether you failed to search for it or not, that all the information from that article was obtained from publications of "The Central Museum of the Great Patriotic War." If you would like to argue about the facts in the publications, argue with the historians who wrote it, not with me.

I didn't "attack" anyone, simply criticized.

Attack and criticize are synonyms, so either word is fine with me.

 

[Ashigaru]

Attack and criticize are synonyms, so either word is fine with me.

If I "attacked" him I would have called him a ****ing moron, do you see that anywhere?

 

[amrtin77]

just drop it if your not going to make an argument. i hate to be a prick, but you guys should just take it to the asylum if you want to flame.

or at least contribute to the discussion. no one cares if you want to add something else at the end of the post, like tipsy is doing, but at least make the post somewhat relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[Emperor Pan I]

Edit:
@ Pan

Is there any stance that the United States takes that isn't wrong in your opinion? Being the so called 'Leaders of the Free World' doesn't float your boat and neither does being an isolationist country. The United States will either do what it thinks is right in the international community, or it will leave it alone. It seems you are choosing the third option saying that the United States is always wrong no matter what is chooses.

There is a big difference between a country like Germany attacking and controling Europe and some guy in Iraq who didn't in any way attack the United States.

When the United States are needed, they decide to sit around and do nothing. Then when everything is said and done they take it upon themselves to get involved in every other country for personal gain. Everything from vietnam to Iraq had no justification compared to WWII.

 

[Kuzmich]

I wouldn't recommend you try and say you know how to fight a war better than me. Have you heard of the blitz, yeah tanks were useds as the primary unit, kicked some serious ass as well. What good is infantry without any support? They serve no purpose other than to add to the casualties list.

If Stalin didn't want a second front then why was he trying to get help from the Brits?

I didn't say he didn't want a second front, i said that USSR could have won the war without it. And since then the Second Front was opened we already have pushed the Germans half way to Berlin and started to occupy German satelite nations, it is simply logical that we would have won the war even without D-day and western front. But of course then more of our people would have to die.

As for you discrediting infantry. Infantry without any support can win wars. Infantry if it uses the right tactics and there is enough of it can destroy tank batalions, take artillery positions and so on, as it was demonstrated a thousand times during the battle of Stalingrad then both the Germans and the Russians often used infantry armed with anti-tank weapons and bombs to take out each others tanks, and then later in the battle of Berlin there the German resistanse took out a considerable number of Russian tanks because Russian tanks were in tactical disadvantage.

As for your recommendations or absense of such, i will disregard that, i do claim that i know better then you how to fight a war.

And since we are all talking different languages here

Вы че, думайете что если по испански умейете строчить так крутые? Товарищи, вы фрайера.

 

[Ashigaru]

As for your recommendations or absense of such, i will disregard that, i do claim that i know better then you how to fight a war.

Theres a difference between winning a war and winning a battle.

 

[Kuzmich]

True, but winning a majority of most important battles means to contribute most to winning the war, and that is what USSR did. Scale of war between the Eastern front and Western front can not even be measured by the same numbers. Eastern front was fought on a 3 times larger scale then all Western fronts combined.

 

[Ashigaru]

Under the right leadership losing a battle could be just as good as winning one, although rarely.

 

[Kuzmich]

I do not see the connection between that unsupported statement and the topic of the discussion.

 

[Ashigaru]

And I dont see the point in you reviving a dead thread...

Meh...

 

[Homem mAIOR]

Well, winning battles doesn't mean winning wars... Like general Pirrus once said: " If we win another battle like this, we'll loose the war."

 

[Kuzmich]

Again a vague statement that is not clearifying your point.

 

[Ashigaru]

Learn to "infer"

v. in·ferred, in·fer·ring, in·fers
v. tr.


1. To conclude from evidence or premises.

2. To reason from circumstance; surmise: We can infer that his motive in publishing the diary was less than honorable.

3. To lead to as a consequence or conclusion: "Socrates argued that a statue inferred the existence of a sculptor" (Academy).

4. To hint; imply.

v. intr.

To draw inferences.

 

[Kuzmich]

Do you think an act of you copying a definition of a word from an online dictionary prooves that your IQ level is somehow above that of about 50? Cause, if so, sorry buddy, but it doesn't. I know what you are suggesting with your foolish statements. Yet still they have nothing to do with your claim that US did more then USSR in World War 2. Let me elaborate:

You say:

Under the right leadership losing a battle could be just as good as winning one, although rarely.[.quote]

Implying what? How does this have anything to do with the topic? Plus i simply disagree with a direct meaning of that statement, but that is beyond the point.

Homer says:

Well, winning battles doesn't mean winning wars... Like general Pirrus once said: " If we win another battle like this, we'll loose the war."

Probably implying that although USSR won many battles it has lost a lot of its man while winning those battles. That is true, but his further implication is probably that USSR would loose the war because of the lack of men power. That is false, USSR's armies were numerous althroughout the war.

I am really tired of discussing a matter your puny mind simply false to understand. State your point, support it, then we'll talk. That is of course directed towards Ashigaru.

 

[Ashigaru]

Since my intelligence far exceeds your own I will "dumb it down" for you.

Loosing a battle is a good way to gain allies, it can also bring your people closer together and improve their resolve. This of course is assuming you are a charismatic leader.

Winning a battle through immoral means is likely to have the inverse of that.