 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
Let's see here:
1)The Soviet Union was 100% wrong to invade Finland, period. There is absolutely no way it can be justified. Just because Dubya is using a bullshit doctrine of pre-emption today doesn't make it OK for either Stalin or him to use it.
And in any case, Iraq and Finland are not the same situation, although both wars are/were 100% wrong.
2)Soviets vs. Japan. First of all, Serb, you're right. A large Soviet army can't be deployed to the Far East over night. In fact, without massive US aid, it probably couldn't have been deployed at all, at least not as fast as it was. Most of its motorized transport and rail vehicles were Lend Lease from the US. Secondly, the Japanese Kwangtung Army was nothing more than a paper tiger. Sure, it had a lot of men, but the defeat of that army should not go down as a brilliant victory. Third, Serb, you know damn well the attack was opportunistic - yes, Stalin was "living up to the agreement" to attack, but after Japan surrendered he made a lot of bullshit territorial claims in the Far East. Why should the Soviets get client states in Korea, islands around Japan, and even, as they tried to demand, an occupation zone in Japan? I fail to understand that concept. You joined in the last days of the war, and your actions had little to no material effect on the outcome.
Totally different from the US joining in Europe a little late. Our involvement allowed the war to be won, period - between both Lend Lease and US military intervention. The fact is, without the US, the best the Soviet Union could have hoped for was a stalemate, with the Ukrainian breadbasket and probably even the Donetz industrial area in German hands.
3)Red Army being good/bad. Well, in 1941 it was saved only by the onset of winter. It's victories, prior to mid-1943, or even later, all came in winter. It's large advances were mainly won by superior numbers, and concentrating against the German allied troops such as Hungarians and Italians and Romanians. The Red Army won some campaigns when the numbers were about equal, in terms of men, at least, but the reason for their victories in these situations had to do with the US and Britain in Africa, Italy, and France, and the fact that the Red Army had a huge advantage in numbers of tanks and artillery, and that Lend Lease was providing for the motorization of the military (and the rear area transport capacity of it, not to mention food, etc.).
The Red Army, BY ITSELF, was simply not one of the world's premier ground forces. It became a steamroller when it was fighting inferior forces (whether inferior numerically or inferior in terms of quality - German allies), or when it was heavily supplied and armed by Lend Lease (remember, US resources fueled Soviet factories, as well), or when the German army was heavily distracted in the West (such as December 1944, when Hitler threw away his reserves in the West, in Operation Wacht am Rhein and Operation Nordwind).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
and lack of airplanes (Bristol Blenheim Mk I wasn't properly intoduced when the Winter War break out and we only had Fiat F-60s and Morane-Saulnier MS-601 planes). |
Then explain to me why, up through the end of the war, Finland had local air superiority any time they wanted it, over Soviet forces.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
Pekka, I agree, I was talking to Rasbelin.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
The Soviets outproduced the Germans throughout the war. |
Very true. But, a large amount of this production was made possible by US steel and various other resources.
Further, a lot of this production was able to be utilized because of things like US aviation fuel, locomotives, rail tracks, etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
It certainly was in 1941 and, to a large degree, in 1942. Even as late as 1945 Germany was winning tactical victories against the Red Army, and I'd argue that if the US and Britain hadn't been present in force in Italy and France, the Red Army would be seen as much worse during World War 2.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Boris, I have this source where this 88 cm gun commander is talking to his captors in prison. He was in africa defending a pass. Everytime an american tank came by, he destroyed it. However, he ran outta shells before the americans ran outta tanks. If you want, I'll go look for the source.
yes its true that the germans ran out of gas too (the battle of the bulge was won because peiper couldnt reach the US fuel dump), and they faced shortages everywhere. |
Right, and they had no ammo, because they had no gas. When the allies reached the German munitions plants, they were loaded with ammo. However, entire groups of tanks had to be abandoned because they had no gas. That was the ultimate cause of the ammo shortage on the front--no gas.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-12-2002 23:08
Regarding the weaponry, Finland had very little artillery, no many tanks (except for the Vickers Armstrong tanks) and lack of airplanes (Bristol Blenheim Mk I wasn't properly intoduced when the Winter War break out and we only had Fiat F-60s and Morane-Saulnier MS-601 planes).
.
God, what a numskull. 
Attachment: 
|
