• Ukraine on brink of 'full-scale war' with Russia, says President Poroshenko
    103 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;45851144]It almost did destroy the Soviet Union. The Wehrmacht was only a few miles from the Gates of Moscow and the only thing that stopped them from getting there was Hitler's own stupidity and saboteurs in the Wehrmacht who stopped winter clothing from reaching troops. The Soviet Union suffered twice the losses Germany did during the war. You've got no idea what you're talking about. [/QUOTE] Why do you assume that if Moscow fell the war would somehow be over instantly? As if that's the end-game - as if it would force the Soviets to surrender? It wouldn't even matter if Germany magically teleported entire armies to Moscow's doorstep through the mud and snow, if Moscow was facing defeat the Soviets would most likely torch it as they did in 1812 and would just begin hit-and-run tactics with the massive manpower and industrial capacity at their disposal which was still mostly located at the Far East, following heightened tensions with Japan. The myth that if Germany had just prepared for the winter it'd somehow tip the whole balance of the war is absurd. A winter coat won't do you much good when visibility is almost zero, supplies barely coming through due to not only lack of proper roads but also constant harassment by stranded Soviet forces operating behind enemy lines, and a general feeling of despair and hopelessness with many soldiers witnessing wholesale slaughter of women and children which no amount of propaganda and idealization can prepare you for. Sure, a lot of German soldiers would probably not freeze to death, but they'd still be as effective in combat as a frozen corpse. You underestimate both the Russian climate and the Soviet military.
[QUOTE=Melnek;45852243]Why do you assume that if Moscow fell the war would somehow be over instantly? As if that's the end-game - as if it would force the Soviets to surrender? It wouldn't even matter if Germany magically teleported entire armies to Moscow's doorstep through the mud and snow, if Moscow was facing defeat the Soviets would most likely torch it as they did in 1812 and would just begin hit-and-run tactics with the massive manpower and industrial capacity at their disposal which was still mostly located at the Far East, following heightened tensions with Japan. The myth that if Germany had just prepared for the winter it'd somehow tip the whole balance of the war is absurd. A winter coat won't do you much good when visibility is almost zero, supplies barely coming through due to not only lack of proper roads but also constant harassment by stranded Soviet forces operating behind enemy lines, and a general feeling of despair and hopelessness with many soldiers witnessing wholesale slaughter of women and children which no amount of propaganda and idealization can prepare you for. Sure, a lot of German soldiers would probably not freeze to death, but they'd still be as effective in combat as a frozen corpse. You underestimate both the Russian climate and the Soviet military.[/QUOTE] The Soviet Military in general was pretty fucking incompetent, and relied heavily on logistics from the British and supplies from the Americans. Without either of said things the Soviet Military would of been nothing more then a few partisan militias out in the Urals by the end of 1942. [editline]31st August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=WhollyRufus;45852142]Maybe the United States shouldn't have deployed ballistic missiles in the first place. A lot of seemingly aggressive things the soviets did were simply in response to stuff the Americans did: Seriously; Watch. Oliver. Stone's. Shit.[/QUOTE] The United States was reacting to the fact that the Soviet's fell back on about 90% of their agreements with the other allies. Shit like pulling out of Germany, Poland, the Baltics... Ya' know... Basic stuff that was agreed upon at Yalta which for some reason fell through, and until Stalin croaked, was pretty much stalled. By the time that Molotov had suggested that the USSR would join NATO, it was already to far into the game with proxy wars taking place in Korea, Vietnam, and the Middle East. I really do not need some idiot like Oliver Stone to teach me that my country is evil~(TM), and that the Soviets were innocent bystanders in all affairs. If we really want to get cocky, we can pronounce that the USSR was responsible for several cases of piracy in the Bering Sea and along the Scandinavian Coast Lines, fueling what we now know as the Red Scare.
[QUOTE=Virtanen;45848105]People need to stop suggesting this because it wouldn't do anything. Someone put it pretty well in another related thread: Ukraine's problem isn't weapons and equipment, Ukraine's problem is loyal troops. [editline]31st August 2014[/editline] well that and organization[/QUOTE] I didn't know much about the situation, I just assumed that maybe that could have been some help - so my bad.
[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;45847679]On the 15th of February 2003, what is claimed to be one of the largest demonstrations in British history took place against the Iraq War. One of the organizations that organized it was the Stop the War Coalition. This organization is one of Britain's largest anti-war organizations. It has only found one military intervention in the 21st Century to be justified: Russia's annexation of the Crimea. Doesn't that say something? It's a testament to the shameful ineptitude of US foreign policy that one of Britain's most high-profile anti-war organizations finds more moral justification for military action taken by a foreign power than any of taken by the West.[/QUOTE] Not really, Stop the War are pretty crazy and always side with the West's opponents
[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;45852142]Maybe the United States shouldn't have deployed ballistic missiles in the first place. A lot of seemingly aggressive things the soviets did were simply in response to stuff the Americans did: Seriously; Watch. Oliver. Stone's. Shit.[/QUOTE] I'll go ahead and assume you are completely unfamiliar with the Suez Crisis then, but the Soviets literally threatened to nuke France, Britain, Israel, and the U.S. NATO was entirely concerned with the ability for America to keep Europe safe and so they deployed them to Turkey. The following is where Soviets and the U.S. differ: the U.S. recognized that they would cause a political backlash before the Cuban Missile Crisis ever happened. These were also placed defensively, unlike the Soviets who were effectively using Cuba as a host site for an offensive "first-strike" advantage, while again ours were placed so that we could ensure NATO recognized America's ability to safeguard European nations. Sure you can say "but, but, Russia was protecting Cuba." No, they were using Cuba as a host ground that could easily target most of the U.S. because they wanted the "first-strike" advantage using their own missiles. Effectively it was a knee-jerk reaction by the Soviets that was clearly not discussed at all with anyone other than their own "government".
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;45852611]The Soviet Military in general was pretty fucking incompetent, and relied heavily on logistics from the British and supplies from the Americans. Without either of said things the Soviet Military would of been nothing more then a few partisan militias out in the Urals by the end of 1942.[/QUOTE] Is that seriously what they teach you in America?
[QUOTE=Melnek;45853385]Is that seriously what they teach you in America?[/QUOTE] What exactly is wrong with that kind of statement? British logistics, American supplies, Soviet blood. Welcome to the Allies in WW2.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;45850937]I've heard no news of Russian forces even thinking about Transinistria though?[/QUOTE] [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria#Russian_military_presence_in_Transnistria[/URL] [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Army_involvement_in_Transnistria[/URL] time to broaden own knowledge ... hint: they already there as peacekeepers ;) same as in occupied ex-Georgia territory
[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;45848032]American Senators traveled to Ukraine to encourage the protests and a State Department official was recorded discussing plans to topple the government. The west put intense pressure on Yanukovych to step down, rather than treating the whole thing as none of their business.[/QUOTE] Russia imposed their own genocide upon the Ukrainian people. And still deny it to this day. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor[/url] I don't know about you, but I'd gladly see my government toppled had they tried to kill me in the most slowest, painful ways possible. What you call "evil spy shit", today we would call Humanitarian Effort.
[QUOTE=Melnek;45852243]Why do you assume that if Moscow fell the war would somehow be over instantly? As if that's the end-game - as if it would force the Soviets to surrender? It wouldn't even matter if Germany magically teleported entire armies to Moscow's doorstep through the mud and snow, if Moscow was facing defeat the Soviets would most likely torch it as they did in 1812 and would just begin hit-and-run tactics with the massive manpower and industrial capacity at their disposal which was still mostly located at the Far East, following heightened tensions with Japan. The myth that if Germany had just prepared for the winter it'd somehow tip the whole balance of the war is absurd. A winter coat won't do you much good when visibility is almost zero, supplies barely coming through due to not only lack of proper roads but also constant harassment by stranded Soviet forces operating behind enemy lines, and a general feeling of despair and hopelessness with many soldiers witnessing wholesale slaughter of women and children which no amount of propaganda and idealization can prepare you for. Sure, a lot of German soldiers would probably not freeze to death, but they'd still be as effective in combat as a frozen corpse. You underestimate both the Russian climate and the Soviet military.[/QUOTE] Theres this thing, it's called "morale". Now, typically when the capital city of your country is captured, sacked, and burned to the ground, (all this after a series of insanely high losses and casualties, especially when your leader is sending men into battle with the express purpose of dying) morale tends to drop significantly. And as you put it, Soviet infantry watching their cities burn, comrades die in vain, and leaders run, would make them as effective in combat as a "frozen corpse". Now, this "morale" thing goes both ways. If a soldier gets proper winter clothing to fight the cold, then he'll be far happier and he'll perform better. Considering in the first few months of Barbarossa, the Blitz advanced to just a few miles outside of Moscow before winter arrived, millions of weapons and personnel had been captured, I'd say morale would remain high if they had proper winter clothing.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;45854166]Theres this thing, it's called "morale". Now, typically when the capital city of your country is captured, sacked, and burned to the ground, (all this after a series of insanely high losses and casualties, especially when your leader is sending men into battle with the express purpose of dying) morale tends to drop significantly. And as you put it, Soviet infantry watching their cities burn, comrades die in vain, and leaders run, would make them as effective in combat as a "frozen corpse". Now, this "morale" thing goes both ways. If a soldier gets proper winter clothing to fight the cold, then he'll be far happier and he'll perform better. Considering in the first few months of Barbarossa, the Blitz advanced to just a few miles outside of Moscow before winter arrived, millions of weapons and personnel had been captured, I'd say morale would remain high if they had proper winter clothing.[/QUOTE] Not to mention Soviet soldiers were often either shot or sent off to gulags for "defeatism" if they ever expressed their low morale, even in the slightest most innocent of ways.
[QUOTE=Melnek;45853385]Is that seriously what they teach you in America?[/QUOTE] Not sure if you know this but the Soviets were ill prepared to be invaded by Germany. They were still recovering from Stalins officer purge (which he instituted another purge in October) when the Germans invaded. Most of their more advanced weapons, like the SVT-40, were captured by the Germans in droves before they could be used. The tanks they had were outdated by 10 years and their aircraft would make WWI flyers bust a gut. Had they not had US and British support and supplies, they would have collapsed during the initial Blitz. [editline]31st August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;45854196]Not to mention Soviet soldiers were often either shot or sent off to gulags for "defeatism" if they ever expressed their low morale, even in the slightest most innocent of ways.[/QUOTE] Probably should also mention Order 277, the "not one step back" order. You know, the one that set up execution squads behind friendly lines that would shoot men who retreated.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;45854166]Theres this thing, it's called "morale". Now, typically when the capital city of your country is captured, sacked, and burned to the ground, (all this after a series of insanely high losses and casualties, especially when your leader is sending men into battle with the express purpose of dying) morale tends to drop significantly. And as you put it, Soviet infantry watching their cities burn, comrades die in vain, and leaders run, would make them as effective in combat as a "frozen corpse". Now, this "morale" thing goes both ways. If a soldier gets proper winter clothing to fight the cold, then he'll be far happier and he'll perform better. Considering in the first few months of Barbarossa, the Blitz advanced to just a few miles outside of Moscow before winter arrived, millions of weapons and personnel had been captured, I'd say morale would remain high if they had proper winter clothing.[/QUOTE] But none of that happened before when the Russians let Napoleon sack and burn the key cities - just they just withdrew their army further away. And that crippled the moral of the invaders - being stuck deep in hostile Russia with winter closing and over-stretched logistics and the bulk of the Russian forces just waiting. Napolean's march back was disastrous and it ruined his army.
That moment, when foreigners discuss YOUR history, rewriting it in the process... Let's just say Glorious Emperor America won it, with 2-3 soldiers from some cold Rusia, that was too weak to fight.
[QUOTE=NoDachiUK;45854298]But none of that happened before when the Russians let Napoleon sack and burn the key cities - just they just withdrew their army further away. And that crippled the moral of the invaders - being stuck deep in hostile Russia with winter closing and over-stretched logistics and the bulk of the Russian forces just waiting. Napolean's march back was disastrous and it ruined his army.[/QUOTE] There's a giant difference between Napoleon's forces that fought on foot trudging through Russia which was united by a Tsar, not a dictator many feared and hated, and the mechanized forces of the Germany military. If you were to compare them like so, then Germany would have been defeated in 1942 by the Soviets and the red flag would have flown over Berlin that year.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;45854348]There's a giant difference between Napoleon's forces that fought on foot trudging through Russia which was united by a Tsar, not a dictator many feared and hated, and the mechanized forces of the Germany military. If you were to compare them like so, then Germany would have been defeated in 1942 by the Soviets and the red flag would have flown over Berlin that year.[/QUOTE] I'm just saying that Russia losing they key cities and failing to stop Napoleon didn't damage their moral, like Trunk claimed. They just got pissed and waited for Napolean's army to go disorganized before attacking.
[QUOTE=Melnek;45852243]Why do you assume that if Moscow fell the war would somehow be over instantly? As if that's the end-game - as if it would force the Soviets to surrender? It wouldn't even matter if Germany magically teleported entire armies to Moscow's doorstep through the mud and snow, if Moscow was facing defeat the Soviets would most likely torch it as they did in 1812 and would just begin hit-and-run tactics with the massive manpower and industrial capacity at their disposal which was still mostly located at the Far East, following heightened tensions with Japan. The myth that if Germany had just prepared for the winter it'd somehow tip the whole balance of the war is absurd. A winter coat won't do you much good when visibility is almost zero, supplies barely coming through due to not only lack of proper roads but also constant harassment by stranded Soviet forces operating behind enemy lines, and a general feeling of despair and hopelessness with many soldiers witnessing wholesale slaughter of women and children which no amount of propaganda and idealization can prepare you for. Sure, a lot of German soldiers would probably not freeze to death, but they'd still be as effective in combat as a frozen corpse. You underestimate both the Russian climate and the Soviet military.[/QUOTE] Exactly. People believe that if you take the capital it's over and done with. For one Russia is absolutely massive and can easily move its leadership to another city for the time being. Russia would lose ground for sure but the Germans would have to deal with rag-tag guerilla fighters that would be hell bent on pushing out the invaders from their backyards. All while that's happening the Russians would be massing armies from the eastern part of its country to swoop in and crush a demoralized German invading force. Besides the Germans were not equipped nor prepared for a long war with Russia, especially during the winter months that most Russians were accustomed to. [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;45852611]The Soviet Military in general was pretty fucking incompetent, and relied heavily on logistics from the British and supplies from the Americans. Without either of said things the Soviet Military would of been nothing more then a few partisan militias out in the Urals by the end of 1942.[/quote] Ha no. There would be no way in hell that German army would have disintegrated the Soviet military to a few partisan militias. Again you forget how fucking big Russia is. Germany was already stretched too thin and they only reached Leningrad up north, Moscow in the center, and Stalingrad down south. Stalin may have purged most of the Soviet Military's trained officers but that didn't mean they were lacking them entirely. Germany's offensive would grind to a halt way before they would have reached the other side of Russia. You massively underestimate the resolve of Russians who have just had their home invaded by an utterly ruthless enemy. In the end there is nothing Germany could have done to destroy Russia in its entirety.
[QUOTE=NoDachiUK;45854410]I'm just saying that Russia losing they key cities and failing to stop Napoleon didn't damage their moral, like Trunk claimed. They just got pissed and waited for Napolean's army to go disorganized before attacking.[/QUOTE] 19th century Russia and 20th century Russia are 2 insanely different places and time periods. They're incomparable.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;45854447]19th century Russia and 20th century Russia are 2 insanely different places and time periods. They're incomparable.[/QUOTE] Except the same thing kinda happened in both cases. I don't care if one time couldn't keep the horses fed, or the other with tanks with gas.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;45854208]Probably should also mention Order 277, the "not one step back" order. You know, the one that set up execution squads behind friendly lines that would shoot men who retreated.[/QUOTE] The Blocking detachments were not really execution squads. They would fire a few warning shots at malingerers and then send them back to the front. Many Soviet soldiers highly approved of Order 277 and thought it should have been issued earlier. The images of retreating soldiers being mowed-down en-masse by machine guns ala Enemy at the Gates and Company of Heroes 2 are probably a bit sensational.
The Russians won't go further than eastern Ukraine They want the conflict to end in a stalemate or peace treaty with the rebels, creating an unrecognized autonomous republic with ties to Russia and russian peacekeeping forces. This is Russia's goal, just like they did in Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The region will be less productive and act as a burden on the rest of Ukraine. Russia will never even recognize that self-proclaimed state, like they never recognized the rest of the separatist russian aligned regions. This is like an exgirlfriend stealing half of the silverware and trashing the guy's car before leaving.
[QUOTE=NoDachiUK;45854460]Except the same thing kinda happened in both cases. I don't care if one time couldn't keep the horses fed, or the other with tanks with gas.[/QUOTE] My point isn't that the face of warfare had changed since Napoleons time, my point is that the Tsars and the Soviets aren't much alike. [QUOTE=WhollyRufus;45854520]The Blocking detachments were not really execution squads. They would fire a few warning shots at malingerers and then send them back to the front. Many Soviet soldiers highly approved of Order 277 and thought it should have been issued earlier. The images of retreating soldiers being mowed-down en-masse by machine guns ala Enemy at the Gates and Company of Heroes 2 are probably a bit sensational.[/QUOTE] Many Soviets also approved of the Great Purge and the Katyn Massacre. It's absolutely insane that the Stalin would issue an order like No. 277. Just goes to show how insane the Soviets were.
[QUOTE=Medevila;45853697]why don't you try constructing an actual argument against what he suggested[/QUOTE] Late war soviet armies were pretty competent. Experienced veterans with lots of tanks and air support. Some argue that soviet armour was infact better than the German/Nazi armour. It was only the start of the war when they did the whole "conscript rush" everyone visualizes then they think of Soviet military. [editline]31st August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;45854348]There's a giant difference between Napoleon's forces that fought on foot trudging through Russia which was united by a Tsar, not a dictator many feared and hated, and the mechanized forces of the Germany military. If you were to compare them like so, then Germany would have been defeated in 1942 by the Soviets and the red flag would have flown over Berlin that year.[/QUOTE] You say this but the Nazis suffered in the winter (as did the Russians) There are stories of thousands of Nazi Troops freezing to death and the diesel in their engines becoming unusable. In conditions where the troops are exposed to those conditions and their combat and supply vehicles fuel is frozen (at least napoleon relied on horses) then it might as well be Napoleon.
[QUOTE=Medevila;45853697]why don't you try constructing an actual argument against what he suggested[/QUOTE] I already constructed my argument. Why would I spend time debunking tired old myths that have been regurgitated by pop-historians over and over - and debunked dozens of times before by people who formulate themselves much better than I do. The guy actually thinks one of the most innovative and powerful militaries of the mid 20th century were just incompetent partisan militias that were entirely reliant on British and American foreign aid. I'm not sure if it's blind delusion or just a testament to the level of history education you guys have over there, but I'd wager it's a mix of both.
I suggest you guys watch [I]Soviet Storm: War in the East[/I], it's a very good documentary that provides a very detailed history of the Eastern Front, from Barbarossa to Berlin. It recounts things in a way that is easy to follow and comes complete with some kick-ass reenactments.
[QUOTE=Melnek;45856946]I already constructed my argument. Why would I spend time debunking tired old myths that have been regurgitated by pop-historians over and over - and debunked dozens of times before by people who formulate themselves much better than I do. The guy actually thinks one of the most innovative and powerful militaries of the mid 20th century were just incompetent partisan militias that were entirely reliant on British and American foreign aid. I'm not sure if it's blind delusion or just a testament to the level of history education you guys have over there, but I'd wager it's a mix of both.[/QUOTE] Okay. [quote]Aircraft.............................14,795 Tanks.................................7,056 Jeeps................................51,503 Trucks..............................375,883 Motorcycles..........................35,170 Tractors..............................8,071 Guns..................................8,218 Machine guns........................131,633 Explosives..........................345,735 tons Building equipment valued.......$10,910,000 Railroad freight cars................11,155 Locomotives...........................1,981 Cargo ships..............................90 Submarine hunters.......................105 Torpedo boats...........................197 Ship engines..........................7,784 Food supplies.....................4,478,000 tons Machines and equipment.......$1,078,965,000 Noniron metals......................802,000 tons Petroleum products................2,670,000 tons Chemicals...........................842,000 tons Cotton..........................106,893,000 tons Leather..............................49,860 tons Tires.............................3,786,000 Army boots.......................15,417,000 pairs [/quote] All of that stuff was given to the USSR by the United States... This does not even account for things that were given to the USSR via the United Kingdom and Canada. I want you to understand something that isn't a hard concept to understand - You cannot fight a war without supplies and logistics. Every post I have made in this discussion has been nothing more then describing this exact thing. Would the USSR still have fought on, even without American supplies? Probably. Without American locomotives though, how do we expect supplies from the Urals to reach the front lines? I cannot remember the exact number of Russian locomotives, but I think it was thirty to fifty that were produced during the war by the USSR. This does not account for locomotives being knocked out during early combat, so forgive me. Now the USA gives them 1981 locomotive and roughly 11,155 freight cars. All that supplies which is in the Urals can now be fucking overdrive to the troops on the front lines... Bringing ammo, food, clothing, and other things needed to fight a war. The consideration is not that the USSR would of been incapable of manufacturing items for their own troops, but the fact they were incapable of delivering their supplies in such a fashion that would ensure the capacity to fight a war on the scale of the Eastern Front. The Germans were bogged down for this exact reason. The German warmachine was attacked, sabotaged, and diverted by resistance activity along the Eastern Front, effectively making it impossible for supplies to reach certain parts of the German frontline. Now tie in the fact that the USSR is getting a lovely lend-lease package from Uncle Sam, and boom. The Soviets are ready to take names and get body bags ready. War is not just about one pitched battle determining the end of the war. By no means was something like Stalingrad or Kursk the endgame for the German military. The end game was when United States/United Kingdom made food was reaching Soviet soldiers and keeping them fed, or how Canadian clothing was keeping Soviet soldiers warm and comfy. We all fought as one, and it's a sad thing that patriotism fuels people to believe otherwise.
^ very nicely and well written
[QUOTE=GentlemanLexi;45846848]Poroshenko is a piece of shit liar. As soon as the Malaysian plane went down, he instantly blamed Russia. Then of course the world believed him, and Obama even agreed. We still don't have proof of who did it. Point is, Poroshenko spurts shit out of his mouth and everybody believes him.[/QUOTE] I dont think that condemns Russias actions.
There's no reason why Ukraine had to be put into this situation. We should have helped sooner.
[QUOTE=wewt!;45859454]There's no reason why Ukraine had to be put into this situation. We should have helped sooner.[/QUOTE] Yeah dude Slovenia needs to get its shit together wtf man.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.