UGHHHH yeah Americans are the main winners here. They killed Nazi Army with food and water guns. Seriously, nobody is denying the assistance they gave. But who really fought the war.

You really think this many Soviets would have died if they fought in the western front? Not much. The point is to tell you that the Soviets were unto a greater attack, much greater. And this was the main reason so many Soviets died, Germany defeated them all the way to Stalingrad. The same amount of deaths would have been caused unless you're saying all of Soviets to go retreat to Stalingrad since the start!!! It doesn't work like that, you have to protect all of your land.

Also I'm noticing this in general, all these guys being in America side argue about how negative Soviets were. But seriously, who cares? The main topic isn't to judge countries but to state the facts about who played a larger factor. you equal American assisting with food the same as Soviets fighting with guns. Don't be ridiculous and accept it.

Stalin has deleted million Russian, many talented military men. It is guilty that Soviet Union was not ready to war. Despite numerous messages of the Soviet scouts on forthcoming war, he declared it a misinformation. It was going to to be at war by means of a cavalry and sabres. Etc., etc. It is guilty also it obviously

Very correctly

Badly you know history. And time you adore clever Americans - go to Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Ha-ha-ha. Yes, people from the Stone Age went against Hitler. Bears in bast shoes. Do not make laugh me. Was both the earphone and radio and other. Was, but it is not enough. And people in Russia, really, never regretted and did not consider - million sacrificed.

The Russians were great believers in human wave attacks. Simply keep sending your young and poorly armed Russian soldiers against the Germans in such great numbers that the Germans use up all their bullets killing them. Horrifically enough, this bloody strategy worked. Stalin didn't care, the only thing Stalin cared about was keeping himself in power.

The poor Russian soldiers had a simple choice to make, either attack the Germans armed or unarmed, or be summarily executed by your own comrades. It makes you wonder which side was really worse, the Nazis or the Soviets. Hitler killed millions in his concentration camps, but the blood on his hands was only a fraction of that which was on Stalin's.

Last but not least, you may think that it is the soldiers who win wars, and not the supplies they need to fight, but you would be wrong. From time immemorial it has been known that it is logistics which win or lose wars. Amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics.

Tell me iPHantom of your personal military experience. Where did you learn what you know? I learned much of what I know from my father and grandfather, both of whom served. My grandfather fought during the war, he had actually been in the Army for 10 years before the war started. As for myself, I have 8 years of active duty and reserve experience, and I attended and graduated several schools specializing in various types of warfare.

You don't have to answer, you'll just say the usual emotionally-charged nonsense typically spouted by know-nothings with strong opinions and weak sense. You'll conveniently repeat something you've read or heard from somewhere or someone else. Nothing but the sound of waves.

No ideology in the history of mankind has caused more death, destruction, or misery than communism. You could argue that Hitler was not a communist, but you would not be completely correct, the Nazi party was a socialist party.

Say what you like about the "patriotic propaganda put out by American power-houses", they did not kill many tens of millions of innocent people in cold blood. There were no pictures, paintings, or statues of the national leader placed in every single government building, bus stop, train station, phone booth, and department store in America.

I went to elementary school and junior high school with kids who's families had fled places like the Soviet Union, Romania, and Vietnam. If you want to know how wonderful communism was, you should ask those who had to endure it.

Now, does anyone not agree that my case is rested?

You confuse. In Soviet Union there was no communism. Khruschev promised to build it. That there has been builted is the distortion covered with talks about socialism. I will repeat - communism only promised. And to live in Soviet Union it was heavy. But the nazism - is more terrible

My grandfather served for the military as well.

Also his brother (which I've talked to and I know him) served as commander of Batallion 4 of our Partisan Army. He is called Rako Gjermeni and yes to those who know me that is my last name as well, in case you doubt I'm telling the truth. You can do some google search of his name but you will find only foreign articles. this army was with the allies to bring down the already established Balli Kombëtar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in our country and they succeded. Read that article, because Balli Kombetar was with the axis.

Anyway, I don't jump into discussions without having information. I don't like Russia, neither Stalin, but I respect for what they did during the war and I leave aside my personal hate against Stalin tactics.

Anyway, where did you serve? USA? Then it's obvious LOL.

Sorry to remind you but it's you who has been talking nonsense philosophy since the start. I give you facts, you tell me how Stalin was a devil. That is complete bullshit. Maybe you had too much of US Army bullshit fed in your mind. I guess you'd like to think of your parents as the main heroes so that's why you don't accept the truth.

Russia is the clear champion.

Throwing masses of troops into machine guns and hopeing the enemy ran out of bullets before you ran out of malnurished troops doesn't really bespeak of sound tactical judgement. It's just a pure numbers game, I have more guys than you, I can afford to loose them and you can't, therefore I win.

It's more like suicidal chess, a really synical fighting style. The US never has played war that way, we perfer destroying as much of the enemy as possible before our troops even get there. Like how we bombed the German factories so they couldn't provide enough equipment for the eastern front.

The US was key to winning WW2, It wasn't just the fighting part, it was the supply part, the US supplied the allies with pretty much everything after a certain point. It doesn't mean the US did all the heavy lifting persay, Russia certainly did a major amount of that, certainly more in blood than the US did I admit that. It simply means the US's role was the linchpin for the whole effort.

Kinda like the Goal Keeper in Soccer, he isn't as active as the front guys are but you can't win without one.

As to Nagasaki and Horishima, what's the point here? You don't think anyone else at that time wouldn't have used such weapons if they had gotten them first? I suppose the US got lucky on that score, allthough you can thank the German scientists that built it for them.

Except that USA wasn't a neighbor of Germany so their main way of attack was by bombing them. It doesn't work that way with neighbor countries because as you can see, they BOMB you too. You have to use your infantry when you're in that situation.

The US has never played war that way because they never were in that position. Don't come at talk to me about war tactics if you don't count the position of the territory to attack. Didn't your army teach you that?

The US wasn't the key factor, they were an assistance. Whether the USA had intervened or not, The Nazi would have fallen in Stalingrad and Soviets would counterattack. 80% of Nazi's best military were there in Stalingrad. Soviet's role was the main one in the whole war.

This isn't true.

I don't know if you mean ever, or just in the world wars.

They did it in the fight for independance against the British way back when.

More recently, in the world wars, they had their fair share of trench fighting and pointless charges.

Also, you'd have to really question whether D-Day was this style of attack or not.

Anyway, the Russians only fought like that because they lacked the cavalry support to launch a proper offensive against the German heavy guns.

Had they done a more tactical Infantry assault (I'm thinking Stalingrad, here, BTW) then the Germans would have just taken them apart.

The reason they fought like this was trying to desperately take back large amounts of ground quickly, and it sometimes worked.

Of course, in Stalingrad, the Russians were absolutely famous for their clever guerilla resistance with snipers and guerilla sections. Even non military militia resistance of people fighting for their city of their own will had good effect; so saying they were not strategical is not right, it's more just they didn't have the equipment to do it the better way, often. The point is, they still managed to do it, even against the odds.

No we didn't.

It's not just a question of tactics. At certain times in Stalingrad, Soviet troops were paired up with each other; one would carry a gun, one would simply follow. The following soldier would wait for his lead to die, and then take up his weapon. If he didn't charge straight into certain death, a Soviet officer would gun him down.

In the Battle of Berlin, the Soviets treatment of both German soldiers and civilians was nothing short of horrific. 'They raped every German female from eight to 80' | Books | The Guardian . German units who were fleeing Berlin on the onset of the Soviet attack would purposefully surrender themselves to Allied troops, knowing that they'd be sent to forced labor camps or just outright killed by the Soviets.

"In many areas of the city [Berlin], vengeful Soviet troops (often rear echelon units) looted, raped an estimated 100,000 women and murdered civilians for several weeks".

"Of the 91,000 German prisoners [at Stalingrad], only about 5,000 ever returned. Already weakened by disease, starvation and lack of medical care during the encirclement, they were sent to labour camps all over the Soviet Union, where most of them died of disease (particularly typhus), cold, overwork, mistreatment, and malnutrition."

"A study published by the German government in 1989 estimated the death toll of German civilians in eastern Europe at 635,000. With 270,000 dying as the result of Soviet war crimes, 160,000 deaths occurring at the hands of various nationalities during the expulsion of Germans after World War II, and 205,000 deaths in the Forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union. These figures do not include at least 125,000 civilian deaths in the Battle of Berlin."

Do these things nullify the sacrifices made by the Soviet soldiers in World War II? Of course not. However, these things should be kept in mind before one starts praising the Red Army, and especially if one tries to change the entire point of the thread by bringing up Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

Yes, they did. They stood there in long lines like great dicks with their rifles and cannons and took turns at shooting each other down.

I don't get your point?

I know my platoon commander would have put a bullet between my eyes in a combat situation had I refused to follow orders, and that was modern day Australia.

All armies are extremely hard on those who refuse their orders. The Russians wern't the only ones who sent people on almost suicidal missions.

This is just another example of biased placed on Russia; although it's true, people say it as if they're the only ones who did/do it.

Well, Americans raped half of Vietnam. But no one says America is evil, it only had a "few bad eggs". Russia does the same thing and all of a sudden Stalin is the Devil.

As for the prisoners, this is also very common, too. As for what else you expected from an Army that can barely feed it's own troops, I'm not sure.

The pecking order would be clear at the mess hall; feed the officers, then the soldiers, then the civilians, then the dogs, then the prisoners. You seem to expect they'll give food to prisoners that they don't even have for their civilians... unrealistic.

That so many Germans died only highlights the Soviets own personal struggle of the lengths they also had to go through to win. It's no big deal.

The thread isn't just about WW2, it's about false or biased history. If someone has a point to make using another war as an example then so be it.

Fact is, most countries are guilty of what Russia did, but communism and the Soviet empire are the two great evils of the world... for what?

You are incorrect. The colonial army did not have the manpower to play 'human wave' and their approach was most successfully marked by guerrilla warfare. The colonial army engaged the British in the manner common to open field warfare at the time only when circumstances suggested success was a plausible outcome.

The casualty rate then wasn't really high either, because those muskets weren't very acurate. The main fight happened during the bayonet charge. The US fought gorrila style most of the war. However, they had to defeat the British Army on the field, on their terms, if they wanted to get legitmate help from France.

If you can't beat a world power's professional army, on thier terms, you aint nothing as a country. It's allways been that way geopolitcally, the US wasn't respected for decades until they could proove they belonged with the other powers by beating one. The Spainish American war was the big one in that reguard. Japan had thier break out moment in the Russian war of 1904.

The US didn't rape half of Vietnam, that's an outright lie. They may have had problems, but the whole army wasn't pillageing as an orcastrated action through the government like Russia was, or Germany for that matter, cause they did it as well. It's common knowledge that if you want to surrender to someone, your best option is America, cause your least likely to be massacred than if anyone else caught you. Japanese prisoners of war can attest to this.

This whole thing is simple, Russia made a deal with Germany and Germany betrayed them, leaveing Russia with it's arse in the air. Russia spent the majority of it's youth and several years trying to regain what Germany took in 4 months. Yet with out the American support that Russia willingly recieved, it's debateable if they could have done it in that time span, if at all.

I do agree that the fighting between Germany and Russia was bitter and hateful, wich is dramtically different from the fighting between Germany and the US, wich fought more along the traditional lines. I would suggest Russia and Germany reguarded each other the same way Japan and the US did at that time, and the fighting represented that.

No, the War of 1812 was.

Not really, Britian was firmly involved with Nepolean at the time. If not for that, Britian could have flooded the colonies with 100,000 troops, not the 10 to 20k they did send. The reason It was the Spainish American war was two fold.
1) It was one on one, Spain wasn't involved in some European conflict.
2) We destroyed thier navy, wich at the time was a meassure of a nations real power.

It's why people took note of Japan after 1906, thier navy skunked the Russian navy.

Doesn't matter what else Britain was up to, it showed the ability of the US to toe the line, and as a result gave birth to a true sense of American nationalism.


It doesn't matter if the champ has a cold or has other things on his mind, if you get in the ring with him and show you can trade with him you've earned your respect.

So they did do it. That's my point.

It was never official policy of Russia or Germany to rape women and children, either; it's just no one gave a f***. If there was less rape done by the US in Vietnam, I'd say it was due to less oppurtunity rather than will.

But there were orders coming from fairly high up in the US military to "clear out villages". But after My Lai, they left that up to the bombers coz it would look worse if they did it by hand.

It was an official strategy of the US to cut off the Vietnamese food supply... by bombing the rice growing villages.

Even in modern day, the recent Iraq war, they used chemical weapons to indiscrimanatley clear out Fallujah.

No it doesn't. That is not a 'human wave' approach.

I've a feeling you've no idea what I'm talking about...

WWII Budgets

The U.S. spent $341 billion, including $50 billion for lend-lease supplies -- of which $31 billion went to Britain, $11 billion to the Soviet Union, $5 billion to China, and $3 billion to 35 other countries.

Germany was next, with $272 billion; followed by the Soviet Union, $192 billion; and then Britain, $120 billion; Italy, $94 billion; and Japan, $56 billion. Except for the U.S., however, and some of the less militarily active Allies, the money spent does not come close to reflecting the war’s true cost.

The Soviet government has calculated that the USSR lost 30 percent of its national wealth, while Nazi exactions and looting were of incalculable amounts in the occupied countries. The full cost to Japan has been estimated at $562 billion. In Germany, bombing and shelling had produced 4 billion cu m (5 billion cu yd) of rubble.

One of us doesn't...

Mai lai was a tradgady no doubt. However, they cleared out villages because the VC would hide amoung the civilians and take potshots at troops. Hideing behind civilians is not the same as hideing behind trees. If you want to blame anyone for the deaths in those villages, blame the VC who utilized that tactic. It would be like American minute men fireing on British regulars from every house and church in town, with woman and children running in batween the combatants, talk about poor form.

It's the same in the middle east, the enemy chooses to fight in schools and hospitals, that's THEIR choice and THIER responsability when the airstrike hits. I won't sympathize with that. The jihadi's picked this fight, and it's being brought to thier doorstep because that's where they retreated too. Nor has the US used chemical weapons, what nonsense.

Germany and Russia traded massacres back and forth almost daily.

That's retarded.

You don't blame the criminal who took a little girl as a human shield for her death, you blame the cop that put one between her eyes and actually murdered her.

Lowering yourself to their level still means you're responsible, regardless of if someone else did it first.

At the end of the day, you're just trying to justify murdering the innocent.

Stop misusing that term.

Are you honestly saying you don't blame the criminal in that situation?

Perhaps it'd be better to say both people are equally to blame or at least careless. However, if you blast a childs head off, you're the one who did it and you are responsible. There's no excuses.

Ok, you're about as stupid and incapable of making moral distinctions as I thought you were. Congratulations, there's a place for you in the herd. Just follow the others up the ramp and you'll be taken care of.

Great analogy ;)

You're pretty childish. You can't control yourself, can you?

Anyway, you cannot just palm off responsibility for your actions because you had "good intentions". In reality, it does not matter what was going on inside your head. Yes, you may be fighting for "justice", but do you think the innocent people you kill would care about your thoughts?

Moral distinction is a person who's willing to put aside his own personal goals (such as winning a war or spreading his notion of "freedom") in order to protect those who need it most. Just because you have a good idea for the future and you're at war with some bad people, it isn't a green light to do whatever you want. If you consider it is, you're about as shallow and block headed as a boulder in a puddle, and you're definately no better than your enemy, the "unjust".

The day people take responsibility for their actions, what they intentionally did, ... I doubt it'll ever come. People are naturally pretty selfish and incapable of thinking of others.

It's when you put words and and idolized concepts aside and only view the actions of the people involved, nothing else. It's almost impossible to determine a morally sound side in recent wars, including all of Americas; I mean, they've carried out all the same deeds as their enemies did, the only difference is the words they put behind it. But actions speak louder than words, I think, and a moral force will not harm the innocent, even if it means defeat.

and you are incapable of understanding why...
 

.......... :rolleyes:

You're an idiot. Just follow the others up the ramp...

Again, you can't back yourself up, so you just be a smart ass.

Someone did this; just one force: