USSR VS.USA

Quote:
"Why was it never put into action? Because as SOME OF US have been trying to point out, they knew the consequences"

Thanks for being one of those with a special insight into the Soviet mindset.

 

And Britain had plans to invade Eire to destroy IRA training camps in 1969 when the troubles broke out. Conversely, the Irish Defence Forces were on standby to rush to Londonderry to "aid" Nationalists.Your point?
Don't thank me for the "insight"- get your own.
Regards,
Gordon

[ 01. January 2004, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: The_Historian ]

 

'crappy Soviet weapons'
http://www.1jma.dk/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2262&whichpage=1

 

At the risk of repeating myself.....your point is?

 

My point is the information is out there. Make up your own mind instead of accepting other peoples prejudices.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3333995.stm

[ 01. January 2004, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: m kenny ]

 

Well, I could make the same point to yourself....except we've already established your inability to take incoming calls.
Now....if you quoted a book instead of a website.....

 

What book would you like a quote from? I have over 4,000 and do not rely on web-sites for my primary information. I must confess though I am better at talking about tank actions in Normandy and Tigers in particular.

quote:
" we've already established your inability to take incoming calls"

I think you are taking this too personaly.

 

You seem to be seriously missing some points here. We've presented a case by weighing the advantages each side had in late '45 early '46, you on the other hand continue to refer to the Soviets beating the Germans, but we've pointed out the huge differences between Germany and the Allies, lest you forget, the west also beat Nazi Germany too, so how does that mean any invasion will be beat back? Using that logic the west has to win, becuase the Japanese thought they could knock the US out of the war with a sledgehammer blow (Like a blitz across Europe), turns out they were incredibly mistaken, and they lose the war. Germany as well thought they could knock Great Britain out by isolating it from the Continent and bombing it, again, Germany loses the war, so using that logic.... doesn't that mean Both sides will win, I hope you are seeing the paradox here.

 

I do think that in this discussion, positions are a little too extreme. However there is made too much of two indications:

1. Russia left Austria because a neutral wedge in the NATO front line (Austria/Switzerland) was a good deal for a little insignificant territory.

2. Russian equipment never won any tank engagement mainly due to being equipped by inferior armies (Eqypt, Syria, North Korea...). They did not manage a superb organization as the USA or Israel did.

A war USA vs. USSR in 1945 would have been... in any case very, very bloody!

 

Eisenhower had 85 Divisions in Feb. 1945 (including 23 Armoured and 5 Airborne) facing some 26 German Divisions. Russia had around 230 (34 tank and 15 motorized)in Germany.
Perhaps the ratio of casualties inflicted might give some idea of the effectiveness of the Armies involved.

German losses by theatre(Army and Luft.)

KIA

West: 318,000 East 2,700,000

Germany 1945 (both fronts) 1,086,000

I think usen real results from a real conflict gives a better idea of what the future would hold.

 

Well. I was going to carry on....but what's the point?.......

Regards,
Gordon

[ 01. January 2004, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: The_Historian ]

 

Yes It must be very frustrating when others can't see that which is so obvious to you. Why this desire to make me change my view? Is it not acceptable to for me to have a different opinion? Getting personal and making pointed remarks about sources does not add to the discussion

 

Getting personal? This from the member who accused me of "being a prisoner of propaganda", "myopic", and "accepting other people's prejudices"?

 

Mkenny, It seems a bit odd your the one wondering why people are trying to change other peoples opinions. I still haven't seen your own one, in fact all you've done is criticize other peoples opinions pointing out what you see as faults, so doesn't that make you a bit of a hypocrite? You are after all trying to get those of us here who see the West winning to accept some kind of Soviet steamroll.

 

Really? All I remember saying is the Soviet War Machine was so huge and battle-tested that it seems odd to ignore this fact when considering if it would be easy to stop it. I also get tired of people tring to take away this Russian success by bringing in things like 'it was Lend-lease that won the war for them'. So far I've heard that Russian weapons were inferior and their soldiers poorly trained without a single fact to back these claims up. I put the other side and get castigated for it. If my reliance on the Russian track record irks some well I am sorry. The overwhelming Russian victory over Germany still seems to get under the skin with certain members but that is not my problem.

 

Russian track record?! As they say in financial circles, past performance is no guarantee of future success!

 

But in horse racing 'form' is 'track record' and I think bookies know what they are talking about!
Is it the contention that the Russians overnight lost the ability to win battles? Suddenly they are no match for the well-trained and lavishly engineer equiped war winning Allied war machine? The Western Allies struggled to deal with the small number of German Divisions in the West. How would they have dealt with 200+!
In any confrontation (which I will remind you was Pattons mad dream) the Allies would be steamrolled out of the way. Hard and bloody fighting with losses on either side but inevitably numbers would prevail.

 

But we're not talking about horse-racing, are we?
Are you contending the Allies lost the ability to win battles overnight? I wonder if Sapper Brian agrees that he "struggled" to beat German divisions in the west?
As I said previously, towards the end of the war Stalin suddenly decided the people of one of the Asiatic Republics were "enemies of the state" and purged them. ALL soldiers from this republic were imprisoned; the Red Army was sent to purge the civilians in this republic. Given Stalin's propensity to turn on his own kind at a minute's notice, I doubt the Red Army would win any kind of encounter against the west, battle-hardened or not.

[ 02. January 2004, 06:21 AM: Message edited by: The_Historian ]

 

Quote:
"I wonder if Sapper Brian agrees that he "struggled" to beat German divisions in the west"?

Well I am not talking to him but you so why try and get him involved?

Quote:
"towards the end of the war Stalin suddenly decided the people of one of the Asiatic Republics were "enemies of the state" and purged them. ALL soldiers from this republic were imprisoned; the Red Army was sent to purge the civilians in this republic"

Pretty vague statement. Republic, dates, numbers involved and civilian numbers please. Also what 'purge the civilians' means.

 

Republic=Kazakhstan (?)
Date=late 1945
Numbers purged (ie shot)=thousands
Property destroyed=thousands
Veterans imprisoned/accused of treason=unknown, but very substantial.
Source=History Channel: also book (author unknown right now).
Once again, someone's provided you with facts, but it seems to be a one-way process.