post-WW2 Soviet army.
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Modern Warfare
Forum Discription: Military history and miltary science from the ''Cold War'' era onward.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12475
Printed Date: 12-May-2024 at 18:00
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: post-WW2 Soviet army.
Posted By: Kalevipoeg
Subject: post-WW2 Soviet army.
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2006 at 08:32
|
I have always heard that after the end of WW2 the Red army was the most
powerful army and so forth, that it could go even further into Europe.
The Red army was victorious and glorified and it was feared by other
European forces. But what i am wondering here is how could it have remained so powerful after WW2. You read about hundreds of thousands of Red army soldiers falling into the advancing Wehrmacht and being surrounded in many sections of the front. Then of course the fierce battles where you get statistics like for every German soldier three to seven Russians fell. The USSR of course had a large population, but when you look at it, it was only about twice the size of Germany (ca 80 million vs 150-160 million), or even if it was slightly bigger, the battles (atleast between 1941.-1942/1943) were with huge Russian losses and twuce the population of the invading army would not be that sufficient to make up the losses. Could anyone explain silly little me how it could maintain such a powerful status after WW2 as it is looked back on today. ------------- There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge... |
Replies:
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2006 at 13:49
|
Only because of stupidity and cowardice of the west. ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2006 at 14:11
|
After the war, the Russian army was chock full of experienced soldiers
and officers. The military industry that defeated Hitler didn't go
anywhere, it remained and grew in some respects. It was the second
greatest in the world. This, in addition to the fact that every other
rival, save the United States, was damn near annihilated, combined to
make the Soviets the second most powerful nation in the world.
------------- |
Posted By: Kalevipoeg
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2006 at 14:23
|
But the human losses were just so immense for the Soviets, i can't
grasp where they got more and more soldiers, the USSR is big, but still
no China. By 1945. the Soviet losses must have been greater than any
other Ally.
------------- There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge... |
Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2006 at 18:24
|
Ok, russians using numbers in WW2 is somewhat misconception, proposed by West, here, look, Axis soldiers lost in the war: 9 millions. Soviet soldiers lost in the war, in actual combats: 13 million, other 13 million were population, civilians, who were tortured to death in camps. The astatistics you get are western, sometimes biased, my dad was born in 1946, he saw these armies, he said that if Soviets would go, NOTHING in hell would stop them, US and Britain together would not stop the advance, that's from a person who actually saw all these armies, my granddad fought, he also was saying same thing. And finally germans were saying that there was no army to compare to USSR Red Army. Tanks were best, artilery was best, anti aircraft guns were best, only the aircrafts maybe were not as good as western, but definitely would take by the number. Some americans entertain the idea of possibility for US going in to war then with USSR, however, they just don't have a CLUE of what they are talking about, usual solders would be scared to go in to war with soviets And guess what, USSR had 13 million more soldiers in active servise RIGHT AFTER THE WAR, and it was reduced to 7. UK now actually tries to defend Soviet contribution in to war, saying that we shouldn't forget private Ivan, who defeated the germans, and it is striking how ignorant people in US are about the war. Soviet Union had more tanks, trucks, people, artillery than Allies and tanks or artillery more than the rest of the world. It is a big myth that USSR lost much more than germans in battles, it was relative to the time, in the end, soviets were killing more germans per one soviet army soldier. ok, in the beginning of the war, gemramns killed more russians per german soldier, in the end, it was opposite. Red army was worked out together, by the end of the war, they all knew what to do perfectly, the command was competent. And dear Mosquito, west couldn't do ANYTHING to Red Army, if Stalin wanted, ther ewould be NO europe WHATSOEVER, red arly would simply destroy it. Cowardness of the west was rightfull, ther ewas something to be affraid of, US and Britain conventional forces would be WIPED OUT by Red Army in less than a month or two. LOL, USSR was THE most powerful nation in the world, my friend, THE most powerful, production capabilities were such that one historian said: "USSR would SINK America with tanks" US production didn't lie near Soviet. Should US go to war with USSR, it would undoubtly lose on the continent. You say: US had nukes, but how much? Trueman was yalling, LET"S BOMB THEM, WE HAVE NUKES, but when it was explained to him that should we bomb USSR, and we clearly do not have enough bombs to do serious damage, and do not have perfect way to deliver them (remember, it was aicraft then, which can be intercepted before it reaches target, and not intercepted just by air, but also from ground, which would be completely in soviet control), it was explained to him by Chief of Staff that it is really not the time to f*** around with USSR, and he calmed down. You are right also saying that there was a lot of experienced soldiers, army was really professional, really worked together, and could destroy any enemy that would dare face them with overwhelming numbers and tremendous firepower. You wanna know more, read OPERATION UNTHINKABLE. You will understand why US and UK were so afraid of USSR, do research on these tw words. |
Posted By: Illuminati
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2006 at 19:01
USSR was only powerful in Europe. The USSR had a poor navy. The Soviet Navy never became more powerful than the US Navy, and they still aren't. Soviets may win out in Europe, but thats as far as they could ever go. USSR was defintely not the msot poweful country in the world. In order to be able claim that they were, they would have had to been able to invade and conquer the US, which is something that Russia never had the capabilty to do. If you can't defeat your rival, then you clearly aren't the most poweful. |
Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2006 at 19:37
|
"USSR would SINK America with tanks" US production didn't lie near Soviet. Tanks cant swim  ------------- |
Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2006 at 19:44
LOL, it is different, US could win as far as their continent and sea, that's as far as they could go, you see, you have a little misconception, that US is the center of the world, it is opposite, continent is the center, not americas, so, USSR was in a better position, since it could control this huge land mass and hold it out. So, US was not the most powerful either from your logic. Remember, it was US that said the plan was UNTHINKABLE. USSR could defeat any rival on continent. Ok, let's say this way: USSR had most powerful land army in history. Then there is no most powerful nation. Soviets could win in Asia, Europe and maybe Africa, long story short, they could win against anybody on land, even againt any two nations combined. agree about tanks, lol, they don't swin, but also, Ships don't ride, lol.
|
Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2006 at 22:09
|
who fell, and who is still standing? :)
------------- |
Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 02:58
Who fell economically or militarily? Fell economically. Was not possible to be attacked militarily. System didn't work. Who is rising, who is falling right now?
I seriously suggest that you read the following articles: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/15/opinion/edcarroll.php http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-02/07/content_415840.htm this one is especially beautiful, rightly states that US is using now the very methods that made SU fall apart, scaring other countries with army, and same fate awaits US, it is about to collapse. If today China demands it's money from US, US economy will collapse tomorrow, and I am not even kidding. Russia showed the world that it can all be done without US, and all world saw it, after critisizing Russia, making angry face, a lot of threats, when Condy Rise, or Bush meets Putin he or she melts down like snow in spring, understands that they can not anymoe project any pressure on Russia, nor military, nor political, that Russia is doing everything against US's advices, and rises to power very quicly, the world sees, Venesuella sees, China, other countries, in about 10 to 20 years we are gonna say: Bye Bye United States of America, the world will not need it anymore. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 03:11
|
Bit off topic, but still an interesting read http://warfare.ru/ - http://warfare.ru/ Cheers! ------------- |
Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 03:15
Hey, I am registered there on forums, are you too? Hey, people, who wants to see one of the most destructive weapons ever created: SS-18 Satan, video of it taking of: http://www.warfare.ru/?linkid=1702&catid=265&video=true throw weight is 8800 kg, american largest missile Peacekeeper is 4000 kg, one SS-18 is worth twice what american peacekeeper is by throw weight and 3 times by yield. And Russia has just refused to remove all these missiles. Now tell me that US is dominating the world in military sense or in nuke capabilities. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 03:26
|
No, I am not; I sometimes visit the http://www.soviet-empire.com particularly - http://www.soviet-empire.com
It is where I found the link
Cheers! ------------- |
Posted By: Kalevipoeg
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 13:39
|
In one sense the West always had the advantage over the USSR, just
after WW2 and all the way up to 1991. - The conquered nations were
never faithful to the reds and were never going to be. You can't
imagine the hate people felt after the reds had invaded in 1944. and
1945. Atleast in the Baltics - and i don't think other conquered
nations felt any different - people were so anti-Russian mentally.
Estonians have probably never hated another nation more than they did
the Russians after WW2 all the way up to Kruschev i'd propose. Here the
war lasted on after 1945. up to 1953 atleast, in Lithuania the war
lasted even in the 60's IIRC. After the war, when the guerilla movement
was intense, the Soviets had no control over some certain areas and
lost entire villages and parishes to the guerillas for periods of time.
Had the West come somewhere between 1945-1949 let's say, there would have been atleast a hundred thousand man guerilla force (not united of course) in the Baltics alone armed and ready to rise and avenge. So what i mean is as the reds found no social support in conquered Europe, it would not have been that impossible to kick them out. It is another matter when reaching pre-war Russian soil, but in Eastern-Europe Russia had no support from anyone other than Russians themselves basically. When you can't even trust your rear, you can't guard your front. ------------- There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge... |
Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 17:41
I might agree on Baltics, but other countries were more thankful actually, they werereally thankfull that russians freed them from Nazis. They would need any support, htey could just kill anyone, and completely devastate the whole cities and kill the population. Why people in Baltics were so angry, maybe they wqanted to stay under Hitler's rule? Well, I guess USSR did a mistake, a mistake Russia regrets now, mistake of 1944, when SU invaded Germany, I can promise you that had Stalin know how people would say now about SS in Tallin, that SS officers were almost heroes, Stalin would either killed all populations of these countries, or never would invade Germany, he would rather show Germany that they shouldn't invade USSR anymore, and then maybe even help it a bit to wreck havoc on land otehr than USSR, maybe then some countries now would be more thankful about soldiers who died setting them free from german opression. |
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 18:33
Where did you get those figures? Not that the USSR had not superior manpower than the 3'rd RCH but how come that you estimate the Germany of WWIII as being almost equivalent with nowadays Germany?!
And, since you're from one of the former USSR ... assets... you should know better. The "red army" was probably the world's largest/greatest force at the end of WWII. After that, well, it's becoming a whole new matter...
|
Posted By: Kalevipoeg
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2006 at 13:11
|
"I might agree on Baltics, but other countries were more thankful
actually, they werereally thankfull that russians freed them from
Nazis." I would presume practically all European countries would have resisted Soviet power if the West had attacked. Nobody loved the Reds, atleast if you were a nationalist on some basic level. "Why people in Baltics were so angry, maybe they wqanted to stay under Hitler's rule?" This is the basic thing nobody ever knows and ever has in this forum. And Russians understand the least what it means to be a small nation with no allies. We had no loyalty to the Germans nor the Soviets, only the West. "I can promise you that had Stalin know how people would say now about SS in Tallin, that SS officers were almost heroes, Stalin would either killed all populations of these countries" SS was a very varied organization, and the Estonians who were on the front under Waffen-SS were no criminals. There were of course the nazi collaborators who worked with the Einzatsgruppe and guarded camps at, but those people never have and never will be honored by the Estonian people. Kill all of the population...? well, whatever man. "maybe then some countries now would be more thankful about soldiers who died setting them free from german opression." What liberation? Estonia had declared independence on sept. 20 1944, you invaded a democratic Estonian Republic. Maybe we would have thanked you if you had liberated our lands from the Germans and then went back home, but after you washed us in blood, you were no better than the nazis. "Where did you get those figures? Not that the USSR
had not superior manpower than the 3'rd RCH but how come that you
estimate the Germany of WWIII as being almost equivalent with nowadays
Germany?!
And, since you're from one of the former USSR ... assets... you
should know better. The "red army" was probably the world's
largest/greatest force at the end of WWII. After that, well, it's
becoming a whole new matter.."I thought it was equivalent, or quite equivalent, but if not, my bad, i don't have a good long term memory. Yes, the biggest and the greatest, but as Russian said, they lost 13 million soldiers, thats massive, and Russia got the most damage in WW2 so i was really wondering how it got to its superior power so quick after such a catastrophy. ------------- There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge... |
Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2006 at 19:47
|
Well, Estonia couldn't proclaim itelf independent if not SU, right, it would be conquered. The thing I said about population is to assume that in those times there were less nationalists than now. He wouldn't kill everybody, just would do repressions, he liked them, he alsmot ruined the country with that (USSR). And by the way, this WEST, especially US and UK politicians were cowards then, they started second front in 1944, when it didn't matter at all anymore, Germany is also west, it basically tried to enslave you. |
Posted By: Giordano
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2006 at 07:29
|
I'm a new member of the forum but bored to read some repeated posts about some countries,some armies,rocket systems,tanks,warplanes. I invite you to be objectivity,pls put off your blinkers.Stop your propaganda or what else...Share your knowledge to us,pls... I've read,watched and searched about WWII.Every war has one or several points what effect final.Also this war has a lot. Some of these what i remember at the moment: Mussolini attacked Greece and had perished,Germans saved them and lost their very important time to operation Barbarossa.Later ,German army couldn't reach to Moscow because General winter,believe or not. Hitler waited for Japanese attack to Russia but they decided to invade Pacific area for logistic reasons.Russian spies reported to Stalin,Japanese never think to attack Russia.Stalin moved most of armies from east front to Moscow by Transsiberian railway and this forces were the most important balance breaker of big russian assault from Moscow front. German Enigma code broke by UK and they transferred important german telecomunications to Russia.Russia has the knowledge what time German army attack to save Stalingrad siege and how they try it.Also in Kursk war again Russian have what they need... USA ,broke Japanese navy and army codes.therefore they won easily in Midway,killed admiral Yamamoto etc. Hitler's wrong strategies also be effective in Russian front,he had obsesions about to take big named cities as Stalingrad,Leningrad... And you can add more like these... I wrote about mostly German side because some people wrote for one side.I'm no german,neo nazi or similar. Pls stop to explain tales,myths about your armies,share the knowledges only.To match two tanks musn't be that this tank has antitank rockets,this is the best one!This rocket system has a range 70 km,therefore this is the best one?  |
Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2006 at 11:11
I am not gonna reply, first rude mistake: Hitler didn't reach Moscow cause half a Soviet army defended it, that's why, you clearly didn't study WW2 good enough. Hitler helping Mussolini to attack Greece and stopping assault on Moscow? get a clue, dude, seriously, Hitler was better than that. UK and US breaking codes means nothing. Soviets knew without any UK help, they have eyes you know, they could see armies massing near the city, Also, about armament, you don't seem to understand what we were talking about. I invite you to be objective to and look ONLY at brute facts, known from war, and not the recent Us mad glory grab when they want to divide the victory half by half, although they destroyed only 10-15% of Reicn troops, while SU - 75-80%. I will share a little bit of knowledge, knowledge that everyone knows: RED ARMY was the most powerful land army in the world history, that is a fact, objective fact, and it is about armies. It is a military history discussion board, so, I guess, we will not be able not to mention armies. Don't take anything I wrote offensively, but it is hard to be objective here, it is a disscussion board, sometimes we are taling about ethical or political problems, and there is NO, I repeat, NO objectivity there, only opinion. |
Posted By: Giordano
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2006 at 12:09
|
,ok,dude,opinion...I believe that your opinions are only hypotheses of yours...Your knowledge sources are different than us,our sources brainwashed us and your sources simple truth... Don't wait for nobody believe your ideas or hypotheses ,you're looking as playin squash... I've respect all armies,countries...Believe you're the best in all things,no problem for me.I think,i won't read your posts after this,because i don't need any propaganda...Good lucks about keepin the best positions...  |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2006 at 15:24
|
If the Soviet Union had the greatest army in Europe after WWII, why did they not conquer the rest of Europe?
|
Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2006 at 15:45
because US saved the europe, NOT with economics, with Nukes. But US, even with their nukes, could not destroy USSR, so, should they have launched them, and they had ridiculous number, like 5, USSR would go beat the hell out of europe. Both sides were afraid to attack each other. My sources are SAME as yours Giordano, I took sources SPECIALLY from US and Brtiain sites, so that I can show you, because they are also in english. LOL, are you gonna dispute that USSR had strongest land army in history, maybe you are gonna disprove me with facts? Cause I hav some facts here, like the numbers of tanks, artillery and so on and so forth. Aslo, are you gonna dispute that USSR destroyed 75-80 % of the Reich forces. And hey, I didn't want to offend you. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2006 at 16:22
[quote]because US saved the europe, NOT with economics, with Nukes. But US, even with their nukes, could not destroy USSR, so, should they have launched them, and they had ridiculous number, like 5, USSR would go beat the hell out of europe. Both sides were afraid to attack each other. I agree that nuclear weapons could not possibly have stopped the Red Army from rolling over the rest of Western Europe. Both sides were certainly affraid of each other, but why?
Perhaps because the USSR didn't know that the USA only had a few nukes left, or maybe the reallization that 50-60 million people world-wide had died in this war was enough to keep the bullets from flying.
|
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2006 at 17:17
You keep asking everybody about souces. Sources can be wether punctual or from all the materials someone has read/consulted for a long time. Also, opinion is not formed only by source(s), one has to use his own brain (if he has any) to state something. If you consider a statement as being ... improper you better bring arguments (from your source's or from your brain) about the flaws you spotted.
USSR had the largest army - are your sources denying that?
D-Day was a major event but it wasn't the major event of WWII.
What's your opinion? Some statements, arguments, not just questions or critics to forumer's style.
|
Posted By: Giordano
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2006 at 17:53
Wow,i've asked sources to confirm knowledges,one says A bigger than B and other one says different.Which one is true?How do you know? If your answer is your opinion is true,i don't say about it...I explained and will explain my opinions in any case,don't be afraid. I don't understand that why "source" word disturbs you such? If you say this is better you must be prove,this means you must give a source.Russian army isn't the largest army,you asked to me that therefore i wrote it .the largest army is Chinese army.And we haven't discussed the largest army.Pls strieve to understand me really... I wrote some knowledges about WWII and simple the source is BBC and History channel.Russian rejected this knowledges and he says we use the same knowledge sources...And finaly,i've finished my post in this topic,why do you need to offend me,i don't understand  |
Posted By: Kalevipoeg
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2006 at 17:56
|
"Well, Estonia couldn't proclaim itelf independent if not SU, right, it would be conquered."
So what, we were independent, and that was all we were striving for the entire time, the Inter regnum was well used. You conquered an independent democratic western minded country and thats that. "The thing I said about population is to assume that in those times there were less nationalists than now. He wouldn't kill everybody, just would do repressions, he liked them, he alsmot ruined the country with that (USSR)." Were they less nationalistic? I would imagine the propaganda cannons were constantly spilling talks on how noble and great the Soviet people are and are fighting for world freedom and i don't think many thought otherwise. Propaganda and nationalism are always more active during war, especially for the Russians who got straight out horrors from the Germans during the war. "And by the way, this WEST, especially US and UK politicians were cowards then, they started second front in 1944, when it didn't matter at all anymore, Germany is also west, it basically tried to enslave you." Never said it was otherwise, just mentioned they would have had massive allies in conquered Europe if they had had guts. ------------- There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge... |
Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2006 at 21:37
Giordano, didn't want to offend you, sorry if I did, if you mean me. 
Kalevipoeg, how could you be independent under Nazi Germany? |
Posted By: Giordano
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2006 at 05:00
|
Russian,ok,dude,last post replied for Cezar. I don't think you offend me really And sorry Kalevipoeg,i really sorry to change the subject of your topic. |
Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2006 at 11:33
oh, ok, now we are cool 
|
Posted By: Kalevipoeg
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2006 at 13:00
|
"Giordano, didn't want to offend you, sorry if I did, if you mean me.
" He didn't actually ask me anything or speak to me, so no offense, you two have your separate discussion. "Kalevipoeg, how could you be independent under Nazi Germany?" 20th september - Tallinn was free of both Germans (retreating across the Estonian border) and Soviets (coming from the east). The Estonian prime minister was declared Otto Tief to restore the legal order of the Estonian state whose soil was intruded by the SU and after that nazi Germany. Estonia had a democratic government and the SU invaded us, wiping freedom from our faces. "And sorry Kalevipoeg,i really sorry to change the subject of your topic." No problem, but actually i still haven't got an answer for my question so far.  ------------- There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge... |
Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 07:15
Guess why german forces retreated? and that let you have free goverment. |
Posted By: Kalevipoeg
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2006 at 16:03
|
"Guess why german forces retreated? and that let you have free goverment." Because the USSR waged war with Germany and destroyed it on a large scale. And... what is your point onward? ------------- There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge... |
Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2006 at 18:10
| My point stands the same, Estonia would not be able to liberate itself if not the soviets. |
Posted By: Kalevipoeg
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2006 at 18:28
|
We had much the same chance of liberation with you then with the
Germans. Thats what i mean, you two were our enemies, so it didn't
matter which of you "liberated" us. What if Japan had the chance to attack you from the east and drive the Germans back, would you hug the Japanese for freedom they were never going to give you? You were the invader just like the Germans, understand that. ------------- There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge... |
Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2006 at 18:44
Oh, so thatt's how europe thinks of the army that literally liberated it, ok, nice attitude, 
|
Posted By: Kalevipoeg
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2006 at 19:01
|
Your barbaric term for liberation is out of date since the medieval ages.
------------- There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge... |
Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 09:41
Ok, let's do it again, Germans were better? You couldn;t free yourselves from germans, and SU was better than germans, so, chose the lesser evil, in this case it was SU. |
Posted By: Kalevipoeg
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 13:04
|
Noone was better. Just because we hated both of you doesn't mean we had
to love you coming from the east and the germans being here, although
it was a breather when they came in 1941, saved alot of Estonian lives. We hated both of you, so you weren't a relief, just other conquerors who put up the second fascist regime, wow thank you very much, barbarians.  ------------- There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge... |
Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2006 at 00:29
ok, let's excuse you for this little brainwash that you were hearing from your new goverment, who basically serves USA, like a dog. Anyway, let's do it the long way: Here is an argument: 1) You can not free yourself. 2) You are under germans. 3) Soviets are treating you better than germans. 4) What do you chose, for soviets to come or for germans to stay? |
Posted By: Illuminati
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2006 at 06:02
|
Being freed of German fascism, only to have to live under Soviet communism for decades is not a relief. Your argument falls apart when you look at the way in which the USSR put down the Hungarian revolution. Communism is just as bloody as Fascism. It makes sense if you think about it. Communism and fascism are flawed extremist ideologies, both of which require fear and tyranny to keep themselves afloat.
First off, they aren't dogs. Secondly, they have the ability to choose their own path, which is something that they were denied for decades by Moscow. And that's what matters. The fact that they aren't choosing to remain close with Moscow should tell you something about Soviet rule. |
Posted By: Kalevipoeg
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2006 at 07:19
|
"ok, let's excuse you for this little brainwash that you were hearing
from your new goverment, who basically serves USA, like a dog.
Serves the USA? Estonia can hardly be called a dog of the US. I don't remember any real interaction between the two countries other than the Bush visit last year. We are mainly dealing with the EU. All you can hear about the US in Estonian press is the common Iraqi and Afghan victim lists. I doubt if any Estonian knows anyone in America other than Arnold Schwarzenegger and G. W. Bush. And our governemnt makes no real statements about the US if you knew anything, the average news about the US might be once a year. Propaganda indeed, we, the Balts have with our independent minds tried to fight our way to the west for over a 100 years now, but i bet my daddys farm that there were dozens of US agents here trying to change our peoples minds in the first years of the 1900's for their future world domination policy. Yeah, right. Anyway, let's do it the long way: Here is an argument: 1) You can not free yourself. Yes, you demolished our army and murdered our intelligence, preventing any chance of that happening in any independent scenario 2) You are under germans. Yes. 1941.-1944. 3) Soviets are treating you better than germans. No you didn't treat us better, the Soviets came in, murdered our intelligence, politicians, deported our people. 10,000 Estonians of which 500 were Jews. That is percentagely pretty gross for the Jewish population here because they only numbered some 5,000 out of over 1 million people. A clear sign of anti-Semitic attacks against the Estonian Jewish population who enjoyed one of the most liberal ways of life in the west right here in Estonia. As the lists of the people to be deported were already being completed during the entire previous decade of the 1930's Stalin had targeted the local Jews as the main target of repressions. And also out of the 10,000 deported, just about half, with only a minor difference were females. Equality in everything eh? The German invasion brought another dictatorship of the same scale of totalitarian insanity, but it must be mentioned that it prevented another Soviet deportation, this was to be on a much greater scale (scheduled for somewhere in July 1941. IIRC), planned and signed by yours truly, Lavrenti Beria. The German repressions were far more minor on the local populous, alhtough as time went on, no romanticism was held by Estonians, nazis were brown communists and the hatred was there. 4) What do you chose, for soviets to come or for germans to stay?" I don't have to choose neither, as i hate them both, being anti-humane systems. Although the plan was, to hold Estonia free of the Soviets until Berlin fell and then use the Atlantic charter to reclaim our sovereign right for these lands, ours as they had been for endless generations. Too bad we had been sold by the West before that. And also i would have wanted the D-Day to have embarked from the Balkans as Churchill once planned, so the Allies could have come between us and you and freedom would have been ours as we had been striving for all this time in our minds and souls. We wanted democracy, Russians have always wanted us to accept and worship their dictatorship for another one. You just don't understand that we don't live well under a czar, we are the west. Illuminati wrote: "First off, they aren't dogs. Secondly, they have the ability to choose their own path, which is something that they were denied for decades by Moscow. And that's what matters. The fact that they aren't choosing to remain close with Moscow should tell you something about Soviet rule." Indeed, look at Moscows dogs now - still going to empty markets and looking out of their concrete block apartment bulidings gazing upon their corrupt leaders who bow before Putin and whose people haven't seen a pay raise since the 1960's. Going under Putin means that the years will start running backwards for us, in 15 years we would be back in stagnation, no thank you!------------- There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge... |
Posted By: pogy366
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 16:14
|
... if indeed the Soviet Union had the most powerful armed forces in the world and could destroy all other nations deployed against it without question like you said, can you explain Afganistan? ------------- 
"Better to be a geek than an idiot. " |
Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 11:32
So, it was better under germans Let's see how they will be supported if they suddenly, without any pressure willl decide to go communism (let's just imagine that happening) Do you think thebn US will be supporting them as a regime? No, then how is it freedom of coice? |
Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 11:33
Yes, I can, was the purpose of war in Afghanistan to destroy the country and kill all it's residents? To Kalevipoeg You do not have a third choice, it is either Soviets or Germans. That's how it was. |
Posted By: pogy366
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 11:40
... so the only method that the Soviet military could use to showcase their unmatched skills was "hack and slash" i.e. massive firepower rolling over the landscape like a scythe? That was their great advantage? -------------
"Better to be a geek than an idiot. " |
Posted By: Kalevipoeg
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 15:12
|
"So, it was better under germans" When looking at local casualty numbers it was indeed milder when the Germans were here. "Let's see how they will be supported if they suddenly, without any pressure willl decide to go communism (let's just imagine that happening) Do you think thebn US will be supporting them as a regime? No, then how is it freedom of coice?" Who is "they?" "You do not have a third choice, it is either Soviets or Germans. That's how it was." As you see, we chose our way, although the most hopeless, it was the only way. ------------- There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge... |
Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 12:57
| In the beginning of the cold war USSR had the most powerful land army but US had bigger navy and airforce.But dont forget that if it wasn's Russia now all europeans would speak german.Russia had the most important role in defeating the nazi germany.After WW2 russia was behind USA but after that in the end of 60s USSR become te most powerful nation with the biggest peacetime army that world have ever seen.The largest land forces,most powerful airdefence,biggest airforce,biggest nuclear arsenal,very strong fleet(USSR had two-three times more submarines than US). |
Posted By: J.M.Finegold
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 16:56
You forget that the United States was one of the principle reasons that the Soviet logistic networks didn't simply collapse during the counteroffensives of early 1942, although in the end they did come to naught [except, of course, Moscow]. Mind you, I'm not saying that the United States had a more important role than the Soviet Union. I think that it's rediculous to pin-point who had the most important role, because anyway you look at it in the end said country has at least one reason that it did not fail because of another country. Of course, I agree that had the Western Allies not landed in France June 1944 the Red Army would have defeated the Germans irregardless, but it was the Allied invasion of Normandy and the allied bombings of Germany that turned the Luftwaffe west, instead of allowing it to focus on at least tactical air superiority in the east, and it was ultimately the Ardennes Offensive of 1944 that stripped the Easterfront from the majority of its tanks, giving Koniev and Zhukov a much easier time during the crossings of the Spree River and Seelow Heights, respectively, in January 1945. And of course, it was the Red Army's advance that hampered German defensive efforts in France. As you see, it's all really too interconnected to really give the 'gold medal' to anyone, so to speak. ------------- |
Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 16:22
| In fact USSR fought against 75 % of german armed forces,while USA with UK and others fought against 25 %.If Hitler didnt attack USSR germany would conquer UK and would be impossible for USA to win. |
Posted By: J.M.Finegold
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 16:46
Over generalization. It really depends on what era. Like I said, for the Ardennes Offensive the Germans swept the majority of their armour off the Eastern Front and put it on the Western Front, expecting a quick victory which would allow them to switch 100% of their armed forces to meet the expected Soviet spring offensive in 1945. However, given their defeat at the Bulge the Soviets faced no major armoured resistance, although casualties were still stupendously high [IIRC, Zhukov alone lost 100,000 men crossing the Seelow Heights].
Umm, and how do you propose that the Germans 'conquer the UK' in 1941? ------------- |
Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 05:49
| Hey we wander away from the subject.Lets argue in another topic.The question here is the post ww2 soviet army.In the beginning they were behind USA,but after that Soviet Army become the strongest. |
Posted By: Desperado
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 08:34
That's not true: during 06/03/-14/03/1945 the 2nd Panzer and 6th SS Panzer Armies launch a major counter-attack from Lake Balaton towards Budapest. The battle for Zeelow heights also included major German armored forces. |
Posted By: J.M.Finegold
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 14:39
In George Forty's The Reich's Last Gamble I count a total of 16 Panzer divisions, either SS or Werhmacht; these do no include what amounts to at least two dozen Panzergrenadier divisions. It, however, includes even a Reserve Panzer Division! On the Seelow Heights on the major armoured detachments was the 502 SS Heavy Panzer Battalion, but the majority of the troops defending against Zhukov's offensive were Volksstrum and VGD forces, not armoured. I never said all of the armour was stripped from the Eastern Front, but it's quite obvious that the majority of it was. Quoting from When Titans Clashed, Jonathan M. House and David M. Glantz, "It was worth noting, however, that the growing concentration of German machanized forces and logistical support in the West made the Soviet tanks in the East far easier than it would have otherwise been." The German shuffling of mechanized forces to Hungary also helped the Army Group A to suffer from the lack of sufficient armour to stop the Soviet spearheads over the Spree River and Seelow Heighs. ------------- |
Posted By: J.M.Finegold
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 14:46
And how? Speaking strickly in terms of available armour the Red Army held between a 2:1 and 3:1 advantage over NATO, however, it's worth noting that the sheer majority of the tanks available to the Red Army at the time were older models while NATO tended to field less of their newer models, but at least the majority were newer models. Even by the 1970s only the core of the Red Army was equipped with T-64s, while the rest was equipped with T-55s, the horrendous T-62 and the later upgrade T-72. So, although the T-64 was the zenith of Soviet tank design, IMO, unfortunately they didn't have enough to match that of the West. Apart from the technology present on the tanks you have to take into consideration the superiority of NATO logistics, maintenance doctrines, and even the little things, such as the fact that NATO tanks tended to have better preformance since the crews were more comfortable. I'm sure that the argument that this translates throughout the entire Soviet Army of the era is not a slippery slope. You can certainly see the same trends appear through their artillery and air defense artillery, and their aircraft. I think only their navy fielded newer types of ships and submarines on a consistent basis only because they were always second to the United States. Even then, Soviet SSKs didn't have the same level of accuracy in their electronics designs for their submarines, and poor industry undermined good engineering - the consistent problem of core meltdowns on their SSNs proves it. So, it's not really proper to judge both armies on a basis of who has the most equipment. You have to judge them on a series of characteristics, including logistics, the quality of their armaments, topographic factors of possible battlefields, et cetera. I think that's what makes a proper alternative cold war history so difficult, in any case. ------------- |
Posted By: Desperado
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 16:37
|
The fact is a fact: you've said that the soviets didn't meet serious tank resistance after the Ardennes operation, which is not correct-the german and hungarian forces included nearly 900 tanks/assault guns/panzerjagers during Balaton/Budapest operation and more than 1200 during the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula-Oder_Offensive#_note-2 - Soviet Vistula-Oder Offensive. In April 1945 the Panzerwaffe still could field more than a 1000 tanks and self-propelled artillery pieces on the Berlin direction. "... Even by the 1970s only the core of the Red Army was equipped with T-64s, while the rest was equipped with T-55s, the horrendous T-62 and the later upgrade T-72. So, although the T-64 was the zenith of Soviet tank design, IMO, unfortunately they didn't have enough to match that of the West. " -I'll agree with you that T-64 was the zenith of the Soviet tank design, but i'm curious how much of T-64's were enough to "match that of the West" according to you. About the T62 I'll disagree: comparable in armor protection with it's western counterparts it had better gun. The western attitude towards the Soviet technology generally copies that of the nazis: "der russische unter menschen" and that of the Americans towards the Japanese "under the bamboo curtain" before 1941. And thank God that another western myth of supremacy isn't busted on the battlefield.
|
Posted By: J.M.Finegold
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 17:01
The Budapest operation has nothing to do with German armoured resistance against the Red Army's Berling Winter offensive.  So, the armoured strength of the Werhmacht in Hungary is irrelevent to my comment. I said that Zhukov and Koniev met very little armoured resistance. Somehow, I doubt that the IV SS Panzerkorps, which was sent to Budapest and disengaged from the Vistula, amounted to ~900 tanks; at least that were still frontline serviceable and could were qualitively on par to Soviet armour of the era.In fact, even for the Oder offensive the four divisions that Guderian attempted to transfer to the Vistula were redirected to Hungary. Of the three Panzer Armies were arrayed in Army Group Center and Army Group A they were severely understrength. The entire German deployment to the area was 800,000 men understrength! The lack of proper armour and mechanized logistics doomed the German Army in the operation to begin with - there simply was not enough armour to stop the Red Army, and most of this had been squandered in the Ardennes, Of the ~1,800tanks produced between December 1944 and January 1945 the majority were lost in the Ardennes, for example.
It should be noted that the major Panzer divisions were close enough to the west of Berlin that they were able to either actually escape, or attempt an escape by late April and early May.
The T-64's electronics were superior to that of the Leopard 1A4 and the M60, while the Leopard couldn't penetrate the T-64's frontal arc, and the T-64 could penetrate allied armour. Unfortunately, AFAIK only between 2,000 to 3,000 were ever manufactured.
That doesn't take into consideration the fact that the T-62 broke down consistently, and had the tendency to lose its tracks, as well, on a consistent basis. Furthermore, I see no ballistic testimony for both the T-62's 115mm gun and the round in use that proves superior to the ammunition and guns used by NATO at the time - especially the 105mm L7, which was considered the best gun of the era. ------------- |
Posted By: Desperado
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 17:27
|
Posted By: J.M.Finegold
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 17:45
I guess I should have said, "The Ardennes Offensive and the fact that the majority of German armour was swept from the Easter Front made the Russian advance several times easier." I guess that does have a different connotation to it. ------------- |
Posted By: ChickenShoes
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2007 at 20:09
if your dad was born in 1946, he missed the advance of the Soviet army...did he not? ------------- It is not enough that I succeed - everyone else must fail |
Posted By: Theodore Felix
Date Posted: 03-Jul-2007 at 16:39
| I remember reading Guderian's last portion of his book and his mention of how much the western front decimated the defenses of the east. It left empty wide portions of the east that the Russians were able to take easily. |