The French are Evil!

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


Then stop making the statement that Iraq posed a threat to the US. If you can not asnwer the question of how they did so, don't make the statement.

Got to France Boy.

I'll make whatever statements concerning wahtever topic I see fit.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife


Got to France Boy.

I'll make whatever statements concerning wahtever topic I see fit.

Then be prepared to back them up and answer questions that deal with them. And no I will stay here thank you, but if you wish you can go. I am sure they will love your hateful self.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


Then be prepared to back them up and answer questions that deal with them. And no I will stay here thank you, but if you wish you can go. I am sure they will love your hateful self.

Hate? I don't care enough about you to hate you.

I have made the case why Iraq was a threat to us. YOU decided YOU didn't like it.

So I say to you again. Tough crap for you.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
To Shartly.

There are numerous sites out there, all of them bias of course, that show the peculiarities of Bush's military "service."

Here is just one of them.

http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#vietnam

They are bias so should be taken with a grain of salt. Look at the evidence and skip the opinions.

My ID card comes from my father, he is retired from the army after 30 years in service, 5 of which was in Vietnam

I may read that at some point, but no matter what it says, it does not justify your words toward our President. And sadly you just don’t understand that…. maybe some day you will.

As for your ID Card…. To your FATHER I give credit and respect. I too have served my country… although not in Vietnam, I was too young. But any respect I give your father for his service to our country is not simply hinged on any war time service or WHERE he served…. But that he DID serve. And again, sadly you don’t understand that.

And any such respect and credit I give your FATHER does NOT transfer down to his offspring who have NOT served their country, nor understand the meaning of it… war time or not, location irrelivent.

Good day…….

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by shartley

I may read that at some point, but no matter what it says, it does not justify your words toward our President. And sadly you just don’t understand that…. maybe some day you will.

As for your ID Card…. To your FATHER I give credit and respect. I too have served my country… although not in Vietnam, I was too young. But any respect I give your father for his service to our country is not simply hinged on any war time service or WHERE he served…. But that he DID serve. And again, sadly you don’t understand that.

And any such respect and credit I give your FATHER does NOT transfer down to his offspring who have NOT served their country, nor understand the meaning of it… war time or not, location irrelivent.

Good day…….

Sadly you think I said something that deserves harsh feelings. I said shame on the president for what he is doing and what he did do, all the while sugar coating it. I said I don't like him. Nothing there is wrong.

I wouldn't want you to give me respect for what my father did, that is stupid to expect that.

FOL, no you didn't answer the question. All you said wa if I can't see it, then I am stupid. You have never answered the question. I am not looking for my answer, I am looking for A answer.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by superdesk2007
Just because you don't win a battle doesn't mean it isn't an offensive battle. (yeah I know double negative :P )

I will get to the rest when i get back. he will keep pursuing this subject


Excuse my brother, for he will keep pursuing this subject.

WILL HIM AND YOU STOP THIS I WANT TO READ SOMETHING BY DIFFERENT PEOPLE??????????AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I KNOW MY SPELLING SUCKS BUT IM NOT EVEN IN HIGH SCHOOL SO DON'T CRITISIZE PEOPLE.

You're CB's brother?

I am truly sorry for you!

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by aaron_mag


1stdeadeye can you please explain to Facts here why celebrating one person as a national guardsman and deriding another because he was stationed just for sixteen months in Korea is hypocritical.

He is right Facts. Both men served. After serving though, Dukakis should have just stayed out of that tank. He looked like such a weenie that I think it hurt him more then the Willie Horton ads!

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
This is how my father puts the Bush vs. Clinton military service argument. He said both men dishonored those who died to fight for a lost cause or no cause at all. He said that out of them at least Clinton stood up for what he believed in, he broke the law, but didn't hide his emotions to the war.

Guess what. My father was drafted out of college. He served his time in Baltimore in front of a computer terminal processing orders for troop assignments. Since he wasn't infantry I guess his opinion doesn't count! My uncle served in Vietnam. He was infantry. My family doesn't talk about what he did there, but he came back just not right in the head. He is now a retired Sheriff's Deputy. Maybe his opinion counts? They support Bush because no matter how, at least he served. Clinton ran. Who was scared? Bush had the possibility of being sent over. Clinton in London did not! Bottom line!

You disgust me because you compare running to another country to protest our actions with someone who did serve. Guess what, Bush was a fighter pilot like his father. He flew at home. Guess who the hell is patrolling our skies right now? It is the air national guard. The entire North East is being covered by Pamona Air Force Base outside Atlantic City New Jersey. My buddy Jim was called up after Sept. 11th. He was a township police officer and now is serving as an air police officer (or whatever they are called). F-16's are flying from his base now on homeland defense patrols. I dare you to call him a coward who does not wish to serve.

You are really starting to piss me off! You who demands facts (no pun intended), are so willing to accept innuendo about Bush's motives. Maybe Bush wanted to learn to fly and the Air National Guard of Texas was his best chance? Neither you nor your father KNOW! You are merely speculating. I am suprised you never brought up the rumored DWI/Cocaine bust of Bush that never occured, but the left wing brings up as a rumor every now and then!

Bush was scared to fight, he ran and joined the NG in order to make sure that he will not get drafted or will not go to war. He even went awol while on duty. Along with the AWOL issue the thing that pissed my father the most was when Bush during his election said he wanted to go to war, but since the NG unit never got called up he couldn't.

And you have facts or proof of this? Maybe you should take your own advice and shut the hell up unless you can provide proof!

Anyone who knows anything will know that Bush joined the NG because he knew they wouldn't get called up. He has disgraced all the Vietnam dead and living who had the guts to fight, while he didn't and proclaims he does.
I have to agree with that to a certain extent.

You have no right to judge that. Guess what, the national guard was called up in many places to help during the war. Remember Kent State, that sad chapter in the Vietnam war involved the National Guard. But it is okay to bash them since they were all cowards enlisting in the NG to avoid Vietnam!

Again I say that I never want to hear you demand proof again you hypocrite. How dare you attack Facts and others demanding proof when you so casually make arguments based on rumors and innuendos! I am done with you. Get out of my thread!


FOL, you have never answered my question, so don't state that you have. And since you posted the question again I will ask you again.

IBID

When did Iraq ever pose a threat to the US?

The moment the Al Queda training camp was found in Iraq! Or was that not a threat the same way the camps in Afghanistan were no threat to the US. Nuff said

[m-98]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


You're CB's brother?

I am truly sorry for you!

I'm superdesk's brother.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


He is right Facts. Both men served. After serving though, Dukakis should have just stayed out of that tank. He looked like such a weenie that I think it hurt him more then the Willie Horton ads!

Yeah. I know both of them served.

If anyone would care to read my post that is NOT the reason I call him "The Loser".

Just because someone served does not confer sainthood on them for life.

I never said I didn't respect The Loser for serving. I said he's a loser for getting his hat handed to him in his bid for President.

Big difference there.

[superdesk2007]

im m-98s brother

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Originally posted by Collegeboy
This is how my father puts the Bush vs. Clinton military service argument. He said both men dishonored those who died to fight for a lost cause or no cause at all. He said that out of them at least Clinton stood up for what he believed in, he broke the law, but didn't hide his emotions to the war.

Guess what. My father was drafted out of college. He served his time in Baltimore in front of a computer terminal processing orders for troop assignments. Since he wasn't infantry I guess his opinion doesn't count! My uncle served in Vietnam. He was infantry. My family doesn't talk about what he did there, but he came back just not right in the head. He is now a retired Sheriff's Deputy. Maybe his opinion counts? They support Bush because no matter how, at least he served. Clinton ran. Who was scared? Bush had the possibility of being sent over. Clinton in London did not! Bottom line!

You disgust me because you compare running to another country to protest our actions with someone who did serve. Guess what, Bush was a fighter pilot like his father. He flew at home. Guess who the hell is patrolling our skies right now? It is the air national guard. The entire North East is being covered by Pamona Air Force Base outside Atlantic City New Jersey. My buddy Jim was called up after Sept. 11th. He was a township police officer and now is serving as an air police officer (or whatever they are called). F-16's are flying from his base now on homeland defense patrols. I dare you to call him a coward who does not wish to serve.

You are really starting to piss me off! You who demands facts (no pun intended), are so willing to accept innuendo about Bush's motives. Maybe Bush wanted to learn to fly and the Air National Guard of Texas was his best chance? Neither you nor your father KNOW! You are merely speculating. I am suprised you never brought up the rumored DWI/Cocaine bust of Bush that never occured, but the left wing brings up as a rumor every now and then!

Bush was scared to fight, he ran and joined the NG in order to make sure that he will not get drafted or will not go to war. He even went awol while on duty. Along with the AWOL issue the thing that pissed my father the most was when Bush during his election said he wanted to go to war, but since the NG unit never got called up he couldn't.

And you have facts or proof of this? Maybe you should take your own advice and shut the hell up unless you can provide proof!

Anyone who knows anything will know that Bush joined the NG because he knew they wouldn't get called up. He has disgraced all the Vietnam dead and living who had the guts to fight, while he didn't and proclaims he does.
I have to agree with that to a certain extent.

You have no right to judge that. Guess what, the national guard was called up in many places to help during the war. Remember Kent State, that sad chapter in the Vietnam war involved the National Guard. But it is okay to bash them since they were all cowards enlisting in the NG to avoid Vietnam!

Again I say that I never want to hear you demand proof again you hypocrite. How dare you attack Facts and others demanding proof when you so casually make arguments based on rumors and innuendos! I am done with you. Get out of my thread!


FOL, you have never answered my question, so don't state that you have. And since you posted the question again I will ask you again.

IBID

When did Iraq ever pose a threat to the US?

The moment the Al Queda training camp was found in Iraq! Or was that not a threat the same way the camps in Afghanistan were no threat to the US. Nuff said

Read the link I provided, nuff said.

Wasn't Al Queda training camps found in the US (there was a camp found in Anniston Alabama where Al Queda members used the training facilities to train), or in the UK. So I guess the US and the UK are now a threat to the US.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


Read the link I provided, nuff said.

Wasn't Al Queda training camps found in the US (there was a camp found in Anniston Alabama where Al Queda members used the training facilities to train), or in the UK. So I guess the US and the UK are now a threat to the US.

Again, all innuendo. No facts. You are digging yourself a bigger and bigger hole! Just shut up already! You can't demand facts and show up with rumors. This is like you showing up to a gun fight with a knife. You will lose and look stupid doing it!

As for the suspected training center, it was suspected, and never confirmed. Even if it had been, there is a big difference between a covertly run camp and an Iraqi Government sponsored and protected camp! Your comparrison is just plain dumb!

[Automaggin2]

wow scott, i have to give you props for that one. you just made him feel like a fool

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Automaggin2
wow scott, i have to give you props for that one. you just made him feel like a fool

I wish! CB has no shame or guilt. He will post sme garbage response as usual!

Are you playing tomorrow? I am down the shore right now and this laptop is soooooo slow! If you go, check out the old parking lot. John has sealed it off and is building an indoor airball field!

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


Again, all innuendo. No facts. You are digging yourself a bigger and bigger hole! Just shut up already! You can't demand facts and show up with rumors. This is like you showing up to a gun fight with a knife. You will lose and look stupid doing it!

As for the suspected training center, it was suspected, and never confirmed. Even if it had been, there is a big difference between a covertly run camp and an Iraqi Government sponsored and protected camp! Your comparrison is just plain dumb!

What if the UN and the US were protecting those camps in Iraq, what would you say to that? The camps were in the No Fly zone in northern Iraq (Both Saddam, UN, and the US agree to this), near Kurdish villages. SADDAM WAS NOT SUPPORTING HIS ENEMIES THAT WOULD LOVE NOTHING MORE THEN TO KILL HIM.

Please name the one place Saddam can not take troops near.

And no that site provides what happened, when he joined, what happened, when he went AWOL, when he left, what he did, what he didn't do. (Those are facts if you can't tell) You make your conclusion from it.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


What if the UN and the US were protecting those camps in Iraq, what would you say to that? The camps were in the No Fly zone in northern Iraq (Both Saddam, UN, and the US agree to this), near Kurdish villages. SADDAM WAS NOT SUPPORTING HIS ENEMIES THAT WOULD LOVE NOTHING MORE THEN TO KILL HIM.

Guess what, Saddam had troops in the northern section of Iraq. It was a NO FLY ZONE! He still had troops there or were the US troops that parachuted into northern iraq fighting phantoms for the media?

Please name the one place Saddam can not take troops near.

His troops were accross the ENTIRE COUNTRY OF IRAQ! If not, why did we have to fight in EVERY SECTION OF IRAQ!

And no that site provides what happened, when he joined, what happened, when he went AWOL, when he left, what he did, what he didn't do. (Those are facts if you can't tell) You make your conclusion from it.

No, that site provide rumors of what happened. It admits that it is a liberal Anti-Bush site. It's sources are libereal newspaper articles. Not military records or any other public documents that can be verified! So it is not a source, it is rumor and innuendo!

BTW, you never answered earlier posts! Want to tell us about the "Siege" of Moscow?

Or why not tell us about the heroic Russian bombers that destroyed German war production in WWII contributing greatly to the Nazi defeat?

Bah, I am done with you. I am going to the boardwalk!

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Originally posted by Collegeboy


What if the UN and the US were protecting those camps in Iraq, what would you say to that? The camps were in the No Fly zone in northern Iraq (Both Saddam, UN, and the US agree to this), near Kurdish villages. SADDAM WAS NOT SUPPORTING HIS ENEMIES THAT WOULD LOVE NOTHING MORE THEN TO KILL HIM.

Guess what, Saddam had troops in the northern section of Iraq. It was a NO FLY ZONE! He still had troops there or were the US troops that parachuted into northern iraq fighting phantoms for the media?

Please name the one place Saddam can not take troops near.

His troops were accross the ENTIRE COUNTRY OF IRAQ! If not, why did we have to fight in EVERY SECTION OF IRAQ!

And no that site provides what happened, when he joined, what happened, when he went AWOL, when he left, what he did, what he didn't do. (Those are facts if you can't tell) You make your conclusion from it.

No, that site provide rumors of what happened. It admits that it is a liberal Anti-Bush site. It's sources are libereal newspaper articles. Not military records or any other public documents that can be verified! So it is not a source, it is rumor and innuendo!

BTW, you never answered earlier posts! Want to tell us about the "Siege" of Moscow?

Or why not tell us about the heroic Russian bombers that destroyed German war production in WWII contributing greatly to the Nazi defeat?

Bah, I am done with you. I am going to the boardwalk!

Saddam could not take troops near Kurdish Villages.

That site provides information about his joining and the facts behind it.

http://www.battlefield.ru/library/ar...reports11.html

As to the effect of bombing on the Nazi War Machine. It helped to weaken it, But it did not do what the Russians did. Through studying Russians, and Russia, I come to the conclusion that Russia could have defeated Germany without the bombings, but the rest of the allies could not have defeated the Germans without the Russians. You just have to understand the Russian people, what they have gone through, what they were going through, their since of pride in their nation and what they were doing. I once read a diary of a Front line field nurse in the Russia army by the name of Vera Ivanovna Malakhova. In it she said this, “we graduated, they had given us our diplomas, naturally it was our duty to go to the front.” How can you defeat a nation where all the populace believes like this. You can't. That is why the Russians have never been successfully invaded since the time of the Mongols. Alexander Nevetsky turned back the Germans knights, Napoleon turned back, and Hitler turned back. Russia could have won on their own. It would have been bloodier then the 30,000,000 Russians who died, but they would have done it. Take a look at their industrial numbers and how their climbed during the war. It is amazing.

[1stdeadeye]

CB, you should move to Russia. You are a fan of their revisionist history.

We beat an arguably more formibale foe (Japan) at the same time we beat Germany. Had the entire US might been thrown at Germany, the Nazi's still would have fallen. Air power won WWII. Allied Air power won on both fronts. Without American bombers, Germany might have had a few hydrogen bombs to use on Russia before the end of the war. Without Allied bombers, the Germans would have maintained air superiority over the Russians. And so on and so on.

BTW, what about the "siege" of Moscow.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
CB, you should move to Russia. You are a fan of their revisionist history.

We beat an arguably more formibale foe (Japan) at the same time we beat Germany. Had the entire US might been thrown at Germany, the Nazi's still would have fallen. Air power won WWII. Allied Air power won on both fronts. Without American bombers, Germany might have had a few hydrogen bombs to use on Russia before the end of the war. Without Allied bombers, the Germans would have maintained air superiority over the Russians. And so on and so on.

BTW, what about the "siege" of Moscow.

I provided info on the seige of moscow.

And no I am not a fan on the revisionist history of Russia, I am a Russian history major and fan of Russian history.

No if the US would have faced the Nazis with the Nazis in full strength and the US in full Stength the US would have lost. Allied air power helped, but didn't win the war. Russia if you had to pick one thing that won the war, won the war. But it was a collective effort that won the war with Russia doing more then either side.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
But it was a collective effort that won the war with Russia doing more then either side.

At least you show some intelligence in saying it was a collective effort. Without us supporting Russia they would have fallen. They were hanging on by fingernails. The Russians fought extremely valiantly but they were close to collapse.

I heard an interview once where they asked a German soldier when he knew the war was over. The German answered that when he saw the allied soldiers riddling every suspected enemy position with bullets he knew the war was over. His rationale was if they had enough ammunition to do that they were done for.

As for could the allies have won the war without Russia that is a matter open to debate but I think the answer is yes (we did eventually develop the nuclear bomb after all). Could Russia single handedly have defeated Germany? Again it is open for debate but it is not very likely.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by aaron_mag


At least you show some intelligence in saying it was a collective effort. Without us supporting Russia they would have fallen. They were hanging on by fingernails. The Russians fought extremely valiantly but they were close to collapse.

I heard an interview once where they asked a German soldier when he knew the war was over. The German answered that when he saw the allied soldiers riddling every suspected enemy position with bullets he knew the war was over. His rationale was if they had enough ammunition to do that they were done for.

As for could the allies have won the war without Russia that is a matter open to debate but I think the answer is yes (we did eventually develop the nuclear bomb after all). Could Russia single handedly have defeated Germany? Again it is open for debate but it is not very likely.

I think it is the other way around.

US support to Russia was late and wasn't very necessary to the war effort. (giving what Russia has and is going through)

There is no way US citizens would have supported losing the amount of soldiers Russia did, even half that amount, even 1/4 that amount, even 1/8, get the idea.

US equipment was no match for a German army that was not worn down from years of fighting on the eastern front. US troops got lucky and defeated the German army when it was low on supplies, low on equipment, low on morale, battle tired, etc... And they barely defeated them. So how could the US defeat Germany at full strength, I don't see it.

Now Russia took on Germany at full strength. Thanks to Stalin not believing his generals, and having moved is front line from eastern Poland to mid Poland, Germany attacked and pushed the unprepared Russian army back to the cities. Russian industries were carted back to the Urals and Siberia. Now until those get set up and the army has a chance to regroup and reequip they did fall back, but once the amazing soviet industry was reestablished, the Soviets picked up their pace and began defeating the Germans and pushing them back. Now did US aide make it easier to do so, yes, but they still would have done it. Maybe 40,000,000 would have died, instead of 30,000,000, but they still would have done it.

[m-98]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


Saddam could not take troops near Kurdish Villages.

That site provides information about his joining and the facts behind it.

http://www.battlefield.ru/library/ar...reports11.html

As to the effect of bombing on the Nazi War Machine. It helped to weaken it, But it did not do what the Russians did. Through studying Russians, and Russia, I come to the conclusion that Russia could have defeated Germany without the bombings, but the rest of the allies could not have defeated the Germans without the Russians. You just have to understand the Russian people, what they have gone through, what they were going through, their since of pride in their nation and what they were doing. I once read a diary of a Front line field nurse in the Russia army by the name of Vera Ivanovna Malakhova. In it she said this, “we graduated, they had given us our diplomas, naturally it was our duty to go to the front.” How can you defeat a nation where all the populace believes like this. You can't. That is why the Russians have never been successfully invaded since the time of the Mongols. Alexander Nevetsky turned back the Germans knights, Napoleon turned back, and Hitler turned back. Russia could have won on their own. It would have been bloodier then the 30,000,000 Russians who died, but they would have done it. Take a look at their industrial numbers and how their climbed during the war. It is amazing.

Russia hasn't been successfully invaded because of the people as you said, and look at its size, Russia is extremely large. Plus they have terrible winters and in the spring in WWII many of their roads turned to mud making it impossible to travel.

Russia may have been able to do it alone but we gave them many supplies before they started to mass produce their own equipment.

By the way, Russia never officially released the number of casualties that they suffered in WWII.

[m-98]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
CB, you should move to Russia. You are a fan of their revisionist history.

We beat an arguably more formibale foe (Japan) at the same time we beat Germany. Had the entire US might been thrown at Germany, the Nazi's still would have fallen. Air power won WWII. Allied Air power won on both fronts. Without American bombers, Germany might have had a few hydrogen bombs to use on Russia before the end of the war. Without Allied bombers, the Germans would have maintained air superiority over the Russians. And so on and so on.

BTW, what about the "siege" of Moscow.

I don't want to start an argument with you but air power did not win WWII, it played a major part, but one cannot win a war with airplanes because they cannot hold ground.

CB, yes tell us everything about the seige of Moscow I must have fallen asleep in my history class, and your revisionist history class is much better than my real history class.

[m-98]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


I provided info on the seige of moscow.

And no I am not a fan on the revisionist history of Russia, I am a Russian history major and fan of Russian history.

No if the US would have faced the Nazis with the Nazis in full strength and the US in full Stength the US would have lost. Allied air power helped, but didn't win the war. Russia if you had to pick one thing that won the war, won the war. But it was a collective effort that won the war with Russia doing more then either side.

Russia did more because we were fighting on 2 fronts, and we had no major ground forces in Europe for some time.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
There is no way US citizens would have supported losing the amount of soldiers Russia did, even half that amount, even 1/4 that amount, even 1/8, get the idea.

If they were on our soil (as they were in Russia) of course we would accept those casulty rates. I am going to stop arguing with you now because nothing we say can prove anything since neither path (Russia fighting by itself or the rest of the allies fighting by themselves) was ever tried. Still if you truly believe that the U.S. "was not needed" to defeat Germany it is my opinion that you are insane....

[m-98]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


Saddam could not take troops near Kurdish Villages.

That site provides information about his joining and the facts behind it.

http://www.battlefield.ru/library/ar...reports11.html

As to the effect of bombing on the Nazi War Machine. It helped to weaken it, But it did not do what the Russians did. Through studying Russians, and Russia, I come to the conclusion that Russia could have defeated Germany without the bombings, but the rest of the allies could not have defeated the Germans without the Russians. You just have to understand the Russian people, what they have gone through, what they were going through, their since of pride in their nation and what they were doing. I once read a diary of a Front line field nurse in the Russia army by the name of Vera Ivanovna Malakhova. In it she said this, “we graduated, they had given us our diplomas, naturally it was our duty to go to the front.” How can you defeat a nation where all the populace believes like this. You can't. That is why the Russians have never been successfully invaded since the time of the Mongols. Alexander Nevetsky turned back the Germans knights, Napoleon turned back, and Hitler turned back. Russia could have won on their own. It would have been bloodier then the 30,000,000 Russians who died, but they would have done it. Take a look at their industrial numbers and how their climbed during the war. It is amazing.

The Russian people fought for fear of being executed, partly. Stalin once said that it takes a brave man not to be a hero in the Soviet army. He was responding to a comment about the about the Red Army's bravery during WWII.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


I provided info on the seige of moscow.

THERE WAS NO SIEGE OF MOSCOW!

And no I am not a fan on the revisionist history of Russia, I am a Russian history major and fan of Russian history.

And the Russians did not lose to Japan in the Russo-Japanese War either!

No if the US would have faced the Nazis with the Nazis in full strength and the US in full Stength the US would have lost. Allied air power helped, but didn't win the war. Russia if you had to pick one thing that won the war, won the war. But it was a collective effort that won the war with Russia doing more then either side.

FOOL! The US faught two wars at the same time. Could Russia have survived had the Japanese invaded from the East? Probably not. The US defeated the Japanese almost single handedly. Further, we supplied the Russians with the arms they needed to fight. Had the US not entered the war could Russia have won? Maybe. Had US planes not bombed the daylights out of Germany, the Germans may have completed their Atom Bomb. Do you think mushroom clouds over Moscow, Stalingrad, and Leningrad would have forced the Russians to surrender?

Allied air power opened the door for the Soviet advance. The Soviets could not have made the progress they did if up against the fully supplied and armed German armies. If they could have, the Germans would not have moved so far into Soviet territory. Also, if Hitler had let his generals run the eastern front, the Soviets might very well have been forced to sue for peace. Hitler helped the allies win the war as much as anyone. That fool made decisions that allowed for the capture of 100's of thousands of German troops.

Air power never won a war? Hey WWII! Japan surrendered without a single allied soldier invading the mainland! Air power did pretty much defeat the Japanese in the end did it not!

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


There is no way US citizens would have supported losing the amount of soldiers Russia did, even half that amount, even 1/4 that amount, even 1/8, get the idea.

If the US was invaded, the American people would accept any casualty count to win!

US equipment was no match for a German army that was not worn down from years of fighting on the eastern front. US troops got lucky and defeated the German army when it was low on supplies, low on equipment, low on morale, battle tired, etc... And they barely defeated them. So how could the US defeat Germany at full strength, I don't see it.

Who wore down and destroyed the German Armies? Who destroyed their supply lines? Who destroyed the German industrial machine that supplied the German Armies? Barely defeated the Germans? The US/British forces launched a cross channel invasion and pushed the Germans back very quickly. Which is more difficult: A cross channel invasion against a fortress or a fight accross open fields? The US/British faught a much more difficult campaign and did it well!

Now Russia took on Germany at full strength. Thanks to Stalin not believing his generals, and having moved is front line from eastern Poland to mid Poland, Germany attacked and pushed the unprepared Russian army back to the cities. Russian industries were carted back to the Urals and Siberia. Now until those get set up and the army has a chance to regroup and reequip they did fall back, but once the amazing soviet industry was reestablished, the Soviets picked up their pace and began defeating the Germans and pushing them back. Now did US aide make it easier to do so, yes, but they still would have done it. Maybe 40,000,000 would have died, instead of 30,000,000, but they still would have done it.

When Russia fought Germany at full strength, the got their heads handed to them. Without allied support, the Russians would not have survived long enough to move their factories. Amazing, not really. They copied ally designs at their factories. The Germans ran out of supplies. They were overwhelmed by Allied industrial might. All of the allies!

[aaron_mag]

Also while we are at it how can you be a "fan" of Russian history? It can be your primary interest but a "fan" makes it sound like you root for the Russians while studying their history. While it is true that many people do this (what 1stdeadeye calls revisionist history) it is not what we are supposed to do in the study of history.