Waiting for Stalingrad/Barbarossa

[Imperious leader]

What is so ridiculous is what most people believe!

The Official Historical Record of the Russian Army
1. ineffective against Napoleon
2. ineffective against Germany in WWI
3. ineffective against the Commies
4. ineffective against the Finns in the Winter War
5. ineffective against the Nazi invasion in 1941
6. 1943-1945 They are invincible, they win WWII by themselves. The British and
Americans thank God for the massive powerful Russians.
7. ineffective trying to get nukes into Cuba
8. ineffective against the Afghans (they couldn't even beat an old Rambo and some camels.)
9. so ineffective the country collapses in the late 1980's

We are only talking about Soviet capabilities in WW2. What does their capabilities have to do with how they fought Germany in 1941.

4. They learned from Fighting the Finns and the Finns had better tactics and leadership, while Stalin purged his commanders. Eventually, he let them fight and save Russia against the Germans. 5. They were effective against Germany in 1941, Germany could not take Leningrad or Moscow.
6. This just contradicts your point in the other post. I guess you like to flip flop.

It appears you just hate Russia, which is fine. But these reasons are largely dismissive as a case against them Historically.

I got a good laugh against the point about Napoleon.

"ineffective against Napoleon"

Are you crazy? Or is this some English language thing where you meant to say:

"They defeated Le Grande Armee in 1812 by burning Moscow and harassing Napoleons logistics as he retreated in defeat?

as opposed to:

"ineffective against Napoleon"

[LyrandisX]

You can hate communism or Stalin but don't let that make you look crazy on the internet with ridiculous claims.

What is so ridiculous is what most people believe!

The Official Historical Record of the Russian Army
1. ineffective against Napoleon
2. ineffective against Germany in WWI
3. ineffective against the Commies
4. ineffective against the Finns in the Winter War
5. ineffective against the Nazi invasion in 1941
6. 1943-1945 They are invincible, they win WWII by themselves. The British and
Americans thank God for the massive powerful Russians.
7. ineffective trying to get nukes into Cuba
8. ineffective against the Afghans (they couldn't even beat an old Rambo and some camels.)
9. so ineffective the country collapses in the late 1980's

Number 6 looks out of place, I think.

1. Russia defeated Napoleon, the first devastating defeat for him
2. Russia had problems because of their Czar oppressing progress in industrialization
3. The "communists" (The Soviets were Socialist, even the USSR has Socialist in its name) won due to problems among the many groups of the white army, they were organized unlike their rivals
4. The finns had a far better trained army and had terrain and enviromental advantages
5. All that blame can be placed on Stalin from his paranoia caused by Hitler's spies spreading rumors of plots against the Soviet Dictator within the Soviet Party
6. Over 80% of German losses in the war were thanks to the Red Army, who had they not tied down those forces, the Germans then would of made D-Day look like a worst disaster than the Battle of France (Yes, I'm saying the Soviet Union won the war, as a German-born citizen, I have more of a right to say that than you do)
7. Funny how that was only due to the US blockade
8. Only lost because of US supplies, funny though that you guys supplied terrorists just to beat "the big red bully in the east", and then those same terrorists bit you in the ass on 9/11, sucks does it not?
9. The USSR collapsed in 1991, you really must have not payed attention in Social Studies

It's clear you are a racist pig, the Russians sacificed more in the war against Germany than the UK and USA did combined, and they get trampled on all the time even today just because of their leaders and their decisions

[AC]

Turner I appreciate your views but to be blunt, they are wrong. The soviets bore the brunt of the Nazi war machine and turned the tide. The Americans and the British fought well but it is fact that the Soviets destroyed the vast vast majority of the German army.

Your views and comments demonstrate a personal view of history that is not subscribed to by any expert who would want to be taken seriously.

[Pete E]

I find it ironic that we're incensed with someone that revises history.

Afterall, isn't that one of the main reasons we play A & A?

[Imperious leader]

Playing a game that is loosely Historical and having one of the most ridiculous views on FACTUAL HISTORY ARE NOT RELATED.

I think many here are hoping to help this lad get his bearings right about the facts. It's like somebody wanting to jump off a building and myself and others are trying to redirect him to not do that.

The fact that he could not be more wrong leads me to suspect this is a joke. People can't possibly think like that unless they live in a cave and never heard of books.

I personally think this is a language issue. He really meant something else, but his way of communication is somewhat lacking. He already totally contradicted himself here:

The Soviets were putting in women and old men to fight by the end of the war.
They were also using British and American lend-lease equipment. (German field reports support this. The average Russian tank lasted less than a week because of poor logistics and no replacement parts) Only by the very end of the war did they start using modern tactics. They were running out of men and equipment. Without the second front they would have lost.

1943-1945 They are invincible, they win WWII by themselves. The British and
Americans thank God for the massive powerful Russians.

You can only laugh at how he makes both statements possible.. lol

I think we are being punked.

[turner]

IL you are cracking me up....lol

You at least get what I am doing.

Someone said that the Russians would have won the war all by themselves.
That is just as ridiculous as saying the Americans and the British would have
won the war all by themselves. Both sides helped each other out and even then it
took from 1939 to 1945 to win the war.

The Russians tied up most of the German forces while the Americans supplied a lot of trucks and tanks for the Russians to use. Casualty statistics show that the
Russians however had a much higher casualty rate than the rest of the combatants.
This shows the inexperience and recklessness of their leaders not their inability to
fight or their lack of bravery or some racial inability to fight effectively.

By the same token the Russians tying up those German forces helped the African and Western efforts by Britain and the United States. But in Germany's favor the
Japanese helped them out by tying up a lot of U.S. and U.K. forces themselves. So both armies in the west were only a shadow of what they could have been.

I would be interested in an A&A scenario where the fight is only the Russians versus the Germans. I think Russia would be hard pressed to win, with Germany
bringing what someone said was the other 20% of their forces they probably would have captured Moscow in November of 1941.

I would also be interested in an A&A scenario where Russia is removed and the UK and USA have to take on Germany and Japan by themselves. I think the Allies would be hard pressed to win themselves without Russia.

So you see Russia or (the Socialists as someone pointed out) did not defeat the
Nazis (or National Socialists as no one pointed out) all by themselves. That is and was my only point.

PS. IL I love the talking someone down from the building analogy. I know a lot of people can find you annoying but you have such a humorous way of saying things that I always enjoy your input whether I agree with you or not.

[Imperious leader]

They find me annoying because im always right and they hate that. They hate somebody who does not let anybody get to have an inferior idea no matter how much they believe it. I try to destroy false ideas in them. I'm basically the Gordon Ramsey around here.

The Soviets could have won the war by themselves eventually from 1943. That is not the case before 1943.

It is not ridiculous. And it would take more than 1945 to finish it ( im not sure how many years it would take).

If Germany all of the sudden sent every force they had against the eastern front after Kursk, nothing would have made any difference.

The second front only hastened the demise of Germany earlier, but the process was in full swing after Kursk.

[turner]

IL - In your opinion what would have happened if Germany had been able to throw everything they had in the west into the East just before Kursk? Specifically,
their elite Armor force from Western Europe.