Jump to content


Photo

War is brewing in Asia


  • Please log in to reply
143 replies to this topic

#121 Rybags

Rybags

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 34,839 posts

Posted 07 May 2017 - 06:32 PM

The problem we have is too many self-proclaimed "educated" and "intelligent" white people have nothing better to do than stand up for all the arseholes and nutcases of this world, both in a micro and macro sense.


Edited by Rybags, 07 May 2017 - 06:32 PM.


#122 Leonid

Leonid

    Immortal

  • Atomican't
  • 40,508 posts

Posted 07 May 2017 - 07:17 PM

The problem we have is too many self-proclaimed "educated" and "intelligent" white people have nothing better to do than stand up for all the arseholes and nutcases of this world, both in a micro and macro sense.


We send them in as well. Teach generation snowflake a few lessons.

Anyone self-defining as a third-wave feminist gets a free acid burn and a burqa before entry. And that's not cruelty. That's mercy. The first protects against rape, the second against being killed on sight, by the kind of people and concepts they keep defending.
"I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees." - Stephane Charbonnier (1967-2015)

"If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

#123 Leonid

Leonid

    Immortal

  • Atomican't
  • 40,508 posts

Posted 07 May 2017 - 09:49 PM

What I'm actually arguing is that the Soviets killed 3 out of every 4 Nazi soldiers that died during the war


I don't know how I missed this stupidity. But it needs to be addressed.

This is actually a common statistic I've seen last year on the pro-Russia-detente circuit, and it originated on Russian blogs. This figure is 100% context free. Let me add context.

In June 1941, Hitler invaded Russia with 80% of the forces at his disposal.

The Russians simply had more Germans to kill. Their brutality was also higher - proportionately speaking the Allies captured far more POWs than the Russians did (3.1m by the Russians, vs. 7.7m by the Allies).

And even that metric is flawed because no German wanted to surrender to a Russian - the consequences were well known.
"I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees." - Stephane Charbonnier (1967-2015)

"If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

#124 Leonid

Leonid

    Immortal

  • Atomican't
  • 40,508 posts

Posted 09 May 2017 - 01:16 PM

I want to further accentuate the fact that the war in the East was won by the Allies. Not by Russia.

Between June 1941 and December 31st 1941, the Germans had taken out 20,500 Soviet tanks. Leaving less than 700 to defend Moscow.

Officially the Germans never got to Moscow.

I was born in Moscow and lived in Krilatzkie Holmi. Across the road was a small thicket of trees, and beyond them a river in which I swam as a kid.

We laid out towels into depressions made by tank shells. My grandparents' generation remember disabled German tanks being dragged away in the late 40s and earthworks to cover it all up.

Either way by November 1941, the defence of Moscow was carried out by troops and tanks. 30-40% of all medium or heavy tanks were British.

By the end of the war, 90% of troop-carrying trucks were American or British, 70% of ammunition supply, etc.

Russia didn't win that war. They survived that war. That's true in every period of history - Russia never wins. They survive due to sheer obstinacy and the fact that Russians are used to hardship.

The summary of Russian history throughout the ages can be expressed in one sentence.

"And then things became worse"
"I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees." - Stephane Charbonnier (1967-2015)

"If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

#125 Ratticus

Ratticus

    Guru

  • Hero
  • 13,020 posts

Posted 16 May 2017 - 07:13 AM

I want to further accentuate the fact that the war in the East was won by the Allies. Not by Russia.

Between June 1941 and December 31st 1941, the Germans had taken out 20,500 Soviet tanks. Leaving less than 700 to defend Moscow.

Officially the Germans never got to Moscow.

I was born in Moscow and lived in Krilatzkie Holmi. Across the road was a small thicket of trees, and beyond them a river in which I swam as a kid.

We laid out towels into depressions made by tank shells. My grandparents' generation remember disabled German tanks being dragged away in the late 40s and earthworks to cover it all up.

Either way by November 1941, the defence of Moscow was carried out by troops and tanks. 30-40% of all medium or heavy tanks were British.

By the end of the war, 90% of troop-carrying trucks were American or British, 70% of ammunition supply, etc.

Russia didn't win that war. They survived that war. That's true in every period of history - Russia never wins. They survive due to sheer obstinacy and the fact that Russians are used to hardship.

The summary of Russian history throughout the ages can be expressed in one sentence.

"And then things became worse"

I think that's a disingenuous representation shaped by personal emotion. 

Many of Germany's biggest defeats that caused the pivot to defeat happened in the East, most German casualties happened in the East. 

Operation Bagration caused 300-600 hundred thousand German casualties alone.

Sacrifice doesn't negate success; and those material contributions were minimal, far too delayed and I think misrepresented. 

You raise a poor point - their focus was on T-34's... not moderately converted trucks. 


_ |_) _ _._|_ _ |_)(/_(_| |__> http://soundcloud.com/krunk-smash

#126 Leonid

Leonid

    Immortal

  • Atomican't
  • 40,508 posts

Posted 16 May 2017 - 08:26 AM

It's no secret that the Soviets couldn't assign the win in the East to the Allies. Stalin wasn't one to be friendly with the West.

After 1945, Lend-Lease was scrubbed from history books.

My parents in law and wife, were stunned to hear about it.

Along with that, the Soviets classified anything to do with Lend-Lease in state archives which weren't seen until the late 90s and not really since due to Putin's attempt to rehabilitate Russian genocidaires such as Beria, and to paint a picture of a strong independent Russia.

But for that brief moment in the late 90s western researchers got to see the war from the Russian perspective.

Lend-Lease won Russia the war from the Russian military perspective according to Russian generals.
"I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees." - Stephane Charbonnier (1967-2015)

"If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

#127 Ratticus

Ratticus

    Guru

  • Hero
  • 13,020 posts

Posted 16 May 2017 - 11:09 PM

It's no secret that the Soviets couldn't assign the win in the East to the Allies. Stalin wasn't one to be friendly with the West.

After 1945, Lend-Lease was scrubbed from history books.

My parents in law and wife, were stunned to hear about it.

Along with that, the Soviets classified anything to do with Lend-Lease in state archives which weren't seen until the late 90s and not really since due to Putin's attempt to rehabilitate Russian genocidaires such as Beria, and to paint a picture of a strong independent Russia.

But for that brief moment in the late 90s western researchers got to see the war from the Russian perspective.

Lend-Lease won Russia the war from the Russian military perspective according to Russian generals.

 

Word.

I did some more reading after you posted this - especially interesting was old mate Zhukov who actually wrote a lot on this topic:
“Today [1963] some say the Allies didn’t really help us…But listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war.”

The significance of imported resources (especially aviation fuel apparently?) and supply lines - render my original statement of "minimal"  certainly incorrect.

However I would still contend that most all wars are not won by steel imports, refined fuels, transport vehicles and functional supply lines - they are won through violence, blood and sacrifice. Survival is victory - that's basically nature's fitness test. You definitely broadened my perspective; but I find your forced correlation of economic output and trade equating to Western Powers achieving military victory on the Eastern Front indifferently dogmatic to what fights and dies in wars - people.


I would contend that much of the Soviet / Eastern People's sacrifice, suffering and loss was very much underplayed in the history books of the West; all countries' perspective of war is inherently biased by nature. I wouldn't contend this either way.  

I couldn't find a clear consensus from Russian generals with regards to your last statement; can you provide some sources that illustrate this?


 


_ |_) _ _._|_ _ |_)(/_(_| |__> http://soundcloud.com/krunk-smash

#128 Leonid

Leonid

    Immortal

  • Atomican't
  • 40,508 posts

Posted 17 May 2017 - 08:50 AM

Wars are won through sacrifice. I certainly agree.

But on numbers alone the Soviets union should have kicked Nazi arse before Moscow was threatened.

The Germans proved what many had thought incorrect until WWI: technology, supplies and experience beat manpower.

It's why there's no path to victory for North Korea. I wouldn't be surprised if their generals knew it too.

The Soviets sacrificed, not because of love of the motherland, but because of threat of German enslavement or the threat of a Russian firing squad.

Russia sacrificed because they had no supplies, no technology and the only thing they could do to slow the German advance was send men out into the battlefield without bullets or guns.

I'll get you sources when I'm not mobile.

But just to this point, there are still persistent rumours that some Russian soldiers rebelled on the retreat to Stalingrad. As punishment, their commanding officer instituted десятник - the ancient Roman practice of decimation.
"I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees." - Stephane Charbonnier (1967-2015)

"If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

#129 Ratticus

Ratticus

    Guru

  • Hero
  • 13,020 posts

Posted 18 May 2017 - 06:39 PM

Wars are won through sacrifice. I certainly agree.

But on numbers alone the Soviets union should have kicked Nazi arse before Moscow was threatened.

The Germans proved what many had thought incorrect until WWI: technology, supplies and experience beat manpower.

It's why there's no path to victory for North Korea. I wouldn't be surprised if their generals knew it too.

The Soviets sacrificed, not because of love of the motherland, but because of threat of German enslavement or the threat of a Russian firing squad.

Russia sacrificed because they had no supplies, no technology and the only thing they could do to slow the German advance was send men out into the battlefield without bullets or guns.

I'll get you sources when I'm not mobile.

But just to this point, there are still persistent rumours that some Russian soldiers rebelled on the retreat to Stalingrad. As punishment, their commanding officer instituted десятник - the ancient Roman practice of decimation.


Where them links


_ |_) _ _._|_ _ |_)(/_(_| |__> http://soundcloud.com/krunk-smash

#130 i_am_banned2

i_am_banned2

    Primarch

  • Atomican
  • 1,670 posts

Posted 18 May 2017 - 07:53 PM

Russia sacrificed because they had no supplies, no technology and the only thing they could do to slow the German advance was send men out into the battlefield without bullets or guns.

 

Uh... there's a few misconceptions on display here and I don't really know where to start. There's no way to distill such a complex, large-scale conflict down to such simple terms, but to say the "only thing they could do" was to send unarmed soldiers into battle is pure fantasy. There were certainly problems with leadership, the rearmament program, and supplies in 1941 yet the Soviet army was still able to achieve its objective: delay the German advance long enough for the reorganisation to be completed. Even in the opening weeks of the invasion there were significant Soviet battlefield victories, albeit isolated ones.

 

Lend Lease helped their war effort but it was not a major contributing factor, just one of many.



#131 Leonid

Leonid

    Immortal

  • Atomican't
  • 40,508 posts

Posted 18 May 2017 - 10:16 PM


Wars are won through sacrifice. I certainly agree.

But on numbers alone the Soviets union should have kicked Nazi arse before Moscow was threatened.

The Germans proved what many had thought incorrect until WWI: technology, supplies and experience beat manpower.

It's why there's no path to victory for North Korea. I wouldn't be surprised if their generals knew it too.

The Soviets sacrificed, not because of love of the motherland, but because of threat of German enslavement or the threat of a Russian firing squad.

Russia sacrificed because they had no supplies, no technology and the only thing they could do to slow the German advance was send men out into the battlefield without bullets or guns.

I'll get you sources when I'm not mobile.

But just to this point, there are still persistent rumours that some Russian soldiers rebelled on the retreat to Stalingrad. As punishment, their commanding officer instituted десятник - the ancient Roman practice of decimation.


Where them links

I'm in IT dude. This is disaster week. WannaCry mitigation for all my clients..


Russia sacrificed because they had no supplies, no technology and the only thing they could do to slow the German advance was send men out into the battlefield without bullets or guns.

 
Uh... there's a few misconceptions on display here and I don't really know where to start. There's no way to distill such a complex, large-scale conflict down to such simple terms, but to say the "only thing they could do" was to send unarmed soldiers into battle is pure fantasy. There were certainly problems with leadership, the rearmament program, and supplies in 1941 yet the Soviet army was still able to achieve its objective: delay the German advance long enough for the reorganisation to be completed. Even in the opening weeks of the invasion there were significant Soviet battlefield victories, albeit isolated ones.
 
Lend Lease helped their war effort but it was not a major contributing factor, just one of many.

Name a Soviet victory in the opening weeks of the invasion.

Please refer to the fact that the Germans invaded on June 22nd 1941 and were camped out near Moscow by late August, for a grand total of about a thousand km inland from the invasion point.
"I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees." - Stephane Charbonnier (1967-2015)

"If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

#132 Ratticus

Ratticus

    Guru

  • Hero
  • 13,020 posts

Posted 18 May 2017 - 10:53 PM

 

 

Wars are won through sacrifice. I certainly agree.

But on numbers alone the Soviets union should have kicked Nazi arse before Moscow was threatened.

The Germans proved what many had thought incorrect until WWI: technology, supplies and experience beat manpower.

It's why there's no path to victory for North Korea. I wouldn't be surprised if their generals knew it too.

The Soviets sacrificed, not because of love of the motherland, but because of threat of German enslavement or the threat of a Russian firing squad.

Russia sacrificed because they had no supplies, no technology and the only thing they could do to slow the German advance was send men out into the battlefield without bullets or guns.

I'll get you sources when I'm not mobile.

But just to this point, there are still persistent rumours that some Russian soldiers rebelled on the retreat to Stalingrad. As punishment, their commanding officer instituted десятник - the ancient Roman practice of decimation.


Where them links

I'm in IT dude. This is disaster week. WannaCry mitigation for all my clients..

 

 

 

Maybe you need some lend-lease assistance with fighting that front?

Don't need to justify - just wanted to remind.

Anyway back to the original topic - I think there's a level of pragmatism in North Korea's strategies that is often overlooked.

I found this article on the topic interesting:

https://medium.com/d...se-a625256b51cc


_ |_) _ _._|_ _ |_)(/_(_| |__> http://soundcloud.com/krunk-smash

#133 i_am_banned2

i_am_banned2

    Primarch

  • Atomican
  • 1,670 posts

Posted 18 May 2017 - 11:12 PM

Please refer to the fact that the Germans invaded on June 22nd 1941 and were camped out near Moscow by late August, for a grand total of about a thousand km inland from the invasion point.

 

True enough, yet they were also essentially defeated by this stage. Here's some info from the German High Command on the combat readiness of its troops at the start of Barbarossa:

 

20.06.1941
136 Divisions Suited for all operations
8 Suited for Offensive Operations after rest
19 Suited for Limited Offensive Operations
22 Fully Suited for Defense
24 Suited for Limited Defensive Operations
 
 
And nine months later:
 
30.03.1942
8 Divisions Suited for all operations
3 Suited for Offensive Operations after rest
47 Suited for Limited Offensive Operations
73 Fully Suited for Defense
29 Suited for Limited Defensive Operations
 
 
 
Barbarossa was a disaster for the German Army right from the start, even without the infamous Russian winter setting in. Lots of factors contributed towards this - on both sides of the conflict - but the Red Army itself was the primary cause.


#134 Leonid

Leonid

    Immortal

  • Atomican't
  • 40,508 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:35 AM

You said the Soviets won some battles in the opening weeks.

Can you list any?

Because the date range you gave me, interposed with my range - is significant for two reasons.
1. From October to around March, shit gets real cold in Russia. Real cold.
2. Lend Lease tanks joined the defence of Moscow in November.
"I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees." - Stephane Charbonnier (1967-2015)

"If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

#135 i_am_banned2

i_am_banned2

    Primarch

  • Atomican
  • 1,670 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:53 AM

On a small scale, yes. Obviously not at an operational level. My point is that the armies actually fought, bitterly, and the contribution of those men doing the fighting shouldn't be downplayed.

 

Here's the German casualty reports for the first few months of Barbarossa:

 

June '41 -  95,058
 
July '41 - 181,988
 
 Aug '41 - 223,813
 
Sept '41 - 188,487
 
 Oct '41 - 179,762
 
 
These figures include dead, wounded, missing, as well as from illness. While they're certainly far lower than the Russian losses, they show that this was no walk in the park for the German Army. What's also important to remember is that these combat losses were mostly taken by the frontline units - highly-trained and experienced veterans that the Germans simply could not replace.
 
As I said before, Lend Lease absolutely helped as did many other factors, but to suggest that it was the sole reason for victory is just ignorant. Edit: My mistake, you didn't actually suggest that. Would Russia have won without Lend Lease? Yes, in my opinion, without any doubt. It just would've taken longer and resulted in even more deaths.

Edited by i_am_banned2, 19 May 2017 - 02:02 AM.


#136 i_am_banned2

i_am_banned2

    Primarch

  • Atomican
  • 1,670 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 02:28 AM

... Russia was dirt poor, technologically backward and had enough guns for 1 in 5 soldiers and bullets for 1 in 10. They literally sent soldiers out to run at the germans, pick up rifles and bullets from fallen comrades and continue the rush...

 

Haha, I missed this earlier. I'm not going to derail this thread any further.



#137 Leonid

Leonid

    Immortal

  • Atomican't
  • 40,508 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:17 AM

So you can't find any battles the Germans lost in the first few weeks, huh?

The real history is that the Germans began losing when winter came.

But winter isn't enough. Lend Lease provided the means with which Russians were able to attack German armour, defend against German planes and destroy German artillery.

You don't understand the depths of Russian technological backwardness at the time.

There literally was no path to victory without Lend Lease.

The best the Russians could have hoped for is total exhaustion on the German site and perhaps them stopping their conquest before Siberia!

Russians really do like to talk down Lend Lease. And somehow, like International Working Women's Day, it found willing listeners in the west.

But any careful analysis and logic would show you that there was no path to Soviet victory. That was the assessment of the Allies in aiding Stalin.
"I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees." - Stephane Charbonnier (1967-2015)

"If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

#138 Rybags

Rybags

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 34,839 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 02:09 PM

"It would have taken longer" - without Lend-Lease, the major cities in the west would probably have all fallen.  Then they'd have kept marching east until they crippled the remaining industrial infrastructure, those major cities providing an excellent logistical boost.  Additional to that, who's to say the Japanese wouldn't have gotten into the act in the east against a much weaker opponent?



#139 Jeruselem

Jeruselem

    Guru

  • Atomican
  • 13,679 posts
  • Location:Not Trump-Land

Posted 31 May 2017 - 09:07 AM

http://www.abc.net.a...-threat/8574612

 

Missile defense shield testing ... check


Cortana at your service


#140 chrisg

chrisg

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 34,615 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 31 May 2017 - 01:09 PM

THAAD I assume -Arrow will be better but not quite ready to deploy yet.

 

I guess two things about this bother me, the first is launching out of Kwajalein atoll, that's been the primary test site for the US for decades as in launching into so the parameters are well defined. The second is that by the time you intercept an incoming ICBM using THAAD you at a minimum have nuclear debris to deal with but more likely your opponent being well aware of your capability will go for an air burst anyway and beat you to the punch.

 

Defensive systems are all very well but when dealing with a bunch of lunatics like NK I would prefer going offensive and destroy their capability before they can use it and whilst you are at it kill that smiling moron.

 

The do-gooders will be horrified - tough.

 

Cheers


"Specialisation is for Insects" RAH




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users