72 replies to this topic

[Alias]

Stalin was worse than Hitler at mass murder, I hope you realise. Yes he was a good military commander - as was Hitler, however they both had a few screws loose.

[Ilves]

I'm bored to type all the same about Stalin for the 3rd time, so just believe without arguements that he wasn't

Quote

Stalin was worse than Hitler at mass murder,

Looks like you aren't familiar what Germans did with POWs and civilian population at all =)

[Alias]

The agreed estimate for the Nazi regime is 6 million. The estimate for Stalin's regime is said to be in between 8 and 20 million.

[Rayburn]

IMO they were both 'bad' in different ways.
Hitler was the more dangerous one, he had a vision and he started a war in an effort to make it a reality. His genocide, whilst cruel in the way it was committed, was still smaller in numbers than Stalin's, who - on the other side - was not as dangerous because he did not wage war to spread his views. The Great Patriotic War or whatever they call it was self-defence whilst for the Germans, WW2 as well as the Holocaust was part of a plan.

This topic is pretty much derailed. If you fancy discussing this matter, please open up a new one since the original subject of this thread is long lost now. Back on track please.

One last thing:

``It's only now Bundeshwehr is a bunch of cowards dreaming only about money like any other Western force, the old German army was forge of heroes. ´´

Taking the piss? If anyone, it's the politicians who dream of money, but soldiers do not make the policy. Stop generalising western countries like that just because you don't like them. Also, that "wars make heroes" mentality is dumb. It's a myth which is as old as war itself. Most soldiers don't fight to become heroes. They don't shoot peoples' heads into pieces, see their friends die left and right or give their lives for a bloody badge. They do it because it's their job and they choose that job for things other than something as banal as false glory. Wars don't make heroes and whoever experienced things like the ones I mentioned will most certainly confirm that.

Edited by Rayburn, 04 October 2007 - 21:24.

[General Kirkov]

AL_Hassan, on 4 Oct 2007, 10:44, said:

Hm? Didn't you hear that the SS were the most highly-motivated soldiers from the whole Western world? They defended single buildings in Berlins to death, not even thinking about surrender.
The most part of the German army was motivated at least not bad.

Serioulsy this is the last thing I'm going to talk about Russia's involvement in hte Second World War. The SS were motivated.

a: Because they had to be
b: Nobody wanted to surrender to the Russians
c: In the major battles there were reports of German soldiers using their dead friends as sand bags, the only motivation they had was when they were winning. Also, when they surrendered they expected the Soviets to follow the geneva convention something you guys did not respect at all.

Russkie flag waving guy said:

It's only now Bundeshwehr is a bunch of cowards dreaming only about money like any other Western force, the old German army was forge of heroes. As was the Soviet.

Thats why I do not recongize your objectivity.

Also saying Stalin was a great guy is like saying Nikita Khrushchev should have gotten the Nobel Peace prize in 1962.

Ok now China... well all this bloody rant about Soviet Russia has left me little to say about China. Partly because this topic was not broad enough partly because it kept going back to mr. Hassan's overly zealous views of Soviet Russia, kind of like me about Canada when I was 12. I still think we are underrecognized but thats another story.

This was about China, I was paying a complement to the Red Army as a side note and the topic got Hiijacked.

China would flatten the US in any land based war, they have a substancial amount of fighters although mostly obsolete. Their navy is non-existent so thats limits their abilty to project power past their range of land based fighter bombers and I think they use a version of the SU-27

[narboza22]

The USAF actually has more combat aircraft than PLAAF does, and that doesn't even count the USN fighters.

[Hobbesy]

Why do we even bother arguing with Rot Front? His patriotism has no end, he will just keep making up nonsense about how great the USSR is even though it doesn't exist anymore.....

He sounds like a 10 year old suburban american who's father is in the army. Naturally they respect their father and thinks that since nothing can beat him, the US army must be invincible.

Edited by Høbbês 1098, 06 October 2007 - 01:05.

[General Kirkov]

narboza22, on 5 Oct 2007, 12:06, said:

The USAF actually has more combat aircraft than PLAAF does, and that doesn't even count the USN fighters.

Perhaps and even if they did not, the PLAAF interceptors are based on 60s-70s technology and may or may not get splashed early on. That does not take into account the AWACS system that NATO and chiefly the US employs.

But airpower does not win a war. Man for man the US soldier is well trained and well equiped (I have my reservations of the M16 but meh). However a man + a rifle can still kill you. It costs about $50 000 to train and equip the average CF soldier, I would assume that it is about the same for a US trooper.

I do not think hte PLA invests that much money in the average conscript. Not to mention their version of the AK (Mr. Kalashnikov was saying that they aren't buying Russian made ones but instead making knokoff without paying royalties) is well made and works anywhere.

Edited by Capt. Kirkov, 06 October 2007 - 02:24.

[Eddy01741]

No, not really. China is in the middle of an eco and tech boom right now. They still have some Mig-21 based fighters (and the mig-21 was pretty good for it's time actually), but it's building it's first china based design figher, the J-10, right now, and it's similar to the F-16. It's also bought a number of Su-27s (renamed J-11s) from Russia as well as some Su-30s. However the USAF still wins (just saying that china's aairforce isn't THAT bad, but still not nearly in the league of the USAF).

[Ilves]

Quote

Also, when they surrendered they expected the Soviets to follow the geneva convention something you guys did not respect at all.

Or really? :small:
Haven't you forgot that in German prisoners became corpses 7 times more than Russian?
Also, we didn't deattached legs and arms from living people
And didn't tested chemicals on them
And lots of other things that I don't want to mention hear not to harm your imagination.

I doubt that Americans respected any geneva convention when they cutted organs and pulled wires through brains from prisoners in Vietnam.
You statements aren't any fact-supported. There's just bunch of cryings "Russians are dumb" got from.. dunno from what.. Maybe you're propogated in school to think so and it's not your fault..

Quote

Also, that "wars make heroes" mentality is dumb. It's a myth which is as old as war itself. Most soldiers don't fight to become heroes.

You got the point! That's actually the reason why modern Western armies are famous for their cowardness
Even if this is a myth, that's a very proper myth, as an army, that believes that they are all heroes can beat up army time larger of bastards that fight "because they had to".

Quote

Also saying Stalin was a great guy is like saying Nikita Khrushchev should have gotten the Nobel Peace prize in 1962.

You can like or dislike him, no matter, but that he was a prominent figure in history like Alexander the Great - you cannot deny.

Plz, stop saying things about what you don't know at all.... This will free me from useless breaking of your propaganda myths The things u're saying - are the result of anti-Russian propoganda that was started by Ronal Reagan. Looks like things haven't changed too much for today.

[narboza22]

AL_Hassan, on 6 Oct 2007, 17:10, said:

Plz, stop saying things about what you don't know at all.... This will free me from useless breaking of your propaganda myths The things u're saying - are the result of anti-Russian propoganda that was started by Ronal Reagan. Looks like things haven't changed too much for today.

Your hypocrisy makes my head spin Hassan.

[Whitey]

narboza22, on 6 Oct 2007, 18:30, said:

AL_Hassan, on 6 Oct 2007, 17:10, said:

Plz, stop saying things about what you don't know at all.... This will free me from useless breaking of your propaganda myths The things u're saying - are the result of anti-Russian propoganda that was started by Ronal Reagan. Looks like things haven't changed too much for today.

Your hypocrisy makes my head spin Hassan.

I lol'd.

[General Kirkov]

I swear to God Al, if you don't stop this go go USSR Rower Rangers stuff I'm going to start calling you Nikita. As in Nikita Khrushchev, you must be his reincarnation or something, seriously you should run for president of the Russian Federation.

Edited by Capt. Kirkov, 10 October 2007 - 13:14.

[Rich19]

Simple really - whichever side is the aggressor would lose.

[Ektufall]

Rayburn, on 5 Oct 2007, 0:09, said:

IMO they were both 'bad' in different ways.
Hitler was the more dangerous one, he had a vision and he started a war in an effort to make it a reality. His genocide, whilst cruel in the way it was committed, was still smaller in numbers than Stalin's, who - on the other side - was not as dangerous because he did not wage war to spread his views. The Great Patriotic War or whatever they call it was self-defence whilst for the Germans, WW2 as well as the Holocaust was part of a plan.

This topic is pretty much derailed. If you fancy discussing this matter, please open up a new one since the original subject of this thread is long lost now. Back on track please.

One last thing:

``It's only now Bundeshwehr is a bunch of cowards dreaming only about money like any other Western force, the old German army was forge of heroes. ´´

Taking the piss? If anyone, it's the politicians who dream of money, but soldiers do not make the policy. Stop generalising western countries like that just because you don't like them. Also, that "wars make heroes" mentality is dumb. It's a myth which is as old as war itself. Most soldiers don't fight to become heroes. They don't shoot peoples' heads into pieces, see their friends die left and right or give their lives for a bloody badge. They do it because it's their job and they choose that job for things other than something as banal as false glory. Wars don't make heroes and whoever experienced things like the ones I mentioned will most certainly confirm that.

By the way Soviets have their own dream even while Germans were dreaming .. They became temporaly allies to move on with their plans and so they did after so called "Molotov-Ribentrop pact" (Many history books are not hinting it) They set their borders ,exchange in training specialists ,spys and on . While got their dreams in motion on different edges of EuroAsia .. Then (as often it is) their great leaders ,started the second phase to erase the growing in power neighbour .. Stalin lost only by day to start it(He intended to do it on one day of 1940-41 ,I forget the exact date) ,Hittler was doing it a bit earlier . So in no way it was defencive ,it looked like it but it was strugle for power and Germans took the upper hand earlier . Sorry Rayburn ,but I never would like to see it named "self-defencive"

Edited by Ektufall, 09 October 2007 - 20:53.

[AZZKIKR]

soviets and germans signed a peace treaty before WW2. by the way, molotov the soviet foreign minister invented molotov cocktails!

[General Kirkov]

AZZKIKR. the kicker of ass, on 10 Oct 2007, 7:08, said:

soviets and germans signed a peace treaty before WW2. by the way, molotov the soviet foreign minister invented molotov cocktails!

I don't think he invented it, I think the people who started using the flaming bottle+gas of doom just named it in tribute to him or something like that. Besides it was the Finns who came up with the term.

Edited by Capt. Kirkov, 10 October 2007 - 13:20.

[Rayburn]

I know about the Russian-German treaty of non-aggression which was signed before Hitler invaded Poland. What I meant by self-defence is what Russia did in response to Operation Barbarossa. When the Germans attacked the USSR, it did become a war of self-defence for the Russians which eventually expanded into an attack on non-Russian territories held by the Nazis and - in the end - Berlin.
Anyway, this is still way off-topic. I say we bury the Russia-talk now and get back to China and USA...

Edited by Rayburn, 10 October 2007 - 15:16.

[Reaper94]

Boidy, on 21 Sep 2007, 0:37, said:

Yeah, and it's no easy time for an invading force to go up against a nation where there are ten guns for every nine citizens.

america has 3guns/1citizen

[AZZKIKR]

my sources tell me that chinese military is more trained in combat than the US soldier. the chinese have lots of people in their army around 2.2 million while the US has 480000. but us can defeat china, but not invade it.

Edited by AZZKIKR, 26 November 2007 - 10:28.

[Crazykenny]

I dont think its something you should say, knowing you have revived a good share of old topics aswell.

[Foxhound]

This thread and revival hurts my brain...

Realistically, the US can kick the crap out of the Chinese armed forces, but it would be a war of attrition- and the armed forces of the US are simply not occupiers either. Neither would the Chinese (we Americans are far too damn patriotic to accept invasion of any kind- perhaps this is why many people forget about the Canadians during the War of 1812)

[E.V.E.]

Rabid Dawg, please refrain from Reviving old Threads.

- E.V.E.

Thread Closed