Ukraine's European Revolution?

[DGuller]

A lot of Russians that are not intimately familiar with history are offended by the notion that Germans had tanks that could crush T-34s.  "Nonsense!  Even American historians say that T-34 was the best tank of the war."   

There is a subtle difference between being the "best tank to win the war", "best tank to win the battle", "best tank to win the fight" and "best tank to keep the tank crew alive". It certainly was the best tank to win the war, it was almost certainly also the best tank to win the battle. The last two categories, not as much.

Well, yeah.  Obviously their failure is to recognize that T-34's superiority was strategic in nature, and not in 1-on-1 deathmatch with the Panther.

[Ed Anger]

I want a Tiger. So I can ride up and down the street yelling at young people.

[DGuller]

I'm not certain the T-34 was the best tank to win the war.  The US produced nearly as many Shermans and weren't taking the kind of loses the Soviets were.  And the Shermans were more versatile, for instance they could be landed on beaches.  Also they had radios, which is really important.

To be fair, Americans weren't fighting the bulk of the German forces.  Most of the impractical German contraptions that were ultimately futile, but racked up insane kill ratios, went to the Eastern front. 

And since T-34s contribution was strategic more than tactical, other factors like the timing come into play.  Soviets almost had a two-year head start on the Shermans, and thus T-34s actually had a technological advantage over the Germans during the most disastrous and perilous time of the war.  From a purely technical standpoint, I do agree that once you had a choice between a Sherman and a T-34, you would definitely want a Sherman.

[Syt]

Well, Put-Put is in town today to sign the contracts for the South Stream Pipeline. Not everyone is happy.

http://www.thelocal.at/20140623/putins-visit-criticised

Putin's Austria visit criticized

The Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt has criticized Russian President Vladimir Putin's planned one-day visit to Vienna.

"We know that Putin wants to divide the EU... they always try to when they are driven into a corner," Bildt said at a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Luxembourg. Contact with Russia is important he said, but it should be the EU's responsibility and not Austria's.

Austrian Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz defended President Heinz Fischer's decision to invite Putin - who will arrive on Tuesday. "I think it is legitimate to talk to both sides. We're not stepping out of line."

Kurz added that for the first time, there was a peace plan, suggested by new Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. This was an important step, said Kurz, and the EU completely supported it.

Fischer had been in touch with Poroshenko, Kurz said, and now he wanted to talk to Putin, who was on the other side of the conflict.

But Bildt seemed sceptical that Russia might cooperate in helping to solve the Ukraine crisis and complained that Russia "is conducting a propaganda war with full speed ahead and no signs of them closing the border" to stop arms and militants entering Ukraine.

Economic relations

According to the opposition centre-left Greens EU MP Ulrike Lunacek, the Austrian heads of state and government mostly wanted to talk about economic ties, and not so much about political topics.

For Fischer and Chancellor Werner Faymann, the visit was mostly about "intensifying economic relations with Russia," she said. "The Ukraine crisis is obviously not the main topic."

This was sending the wrong signal, because the Ukraine crisis was about war and peace in Europe, said Lunacek.

The leader of the Greens, Eva Glawischnig, said that it was "disconcerting" that Putin was not going to be available to speak to the Austrian parliament. "Critical dialogue" was obviously not wanted, she added.

Austria wanted to be Europe's main hub for gas from Russia, said Glawischnig. This just maintained and even increased the dependence on Russia for oil and gas

Protests expected

Meanwhile the chief executive of Austrian energy group OMV has called for accelerated negotiations to approve the proposed South Stream gas pipeline. It is unrealistic to think Europe could entirely wean itself off Russian energy supplies, Gerhard Roiss said.

During Putin's visit OMV and Russian partner Gazprom are expected to sign a contract on bringing the South Stream gas pipeline to Austria.

"A third of our gas comes from Russia, in some regions even 100 percent," Roiss told the WirtschaftsBlatt newspaper.

The South Stream pipeline would bring Russian gas to Europe without having to pass through Ukraine, which has been locked in a violent stand-off with Russia after Ukraine's pro-Moscow President Viktor Yanukovich was ousted.

Protests against Putin's visit are expected in Vienna on Tuesday.

A group called Euromaidan Wache Berlin has called for a demonstration of all nationalities to gather outside the Hofburg, in front of the president's office at 1pm, and another group has organized a 'rainbow' march to protest against Russia's anti-gay stance which will gather at Schwarzenbergplatz at 4.30pm.

[Tamas]

I'm not certain the T-34 was the best tank to win the war.  The US produced nearly as many Shermans and weren't taking the kind of loses the Soviets were.  And the Shermans were more versatile, for instance they could be landed on beaches.  Also they had radios, which is really important.

The western front was a mere sideshow compared to the scale and numbers of the Eastern Front. It is not relevant to compare losses.

[Viking]

Well, Put-Put is in town today to sign the contracts for the South Stream Pipeline. Not everyone is happy.

http://www.thelocal.at/20140623/putins-visit-criticised

I'd like to see the tourist office's poster about how Austrians don't anschluss other peoples' crimeas and donetsks. 

[Syt]

In Soviet Austria Anschluss comes to you?

[Viking]

In Soviet Austria Anschluss comes to you?

Well Putin is visiting.

[Razgovory]

I'm not certain the T-34 was the best tank to win the war.  The US produced nearly as many Shermans and weren't taking the kind of loses the Soviets were.  And the Shermans were more versatile, for instance they could be landed on beaches.  Also they had radios, which is really important.

Stand in a flat field with Tigers and Panthers on the other end of it.. see how much you like the sherman then.

Storm a Pacific Island and have a Sherman come up to help you, see if you don't appreciate the Shermans then.  Can a Panther do that?  Can a Tiger?  Keep in mind the US was fighting on two fronts, the Soviets only fought on one at any one time.

[Viking]

I'm not certain the T-34 was the best tank to win the war.  The US produced nearly as many Shermans and weren't taking the kind of loses the Soviets were.  And the Shermans were more versatile, for instance they could be landed on beaches.  Also they had radios, which is really important.

Stand in a flat field with Tigers and Panthers on the other end of it.. see how much you like the sherman then.

Storm a Pacific Island and have a Sherman come up to help you, see if you don't appreciate the Shermans then.  Can a Panther do that?  Can a Tiger?  Keep in mind the US was fighting on two fronts, the Soviets only fought on one at any one time.

The US war effort against the japs was to the american effort against the germans what the german effort against the western allies was to their effort against the USSR.

[Razgovory]

I'm not certain the T-34 was the best tank to win the war.  The US produced nearly as many Shermans and weren't taking the kind of loses the Soviets were.  And the Shermans were more versatile, for instance they could be landed on beaches.  Also they had radios, which is really important.

The western front was a mere sideshow compared to the scale and numbers of the Eastern Front. It is not relevant to compare losses.

Yet German tank loses were much, much lower compared to the T-34.  They fought on the Eastern Front as well.  What's the deal?  Looking around the Soviets lost 44,900 T-34s out of 57,224 built.  That's a lot.

[Razgovory]

The US war effort against the japs was to the american effort against the germans what the german effort against the western allies was to their effort against the USSR.

I'm trying to figure out what this means, and why it's relevant.  You want to write this again in form other then an SAT question?

[Viking]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II

[Razgovory]

That's not really an answer either.

[jimmy olsen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II

I find the number of deaths listed in the expulsions in Eastern Europe astonishing. I had no idea they were that high.