http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/putin-red-army-losses-finland-honored-18731366
QuotePutin: Red Army Losses in Finland to Be Honored
Russian President Vladimir Putin has voiced support for building memorials to honor Red Army soldiers who died in a 1939-1940 war with Finland.
Putin said Thursday at a meeting with military historians that Soviet dictator Josef Stalin launched the war to "correct mistakes" made in drawing the border with Finland after the 1917 Bolshevik revolution.
Putin says the Red Army sustained heavy losses because of errors, but it mobilized to make Finland "feel all the power of the Russian, then Soviet state," according to Russian news agencies.
The Soviet Union attacked Finland in November 1939, and the Winter War ended with a peace treaty in March 1940 that left the Soviets with significant territorial gains. The Red Army lost up to 150,000 soldiers, and about 20,000 Finns were killed.
Definitely had to look at the original Russian for this one, just for fun.
I'll have to chew on it more later when I have time, and definitely not to defend his Putin-ness, but his tone seems more of a scholarly perspective, not so nationalist as the english article portrays.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 15, 2013, 05:34:09 AM
Definitely had to look at the original Russian for this one, just for fun.
Do you have a link?
Сколько здесь говорит по-рускии?
Достаточно. :)
Yeah, half a million refugees are just a statistic. It's not like Viipuuri wasn't the second largest city in finland. :huh:
КАЛІГА ЭС КУЛ
Quote from: Viking on March 15, 2013, 07:00:45 AM
Yeah, half a million refugees are just a statistic. It's not like Viipuuri wasn't the second largest city in finland. :huh:
Finland should export vowels to Poland.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2013, 07:10:02 AM
Quote from: Viking on March 15, 2013, 07:00:45 AM
Yeah, half a million refugees are just a statistic. It's not like Viipuuri wasn't the second largest city in finland. :huh:
Finland should export vowels to Poland.
Poltava was a co-ordinated attempt by Chucky XII to export finnish vowels and polish consonants to russia where the is a dire lack of roman letters.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2013, 07:10:02 AM
Quote from: Viking on March 15, 2013, 07:00:45 AM
Yeah, half a million refugees are just a statistic. It's not like Viipuuri wasn't the second largest city in finland. :huh:
Finland should export vowels to Poland.
Pftt. We have vowels. We just don't use them recklessly when cz, sz, rz or dz would suffice. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Martinus on March 15, 2013, 07:56:54 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2013, 07:10:02 AM
Quote from: Viking on March 15, 2013, 07:00:45 AM
Yeah, half a million refugees are just a statistic. It's not like Viipuuri wasn't the second largest city in finland. :huh:
Finland should export vowels to Poland.
Pftt. We have vowels. We just don't use them recklessly when cz, sz, rz or dz would suffice. :rolleyes:
Polish Wheel of Fortune must be really fun.
:D
Quote from: Viking on March 15, 2013, 08:08:35 AM
Polish Wheel of Fortune must be really fun.
"I take z, y, w, r and l."
Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding
:lmfao:
Was the Soviet invasion of Finland the most inept military campaign of the 20th century? If not, what was?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 15, 2013, 09:09:40 AM
Was the Soviet invasion of Finland the most inept military campaign of the 20th century? If not, what was?
The Italian invasion of Greece.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 15, 2013, 09:09:40 AM
Was the Soviet invasion of Finland the most inept military campaign of the 20th century? If not, what was?
British defense of Malaya?
Italian offensive into Egypt?
Turkish offensive into the Caucusus?
Quote from: Valmy on March 15, 2013, 09:10:18 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 15, 2013, 09:09:40 AM
Was the Soviet invasion of Finland the most inept military campaign of the 20th century? If not, what was?
The Italian invasion of Greece.
It's certainly up there.
Quote from: Valmy on March 15, 2013, 09:10:18 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 15, 2013, 09:09:40 AM
Was the Soviet invasion of Finland the most inept military campaign of the 20th century? If not, what was?
The Italian invasion of Greece.
I should have made an Italian exemption. <_<
The Turk invasion of the Caucas in the middle of winter has to trump them...
Soviet 1942 Kharkov Offensive.
Soviet Lyuban Offensive 1942.
Both horribly mismanaged, bungled, idiotic offensives that ended up with each front stabilized, large well supplied armies captured, and a chance for the Germans to rebound.
Iraqi invasion of Iran. Talk about botched monkeys fucking footballs.
Iraqi defense of Kuwait and Desert Storm. For sheer size, scale and capability, one side getting rolled by the other so lopsidedly since 71 AD.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 15, 2013, 09:50:04 AM
Iraqi defense of Kuwait and Desert Storm. For sheer size, scale and capability, one side getting rolled by the other so lopsidedly since 71 AD.
Disagree. Given the assets of both sides the only better outcome Iraq could have gotten was to request an armistice on day one.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2013, 09:52:00 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 15, 2013, 09:50:04 AM
Iraqi defense of Kuwait and Desert Storm. For sheer size, scale and capability, one side getting rolled by the other so lopsidedly since 71 AD.
Disagree. Given the assets of both sides the only better outcome Iraq could have gotten was to request an armistice on day one.
Disagree on your disagreement. Iraqi armed forces were on paper a substantial conventional opponent prior to the air war.
Quote from: Valmy on March 15, 2013, 09:10:18 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 15, 2013, 09:09:40 AM
Was the Soviet invasion of Finland the most inept military campaign of the 20th century? If not, what was?
The Italian invasion of Greece.
Naw, Italian performance in WW1 has it beat. :D
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 15, 2013, 09:54:30 AM
Disagree on your disagreement. Iraqi armed forces were on paper a substantial conventional opponent prior to the air war.
On paper the Iraqi aircraft, tanks, and APCs were target practice.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2013, 09:58:09 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 15, 2013, 09:54:30 AM
Disagree on your disagreement. Iraqi armed forces were on paper a substantial conventional opponent prior to the air war.
On paper the Iraqi aircraft, tanks, and APCs were target practice.
You need to brush up on Stormin' Norman's pre-invasion briefings.
Quote from: Malthus on March 15, 2013, 09:55:55 AM
Naw, Italian performance in WW1 has it beat. :D
No way. Attacking a tiny inpoverished country and getting driven back and whipped is entirely different from being unable to break a Great Power, even one in as desperate straights as Austria-Hungary.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 15, 2013, 09:59:13 AM
You need to brush up on Stormin' Norman's pre-invasion briefings.
You need to brush up on the main gun range and night-fighting capability of a T-72 vs. an M-1.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2013, 10:03:56 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 15, 2013, 09:59:13 AM
You need to brush up on Stormin' Norman's pre-invasion briefings.
You need to brush up on the main gun range and night-fighting capability of a T-72 vs. an M-1.
The T-72 has superior armor. I've known that for years, thanks to the interwebs.
Quote from: Valmy on March 15, 2013, 10:00:24 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 15, 2013, 09:55:55 AM
Naw, Italian performance in WW1 has it beat. :D
No way. Attacking a tiny inpoverished country and getting driven back and whipped is entirely different from being unable to break a Great Power, even one in as desperate straights as Austria-Hungary.
Hey, bad as Mussolini was, even he didn't actively decimate his own troops. :D
The Republican Guard is elite.
Quote from: Malthus on March 15, 2013, 10:05:50 AM
Hey, bad as Mussolini was, even he didn't actively decimate his own troops. :D
It was necessary to enforce discipline! :cadorna:
Besides, the Alpine front of WW1 as one of the harshest environments to fight in. Props to both sides for holding out as long as they did.
The Falklands War on the Argentinian side would go up there as well.
Quote from: Syt on March 15, 2013, 08:13:01 AM
Quote from: Viking on March 15, 2013, 08:08:35 AM
Polish Wheel of Fortune must be really fun.
"I take z, y, w, r and l."
Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding
In Polish Scrabble W, Z and Y are all worth 1 point.
Quote from: Drakken on March 15, 2013, 11:29:05 AM
The Falklands War on the Argentinian side would go up there as well.
Another would be the Egyptian campaign in the Sinai in 1967.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 15, 2013, 09:20:30 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 15, 2013, 09:10:18 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 15, 2013, 09:09:40 AM
Was the Soviet invasion of Finland the most inept military campaign of the 20th century? If not, what was?
The Italian invasion of Greece.
I should have made an Italian exemption. <_<
I was going to say Italian invasion of Ethiopia.
Quote from: Malthus on March 15, 2013, 01:29:35 PM
Quote from: Drakken on March 15, 2013, 11:29:05 AM
The Falklands War on the Argentinian side would go up there as well.
Another would be the Egyptian campaign in the Sinai in 1967.
Where the battle plan was literally "run away!"
I think Winter War is the best example, because it was a superpower getting cut to ribbons by villagers on skis of a much smaller country.
Quote from: DGuller on March 15, 2013, 01:45:37 PM
I think Winter War is the best example, because it was a superpower getting cut to ribbons by villagers on skis of a much smaller country.
What the Finns did was fantastic
Sissi FTW
Quote from: Syt on March 15, 2013, 10:37:48 AM
Besides, the Alpine front of WW1 as one of the harshest environments to fight in. Props to both sides for holding out as long as they did.
Well it's hard for them to both lose.
Another inept campaign: Russian naval campaign against Japan in 1905.
Finns kick ass. :dolljoints:
The campaign of Annual, or 'how to lose your entire army to a bunch of rebels'.
The Russo-Japanese war.
Quote from: Solmyr on March 15, 2013, 05:49:59 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 15, 2013, 05:34:09 AM
Definitely had to look at the original Russian for this one, just for fun.
Do you have a link?
Nothing like a transcript, but a Russian news article with more of his quotes in the original tongue.
http://ria.ru/society/20130314/927341148.html
For the peanut gallery, I think even when copy/pasted into Google translate's sometimes pigeon english, you can see that it seems more like scholarly discussion rather than nationalist/patriotic rhetoric.
I like to think my Finnish M39 rifle whacked a few Soviets. But since it has a date of 1944 and the fact that it looks barely used, that's very doubtful.
Deciphered one of the proofs on the receiver and found out that it was originally produced here in the US by New England Westinghouse (as part of an M91 rifle). That rifle was likely produced in 1915 or 1916 and shipped to the Imperial Russian Army, then absorbed into the Red Army, then captured by the Finns, who took the receiver and put a new barrel, stock, trigger, etc. on it & made it into an M39.
The M39 was such a well-made rifle, particularly for a Mosin-Nagant variant. For all their current nuttiness, the Finns worked near-miracles with such limited resources back in the day.
Quote from: derspiess on March 15, 2013, 10:37:21 PM
For all their current nuttiness, the Finns worked near-miracles with such limited resources back in the day.
Necessity being the mother of invention and all that. But seriously if the Russians had shown basic competence it would not have been much of a struggle.
What do you mean by current nuttiness? Like that Lizard woman guy and mouth sugar back in the day?
Quote from: Valmy on March 15, 2013, 10:48:15 PM
that Lizard woman guy
The thread where that first came up was a thing of beauty.
Quote from: Valmy on March 15, 2013, 10:48:15 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 15, 2013, 10:37:21 PM
For all their current nuttiness, the Finns worked near-miracles with such limited resources back in the day.
Necessity being the mother of invention and all that. But seriously if the Russians had shown basic competence it would not have been much of a struggle.
What do you mean by current nuttiness? Like that Lizard woman guy and mouth sugar back in the day?
I think that it's important to note that despite Soviet ineptness and Finnish skill the Finns still lost. I think that should take it out of the running.
Tbh Putin does have a point in that Finnish defense would have collapsed had the war continued much longer. It was already under great strain and barely holding together. Even Mannerheim understood this, which is why he wanted a peace treaty. And Stalin was getting worried about Germany, so he was content to disengage from Finland asap.
Quote from: Berkut on March 15, 2013, 09:38:59 AM
The Turk invasion of the Caucas in the middle of winter has to trump them...
For something involving supposedly major powers, I think that was probably the worst.
Once you start looking at the Third World, there's plenty to choose from. The Cambodian attack on Vietnam, or maybe the Ugandan invasion of Tanzania.
Racist.
Why support the Finns when it turns out they were all secretly Jew-hating Nazi sympathizers, and monsters to a man? Sure, no one knew it yet in 1939, they were just defending themselves. But perhaps Stalin had an inkling of their allegiance to true evil.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 16, 2013, 10:09:42 PM
Why support the Finns when it turns out they were all secretly Jew-hating Nazi sympathizers, and monsters to a man? Sure, no one knew it yet in 1939, they were just defending themselves. But perhaps Stalin had an inkling of their allegiance to true evil.
'Cause commies are worse than Nazis.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 15, 2013, 11:43:37 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 15, 2013, 10:48:15 PM
that Lizard woman guy
The thread where that first came up was a thing of beauty.
Was his first post IIRC. :lol:
Quote from: dps on March 16, 2013, 11:55:23 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 16, 2013, 10:09:42 PM
Why support the Finns when it turns out they were all secretly Jew-hating Nazi sympathizers, and monsters to a man? Sure, no one knew it yet in 1939, they were just defending themselves. But perhaps Stalin had an inkling of their allegiance to true evil.
'Cause commies are worse than Nazis.
:hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2013, 12:02:21 AM
Quote from: dps on March 16, 2013, 11:55:23 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 16, 2013, 10:09:42 PM
Why support the Finns when it turns out they were all secretly Jew-hating Nazi sympathizers, and monsters to a man? Sure, no one knew it yet in 1939, they were just defending themselves. But perhaps Stalin had an inkling of their allegiance to true evil.
'Cause commies are worse than Nazis.
:hmm:
The only good commie is a dead commie. The same is true of Nazis, but at this point, the Nazis are almost all dead, but there are still plenty of live commies.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 16, 2013, 10:09:42 PM
Why support the Finns when it turns out they were all secretly Jew-hating Nazi sympathizers, and monsters to a man? Sure, no one knew it yet in 1939, they were just defending themselves. But perhaps Stalin had an inkling of their allegiance to true evil.
The terms of the finnish alliance with the nazis was pretty clear in terms of who and where they fight. Finland specifically was not going to fight the UK and Greece (which was in the fight at the time of the alliance).
Quote from: Ideologue on March 16, 2013, 10:09:42 PM
Why support the Finns when it turns out they were all secretly Jew-hating Nazi sympathizers, and monsters to a man? Sure, no one knew it yet in 1939, they were just defending themselves. But perhaps Stalin had an inkling of their allegiance to true evil.
Finnish jews were never persecuted, though, and instead served in the army. Finland deported eight foreign jewish refugees and about 2000 soviet prisoners of war, amongst them some 70 jews, to Germany.
Three Finnish jews were awarded the iron cross, although all of them refused to accept the decoration.
http://www.jewishquarterly.org/issuearchive/article8d14.html?articleid=194
Quote from: Barrister on March 17, 2013, 12:02:21 AM
Quote from: dps on March 16, 2013, 11:55:23 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 16, 2013, 10:09:42 PM
Why support the Finns when it turns out they were all secretly Jew-hating Nazi sympathizers, and monsters to a man? Sure, no one knew it yet in 1939, they were just defending themselves. But perhaps Stalin had an inkling of their allegiance to true evil.
'Cause commies are worse than Nazis.
:hmm:
There were many in this country who thought we should ally with Hitler. I suspect there still are some.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 17, 2013, 06:33:19 AM
There were many in this country who thought we should ally with Hitler. I suspect there still are some.
So? Many in this country wanted a communist revolution as well. And I also suspect there are still some :P
Quote from: Ideologue on March 16, 2013, 10:09:42 PM
Why support the Finns when it turns out they were all secretly Jew-hating Nazi sympathizers, and monsters to a man? Sure, no one knew it yet in 1939, they were just defending themselves. But perhaps Stalin had an inkling of their allegiance to true evil.
I guess I missed the part in WWII where everybody supported the Finns.
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2013, 07:39:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 17, 2013, 06:33:19 AM
There were many in this country who thought we should ally with Hitler. I suspect there still are some.
So? Many in this country wanted a communist revolution as well. And I also suspect there are still some :P
I was explaining to Barrister the context of Derspeiss's statement.
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2013, 07:40:40 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 16, 2013, 10:09:42 PM
Why support the Finns when it turns out they were all secretly Jew-hating Nazi sympathizers, and monsters to a man? Sure, no one knew it yet in 1939, they were just defending themselves. But perhaps Stalin had an inkling of their allegiance to true evil.
I guess I missed the part in WWII where everybody supported the Finns.
Iirc Churchill contemplated a declaration of war on the USSR. Not totally unreasonable, given that the Nazis and Sovs were essentially acting as co-belligerents, if not allies, against the small peoples f Eastern Europe. But also not a very smooth move.
Anyway, I do overstate my case, mainly because I wanted to say "Fuck Finland," because the Continuation War accomplished exactly jack and shit, other than diverting Soviet resources and prolonging the war on the Eastern Front slightly. So, yeah, fuck Finland.
This is distinct entirely from my previous arguments that we (the U.S., with our allies) should have readied ourselves and attacked the USSR in a war of liberation in 1948 or even earlier. The key difference: the Nazis were all gone and we could have actually won.
Churchill strikes me as a dullard sometimes. Declare war on the sovs to support mouthsugars? Invade Sicily in '40? What a maroon.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 17, 2013, 07:56:29 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2013, 07:39:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 17, 2013, 06:33:19 AM
There were many in this country who thought we should ally with Hitler. I suspect there still are some.
So? Many in this country wanted a communist revolution as well. And I also suspect there are still some :P
I was explaining to Barrister the context of Derspeiss's statement.
:huh:
You have a problem?
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2013, 07:40:40 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 16, 2013, 10:09:42 PM
Why support the Finns when it turns out they were all secretly Jew-hating Nazi sympathizers, and monsters to a man? Sure, no one knew it yet in 1939, they were just defending themselves. But perhaps Stalin had an inkling of their allegiance to true evil.
I guess I missed the part in WWII where everybody supported the Finns.
Britain and France nearly declared war on the USSR over it and drew up plans for bombing raids. That would have been rad. :cool:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 17, 2013, 10:56:24 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2013, 07:40:40 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 16, 2013, 10:09:42 PM
Why support the Finns when it turns out they were all secretly Jew-hating Nazi sympathizers, and monsters to a man? Sure, no one knew it yet in 1939, they were just defending themselves. But perhaps Stalin had an inkling of their allegiance to true evil.
I guess I missed the part in WWII where everybody supported the Finns.
Britain and France nearly declared war on the USSR over it and drew up plans for bombing raids. That would have been rad. :cool:
Britain losing World War II? YEAH, WAY RADICAL AND EVEN TUBULAR
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 17, 2013, 10:56:24 PM
Britain and France nearly declared war on the USSR over it and drew up plans for bombing raids. That would have been rad. :cool:
Yeah and it took them so long the war was over before they were even on step 1 to get there. Their heart was not in it. I was talking about actual support not kinda thinking it would be nice to do something.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 17, 2013, 08:25:17 PM
Iirc Churchill contemplated a declaration of war on the USSR.
Well he did not even become PM until May of 1940 so...
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2013, 11:10:11 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 17, 2013, 10:56:24 PM
Britain and France nearly declared war on the USSR over it and drew up plans for bombing raids. That would have been rad. :cool:
Yeah and it took them so long the war was over before they were even on step 1 to get there. Their heart was not in it. I was talking about actual support not kinda thinking it would be nice to do something.
From what I can gather, the French were pretty serious about wanting to bomb Baku from bases in Syria and Iraq. The British apparantly weren't all that enthusiastic about it, but were willing to go along with the French at least as far as planning such raids was concerned.
The planning seemed to overlook the fact that they'd have to overfly Turkey and possibly Iran, or just assumed that those countries would be OK with their airspace being violated.
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2013, 11:12:33 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 17, 2013, 08:25:17 PM
Iirc Churchill contemplated a declaration of war on the USSR.
Well he did not even become PM until May of 1940 so...
Or maybe it was Chamberlain. Or maybe it didn't happen at all. I said "iirc." :P
Quote from: Ideologue on March 17, 2013, 10:58:44 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 17, 2013, 10:56:24 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2013, 07:40:40 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 16, 2013, 10:09:42 PM
Why support the Finns when it turns out they were all secretly Jew-hating Nazi sympathizers, and monsters to a man? Sure, no one knew it yet in 1939, they were just defending themselves. But perhaps Stalin had an inkling of their allegiance to true evil.
I guess I missed the part in WWII where everybody supported the Finns.
Britain and France nearly declared war on the USSR over it and drew up plans for bombing raids. That would have been rad. :cool:
Britain losing World War II? YEAH, WAY RADICAL AND EVEN TUBULAR
Timmay really does like his alt-history.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 17, 2013, 10:58:44 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 17, 2013, 10:56:24 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2013, 07:40:40 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 16, 2013, 10:09:42 PM
Why support the Finns when it turns out they were all secretly Jew-hating Nazi sympathizers, and monsters to a man? Sure, no one knew it yet in 1939, they were just defending themselves. But perhaps Stalin had an inkling of their allegiance to true evil.
I guess I missed the part in WWII where everybody supported the Finns.
Britain and France nearly declared war on the USSR over it and drew up plans for bombing raids. That would have been rad. :cool:
Britain losing World War II? YEAH, WAY RADICAL AND EVEN TUBULAR
US would have got involved quicker.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 18, 2013, 12:37:18 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 17, 2013, 10:58:44 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 17, 2013, 10:56:24 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2013, 07:40:40 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 16, 2013, 10:09:42 PM
Why support the Finns when it turns out they were all secretly Jew-hating Nazi sympathizers, and monsters to a man? Sure, no one knew it yet in 1939, they were just defending themselves. But perhaps Stalin had an inkling of their allegiance to true evil.
I guess I missed the part in WWII where everybody supported the Finns.
Britain and France nearly declared war on the USSR over it and drew up plans for bombing raids. That would have been rad. :cool:
Britain losing World War II? YEAH, WAY RADICAL AND EVEN TUBULAR
US would have got involved quicker.
In a war where the British and French were aggressors against the USSR? Doubtful, unless you think that the Soviets being in a war with the British would make the Japanese likely to attack the US sooner. And just typing that shit made my head hurt.
Were the UK and France the aggressors when they defended Poland from Germany? How is defending Finland any different?
There was certainly a far deeper anipathy to communism and the Soviet Union in the United States at that time than there was to Nazi Germany.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 18, 2013, 01:19:45 AM
Were the UK and France the aggressors when they defended Poland from Germany? How is defending Finland any different?
There was certainly a far deeper anipathy to communism and the Soviet Union in the United States at that time than there was to Nazi Germany.
The planning for bombing Baku started before the Winter War.
Quote from: dps on March 18, 2013, 01:24:57 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 18, 2013, 01:19:45 AM
Were the UK and France the aggressors when they defended Poland from Germany? How is defending Finland any different?
There was certainly a far deeper anipathy to communism and the Soviet Union in the United States at that time than there was to Nazi Germany.
The planning for bombing Baku started before the Winter War.
Soviets invaded Poland as well.
If anything it might have prevented the US from joining the war. The US going to war with Germany is based largely on the decision of an unpredictable crazy person who's actions make little strategic sense. Changing some of the events leading up to the decision could have easily changed the decision. After all we are dealing with notoriously unpredictable madman. If the UK declared war on the SU it may have temporarily strengthened the Soviet-German pact and after the fall of France Britain's position would look completely hopeless. The result would very likely be a British treaty with Germany.
Quote from: dps on March 18, 2013, 12:04:23 AM
From what I can gather, the French were pretty serious about wanting to bomb Baku from bases in Syria and Iraq. The British apparantly weren't all that enthusiastic about it, but were willing to go along with the French at least as far as planning such raids was concerned.
The planning seemed to overlook the fact that they'd have to overfly Turkey and possibly Iran, or just assumed that those countries would be OK with their airspace being violated.
Um yes they did have foolish schemes like that bombing but they were never serious. At no time during those three months was anything practical done about those plans (or indeed was there a plan at all), and as you state the scheme had all sorts of holes. The plan they did reach was not even approved until the war in Finland was almost over and that as the Norway landing.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 17, 2013, 09:14:04 PM
You have a problem?
I'd like you to expound on that a bit.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2013, 01:37:03 AM
If anything it might have prevented the US from joining the war. The US going to war with Germany is based largely on the decision of an unpredictable crazy person who's actions make little strategic sense. Changing some of the events leading up to the decision could have easily changed the decision. After all we are dealing with notoriously unpredictable madman. If the UK declared war on the SU it may have temporarily strengthened the Soviet-German pact and after the fall of France Britain's position would look completely hopeless. The result would very likely be a British treaty with Germany.
That would have been interesting if the UK could've somehow dragged the US on her side against the Soviet Union, particularly how the Soviet sympathizers and spies in the FDR administration would have handled it.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2013, 10:30:40 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 18, 2013, 09:12:13 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 17, 2013, 09:14:04 PM
You have a problem?
I'd like you to expound on that a bit.
Which part?
For starters I'd be interested to hear you explain how your post had anything to do with mine.
Oh, you made a statement that seemed very strange and I had to clarify it for Barrister by putting it in the context of American political culture.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2013, 10:50:53 AM
Oh, you made a statement that seemed very strange and I had to clarify it for Barrister by putting it in the context of American political culture.
Which one? That the Finns made good rifles? :P
That commies are worse then Nazis. That seemed strange considering that Nazis killed several hundred thousand Americans and the Communists did not.
Pretty sure the Nazis didn't kill several hundred thousand Americans.
I would have made a good Brownshirt. Without the gay shit.
Or an SS functionary.
I would look dreamy in a black uniform.:wub:
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2013, 10:55:02 AM
That commies are worse then Nazis. That seemed strange considering that Nazis killed several hundred thousand Americans and the Communists did not.
So when did I say that?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2013, 10:56:26 AM
Pretty sure the Nazis didn't kill several hundred thousand Americans.
416,000 American dead from WWII.
Come to think of it Raz, Commies killed way more Americans than Nazis did. Korean War and Vietnamese War.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2013, 11:02:48 AM
Come to think of it Raz, Commies killed way more Americans than Nazis did. Korean War and Vietnamese War.
Around 50,000 in Vietnam and less then 40,000 in Korea. Try again.
Quote from: derspiess on March 18, 2013, 11:01:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2013, 10:55:02 AM
That commies are worse then Nazis. That seemed strange considering that Nazis killed several hundred thousand Americans and the Communists did not.
So when did I say that?
Motherfucker! I confused you with dps again. <_<
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2013, 11:05:06 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 18, 2013, 11:01:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2013, 10:55:02 AM
That commies are worse then Nazis. That seemed strange considering that Nazis killed several hundred thousand Americans and the Communists did not.
So when did I say that?
Motherfucker! I confused you with dps again. <_<
:showoff:
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2013, 11:02:20 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2013, 10:56:26 AM
Pretty sure the Nazis didn't kill several hundred thousand Americans.
416,000 American dead from WWII.
183,588 deaths from battles in the European theatre.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 18, 2013, 01:27:06 AM
Quote from: dps on March 18, 2013, 01:24:57 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 18, 2013, 01:19:45 AM
Were the UK and France the aggressors when they defended Poland from Germany? How is defending Finland any different?
There was certainly a far deeper anipathy to communism and the Soviet Union in the United States at that time than there was to Nazi Germany.
The planning for bombing Baku started before the Winter War.
Soviets invaded Poland as well.
Sure, and that argument would have had merit if they had declared war on the Soviet Union at the time. Waiting until a month or two later and launching a sneak attack on Baku would have been a different matter.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2013, 01:37:03 AM
an unpredictable crazy person who's actions make little strategic sense.
Being a bit harsh towards Churchill aren't you?
Quote from: Zanza on March 18, 2013, 11:05:39 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2013, 11:02:20 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2013, 10:56:26 AM
Pretty sure the Nazis didn't kill several hundred thousand Americans.
416,000 American dead from WWII.
183,588 deaths from battles in the European theatre.
Fascist allies count as well!
Quote from: Zanza on March 18, 2013, 11:05:39 AM
183,588 deaths from battles in the European theatre.
That is still more than I would have expected.
You are moving goalposts. Nazi is a pretty clearly defined term and the Japanese of WW2 do not fall under it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2013, 11:14:27 AM
Quote from: Zanza on March 18, 2013, 11:05:39 AM
183,588 deaths from battles in the European theatre.
That is still more than I would have expected.
The MG42 was a hell of a machinegun :(
Quote from: Zanza on March 18, 2013, 11:14:55 AM
You are moving goalposts. Nazi is a pretty clearly defined term and the Japanese of WW2 do not fall under it.
The rest weren't all killed by Japanese. Disease took many as well, and since I think we can safely safe and large number who died of disease in WWII, there are at least 17 thousand American death from disease in the Atlantic theater then we still have multiple hundreds of thousands and my point still stands.
Quote from: derspiess on March 18, 2013, 11:19:09 AM
The MG42 was a hell of a machinegun :(
No doubt. But it's hard to think of that many battles where the US took really heavy losses.
I think you're fudging your numbers if you include disease and Italian-inflicted casualties in the "Nazi" column.
Quote from: derspiess on March 18, 2013, 11:01:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2013, 10:55:02 AM
That commies are worse then Nazis. That seemed strange considering that Nazis killed several hundred thousand Americans and the Communists did not.
So when did I say that?
I can't believe you are doing this... AGAIN! :lol:
Just let Raz raz away.
Quote from: derspiess on March 18, 2013, 11:26:08 AM
I think you're fudging your numbers if you include disease and Italian-inflicted casualties in the "Nazi" column.
I do not, but still it's much more then fell to the forces of international communism.
Quote from: grumbler on March 18, 2013, 11:39:10 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 18, 2013, 11:01:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2013, 10:55:02 AM
That commies are worse then Nazis. That seemed strange considering that Nazis killed several hundred thousand Americans and the Communists did not.
So when did I say that?
I can't believe you are doing this... AGAIN! :lol:
Just let Raz raz away.
For a person who ignores me, you sure seem to talk about me a lot.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 18, 2013, 10:59:59 AM
I would have made a good Brownshirt. Without the gay shit.
Or an SS functionary.
I would look dreamy in a black uniform.:wub:
You'd probably wear make up, too. Like Göring.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2013, 11:46:39 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 18, 2013, 11:26:08 AM
I think you're fudging your numbers if you include disease and Italian-inflicted casualties in the "Nazi" column.
I do not, but still it's much more then fell to the forces of international communism.
So? The Brits killed more Americans in the two wars we fought with them than al Qaeda has. Does that make the Brits worse?
No comments from Ed or Seedy, please.
Yes, they were a worse threat to the United States then al Qaeda.
Brits aren't as bad as our fellow Americans
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2013, 01:03:46 PM
Yes, they were a worse threat to the United States then al Qaeda.
Moving the goalposts, eh? One could make the argument that the Nazis posed less of a threat to the US than the Soviets.
Quote from: katmai on March 18, 2013, 01:05:05 PM
Brits aren't as bad as our fellow Americans
"Our"? I thought you sed you wuz Mexican :hmm:
Yo soy Chicano, pendejo.
Eres tan chicano como Guillermo Richardson.
Quote from: derspiess on March 18, 2013, 01:15:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2013, 01:03:46 PM
Yes, they were a worse threat to the United States then al Qaeda.
Moving the goalposts, eh? One could make the argument that the Nazis posed less of a threat to the US than the Soviets.
Did they? Peaceful coexistence was possible with the Soviet Union as demonstrated by the fact they never went to war with the US and neatly collapsed on itself, this was not true of Nazi Germany which was had to blasted from the face of the earth.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2013, 01:19:30 PM
Eres tan chicano como Guillermo Richardson.
¿Quién es más macho?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2013, 01:19:30 PM
Eres tan chicano como Guillermo Richardson.
Eres tan chicano como Robert Guillaume?
Quote from: derspiess on March 18, 2013, 01:29:40 PM
¿Quién es más macho?
Entre Guillermo y nuestro frijole grande? Imagino el secundo. Cuando katmai duerme se puede ver que es un hombre muy fuerte.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2013, 01:27:25 PM
Did they? Peaceful coexistence was possible with the Soviet Union as demonstrated by the fact they never went to war with the US and neatly collapsed on itself, this was not true of Nazi Germany which was had to blasted from the face of the earth.
There was a thing called the Cold War, during most of which the Soviets had many nuclear weapons pointed at us.
Anyway, kind of a silly argument & I'm a little embarrassed at having been drawn in :D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2013, 01:33:32 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 18, 2013, 01:29:40 PM
¿Quién es más macho?
Entre Guillermo y nuestro frijole grande? Imagino el secundo. Cuando katmai duerme se puede ver que es un hombre muy fuerte.
:lol: Okay.
Quote from: derspiess on March 18, 2013, 01:34:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2013, 01:27:25 PM
Did they? Peaceful coexistence was possible with the Soviet Union as demonstrated by the fact they never went to war with the US and neatly collapsed on itself, this was not true of Nazi Germany which was had to blasted from the face of the earth.
There was a thing called the Cold War, during most of which the Soviets had many nuclear weapons pointed at us.
Anyway, kind of a silly argument & I'm a little embarrassed at having been drawn in :D
How exactly does that negate my point about peaceful coexistence?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2013, 01:39:15 PM
How exactly does that negate my point about peaceful coexistence?
I don't know. I don't care. I'd rather get back on-topic and discuss the Winter War.
Okay, I was curious why you posted that, but if you no longer know why you are posting arguments or what they mean then I'll take that as a concession.
Another stunning victory for Raz! :punk:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2013, 01:52:31 PM
Another stunning victory for Raz! :punk:
Well you could have conceded your claim that more Americans died in Vietnam and Korea then did in the ETO was incorrect so I don't get everything. :(
I find it interesting that Yi has watched Katmai sleeping.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2013, 01:53:48 PM
Well you could have conceded your claim that more Americans died in Vietnam and Korea then did in the ETO was incorrect so I don't get everything. :(
Conceded!
I find it funny that the man who has to wear a Darth Vader mask to sleep keeps ignoring fact I was sick that weekend.
:D
Haven't worn the mask in a good long while.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2013, 01:50:08 PM
Okay, I was curious why you posted that, but if you no longer know why you are posting arguments or what they mean then I'll take that as a concession.
If it helps your self-esteem then yes, take it as a concession. Even though I wasn't really the one you started arguing with.
Derspicy all you white people look alike don't ya know.
Quote from: katmai on March 18, 2013, 01:57:22 PM
I find it funny that the man who has to wear a Darth Vader mask to sleep keeps ignoring fact I was sick that weekend.
HEY NOW
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2013, 01:59:20 PM
:D
Haven't worn the mask in a good long while.
Was it weight loss, not smoking or surgery?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 18, 2013, 02:25:07 PM
Was it weight loss, not smoking or surgery?
Not sure. I was having trouble breathing with it so just tossed it, and didn't have any more issues.
Quote from: Syt on March 18, 2013, 12:43:51 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 18, 2013, 10:59:59 AM
I would have made a good Brownshirt. Without the gay shit.
Or an SS functionary.
I would look dreamy in a black uniform.:wub:
You'd probably wear make up, too. Like Göring.
I've done it before. OH NO I SHARED TOO MUCH
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 18, 2013, 05:03:17 PM
OH NO I SHARED TOO MUCH
You haven't shared enough?
/greyfox
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2013, 01:39:15 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 18, 2013, 01:34:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2013, 01:27:25 PM
Did they? Peaceful coexistence was possible with the Soviet Union as demonstrated by the fact they never went to war with the US and neatly collapsed on itself, this was not true of Nazi Germany which was had to blasted from the face of the earth.
There was a thing called the Cold War, during most of which the Soviets had many nuclear weapons pointed at us.
Anyway, kind of a silly argument & I'm a little embarrassed at having been drawn in :D
How exactly does that negate my point about peaceful coexistence?
So as long as you don't shoot at each other directly but just get your proxy to shoot at their proxy that's "peaceful co-existence"?
Interesting use of the term. :hmm:
Accurate as well.
Peaceful coexistance only requires they don't be at war. This was something that Nazi Germany could not accomplish with it's neighbors (or the US).
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2013, 03:55:08 PM
Peaceful coexistance only requires they don't be at war. This was something that Nazi Germany could not accomplish with it's neighbors (or the US).
Only if you stretch the meaning of "peaceful co-existence" to near-breaking point; "Hostile co-existence" would be a more accurate description of US/USSR relations.
No, just the normal meaning. It doesn't mean they have to like one another. I should hope you can see the difference between the relationship between the US and Soviet Union and the relationship between the US and Nazi Germany.
Raz, Soviet and US pilots shot each other up in the Korean War. Vietnam too I think. That's hardly peaceful coexistence.
Oh, and how you define peaceful coexistence?
No killing?
Not actively trying to undermine the other side by every method short of direct open warfare on a daily basis would be part of my definition.
There's peaceful coexistence that allows for a degree of competition - consider British/American relations post the War of 1812, for example - and then there's the Cold War.
And as Yi has pointed out, at some points Americans and Soviets did shoot directly at each other, even if under the guise of being "advisors" to local forces.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2013, 04:15:55 PM
No killing?
Ah so there was peaceful coexistence from 1923-1950, 1953-1966, 1966-1973, and 1973-1991?
Quote from: Agelastus on March 19, 2013, 04:28:20 PM
Not actively trying to undermine the other side by every method short of direct open warfare on a daily basis would be part of my definition.
There's peaceful coexistence that allows for a degree of competition - consider British/American relations post the War of 1812, for example - and then there's the Cold War.
And as Yi has pointed out, at some points Americans and Soviets did shoot directly at each other, even if under the guise of being "advisors" to local forces.
Ah, so if we use that example of the US and UK, several near wars, efforts to undermine each other and the killing of each one an other's citizens.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2013, 04:52:10 PM
Ah, so if use that example of the US and UK, several near wars, efforts to undermine each other and the killing of each one another's citizens.
But not continuously, not as a matter of general policy, no huge armies facing each other for the whole period, no proxy wars, actual co-operation such as during the Boxer Rebellion, non-political trade. Or in other words, everything it was as peaceful co-existence the Cold War wasn't.
However, since you've now specified that you are including the period 1923 - 1941 in your period then yes, the USA and the USSR did peacefully co-exist - mostly because neither side gave a damn about the rest of the World. The USA was isolationist, and Stalin had dropped the COMINTERN (or its predecessor maybe...too many acronyms) because he was a nationalist and because it was Trotsky's baby.
Peaceful co-existence kinda implies actually giving a damn about what the other side does rather than simply ignoring each other due to not caring.
Of course, if you're including this period, and ignoring the occasional killing of each other's citizens as you are with the Cold War, then the USA and Nazi Germany peacefully co-existed between 1933 and 1941...or, putting it another way, for roughly 2/3 of Nazi Germany's existence.
Yeah, it was general policy in the US for a while. The Policy was to push the territorial boundaries as far as they could go. If peaceful coexistence can include raids into one another's territory, then so can armies staring at each other in Germany.
They were pushing into territory that neither side really occupied.
Caesar and Brutus peacefully co-existed for the vast majority of the time they've known together. :contract:
Quote from: Agelastus on March 19, 2013, 05:00:02 PM
Peaceful co-existence kinda implies actually giving a damn about what the other side does rather than simply ignoring each other due to not caring.
Agreed. IMO peaceful co-existence is distinguishable from mere peaceful existence mostly by the feature that you have a cause for dispute over a matter of mutual interest but mutually choose to avoid resort to violence.
The US and UK exercised peaceful co-existence in the "Oregon Country" from 1818 until 1846.
The US and USSR practice hostile co-existence during the Cold War.
I was under the impression the very phrase "peaceful coexistence" was first used to describe US-USSR relations.