Enemy at the gates. War in Ukraine. Video

Started by kalash, June 21, 2015, 09:35:56 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

mdgiles

By the time the battle of Stalingrad started in August 1942; the Soviet Union had been at war with Nazi Germany for 14 months since June 1941. Which is less time than they had been an ally of Nazi Germany from September 1939 until June 1941 - 21 months.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

kalash

#2
Quote from: mdgiles on June 24, 2015, 07:56:40 AM
By the time the battle of Stalingrad started in August 1942; the Soviet Union had been at war with Nazi Germany for 14 months since June 1941. Which is less time than they had been an ally of Nazi Germany from September 1939 until June 1941 - 21 months.
Really, USSR had non-aggression pact with Hitler? it's a real shame. And who cares, that right before this pact, USSR had failed attempt to have agreement with France and England, that probably could stop Hitler, and it fails because France and England didn't want to made it. They were hoping, that Hitler attack USSR in his push to the east. But Hitler chose more obvious dweebs  to attack first. And by the way, let's count nazi allies (by your standard) -  countries who had pacts with Hitler:
1933 - England, France, Italy - pact of four
1934 - Poland - Pact Hitler-Pilsudsky
1935 - England - Naval agreement
1936 - Japan - anti-comintern act
1938 - september, England - declaration of nonaggression
1938 - december, France - declaration of nonaggression
1939 - march, Romania - economical agreement
1939 - march, Lithuania - pact of nonaggression
1939 - may, Italy - pact of piece and friendship
1939 - may, Denmark - pact of nonaggression
1939 - june, Estonia - pact of nonaggression
1939 - june, Latvia - pact of nonaggression
1939 - august, USSR - pact of nonaggression.

And for some mysterious reason everybody only knows about USSR - Germany pact....

milos

Quote from: kalash on June 24, 2015, 12:45:01 PM
And who cares, that right before this pact, USSR had failed attempt to have agreement with France and England, that probably could stop Hitler, and it fails because France and England didn't want to made it. They were hoping, that Hitler attack USSR in his push to the east.

Yes, that is true. Hitler actually wanted alliance with England and France. He saw himself as protector of Western Civilization against communism, although his regime was as totalitarian as communist. It is all a multilevel tragedy. The scenario was made, so that Germany attacks Russia. If Hitler was a true German patriot, he should have listened to Otto von Bismarck, who stated: "The secret of politics? Make a good treaty with Russia." England, and its puppet France, didn't want alliance with both Russia nor Germany. All they wanted was to push Germany against Russia, in order to both of them destroy each other, and so that England remains as the third party who wins. It has always been "divide et impera". It is the same in Ukraine now. While Ukrainians and Russians are fighting against each other, some third party will win.

Hitler was truly a tragic figure. If he had been smart, his Third Reich would have been still alive today. He could really accomplish that goal, but only if he didn't attack Russia. But he acted against his own interests. It was obvious that it was not possible to conquer Russia, because Russia is simply too large to conquer. Hitler just wasted both German and Russian peoples and resources, just to accomplish nothing but devastation of both nations. He won The Battle of Britain, Luftwaffe had completely destroyed RAF, but instead of launching a ground invasion on Britain, he just started to bomb British cities, which allowed RAF to recover. And if he attacked Rusia, his goal shouldn't have been to conquer all of Russia, but to capture Ukraine for food supplies, and Caucasus for oil supplies. And if he was crazy, it was mostly because he actually shot himself, not in 1945, but in 1941.
One Christ. One Body of Christ. One Eucharist. One Church.

mdgiles

Oh stop with the "poor Russia" crap. Stalin made the deal with Hitler because he trusted him more than he trusted England or France. Besides the Germans gave Russia a free hand in Finland, half of Poland and the Baltic states. Not to mention that Soviet cooperation with the Germans went back before they even signed the Non Aggression pact. The Wehrmacht trained in Russia and tested their new weapons there. Too bad Churchill was Prime Minister and he hated Hitler, or else Great Britain would have made peace and the Nazis could have fought Russia undisturbed. Considering how little difference there was between the two regimes, who would have cared.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Dori

The enemy at the gates in this country are the one's guarding the gates. 
The danger to America is not Barack Obama but the citizens capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.

kalash

#6
Quote from: mdgiles on June 27, 2015, 10:04:18 AM
Not to mention that Soviet cooperation with the Germans went back before they even signed the Non Aggression pact. The Wehrmacht trained in Russia and tested their new weapons there.
Do you know that german submarines, during the war were coming to US ports and were allowed to stay there? What a shame! No it isn't, cos' it was happening during WWI and before US enter the war on other side... Same thing about "soviet cooperation with Wehrmacht" you mention.   It was going on when Germany was a democratic country with free election and all that. And there was no "Wehrmacht", german army at that time was called Reichswehr, 100 thousand strong (or weak, if you like), with no Navy, tanks or aviation. With Hitler coming to power all this cooperation ended. "But in ten years same soldiers, that were training in Russia (by the way, it was not germans learning from russians, germans were more qualified in the field of aviation and tanks at that time, so for russians this cooperation was a good opportunity to learn about new armor and tactics from germans) were fighting against Russia! What a irresponsible mistake and even crime!"  - some wood say. Really? Would would you say about some country, supporting some "freedom fighters" in the mountains of some  asian country, and  receiving very soon big Thank you in return in the way of suicide bombing of some buildings with captured civilian planes?  Irresponcible? Stupid? Maybe. I would agree.

milos

Ha ha, Kalash, you are of German origin 100%, admit it!  :wink: :wink: :wink:

One Christ. One Body of Christ. One Eucharist. One Church.

kalash

Quote from: milos on July 01, 2015, 10:42:29 PM
Ha ha, Kalash, you are of German origin 100%, admit it!  :wink: :wink: :wink:
I you ever see inside of both guns, you wouldn't say so. Nothing in common. Except for some parts, that was used long before in other previous models of automatic guns.

mdgiles

Quote from: kalash on June 30, 2015, 01:00:53 PM
Do you know that german submarines, during the war were coming to US ports and were allowed to stay there? What a shame! No it isn't, cos' it was happening during WWI and before US enter the war on other side... Same thing about "soviet cooperation with Wehrmacht" you mention.   It was going on when Germany was a democratic country with free election and all that. And there was no "Wehrmacht", german army at that time was called Reichswehr, 100 thousand strong (or weak, if you like), with no Navy, tanks or aviation. With Hitler coming to power all this cooperation ended. "But in ten years same soldiers, that were training in Russia (by the way, it was not germans learning from russians, germans were more qualified in the field of aviation and tanks at that time, so for russians this cooperation was a good opportunity to learn about new armor and tactics from germans) were fighting against Russia! What a irresponsible mistake and even crime!"  - some wood say. Really? Would would you say about some country, supporting some "freedom fighters" in the mountains of some  asian country, and  receiving very soon big Thank you in return in the way of suicide bombing of some buildings with captured civilian planes?  Irresponcible? Stupid? Maybe. I would agree.
When were German Submarines in US ports! Before the US entered the war the were actually fighting with the Nazi Submarines. Losing one - the USS Reuben James (DD245) - to a U-Boat (U552) in October, 1941. Making a big deal of what the German Army was called before Hitler, doesn't answer the question of what the Soviets were doing helping that Army secretly evade the Treaty of Versaille? The US supported country which the Soviets had invaded . Is that the same as your beloved Commies supporting North Vietnam in it's invasion of the South. Maybe if you weren't so damn incompetent you would have had as much trouble fighting a bunch of mountain savages. In any case the Afghans the US supported were not the ones who later took over the government and sheltered Osama.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Mountainshield

Going to prepare for Cold Response 2016, all I got to say is we are prepared for you Russian scum, I don't have anything against Putin but if he want's to take Sweden or Norway then bring it! We will fight you like our great grandparents kicked your asses in Finland 1939.

I fully support the indigenous Ukrainians right to defend themselves from Russian invasion, call them Nazi or whatever for embracing their heritage they don't care. And after the Russians have been whipped the populace will be so radicalize we might just end up whipping our internal traitors and especially burn the Tower of Brussel to the ground, with God's help it will happen.

kalash

Quote from: Mountainshield on July 06, 2015, 11:55:53 AM
I don't have anything against Putin but if he want's to take Sweden or Norway then bring it! We will fight you like our great grandparents kicked your asses in Finland 1939.
https://youtu.be/0OnpkDWbeJs
-
I thought in 1939-40 USSR kicked Finland ass.... But, whatever happen in your parallel universe, O.K. with me.

Mountainshield

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Losses:
126,875 dead or missing
188,671 wounded, concussed or burned
5,572 captured
3,543 tanks
261–515 aircraft
323,000 total casualties

Finland and Volunteers Losses:
25,904 dead or missing
43,557 wounded
1,000 captured
957 civilians in air raids
20–30 tanks
62 aircraft
70,000 total casualties

And that's despite being massively outnumbered  :cool:

kalash

#13
Quote from: Mountainshield on July 06, 2015, 12:30:21 PM
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Losses:
126,875 dead or missing
188,671 wounded, concussed or burned
5,572 captured
3,543 tanks
261–515 aircraft
323,000 total casualties

Finland and Volunteers Losses:
25,904 dead or missing
43,557 wounded
1,000 captured
957 civilians in air raids
20–30 tanks
62 aircraft
70,000 total casualties

And that's despite being massively outnumbered  :cool:
Do you know the outcome of this war? Did USSR get what was planned?  As to big losses on soviet side, it was considered as small and fast operation, by the troops with only Leningrad military district, on the wave of very successful operation of fall of 1939, when Western Ukraine and Belorussia were returned to Russia, without losses. When it happened to be, that finnish war was going on harder, that it was planned, changes were made, and very hard thing - breaking through very tough Mannerheim line in very harsh condition of cold winter and rough terrain, was completed and Finland capitulated. Some people, looking at the outcome of the war made wrong conclusions, that Soviet army is weak. Adolf Hitler, for example. But soviet command learn from that war, and one of the lessons was better preparation for war in winter times, lesson, that crazy Adolf never learned.

milos

Maybe this article would be interesting to this topic. Time to embrace libertarianism, Kalash. :wink:

The National Security State's Crisis Racket

Written by Jacob G. Hornberger, Friday June 26, 2015

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/june/26/the-national-security-state-s-crisis-racket/



Imagine that Russia announced that it was reconstituting the Warsaw Pact and that Cuba, Venezuela, Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Grenada, and Bolivia had signed on as members.

Imagine also that Russia fomented a regime-change operation in Mexico that succeeded in ousting the democratically elected president of the country and installing a pro-Russia ruler in his stead.

Imagine that Russia then embarked on a plan to build military bases and install missiles in all of those countries, including all along the US–Mexico border.

I ask you: What would be the reaction of President Obama, Republican and Democrat presidential candidates, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the US mainstream press?

I'll tell you: They would all be screaming like banshees! "The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!" they would be exclaiming. "We need to do something!" It would be a monumental crisis.

Even if Russia were to announce that its designs were entirely peaceful and friendly, nobody would believe it. There would be embargos, sanctions, and threat of nuclear war, until Russia capitulated, closed the bases, removed the missiles, and returned home.

What's fascinating, however, is that when the roles are reversed, the mindset changes, owing largely to the dominant role that the US national-security state plays within the federal government and the extreme deference that the political elite give it.

Consider Ukraine.

When the Cold War ended, the logical thing would have been to dismantle not only the Pentagon and the CIA but also NATO.

After all, the US national-security state apparatus, which resembled those in totalitarian regimes, was entirely new and alien to America's governmental structure, as President Eisenhower observed in his Farewell Address some 15 years after the Pentagon and the CIA were established. The only reason this totalitarian structure was adopted was to oppose the Soviet Union (America's WWII partner and ally) in a Cold War.

Moreover, the ostensible purpose of NATO was to protect Europe from the threat supposedly posed by the Soviet Union. It committed the United States to come to the defense of European countries in the event of a Soviet invasion.

So, the Cold War ends. Why not dismantle the entire national-security state apparatus and the entangling alliance of NATO that came with it? Wouldn't that be the logical thing to do?

Not if you want to maintain the national-security branch of the federal government into perpetuity. For that, you need crises — lots of crises — ongoing crises.

So, they go into the Middle East and poke a bunch of hornets' nests, which ultimately brings us the perpetual "war on terrorism," along with ever-growing budgets for the Pentagon and the CIA, not to mention the never-ending infringements on our freedom and privacy in the name of keeping us "safe" from the supposed danger that they themselves produced.

Meanwhile though, the national-security branch wasn't ready to let go of its old Cold War nemesis, even if the Soviet Union had been dismantled. After all, there was still Russia, headed by a former member of the KGB, the Soviet Union's counterpart to the CIA.

So, NATO remains in existence and even worse, begins absorbing former Eastern European countries that had been members of the Warsaw Pact. Through NATO expansion, the US national-security state moves slowly but inexorably toward Russia's borders, ultimately reaching Ukraine, which borders Russia.

The big challenge, of course, was how to get Ukraine to also join NATO, which would then bring the US national-security state all the way to Russia's borders, including Crimea.

The problem, however, was that the democratically elected regime in Ukraine was pro-Russia.

No problem. Just foment a coup, just like in Iran, Guatemala, Chile, and other countries around the world. And, of course, deny that they're behind it, just like they denied that they were behind the coups in those other countries. Even if they're caught lying about it, as CIA Director Richard Helms was after the Chilean coup, nothing much would happen anyway.

So, what's the outcome of all this? Civil War in Ukraine, not much different from the decades-long civil war that the US coup in Guatemala produced. Plus Russia's annexation of Crimea to ensure that the long-established Russian military base there didn't fall into US hands.

Oh, and of course a new Cold War, one in which the US is now sending military equipment and armaments into Eastern Europe, ostensibly to protect Eastern Europe from Russian aggression. And it's all done through the Pentagon and the CIA, not through the elected representatives of the American people in Congress.

I repeat my question: What would President Obama, all those presidential candidates, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the mainstream press be saying if Russia did the same things in this part of the world that the US national security state has done over there? Again, the answer is: They'd be screaming like banshees.

The answer to the crisis racketeering lies with the American people. When a critical mass of Americans finally realize that they're being had, they will demand a restoration of the limited-government republic called for in the Constitution and a dismantling of the totalitarian structure known as the national-security state and an end to NATO and other entangling alliances. That would not only bring an end to the perpetual crisis and chaos, it would also provide the foundation of a peaceful, prosperous, harmonious, and free society.
One Christ. One Body of Christ. One Eucharist. One Church.