How interested are the the Non Americans in the US senate race?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Clinton by far was a very good president. I even thought George Senior was OK

[/ QUOTE ]


http://www.cbc.ca/hottype/season02-0...t_chomsky.html

-> look for 'Clinton', or better, read the whole thing.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
Lol. No. Eisenhower was ready to roll through eastern europe and the soviets because of the widespread reports that the Soviet "liberators" were worse than the German occupiers. However, he was ordered to stand down by the Truman administration.

[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO. This shows total and utter ignorance of condition of Soviet and Allied forces in the European theatre in the Spring of 1945.

FACT: Germany deployed 80%+ of its combat power on the East front. The war in the west was little more than a side show. Whilst the soviets did indeed need help during the first few years of the war, by 1945 they were churning out T-34s and IS3s for fun and were able to cut through the 80% of the German forces deployed against them like a knife through butter.

Soviet forces would advance in day what Allied forces would advance in a month even though Allied forces were facing much less combat power and an enemy much more keen to surrender. Thinking that the Red army was the same in 43-45 as it was in 39-42 is a fallacy of the greatest magnitude.

The idea that Eisenhower was in any position to launch an attack agianst the reds is a position only sustainable with zero factual information. The red army was a steam roller of artilery and massed armour formations which the Allied forces could not have matched in any way.

[candyman718]

I was interested in this question. Then I opened the thread to see 19 of 21 posts in this thread answering a different question than asked by the original poster. This forum is a mess.

[JMa]

could somebody please tell me what those pictures are? i guess 1 is WW1, 2 is Nagasaki/Hiroshima, 3 is Vietnam?

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]

Damn those democrats and their WW2!

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody has made a Bob Dole joke yet?

[lozen]

[ QUOTE ]
I was interested in this question. Then I opened the thread to see 19 of 21 posts in this thread answering a different question than asked by the original poster. This forum is a mess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Borodog]

You're ignoring a [censored] load of facts. The Soviet Union could not sustain their war effort without lend lease supply from the UK and US, and they had become increasingly dependent on it, after 1943, as they paid for their increased military production at the expense of the living standards of the civillian population; the US stops shipping the grain and the USSR starves. Even at the height of Soviet production the whole Soviet Union barely outproduced war torn Germany as late as 1944. Do you honestly think they could have tangled with the untouched industrial might of the US, regardless of the atomic bomb?

If they could roll over the allied forces like they weren't even there, why didn't they? The bombs didn't get dropped on Hiroshima and Nagaski for 3 months. The Soviets pulled up because they couldn't afford to go up against the United States.

But I'm not interested in discussing it anymore. Consider me conceded. You win the WW II dick waving contest.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
You're ignoring a [censored] load of facts. The Soviet Union could not sustain their war effort without lend lease supply from the UK and US, and they had become increasingly dependent on it, after 1943, as they paid for their increased military production at the expense of the living standards of the civillian population; the US stops shipping the grain and the USSR starves. Even at the height of Soviet production the whole Soviet Union barely outproduced war torn Germany as late as 1944. Do you honestly think they could have tangled with the untouched industrial might of the US, regardless of the atomic bomb?

If they could roll over the allied forces like they weren't even there, why didn't they? The bombs didn't get dropped on Hiroshima and Nagaski for 3 months. The Soviets pulled up because they couldn't afford to go up against the United States.

But I'm not interested in discussing it anymore. Consider me conceded. You win the WW II dick waving contest.

[/ QUOTE ]


Harry Browne will finish your argument:
http://www.freemarketnews.com/eTVLaunch.asp?rid=244

From 0:20:00 onwards.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
Even at the height of Soviet production the whole Soviet Union barely outproduced war torn Germany as late as 1944.

[/ QUOTE ]

Simply and totaly untrue as regards main battle tanks, artilery and planes.

[ QUOTE ]
the US stops shipping the grain and the USSR starves.

[/ QUOTE ]

May have been true untill the recapture of the Ukraine, its not called the bread basket of russia for nothing.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you honestly think they could have tangled with the untouched industrial might of the US, regardless of the atomic bomb?

[/ QUOTE ]

No munitions fell on the Soviet main centres of production such as Tankograd. Also, USA production is FAR away across an ocean that takes weeks to cross.

They didnt just roll over the yanks for several reasons, one of many being that it would have been hard to convince the troops that ally was now enemy, and that they had to take a break from looting and raping and start fighting all over again.

However the point still stands that if you count the tanks, the artilery the planes and the troops in situ in germany, the soviets would have vastly outnumbered the allies and could have rolled over them in terms of a clash of combat power in theatre at the time. Its just a fact, denying this is just fantasy. Of course cold war propoganda has done much to obscure this and also play down the roll of the Soviet war machine in victory over the Nazis.

[nicky g]

This is a pretty interesting argument. I think you should both continue it, possibly in another thread though.