Putin: America is a Parasite on the Global Economy

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="cobrax55"]

The Russians ended the war with one of the largest production capabilities of any country in the world.

razgriz_101

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

strangely the soviet union was consistently in the 300 range apart from 2 actual war years.

On top of that scroll further down they produced both the MOST armoured vehicles and Aircraft over the space of the war.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

I have and its actually mainly materials.

Im pretty sure you dont have a bachelors degree in history either considering you are stepping round a lot of issues of the russian army and thowing lend and lease which in the case of russia mainly talks bout materials not equipment in the case of the soviet union.

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

theres a start, all tank models produced within and used by Soviets in WW2 are derived from soviet design,along with most of their infantry weaponary and strangely the stuff you claim thats not great was actually adopted and widely popular with the Wermacht and said weapon is known as the PPSh-41 and the German military actually converted the design to the 9mm parrabelum cartridge which in turn became the widely used weapon known as the MP41.

So now then Soviet weapons were crap and they leeched American tech and it was America that won the war alone?

razgriz_101

do you even have proof for this or are you just stringing us along with pipedreams ? or it could be the fact that Stalingrad was actually a turning point and a crucial part of the war in the east, they never used American equipment except from limited form.

your only coming up with random things like you did in a similar topic where i got into an arguement with yourself on system wars bout a Suda 51 game and you eventually conceded defeat because the amount of facts that ended up being built against you.

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Yes but look at it per year along with the GDP.KC_Hokie

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

strangely the soviet union was consistently in the 300 range apart from 2 actual war years.

On top of that scroll further down they produced both the MOST armoured vehicles and Aircraft over the space of the war.

In all honesty that was when Operation barbossa began which can be related to the slump in GDP as the main method of war actually deployed by the German's was a blitzkrieg tactic along with the Crimean front aswell can be atttributed to a slump in the GDP aswell considering it is a oil rich area in the Soviet union of course it would be likely GDP would go down if they were affected.

Anyway im up at 4.30am for work so im better off than sitting arguing with someone who changes their goalposts every post ;)

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Look at your own link and how many were produced prior to the Battle of Stalingrad. That's when they were using primarily American equipment.KC_Hokie

do you even have proof for this or are you just stringing us along with pipedreams ? or it could be the fact that Stalingrad was actually a turning point and a crucial part of the war in the east, they never used American equipment except from limited form.

your only coming up with random things like you did in a similar topic where i got into an arguement with yourself on system wars bout a Suda 51 game and you eventually conceded defeat because the amount of facts that ended up being built against you.

can you least back those statements up or cram a ham in it?

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

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

strangely the soviet union was consistently in the 300 range apart from 2 actual war years.

On top of that scroll further down they produced both the MOST armoured vehicles and Aircraft over the space of the war.

razgriz_101

In all honesty that was when Operation barbossa began which can be related to the slump in GDP as the main method of war actually deployed by the German's was a blitzkrieg tactic along with the Crimean front aswell can be atttributed to a slump in the GDP aswell considering it is a oil rich area in the Soviet union of course it would be likely GDP would go down if they were affected.

Anyway im up at 4.30am for work so im better off than sitting arguing with someone who changes their goalposts every post ;)

Fact remains that the Russians gave the biggest sacrifice in WWII. About 20 million perished, also they destroyed 70% of Germans fighting force, and i might add that those were Wehrmacht's best soldiers. The US on the other hand did help the Russians with supplies and destroyed the Japanese fighting force almost single-handedly, and then in the same time dealt with the leftovers in Europe. If it wasn't for the US the Russians probably would have lost, if it wasn't for the Russians the invasions of Normandy and Sicily would not have happened or those soldiers would have been slaughtered if they did invade so i think it's foolish to discuss which country accomplished more. Fact is, that the defeat of the Nazis was a joint effort as i said before, and neither country could have defeated them on their own.

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Look at your own link and how many were produced prior to the Battle of Stalingrad. That's when they were using primarily American equipment.KC_Hokie

do you even have proof for this or are you just stringing us along with pipedreams ? or it could be the fact that Stalingrad was actually a turning point and a crucial part of the war in the east, they never used American equipment except from limited form.

your only coming up with random things like you did in a similar topic where i got into an arguement with yourself on system wars bout a Suda 51 game and you eventually conceded defeat because the amount of facts that ended up being built against you.

Because as someone who takes a keen interest in this threatre of WW2 and has read many books on the subject (though I'm no scholar btw ),its so frustrating to see some of the stuff your coming out with.

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Notice how Soviet GDP declined before going up in 1943. They weren't much better in overall production.KC_Hokie

In all honesty that was when Operation barbossa began which can be related to the slump in GDP as the main method of war actually deployed by the German's was a blitzkrieg tactic along with the Crimean front aswell can be atttributed to a slump in the GDP aswell considering it is a oil rich area in the Soviet union of course it would be likely GDP would go down if they were affected.

Anyway im up at 4.30am for work so im better off than sitting arguing with someone who changes their goalposts every post ;)

I should also add the Russians would be speaking German right now without the U.S.KC_Hokie

What the hell are you talking about

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

do you even have proof for this or are you just stringing us along with pipedreams ? or it could be the fact that Stalingrad was actually a turning point and a crucial part of the war in the east, they never used American equipment except from limited form.

your only coming up with random things like you did in a similar topic where i got into an arguement with yourself on system wars bout a Suda 51 game and you eventually conceded defeat because the amount of facts that ended up being built against you.

stvee101

Because as someone who takes a keen interest in this threatre of WW2 and has read many books on the subject (though I'm no scholar btw ),its so frustrating to see some of the stuff your coming out with.

You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

In all honesty that was when Operation barbossa began which can be related to the slump in GDP as the main method of war actually deployed by the German's was a blitzkrieg tactic along with the Crimean front aswell can be atttributed to a slump in the GDP aswell considering it is a oil rich area in the Soviet union of course it would be likely GDP would go down if they were affected.

Anyway im up at 4.30am for work so im better off than sitting arguing with someone who changes their goalposts every post ;)

UniverseIX

Without American equipment the Soviets would have lost their war with Germany.

And you all are acting like the Soviets losing to Germany was unrealistic and couldn't happen. Not very good at history are we?

Planes, tanks, artillery, trucks, locomotives, etc. were sent. So military supplies and equipment.

The Soviets initial armies were all crushed or surrendered along with their initial equipment.

The Soviets would have been defeated without U.S. military supplies and equipments. Historians agree on this. It's a no brainer.

KC_Hokie

Not all of the Soviet armies were crushed. There were still intact Soviet armies although they definitely were on the defensive. The highly trained/experienced Siberians under Zukhov were kicking the butts of the Japanese (and forced them into a ceasefire) while the Soviet armies out west were being slaughtered. As soon as Stalin was sure the Japanese wouldn't budge, he sent many of the Siberians out west.

The Germans also failed to destroy Russian industry which became their undoing. While the Russians tooled up their industry to turn out new aircraft and tank designs, the US Lend Lease program kind of helped hold the line until the new Russian designs were out in sufficient numbers. Lend Lease helped. But, I doubt it was as decisive as you make it out to be.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Planes, tanks, artillery, trucks, locomotives, etc. were sent. So military supplies and equipment.

The Soviets initial armies were all crushed or surrendered along with their initial equipment.

The Soviets would have been defeated without U.S. military supplies and equipments. Historians agree on this. It's a no brainer.

jun_aka_pekto

Not all of the Soviet armies were crushed. There were still intact Soviet armies although they definitely were on the defensive. The highly trained/experienced Siberians under Zukhov were kicking the butts of the Japanese (and forced them into a ceasefire) while the Soviet armies out west were being slaughtered. As soon as Stalin were sure the Japanese wouldn't budge, he sent many of the Siberians out west.

The Germans also failed to destroy Russian industry which became their undoing. While the Russians tooled up their industry to turn out new aircraft and tank designs, the US Lend Lease program kind of helped hold the line until the new Russian designs were out in sufficient numbers. Lend Lease helped. But, I doubt it was as decisive as you make it out to be.

[QUOTE="stvee101"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Look at your links at the number of tanks produced prior to the battle of Stalingrad. Then how many of those were destroyed in battle. It's a net negative. So they were dependent on foreign supplies until late 1942/ early 1943.KC_Hokie

Because as someone who takes a keen interest in this threatre of WW2 and has read many books on the subject (though I'm no scholar btw ),its so frustrating to see some of the stuff your coming out with.

You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes.

The soviets had about 20.000 -30.000 combat veichles out the outbreak of the war man! Roughly 5 times that of the German Heer.

Yes they were outdated and most were destroyed by the time of Stalingrad,but that cannon-fodder and the vastness of the Soviet Union helped give them breathing space so they could get their war production in order.

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Planes, tanks, artillery, trucks, locomotives, etc. were sent. So military supplies and equipment.

The Soviets initial armies were all crushed or surrendered along with their initial equipment.

The Soviets would have been defeated without U.S. military supplies and equipments. Historians agree on this. It's a no brainer.

KC_Hokie

Not all of the Soviet armies were crushed. There were still intact Soviet armies although they definitely were on the defensive. The highly trained/experienced Siberians under Zukhov were kicking the butts of the Japanese (and forced them into a ceasefire) while the Soviet armies out west were being slaughtered. As soon as Stalin were sure the Japanese wouldn't budge, he sent many of the Siberians out west.

The Germans also failed to destroy Russian industry which became their undoing. While the Russians tooled up their industry to turn out new aircraft and tank designs, the US Lend Lease program kind of helped hold the line until the new Russian designs were out in sufficient numbers. Lend Lease helped. But, I doubt it was as decisive as you make it out to be.

Yep and these divisions were vital in throwing back the Germans at Moscow in '41, when they were recalled to the west.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="stvee101"]See when you were studying for that bachelors degree did your lecturer not instill in you value of reliable and credible sources and your ability to back up any claims you make?

Because as someone who takes a keen interest in this threatre of WW2 and has read many books on the subject (though I'm no scholar btw ),its so frustrating to see some of the stuff your coming out with.

stvee101

You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes.

The soviets had about 20.000 -30.000 combat veichles out the outbreak of the war man! Roughly 5 times that of the German Heer.

Yes they were outdated and most were destroyed by the time of Stalingrad,but that cannon-fodder and the vastness of the Soviet Union helped give them breathing space so they could get their war production in order.

And you all are acting like the Soviets losing to Germany was unrealistic and couldn't happen.KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

Not all of the Soviet armies were crushed. There were still intact Soviet armies although they definitely were on the defensive. The highly trained/experienced Siberians under Zukhov were kicking the butts of the Japanese (and forced them into a ceasefire) while the Soviet armies out west were being slaughtered. As soon as Stalin were sure the Japanese wouldn't budge, he sent many of the Siberians out west.

The Germans also failed to destroy Russian industry which became their undoing. While the Russians tooled up their industry to turn out new aircraft and tank designs, the US Lend Lease program kind of helped hold the line until the new Russian designs were out in sufficient numbers. Lend Lease helped. But, I doubt it was as decisive as you make it out to be.

stvee101

Yep and these divisions were vital in trowing back the Germans at Moscow in '41, when they were recalled to the west.

[QUOTE="stvee101"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Count the number of Soviet tanks produced. Then count the number destroyed in battle up until mid-1942. It's a net loss and not even close. And that means they relied heavily on U.S. military supplies to sustain their tank force.

You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes.

KC_Hokie

The soviets had about 20.000 -30.000 combat veichles out the outbreak of the war man! Roughly 5 times that of the German Heer.

Yes they were outdated and most were destroyed by the time of Stalingrad,but that cannon-fodder and the vastness of the Soviet Union helped give them breathing space so they could get their war production in order.

NO THEY DID NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11 :x

This thread has gone waaaay of topic and is just too frustrating.Over and out.

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Planes, tanks, artillery, trucks, locomotives, etc. were sent. So military supplies and equipment.

The Soviets initial armies were all crushed or surrendered along with their initial equipment.

The Soviets would have been defeated without U.S. military supplies and equipments. Historians agree on this. It's a no brainer.

KC_Hokie

Not all of the Soviet armies were crushed. There were still intact Soviet armies although they definitely were on the defensive. The highly trained/experienced Siberians under Zukhov were kicking the butts of the Japanese (and forced them into a ceasefire) while the Soviet armies out west were being slaughtered. As soon as Stalin were sure the Japanese wouldn't budge, he sent many of the Siberians out west.

The Germans also failed to destroy Russian industry which became their undoing. While the Russians tooled up their industry to turn out new aircraft and tank designs, the US Lend Lease program kind of helped hold the line until the new Russian designs were out in sufficient numbers. Lend Lease helped. But, I doubt it was as decisive as you make it out to be.

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

My timing is off. Zhukov fought the Japanese before Operation Barbarossa. But, he definitely put the experience to good use when he moved out west to fight the Germans.

As for Putin's remark...... It may not sound good. But, it is true too many of us live beyond our means.

Putin is one those guys that you either see as a cocky idiot or some1 who tells it like hes sees it,

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]And you all are acting like the Soviets losing to Germany was unrealistic and couldn't happen.Stavrogin_

So when Putin call American's 'parasites' my instant thought it they would be speaking German without us.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

Not all of the Soviet armies were crushed. There were still intact Soviet armies although they definitely were on the defensive. The highly trained/experienced Siberians under Zukhov were kicking the butts of the Japanese (and forced them into a ceasefire) while the Soviet armies out west were being slaughtered. As soon as Stalin were sure the Japanese wouldn't budge, he sent many of the Siberians out west.

The Germans also failed to destroy Russian industry which became their undoing. While the Russians tooled up their industry to turn out new aircraft and tank designs, the US Lend Lease program kind of helped hold the line until the new Russian designs were out in sufficient numbers. Lend Lease helped. But, I doubt it was as decisive as you make it out to be.

jun_aka_pekto

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

My timing is off. Zhukov fought the Japanese before Operation Barbarossa. But, he definitely put the experience to good use when he moved out west to fight the Germans.

As for Putin's remark...... It may not sound good. But, it is true too many of us live beyond our means.

Putin should probably pick his words more carefully.

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]And you all are acting like the Soviets losing to Germany was unrealistic and couldn't happen.KC_Hokie

So when Putin call American's 'parasites' my instant thought it they would be speaking German without us.

On the other hand your remark about the Russians speaking German is wrong, because the same may go the other way. If the Russians were defeated, what makes you think that the US would have won without the Soviets? I have mentioned several times that most of the German casualties were on the eastern front, also their best soldiers died there. What makes you think that Allied victory was possible if the force destroyed on that front remained relatively intact?

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"] Yes, they could have lost. So could have the US if the Soviets were defeated and much of the German force that was destroyed on the Eastern front was intact. It's not like the US could have defeated the Nazis on their own, and neither could the Russians.

Stavrogin_

So when Putin call American's 'parasites' my instant thought it they would be speaking German without us.

And part of the reason why the U.S. declared war on the Germans after being attacked by the Japanese was to aid the Soviets.

So that doesn't change the notion the Soviets would be speaking German now without the U.S. aiding them early in the war starting nearly a year before we were even at war.

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]You're saying these 'amazing' Soviet armies were running around Siberia fighting Japanese? RIGHT!KC_Hokie

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

My timing is off. Zhukov fought the Japanese before Operation Barbarossa. But, he definitely put the experience to good use when he moved out west to fight the Germans.

As for Putin's remark...... It may not sound good. But, it is true too many of us live beyond our means.

Putin should probably pick his words more carefully.

The battle is relevant. The name Zhukov would become synonymous with the Soviets' fight against Germany. Oh. WW2 officially started in September 1939 near the end of the Battle of Khalkin Gol. The two years you're referring must be for Operation Barbarossa.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

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

My timing is off. Zhukov fought the Japanese before Operation Barbarossa. But, he definitely put the experience to good use when he moved out west to fight the Germans.

As for Putin's remark...... It may not sound good. But, it is true too many of us live beyond our means.

jun_aka_pekto

Putin should probably pick his words more carefully.

The battle is relevant. The name Zhukov would become synonymous with the Soviets' fight against Germany. Oh. WW2 officially started in September 1939 near the end of the Battle of Khalkin Gol. The two years you're referring must be for Operation Barbarossa.

I'm sure soldiers in all armies of WWII fought in WWI. Doesn't change anything.

How were U.S. supplies not decisive. Soviet production and GDP were on the decline until 1943. The agricultural parts of the Soviet Union were either captured or in the middle of war zones. The would have starved without us.

And part of the reason why the U.S. declared war on the Germans after being attacked by the Japanese was to aid the Soviets.

So that doesn't change the notion the Soviets would be speaking German now without the U.S. aiding them early in the war starting nearly a year before we were even at war.

KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]How were U.S. supplies not decisive. Soviet production and GDP were on the decline until 1943. The agricultural parts of the Soviet Union were either captured or in the middle of war zones. The would have starved without us.

And part of the reason why the U.S. declared war on the Germans after being attacked by the Japanese was to aid the Soviets.

So that doesn't change the notion the Soviets would be speaking German now without the U.S. aiding them early in the war starting nearly a year before we were even at war.

Stavrogin_

The U.S. didn't even start the Italy campaign until mid-1943. Had the Soviets been defeated the strategy would have changed. It's not like the U.S would have instantly lost the war or anything. There is a good chance the U.S. would have used a containment strategy on the Germans at that point. The strategy would have been different.

The Soviets would have lost without the U.S. There were no options for them other than fighting. No oceans to protect them. No other allies that could supply them.

The Soviets would have lost without the U.S.KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The Soviets would have lost without the U.S.Stavrogin_