Russian tanks exhibited at entrance to Sevastopol, Ukraine.

Xcathdra
You seem to be ignoring the part Romania and Hungary played in assisting Russian against the Nazis. Russia had issues up to the DDay invasion, at which point enough pressure was placed on the western front, allowing Russia breathing room and the ability to advance, as opposed to holding the line.

Romania and Hungary played only a small part - and probably the most important part was the Romanians failing to hold against operation Uranus!

You should have a look at how far the Russians advanced from Stalingrad westwards until June 1944 before you suggest they were just "holding the line" - they had "liberated" pretty much all of Ukraine south of the Pripet marshes and had crossed the Dnepr into Bessarabia - that's over 600 miles from Stalingrad where they had been 18 months earlier.........

But, again, the challenge remains the claim that Russia saved the Us during WWII. Facts don't support that claim.

Indeed - no-one was going to invade or defeat the US.

What Russia did was be the basis on which the allies could win WW2.

Xcathdra
you stated Russia saved the US during WWII. Since the facts don't support that, his question was valid. Your response did not support your statement. When, exactly during WWII, did Russia save the US?

If Russia hadn't of taken on the majority of the Nazi's military power, then US would have been driven into the sea.

But this wouldn't have even eventuated because Nazi Germany would have focused on Britain before 1944.

the world owes Russia a hell of a lot. They suffered and they fought harder than anyone else did.

Am I too much or this is a possibility... we are watching the beginning of WW3 ?

Lets suppose Russia enter the stage (Ukraine) to secure it, will we see NATO coming to the scene also ? If both happen, isnt this the beginning of WW3 ? USA is deep in economy trouble, what else is better than start another war to help the economy and boost national morale at the same time ?

So, are we looking at WW3 boot up ?
All in all, I see West Ukraine and East Ukraine forming.

Ufff... what an oaf john mc cain is.
Not good going

Aloysius the Gaul
Indeed - no-one was going to invade or defeat the US.

Japan came to that conclusion before Pearl Harbor. They dismissed Yamamoto's argument and attacked anyways.

Aloysius the Gaul
What Russia did was be the basis on which the allies could win WW2.

Not really...

Hitler's actions are what caused the defeat of Nazi Germany. Supply lines to the Soviet union from the US / UK is what allowed Russia to keep their head right at the water level.

The strategy developed by the allies had to take Russia into account, and there was enormous pressure on the west to take actions that alleviated pressure on the Soviet Union. Secondly, had Hitler not invaded the Soviet Union when they did, its entirely possible the Soviet Union would have remained out of the war long enough for Hitler to achieve his goals against the UK, turning the entire might of the Nazi war machine on the Soviet Union.

With pressure from Germany on one side, and the eventual pressure of Japan on the other, the Soviet Union would have fallen. Without supplies from the US, the Soviet Union would not have survived as long as they had.

To claim the Soviet Union saved the US during WWII is without merit and not supported by facts.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Nonetheless without the USSR "the West" was not going to defeat Hitler.

Agit8dChop

Xcathdra
you stated Russia saved the US during WWII. Since the facts don't support that, his question was valid. Your response did not support your statement. When, exactly during WWII, did Russia save the US?

If Russia hadn't of taken on the majority of the Nazi's military power, then US would have been driven into the sea.

But this wouldn't have even eventuated because Nazi Germany would have focused on Britain before 1944.

the world owes Russia a hell of a lot. They suffered and they fought harder than anyone else did.

Actually no, the US would not have been driven into the Sea. The survival of England proved that point even before the US became involved in WWII.

Hitler's mistake in invading the Soviet Union was the reason they lost. Had they not invaded the Soviet Union, Stalin would have kept the status quo while building his forces for an eventual war, as both sides knew the political systems were not compatible with each other.

As for who owes what to Russia, Ill buy into that, but not to the extent people are trying to make it out to be.

Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Nonetheless without the USSR "the West" was not going to defeat Hitler.

Sure they would have... Over reach on the part of the Nazis coupled with Hitler's refusal to remain entrenched in reality was their downfall. The inability of the SS to work with the regular Army was another problem that was ever present. The regular army had issues all on their own with the manner in which Hitler treated not only enemies, but civilian populations.

To ignore the part German military officers played in the eventual downfall of Hitler / Nazi Germany is disturbing.

Hitler would have been defeated, no if ands or buts about it...

reply to post by Xcathdra


The Soviets traditionally downplayed the benefits of allied Lend Lease, but there are some interesting sites around the place now that give a bit more credit from their side - usually Americans and Brits claim the USSR was "propped up" by LL - which is also nonsense.

Russian tanker talks about using US & UK vehicles
Lend Lease Airforce

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I don't agree with the statement that the Soviet Union saved the US during WWII. The facts do not support that claim. The comment that the west would never have defeated Hitler cannot be supported either. Attempting to give credit to one group while ignoring the assistance of others does a disservice to those groups as well.

Fast forward to today - People can make all the claims they want, however if a direct confrontation breaks out between Russia and the west, Russia is not going to win the war using conventional means. That is based on fact via their economy, their trade relationships with nations that are no longer a member of the Soviet union / Eastern Bloc. Their decline in military after the fall of the Soviet union and their current process of rebuilding and upgrading their military, which lags behind the west in terms of capabilities and technology.

Their inability to project force (same issues that China currently has). Their loss of resources / strategic infrastructure that resulted after the collapse / break up of the Soviet Union.

The cold war did its damage... It resulted in the fall of communism in the Soviet Union. That resulted in reforms, to the extent that the Russian people got a taste of freedom, only to see Putin begin to strip it away again. I don't think the Russian people are going to just accept the return of the Soviet Union and its old ways.

This is evident with the protests, individuals speaking out against Putin and his government. Things that rarely if ever occurred during the heydays of the Soviet Union are now present and are not going away.

I think i's safe to say that World War II was a combined effort that took everything both sides had to carry as long as it did. The Allies had public releases for either success or major defeat equally ready to go after Normandy. I would say if Hitlers Germany had been free to be focused to the Western side of 'Fortress Europe', it would have been a very different war and possibly a different outcome.

Likewise, if the Allies weren't on the southern front and in England massing to cross back onto the Continent, Russia may have had a much worse outcome themselves. After all, the Battle of Stalingrad ran right into 1943. Russia was clobbered hard and the Germans were about as merciful to the Russians they took on the way in as the Russians would prove to be with Germans, pushing them all the way back to Berlin.

It was only possible, in my opinion, because Allies all worked together. Any of the major players who broke off to run by their own agenda would have put the outcome at risk. I think history shows is was plenty close at a few key points. Not always key points the people at the time recognized that way, either.

seeker1963
reply to post by asen_y2k

 

Seems to me that Putin is calling Susan Rice's bluff!

How stupid of her to try to back Putin into a corner! If this is an example of diplomacy, then no wonder the world is screwed!

I thought she was banned from Sunday talk shows. -chuckle-

Rice doesn't have a position to bluff from, unless you consider (sexual innuendo self-edited) a position. Rice and her limp-noodle boss are well aware Putin doesn't require Viagra to put on a show.

There's nothing to stop Russia from doing anything they want in Ukraine. I hope the EU understands. It's not America's problem.

Taking a leap to suggest splitting the country in two to avoid inevitable bloodshed, unless all is calm on the eastern front.

Czechoslovakia 1968,all over again.I guess the tanks will be along shortly.Saddens me because my grandmother's family are Ukrainian.Who used to be callled"White Russia".

Aloysius the Gaul

Elathan
Resources given to Russia in WWII

Maybe it's the Russians who would not have beaten back the Germans without US, UK, and Canada???

they might have taken another 2-3 years and lost another 10 million people....but Germany could no more conquer Russia than Japan could beat the USA - remember most of that aid was not present when the Germans were stopped in 1941-42 - after that it certainly hastened the defeat of Germany - but lend lease was not what stopped Germany from defeating Russia.

The dreaded Russian winter more than anything stopped the German advance.Just like it did to Napoleon's troops.And I suspect anyone invading Russia in future.

Whenever the western media mentions Ukraine's choices of either "the Russians or the EU"?

The "EU" is really NATO. So what choice is the west really giving the Russians? Our way or the Hiway…

of course they will respond. Can't hardly blame them either.

Same situation is developing there that has developed in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. It begins like this (Ukraine) but ends up in full out and out. I won't mention the other hot spots.

I reads somewhere that the "protesters" raided a base in the Ukraine for rifles and ammo. This is only beginning.

Its a play for world dominance and the coals are getting hotter.

I don't know this article may be jumping the gun, no pun intended. There's already so much propaganda flying. There's at least four different factions, pro Russian, pro European, with two of the four being for total independence... Anarchists on one side of that, Nazi's on the other. What a goddamn mess. Russia, the US and Europe having been fueling different factions. The Prime Minister has been impeached, dude was terrible but what's gonna replace him? Normally I'm all for seeing a corrupt leader run out... I just can't figure this one out.

At the very least it seems this is the beginning of another cold war between the US and Russia. At worst, is this the spark we've all been fearing? No not the global revolution one, the WW3 one. Food prices are skyrocketing all over the planet except the US where they are crawling upward. Everywhere there has been unrest to this degree has been preceded by too many people not being able to buy food and meet their basic needs. Yet our politicians think it's wise to decrease food security here in the US at this time?

Something is really nagging me and there's too many possibilities as to what. So we just continue holding our breath wondering if this is it.

reply to post by TDawg61


Hmm you just made an alarm go off in my head. Russia is getting warmer. Not just that one part where Sochi is where it's normal to be warm in winter.

reply to post by dlbott


I'm pretty sure the Ukrainian military will welcome the Ruskies with open arms, and they will work together to try and help calm the situation the best they can.


Russia and the Ukrain has a pretty good relationship.

Way better than anyone in the west.