Obama to send U.S. Troops to Moscow to March in Parade Celebrating Stalins Red Army.

[BolshevikHunter]

As much as I hate Stalin and his existence, we can't take away the fact that he did a great amount of Damage to Hitlers armies.

No matter what you think of him, he indeed saved a lot of lives on both sides.. (Not calling him a Hero, since he killed his fellow Countrymen.)

But even so, we were Allies, we were fighting a Common enemy, we fought and shed blood and defeated the Nazi and Hitler. The enemy of my enemy is my Friend.

Hitler was fighting once again a Two Front War. He had the English, American and French troops marching in from the West and the Red Army marching from the East.. That's overkill.

FYI: Not saying the US and USSR were "Friends".. So don't start calling me a hack or a troll.

I know i'm gonna get a lot heat for this.. But face it.. it's the truth. I bet you the soviets were thankful that we were fighting the Nazis in the West.

Stalin was responsible for three times the deaths Hitler was responsible for.

Hitler and Stalin were monsters, regardless of the number of deaths.

Oh shut the fuck up bro! I am so sick of you spin artists. Does the lives of certain peoples or races mean more than others? I bet your ass bleeds for those Africans in Sudan huh Jake?

Yeah but Stalin was a bigger monster than Hitler ever was. He murdered people, meaning shooting Men, Women and Children in the head, not to mention all the rapes.Those subhuman beasts even raped over 30,000 German Women and Young girls, and many Boys after invading Germany. 20 years later they were planting Nukes 90 miles off the coast of Florida in Cuba.

Hitler put them in camps and starved them to death once The Third Reich couldn't even feed their own Soldiers. Nothing nice about that, but nevertheless they fed their prisoners until they could no longer feed them. That is a fact.

How about Pol Pot in Cambodia? He probably topped them both in cruelty? Know who he was? What about Mao? Yet all we hear about is Hitler, Hitler, Hitler!!! Why is that do you suppose?

Hey Jake? Shouldn't we hear about the biggest monsters of the 20th Century? Or should we just hear about the biggest monsters that hurt those who have the power to report it day after day, after day? How about hearing about it all? ~ BH

 

[bodecea]

The funny thing about all this is that people are actually calling the russians an ally. That's just too friggin' funny.

Fact of the matter is, Putin's running the show over there. Medvedev's simply his lil' sock puppet. Any body who thinks that Putin considers us an ally, is outta their friggin' minds!

He's old school communist KGB, and that will never change. We can't trust that snake, and ever considering him an ally is batshit fucking crazy.

The Russians are our allies....despite what Cold War Wannabee silly attitude you may have.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Stalin was responsible for three times the deaths Hitler was responsible for.

Hitler and Stalin were monsters, regardless of the number of deaths.

Oh shut the fuck up bro! I am so sick of you spin artists. Does the lives of certain peoples or races mean more than others? I bet your ass bleeds for those Africans in Sudan huh Jake?

Yeah but Stalin was a bigger monster than Hitler ever was. He murdered people, meaning shooting Men, Women and Children in the head, not to mention all the rapes.Those subhuman beasts even raped over 30,000 German Women and Young girls, and many Boys after invading Germany. 20 years later they were planting Nukes 90 miles off the coast of Florida in Cuba.

Hitler put them in camps and starved them to death once The Third Reich couldn't even feed their own Soldiers. Nothing nice about that, but nevertheless they fed their prisoners until they could no longer feed them. That is a fact.

How about Pol Pot in Cambodia? He probably topped them both in cruelty? Know who he was? What about Mao? Yet all we hear about is Hitler, Hitler, Hitler!!! Why is that do you suppose?

Hey Jake? Shouldn't we hear about the biggest monsters of the 20th Century? Or should we just hear about the biggest monsters that hurt those who have the power to report it day after day, after day? How about hearing about it all? ~ BH

Did you get that you simply repeated in all those paragraphs exactly what I said in one sentence? Thanks for playing (the fool).

 

[WillowTree]

The funny thing about all this is that people are actually calling the russians an ally. That's just too friggin' funny.

Fact of the matter is, Putin's running the show over there. Medvedev's simply his lil' sock puppet. Any body who thinks that Putin considers us an ally, is outta their friggin' minds!

He's old school communist KGB, and that will never change. We can't trust that snake, and ever considering him an ally is batshit fucking crazy.

The Russians are our allies....despite what Cold War Wannabee silly attitude you may have.

Can't measure your brand of stupid.

 

[JakeStarkey]

no heart attacks allowed Jake Starkey but I agree with you.

of course you do.

 

[eagleseven]

The Russians are our allies....despite what Cold War Wannabee silly attitude you may have.

The enemy of our enemy is our friend.

China is a greater threat to Russia than to the US.

 

[ski87]

throwin the bullshit flag on this

 

[Wicked Jester]

The funny thing about all this is that people are actually calling the russians an ally. That's just too friggin' funny.

Fact of the matter is, Putin's running the show over there. Medvedev's simply his lil' sock puppet. Any body who thinks that Putin considers us an ally, is outta their friggin' minds!

He's old school communist KGB, and that will never change. We can't trust that snake, and ever considering him an ally is batshit fucking crazy.

The Russians are our allies....despite what Cold War Wannabee silly attitude you may have.

Yeah, keep talking Butch. Your abject stupidity is beyond entertaining.

 

[Hugidwyn]

Russia does not need to share the victory with the Allied troops and honor them in Moscow as a victorious warrior. Moreover, the share of participation in the victory over Nazi Germany, the Americans were only 16%. Their representatives are welcome to our troops and from the stands. No more than it would be recalled that before the current NATO troops were "paraded" in Moscow only once, and they went as a column of prisoners of war. In such a situation in Moscow in the direction of American "winners" will fly spitting and appropriate gestures middle finger.

 

[Tommy Lucchese]

I like it.

It's the equivalent of letting the Russian Army parade through the Mall in DC.

This is conceivably quite the diplomatic coup, especially given our rather frosty relations with Russia.

 

[Ravi]

As much as I hate Stalin and his existence, we can't take away the fact that he did a great amount of Damage to Hitlers armies.

No matter what you think of him, he indeed saved a lot of lives on both sides.. (Not calling him a Hero, since he killed his fellow Countrymen.)

But even so, we were Allies, we were fighting a Common enemy, we fought and shed blood and defeated the Nazi and Hitler. The enemy of my enemy is my Friend.

Hitler was fighting once again a Two Front War. He had the English, American and French troops marching in from the West and the Red Army marching from the East.. That's overkill.

FYI: Not saying the US and USSR were "Friends".. So don't start calling me a hack or a troll.

I know i'm gonna get a lot heat for this.. But face it.. it's the truth. I bet you the soviets were thankful that we were fighting the Nazis in the West.

Stalin was responsible for three times the deaths Hitler was responsible for.

that's only because Hitler was stopped.

Yes. And they keep forgetting, Hitler was a threat to America in a way that the Soviets never were.

 

[Xenophon]

There are a lot of misconceptions about the Soviet armed forces in this thread, lets start with teh 1945 situation:

The Soviets were nearly out of manpower in 1945, they had lost so many men they could not possibly fight a two front war, which is why Stalin refused to commit vs Japan until the germans were defeated, and he could move his army east to deal with it.

Next, the Soviet divisions would have suffered severly dealing with the US forces, based on a very simply forumla. Whenever the Soviets faced elite German formations such as SS divisions, they took enormous losses, usually 4 or 5 to 1 vs the Germans with dealing with them. US forces wore down the same elite units into almost nothing while suffering only light casualties.

How can this be, you might ask, the answer is in doctrone and approach. the Soviets relied on mass numbers of men backed by artillery and tactical air support, but the ground froces did the bulk of the killing. The US army on the other hand relied on mobilty and airpower, and delt with enemy ground forces through FIREPOWER. Overwhelimg artillery and airpower, killing anything that moved. The Soviets could not match this on their best day, they had nothing to combat weapons like the US 155MM Cannon, which BTW was often mounted on a tank for increased mobility.

In airpower its far worse for the Soviets, they fought a low altitude war, usually below 5,000 feet with no heavy equipment. The standard fighter in 45 was the Yak 9 and teh Lavochkin LA-7. Both of these types attacked American airpower over Yugoslavia (the Soviets cliamed it was a 'mistake'), taking on the US 15th Airforce planes. The US forces were armed with the P-51D Mustang. In one such mixup, the Soviets lost 19 fighters, and managed to shoot down exactly one Mustang. In short, the Soviets would have quickly lost control over the air in a war with the USA, and would have had to deal with what the germans also couldn't deal with, US airpower interdicting their every move and destroying their logistics base behind them.

The Soviets would have had to have fallen back to their prewar borders in short order, as the countryside would have been hostile (The Poles and germans would have flocked to the Americans in such a war).

The next factor is, although the Germans could not get at the Soviet factories in the Urals and the Baku oil fields, American strategic bombers could. Flying from Persia the US bombers would make it a short hop to the heart of Soviet industry, and since the Russians lack a high altitude fighter, they would be as helpless as teh Japanese were against teh Superforts.

So stop ragging on Patton, he was right, he knew exactly what he was talking about, it was politics not operational problems that prevented a US/Soviet confrontation, not fear of the Soviet military.

 

[Xenophon]

Yes. And they keep forgetting, Hitler was a threat to America in a way that the Soviets never were.

The Soviets were a far greater threat to the USA then the germans ever were.

The Soviets wanted to undermine the entire world and turn it into a communist world, they funded these activities for years, calling it the commintern.

Nazi Germany would have left America alone had we not pushed our way into the war.

 

[Ravi]

Yes. And they keep forgetting, Hitler was a threat to America in a way that the Soviets never were.

The Soviets were a far greater threat to the USA then the germans ever were.

The Soviets wanted to undermine the entire world and turn it into a communist world, they funded these activities for years, calling it the commintern.

Nazi Germany would have left America alone had we not pushed our way into the war.

Wrong. The Soviets were doomed from the beginning by their unworkable economy. They were never an actual threat to us...they just couldn't get their act together.

If Hitler managed to control Europe he would have eventually turned his eyes across the pond.

 

[Xenophon]

Yes. And they keep forgetting, Hitler was a threat to America in a way that the Soviets never were.

The Soviets were a far greater threat to the USA then the germans ever were.

The Soviets wanted to undermine the entire world and turn it into a communist world, they funded these activities for years, calling it the commintern.

Nazi Germany would have left America alone had we not pushed our way into the war.

Wrong. The Soviets were doomed from the beginning by their unworkable economy. They were never an actual threat to us...they just couldn't get their act together.

If Hitler managed to control Europe he would have eventually turned his eyes across the pond.

Sorry kiddo, but you are repeating Stalin's propaganda.

Adolph never wanted the west, he wanted 'lebensraum' in the east.

He didn't even want to fight the British, and offred them peace, even would have given back France if the Brits would have agreed, to end teh war.

Our Communist friends on the other hand activily tried for 90 years to undermine the west, their 'economy' would have been fine without the west, as they would not have had to keep an enourmous conventional military.

 

[rightwinger]

There are a lot of misconceptions about the Soviet armed forces in this thread, lets start with teh 1945 situation:

The Soviets were nearly out of manpower in 1945, they had lost so many men they could not possibly fight a two front war, which is why Stalin refused to commit vs Japan until the germans were defeated, and he could move his army east to deal with it.

Next, the Soviet divisions would have suffered severly dealing with the US forces, based on a very simply forumla. Whenever the Soviets faced elite German formations such as SS divisions, they took enormous losses, usually 4 or 5 to 1 vs the Germans with dealing with them. US forces wore down the same elite units into almost nothing while suffering only light casualties.

How can this be, you might ask, the answer is in doctrone and approach. the Soviets relied on mass numbers of men backed by artillery and tactical air support, but the ground froces did the bulk of the killing. The US army on the other hand relied on mobilty and airpower, and delt with enemy ground forces through FIREPOWER. Overwhelimg artillery and airpower, killing anything that moved. The Soviets could not match this on their best day, they had nothing to combat weapons like the US 155MM Cannon, which BTW was often mounted on a tank for increased mobility.

In airpower its far worse for the Soviets, they fought a low altitude war, usually below 5,000 feet with no heavy equipment. The standard fighter in 45 was the Yak 9 and teh Lavochkin LA-7. Both of these types attacked American airpower over Yugoslavia (the Soviets cliamed it was a 'mistake'), taking on the US 15th Airforce planes. The US forces were armed with the P-51D Mustang. In one such mixup, the Soviets lost 19 fighters, and managed to shoot down exactly one Mustang. In short, the Soviets would have quickly lost control over the air in a war with the USA, and would have had to deal with what the germans also couldn't deal with, US airpower interdicting their every move and destroying their logistics base behind them.

The Soviets would have had to have fallen back to their prewar borders in short order, as the countryside would have been hostile (The Poles and germans would have flocked to the Americans in such a war).

The next factor is, although the Germans could not get at the Soviet factories in the Urals and the Baku oil fields, American strategic bombers could. Flying from Persia the US bombers would make it a short hop to the heart of Soviet industry, and since the Russians lack a high altitude fighter, they would be as helpless as teh Japanese were against teh Superforts.

So stop ragging on Patton, he was right, he knew exactly what he was talking about, it was politics not operational problems that prevented a US/Soviet confrontation, not fear of the Soviet military.

Its all moot.

We had nukes at the end of the war and they didn't. Yes, we could have invaded, yes we could have won.
Then what?
Winning the peace is still harder. By 1945, the US was tired of war as was most of the world. Entering into a prolonged war with the Soviets would have cost a million soldiers for no benefit.
Compared to the Soviets, the US suffered little in WWII. Invading the USSR would have brought the suffering to the US and would not have been tolerated by a country tired of war

 

[Xenophon]

Its all moot.

We had nukes at the end of the war and they didn't. Yes, we could have invaded, yes we could have won.
Then what?
Winning the peace is still harder. By 1945, the US was tired of war as was most of the world. Entering into a prolonged war with the Soviets would have cost a million soldiers for no benefit.
Compared to the Soviets, the US suffered little in WWII. Invading the USSR would have brought the suffering to the US and would not have been tolerated by a country tired of war

I don't disagree with that.

I am pointing out that the Soviets were not the world beaters a lot of people seem to think they are.

Had the US used Nukes and fought that war, its likely a new Russian civil war would have erupted, Ukraine would have declared its indepenance and the Soviets would have broken up, after millions of Soviets and former Soviet citizens fought it out.

 

[skookerasbil]

Obama's advisors have the political IQ of a small soap dish. Only the k00ks will love this move.

If true, this is good news............more fodder for independents to say tho themselves, "WTF??!!!!"

 

[NYcarbineer]

For the first time ever a United Stated President is sending U.S. Soldiers to march in a Parade in Red Square May 9th celebrating Communist Joseph Stalin and his Red Army’s victory in reaching Berlin 65 years ago. I don’t like this idea one bit even though Russia is not Communist anymore because of Ronald Reagans tough stance against the USSR which led to their downfall.

Funny you should mention Reagan and honoring WWII soldiers.

Here's Reagan honoring S.S. Troops, Bitburg, Germany:

Obama honors our past allies; Reagan honors our past enemies. A fittingly symbolic contrast.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Its all moot.

We had nukes at the end of the war and they didn't. Yes, we could have invaded, yes we could have won.
Then what?
Winning the peace is still harder. By 1945, the US was tired of war as was most of the world. Entering into a prolonged war with the Soviets would have cost a million soldiers for no benefit.
Compared to the Soviets, the US suffered little in WWII. Invading the USSR would have brought the suffering to the US and would not have been tolerated by a country tired of war

I don't disagree with that.

I am pointing out that the Soviets were not the world beaters a lot of people seem to think they are.

Had the US used Nukes and fought that war, its likely a new Russian civil war would have erupted, Ukraine would have declared its indepenance and the Soviets would have broken up, after millions of Soviets and former Soviet citizens fought it out.

But we would not have fought that war for the reasons I gave way back in this thread. And, no, we would not have won it if we had been foolish enough to try it.