Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|4719|...

Shahter wrote:

have i ever argued with you on that? the numbers are there. now what?
and?
Then why were you continually talking about western propaganda in relation to the war? I distinctly remember you saying that Stalin's victims weren't nearly as numerous as 'western historians' would lead me to believe. Or I must be turning schizo.

Shahter wrote:

bullshit. people, if anything, were the most crucial resource for ussr, because they couldn't import slaves from africa and didn't have colonies. you are also forgetting the fact that ussr ran a planned economy which required everything accounted for thoroughly. if anything, soviets documented everything a lot better that anyone else.
Well you see people who died in gulags or other non-related deportations / executions weren't exactly documented all that much because it doesn't serve much of a purpose.
inane little opines
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+288|5495|Moscow, Russia

Shocking wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Shocking wrote:

The USSR was heavily reliant on western supplies; materials, weapons, vehicles, in enormous numbers.
about 5% of total stuff produced and used in the war by ussr. an enormous part!
Uh, much of the Soviet logistics relied on US military trucks, because you know, they produced over 15x as many trucks as you did. It allowed you to move your supplies and people around effectively. Pretty important I would say.
have you ever looked at the map of ussr of ww2 time? do it and tell me if you see many roads there. then research specifics of russian climate.

still, i said in this very thread, that many lend lease stuff was very crucial for ussr' war effort, especially in the beginning of the war. aluminium, sheet metal, rail road rails (this is the actual means of transportation which was used the most), those trucks you mentioned - nobody denies that that helped. still, 5%.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Macbeth
Banned
+2,443|4305

Jay wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

I didn't say evil. I don't believe in evil. I'm saying their overal impact on their respective people makes Hitler much worse than Stalin and Mao. That's all.
Would you have rather lived in West Germany or the USSR after the end of WWII?
lol This is really stupid. It's obvious that it's stupid because you had to say West Germany instead of Germany.
Macbeth
Banned
+2,443|4305

I keep reading the title as the The Huge Modern Warfare 2 discussion thread.
BALTINS
ಠ_ಠ
+37|5206|Latvia

Macbeth wrote:

Jay wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

I didn't say evil. I don't believe in evil. I'm saying their overal impact on their respective people makes Hitler much worse than Stalin and Mao. That's all.
Would you have rather lived in West Germany or the USSR after the end of WWII?
lol This is really stupid. It's obvious that it's stupid because you had to say West Germany instead of Germany.
You do know there were two?
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|5530|Nårvei

If anyone has a onesided view of anything this thread shows that to be you Shahter ...

Shahter wrote:

let's look at some heroic deeds by the west which allowed them to ascend to their current position of "enlightened and progressive", shall we?

"holy wars"
racism.
slavery.
genocide.
i dunno how to call what they did in the colonies in one word. atrocities? bloody mess?

i can't be assed to actually go look for fancier words in my dictionary, so i'll leave it like this.

what do your "morals" would have say about all that? i, personally, find that a lot more abhorrent than what stalin did, because the west didn't do any of that out of desperation and surrounded by enemies - only for wealth, power and influence. you killed millions, pillaged the whole nations, destroyed the whole cultures, and now you point a finger at the man who, among other things, led his nation to victory over your most horrible creation - the nazism.

hello there.
How does this have anything to do with Stalins atrocities during the war? We are discussing WW2 in this thread, not slavery in the US, not holy wars, not genocide or racism before or after WW2
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4078|London, England

Macbeth wrote:

Jay wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

I didn't say evil. I don't believe in evil. I'm saying their overal impact on their respective people makes Hitler much worse than Stalin and Mao. That's all.
Would you have rather lived in West Germany or the USSR after the end of WWII?
lol This is really stupid. It's obvious that it's stupid because you had to say West Germany instead of Germany.
Right, because East Germany was shredded by the USSR. And it's not stupid because you know which you would pick. To say that the USSR was better off because it was rapidly industrialized by Stalin is a complete joke. Would you say the people were happier before or after? Are the few factories enough to justify the millions of dead? The famines? I know you don't give a fuck about human life, but surely you can understand happiness? Happiness does not include living in a world where you have to worry about your neighbor offering you up to the Cheka for another pound of flour. We tend to judge our leaders by the 'what have you done for me lately?' creedo. Well, Stalin brought his people fear and death. The factories don't provide an offset for even one of those deaths.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Macbeth
Banned
+2,443|4305

BALTINS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Jay wrote:


Would you have rather lived in West Germany or the USSR after the end of WWII?
lol This is really stupid. It's obvious that it's stupid because you had to say West Germany instead of Germany.
You do know there were two?
That's my point.

He's asking which would be a better place to live in the U.S.S.R. or West Germany in an attempt to make Hitler's affect on Germany not look that bad. But it's stupid because thee aree 2 Germanies as this point east and west. It's split up. You're not going to refute what I said about Germany with an example that ignores the fact the country is split in two.
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|4719|...

Shahter wrote:

have you ever looked at the map of ussr of ww2 time? do it and tell me if you see many roads there. then research specifics of russian climate.

still, i said in this very thread, that many lend lease stuff was very crucial for ussr' war effort, especially in the beginning of the war. aluminium, sheet metal, rail road rails (this is the actual means of transportation which was used the most), those trucks you mentioned - nobody denies that that helped. still, 5%.
The point of me stating that is that it came during a crucial point in time. The supplies that entered the USSR during '41-42 undoubtedly made a large difference in favor of the USSR. Besides, the "5%" figure is really a myth intended to downplay the importance of the aid. And here I can point to USSR propaganda which was intended to do so, downplay it - again, after the USSR fell, Russian documents painted a whole other picture. In actual fact much more than 5% of the total war effort (so including everything; not just vehicles but food and so on) was delivered to the USSR.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-06-23 05:55:34)

inane little opines
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+288|5495|Moscow, Russia

Shocking wrote:

Shahter wrote:

have i ever argued with you on that? the numbers are there. now what?
and?
Then why were you continually talking about western propaganda in relation to the war?
because there is a western propaganda in relation to the war. they would be nuts not to take the opportunity they have today when we have fucking pussies for leadership here in russia to try and re-wise the outcome of ww2 in their favor and shift the blame.

I distinctly remember you saying that Stalin's victims weren't nearly as numerous as 'western historians' would lead me to believe. Or I must be turning schizo.
i distinctly remember numerous people on these forums saying with absolute certainty, even presenting sources, that stalin killed about as many people as hitler. i don't think you were among them, but still it's complete bollocks even if you only look at numbers and disregard all the specifics of the time and situation.

Shahter wrote:

bullshit. people, if anything, were the most crucial resource for ussr, because they couldn't import slaves from africa and didn't have colonies. you are also forgetting the fact that ussr ran a planned economy which required everything accounted for thoroughly. if anything, soviets documented everything a lot better that anyone else.
Well you see people who died in gulags or other non-related deportations / executions weren't exactly documented all that much because it doesn't serve much of a purpose.
what? you know what would happen in ussr if you destroyed one its most important resources and didn't document that? i bet you can guess.

Last edited by Shahter (2011-06-23 05:58:49)

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
BALTINS
ಠ_ಠ
+37|5206|Latvia

Macbeth wrote:

BALTINS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:


lol This is really stupid. It's obvious that it's stupid because you had to say West Germany instead of Germany.
You do know there were two?
That's my point.

He's asking which would be a better place to live in the U.S.S.R. or West Germany in an attempt to make Hitler's affect on Germany not look that bad. But it's stupid because thee aree 2 Germanies as this point east and west. It's split up. You're not going to refute what I said about Germany with an example that ignores the fact the country is split in two.
Wasn't this about Stalin, not Hitler? West Germany became a real industrial powerhouse, while they had to build a wall in Berlin so that people stop fleeing the glorious East and it's awesome factories and bread lines.
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|4719|...

Shahter wrote:

i distinctly remember numerous people on these forums saying with absolute certainty, even presenting sources, that stalin killed about as many people as hitler. i don't think you were among them, but still it's complete bollocks even if you only look at numbers and disregard all the specifics of the time and situation.
I guess that clears the whole situation up because he didn't.
inane little opines
Macbeth
Banned
+2,443|4305

BALTINS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

BALTINS wrote:

You do know there were two?
That's my point.

He's asking which would be a better place to live in the U.S.S.R. or West Germany in an attempt to make Hitler's affect on Germany not look that bad. But it's stupid because thee aree 2 Germanies as this point east and west. It's split up. You're not going to refute what I said about Germany with an example that ignores the fact the country is split in two.
Wasn't this about Stalin, not Hitler? West Germany became a real industrial powerhouse, while they had to build a wall in Berlin so that people stop fleeing the glorious East and it's awesome factories and bread lines.
No, my initial post was taking offense to the whole "Stalin = Hitler" thing John was going on about. The fact that one half of the country became a industrial powerhouse doesn't refute my point that Hitler was more of disaster than Stalin. After Stalin The U.S.S.R. was better off economically and militarily. After Hitler Germany was split into two, one half getting orders from Moscow.

"Stalin was as bad as Hitler because half of Germany did well after WW2, which would you rather live in? The half of Germany that wasn't occupied by the USSR or the country that swallowed half of Germany and most of eastern Europe? Yeah that's what I thought"

That's why his question was retarded.

Last edited by Macbeth (2011-06-23 06:08:48)

Cheeky_Ninja06
Member
+52|5452|Cambridge, England
Wait. You are arguing that sending trucks was the equivalent to 5 million soldiers?

wut.
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|4719|...

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Wait. You are arguing that sending trucks was the equivalent to 5 million soldiers?

wut.
lend lease food supplies alone were able to feed an army of 10 million for 4 years.
inane little opines
BALTINS
ಠ_ಠ
+37|5206|Latvia

Macbeth wrote:

BALTINS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:


That's my point.

He's asking which would be a better place to live in the U.S.S.R. or West Germany in an attempt to make Hitler's affect on Germany not look that bad. But it's stupid because thee aree 2 Germanies as this point east and west. It's split up. You're not going to refute what I said about Germany with an example that ignores the fact the country is split in two.
Wasn't this about Stalin, not Hitler? West Germany became a real industrial powerhouse, while they had to build a wall in Berlin so that people stop fleeing the glorious East and it's awesome factories and bread lines.
No, my initial post was taking offense to the whole "Stalin = Hitler" thing John was going on about. The fact that one half of the country became a industrial powerhouse doesn't refute my point that Hitler was more of disaster than Stalin. After Stalin The U.S.S.R. was better off economically and militarily. After Hitler Germany was split into two, one half getting orders from Moscow.

"Stalin was as bad as Hitler because half of Germany did well after WW2, which would you rather live in? The half of Germany that wasn't occupied by the USSR or the country that swallowed half of Germany and most of eastern Europe? Yeah that's what I thought"

That's why his question was retarded.
But Hitler lost the war. And I agree, with Jay, hitler = stalin.
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+288|5495|Moscow, Russia

Shocking wrote:

The point of me stating that is that it came during a crucial point in time.
not really. the defense of moscow, the most important battle that stopped blitz krieg, have been accomplished almost exclusively with equipment produced in ussr using local supplies.

The supplies that entered the USSR during '41-42 undoubtedly made a large difference in favor of the USSR. Besides, the "5%" figure is really a myth intended to downplay the importance of the aid. And here I can point to USSR propaganda which was intended to do so, downplay it - again, after the USSR fell, Russian documents painted a whole other picture. In actual fact much more than 5% of the total war effort (so including everything; not just vehicles but food and so on) was delivered to the USSR.
it's reasonable to doubt the "5%" figure i guess, but, as i said, everything was being documented very thoroughly.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|5530|Nårvei

because there is a western propaganda in relation to the war. they would be nuts not to take the opportunity they have today when we have fucking pussies for leadership here in russia to try and re-wise the outcome of ww2 in their favor and shift the blame.
Again you draw conclusions out of thin air ... like I have said numerous times already, the last decade atleast the books about these events are more objective than ever before, the credibility of the authors/historians are not challenged as writers of one sided opinions, calling it propaganda just shows how little you are updated on the issue ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+288|5495|Moscow, Russia

Shocking wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Wait. You are arguing that sending trucks was the equivalent to 5 million soldiers?

wut.
lend lease food supplies alone were able to feed an army of 10 million for 4 years.
that's a little exaggerated, but mostly true.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+288|5495|Moscow, Russia

Varegg wrote:

because there is a western propaganda in relation to the war. they would be nuts not to take the opportunity they have today when we have fucking pussies for leadership here in russia to try and re-wise the outcome of ww2 in their favor and shift the blame.
Again you draw conclusions out of thin air ... like I have said numerous times already, the last decade atleast the books about these events are more objective than ever before, the credibility of the authors/historians are not challenged as writers of one sided opinions, calling it propaganda just shows how little you are updated on the issue ...
i admit i only read bits and pieces of modern western historians - my poor english doesn't really help in that regard. still, i watch news, and i know how shit works with so-called "freedom of speech". the assholes voted on katyn not so long ago and decided to take the blame for it. you know, not historians, and there wasn't any real investigation, they just voted on the matter. "yeah, okay, stalin did it". out of thin air my ass.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+288|5495|Moscow, Russia

Varegg wrote:

If anyone has a onesided view of anything this thread shows that to be you Shahter ...

How does this have anything to do with Stalins atrocities during the war?
atrocities? during the war?

We are discussing WW2 in this thread, not slavery in the US, not holy wars, not genocide or racism before or after WW2
it wasn't me who brought "history and morals" into this.

Last edited by Shahter (2011-06-23 06:40:22)

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Cheeky_Ninja06
Member
+52|5452|Cambridge, England

Shahter wrote:

Varegg wrote:

because there is a western propaganda in relation to the war. they would be nuts not to take the opportunity they have today when we have fucking pussies for leadership here in russia to try and re-wise the outcome of ww2 in their favor and shift the blame.
Again you draw conclusions out of thin air ... like I have said numerous times already, the last decade atleast the books about these events are more objective than ever before, the credibility of the authors/historians are not challenged as writers of one sided opinions, calling it propaganda just shows how little you are updated on the issue ...
i admit i only read bits and pieces of modern western historians - my poor english doesn't really help in that regard. still, i watch news, and i know how shit works with so-called "freedom of speech". the assholes voted on katyn not so long ago and decided to take the blame for it. you know, not historians, and there wasn't any real investigation, they just voted on the matter. "yeah, okay, stalin did it". out of thin air my ass.
News is closer to a movie than a history book.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|5394|Canberra, AUS
modern tv news is unadulterated trash.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Cheeky_Ninja06
Member
+52|5452|Cambridge, England

Shocking wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Wait. You are arguing that sending trucks was the equivalent to 5 million soldiers?

wut.
lend lease food supplies alone were able to feed an army of 10 million for 4 years.
Im sorry but food aid is in no way equivalent to fielding a 10 million strong army. Let alone the impact upon the country when half of those men didnt return or the complete destruction of local infrastructure.

The US used WWII for profit and that is pretty much the extent of their involvement.
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+288|5495|Moscow, Russia

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Wait. You are arguing that sending trucks was the equivalent to 5 million soldiers?

wut.
lend lease food supplies alone were able to feed an army of 10 million for 4 years.
Im sorry but food aid is in no way equivalent to fielding a 10 million strong army. Let alone the impact upon the country when half of those men didnt return or the complete destruction of local infrastructure.

The US used WWII for profit and that is pretty much the extent of their involvement.
man, the war lasted 4 years. during those years a lot of men went to army. agriculture and food industry took a huge hit, especially considering the loss of ukraine early in the war. plus, you don't just need to feed army - the rest of the population too, and the rest was working their asses off making war equipment. food that came with lend lease was helpful no doubt, it's pointless denying that.

he US used WWII for profit and that is pretty much the extent of their involvement.
that's another story - a story of capitalism and what kind of "morality" there actually is. but american beef came just as good during the war as any other - you can be sure of that.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2020 Jeff Minard