Stalin had demonstrated his aggressive tendencies time and time again. And calling Russia and Germany allied is a bit of a stretch. They agreed not to attack the other's part of Poland.
Indeed, Stalin had demonstrated hostile tendencies, like when he murders thousands of his citizens. Hostile yes, but not expansionist. As I stated, there is no FACTUAL EVIDENCE that Stalin planned an invasion of Germany, period. And if you don't consider it an alliance when two soverign nations agree to peace with one another, and enter into a conflict in support of one another, than I suggest you broaden your knowledge of the word.
To say it was an alliance implied long term co-operation. They agreed to attack a neighbour together, that was all. To say that Stalin did not demonstrate expansionist tendencies is foolish, the pact itself was evidence! A pact does not equal an alliance. A series of pacts over time probably does. I suggest that if you think otherwise, you place too much faith in the honesty of politicians on the world stage.
An all out war between NATO and the the rest would lead to an increase in terrorist attacks on mainland United States... I'm too tired to go into this further or come up with nifty fun facts...
BLEH!)Y#@*
BLEH!)Y#@*
NATO would have control over the air and sea to to superior tech and training. Also remeber the armies of NATO (and mainly the US army at that) are the only ones in the world who have the current capibilities to mount a full-scale war far from their home country. This means that the enemies of NATO would be forced into a defensive war and probaly opt for gurilla tatics inside the nations of NATO instead of attempting an invasion. While NATO could bring the war to the enemy, it lacks the numbers of China and India, so occupation would be nigh impossible without a number ruduction in the civilian populace of those countries.
What we'd be faced with would be a slow, grinding war that would never really end (even after a conviental defeat of the enemies of NATO there would be insurgents in the defeat countries for generations)
O and Bubbalo logistics are the main reason the Nazis failed to destroy Russia, also they lacked the equipment needed to fight in a Russian winter. Take Stalingrad for example, the factories there were pumping out T-34's constantly against a Nazi army far from it's supply bases.
What we'd be faced with would be a slow, grinding war that would never really end (even after a conviental defeat of the enemies of NATO there would be insurgents in the defeat countries for generations)
O and Bubbalo logistics are the main reason the Nazis failed to destroy Russia, also they lacked the equipment needed to fight in a Russian winter. Take Stalingrad for example, the factories there were pumping out T-34's constantly against a Nazi army far from it's supply bases.
Say what?Nehby wrote:
Also remeber the armies of NATO (and mainly the US army at that) are the only ones in the world who have the current capibilities to mount a full-scale war far from their home country.
Which again comes down to numbers: the Soviets had the sheer numbers to man those factories. Supply lines were an issue, but supplies are less important if you keep advancing. At Stalingrad, the Russians halted the Germans through numbers, allowing the lack of supplies to take it's toll.Nehby wrote:
O and Bubbalo logistics are the main reason the Nazis failed to destroy Russia, also they lacked the equipment needed to fight in a Russian winter. Take Stalingrad for example, the factories there were pumping out T-34's constantly against a Nazi army far from it's supply bases.
That's gotta be the stupidest thing I've ever read. So, basically what you just said Bubbalo, is supplies don't matter as much when you use more of them......wow......do you think, before you type? It would seem not. But, as before in the interest of fairness, how are supplies less important when you put more distance between yourself and your warehouses, thereby stretching you supply lines even further, then by allowing them some time to catch up by remaining stationary? Can you put any logical explaination to your ridiculous statements?
Once you have captured a country you can consolidate. Further, if they pushed far enough in, the could have denied the Russians the more useful part of Russia, as the west was by far the more populous and useful part.
Ok, so how do you suggest they move further in? Without fuel, ammuniton, food, replacement parts, new vehicles, reinforments, replacement clothing, water, and the other 10,000 little things a military force needsin order to move? Useful how, exactly? Siberia, which is quite blantantly central-eastern Russia is still the biggest untapped resouce site on the planet. That would seem useful to most people.
But clearly they had those or they wouldn't have been able to fight at all. And Siberia does have many useful things. It does not, however, have food.
Ok Bubbalo, I want you to try an experiment here. For the next week, 7 days, eat 4 cans of Spam. That's it, nothing else. Wearing you usual clothing, stand in a walk in freezer where the highest temperature is 15 degree farenheit. While in there, sleep one hour a day, max. Then, while your suffering from malnutrition, exposure, and sleep deprivation, have someone charge into that freezer randomly through out the week and try to kill you. Technically, you can survive, and fight under such circumstances. Now, go into that same freezer with a nice winter coat, 3 warm meals a day, and 5 hours or so of sleep each night. You'd be in alot better shape to defend yourself, wouldn't you? There, I've put it into as basic and simple an example as I can, if you are STILL incapable of grasping the simple fact that in a conflict, the single, most important aspect is logistics, you are either, A). So egotistical you can't admit when you're wrong, even when bludgeoned repeatedly with facts, or B), you are simply argueing for the sake of argueing, in which case, I suggest you take up a hobby. Now, which is it?
It is a well known fact that China only needs to coordinate massive jumping action to destroy the world.
If ALL the Chinese would jump at the same time, It would create a massive earthquake and tidal waves and even tilt the earth out of its axes.
I would deem such power more valuable than all the hardware NATO and russia have together.
If ALL the Chinese would jump at the same time, It would create a massive earthquake and tidal waves and even tilt the earth out of its axes.
I would deem such power more valuable than all the hardware NATO and russia have together.
My point is that if the Germans had pushed forward they could have denied the Russians their supplies, you post fails to address that. And I'd be very surprised to learn that the Russians were getting three good meals a day.
My point is that the Germans didn't have the supplies to push forward, I've said that 15 times, and you have yet to address that. Are you afraid of facing the truth? Does it frighten you?
If that didn't have the supplies to push forward, how did they have the supplies to hold their position? You still haven't told me how German tanks are supposed to shoot two enemies at once.
Well hell, I figured basic physics was something you had a handle on, but here, let me explain it. When tank no move, tank no use gas. When troop not road march, troop need less food. When army not move AWAY from supplies, supplies catch up. Think you got that?
Sure, but the fact is even when fighting in and around Stalingrad you still needed as much food, because the troops were fighting. And, funnily enough, battles involve manuevring, so the tanks still moved. The only valid point was that of the supplies catching up, which is silly becuase the supplies simply would have taken a little longer, and eventually a new routine would have been stabilised at the new location.
Yes, the troops were fighting, but in the case of Stalingrad, seeing as it is the only example you use, over and over again, it was a mostly stationary urban fight, where a significant daily advance could be measured in a block or two. In that kind of urban battle, heavy armor becomes almost useless, and as such, remained mostly stationary around the city perimeter, dug in for better defence, and supply conservation. So, no, the battle at Stalingrad did NOT require German armor to manuver in any significant fashion. And no, the German supply lines were NEVER stabilized, thanks to continual disruption by allied bombing, partisan civilian actions and the like. 5 people working together can disable a rail line in less than ten minutes, and there is no way to even theoretically guard every square inch of your supply lines which run through occupied territiory.
Yeah, we're never going to see eye to eye on this one. What say we let it die?
Heh, indeed, back to the actual thread topic.