The Red Army goes on

If it's not too late to add fuel to the flamefest, I'd like to point out:

1. Morale would be a huge obstacle for a Soviet offensive. Many Soviets were willing to fight for the Rodina against a Nazi invasion; some (Ukrainians especially) preferred the other side. Consider if, after four of the bloodiest years in human history, the victorious Red Army was ordered to turn on its formidable allies and buy foreign lands for Stalin with their lives. The frontline Russian troops would have surrendered as fast as they could throw down their guns. The most likely consequence of such an insane proposition by Stalin is that Beria would have murdered him in 1945 instead of 1953.

2. It would take more than one or two or three atomic bombs to cripple the Soviet war effort. They'd already suffered much worse than a mere atom bombing. The best chance for such an attack to end the war would be to kill Stalin.
 
Problem is the quality is on the Soviet side, the British and to a lesser degree the US Armies didn't perform very impressively given their overall resources and the number of Germans they were facing...

I have serious issue with the ''better training'' point others have posted. As most British and US generals thought that infantry replacements in particular were appalling. And the Red Army had far more collective battle experience on every level.

All of this is true, and due to nuclear weaponry all of this is irrelevant. The Soviets will win the conventional phase and lose the nuclear one.
 
Problem is the quality is on the Soviet side, the British and to a lesser degree the US Armies didn't perform very impressively given their overall resources and the number of Germans they were facing...

I have serious issue with the ''better training'' point others have posted. As most British and US generals thought that infantry replacements in particular were appalling. And the Red Army had far more collective battle experience on every level.

I would only argue better training in terms of pilots for the west, otherwise both sides had critical holes in their training, especially in junior officers
 
Well, lookie here, a Stalinist apolgist/troll.

See you in a week.

Kicked.

This is absolute defamation and character assassination, I have not uttered a single word to align myself with the thought of the Stalinist strain of Marxism-Leninism. You are far to quick to confuse a defense of the Soviet Union as a defense of its General Secretary of the time. It should not require explanation that the two are quite separate from one another. I oppose the fundamental premises upon which Stalin based much of his policy, but that is not to say I oppose the Soviet people nor the entirety of its proletariat state.

In preparation for this philistine sort of false equivocation I even provided this quote so as to make it clear that I am not a Stalinist.

"Though as we all know, this image of Stalin is largely a false one, but if it were true such could be realized. This is a plan of action which would be more suited to someone of Trotsky's internationalist disposition."

An announcement of avocation for the theory of permanent revolution can be found in this statement, wherein I denounce Stalin's faulty interpretation of Lenin as found in his counter revolutionary theory of "Socialism in one country". This stands in stark contrast with the holdings of a Stalinist and calls your libelous political attacks on a multitude of accounts.

As a side note, I never showed any sympathy towards bureaucratic centralism nor did I endorse the skewered approach which Stalin took to the plans of the left opposition in regards to the question of industrialization in the Soviet Union. I actually support the Bolshevik-Leninist notion of democratic centralism in the party and its affairs, for what it is worth. Which goes to further weaken your baseless and outright false accusations of Stalinism.

I may accept the line that I am in fact an apologist for Stalin, in the sense that I am willing to defend him in drastic situations and against particularly unfounded attacks, but this is more a fight against the fallacies of capitalist thought than it is one which is in any way intended to show solidarity with the legacy of Stalin.

But as you are a mod and I am not, I fear that none of this matters. The question here is one of power. I do not wield it whereas you do, and I am sure that you will, in a most ironic manner if I may add, act in a manner most in line with Stalin's vision of the party. You care not for the facts of the matter nor do you show any regard for honest debate, you only care for your own self glorification in the typical manner of a Stalinist.

As a side note though, can you start banning all of the right wing nutjobs who blindly defend everything and anything American? Oh wait, that's America, no one cares about blind fawning over America, they are the good guys. Contradictions are OK as long as it is capitalism and its defenders who are behind them. Plus, why would anyone here care to take themselves away from pointlessly irrelevant US aircraft statistics for a time long enough to actually differentiate between political ideology?

So can we bring out the ban hammer then? Or I suppose it would be more of an ice pick in this regard, but you get the idea.
 
Top