Thrawn's Revenge
Off Topic => The Lounge => Topic started by: Isamu on March 16, 2008, 01:01:27 PM
-
its not for that part. he pulled the soviets from an almost 3rd world country to an empire that rivaled the united states in just 10 years.
-
and made dozens of former allies enemies. if the tsardom had continued, then by now, it would be a powerful constitutional monarchy, like the UK. also, sar nicholas II was trying to medernise. the difference between him and stalin was that he didn't enslave innocent peasants.
-
first of its not sar its czar. and second the czar system was very week and there is even thoughts that it was corrupted be for rasputin stepped in.
-
and made dozens of former allies enemies. if the tsardom had continued, then by now, it would be a powerful constitutional monarchy, like the UK. also, sar nicholas II was trying to medernise. the difference between him and stalin was that he didn't enslave innocent peasants.
Not only that, the US would not have been as successful. But we are talking about 'what is.'
-
personally i admire stalin for his genius, not his sins.
-
just like I admire Hitler. but if you want to find a real psycho leader I would have to say Truman. And I also like to point out that SU was at the high of it's power when Stalin was the leader. after that everythung went down to hell. Which is a very good think.
-
I saw on the 'Death in it's own' thread that this was split away from it, but obviously Enceladus has removed the posts concerning this. What happened on that thread that I missed?
And I admire Stalin-he was a very capable leader.
-
capable? he did many stupid things and then used others achievements to bolster his own image. Stalin was the leader but wasn't responsible for major achievements. But as a leader he gets all the credit.
-
first of all, russia was not almost third world. isamu, have you been to the hermitage museum in st. petersburg? the armory museum in the kremlin? well i have. the russia tsars (tsar, czar all translate to caesar. tsar is the russian one, i believe) were one of the richest royal families in the world, they were just ostentatious and didn't care about anyone outsde the aristocracy. nicholas II was an inept fool of a tsar, but he was trying to industrialise. only, he may not have cared about his people, but he recognised them as people. stalin saw people as machines, and used them to produce the "sinews of war", iron,electricity and oil. stalin simply didn't give a sit about anything but communism. personally, i think he was as bad as hitler. the only difference was, he was less radical with his genocide (doctor's plot targeted jews) and he didn't want lebensraum. he HAD the lebensraum.
-
yeah. Stalin wanted that the whole world be joined in communism and he'd be the leader. And his genocide was just as radical as Hitler's.
-
communist revolution and lebensraum are different things.
lebensraum: for hitler's master race to take over land from slavs/russians and live in it as their land.
communist revolution: for all nations to become communist and for the people of the world to live in a utopian society. Not necessarily through conquest. i mean, the satellite states were heavily influenced by stalin, but none were actually part of the soviet union. they were, according to him, a "buffer zone against western imperialism". although the areas were efectively of the soviet union, they weren't properly belonging to them. they were in soviet russia's sphere of influence, as he called it.
-
first of all, russia was not almost third world. isamu, have you been to the hermitage museum in st. petersburg? the armory museum in the kremlin?
yes i used to live in russia. anyways, the ussr was at a very weak state after ww2 their production rate was considered 3rd world. it may have not been as bad as iraq or afghanistan but its production rate was terrible.
-
yes i used to live in russia. anyways, the ussr was at a very weak state after ww2 their production rate was considered 3rd world. it may have not been as bad as iraq or afghanistan but its production rate was terrible.
They weren't weak after ww2, if you remember a little thing called the cold war happened because they were a competing superpower...
-
scarecrow do you know anything about russian history? Russia's infrastructure was weak from the nazi invasion. they had a lot of rebuilding to do. their military was strong but their economy wasn't fit for exportation yet.
-
After WWII the Russian economy was extremely fragile. However the government kept up the disguise of being an industrious nation to scare the West. the completed quotoas but with extremely low quality on the products. For example sunglasses alot of the times were normal glasses painted black with a slight bit of translucency.
-
thank you enceladus. its also good to know scarecrow, the ussr didn't really heavily rivle the usa until the 1950's. they recovered from the war incredibly fast compared to how heavily they had been hit.
-
yeah. using German POWs as slave labor. No wonder they recovered so easily. So I wouldn't say their recovery is something to brag about. First they condemned the Germans for doing it and then they did it themselves. hypocrisies.
-
stalin was incapable. upon hearing hitler's plans to attack russia (operation barbarossa) he did nothing. he didn't believe it. when hitler did attack, stalin gave no orders for 2 weeks. he just sat in his house, and was in a state of mental paralysis.
as for industry, russian industry was moved from areas like the ukraine to the urals brick by brick. much of the industry was preserved.
-
No, the USSR never really recovered their economy, they just kept up the military prodcution after WW2, thats why they failed in the late 80's, they just couldn't do it anymore
-
thats a very small reason. countries were refusing to cooperate with them from their policies. their economy crumbled from the inside out. not because of a war that occurred 50 years earlier.
-
If you would take time to understnad peoples posts before you type, maybe you'd catch that I did not say that WW2 killed the USSR, I said the economy failed because an emphasis was put on military manufacturing that couldn't be maintained.
And yes, that is a very large reason, even if countries had cooperated, their economy would still have failed
-
the soviet military was not as big as people thought. it was truly only really capable of homeland protection. not an invasion like nato was sure of.
-
Cause those thousands of tanks had no offensive capability.....
-
no they didn't have enough tanks to invade. they didn't have the numbers.
-
They had more tanks than the American's had. They would of easily of taken over Europe(if they didn't break down 1km past Moscow due to their low quality ;D) However the nuclear weapons that either side possessed outweighed this possible advantage.
-
I believe many of theirs were faulty. :P
-
which were faulty? tanks or missiles? I agree. If USSR had wanted they could have propably invaded the rest of the Europe. After all USA is behind the Atlantic. and USSR had the largest in the world. in terms of tanks, airplanes, helicopters, manpower. you name it. Only thing they propably were lacking in numbers was the navy. but that doesn't really matter.
-
the russian tanks were quite good. but the fact is they didn't have the numbers to invade. tanks don't do a whole invasion by themselves. it takes so many resources to invade. the ussr was not capable.
-
Meyer, wtf, navy doesn't matter? Let's ignore the fact you can use a navy to flank your enemies, you would still have to deal with the fighters and bombers launched from carriers out at sea. Also, with a navy you can blockade harbors and choke off supplies. You can't win a continental war without the navy.
-
the russian tanks were quite good. but the fact is they didn't have the numbers to invade. tanks don't do a whole invasion by themselves. it takes so many resources to invade. the ussr was not capable.
Do you ever have any idea about what you're talking about? Of course they had the numbers, they were quite capable to launch an invasion, do you honestly think the former SUPERPOWER had no power?
-
Meyer, wtf, navy doesn't matter? Let's ignore the fact you can use a navy to flank your enemies, you would still have to deal with the fighters and bombers launched from carriers out at sea. Also, with a navy you can blockade harbors and choke off supplies. You can't win a continental war without the navy.
I don't think navy would play a heavy part if USA and Russia would fight. Especially if that fight would be in Europe. If in Asia maybe then. but even then it would the Air Force that matters not the navy. Air force could destroy the navy with relative ease. And I also like to point out that US navy isn't the most technologically advanced and best in the world. it's just largest. and those carriers aren't very good when subs can just shoot torpedoes to them.
-
Then you still need to engage them, you can't ignore them. Also, if you are talking about modern times (1960s on), navies have missiles they can launch from sea and use to destroy targets. Ignore the navy and you are screwed.
-
missiles can also be launched from land and air.
-
but you can't get quick response fighters from anywhere but a carrier if you are fighting on another continent.
-
WRONG
countries like the us have air bases all over the world.
-
And I also like to point out that US navy isn't the most technologically advanced and best in the world. it's just largest. and those carriers aren't very good when subs can just shoot torpedoes to them.
Then what navy is more advanced?
-
the U.S. definatly has had the most advanced navy throughout the past half century or more. we were the first with Aircraft carriers, the first with nuclear powered subs, etc.
-
umm the ussr had the first nuke powered subs. but right now the usa has the most powerful and tech advanced navy
-
No, the USS Nautilus was the first nuclear-powered submarine, check your facts before you post em
-
really? thats interesting. ussr propaganda still exists then
-
My, my,this topic has really deteriorated.
The navy of the U.S.A is by far the most active and best in the world, and also the most advanced. I am not sure if either the U.S.S.R or the U.S.A had the first nuclear-missile-armed submarines, so I will leave such discussion up to you.
-
the U.S. definatly has had the most advanced navy throughout the past half century or more. we were the first with Aircraft carriers, the first with nuclear powered subs, etc.
Actually the first real carrier was HMS Argus apparently. Part of the Royal Navy. And yes US navy is the most active as US puts their nose on everything, even on something they shouldn't. But most active doesn't mean the best. Actually my opinion of the US navy is fairly low because of one exercise. In that a SWEDISH submarine was able to sunk an american carrier and get away without being detected. So I think that says it all.
-
we're getting off topic, but here is a comparison of navies around the world... notice that the U.S. comes out on top most of the time...
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_has_the_worlds_most_powerful_navy
-
In that a SWEDISH submarine was able to sunk an american carrier and get away without being detected. So I think that says it all.
Hey, don't piss off the Swiss. YOU try invading a country where everyone has a gun and knows how to use it. Their arm is very well trained, so I expect their navy to be as well.
-
same with israel but anyways, the soviet empire was very powerful
-
Meyer, since you seem to have hidden from my question, i'll ask again.
What Navy is more advanced and powerful than the US navy? You say these things yet never give proof. So, lets see it.
-
well if you can't find a Swedish sub with your "superior" technology I think that says it all. I thought you would realize that it was the proof. but once again you didn't.
And Dane Kiet nobody mentioned Swiss anywhere.
-
Sorry, brain slip ;D.
-
Well, whats wrong with Swedidh Subs? They use a new propulsion technology no one else does. So you still give no proof as to what navy is better. The only "proof" you give is that a new sub sank a carrier in an exercise. Does that mean the Swedish navy is better than the US navy? No, it doesn't. Its like they scored a goal. And scoring one goal doesn't win this game.
-
and right now you said they use technology no one else doesn't. as it seems to work well why doesn't anyone else use? And if that's my only proof, then what's your proof that us navy is the best? Is it that you're good at bombing civilians?
-
US carriers and the aircraft used on them are the most advanced in the world. The Super Hornet was the best naval aircraft in use and will be replaced with the F-35, the most advanced naval aircraft now. The Aegis combat system is considered the best system of its type in the world.
-
technology is only as good as its operators. back to topic, communism and the ussr...
-
communism is a disease. thank god it has almost been destroyed. there are only few communist countries. and soon they will reject it also.
-
socialism has a place in govt. not all of it but some. Communism took the idea too far and was usually run by corrupt people which sort of defeated the purpose...
-
Socialism is a great idea. I just don't think it will work because of human nature.
-
if communism weren't run by corrupt people, it would have been the perfect society
-
mayb, but it takes too many rights away from the people. the government needs to help people but not run their lives.
-
actually real communism should give the power to the people.
-
it was supposed to. communism as explained in the book of marx would give total power to the people of the state with the governing members organizing things such as costs for road work and military and other things that maintain a country. essentially they would be more accountants than anything.
-
if communism weren't run by corrupt people, it would have been the perfect society
True, but there is always a bad Communism leader, often taking advantage of the situation ( if bad ) and gets to the power.
-
well therein lies the problem
-
I saw this documentary, Russia doesn't have control of all nukes, they even have " forgot " some nukes and they don't know where they have gone.
What if a Terrorist group has taken it, its some bad sh*t.
-
thats former ussr though
-
I saw this documentary, Russia doesn't have control of all nukes, they even have " forgot " some nukes and they don't know where they have gone.
What if a Terrorist group has taken it, its some bad sh*t.
and what documentary was this? of course Russia doesn't control all nukes. USA, India, Pakistan, Israel and China also have nukes.
-
I saw this documentary, Russia doesn't have control of all nukes, they even have " forgot " some nukes and they don't know where they have gone.
What if a Terrorist group has taken it, its some bad sh*t.
and what documentary was this? of course Russia doesn't control all nukes. USA, India, Pakistan, Israel and China also have nukes.
IT was about the Cold War, when USSR became Russia in 1989, they didn't have good control and watch over them. USA Has good control over their nukes.
-
actually USSR became Russia 1991.
-
I mean the fall of USSR 1989 ::)
-
ok. 1989-fall of communism, but not USSR.
1991-fall of USSR.
-
russia isnt all of the USSR the USSR controlled alot of the surrounding countries. russia was just the main body of the USSR and the peice that came out in the best shape.
-
ok. 1989-fall of communism, but not USSR.
1991-fall of USSR.
Yeah, i forgot that :S
All other countries made revolt against USSR, like Romania, Ukraine.
-
not really, they just kind of fell apart
-
not really, they just kind of fell apart
USSR didn't want to lose those countries, why do you think USSR send troupers there then ? They made a Revolt against them.
-
actually no. Gorbachev said that USSR won't send troops if countries want to abandon socialism. and very quickly after that declaration many did.
-
actually no. Gorbachev said that USSR won't send troops if countries want to abandon socialism. and very quickly after that declaration many did.
Didn't some soldiers fight against the people ? I've seen pictures about it.
-
I think those pictures were either from Hungary 1956 or from Prag 1968.
-
I think those pictures were either from Hungary 1956 or from Prag 1968.
No, Estonia.
-
when the ussr fell it was in no shape to send troops to lost countries.
-
it wasn't exactly going to,though, was it? it became a democracy when the UNION fell. it was noo expansionistic. post-communism, they were an enemy for a couple of years. now, there is a loose, fragile alliance which has pretty much been blown to shit in the UK with litvinenko, and all.
-
It seems WW3 is close since the situation currently is bad, Serbia wants Kosovo and Russia would support them, and USA / UK don't want that for some reasons and now Russia says that if they put a fot into Kosovo then they will mount an assault. If that happens then USA will do that to and Europe is in its 3rd war.
-
are you saying you're against kosovo's independence?
-
No, i support it.
I am myself from Balkan, i don't like that Serbia is so serious about this, they might start the second war if they want, they are just stupid, and now Russia is backing them, i mean come on you lost a country that isn't yours, you still have A country left. They have already started a war and look what they did, it might happen again.
-
damn serbs, im all for kosovo's freedom but serbia already started WW1, they don't need to start WW3. I think u might be right about WW3 tho cause tibet could cause something similar to happen...
-
yeah. serbia are likely to elect an ultra-right candidate in their electons who served on milosevic's government. the second balkan war, if you ask me, will happen. i mean, kosovo is in near-civil war. the only reason it isn't civil war is due to the fact that the country has not gained full recognition.
-
what is the topic? soviet uniton? that ended.
-
more just the fall of communism and its effects in general
-
anyway, yeah. the SU is gone.
-
and nobody misses it.
-
I LOL at those kind of people.
-
TOPIC