Hillary Clinton won. How much time till Nuclear War?

[Final-Fan]

AsGryffynn said:

Final-Fan said:
It sounds like every time Russia has ever lost a fight it was because they were busy shooting themselves in the foot. Why would you expect the next time to be any different? (And I hear their economy is pretty unhappy with the price of oil right now, not to mention the sanctions.)

As for Russian tech vs. US tech, the USA let them get a lead on missile technology which led to Sputnik, then panicked and put massive resources in that direction. Remind me, when did the USSR land on the moon? The USA's technological development has just been better overall.

Russia historically won its really tough wars by getting invaded, and outlasting the enemy while smothering him in bodies. Their military might should not be underestimated but the idea that they defeated Germany singlehandedly is laughable. More of the Nazis were fighting the USSR, yes; but millions were on the other fronts as well. Imagine if they had all been able to go against the USSR as well as what was already there!

I don't know why I'm even arguing this ... your statement is just so ridiculous: "Every single important thing in that war was the Soviet Union's doing..." 30% of the trucks in the Red Army were American by the end of the war, and all of their best ones were.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_the_USSR

"Without American production the [Allies] could never have won the war." --Joseph Stalin.

The country will often do that whenever there isn't an strong leader in charge or government's shaky rather than solid. Right now it's rock solid, and their economy was already slated to stall. This has only given them a scapegoat. 

Except when it wasn't. It wasn't America who launched the first satellite and it definitely wasn't them who put the first man in space. Doing something along the lines of visiting another world years later doesn't change the fact Armstrong landed years later when technology had progressed (and when the Soviets had no reason to prove anything to anyone). 

Besides, more advanced technology didn't always have better results. The Americans witnessed how somehow outdated Soviet technology was superior at times. 

Also, why worry of how supplying weapons and transport changed things when the ones using them to great effect were the Soviet troops? Have you forgotten it was they who were marching down Berlin? Or how much of the industrial capacity they had built was effectively destroyed because they were caught with their pants down? Or that their economy was still recovering from a power vacuum? More importantly, do you realize the vast majority of the resources provided by the lend lease were rations, ammo and transport? Little actual combat equipment was used. The US provided logistical support since the USSR had most of their industry destroyed in the West and they only had one line in the Far East! Look at the descriptions! Most of the shipments were trucks or food or ammunition (or tires)! 

It was only one third of it. Given they were fighting two heavy hitting countries at once (and that these same countries were giving the rest of Europe a headache even worse than theirs) I think it's safe to say no one would have been able to come out on top on their own. The US was necessary because their industrial capacity was safely tucked away in another continent. Thus they had the ability to support the European effort. Also, initially, much of the goods came from the UK, who was also being bombed to kingdom come. This war was impossible to win on their own. It doesn't lead to people thinking if the USSR hadn't existed the US could've just stepped in to destroy everyone... 

At the end of the day this hardly changes anything. The USSR were the ones who invaded Germany and destroyed their troops with their tanks, their soldiers and their aircraft. Most American support was specifically support. The Americans weren't marching alongside the Red Army, were they? 

Had Germany gone all out on the USSR they might have lasted longer, but even twice as many soldiers (the amount contributed by the collapse of the Western front) would've led to them getting closer to Moscow (they were close) and perhaps seize the only city left in the way, but the amount of Soviet forces who were preparing for the counter offensive was humongous! 6.6 million soldiers don't go down easily.

So according to you Stalin was a weak leader of a shaky government.  Gotcha. 

Your claim that the Soviets just got bored of space after sending one man to low earth orbit is hilarious.  It's just adorable.  (Didn't have anything to prove?  How about proving that they can launch rockets without blowing them up?) 

If you are serious about asking why logistics are important, you don't understand the debate.  You are right to say many Americans have the wrong idea that the USSR was a minor partner in the fight against Hitler.  (Although, to be fair, the rest of the allies were fighting two wars, by which I mean the Pacific war, to the USSR's one.)  But to take that to the opposite extreme and beyond to say that the USSR did all the heavy lifting and the rest of the Allies were a glorified cheerleader squad is at least as ridiculous, especially when many of the Americans you're talking about at least have the excuse of ignorance.