Final-Fan said:
| AsGryffynn said:
No, but Putin isn't a general or a great colonel. He can lead a country, but gutting his own military was among the stupid things he did, as it also gutted the economy.
Let's see... The Soviet Union secretly plans to put a man on the moon in a clandestine program and doesn't start thinking until much later, whereas the US went to work right away.
Also, a missile accident for an ICBM? Like this one?
Seriously, the claims the USSR was lagging greatly behind the US sound like the ramblings of a 5 year old with tangential knowledge of geopolitics. They're nonsensical! The kind of stuff you see in discredited sites like Infowars! I breathed the stuff! Don't you think I'd know something since I dealt with this for like 8 years straight?
You must think I am some kind of hick. Well I know what I am saying...
Oh and I understand why logistics are important, but logistics and combat are two different things. Logistics sustain combat, but they don't win it and supply chains are often broken. They weren't because militarily troops pushed the invaders back. The supply chain was necessary to allow them to keep this up or it would have collapsed at some point, so they are essential to the success of a mission, but not able to sustain themselves. Not to mention, the USSR did fight two wars. The US was technically fighting one since their country wasn't on the continent, though with their involvement with the lend lease they were definitely fighting two as well.
Did the USSR did all the heavy lifting? No. Did they do more on their own than other countries? Yes. They were technically taking on the Axis on their own with support from other countries. The rest of Europe had to act as a team to roll back. Both needed supplies from a militarily untouched US of A but this hardly entails the US saved everyone. The War was a mission which showed how dependent countries were on each other. The US didn't have the power to field enough troops, but they had a lot of economic weight to supply the war effort. The Soviets had the military firepower, but they wouldn't be able to sustain it for long since their military was and still is in many respects, larger than their economy can sustain.
The only WWII glorified cheerleading squad was Czechoslovakia and Poland. Everyone else did their part. The Soviets simply took the bulk of the onslaught on their own and didn't end up like France.
At any rate, the fight is now over, so we can stop this bullshit fight and relax now.
By the way guys, I did mention I had enough of this shitstorm!
|
If Putin gutted the military and wrecked the economy, why are you so optimistic about their chances?
Let me make sure I understand your claim correctly. According to you, after Sputnik and sending people into orbit, the USSR stopped taking the Space Race seriously and the USA never had any real competition for going to the moon. Is that what you're saying?
Which two wars was the USSR fighting? Which one war was the USA fighting?
The reason Russia didn't end up like France is because they had a lot more territory to lose. Germany could have been halfway through the Atlantic Ocean before the Soviet French rallied! 
|
Oh snap, I was so busy with the election tracking I wrote Putin instead of Stalin. My mistake.
As for the claim, it wasn't they stopped taking it seriously, but they took on a more laid back position as they believed they could waste time. They didn't know the US was working on ways to reach the moon first until it was too late and they were caught with their pants down. Most plans to reach the moon in the USSR weren't being put into motion when the US was already testing engines. Development started later and was also compounded by problems related to funding, as the Soviet Union still dedicated more money to the military than anything else. In between this and keeping the project under more red tape than America's plan, they shot themselves in the foot. They didn't take their victory for granted. They simply didn't try as hard as the US did, which they could have done if arrogance and bureaucratic mumbo jumbo wasn't obstructing them at every step of the way there.
The War the US fought was mainly with Japan, with their contribution to the Western front coming in only months before the rollback of Nazi presence took place. The USSR was fighting to roll them back as well, and later on during WWII also led the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria.
Both had two sides... The US fought as a supporting and coordinating force on the Western theater for a very large group of countries before they were ready to wage war head on (Italy 45) and the USSR fighting an Invasion as a single superpower (conflicts where the US went solo often involved smaller fronts) before readying for the liberation of Manchuria.
It wasn't just territory. Might as well tell Napoleon the same thing. Both had different technology, yet both were stopped even after decimating all Russian and Soviet forces in the same place. This has little to do with territory. There's a reason De Gaulle relaunched his forces from the colonies. The Free French State existed, but they didn't have the firepower to face Germany alone. The UK themselves were the first to try and they were being shafted throughly. There is a reason the US and USSR emerged as superpowers after the war. Only those two had the ability to wage war outnumbered.
But screw this. I am tired. Feign ignorance of the exchange...
