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 The Americans witnessed how somehow outdated Soviet technology was superior at times.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.

I don't think you ever read that US military killed dozen or hundred thousand of their soldiers for retreating in a war. Or killed a lot of high ranking officials merely on a suspicion of coup d'etat.

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. 

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! 

I think they are both horrible. Hoping the imbecile gets impeached or something.

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!

According to CNN, Fox, ABC News and most of the media, Hillary Clinton won.

The alternative media thinks that means one thing: nuclear armaggedom.  The Green Party in America agrees and most of the military leaders from the US.

Also, Russia said so themselves, also Julian Assange and, of course, the loser from the Election, Donald Trump.

Is it Bravo Sierra or is it for real? If BS, fine, if real, this means the end of most of mankind and a definitive end to the high tech era. Einstens said that he could not predict the tools of the 3rd World War, but he KNEW the 4th world war would be sticks and stones.

So, how much time till Nuclear War?

Hillary said she will corner Putin and destroy Bashar Al Saad, which is protected by China, Russia and Iran.

If she keeps pressuring Putin, Russia already said this will have nuclear consequences, Clinton answer with taunts and war words.

Syria is important for Russia and China, but Clinton wants Bashar blood like a child wants candy.

So, my question is: How long after january there will be a nuclear world war?

My hint is that it will start before 2017 ends, with unreversible consequences to all mankind. 

Just to have an idea, the new nuke from Russia, called Satan 2 can level down the whole country of France, one single nuke... They got 7 thousand of those.

The USA has 6500 nukes, as powerful and deadly as the Satan nuke.

So, this will be a war with no victorious part, for sure.

What do you guys think?

Edit: explanation about Satan 2:

The RS-28 Sarmat^[2] (Russian: РС-28 Сармат; NATO reporting name: SS-X-30 Satan 2), is a Russian liquid-fueled, MIRV-equipped, super-heavy thermonuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missile in development by the Makeyev Rocket Design Bureau^[2] from 2009,^[3]intended to replace the previous R-36 missile. Its large payload would allow for up to 10 heavy warheads or 15 lighter ones, and/or a combination of warheads and massive amounts of countermeasures designed to defeat anti-missile systems;^[4][5] it was heralded by the Russian military as a response to the U.S. Prompt Global Strike.^[6]

In February 2014, a Russian military official announced the Sarmat was expected to be ready for deployment around 2020.^[7] In May that year another official source suggested that the program was being accelerated and that it would, in his opinion, constitute up to 100 percent of Russia's fixed land-based nuclear arsenal by 2021.^[6][8] At the end of June 2015, it was reported that the production schedule for the first prototype of the Sarmat was slipping.^[9][10] The RS-28 Sarmat is expected to become operational in 2016.^[11]

On 10 August 2016, Russia successfully tested the RS-28's first-stage engine named PDU-99 "ПДУ-99".^[12] The first image of this new missile was declassified and unveiled in October 2016.^[13]

Edit: By the way, people commenting "that crazy christian fundamentalist is saying Hillary is the antichris" are TOTALLY unfair with me.

(Pictured: Not Hillary)

I never once said she was the antichrist. I never ever said that. Yes she is evil. Is she the antichrist? NO WAY. She does not fit one single characteristic of the antichrist according to Daniel. Let´s review:

- The antichrist MUST be a man. She is not.

- He comes promissing peace: she promisses to kill Bashar and to destroy Russia.

- He is a sodomite: She is married with children.

- He is beloved by all. She is one of the most hated politicians that ever lived.

Never ever I said she is the antichrist. And, by the way, there is not a single prophecy saying the antichrist will nuke a nation, although the mentions of nukes in the Bible are plenty.

Edit 2: This thread was a lot of fun and a huge success. 209 people answerered the pool, and we learned 50% of gamers think there will be no nuclear armaggedon =)