Amusing news story:
http://knlive.ctvnews.ca/ukrainian-bomber-for-sale-on-ebay-1.1718794
Soviet Bomber.jpg
Russian Invasion
-
Saint Petersburg was a Czar’s attempt to Westernize Russia.
Unfortunately, for Russia, maybe fortunately for the world, it did not spread throughout Russia.
Imagine if Russia had an army the size they did using modern (to that time period) tactics and equipment and methods and training! Ye gads…WWII might never have happened, but the EU would be the Union of Soviet Socialized European and Asian States!
Scarey thought, huh? Of course, it’s all hypothetical. What we know is that a Czar went to school in France and learned about the navy, fell in love with the concept of a navy and went home to build one. Then, to house his new navy, he commissioned the building of a city, named Saint Petersburg, and it was constructed to emulate the cities of the West, where he attended school. (France I believe. That was the cultural center of the world at the time, so even if I’m wrong and he went to Germany/Prussia or England, I’m still not totally off base.)
-
Saint Petersburg was a Czar’s attempt to Westernize Russia.
Unfortunately, for Russia, maybe fortunately for the world, it did not spread throughout Russia.
Imagine if Russia had an army the size they did using modern (to that time period) tactics and equipment and methods and training! Ye gads…WWII might never have happened, but the EU would be the Union of Soviet Socialized European and Asian States!
Scarey thought, huh? Of course, it’s all hypothetical. What we know is that a Czar went to school in France and learned about the navy, fell in love with the concept of a navy and went home to build one. Then, to house his new navy, he commissioned the building of a city, named Saint Petersburg, and it was constructed to emulate the cities of the West, where he attended school. (France I believe. That was the cultural center of the world at the time, so even if I’m wrong and he went to Germany/Prussia or England, I’m still not totally off base.)
Yeah. Command and Conquer: Red Alert, anyone?
-
I love to build millions of dogs and send them in hordes against the enemy… especially against the townspeople! but i hate when they die and you hear that last yelp in the snow…sad…
-
@Imperious:
I love to build millions of dogs and send them in hordes against the enemy… especially against the townspeople! but i hate when they die and you hear that last yelp in the snow…sad…
Yeah.
So anyway, the loss of Moscow and Leningrad would have ended the Soviets because they wouldn’t have been able to fight cohesively?
-
The loss of these cities and the southern oil centers would have crippled the Soviet economy. They cant move the oil fields and they can only pump so much of oil at a time.
-
Oil was rather important.
So the Soviets would have little, and the Germans would have had a source the Allies coudln’t have bombed because they couldn’t have reached it
Therefore, the Germans would have been more immune to the Ploeisti raids, and once the Soviets were shattered, could get around to invading Britain.
-
The plan to conquer the Soviets was the method to force england into surrender. After mopping up they would have taken all the middle east and consolidated hold on Africa. The loss of India, Suez, Malta, grater and other colonies ( Australia presumably) would have meant scraps as foodstuffs for england. Invasion would have loomed, but the war would have been over anyway at this point.
Hitler envisioned that future generations would have taken these consolidated territories and carried the final battle to American shores. An invasion of england would have been more of a landing of a deserted island with many people have allready anticipated the coming disaster for england and left to Canada and America. BY then the Italian fleet would have been reinforced with oil reserves and went to Brest and St.Nazaire in preparation for the Sealion of 1945, when German would have Jets or all types and many long range bombers to attack USA. Occupation of the Azores from her new allies in Spain would have furthered possible coups in Argentina and chili and started a 5th column all throughtout south America. -
But it never happened…
Thank you.
-
no, read the gulag archipelago and then see more problems with communism. It isnt greed, its absolute power and inhumanity. Crazy people, those communists.
-
Hitler came to power in an Aristocracy that happened to have democratic elements. Not the same as a representative democracy. Also, children going to school and shooting people is not a fault of democracy, it’s a fault of bad programming done by the liberal elite. When the situation was run by the local matriarch and taught values and facts we did not have this problem.
-
Hitler came to power in an Aristocracy that happened to have democratic elements. Not the same as a representative democracy. Also, children going to school and shooting people is not a fault of democracy, it’s a fault of bad programming done by the liberal elite. When the situation was run by the local matriarch and taught values and facts we did not have this problem.
I find it hard to listen to you Jennifer, becaue you can’t stop with the worthless attacks.
-
Hitler came to power in an Aristocracy that happened to have democratic elements. Not the same as a representative democracy. Also, children going to school and shooting people is not a fault of democracy, it’s a fault of bad programming done by the liberal elite. When the situation was run by the local matriarch and taught values and facts we did not have this problem.
I find it hard to listen to you Jennifer, becaue you can’t stop with the worthless attacks.
Not my fault you attempted to equate Hitler to an elected official in a representative democracy when he was an appointed official in an aristocracy. (the Kaiser confirmed him after he was elected. The Kaiser could have dismissed him, technically, though how literal the idea might be could be heavily debated on both sides.)
Then you go on to say it’s democracy’s fault for children shooting each other in schools when we can realistically look at history, with non-politically polarized goggles and see that it is more accurate to say it is a lack of morals being taught in schools that has resulted in the rise of crime. After all, there were no documented school shootings between 1860 and 1900 when schools taught conservative values. But since the 1960’s, when schools stopped teaching morals and ethics and just touted the government mantras, we see a spike in violent crimes in schools.
Funny, when the facts come out, your statements don’t seem to be very accurate at all. And thus, you are reduced to your flame-thrower.
-
 Also, children going to school and shooting people is not a fault of democracy, it’s a fault of bad programming done by the liberal elite.
Wha!? Thats doesnt seem right. Children going to school and shooting people is no ones fault but their own. You can probaly go to the extent and blame the parents for not teaching the kids whats right and wrong. However, if the kids knows that shooting people with a gun is wrong and the parents had taught them that, and the kid still does it, it is absolutely no one elses fault but the kid. Doesnt make sense to blame democracy or as Jen said “bad programming done by the liberal elite.”
-
No, you can equally blame the teachers and the administration for not correcting children at a young age. Raising moral and ethical children with the knowledge needed to be effective contributers to this world is not soley in the hands of teacher or parent, but in both.
Now, women libers (femi-nazis) have screwed up the home creating a situation where both parents have to work or plan to live impoverished thus removing the parent element from rearing of children and then over zealous lawyers have screwed up the schools so that teachers have no authority over kids anymore.
Add that to the “Oh Billy, you’re so smart. Yes, the Capital of France is London! Here’s a gold star and have fun in the 4th grade, Billy!” attitude of the social promotion system we find in school and you can imagine why children are flipping out and shooting each other. It’s not because they want too, it’s because they’ve been driven mad by a system that seems - at least to them - to not care about them, and only want to warehouse them and shuffle them through each level before putting it’s boot on their reer and kicking them out the door into the cold reality.
Let’s face it. We need teachers empowered to discipline kids. We need to stop threatening teacher’s pensions and tenure if they decide to teach morals and ethics instead of federally assigned curricula and we need to establish a 1 income family again so that parents can be home to raise their children.
-
Hitler came to power in an Aristocracy that happened to have democratic elements. Not the same as a representative democracy. Also, children going to school and shooting people is not a fault of democracy, it’s a fault of bad programming done by the liberal elite. When the situation was run by the local matriarch and taught values and facts we did not have this problem.
I find it hard to listen to you Jennifer, becaue you can’t stop with the worthless attacks.
Funny, you can’t start internallizing corrections to your malicious attacks.
Not my fault you attempted to equate Hitler to an elected official in a representative democracy when he was an appointed official in an aristocracy. (the Kaiser confirmed him after he was elected. The Kaiser could have dismissed him, technically, though how literal the idea might be could be heavily debated on both sides.)
Then you go on to say it’s democracy’s fault for children shooting each other in schools when we can realistically look at history, with non-politically polarized goggles and see that it is more accurate to say it is a lack of morals being taught in schools that has resulted in the rise of crime. After all, there were no documented school shootings between 1860 and 1900 when schools taught conservative values. But since the 1960’s, when schools stopped teaching morals and ethics and just touted the government mantras, we see a spike in violent crimes in schools.
Funny, when the facts come out, your statements don’t seem to be very accurate at all. And thus, you are reduced to your flame-thrower.
I am so tired of this I didn’t say anything about this at all. You put those words in my mouth. That is a retarded, wimpy tactic only used when you can’t win otherwise.
-
No, you can equally blame the teachers and the administration for not correcting children at a young age. Raising moral and ethical children with the knowledge needed to be effective contributers to this world is not soley in the hands of teacher or parent, but in both.
Now, women libers (femi-nazis) have screwed up the home creating a situation where both parents have to work or plan to live impoverished thus removing the parent element from rearing of children and then over zealous lawyers have screwed up the schools so that teachers have no authority over kids anymore.
Add that to the “Oh Billy, you’re so smart. Yes, the Capital of France is London! Here’s a gold star and have fun in the 4th grade, Billy!” attitude of the social promotion system we find in school and you can imagine why children are flipping out and shooting each other. It’s not because they want too, it’s because they’ve been driven mad by a system that seems - at least to them - to not care about them, and only want to warehouse them and shuffle them through each level before putting it’s boot on their reer and kicking them out the door into the cold reality.
Let’s face it. We need teachers empowered to discipline kids. We need to stop threatening teacher’s pensions and tenure if they decide to teach morals and ethics instead of federally assigned curricula and we need to establish a 1 income family again so that parents can be home to raise their children.
Actually, the fact that most of the kids are loners who no one ever talks to or cares about drives them to shoot people. The school system is not at fault as much as the social standing. We were discussing this today, and we also decided that people didn’t release their anger as easily because there are less fights in school, or wherever, so the anger because more critical, until boiling over.
-
This is a topic of the German invasion of the Soviet Union AKA “Barbarossa” and nothing else. Keep on topic or the store is closed.
dont debate about:
Teachers
Rivers
Children
The archipelago
Gulags
or Corn fritters…stay on topic
-
Rivers were very important to the Russians during their invasions! Without rivers they couldn’t move their land forces around effectively, mainly because they were not exactly a network of intertwining roads or rails.
-
Yes they were, but more important was the weather and Germanys unpreparedness toward it in the winter of 1941-42.
Rivers are important in smaller campaigns where the focus was a narrow piece of territory and Bridges were needed to be kept intact. The campaign in the Soviet Union was a front of about 1,500 miles and rivers were not the only focus for Germany. The Pripet Marches proved a good defensive pivit to Stalin to keep army group south from further progression in 1941 until AGN was able to breach the northern portion of these marches and swoop down against Keiv and trap 665,000 russians.
-
I was just pointing out that you were needlessly weeding out valid subtopics by eliminating things like rivers from the discussion. :)
Yea, the winter was bad. Though, I’m not entirely convinced that it was as big a part in the war as, say, poor leadership was. (And poor preparedness is poor leadership.)
Suggested Topics
