New Russian movie announced: Convoy PQ-17

[Angus]

The British stood alone against the Nazis for one year. At the time, the German war machine ran nicely on russian raw materials.
The Russians never stood alone against the Nazis.
And about the "crappy fighters" The German view of them is maybe to be best trusted.
One German ace stated that facing US fighters such as the P39 was more dangerous than the russian ones, since it could be taken for granted that the US fighters had a better aiming device, since reflector sights were not so widely distributed with the Red air force in the beginning.
Gunther Rall faced Spitfires on the eastern front, - after the original encounter he was asked to keep it silent, - the German pilots would lose morale if they knew they were facing Spifires on top of everything else.

And so, the German cruisers are now down to 1 half-built?
Anyway, nice to know more about the brotherhood of Hitler and Stalin

[Angus]

Oh, and the Oil etc:
1940: 900.000 metric tonnes of crude oil, 500.000 tonnes of manganese ore, 100.000 tonnes of chrome, and some millions of tonnes of food for Germany's horse drawn units.
That served the Germans nicely, capturing Norway, Denmark, France, Holland, Belgium, etc.....
Good uncle Joe

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Hortlund

Well, that's got to be the first time someone calls the Spitfire a "second-hand fighter". I see you forgot to include all the trucks, boots, locomotives, radios, foodstuffs etc etc...but I guess your propaganda class forgot to include those.

Just out of curiosity Boroda, are you ready to admit how important lend lease was to the soviets? And try to see beyond the crappy spitfire planes and Sherman tanks now. Im talking about the other things now, the boots, the locomotives, the radios, the trucks...

When did I say that lend-lease was unimportant? You forgot canned pork and telephone wire.

What I mean is that "allies" didn't offer better price for the supplies we have got from Germany. And they refused to cooperate against Hitler. Refused in a very impolite way. Go read the transcripts of the negotiations between "allies" and USSR in August, 1939. With such allies we didn't need enemies.


We didn't want to stand alone against Hitler, and do this unprepared and without any assistance. US companies were trading with nazis until May, 1945, and it doesn't surprise anyone: it's called "free enterprising". OTOH Soviets are evil by default.

Hortlund, I have to remind you that Sweden didn't stay neutral in the cold war. You performed nice jobs for American intelligence, invading Soviet airspace hundreeds of times and providing US with all kinds of information.

Originally posted by Hortlund
No, you should not give any lands to the allies, you should have returned them to their rightful owners by giving them back their independence.  

Instead you took over the nazi job and kept those nations opressed under a brutal totalitarian dictatorship for more than 50 years.

****ing *******s.

Giving back independance? Did I miss something? What countries lost their independance after "Soviet invasion"? All the countries liberated by soviet Army had democratic elections, and have chosen their way, in the same way as countries occupied by "allies".

We took a nazi job? Did we slaughter any nation completely? Did we plan elimination of whole ethnical groups? Hortlund, when you say something - please try to employ your brain.

"Land of free" planned nulear massacre of major Soviet cities since 1946, and they admit it. We needed to protect our almost completely destroyed country from another gang of "civilized Western people" - and we managed to do it somehow for 50 years. Now we withdrew from Europe and what we have is NATO agressors already targeting Leningrad (SPb) and controlling most of our North-Western airspace. Tell me, why do that "fighters for freedom and democracy" need bases in Estonia? Just to eat smoked fish? Or to "protect" fascist Baltic regimes from "asian hordes of Jewish bolsheviks"? I doubt it. We saw how they protected Moslim terrorists in Yugoslavia by bombing schools and hospitals. We have been invaded from the West many times, and we have all possible reasons not to belive their peacefull intentions. So we did since 1945. Kicking out Western agressors every several decades isn't our favourite hobby.

If NATO agressors need to "protect" Baltic countries from us (that is ridiculous) - they have to send ground troops and SAMs there, but they move agressive forces there, and already target SPb for aerial attacks. Now tell me why they need it.

NATO planes violate Russian airspace hundreeds of times every year. We have AWACS planes cruising our borders in Baltic states and Georgia, they establish bases all around Russia - is it only a charity so we should feel safer with every bomber squad targeting our cities?

[Boroda]

Oh, sorry, forgot to say about second-habd fighters and tin tanks.

First "allied aid" to USSR were used Hurricanes from UK. They were so awfully bad even compared to outdated I-16s that Soviet pilots tried to crash them on landings only not to go to combat in this suicidal coffins. And it was all paid with solid gold! Not useless ores, not timber and not ferilizers, but - solid gold. I can't call it an "assistance". It was commerce.

About "better aiming devices" - it's funny Americans and Brits refused to fly P-39s, while well-trained and experienced Soviet pilots made it a formidable opponent to Germans. But first several hundreeds of Cobras we recieved were abandoned twice: first time by Americans and then by Brits.

Spitfires were useless in Russian front. After very few combat episodes they were all sent to Air Defence (PVO) units.

Yeah, it was "aiming devices". How can any Westerner ever think that Russians are capable of doing something better then "fighters for freedom and democracy"?... They are all "asians on their shaggy mounts"!

[Boroda]

The British stood alone against the Nazis for one year. At the time, the German war machine ran nicely on russian raw materials.
The Russians never stood alone against the Nazis.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Did we have brave "allied" troops fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with us in Stalingrad or Kursk? What? They promised us second front in 1942? All we had from "allies" was moral support and some supplies unnessesary for them that were paid by solid gold. But now this brave negotiants say that "Russians never stood alone against the Nazis".

BTW, did you know that USSR was the only (ONLY!) country that had to pay for all the lend-leased supplies? Also, please, compare the figures of American assistance to the UK and resources sold to USSR. You'll be surprised.

Again: at the same times American companies were collecting profits from their trade with Germany, and companies like Opel, owned by GM, were building weapons for nazis.

Originally posted by Angus

And so, the German cruisers are now down to 1 half-built?
Anyway, nice to know more about the brotherhood of Hitler and Stalin

How many cruisers were sold to us by the "allies"? Answer is: one, "Milwakee" ("Murmansk"), built in 1919 and obsolete well before WWII started. And the antique battleship "Roayl Soverign" ("Archangelsk"), built during WWI. Both ships were returned to "allies" and wend right into scrape metal because they were useless. Both were too old for combat duty before they were lended to USSR.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Angus
Oh, and the Oil etc:
1940: 900.000 metric tonnes of crude oil, 500.000 tonnes of manganese ore, 100.000 tonnes of chrome, and some millions of tonnes of food for Germany's horse drawn units.
That served the Germans nicely, capturing Norway, Denmark, France, Holland, Belgium, etc.....
Good uncle Joe

Nice numbers, especially when seen only on paper.

Ores that were sold to Germany were mostly useless even for Germans with their developed industry. Chrome? It's funny. The number looks like the supplies captured by Germans in 1941.

Again: did we have to fight Germans with bare hands, just to please people who led hostile politics against us and even planned to bomb Baku oil mines in 1940?

What else should we have done to make "allies" cooperate with us? Say that all our base are belong to them?

They wanted to watch the fight between Germany and USSR, and refused to do anything to protect Poland as they promised. In 1940 this brilliant politics brought it's expected results.

If in August, 1939, they were serious negotiating with USSR - the whole history could change completely.

Again I have a feling that I argue with a radio tuned to "Radio Liberty" or "Voice of America" from cold-war times. Common sence gets drowned in waves of hatred, and the same old sentences get repeated ad nauseum.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Boroda

First "allied aid" to USSR were used Hurricanes from UK. They were so awfully bad even compared to outdated I-16s that Soviet pilots tried to crash them on landings only not to go to combat in this suicidal coffins. And it was all paid with solid gold! Not useless ores, not timber and not ferilizers, but - solid gold. I can't call it an "assistance". It was commerce.

Solid Spanish gold gained from selling them second hand fighters, bombers and tin tanks.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by miko2d
[Boroda: 1920: Polish invasion. Got their prettythang kicked all the way to Vstula.

  It was soviet bolshevics who invaded Poland in 1920 and got their tulips kicked out.

ÁÑÝ, Ñîâåòñêî-ïîëüñêàÿ âîéíà 1920ã.

I hope you'll not doubt this source.

This story of Polish invasion and how "everyone knows that it was soviet bolshevics who invaded Poland in 1920 and got their tulips kicked out" is a good example of rewriting history, and we have a chance to see how it is done. When I hear that "everyone knows" somwthing - I know I'd better check some sources...

[Toad]

So, Boroda, the Polish attacked Russia in 1920 and took YOUR land, right?

Tell me what's your view of the Polish Partition of 1772-1775?

All this "who stole who's land" stuff sort of depends on where you draw the "Start" line, doesn't it?

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Toad
So, Boroda, the Polish attacked Russia in 1920 and took YOUR land, right?

Tell me what's your view of the Polish Partition of 1772-1775?

All this "who stole who's land" stuff sort of depends on where you draw the "Start" line, doesn't it?

You are right. But it's hard to draw such a line between Poland/Lithuania and Russia/Ukraine.

What I say is: in 1920 Polish army crossed the border and on May, 6th, took Kiev. It is a fact. I mean - it is truth. Poles were in Kiev. You can hardly call Kiev a Polish city. And now your "sources" call it a Soviet agression against Poland. And even Miko says that "everyone knows it". I find it frightening. In 50 years "everyone will know" that evil Russians were the allies to Hitler and so on.

[Angus]

Boroda, you sheep-head!
"Did we have brave "allied" troops fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with us in Stalingrad or Kursk? What? They promised us second front in 1942? All we had from "allies" was moral support and some supplies unnessesary for them that were paid by solid gold. But now this brave negotiants say that "Russians never stood alone against the Nazis".

BTW, did you know that USSR was the only (ONLY!) country that had to pay for all the lend-leased supplies? "

What was going on in land warfare in the timeframe from Stalingrad to Kursk? Nothing apart from the eastern front?
Forgot the Desert war have we? Have you also forgotten the Italian campaign? This is all before Normandy.
I have had the fortune of studying LW loss reports from 1942 to 1944 from original source (microfilms actually).
It came as quite a surprize to me that the LW seemed to loose roughly the same number of aircraft in the desert war as they did while fighting at Stalingrad for instance. Which is a total surprize since the British planes were obsolete jink compared to the russian rata's

And, for your info, the British did have to pay pay for their stuff, buying stuff from the USA I mean. Before they could get their first batch of lend-lease hardware (obsolete WW1 destroyers, however better than nothing), the US dispatched a cruiser to pick up gold from cape town. THAT WAS WHILE GUDERIANS TANKS WERE RUNNING ON RUSSIAN FUEL, supplied by the nice Hitler-Stalin brotherhood. Hehe, Stalin even got the blueprints from Bismarck as a trade piece, I bet he had a nice time looking at those.
As for the UK/US not supplying the USSR with battleships or cruisers, it went OK didn't it. After all, the Royal Navy sort of "took care of" the big rides of the Kriegsmarine, with a little help from the RAF may I add.
Oh, blimey, no, the Russians were vital in the destruction of the Tirpitz, - It got hit from a Russian field actually Advanced airbase a-la-USSR

Then finally, I must confess, I never heard "the voice of America".
I also must confess, that I did read a leftie-magazine in my country called "News from the Soviet Union". It had a lot of news from Pravda. Used to give me giggles for weeks.
Also, we did have news from TASS, just as well as Reuters. Did you have Western radio in the USSR? I seem to recall some Poles I know telling me about the western channels being scrambled as much as possible.............

[Angus]

Oh, to clear a point.
The Polish did indeed have the initiative and and advanced into Ukraine. Some sort of a cook-up between them and the Ukranians, which were at the time recently "membered" with the Soviet union.
They did take Kiev, but the Russians drew them back.

[GRUNHERZ]

"everyone will know" that evil Russians were the allies to Hitler"

Not true!!! It was the Brazillian army that invaded eastern Poland on September 17 1939!!!

Belive!!!!

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Boroda

What I mean is that "allies" didn't offer better price for the supplies we have got from Germany. And they refused to cooperate against Hitler. Refused in a very impolite way. Go read the transcripts of the negotiations between "allies" and USSR in August, 1939. With such allies we didn't need enemies.

[/b]
In August 1939, there was no war. Now try to understand this:

Everyone in the western world hated the soviet union.

The ONLY reason you were accepted into the allies was because Germany was a bigger threat than the USSR in 1941. No one really wanted to be allied with you, no one really cared about your plight. But "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and therefore you got lend lease, and therefore you were a part of the allies. As soon as the threat was gone, the alliance was dissolved (for your part that is, the rest formed NATO) and everyone went back to plotting the destruction of the Soviet union.

 OTOH Soviets are evil by default.

[/b]
Not by default, but by action. It kinda comes with the territory if you first nationalize lots of industry, some of which is foreign owned, then proceed to set up the mother of all police states, then slaughter huge chunks of your own population, then start numerous wars of agression to annex various neighbours or parts of neighbours.

Hortlund, I have to remind you that Sweden didn't stay neutral in the cold war. You performed nice jobs for American intelligence, invading Soviet airspace hundreeds of times and providing US with all kinds of information.

[/b]
Of cource we didnt stay neutral. We are your enemy. Always have been, always will be.

Giving back independance? Did I miss something? What countries lost their independance after "Soviet invasion"?

[/b]
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, East Germany, Czchechoslovakia, annexed parts of Finland

 All the countries liberated by soviet Army had democratic elections, and have chosen their way, in the same way as countries occupied by "allies".

[/b]
Riight

We took a nazi job? Did we slaughter any nation completely? Did we plan elimination of whole ethnical groups? Hortlund, when you say something - please try to employ your brain.

[/b]
No, the difference between the nazis and the communists is that the nazis choose their victims based on race, while the communists choose their victims based on politics.

"Land of free" planned nulear massacre of major Soviet cities since 1946, and they admit it.

[/b]
Of cource they did, see the "everybody hates you" part above. Back in 46, the US was the only nation with nukes, the USSR was the land with a mad dictator and a gigantic army poised to attack western europe. OF COURCE everyone planned to use nukes against Russia, that would be the only defence against the Red Army.

[Angus]

Yet one point:
"Did we have brave "allied" troops fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with us in Stalingrad or Kursk?"

Did we see red army troops fighting shoulder to shoulder with the Brits in Burma or Malasya?