EU: joke of the day.

[beet1e]

ROFL Lazs & Storch.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by cpxxx
Correct me If I'm wrong Boroda. But didn't Russia invade Latvia in 1940 and Lithuania and Estonia not to mention Finland and Poland?  Maybe they left that bit out of your history books too?

USSR invaded Finland. USSR took back it's land in Western Ukraine and Belorussia, BTW - giving lots of land to Lithuania including their capitol city.

Adoption of "Baltic states" into USSR simply can't be called an "invasion". Their democratically elected governments kindly asked to join USSR and were allowed to do that. There was no power of weapons used, it was their own decision. In fact - I doubt that USSR wished to take them by force in case they refused.

Do you seriously think that leaving them to nazis could be a better solution? In this case nazis could take Leningrad in a matter of days.

USSR have built everything they have now in 1944-91. The total sum of investments into their non-existant economics was much more then the total price of all their posessions including land.

[Siaf__csf]

First of all USSR never invaded finland, only minor parts of it. Second, whatever russia built 1944-1991 was sold for scrap, all the wealth stolen by a few individuals while many people in russia still live without electricity or running water.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
First of all USSR never invaded finland, only minor parts of it.  

Beautiful

"I didn't beat him half-dead, only a minor part of him"

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Second, whatever russia built 1944-1991 was sold for scrap, all the wealth stolen by a few individuals while many people in russia still live without electricity or running water.

For Russia - unfortunately it's true. It's called "capitalism", just in case you didn't know. One correctuon: bot "for scrap" but "for price of scrap".

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Boroda
USSR have built everything they have now in 1944-91. The total sum of investments into their non-existant economics was much more then the total price of all their posessions including land.

Surprisingly...  guess who were in power in 1944-91.

Without the USSR there could been alot more built, more modern infrastructure, and the countries would be doing much better than they're doing at the moment (just as good argument as yours).
Somehow the european countries have been build up after the WWII and it didn't need the USSR's help.
Yet more surprisingly every country on the western side of the red curtain have been built better than the countries behind the red curtain.

They're also economically in better shape.
Even the barbarians of Ireland have become an excellent place for investments.

Oh.. did I say investments? Thats how you build up countries without the help of the USSR.
In fact, aren't they doing it just like that at the very moment?

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Fishu
Oh.. did I say investments? Thats how you build up countries without the help of the USSR.
In fact, aren't they doing it just like that at the very moment?

Please check who works as low-payment construction workers in Kaliningrad region.

A bottle of cheap vodka is a good thing to bribe a Lithuanian customs officer.

The only investment they have now is into building airstrips for NATO aviation.

They are useless.

Damn. First book in Latvian language was published in Riga in 1868. By Russians.

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by SunTracker
The main tank of the U.S at the end of the war was the upgunned M4E8.  The Russians were still using a hodgepodge of T-34s.  Both countries had heavy tanks in small numbers.  The Russians had the Josef Stalin 3 (IS3), the U.S. had the M-26.

The U.S. had a better airforce hands down.  Air superiority would have gone to the U.S.  All targets within reach of B-29s based in Germany would have been bombed.

Numbers wise, the Russians had alot more troops than the U.S.  Both sides had experienced troops.  Now heres where a big variable comes in.  Many German soldiers would have fought against the Russians with the U.S.  *If* the U.S. adopted German squad tactics (which they did in Vietnam), this would offset the numerical advantage the Russians had.  Heck, at the end of the war, the Germans were using MG34s and STG44s in squads.  It would take the U.S. over 20 years to match that firepower.

Naval battles would go for the U.S.  Did the USSR even have aircraft carriers?

We had Patton, MacArthur & the Bomb. It would have been over in about 6 months.

[Monk]

I thought the EU was the joke of the day.

[Thrawn]

Shoooore, the US would have succeed in invading Russia...just like the Napolean and Hitler.  You would have had to nuke them...then occupy them, piece of cake.

[Toad]

Don't think it would have happened but...

Thrawn, assuming the use of say......30 nukes......... why would even want to occupy?

Might peak in there after 50 years or so.............

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Hangtime
We had Patton, MacArthur & the Bomb. It would have been over in about 6 months.

It would have been over in 6 weeks.

An army that was scared to death by two SS panzer divisions had one option: to run like hell towards British Channel.

Sorry, but after reading Bradleys' "Soldier's diary" (a book that was a base for "Patton" film) - I came to a conclusion that Patton was... hmmm... intellectually challenged.

Please don't forget that "allied" massive bombings didn't significantly reduce German industrial production.

With only airfields in UK left - it was impossible to seriously damage Soviet industry.

And by 1949 USSR had a bomb too, and interceptors invulnerable for US bomber gunners. I hope you remember what MiG-15s did to B-29 formations in Korea, it was like raping into all possible holes at once.

Your desire to turn other countries into a playground for your mentally disabled generals with nukes is absolutely amazing. I wonder what Europeans could think after US nuked several cities  reachable for B-29s. A-bomb have always been a weapon of terror, almost useless in battlefield.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Boroda
A bottle of cheap vodka is a good thing to bribe a Lithuanian customs officer.

Brought to you by the USSR 1944-91, the side effects left unmentioned by the history of a certain country.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Toad
Don't think it would have happened but...

Thrawn, assuming the use of say......30 nukes......... why would even want to occupy?

Might peak in there after 50 years or so.............

Toad finally reveals his dreams.

In May, 1945, you didn't have nukes at all.

30 nukes are nothing. Drop Shot plan included using 300+ nukes, and still they had almost no effect on Soviet Army, being used only as weapons of terror.

Can anyone do me a favour and plot a B-29 effective range from Western occupation zones?

[Boroda]

....I don't even want to speak about what could happen after pictures of the first Soviet city nuked by the US have been published in "Frontovaya Illustratsiya" ("Frontline Illustration") and shown to the troops.

Sorry, I have problems with tenses, can anyone help me by pointing at mistakes I probably made in a paragraph above?

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Toad
Don't think it would have happened but...

Thrawn, assuming the use of say......30 nukes......... why would even want to occupy?

Might peak in there after 50 years or so.............

Come to think of it, at the end of WW2 the Russian army is in eastern Europe right?  So you are going to have to nuke the very countries you want to save from communism.