a little misinformation

I enjoy learning russian and have visited this site many times. I did not feel the need to join the forum, but I assume it is good to use now. I just wanted to address the topic "Americans hate Russia", but knew the topic is extended to a point where what I would say is not read.

For the first part, Americans don't hate Russia, as then none of the Americans here would want to learn the Russian language and culture. You are obviously not American because you are trying to make low blows at them.

For the second part, this is a political section of a forum meant to discuss politics with Russia and its culture. NOT if you think the French were the reason that the Americans are liberated and independent. And if this is the case, please have your information corerect, as the French came in for the last battle of the revolutionary war, and it is a fact that they did not spearhead the battle and they fought on the same level of the Americans. They did NOT make any impact on victory because it was quoted by a British General that the Americans won "..not because they outskilled us, but because they outspied us.." The Americans already knew the plans of the British, so the French had no major role.

But I somewhat remember that Britian, US, and Russia had to bail some certain European countries out of a little problem called Nazi occupation. But, you know, its not like anyone should be thankful for the US and Britian practically fighting WWII FOR you. And Russia was our close ally there that helped tremendously.

Third of all, why in the world would the USA attack Russia when we give them Billions of dollars to help make Capitalism work?


I hate to make a topic as such that has to raise anger, but I wish some people would get the facts straight and not make an opinion for someone that, well, they are not.

With France in the war, the conflict turned into a war of attrition. The rebels were too weak to dislodge the British from Philadelphia and New York. The British tried many strategies, but were unable to establish permanent control over the countryside.The British ECONONOMY "drained by the costs of a War with France and supporting the large occupation forces in America suffered substantially"
I did not write that France came and liberated us i wrote that with out the French involment in the war US wouldn't have been succesful "independennt" because the british economy was in the verge of collapse and their resources virtually exhusted as they fought france in Europe and other colonies across the globe. The French sank many British ships and did play an even BIGGER role that we give them credit for.

As for WWII it is true that Stalin wanted a second front but the Russian winter had already stalled the germans and the russian army was winning considerable battles towards the end of december 1941, the battle of stalingrad now (volgrad) was a turning point in the war, regardless of the british and americans in north africa the russians were already pushing the german lines eastwards. It is true that if the invasion of normandy in june 6 1944 wouldn't have happened it would have been harder for the russians to drive towards berlin, not impossible however. lets suposed the russians lost and or better yet joined hittler, would the allies have beaten the mighty german army fighting solely angainst them? (lets remember that the Barbarosa operation of june 22 1941 involved a vast army of 3 million motorized, havy armed, greatly equiped and efficient german army) we turn them lose against the allies and disaster for the world. Russia held them up as the allies fought a smaller force on the west. if it wasn't for russia D-DAY would have been a disaster.

"As for WWII it is true that Stalin wanted a second front but the Russian winter had already stalled the germans and the russian army was winning considerable battles towards the end of december 1941, the battle of stalingrad now (volgrad) was a turning point in the war,"

You're forgetting the fact that the Russians were able to win on the east because of allied supply transports.

"regardless of the british and americans in north africa the russians were already pushing the german lines eastwards."

I'm a bit confused here. Do you really mean eastwards?

"It is true that if the invasion of normandy in june 6 1944 wouldn't have happened it would have been harder for the russians to drive towards berlin, not impossible however."

Almost impossible.

"lets suposed the russians lost and or better yet joined hittler, would the allies have beaten the mighty german army fighting solely angainst them?"

I really don't understand why you're saying this. What do you mean? The Soviets never joined the Germans, they only had an NAP and agreements on how to split countries.


"(lets remember that the Barbarosa operation of june 22 1941 involved a vast army of 3 million motorized, havy armed, greatly equiped and efficient german army)"

Only moments ago you said they were being beaten by the Russian winter, which is true. They were certainly not greatly equipped. They were lightly armed compared to the Russians, especially considering the armor. Only parts of the German force were motorized. They were efficient on the countryside only. The critical battles in the cities were very tight, and US efforts helped a lot in letting the Russians beat their enemy.

"we turn them lose against the allies and disaster for the world. Russia held them up as the allies fought a smaller force on the west. if it wasn't for russia D-DAY would have been a disaster."

Actually, the German armies in the west were better equipped and better trained, had a lot more supplies, very good defensive positions, and a lot of them were mechanized SS troops with very good training, morale and weapons.

D Day succeeded because of great planning and great execution. It almost failed, however, because of bad weather. This may sound a bit trivial, but better weather would have saved thousands of lives and would result in a quicker advance through France. So Russia didn't have much to do with D Day. Also, D Day was a complete surprise for the Germans, since they were concentrating their troops to large ports that they thought the allies would have to seize before attacking. So it was more a matter of good strategical choices that won Operation Overlord, not Russia.

even, if france did play a major role in our revolution. wich they didn't, and even if they did it wasn't untill the very freaking end. anyways. so, in WW1, we saved them... then we were even, in WWII, we saved them again, if anything they owe us one. if not for us in WW2, i think russia wouldave pushed halfway through poland, and put up a fence, leaving the rest of europe accupied, but, it is not like stalin cared, as long as keiv and misnk were free of nazis, russia had won. and russia wouldave won against germany anyway, germany was on the retreat since winter 1942, after they lost stalingrad. in 1942, we had not even attacked guadal canal in the pacific, and we were still in the deserts of africa, and i dont think anzio had been attacked... (anzio was a huge flop by the way) by the time we entered mainland europe in june 1944 russia had reclaimed about 90 percent of what it had lost, and wouldave continued to do so. with or without us... i read in a book somwhere "germany in 1943 was a like a man with two doors to his house, the man running back and fourth trying to fortify each door stronger, and as soon as he made one door stronger, the other door would begin to fall, and he would have to run back and start building up his other door, while in the meantime the first door was crumbling... once the allies came in in 1944, it was like men started coming up threw the floor, it was hopeless"

You guys are missing the point, which is not whether France should be grateful to us or us them. Who cares? They were different times and under different circumstances with different leaders. If the US suddenly became a brutal dictatorship should Great Britain stay loyal to them just because we saved them in World War 2? I don't think so. Only a total idiot would. And how long do you believe France should owe us? 500 years? A thousand? Just let it go already. Whatever happened to altruism?

I tell you what. The next time France is invaded you guys can sit here arguing over whether or not the US should help them and I'll go enlist. I have a feeling millions of people will, because this scapegoating other countries in times of economic distress is losing the effect it once had on the population. At least according to Gallup, the majority of Americans think this boycotting crap is stupid and see right through it for what it is.

i meant westwards (you know it too)
what i meant by joining them (i see that i got to explain things better for you to understand them)
if the russians would have asked for a truce, if hittler wouldn't have attacked. you are right about the winter supplies however not about the germans from the eastern front being less efficient than the ones in the west. The barbarossa operaion took careful planning from the most powerful military in the world at that time the "German". they had high moral, well equiped, mechanized divisions, well train, confident as much of the army massed at the east had already beaten the British,French,Polish, in other words they were veterans who knew what they were doing and with a hight level of confidence, "before the winter comes, the swastika will be flying over the kremlin. Russia has fallen and will never rise again"---Adolf Hittler 1941

no matter how much you try to convince yourself that with or without russia the allies would have won, that is NOT true. As i said before they made the difference, because even before the US supplied them with equipment they used the strategy of retreating and not leaving anything for the enemy to use and it worked. as the germans drove deeper and deeper into the CCCP the more exhausted they got, the more endless the combat seemed. the russians kept their army intact (for the most part, though stalin made some mistakes and there were some instances in which the red army got encircled and wiped out)
the russians also moved their factories to the east producing amunitions and war supplies for their fresh reinforcements from siberia.
the german army was virtually in russia fighting against the soviet one
not on the west. as it was secured territory (despite the various underground resistance groups) all their efforts were in the east. that is why D-DAY succeded (and by the way the germans expected it at kalay [wrong spelling] ).

so you see the west was the german back door and the east was the front. if those forces wouldn't have been tied on the east fighting for their dear lives and would have been directed to the very well defended positions (i agree with you on that one) D-Day would have failed.

"you are right about the winter supplies however not about the germans from the eastern front being less efficient than the ones in the west. The barbarossa operaion took careful planning from the most powerful military in the world at that time the "German". they had high moral, well equiped, mechanized divisions, well train,..."

Germany did not have the most powerful military in the world, the United States did. The German troops on the east were less efficient, especially lacking clothes, food, ammo, aircraft, tanks, machine guns, training, morale, numbers and experience. The planning, too, was among the worst ever seen.

"...confident as much of the army massed at the east had already beaten the British,French,Polish, in other words they were veterans who knew what they were doing and with a hight level of confidence, "before the winter comes, the swastika will be flying over the kremlin. Russia has fallen and will never rise again"---Adolf Hittler 1941

Lol! How did the Germans beat the British? They were also not very confident when they were trapped without food, clothes and ammo (as I said) facing a stronger enemy, not being able to retreat, and freezing to death. And what do you mean with that quote?

"no matter how much you try to convince yourself that with or without russia the allies would have won, that is NOT true."

Please, stop lying, I never said that.

"As i said before they made the difference, because even before the US supplied them with equipment they used the strategy of retreating and not leaving anything for the enemy to use and it worked."

Hmm, now you're telling me the Russians were beating the Germans, as opposed to what you said before. What kind of point are you trying to make here?

"the russians also moved their factories to the east producing amunitions and war supplies for their fresh reinforcements from siberia. "

What's your point? :?

"the german army was virtually in russia fighting against the soviet one
not on the west."

Again, what's your point?

"as it was secured territory (despite the various underground resistance groups) all their efforts were in the east."

I don't understand at all how you can say that all their efforts were in the east. The SS and Luftwaffe were heavily concentrated in the west, and so were many Army divisions.

"that is why D-DAY succeded (and by the way the germans expected it at kalay [wrong spelling] )."

They didn't expect it on the beaches of Normandy anyway, but allied planning and technology made it possible to do that.

"so you see the west was the german back door and the east was the front. if those forces wouldn't have been tied on the east fighting for their dear lives and would have been directed to the very well defended positions (i agree with you on that one) D-Day would have failed."

There wasn't much of a chance of D-Day failing, for many reasons, including the fact that one million allied men were inserted in France in less than a month. And sure, Russia did indeed help a lot, but they didn't do the hardest work.

actually the russians played the Biggest role,
(you know i think its funny you are trying to confuse and twist and ridicule what i write :),and yet not actually listen to what im trying to say)

i see your point but yet you are mistaken, russia played the biggest role.

when hittler came to power in 1933 he hated comunism but later in the mid to late 30's he actually realized that the russians could be used, and the germans started training in russian grounds (that came back to bite the russians in the ass) but for some reason the germans decided to stop the training afterwards.

1938 germany makes the anschlus (bad spelling) with (union of Austria and Germany) the allies did nothing. Russia however warned the allies about it, actually the russians tried to take it ot the league of nations when the spanish civil war was going on as the russians backed the spanish gov. and the facist backed franco. the allies did nothing. after the series of demands and apeacements the germans moving to the rhine, the union with austria, the take of checkoslovakia, and stalin (with a weak russian
army because of the purges) signed in 1939 the Non-Agression Pact. basically deviding up europe among each other (they both didn't trust eachother but at least it bought time)

1939 poland invaded, russia helped by coming from the east as the blitz krieg from the west cutted through the polish lines like a hot knife through butter.

1940 the quiet period when the most powerful army "German" was getting ready to smash france, and they did i believe in 1941. beating the British and French armies back. they cornered them at a french beach (cant think of the name) the germans made them retreat.
they started the battle of britain (which they could have won if it wasn't for the fact that they switched from the strategic bombing to the london blitz) this was the first german defeat.
but the german war machine turned to the east were they took yugoslavia,romania, bulgaria and so on...

in june 22 1941 they took on, the biggest operation in history turning the already combat tested, highly trained, with a high self confidence german army against the russians. the planning was great Barbarossa operation was carfully planed (not among the worst plans ever as you reffered to it)
because of hittler inpasiance and the over confidence of the fuhrer they did not pack winter supplies because they thought that russia would fall before the winter came.
as i said before 3 million troops, motorized divisions, about 2000 luffwafe planes took part on the offensive.

many factors of course contibuted to the fall of this massive army
the failure to exploit the rivalries between russians and non-russian people in the CCCP, the over confidence the unexpected russian strategy,of retreating and not leaving anything of use for the enemy, leaving the army intact (for the most part) by not letting the germans encircle them.

basically all the efforts where in the east at that time but as the winter came close the germanst began freezing to death so did their machinary.
in 1942 the fhurer growing inpatient changed the tactic (now that was the stupidest thing) and the key victories of the red army.

now while this was going on the allies where going for the soft spots in africa, against the desert fox. in 1943 the russians were beating the germans back (stalin begging for a second european front)
however the german army was tied up in the east.

the massing of ally troops on britain began, the take of parts of the mediterranian, like crete (all soft spots because of the massive war going on in the east as the germans kept committing more forces to the struggle)
even the take of italy (soft german underbelly as the ally general called it)

finally in 1944 D-DAY was to come, and yet the germans were being beaten back in the east.

as you said the germans did not expected it in normandy but at kalay (still wrong spelling) but hittler was pretty frustrated as he could not take troops from the east (which by this time were ragetty, demoralized, not well supplied, badly trained because of the recrutes that were bunched up to try to stop the red army) hittler new the war was over yet they kept fighting, D-DAY came in june 6 the allies fought as you said the well trained, well defended positions but with almost the entire german army on the east there was not much hittler could do to stop the invasion.
before D-DAY however the russians had already gained the entire terr. lost to the german. as the allies pushed through france it was easier for the russians to start pressing the advance westwards (which by the way was already happening before D-Day) and we already know the rest.

lets say the russians would have fallen in 1941, the germans would have the russian man power, and natural resources at their disposal. they would not have needed to worry about a two front war. they would have easily beaten the allies. Britain would have fallen if the germans kept pressing it, now what would the US have done? i believe the US alone would not have been able to beat the germans. whether the US would have been conquer i doubt it but certaintly Europe would have been German. And the economic and political position the US would have been in.........let's just say not pretty promising.

as you see Russia did make the difference, because while she kept the germans occupied on the east the allies were able to attack north africa and the west.

Whats the point of all this, what is everyone trying to prove, that one country is better than another? Give it up!!!!! :roll:

I feel just like Mike now. I don't want to keep arguing, but I can. And I feel addicted... :roll: Maybe I'll say something later. Maybe.

Arguements are fun. That's why I must argue.

The fact is; the Russians won World War II. When the nazis surrendered they surrendered to the "USSR", not the United States. By the time the western allies made it to Germany, the communists were already in Berlin. Hitler killed himself in fear of Stalin, not Churchill or Roosevelt.

D-Day was a day that made a difference in the war, but it was really Stalin's idea. Stalin wanted a massive attack on the nazis in Europe to soften the war in the east. So Americans, look at D-Day
as an attack led by Stalin.

"The fact is; the Russians won World War II. When the nazis surrendered they surrendered to the "USSR", not the United States."

...which is probably the worst argument I've ever heard. Does Germany decide who beat them?

"By the time the western allies made it to Germany, the communists were already in Berlin."

It was a race. The Russians came there first. So what?

"Hitler killed himself in fear of Stalin, not Churchill or Roosevelt."

What about our Georgie Patton?

"D-Day was a day that made a difference in the war, but it was really Stalin's idea. Stalin wanted a massive attack on the nazis in Europe to soften the war in the east."

Or, you could look at it as a desperate plea for help, to stop the Germans from continuing to crush the Russians. The invasion of Europe had been being planned for years before.

"So Americans..."

Stop doing that. Stop assuming that all Americans are against you.

"...look at D-Day
as an attack led by Stalin."

That's one of the funniest quotes ever. I'm making a list of quotes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike

You guys are missing the point, which is not whether France should be grateful to us or us them. Who cares? They were different times and under different circumstances with different leaders. If the US suddenly became a brutal dictatorship should Great Britain stay loyal to them just because we saved them in World War 2? I don't think so. Only a total idiot would. And how long do you believe France should owe us? 500 years? A thousand? Just let it go already. Whatever happened to altruism?

---

I agree.

after the winter of 1941 the german advance and "crushing of the russians" as you put it had ended, hittler could never more attack and "crush" Russia.
regardles of D-Day the german culums where being pushed west wards since 1942 (d-day was in june 4 1944, right?)
if you want to call that crushing the Russians then you have a funny definision for it. The Crushing was the first stage of the Barbarossa operation and after the russians stoped the german army at the gates of moskvy the germans where stalled and after Stalingrad (Volgograd) they WHERE THE ONES BEING CRUSHED BY THE RUSSKAYA ARMIYA.

i think your love for my country is getting the best of you V
i love US but i don't think we did all the job, or liberated Europe, or liberated Iraq for the Iraqis sake for that matter, i Love my people my country US and the country of my parents MEXICO but i don't believe in their stupid shitty propaganda or the dumb as$ brain washing of the governments. I let the facts convince me and so far you refuse to give me any only the argument that russia couldnt have pulled it off with out us and that we could have with out them because to you, we had the hardest fight in Europe (to you but we didn't) what hard fight?
the battle of the bulge? oh please...lol, that was a desperate offensive, D-Day? against an army that was tied up in russia, we just fought the the little the germans had in France, not the Huge number of soldiers the Russians were fighting against. North Africa? that was only the dessert fox fighting and again Germany was tied up IN RUSSIA.

In the firts wolrd war when RUSSIA was really getting crushed and virtually not even fighting the germans were still tied up and couldn't put all the resources into beating the allies. NOW IN WOLRD WAR 2 WHEN THE RUSSIANS WERE KICKING THEIR ASSES what resources do you think they had to counter Esein Hower's strategy of attacking the "SOFT UNDERBELLY " as he called the strategy of going to the leas defended spots or easier militarily like north africa, italy, create.

RUSSIA WON THE WAR!!!! not by herself but she did most of the EUROPEAN WAR. THE PASIFIC IS ALL OUR VICTORY BUT EUROPE IS MOSTLY A RUSSKAYA POVEDA.

First of all German army was more equiped and more efficient though it was unnumbered by Russians...
But I dont understand what kind of support you'r talking about... Willis Jeeps? Out dated P-40? and out dated tanks from '38? Willis is probebly the only thing that was good.
And how come Russia should have liberated france.. without defeating Germany first? if Germany is kinda in the way to france ya know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerodan{CCCP}

First of all German army was more equiped and more efficient though it was unnumbered by Russians...
But I dont understand what kind of support you'r talking about... Willis Jeeps? Out dated P-40? and out dated tanks from '38? Willis is probebly the only thing that was good.
And how come Russia should have liberated france.. without defeating Germany first? if Germany is kinda in the way to france ya know?

---

Who is this directed to?

and out of all of this, you know what i think is stupid? the fact that someone is going to post "We want peace USA!!!" in a MasterRussian forum. I think this flirts with retardedness for a few reasons

1) i have yet to hear of messages from forums being considered for adaption into international policy or just the publics opinion in general.

2) if ive learned one thing its that unless you enjoy the continuous cycle of arguements and mis-understanding, avoid screaming ignorant opinions such as "Many people in USA and EUROPE hate russia". Weather they do or they dont (i can pretty much promise they dont, as i am an american that has lived in europe for 3 years and know many russians here) it really is not much of a matter because you cant change it, the only thing you can change is what you bring to the situation.


on the other hand, for all of you out there enjoying EDUCATED political discussions, have fun, and have a nice day!

Chris

This thread ended more than 7 months ago...

Quote:

---

For the first part, Americans don't hate Russia, as then none of the Americans here would want to learn the Russian language and culture. You are obviously not American because you are trying to make low blows at them.

---

Well, this is half true. America and Russia have more brotherly roots than many of you might think.
Their are those who still think of communists when they think of Russia ( many who are communists themselves without knowing it ) but most seam to think well for Russia and are rooting for them in their long journey to self-reconstruction.
Some for a period of time, had problems with Russians opposition of invading Iraq, but that died fast, and most really didn't care.
You'd be surprised how often Americans stand up for Russians.
I recall in recent history, a conflict where EGM altered a photo of an honor guard honoring fallen Russians with advertisements. This happened right smack dab in the middle of America and Russia's most bitter moment since the Cold War. Americans all over the country came unglued about EGMs slap in the face and made EGM denounce the picture and publicly apologize. This happens all to often, you just never hear about it. This sort of thing usually happens among people whose voices are secluded from being heard in the mainstream media, although it does make up this countries true colors.
Lets not also forget that up until The Lord of the Rings, the most expensive movie ever made on European soil ( Enemy at the Gates ) was one that Americans made about and honoring the Russians.
As for the second part, their is a division amongst Americans today ( much like during the Civil War era ) and many Americans hate their own country as bad as some foreigners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasper May

This thread ended more than 7 months ago...

---

And now it's been 11 months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 44 Canon

Quote:

---

Lets not also forget that up until The Lord of the Rings, the most expensive movie ever made on European soil ( Enemy at the Gates ) was one that Americans made about and honoring the Russians.

---

---

Actually "Enemy at the Gates" was the worst war movie I ever seen. It's full of sterotypes and doesn't show true tragedy and victory named "Stalingrad".

...Sorry, I'm just checking to see if I'm able to post...