US Politics XIV: Vote for Pedro - Page 30 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-20-2019, 09:04 AM   #581
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 6,516
Local Time: 12:14 PM
https://twitter.com/joshgerstein/sta...653321219?s=21

And the focus in the media this week has been blasting AOC or at very best debating whether concentration camp is what’s going on or should be called something else

7 kids have died, that we know of. A whole lot more are going to do to disease and basic care.

All of this is a feature of Stephen Miller.

Yet Democrats still want to wait for 2020 to stop this ?
__________________

BEAL is offline  
Old 06-20-2019, 09:10 AM   #582
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 6,516
Local Time: 12:14 PM
Better tweet

https://twitter.com/bradheath/status...715614208?s=21
__________________

BEAL is offline  
Old 06-20-2019, 11:44 AM   #583
The Fly
 
Magnus Maximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 194
Local Time: 07:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveC View Post
let freedom ring!

Ok, are you saying Russia would have won without the western allies, because they wouldn't have, or are you saying the western allies won because of Russia. Honestly they would have won without Russia. also it wouldn't have taken any longer (maybe a few more months to a year)-- At the end of the day D-day could have happened a year earlier. Or not happened at all- Because once the US got the bomb the war was over. Further as we know Japan didn't surrender until the bomb was dropped.

Now if we are talking WWI Russia pulled out of the war. The RR started in 17- In fact socialism almost lost WW1 for the western powers.

You are wrong and pence is right on all 3 points:

1. VE was not depended on the USSR as without western resupply, victories in Operation Torch, sicily, sardina, and really tactical errors on the part of the Germans. the USSR had no chance.

2. VE without Russia was achievable albeit a bit longer once the US got the bomb (freedom and capitalism) the war would have been over anyway.

3. Socialism had no role in WW1 in fact it almost caused the west to lose the war (but also proving they could win with out Russia)
Magnus Maximus is offline  
Old 06-20-2019, 12:09 PM   #584
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 7,233
Local Time: 12:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...onist-senators

Joe Biden is too old. Not in age (though that too), but everything about him mentally seems to be residing in the 60s/70s. And I'm sorry but there are other older candidates in the race (Warren, Sanders) who don't sound like somebody just woke them up from a cryo tank.
Seriously. Corey Booker is grasping at anything he can since he barely made the cutoff for the debates.
Biden saying that in politics, you have to work with people that you may totally disagree with. You can be civil with them to get things done, and if you can't work with them, you work around them.

From Symone Sanders:
@JoeBiden did not praise a segregationist. That is a disingenuous take. He basically said sometimes in Congress, one has to work with terrible or down right racist folks to get things done. And then went on to say when you can't work with them, work around them.


This is somehow something to apologize for now? Almost every person running right now has to work with Trump, and he is a racist, misogynist, serial sexual assaulter. And I'm sure Booker has said that he tries to work with Trump on things they can agree with, even though they don't agree on much.

So I hope Booker apologizes very soon.
womanfish is offline  
Old 06-20-2019, 12:45 PM   #585
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 6,516
Local Time: 12:14 PM
I think the Dems are idiots. With all the shit going on

The border
Iran
Name any Trump disaster

They just keep eating their own
BEAL is offline  
Old 06-20-2019, 01:16 PM   #586
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 08:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by womanfish View Post
@JoeBiden did not praise a segregationist. That is a disingenuous take. He basically said sometimes in Congress, one has to work with terrible or down right racist folks to get things done. And then went on to say when you can't work with them, work around them.
I'm sorry but you've completely lost me here.

We are, as a society, luckily slowly moving away from "having to work with down right racist" folks. We are beyond any kind of compromise with these people. Should we have half as many concentration camps? Maybe agree on half a Muslim ban? No, just no.

We need to leave this dinosaur, damaging thinking behind and work towards eradicating it from mainstream political society. Not empower them by continuing to compromise with them on things that are immoral.

I don't care about Booker one bit, he's a horrific candidate. But Joe Biden is wrong, wrong, wrong constantly about matters such as this one.
anitram is offline  
Old 06-20-2019, 01:18 PM   #587
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: nazi punks fuck off
Posts: 21,974
Local Time: 07:14 AM
lol. the idea that the western allies could have won the war outright without the soviets (and that the soviets were doomed without "western resupply") is so utterly asinine and historically ignorant that i almost don't even want to bother refuting this objectively dumb post. but i will anyways, for funsies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnus Maximus View Post
Ok, are you saying Russia would have won without the western allies, because they wouldn't have, or are you saying the western allies won because of Russia. Honestly they would have won without Russia. also it wouldn't have taken any longer (maybe a few more months to a year)-- At the end of the day D-day could have happened a year earlier. Or not happened at all- Because once the US got the bomb the war was over. Further as we know Japan didn't surrender until the bomb was dropped.
so the soviets are out of the war, let's say operation barbarossa simply never happens. the millions of casualties the red army inflicted on the german army don't happen and all those hundreds of thousands of german soldiers are not dead on the outskirts of stalingrad, leningrad, moscow, kursk, and countless other places in western russia.

where do you think those 3 million soldiers that the german army used to invade the USSR are going to be used instead? they're going to be used for the defense of italy and of france, which in reality was already a near-run thing in normandy (the vast majority of the german army being off in the east fighting the soviets at the time) before the allied breakthrough in falaise that started the rout back to the rhine.

if d-day had happened in 1943 with a year's less preparation and the full german army defending in the west it would have failed on day one just like the dieppe raid, so that notion is absolutely ridiculous.

but maybe d-day didn't have to happen at all? so then what - the americans do nothing in the entire war but invent the atomic bomb in 1945, drop a couple of them on germany and then the germans would just go "well we have millions of troops at full fighting strength and have conquered and occupied all of europe and aren't under any sort of invasion at all (let alone from both east and west simultaneously), but let's just quit now so our cities don't get bombed any more"? LOL. because, as we all know, hitler and the nazis definitely weren't openly prosecuting a total war with the full expectation and desire that germany would have to be literally completely destroyed for them to lose.

Quote:
Now if we are talking WWI Russia pulled out of the war. The RR started in 17- In fact socialism almost lost WW1 for the western powers.
socialism did not "almost lose" world war 1 for anybody except the russians. the german spring offensive of 1918 had basically no chance of succeeding due to massive supply shortages (mainly ammunition) and total allied air superiority, it captured no strategically important objectives (not even the rail junction at arras), and it moved the entire german army out of strong defensive positions that they had been preparing for over a year (the hindenburg line) into a vulnerable bulge that could easily be choked off by a strong combined arms attack (which is exactly what happened on august 8 at the battle of amiens). it was an act of total desperation, a final throw of the dice by a mostly already beaten army to try to gain some leverage for a better peace deal before the american army arrived in large numbers. the notion that the germans could have won the war in 1918 is totally ignorant of the facts, and then to use that to say that it was explicitly due to socialism in russia is absolutely ridiculous.

Quote:
1. VE was not depended on the USSR as without western resupply, victories in Operation Torch, sicily, sardina, and really tactical errors on the part of the Germans. the USSR had no chance.
yes, lend-lease was a thing. but none of the supplies that the west sent to russia arrived in any kind of large effective numbers until 1942, after the soviets had already stopped the initial german advance. the USSR had an enormous industrial capacity and were able to fully supply and equip their armies on their own by 1943.

operation torch, which landed in western north africa in november 1942 had no effect at all on the eastern front. the invasion of sicily in july 1943 might have had some small effect in diverting some troops away from the eastern front but it took place after the battle of kursk, when the germans were in full retreat and would be for the entire rest of the war, so it's not like those soldiers would have changed the outcome there anyways. and sardinia was never invaded by the allies at all (only some bombing of airfields and ports as part of the invasion of sicily) and the german garrison stationed there simply left willingly in september, so i have no idea why you even mentioned it.

Quote:
2. VE without Russia was achievable albeit a bit longer once the US got the bomb (freedom and capitalism) the war would have been over anyway.
so again, the americans are just going to nuke germany with the two bombs they had produced in 1945 and then the nazi leadership is just gonna surrender even though they aren't being attacked on the ground on any front at all. okay.

the german army has millions of undefeated soldiers in the field from france to poland to norway to italy, but drop a primitive nuke or two on germany and hitler, a man who was known to have a tendency to surrender, would say "well we had a good run but a part of downtown cologne is now gone so let's give all that back, bring the army home and say we're sorry". that makes sense.

Quote:
3. Socialism had no role in WW1 in fact it almost caused the west to lose the war (but also proving they could win with out Russia)
the entente did not "win without russia". in fact they almost certainly would not have won without russia, as the thousands of soldiers fighting on the eastern front against the russian empire would have been able to fight in verdun and flanders. the brusilov offensive almost broke the entire eastern german army and the russians advanced so far that they really only had to stop because they lost momentum due to outrunning their supply lines. even after the revolution and the treaty of brest-litovsk the germans still had to keep hundreds of thousands of soldiers in the occupation zones in poland, the baltics, and ukraine and somehow that all counts as "winning without russia". lmao please.

lastly, since you seem to think that the soviet contribution to the war was utterly meaningless, and since you seem to love statistics so much based on the NHL thread, go watch this video and then tell us again how it didn't matter at all that the USSR was in the war against the germans:

DaveC is offline  
Old 06-20-2019, 01:31 PM   #588
The Fly
 
Magnus Maximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 194
Local Time: 07:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveC View Post
lol. the idea that the western allies could have won the war outright without the soviets (and that the soviets were doomed without "western resupply") is so utterly asinine and historically ignorant that i almost don't even want to bother refuting this objectively dumb post. but i will anyways, for funsies.



so the soviets are out of the war, let's say operation barbarossa simply never happens. the millions of casualties the red army inflicted on the german army don't happen and all those hundreds of thousands of german soldiers are not dead on the outskirts of stalingrad, leningrad, moscow, kursk, and countless other places in western russia.

where do you think those 3 million soldiers that the german army used to invade the USSR are going to be used instead? they're going to be used for the defense of italy and of france, which in reality was already a near-run thing in normandy (the vast majority of the german army being off in the east fighting the soviets at the time) before the allied breakthrough in falaise that started the rout back to the rhine.

if d-day had happened in 1943 with a year's less preparation and the full german army defending in the west it would have failed on day one just like the dieppe raid, so that notion is absolutely ridiculous.

but maybe d-day didn't have to happen at all? so then what - the americans do nothing in the entire war but invent the atomic bomb in 1945, drop a couple of them on germany and then the germans would just go "well we have millions of troops at full fighting strength and have conquered and occupied all of europe and aren't under any sort of invasion at all (let alone from both east and west simultaneously), but let's just quit now so our cities don't get bombed any more"? LOL. because, as we all know, hitler and the nazis definitely weren't openly prosecuting a total war with the full expectation and desire that germany would have to be literally completely destroyed for them to lose.



socialism did not "almost lose" world war 1 for anybody except the russians. the german spring offensive of 1918 had basically no chance of succeeding due to massive supply shortages (mainly ammunition) and total allied air superiority, it captured no strategically important objectives (not even the rail junction at arras), and it moved the entire german army out of strong defensive positions that they had been preparing for over a year (the hindenburg line) into a vulnerable bulge that could easily be choked off by a strong combined arms attack (which is exactly what happened on august 8 at the battle of amiens). it was an act of total desperation, a final throw of the dice by a mostly already beaten army to try to gain some leverage for a better peace deal before the american army arrived in large numbers. the notion that the germans could have won the war in 1918 is totally ignorant of the facts, and then to use that to say that it was explicitly due to socialism in russia is absolutely ridiculous.



yes, lend-lease was a thing. but none of the supplies that the west sent to russia arrived in any kind of large effective numbers until 1942, after the soviets had already stopped the initial german advance. the USSR had an enormous industrial capacity and were able to fully supply and equip their armies on their own by 1943.

operation torch, which landed in western north africa in november 1942 had no effect at all on the eastern front. the invasion of sicily in july 1943 might have had some small effect in diverting some troops away from the eastern front but it took place after the battle of kursk, when the germans were in full retreat and would be for the entire rest of the war, so it's not like those soldiers would have changed the outcome there anyways. and sardinia was never invaded by the allies at all (only some bombing of airfields and ports as part of the invasion of sicily) and the german garrison stationed there simply left willingly in september, so i have no idea why you even mentioned it.



so again, the americans are just going to nuke germany with the two bombs they had produced in 1945 and then the nazi leadership is just gonna surrender even though they aren't being attacked on the ground on any front at all. okay.

the german army has millions of undefeated soldiers in the field from france to poland to norway to italy, but drop a primitive nuke or two on germany and hitler, a man who was known to have a tendency to surrender, would say "well we had a good run but a part of downtown cologne is now gone so let's give all that back, bring the army home and say we're sorry". that makes sense.



the entente did not "win without russia". in fact they almost certainly would not have won without russia, as the thousands of soldiers fighting on the eastern front against the russian empire would have been able to fight in verdun and flanders. the brusilov offensive almost broke the entire eastern german army and the russians advanced so far that they really only had to stop because they lost momentum due to outrunning their supply lines. even after the revolution and the treaty of brest-litovsk the germans still had to keep hundreds of thousands of soldiers in the occupation zones in poland, the baltics, and ukraine and somehow that all counts as "winning without russia". lmao please.

lastly, since you seem to think that the soviet contribution to the war was utterly meaningless, and since you seem to love statistics so much based on the NHL thread, go watch this video and then tell us again how it didn't matter at all that the USSR was in the war against the germans:

My friend you know you are arguing Military History with a Military officer who has studied this his whole life.

WW2 The west would have won the war with or with out Russia, in the end it was the U.S.'s industrial base that won the war period and end of story. Further that industrial base was safe, where as Germanys industrial base was crippled by allied bombing.

WW1 Russia surrendered to Germany in 1917 (technically 3-March -18) but was out of the war by 17. The Russian Army had massive setbacks and the Army was in Mutiny. Once again once the US entered it was over. That was the difference not Russia.

Are you familiar at all with the DIME.
Magnus Maximus is offline  
Old 06-20-2019, 01:34 PM   #589
The Fly
 
Magnus Maximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 194
Local Time: 07:14 AM
Actually there is a huge debate whether D-Day could have happened in 43 or was Ike risk adverse. it is discussed pretty heavily in the Generals by Ricks. Ikes habit of promoting corporate men, vs Mavericks like Terry Allen and Patton lead to risk aversion on the Army staff
Magnus Maximus is offline  
Old 06-20-2019, 01:35 PM   #590
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 08:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveC View Post
lastly, since you seem to think that the soviet contribution to the war was utterly meaningless, and since you seem to love statistics so much based on the NHL thread, go watch this video and then tell us again how it didn't matter at all that the USSR was in the war against the germans:

I've actually wondered about the quality of history education in American primary schools when it comes to WWII because it appears to be a somewhat disturbingly widely held belief that the Americans singlehandedly saved Europe and when credit is given, it tends to be freely given to the Brits, Canadians, etc but the Russians are sort of a footnote in history. I don't see this to be the case at the university-level so I can only conclude that it's the earlier textbooks that minimize what the Russians did.
anitram is offline  
Old 06-20-2019, 01:39 PM   #591
The Fly
 
Magnus Maximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 194
Local Time: 07:14 AM
Also remember that the landings at Sicily were larger than D-Day.


Then you need to question were the landings at Sicily Necessary, that's a lot of men, ordnance, equipment used up. Could that have been used at Calais in 43.
Magnus Maximus is offline  
Old 06-20-2019, 01:41 PM   #592
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: nazi punks fuck off
Posts: 21,974
Local Time: 07:14 AM
lol the speed at which you replied makes it pretty obvious that you barely did more than skim my post and also didn't bother to watch the video either. but alright.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnus Maximus View Post
My friend you know you are arguing Military History with a Military officer who has studied this his whole life.
cool story bro. i was in the army too. that doesn't automatically make you an expert in anything. it's actually quite the opposite, in my experience with military officers.

Quote:
WW2 The west would have won the war with or with out Russia, in the end it was the U.S.'s industrial base that won the war period and end of story. Further that industrial base was safe, where as Germanys industrial base was crippled by allied bombing.

WW1 Russia surrendered to Germany in 1917 (technically 3-March -18) but was out of the war by 17. The Russian Army had massive setbacks and the Army was in Mutiny. Once again once the US entered it was over. That was the difference not Russia.
i like how you're just saying things with no sources or statistics at all to back them up and then acting like they're absolute facts that everyone should just accept, "period and end of story" that's not how any of this works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnus Maximus View Post
Actually there is a huge debate whether D-Day could have happened in 43 or was Ike risk adverse. it is discussed pretty heavily in the Generals by Ricks. Ikes habit of promoting corporate men, vs Mavericks like Terry Allen and Patton lead to risk aversion on the Army staff
right, and the reason that there is a debate at all into whether it could have happened in 1943 is precisely because the vast majority of the german army was fighting in the USSR at the time and not in any position to defend france. also, it's a pretty stupid debate because the mulberry harbours weren't built in 1943 - no mulberry harbours, no way to resupply the invasion forces, overlord fails. it's not very complicated.
DaveC is offline  
Old 06-20-2019, 01:45 PM   #593
The Fly
 
Magnus Maximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 194
Local Time: 07:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I've actually wondered about the quality of history education in American primary schools when it comes to WWII because it appears to be a somewhat disturbingly widely held belief that the Americans singlehandedly saved Europe and when credit is given, it tends to be freely given to the Brits, Canadians, etc but the Russians are sort of a footnote in history. I don't see this to be the case at the university-level so I can only conclude that it's the earlier textbooks that minimize what the Russians did.
1. I have a degree in Military History
2. I am an Army Officer with a life time studying these things.

America's industrial base won the war period end of story. Without America's industrial might and resources Germany wins easy.

America and Canada were both in favorable positions as they could not be attacked and really there was no legitimate threat of attack.

Russia only lost so many soldiers because of tactical incompetence and a disregard for there lives by their commanders. Russia plan was to simply mob Germany with a peasant Army, a lot of times they weren't even armed. So yes they lost a lot of soldiers but that was irrelevant compared to what really won the war the U.S. Industrial base
Magnus Maximus is offline  
Old 06-20-2019, 01:48 PM   #594
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 08:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnus Maximus View Post

Russia only lost so many soldiers because of tactical incompetence and a disregard for there lives by their commanders. Russia plan was to simply mob Germany with a peasant Army, a lot of times they weren't even armed. So yes they lost a lot of soldiers but that was irrelevant compared to what really won the war the U.S. Industrial base
Whether or not the Russians had/have a disregard for the lives of their own people is neither here nor there when you look at the casualties that they factually inflicted upon the German troops.

Could the war have been won without the Russians altogether is a theoretical argument which by definition can never be settled.

What is actual fact is that the Germans bled and died in staggering numbers on the Eastern front. At the hands/primitive tactics of "peasants" as you call them.
anitram is offline  
Old 06-20-2019, 01:48 PM   #595
The Fly
 
Magnus Maximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 194
Local Time: 07:14 AM
at the end of the day Russia kept Germany busy with a peasant Army so the US could pump tanks, planes, bombers and guns into Britain.


In the end it is generally economies and industry that win a peer to peer or near pear conflict.


If you read dreadnought by Massie he does a could job of explaining that in a WW1 context.
Magnus Maximus is offline  
Old 06-20-2019, 01:50 PM   #596
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: nazi punks fuck off
Posts: 21,974
Local Time: 07:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnus Maximus View Post
Russia only lost so many soldiers because of tactical incompetence and a disregard for there lives by their commanders. Russia plan was to simply mob Germany with a peasant Army, a lot of times they weren't even armed. So yes they lost a lot of soldiers but that was irrelevant compared to what really won the war the U.S. Industrial base
lol this tells me all i need to know about your knowledge of this stuff, if you don't even know about soviet deep battle doctrine.

enemy at the gates isn't a documentary.
DaveC is offline  
Old 06-20-2019, 01:53 PM   #597
The Fly
 
Magnus Maximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 194
Local Time: 07:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Whether or not the Russians had/have a disregard for the lives of their own people is neither here nor there when you look at the casualties that they factually inflicted upon the German troops.

Could the war have been won without the Russians altogether is a theoretical argument which by definition can never be settled.

What is actual fact is that the Germans bled and died in staggering numbers on the Eastern front. At the hands/primitive tactics of "peasants" as you call them.
Germany lost because of the winter and arrogance of their leadership, and failure to win the peace (initially a lot of Russians welcomed them, but the German cruelty turned them against them), they also failed to realize the COG (center of gravity in the war with Russia) Also take into account that Stalin was willing to sacrifice his own people, not just soldiers but civilians to make sure the German army would starve.

Disease, starvation and the winter killed more Germans than Soviet troops.
Magnus Maximus is offline  
Old 06-20-2019, 01:55 PM   #598
The Fly
 
Magnus Maximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 194
Local Time: 07:14 AM
I understand you think you know what Soviet deep battle doctrine is, this tells me you don't really understand what happened.


The fact is Stalin was in a sense of shock and couldn't make a decision for months, he let Germany advance not because of doctrine but because he was basically in shock. This Soviet deep battle doctrine was invented after the war. (or really brought back it was talked about in the 30's) and that was the fairytale Russia constructed


Oh and instead of watching enemy at the Gates read Sajers the Forgotten soldier if you really want to know about the Eastern front
Magnus Maximus is offline  
Old 06-20-2019, 01:59 PM   #599
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: nazi punks fuck off
Posts: 21,974
Local Time: 07:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnus Maximus View Post
I understand you think you know what Soviet deep battle doctrine is, this tells me you don't really understand what happened.


Quote:
This Soviet deep battle doctrine was invented after the war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_o...of_deep_battle

Quote:
In 1929 Vladimir Triandafillov and Tukhachevsky formed a partnership to create a coherent system of principles from the concept formed by Svechin. Tukhachevsky was to elaborate the principles of the tactical and operational phases of deep battle. In response to his efforts and in acceptance of the methodology, the Red Army produced the Provisional Instructions for Organizing the Deep Battle manual in 1933. This was the first time that "deep battle" was mentioned in official Red Army literature.
please keep going though, it's really entertaining to watch someone failing this hard over and over again to actually know what they're talking about.
DaveC is offline  
Old 06-20-2019, 02:05 PM   #600
The Fly
 
Magnus Maximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 194
Local Time: 07:14 AM
In 1937–1938 ... all commanders of the armed forces, members of the military councils, and chiefs of the political departments of the military districts, the majority of the chiefs of the central administrations of the People's Commissariat of Defense, all corps commanders, almost all division and brigade commanders, about one-third of the regimental commissars, many teachers of higher or middle military and military-political schools were judged and destroyed.[36]
The deep operation concept was thrown out of Soviet military strategy as it was associated with the denounced figures that created it.


The abandonment of deep operations had a huge impact on Soviet military capability. Fully engaging in the Second World War (after Winter War) the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, the Soviets struggled to relearn it. The surprise German invasion (Operation Barbarossa) subjected the Red Army to six months of disasters. The Red Army was shattered during the first two months. Thereafter it faced the task of surviving, then reviving and maturing into an instrument that could compete with the Wehrmacht and achieve victory.
__________________

Magnus Maximus is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×