I respect what he tried to do and how he experimented with communism, not the fact that he killed 20 million people.
Who were the 20 million he killed? Rich people? No, considering Stalin's people were about the only rich people in the Russia at the time. Give me a break, they were almost totally por civilians... and if you know anything about Stalin you'd know he was a very paranoid person and he could see some poor guy on the street and feel threatened.
I disagree. I don't think that the US and UK could've beaten Germany without Russia. It was pretty much the US and UK alone, since France fell to Germany and Vichy France backed the Nazi's. I believe Canada helped us and some other European nations as well, but the US and UK were the 2 main forces on the Allies. Japan probably would've made the war last much longer too, but we decided to drop the 2 a-bombs to prevent further Allie casualties. I honestly can't see the Allies winning without Russia. Russia's military and technology was just so dominant at the time and every time that the US felt they gained a step in the arms race, we found Russia right there with us. -Pat
No, you're wrong about this. If I know anything it's WWII; the US and UK would have defeated Germany and Japan without Russia. The US was off the scale in industrial power compared to everyone else. There would have been a larger battle in the west obiously with the Germans all there instead of the east. How would the Germans beat the US mostly and the UK in the West? The US alone would have ended up man-handling them, the supreme air power of the US and the RAF helping, and the foot soldiers better armed, and eventually better tanks. It would be mass killing for a while but Germany could never have beaten the Allies as long as the US was fightint. Not to even mention the US could have used the atomic bomb in Europe, too, if they wanted a quicker end. Now, if it was the UK and Russia, then yes, the Axis powers could and probably would have won. Germany would eventually have beaten down Britain and won the west, the Brits just couldn't keep fighting forever with the Luftwaffe bombing the hell out of lower England... a ground invasion would have been successful. Russia was already getting their asses handed to them like I said, like a 1 to 12 kill ratio in favor of the Germans, and the US technology gave the Russians the ability to move and launch rockets. Only their size let Russia beat the Germans, and with the western front caving in, and the Germans applying full attention to Moscow, the Reich would have sliced throgh the Soviets military, especially if they waited for a major offensive until Spring. So, bottom line, US + UK = victory. That's a fact. If you disagree, please don't blow me away with specifics again :rolleyes: and explain how the Axis could possibly have defeated the US and UK?
Also, what do you mean about Japan? The US pulverized Japan in the Pacific, and by the time the atom bombs were dropped, all Japan had left was Japan. We just didn't want to invade the Japanese mainland and loose a lot of guys on the beach; but as for the war going on longer.... it was over for all technical purposes.. Japan had nothing left, it was just a matter of getting them to officially cave in.
And Russia's technology and military was not dominant at all! The only reason they beat the Germans in the East (even with the US and UK hammering on the West and South) was because of their huge numbers.
The Russian soldier was probably the worst-armed and armored of the entire war, between the five or six major nations. The thing was, there were 20 of them for the better armed better trained German soldier. Also, Russia's technology wasn't great, and only got better after the war... after getting some huge injection's from Germany's technology. Russia during the war had poor tanks, poor guns, a poor air force that could not hold a dime next to the Luftwaffe, and relied on American-made trucks to transport their weaponry and rockets.. in fact, without the American trucks, who knows how long it would have taken them to seal of the Germans in the east. Russia had C- technology and A+ numbers. And they still would have lost if not for the American drive on the western front.
wouldn't say that I 'admire' him, but lives of dictators just fascinate me. When one man or one small group of people can force an entire revolution or take control of a single country all by themselves, I tip my hats to them.
Then let's talk about Hitler. There was one man who took control of an entire nation and changed the face of the world. Tip you hat to him?
And Ho Chi Minh? Come on now. The guy spoke 7 or 8 languages fluently! He is the only man who was ever able to defeat the US military!
Defeat the US military? Let's take a look.
US casualties in Vietnam war: 53,000
North Vietnamese (not on our side) casualties: 1.1 million
Yeah, they really let us have it. :rolleyes: Militarily, the US did bad for the US, but in reality the US kicked the hell out of Ho Chi Minh. The reason people like you look back and say we lost was because we pulled out before there was a conclusion, and after we left the North beat the South. The US military did not lose, has never lost, and will never loose. But, of course, Vietnam was a wrong war and there was no reason to be there. LBJ messed up.
He is the only man who was ever able to defeat the US military!
It looks like you're proud of that, even though it's not true....
