This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - pnoozi
1
« on: March 01, 2010, 07:18:59 AM »
Yea.
They sent spies to start revolutions where thousand of peoples has died.
They has trained terrorist groups for fighting against some regime and than fight against them as a country with high standard of morality.
They sold allot of weapons to terrorists for making profit.
They invaded countries without any care about anyone.
With their surgical accurate strikes from the bombs or rockets they destroyed hospitals,churches and schools.
They made allot of atrocities torturing people or humiliating them.
They speak about racism when the killed allot of niggers and now consider arabs to be some kind of scum. So?
2
« on: March 01, 2010, 05:58:55 AM »
The US and UK installed democracies with free elections in their captured territories. They fought for freedom.
3
« on: March 01, 2010, 01:55:11 AM »
You fail to see the difference between "wanting" freedom and fighting for freedom.
4
« on: February 28, 2010, 05:04:41 AM »
The thread's name made me laugh very hard. Why should i thank the Russians for bringing ~50 years of communism to half of Europe? Sure the russian front was the front where the war was won or lost. But the western allies helped the russians with lend and lease, a good number of soldiers that germany had to keep in the west as safety against landing operations or on the Africa Front, the Allied bombings of Industry and terror bombings against the civillains. If the allies wouldn't have done this the russians wouold have been lost. So it's more the achievment of a community of many states than the achievment of a country alone.
Pfff, you have no idea what you're talking about. The USSR fought for freedom!
5
« on: February 19, 2010, 01:59:56 AM »
But if the commander for whom you're fighting doesn't believe in freedom, I'm sorry - you're just not fighting for freedom.
That doesn't make any sense - what does one's commander have to do with anything?
Replace the word commander with the word entity. That might make more sense.
If the entity for which you're fighting doesn't believe in freedom, I'm sorry - you're just not fighting for freedom.
If what you say is true then the United States wasn't fighting for freedom either, nor the French nor Great Britain - right? The United States still held sovereignty over the Philippines, the British and French had various colonies all over Africa and the Middle East. You certainly don't believe in freedom if you're a colonial empire.
By your standard of what qualifies as "fighting for freedom", soldiers fighting for these "entities" wouldn't make the cut. If you do a thorough examination, you'll discover that no soldiers fighting for any state genuinely fought for freedom. Yet people would still say that US, British, and Soviet soldiers fought for a form of freedom because what matters isn't whether the state that they served believed in freedom but the actions of the soldiers as a whole.
Soldiers from the Western powers liberated Western Europe from Nazi oppression. Soldiers from the Soviet Union liberated Eastern Europe from Nazi oppression. The fact that each of those powers turned parts of the world into brutal and oppressive regimes after the war does not diminish the quest for freedom that each soldier sought after on the battlefield. That is why US, British, French and Soviet soldiers all fought for freedom.
The Americans and British were absolutely fighting for freedom within the context of Europe, and the Soviets were definitely not fighting for any kind of freedom. Whatever their personal feelings, the facts are that they were fighting off one horrific dictatorship in support of another, even if they didn't support Stalin. And before you say "they had no means of standing up to Stalin" - fine, I agree. But consider this. I don't have the means to win a gold medal at the Olympics. It's not my fault, but I don't go around claiming I deserve a gold medal. I'm just saying, don't make stuff up because the truth hurts too much. Accept it. The Soviets fought for Stalin. Whether they had a choice or not, reality is that they did. If the Germans had collectively stood up to Hitler and the Russians had collectively stood up to Stalin, that would have been fighting for freedom. If I ship off tomorrow to Afghanistan or Iraq, I can say I'm fighting for green energy or universal health care or purple teletubbies... the fact remains that I'm not fighting for any of those things. I'm fighting for the REAL purpose of the mission. My own feelings are inconsequential if they're not a part of the big picture.
6
« on: February 18, 2010, 10:15:12 PM »
But if the commander for whom you're fighting doesn't believe in freedom, I'm sorry - you're just not fighting for freedom.
That doesn't make any sense - what does one's commander have to do with anything?
Replace the word commander with the word entity. That might make more sense. If the entity for which you're fighting doesn't believe in freedom, I'm sorry - you're just not fighting for freedom.
7
« on: February 18, 2010, 03:04:48 AM »
I don't deny that a buffer state was very useful for the USSR, but here's the thing - the OP is making the Soviets out to have fought valiantly for freedom.
"Today we are about to play a Game mod created by Germans, Americans, British and other people... thats freedom, and today there is freedom because million of Soviets died in the past fighting for this freedom ,they deserve respect."
The facts are that they didn't want to fight, and they didn't give a shit about freedom.
Putting aside the fact that what you said is incredibly disrespectful and you are by no means an authority of any kind regarding what Soviet soldiers fought for - the OP's statement is true...Just like it is true that the Americans fought valiantly for freedom and anyone else fighting on the Allied side. Soviet soldiers fought for freedom from Nazi oppression. Let me reiterate - the fact that Stalin turned Eastern Europe into a series of oppressed states does not in any way diminish the valiant cause for which Soviet soldiers fought for. The United States fought in Korea and established a brutal dictatorship in the south - does that diminish the bravery and sacrifice of US soldiers that fought there? No. So you see how your argument falls flat on its face.
I don't mean to disrespect the men who fought and died defending their country from the Nazis. That's certainly respectable. But if the commander for whom you're fighting doesn't believe in freedom, I'm sorry - you're just not fighting for freedom.
8
« on: February 17, 2010, 11:04:35 PM »
Have you ever heard of Hitler's summer pause? Basically, during Operation Barbarossa in 1941, Hitler and his generals had trouble agreeing. This caused their summer advance to be delayed long enough for the warm months to pass. This pause is widely considered to be a major reason the Germans (relatively ill-equipped for harsh winter warfare) were not able to take Moscow. This served as a great moral victory for the Russians.
When the gloves are off and you're at war with someone - you do your best. Whether you made mistakes or had problems with your generals, no one cares about that. They are simply excuses. I'm sure the Soviets had plenty of problems with their generals too, or Stalin's meddling but no one uses those reasons as an excuse for their poor performance. The Germans were simply a better fighting force at that point in the war.
And your point about the summer pause...the reason there was a pause was because Hitler diverted Army Group Center to the south in order to encircle the Soviet forces at Kiev. He didn't just "pause" and sit on his thumbs - he made a decision that he thought would bring about a major loss for the Soviet army. The fact that it did not change the outcome of the war in his favor is his fault and in no way excuses the defeats that were brought about by the Soviets.
Well, Hitler's decision didn't bring about a major loss for the Soviet army, and considering he went against the strong advice of his generals, I'd consider that his fault. Hitler is notorious for his shortcomings as a military commander. Not Stalin... Actually, the fact that the Red Army was a disorganized mess suggests something entirely different. It suggests that they must have had some "help" in defeating Germany.
They were a disorganized mess...in 1941. In 1945 they were the most powerful army in the world. This leap was achieved through four years of fighting the most powerful army at the time.
They were a disorganized mess in 1941 and the Battle of Stalingrad, the turning point of the war, was in 1942. So they went from disorganized mess to elite fighting force in one year? Because the OP stated that the western powers viewed Russia as an enemy... which was not the case until 1945 (the start of the Cold War) at the earliest. And the western powers (other than Nazi Germany and Italy) wanted Russia bled to death? Where are you getting that from? Russia had been an ally of the western powers since WWI, and westerners didn't really start fearing socialism until the whole State Department fiasco and McCarthy.
You have a very naive view of the world. The Western powers were not a fan of the Soviet Union since it was simply another competitor. Not only that but the Soviet Union advertised a socio-economic system which empowered the worker. This was greatly feared by the ruling class in the Western world and they didn't want that propagated either in post war Europe or before then (see the First Red Scare).
The deep-seeded fear of communism in the United States didn't take hold until after World War II. Americans wouldn't have elected Roosevelt (see the New Deal) otherwise. http://www.ushistory.org/us/49e.asp"The Great Depression created an environment where the federal government accepted responsibility for curing a wide array of society's ills previously left to individuals, states, and local governments. This amount of regulation and involvement requires a vast upgrading of the government bureaucracy. An armada of government bureaus and regulatory agencies was erected to service the programs of the New Deal." So we waited until June 1941? The Soviets initiated their invasion of Poland and the Baltic states in 1939. If the United States was trying to stop the Soviets from advancing, why on Earth would they HELP them by opening up a second front with Germany?!
In 1941, the US did not know who was going to win the war. German victory was possible. In order to make sure that whoever wins will be at their weakest, they supported the losing side in order to bleed the other. That is why they provided help to the Soviets.
While this makes sense in theory, reality is that in 1941 the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and the Germans declared war on the US shortly after. At that point, the US could only join the war on one side. The important part of what I wrote is not the satellite buffer zone part - it's the oppressive regime part. The OP said the Soviets were fighting for freedom. Sorry, just not the case. They were fighting for oppression, because it's better to be oppressed than dead.
The Soviets were fighting for freedom from German oppression. If Stalin twisted that after the war it does not change the fact that the Soviets were still fighting for freedom at the time. Yes, from a retrospective point of view a weak argument could be made that the Soviets were somehow fighting for "oppression" but again, no one thought like that at the time except maybe Stalin.
Exactly! They weren't fighting for freedom... that's the only point I'm trying to make. The Soviets weren't fighting for freedom at all. In fact, they made a pact with Hitler agreeing not to fight just so they could get a little piece of Poland. The OP is full of it.
The Soviets made a pact with Hitler after coming back from discussions with the Western powers and realizing that they were completely disinterested in actually stopping Hitler. Stalin wasn't going to dick around, his country's security was at stake and if that meant taking half of Poland to act as a buffer state...so be it.
I don't deny that a buffer state was very useful for the USSR, but here's the thing - the OP is making the Soviets out to have fought valiantly for freedom. "Today we are about to play a Game mod created by Germans, Americans, British and other people... thats freedom, and today there is freedom because million of Soviets died in the past fighting for this freedom ,they deserve respect." The facts are that they didn't want to fight, and they didn't give a shit about freedom. So the US should have waited for German boots to hit American soil? Then they would have been justified?
Uhh no..I was just explaining to you that it's much easier for a soldier to understand a concept such as fighting for your existence than it is for one to understand interventionism.
Actually, here's what you said. "In any event, whatever reason the Soviets had for fighting was way more justifiable than the reason Americans had for fighting." What I'm saying is that eventually the US would have had to fight for its existence as well. The British were the last major power standing between Nazi Germany and the United States, and London was in bad shape. Every time the Allies would appease Hitler, he would take a little more, and a little more, and a little more... the US wasn't going to sit around and wait for Hitler to set his sights on North America. He'd already crippled all the US's major western trading partners and U-boats were in the Atlantic. That's more than enough justification. The Soviet Union was "way more justified" than the US in the sense that Bill Gates is "way richer" than Warren Buffet.
9
« on: February 17, 2010, 08:25:38 PM »
Fighting for freedom and fighting for existance is very very different things.
You will never understand that, pnoozi.
Actually, that's almost exactly what I said.
10
« on: February 17, 2010, 08:12:10 AM »
Most of that 85% was defeated by the Russian winter combined with Hitler's incompetence as a commander.
Right...I didn't know Russian winters lasted twelve months. Must be those damn commie weather changing machines!
I believe you've exposed a gap in your historical knowledge here  Have you ever heard of Hitler's summer pause? Basically, during Operation Barbarossa in 1941, Hitler and his generals had trouble agreeing. This caused their summer advance to be delayed long enough for the warm months to pass. This pause is widely considered to be a major reason the Germans (relatively ill-equipped for harsh winter warfare) were not able to take Moscow. This served as a great moral victory for the Russians. Anyway, saying that the Soviets defeated the Wehrmacht because of weather or Hitler's incompetence is a grossly ignorant statement.
No more ignorant than saying the Soviets didn't need allies to win the war. Without lend-lease and the Battle of Britain added on top of Hitler's incompetence, the Soviets lose Moscow, a defeat so demoralizing it would have been hard for the Soviets to recover. There were thousands of factors that played a role, one of which was the competence and professionalism of the Soviet army. The fact that the RKKA went from a disorganized mess to the world's most powerful army is no accident - it was achieved by beating the top dog at the time - the German army.
Actually, the fact that the Red Army was a disorganized mess suggests something entirely different. It suggests that they must have had some "help" in defeating Germany. The Cold War wasn't on the horizon until 1944/1945.
How is the Cold War relevant to this discussion? The fact that the Cold War did not start until after the war doesn't exclude the fact that the Western powers wanted the USSR bled to death.
Because the OP stated that the western powers viewed Russia as an enemy... which was not the case until 1945 (the start of the Cold War) at the earliest. And the western powers (other than Nazi Germany and Italy) wanted Russia bled to death? Where are you getting that from? Russia had been an ally of the western powers since WWI, and westerners didn't really start fearing socialism until the whole State Department fiasco and McCarthy. It wasn't about liberating France and preventing Germany from conquering the British Empire (the only thing standing between Hitler and the United States)? Like I said, the Cold War didn't start until '45.
If the US really wanted to stop Germany from conquering the British Empire then they would have done so when Britain was weakest..in 1939/40/41 not when the war was pretty much over.
So we waited until June 1941? The Soviets initiated their invasion of Poland and the Baltic states in 1939. If the United States was trying to stop the Soviets from advancing, why on Earth would they HELP them by opening up a second front with Germany?! I have no doubt that had the Soviets advanced to Iberia, the western powers would have been scared, but at the time, Nazi Germany was the by far the primary threat to the US and Britain. I guess that's why, when the war was over, the Soviets established dozens of oppressive satellite communist states.
The Russian Empire and the Soviet Union were attacked twice in a span of two decades by the same people losing over fifty MILLION people. No one, especially Stalin, is going to be dumb enough to let that happen again. It sucks for Eastern Europe but Stalin wasn't going to risk ANOTHER invasion. That is why a buffer zone and satellite states were established. Stalin wasn't even a fan of the international communism idea - that was more Lenin and Trotsky's thing.
The important part of what I wrote is not the satellite buffer zone part - it's the oppressive regime part. The OP said the Soviets were fighting for freedom. Sorry, just not the case. They were fighting for oppression, because it's better to be oppressed than dead. Millions of Soviets certainly died... but it sure wasn't for freedom. It was for two incredibly obvious reasons. They had no choice. They were invaded by Nazi Germany.
The Soviets were fighting for existence. I know this is a hard concept for some people to understand (especially in the West, which never had to fight for it) but once you start fighting for your very existence things like communism, Stalin and The Worker's Party go out the window. The Soviets were truly fighting for something of value - just like the Poles, Ukrainians, Belorussians and any other slavic people in Eastern Europe.
Exactly! They weren't fighting for freedom... that's the only point I'm trying to make. The Soviets weren't fighting for freedom at all. In fact, they made a pact with Hitler agreeing not to fight just so they could get a little piece of Poland. The OP is full of it. The United States was fighting for freedom. The Soviets were fighting for their lives. In any event, whatever reason the Soviets had for fighting was way more justifiable than the reason Americans had for fighting. Fighting for your very existence is something a simple farmhand will understand. Fighting for "democracy" in Europe is a much more exotic and abstract concept which probably wasn't high on any GI's priority list.
So the US should have waited for German boots to hit American soil? Then they would have been justified?
11
« on: February 17, 2010, 03:29:17 AM »
A lot of people argue that Germany could have won the war by honoring its pact with the Soviet Union. Germany certainly would have had much greater odds if they hadn't been bogged down on an eastern front; the problem is, I think the conflict with the Soviet Union was inevitable.
1) Capitalist fascism and communism are incompatible ideologies which are inherently offensive to each other.
2) Hitler and Stalin hated each other.
3) Let's be honest... both countries were making plans to attack the other. If Germany hadn't made the first move, the Soviets would have.
So taking that into consideration... how could Germany have won? Easy... unite the capitalist world against the communists.
What did Germany have to fear from France? LOL... was France going to invade? Hell no.
Hitler should have invaded Eastern Europe under the premise of defeating communism. He could have gotten nearly the entire western world on board with that. I feel like the Americans, French and British would have at least helped supply the offensive. Germany would have stood to gain large chunks of Eastern Europe, including parts of Poland, Austria-Hungary and Czechoslovakia. In far eastern Europe they could have installed a puppet dictator much like Stalin did with the communist GDR.
12
« on: February 17, 2010, 03:12:01 AM »
I was playing Men of War: Red Tide, and I saw the registers of Alexander Zorich...
Looks like we in west know only a little or nothing about WW2... I mean... majority of people are too retarded by Hollywood and American/British propaganda.
Most people dont know much about the participation of USSR in WW2... specially in USA (Americans really think they were the winners of WW2 and defeated Hitler,  ) Thanks. Screw you, too. Most of us don't think that at all. There is some facts that cannot be denied..
85% of the nazi army was defeated in USSR.
The imense majority of the german army was used to exterminate USSR. (Read Mein Kampf, by Hitler). Hitler was obcecated in destroying USSR and kill every people in. Most of that 85% was defeated by the Russian winter combined with Hitler's incompetence as a commander. Im not underestimating the participation of British and Americans (That last fought in 2 front at the same time!) in WW2, you also were Heroes but, lets be honest, WW2 was 70% about HItler x Stalin. More random percentages that you pulled out of your ass? America was waching two of his enemies destroying each other. The Cold War wasn't on the horizon until 1944/1945. All that shit about D day... the war was already over in D day, Stalingrad was before D day, Kursk was before D day...
D day has only one objective, prevent the soviets from advancing in europe until Portugal, D day was the first day of cold war. It wasn't about liberating France and preventing Germany from conquering the British Empire (the only thing standing between Hitler and the United States)? Like I said, the Cold War didn't start until '45. Ok, thats too much to be discussed and I bet there is a lot of opinios around.
One thing is true, the Soviets Defeated Hitler, I say Soviets and not only Russians because there is a lot of other folks who did a big sacrifice in WW2 (25 million people dead in all USSR) True. Lets also not forget the Chinese exterminaiton by the Japaneses (16 million death). How exactly is this relevant? Its a pity that there is all that propaganda trying to dirty the image of the Russian leaders and people.
Today we are about to play a Game mod created by Germans, Americans, British and other people... thats freedom, and today there is freedom because million of Soviets died in the past fighting for this freedom ,they deserve respect. I guess that's why, when the war was over, the Soviets established dozens of oppressive satellite communist states. You really made my jaw drop here. Millions of Soviets certainly died... but it sure wasn't for freedom. It was for two incredibly obvious reasons. They had no choice. They were invaded by Nazi Germany. Once the war was over they went back to being oppressed by Stalin.
13
« on: February 16, 2010, 11:27:48 PM »
I don't think you understand. I want the Ostheer to be unique, as do the developers. They should just, at their core, resemble the Wehrmacht. I want to see lots of new units for the Ostheer, just not at the expense of not having units that were used regularly simply because the Wehrmacht faction has them too.
Regarding the entire Tier 1 being Italian... what?
14
« on: February 16, 2010, 08:48:36 AM »
1) Model the Ostheer after the Wehrmacht faction (the same core units and structures). The Ostheer were simply the Wehrmacht in the east.
2) The Ostheer should either use "Doctrines" (see suggestion number 1) or "Groups" - Army Group North, Army Group Center, Army Group South. Each "Group" would have specific units and abilities accurate to history.
3) Unit: Italian Reinforcement Squad (if "Groups" are chosen, specific to Army Group South) - the German Army in Crimea and southern Russia was backed by armies of several Axis countries, one being Italy. This unit would be called in much like Partisans for the Soviets.
15
« on: February 16, 2010, 05:58:34 AM »
The other day, the "EF" desktop icon became broken. I was really bewildered, so I uninstalled EF and re-installed it. As soon as I installed patch 1.04, the icon disappeared again.  This happen to anyone else? I think it happened right after Eastern Front was recognized by Xfire.
|
Show Posts