My decades of being a staunch Independent are history

[tiamat63]

3 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

"In other words, the Quadrennial Defense Review says the military can essentially fight two major conflicts at once. It could defeat an invasion of South Korea by the North, for example, and stop Russia from invading Western Europe or Iran from conquering a Persian Gulf state."

And the main point of the article was that we could not do the above because of lack of funding for the military^^^^^^^

If the goal of our military is to have the ability of fighting two wars at once we were not adequately funding the military to do it.

 

 

Good, I'm glad I dragged you into that response.  I'm slightly disappointed you glossed over my comment on the frame-workers,  I was hoping you'd fall into that slow play.

 

The goal of our military, our leaders and our people shouldn't be to fight two wars at all unless absolutely necessary to the defense of this country.  Hence my "streamlined" comment.   See - WWII.    Since that point, when has the USA ever been in a necessary conflict with that many theaters which requires constant preparation?    If the President is so hell-bent on forcing NATO to step up their contributions,  that should immediately lower the need for the US to have such a sole response ready for any Russian aggression sans our Western Coasts. 

If you're saying the military wasn't properly funded under Obama, you might want to take a peek back and see how far those budgets go at lesser levels.     Are you prepared to make the argument than previous Presidents haven't been prepared for that for the better part of 30 years? 

 

[OldBrownsFan]

4 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

Good, I'm glad I dragged you into that response.  I'm slightly disappointed you glossed over my comment on the frame-workers,  I was hoping you'd fall into that slow play.

 

The goal of our military, our leaders and our people shouldn't be to fight two wars at all unless absolutely necessary to the defense of this country.  Hence my "streamlined" comment.   See - WWII.    Since that point, when has the USA ever been in a necessary conflict with that many theaters which requires constant preparation?    If the President is so hell-bent on forcing NATO to step up their contributions,  that should immediately lower the need for the US to have such a sole response ready for any Russian aggression sans our Western Coasts. 

If you're saying the military wasn't properly funded under Obama, you might want to take a peek back and see how far those budgets go at lesser levels.     Are you prepared to make the argument than previous Presidents haven't been prepared for that for the better part of 30 years? 

 

"Good, I'm glad I dragged you into that response.  I'm slightly disappointed you glossed over my comment on the frame-workers,  I was hoping you'd fall into that slow play"

Sorry Tiam I don't play the "gotcha game".

You say our goal should not be the ability to fight two wars at once. Other military experts would disagree with you. 

Putting pressure on NATO alliies to pay their fair share only makes sense to me.

The world is as dangerous as it has ever been all over the world. I personally don't disagree with the United States having the ability to fight more than one war.

If under the Obama administration they were claiming they had the capabilities to fight more than one war at once then the article I posted clearly stated there were valid reasons to believe that claim was not true due to lack of funding.

 

 

[tiamat63]

3 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

"Good, I'm glad I dragged you into that response.  I'm slightly disappointed you glossed over my comment on the frame-workers,  I was hoping you'd fall into that slow play"

Sorry Tiam I don't play the "gotcha game".

You say our goal should not be the ability to fight two wars at once. Other military experts would disagree with you. 

Putting pressure on NATO alliies to pay their fair share only makes sense to me.

The world is as dangerous as it has ever been all over the world. I personally don't disagree with the United States having the ability to fight more than one war.

If under the Obama administration they were claiming they had the capabilities to fight more than one war at once then the article I posted clearly stated there were valid reasons to believe that claim was not true due to lack of funding.

 

 

Then your article has to consider that multiple years of the Obama administration that had higher funding than some years under Trump now.  Thus indicating we maintained the ability to fight "two wars" at once for half of that administration.  

I never said our goal shouldn't be the "ability" to fight two wars.  I question the sense of maintaining the complete readiness despite the lack of such events over the last 50 years of the advancing days in modern warfare.      The last time an aggressor tried a two front war was, well, when Hitler forgot to pack some winter clothes for Mother Russia.   The US will always have the ability between the funding and it's peoples to be present where-ever needed.    And that is my key point,  *needed*.

My goal would never be to *fight* two wars simultaneously.  Again, history shows how poorly that works out for some.  "If you chase two rabbits, both will escape".   You can either fight two wars, or swiftly and decisively win one and move onto the next.

[OldBrownsFan]

8 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

Then your article has to consider that multiple years of the Obama administration that had higher funding than some years under Trump now.  Thus indicating we maintained the ability to fight "two wars" at once for half of that administration.  

I never said our goal shouldn't be the "ability" to fight two wars.  I question the sense of maintaining the complete readiness despite the lack of such events over the last 50 years of the advancing days in modern warfare.      The last time an aggressor tried a two front war was, well, when Hitler forgot to pack some winter clothes for Mother Russia.   The US will always have the ability between the funding and it's peoples to be present where-ever needed.    And that is my key point,  *needed*.

My goal would never be to *fight* two wars simultaneously.  Again, history shows how poorly that works out for some.  "If you chase two rabbits, both will escape".   You can either fight two wars, or swiftly and decisively win one and move onto the next.

 Fortunately for the world Hitler made the mistake of starting a war on two fronts. You would never want to be in two wars at once but I'm thinking of the possibility of being forced to fight two wars at once. I believe in the principle there is only peace through strength. China right now is investing heavily in their military and we should be concerned about it

 https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/2187487/chinas-military-build-you-aint-seen-nothing-yet-expert-says

 

[tiamat63]

9 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

 Fortunately for the world Hitler made the mistake of starting a war on two fronts. You would never want to be in two wars at once but I'm thinking of the possibility of being forced to fight two wars at once. I believe in the principle there is only peace through strength. China right now is investing heavily in their military and we should be concerned about it

 https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/2187487/chinas-military-build-you-aint-seen-nothing-yet-expert-says

 

 

And you're a Jesus following Christian which makes the black and white nature of this comment a bit more absurd.  

China has been a cleverly used boogeyman for nearly 20 years now.     What scares nations, such as China, is nuclear deterrent.    Fortunately for many,  China, similar to the US, has a no-first-use policy.    This should be something the US continues to lead the way in.   

Simply attempting to match them dollar for dollar, man for man in military force and then watching each country raise the bar only to spend itself into a military stock-pile that 99% will never be used isn't a strategy for longevity.     Strength is an admirable trait, but that doesn't mean simple might.  Strength also means engaging ones neighbors to see how we might peaceably continue to co-exist as well.    If my neighbor's house is on fire, loaning him a gun won't be as beneficial as a water hose, will it? 

This is an area where our diplomatic and economic relations have seen a short-fall in the last 10 years IMHO.    I say that because the company I work for has various products we ship to China.   They are an economic companion and both countries would do well to continue viewing each other as such.  

 

 

[calfoxwc]

54 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

Then your article has to consider that multiple years of the Obama administration that had higher funding than some years under Trump now.  Thus indicating we maintained the ability to fight "two wars" at once for half of that administration.  

I never said our goal shouldn't be the "ability" to fight two wars.  I question the sense of maintaining the complete readiness despite the lack of such events over the last 50 years of the advancing days in modern warfare.      The last time an aggressor tried a two front war was, well, when Hitler forgot to pack some winter clothes for Mother Russia.   The US will always have the ability between the funding and it's peoples to be present where-ever needed.    And that is my key point,  *needed*.

My goal would never be to *fight* two wars simultaneously.  Again, history shows how poorly that works out for some.  "If you chase two rabbits, both will escape".   You can either fight two wars, or swiftly and decisively win one and move onto the next.

Tiam -

      We MUST have a goal of being able to fight two wars simultaneously. The world is a far, far more dangerous place than ever before - NK is on the fringes of trying to get/extort money out of us again, or, to somehow go to war over S. Korea.

    China is maneuvering to establish a power base that would exclude us out of the Phillipines/Japanese areas/S. Korea presence - 

Russia is going to be getting very impatient with wanting to re-establish control over several Baltic states, and all of the Ukraine.

China is establishing a presence in S. America. and, the Middle East is due for a war - with obaMao's help - the gigantic influx of cash and gold to a rogue dangerous terrorist government. 1.6 ? BILLION ? WTF ?

Consider an article just from 2015:

https://taskandpurpose.com/a-look-at-military-spending-under-the-obama-administration

Keeping in mind that obaMao's presidency started in 2009:

"In 2010, national security spending made up 20.1% of the federal budget, but in 2015 it was roughly 15.9%. Over that same period, spending declined from 4.6% of gross domestic product to 3.3%."

 

 

"Between the rise of the Islamic State, Russia’s proxy war in Ukraine, and tensions in the South China Sea, national security and military spending is shaping up to be a key issue in the 2016 presidential election.

 

On Dec. 15, PolitiFact published a fact sheet answering five common questions concerning military spending. The article, written by Louis Jacobson and Amy Sherman, looks at the state of the defense budget, America’s nuclear arsenal, Navy fleet size, Army manpower cuts, and equipment, and ranks the accuracy of statements made by leading Republican presidential candidates and the Obama administration in these areas."

**********************************

"Defense spending

National security spending includes the Pentagon’s budget as well as spending by other agencies, like the Department of Energy’s work on nuclear weapons. On the whole, spending increased in 2010 and 2011, but decreased every year for four straight years by a cumulative 15%, write Jacobson and Sherman.

In 2010, national security spending made up 20.1% of the federal budget, but in 2015 it was roughly 15.9%. Over that same period, spending declined from 4.6% of gross domestic product to 3.3%.

The reason for this is two-fold. The Obama administration's decision to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan caused defense spending to drop. The second reason has to do with sequestration, which refers to the automatic across-the-board cuts to both military and nonmilitary spending that was originally designed to force bipartisan negotiations in Congress. It didn’t work and when negotiators failed to strike a deal in 2011 the cuts went into effect in 2013."

**************************************

"Army force strength and Navy fleet size

The Army had roughly 570,000 soldiers in 2012, but reductions over the years have reduced that size to roughly 490,000. The Army announced in July that it intends to cut its force size down by an additional 40,000 soldiers by fiscal year 2018. The cuts are expected to save roughly $7 billion.

The U.S. Navy’s fleet size peaked during World War II when it had 6,768 ships under its command. Afterward, the number dwindled to where it is today, with 272 active ships.

The Navy’s goal is to expand its fleet size to 308 ships. Given the current shipbuilding schedule, that goal won’t be met until 2022, and it depends heavily on repealing sequestration."

*****************************************

 

 

 

 

[calfoxwc]

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2017/01/23/barack-obama-military-administration/

Obama has done lasting damage to the military

"As the Trump transition team looks to roll back Barack Obama’s second-term tsunami of executive orders and regulations, and Republican leaders in Congress prepare to repeal Obamacare, the outgoing president’s legacy seems to shrink daily. But one effect of eight years of Obama won’t soon vanish: He’s done more damage to American military power than his successor can repair. It’s not simply that Obama tried to end U.S. involvement in the Middle East by unilaterally withdrawing from Iraq, conducting a phony surge in Afghanistan, and failing to respond to the civil war in Syria. It’s not just that Obama did little beyond telling Vladimir Putin to “cut it out” after Russia annexed Crimea and after Putin otherwise exploited whatever opportunity arose to unravel the post–Cold War peace of Europe, or that Obama neglected to back up the promise of a “Pacific pivot” as the Chinese dredged their way (island-making instead of island-hopping) across the South China Sea. Retreats can be reversed, even if the price of victory rises when it has to be won twice (or three or four times, in the case of Iraq)."

********************************************************

"The consistency of the Obama disarmament is reflected in defense-spending arithmetic — federal budgets are long-term strategy. There are several ways to reckon this. The simplest is to compare the current five-year defense plan with the five-year defense plan Obama inherited from the Bush administration. By that comparison, the Pentagon has lost more than $250 billion in purchasing power. While that’s a pretty big number, it doesn’t begin to tell the whole tale, because it looks at the problem only in five-year increments. Obama has always had a longer-term outlook. "

************************************************************

"In 2009, during his first year in office, Obama directed then–defense secretary Robert Gates to cut about $300 billion from Pentagon programs, which had the effect of eliminating several of the major weapons-acquisitions projects that had survived Donald Rumsfeld’s attempt to “transform” the force by “skipping a generation of weapons systems.” The poster child for this round of cuts was the F-22 fighter. It was the first substantial attempt to deploy stealth and other technologies meant to ensure American air superiority for decades to come. Gates terminated the F-22 at just 187 planes instead of the 750 originally planned by the Air Force. "

***************************************************

"A second, smaller set of reductions came the following year. Gates, seeing which way the wind was blowing, sought to get ahead of the White House by offering $80 billion worth of “reforms” and other changes on the condition that the administration shift the spending to other defense investments. Obama gratefully took the windfall — and more — to pay for the one-time cost of his Afghanistan surge and other, non-defense priorities. Gates got played."

************************************************

(even worse, Tiam:)

"But not as badly as he did in 2011. In April of that year, when a new tea-party coalition was flexing its muscles in the House of Representatives, Obama decided on another $400 billion in defense reductions. He did not inform Gates of the intended cuts before delivering the speech in which he announced them. Gates resigned. But the speech was a brilliant political gambit that gave the White House the initiative by framing the terms for the subsequent negotiations that led to the Budget Control Act (BCA). That law achieved two Democratic priorities: It jettisoned any attempt to limit federal spending in entitlement programs, and it capped defense spending for a decade. It’s hard to fully estimate the effect of these reductions; there have been two one-time exceptions to the defense-spending caps, but they were very small, approximately $30 billion over two budget years. A good guess, though, is that long-term spending on defense programs has been reduced by close to $1 trillion in fiscal years 2009 to 2023."

*******************************************************************************

"A subtler but more profound effect of the BCA was to make the Republican congressional leadership a party to the Obama military drawdown. This inspired the small-government, libertarian Freedom Caucus in the House to take former speaker John Boehner hostage repeatedly, such as when it led the charge to shut down the government in 2013, a move that probably contributed to Boehner’s eventual resignation. Boehner was no defense-spending enthusiast (Senator Mitch McConnell hasn’t been, either, since Republicans took back the Senate), but the BCA favored a more extreme course and had assumed a totem-like status for younger Republicans, who became the Obama White House’s unlikely bedfellows on the issue."

*****************************************************************************

"The BCA’s “sequestration” provision further limited Pentagon accounts. It stipulated that if Congress failed to adhere to the specified annual spending caps, or if it failed to pass appropriations bills before the fiscal year began, automatic cuts to military spending would kick in. Sequestration reinforced the far-left–far-right alliance and meant that extremists could simply withhold their support for any budget deal and follow their own priorities, regardless of their negative impact on the military. With entitlements protected, the Obama administration and out-of-power Democrats on Capitol Hill could sit back and watch Republicans stake out positions that were popular in their districts but that made compromise and governing impossible. Then, at election time, Democrats would simply aim to beat a “do-nothing Congress.”

**************************************************************************

"A final budget whammy has completed the perfect financial storm for the armed forces: the continued reliance on extraordinary “supplemental” appropriations for “overseas contingency operations.” Reasonably enough, the Bush administration argued that these appropriations were necessary to pay for unanticipated war costs. But as the situation in Iraq degenerated, the Bush team found itself boxed in. When it at last reversed course and embraced a counterinsurgency strategy and the idea of a surge of troops to carry it out, it found itself forced to ask not only for extra money for gas, beans, and bullets but also for the funds to increase the size of the military and particularly the active-duty Army, which it had been in the process of shrinking."

***********************************************************************

"The practice of supplemental appropriations has carried over through the Obama years, and though it has masked some of the worst consequences of the defense-budget cuts, it has also used limited resources inefficiently. More money is good, but planned-for money is much better. The military has been fighting the same war over and over. In a reasonable world, funding could be planned in advance and would not need to be justified on an “emergency” basis. Instead, for political reasons, we are financing the war one year — or less — at a time.

Thus, 15 years after 9/11 and after eight years of Obama, the military is something like a racehorse — once sleek, powerful, and fit — put too long to the plow and desperately in need of rest, recovery, and refitting. The size of the force (the Army in particular) has ballooned and shrunk like a fad dieter. On September 11, 2001, we had about 485,000 soldiers in uniform. Donald Rumsfeld approved an additional 30,000 — not to fight the war, but to undertake a “transformational” redesign of the military. In other words, the service grew bigger in preparation for getting smaller. Of course, this too was paid for with supplemental funding. This contraption limped along through 2006 and into 2007, when President Bush agreed to establish a crash program to get to 560,000 troops in a timely way. Obama has reduced the Army total to about 475,000 today, and it’s on a slope to 450,000 or fewer.

The Marines have suffered a similar personnel problem, while the Navy and the Air Force, by nature more-technological services, have shed ships and planes without receiving replacements. For example, the Defense Department built a facility to manufacture 300 F-35 fighters a year, intending to replace the current lightweight fighters in the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marine Corps. But in recent years, production of the F-35 has rarely exceeded one-tenth of that capacity.

The smaller force is also a much less ready force. During the Cold War, the units of the Army and Air Force were always about 90 percent ready in terms of personnel, equipment, and training. The sea services, reflecting the predictable maintenance cycle of ships, could anticipate deployment schedules years in advance. Since 9/11, the entire military has been subjected to a just-in-time, by-the-seat-of-the-pants approach necessitated by a surfeit of missions and a lack of resources of all kinds. The result is that units, when not deployed, are only about 60 percent ready or less. This also means that the military’s ability to do anything more challenging than routine operations, such as keeping sea lanes open, is severely limited. It is no coincidence that in his 2012 “defense guidance,” Obama lowered the standard by which we determine the optimal size of our forces. Since the years prior to World War II, and as befits a global power, we have maintained the capacity to conduct two large-scale campaigns at once. Obama lowered the bar to just one war at a time."

**********************************************************

"Finally, the Obama years have seen a degeneration in civil–military relations. It’s not simply that Obama and his White House team have squabbled with their field commanders, though there’s been plenty of that. Far worse is the social distance that’s arisen between soldiers and the rest of us. Recently, YouGov and the Hoover Institution sponsored the first large-scale survey of public attitudes on military affairs since 9/11. The most startling statistic was that nearly 80 percent of Americans, regardless of party, ideology, wealth, or any other demographic attribute, regard military service of any sort — not just combat — as dehumanizing and psychologically damaging. This is partly a reflection of our increasingly narcissistic and therapeutic culture, but Obama has always been in sync with the times: He has turned heroes into victims. His will not be a martial legacy.

– Mr. Donnelly is a resident fellow of the American Enterprise Institute and the director of its Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies."

 

[calfoxwc]

btw, Hitler did not have the tech to fight two wars, he spread his troops far, far too thin. He might have succeeded even then,

except America finally stepped in, after the war exploded in size, and made the difference.

 

[calfoxwc]

1 hour ago, tiamat63 said:

The goal of our military, our leaders and our people shouldn't be to fight two wars at all unless absolutely necessary to the defense of this country.  Hence my "streamlined" comment.   See - WWII.    Since that point, when has the USA ever been in a necessary conflict with that many theaters which requires constant preparation?    If the President is so hell-bent on forcing NATO to step up their contributions,  that should immediately lower the need for the US to have such a sole response ready for any Russian aggression sans our Western Coasts. 

If you're saying the military wasn't properly funded under Obama, you might want to take a peek back and see how far those budgets go at lesser levels.     Are you prepared to make the argument than previous Presidents haven't been prepared for that for the better part of 30 years? 

just completely wrong. I've shown it to be. And I never even mentioned that I was selected to be a part of a huge Inspector General Readiness Task Force - an assignment that lasted several weeks. I typed up readiness reports, higher up reports - had to have my usual security clearance upped ahead of time - (never knew it til I was part of it) - referring to military strategy and readiness/support studies. I was in SAC.

 

[OldBrownsFan]

54 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

 

And you're a Jesus following Christian which makes the black and white nature of this comment a bit more absurd.  

China has been a cleverly used boogeyman for nearly 20 years now.     What scares nations, such as China, is nuclear deterrent.    Fortunately for many,  China, similar to the US, has a no-first-use policy.    This should be something the US continues to lead the way in.   

Simply attempting to match them dollar for dollar, man for man in military force and then watching each country raise the bar only to spend itself into a military stock-pile that 99% will never be used isn't a strategy for longevity.     Strength is an admirable trait, but that doesn't mean simple might.  Strength also means engaging ones neighbors to see how we might peaceably continue to co-exist as well.    If my neighbor's house is on fire, loaning him a gun won't be as beneficial as a water hose, will it? 

This is an area where our diplomatic and economic relations have seen a short-fall in the last 10 years IMHO.    I say that because the company I work for has various products we ship to China.   They are an economic companion and both countries would do well to continue viewing each other as such.  

 

 

Even apart from my faith the concept of peace through strength is a well established principle

https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/peace-through-strength

 

[TexasAg1969]

4 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

btw, Hitler did not have the tech to fight two wars, he spread his troops far, far too thin. He might have succeeded even then,

except America finally stepped in, after the war exploded in size, and made the difference.

 

Hitler had already won the war for western Europe and did not have a two war front when Operation Barbarossa began in June 1941. By the time America came ashore at Normandy, the Germans had already lost the key Battle for Stalingrad over a year earlier and were on the run back where they started. They're underestimation of Russia's ability to take a blow and key up their war machine was a far greater factor. Hitler thought he could win it well before America was attacked by Japan causing the US to enter the war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa

[DieHardBrownsFan]

4 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

btw, Hitler did not have the tech to fight two wars, he spread his troops far, far too thin. He might have succeeded even then,

except America finally stepped in, after the war exploded in size, and made the difference.

 

Actually I think the Soviet Union had a much larger impact than the USA.

[calfoxwc]

1 hour ago, DieHardBrownsFan said:

Actually I think the Soviet Union had a much larger impact than the USA.

 

1 hour ago, TexasAg1969 said:

Hitler had already won the war for western Europe and did not have a two war front when Operation Barbarossa began in June 1941. By the time America came ashore at Normandy, the Germans had already lost the key Battle for Stalingrad over a year earlier and were on the run back where they started. They're underestimation of Russia's ability to take a blow and key up their war machine was a far greater factor. Hitler thought he could win it well before America was attacked by Japan causing the US to enter the war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa

I disagree.

The Russian troops would have failed without the huge influx of aid from America, and less so, the Brits.

Were it not for our material/weapons/transportation(trucks/planes)... the Soviet Army would have lost the war.

https://www.historynet.com/russias-life-saver-lend-lease-aid-to-the-ussr-in-world-war-ii-book-review.htm

"Besides weaponry and food, Lend-Lease provided the Soviet Union with other resources, ranging from clothing to metals. With the start of the Cold War, Lend-Lease became a forgotten chapter in Soviet history and was only revived after glasnost. Now, thanks to Russian researchers and this excellent study, the West will have access to the real story. Lend-Lease provided vital help for the Soviet Union when the country was in desperate straits and made a significant contribution to the final victory. It also strengthened Josef Stalin, a fact that did not bother its chief architect, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who saw beyond the Allied victory and looked at Stalin as a counterbalance to the European colonial powers."

" Without Western aid, during the war the Soviet population would have been in danger of sharing the fate of those trapped in Leningrad and the earlier victims of collectivization. Even with the American aid, many Russians died from lack of food. "

" American aircraft, flown by Russian ferry pilots across the vast expanse of Siberia, were put to good use by the Soviet air forces even with planes that were less than popular with Western pilots. A case in point was the Bell P-39 Airacobra, used both as a low-altitude fighter and as ground support. Its odd shape gave Soviet censors fits because it was difficult to conceal that it was the favorite mount of their second-highest-ranking ace, the future marshal of aviation, Aleksandar I. Pokryshkin. "

[DieHardBrownsFan]

No fucking way.  The Germans feared the Soviet Union much more than  the USA.  

[DieHardBrownsFan]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/05/08/dont-forget-how-the-soviet-union-saved-the-world-from-hitler/

[calfoxwc]

you reply with the WASHINGTON POST ??? lol

No, I was correct. It's history.

Consider that the Soviets had twice as many soldiers in the War as we did, sure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_States_during_World_War_II

"During the war some 16 million Americans served in the United States Armed Forces, with 405,399 killed in action and 671,278 wounded. There were also 130,201 American prisoners of war, of whom 116,129 returned home after the war. "

https://www.quora.com/How-many-Russians-soldiers-served-in-World-War-2

How many Russians soldiers served in World War 2?

A total of 34,476,700 Soviet servicemen participated in the fighting during the war years for the USSR. In the Army and the Navy, 490,000 women were drafted. According to the number of deaths in the Second World War from the USSR, the data is not accurate. According to the General Staff: the total irrecoverable losses of the Red (Soviet) Army amounted to 11,944,100 people. Among the victims of the war, 13.7 million people are civilians. The total number of dead Soviet citizens military personnel and the civilian population is from 26,600,000 to 29,592,749 people, including those missing.

***************************************************************

as I already have shown - the historical fact is, without western (primarily American) weapons and material support, the Soviet army would have starved to death, wouldn't have had the trucks to deliver support. Including military and civilian deaths, the Soviet deaths count was about 3/4 of the entire amount of American soldiers who served in the war.

If nothing else, Germany feared the soviet army's huge numbers. it was in their own country after the nazis invaded them, of course. The answer is, the Russians didn't have the transportation/material/aircraft supplies to be able to win. Look at how many died.

   The comprehensive truth is,

https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/96czjp/america_and_soviet_union_in_world_war_2/

lsspam

 

12 points · 1 year ago

 

It’s very complicated. Some people will try to give definitive answers, these answers typically zero in on one specific aspect and then support heavily with facts and figures. An American may go through the voluminous list of lend lease material given to the USSR explaining how the Soviet counter offensive would not have been possible without the US contribution (or at least painfully delayed). A Russian would probably cite the gross inequality of Germany’s commitment of men, equipment, and quality of troop to the Eastern front vs Western Front during the critical years of 42-44. And a British person might quietly remind both that neither did much of any fighting at all for the first 33% of the war anyways when Britain largely stood alone.

These counter factuals are not productive. It is useful to evaluate how each nation contributed, but to weigh that and engage in counter factuals of “what if they didn’t do X?” is useless and better left to fiction writers.

Russia bore an incomparable burden in terms of destruction and loss of life in World War 2, and faced the best and most of the Nazi army. They also received critical supplies from the Allies, were able to ignore Japan entirely because their other allies bore that fight alone, did not face the better part of the luftwaffe, and mind you actually aided Germany in 1939-1940 which created the very situation that they had to save themselves from because Germany was able to focus on France first and fought effectively two one-front wars consecutively until 1944 and not one two-front war like in WW1 (when Russia did in fact collapse).

 

[DieHardBrownsFan]

No fucking way Cal.  Without the Russians, Europe would be all Nazi.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

https://www.newsweek.com/defeat-germany-wwii-without-us-help-possible-say-russians-628580

[calfoxwc]

LOL. Newsweek now? LOL

nice, the Russian people think the russians didn't need the help of America and the Brits to win the war.

Except they probably don't know about the material aid and food, and trucks, etc etc etc etc and planes...

LOL.

63% of those polled didn't want to end up in a prison.

 

[TexasAg1969]

10 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

btw, Hitler did not have the tech to fight two wars, he spread his troops far, far too thin. He might have succeeded even then,

except America finally stepped in, after the war exploded in size, and made the difference.

My point was that Hitler never had to fight the two front war until his army was already going under trying to take Russia. Since that was what we were discussing, I thought it appropriate to clarify that point. If fact Stalin was furious that once America came into the war they did not hurry up the timetable to invade Europe as quickly as he thought they ought to.

[LogicIsForSquares]

4 hours ago, DieHardBrownsFan said:

No fucking way.  The Germans feared the Soviet Union much more than  the USA.  

The story about the Nazis in Berlin piling in vehicles to go West to surrender to the US troops instead of the Soviets was telling enough. They knew what would happen to them.

I went to Auschwitz over the summer. Soviet soldiers never made it more than a day in most cases at the camp. The guards focused on them even over the Jewish prisoners.

[MLD Woody]

13 hours ago, tiamat63 said:

 

And you're a Jesus following Christian which makes the black and white nature of this comment a bit more absurd.  

 

 

The conflicts between modern day conservatism and the Christianity many of those conservatives claim to follow are displayed all over this board.

[calfoxwc]

4 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

The conflicts between modern day conservatism and the Christianity many of those conservatives claim to follow are displayed all over this board.

pretty unfair, since you are not a Christian and neither is? Tiam.

[MLD Woody]

7 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

pretty unfair, since you are not a Christian and neither is? Tiam.

I was raised Catholic for a while. I've taken Communion and all of that. 

 

But the beauty of religion is that it's all just made up interpretations based off of a text that his been edited countless times. Someone can find some passages and interpret them in a way where they feel Jesus would want everyone to have guns or that Jesus wouldn't want to support the poor with social programs. It's a la carte in how one interprets and follows it. 

Romney voted to impeach based off of his religious beliefs. He's super religious. But other super religious people (that may just be putting party first...) will tell you he's wrong and a bad person. Trump can go on the attack about him falsely using his faith, which is fucking hilarious coming from Trump, and staunch Christians will find a way to defend Trump.

And don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are similar examples of this with other religions in other countries. 

At the end of the idea it's a man made belief system so all of these flaws and conflicts are going to be present. It's just funny seeing people trying to talk out of both sides of their mouth but still say it all follows with their religious beliefs. 

[Axe]

4 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

I was raised Catholic for a while. I've taken Communion and all of that. 

 

But the beauty of religion is that it's all just made up interpretations based off of a text that his been edited countless times. Someone can find some passages and interpret them in a way where they feel Jesus would want everyone to have guns or that Jesus wouldn't want to support the poor with social programs. It's a la carte in how one interprets and follows it. 

Romney voted to impeach based off of his religious beliefs. He's super religious. But other super religious people (that may just be putting party first...) will tell you he's wrong and a bad person. Trump can go on the attack about him falsely using his faith, which is fucking hilarious coming from Trump, and staunch Christians will find a way to defend Trump.

And don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are similar examples of this with other religions in other countries. 

At the end of the idea it's a man made belief system so all of these flaws and conflicts are going to be present. It's just funny seeing people trying to talk out of both sides of their mouth but still say it all follows with their religious beliefs. 

You clearly don't understand the true beauty of religion..

 

Maybe someday.

[MLD Woody]

Just now, Axe said:

You clearly don't understand the true beauty of religion..

It was invented to explain the, at the time, unexplainable. It also serves the purpose of controlling the masses.

Yes some get a good feeling from it, based on the wiring of their brain. And yes it can build community. But can also be used to justify wat and violence.

 

For the most part though, it's just a remnant of early man, and a means of control. 

[DieHardBrownsFan]

4 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

It was invented to explain the, at the time, unexplainable. It also serves the purpose of controlling the masses.

Yes some get a good feeling from it, based on the wiring of their brain. And yes it can build community. But can also be used to justify wat and violence.

 

For the most part though, it's just a remnant of early man, and a means of control. 

 

 

Donald J. Trump

 · 

Faith keeps us free, prayer makes us strong, and God alone is the author of life and the giver of grace.

[OldBrownsFan]

6 hours ago, Axe said:

You clearly don't understand the true beauty of religion..

. He 

Maybe someday.

He is like a blind man trying to judge art. (or a fish in a pond believing there is nothing outside the pond). 

[TexasAg1969]

1 hour ago, OldBrownsFan said:

He is like a blind man trying to judge art. (or a fish in a pond believing there is nothing outside the pond). 

I thought several were judging an elephant. Well that fits pretty well for the trumpettes unable to see past the emperor's new clothes.🤴

[OldBrownsFan]

4 minutes ago, TexasAg1969 said:

I thought several were judging an elephant. Well that fits pretty well for the trumpettes unable to see past the emperor's new clothes.🤴

The flip side of that Tex are those because of TDS who cannot get by the faults of Trump to recognize all his accomplishments .

The best analogy of Trump I heard was from Mike Huckabee. He compared Trump to a great doctor with terrible bedside manner.