TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Lets be historically incorrect for a min or two....
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

Re: Lets be historically incorrect for a min or two....

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid ...lets go back into history and consider this a scenario: When the Soviet Union invaded Eastern Germany and they signed the peace agreement and such. What would have happened if USSR rather than stopping invaded the rest of Europe. Would the Americans be able to stop them? And if Europe did come under Soviet control what would Europe be like now? You don't have to participate in this if you want to, and I don't want a history lesson. We are predicting what would have happened had Stalin gone to invade the rest of Germany rather than just stay in Eastern Europe right after the battle of berlin.

The Western Allies would have defeated the Soviets. The Americans had the only atomic bomb in the world.

I'm not sure we would have been able to successfully use atomic bombs to repel a Russian invasion. In 1945 we could produce at most 3 a month. Immediately after dropping the two on Japan we had no bombs left, by the end of August 1945 we had 1. If the Russians had decided to invade in September we would have had somewhere between 1 and 4 bombs available. Even if all the bombs worked and all bombers were able to deliver their bombs on target we had nowhere near enough to "destroy" Russia. And if you did use them would you drop them on Russian cities or would you use them against large formations of advancing Russian troops.

Fortunately for us everyone involved was worn down from years of a difficult war and the Russians had no desire to find out just how many bombs we had the hard way.

Use of nuclear weapons against the Soviets was out of the question. Why? Soviets had a massive aircraft capacity by the ending days of the war. United States would have not been able to penetrate deep into Soviet territory to nuke where it hurts, and it would have not nuked the satellite states, they would have needed many weapons for that to disable all Soviet armies and then themselves they would have had to enter the polluted areas, not even talking about how many civilians would have died, the environmental damage, etc.

Development of nuclear weapons on the first place was the dumbest thing in the history of humankind. We are actually at a bigger threat to our security and survival because of them today than before they were developed.

U2 planes were only developed much later in early 1960s, and long-range nuclear missile technology was not avaiable until the 1950s (by then Soviets had their own nukes)

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Use of nuclear weapons against the Soviets was out of the question. Why? Soviets had a massive aircraft capacity by the ending days of the war. United States would have not been able to penetrate deep into Soviet territory to nuke where it hurts,

This is not exactly correct. The only Soviet figher aircraft that could remotely approach the B-29's operational altitude of near 40,000ft was the MIG-3, and the MIG could not have matched its speed at that altitude. The US could have nuked any city in Russia at the time, the problem was a lack of weapons.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX This is not exactly correct. The only Soviet figher aircraft that could remotely approach the B-29's operational altitude of near 40,000ft was the MIG-3, and the MIG could not have matched its speed at that altitude. The US could have nuked any city in Russia at the time, the problem was a lack of weapons.

I disagree. Surely they might've nuked a city or two, but nuking all important Soviet Union areas was impossible. And by 1950 it was out of the question when Mig-15's came around. Also, nuclear weapons of those days were relatively weak, one tenth (I think) of the strength of today's nuclear weapons.


B-29's bombers also didnt have a very long range - required refueling. During World War II, the Soviet industry was moved to Western Siberia, which is 10,000 km away from West Germany. Plus you'd need a heck a lot of nukes for Soviet Union - at that time two thirds rural population.

No way man!

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium I disagree. Surely they might've nuked a city or two, but nuking all important Soviet Union areas was impossible. And by 1950 it was out of the question when Mig-15's came around. Also, nuclear weapons of those days were relatively weak, one tenth (I think) of the strength of today's nuclear weapons. B-29's bombers also didnt have a very long range - required refueling. During World War II, the Soviet industry was moved to Western Siberia, which is 10,000 km away from West Germany. Plus you'd need a heck a lot of nukes for Soviet Union - at that time two thirds rural population. No way man!

Right, I agree with you. What I was saying was that right at the end of WWII the US 'could' have nuked just about any city in Russia. We would not have done that though because we did not have enough bombs to do significant damage to a country the size of the USSR.

An interesting point to debate might be what the effects of the US dropping two atomic bombs on Moscow without warning would have been. The vast majority of the Soviet leadership would have been wiped out, since there were no nuclear proof bunkers then. With its capital destroyed, its leadership wiped out, and command and control in shambles, whoever ended up in charge of the country might have been quite willing to surrender rather that chance the systematic nuclear distruction of all of Russia's major cities.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX Right, I agree with you. What I was saying was that right at the end of WWII the US 'could' have nuked just about any city in Russia. We would not have done that though because we did not have enough bombs to do significant damage to a country the size of the USSR. An interesting point to debate might be what the effects of the US dropping two atomic bombs on Moscow without warning would have been. The vast majority of the Soviet leadership would have been wiped out, since there were no nuclear proof bunkers then. With its capital destroyed, its leadership wiped out, and command and control in shambles, whoever ended up in charge of the country might have been quite willing to surrender rather that chance the systematic nuclear distruction of all of Russia's major cities.

Yeah, plus destruction of Moscow would have destroyed have of Russia's history, important monuments. Kremlin library, which is huge, holds hundreds of thousands of historic documents, some of which are priceless and historically marvelous. Not worth it.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The Western Allies would have defeated the Soviets. The Americans had the only atomic bomb in the world.

They had two that we all know of. There's no telling if there were more since that would have been classified information back then.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium If he managed to attack first, today Europe would be Soviet Union from France in the west, Italy, Serbia in the south.

+1
look below

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium I'd post some actual historical information on this discussion, but I dont think anyone on this thread is going to appreciate it.

I would just tell them that at Yalta everything was divvied up. World War Two was just a step closer for communism to enter into Europe.

quote:

it was about 2-4 million Soviet troops versus 5-6 million Allied forces.

In 1945, the Red Army had over 11 million troops. On top of that, it had more tanks or artillery than all other nations combined and had generals that have profoundly honed their abilities for 4 years to fight a new type of mobile warfare that was required. The air force was largely on par with that of the allies, where they lacked in quality - they certainly exceeded in numbers. Finally, on top of that, the Soviet T-34/85 and the IS-2 were certainly better than anything that allies could field by multiple orders of magnitude.

quote:

Allies, however, only destroyed 106 Nazi divisions (as compared to 600+ by Soviets), so they held advantage at that point, in manpower, supplies, arms and support from other countries.

How is that holding an advantage? If anything, it is an advantage to the Soviets, not the Allies since the Soviet troops became vastly more experienced because of that. If you are talking about manpower depletion, that in no way relates to how many Nazi divisions were destroyed. Finally, the divisions that the Americans and British faced were much more inexperienced, green and underequipped due to the massive losses that Germany incurred on the Eastern front.

quote:

When Allies landed in France and Italy, Stalin already called it publicly that he lost the war.

Source it. That sounds highly improbable.

quote:

Turns out, in 1939, Soviet Union started a slow military buildup and massive mobilization campaign, after treaty with Hitler was signed. He knew of Hitler's plans to attack UK, USA. He was preparing a massive army to "liberate" Europe under communism. He was going to do that when German armies landed in UK, and slanted the attack on Nazi Germany for July 1941.

Somebody been reading Suvorov's "Icebreaker" too much. I wouldn't put too much stock into that.

quote:

No wonder why when Germany attacked, Soviets were caught by surprise. 5 million troops became prisoners. 5000 planes destroyed. 1000 tanks captured.

It's fun pulling numbers out of thin air. I was waiting for you to bring in the Wizard of Oz too. Actually, the Red Army throughout the entire war (1941-1945) had about 4.5 million MIA's (most of whom were POW's). You indicated 5 million were captured in just the beginning of the war.

quote:

Heavy artillery, howitzers, TRAINS filled with ammuinition, TANKS ON TRAINS ready to roll into Germany - clear indication that Stalin prepared an invasion. A great book proving this, with pictures is written by a former Soviet high intelligence GRU agent Suvorov, in his book "Ledokol" or "Icebreaker". When you see Soviet photos of hundreds of tanks waiting on train tracks, howitzer units (meant for attacks, not defense), thousands of long-range aircraft, paratrooper units for behind enemy lines campaign - you know the real intentions.

Oh, looks like you admitted to reading that book after all. Never mind.


Let me guess: Magnetonium - a former Soviet citizen, now Jewish emigre residing in Canada due to political asylum.

----------------

Actually, in 1945 - they had a great shot of running roughshod over anything in Western Europe. I believe it was Eisenhower who referred to the US/UK forces as a "speedbump" should the partioning of Berlin fail. The only possibly way to dislodge the Soviets would have been through nuclear weapons, seeing how another D-Day invasion to dislodge the Soviets would not have been duplicated.

The question then remains whether nuclear weapons would have been enough to dislodge the Soviets. I wouldn't be so sure about that.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne In 1945, the Red Army had over 11 million troops. On top of that, it had more tanks or artillery than all other nations combined and had generals that have profoundly honed their abilities for 4 years to fight a new type of mobile warfare that was required. The air force was largely on par with that of the allies, where they lacked in quality - they certainly exceeded in numbers. Finally, on top of that, the Soviet T-34/85 and the IS-2 were certainly better than anything that allies could field by multiple orders of magnitude. How is that holding an advantage? If anything, it is an advantage to the Soviets, not the Allies since the Soviet troops became vastly more experienced because of that. If you are talking about manpower depletion, that in no way relates to how many Nazi divisions were destroyed. Finally, the divisions that the Americans and British faced were much more inexperienced, green and underequipped due to the massive losses that Germany incurred on the Eastern front. Source it. That sounds highly improbable. Somebody been reading Suvorov's "Icebreaker" too much. I wouldn't put too much stock into that. It's fun pulling numbers out of thin air. I was waiting for you to bring in the Wizard of Oz too. Actually, the Red Army throughout the entire war (1941-1945) had about 4.5 million MIA's (most of whom were POW's). You indicated 5 million were captured in just the beginning of the war. Oh, looks like you admitted to reading that book after all. Never mind. Let me guess: Magnetonium - a former Soviet citizen, now Jewish emigre residing in Canada due to political asylum. ---------------- Actually, in 1945 - they had a great shot of running roughshod over anything in Western Europe. I believe it was Eisenhower who referred to the US/UK forces as a "speedbump" should the partioning of Berlin fail. The only possibly way to dislodge the Soviets would have been through nuclear weapons, seeing how another D-Day invasion to dislodge the Soviets would not have been duplicated. The question then remains whether nuclear weapons would have been enough to dislodge the Soviets. I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Sorry, it was 500,000 Soviet POWs in the early months of the war, not 5 million, I misplaced a 0 in my memory ;-) Yes, the Soviets had a very powerful military machine - but it was so effective and smooth that nearly 11 million Soviets troops died, and Stalin's idiotic commands led to many stupid deaths. Allies on the Western front and Pacific fronts have lost significantly less troops ;-)

LOL, you are wrong about Allies on Western front facing "inexperienced" Nazi generals. Here's one of the famous Nazi generals who defeated Allied forces ten times his numerical size:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Rommel

"Erwin Johannes Eugen Rommel (listen (help�info)) (15 November 1891 � 14 October 1944) was one of the most distinguished German field marshals of World War II. He was the commander of the Deutsches Afrika Korps and also became known by the nickname The Desert Fox (W�stenfuchs, listen (help�info)) for the skillful military campaigns he waged on behalf of the German Army in North Africa. "

As for Suvorov, he is a former GRU agent, and fled to West in 1980s. He does does have strong credibility, and unline Litvinenko who was a fool who became famous, Suvorov he was never assassinated by the Soviets though he did possess bigger secrets, publishing in his book ;-)

I find it offensive that you are labeling me as a Jew or an asylum seeker. First of all, I am Eastern Orthodox and I came to Canada with my parents when I was 13.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium I find it offensive that you are labeling me as a Jew or an asylum seeker. First of all, I am Eastern Orthodox and I came to Canada with my parents when I was 13.

Were your parents Jews, would that be why they kicked you out of the house?

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid Were your parents Jews, would that be why they kicked you out of the house?

No Jewish roots whatsoever. Enough anti-semitism on this forum, OK???? I am sick of all this hatred. Fuck off.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium No Jewish roots whatsoever. Enough anti-semitism on this forum, OK???? I am sick of all this hatred. Fuck off.

I hate hatred too. And was wondering as to why he thought you were a jew and just why are you so offended?

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid I hate hatred too. And was wondering as to why he thought you were a jew and just why are you so offended?

This hatred of people based on their religious, ethnic preferences. Thats one of the things tearing Russia up right now. If you've only seen the things I've seen ...

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium This hatred of people based on their religious, ethnic preferences. Thats one of the things tearing Russia up right now. If you've only seen the things I've seen ...

Like what.....?

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid Like what.....?

Like Nazi skinheads attacking in broad daylight and beating up a Jewish priest, or a train conductor refusing service to a Muslim, or a Georgian by nationality family getting murdered by a lunatic Abkhaz because he hates their people for killing his family in Georgia-Abkhaz war of 1993 (which happened in a different country).

Or even a senior Russian military officer of Chinese origins refused to an elite police unit for what he accused was discrimination.

There was so much distrust and fear between ethnic groups in Russia in 1990s when I lived there. I think, I hope it is much better now

quote:

Sorry, it was 500,000 Soviet POWs in the early months of the war, not 5 million, I misplaced a 0 in my memory ;-) Yes, the Soviets had a very powerful military machine - but it was so effective and smooth that nearly 11 million Soviets troops died, and Stalin's idiotic commands led to many stupid deaths. Allies on the Western front and Pacific fronts have lost significantly less troops ;-)

We are not comparing the Red Army of 1941-42 when the VAST majority of those losses took place. We are talking about the Red Army of 1944-1945. A much better equipped, trained and organized army by far.

quote:

LOL, you are wrong about Allies on Western front facing "inexperienced" Nazi generals. Here's one of the famous Nazi generals who defeated Allied forces ten times his numerical size:

I wasn't talking about the generals, I was talking about the TROOPS. Although the lack of solid generals on Western Front was true as well. Why don't you mention the elderly being drafted into the Volkssturme to fight the war or 15 year old boys being dragged off to the 12th SS Division Hitler Jugend? Or 14 year old boys on bicycles with Panzerfausts making a last ditch stand in German cities?

quote:

As for Suvorov, he is a former GRU agent, and fled to West in 1980s. He does does have strong credibility, and unline Litvinenko who was a fool who became famous, Suvorov he was never assassinated by the Soviets though he did possess bigger secrets, publishing in his book ;-)

That's the problem, Suvorov doesn't have credibility from anyone. No more credibility than Ostrovsky does for supposedly exposing the Mossad's inner workings.

When I was finishing up my history degree, Suvorov occassionally came up in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact discussions largely as a joke or a pun. He hardly has any credibility in academia.

quote:

I find it offensive that you are labeling me as a Jew or an asylum seeker. First of all, I am Eastern Orthodox and I came to Canada with my parents when I was 13.

I figured as much. And there are plenty of "jews" who are eastern orthodox, they fled here right after the collapse of USSR as asylum seekers. They are all over Chicago here and there's plenty in canada too. I was going to peg your arrival here during the first post-Soviet wave of immigration around 1994-96 but didn't want to be presumptuous.

I really don't care much - but I find that it's usually Jewish emigres who scream the loudest about Soviet ineptitude and Soviet incompetence as a way to feel better about themselves. Kinda like you. The fact that you originally come from Sochi only serves to largely reinforce that.

quote:

If you've only seen the things I've seen ...

Dude, you lived in Sochi.

That's like someone living in Malibu during the Iraq War and going "If you only had seen the things I have seen when my country was at war"

For those unaware, Sochi was THE spot for resort/beach vacations in the entire USSR. Typically that's where all the dignitaries, nomenklatura, apparatchiks and Politburo members would build their private dachas and take in the mud baths.

It still is a highly prized piece of real estate and a huge tourist spot for Russians.

Plus, you were 13 you left.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium There was so much distrust and fear between ethnic groups in Russia in 1990s when I lived there. I think, I hope it is much better now[/COLOR]

what do you expect after 70 years of there being one, government appointed religion?

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne We are not comparing the Red Army of 1941-42 when the VAST majority of those losses took place. We are talking about the Red Army of 1944-1945. A much better equipped, trained and organized army by far.

Agreed.

quote:

I wasn't talking about the generals, I was talking about the TROOPS. Although the lack of solid generals on Western Front was true as well. Why don't you mention the elderly being drafted into the Volkssturme to fight the war or 15 year old boys being dragged off to the 12th SS Division Hitler Jugend? Or 14 year old boys on bicycles with Panzerfausts making a last ditch stand in German cities?

Yeah, like that didnt happen on the Eastern front In early desperate stages of the war, very young Russian men and women, and older veterans fought against advancing Germans troops. Dont remember that?

quote:

I figured as much. And there are plenty of "jews" who are eastern orthodox, they fled here right after the collapse of USSR as asylum seekers. They are all over Chicago here and there's plenty in canada too. I was going to peg your arrival here during the first post-Soviet wave of immigration around 1994-96 but didn't want to be presumptuous. I really don't care much - but I find that it's usually Jewish emigres who scream the loudest about Soviet ineptitude and Soviet incompetence as a way to feel better about themselves. Kinda like you. The fact that you originally come from Sochi only serves to largely reinforce that.

Actually, I lost my great-grandfather and half of his family in that war. My family used to live in Krasnodar, and my grand-grandfather died in the defense of Novorossiysk, one of the toughest and most brutal battles of WW2. My roots were in the Cossacks, and the fucking communists nearly destroyed our proud cossack communities after the Revolution for support the Whites. Just because I am from a smaller city and I came to Canada in 1997 doesnt mean I didnt see all the Soviet lies, corruption, executions, scandals, and what happened in Russia in early 1990s. I've seen it all. I have first hand experience. Its definitely not what the television screen show you, but much worse.

I am a Russian patriot at heart, I hated Soviets for ruining my country, oppressing the people, and murdering tens of millions of civilians all because of paranoia, in addition to all the forced migrations.

Communists sluaghtered over 5 million Cossacks after 1918, including my grandfather who was taken in the middle of the night once and never seen again. No wonder why today there Caucasus is volatile.

quote:

Yeah, like that didnt happen on the Eastern front In early desperate stages of the war, very young Russian men and women, and older veterans fought against advancing Germans troops. Dont remember that?

That's not the thrust of the argument. We are talking about the quality of troops that the US/UK forces faced upon invading Europe. The fact is that the Red Army broke the back of the German Wehrmacht by 1944. Their elite, cream-of-the-crop troops. What the US/UK forces faced on Western Front was what Germany already began scraping the bottom of the barrel for.
So what we have here is you arguing that the fact that US/UK forces destroying 100+ divisions of mostly inexperienced troops is somehow an advantage over the Red Army destroying over 600+ divisions of mostly trained and experienced troops. This does not follow logic.

Unless I am missing something? Enlighten me.

quote:

Actually, I lost my great-grandfather and half of his family in that war. My family used to live in Krasnodar, and my grand-grandfather died in the defense of Novorossiysk, one of the toughest and most brutal battles of WW2. My roots were in the Cossacks, and the fucking communists nearly destroyed our proud cossack communities after the Revolution for support the Whites. Just because I am from a smaller city and I came to Canada in 1997 doesnt mean I didnt see all the Soviet lies, corruption, executions, scandals, and what happened in Russia in early 1990s. I've seen it all. I have first hand experience. Its definitely not what the television screen show you, but much worse.

Novorossiysk? One of the toughest and most brutal battles of WW2? HAHAHAHAHHAHA. You certainly have a flair for exagerration.

And now you admit to having a massive anti-Soviet bias as well. Good on you, at least I can see now that you're arguing from an OBJECTIVE point of view.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne That's not the thrust of the argument. We are talking about the quality of troops that the US/UK forces faced upon invading Europe. The fact is that the Red Army broke the back of the German Wehrmacht by 1944. Their elite, cream-of-the-crop troops. What the US/UK forces faced on Western Front was what Germany already began scraping the bottom of the barrel for. So what we have here is you arguing that the fact that US/UK forces destroying 100+ divisions of mostly inexperienced troops is somehow an advantage over the Red Army destroying over 600+ divisions of mostly trained and experienced troops. This does not follow logic. Unless I am missing something? Enlighten me. Novorossiysk? One of the toughest and most brutal battles of WW2? HAHAHAHAHHAHA. You certainly have a flair for exagerration. And now you admit to having a massive anti-Soviet bias as well. Good on you, at least I can see now that you're arguing from an OBJECTIVE point of view.

I think what you're implying is that Soviet Union played the most important role in defeating Nazi Germany. But you have no proof that on the Western front German armies had much less-experienced generals or ranks filled with kids because both East and West fronts had same scenarios except Wehrmacht concentrated most of its armies in the East. The only reason why Germans "lacked" support in the western front is because in the east they were concentrating most of their forces fighting with soviets, while in the west they had to fight the combined Canadian, American, British, French, Australian and other forces, which outnumbered Germans throughout the war.

"Desert Fox" German general is an example of one of several western front German generals who was quite brilliant.

As for Novorossiyk, according to Wikipedia:

"The city of Novorossiysk on the Eastern coast of the Black Sea provided a stronghold against the German summer offensive of 1942. Intense fighting in and around the city lasted from August until September 1942. The Soviets however retained possession of the Eastern part of the bay, which prevented the Germans from using the port for supply shipments. Novorossiysk was awarded the title Hero City in 1973."

Only 14 cities were awarded this prestigious title by Soviets, rightfully so, seeing fierce fighting, defenders stopped Nazi expansion into Caucasus, as even taught in Soviet history books ;-)

Chechnyaplutonium just got

quote:

I think what you're implying is that Soviet Union played the most important role in defeating Nazi Germany. But you have no proof that on the Western front German armies had much less-experienced generals or ranks filled with kids because both East and West fronts had same scenarios except Wehrmacht concentrated most of its armies in the East. The only reason why Germans "lacked" support in the western front is because in the east they were concentrating most of their forces fighting with soviets, while in the west they had to fight the combined Canadian, American, British, French, Australian and other forces, which outnumbered Germans throughout the war.

It's not an implication - its common historical knowledge.

Here's another "implication": as troop depletion reaches critical levels - the replacements from a given pool of populace become worse and worse. Large part of it has to do that the soldiers of prime age had already been previously subscripted and killed, another part of it has to do with the fact that there is less and less time to train these troops before the need to use them becomes so great that they are rushed to the front to plug up critical holes. That's called trading space for time, a very basic element of military theory whereas it is acceptable to trade off territory to buy time. Time to train troops, time to build equipment replacements, time to form new military units.

The fact that Germans kept greener troops on the Western Front is because US/UK was perceived to be a lesser threat than USSR. If you think that US/Uk/Cnanadian/Australian/French forces outnumbered the German forces, what do you think they thought about a pissed-off 11 million man army that was technologically superior to the US/UK forces by a huge margin and numerically superior coming from the East?

Your arguments do not follow any logic, rather you are arguing from emotion and trying to squeeze an errant fact here or there to validate your opinion.

quote:

"Desert Fox" German general is an example of one of several western front German generals who was quite brilliant.

Rommel was just about the only worthwhile general on Western Front and he committed suicide after what, 4 months after D-Day? D-Day was in June, 1944. Rommel is implicated in the von Stauffenberg assassination plot against Hitler in July of 1944, he is shortly after removed from command. Just how much time did he spend on Western front as an active general? 2 months? Furthermore, Rommel's best contribution would have been to counterattack the Allied troops with his Panzer corps as soon as they landed in Normandy (which is what he wanted to do) but was overruled by Hitler who thought that Normandy landings were a ruse and the larger force would land at Calais (which was geographically closer to England). So tell me, what notable accomplishment did Rommel accomplish on the Western front?

Furthermore, let's play a little game - draw me up a list of the top 10, 20 or 30 German commanders from 1939-1945 and let's see how many of them have fought on Eastern front vs. Western front?

quote:

"The city of Novorossiysk on the Eastern coast of the Black Sea provided a stronghold against the German summer offensive of 1942. Intense fighting in and around the city lasted from August until September 1942. The Soviets however retained possession of the Eastern part of the bay, which prevented the Germans from using the port for supply shipments. Novorossiysk was awarded the title Hero City in 1973." Only 14 cities were awarded this prestigious title by Soviets, rightfully so, seeing fierce fighting, defenders stopped Nazi expansion into Caucasus, as even taught in Soviet history books ;-)

I'll state it bluntly. Compared to Stalingrad, Kharkov, Leningrad, Sevastopol, Moscow, etc. and battles outside of Eastern Front (since you did say "one of the most brutal battles of WW2") - I can certainly make a very forceful and convincing argument that Novorossiysk was a piss in the ocean.

I can't believe this little kid chechnyaplutonium would compare any battle to Stalingrad.

Not fun arguing against someone with a history degree and the patience to set you straight is it little boy?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.