Was it acceptable to ally with Uncle Joe in WWII?

[kochman]

Fine, then many Soviet citizens were able to get free housing with price equivalent to crap in NYC or mansion in rural Tennessee.
How much does one year of studying in American universities cost, approximately?
I heard that many professors from former USSR teaching there now, especially mathematicians.

I guess $500k/family recompense for living through the nightmare that was the USSR is better than most folks end up with in this life. So, in the glass is always emptier view, this is good.

Would be interesting to see.
To be on the same page, list of participations of country's regular army (or navy or air force) detachments in military actions outside of country's territory, post WW2. For USSR, Korea and Afghanistan would qualify, Vietnam not. For USA, respectively, Korea and Vietnam would qualify, Afghanistan in 1980-s not.

I won't be limiting this to post-WW2, nor should I. The USSR was an aggressor nation before they were an ally in WW2. Also, they weren't so nice before WW2.

1917-1991
Non-conventional military - Aid/Intervention/Coup d'Etat:
Congo/Zaire
Angola (Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA))
Cuba
Vietnam
Ethopia
Mozambique (Front for the Liberation of Mozambique (Frelimo))
Zimbabwe (Joshua Nkomo's Zimbabwe African People's Union (ZAPU))
Tanzania (ANC)
S. Africa (ANC)
Israel (at first, then they switched sides with the US on this one)
Syria (well, military presence, to bolster regime)
Additionally, Latin America, though I am having a hard time coming up with a concrete list here.

Occupation/Invasion:
Poland (1921 and WW2)
Finland
Lithuania
Latvia
Estonia
Afghanistan
Northern Iran (with UK, 1941, joint invasion to secure oil)
Romania
Hungary
Czechoslovakia
Bulgaria
Northern Norway/Bornholm (1945-6)
Germany (justified)
Austria (part of Germany)
Manchuria (1945-1947)
Korea (1945-1948)
Kuril Islands (1945)

Annexation:
Georgia
Lithuania
Latvia
Estonia
parts of Finland
parts of Poland (WW2)

No need to persuade me.
Just show me any scientific work which discuss things in such terms.
Or you mean that all historians support the more evil USSR?

I think simple parameters such as have already been identified suffice.
Murders... defections... internal security/allowing emigration... GDP/capita... etc.

This it was argued would be more useful in the type of war where M1s would see heavy action (though this is unlikely enough anyway).

A conventional war against the USSR would have been exactly what it was designed for... in today's world, it is more of a deterrent to a non-existing potential aggressor, like China, for example.
For the types of war we are fighting, low intensity guerilla conflict, it is horribly overpowered, and not really used as a result.

 

[Patroklos]

Armor doesn't work that way. Your adversaries weapons can either penetrate your armor in a realistic scenario or it can't. Have three times as many enemies that can't do that just means there are three times as many dead enemies.

We got a good look at the top of the line Soviet kit after the Cold War and in nearly every case the Soviet equipment was crap in comparison to likely Western opponents. This has to do a lot with Soviet propaganda and Western paranoia that made the West believe the Soviets were on par or ahead of us in many technologies, making us respond be developing weapons superior to non existent Soviet super weapons. This yielded results that were not only better, but far better than actual Soviet gear.

 

[Patroklos]

Did you read this source yourself?
First of all, it contradicts with what you just written here.

Citation:
"The Communist aviators claim to have downed 1337 UN aircraft...
On its part USAF registered 757 losses to enemy action, 139 in air-to-air actions"
139 for USAF is not quite the same as 136 for UN, isn't it?

It shows exactly the same numbers which I brought up above (except my source show losses for every month), but somehow "forgot" to mention total losses and 550 aircraft lost to ground fire.

It also contains very similar data about combat record of Soviet aces, to the ones I showed above.
I understand that for US "patriots" this sounds as blasphemy, but it's truth which sometimes hard to bear.

Read it and weep comrade commissar.

In total, the Soviet bloc nations claim to have destroyed a combined number of between 1,000 and 1,600 UN aircraft in air-to-air combat, the most common number in sources being 1,106 UN aircraft total, including 651 F-86 Sabres. The most authoritative numbers indicate 1,016 UN aircraft, including 595 Sabres. Chinese sources claim an additional 330 victories, including 211 Sabres. The most common number used is a total of 271 victories for China and North Korea.[9] Other, more recent works claim 1,337 UN aircraft.[10] During the entire course of the war, the UN force claims to have lost 1,466 aircraft to all causes,[9] with 757 of them lost to enemy action.[10] Of these only 139 were destroyed in air-to-air combat and 305 unknown or missing. Of these, only 78 Sabres were listed as lost in combat with 26 missing.[9] Historians generally regard the UN numbers as the most accurate.[10]

Soviet estimates are 10 times that of everyone else. How convenient. Pravda (and you) must be proud!

 

[red_elk]

Read it and weep comrade commissar. Soviet estimates are 10 times that of everyone else. How convenient. Pravda (and you) must be proud!

So you are not going to admit your mistake?

That you made the statement about UN losses three times here, and then gave source which directly disproves you?

Soviet estimates of UN losses are ten times that of USAF estimates of their own losses.
Go and read the book which you referred to, including Sutyagin's combat record.
Then you can weep about fallen comrades, if you want to.

Sutyagin served in the 17th IAP of the 303rd IAD when the Korean War began, and in May 1951 the Division was sent to Manchuria to reinforce the 324th IAD. He flew his first combat sortie on early June 1951, and his score began to rise:

19 June 1951 - First victory, the F-86A of Robert H. Laier (MIA).
22 June 1951 - his 2nd F-86 kill, his victim is Howard Miller (POW); he aso claimed a 3rd Sabre on this day.
24 June 1951 - his most impressive victory when shot up the F-86A of Colonel Glenn Eagleston (CO of the 4th FIW), who had to belly land in Suwon. Eagleston's Sabre was written off.
26 June 1951 - his 5th kill, the F-80C of Bob Lauterbach (KIA), officially becoming Asov (Ace).
29 July 1951 - shot down the F-86A #49-1098, his 6th kill (his 5th kill confirmed by US records).
9 August 1951 - claimed an F-80.
25 August 1951 - together with the CO of the 17th IAP, Mayora (Maj.) Grigorii Pulov, intercepted what they identified as Australian Meteors and both claimed one Meteor each.
26 September 1951 - one of his more successful days: in two separate sorties the 17th IAP engaged Meteors of the RAAF No. 77 Sqdn and Sabres of the 336th FIS, and he scored in both furballs: first shot-up the Meteor of Ernst Armit (written off later that day) and later shot down the F-86A of Carl Barnett (MIA).
10 October 1951 - awarded with the Golden Star, he became Hero of the Soviet Union.
November 1951 - claimed to have shot down three F-86 and one F-84 (none confirmed by US records).
3 December 1951 - bagged another Sabre (the F-86A 49-1184) and claimed one F-84.
15 December 1951 - shot-up one F-86E of the 334th FIS. The unfortunate pilot (William F. Prindle) crashed and died while trying to land at Suwon airbase.
6 January 1952 - two victories: the F-84E of Donald Grey (KIA) and the F-86E of Lester Page (MIA).
11 January 1952 - last victory, his 21st: the F-86E of Thiel M. Reeves (MIA).

http://acepilots.com/russian/rus_aces.html#sutyagin

 

[History_Buff]

A conventional war against the USSR would have been exactly what it was designed for... in today's world, it is more of a deterrent to a non-existing potential aggressor, like China, for example.
For the types of war we are fighting, low intensity guerilla conflict, it is horribly overpowered, and not really used as a result.

Well yes. But the argument was still that in a convention war against the Soviet Union, the M1 still wasn't the best choice.

Armor doesn't work that way. Your adversaries weapons can either penetrate your armor in a realistic scenario or it can't. Have three times as many enemies that can't do that just means there are three times as many dead enemies.

It's not purely about armor though. Surely a T-72 or T-90 is still capable of scoring a mobility kill on an M1?

And then there's the issue of mechanical reliability and concentration on a frontage. If your opponent can bring three times more tanks than you to a single battle, I'd still hesitate to bet against the three. And that advantage might be far greater if you can't run a significant portions of your tanks. As I recall, isn't the M1 turbine engine quite the hassle to maintain? More so when you put it in a dusty environment.

 

[red_elk]

I guess $500k/family recompense for living through the nightmare that was the USSR is better than most folks end up with in this life. So, in the glass is always emptier view, this is good.

"Nightmare" is your biased, distorted perception, based on Cold War propaganda.
We can continue exchanging insults, like "nightmare" - "imperialistic criminal state" for a long time.
I don't think it adds much to the discussion, so I would ask you to stop your trolling.

I won't be limiting this to post-WW2, nor should I. The USSR was an aggressor nation before they were an ally in WW2. Also, they weren't so nice before WW2.

That's too bad, because the similar list for the US would become several pages long.
But I'll do my best:

Non-conventional military - Aid/Intervention/Coup d'Etat (Full list would be much larger)
Argentina
Chile
Haiti
China
Panama
Nicaragua
Samoa
Honduras
Dominican Republic
Korea
Cuba
Mexico
Russia
Yugoslavia
Guatemala
Turkey
El Salvador
Iran
Uruguay
Greece
Germany
Puerto Rico
Vietnam
Egypt
Afghanistan
Georgia

Major interventions, occupations and annexations:

Nicaragua, 1894
Philippines, 1898-1910 (-?) Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos
Cuba, 1898-1902 (-?) Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.
Puerto Rico, 1898 (-?) Seized from Spain, occupation continues.
Guam, 1898 (-?) Seized from Spain, still use as base.
Nicaragua, 1912-33 10-year occupation, fought guerillas
Haiti, 1914-34 19-year occupation after revolts.
Dominican Republic, 1916-24 8-year Marine occupation.
Cuba, 1917-33 Military occupation, economic protectorate.

WW2:
Japan
Germany
Algeria
France
Morocco
Egypt
Libya
Italy
Tunisia
Indonesia
Phillippines
Burma

Korea 1951-53
Lebanon 1958
Vietnam 1960-75
Lebanon 1982-1984
Grenada, 1983
Panama, 1989
First Gulf war 1990-91
Somalia 1992-1993
Haiti 1994
Bosnia 1995
Serbia 1999
Afghanistan 2001-?
Iraq 2003-?

Not counting here numerous cases of Kuril Islands scale, like you did for the USSR
Is this enough or you also want to count victims?

I think simple parameters such as have already been identified suffice.
Murders... defections... internal security/allowing emigration... GDP/capita... etc.

You can give example of such academic work, with measuring "evilness" or not?

 

[kochman]

Well yes. But the argument was still that in a convention war against the Soviet Union, the M1 still wasn't the best choice.

It's a poor argument. In a conventional war, the M1 Abrams was the best tank in the world, bar none.

 

[kochman]

"Nightmare" is your biased, distorted perception, based on Cold War propaganda.

No, it is based on the KGB, no free elections, starving to death, political imprisonment for countless in Sibera, mass murder, etc. We've gone over it, just because you refuse to acknowledge it doesn't mean it isn't there.

That's too bad, because the similar list for the US would become several pages long.
But I'll do my best:

Well, your list, having glanced at it, is already screwed up. It is from 1917-1991, the years of the USSR, comrade. So, when you can fix it to be within those dates, we'll talk, until then, I've proven my point accurately.

Oh, and while we are at it, I'll go ahead and correct your list, and to add to the USSR's lists... thanks!

Non-conventional military - Aid/Intervention/Coup d'Etat (Full list would be much larger)
China (add to Russia)
Nicaragua (add to Russia)
Honduras (add to Russia)
Yugoslavia (add to Russia)
Guatemala (add to Russia)
El Salvador (add to Russia)
Greece (add to Russia)
Egypt (add to Russia)

Major interventions, occupations and annexations:
Nicaragua, 1912-33 10-year occupation, fought guerillas (THIS DOESN'T COUNT AS AN OCCUPATION, intervention, yes)
Haiti, 1914-34 19-year occupation after revolts
Dominican Republic, 1916-24 8-year Marine occupation.
Cuba, 1917-33 Military occupation, economic protectorate.

WW2:
Japan (Retaliatory)
Germany (Retaliatory)
Algeria (Liberation)
France (Liberation)
Morocco (Liberation)
Egypt (Liberation)
Libya (Liberation)
Italy (Retaliatory and Liberation)
Tunisia (Liberation)
Indonesia (Liberation)
Phillippines (Liberation)
Burma (Liberation)

Korea 1951-53 (UN Mission)
Lebanon 1958
Vietnam 1960-75
Lebanon 1982-1984
Grenada, 1983
Panama, 1989
First Gulf war (Liberation)
Somalia 1992-1993 (UN Mission)
Haiti 1994
Bosnia 1995 (UN Mission)
Serbia 1999 (UN Mission)
Afghanistan 2001-?
Iraq 2003-?

In other words, pretty similar list... given that the USA was often directly at odds with the USSR, and vice versa, in shaping their sphere of influence.

And yes, let's compare body counts... including the mass murders within your own borders please.

You just can't face the facts, you asked for a list, you got it... you try to retaliate with the 3rd such list... which you weren't asked for, to begin with.

You're right comrade, Soviet Union was glorious and beneficent. So much so, it couldn't even last 100 years, while over 200 years later, the USA is still managing to do so.

You can give example of such academic work, with measuring "evilness" or not?

I love your disembling. You refuse to admit you are wrong, so you just delve into ridiculous hair splitting and being obtuse. I'm not playing that game with you.

I've had enough of this 3 day battle. If you think the USSR was superior, where is it now? Surely, survivability is in question when considering the greatness of a nation/system. Your communism has failed... the USSR failed miserably, despite raping E. Europe of its resources to stay afloat longer than it should have.

You can have the last word, as I am sure you will.

 

[red_elk]

No, it is based on the KGB, no free elections, starving to death, political imprisonment for countless in Sibera, mass murder, etc. We've gone over it, just because you refuse to acknowledge it doesn't mean it isn't there.

And you are living in a criminal state, involving in numerous cases of mass murder and state terrorism. It works both ways.

Well, your list, having glanced at it, is already screwed up. It is from 1917-1991, the years of the USSR, comrade. So, when you can fix it to be within those dates, we'll talk, until then, I've proven my point accurately.

No, it's you who should fix your list according to my requirements, to Cold War period and direct military interventions only. Otherwise it will have hundreds of entries.
And you put wrong dates for the years of the USSR, comrade

Japan (Retaliatory)
Germany (Retaliatory)
Algeria (Liberation)
France (Liberation)
Morocco (Liberation)
Egypt (Liberation)
Libya (Liberation)
Italy (Retaliatory and Liberation)
Tunisia (Liberation)
Indonesia (Liberation)
Phillippines (Liberation)
Burma (Liberation)

Sure, but you for some reason forgot to put "retaliatory" for Soviet WW2 operations agains Germany, Austria, Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria, and "liberation" for Czechoslovakia.

Korea 1951-53 (UN Mission)

UN mission doesn't cancel the facts of major intervention, war and mass murders.

First Gulf war (Liberation)

No, it was invasion of Iraq, after liberation of Kuwait.

Serbia 1999 (UN Mission)

No, it wasn't UN mission.

And yes, let's compare body counts... including the mass murders within your own borders please.

Number of executed prisoners during Stalin's terror is far less than civilian victims of American aggression in Vietnam only. Sorry comrade, you are going to lose here.

I love your disembling. You refuse to admit you are wrong, so you just delve into ridiculous hair splitting and being obtuse.

What you do is reiterating already disproven arguments over and over again and repeat the same "I'm right" style arguments. It's not working with me, you have to argument your position.

If you think the USSR was superior, where is it now?

You know, criminal can kill law-abiding citizen. It doesn't mean criminal is "superior", just because his adversary is dead.

 

[kochman]

Sure, but you for some reason forgot to put "retaliatory" for Soviet WW2 operations agains Germany, Austria, Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria, and "liberation" for Czechoslovakia.

Actually, I put Germany was justified, as I did with Austria.

UN mission doesn't cancel the facts of major intervention, war and mass murders.

No, but at least it wasn't unilateral. How many times did the USSR's invasions have UN backing?

No, it was invasion of Iraq, after liberation of Kuwait.

It was, turn around, we've accomplished the mission of liberating Kuwait, let Saddam surrender...

Number of executed prisoners during Stalin's terror is far less than civilian victims of American aggression in Vietnam only. Sorry comrade, you are going to lose here.

This may be the most absurd thing you've written here.

What you do is reiterating already disproven arguments over and over again and repeat the same "I'm right" style arguments. It's not working with me, you have to argument your position.

This argument is weak... you keep going back to it, every time I bring in new evidence. Did they teach you that in debate class?

You know, criminal can kill law-abiding citizen. It doesn't mean criminal is "superior", just because his adversary is dead.

No kidding... completely irrelevant and pointless to what we are discussing, thanks.

OK, unless you have any more inaccuracies to post, I'd like to be done with this.
I've already admitted the beneficent and glorious CCCP was the pearl of civilization throughout history, and all states should strive to achieve such (short lived) perfection.

 

[red_elk]

No, but at least it wasn't unilateral. How many times did the USSR's invasions have UN backing?

Edit:
USSR made just 1-2 major military invasions since UN creation and about the same amount of smaller scale military operations.
US after WW2 made 12-13 direct military invasions, only 3 or 4 of them had UN mandate, if you like statistics so much.
That's why I asked you to provide list for Cold War time, it would be shorter for both sides and will create a clear picture of which side was more imperialistic.
But you chose to spoil your own argument by using very broad definition of intervention.

It was, turn around, we've accomplished the mission of liberating Kuwait, let Saddam surrender...

Invading Iraq and fighting against its army in the process.
Don't forget that you gave carte blanche for Kuwait invasion to Saddam, in order to "liberate" it afterwards.
Granted, this operation was sanctioned by UN, which, again doesnt mean that it wasn't invasion.

This may be the most absurd thing you've written here.

Probably.
In your opinion many well known facts are "absurd".
Nice argument, BTW, your usual style.

This argument is weak... you keep going back to it, every time I bring in new evidence. Did they teach you that in debate class?

Which "new evidence" you brought in this time? Educate me please

No kidding... completely irrelevant and pointless to what we are discussing, thanks.

Why?
You asked why USSR don't exists anymore if it was "superior"?
I answered that survival doesn't necessary indicate any superiority from moral or legal point of view, and provided example.
"Completely irrelevant" is all what you can answer? You are not even trying to defend your thesis.

OK, unless you have any more inaccuracies to post, I'd like to be done with this.
I've already admitted the beneficent and glorious CCCP was the pearl of civilization throughout history, and all states should strive to achieve such (short lived) perfection.

As you wish...
But you can come back to say goodbye in 3-rd time, no problem.

 

[History_Buff]

It's a poor argument. In a conventional war, the M1 Abrams was the best tank in the world, bar none.

The point is that the M1 would be required to do things other than blow up enemy tanks.

 

[Dachs]

We got a good look at the top of the line Soviet kit after the Cold War and in nearly every case the Soviet equipment was crap in comparison to likely Western opponents. This has to do a lot with Soviet propaganda and Western paranoia that made the West believe the Soviets were on par or ahead of us in many technologies, making us respond be developing weapons superior to non existent Soviet super weapons. This yielded results that were not only better, but far better than actual Soviet gear.

To be fair, a lot of that 'top of the line' Soviet gear actually was pretty good in the 1970s. The BMP/BRDM were both better APCs than the contemporary M113 was. The M60 was about on a par with the T-72. Soviet mortars were generally very good as well. American artillery was always better, but then again, that's kind of our pet thing. That sort of thing.

It was in the late seventies and early eighties that the US really opened the gap with the Abrams and the Bradley. US airframes of the Vietnam War era were already incrementally better than their Soviet counterparts, but the introduction of the F-14 and the F-15 and the integration of AWACS made the USAF's equipment exponentially superior into the eighties. The Stinger is a much better man-portable SAM than the Strela-2 and its descendants. TOW and Dragon man-portable anti-tank missiles outclassed their Russian counterparts (IIRC the Red Army continued to rely on the Sagger through the eighties).

So yeah, by the end of the Cold War Soviet weapons were unquestionably inferior in almost every respect to contemporary NATO gear, let alone American gear, but a decade or so earlier and I wouldn't be so sanguine.

 

[Patroklos]

To be fair, a lot of that 'top of the line' Soviet gear actually was pretty good in the 1970s. The BMP/BRDM were both better APCs than the contemporary M113 was. The M60 was about on a par with the T-72. Soviet mortars were generally very good as well. American artillery was always better, but then again, that's kind of our pet thing. That sort of thing.

In the 70's yes, for the reasons you gave earlier. I was talking about the end of the Cold War after the 80s overcompensation I spoke of.

And I take issue with your assessment of the BMP. It was proven to be a death trap in Afghanistan, vulnerable to mines as well as ambushes due to it's exterior rear fuel tanks. The new versions fielded in the 90s and beyond are good kit.

It was in the late seventies and early eighties that the US really opened the gap with the Abrams and the Bradley. US airframes of the Vietnam War era were already incrementally better than their Soviet counterparts, but the introduction of the F-14 and the F-15 and the integration of AWACS made the USAF's equipment exponentially superior into the eighties. The Stinger is a much better man-portable SAM than the Strela-2 and its descendants. TOW and Dragon man-portable anti-tank missiles outclassed their Russian counterparts (IIRC the Red Army continued to rely on the Sagger through the eighties).

Agreed. I will note the Mig-29 though. I feel that airframe was equal to better than several Western airframes in the same role including the F-16.

So yeah, by the end of the Cold War Soviet weapons were unquestionably inferior in almost every respect to contemporary NATO gear, let alone American gear, but a decade or so earlier and I wouldn't be so sanguine.

Agreed.

 

[King Kalmah]

You know, criminal can kill law-abiding citizen. It doesn't mean criminal is "superior", just because his adversary is dead.

I know you didn't mean this in the way I see it,but you know I have had relatives in the gulag.....

they were sent there for firing on soviet soldiers who "occupied" my great grandpa's vineyard and stole his wine.He shot at them and was sentenced to ten years in the gulag.

In Soviet Russia you can kill your enemy and only serve ten years....does it make the killer right?

No does it make the Soviet Union right...?

I'll leave it up to you if you want to live in a system where you are around killers and thugs who only served ten years...my great grandpa was no thug,but it brings up an interesting point about Soviet Justice and POW during WW2 and there after...

it is a touchy subject...I never knew my great grandpa since he had developed alzheimer's while in the gulag and was a shell of his former self...

 

[ace99]

Your grandfather went to jail for a relatively short sentence for shooting at Soviet soldiers during wartime when they were requisitioning supplies and you're complaing that they were too lenient?

 

[King Kalmah]

Your grandfather went to jail for a relatively short sentence for shooting at Soviet soldiers during wartime when they were requisitioning supplies and you're complaing that they were too lenient?

Yes...and no...

Yes it proves a point...That in the Glorious Soviet Union any man who attempts murder or commits murder serves a very short sentence compared to any other society on the planet(many society s will just hang that person and be done with it)

I want to understand how this is better for the system...any system if you have murders and thugs roaming the streets,,,

No because my great grandpa was defending himself and his property.It was after the WW2 in 1946,but I guess the Soviets were our masters by then and we should have known better,,,(I guess all in all if we were in the west my great grandpa would have been hung)...

....weird world...


Anyway explain this POW/soviet Glorious legal system...

 

[ace99]

So if he had been summarily shot that would have been more just? I'm just trying to understand this Goldilocks logic where the Soviet Union is evil for being too harsh, and evil for being too lenient. So why don't you tell me what just right would be?

 

[King Kalmah]

I didn't want my grandpa shot...(how the hell would I have been conceived?)I was using that as an example that I am familar with the soviet system...

I'm just saying that there are inconsistencies in how the soviets ran their country and I wanted a first hand look/explanation of what kind of benefit would holding a criminal for only ten years and release him back into the public make on their society(where he might go back to killings/doing crimes)

It just doesn't make much sense...they were trying to bring the "best" out of their people(I am reminded of free dance lessons and music lessons during the 30s)

 

[kochman]

Which "new evidence" you brought in this time? Educate me please

Every single response to you, I brought facts to the table... I wish you luck in your efforts to reinstall the USSR in the world... the rest of it is pretty glad it is gone.