>1946. Months after the end of WW2 in europe. The lines have been drawn. The west has a major advantage in the form of nuclear weapons.
Why didn't we press the attack and at the very least push Russia back to it's pre WW-2 borders? It doubt that iymt would have taken more than three years.
Could it have been done before the first succesful Russian nuclear test in 1949?
>>30089187
Also, could someone post a bigger picture of 1946 Europe? My phone keeps dowloading the thumbnail for some reason.
>>30089187
retard
>>30089332
>off by one
How so? It's a legitimate question. Why didn't The West do it, and could it have been done in less than three years
not bombing the reds to ash was the biggest mistake in the history of the planet. the entire world could have been purged of commies from moscow to china as well. the usa passed on total world domination
why didnt it happen? war fatigue
>>30089421
I guess that answer for why it didn't happen makes sense. WW2 was long, hard, and costly in terms of man and material and it makes sense that people weren't ready to wage another war so quickly after that.
Let's say it did happen, could the west have won in less that three years?
>>30089396
They were tired of war. Not just WW2 but they had just gotten out of WW1 when that popped off so going after Russia ,and by proxy China would have just extended it to a 3 generation conflict.
Plus Russia either had nukes or was close enough to make any sane person nervous, especially with their ability to come over the pole and bring them to confuse.
>>30089445
i dont see why it couldnt be done in that time frame
>we had 2 different atomic weapon types
>already on both sides of russia
>glass moscow and decapitate the snake
>turn the germans back upon the reds, along with the nips
without the russians red china would have folded
>>30089187
They had the biggest army at that time- battle-hardened, pumped-up from their win over the nazis, and well equipped with an arms industry that still pumping out material like war hasn't ended yet.
Western Europe gets stomped hard in case war breaks out again.
Also nukes of the time are delivered purely by vulnerable bombers and short legged(relatively) bombers. Once you take out western europe there is no place to base enola gays to attack the western part of the SU, let alone its industrial heartland. That changes with B-52 tier aircraft but even those are vulnerable to interceptors.
Overrall, bad plan, but its good there is one at least.
>>30089665
You are now aware that the Soviets had no planes capable of flying as high or as fast as a Silverplate B-29 in 1945 and their early jets were "adequeate" at best.
bumping for interest
Nuclear radiation creates a lot of problems OP. There were enough problems dropping two on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, can you imagine how many would be needed to crush the commies once and for all?
>>30089697
You are now aware they can always remove armor and extra weaponry plus other bits (pulling a nip) from their underperforming aircraft to get them on the superfortresses level. Plus they had spitfires that can do fine anyways. Also their first jet aircraft is right around the corner by end of the war.
>>30089799
nice dubs
people live in both of those cities now. i still say id been worth it to march all the way to moscow. as it went the US had a four year gap between bombing japan and the russians first detonation
>>30089828
They did not have the requisite engine performance. Pulling shit off the fighters doesn't change that. Further more those fighters and even their spitfires (mark Vs and Merlin 66 variants optimised for low altitude performance), at that altitude, could not catch a silverplate B-29. Nice try though.
>>30089187
Because we'd just fought a war that killed 80 million people and the world was tired of war.
If the west tried to start another one the people would have revolted; while the Ruskies still pumped up over "the great patriotic war" would have been quite ready and confident to take on a capitalist invasion after the fascist one.
Same goes for Stalin, despite his iron fist if he'd tried to convince the Russian people that they needed to start a new world war right after finishing a war that killed 20 million of them he would have gone the way of Nicholas II.
>>30089187
Could it have been done? Probably.
Would it have been incredibly costly? More than likely.
The only (major) allied power that wasn't up against the ropes in 1946 was the US. France was barley a year into into the 4th Republic, the UK was on the ropes economically, China was imploding, and nobody in central Europe had the means to stand up to the Soviets.
That said, the Allied powers had a massive advantage in mechanization, training, and logistics. The Soviet famine of 46-47 would have been even more devastating to an already stretched Red Army than the Holodomor and general famines of 32-34, forcing the USSR to choose between diminishing its army to send farmers home, or maintaining a large army and eviscerating its economic base. Additionally, strategic bombers based in any Allied-controlled territory (West Germany, Japan, the Middle East) could reach well into the heartland and industrial base of Russia, hobbling Soviet logistical and manufacturing capabilities. The Allies would have won in the end, but it may have been at an exorbitant price.
>>30089854
>They did not have the requisite engine performance. Pulling shit off the fighters doesn't change that.
Tell that to the nips. Saying it just can't doesn't change fact that less weight on an aircraft = better ceiling, rate if climb, range, speed etc.
The spitfires given to the soviets arent optimized for low altitude work - where did you dig that dreck? They actually complained about its performance in low alt as compared to their own fighters.They used them in PVO regiments - the guys who used interceptors and later as trainers for high alt until their jets arrived.
>>30089482
>They were tired of war. Not just WW2 but they had just gotten out of WW1 when that popped off so going after Russia ,and by proxy China would have just extended it to a 3 generation conflict.
The namefag fucking nailed it.
>Plus Russia either had nukes or was close enough to make any sane person nervous, especially with their ability to come over the pole and bring them to confuse.
Nah we had superiority in that, and by 1946/47 we had enough bombs and bombers to deliver them that we could've wasted them easily. The cunts stole the bomb from us fairly rapidly but we didn't actually know it at the time, and they were nowhere near ready to make it operational by 1947.
>>30090003
So who fucking cares? Send a thousand-bomber raid. God knows we had the fucking bombers - we sent that many at Japan many times. Do they have enough lend-lease Spits to take on a thousand bombers? Good luck finding the 10 or 12 carrying the atom bombs.
>>30090104
We didn't have 10 to 12 Atom bombs.
>>30090098
We knew they were close but hadn't developed one. My guess is the brass suspected captured German scientists, much like we used, rather than the horrible info leaks we actually had in the program.
>>30089187
>1946
>The west has a major advantage in the form of nuclear weapons
Idiot.
>>30089697
>Soviets had no planes capable of flying as high or as fast as a Silverplate B-29 in 1945
This is correct. They had them in 1944.
The Soviets built in brick and stone. Why do you think we had 150 kts at least for strategic nukes?
And the factory cities in the Urals are even worse- each individual plant is located far from the other, and duplicated so you don't get the situation like the Germans had were one factory gets shut down and a whole tank line is discontinued.
Early nuclear weapons were completely worthless against anything but a city. No precision whatsoever.
>>30090314
yeah, one of the most important assets of the soviets was space
wasteless space to stomp anything out of the ground if needed
People would flip their shit.
If it had been practical it would be the only moral choice, as it is millions of people had to live under a regime just as bad as the Nazis for decades and that is a disgrace.
1) Operation Unthinkable was judged too risky, it was judged that we'd be relying too much on surprise and initial successes... just like the Krauts, and look how that turned out for them.
2) War weariness + "Uncle Joe is our ally" for the past several years. If we'd truly planned on ridding the world of the Red Menace the right move would have been to send them less supplies prior to 1945 so that they would have been bled even further, and more importantly, had fewer resources that were enabling them to recover and rebuild from the Nazi advance. By the time the Nazis were beaten, the Reds were in a position of strength again; if we'd been thinking ahead about how we ought to take them out we should have never let them get to that position.
>>30090351
>a regime just as bad as the Nazis
So the US then?
>>30090310
La-7 trying to fight off P-51/P-47s top kek
>>30089187
What was russia's food production right at the end of ww2? Wasn't America providing most of their food at that point? So all the allies would have had to do was hold the russians at bay and wait for them to starve to death.
>>30090380
lel Nazi scorched earth didn't leave em with much
>>30090371
>segregated fountains are as bad as complete repression of dissent and the mass murder or enslavement of millions of innocent civilians
Are you trolling or just retarded?
>>30090391
Why not both anon?
>>30090380
Aside from appropriating Aryan pussy by the millions, the Soviets also excelled in wealth redistribution programs. I'm sure the new socialist states of Western Europe would prove sufficient in keeping the Soviet military juggernaut well fed for the duration of a rather short war.
Plus they kept fighting on with all of their agricultural heartland gone and before lend lease - millions died and yet they kept fighting anyways.
>>30090391
>complete repression of dissent and the mass murder or enslavement of millions of innocent civilians
So the US then?
Because the US wasn't suicidal? It was called Unthinkable for a reason.
1. The Americans had just started bomb production line, they had only three bombs in August 1945 and didn't possess nuclear arsenal capable of eliminating entire Soviet industriial capacity until 1950s
2. B-29 lacked the range to get to Moscow or any other major facility other than Vladivostok from the Pacific bases.
3. Soviets possessed the LA-7, Yak-9, and Mig-3 all of which had service ceilings between 34,000 and 39,000 feet. This means they could get into position and intercept the bombers.
4. The 52-k 85mm AA gun could fire a fused shell up to 34,000 feet meaning they could also shoot down the B-29 if they flew into a AAA protected zone
5. The US began demobilising very soon after the defeat of Germany, with plans to send 1/3 of its personnel in Europe to the Pacific. The Soviets had no real demobilisation, even before the end of the war they had a 4:1 troop and 2:1 tank advantage over the allies.
>>30090373
You are once again correct. La-7 would be too harsh, in real life La-5 was more than enough.
>y dind we turn on our allies right after a massively destructive war had ended huhhh??????
>>30089187
>Why didn't we press the attack and at the very least push Russia back to it's pre WW-2 borders?
Because SU would push Aliies into the ocean instead. It totally owned the land advantage, losing only in navy (which would be largely irrelevant) and nuclear weapons (which are not ready to be deployed in spring 1945, and become even more irrelevant by November, as Soviets have regrouped completely and now can push to English channel before a B-29 has time to warm it's engines, plus US still can't chug them out at sufficient numbers). Air force was at rough parity, not allowing either sides to dominate air.
AT BEST, Allies hold Soviets at May 1945 borders and cause a few millions of unnecessary deaths. At worst, Warsaw Pact now includes the entirety of Europe. Gamble was not worth it, and Churchill and Truman understood it. But of course, you are SO much smarter and possess so much more info than them, amirite?
>>30089632
>glass moscow and decapitate the snake
Total area of Moscow was baout 600 square miles at the moment. You would need THREE Fat Boys (something US did not have ATM) to Glaas the Kremlin alone. And it would be a great disappointment to find out that, despite what Hollywood taught you, STAVKA was not constantly hanging out in Kremlin.
>>30089665
> Once you take out western europe there is no place to base enola gays to attack the western part of the SU, let alone its industrial heartland
B-29s still could reach Moscow from Egypt.
> The Soviet famine of 46-47 would have been even more devastating to an already stretched Red Army than the Holodomor and general famines of 32-34
One of the main reasons of famine was oversupply of Red Army. Soldiers were the least likely to starve.
>>30090104
>So who fucking cares? Send a thousand-bomber raid
US had no thousands of B-29. And even if it had - it wouldn't have anywhere to base them at. Egypt and Airstrip One can take only so much strategic bombers.
>>30090519
So you are just an amoral retard who thinks ANYTHING the US has ever done in history is as bad as the Nazis or USSR, got it.
Its a completely different level and only a sociopath or someone with an agenda would pretend otherwise.
>>30090373
a certain ace Ivan had to down two US P-51s over Berlin because they misidentifed his La-5 as a German Fw-190 and jumped on him.
>>30090581
>Goes down to literally "it doesn't count because muh murrica"
Top kek, stay mad.
>>30090585
>A certain ace
>had to down 2 P-51s
>ace
I think a competently flown P-51 would stop anything RU had to throw at it.
Most of Russia's best were stomped by the Luftwaffe during the early stages of the war.
Russian aircraft don't perform well at higher altitudes as the P-51 does.
For this reason the Luftwaffe focused heavily on high altitude performance.
>>30090581
>So you are just an amoral retard who thinks ANYTHING the US has ever done in history is as bad as the Nazis or USSR, got it.
Eh. Many countries have extremely fucked up parts of history. Manifest Destiny and genocide of Natives is only "better" than Holocaust in scale. Otherwise it's the same manslaughter justified by economic need of territorial expansion and dehumanization of the opposition.
And if we compare it to Soviet deaths in labor camps, it's not that better even by numbers.
If you believe that US is that perfect nation that Did No Wrong and never overstepped the threshold of what can be considered humane for the sake of it's interests - you are what is wrong with both US and the world at large, worse than SJWs and Stormfront faggots combined.
>>30090603
>Luftwaffe focused heavily on high altitude performance
>It had been designed for high-altitude combat but combat over the Eastern Front was generally at lower altitudes where it was inferior to the German Messerschmitt Bf 109
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-3
No need to be upset, lol.
>>30090603
>Russian aircraft don't perform well at higher altitudes as the P-51 does.
>Marcel Albert, World War II French ace, who flew the Yak in USSR with the Normandie-Niémen Group, considered it a superior aircraft to the P-51D Mustang and the Supermarine Spitfire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-3
No need to be upset, lol.
>>30089697
Lmao, I guess that B-29 over Seoul was shot down by some real high altitude birds then.
>>30090603
>I think a competently flown P-51 would stop anything RU had to throw at it.
That's not how air combat works. P-51 would certainly have an advantage over La-7 on it's top altitudes, but that does not mean it's invulnerable to an opponent of a compatible level (which La-5FN most certainly is). And said opponent is not trying to achieve air dominance - it only needs to shoot down that big fat bomber.
>Most of Russia's best were stomped by the Luftwaffe during the early stages of the war.
But at the late points of war, they were not, despite German best aircrafts having about the same advantage over most of Soviet ones as P-51D has.
>>30090620
You point out the MiG-3 which is still inferior to the P-51...
what is your point?
The luftwaffe didn't develop high-altitude fighters to attack Russian's, it was to attack American bombers/fighters.
By the time the MiG-3 was in service, the primary Luftwaffe fighter was the 109 F4/G2 which was (probably) the best aircraft of the war, though not competent at high altitudes.
to which the 109 G-14/10 was developed, larger heavier engine.
and the long nose Dora's toward the end of the war.
A P-51 in a dive will out-dive anything barring 262s, remembering optimal performance for the La-5/7 was sub 20,000ft, with the P-51 optimal performance at 25,000ft+ and able to drag the fight over long distances.
>>30090648
>Luftwaffe focused heavily on high altitude performance
>combat over the Eastern Front was generally at lower altitudes
This is my point, dumbass.
>>30090644
Conveniently forgetting that if this hypothetical scenario was to go ahead, the U.S would have a chance to deploy it's other fighters in development fighter aircraft..
ergo, F8F Bearcat which would absolutely slaughter Russian aircraft, it performed better than the A6M5 zero in maneuvering dogfight, was faster, better equipped (night fighting variants and radios).
Not to mention the fact the U.S and British were already starting production on Meteor fighters and P/F80's
>>30090661
So? the topic was could post war RU beat post war US?
why would you fight the enemy at their desired altitude?
>>30090670
>the U.S would have a chance to deploy it's other fighters in development
And the USSR would not, lol? Give up already, you are defending retarded point.
>>30090679
No, the topic was could Soviet aircraft intercept B-29 with the A-bomb Americans didn't have anymore on its way to Moscow. The answer is yes, easily.
>>30090682
USSR had what?
captured 262 and Me163s?
they didn't even get the MiG-15 from their own designs, they needed RR engines to make it work.
without the U.S/Britain Russian aircraft development would have shitted up completely.
Yak-15 with its garbage modified Jumo-004 engine Vs Meteor or full production P-80s.
>>30090689
Look at the numbers the Russians were producing.
On a single typical raid, you're looking at well over 300 bombers, at its height you're looking at over 700.
with escorts ranging from 500-1000 in strength.
a single 8th air force raid is enough to force RU to deploy every fighter they have.
and U.S can repeat that raid several times over.
if you wanted to ensure the nuke would be dropped, you'd send every B17 you had along with every fighter you had as escort, and only 1 bomber carrying the nuke.
simply not feasible.
>>30090670
> F8F Bearcat which would absolutely slaughter Russian aircraf
All 10 of them than US had by May?
>>30090689
Not "easily" though, but it was possible.
>>30090694
>without the U.S/Britain Russian aircraft development would have shitted up completely.
Nice argument there /sarcasm
>>30090720
The bombers won't have any escorts- and with silverplating only have tailguns for defence.
>>30090736
10? lol
the U.S had many in production, they just didn't make it into WWII, good enough for Korea though.
>>30090720
>a single 8th air force raid is enough to force RU to deploy every fighter they have.
Literally bullshit.
>On a single typical raid, you're looking at well over 300 bombers
>if you wanted to ensure the nuke would be dropped, you'd send every B17
What are you going to bomb using B-17s? Vladivostok? Brest-Litovsk? They can't make it to Moscow, neither from GB not from Egypt.
>>30090689
They might had fighters that can fly that high, but they certainly did not perform as well as the P-51 D/H at that altitude, and certainly did not have as many of them as the USAF.
The USAF can engage the Soviets in a war of plane attrition, by sending small flights of B-29's, heavily escorted by fighters.
The Soviets can't not try to intercept each one, because the one you don't try to stop might have a nuke in it and that's too big of a risk to take.
>>30090746
Why no escorts?
Then just deploy many B-29s.
so if the question is solely, can the Russian's intercept?
Yes.
to any effect that would stop them being raped to oblivion?
No.
hell, American's had airbases all through Europe, use B17s B24s as well, if we're being hypothetical.
>>30090748
>the U.S had many in production
Yeah, and had them in number by LATE 1945 - the point when winning a land war against USSR in Europe became absolutely impossible.
>>30090754
Yak-3>P-51, deal with it.
>heavily escorted by fighters
From where, dumbass? Egypt? Vladivostok?
>>30090754
>The USAF can engage the Soviets in a war of plane attrition, by sending small flights of B-29's, heavily escorted by fighters.
True. And that's my entire point - USAF can't absolutely dominate airspace against the Union, which would allow to bomb the shit out of industrial resources and land forces with no opposition.
Instead they have to force the USSR into a war of plane attrition, which the USAF will inevitably win - long after USSR completely wins on the land.
Allied advantage in air was there and it was significant, but it was not nearly enough to compensate Soviet advantage in land forces.
>>30090755
>Why no escorts?
Combat radius of fighter aircraft is sub 1000km. From best starting position of Western Germany you can only escort b-29s to western Russia- which is a ruin.
>>30090753
>Literally bullshit.
where is it bullshit?
730 most deployed on a single raid.
12,731 B-17s were built
16,188 B-24s were built
15,600 P-51s built
15,500 P-47s built
Those numbers of bombers together outnumber total La5/7s combined.
Russian air force doesn't have a speck of a chance in all out war with U.S/Britain
>>30090755
>American's had airbases all through Europe
And Russians had 2/3 of Europe itself.
>>30090755
>Then just deploy many B-29s.
1. US did not have that many of them ATM.
2. They did not have the infrastructure to house them EVERYWHERE. More facilities could be built, but it takes time - time in which Ivan rapes the US land forces and pushes to English channel by dozens of miles every day.
3. So... you dropped a single nuke on Kremlin and blew it's northern wing to pieces. About 8000 people died. STAVKA was in it's air-raid bunker however. What are going to do now?
>>30089665
Ivan please. They were fed, clothed, and armed (ammunition) via the US and to a lesser extent the UK. If we had kept on rolling they would have starved as they were pushed back by the rest of the allies. Throw in Churchill's plan about rearming the Wehrmacht (and the fact that Patton wouldn't have been killed in an auto crash die to not being in the field), we would have stomped the shit out of the Russians.
>>30090778
>where is it bullshit?
You said
>a single 8th air force raid
Not "ALL THE AIRCRAFTS US EVER PRODUCED"
>Russian air force doesn't have a speck of a chance in all out war with U.S/Britain
For eventual victory? Yes. But neither do US land forces in Europe, and those would lose a lot faster.
>>30090755
>Then just deploy many B-29s.
Insanely expensive and inefficient as escort compared to fighters.
And they only really need to knock the distinctive silverplates down and the whol e raid becomes a failure.
>>30090778
Neither B-17 nor B-24 was capable of carrying the a-bomb. And neither of them had enough altitude to force the Soviets to only use La-5/7 and Yak-1/3.
>>30090786
>They were fed, clothed, and armed (ammunition) via the US and to a lesser extent the UK
In 1941 and 1942. By 1943, the Evac was complete and SU was not reliant on lend-lease anymore.
> If we had kept on rolling they would have starved
Nope.
>Throw in Churchill's plan about rearming the Wehrmacht
No time for that.
>and the fact that Patton
>"Patton alone counters the entirety of Soviet generalitet due to TACTICAL GENIUS HURR"
>>30090798
if we're talking all out war, they'd be used.
specifically for A-bomb no, only B29.
>>30090808
If we're talking all out war Russians would be at the English Channel before B-29s would even take off.
>>30090812
^what he said
>>30090792
I pointed out 700 was most deployed in one raid, you said bullshit.
which it isn't..
that number could go up given the opposition of RU air force.
>>30090812
And we're pretending the U.S army in Europe at that time wouldn't stand a chance?
>Starting another world war right after finishing one.
You would have seen all major leaders that supported that war being put to a wall and shot.
>>30090804
People always harp on the "8%" number of lend lease, and not know that it was a large proportion of specific industries, and minimal in others.
Lend Lease provided very little of automotive fuel, artillery rounds, and small arms.
It provided a good margin in food and clothing.
It provided a very large proportion of aviation fuel, trucks, train cars, and electronics. The idea is to completely supply the Soviets in these areas so the factories can be retooled to making other war materials.
Suddenly cutting off lend-lease would result in parts of the Soviet forces having what they need, and other parts having a critical shortage.
However, doing it in April 1945 has no effect on operation unthinkable. If the Allies wanted a better chance of winning that particular fight, they needed to start planning ahead of time, like, right after D-day or even before.
With a year's worth of preparation, the western allies probably could have taken the Soviet Union in a fight and win. But that's not a possibility, Roosevelt was a Russophile and shoot down any of the required planning.
>>30090821
I said "bullshit" at
>a single 8th air force raid is enough to force RU to deploy every fighter they have.
>And we're pretending the U.S army in Europe at that time wouldn't stand a chance?
We're not pretending - it's the reality. Soviets outnumbered Aliies in tanks 2:1, in infantry 4:1, and in artillery 5:1, and also did not have to carry their reinforcements and supplies over the damn pond.
>>30090833
>Suddenly cutting off lend-lease would result in parts of the Soviet forces having what they need, and other parts having a critical shortage.
True. IF it happens ion 1942. As I said - by 1945 Soviet reliance on lend-lease was gone completely.
>With a year's worth of preparation, the western allies probably could have taken the Soviet Union in a fight and win
I'd say that it would become a possibility, if a not very likely one.
>>30090786
>Ivan please. They were fed, clothed, and armed (ammunition) via the US and to a lesser extent the UK.
And so will western europe right after they handily capture it.
>If we had kept on rolling they would have starved as they were pushed back by the rest of the allies.
You guys had trouble fighting 2nd line German forces and got rolled all the way to the beaches of Dunkirk when faced with the actual Wehrmacht. Hard to believe youd do better against the force that defeated them.
>Throw in Churchill's plan about rearming the Wehrmacht
Would never fly to the Brits and the old codger would have been strung up a lamppost for his trouble.
>(and the fact that Patton wouldn't have been killed in an auto crash die to not being in the field),
If there is one general that is way overrated to hell and back its Patton. Zhukov is right up there but the gap between them is too high in favor of Patton.
>we would have stomped the shit out of the Russians.
Stay mad.
>>30090835
61 U.S Army divisions, better trained, with better equipment.
remember the slaughter of Russians by smaller German divisions throughout the war, god forbid larger divisions.
>Barbarossa
I'm not suggesting human wave tactic but let's be honest, Russian's only had numbers on their side.
Given all out war by 1945 all troops stationed in the pacific would be shifted to France to immediately reinforce, bombers would no longer be concerned with bombing cities, rather now it's military front line positions.
U.S gaining total air superiority.
I'm sorry, I can't jump on the "Russia won the war and will beat anyone" memewagon, I don't see it being possible.
>>30090854
Two delicious German lolis for this liberating /k/omrade.
>>30090858
>remember the slaughter of Russians by smaller German divisions throughout the war, god forbid larger divisions.
Those are green Soviet troops, way, way, different breed than the ones who raped Berlin. Also Soviet Divisions are organizationally smaller (and in reality undermanned even) than their German counterparts, not the other way around.
>>30090821
Against more than 11 million veterans that just fought off hordes of the best soldiers Wehrmacht could throw at war, as opposed to a handful of children the US Army met on the Western Front? Not even counting how many armour did they have. And that's just USSR. Yes, they US wouldn't stand a single chance.
>better trained, with better equipment.
Oh god, my sides.
>>30090858
>by 1945 all troops stationed in the pacific would be shifted to France
French oblast, you mean. Because that's what it would be called by that time.
>>30090844
> True. IF it happens ion 1942. As I said - by 1945 Soviet reliance on lend-lease was gone completely
This part isn't true, the Soviets in 1945 were still making few trains, trucks, and prime movers compared to what they need just to maintain their fleet against attrition. All the factories that made those things were making tanks, and retooling them would take at least months.
The situation with Aviation fuel is worse, the Soviets lost the refineries in the Caucasus and didn't rebuild them by 45. The high-quality steel piping needed wasn't produced; it had all been earmarked for tanks and planes.
However, cutting off those items wouldn't have an immediate short term effect, the Soviets had enough in reserve to last them a decent while.
> I'd say that it would become a possibility, if a not very likely one.
If the Allies were serious about winning unthinkable, they could do an awful lot of things, none of them politically acceptable.
> cut down on lend-lease after D-day
> do not draw down the economy in 44, maintain arms production
> Mobilize more divisions, freed up by not having to supply the Soviets anymore
> message Japan and Germany that they would get better terms if they turned their forces on the Soviets
> "hold back" on the strategic air campaign against Germany to preserve their capability.
> Rush F-82 development to give long range escort for the B-29's.
Any President or General that proposed this would likely be impeached/sacked.
>>30090858
>better trained
Whaaaat?
>with better equipment
Whaaaaat?
>Russian's only had numbers on their side
And also heavy tanks, that US did not have. And also high caliber artillery. And also MLRS. And also AT means. And also...
>Given all out war by 1945 all troops stationed in the pacific would be shifted to France to immediately reinforce
Does this mean that Soviet forces that wiped the floor with japs in Manchuria also get redeployed back to West?
>U.S gaining total air superiority.
As we already discussed with other /k/ommandos above - not gonna happen.
>I'm sorry, I can't jump on the "Russia won the war and will beat anyone" memewagon
Pfffrt, it's not "Russia won the war and will beat anyone", it's "Russia won the war and would beat the US forces overseas in Europe". Implementation of former would be "Russia succeeds in UK and US invasion". Now that is impossible.
Meanwhile your suggestion is the definition of "US won the war and will beat anyone, even overseas and critically outnumbered"
>>30090870
Its sad. Back then you had to beat the might of Wehrmacht and destroy its best and brightest soldiers to have your way with the Aryan lolis. Nowadays you just had to be a dune coon and you can waltz right in, have a fun time with lolis, and still recieve welfare.
The Swedes and the Swiss would've won from it
>>30090882
11,000 RU tanks utterly raped.
>best soldiers Wehrmacht could throw at war
Children and old people?
>>30090881
>ones who raped Berlin
Again, hitler Youth?
You're also forgetting to mention the disgusting excuse for a Navy Russia had at that time with its horrific commanders.
>>30090889
or become the emperor of europe.
>>30090889
>If the Allies were serious about winning unthinkable, they could do an awful lot of things, none of them politically acceptable.
Not just politically unacceptable - that would cause something to the scale of Wehrmacht dropping Patton into the sea.
>>30090618
The Indians lost a war. They resisted and got put down. That is, at least initially.
Where they fucked up is by not offering them full citizenship in return for assimilation, that was fucked up. It didn't get real bad until even the assimilated ones were put up against the wall, which, in fairness, was ruled completely illegal by the SCOTUS, but we in essence had a dictator that didn't care about the US Constitution.
Jackson was our Hitler. The American people cannot be blamed for it just as the Germans can't be blamed for the Holocaust.
>>30090899
They produced 12000 T-34-85 alone in 1945 alone, dumbass.
>The Eastern Front
>best soldiers Wehrmacht could throw at war
>Children and old people
> hitler Youth
At this point you are legitimately mad.
Germans used Stukas until the end of war in the Eastern fron and most of their aces made their scores there. Shows how shitty Soviet air forces were.
Would Russians even be able to detect couple of B-29s flying towards Moscow?
>>30090906
>Jackson was our Hitler
Every great nation will inevitably have it's black pages in history, and thus "US would rule Russians better" claim is not a justification for WWIII, as some assholes above claimed.
>The American people cannot be blamed for it
But what's the point of Democracy then? All the people get to contribute to election of leadership, but none have to share the responsibility?
>>30090910
Tanks that need a fucking hammer to change gear, Russian engineering barely capable of producing anything functional, god forbid their industry was being raped like Germany's was.
>>30090915
>Germans used Stukas until the end of war in the Eastern fron
In the Western as well.
> most of their aces made their scores there
Surely it has nothing to do with WESTERN FRONT NOT EXISTING THROUGH THE MOST OF THE WAR, DOES IT?
I mean, Rudel could just fly his Stuka over the Atlantic, but he was too afraid of American ace fighters to try and score on US tanks, so he had to do with Soviets, right?
>>30090930
>Russian engineering barely capable of producing anything functional
>>30090930
>Tanks that need a fucking hammer to change gear
We've gone down to meme tier of discussion. T-34s now break down after 3 miles of march. Shermans are now called Ronson and light up from someone smoking within 20 meters radius from them. US pilots are now too metrosexual to pilot the WILD AND UNCONTROLLABLE Aircobra. Tiger II now could win against up to 3 Allied armored divisions alone. All French troops are now gay, and all American GI heroes are now niggers.
You could have prevented it. But you didn't.
>>30090919
The American system created by the American people said it was wrong, the Supreme Court ruled it illegal, and Jackson went against the will of the founders of American democracy and the Republic itself by authorizing the removal of the Indians.
I don't really get involved in modern American politics because they're mostly corrupt assholes and I can't find a side that endorses my ideology, but let's suspend disbelief for a second.
Let's say I vote for Trump on the basis that he will keep Mexicans out.
Instead, he says there are no longer border restrictions on the southern border. Let's say that even Congress and the SCOTUS both say it's wrong, but he flips them the bird and refuses to enforce the rule of law anyway. Am I to blame for being intentionally misled? What if I hate Trump and didn't vote for him? Am I still to blame?
It's a grossly simplified version of events but you get the gist, I could go on for literal hours on civics and government in America.
The same goes for Soviet citizens. They didn't even get to vote, so it's wrong to hold people responsible because they are subjects of a system that harmed others. This is why we didn't put Whermacht officers up against he wall with the SS.
>>30090947
Alright, you win, Russia would totally dominate the world, destroy the U.S/Britain/Allies
Dominate air sea and land and spread communism globally, because large manpower and American inability to adapt to new enemy.
>>30090955
>The American system created by the American people said it was wrong, the Supreme Court ruled it illegal, and Jackson went against the will of the founders of American democracy and the Republic itself by authorizing the removal of the Indians.
It's still the American system created by the American people that allowed him to do it.
>Am I to blame for being intentionally misled
The thing is - either the system allows people to actually consciously participate in the Democratic process, OR said people can deny the blame for the results of their choice. Not both.
Either you believe in Democracy and share the blame of your leaders, or you admit that the entire system is a farce where anyone can mislead the electorate as much as he wills, and the illusion of people playing the deciding role in the political system is exactly that - an illusion.
> They didn't even get to vote, so it's wrong to hold people responsible because they are subjects of a system that harmed others
But it's not. Stalin did what he did only because of INSANE popularity and support he had among our people. He wasn't elected, but he became the Vozhd exactly because the majority - from Party officials to proletariat supported his ambition. And thus, today, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the judging of Stalin in Russia is inseparable from judging of a Soviet man. We do not deny our role in what our nation did and try to push it all onto our leader. Neither should you.
IIRC, my history buff friend told me MacArthur was ready to invade the Soviets immediately after Japan surrendered because he saw them as a growing threat that was nearly ground to a nub after the war with Germany. Obviously that idea got shot down
>>30090995
Yeah that's not how it works over here. American civics is incredibly different.
It's strange, complex, and always evolving. It's sometimes despicable, sometimes it's the only thing standing up for what's right.
It's oppressed and destroyed, and it's been a bastion of hope and freedom to millions across the face of the planet.
There is nothing on Earth like it and, arguably, if it vanishes there will be nothing like it ever again.
It is not an either/or, and it never has been. It is not black or white, it has always been extremely vibrant shades of many different colors. I can't, in all of my schooling and knowledge explain to you how America works, but it just does, and the idea that the individuals of a nation that intend only good should be held accountable for atrocities committed by leaders they had no hand in supporting is un-American. I can't explain why, but it is.
A minor issue, but greece was already in a civil war in 1946, supported by Yugoslavia on one side and the UK on the other.
>>30089982
>The only (major) allied power that wasn't up against the ropes in 1946 was the US. France was barely a year into into the 4th Republic
Also keep in mind that France at the time had a communist party that was 1) fully armed and 2) represented 24% of the population, discounting the socialists.
If the UK declared war to the USSR, it's not sure that France would have joined, and it would probably have devolved into a civil war either way.
Besides, communists and socialists managed to fuck the french industrial production quite well during the Indochina War. It shouldn't be any different during ww3.
>>30090780
It should be pointed out that the size of those armies can vary tremendously.
>>30090919
>All the people get to contribute to election of leadership, but none have to share the responsibility?
I'd say diffusion of responsability is one of the points of Democracy, especially in representative systems.
>>30090931
If you consider the north african and italian theaters (where stukas were also employed) to be part of the western front, it existed from 1940.
>>30091018
>It's strange, complex, and always evolving.
...you mean, like they are everywhere around the globe?
>It's oppressed and destroyed, and it's been a bastion of hope and freedom to millions across the face of the planet.
Like the French Republic was? Like the British Empire? Like the Comintern?
>There is nothing on Earth like it and, arguably, if it vanishes there will be nothing like it ever again.
I swear to God, the American exceptionalism can be fucking insane sometimes. Dude, even the CURRENT Democratic system of US wasn't even entirely an American invention - it was a broadening of the system used in Rzeczpospolita. American nation is certainly great and significant in the world and it's histtory, and it's certainly unique, but only in the way that every nation in the world is. Not more.
> It is not black or white, it has always been extremely vibrant shades of many different colors
Of course, black and white morality can go choke on dick and die. But the final sentence can not sound as "perhapts", it's either "guilty" or "not guilty". We here are certainly guilty. The only question is - are we willing to carry on that blame for the sake of good that Union did, or cast the Soviet past into oblivion and become a new people with nothing in common with who our grandfather were?
>the idea that the individuals of a nation that intend only good should be held accountable for atrocities committed by leaders they had no hand in supporting is un-American
"We're not responsible because we don't want to be"
This her is the definition of why the rest of the world can often hate the US quite rabidly. Sure you don't want to hurt anyone, and desire only good for everyone. But so does everyone. No one ever is a willing villain. But somehow, Americans are to be free of any guilt because of that. Do they really believe that they are the only ones considering themselves the Good Guys?
>>30091077
The American ideology developed free of the hundreds of years of constant warfare and periodic anarchy of Europe. Americans are not pragmatists. Americans are idealists.
There is a reason American people experience outrage over things many others claim to be trivial, and that is because legitimate pragmatism has never been needed in the American psyche.
Other nations can call us naive or childish, but it is one of the distinct traits most Americans have. We're always the good guys, we always try our best to help people.
This is why we went to Bosnia, because Europe wouldn't stop the genocide.
This is why we went to Haiti, the people desperately needed us.
I'm not talking about why the government goes, but why the American people support the actions. The government, the bureaucracy may have ulterior motives, but the American people are pure of heart and mind.
We don't want to send Americans to fight ISIS to increase our influence, we want to fight ISIS to save those poor bastards being murdered by psychopaths.
Americans simply aren't as cynical. We haven't had to be.
Don't worry though, I fear soon America will change, and we will fight wars with the European ideas of pragmatism and expansionism, where nobody cares who lives or dies as long as "we" win.
The wars won't stop, but right now we want friends, we desperately want to be the good guys, but with enough pushing we won't care. Again, the wars won't stop, and when we decide we have enough friends, I fear for those caught in our sights.
Destroying the sense of security and naivety Americans have is a very, very bad thing.
>>30091155
>Americans are not pragmatists
Unless we touch the subject of capitalism, at which point he becomes pragmatic AF.
> Americans are idealists.
So are French revolutionaries, Commies, Nazis...
>We're always the good guys, we always try our best to help people.
Everyone does. Everyone fucks up. Everyone causes more harm then good. Everyone becomes the bad guy as the result. Only Americans try to cover their eyes and ears and scream "NO WE DIDN'T WANT TO HURT ANYONE"
>I'm not talking about why the government goes, but why the American people support the actions
What Noble Cause were your people fulfilling in Vietnam? In Korea? In the Bay of Pigs? Or sitting on their asses until 1944 while Hitler stuffed those gas chambers full?
>We don't want to send Americans to fight ISIS to increase our influence, we want to fight ISIS to save those poor bastards being murdered by psychopaths.
>Americans simply aren't as cynical. We haven't had to be.
So, as long as people do the Wrong things for the Right reasons - it's ok, because they just didn't want the bad things to happen?
> but with enough pushing we won't care
Americans sure are idealists.
I'm sure dropping nukes on a declared ally who had just won the greatest conflict in human history wouldn't have put the US on shaky moral standing in the eyes of the world.
cause hordes of commies would rape everyone in europe, even if you bomb their shit
>>30091202
It's alright. Vae victis - media could blow the labor camps out of proportion, raise the theme of actual war crimes and fabricate a few more, push hard the Godless Communists angle - and in no time people would believe that they are fighting not just the Soviet Union but the Evil Incarnate.
There are Free American Idealists who believe exactly that right here ITT, do you think that creating them in the conditions of heavy government influence on limited media would be any hard?
>>30091202
The hell is this graph?
USSR in 1994, 2004 and 2015?
>>30091223
I can't read French, but it seems like it's the results of French polls asking "who do you think contributed the most to the defeat of Nazis?"
In 1945, people said it was USSR. Nowadays they say it's the US.
>>30091217
In US and UK, but you have to remember commies were a strong force in Italy and France. A first strike by US would throw the entire western Europe into chaos.
>>30091223
>Who do u think contributed most in defeat of germany?
Shows how effective propaganda is.
>>30091234
More like cultural Imperialism at its finest.
>>30090337
>he fights for freedom
>was allied with the Germans
lol no
>>30090275
The first Soviet nuke was rushed, and tested in late 1949.
By 1950, the US had, at a reasonable pace, had 299 nukes. The Russians had 5. Not only was there a huge technology gap, there was also a major production gap. Even with only 50 nukes effectively deployed over Russia, that's not a fight they'd ever win.
>>30091497
>allied
Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was a NON-AGGRESSION TREATY, not an alliance. If I list all the asshole regimes with which US had a non-aggression treaty it won't fit into 3 posts.
>>30091665
>literally invaded a country together
>"d00d they wernt allies! they dindu nuffin!"
>>30090373
>you now remember P51s btfoing La7s in North Korea
>>30091700
>literally invaded a country together
Soviets were returning the territory that Poland took from them AGAINST the Versailles treaty in 1922, and stopped at Brest-Litovsk - where both the pre-WWI and modern border between Poland/Polish Crown and Russian Empire(it's suzerain)/Soviet Union/Republic Belarus.
There is absolutely no way of defining the relations between Germany and USSR of 1939 as an alliance (as their military didn't even cooperate in the invasion) in any context of international rights. If we go by your logic, Poland was an ally of Germany - since it also chomped off a piece of Czechoslovakia when it was invaded by Germans.
Churchill was 100% owned by the jew so he couldn't attack Russia even if he wanted to
FDR and Truman never would
France was filled with communists so they wouldn't
>>30089421
>>30089445
It didn't happen because FDR was a commie, and so was truman
>>30091555
>By 1950
That's 5 yeas after the date that we are talking about here. The US did not have any nuclear weapons ready at the end of the WWII.
>>30091762
>Not a crazed Republican eagle = Commie
>>30091751
>both the pre-WWI and modern border
Oh, AND the Versailles treaty one. By attacking USSR for the sake of expansion in 1920s, Poland literally shat on THE document that brought it back into existence.
>>30090891
Yeah. The late war shermans > soviet tanks.
Russia was 100 percent reliant on US goods to maintain it's logistics by the end of the war. There was no way they were ever going to be able to defeat the USA. Eastern Europe was completely scorched, without supplies from the USA, the Red Army starves to death before they could retreat back to the Russian borders.
Plus Russia was not going to challenge the US army air corp in any way. They had zero high altitude fighters, and the USA would just threaten nukes if they didn't retreat back to their borders.
Truman was a pussy.
>>30091945
>Russia was 100 percent reliant on US goods to maintain it's logistics by the end of the war
>>30091976
Except I'm not wrong. The red army was not capable of feeding or fueling itself without help from the USA.
>>30092008
Please, proceed, this is entertaining.
>>30091976
They were.
>>30092036
I'm sure it is, maybe you should go read up on the subject and educate yourself.
>>30091976
NOT AN ARGUMENT
>>30092055
>>30092067
No-no-no, no repeating. Please, post most something new.
>>30092080
>Having an argument with a baiting clown
Why? I'd rather let him entertain me further.
>>30092128
You're not being entertained, even worse you're not entertaining anyone here.
>>30091780
the USSR atacked Poland in the 20's senpai
>>30092146
I am not being entertained because you started to repeat yourself and stopped spewing more bullshit out.
>>30091751
Poland took that territory from Russia because that's what happens when you fail to invade a nation and end up losing the war
>>30092194
>the USSR atacked Poland in the 20's
Attaboy.
>>30091945
>The late war shermans > soviet tanks
Nnnnope. They had a plenty of issues that made them level with late T-34-85s, and US Army had ZERO heavy tanks, while USSR had IS-2 and remaining KV-1 and KV-1S.
>Russia was 100 percent reliant on US goods to maintain it's logistics by the end of the war
Nope.
>Eastern Europe was completely scorched, without supplies from the USA, the Red Army starves to death before they could retreat back to the Russian borders
Lend-lease ended in 1945. Meanwhile, Red Army DID NOT retreat back to the Russian Borders - it's forces stayed in the GDR as the Occupation Force. Do tell - how did they not starve to death?
>Plus Russia was not going to challenge the US army air corp in any wa
As we ALREADY DISCUSSED ABOVE - USAF was going to win eventually, but it was incapable of providing complete air superiority over Soviets.
>They had zero high altitude fighters
La-5FN and La-7.
> and the USA would just threaten nukes if they didn't retreat back to their borders
One nuke is not capable of destroying a division, let alone a single army. Singular nukes would provide an advantage, but an insignificant one.
Europe was running out of men to throw into the meat grinder
>>30092213
poor honoable Russia dindu nuffin and was invaded by Polish Jew imperialists
>>30092194
>>30092212
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev_Offensive_%281920%29
>>30092222
No one argues that Poland won the war. It's that the Poland was the aggressor, which justified the Soviet retaliation in 1939.
>>30092222
>the USSR atacked Poland in the 20's
>>30092238
is that before or after Trotsky invaded Poland?
>>30092252
>le pravda source
good goy
>>30092261
>is that before or after Trotsky invaded Poland
Wat. Trotky was a member of Revvoyensoviet at the time, not a Vozhd or a military general. That's not a thing that happened. Please provide argument. You total lack of any education on the subject is showing.
>>30092222
I can provide a picture with a collage of US military victories over Imperial Japan. Would that serve as a proof of the US treacherous attack on japs?
>>30092275
>the USSR atacked Poland in the 20's
Please, proceed.
>>30092248
just read the Wikipedia page >inb4 wikipedia, and it seems like Poland was acting in self defense after getting attacked trying to set up borders
>who were also able to break Russian ciphers. Decoded information presented to Piłsudski showed that Soviet peace proposals with Poland in 1919 were false and that in reality the Soviets had prepared for a new offensive against Poland and had concentrated military forces in Barysaw near the Polish border. Pilsudski decided to ignore Soviet proposals, sign an alliance with Symon Petliura and prepare the Kiev Offensive
>>30092287
I really don't desu but all I know is the Soviets invaded a country and got btfo in multiple battles while having a numerical advantage in every engagement, and that makes slavaboos and vatniks upset
>>30092304
gommisar pls gib back crimean clay
.
These threads are pure cancer. Everybody here needs to be banned.
>>30092215
lol if you think the LA-5 and LA-7 were high alt fighters. They lost significant power at high alts, and all the high octane fuel the soviets had was from the USA.
>>30092342
>after getting attacked trying to set up borders
>after
BEFORE
>Decoded information presented to Piłsudski showed that Soviet peace proposals with Poland in 1919 were false and that in reality the Soviets had prepared for a new offensive
But said offensive never happened. Poland acted first in a preemptive strike, making it the aggressor. Everything else is historical revisionism.
>I really don't desu but all I know is the Soviets invaded a country
That's sure some /k/ level of education.
>>30092347
It feels like some /k/iddos trying to stroke themselves over "UGGH 'MURIKA POWAH", which inevitably descends into a shitfest.
>>30092379
just read up more, and so in 1919 Poland makes a preemptive strike to prevent an imminent invasion, gains some territory, ends up getting pushed back to Warsaw after Ukraine stalls out, defends Warsaw and gets a nice string of convincing victories making both sides settle for peace and establishing real borders
yay or nay? did I miss anything?
>That's sure some /k/ level of education
I'll take that as an accomplishment but atleast I'm trying to learn here
>>30092416
That's right, more or less - the whole issue is pretty muddy and politicized like HOLY FUCK.
The general idea would be that Poland was mostly justified in it's aggression for defending itself, but absolutely NOT justified in claiming the Western Belarus (muh 1772 borders).
If Poland was really trying to just protect itself, they would've kept to the Versailles borders, but Piłsudski was aiming to restore the Poland as great nation that it was in the 18th century, and for that goal he was ready to shit all over the Versailles system that made Poland a thing again and any international law, even participating and gaining from early German expansion.
And that is what denied Poland any capacity to appeal to said system and law when the next hand of cards turned spectacularly against them and sealed their fate - nobody felt really bad allowing Germans and Soviets to rape the "Jackal of Europe".
>>30092555
>justified in it's aggression for defending itself
>>30089187
The US was only capable of building a few shitty extremely large nukes before 1950.
They would have been meaningless in a hypothetical 1946-1949 war on the grand scale.
>>30090122
Not in 1946, we didn't. Maybe 7 or 8. By 1947 things were quite different. Even three or four would've made a significant difference against massed Soviet troop formations, of course.
This is all secondary to the entire, massive fucking army the Americans had in the Pacific theater that could've been moved over to attack Russia. Hell, if they *really* wanted they could've attacked Russia from the east side, through Siberia, but with only one shittily maintained rail line (Trans-Siberian railway) to work with, it just would've made more sense to ship their army to Europe the conventional way.
>>30090310
>LA-7
>high-altitude
KEK. Not the La-7s fault, or the Russians - the Eastern front air war was mostly defined by low-mid level combat, owing largely to the Germans (and a lesser extent the Russians) having fuck-all in the way of heavy strategic bombers. The Russians might've managed it but why would they, with the Americans hammering German industrial capability in their heartland? Their concern was much more tactical, and stuff like the Pe-2 was perfectly suited for that.
>>30090351
>just as bad as the nazis
This is bait
Because the war in the Pacific wasn't expected to be finished until 1947 and it was expected to decimate the allies. Read about what was expected to happen in the invasion of Japan. There was no way the allies were going to be able to simultaneously defeat Japan and start a new war against the USSR when people were already tired of the war before Japan was defeated.
This kind of retarded thinking is what got Churchill thrown out of office in the first place. There was no chance in hell this was going to work and if you think it would have you need to open up a book or two
>>30090580
Good post
We have too many underage/jingoists on /k/ who think they are smarter than the leaders of superpowers.
>>30090373
The La-5, much less the La-7 were amazing planes. The La-7 was faster than the P-51, which is something very, very few piston-engined planes can claim - and those usually had much better powerplants, like the Spit 16 and its Griffon engine. (The US decided that it made more sense to just keep the massive production lines they had churning out Merlin engines, because it's better to have two or three Mustangs with Merlins than one Mustang with a Griffon.) The La-7 was definitely not suited to high-altitude interception, and the Russians had fuck-all for infrastructure or training at intercepting big bomber raids. They could certainly go after the odd high-altitude intruder/reece plane (that's exactly what they used their lend-lease Spits for,) they just didn't have any of the equipment, training or experience needed to handle massive bomber raids like the American strategic bombing force could dole out later in the war.
Any way you dice it, we could've gotten our atom bombs on target if we needed to. And delaying till early 1947 would allow for the P-51K to enter service in numbers, for Pacific assets to be re-allocated (including entire wings of land-based Navy/Marine fighter squadrons, operating stuff like Hellcats that were really well suited to low-mid altitude combat,) and other stuff. But taking on the Soviet Union would have been a fucking War. Not a mop-up operation, a god-damned War.
It's interesting to note - it wasn't until the mid-late 50s that the Russians produced a jet interceptor that could catch the B-36 at its usual operating altitude. We had the option to initiate NUKE THE REDS for quite a while afterwards. So this whole conversation stretches past just the immediate.
>>30092601
>getting rid of an oppressive government and putting in your own oppressive government
>Russian textbooks unironically claim they liberated Eastern Europe
>"the Gestspo was childsplay compared to the NKVD"
>>30089187
"Operation Unthinkable"
you will find a very good answer in this documentary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVo6AzUI3ug&index=15&list=PLnNmfyY_ccRHl0yAJZy3r5Nfq2-Xr22di
scroll to minute 39 (15 series)
if you are interested, you can take a look on series 18. It explains how the cold war began:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6yM5HwphXM&index=18&list=PLnNmfyY_ccRHl0yAJZy3r5Nfq2-Xr22di
>>30092555
the only thing I don't get is why the effects of the war pissed off the Russians for 2 decades
also, I don't see why Pilsudksi would want a union of slavs, I understand wanting to prevent another Polish partition when you just gained independence but Slavs tend to not get along well, that whole region was a powderkeg
>>30092570
do you not understand what a preemptive strike is? why would you wait to get invafed
>>30090979
>this butthurt faggot who just got BTFO
>>30091945
>Russia was 100 percent reliant on US goods to maintain it's logistics by the end of the war.
>>30092712
>using an American phone
>losing to the US and getting cucked into having a Democratic government
>still being assblasted you stopped facism but couldnt come out on top in the cold war or proxy wars
lmao your sphere of influence consists of Azerbanjina and Belarus
>>30092194
Revisionist history is strong in this one
>>30092222
I was wrong so I proceed to baiting: The Post
>>30092586
>This is all secondary to the entire, massive fucking army the Americans had in the Pacific theater that could've been moved over to attack Russia
>hurdur we can just instant teleport to the Western front
>>30092756
atleast you admitted it
>gommies can't into baltics
>>30092702
>the only thing I don't get is why the effects of the war pissed off the Russians for 2 decades
It's not that it pissed off Russians, it's that Russians knew they had a pretty hueg piece of land populated by poor people quite accepting of Communist ideas and hating their existing leadership - the poles - for abuse and ethnic segregation (as Belorussians were treated as third-rate people in Pilsudski's republic. Sovets at least had the decency of exploiting all peoples equally), all ripe for the taking. Kinda like Germans and Sudetenland, only with Western Belarus Poland couldn't even appeal to international law and treaties.
>also, I don't see why Pilsudksi would want a union of slavs
Because that's exactly what the great Rzeczpospolita was - a Demokracja szlachecka (aristocratic democracy, from which the US Constitution originally took more than a few ideas) and an elected king with very limited authority at the top, and a fuckton of knaves absolutely deprived of ANY rights, abused left and right, at the bottom.
>>30092663
>Nazis start a war killing 100 million
>Genocide jews, Poles, and Russians
>expell Baltic peoples and force others into slave labor camps
>literally develop plans to depopulate the Slavic world to make way for German settlers
Oh yes the Soviets were just as bad as the Nazis. Soviets went around genociding everyone and invading hundreds of nations. They sent all East Germans to the gulag and repopulated East Germany with pure superior Mongol Russians.
>>30092742
>losing the argument so bad that you have to resort to ad hominems and accusations that I am Russian
>>30092775
>at least you admitted it
Where?
Are Eastern Europeans so butthurt that they literally have to revise history to sooth their asses?
>>30091665
Right...
>>30092804
>Soviets went around genociding everyone
>40,000 POWs massacred in the woods because they were born in another country and their fathers embarrassed Stalin
maybe the Soviets didn't plan to euthanize every Slav but please don't act like the Russians wernt a cancer to every ethnic group in the Warsaw Pact
>>30092832
we revise history, you pretend it didn't happen
>>30092843
So, they met at Brest-Litovsk and are shaking hands. So what? It's basic politeness between two military forces not (yet) at war. Here's a picture of Nixon shaking hands with Mao - does it work as a proof that under Nixon Americans were communists allied with China?
>>30092878
did China and America split a country together?
>>30092859
>40,000 POWs massacred in the woods because they were born in another country and their fathers embarrassed Stalin
Not exactly for that - they were suspected for organizing an anti-soviet guerilla force. Something that remaining Polish officers actually proceeded to do during WWII. It was still a war crime, and deserves shunning, but it's not one caused by just Stalin's ideas, and not even close to anything Nazis did.
>please don't act like the Russians wernt a cancer to every ethnic group in the Warsaw Pact
Eh. That's arguable. Poles certainly think so. Belorussians certainly don't. Ukrainians are having that argument right now, in very harsh words in actions.
>>30092818
>losing the argument
I'm not the other anon, you can do the (you) test if you dont believe me
youre just a dindu with reaction images lmao
>>30092901
>did China and America split a country together?
Vietnam. Only there they both failed.
>"B-but they were opposed there both sides tried to stop the others expansion in the region"
>IMPLYING THAT'S NOT EXACTLY WHAT THE SPLIT OF POLAND WAS
>>30092918
the Chinese wernt actively in Vietnam when we were. The Chinese got btfo 5 years after we got btfo and left.
The Russians/Germans splitting Poland together =/= Chinese attempting to take Vietnam after we tried to defend DEMOCRACY and failed
>>30092907
>and not even close to anything Nazis did
>not even close
debatable, one side was worse but the other wasn't that far off
>>30091945
>Russia was 100 percent reliant on US goods to maintain it's logistics by the end of the war.
Holy Mary.
>>30092979
Eh. For an outsider perspective - one side was FAR worse but dead, the other side was a lot better but still quite bad, and more importantly - still alive and opposing you, so it cannot be allowed to have any good image.
>>30092945
>the Chinese wernt actively in Vietnam when we were. The Chinese got btfo 5 years after we got btfo and left.
Semantics.
>The Russians/Germans splitting Poland together =/= Chinese attempting to take Vietnam after we tried to defend DEMOCRACY and failed
Of course - since both US and China failed. Otherwise we would have records of US and China generals shaking hands in Hanoi, while secretly grinding their teeth.
Point is - USSR was not Germany's ally at any point from 1930s to 1945.
>>30093023
as an American trying to look at it from the Poles perspective, one side literally put people in ovens >inb4 holohaux , had plans and was actively taking steps to kill your people and culture off for good, mean while the Russians murdered your officers and anyone who had any association to anyone who participated in anything for an independent Poland, sent people gulags and starved an entire nation before >inb4 hauxmodor, viewed your people the same way the Germans did and had just as many oppresive restrictions
>>30090979
That isn't what he or anyone else in this thread was implying. Russia could have defeated US land forces in Europe. No one said they could conquer the world.
>>30091202
>In the eyes of the world
>1945
Who cares? Only other big player aside from the US was the USSR.
>>30093095
The Polish perspective would be VERY polarized. For just and average Polish citizen, Soviets were INFINITELY better, as they didn't kill even the 1/10 of the amount of Polish citizens that Germans slaughtered, and actually somewhat invested in development of Poland, seeking to have a useful buffer state while Germans were actively depopulating the nation, meaning that you had A LOT more chances to survive Soviet occupation rather than German one. Never mind that Soviets never had the racist approach to Poles that Germans did - all the peoples of the Soviet Union were mercilessly exploited by the state, to an equal extend. That includes Russians themselves.
Meanwhile for a Polish nationalist, they are equally as bad, as while Germans killed more people, Russians were always better at un-making any independent Polish state, and took a lot more part in it - from 18th century divisions, to Kalinovsky's uprisings, to 1939 split, to Warsaw Pact.
>starved an entire nation
That was Ukraine, not Poland. And that's a whole another can of worms.
>>30090519
>OY VEY! HEY MR. GOLDBERGSTEIN. THE CULTURAL PROGRAMMING IS TAKING EFFECT!
>JUST AS PLANNED, SHLOMO! HE'S ALREADY TURNED ON HIS COUNTRY! HE'LL BE WAVING A RED BANNER NEXT TIME YOU SEE HIM!
>SUCH A GOOD GOY!
>>30093190
Not him, but as an ethnic jew - I'm thoroughly disappointing in that your father did not rape you enough.
>>30093165
>slavaboo who actually knows what he's talking about and is self aware
>goes to the extent of saying Katyn was a war crime
you're alright anon
>>30093023
>Semantics.
If pointing out chronological inconsistencies is semantics, then obviously the Soviets had a self-describe alliance with the Germans, it was called the Warsaw Pact.
>>30092586
>Even three or four would've made a significant difference against massed Soviet troop formations, of course.
No they wouldn't. Yield's simply too small that even if you hit the lottery and hit a wharf filled with beds loaded with T-34s for instance you'd only burn to an unrecoverable hulk the tanks within or very near the fireball itself. Then there is the problem that 1940s aerial recon of targets was very piss poor and required days to at least make of what the intel gathered was. That and the shitty precision with which bombers dropped their loads(which is why it took tens, even hundreds just to bomb sprawling factory complexes and even then the damage amounted to just temporary disruption of factory abilities for the majority). Having a single more powerful bomb doesn't change that- in fact even makes it worse.
>This is all secondary to the entire, massive fucking army the Americans had in the Pacific theater that could've been moved over to attack Russia. Hell, if they *really* wanted they could've attacked Russia from the east side, through Siberia, but with only one shittily maintained rail line (Trans-Siberian railway) to work with, it just would've made more sense to ship their army to Europe the conventional way.
This is the dumbest I have heard this day so far.
It took Overlord 1 year of preparations, most of the Western allies combined efforts and most importantly a safe and secure springboard to launch the invasion just to cross the pitiful English channel what do you suppose the preparations for crossing the Pacific itself would be? Yep, das right, the springboard is all the way to the west coast since in OTL the Soviets are preparing to storm Japan itself via Hokkaido which had a token force at best to greet the Soviets. That plus the fact that the entire archipelago is starving to death as all manner of supplies are depleted to allow any sense of civil life let alone making war means the invasion is easily wrapped up by the SU.
>>30092586
>but with only one shittily maintained rail line (Trans-Siberian railway) to work with, it just would've made more sense to ship their army to Europe the conventional way.
You do realize even if by some miracle you land a force to the Far East that you are then bottlenecked through this single rail line yourself?
>>30092613
>Because the war in the Pacific wasn't expected to be finished until 1947 and it was expected to decimate the allies.
They are literally starving to death in their homes in 1945. They can't mount any effective resistance. Only when they capitulated and massive food aids were distributed were they able to survive.
>>30092638
>It's interesting to note - it wasn't until the mid-late 50s that the Russians produced a jet interceptor that could catch the B-36 at its usual operating altitude. We had the option to initiate NUKE THE REDS for quite a while afterwards. So this whole conversation stretches past just the immediate.
The fuck was this then?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-9#Specifications_.28MiG-9.29
>>30093486
I said catch, not reach. An aircraft's maximum ceiling - especially for fighters - is the maximum altitude at which it can keep flying without the engine choking out and letting it fall out of the sky. That does not mean it can fly, fight or intercept effectively.
ESPECIALLY true of early jets, which were... finicky.
>>30093404
>You do realize even if by some miracle you land a force to the Far East that you are then bottlenecked through this single rail line yourself?
That's literally what I was fucking talking about, you cock-gobbling retard fuckhead: moving the fucking Pacific US forces from Japan to Western Russia by landing in Siberia, which is a stone's throw away from Japan via a little lake called the Sea of Japan. Your reading comprehension sucks dicks, you know that? Fuck you're stupid. What, did you think I was saying we could OCCUPY SIBERIA easily? Sure! Who'd fucking care? IT'S FUCKING SIBERIA.
>>30093165
>Ukraine
No such thing comrade.
>>30092804
>They sent all East Germans to the gulag and repopulated East Germany with pure superior Mongol Russians.
Lies. They offered superior Mongol Rooskie seed to the widows of the war. They accepted and the clearly deficient aryan blood was diluted. Their descendants turned out fine- look west and they turned into cucks.
>>30093595
>slavaboos fighting one another
Lmao
>>30093531
Somebody has a bbc so far up their ass its tingling the spine and producing an impressive knee jerk reaction.
>>30093531
>moving the fucking Pacific US forces from Japan to Western Russia by landing in Siberia
Again it took more than a fucking year to get Overlord going- thats with all the good thing going for it I listed above. Guess what the Soviets can easily stage a reverse of what you are saying and wipe out all resistance both US and Japanese since they only have a little lake between them.
The Far Eastern Front crushed the 1 million man strong IJN across the whole of manchuria in 3 weeks tops. You fags spent years with puny islands garrisoned by a couple hundred troops at best. What a bunch of fags.
>>30090580
>Air Force parity
Top jej
Name a single Russian aircraft that could even reach the B-29's bombing ceiling.
We wouldn't even need nukes. From Egypt and Tehran we could hit approximately half of Russia's production capabilities.
>Russian land forces
It was pretty common knowledge by the Western Allies that every "army" the Soviets had was nothing more than an oversized corps. Troop parity would have been equalized pretty quick. We would have just stopped the Reds at the Rhine and kept them there, absolutely raping them with bombers that were already in Continental Europe like B-24s and 17s.
>>30093523
>I said catch, not reach. An aircraft's maximum ceiling - especially for fighters - is the maximum altitude at which it can keep flying without the engine choking out and letting it fall out of the sky. That does not mean it can fly, fight or intercept effectively.
And bombers can maneuver even better then? They can't, they are still sitting ducks.
>>30090567
one word: poland
>>30093531
>hat, did you think I was saying we could OCCUPY SIBERIA easily? Sure! Who'd fucking care? IT'S FUCKING SIBERIA.
Never seen someone so enthusiastic to be buried in Siberian plots.
>>30093698
>Name a single Russian aircraft that could even reach the B-29's bombing ceiling.
La-9, Mig-3, Yak-9...
>>30093651
>Lmao
You want axe to the skull you Trotskyist?
>>30090891
>Better trained
Yes, a 7 week basic training process is, as it turns out, more effective than being pulled off a street, stripped and given a uniform, and an M44 or M91
>With better equipment
A Russian conscript in 1945 was literally given a burlap sack, one uniform, 3 sets of foot wraps, one set of boots, a Mosin Nagant with 5 clips and if he was LUCKY would pick up a PPsh somewhere, or a captured German weapon. Unless you're a stupid Sovieboo who TRULY thinks the Nagant is better than the M1 Garand.
76 Shermans could also wipe the floor with any Soviet T34 derivative, and would actually have effective tank-tank communication. Sure the Soviets had more heavy tanks, but again, Allied air power. We would deal with them like we dealt with Tigers and Konigstigers. Not to mention; A full 5th of all Soviet armor was Lend-Lease Shermans with pre and early war armament mounted.
>Wiped the floor with the Japs
Wow, they defeated a starved Army with no leadership or real equipment at a massive numbers advantage. Awesome.
>Total air superiority
Which we would have. I'm not sure you understand the number of aircraft we had at our disposal that we simply weren't using.
>>30090995
>the entire system is a farce where anyone can mislead the electorate as much as he wills, and the illusion of people playing the deciding role in the political system is exactly that - an illusion.
welcome to democracy, enjoy your stay
>>30093792
I wasn't aware Enemy at the Gates was a historical documentary.
>Yes, a 7 week basic training process is, as it turns out, more effective than being pulled off a street, stripped and given a uniform, and an M44 or M91
Your average Soviet grunt spent that period of time raping Aryan girls alone. 4 years of brutal warfare + Darwin to sort them out is way better training.
>A Russian conscript in 1945 was literally given a burlap sack, one uniform, 3 sets of foot wraps, one set of boots, a Mosin Nagant with 5 clips and if he was LUCKY would pick up a PPsh somewhere, or a captured German weapon. Unless you're a stupid Sovieboo who TRULY thinks the Nagant is better than the M1 Garand.
BS. They only gave 1 man out of 2 a rifle and assigned the unarmed one to partner up with the armed one and pick up is rifle...
>>30093792
>Allied air power. We would deal with them like we dealt with Tigers and Konigstigers.
You mean blow your wad in the poor ground 50 meters away and claim it was a kill?
>Wow, they defeated a starved Army with no leadership or real equipment at a massive numbers advantage. Awesome.
Yeah, most impressive when you consider it took years to clear these islands.
>>30093792
>Wow, they defeated a starved Army with no leadership or real equipment at a massive numbers advantage. Awesome.
Please do tell about astonishing American military victories in WW2. It was the Soviets who inflicted 75% of German casulaties, the US waited until 1944 to get involved and still had problems fighting kids and cripples in Normandy. It was the Soviets who defeated 1,2kk Kwantung army in Manchuria, all Americans did was captured few pisshole islands in the Pacific and dropped nukes on civilians.
In retrospect, Americans have never fought a modern full-strength army in their entire history. Taking into account this glaring lack of reputable military history (as much as any actual history), it becomes quite clear where this itching deathwish and all the bloated arrogance comes from.
>>30093670
>The Far Eastern Front crushed the 1 million man strong IJN across the whole of manchuria
>Japan
>Manchuria
The Japanese Army in Manchuria was struggling to make headway against the Chinese as early as 1938, bro. They were kind of a fucking farce. And the Russians whipped their asses at Kalkhin Gol in 1939 anyways, that wasn't news.
>>30093710
>They can't, they are still sitting ducks.
Sure, you go ahead and make a long tail-chase attack run in your wheezing crate on a formation of B-29s with remote-operated turrets with lead-computing gunsights for their .50 cals and lemme know how that works out for ya nigga
>>30095439
Legit cannot tell if Vatnik or excellent troll.
>>30092832
Butthurt is strong in this post
Because the best shot at defeating bolshevism had surrendered unconditionally a year earlier. The west never had any real interest in curbing bolshevism because they're two sides of the same coin.
>>30089873
>>30089873
Except there was no "fascist invasion" of any kind. The pre-emptive strike on the USSR was done literally just DAYS before Stalin would give the order for the red army to attack europe. This has been pretty well-documented by now through high-ranking ex-soviet personnel speaking out after the cold war, but keep believing soviet propaganda lies from 75 years ago lel
>>30096508
>>30096508
Also keep in mind the soviet union attacked both Finland and Romania so they broke the Molotow-Ribbentrop pact first by violating the german sphere of interest openly. The commies also attacked Japan first at Khalkin Ghol, which was a rehearsal for the soviet invasion of europe.
This is the kind of stuff only few people are aware of because the allied version of history demonizes the conduct of the axis in their post war atrocity propaganda. Meanwhile all the neutral countries who suffered from allied agression are seldom mentioned in the history books.
>>30090618
The shit the Soviets did was akin to what we did to the Indians except on a fuckhuge scale, and they didn't fucking stop doing it. Throw in mass NKVD/KGB liquidation operations and there is no comparison. I view the USSR as easily equal to Nazi Germany in terms of evil shit pulled off, if not more so.
>>30091202
Fuck em. The Soviets viewed us as convenient friends and nothing more.
>>30092878
The Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement literally outlined how the USSR and Nazi Germany were to hit Poland at similar times and how the country was to be divided up. It wasn't an outright alliance, but it was damn near close.
>this whole fucking thread
Y'all motherfuckers need to read this series RIGHT NOW, or I'll snatch every mother fucker birthday. Basically plays out most action fantasies regarding an Operation Unthinkable type scenario.
>Soviet Intelligence managed to acquire a copy of operation unthinkable and some similar plans
>Beria and Stalin being paranoid motherfuckers believe that these are legitimate and that the Western Allies will attack in the near future
>Begin several large plans for a full scale offensive in Western Europe
>While also doing some rather interesting and sneaky shit out East, specifically regarding the war in the Pacific
>The French are also paranoid and start grouping together veteran German officers to train western allies in the event of a war with the Soviets
>This is just a precaution, but the Soviets catch wind and use it as further evidence that the Allies well and truly are going to attack them
Not going to spoil too much but if you've ever wondered what reading about mass armor engagements where
>T-34s
>T-44s
>IS tanks of all types
>prototype T-54s
>Sherman's of all stripes
>Pershings
>Centurions
>Comets
>German late war prototypes
>tank destroyers of all sorts, some experimental
>every armored vehicle of the period under the sun
Are just going at it, you will like this. The shit that goes on in this series make Kursk look like a goddamn picnic. And that's without talking about the air war, the naval engagements, spoopy spy shit with the various intelligence agencies of both sides, and the politicking that goes on. It's a damn good series and I think more /k/ommandos should read it. There's six books out so far and maybe two more on the way.
>>30090780
You see that White 1 in the North.. It would drive straight to Moscow laughing and yelling TABRNAK!
>>30090780
> Shitty map is shitty
Soviet “Armies” were in fact Corps sized units and the Soviets were almost totally dependent on American Lend-Lease aid.
>>30091751
> Soviets were returning the territory that Poland took from them
Ивaн, please.
> AGAINST the Versailles treaty in 1922
Versailles didn't address the Polish-Soviet border.
>>30091751
those terains where illegaly took from crown during 18th century
also pic
>>30089187
fuck it would have been awesome if the USA and Germany invaded russia and wiped out those subhumans
>>30093921
>Your average Soviet grunt spent that period of time raping Aryan girls alone.
This is mid-thrust time alone btw.
>The Japanese Army in Manchuria was struggling to make headway against the Chinese as early as 1938
That was jackass generals biting off more what they can chew. The Battle of Wuhan
>They were kind of a fucking farce.
They managed to humiliate the British at Burma and Singapore later.
>Sure, you go ahead and make a long tail-chase attack run in your wheezing crate on a formation of B-29s with remote-operated turrets with lead-computing gunsights for their .50 cals and lemme know how that works out for ya nigga
Most intercepts are performed head-on jackass.
>>30090337
>>30096508
>Except there was no "fascist invasion" of any kind. The pre-emptive strike on the USSR was done literally just DAYS before Stalin would give the order for the red army to attack europe. This has been pretty well-documented by now through high-ranking ex-soviet personnel speaking out after the cold war, but keep believing soviet propaganda lies from 75 years ago lel
Bullshit. Victor Suvorov is not a reliable source for military history in the same vein that Tom Clancy isn't.
Read Glantz instead, guy actually has access to Soviet Archives and probably could tell you what Stalin had for lunch that day Hitler declared war
>hint: It wasn't solid.
>>30099911
>Falling for the kike ubermensch/untermensch meme
and in the way only a real subhuman would.
Also, daily reminder Stalin purged the Jews from most of the decision making circles. If there is one thing to commend the man for thats the one.
>>30100161
>>30100542
>>30096508
>Except there was no "fascist invasion" of any kind.
Even if this was the case it wouldn't matter, so long as people believed there was the result would be the same.
>>30090098
Please read up on the soviet a bom project and the use of german scientists generally.
You are factually 100% wrong. They werent close at the end of ww2 and weren't close for years.
>>30100262
$50 says that old Al Rosenberg there looks more Aryan than you do.
>>30090644
Trying to shoot down a B-29 with 2x20mm while having trouble getting there would be an absolute nightmare.
Sovs had shit anti bomber planes, face it.
>>30093756
Now tell me which of those planes can actually perform well enough at 32,000 feet to catch a B-29. Then tell me how they're going to deal with the P-51 escorts which would rape their faces at that altitude.
The soviet air force could do little to stop US strategic bombing.
>>30093095
Fuck you, ignorant retard. Germans and poles have a good relationship. Many ethnic poles are part german. Pilsudski was an actual friend of Hitler and much respected in Nazo circles as a proud and smart nationalist. Hitler even had a portrait of him in his working room and attended his funeral while giving a cermonial wake in Berlin. Only after pilsusdski relationships deteriorated quickly. There was no hate against the polish ethnicity. There was no German hate against any ethnicity apart from the Jewish one and to an extent the slavs. Don't mistake group punishment after partisan attack as organised genocide. Every German soldier killed would equal 10 civilians on average. If commie partisans harrass you continuosly, it adds up.
>>30093165
You are one dumb lying shit.
>>30093165
>ukraine
no such nation
>>30093595
>>30101190
whatever you think about Ukraine as nation, it is still name of that region
>>30101190
I can show you it on a map ruski! Please try again.
>>30093095
As a Pole, I generaly agree with >>30093165
Overall choice between Nazi Germans and Russian Commies is like choice between getting cancer on both testicles or just one.
Both are pretty horible, but if you have no other option is obvious what you would choose.
Polish nationalist were mainly fighting Russians because Commies. Russophobia in Poland was and is rather complicated phenomenon as it comes from variuos sides of political spectrum.
>>30101339
>name of that region
it's THE ukraine
>>30089187
First of all, politics. I'm not smart, but they were still allies at the time. Second, try to think how they could hold all that ground, while dealing with the villages, winter, etc. They still have an army. And last of all, why? They have little to gain from this idea. But now, it seems pretty reasonable to launch an offensive against Russia.
>Hey we just won a war with 80 million dead
>Let's do it again :D
Warmongering neo-cons need to be expelled
>>30101135
Early MiGs were specifically designed for high altitude engagements.
Stop being fucking retarded.
>>30103694
They don't need to be expelled, they need to do the fighting. By themselves. Somewhere far away from the rest of us, so we can get busy building a society worth living in.
>>30093789
shut your mouth cuck how dare you call me a vatnik
>>30101165
>>30101167
found the retard who thinks Poles and Germans were friends and had no animocity in the 30s
