what if allies keep moving EAST??

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Sokol
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: 14 Nov 2002 14:23
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Sokol » 05 Jan 2003 13:54

Oh, and in the Gulf War, those observers were looking at the direct after-math of an intense US aerial assault. Not the result of a tank battle, my friend.

User avatar
LeoAU
Member
Posts: 336
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 23:04
Location: Down Under, Melbourne

Post by LeoAU » 05 Jan 2003 14:00

Korbius wrote:Even if there was Stalin, there situation in Afghanistan wouldn't have changed, and it would probably be under control for a couple of years but still it wouldn't be possible to hold on to it for a permanent time.
You don't know how wrong you are on this one! :) If there was Stalin, there wouldn't have been such issue as Afganistan problem.
Just one comparison. Chechnya. Back in WW2 days the problem was solved overnight -Chechens were deported. Today Russia been fighing for what, 8 years now? Terrain is perhaps even more difficult in Caucasus than in Afghan mountains.
And it's kinda embarrasing that USSR being so powerful, bombed a country to stone age and then wasn't able to control it, even though its distance was 0 kms away from USSR. 8)
No more embarassment than US had in Vietnam, or Cuba. or Somalia.

User avatar
LeoAU
Member
Posts: 336
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 23:04
Location: Down Under, Melbourne

Post by LeoAU » 05 Jan 2003 14:28

wotan wrote: But the US and GBR is the same as back then? I belive u underestimate the will to fight. Both those nations have had no problems in fighting out "needless" wars in countries far away previous and after WW2.
Perhaps you don't understand that there was no war like WW2 on the Eastern front. It was a total war, with unprecedented casualties on both sides, a bloody struggle of 2 great nations and economics and ideologies as well. DO I underestimate their will to fight? I would agree I do if there was any.
And u claim that it would be difficult to explain to the GI's that u should fight against ur former allies, but it would work like a dream with the russian soldiers? Why do you belive so?
This one was way too simple to figure it out yourself. Because WA attack! Attack their ally.
After Soviets did all the job, Americans came to divide the Europe and now attack them(it's not what I think, it's what they would have thought back then). Do you know that no Soviet soldier thought highly of US soldier?
Because the russians where more brainwashed? Didnt think for them self?
:) Brainwashed?? To defend their country? Are you kidding me? Would American soldiers need to be brainwashed to defend theirs?

User avatar
Korbius
Member
Posts: 1795
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 23:53
Location: DC

Post by Korbius » 05 Jan 2003 15:13

LeoAU wrote:
Korbius wrote:Even if there was Stalin, there situation in Afghanistan wouldn't have changed, and it would probably be under control for a couple of years but still it wouldn't be possible to hold on to it for a permanent time.
You don't know how wrong you are on this one! :) If there was Stalin, there wouldn't have been such issue as Afganistan problem.
Just one comparison. Chechnya. Back in WW2 days the problem was solved overnight -Chechens were deported. Today Russia been fighing for what, 8 years now? Terrain is perhaps even more difficult in Caucasus than in Afghan mountains.
And it's kinda embarrasing that USSR being so powerful, bombed a country to stone age and then wasn't able to control it, even though its distance was 0 kms away from USSR. 8)
No more embarassment than US had in Vietnam, or Cuba. or Somalia.
I was showing what the mighty Soviet army in the 70s-80s couldn't do with a country it was neighboring, while the U.S conflict in Vietnam was a couple of thousand miles away from the territories of U.S, and regarding Cuba, that was just 1300 CIA trained exiled Cubans, and not regular U.S. Military troops. In Somalia the job of U.S troops was to protect U.N convoys and that was not an invasion or military intervention such as the Vietnam case. In the Chechnya case, those Chechens deported happen to be the problem today with Russia so it's a problem that was created by Stalin. Russian troops already pulled out of Chechnya once, and I think it's gonna happen again.

User avatar
LeoAU
Member
Posts: 336
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 23:04
Location: Down Under, Melbourne

Post by LeoAU » 05 Jan 2003 15:24

Lord Gort wrote: A Soviet Union with twenty million war dead, and army in awe of German living standards compared to the socialist dream
And how would that help WA win that war??? I mean German living standards. Can you demonstrate any examples of weakened morale or battle performance of Soviet troops after they entered German territory and discovered 'paradise' there. Hint -it was actually quite the opposite.

A liberated and largly undamaged French manpower pool
Which would fare no better than in 1940 against Germans.
A possible German Army of 100,000 men according to the actual Allied plan against the Soviet union....and A Polish army on the allied side
You gotta be joking. :) Poles together with Germans? And who would they fight Soviets or each other? Or perhaps Poles side with Soviets, at least there they are not untermenschen?
An eastern European populace disgusted with the Soviet Union and Soviet side that wanted a Free poland
Disgusted in 45, straight after the liberation? Have you seen old photos or films? Have you seen how they were met by locals?
All this seems to mean that within then first few months although the allied would achieve a rapid suprise victory they would push the soviets back
Aha, now the victory would be a rapid one. :lol:
Could you tell me, how would the war end, ie how would that 'rapid surprise victory' be achieved? Capture of Moscow? Killing every Soviet soldier? Capture of Stalin? How? What would be the objectives? Also, in the war with Germany, Soviets did all the dirty job, who would do it in the war with Soviets? 101st airborne perhaps? :lol: sorry, too much BoB - good movie though.

User avatar
Korbius
Member
Posts: 1795
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 23:53
Location: DC

Post by Korbius » 05 Jan 2003 15:34

Sokol wrote:2) For you to say something like what you did about the nature of the NATO-Yu conflict, you'd have to be pretty missinformed. Which you are. NATO, after seeing it could not militarily humble the VJ in Kosovo via air power alone, decided to *punish* Serbia's civil infrastructure. THERE is your reason for our eventual capitulation. Watching our factories, hospitals, civil transport networks and power distribution networks bombed day after day for 72 days grows tiresome. It was that and not NATO technological or military prowess that forced us to *capitulate*. That, and numerous Russian delegates all telling our leadership to give it up.

3) Serbia's AA system managed to keep your airfleet at a level from which no amount of precision bombing could stop the VJ. NATO was forced to resort to night-time attacks and a HUGE campaign targetting the civilian infrastructure.

4) This *in-effective* AA system you speak of also managed to take down dozens of drones, a F-117 stealth craft and more than a dozen other fixed-wing aircraft. FYI, this *in-effective* AA system was modern in the 60's. Now, it's rubbish. Imagine what Soviet systems would do to NATO aircraft in the 70's...

Thank you, for providing me this opportunity to dispell your foolish notions regarding the Kosovo conflict. I assure you, anyone well versed with the topic would call what you stated as fact to be rubbish.

Regards,
Sokol
Sorry Marcus, I just gotta reply quickly to this

The bombing of Belgrade was made as it was the nerve center, so the only was to solve a problem is to go to the source of it. And when did they bomb hospitals? There is no need to make propaganda here, even though the infrastructure was bombed, that served in paralyzing the Yugoslav Army, and even after Milosevic left, the West paid for war reparations to Serbia. And when were there fixed-wing aircrafts shot down during the Kosova war? The only "lucky shot" was that F-117 and from the pics taken of the destroyed F117, there were holes made from light AAA not advanced SAMs, and whoever shot down that plane, it must have been flying really low as to make it an easy visible target like that. Also how was it possible for a Blackhawk to come all the way at the crash site in Serbian territory and pick up the downed pilot and leaving without a scratch? The drones are always used for dangerous reconnaissance missions, and that's why they are drones in the first place. So Serbian AA network shot down a couple of them. Big deal, Afghanis and Iraqis did too.
Last edited by Korbius on 05 Jan 2003 15:35, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33963
Joined: 08 Mar 2002 22:35
Location: Europe

Post by Marcus » 05 Jan 2003 15:35

If this thread continues off topic, it will be closed.

/Marcus

Return to “What if”