← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Zvaci
Thread ID: 10633 | Posts: 63 | Started: 2003-10-20
2003-10-20 22:17 | User Profile
As I understand it, the intention of this worthy opponent was to strike Soviets and liberate Eastern Europe from communism. Some people say this was the reason for his assassination ordered by pro-Jewish Roosevelt and war criminal Eisenhower.
[url]http://www.winternet.com/~swezeyt/fun/patton.htm[/url]
From the divergent sources I discovered he had "disturbing personal beliefs about the Jews" and that he called them "subhuman species". He also considered Soviets to be "Mongoloids".
[url]http://www.historyofmilitary.com/Last_Days_of_Patton_007019940X.html[/url]
I cant hide my sympathies so lets here more about this outstanding leader and remarkable warrior. :)
[IMG]http://www.npg.si.edu/img2/brush/big/bigpat.jpg[/IMG] :tank:
2003-10-20 23:02 | User Profile
Zvaci: Patton 'assassinated'? Unbelievable! The man was killed in a jeep accident for godsake.
2003-10-20 23:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Zvaci]As I understand it, the intention of this worthy opponent was to strike Soviets and liberate Eastern Europe from communism. Some people say this was the reason for his assassination ordered by pro-Jewish Roosevelt and war criminal Eisenhower.
[url]http://www.winternet.com/~swezeyt/fun/patton.htm[/url]
I believe we've already debated that possibility here at OD and I refuted the claim he would've been able to accomplish much against the Red Army.
From the divergent sources I discovered he had "disturbing personal beliefs about the Jews" and that he called them "subhuman species". He also considered Soviets to be "Mongoloids".
Oh boy, this crap again!
I cant hide my sympathies so lets here more about this outstanding leader and remarkable warrior. :)
Hate to burst your bubble but he wasn't that great. As far as I know Patton never really went up against the best troops the Whermacht and Waffen-SS had, but always attacked rather second-rate troops. Patton could have easily been defeated if he faced a decent German commander during the war, especially if that German commander had well supplied men and equiptment and a utilized a rear-flank attack move. See Patton was so obsessed with advancing at such great speed that he often left his flanks and rear exposed, which could have easily been exploited had the Germans been able to deploy enough troops against him.
2003-10-21 00:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201]
Hate to burst your bubble but he wasn't that great. As far as I know Patton never really went up against the best troops the Whermacht and Waffen-SS had, but always attacked rather second-rate troops. Patton could have easily been defeated if he faced a decent German commander during the war, especially if that German commander had well supplied men and equiptment and a utilized a rear-flank attack move. See Patton was so obsessed with advancing at such great speed that he often left his flanks and rear exposed, which could have easily been exploited had the Germans been able to deploy enough troops against him.[/QUOTE]
Lets not ignore the fact Soviets was exhausted at that time. You don't have to be so brilliant to spot that unique chance to kick the commies out of the game. It was just a matter of political will.
2003-10-21 03:56 | User Profile
Perun,
[QUOTE]I believe we've already debated that possibility here at OD and I refuted the claim he would've been able to accomplish much against the Red Army.[/QUOTE]
No, I don't think that you refuted it. I pointed out some of the lend lease figures that the U.S.S.R. was dependent upon for their logistics. Patton probably could have kicked the Soviets out of eastern Europe on account of that alone. I can add other things as well.
As for Patton fighting inferior combat formations I wasn't aware that the Leibstandarte, and the Herman Goering divisons, for example, were inferior units. Nor would I consider soldiers like Hans "one arm" Hube and Hasso v. Manteuffel to be inferior opponents either.
I wish I could locate that original post, but I will be happy to repost the lend lease numbers again.
2003-10-21 06:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]No, I don't think that you refuted it...I wish I could locate that original post, but I will be happy to repost the lend lease numbers again.[/QUOTE]
If you need any help with that let me know, Sert. It would certainly go well here.
2003-10-21 12:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Perun,
No, I don't think that you refuted it. I pointed out some of the lend lease figures that the U.S.S.R. was dependent upon for their logistics. Patton probably could have kicked the Soviets out of eastern Europe on account of that alone. I can add other things as well.
Yes and Edward Gibbon actually supported my position that the Red Army was not as weak nor would be easily beaten as Patton thought they were. And I definately refuted Patton's claim that he would've been able to march on Moscow.
As for Patton fighting inferior combat formations I wasn't aware that the Leibstandarte, and the Herman Goering divisons, for example, were inferior units. Nor would I consider soldiers like Hans "one arm" Hube and Hasso v. Manteuffel to be inferior opponents either.
Ok and what percentage did those units make up of the whole German army in the West? Most of Hitler's best troops(not to mention the vast majority of them) were in the East facing the Soviets. If Patton had to face the same amount of German troops that Zhukov had to face, I doubt Patton would've been as successful as he was.
I wish I could locate that original post, but I will be happy to repost the lend lease numbers again.[/QUOTE]
Yes and I posted numbers of my own stating that Patton would not have had enough strength to take on the Red Army for a considerable amount of time, certainly not in a major campaign. All the advantages the Americans had against a weaken Whermacht would not be the same as if against the Red Army, namely superiority in numbers of tanks, manpower, and aircraft.
2003-10-21 12:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Zvaci]Lets not ignore the fact Soviets was exhausted at that time. You don't have to be so brilliant to spot that unique chance to kick the commies out of the game. It was just a matter of political will.[/QUOTE]
Ok if honestly believe that an Allied army of around 2.5 million men could've pushed 6-8 million men(total Red Army strength was 12 million) out of Eastern Europe and marched on Moscow, be my guest. Unlike the Whermacht, the Allied army had :dung: quality tanks and it was only their superior numbers plus unlimited air support that made the Allies beat the Whermacht. That would come to nothing against the Red Army, which had more tanks than the rest of the world put together(and still has more tanks than the US army). Plus Soviet tanks were of far better quality than American tanks, an IS tank would've blown away a sherman with one shot. Plus Americans would not have the unlimited air cover they had against Germany, for Russia also had enough good quality aircraft to keep the American pilots busy. SO if the Americans were going to push the Red Army out of Eastern Europe, they wouldn't have done it if they used the same strategies and tactics they used to defeat the Germans.
2003-10-21 13:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201]Ok if honestly believe that an Allied army of around 2.5 million men could've pushed 6-8 million men(total Red Army strength was 12 million) out of Eastern Europe and marched on Moscow, be my guest.
Okay, I will. I wonââ¬â¢t go so far as to say to Moscow, but I think that it was quite possible to have kicked Stalinââ¬â¢s ass out of eastern Europe. There wouldnââ¬â¢t been a shortage of newly ââ¬Åliberatedââ¬Â people to help the Americans. Iââ¬â¢m sure the Poles alone would have been more than happy to have sabotaged the rail communications between the U.S.S.R. and occupied Germany.
Unlike the Whermacht, the Allied army had :dung: quality tanks and it was only their superior numbers plus unlimited air support that made the Allies beat the Whermacht.
They didnââ¬â¢t have unlimited air support in the first part of 1943. The Western allies were able to take an advantage they had later by being able to wage superior economic warfare and transfer that to the battlefield in the form of a better strategy with their ability to project force at different areas despite the advantage the Germans had on being on interior lines.
That would come to nothing against the Red Army, which had more tanks than the rest of the world put together(and still has more tanks than the US army). Plus Soviet tanks were of far better quality than American tanks, an IS tank would've blown away a sherman with one shot. (and have the hell blown out of it in return by a Pershing-S) Plus Americans would not have the unlimited air cover they had against Germany, for Russia also had enough good quality aircraft to keep the American pilots busy. SO if the Americans were going to push the Red Army out of Eastern Europe, they wouldn't have done it if they used the same strategies and tactics they used to defeat the Germans.[/QUOTE]
The Red Army did have some fine tanks and assault guns, however, the Americans had an airforce that would have cleaned the crocks of the Red Falcons. The aircraft, with the exception of the Me 262, and pilots of the Army Aircorps were the best in the world. It wouldnââ¬â¢t have taken too long to establish air superiority over the front and to start to really slash into the Red Armyââ¬â¢s supplies. Joseph Stalins donââ¬â¢t run well without diesel fuel and probably burn like hell when lit up by a rocket firing ââ¬ÅJug.ââ¬Â :)
Yes, they would have done it differently, for the situation had changed from that of the days of Barbarossa. They would have used strengths they had that the Germans didnââ¬â¢t possess. Zvaci is right with his point about the Red Army being exhausted. With the exception of their motorized troops, most of their infantry was in bad shape from the previous four years worth of fighting.
And I am also right when I pointed out that what would ultimately defeat the Red Army was their logistics. Here are some of the figures for lend lease again from von Mellenthinââ¬â¢s book [I]Panzer Battles, [/I] (Ballentine, 1956, p.333) ââ¬Å13,300 aircraft, 6,800 tanks, 312,000 tons of explosives, 406,000 motor trucks, 1,500 locomotives, 9,800 freight cars, 540,000 tons of rails, 1,050,000 miles of telephone wire.ââ¬Â That is from America alone. The Brits and Canadians sent 5,480 tanks, 3,282 aircraft, 103,500 tons of rubber also. For all practical purposes, the Soviet domestic economy ceased to exist during WW II. The U.S. was meeting those needs (food, clothing, ect.) from it own great economic power. The U.S.S.R. was short all sorts of items due to the destructivness of the Geman invasion. They lost something like a third of their agricultural lands and despite heroic efforts of the Russian people to remove industry, still saw the loss of a lot of it to the Germans as well. The U.S. lend lease was an important way that made it possible for the Reds to produce something along the lines of 2,000 tanks and assault guns a month in 1944.
One other thing. You wrote about Patton being vulnerable to a flank attack. Well, that was the whole idea of Pattonââ¬â¢s, to drive deep into the German rear. By raising so much hell there and disrupting their communications, Patton didnââ¬â¢t have to worry about flanks because the Germans didnââ¬â¢t know where in the hell he was a good bit of the time. Patton also believe that having armored cav units on his flank backed up by air power could deal with any German threat long enough for forces to be moved to the threaten sector if needed. In short, Patton was worried about his flanks in the same way that Guderian was his in France in 1940 or the Germans as a whole against the Red Army in 1941.
2003-10-21 14:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201]Ok if honestly believe that an Allied army of around 2.5 million men could've pushed 6-8 million men(total Red Army strength was 12 million) out of Eastern Europe and marched on Moscow, be my guest.[/QUOTE]
Russia was never lacking in cannon folder but in the event of war this 6-8 millions would have the same chance against US troops like Poles against Wehrmacht :lol: Its foolish to compare this bunch fresh recruited Syberian and Jakuti with SS or Werhrmacht. Don't forget that operation Barbarossa started with only 3 millions of soldiers.
[QUOTE]Unlike the Whermacht, the Allied army had :dung: quality tanks and it was only their superior numbers plus unlimited air support that made the Allies beat the Whermacht. That would come to nothing against the Red Army, which had more tanks than the rest of the world put together(and still has more tanks than the US army).[/QUOTE]
Soviets had the multitude. With the unlimited US logistic and air support this multitude would remain helpless. American industry was intacked while the only reason why Hitler never managed to defeat Soviet Union was allied help and supply to Stalin.
[QUOTE]IS tank would've blown away a sherman with one shot.[/QUOTE]
You seem to forget the huge list of US Tank Destroyers and air supremacy.
[QUOTE]Plus Americans would not have the unlimited air cover they had against Germany, for Russia also had enough good quality aircraft to keep the American pilots busy.[/QUOTE]
JAK-s was pathetic and not so numerable. How long do you think they could measure with allied airforce?
[QUOTE] SO if the Americans were going to push the Red Army out of Eastern Europe, they wouldn't have done it if they used the same strategies and tactics they used to defeat the Germans.[/QUOTE]
Winning the war is also about war economics and supply. The major reason operation Barbarossa failed was limited oil resources of Third Reich. America did not had such problems. Even in the case of difficulties and prolongation of the struggle, the future discovery of A-bomb would defeat Bolsheviks. Hordes from the steppe would be helpless against the devastating effects of Mk-I "Little Boy" and Mk-III "Fat Man".
2003-10-21 14:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Leland Gaunt]In any case, I sure would have liked to have seen how the Americans march towards moscow and endure the weather and hardships of east-front battle. The russians had better tanks and better fighter-bombers (IL2). They had a far superior artillery, that would have blasted the west-pussies our of their trenches before they could have even made one step towards the east. And most of all - they had by far the best intelligence and spy network. They would have known every move of the west before even the american commanders would receive them.
I posted the observations below on another thread, inviting replies and discussion. They were ignored, perhaps because my comments were seen as a provocation rather than a genuine attempt to understand the impressions I've collected in Germany. I should add that in a few of the open conversations we had with men, a fair bit of the dialogue was openly disdainful of Americans and American influence while being flavored with the type of boastfulness evidenced on this current thread- while being backed up with very little clear-headed analysis or even any evidence of willingness to go beyond spiteful rhetoric. Of course this kind of talk might be explained by the quantity of excellent Dunkel on hand, although in the U.S. these beer-fueled confrontations normally are settled hand to hand rather than by the belligerent party slinking away in resentment. But these incidents were limited to after-hours meetings and were relatively unimportant.
My observations were bolstered by a number of German-speaking and German-descended Americans; to a man all of these individuals have noted and puzzled over the quality of contemporary German temperament. Perhaps now you'll be more willing to comment.
[Quote=Leland Gaunt] Unfortunately, dear Mr. Zündel is right. I sometimes hate our own people more, then the Jews. It's always an experience strolling through a shopping mall. The dull and idiotic riff raff you get to see makes one depressed and hopeless. If you then sit down in a cafe and listen to the dialouges at other tables, it's enough to make you want to jump off a bridge. Stupid babble about the newest TV-series and how cute this or that moderator is and that they have a special offer on purses or jeans at C&A........
The German always had the tendency to suck up to foreign fashions and authoroty and spitt on his own kind. The only ones I can consider true and real Germans, are those few comrades I know and who feel like me. For the rest I don't realy care. They are all traitors and can go to hell.
I recently returned from Germany and was struck by some of the things you mentioned about the people. Little of the arrogance or unfriendliness that many Americans attribute to Germans was apparent; I found the people to be up front and honest, if occasionally brusque. But not to be found was any obsequiousness or oily attempts at inappropriate comradeship; as for myself I attribute this American tendency to the US addiction to the Hollywooditzm and the televitz. I found Germans to be direct, if not open. This is not a bad thing at all; I assume and am told that in the comfort of the family home, the warmth of German family and companionship is quite deep and worthwhile to earn. I do think that in the US South the vaunted friendliness and openness is mostly genuine, although it has been refined due to the Scotch-Irish temperament of the region and the always-possible armed response to any infringement on honor...
However, in the area I traveled- mostly below Frankfurt, in the west- I found the German men to be for the most part pasty and "wimpy" in appearance and actions. This is not a criticism, but just an observation. What accounts for this, if my observation is accurate? Would WWII have served as some sort of national eugenics program?
Additionally, I did note that in media and in public, those of the Congoid persuasion are given a near-worshipful response. Germans seem to revere blacks, and I have no way to understand why other than to relate it to the American MTV-ization of our youth and the cult of MLK.
Your thoughts?
2003-10-21 15:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Leland Gaunt] In any case - such a scenario was impossible since the Jew would never hurt his little bastard offspring called Bolshevism.[/QUOTE]
I agree, the same Jewish hypocrites prevented anti-communists like Patton to act against Soviets. :tank:
2003-10-21 17:18 | User Profile
On the way to work, I spotted a BMW with a "D" sticker on it, identifying the blond female (paging freidrich braun!) driver as most probably of German origin, with the vanity license plate reading ERASERCM and the inscription on the license plate frame ERASE RACISM to remove all the doubt about what the plate was supposed to read.
2003-10-21 17:21 | User Profile
Zvaci,
you are supposed to praise the might of the Soviet Army in order to elevate the Wermacht's ability to fight.
To all the believers in Americans, the army didn't prove itself. The Western front was a joke compared to the Eastern one.
2003-10-21 18:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]Zvaci,
you are supposed to praise the might of the Soviet Army in order to elevate the Wermacht's ability to fight. [/QUOTE]
I don't deny the difficulties of this conquest but difficult is not equal to impossible. What Germans started, Yanks should finish! To save Europe from the eastern hydra is truly a holly quest.
2003-10-21 18:43 | User Profile
Zvaci,
if not for the "eastern hydra", you'd be talking Yiddish and watching "Seinfeld" by now :lol:
2003-10-21 18:53 | User Profile
I think there would have been the possibility that the West and Germany would have made peace and fought together against the Bolsheviks and could even have made some rules for the east. F.e. new states etc. but land for Germany etc...
I think that would have been possible at any point of the war, just Roosevelt and Churchill didnt want that. Germany never wanted the war against England and the US, not even against France, not even against Poland. They just wanted to kill and at least partially exploit the Bolshevik empire.
Even the Genocid on the Jews could have been prevented, they just wanted to get rid of them forever, no matter if they would have gone to Israel, Siberia or whatever. Just out of Europe and especially of Germany and allied states. If you know your system will survive, you can just deport them, if you dont know if you win for sure or how much land you will control in the future, the only way to make sure they never come back is to kill them.
National Socialists had many failures, sure, but compared to many other systems before and afterwards, it was never the worst option of all possible ones from a rational point of view.
2003-10-21 18:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]On the way to work, I spotted a BMW with a "D" sticker on it, identifying the blond female (paging freidrich braun!) driver as most probably of German origin, with the vanity license plate reading ERASERCM and the inscription on the license plate frame ERASE RACISM to remove all the doubt about what the plate was supposed to read.[/QUOTE]
This fine genetically superior Nordic lass is probably boinking a :afro: on the side if she already isn't saddled with his :afro: children yet. Too bad the "highest form of racial purity" doesn't include intelligence in the DNA structure.
2003-10-21 19:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Leland Gaunt]excuse me, but this is getting ridiculous. WHY should the Americans have attacked Russia? WHY should they "finish" what we "started", when they helped the bolshevik Jews during the War and prevented that we finish it? [/QUOTE]
There was dissidents, and not all Americans was hypocritical freemasons like Rosevelt and his Jewish inner circle. Gen. Patton was a conservative who disliked Soviets just like Hitler and this is the reason they eliminated him.
[QUOTE] Why should they help "liberate eastern europe" if they gave it to them in Yalta on a silver platter in the first place? And then again - how would the Russians have been better off?[/QUOTE]
Patton was just a damn good soldier, not a politician.
[QUOTE] Replace Stalin with some judeo-democrat who would have sold out Russias riches to the east-coast capitalists? That Russia would have gotten it's "Diversety" allready in 1945? Where the hell is the difference? Replace one Jew with another! "Horray! They have been liberated!" [/QUOTE]
Germany would not end up devided, Russia would be disciplined pacified, East Europe would not have to suffer Communism and Russian boot, the World would not have to spend 50 years in Cold War on the edge of nuclear destruction. East Germans, Hungarians, Slovaks ect. wich spend their entire life under communist scepter of the Soviets know very well what am I talking about here.
2003-10-21 19:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Leland Gaunt]I think peace with the East would have been more possible than with the West. Remember, the West was hell-bent on destroying Germany (and not just NS). Stalin "just" wanted to turn Europe Red. Also remember that it was the "West" (read western Jews and their plutocratic puppets) that presented the plan of dividing Germany at the Yalta conference. Stalin realy didn't care if the regions he controlled were under communist polish or communist german rule. The plans for the expulsion and ethnic-cleansing of our east-provinces was thought up by american jews (Kaufmann Plan). Stalin was pragmatic. In 1944 he pressured the West allies to finaly open a second front by making a remark, that he could make peace with us any time he wanted. That realy made Churchill and FDR panic and speed up their operations. And lets not forget Stalins offer of reunification in 1950! A neutral, unoccupied Germany (probably with its east provinces!), free elections and a peace treaty!!! And who turned that down? The WEST! The Russians (allthough they suffered the most in this war besides us) were always the more "sensetive" when it came to diplomacy. They have a feeling for "history", they can aproach matters pragmatic. The "West" was (and still is) blinded by hate against us. Goebbels saw it the same way and he writes about it in his final entrys. The bolshevik mongol hordes housed terribly in 1945. But that ended very soon afterwards. In the long run - the russian ruled part of Germany was able to preserve it's german identety and "soul" under the artificial veil of communism. The influence of the "West" was much more destructive and soul-wrecking than communism ever could have been. Today it is cleary visible, how the judaization of Germany is progressing and why occupation troops are still here.[/QUOTE]
You are absolutely right, but what I was trying to say was more to explain that Germany never wanted the war with the West. The West wanted the war with Germany. Germany wanted no peace with the Soviet Union. The winner were the US.
Just for all that people which say that National Socialism was really that bad and made all bad thing, and there was no alternative.
I knew the facts you were writing, but good you did it.
Everybody who say that the US are not responsible for all this shit which is coming over our people and all Europeans just dont know the facts or lying. No other way.
2003-10-21 20:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Okay, I will. I wonââ¬â¢t go so far as to say to Moscow, but I think that it was quite possible to have kicked Stalinââ¬â¢s ass out of eastern Europe. There wouldnââ¬â¢t been a shortage of newly ââ¬Åliberatedââ¬Â people to help the Americans. Iââ¬â¢m sure the Poles alone would have been more than happy to have sabotaged the rail communications between the U.S.S.R. and occupied Germany.
Yeah right considering that the US dropped Special forces into the USSR in the late 40's and early 50's to try to organize popular resistance to Stalin's rule. It was an utter failure and none of the locals supported the Americans and they were easily crushed by the NKVD. Same thing happened when the CIA tried drooping agents into Albania in the late 40's. Funny considering that Lativan and Ukrainian resistance forces(remants of forces that fought with the Whermacht) were able to hold out untill the early 60's.
The Red Army did have some fine tanks and assault guns, however, the Americans had an airforce that would have cleaned the crocks of the Red Falcons. The aircraft, with the exception of the Me 262, and pilots of the Army Aircorps were the best in the world. It wouldnââ¬â¢t have taken too long to establish air superiority over the front and to start to really slash into the Red Armyââ¬â¢s supplies.
hahahaha typical American ranting about "we're the best in the world". Considering the fact that the best pilots of WW2 were German. And Russia had good quality aircraft and enough to keep the Americans busy. Read any book about the Red Army airforce in WW2.
Yes, they would have done it differently, for the situation had changed from that of the days of Barbarossa.
Yes the Red Army was a far better fighting force than in 1941 by this time.
Zvaci is right with his point about the Red Army being exhausted. With the exception of their motorized troops, most of their infantry was in bad shape from the previous four years worth of fighting.
So was the Russian army in 1812 from fighting the French and the Turks. Yet when Napoleon invaded, the people jumped to fight the invador.
And I am also right when I pointed out that what would ultimately defeat the Red Army was their logistics. Here are some of the figures for lend lease again from von Mellenthinââ¬â¢s book [I]Panzer Battles, [/I] (Ballentine, 1956, p.333) ââ¬Å13,300 aircraft, 6,800 tanks, 312,000 tons of explosives, 406,000 motor trucks, 1,500 locomotives, 9,800 freight cars, 540,000 tons of rails, 1,050,000 miles of telephone wire.ââ¬Â That is from America alone. The Brits and Canadians sent 5,480 tanks, 3,282 aircraft, 103,500 tons of rubber also. For all practical purposes, the Soviet domestic economy ceased to exist during WW II. The U.S. was meeting those needs (food, clothing, ect.) from it own great economic power. The U.S.S.R. was short all sorts of items due to the destructivness of the Geman invasion. They lost something like a third of their agricultural lands and despite heroic efforts of the Russian people to remove industry, still saw the loss of a lot of it to the Germans as well. The U.S. lend lease was an important way that made it possible for the Reds to produce something along the lines of 2,000 tanks and assault guns a month in 1944.
Yeah considering that the USSR produced a total of 80,000 tanks during the war(as opposed to America's 60,000). Plus how many sherman tanks fought the Germans at kursk?
One other thing. You wrote about Patton being vulnerable to a flank attack. Well, that was the whole idea of Pattonââ¬â¢s, to drive deep into the German rear. By raising so much hell there and disrupting their communications, Patton didnââ¬â¢t have to worry about flanks because the Germans didnââ¬â¢t know where in the hell he was a good bit of the time. Patton also believe that having armored cav units on his flank backed up by air power could deal with any German threat long enough for forces to be moved to the threaten sector if needed. In short, Patton was worried about his flanks in the same way that Guderian was his in France in 1940 or the Germans as a whole against the Red Army in 1941.[/QUOTE]
Yeah and the German army group center almost got entirely surrounded during the Red Army counter-offensive in December 1941.
And as for the little Croat Zvaci, the Germans would not have been to occupy Russia even if they had all the resources in the world. Why? Russia's expanse made it extremely difficult for the Germans to control large areas of Russia. In fact as early as July 1941, the commander of Army group center complained to Hitler that their supply lines were being overly stretched to the limit. If that happened to the Germans, it would have definately happen to the Americans since their supply lines were already stretched to the limit by the time they reached the Elbe.
If 3 million Germans couldn't occupy the entire expense of Russia, what makes you think 2.5 million American/British would. The only way you could explain that is with arrogant "well Americans are better" type crap.
**"Russia is never as strong or as weak as she appears." Otto von Bismarck
"Whoever comes to Russia with the sword shall perish by the sword." Alexander Nevsky, 13th century Russian prince
"To those who hate Russia; who threaten us with words, just try us with deeds." Alexander Pushkin, to the Slanderers of Russia**
2003-10-21 20:51 | User Profile
But I can see where this thread is heading to again. It another one of those "We whooped them Krauts good! We rule!" threads.[/QUOTE]
You cooked this broth and now I am going to make you eat it. And you accuse me of being ââ¬Åarrogant.ââ¬Â Just look at this mess you wrote. :lol:
[QUOTE=Leland Gaunt]I will have to go with Perun on this one. the Soviets would have crushed the western allies like flys. The german soldier had great respect for the fighting ability of the Russians. If the russians would have had capable and brilliant commanders, then Russia wouldn't have had such enormous losses in the War. Zhukov was a corrupt, blundering butcher.
True. The Germans did have respect for the Russians as soldiers. Too bad for most of the Nazis that this respect came about the hard way for them. I wouldnââ¬â¢t consider Zhukov a blunderer for one minute. If he was so bad, Leland, then how did he do so well? Operation Bagration, for an example, was a disaster for Germany. Hell, from reading your posts, I get the impression that all the allies were militarily incompetent. I mean you can only use the excuse of ââ¬Åthey out produced us!ââ¬Â so far, so therefore what does that make your people? From your writings I would have to conclude that such superiority would have prevailed, so why did a superior nation fail to beat incompetents? Outnumbered nations have beaten stronger ones in the past.
In any case, I sure would have liked to have seen how the Americans march towards moscow and endure the weather and hardships of east-front battle. The russians had better tanks and better fighter-bombers (IL2). They had a far superior artillery, that would have blasted the west-pussies our of their trenches before they could have even made one step towards the east. And most of all - they had by far the best intelligence and spy network. They would have known every move of the west before even the american commanders would receive them.
Thatââ¬â¢s fair about the traitors in the U.S. government. The U.S. had as many spies as the German high command did, it seems. However, in Pattonââ¬â¢s case, he made it a point to keep the O.S.S. out of his area of responsibility and I believe that J. E. Hoover would have been able to roll up the Soviet spy rings in the West in short order, as with a shooting war there wouldnââ¬â¢t have been all the interference that the U.S. encountered after the war.
Something else too, the Americans command and control was vastly superior over that of the Red Army. That trumps whatever advantage the Soviets had in artillery, among other things, like control over tactical formations. Least you think that I am showing contempt for the Soviet Army like you show the U.S. Army, you are sadly mistaken. They have every reason to be proud of their efforts and I wouldnââ¬â¢t underestimate them for a minute. They are good troops.
And of course - the cynical americans wanted to rearm us and then send us towards the east again. Pahh - first they raze our country and firebomb our civilian population, draft plans to mass sterelize us, starve millions of our people to death and kill one million of our soldiers in their death camps, and then expect us to die for them. Russia was for the West never anything more then a reservoire of cattle and kanonfodder they could instrumentalize agsinst Germany.
People like Henry Morgenthau were obviously crazy and that plan was dumped by more rational people. As for the Germans taking up arms again, there isnââ¬â¢t a doubt in my mind that most would have done it in a heart beat, particularly after what happen in the East and you know that, Leland. You, on the other hand wouldnââ¬â¢t have had a problem of serving Stalin and it would be quite easy for you. All you would have had to do was to change a few pins and emblems and you could have passed as one of Comrade Ublichtââ¬â¢s boys of the ââ¬ÅMoscow Free Germany Committee!ââ¬Â :lol:
In any case - such a scenario was impossible since the Jew would never hurt his little bastard offspring called Bolshevism.
Yep, thatââ¬â¢s why I wonââ¬â¢t waste any more time on this thread with you discussing something that you are unable to do without getting nasty about it. Hereââ¬â¢s an analogy for you: If you want to fight at Bonn, go ahead. Iââ¬â¢ll fight at Remagen. That is where the battle is.
Patton wasn't that great at all. He was good at making cocky statements and sounding tough. But with the support on logistics and airpower he had to his disposal, any mediocre Colonel of our army could have achieved the same - if not more.
Now, Leland, this is really an insulting and ignorant statement on your part. Your own countrymen held him in the highest regard. Von Rundstead simply called him ââ¬Åthe best.ââ¬Â Patton was part of a deception operation in the spring of 1944 to mislead the Germans on where the invasion of France would occur. As we know, it worked like a charm. Hereââ¬â¢s a website where you can learn more about Patton. [url= [url]http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/12-20-99/vo15no26_patton.htm][/url] http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/12-20-99/vo15no26_patton.htm[/url]
The Ardenen offensive showed what the americans were worth. If the skys wouldnt have cleared up and let them use their airpower and we didnt run out of fuel, we would have chased them back to the shores of the atlantic. Lucky for them that they 4 Million Russians charging towards Berlin.
Yes, that it did. I think that it is the crown jewel of the U.S. Army. It wasnââ¬â¢t an easy fight, but the U.S. Army did prevail against one of the finest armies that ever existed. (Yes, I can write that because I do respect them as soldiers, you, Leland, on the other hand I hold in contempt.) When ââ¬ÅHitler weatherââ¬Â was needed, the Germans had it and they were still held up by hastily assembled forces and existing combat units in the sector, despite the Germans having an overwhelming superiority in men and material along with the crucial element of surprise. Iââ¬â¢ll add this as well. Rommel stated that unlike the British, all the Americans had to do was learn, whereas, the Brits had to [I]unlearn[/I] everything they knew and re-learn it. By this comment Rommel meant British armor doctrine, not the fighting qualities, which were considerable. Then again, you consider Rommel a traitor, Berndtââ¬â¢s claims notwithstanding.
In Italy they always outnumbered our troops and practicly got nowhere.
That was a secondary front. The American forces there consisted of one armored division and around six infantry divisions at any one time. As for getting nowhere, they went from the toe of Italy to Florence in a yearââ¬â¢s time, so that isnââ¬â¢t exactly nowhere.
Patton also had great allies in our General-Staff. Kluge, Rommel, von Stülpnagel, von Treskow - the entire command of the Westfron worked for the allied victory and betrayed our front. At Omaha-beach third-rate recruits and foreign troops made them bleed, that they still cry about it today. They then try to excuse themselves by claiming these were "elite troops". Yeah - sure. Face it - the West-Allies faced only 15% of our entire army. the first wave landing in the Normandy consisted of 135.000 troops. We had at the beaches stretched in long thin lines around 6.000 to 9.000, with no air-force.
Hey, thatââ¬â¢s your own fault about people like Treskow. If you had similar placed traitors like Quisling, you would have made use of it as well. Allââ¬â¢s fair in love and war, Leland. Even if those guys had been loyal, chances are you still would have lost. By the way, the 352 Infantry Division was a good unit, In fact, it was due to a last minute order by Hitler that it was deployed at Omaha beach. Not having airpower is the fault of your leaders, not the allies. Get mad at them, not the U.S. for making use of its advantage. You would have and did in previous campaigns like France, 1940.
Not to mention all the advanced technology the reds captured from us would then have been used against the west. And most of all - I wonder how the US establishment would have sold their people this new crusade. LOL Stalin didn't have to consider any polls or public opinion. He could have simply told his people "The capitalists want to invade our motherland and have stabbed us in the back after we helped them beat the fascists. Fight for Mother Russia!"
No, but Iââ¬â¢ll mention Werner v. Braum and his scientists who made it a point not only to surrender themselves to the Americans, but brought their documents as well. Patton also went out of his way to capture German high tech.
What would have Truman and Eisenhower have told his soldiers? "ermmm...... the Reds are a danger to the world. well, yes ... thats what the Germans also claimed... but erm.... they were wrong and we are right....... " But I can see where this thread is heading to again. It another one of those "We whooped them Krauts good! We rule!" threads.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, it did, but only because you came on it and brought it up. Nobody mentioned the Germans in a negative sense You, on the other hand, just had to come on the thread and once again make an ass out of yourself. Nice going, Leland.
From this post and others of yours, it is easy to understand how your ancestors lost the war [u]if all Germans were as arrogant and as dumb as you are.[/u] Now get over it.
S.
2003-10-21 20:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius] No, but Iââ¬â¢ll mention Werner v. Braum and his scientists who made it a point not only to surrender themselves to the Americans, but brought their documents as well. Patton also went out of his way to capture German high tech. [/QUOTE]
Yeah and the Russians still beat the Americans into space. The head of the Soviet space program were all native born, wheras the American space program was mostly due to captured German scientists. So the American space program was really more a triumph for German minds it than was for American.
2003-10-21 20:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Leland Gaunt]@ Perun
Contrary to what they teach you in Russia, it was never Germanys attempt to occupy Russia. The operational Plan of Barbarossa was to destroy the Red Army and the Communist Regime. And please dont come with "Mein Kampf" and "Lebensraum". That was written 1924 and was not a dogmatic gospel.
Well still the Germans had problems keeping controll over large areas of Russia because of its vastness. This is a problem all foreigners faced when invading Russia.
Don't worry Leland, my agenda here is not to discredit the Germans. In fact many members of my family(those who didn't flee the Communists in the 1920's) fought with the Whermacht. With what unit I don't know, but I know they did fight with the Whermacht.
The Americans should also not forget that the Russians were superb pilots. All one has to do is compare Americas best WW2 fighter-aces to Russias. I think Russias best shot down over 60 of ours. You will find no west pilot that could compete.[/QUOTE]
Exactly!
2003-10-21 21:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Outnumbered nations have beaten stronger ones in the past.[/QUOTE]
If the enemy got so much material, just think about tanks and airplanes, than you cant win a modern war. The only thing I wonder is that Germany could hold out so long against that enemies from all sides. That alone is a good sign for the spirit of Germany in that years.
And the problem with Stalin was, that he provocated the war with Germany with his demands. Should Hitler let Stalin take the Baltikum and great parts of Rumania? Were should he stopped the Bolsheviks?
When they were as near as there would be no space for fighting between the two nations and the Stalinists would have much more people and ressources?
The only thing which went wrong in the East in respect to the Russians was, that the leadership of Germany didnt handle them in the right way. Partisan war made it even worse.
For that I'm partly sorry, but in fact Hitler had not to much alternatives at this stage than attacking the Union in a preventive war. The only other thing he could have done would have been to wait until the Soviet Union were much stronger.
2003-10-21 22:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201] So was the Russian army in 1812 from fighting the French and the Turks. Yet when Napoleon invaded, the people jumped to fight the invador.[/QUOTE]
Winter, famine and rough terrain was the major enemy of Napoleons guard.
[QUOTE]And as for the little Croat Zvaci, the Germans would not have been to occupy Russia even if they had all the resources in the world. Why? Russia's expanse made it extremely difficult for the Germans to control large areas of Russia. In fact as early as July 1941, the commander of Army group center complained to Hitler that their supply lines were being overly stretched to the limit. If that happened to the Germans, it would have definitely happen to the Americans since their supply lines were already stretched to the limit by the time they reached the Elbe. [/QUOTE]
Typical irrational and arrogant Rusky :flex: :blow: LOL You have the guts to complain about American arrogance?!! With the gain of oil resources from Baku area nothing would be impossible for Krup !
[QUOTE]If 3 million Germans couldn't occupy the entire expense of Russia, what makes you think 2.5 million American/British would. The only way you could explain that is with arrogant "well Americans are better" type crap. [/QUOTE]
Soviets was not the only enemies Germany had, and Germany was forced to lead war on many different fronts. In the case of war with Soviets 1945. America would send new and new troops against you. Including troops of other European nations. Like I said, even if the first assaults would show failure, Soviets would submit infront of future nuclear strikes and new fresh manpower.
2003-10-21 22:35 | User Profile
[IMG]http://www.crimelibrary.com/graphics/photos/terrorists_spies/spies/rosenberg/1a.jpg[/IMG]
Jewish spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg sold Nuclear knowledge to the Soviets, and now even Pakis have it.
2003-10-22 01:00 | User Profile
He was a mediocre warrior, a great speaker, but a terrible ideological gentlemen. We all know how he dealt with the Bonus Expeditionary Force, yes?
2003-10-22 02:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Zvaci]Winter, famine and rough terrain was the major enemy of Napoleons guard.
And the Russian army, read any history book.
Typical irrational and arrogant Rusky :flex: :blow: LOL You have the guts to complain about American arrogance?!! With the gain of oil resources from Baku area nothing would be impossible for Krup !
Nice try to blow off my argument about how American supply lines were already overstretched by the time they reached the Elbe. Obivously you don't know sh*t about the topic at hand.
Soviets was not the only enemies Germany had, and Germany was forced to lead war on many different fronts.
2/3 of the German army was in Russia. The Germans sent their best troops to Russia. So basically the Soviets faced the cream of the German army. The Americans faced for the most part second-rate troops(when compared to those on the eastern front). Yet ironically even these German troops were of better quality than the Allies.
In the case of war with Soviets 1945. America would send new and new troops against you. Including troops of other European nations.
I doubt it considering the fact that the UK was bankrupt by 1945 and could not afford to prolong the war. All the other European nations were in ruins, so their support would've been minimal. So what European nations you're talking about I don't know.
Like I said, even if the first assaults would show failure, Soviets would submit infront of future nuclear strikes and new fresh manpower.[/QUOTE]
Yeah considering that the atomic bombs have no tactical value whatsoever. They're primarily a geo-political weapon. Even the nuclear bombings of Japan were meant to force Japan to surrender, not destroy Japanese defenses. Plus America didn't have enough atomic bombs at the time to make any significant effect on the Soviets.
So clearly Zvaci you're lacking in knowledge on the issue at hand and resorting to Russia-bashing.
2003-10-22 15:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201]Nice try to blow off my argument about how American supply lines were already overstretched by the time they reached the Elbe. Obivously you don't know sh*t about the topic at hand. [/QUOTE]
And what kind of supply Red Army had? It was build by the aid from the US and Britain in the first place! :shocking:
[QUOTE]2/3 of the German army was in Russia. The Germans sent their best troops to Russia. So basically the Soviets faced the cream of the German army. The Americans faced for the most part second-rate troops(when compared to those on the eastern front). Yet ironically even these German troops were of better quality than the Allies.[/QUOTE]
This is nice but it does not debunk my claim Germany had allies on their neck. If there was no war with Allies the operation Barbarossa would be supported by Luftwaffe at its full number!
[QUOTE]I doubt it considering the fact that the UK was bankrupt by 1945 and could not afford to prolong the war. All the other European nations were in ruins, so their support would've been minimal. So what European nations you're talking about I don't know.[/QUOTE]
America had enough of economic power to injected Britain, and in the case of such conflict it would inject France and Germany also. There was no war on the US ground, while Russia was in ruins. And like I said its industry on Ural was also injected with US aid.
[QUOTE]Yeah considering that the atomic bombs have no tactical value whatsoever. They're primarily a geo-political weapon. Even the nuclear bombings of Japan were meant to force Japan to surrender, not destroy Japanese defenses. Plus America didn't have enough atomic bombs at the time to make any significant effect on the Soviets.[/QUOTE]
Its also psychological weapon. The major result would be complete chaos and demoralization in the Soviet lines.
[QUOTE]So clearly Zvaci you're lacking in knowledge on the issue at hand and resorting to Russia-bashing.[/QUOTE]
Well I bash degeneration of the West also, why do you think you are entitled to be spared from critique? You used the most horrible ideology known to man as the cover-up for your imperialist expansion. And I cant hide how happy I am Regan screwed your plans up! East Europe is free from your tyrannic presence, and your little Balkanize pawn humiliated!
2003-10-22 15:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Zvaci]And what kind of supply Red Army had? It was build by the aid from the US and Britain in the first place! :shocking:
Oh yes Lend Lease, and we going on this bull as well. Yes there was Lend Lease, but the Soviets had capabilities by now to carry on the war. If Sert's numbers are correct, then the Soviets would've lost the war anyways and the US would've went bankrupt. Why is that the Soviets built 80,000 tanks during the entire war, as opposed to the American 60,000? The T-34 was the most widely produced tank of the war. So obiviously Sert's claim that the Soviets were only able to produce 2,000 tanks per year domestically and relied heavily on American/British tanks is bogus. 11,000 T-34s were produced in 1944 alone, way above the total 2,000 Sert claimed.
How many Sherman or Churchill tanks face the German Panthers and Tigers at Kursk? None and good they didn't. The Churchill and Shermans would've been clobbered by the German armoured forces ammased at Kursk. It took 3 to 4 Panzers IIIs and Ivs to knock out one T-34(as many Panzer veterans explain), yet either one of those German tanks could knock out at least 5 American shermans. With the Panthers and Tigers, it took at least 10 Shermans to kock one of Panther or Tiger out(as German POWs always joked that at least the Americans always had an 11th). So the Americans and British did not have a 10 or 5 to 1 adavntage over the Soviets in terms of the numbers of tanks. In fact the Soviets had the greater number of tanks(and still has more tanks than the US or UK army). So basically the Americans would've been comitting suicide against the T-34s, KVs, and IS tanks. American superiority in numbers that they enjoyed against the Germans would not have existed if they faced down the Soviets.
This is nice but it does not debunk my claim Germany had allies on their neck. If there was no war with Allies the operation Barbarossa would be supported by Luftwaffe at its full number!
Their armies were decimated at the Battle of Stalingrad. By 1943, most of Hitler's European allies were severly weakened by the continuing fighting.
America had enough of economic power to injected Britain, and in the case of such conflict it would inject France and Germany also. There was no war on the US ground, while Russia was in ruins. And like I said its industry on Ural was also injected with US aid.
Yeah nevermind that the Europeans were tired of the war and even in England support for a new war, especially against a former ally would've been low. Americans too were tiring of the war. Not to mention the causualties the Americans would've suffered. Need we forget, Eishenhower was whinning about 100,000 possible deaths in taking Berlin.
Its also psychological weapon. The major result would be complete chaos and demoralization in the Soviet lines.
Since that event never happened, you don't have any real objective proof that this would've happened in the Soviet ranks.
Well I bash degeneration of the West also, why do you think you are entitled to be spared from critique?
Oh and you're the one who often starts this sh*t up!
You used the most horrible ideology known to man as the cover-up for your imperialist expansion. And I cant hide how happy I am Regan screwed your plans up! East Europe is free from your tyrannic presence, and your little Balkanize pawn humiliated![/QUOTE]
You honestly think Reagen liberated Eastern Europe? East Europe liberated itself. Even the American paleo-con Sam Francis admits this simple fact. Communism fell because of its own incompetent leadership, not Reagen. Hell I doubt Reagen would've been as "successful" as he was if he faced down Brezhnev for most of his presidency. Funny you show support to Reagen, who was an ardent supporter of Zionism.
So Zvaci in this debate has turned on his old German allies(which he so ardently supported in the Poland debate that earned him the title of an honorary citizen of the German reich) to support American imperialism, and has also shown support for one of America's biggest zionists. He's an ardent anti-Slavic(and claim he's not Slavic) yet will claim he is Slavic because of language(I guess the Irish or Ugandians are Anglo-Saxons because they both speak English). Exactly what is it that you truely believe in Zvaci? :huh:
My Serbian comrades always tell me how I shouldn't trust Croats, Zvaci seems to be proving what they said to be true.
2003-10-22 17:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201]
You honestly think Reagen liberated Eastern Europe?[/QUOTE]
I see communist party tough you well how to put words in opponents mouth. :thumbd: Where did I said Regan liberated E. Europe? To quote my self : "Regan screwed your plans up!". By research of new technologies he forced your beloved Soviet Union to do the same thus he pushed you into bankruptcy.
[QUOTE] East Europe liberated itself. Even the American paleo-con Sam Francis admits this simple fact.[/QUOTE]
Yes, nobody like your occupation and everybody was happy to use your weakness to gain freedom.
[QUOTE]Funny you show support to Reagen, who was an ardent supporter of Zionism. [/QUOTE]
I do not, jet its funniest how you defend Bolshevik Soviet Union created and supported by the Jews.
[QUOTE]to support American imperialism, and has also shown support for one of America's biggest zionists.[/QUOTE]
I'm just gloating over defeat of USSR. Unlike my German comrades I have no business or interests with you. (except naturally to prevent the spread of your interests via Serbs on the Balkans)
[QUOTE] He's an ardent anti-Slavic(and claim he's not Slavic) yet will claim he is Slavic because of language(I guess the Irish or Ugandians are Anglo-Saxons because they both speak English).[/QUOTE]
Who are the Slavs? If you call Russians semi-Asiatic and quarter Tatars to be Slavs than Slav I am not! Search your subhuman brothers elcewhere, this proud home is the house of Illyrians, Goths and Sarmatians!
[QUOTE]Exactly what is it that you truely believe in Zvaci?[/QUOTE]
What about you? Are you racialist, nationalist, communist or orthodox fanatic? I think the term opportunist suits you best. :disgust:
[QUOTE]My Serbian comrades always tell me how I shouldn't trust Croats, Zvaci seems to be proving what they said to be true.[/QUOTE]
They gave you good advice because your cossack trash volunteered to support Serbo-communist occupation of my land. This is why I am so proud my nation participated every single European conquest on Russia. :cool2:
Remember Stalingrad!
2003-10-22 18:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Zvaci]I see communist party tough you well how to put words in opponents mouth. :thumbd: Where did I said Regan liberated E. Europe? To quote my self : "Regan screwed your plans up!". By research of new technologies he forced your beloved Soviet Union to da the same thus he pushed you into bankruptcy.
Oh you mean "Star Wars". Sad that Gorbachev was so stupid to fall into that trap, since he didn't know sh*t about military affairs(he never served in the Army).
I do not, jet its funniest how you defend Bolshevik Soviet Union created and supported by the Jews.
I defend Russia against unnecessary bashing from peanut-sized brained morons such as yourself. I find it highly offensive that you accuse me of defending the system that massacred half my family. My great-grandfather fought in the White Armies against the Reds in the civil war before emigratng to America. Members of my family that stayed behind fought with the Whermacht against the Reds. I have no sympathy for the Soviet regime, but neither do I defend Russophobic remarks disguised as anti-communism!
I'm just gloating over defeat of USSR. Unlike my German comrades I have no business or interests with you. (except naturally to prevent the spread of your interests via Serbs on the Balkans)
Like theres anything worth while in your pathetic little country. Thats probally why Croatia always kisses the arses of the most poweful Western nations, because alone you're nothing! Oh wait, it's a good spot for yuppie Yankees to go party and "have a good time". Wow! what a way to boost your nation's self-esteem by having the rich Yankees come in. [url]http://www.eonline.com/On/Wild/Travel/adriatic.html[/url]
Who are the Slavs? If you call Russians semi-Asiatic and quarter Tatars to be Slavs than Slav I am not! Search your subhuman brothers elcewhere, this proud home is the house of Illyrians, Goths and Sarmatians!
:lol: Funny a Serb at the Slavic National Unity forum mentioned this fact about how Croats are so filled with self-hate of the fact that they're Slavic that they fantasize about being some long lost tribe of Goths. :lol: [url]www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/86294[/url]
Yet you Croatians had no trouble allying with the Muslim warriors against the Serbs in Bosnia. Yeah who was really defending Europe than!
What about you? Are you racialist, nationalist, communist or orthodox fanatic? I think the term opportunist suits you best. :disgust:
I'm a neo-Slavophile and a Solidarist. I know where I stand on the issues, you certainly do not.
They gave you good advice because your cossack trash volunteered to support Serbo-communist occupation of my land. This is why I am so proud my nation participated every single European conquest on Russia. :cool2:
Funny you insult the cossacks considering the fact that they kicked the ass out of Napoleon's forces. In fact Napoleon was so impressed with them we literally wanted to create a French cavalry corps comprised completely of Cossacks! As Napoleon said, "Cossacks are the best light troops among all that exist. If I had them in my army, I would go through all the world with them." So even your Dinaric hero Napoleon admired us Russkies!
More info here [url]http://www.cossackweb.com/cossacks/napoleon.htm[/url]
Face it Zvaci, Croatia has never equalled Russia in its glory! Our land has produced some of the greatest art, music, literature, theology, scientific discoveries the world has ever known. Steven G. Marks even wrote a good book about this titled "How Russia Shaped the Modern World: From Art to Anti-Semitism, Ballet to Bolshevism".
I'd say you Croatians are just jealous of Russia since your country hasn't had nearly as much influence as we had on the world. Anybody can spot Russia on the map(we're the biggest in the world). Wheras to find Croatia you need a magnifying glass!
2003-10-22 19:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201]Face it Zvaci, Croatia has never equalled Russia in its glory! Our land...[/QUOTE]
Our land, perun?
Again, I thought you said you were an American?
2003-10-22 20:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201] I find it highly offensive that you accuse me of defending the system that massacred half my family.[/QUOTE]
Your own words: "Sad that Gorbachev was so stupid to fall into that trap"
[QUOTE]neither do I defend Russophobic remarks disguised as anti-communism! [/QUOTE]
It is obvious you defend Russian imperialism and expansion westward regardless of its form: Royal or Communist.
[QUOTE]Yet you Croatians had no trouble allying with the Muslim warriors against the Serbs in Bosnia. Yeah who was really defending Europe than![/QUOTE] So what, even Third Reich used them. They are racially white. I have no problems with the fact my countries is in good relations with Turkey because we share the same enemies - your orthodox brothers - the Greek muds. :dung:
[QUOTE]I'm a neo-Slavophile and a Solidarist. [/QUOTE]
Slavophile? Never heard for this orientation in politic. You just search semantic substitution for Panslavism. Solidarist? Yes, you are ready to show solidarity with all sorts of mongrels only if they are orthodox. I bet you feel solidarity with Armenians and Kobts also. :osama:
[QUOTE]Face it Zvaci, Croatia has never equaled Russia in its glory! Our land has produced some of the greatest art, music, literature, theology, scientific discoveries the world has ever known. Steven G. Marks even wrote a good book about this titled "How Russia Shaped the Modern World: From Art to Anti-Semitism, Ballet to Bolshevism". [/QUOTE]
Our kingdom participated in every important cultural movement of Europe (such as Renaissance forinstance) while you was still the part of the Golden Horde. LOL what do you pathetic semi Khazars know about antisemitizm, we had antisemite laws and regulations in our cities since middle ages, while you was still dwelling half naked threw the steppe, shagging Tatar wenches. :1eye:
[QUOTE]I'd say you Croatians are just jealous of Russia since your country hasn't had nearly as much influence as we had on the world. Anybody can spot Russia on the map(we're the biggest in the world). Whets to find Croatia you need a magnifying glass![/QUOTE]
On what should I be jealous ? Even your link is offering information that we have most glorious and monumental buildings created by Western man. The oldest cathedral in the world, arenas, Palaces of Roman Emperors, vine tradition dating from antique! We are the doorstep of ancient Rome! Every time I set my eyes on Moscow main square I get the impression Gingis Khan shall drop in by any moment. :lol: Keep your baron wastelands and keep your nomads out of Europe!
2003-10-22 21:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Zvaci]Your own words: "Sad that Gorbachev was so stupid to fall into that trap"
Yes Gorbachev was an idiot as a leader. How is that supporting Communism?
It is obvious you defend Russian imperialism and expansion westward regardless of its form: Royal or Communist.
I did not support the Communist domination over Eastern Europe, where did I ever say that you snivering rat?
You seem to support any campaign that seeks to destroy Russia. Whether it be the Germans or the Americans. Basically Croats just oppurtunistically fight with anybody that fights against Russia no matter what and without a care for their own allies. Zvaci here has no qualms about betraying his former German allies just so he can carry on his anti-Russian crusade.
Even Leland admits that national identity was preserved better under the Soviets than under the Americans, but you don't care! Even with the devil, always against the Russians is the Croat philosophy.
As the German nationalist Otto Remer said in the 80's, "Russia may steal the liberty, America steals the soul". Yet you don't care! America is against Russia, so America must be good. Nevermind that the Americans(or more correctly the Globalist elite of America) wants to steal the soul of Europe, you don't care. Some defender of European civilization you are pal!
So what, even Third Reich used them. They are racially white. I have no problems with the fact my countries is in good relations with Turkey because we share the same enemies - your orthodox brothers - the Greek muds. :dung:
SO you don't mind colloborating with the white allies of Islamic domination of Europe? Fine Catholic and defender of Europe you are. Let be known that Zvaci doesn't care if Europe falls under Islam, as long as Islam is anti-Russia.
Slavophile? Never heard for this orientation in politic. You just search semantic substitution for Panslavism. Solidarist? Yes, you are ready to show solidarity with all sorts of mongrels only if they are orthodox. I bet you feel solidarity with Armenians and Kobts also. :osama:
Look whose talking here! You're willing to ally with those whites that wish to destroy European civilization simply because they're against the Eastern Orthodox. Pot calling the cattle black aren't we?
At least Greeks will show support to the Serbs and Russia in times of trouble.
Why the f*ck should we Russians trust you Croats, when your goal is to destroy Russia? That might make sense in the feeble Croat brain, but we Russians are far smarter than that!
Our kingdom participated in every important cultural movement of Europe (such as Renaissance forinstance) while you was still the part of the Golden Horde. LOL what do you pathetic semi Khazars know about antisemitizm, we had antisemite laws and regulations in our cities since middle ages, while you was still dwelling half naked threw the steppe, shagging Tatar wenches. :1eye:
:lol: nevermind that we Russians saved Europe from being totally conquered by the Mongols. Many West European leaders didn't give a rats ass about whether or not Europe would be conquered by the Mongols. So if it weren't for us keeping the Mongols at bay, Europe would never had experianced the Renaisiance.
On what should I be jealous ? Even your link is offering information that we have most glorious and monumental buildings created by Western man. The oldest cathedral in the world, arenas, Palaces of Roman Emperors, vine tradition dating from antique! We are the doorstep of ancient Rome!
:lol: Nevermind that they were built by the Romans and not Croats. Reminds of how Blacks take over the major cities in America and claim they built it, when in fact it was whites who built the cities and made them thrive!
Croats have not done :dung: in their history except live off the accomplishments of other nations. Your people are nothing more than parasites at Europe southern doorstep! Without your powerful friends abroad you're nothing as a people. The chetniks would've massacred the Ustashe if it weren't for the Germans arming and training them. Croatia even had to begg the EU for help against Serbia in the 1990's.
At least Serbia could stand alone against NATO in 1999 and outfox them.
Every time I set my eyes on Moscow main square I get the impression Gingis Khan shall drop in by any moment. :lol: Keep your baron wastelands and keep your nomads out of Europe![/QUOTE]
Oh yes, Russia is the richest nation in the world in terms of natural resources, we're such a wasteland! You're a riot Zvaci :lol:
2003-10-22 21:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Leland Gaunt]I wish you two would stop.[/QUOTE]
I'm replying to Zvaci much the same way you replied to Polish Noble. Don't take this is as a flame or insult, but I tolerated much in your debates with him.
I'll be willing to stop if Zvaci agrees to also stop.
2003-10-22 21:57 | User Profile
We have said enough, since I already know standpoint of Russian nationalists toward us, its was fair to let him know how the other side feel. Lets finish this argue which is totally of topic. If Perun wish I would like to have civil debate with him concerning Slavs, panslavism and similar phenomena in separate thread.
2003-10-22 21:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Leland Gaunt]I understand you. It's just that this is going on between two countries I like very much. It has also totaly gone off topic. what's it got to do with Patton and the american capebility to overrun Russia?[/QUOTE]
I understand as well, I had to endure the same with your debates with PN. I like Poland(I'm even part Polish), although I don't like their choices for geo-political partners.
I simply don't have any respect for Croats, and Zvaci has not given me any reason why I should change that position! In fact ever since I read his first posts bashing Slavs during the whole Poland debate, I've been waiting for a chance to take him on in a debate.
Now when this debate got off track was probally when Zvaci decided to use this topic as a way to launch his Russophobic views, and sadly I fell into the trap and provoked it further. Zvaci hasn't really refuted my info about the Red Army's strength and has just resorted to saying things about how incompetent Russians are.
He's also gone on his vendetta against Eastern Christianity in this topic, even calling me an Orthodox fanatic. Funny despite the fact that I'm a Byzantine Catholic and he himself commented about Byzantine Ukrainians contributed to Croatia. I don't know if was some sick secret joke since he used the insulting "Uniate" term in that post.
Back to the topic at hand. Basically Patton at most might've been able to push to the Polish-Russian border at most, but afterwards his offensive would've ground to a halt and a stalemate would've ensued between the Allies and Soviets. That was my position the last time this was debated and remains my position now, which is actually somewhat reasonable. Patton would not have reached Moscow in a thousands years, nor would the Soviets for that matter reached the French Atlantic coast. Common military analysis comments that it usually takes a 3-1 advantage over your opponent to launch a successful major offensive, something neither side had on each other. In other words, a repeat of the stalemate of WW1(although maybe not with trenches exactly).
2003-10-22 22:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Zvaci] If Perun wish I would like to have civil debate with him concerning Slavs, panslavism and similar phenomena in separate thread.[/QUOTE]
If you wish Zvaci, put you better not resort to this "half-Khazar" business. I will also cut the "parasites of Southern Europe".
2003-10-22 22:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201]If you wish Zvaci, put you better not resort to this "half-Khazar" business. I will also cut the "parasites of Southern Europe".[/QUOTE]
Speaking of parasites: how much money West has to pay to satisfy Russian apatite? Is it proportionally equal sum to the sum Croatia and Slovenia had to pay to undeveloped Serbia? You can call me parasite if you like, lie cant hurt, only the truth.
[QUOTE]I simply don't have any respect for Croats, and Zvaci has not given me any reason why I should change that position! [/QUOTE]
Have I gave you any reasons to think I wish your respect or care about you oppinion?
[QUOTE]I'm a Byzantine Catholic and he himself commented about Byzantine Ukrainians contributed to Croatia. I don't know if was some sick secret joke since he used the insulting "Uniate" term in that post. [/QUOTE]
Ukrainians here call them selves Uniates because the term "Byzantine" is considered here to be an insult. Its synonymous for oriental muds and I doubt Ukrainians here wold like to be included in this category. They proved their fidelity to Croatia and to the western culture many times.
2003-10-22 23:02 | User Profile
@Perun
[url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?p=63262#post63262[/url]
2003-10-23 00:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Zvaci]Speaking of parasites: how much money West has to pay to satisfy Russian apatite? Is it proportionally equal sum to the sum Croatia and Slovenia had to pay to undeveloped Serbia? You can call me parasite if you like, lie cant hurt, only the truth.
Hey! You trying to start things up again? We can go back to flaming each other if you wish.
As for Russia, there economy is in the dumps largely because of all that Western "help". The West hasn't done hardly anything with the Polish economy and they're doing much better.
Have I gave you any reasons to think I wish your respect or care about you oppinion?
I had little respect for Croats before then, and you haven't helped the case.
Ukrainians here call them selves Uniates because the term "Byzantine" is considered here to be an insult. Its synonymous for oriental muds and I doubt Ukrainians here wold like to be included in this category. They proved their fidelity to Croatia and to the western culture many times.[/QUOTE]
Uniate is actually an insult term used by many Orthodox against Eastern Catholics. The Church authorities themselves discourage use of the term "Uniate". I prefer Byzantine Catholic as do the other Ukrainians that attend my church. So I'd appreciate if you would not use the term.
2003-10-23 00:40 | User Profile
Dont be to strict with the Poles. They were for a long time not the friends of the German folk, thats right, but maybe we can forget that time in the future...
And all what you said is right, at least partially, but, who was really responsible for the most of it, the Poles or the German government?
I really hope that the Eastern Europeans dont accept the bureaucrazy and plutocrazy of the EU. I hope they will change the EU or destroy it. So or so, this EU and I wanted a European Union, but one of the folks and people, must be changed or destroyed.
2003-10-23 00:46 | User Profile
:lol: I have to say Leland I do agree with you somewhat on this!
You know Leland you would love a current discussion on Slavic National Unity, cause we're discussing this about Poland, and some Polish asshole is defending both NATO and the EU, he even talks about how Germany is better off because of its membership to both. Of course me and other Russians are debating this with him especialy with his view that Communist and nationalist Russia were/are the same thing. The Pole even states that there's practically no difference between the emblem of St. George and the Red Star. :angry:
So my love for Poland is not blind, its based primarily on a cultural level, but I don't care for their choice of geo-political partners.
Heres the debate if you wish to follow up on it [url]http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/thread?forumid=86294&messageid=1066279556&lp=1066839637[/url]
2003-10-23 02:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201]So I'd appreciate if you would not use the term.[/QUOTE]
How about 'Ljah' or 'Lah' than? Gogol described you Uniate/Ljahs to be trash of orthodoxy and the traitors of Ukraine - always in the service of the Polish masters. :beer:
2003-10-23 02:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Zvaci]How about 'Ljah' or 'Lah' than? Gogol described you Uniate/Ljahs to be trash of orthodoxy and the traitors of Ukraine - always in the service of the Polish masters. :beer:[/QUOTE]
:furious: You really are trying to provoke more sht aren't you? Obviously you don't want to engage in anykind of civil debate, but only wish to continue on with the flaming. Why am I not suprised at this. This is typical behavior for a Croat, you people are no better than nggers! Then you whine about how Russians and Serbs trust Greeks more than they do your worthless asses!
2003-10-23 02:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201]:furious: You really are trying to provoke more sht aren't you? Obviously you don't want to engage in anykind of civil debate, but only wish to continue on with the flaming. Why am I not suprised at this. This is typical behavior for a Croat, you people are no better than nggers! Then you whine about how Russians and Serbs trust Greeks more than they do your worthless asses![/QUOTE]
Take it easy [I]tovarish[/I], I'm just trying to explain your fascination with Polaks. You're not even a real Cossack but a Ljah lackey and a tenderfoot from US.
2003-10-23 03:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Zvaci]Take it easy [I]tovarish[/I], I'm just trying to explain your fascination with Polaks.
I said I consider Poles fellow Slavs on a cultural level, how is that a fascination?
You're not even a real Cossack but a Ljah lackey and a tenderfoot from US.[/QUOTE]
Again with the provoking! You Croats aren't even real Goths, so don't be pointing the finger here!
Plus you lack knowledge of Slavic-Americans and how much pride they take in their ethnic heritage. I even see this with the Croat-American community, I guess they're not real Croats either in your eyes! [url]http://www.croatiaemb.org/C_U_relations/Cro&USA/part10.htm[/url]
If you want this debate to continue, start talking in a more civil manner!
2003-10-23 03:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201]Again with the provoking! You Croats aren't even real Goths, so don't be pointing the finger here! [/QUOTE]
We don't have to be pure Goths. Are French pure Gauls? Are British pure Saxons? In fact most of the European nations have heterogeneous origins. BTW Why picking on Goths? Because they are Germanic? Is Germano phobia the only real point of your 'slavophilia'? Screw that 'solitary'! Besides why do you insist spamning this thread? I made a separate thread for this sort of debate?
[QUOTE] If you want this debate to continue, start talking in a more civil manner![/QUOTE]
Civil manner?!! After all this insults? :furious: You dog-headed Khazar steppe-pony - Thats the most civil you'll get from me if you continue with the low blows. :yes:
2003-10-23 05:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Zvaci]We don't have to be pure Goths. Are French pure Gauls? Are British pure Saxons? In fact most of the European nations have heterogeneous origins. BTW Why picking on Goths? Because they are Germanic? Is Germano phobia the only real point of your 'slavophilia'? Screw that 'solitary'!
:lol: funny you accuse my of being a Germanophobe when I have clearly stated that I'm a Germanophile many times on this forum. I've stated my admiration for German composers like Beethoven and Wagner; German writers like Goethe and von Schiller; German philosophers like Herder, Fitche, and Hegel; German military strategists like Frederick the Great and Carl von Clausewitz. Just ask FB and Leland. In fact the first discussion between me and Leland was about Russo-German cultural relations and how both countries had admiration for each other. You've just proven yourself an idiot here!
Besides why do you insist spamning this thread? I made a separate thread for this sort of debate?
Excuse me you're the one making all sorts of comments about Eastern Catholics here. So you're as much to blame for the latest spamming here. I clearly stated
If you wish Zvaci, put you better not resort to this "half-Khazar" business. I will also cut the "parasites of Southern Europe".
All you had to do was say you agreed to this. But did you? No, you had to be a smart-ass and reply: ** Speaking of parasites: how much money West has to pay to satisfy Russian apatite? Is it proportionally equal sum to the sum Croatia and Slovenia had to pay to undeveloped Serbia? You can call me parasite if you like, lie cant hurt, only the truth. **
So this latest rounds of flaming is clearly your doing Zvaci! You need to learn to stop provoking people! As for Serbia being under-developed, we can just thank the half-Croat Tito for that.
Civil manner?!! After all this insults? :furious:
Nice try asshole, you made all those insults about Eastern Catholics, oh I'm sorry Ljah lackies, and I'm the one making insults here? Why don't you "take it easy tovarish". I'm sure you Croats learned this technique from your brethern in Africa, that it's ok to insult whites but once the whites respond thats called "racism".
You dog-headed Khazar steppe-pony - Thats the most civil you'll get from me if you continue with the low blows. :yes:[/QUOTE]
See what did I tell you people, never trust the Croats. They talk of peace just so they can stab you in the back, just like the boyz in the hood.
Croat = lighter skinned :afro:
2003-10-23 06:59 | User Profile
Leland,
I don't know how you can blame Poles because our government is giving them our money. Who's the idiot here? Let's call the traitors to account, rather. As to Kohl, I agree with you that he has been one of the greatest traitors to the German Volk ever. Giving away German lands! Those lands weren't his to give to Poles. Again, did the Poles put a gun to his head? No. I want to settle accounts with the German traitorous establisment first. My roots are in Prussia and Silesia; I went to Poland in the 90s and it was heartbreaking to see what has happened to these historically German territories. But I don't blame Poles; it was the Allies who gave them these German lands, and then the fat traitor put a stamp of approval on this theft.
[QUOTE=Leland Gaunt]I realy don't know what you find on those Poles, but your "love" for them is blurring your sight on reality. The Poles are one of the biggest Parasites in Europe. I remember in 1983 when on TV "our" scum-goverment called for "Polen-HILFE" starting a big campaign to help the poor opressed poles. A Lech Walesa was later allowed to tour the country on funding tour and in the Ruhr-District that bum had the nerve to hold a speech in front of DGB-Union Crowds telling them to make pressure on their bosses so they would be more generous to support Poland and invest there. Specialy during the Aere Kohl - the biggest traitor in German History since a long time - they fairly got everything they wanted. I dont know how many times over the Years we have suspended and gave up on loans they own us. We built them an entire new Airport near or at Warsaw. Few Years back, when there were the great Floods in the East of Elbe-River, our damned Goverment gave german donation money (which our population gave for OUR flood victims!) to a large part to the Polaks and Czechs... at the same time there wasn't enough money to go around to repair the damage to our infrastructure and the jerks had a new good reason to raise the taxes. So in a way, we can thank polish parasitism for higher taxes.
So your claim that the "West" hasn't done hardly anything to or for the "polish economy" (if you want to call this bungling and show of total incompetence "economy" at all) is simply a joke. Why do you think they are so damned eager to join the EU? Thats right, they expect more cash than they are allready receiving.
Basicly I am glad that they are in the EU. what more can one wish for, if one desires nothing more then the colapse of the bruxels dictatorship. If you want to ruin something, then let a Polak take part in it.[/QUOTE]
2003-10-23 13:44 | User Profile
Here are my two cents: by 1945 the Americans were using Pershing tanks, which in my opinion would have fared well against the T-34s. Yes, the T-34 was superior to the Panther and earlier German tanks, but it was no match for the Tiger, and the King Tiger. The Russians simply had more tanksââ¬ânot better tanks.
Of course, the jews around FDR would never have allowed Patton to take on the Soviets, so the discussion here and the subsequent digressions stemming from it are pointless.
The only reason the Russians were good soldiers in WW II is that there were NKVD officers standing behind them, ready to shoot any cowards or deserters.
Itââ¬â¢s a toss up as to who killed more Russian soldiers: the Germans or the NKVD.
2003-10-23 17:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Polish Noble]Here are my two cents: by 1945 the Americans were using Pershing tanks, which in my opinion would have fared well against the T-34s. Yes, the T-34 was superior to the Panther and earlier German tanks, but it was no match for the Tiger, and the King Tiger. The Russians simply had more tanksââ¬ânot better tanks.
PN, no American/British tank was a match for the Tiger or King Tigers. And Russian tanks were of good quality, especially by 1945 they had the IS tanks.
The only reason the Russians were good soldiers in WW II is that there were a NKVD officers standing behind them, ready to shoot any cowards or deserters.
PN I find this remark highly offensive. I don't defend the Soviet regime, but most Russians fought to save Mother Russia and sadly Stalin twisted Russian nationalism to save his own ass. There were incidents of Red Army soldiers shooting the comissars before battle and they did just fine.
Itââ¬â¢s a toss up as to who killed more Russian soldiers: the Germans or the NKVD.[/QUOTE]
:angry:
2003-10-23 18:33 | User Profile
Perun, you are a 3rd or 4th generation American who lives in America.
What right have you to be offended?
You are about as Russian as I am. Grow up, or at least come down off of your high horse.
2003-10-23 18:52 | User Profile
Perun,
For a 4th generation American, I must say that I admire your Russian patriotism (but I'm also somewhat puzzled by your very strong identification with the Russian "motherland"). I was born in the "old country", so my identification is more explicable. And I plan to go back to Germany as soon as the circumstances are right, professionally speaking.
[QUOTE=perun1201]PN, no American/British tank was a match for the Tiger or King Tigers. And Russian tanks were of good quality, especially by 1945 they had the IS tanks.
PN I find this remark highly offensive. I don't defend the Soviet regime, but most Russians fought to save Mother Russia and sadly Stalin twisted Russian nationalism to save his own ass. There were incidents of Red Army soldiers shooting the comissars before battle and they did just fine.
:angry:[/QUOTE]
2003-10-23 19:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Polish Noble]Perun, you are a 3rd or 4th generation American who lives in America.
What right have you to be offended?
You are about as Russian as I am. Grow up, or at least come down off of your high horse.[/QUOTE]
Oh now you're trying to start something as well PN? Funny you should show this type of attitude considering the fact that such ethnic pride is common among 3rd/4th generation Polish-Americans.
Even your own president came to America praising 3rd/4th generations Polish-Americans for their contributions to Poland and the cause of Polish freedom during the Cold War. Sorry that we contributed to the old country.
So show a little more respect for members of the Slavic diaspora.
2003-10-23 19:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]Perun,
For a 4th generation American, I must say that I admire your Russian patriotism (but I'm also somewhat puzzled by your very strong identification with the Russian "motherland"). I was born in the "old country", so my identification is more explicable. And I plan to go back to Germany as soon as the circumstances are right, professionally speaking.[/QUOTE]
Well my pride is not entirely uncommon among many Slavic peoples. Especially in the case of Polish, Ukrainian, and Slovak-Americans among others. Same with the few Slavic Russian-Americans(most "Russian-Americans" are Jewish). In his book "Natasha's Dance: A Cultural History of Russia", Orlando Figes talks about how the Russian diaspora(ethnic Russians that is) held firm to the traditions of the old country.
It's been noted by many people that ethnic nationalism is more strong among diaspora communities than often by those in the old country. This was especially true with German nationalism, especially NS since Hitler, Rosenberg, Ritcher and other leaders were from the diaspora.
This is hardly rare in America. The Irish, Italian, and in some cases German American communities hold on to their ethnic pride staunchly. Hell the Irish-Americans flaunt their patriotism more than the Irish in Ireland do(and this is admitted by people in Ireland).
So I don't know what PN's problem is. I'm not looking for another flame war here.
2003-10-24 09:48 | User Profile
Perun,
I don't think that Polish Noble is trying to start anything. I saw where he asked you a question that you are trying to dodge by hiding behind this "ethnic pride" nonsense. You sound like those people with glassy eyes who talk about "a nation of immigrants." You are about as much a Russian as I am an Irishman. Fourth generation American. A.I.N.O. is more like it, in view of your constant trashing of your own nation's armed forces with your ersatz pan-slavism. I can truly appreciate why Theodore Roosevelt despised hyphenated Americans. Unfortunately,there is far too much of that going on today and it isn't confined to our minorities.
I won't call you a traitor, for if you wish to go live in Russia, then more power to you. However, I think that when you get there and start telling the natives some of the stuff you post on this board that most of them will look upon you as a [url=http://www.komanda.narod.ru/vlasov.html]"hiwi"[/url] and with good reason for the way you kiss up to the likes of "Gauleiter" Gaunt. When you get done polishing his boots he may reward you with a pat on the head and a fresh egg.
No, I look upon you the same way I do the Jews who live in America and whose first loyalty is to Israel. Better yet, you remind me of those American blacks who run around hollering "I'm an african."
Try acting like an American for a change instead of like a self hating white "liberal." You disgust me.
2003-10-24 14:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Leland Gaunt][B]It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)[/B] :lol:
[B]It was wonderful to find America, but it would have been more wonderful to miss it. Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)[/B][/QUOTE]
You can just be a pure Americanist American patriot if you gave up your brain at the entrance.
The Americanism and its liberal-capitalistic logic leads to nothing than injustice, destruction of the white folks and in the end of all good moral.
If we have just a little bit more luck in the future, maybe this ideology will even destroy the whole mankind and higher life on this planet. I'm talking about environmental destruction in the liberal-capitalistic system and the possible use of weapons of mass destruction by USrael. But maybe some would even applaud then. They applaud every time their USrael masters say its time to be a patriot. "Right or wrong, my country."
Well, if you are a patriot like that you have to have lost your brain at the entrance...their is no other way if you are a white and moralic person. Are you such a person? I'm not really sure...
2003-10-24 17:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Perun,
I don't think that Polish Noble is trying to start anything. I saw where he asked you a question that you are trying to dodge by hiding behind this "ethnic pride" nonsense. You sound like those people with glassy eyes who talk about "a nation of immigrants." You are about as much a Russian as I am an Irishman. Fourth generation American. A.I.N.O. is more like it, in view of your constant trashing of your own nation's armed forces with your ersatz pan-slavism.
And please tell me when did American become an ethnicity? Besides one reason America is in the mess it is today is because so many white Americans have forgotton their European heritage and instead swear alliegance to MacDonalds and MTV.
If you want to read real trashing of the United States military read these websites(all by Americans btw) [url]http://www.g2mil.com[/url] [url]http://www.sftt.org[/url]
I won't call you a traitor, for if you wish to go live in Russia, then more power to you. However, I think that when you get there and start telling the natives some of the stuff you post on this board that most of them will look upon you as a [url=http://www.komanda.narod.ru/vlasov.html]"hiwi"[/url] and with good reason for the way you kiss up to the likes of "Gauleiter" Gaunt. When you get done polishing his boots he may reward you with a pat on the head and a fresh egg.
:lol: Oh yes and you've been to Russia yourself I bet. If you want to know something about Russia, never listen to an American. They'll always tell you something stupid like how bears roam freely in the streets of Moscow.
As I said in one my first debates here, after visiting Russia I can confidently say that America is far more Communist now than Russia ever was! Even Pat Buchanan admits this in his "Death of the West" were he wrote "the revolution that failed in Russia is succeeding in America". If one actually wants to flee socialism nowadays and experiance a more traditional society, people go to Eastern Europe.
No, I look upon you the same way I do the Jews who live in America and whose first loyalty is to Israel. Better yet, you remind me of those American blacks who run around hollering "I'm an african."
:lol: you're acting like some dopped up MTV teenager who can't stand to hear the truth of their own nation. Francis Yockey was an American and he was far more harsh in his criticism of American civilization.
Evola said that Americans refute Descartes' famous saying "I think, therefore I am" because Americans don't think yet still exist!
Try acting like an American for a change instead of like a self hating white "liberal." You disgust me.[/QUOTE]
:lol: Oh yes I'm a self-hating white "liberal". Too bad I believe America should return to its Christian roots. Too bad I believe Americans need to get in touch with their European cultural heritage as opposed to the current decadent mass-consumerist crap pop culture. Too bad I believe America should return to its old anti-imperialist agenda and not attack every country that pisses them off. Too bad I want Americans to be more than the stupid ignorant people that they are(at least be able to point to where Canada is on the map). Too bad I want Americans to be more informed about whats going on in the world besides which celebrity is sleeping with whom or whats the current diameter of Bush's ass. Too bad I want Americans to realize thats theres more to life than watching stupid sitcoms like "Friends". Too bad I believe Americans should get off their high horse and accept the fact they're not God's chosen people and everybody has to kiss their ass, which would probally help win Americans more respect in the rest of the world. Oh no we can't have any of that, because thats just the agenda of a self-hating white liberal.
2003-10-24 17:52 | User Profile
"Evola said that Americans refute Descartes' famous saying "I think, therefore I am" because Americans don't think yet still exist!"
That's priceless, perun!
2003-10-25 00:01 | User Profile
It's my understanding that Patton, like most Americans, considered communist Russia to be an enemy of the west, but were hoodwinked by their leaders into thinking that Germany was a more imminent threat. Judging from the things Patton wrote and said over the course of WWII his understanding that American leaders were themselves either communists or in the pay of them became clear toward the end of the war, as did the connection between Jews and communism. Initially, he couldn't understand why US leaders didn't support his intention, or idea, to push into Eastern Europe and Russia. That they not only wouldn't consider the idea but were embarrassed by the thought, combined with orders he received to treat the Jews with preference, surely ended his puzzlement. And his life, I think. Whether the western allies could've accomplished the task is another question. Patton thought they could, but I don't think their reluctance to do so had anything to do with doubts about their ability to do it. Roosevelt wasn't just the ally of Stalin he pretended to be, he and his cabal were the sponsors of international communism.
I believe that Leland is right about the US being a bigger long-term threat to Europe than was Russia, as the present era demonstrates. Sure, Russia was the official communist headquarters, but its engine was, and still is, located in the US.