Right, nothing happens in vacuum. Few hundreds years Poland was the province of Russian Empire. The control was lost when Bolshevicks violently seized the power (Oktober of 1917) in conditions of staggering new born Russian democracy (February of 1917). They could hold it further if only the unity of strong and mighty forces opposed to them would have been scattered and fight one another. Therefore Bolshevicks started that parade of sovereighnities - they simply told to the provinces' national elites to take as much power as they wanted to. Afterwhile, as all threats to dictature of Bolshevicks were destroyed they started to claim the presented souvereignities back, naturally they wanted to command all territory of Empire. They got control back over Siberia, Caucasus and Middle Asia relatively easy, but some territories were lost for two decades - the operation in Poland of 1920 and in Finnish province of 1939 failed, besides that Germans occupied Baltic provinces up to the 1918 and under threat (or by conspired plan) forced the Bolshevicks to admit the existance of three absolutely new states - Estland, Latland and Lithauen. The Ribbentrop-Molotov Pakt was for Stalin just the end of the story of 20-years long, and to his mind Russia retrieved part of her territories back.
Really? You control all the night disembarkments on all the bases, you count all the soldiers without citizenship and all that international bob-tails hired garbage of Haliburton? Respect.
Hm, when Hitler wrote his dreams, where were German troops? Germany was demilitarised if I recall it right.She said it, and those of Russians who are informed of it will never forget it. Yes, I meant "admissions", I created the "admittances" from the root "admit" too hasty.


"The strike first makes half of victory". Every street boy knows that plain.
I already touched this topic in this forum and discussed it with Web on Central Asia/Russia page. The argument of lucky Russians which have especially severe winter in the years they are assaulted is very beloved in West, French like it too in regard to the Napoleon. All the way it's modestly silenced the fact that in the time of Bonapart and in the time of Hitler all European armies and the Russian one too were not designed to wage war in winter time at all by default. The cold season simply vetoed all the maneouvers and garrisoned all divisions on the captured positions till the spring. All those moans about Russian winter mean only one thing - when we had to be defeated accordingly the european rules for possible variations of war, we broke the rules and won the impossible war. Each time we wrote the second part of the scenario in which we supposed to be only actors. That's annoying, I understand.
Secondly, I already got tired to remain, that the West started to supply Soviet Union only after the Germans were stopped and throwed back by the Moscow. Up to this moment the West simply waited and thought us to be chanceless and therefore not worthing for help.
And thirdly, I wonder which versions of history you boast you know so exellent? That one that W. Churchill said about - "History will have mercy on me, cause I will write her"? Or the US' one where the D-day and Pacific operations determined the victory? The decisive contribution to the success by Moscow was the intel information, that Japan will not attack us. One third of all divisions that have been frozen up to our Siberian border was rapidly taken away and thrown to the West and said hello to Germans. Add this as third version, just for fun.

Look lets skip all the propogandizing bullshit here shall we? What you are saying is since Russia at one time, and this has changed from time period to time period throughout history, did control these areas you have a perfect right to go back in any time you damn well please and get them back? Does that still apply? If so can we assume Russia will once again try to militarily retake Poland, Ukraine, Georgia, the various Stans in south central aisa, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. This is pure nationalistic crap. It would be like me saying look for a period of time our troops were in Mexico and even parts of Canada so they all belong to us whenever we feel like going back. I understand your pride won't let you look at WWII factually, and we will get to another little fact you are incorrect abount in a minute, but may I suggest you keep these little ideas to your Russian nationailst friends. We know the history, and frankly just because at one time you controlled these areas means nothing. If it did Koenigsberg along with the rest of East Pussia is open to Germany retaking it when they want. I doubt you, and I am certain the Poles, would argue that point. So please lets deal in the real world, not in your dreams of lost empire.

To begin with the "international bobtails" are not military so frankly I don't care how many of them are killed. They went their only for the money. I only really care about the number of US troops killed or injured, just as the British probably only really care about the number of their troops killed or injured. I am pretty sure if I wanted to know the numbers of British troops killed or injured I could find out. I am not sure what you think respect has to do with anything here.
Did Madeline Albright ever say America needs lebensraum and we are looking to the lands of Untermenschen to provide it? Did Thatcher? Hell did Churchill when he mentioned the Iron Curtain, see your knowledge of history isn't what you think since Thatcher didn't coin the phrase Iron Curtain. Nope none of them did, but Hitler did and still you ignored the threat. Well don't despair you were in good company back then.

And had it not been for the winter and resupply it would have been the knock out blow.


Lets see the first convoy to land in Murmansk was the Dervish Convoy which landed on August 31, 1941. It delivered raw materials and Hawker Hurricanes.

The second convoy, PQ1, arrived at Archangelsk on October 11, 1941 and delivered 20 tanks and 193 Hurricans.

PQ2 sailed from Liverpool and arrived at Archangel on October 30, 1941 with 6 ships bringing supplies.

PQ3 sailed from Hvalfjord and arrived at Archangel on November 22, 1941 with 8 ships bringing supplies.

PQ4 sailed from Hvalfjord and arrived at Archangel on November 28, 1941 with 8 ships bringing supplies

PQ5 sailed from Hvalfjord and arrived at Archangel on December 13, 1941 with 7 ships bringing supplies.

Now lets look specifically at on of these convoys, PQ17, It left Rekjavik on June 27, 1942. When it left it had 39 merchant ships. 24 of those ships were sunk while we supposedly "waited and thought us to be chanceless and therefore not worthing for help." as you so eloquently put it. The USSR did puch the Germans back from Moscow in the winter of 1941-42, however it wasn't until the victory at the battle of Stalingrad in the January 1943 that it became clear the Soviet Army had the upper hand. By that time if you go to the site I linked to you can see how many convoys had been sent, and how many ships and men lost their lives not giving a shit about the USSR's efforts. It isn't me that doesn't have all the facts Oleg. In fact now it isn't even you that can't get them. It is however you that refuses to acknowledge them. I could understand your thought process when the Soviet government handed you what they thought you needed to know and blocked you from getting anything elese. But you know have the ability to get that information and still you prefer to live in ignorance. For that I pity you.

http://www.convoyweb.org.uk/russian/index.html

Now I can go on and on here, and in fact I once saw a list of the types of material sent, when it was sent and the tonage recieved somewhere, I am still looking for that. Now in the face of this care to rethink you assertion about when the allies started shipping supplies to aid the USSR in its defense? I will try to find that again to be honest just so I can rub it in you face after your little diatribe about how no one bothered to lift a finger to help the poor Soviets. Learn your history son or debate with the amatuers. Propoganda doesn't pass for facts here.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

You are so loud and pleased with your cozy arrogant self-feeling of your supremacy and omnisciency, that you obviously seem not to read the posts attentively. The result is as everybody can witness here - the rediculous outburst of groundless clishees which you stuck upon me. Look once again to my post. I only have given the retrospective view of Stalin in the period of 40-s, which he had about the developing of the situation since the beginning of the 20th century. I used the terms of that time, like "the provinces" for provinces they were and stayed in the eyes of Bolshevicks who first made them independent and claimed that independence back few years afterwhile. But oh, that all was not matter to you. Here that came suddenly: "propogandizing bullshit", "pure nationalistic crap", "you keep these little ideas to your Russian nationailst friends", "lets deal in the real world, not in your dreams of lost empire". It is the same as if you for instance asked the Slartibartfas to describe the considerations of German government in 30-s, which led them to military and political decisions and after he presented them to you, you would call him Nazi and fascist bastard-hitlerjugend. You are laughable, because you see exactly what you want to see and nothing else. Of course to your mind every Russian must be the brutal imperialist and nationalist - how else, as you have lost the suitable Commi clishee you stuck upon Russians earlier? You really don't need to bother yourself with the communication in forum - why, if you artifically create thoughts and ideas for your opponents? You could simply open your wordpad, type questions and answers, complying to your vision of the world.Everybody watched the video where these hirelings fired at the civil cars for fun. And everybody knows that they make in the least one third "invisible" part of occupation forces full armed and beyond the any law. You don't give a damn? Ok, but it is part of your army, however you condone their deeds and casualties.
They probably didn't study German, and Hitler as showed history was too direct and reckless in his proclamations, therefore 50 years after Hitler and Nuremberg, in English those things sound a bit softer and more accurately. Instead of Untermenshen - the rest beyond the so-called Civilized World, instead of Lebensraum - National interests of USA and Western (which are of course the US') values. It would have been bloody partisan bog, thousand times worse than Iraq, Vietnam or Afganistan, the war without victory.I know all the facts you applied. And I fully recognize the glory of the captains and sailors of the PQ-caravans. I recognize the sincerity of the American and Soviet soldiers who shaked the hands on the Elbe meeting and I remember the heroizm of American pilots who transported the war-planes over the Pacific Ocean to our air-fields in Siberia. But all this happened after blitzkrieg was turned to position war in November 1941. Since that moment the time was working against Hitler and Stalingrad was not the mere luck and turnover.
I don't say USSR received no help at all in decisive 1941. But you can compare your own data - look for the PQ1-5 and the PQ-17, look for tonnage and quantity of vessels. First convoys were the convoys "of diplomacy", however cynical it sounds, but politics comes along with cynism. That was very clever diplomacy as even now you can cite the chronicles for me and use them in dispute. The best pragmatic example of attitude towards USSR in those days expressed H.Truman who said :"If Germans are winning we should help Soviets, if USSR - then othervise, and let them kill one another as long as possible". The 20 tanks could not of course contribute the meaningful share as the thousands of tanks clashed on both sides. But this policy really had changed in 1942. Soviet government could not hand me anything and block me from getting anything because I was too small to be interested in politics when it crumbled. What else exept facts you mister High Hat Professional think the propaganda operates with? Of course it is only we who are the stupid victims of propaganda, because you are too wise and clever guy to be affected, there is no stinkin' propaganda in the West democracies besides that, only clear abstract reliable facts, eh?)))

I have never once claimed the US won the war by itself, as you made reference to Americans doing in an earlier post. Yet you have the temerity to revise history. Russia wasn't out of the woods in 1941. Hell you didn't even counter attack the first time around Moscow until December 41 and January 42. The war didn't really change momentum until Stalingrad fell in 1943. I am not trying to take anything away from Soviet achievements, but you seem to think we simply sat on our hands and could have cared less which side won in the east. Frankly that is revisionism. It is Russian nationalism, but it is not accurate. I understand there is no way I will convince you otherwise, so I will stop trying. If you don't care about the truth and instead prefer to only see what you believemakes your country a matyr that defeated the Germans single handedly so be it. Enjoy the fantasy.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

Once again I can not get rid of the feeling you answering on someone else's post, not mine... No one possesses the monopoly for truth, so don't expect everybody around you will accomodate to your absolute vision of the world and history, which are perfect and final as you believe, because they are yours. The phrases like "Russia wasn't out of the woods in 1941" overwhemingly characterize you. Don't you know, man, that we just have climbed down from the trees then? You must be told in the school. So, yeah, just as soon as Americans have replaced our bows and arrows with real weapons, we dared to come out of the woods for the first time))))
As for the "you seem to think we simply sat on our hands and could have cared less which side won in the east" - I don't think, because it's well known that the US had great interest in the game. First you supplied Nazis and approved their challenge to British Global Empire, (funny but grandfather of Bush had the finger in the pie), and when you saw the Germans got unexpectedly ably and quick in the deal and might have really take the prize to themselves, you started to supply the other side. Good startegy, everybody lost besides you; jackpot, British legacy has become yours.

From a purely hypothetical consideration, any command economy should be able to legislate its way to a first world economy as a form of promoting the general welfare. A question has been brought up that asks, why it hasn't been done? Does anyone have a good rebuttal?

It has been done. The amazing changes and improvements took place In USSR and by Germans. The war collapsed many achievements, but pre-war years were indeed the years of rapid increasing in general welfare in comparison to the start point. The commanding center could inflict the real positive changes, reforms and even miracles some time, but it could not change and upgrade itself, cause feedback influence was cut. The development of the system overcame the development of the command center. Imagine the human being, in which only body grows adult and the mind stays childlike. The conflict between them destroys stability and safety of the whole being.

What is your opinion of a hypothetical scenario where the USSR didn't have an ideological conflict with the West? Or, perhaps, the attitude of the West, had been, why not allow another form of statism?

What do you think of a hypothetical scenario of Cuba using command economics to legislate its way to a first world economy?

If to look attentively, the conflict wasn't ideological that much. The ideological conflict was inside of USSR, the elites of which sustained very illogical and irrational model of self-isolation, idealism and prodigal foreign policy, as all the population opposed and critisized, laughed at that. Nobody believed the BS about the imperialistic West, countervise - the more obvious idiosy was told, the more idealistic the West was imagined. The black-hole of self-isolation of USSR helped to paint the Cold War as ideological contradiction, as only few people in the West knew the reality inside of USSR.
The scenario you talk about is realizing right now. The main sharp reasons of the conflict exist no more. The body of Russian civilisation comes through the reforms and modernisation, the Chinese do the same even better. So just watch and observe the hypothetical becomes real, we live the history every moment.

Cuba - and the first world economy? You mean not the super-large GDP, but championship in providing the general welfare? As the strong part of the regional Latin-American economy bloc, enough independent from the US - yes, there are some chances. BTW, Cuba is not the 100% command economy as far as I know.

Yes. I suppose there is no real need for Cuba to maintain a large military, other than to soak up labor market participants. From my perspective, Cuba (and the mostly command economy it has) could expend labor on any type of public sector venture it wants, and does not have to make a profit. There is no reason for Cuba to not employ labor for modern infrastructure development that could rival the first world. Isn't it merely ideology that prevents Cuba from having modern and progressive infrastructure?

What do you think of a hypothetical case of the former USSR using command economics to legislate a new market in the energy sector by harvesting heat energy from volcanos, in addition to any other non-renewable energy sources?

What about tasking the public sector with guaranteeing 'conduits to markets' as an infrastructure initiative in the promotion of the general welfare?

What is your opinion of the theory of nullification as a form of individualism in a collectivist union?

A hypothetical application of statism via a social contract with an amendment based on the theory of nullification.

Alternate Scenarios.