Skimmer and Stas Bush

[The Dark]

The Allies took part in the European war in late 1943, beginning their effective bombing runs (some have bragged they did bombing before, but it had no effect, and therefore is irrelevant). They were now only into politics - they wanted to chop off a part of Europe before the USSR takes it whole.

The bombing of Berlin in 1940 forced Hitler to keep major portions of the Luftwaffe back in defense. On November 11, 1940, British carrier aircraft destroyed the Italian fleet in Taranto, allowing the Black Sea Fleet to survive. I suppose the British forces in Greece also aren't well documented in Russia. To say the Western Allies bombing efforts had no effect is to slight the memories of the 160,000 aircrew who died bombing German war machines.

The ONLY considerable war effort of the Allies is the defeat of Japan.

By your view. By ours, the Western Allies were important in retarding Germany's war industry, and were solely responsible for Japan's defeat (as the Soviets attacked only after the Hiroshima bomb was dropped and Stalin tried to grab as much land as possible before Japan surrendered to the US).

But it's completely irrelevant speaking of the Reich,

Then why did you bring it up?

because the Axis countries had poor dependence on each other, ex. Italy, which was pleading for help each time it failed.

That's why German U-Boats carried airplane plans to Japan and brought supplies back. I'll agree the dependence was less than Russia's on the other Allies, but there was still some dependence.

In the war with Japan, everything was fine except that tiny bomb. Not a single man believed that day he's secure.

Easy for you to say. Your people didn't get burnt alive by kamikazes, or undergo torture because they didn't understand how to bow and scrape properly. Your pilots weren't tortured and interrogated, then thrown off the deck of a ship with cinder blocks tied to their ankles. The lowest realistic estimate of casualties in the first wave of a Home Islands invasion, given what we know of Japanese deployments and planned actions, is over one million American soldiers, just to establish beachheads. And I already dealt with the opportunistic nature of the Russian offensive above.

If you would ever bother to read: Liddel Gart, Roskill, Churchill, Doenitz, Ruge, Halder, Zhukov, Guderian, Rommel, Mannstein, Nimitz. Check out those. Speak to a few veterans. Afterwards we speak about Allies vs. Axis. That's the basics of such a discussion.
WGR, Stas.

I already quoted Zhukov to you, when he said Russia would have lost without American support because they HAD NO GUNPOWDER. I've read Rommel and Nimitz. Rommel was more concerned with the British in Africa for most of his career, and said he was certain he could have kicked the Brits out of El Alamein if Hitler hadn't felt he had to defend the coast of France so heavily to protect against the Western Allies. Nimitz was very angry with the Russians at one point for not helping kick the Japanese out of Manchuria, which would have made life much easier on the RAF and Chinese forces. It doesn't get much simpler than that. I have talked to veterans. My friend Jim trained bombardiers. Gene was a pilot at Pearl Harbor when it was attacked. Dottie ran a childcare for the children of soldiers. John was a supply officer in Europe and Japan. My grandfather was in the Eighth Infantry Division that invaded Germany, and opened the Neurengamme Death Camp. Jack was an infantryman in the Pacific. Smitty was a pilot in Europe. Zenaida was a child in the Philippines. Bob was a naval electrician in the Pacific. I work with these people every week, and all of them tell me stories about their lives. I have talked to plenty of veterans who survived the war, from all different theaters. John saw Russian units in Berlin with American equipment. Jack and Bob never saw a Russian at all in the Pacific.

[fgalkin]

Stas seems to be the victim of standard Russian propaganda, when it was Russia that saved the world in WWII, WWI, and the Napoleonic Wars.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Howedar]

Darth Fanboy, you're wrong. I totally disagree with that idiot troll, but you're wrong nonetheless.

An awful broad statement for someone not using any evidence.

EDIT: Or examples.

The facts are in front of you. By the time of D-day, the Soviets were on the offensive and the Reich was doomed.

[Beowulf]

Defended cities are subject to bombardment under the laws of WW2 and today.

Yeah. Japan was utterly defeated, yet wonderful bombs were down on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No one protested - everyone knew they could be the next.

Japan defeated? Hardly. The Japanese civilians were literally willing to fight to the last child to defend against the planned American invasion. I seem to recall one of the plans of that invasion having a certain division be in the initial invasion, and then not be referenced in the plans for a couple days later, because the assumption was that the unit would have been completely obliterated. Which would have been better, 3 million Japanese causalties and 1 million American, or the citizens of Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

[Lonestar]

Stas seems to be the victim of standard Russian propaganda, when it was Russia that saved the world in WWII, WWI, and the Napoleonic Wars.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Russia's involvement was probable indispensible during WW2. But would they have been able to beat back the Germans without the Western Hanging over Hitler? No.

[Sea Skimmer]

Stas seems to be the victim of standard Russian propaganda, when it was Russia that saved the world in WWII, WWI, and the Napoleonic Wars.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Russia's involvement was probable indispensible during WW2. But would they have been able to beat back the Germans without the Western Hanging over Hitler? No.

Perhaps not, but Germany couldn't have defeated Russia either. The result would be a very long war of attrition

[Coyote]

Blah blah blah

Dashing repartee and wit.

I'm not spindoctoring for anyone. You've managed to pull a Duchess AND an Axis in one post. If anything, you're the spindoctor.

You blindly accept and rationalize one pov while wholly denouncing the other. You've chosen a side and it is the side of a very obvious brutal dictator who I'd assume stands for everything you claim to be against. What am I supposed to think of this?

I don't read much of Axis Kast so I can't tell you much, but if you compare me to the Duchess, then I'll take that compliment.

Faulty information? Misleading? Bullshit. They're outright lies.

You mentioned some things in a list, but didn't elaborate. Please do so, so that I might change my pov if indeed wrong. I have admitted wrong in the past and apologized or altered my positions, but only in the face of actual evidence. Antijingoism is not evidence, though. All you've done consistently is badmouth the administration and conservatives and stick to strong convictions (consistently, at least, and in an articulate manner, which is admirable).

But you never did address what I said in my post. Saddam Hussein signed a treaty making certain things illegal and subject to inspection and sanction. He broke the treaty. The current administration called him on that and demanded that he follow the treaty. Saddam says he already complied with everything-- and you, oddly enough, accept this at face value.

I've also stated many times that he US administration has done a horrible job with the Public Relations aspect of this. They've lost the political war on nearly all fronts. I feel they had enough to go on without distortion or misleading evidence, yet they did. Rather like the OJ case-- the guy is guilty, but the crime lab was so eager to make sure everyone knew it they botched the evidence. That doesn't make the guy less guilty.

And to call me an oppurtunist is laughable, considering (and I pointed it out already in another thread) that you'll start bashing liberals even when the topic has nothing to do with them.

So? I also pointed out many of my liberal viewpoints. And even if I am a political partisan, that does not make you any less of one. But I actually do not say "My country right or wrong", I do question many things here but this war happens to not be one of them. You seem to be taking the stance of, "my country, goddamn wrong, wrong, wrong." To the point you'd take a genocidal dictator's word as gold.

[Nathan F]

Surprising that the troll hasn't been HOSed yet...

[Sea Skimmer]

Surprising that the troll hasn't been HOSed yet...

He probably wont be returning. He's failed to address our destruction of his bullshit in even his normal troll way. If he hadn't bullshit the topic over to WW2 I expect this would be in the HOS.

[K. A. Pital]

Actually I just thought the topic was deleted.
BTW, your overusing the word "troll" doesn't make any sence. I'm not a troll, as I already said. If you consider everyone uncomfortable with "good american policies", too bad. The topic is not in HoS. See Darth Wong's comment on flamewars.
Vympel

It was a necessary evil, securing the threat from Reich, in Stalin's eyes, until the USSR was more ready to meet it.

Agree.
Cpt_Frank

The funny thing about the long-range bombers is that there were several prototype models ready for serial production and service by 1942 but they weren't built since Göring underestimated their importance.

Yeah, right. That's exactly the same case as with the fleet: how good Bismarck may have been, Hitler underestimated the importance of a surface fleet and had the Battle for Atlantic won by the enemy.
MKSheppard
Yeah... I ever wonder, why?

How about "very very hard", as most of the Red Army's motorized and mechanized forces came from US supplied trucks and half-tracks?

How about the year you provide? Was it an error or I really saw "1945"?

Lend-lease aircraft amounted to 18% of all aircraft in the Soviet air forces, 20% of all bombers, and 16-23% of all fighters (numbers vary depending on calculation methods), and 29% of all naval aircraft.

Useless supplies like "naval aircraft" are a point. Having a puny navy, USSR would turn the tide by using naval aircraft? Don't make me laugh. Actually, I never heard that aircraft war was somewhere near to being decisive. So just consider the fact: giving supplies which are useless in spite of Germany's way of waging war is at least strange.
The Dark

The bombing of Berlin in 1940 forced Hitler to keep major portions of the Luftwaffe back in defense.

Oh yes. I wonder who destroyed soviet planes in 1941 Keep the dates in the right order, and it'll be okay, see?

British carrier aircraft destroyed the Italian fleet in Taranto, allowing the Black Sea Fleet to survive

You think naval things were somewhat important for USSR? Geeh.

is to slight the memories of the 160,000 aircrew who died bombing German war machines.

Please, we're not talking about honour, valor or things alike. We're talking about effect. I'm sorry, but before late 1943 the Allied bombing had little effect, no matter how valiant were the pilots. And even after that, despite the horrible decrease in chemical production, Germany doubled the production of fighter craft in 1944. Oh. So effective.

By ours, the Western Allies were important in retarding Germany's war industry

Check the dates. 1941-1945 vs. 1944-1945.

as the Soviets attacked only after the Hiroshima bomb was dropped and Stalin tried to grab as much land as possible before Japan surrendered to the US

Of course he did. And I never consider the total destruction of the Kwantun army anything special. It's so puny in comparison to war with Germany.

That's why German U-Boats carried airplane plans to Japan and brought supplies back.

Please, read Liddel Gart. His book is called "World War II". Poor cooperation between G. and J. U-boot krieg occured in Atlantic. Only several times the Germans sent some U-boots to Japan, and only in the very end of the war.

but there was still some dependence.

Hmm, maybe Japan was dependent on Germany, not the other way round. So what? It even gives more support to me, as war with Germany means something for war with Japan now.

Your people didn't get burnt alive by kamikazes, or undergo torture because they didn't understand how to bow and scrape properly.

You better keep silence. Japanese army was the most ruthless in the world, but neither GULAG nor konzentrationslager were more pleasant for soldiers. Visit Sonnenschmerz. Visit Perm-38. I feel sorry for everyone, but my both homelands suffered most from the war. You dare not to diminish it. The Japanese never ever reached US.

John saw Russian units in Berlin with American equipment. Jack and Bob never saw a Russian at all in the Pacific.

Did I ever brag about Russians in the Pacific? No. I said it was wholly Allied effort. And about Russian units in Berlin: dude, check YEARS. Dates, you know. 1945. End of war. End of story. Check better if you ever saw Russians in Stalingrad.

HAD NO GUNPOWDER

Oh yes. Russians had shortage of about everything, not only gunpowder. So what? It didn't prevent them defeating Wehrmacht at Moskau, neither it prevented them capturing my grandfather near Volga. Minimal support does not count. Check PQ-17. I wonder why...
Howedar
Agree. Truth has spoken.
Beowulf

Which would have been better, 3 million Japanese causalties and 1 million American, or the citizens of Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

Oh yes. How many millions there were in Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Only 4? And were they all fighting? Or were some of them even UNCAPABLE of fighting? And dude, where did you get that 3 and 1 million figure?

[Enforcer Talen]

150,000 at hiroshima and nagasaki. pocket change by that time.

and, the million numbers come from the fanticism seen at okinawa, the expected casualties from kamakazes both air and land, and the very unpleasant terrain. Im not sure about the million american casualties myself, although it's been attributed to churchhill - I think the number would be a third of that. of course, that doesnt include japanese deaths - whose willingness to die had no connection with victory. Ive heard 5-10 million there, because armed children make such easy targets.

[phongn]

The million American casualties was an earlier estimate, it has been revised downward, though it is often quoted.

[MKSheppard]

How about the year you provide? Was it an error or I really saw "1945"?

Yeah, in 1945 alone, which was very short, only 5 months, we gave 5k
trucks of all types to the Soviet Union. I've seen figures that we sent
100,000 trucks of all types to the USSR during the war in total.

Lend-lease aircraft amounted to 18% of all aircraft in the Soviet air forces, 20% of all bombers, and 16-23% of all fighters (numbers vary depending on calculation methods), and 29% of all naval aircraft.

Useless supplies like "naval aircraft" are a point. Having a puny navy, USSR would turn the tide by using naval aircraft? Don't make me laugh. Actually, I never heard that aircraft war was somewhere near to being decisive. So just consider the fact: giving supplies which are useless in spite of Germany's way of waging war is at least strange.

You stupid russian shithead, put down the fucking vodka and THINK for
a moment. 16-23% of all FIGHTERS, 20% of all BOMBERS, is pretty
fucking significant.

In an exhibit put on by a Russian Businessman here in Washington DC
a few years ago, which included all the Nazi Standards that were
thrown down before Stalin in the Victory Parade, the Katyusha
rocket-armed truck they had in the exhibit was a... STUDEBAKER
Lend Lease Truck!

[MKSheppard]

Please, we're not talking about honour, valor or things alike. We're talking about effect. I'm sorry, but before late 1943 the Allied bombing had little effect, no matter how valiant were the pilots. And even after that, despite the horrible decrease in chemical production, Germany doubled the production of fighter craft in 1944. Oh. So effective.

Again, put the fucking VODKA downm you drunken Russian fucker.

Sure, they made thousands of fighters in 1944, but they had
no GASOLINE to fucking fly them, because of the USAAF bombing
raids on german oil production facilities.

And these thousands of fighters were mostly in pieces,because they
were built in modular subassemblies, and the paralysation of
the German rail transport network made all these subassemblies
sit in the factories, unused.

Go take a fucking look at why the Type XXI U-Boats were pieces of shit
and why so many of them were never finished.

[Sea Skimmer]

You think naval things were somewhat important for USSR? Geeh.

Look up the battles for Sevastopol and Odessa and the Russia counter attack onto the Crimean, not to mention Novoorossiisk or German naval bombardments throughout 1944 and 45 in the Baltic.

Oh yes. How many millions there were in Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Only 4? And were they all fighting? Or were some of them even UNCAPABLE of fighting? And dude, where did you get that 3 and 1 million figure?

The combind population of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was less then a half million. And the attacks killed perhapes 150,000 civilians, the Red Army easily killed more civilians in the battle for Berlin alone.

In the first thirty days of an American invasion, expected American causalities where 500,000 and those for Japan two million. That's just to take southern Kyushu in Operation Olympic. Operation Coronet against Honshu would have been considerable worse.

[The Dark]

The million American casualties was an earlier estimate, it has been revised downward, though it is often quoted.

Read Downfall. Based on the positions and equipment the Japanese Home Islands Defence Force had, the million is probably a low estimate. The kamikazes were under orders to attack troop ships instead of carriers. The infantry was to hang back just out of the range that the Americans had bombarded to in every other invasion (predictability) and then move to occupy bunkers in forward positions. They had developed tactics specifically to counter the American landing tactics.

The bombing of Berlin in 1940 forced Hitler to keep major portions of the Luftwaffe back in defense.

Oh yes. I wonder who destroyed soviet planes in 1941 Keep the dates in the right order, and it'll be okay, see?

Just think how much worse it would have been if Germany hadn't keep major portions of the Luftwaffe back to defend its cities. I have the dates in the right order. Germany began placing units in defense of its cities in 1940. The Luftwaffe sent under 3000 aircraft to fight Russia in June 1941, which immediately destroyed roughly 2000 aircraft of Russia's. Given that nearly twice as many Luftwaffe aircraft were involved in the Battle of Britain, one must wonder why a force half the size that attacked England was used to attack Russia, unless other planes were tied up in other theaters.

Please, we're not talking about honour, valor or things alike. We're talking about effect. I'm sorry, but before late 1943 the Allied bombing had little effect, no matter how valiant were the pilots. And even after that, despite the horrible decrease in chemical production, Germany doubled the production of fighter craft in 1944. Oh. So effective.

Production doubled of the by-then obsolete Bf 109. The FW 190, however, the main fighter threat, had it production slashed by 78%, from 7488 in 1943 to 1630 in 1944. Overall bomber production was almost halved, transports cut to roughly one-third.

Your people didn't get burnt alive by kamikazes, or undergo torture because they didn't understand how to bow and scrape properly.

You better keep silence. Japanese army was the most ruthless in the world, but neither GULAG nor konzentrationslager were more pleasant for soldiers. Visit Sonnenschmerz. Visit Perm-38. I feel sorry for everyone, but my both homelands suffered most from the war. You dare not to diminish it. The Japanese never ever reached US.

German POW camps had roughly a 99% survival rate. Japanese camps roughly 50%. Japan bombed Oregon (a fact most people either never know or forget). They invaded Alaska, although you would be correct that it was only a territory of the United States at the time, not yet a full member state. More people were buried in Cabanatuan than walked out. There's a reason the Bata'an Death March has its name. If the bodies of those murdered while walking the path were evenly distributed, there would be one body every 18 meters for over 145 kilometers.

HAD NO GUNPOWDER

Oh yes. Russians had shortage of about everything, not only gunpowder. So what? It didn't prevent them defeating Wehrmacht at Moskau, neither it prevented them capturing my grandfather near Volga. Minimal support does not count. Check PQ-17. I wonder why...

For the third time, Zhukov himself (funny how you ignore quotes from a man you said to read when they don't support you) said the Russians would have had no bullets at Moscow, or Stalingrad, or any other battle without American gunpowder. Minimal support my ass.

Oh yes. How many millions there were in Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Only 4? And were they all fighting? Or were some of them even UNCAPABLE of fighting? And dude, where did you get that 3 and 1 million figure?

Hiroshima was a major Japanese Army supply depot. Nagasaki was the secondary target the day it was bombed; the primary target was too overcast to drop on, and the plane could not safely land with the bomb on board. As far as casualties, General Willoughby, Chief of Intelligence in the Pacific Theater, estimated a minimum of one million casualties in an invasion of Japan. His subordinates felt he was lowering the number deliberately so the invasion wouldn't be cancelled. Japan had closed its schools to moblize schoolchildren as soldiers, was issuing arms to civilians, and fortifying caves as bunkers. American intelligence had also badly underestimated the remaining Japanese military. The 1 million casualties assumed the Japanese had only 2500 aircraft of all types. They really had over 12,500. The Japanese had also predicted the landing sites of American forces. Rather than the 3 to 1 American force size advantage of Okinawa, there would be 3 to 2 odds in favor of the Japanese. Additionally, instead of labor battalions and second-line troops, these wre Japan's best-trained soldiers. They had cave networks to put the Viet Cong to shame. The Japanese militia contained over 28 million soliders, not including the 13 Regular Army Divisions on the island. Indeed, the 199,000 casualties of the atomic bombs (not 4 million, which is 10 times the actual population of those cities) was a small price to pay to win the war.

[phongn]

The million American casualties was an earlier estimate, it has been revised downward, though it is often quoted.

Read Downfall. Based on the positions and equipment the Japanese Home Islands Defence Force had, the million is probably a low estimate. The kamikazes were under orders to attack troop ships instead of carriers. The infantry was to hang back just out of the range that the Americans had bombarded to in every other invasion (predictability) and then move to occupy bunkers in forward positions. They had developed tactics specifically to counter the American landing tactics.

I have Downfall. Only one of the estimates in it were about one million casualties; and there was improved intelligence that closer matched the actual situation around the time of the atomic bombings.

[The Dark]

I have Downfall. Only one of the estimates in it were about one million casualties; and there was improved intelligence that closer matched the actual situation around the time of the atomic bombings.

IIRC, that closer intelligence moved casualties up, because the Japanese were more prepared than America had believed. I haven't read the book since December, though, so I may not be remembering everything correctly.

*shrug* I just find it hard to believe there would be low casualties, given the casualties inflicted in Okinawa by labor battalions compared to the better defense, better armament, better odds, and better training of the Japanese forces. The odds are that a good number of the troop ships would never reach shore, since the Japanese were planning on swarming them with kamikazes. Each ship had one 12.7mm machinegun, and studies showed that on average it took 4 12.7mm machineguns to down one kamikaze. The 180 troop ships, once they left the fleet to deploy units, could only defend against 45 kamikazes, not the 2000 Japan had reserved for them.

[MKSheppard]

Just think how much worse it would have been if Germany hadn't keep major portions of the Luftwaffe back to defend its cities. I have the dates in the right order. Germany began placing units in defense of its cities in 1940. The Luftwaffe sent under 3000 aircraft to fight Russia in June 1941, which immediately destroyed roughly 2000 aircraft of Russia's. Given that nearly twice as many Luftwaffe aircraft were involved in the Battle of Britain, one must wonder why a force half the size that attacked England was used to attack Russia, unless other planes were tied up in other theaters.

I recall that over 8,000 88mm FLAK 36s were in the defence ring around
Berlin ALONE. think of the resources poured into that...just to defend against
US heavy bombers..

[The Dark]

Just think how much worse it would have been if Germany hadn't keep major portions of the Luftwaffe back to defend its cities. I have the dates in the right order. Germany began placing units in defense of its cities in 1940. The Luftwaffe sent under 3000 aircraft to fight Russia in June 1941, which immediately destroyed roughly 2000 aircraft of Russia's. Given that nearly twice as many Luftwaffe aircraft were involved in the Battle of Britain, one must wonder why a force half the size that attacked England was used to attack Russia, unless other planes were tied up in other theaters.

I recall that over 8,000 88mm FLAK 36s were in the defence ring around
Berlin ALONE. think of the resources poured into that...just to defend against
US heavy bombers..

And those were tank killers. Over 55,000 AA guns total were in Berlin.

[phongn]

*shrug* I just find it hard to believe there would be low casualties, given the casualties inflicted in Okinawa by labor battalions compared to the better defense, better armament, better odds, and better training of the Japanese forces.

They wouldn't be low - indeed, they'd be quite high, but not quite so high as one million.

The odds are that a good number of the troop ships would never reach shore, since the Japanese were planning on swarming them with kamikazes. Each ship had one 12.7mm machinegun, and studies showed that on average it took 4 12.7mm machineguns to down one kamikaze. The 180 troop ships, once they left the fleet to deploy units, could only defend against 45 kamikazes, not the 2000 Japan had reserved for them.

Actually, to down a Kamikaze may have taken 4 0.50-cal MGs, but to actually stop one usually takes something much larger - 40mm at the very least and preferably 76mm.

[K. A. Pital]

MKSheppard
Now the numbers speak: all lend-lease cost to USSR was: 9800 million USD. The weight of lend-lease supplies in GDP during a year never exceeded 4 %, your exaggerating of numbers doesn't do you any honour. Check out: America during the whole fucking war sent 14.795 planes and 7056 tanks. The USSR produced every fucking year more than 30.000 tanks and SAU, 40.000 planes. Check out: 1941-1945 is 5*40.000=200.000. Uh... I don't think 14.795 planes are anywhere NEAR to be fucking CONSIDERABLE. Especially since lend-lease varied greatly from year to year, and in the early years USSR received same as nothing. Try 5*30.000, that will be 150.000. Uh... 7.000 tanks during the whole war? Fuck you and your lend lease. The number of supplied units is official american data, by the way. I just don't know why you keep insisting on your exaggeration. You have a source? So do I. It's Liddel Gart and the World War II Encyclopaedia 1985. Check it out. Don't like it? Think that USA was so rich and helpful? Check this out:
The USA spent 13% of their product on lend-lease, from this: 3/5 to Great Britain, and 2/5 - to everyone else (incl. USSR). Try to find something more considerable, please.

I've seen figures that we sent
100,000 trucks

Oh yes. That's exactly why Russians used horses at Stalingrad, Moscow and even the Zitadelle.

And the attacks killed perhapes 150,000 civilians, the Red Army easily killed more civilians in the battle for Berlin alone.

Shut up. Allies killed even more in their bombing runs. And if you like to know: Berlin is not radioactive. People don't die from rays there. But: especially for you. 200.000 in Berlin garrison, but out of these only 200 battalions of the volksturm. Please, show more respect to statistics. It was my nation who died there, but not in such horrible numbers!
150.000? Oh-oh... Let's see: killed or lost: 200.000, rayed and wounded: 160.000. In Hiroshima only. World War II Encyclopaedia.

In the first thirty days of an American invasion, expected American causalities where 500,000

Yes, that's the exact number of those who suffered from the a-bombs.

Again, put the fucking VODKA downm you drunken Russian fucker.

Russian? Fuck you and whatever you thought. I'm German, Deutsch, Germanesse, if you didn't get it. Happened to live in Russia. To be a grandson of an exile. So mind your words.

Sure, they made thousands of fighters in 1944, but they had
no GASOLINE to fucking fly them, because of the USAAF bombing
raids on german oil production facilities.

Oh yes. Reich also had a shortage on volfram. Yet their tanks KICKED Shermans all too good. No gasoline? Oh, I wonder, really, haven't I said: "lowered the production of chemicals"? Stop bragging. I mentioned that.

Go take a fucking look at why the Type XXI U-Boats were pieces of shit and why so many of them were never finished.

What the fuck? U-boote? Go to hell. Have you ever read the estimates of U-boot impact agains allied shipping? 9%, no more. In fact, the real number (estimated by Clancy or how's his name, he counted all losses from the U-boot war) is : 0,0025. Oh... how serious. U-boot war was absolutely insignificant for Germany. I wonder how you Allies managed to spend 10 (!) times more than Germany to defeat the U-boot.

I recall that over 8,000 88mm FLAK 36s were in the defence ring around Berlin ALONE. think of the resources poured into that...just to defend against US heavy bombers..

I wonder, are you really fooling around or just pretending? Check your years. US heavy bombers? Where these fuckers were in 1941-1942, I wonder... Oh, nowhere near? What a pity!

Actually I wonder who told you that the Allies were somehow helping Russia in the time of first strike and second strike (and even the Kursk (Zitadelle)). I encourage you to read the diary of Franz Halder. Check it out, how and why were forces deployed.

[Sokar]

Stas, you live in Russia, you speak Russian , you write with Cyrillic characters, your taxes go to Moscow, .......as my Grandpappy once said "if it looks , walks and quacks like a duck......"

[Darth Fanboy]

If it cloucks like a chicken...and It walks like a chicken....then it must be...FRENCH!

[K. A. Pital]

Sokar
You may go to hell or visit GULAG, Perm-38. Or you may call my grandfather in Germany and wonder, what for is he paid a contribution of 20.000 Euro per year.
Hell, I have love for both Russia and Germany, but I never had any love for those who just insult people without any point.
Edit: Or just check my entry in the government count, which says "Nationality: German", and try to answer the points instead of insulting.