d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Russia / Ukraine
Prev1445444554456445744584465Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 14,670
Joined: Jun 27 2010
Gold: 100,701.50
Sep 10 2024 10:36am
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Sep 10 2024 05:45pm)
Nah, the USSR was rapidly industrializing during the 1930s and had the manpower and the natural resources to become a behemoth once their production and technology had caught up. See also the Cold War which followed WW2. So in this sense, the clock was ticking for Germany to stop the Soviets before they would become too strong. Striking too late in the year, and with insufficient forces and equipment, in 1941 is what did them in on the operational level. In the end, they were able get within 20km of the Kremlin, although that's deceptive because it were 20km of dense urban area with heavy fortifications still lying between them.

Stalingrad was the symbolic and moral turning point of the war, but on a macro level, the war was already lost by that point. The Allied victory over the Axis in WW2 was a done deal since December 1941, after the Soviets had prevailed in the Battle of Moscow and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor had prompted the US to enter the war against the Axis. The remaining 3.5 years of war only determined where exactly the dust would settle.


/offtopic history hour


I guess that you believe the USSR was planning to attack Germany which wasn't the case, fact of the matter is Stalin purged much of his senior military and then the Molotov-Ribentrop pact of course.

Hitler could've maintained the status quo but attacked his trade partners and called them untermensch FFS. Massive amounts of oil and raw materials were going to Germany before the invasion in 1941.

Stalin thought a war with Germany was inevitable but it would be Germany attacking the USSR not the other way around.
Member
Posts: 4,674
Joined: Feb 5 2022
Gold: 11.11
Sep 10 2024 01:36pm
Member
Posts: 26,100
Joined: Aug 11 2013
Gold: 13,670.00
Sep 10 2024 02:07pm
Quote (zorzin @ Sep 10 2024 03:36pm)


#team defensive alliance is now supplying weapons to a country that is not in NATO to strike another country


We truly live in a world where a lot of people in the west will look at this situation and still label us defensive in nature, even though the only reason this war continues to this day is because we keep pumping tens of billions every month into Ukraine. It would be a breath of fresh air if they would just give up the moralism and stop trying to reframe all these wars we've engaged in since 2000s as defensive or 'protecting democracy' or whatever other sound good label and just be honest lol.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Sep 10 2024 02:10pm
Member
Posts: 52,224
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,404.67
Sep 10 2024 03:39pm
Quote (Djunior @ 10 Sep 2024 18:36)
I guess that you believe the USSR was planning to attack Germany which wasn't the case, fact of the matter is Stalin purged much of his senior military and then the Molotov-Ribentrop pact of course.

Hitler could've maintained the status quo but attacked his trade partners and called them untermensch FFS. Massive amounts of oil and raw materials were going to Germany before the invasion in 1941.

Stalin thought a war with Germany was inevitable but it would be Germany attacking the USSR not the other way around.

History classes in the US probably don't go into that much detail (and why should they?), but no, the status quo was in fact not sustainable, not at all. The Nazis had spent like drunken sailors to re-arm and get the country out of the Great Depression. They had set up a rapine economy which crucially depended on capturing fresh resources and slave labor to keep going. Hyperinflation was already looming and Germany was barely able to feed its population at the time. (Agricultural methods and fertilizers weren't as advanced back then...)

They needed to keep conquering Lebensraum, else, the whole house of cards that they had built would have crumbled. And that quest inevitably put them on a collision course with the Soviets. Except that the much larger USSR would have been unbeatable if given a couple of additional years of rapid industrialization. So yes, the clock was ticking. Considering the size disparity, the margin for a Nazi victory during WW2 was razor-thin since the very beginning. Thank goodness that they made several major strategic errors on top, which shortened the war and allowed it to come to a conclusion before both sides had developed nukes. :rolleyes:



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Quote (ofthevoid @ 10 Sep 2024 22:07)
#team defensive alliance is now supplying weapons to a country that is not in NATO to strike another country

We are supplying an ally with the tools to defend itself by striking the supply lines, air fields and launching sites from which the opponent has been pummelling them for over two years. We can surely debate about how wise this step is, but I don't see a glaring contradiction.

Quote
We truly live in a world where a lot of people in the west will look at this situation and still label us defensive in nature, even though the only reason this war continues to this day is because we keep pumping tens of billions every month into Ukraine. It would be a breath of fresh air if they would just give up the moralism and stop trying to reframe all these wars we've engaged in since 2000s as defensive or 'protecting democracy' or whatever other sound good label and just be honest lol.

You should mention that ending Western support would imply Ukraine getting fully invaded, occupied, "cleansed" and subjugated. Trying to frame this situation as the nefarious West needlessly extending a war which could and should 'just end', is quite the stretch. You're making it sound as if the West would just need to get out of the way so that things in Ukraine can go their "natural course", with everyone being friends again, holding hands and singing kum ba yah.



Member
Posts: 336
Joined: Sep 15 2023
Gold: 0.85
Sep 10 2024 04:18pm
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Sep 10 2024 05:39pm)
History classes in the US probably don't go into that much detail (and why should they?), but no, the status quo was in fact not sustainable, not at all. The Nazis had spent like drunken sailors to re-arm and get the country out of the Great Depression. They had set up a rapine economy which crucially depended on capturing fresh resources and slave labor to keep going. Hyperinflation was already looming and Germany was barely able to feed its population at the time. (Agricultural methods and fertilizers weren't as advanced back then...)

They needed to keep conquering Lebensraum, else, the whole house of cards that they had built would have crumbled. And that quest inevitably put them on a collision course with the Soviets. Except that the much larger USSR would have been unbeatable if given a couple of additional years of rapid industrialization. So yes, the clock was ticking. Considering the size disparity, the margin for a Nazi victory during WW2 was razor-thin since the very beginning. Thank goodness that they made several major strategic errors on top, which shortened the war and allowed it to come to a conclusion before both sides had developed nukes. :rolleyes:



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




We are supplying an ally with the tools to defend itself by striking the supply lines, air fields and launching sites from which the opponent has been pummelling them for over two years. We can surely debate about how wise this step is, but I don't see a glaring contradiction.


You should mention that ending Western support would imply Ukraine getting fully invaded, occupied, "cleansed" and subjugated. Trying to frame this situation as the nefarious West needlessly extending a war which could and should 'just end', is quite the stretch. You're making it sound as if the West would just need to get out of the way so that things in Ukraine can go their "natural course", with everyone being friends again, holding hands and singing kum ba yah.


I mean in Canada we spending more on Ukraine than our own Citizens so yeah...
Member
Posts: 37,872
Joined: Nov 16 2005
Gold: 13.37
Sep 10 2024 04:25pm
As Trump looms, Ukraine turns to its evangelicals to woo the Republicans

“Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken,” Zelensky said, quoting the Book of Ecclesiastes [4:12] in his call for Ukrainian unity.

His attendance at the prayer breakfast demonstrated the growing realization among Ukraine’s leaders of the need to forge close ties with the country’s evangelical Christians, who number between 800,000 and 1 million. The government is betting that its own evangelicals can be a bridge to their counterparts in the United States, who are influential in the Republican Party and could assist in their lobbying efforts for more aid.

Source: The Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/09/10/trump-looms-ukraine-turns-its-evangelicals-woo-republicans/
Member
Posts: 52,224
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,404.67
Sep 10 2024 04:27pm
Quote (iLoveMyUsername @ 11 Sep 2024 00:18)
I mean in Canada we spending more on Ukraine than our own Citizens so yeah...


There's a big qualitative difference between arguing that we owe the Ukrainians nothing and shouldn't spend our money for their cause, or arguing that we are actually the bad guys while Russia is the actual victim (of Western aggression). The former is a legit judgement call, the latter is an oversimplification and a twisted form of victim blaming.
Member
Posts: 37,872
Joined: Nov 16 2005
Gold: 13.37
Sep 10 2024 04:44pm
Quote (Black XistenZ @ 11 Sep 2024 01:27)
There's a big qualitative difference between arguing that we owe the Ukrainians nothing and shouldn't spend our money for their cause, or arguing that we are actually the bad guys while Russia is the actual victim (of Western aggression). The former is a legit judgement call, the latter is an oversimplification and a twisted form of victim blaming.


But the victim claims that she was raped in her marriage for at least 70 years with varying success. In the last case, she even bit off her husband's bellend, which was shaped like a modest-sized peni(n)sula and hung limply.

This post was edited by Norlander on Sep 10 2024 04:45pm
Member
Posts: 28,910
Joined: May 25 2007
Gold: 4,575.69
Sep 10 2024 04:46pm
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Sep 10 2024 03:27pm)
There's a big qualitative difference between arguing that we owe the Ukrainians nothing and shouldn't spend our money for their cause, or arguing that we are actually the bad guys while Russia is the actual victim (of Western aggression). The former is a legit judgement call, the latter is an oversimplification and a twisted form of victim blaming.


A big problem is that we the people have absolutely no say in how much money is provided. There's no democratic process at all which causes people to want to cut funding entirely, because another option isn't provided. I reckon most people would support a bit of support to Ukraine but not the massive numbers we're seeing. I would rather see some of that money going towards settling Ukrainian refugees who are in fact good immigrants who we share culture with, and of course more support to us Canad8an citizens left in the dust. I imagine it's similar among Americans
Member
Posts: 26,100
Joined: Aug 11 2013
Gold: 13,670.00
Sep 10 2024 05:25pm
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Sep 10 2024 05:39pm)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are supplying an ally with the tools to defend itself by striking the supply lines, air fields and launching sites from which the opponent has been pummelling them for over two years. We can surely debate about how wise this step is, but I don't see a glaring contradiction.


You should mention that ending Western support would imply Ukraine getting fully invaded, occupied, "cleansed" and subjugated.Trying to frame this situation as the nefarious West needlessly extending a war which could and should 'just end', is quite the stretch. You're making it sound as if the West would just need to get out of the way so that things in Ukraine can go their "natural course", with everyone being friends again, holding hands and singing kum ba yah.


Literally every one of our geopolitical enemies somehow end up with to die for allies right on their borders. Doesn't matter Russia, China, Iran, whomever else, always the same story. You could open up a map and see who some of these super crucial key allies are and it's just totally a coincidence they are right next to Russia, China and so on.

No it wouldn't, there's a chance some version of this happens but the probability is not 100%. It's the same nonsensical logic that said we need to stop Russia here and now or we'll be fighting them in western Europe. It's not grounded on anything substantive, this notion that they will march all the way to Kiev, then Lviv is not a given. The fact that you keep saying this in response when i have been to Ukraine several times both pre-and post 2014 and seen how people lived, there was never any subjugation, slavery whatever other things you're predicting makes this statement even more ridiculous.

The west just like the east, just like everyone should operate under a real rule based order, one in which we don't prop up coups or NGOs to disrupt or infringe on their spheres and we expect them to abide by the same principals. Since WW2, Asia, Africa, South America were fought tooth and nail for and in the 90s that all stopped with the west being clear victors. That should of been the time we stopped, not continue to push for until today where we have US made missiles hitting Russian targets in Russia, for 'defensive' reasons of a key ally of course :rolleyes:

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Sep 10 2024 05:29pm
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1445444554456445744584465Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll