Jump to content
X152Leader

I guess I should make this

am i a faggot  

28 members have voted

  1. 1. am i a faggot



Recommended Posts

That's the stupidest username I've seen in awhile.

nodle said:

nodle

.

 

Also Leader isn't bad at HotS. We can't judge men by how they play Europa anymore, but at least we have this.

except he's wrong about block being bad for sonya I mean cm'on what would you rather have a double damage reduction vs teams of spammy basic attackers or 30% healing from basic attacks you barely get when it matters

yes I'm salty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.

 

Also Leader isn't bad at HotS. We can't judge men by how they play Europa anymore, but at least we have this.

except he's wrong about block being bad for sonya I mean cm'on what would you rather have a double damage reduction vs teams of spammy basic attackers or 30% healing from basic attacks you barely get when it matters

yes I'm salty

Block is not bad per say, but you picked it against a team with a tracer and lucio, both of which rip through block like its nothing and with little damage loss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Block is not bad per say, but you picked it against a team with a tracer and lucio, both of which rip through block like its nothing and with little damage loss

I was more concerned about their Lunara. She was going up against me almost every lane I went, chucking spears at my head. Block was frustrating her something fierce.

It doesn't do much vs lucio or tracer but I'd still rather have it over War Paint against them, not like I'm gonna land many hits on tracer to heal from

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
soviets din t care about casualties they were second most populous country in the world at the time only china had more pop

soviet union also had enormous resource exploitation if i recall correctly just iron production was twice as the rest of the allies combined

 

eastern europeans were not hostile to soviets only balts were because balts were the only ones who were in position to wage a guerilla war

poles ukrainians and belarusians saw soviets as liberators for most part

soviets could have overrun europe in a matter of months and then attacked great britain in mass

great britain din t had enough ships left to protect itself from naval invasion soviets would have found a way either trough air or trough sea to get into great britain

 

usa soon after would have been left completely alone against soviets and war would have been no longer feasible for either side so usa and soviets would have had just signed a peace treaty

 

what would have happened during this version of cold war might been completely different then what happened in our cold war

 

USSR did not have more air than allies combined, actually USA alone more than doubled the amount of air units that the USSR had https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II . USSR had only 2 battleships so landing GB was not even an option to consider. Actually Soviets had no chance to win at all maybe make it a stalemate with some concessions to the allies but thats it allies would started the air raids over russia. Could probably even hit siberian industrial complexes from Japanese airfields.

 

Oh and lol how can u say Soviets doubled the allied iron production xD;

roduction US-USSR-World Total (million metric tons)

Coal 34.2 - 9.3 - 1,247.4

Oil 60.4 - 10.6 - 272.0

Iron Ore 38.0 - 4.0 - 98.0

Copper Ore 32.4 - 3.3 - 2.3

Manganese Ore 0.7 - 40.5 - 3.0

Chrome Ore 0.2 - 15.3 - 0.6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
USSR did not have more air than allies combined, actually USA alone more than doubled the amount of air units that the USSR had https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II . USSR had only 2 battleships so landing GB was not even an option to consider. Actually Soviets had no chance to win at all maybe make it a stalemate with some concessions to the allies but thats it allies would started the air raids over russia. Could probably even hit siberian industrial complexes from Japanese airfields.

 

Oh and lol how can u say Soviets doubled the allied iron production xD;

roduction US-USSR-World Total (million metric tons)

Coal 34.2 - 9.3 - 1,247.4

Oil 60.4 - 10.6 - 272.0

Iron Ore 38.0 - 4.0 - 98.0

Copper Ore 32.4 - 3.3 - 2.3

Manganese Ore 0.7 - 40.5 - 3.0

Chrome Ore 0.2 - 15.3 - 0.6

 

 

now you see this is western sources you are basing this off from

 

i am basing my sources off from real russian sources

 

checkmate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So just because the sources you have yet to share are Russian, they're superior.

 

What kind of retarded logic is this?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So just because the sources you have yet to share are Russian, they're superior.

 

What kind of retarded logic is this?

Communist logic. AKA, retarded logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Communist logic. AKA, retarded logic.

 

This isn't communist logic, this is pona logic. You can't fight it anymore then you drink Lithuanian samogon without vomiting. Give it up weak man, the power of the potato is not with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean

the partisans as we called them in lithuania did inflict serious casualties on soviets over the years over 100k to partisan only 35k casualties

but as time went the weapons of ww2 that were widely available to everyone started becoming harder and harder to obtain

the reason why few rebel groups like that could wage a small scale guerilla war was because of the amount of weapons available after ww2

 

like if you take the whole ukraine and poland as countries they had millions of population yet they rebel groups were barely larger then lithuanian which was like 10 times smaller in pop size

 

the balts were just the ones who were most opposed to soviet occupation the most

in fact lithuanians enforced military hierarchy,controlled vast amount of land and even took the offensive into the soviet held cities, had official uniforms and operated as an army for 7 years soviets struggled to overcome lithuanian partisans

most lithuanian partisans ceased their operations only after amnesty in 1953 after stalins death

 

 

the poles and ukrainians being slavs din t oppose soviets as hard

east germany was so tired of war it din t even had rebels

hungary and chechslovakia din t resist hard either

 

 

the partisans in ukraine poland and baltic states were armed by both germans and soviets during ww2 each hoping that they would hinder each other

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean

the partisans as we called them in lithuania did inflict serious casualties on soviets over the years over 100k to partisan only 35k casualties

but as time went the weapons of ww2 that were widely available to everyone started becoming harder and harder to obtain

the reason why few rebel groups like that could wage a small scale guerilla war was because of the amount of weapons available after ww2

 

like if you take the whole ukraine and poland as countries they had millions of population yet they rebel groups were barely larger then lithuanian which was like 10 times smaller in pop size

 

the balts were just the ones who were most opposed to soviet occupation the poles and ukrainians being slavs din t oppose soviets as hard

east germany was so tired of war it din t even had rebels

hungary and chechslovakia din t resist hard either

 

 

the partisans in ukraine poland and baltic states were armed by both germans and soviets during ww2 each hoping that they would hinder each other

 

It's true that the Ukrainian partisans were at times armed and supported by the Germans (particularly during their gradual retreat in the face of the Soviet advance later in the War), but that wasn't always the case with all partisan groups, most certainly not in Poland, and wasn't the reason for why more Eastern Europeans didn't oppose the Soviets with military force after 1944. Firstly, the NKVD was far more effective at rooting out political opposition in these territories than the Gestapo ever was--the Germans embarked on wide ranging but relatively crude counter-insurgency operations in much of their occupied territory. It was mostly just tied into the general genocide which they inflicted on the local populations, with--relative to the Soviets--comparatively very little effort being put into actually infiltrating these resistance movements and making coordinated and surgical strikes at politically mobilized groups of people. This is due to the simple facts that:

 

A) The Germans were embroiled in total war with the USSR.

 

B) In most of these places, the Germans felt it a low priority to waste time and effort on discerning politically mobilized targets among populations which they intended to wipe out nigh-entirely in the first place. Why bother using the precision of force necessary to break a society's will to resist when you're trying to just get rid of that society in the first place?

 

C) Armed resistance in occupied populations is generally a combined measure of both desperation as well as hope. Sufficient desperation regarding the prevailing circumstances to motivate armed resistance, along with sufficient hope of said resistance realistically delivering the desired outcome to make the casualties and consequences of armed resistance seem worthwhile. In German occupied Poland for example, millions of Poles fought for and supported the underground because the prospect of liberation at the hands of Poland's allies seemed possible. Far fewer were willing to violently resist the Soviets because it was obvious that no such help would ever come, and thus it would be futile to risk throwing away your life for a lost cause.

 

Ironically enough, this meant that despite inflicting more damage upon the occupied peoples than the Soviets, the Germans ensured they would face far more difficulty in combating insurgents than the Soviets ever would. The Poles were never given any option under German occupation other than to either fight, or face gradual annihilation/extermination, and also saw that fighting could potentially lead to deliverance from their plight by aiding in the war effort. The Soviets however gave the majority of people in these countries a third option which they had not had during the past 4-6 years of war: their lives in exchange for total political submission. And they added to this the guarantee that armed resistance had no possible chance of eventual success no matter how effective it was. After years of warfare, resistance, and destruction, most people were willing to cease employing open, mass-mobilized political and military resistance in exchange for this still very shitty deal because at least it was a deal. But that does not mean that they were at all welcoming of the prospect, or that they didn't hold tremendous resentment towards the Soviets and find their own ways to aid those who continued to resist.

 

To use an allegory: If some terrorists forced their way into your building, took you and a bunch of other people hostage, and made it clear that everyone will executed one by one in front of a camera, then you and everyone else would probably start resisting/hindering them--knowing that the cops have been called and are in a stalemate with the hostage takers outside, and that any possible thing you could do to oppose those terrorists could only help you since you're dead unless those cops rescue you. Now say that you resisted, and those terrorists were all killed/arrested, except now instead of going free the cops turn out to be corrupt criminals who also take you hostage and tell you that you're going to be staying in the building with just enough to survive until they can get a ransom from your family, and that anyone who is caught disobeying or resisting will be met with immediate execution. No other cops are coming for you, so there is no hope of an imminent rescue. Who knows when the ransom could come through, but you are now at least being given the option of surviving by just waiting it out and suffering. Well now it's likely that a good number of people who openly resisted earlier, will decide it isn't worth the risk anymore. They won't however, be at all "happy" or supportive towards their captors, and chances are that if they see other hostages still resisting then they will probably be more than willing to help them in some way (distracting one of the hostage takers, playing lookout, etc.). So sure, the corrupt cops aren't getting as much open resistance as the terrorists, but that's far less a reflection of the hostage's relative opinion of their captor than it is a cost-benefit analysis being considered by hostages whose first priority is survival.

 

Poles didn't resist the Soviets less because they were Slavs--hell Poland always considered Russia it's foremost geopolitical threat right up until 1939, and oriented its foreign policy and security agenda to reflect that. Bear in mind that up until Germany invaded, the last country to existentially threaten Poland's sovereignty was the USSR in 1921--and that for centuries Poland had suffered greater at the hands of Russian expansionism than it did from German. Even to this day, despite the devastation the Germans inflicted upon Poland, Polish culture and society holds greater resentment towards Russia than it does towards Germany--though that's also due to the fact that many Poles feel that Germany has made greater effort to take responsibility for the injustices it inflicted on Poland than Russia has (the Katyn Massacre in particular has always been a hot-button issue that most Poles feel Russia has yet to take full responsibility for). Ukrainians too, particularly those in the West, have for most of the past 100+ years felt like their "Slavic brothers" in Russia pose a greater threat to their national identity and sovereignty than any Germans to the West.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nah

poles were always the ones getting screwed by germans and austrians

lithuanians were the ones who were getting screwed by russians ever since monastic order defeat

polish core territory up until the end of ww1 was occupied by austrians and germans ever since the PLC split

former GDL territory is the one which had its core occupied by Russia

 

poles felt threatened by soviets during inter war period only because of soviet intervention in polish-lithuanian war where that idiot polish general with a single attack ruined polish-lithuanian relations up until this day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10_Partitioned_Poland_1795-1918.jpg

 

Idk bro looks to me like a big chunk of "polish core territory" got gobbled up by Russia.

 

I'm not even trying to paint Russia in a bad light or say it deserves a ton of hate--that's how shit worked back then, and it's not like Poland wasn't happy to gobble up chunks of Ukraine and Russia when it was top dog. Just stating that it's completely inaccurate to claim that Poles liked or were at all happy about being under the Soviet sphere of influence. It's kind of an objective fact, one that most Russian historians would agree with as well given, you know, historical facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well i din t say they were happy

most folk were just tired of bloodiest war in human history you know

and having an option to live peacefully sounds allot better then fighting a guerrilla war that would have no chance of success

 

also the map you provided is wrong

thats not how PLC was partitioned

1280px-Rzeczpospolita_Rozbiory_3.png

this is the real map

russia gained warsaw region only after 1815 end of napoleonic wars

side node krakow was free city and not austrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Feanor, the USSR would almost certainly have won a conventional European war against the Allies in 1945, but a lot of the specifics you two are giving are way off base. Most glaring are the claims about Eastern European sympathy to the Soviets--the USSR was engaged in major "pacification" campaigns (ie military operations) against widely popular nationalist resistance/underground/guerrilla fighters and political activists in Eastern Poland, Western Ukraine, the Baltic states (most notably Lithuania), and western Belarus until the early-mid 1950's. These groups, typically remnants/carry-overs from their WW2-era predecessors (ie. the Polish Home Army 'AK', the Ukrainian Insurgent Army 'UPA', etc.) enjoyed widespread support from local populations--which was in fact typically the only reason why they were able to persist in their political and military resistance for so long in the face of overwhelming Soviet military force and covert infiltration by the NKVD.

 

A couple of points, these were largely Nazi-affiliated groups that spawned in areas with a history of Russian domination. In Western Europe the Germans had not laid such groundwork, and the history wasn't there to support it.

 

Soviet losses in Ukraine against the UPA right after the War alone were dramatic: the official Soviet figure for casualties suffered at the hands of Ukrainian nationalist forces between 1944-1953 was 30,676 individuals. Of those, 2,551 were listed as NKVD personnel, 3,199 Soviet and NKVD soldiers and border guards, 446 members of the Communist Party and Komsomol leadership, and 2,590 members of Soviet sponsored "self-defense groups", with the remainder being pro-Soviet civilians and "kolkhozniki" (for those not familiar with the term, this refers to workers/employees of the collective farms or "Kolkhozy" in Slavic languages, who would often have been seen as agents or at least enablers of Collectivization, one of the most universally hated Soviet reform policies in this region). Soviet archives also record that between only 1944 through 1946, Soviet forces carried out 39,778 operations against the UPA, killing 103,313 and capturing approximately 24,000 insurgents and Ukrainian political dissidents. While this may not seem big when compared to the battles and operations of WWII, make no mistake, figures like that during a peacetime occupation are evidence of tremendous political conflict between the local population and the political/military force in control of the area. Let's not forget how much of an impact the history and memory of this period of time still has on the politics of the region to this day--anyone who's half-informed on what's been unfolding in Ukraine since 2013 knows how important the legacy of this conflict was to the political, ethnic, and national narratives playing out (with tremendous impact) in the Ukrainian conflict today.

 

Let's be honest this wasn't the local population, it was a segment of the local population. As you might have correctly noted most of the casualties taken fighting the UPA post-war were civilians. To be blunt, the UPA were terrorists, murdering entire families for political reasons. Most of those killed by the UPA were Ukrainians themselves (for no special reason other then that they were the people living in that area). And this wellspring of nationalist terrorism existed before the Soviets arrived on scene. Poles and Ukrainians didn't exactly get along and Ukrainian Nazis saw German occupation as a good time to get even.

 

Bear in mind that those figures are almost certainly smaller than the genuine amount of casualties the Soviets sustained (for several reasons that I could get into but would only make this post longer than necessary), and for some comparison in 1951 CIA leadership estimated that approximately 35,000 Soviet Police/Military personnel and Communist Party officials had been killed at the hands of UPA guerrillas and affiliates since the end of WWII--this estimate not counting civilian casualties. Even if the true figure lies only halfway between the official Soviet record and the CIA analysis, that would put the death-toll among Soviet personnel (not civilians, for whom the numbers are always larger) at somewhere around 20,000 during this roughly 8-year period. Compare this to Soviet military casualties in Afghanistan, with roughly 15,000 dead and 35,000 wounded, and you get a feel for the intensity and severity of the post-war conflict in Ukraine alone. Even if we were to say that Afghanistan isn't the best comparison, we could compare this to the conflicts Russia has been involved in with Chechnya since 1994, and they are outshined by this post-war "pacification". And how brutally contentious do we know the Chechen Wars to have been? This was a small war in its own right, only overshadowed by the chaotic turmoil all of Eastern Europe was under for the decade following the end of the War. To put this in perspective, the last known Polish anti-Soviet resistance fighter (known as the "Cursed Soldiers" in Poland) was only killed in an ambush in 1963.

 

Poland was one of the few places where these guerillas did enjoy relatively wide-spread support based on centuries of anti-Russian feeling. Again, there's little evidence that this was present in say France. But this goes into decades of post-war occupation whereas we're talking about the conventional fight against the US-backed western governments. An empire from Lisbon to Vladivostok could not be ruled from Moscow so a post-War communist bloc of that size would have been radically different from the Warsaw Pact.

 

While I still don't believe that this would have necessarily played a pivotal role in a hypothetical post-WWII war between the USSR and the Western Allies (Soviet military operations, doctrine, and capabilities simply dwarfed any impact an ancillary conflict like this could have on it's grand strategy at the time), it is an ahistoric myth born of late-Soviet propaganda to claim that the USSR had anything close "sympathetic" relations with the East European peoples who were newly subordinated to Soviet rule at the end of the War. Even more ridiculous would be to claim as pona did that the Soviets were seen as liberators in countries such as Poland or Lithuania, who themselves had all too recent conflicts with the USSR prior to WWII for the majority of their populations to see the Soviets as anything better than a shitty solution (Soviet-enforced communism) to an admittedly shittier problem (the ravages of war and German occupation). Those tensions would only begin to truly subside after the Soviets broke all political opposition in the region during the first half of the 1950's.

 

Link to Soviet/Ukrainian source for those figures:

http://history.org.ua/LiberUA/Book/Upa/24.pdf

 

A quick google image search for "poles welcoming Soviet troops" leads to some interesting results. Then there's the recently declassified archive of the Russian MoD ( http://poland1944.mil.ru/ ) dealing with the liberation of Poland. It's also important to note that Eastern Europe was primarily governed by locals, many of whom had strong ties to large chunks of the population (especially the younger people). If you take some time to study Eastern Europe from the inside you'll find that the picture is far more complex then what you're trying to imply. There's a reason the Soviets chose not to turn Eastern Europe into another set of Soviet Republics, and instead left them as separate countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's true that the Ukrainian partisans were at times armed and supported by the Germans (particularly during their gradual retreat in the face of the Soviet advance later in the War), but that wasn't always the case with all partisan groups, most certainly not in Poland, and wasn't the reason for why more Eastern Europeans didn't oppose the Soviets with military force after 1944. Firstly, the NKVD was far more effective at rooting out political opposition in these territories than the Gestapo ever was--the Germans embarked on wide ranging but relatively crude counter-insurgency operations in much of their occupied territory. It was mostly just tied into the general genocide which they inflicted on the local populations, with--relative to the Soviets--comparatively very little effort being put into actually infiltrating these resistance movements and making coordinated and surgical strikes at politically mobilized groups of people. This is due to the simple facts that:

 

A) The Germans were embroiled in total war with the USSR.

 

B) In most of these places, the Germans felt it a low priority to waste time and effort on discerning politically mobilized targets among populations which they intended to wipe out nigh-entirely in the first place. Why bother using the precision of force necessary to break a society's will to resist when you're trying to just get rid of that society in the first place?

 

C) Armed resistance in occupied populations is generally a combined measure of both desperation as well as hope. Sufficient desperation regarding the prevailing circumstances to motivate armed resistance, along with sufficient hope of said resistance realistically delivering the desired outcome to make the casualties and consequences of armed resistance seem worthwhile. In German occupied Poland for example, millions of Poles fought for and supported the underground because the prospect of liberation at the hands of Poland's allies seemed possible. Far fewer were willing to violently resist the Soviets because it was obvious that no such help would ever come, and thus it would be futile to risk throwing away your life for a lost cause.

 

D) The Soviets had recent experience of massive counter-insurgency campaigns against remnants of nationalist movements, and various local bandits, left over from the Civil War. The basmachi for example remained a problem well into the 30s.

 

Ironically enough, this meant that despite inflicting more damage upon the occupied peoples than the Soviets, the Germans ensured they would face far more difficulty in combating insurgents than the Soviets ever would. The Poles were never given any option under German occupation other than to either fight, or face gradual annihilation/extermination, and also saw that fighting could potentially lead to deliverance from their plight by aiding in the war effort. The Soviets however gave the majority of people in these countries a third option which they had not had during the past 4-6 years of war: their lives in exchange for total political submission. And they added to this the guarantee that armed resistance had no possible chance of eventual success no matter how effective it was. After years of warfare, resistance, and destruction, most people were willing to cease employing open, mass-mobilized political and military resistance in exchange for this still very shitty deal because at least it was a deal. But that does not mean that they were at all welcoming of the prospect, or that they didn't hold tremendous resentment towards the Soviets and find their own ways to aid those who continued to resist.

 

The Soviets or the Russians? ;-)

 

To use an allegory: If some terrorists forced their way into your building, took you and a bunch of other people hostage, and made it clear that everyone will executed one by one in front of a camera, then you and everyone else would probably start resisting/hindering them--knowing that the cops have been called and are in a stalemate with the hostage takers outside, and that any possible thing you could do to oppose those terrorists could only help you since you're dead unless those cops rescue you. Now say that you resisted, and those terrorists were all killed/arrested, except now instead of going free the cops turn out to be corrupt criminals who also take you hostage and tell you that you're going to be staying in the building with just enough to survive until they can get a ransom from your family, and that anyone who is caught disobeying or resisting will be met with immediate execution. No other cops are coming for you, so there is no hope of an imminent rescue. Who knows when the ransom could come through, but you are now at least being given the option of surviving by just waiting it out and suffering. Well now it's likely that a good number of people who openly resisted earlier, will decide it isn't worth the risk anymore. They won't however, be at all "happy" or supportive towards their captors, and chances are that if they see other hostages still resisting then they will probably be more than willing to help them in some way (distracting one of the hostage takers, playing lookout, etc.). So sure, the corrupt cops aren't getting as much open resistance as the terrorists, but that's far less a reflection of the hostage's relative opinion of their captor than it is a cost-benefit analysis being considered by hostages whose first priority is survival.

 

Poles didn't resist the Soviets less because they were Slavs--hell Poland always considered Russia it's foremost geopolitical threat right up until 1939, and oriented its foreign policy and security agenda to reflect that. Bear in mind that up until Germany invaded, the last country to existentially threaten Poland's sovereignty was the USSR in 1921--and that for centuries Poland had suffered greater at the hands of Russian expansionism than it did from German. Even to this day, despite the devastation the Germans inflicted upon Poland, Polish culture and society holds greater resentment towards Russia than it does towards Germany--though that's also due to the fact that many Poles feel that Germany has made greater effort to take responsibility for the injustices it inflicted on Poland than Russia has (the Katyn Massacre in particular has always been a hot-button issue that most Poles feel Russia has yet to take full responsibility for).

 

A highly contentious point given how Poland was actually partitioned. I think that modern perception rather then historic fact are driving your argument vis-a-vis pre-USSR Russo-Polish relations.

 

Ukrainians too, particularly those in the West, have for most of the past 100+ years felt like their "Slavic brothers" in Russia pose a greater threat to their national identity and sovereignty than any Germans to the West.

 

Not even close to true. Modern day Western Ukraine wasn't even Ukraine 100+ years ago. Or even 80 years ago. It wasn't even ethnically majority Ukrainian until the Germans and Ukrainians Nazi exterminated a significant portion of the Polish population. Modern Ukraine as a nation was formed and shaped by the USSR. It's borders were drawn up by Soviet officials and its culture heavily impacted by Soviet culture (the stereotypical "Ukrainian cossack" for example, even though cossacks in the Empire had little to do with Ukraine specifically). Do not confuse the Ukraine that existed historically many centuries ago with the Ukraine of today. They share some common geography and both are slavic, but they are very different places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lwow used to be polish city

was there recently it looks like a dump compared to its glory days in PLC

 

i mean

Lviv_ethnicity.png

 

at least poles from vilnius either left or over the years became half lithuanian half poles

 

in lviv they were pretty much killed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...