https://x.com/midobecker_1/status/1825624948125348322?t=YPymgdSHDxdnur17E1Tc9g&s=09
More vision from Rostov.
4 Likes
I am gobsmacked at how well Ukraine are doing.
Not just their ability to defend their land, but now to get on the offensive. It’s amazing.
11 Likes
Interesting comments on lack of resistance from local population in Kursk.
4 Likes
7 Likes
I am not a military expert, but I got the impression that the Russians threw the majority of their army into the invasion in the south and East - leaving little for the rest of their borders. Surprising tbh. If C&C taught me anything, don’t leave your flanks exposed!
In some ways, I feel Ukraine has been somewhat fortunate. If the rampant corruption, lies, capabilities and broader health of the Russian armed forces was better, it could’ve been a lot worse and possibly over already.
10 Likes
LOL. No it didn’t.
5 Likes
That was a line that the USA used to justify their massive spending on military a space industry.
Hindsight says that this wasn’t anywhere remotely true apart from spaceflight. There was a lot of smoke and mirrors about the Soviet system that camouflaged the true state of their technology and prowess.
1 Like
No way guys. Just no way. I will agree to disagree. In military power and space technology the U.S.S.R. was way ahead of the USA in the 1950’s. They enjoyed a vast superiority in tanks and armoured vehicles and had more divisions than anybody else except the Chinese. Soviet air power was also probably at its relative height in the '50s, as technology stolen or gifted by/from the Germans, Americans, and British enabled the Soviets to build jet fighters and strategic bombers that rivaled (if not outclassed) those of the Americans.^
In space and in ICBM technology, the U.S.S.R. was even further ahead.
^
Was the United States winning the cold war in the 1950s? : r/AskHistorians (reddit.com)
Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations - Office of the Historian (state.gov)
1950’s Soviet propaganda poster
The Matching Statue
1 Like
I’m confused. Which one is the real nexta?
5 Likes
Stop living in the past @Nexta!
As a starting point, let’s start with superiority up until the 60s - that was 60 years ago and no longer relevant.
Russia’s strategy had always been around mass - tanks and infantry (as an example) to overwhelm your opponent. We are witnessing the same in Ukraine.
1 Like
I think Winston Churchill might take umbrage at not getting any of the credit.
3 Likes
Yeah, we are only referring to the 1950’s and early 1960’s.
^Photo for illustrative purposes only
2 Likes
Cuban Missile Crisis (1962)
During the crisis, the US had available over 300 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), whereas the Soviet Union had only about 42.
Robert Norris – The Cuban Missile Crisis: A Nuclear Order Of Battle – October 2012
2 Likes
That is a good point. The US enjoyed a lead in nuclear weapons numbers during the 1950’s and 1960’s. If a nuclear exchange had occurred in 1962 then the USSR and probably a good chunk of Europe and the USA would have ceased to exist. Especially if they had set up launch sites on Cuba.
If MAD theory takes non-conventional weapons out of the picture then ergo the U.S.S.R. was still more powerful militarily.
The Pugwash meet ups around the time of the Cuban missile crisis documented the quantities of dirty plutonium which could serve to wipe out Europe and North America. The introductory letters of Kennedy and Kruschev are quite a contrast
Dr Strangelove was released in 1964 against this backdrop.
The Pugwash conferences contributed to a number of treaties banning or reducing stocks of designated arms. In the seventies MBFR was all the go.
You’ve got to remember, during the 50s and 60’s the US superiority in it’s nuclear weapons was the only thing holding the USSR at bay. Things like the Berlin blockade wouldn’t have happened, the Russians would have simply moved in. The risk of nuclear retaliation wasn’t one they were willing to take.
1 Like
Reckon you need to read a bit more from both Lenin and Marx.
Domination of the proletariat from Marx was not about “world domination “. It was about the political progress through socialism to communism.
Marx wrote: The proletariat’s struggle against the bourgeoisie inevitably becomes a political struggle with the goal of political conquest by the proletariat. With the domination of the proletariat, the socialization of production cannot help but lead to the means of production to become the property of society.
As @Albert_Thurgood points out, the corruption of message came from the Western fears of communism and not reality.
5 Likes
Russia probably has to cover more targets. So on a “per enemy” basis…
2 Likes