View Single Post
Old 07-15-2009, 05:55 AM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653

I'm coming late in that debate and everyone knows that I'm often defending the Russians. In fact, I don't really. However, I have a tendancy to distrust the western habit to underestimate Russia.

I have seen a lot of interesting thing but there are too things I wanted to say:

- Kato stated that the soviet economy was too weak and I think he is right. However, I would argue the same about our western societies and I'm not convinced that we could support a long war with a large ennemy.

- O'borg, talking of the IDF stated that their conscripts are highly motivated and, again, he is right. However, motivation is equally true for the Russians (and can compare to that of the IDF) as it only depends on how you present them the war. In 1812, Napoleon I was defeated by Russian peasants fighting for Mother Russia. In 1917, the Russian army was defeated by the Germans as they were fighting for the Czar. Four years later (after 2 years of fighting) these same soldiers (underequipped and outnumbered at least until late 1920) were defeating the largest world coalition of the time (White Russians, US, Japan, German, Czech, Poles, French, British..., all WW1 veterans) while attacked on four fronts (North, Poland, Ukraine and Siberia). They were fighting for Mother Russia and not for an obscure concept. In WW2, the Russians (losing 23 million soldiers, an amazing number) defeated Germany. Again Stalin was smart enough to call them in the defense of Mother Russia (not a word about communism). No people can accept so many dead without a true motivation. Then, my point is simple. When the Russians are fighting for Mother Russia they are highly motivated and very hard to defeat. Otherwise they are leasy and unreliable. In the case of T2K, they are indeed fighting again for Mother Russia as it is Germany which is the aggressor.
Reply With Quote