Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 94

Thread: Communist Ideology in America's Security Agencies

  1. #71
    What's that? lilpixieofterror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    10,624
    Amen (Given)
    1547
    Amen (Received)
    3475
    Quote Originally Posted by simplicio View Post
    The Potemkin villages were used, even by the military. It still guided American policy and responses. The economic and social collapse of the eighties did leave the military in disrepair, even the supposedly ready units.

    But American military, roiled by the post Vietnam changes was a paper tiger in the seventies, which necessitiated the buildup and modernization of the eighties. And changes in doctrine were also needed. The reserve forces, which are predominately Army, were never integrated into the Army force until after Gulf I. (Marines always demanded readiness, Marine reserves were mostly ready for their mission, unlike Army reserve units).

    The Russians bore the brunt of the war in Europe, achieving mobilazation rates far beyond the US or even Britain. How much of the casualties were excessive, or due to their sledgehammer tactics? There is no easy solultion to the question. But the US never faced the full brunt ot either German or Japanese power in the same way. The Navy's successes in Atlantic, Mediterranian, and the Pacific limited Axis use of power. The Russian front was the only major front where Germans maintained line of communication.

    The Pacific War used tactics comparable to meat grinder tactics, we landed more triggers and trigger pullers, the island battles were discrete meat grinders, which is why casualties were so high. The great doctrines of mobility and economy of force had no room to be used.

    The psychology of refusing to yield teal estate of one's own motherland cannot be ignored. The American Civil war, the Russian front, and the cold war's quarrels between the West Germans and the US, all had tactical considerations affected by ceding homes to enemy forces.

    The yielding of living standards to technological and military achievements is the guns or butter argument. The unprecedented guns AND butter policy of the sixties is a monument to the robust and resilient American economy, but a price was paid within the decade, the Economic malaise of the seventies.
    Thereís a lot here to unpack, so letís get started:

    First off, the US military was far from a paper tiger with very active military testing, procurement, and modernization starting in the 1970ís. Just to name a few examples

    In the aircraft world, the F-14, F-15, F-16, A-10, C-5, and AH-64 were introduced with important development for the B-1, B-2, and F-117 taking place. The Navy introduced the Nimitz class, the Spruance class, the Los Angels Class, the California Class, and Kidd class with the development of the Aegis combat system taking place and being introduced in the 1970ís. The Army tested and started building the M1. The Space Shuttle was introduced (originally boasting its military capabilities with the Air Force playing an important role in its design and usage) and scared the Soviets because they feared its abilities could be used to capture and bring back Soviet satellites to the US for study. Finally, the GPS was first developed and begun placement as well.

    If anything, the 1980ís military development and procurement was simply an extension of the 1970ís military development and procurement and was the beginning of the end because the USSR begin falling behind. Regan understood this and kept things humming along in the 1980ís. So if anything, the Gulf War and our total defeat of the Iraqi Military begun its development in the 1970ís and coming all together in the late 80¬ís.

    Second, the war in the west and pacific was very different than the war in the east. Requiring different tactics and equipment. The pacific war required a powerful navy and amphibious force the Soviet nor the previous Russian empire had or fielded. The Soviets only went to war with Japan when the US and UK had Japan on the ropes and Japan couldnít do anything about it. If anything, the US is one of the few nations that was capable of fighting wars, on multiple fronts and winning. This isnít to say that all three, of the major allies, didnít win it together. Thereís a saying that goes something like, ďWWII was won by British intelligence, Russian blood, and American money.Ē You are right that the US did not face the Axis powers quite the same way, but as I pointed out above, Russia was also only truly at war with Germany while the US was at war with all three, at the same time, having to field the largest Navy, Air Force, and Army that the world has ever known, supply besieged allies with war equipment, and having to keep factories and the population humming along at home. Our war was a war of logistics that the UK nor USSR could have ever won.

    Third, the average American, even in the 70ís, still lived quite a bit better and more comfortable than the average Soviet did.

    Forth, the war in the Pacific wasnít so much meat grinder tactics as the Japanese aversion to surrender. The Japanese defenders would often fight impossible battles they could never hope to win because the Japanese military was taught to never surrender. By contrast, western armies were more likely to surrender when faced with overwhelming odds. Now to be fair to the Soviets, the Nazi view towards the Slavic people being, at best, slaves or, at worst, vermin to be exterminated had a lot to do with the blood bath of the East. If the choice was fighting in a bloody war where you might live or being murdered by an invading army, the choice becomes much easier to make.

  2. #72
    tWebber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,158
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    There’s a lot here to unpack, so let’s get started:

    First off, the US military was far from a paper tiger with very active military testing, procurement, and modernization starting in the 1970’s. Just to name a few examples

    In the aircraft world, the F-14, F-15, F-16, A-10, C-5, and AH-64 were introduced with important development for the B-1, B-2, and F-117 taking place. The Navy introduced the Nimitz class, the Spruance class, the Los Angels Class, the California Class, and Kidd class with the development of the Aegis combat system taking place and being introduced in the 1970’s. The Army tested and started building the M1. The Space Shuttle was introduced (originally boasting its military capabilities with the Air Force playing an important role in its design and usage) and scared the Soviets because they feared its abilities could be used to capture and bring back Soviet satellites to the US for study. Finally, the GPS was first developed and begun placement as well.

    If anything, the 1980¬ís military development and procurement was simply an extension of the 1970¬ís military development and procurement and was the beginning of the end because the USSR begin falling behind. Regan understood this and kept things humming along in the 1980¬ís. So if anything, the Gulf War and our total defeat of the Iraqi Military begun its development in the 1970¬ís and coming all together in the late 80√ā¬ís.

    Second, the war in the west and pacific was very different than the war in the east. Requiring different tactics and equipment. The pacific war required a powerful navy and amphibious force the Soviet nor the previous Russian empire had or fielded. The Soviets only went to war with Japan when the US and UK had Japan on the ropes and Japan couldn¬ít do anything about it. If anything, the US is one of the few nations that was capable of fighting wars, on multiple fronts and winning. This isn¬ít to say that all three, of the major allies, didn¬ít win it together. There¬ís a saying that goes something like, ¬ďWWII was won by British intelligence, Russian blood, and American money.¬Ē You are right that the US did not face the Axis powers quite the same way, but as I pointed out above, Russia was also only truly at war with Germany while the US was at war with all three, at the same time, having to field the largest Navy, Air Force, and Army that the world has ever known, supply besieged allies with war equipment, and having to keep factories and the population humming along at home. Our war was a war of logistics that the UK nor USSR could have ever won.

    Third, the average American, even in the 70’s, still lived quite a bit better and more comfortable than the average Soviet did.

    Forth, the war in the Pacific wasn’t so much meat grinder tactics as the Japanese aversion to surrender. The Japanese defenders would often fight impossible battles they could never hope to win because the Japanese military was taught to never surrender. By contrast, western armies were more likely to surrender when faced with overwhelming odds. Now to be fair to the Soviets, the Nazi view towards the Slavic people being, at best, slaves or, at worst, vermin to be exterminated had a lot to do with the blood bath of the East. If the choice was fighting in a bloody war where you might live or being murdered by an invading army, the choice becomes much easier to make.
    Soviet tactics were effective enough to use classic military maneuvers, tactics, and strategy used by Julius Caesar, Napoleon, and Patton, in other words, classic Clausewitz. And studied. Yes, much of the soviet military doctrine did depend on mass attack.

    America's technological superioirity was always being leapfrogged by Soviet technology. Mig jets, tanks, APC, ships air defense, combat engineering etc. Always kept America scrambling to maintain superiority. In most categories, the soviets had numerical superiority, and parity on current generation weapon systems. Many Dems, Carter supporters, note that the Reagan build up was started in the seventies under Carter! The buildup for the war on terrorism also started under Clinton, the Army noted that the Humvee needed armor, budgets were not opened until after we took casualties after 9-11.

    The draw down after Vietnam, morale crises in the Navy, problems in Army, came to a head by late seventies. There have been several force restructurings since. It was the recognition that we could not maintain major military operations, only a decade or two since we moved into the Vietnam conflict. (Vietnam was a major engineering feat, creating infrastructure to support a modern military. ) Doctrine in Europe was to fall back to the Atlantic, wait for reinforcement and reserves to cross the ocean, then push the Soviets back to Fulda.

    The reserve components had deteriorated, Vietnam was fought with (almost) no reservists. Readiness dropped, and was not addressed in the Army until the nineties.

    Yes the American economy was much stronger. But the fact remains that the soviet economy supported a major military to compete with the US.

    Pacific battles were set piece battles, we poured men into the meat grinder, each island did not allow maneuver of large units or economy of force. It was massed small units, often in jungles, each battle a war of attrition.

    Your view underestimates the communists and their economy. And it shows the difficulty in assessing readiness. One example is the question if our military could maintain operations in a conventional war.

  3. #73
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    56,373
    Amen (Given)
    1181
    Amen (Received)
    20680
    Quote Originally Posted by simplicio View Post
    The Potemkin villages were used, even by the military. It still guided American policy and responses. The economic and social collapse of the eighties did leave the military in disrepair, even the supposedly ready units.

    But American military, roiled by the post Vietnam changes was a paper tiger in the seventies, which necessitiated the buildup and modernization of the eighties. And changes in doctrine were also needed. The reserve forces, which are predominately Army, were never integrated into the Army force until after Gulf I. (Marines always demanded readiness, Marine reserves were mostly ready for their mission, unlike Army reserve units).

    The Russians bore the brunt of the war in Europe, achieving mobilazation rates far beyond the US or even Britain. How much of the casualties were excessive, or due to their sledgehammer tactics? There is no easy solultion to the question. But the US never faced the full brunt ot either German or Japanese power in the same way. The Navy's successes in Atlantic, Mediterranian, and the Pacific limited Axis use of power. The Russian front was the only major front where Germans maintained line of communication.

    The Pacific War used tactics comparable to meat grinder tactics, we landed more triggers and trigger pullers, the island battles were discrete meat grinders, which is why casualties were so high. The great doctrines of mobility and economy of force had no room to be used.

    The psychology of refusing to yield teal estate of one's own motherland cannot be ignored. The American Civil war, the Russian front, and the cold war's quarrels between the West Germans and the US, all had tactical considerations affected by ceding homes to enemy forces.

    The yielding of living standards to technological and military achievements is the guns or butter argument. The unprecedented guns AND butter policy of the sixties is a monument to the robust and resilient American economy, but a price was paid within the decade, the Economic malaise of the seventies.
    We faced the full brunt of the Japanese military primarily because after their earlier victories prior to Pearl Harbor we were effectively the only major opposing force in the theater.

    True, the eastern front of the war in Europe saw the most action but the Russians were able to win there due in no small measure to the massive amount of aid that we provided them.

    I mentioned some of this several years ago in another thread

    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    You appear to be woefully ignorant of such things as the Lend-Lease Act. According to Section IIIB of the 1946 U.S. War Department (predecessor to the Defense Department) document Lend-Lease Shipments: World War II we sent the Soviets 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7000 tanks). Other documents indicate that we also supplied them with over 400,000 jeeps and trucks and 11,400 aircraft as well as more than 4.47 million tons of food.

    According to Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II, by the retired professor of international relations at the New York University Albert Loren Weeks (who actually was intimately involved in the Lend-Lease program being in the Soviet Union several times during the war) we provided them with over 13,300 combat vehicles, 427,000 trucks, 35,000 motorcycles along with 2.6 million tons of fuel to keep them going. We also supplied them with nearly 2000 steam locomotives and over 10,000 freight cars of various types (Weeks estimates that was nearly 93% of the Soviet's wartime production of railroad equipment).

    The historian T. H. Vail Motter, who was chief of the Middle East section of the Army's historical division from 1944 to 1951, calculated that just through the Persian Corridor (one of the five supply routes through which 27% of the material flowed) were enough to equip and maintain 60 combat divisions.

    In an interview Russian historian Oleg Budnitsky where he notes how important the assistance from the West was to the Soviet war effort

    Source: Russian historian: Importance of Lend-Lease cannot be overestimated


    These supplies were critical in some key areas. For example, in the beginning of 1942, Western tanks fully replenished Soviet losses, and exceeded them by three times. About 15 percent of the aircraft used by Soviet air forces were supplied by Allies, including the Airacobra fighter and Boston bomber. The Allies supplied 15,000 state-of-the-art machines at that time; for example, famous Soviet ace Alexander Pokryshkin flew Airacobra, as did the rest of his squadron. He shot down 59 enemy aircraft, and 48 of them were thanks to American military equipment.


    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    Weeks quotes another noted Russian historian, Boris Vadimovich Sokolov, in his book

    Source: Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II


    On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Documents available after the fall of the Soviet Union reveal how crucial a role such supplies played in the Battle of Moscow since Russian forces had been severely depleted of supplies and arms at that time.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

  4. #74
    tWebber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,158
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    We faced the full brunt of the Japanese military primarily because after their earlier victories prior to Pearl Harbor we were effectively the only major opposing force in the theater.

    True, the eastern front of the war in Europe saw the most action but the Russians were able to win there due in no small measure to the massive amount of aid that we provided them.

    I mentioned some of this several years ago in another thread
    The mobilization rate in the USSR is astounding. They had 150 divisions, we had about 120; after the war, some suggest the the number of Soviet divisions may have been double that.

    But most telling is the casualty rate, the numbers of military dead. Russians lost 8 to 10 million, US had a half million deaths. Not all the Soviet deaths were due to the meat grinder tactics used.

    I am familiar with the material aid supplied by this country to our allies. The aid was material aid, we did not supply Men to fight alongside Russians.

    Much of the Russian industrial capacity was in the east, the war zone. I am not saying their industrial base was well developed, but the material they did produce was a testament to how far the program of industrialization had come.

    Casualty rates were higher in many units die to the meatgrinder tactics (and the use of political commissars to shoot soldiers), but that narrative ignores some of the tactical prowess they did have.

  5. #75
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,017
    Amen (Given)
    1959
    Amen (Received)
    1608
    Quote Originally Posted by mikewhitney View Post
    What we see among the Dems is that they accuse Trump of being supported by the "communist" Russia when it is the Dems whom Russia would support due to common socialist/communist policies. (The main difference between socialism and communism was in the supposed differences in the way to achieve socialism.) It is not hard for pro-Communist leaders to denounce Communism, so as to attract support. The leaders can do this while fully supporting Communism idealism.

    West's discussion indicated the Comey had ambitions to get into government work to influence it with his unconstitutional ambitions. People that seek to influence the government most would be the same ones who seek government work.
    I hope you have your tin foil hat at the ready, mw?

  6. #76
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    SoCal!!!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,027
    Amen (Given)
    325
    Amen (Received)
    775
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    I hope you have your tin foil hat at the ready, mw?
    If that makes you happier than getting wisdom and understanding, then keep on disregarding the evidence. I'm not sure what basis you have to reject the evidence she is talking about.

  7. #77
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,017
    Amen (Given)
    1959
    Amen (Received)
    1608
    Quote Originally Posted by mikewhitney View Post
    If that makes you happier than getting wisdom and understanding, then keep on disregarding the evidence. I'm not sure what basis you have to reject the evidence she is talking about.
    That you take that nonsense as wisdom and understanding shows that you have little wisdon or understanding. That you believe Stalin and his secret police occupied and ran the U.S. government following WW!! is beyond ludicrous. West is either a complete wack job, or she's just out to make a lot of money from her targeted naive audience, you know, the tin foil hat crowd.

  8. #78
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    SoCal!!!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,027
    Amen (Given)
    325
    Amen (Received)
    775
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    That you take that nonsense as wisdom and understanding shows that you have little wisdon or understanding. That you believe Stalin and his secret police occupied and ran the U.S. government following WW!! is beyond ludicrous. West is either a complete wack job, or she's just out to make a lot of money from her targeted naive audience, you know, the tin foil hat crowd.
    You like to hold to such a narrow definition of communism that it could never have happened anywhere.

    Nor am I sure where you got this particular theory that you then renounce. Is this how you wish to make arguments?

    I'm not sure whether you are wishing to protect pure Communist idealogy from weaker interpretations. Maybe you have another designation for people who love Communist ideology and seek positions in the government. I'm not sure how you are so smug in your perception of the world that you will slander without cause.

  9. #79
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,017
    Amen (Given)
    1959
    Amen (Received)
    1608
    Quote Originally Posted by mikewhitney View Post
    You like to hold to such a narrow definition of communism that it could never have happened anywhere.

    Nor am I sure where you got this particular theory that you then renounce. Is this how you wish to make arguments?

    I'm not sure whether you are wishing to protect pure Communist idealogy from weaker interpretations. Maybe you have another designation for people who love Communist ideology and seek positions in the government. I'm not sure how you are so smug in your perception of the world that you will slander without cause.
    The traitor you should be concerning yourself with mike, is the one presently in the White House.

  10. #80
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    SoCal!!!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,027
    Amen (Given)
    325
    Amen (Received)
    775
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    The traitor you should be concerning yourself with mike, is the one presently in the White House.
    I didn't mean to extend this discussion to include your Communist conspiracy theories. I would like to stick with the original topic.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •