Going to Odessa to see my SO WOOHOOOOO!!!!!!!

[Brad and Vika 129]

thank you America for the guns during WWII. I am sorry your history schoolbooks tell you America won it, though, because it is BS I am not even going to further comment on.

I have never understood this, although over the years I hear it often from Eastern Europeans. I recall history books (at least in college) acknowledging that Allied forces could not have prevailed in Europe without the huge sacrifice of FSU lives - causing a tremendous drain of Nazi war resources.

If there is a gap in history for us, it is the Slavic holocaust. Millions of slavs in Eastern Europe were put to death in the same way as jews, although essentially to free up territory. There is an entire section of the War Memorial Museum in Minsk devoted to this - complete with pictures and nazi documents. There was no mention of this slaughter in our history books during the cold war - a profound lack of truth.

It remains to say that Soviet information control was much tighter. I remeber my ex-partners in Minsk telling me that they were taught in school that Americans were terrible people, who lived horrible lives. They were taught that things were SOO much better in the Soviet Union, that being kept in it by force was all for their own good. Then came the internet I guess.

[baron555 934]

I have never understood this, although over the years I hear it often from Eastern Europeans. I recall history books (at least in college) acknowledging that Allied forces could not have prevailed in Europe without the huge sacrifice of FSU lives - causing a tremendous drain of Nazi war resources.

Well....yes but no. Early on the Soviets were being totally overrun by the Nazis. If it weren't for the US Lend Lease (more than just guns sent) that allowed the brave fighters to hold on while the government moved the Soviet war production to the east and start cranking out Mosins and T-34s, they might be talking a different language there. And even if there was no drain on the German forces the Allies' eventual seizing air superiority assured them of ultimate victory. (And one could imagine if the European theater had dragged on longer what Truman would have authorized the use of?)

If there is a gap in history for us, it is the Slavic holocaust. Millions of slavs in Eastern Europe were put to death in the same way as jews, although essentially to free up territory. There is an entire section of the War Memorial Museum in Minsk devoted to this - complete with pictures and nazi documents. There was no mention of this slaughter in our history books during the cold war - a profound lack of truth.

Yes I agree, it was not taught. I learned about it on my own. I don't know if they teach much anymore about this in history class today.

It remains to say that Soviet information control was much tighter. I remeber my ex-partners in Minsk telling me that they were taught in school that Americans were terrible people, who lived horrible lives. They were taught that things were SOO much better in the Soviet Union, that being kept in it by force was all for their own good. Then came the internet I guess.

As well as the Soviet atrocities perpurtrated by Stalin. The Allies knew about all this and that was one of the reasons of mis-trust that arose when they all met in Berlin and then started the Cold War. (Remember, may be a myth, that Patton wanted to continue on to Moscow.)

Edited June 8, 2010 by baron555

[SMR 368]

slim,

Ok people die of vodka, but vodka is the same as whiskey or brandy in spirit contents. We sell vodka without psychological check-up, you sell whiskey AND guns without psychological check-up.

thank you America for the guns during WWII. I am sorry your history schoolbooks tell you America won it, though, because it is BS I am not even going to further comment on.

thanks for an interesting conversation, anyway

First, I don't think that the second amendment was written as a deterrent to foreign invasion. If you read the works of the founding fathers, the intention was to keep the government in check by giving the populace the ability to overthrow the government. Advances in military technology have changed this balance considerably.

I find it somewhat revisionist to claim that an armed populace protected the US from invasion during WWII. On the Atlantic side, during the Battle of Britain, the British (before American entry into the war although with significant support through lend-lease) disabled the Luftwaffe to the extent that the Germans saw a water invasion of Britain as impossible since they wouldn't have adequate air support and would be subject to attack from the RAF. Crossing the Atlantic to invade America without first taking Britain would be military folly of epic proportions that has little to do with an armed populace and lots to do with the growing influence of air power.

On the Pacific side, the Japanese failed to destroy the American carriers at Pearl Harbor. The Japanese were afraid to invade America while they knew 3-4 American battle carriers were ready to counter-attack, and rightly sought to destroy the American carriers first. When the Japanese fleet was wrecked at Midway and the American carriers survived intact, a Japanese invasion of the American homeland became a logistical impossibility that again had little to do with an armed populace and much to do with air power, this time in the form of carriers.

Beyond this, the effectiveness of partisan style resistance has much more to do with the willingness of the local populace to resist and the price that they are willing to pay than with the availability of guns before the invasion. Naturally, if the invaders can prevent the citizenry from acquiring guns, this is critical. But if the guns are acquired, it makes little difference whether the guns were possessed by the citizens before the war, issued by the defending government, or transported in later from ally nations.

This is demonstrated in the difference between the invasions of France and Russia during WWII. Although there were valiant pockets of French resistance, France as a country and the French people was more willing to surrender than accept the desecration of their cities, countryside, and people. Russia and the Russian people took the stance of no surrender and victory at all costs. While firearms were obviously critical in both instances, I don't see them as the differentiating factor. The difference was that the Russian people were willing to accept the death, destruction, and desecration that accompanies civilian resistance while the French were happy to eat their cheese and drink their wine and not get too hung up about who was in charge.

In regards to who won WWII, I think you are a little off-base, Terry&Tigger. American schoolbooks don't claim that Americans won WWII in a vacuum but rather that the "Allies" won. The "Allies" include a great number of countries although the chief players were the "Big Three" (Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt who was replace by Truman representing The Soviet Union, The British Empire, and The United States). This is well taught in American history books.

While you're right that Americans didn't fight much at the side of Soviets, neither did the Soviets at the side of Americans, so that goes both ways. The obvious reality is that they were fighting a common enemy and that if either is taken away the common enemy would have that much more firepower and resources. To ignore this is to slight various campaigns in Africa, Italy, and France as well as Allied bombing campaigns and the destruction of the Luftwaffe mainly by the western Allies. And that is not even mentioning the various Pacific campaigns that also took place. (I'm aware that Japan and Russia signed a truce but that has a lot to do with the fact that the Japanese were otherwise busy. This truce freed up a lot of Russian troops which were then transferred to the European theater).

The Soviets were first to Berlin only because of the Yalta conference. The Americans stopped with a clear road to Berlin. I don't deny Russian participation, sacrifice, suffering, valor, or victory in WWII (or ВОВ) and I don't think US textbooks do either. I don't see why you feel the need to deny American participation, sacrifice, suffering, valor, or victory.

You can argue a lot about the size of the participation and suffering and casualties definitely point to a great Russian sacrifice. But if casualties were victory, history would be different. I say that not to belittle in any way the suffering and sacrifice but just to point out that it's impossible to objectively quantify and compare the contributions of the different allies.

Edited June 8, 2010 by SMR

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

slim,

Ok people die of vodka, but vodka is the same as whiskey or brandy in spirit contents. We sell vodka without psychological check-up, you sell whiskey AND guns without psychological check-up.

thank you America for the guns during WWII. I am sorry your history schoolbooks tell you America won it, though, because it is BS I am not even going to further comment on.

thanks for an interesting conversation, anyway

You are welcome for the guns. We have plenty.

You also got a lot of M4 Sherman tanks, and nearly ALL the Bell P-39 Airocobra ground attack airplanes. The IL-2 Sturmovik was awesome, no doubt, but it was backed up by larger numbers of Airocobras made in Ft. Worth, Texas with red stars painted on them. Kinda like how the Spitfire gets all the glory in Britian while it was the older and more pedestrian Hurricane that outnumbered them and did the heavy lifting. Its OK. Happens all the time. Our Springfiled M1903 rifle gets all the credit for WW1, even for Alvin York's heroics, but it was the M1917 Enfield rifle that York used along with 2/3 of the other American soldiers. So, yeah, history can get distorted that way when it comes to equipment. The Soviet Union, having really stepped in it with Hitler, had to have some homegrown heros. How would anyone benefit by pointing out their rifles were made in New Jersey? And the Red Army's favorite crew served machine gun, the Maxim, was made in Maine and invented by a German. I take nothing away from the sacrifices made by Soviet citizens and soldiers and I am reminded of it frequently by my MIL (a young girl at the time) and my wife, who lost both grandfathers in the second war.

I think that everyone here, the gun owners anyway, have been respectful, logical and informative in their posts. Such is the case of men that are confident with firearms, as I pointed out, they tend to be a calm, logical and intelligent bunch. (and as a group, holders of concealed carry permits have the lowest crime rate of any other "group" of people)

I do not understand the need you had to toss an insult our way, perhaps you can explain, or "develop" that as you say.

Those of us here, in addition to an American education, have RUB wives and/or fiancees and many have lived, done business in, or traveled extensively in the FSU. I think you will find a higher level of knowledge here in this forum than in your average American barber shop, or wherever else you choose to bring up the topic.

I think that you must concede that a large amount of your opinion about firearms is based in ignorance. It is not unusual for people to be afraid of or "hate" things they are ignorant about. Small children are afraid of stairs, for example. They may even HATE stairs. If I had never driven a car and you handed me the keys to one ands turned me loose in traffic, I would be scared to death! I am not saying anything to be insulting, it is simply a fact. You did not grow up in a home with guns hanging on the walls and a rifle behind the kitchen door. You are afraid of guns, my children think of them like a lamp or toaster. Something that is always there, has a purpose, can be dangerous in the wrong hands, otherwise sits there and does nothing.

Hopefully, when you get here you will be able to try new things and enjoy aspects of your new culture. Go shooting, learn to shoot, or at least learn about guns and study the facts about them. I know you like facts, yes?

[visaveteran 1]

I think people associate the US as winning WWII because an American General, Eisenhower, was the Supreme Allied Commander who successfully ran the war strategy.

I am not sure the Russian people were so "willing" to accept the war's destruction...I think they feared Stalin more than Hitler. "You win this war, Comrade, or else!"

[Martyshk 137]

I am not sure the Russian people were so "willing" to accept the war's destruction...I think they feared Stalin more than Hitler. "You win this war, Comrade, or else!"

It was both VV. Thing is.... the homeland was getting ravaged, and if you look back, to let's say 1812 - There was no Stalin there and they still burned Moscow down just so that Napoleon wouldn't have it.

It's the way it works. It's the mentality.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

SMR

You are correct and sometimes I get diverted, I try not to.

The 2nd Amendment was provided to control the government of the US, not to prevent invasion. It HAS had that affect on the one occasion we were invaded. But that is an incidental benefit. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting, target shooting or gun collecting. It is simply a way to insure the people always have a way to overthrow or resist our OWN government by force if needed. The irony is that as long as we HAVE the 2nd amendment...we will never need it.

Any conqueror who would wish to take over the US, as opposed to simply obliterating it with nuclear weapons, would have to consider the cost he would endure. Partly because Americans are not...well...French, and partly because we have guns. Determined people with guns can stand down an invader, the Soviet Union did it, Britian did it, so did Switzerland and Sweden. Even France did it when the determined people with guns showed up 5 years later, they just weren't French people.

Good people with guns can always defeat bad people with guns. We outnumber the bad guys. The bad guys know this.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

It was both VV. Thing is.... the homeland was getting ravaged, and if you look back, to let's say 1812 - There was no Stalin there and they still burned Moscow down just so that Napoleon wouldn't have it.

It's the way it works. It's the mentality.

This is absolutely true. The Russians are not, and never were, the French. They are not Belgians or Dutch or Danes. Or Iraqi's. Or Italians. It seems to be regional and or culturally based. Seems as though British based cultures and slavic based cultures are pretty darn tough and resistant. There may be others and there may be exceptions, Poland was a push-over, but not for lack of trying, they were simply so outdated to be hopeless. They did not drop their rifles and throw up their hands. I think the Swedes would never be oushed around nor the Swiss, yet they are neither British or Slavic.

But clearly the pattern of resistance and sense of "homeland protection" is historic and stretches over centuries. The French were a paper tiger in 1812, 1855, 1871, 1914, 1939...nothing new.

[Brad and Vika 129]

First, I don't think that the second amendment was written as a deterrent to foreign invasion. If you read the works of the founding fathers, the intention was to keep the government in check by giving the populace the ability to overthrow the government.

In regards to who won WWII, I think you are a little off-base, Terry&Tigger. American schoolbooks don't claim that Americans won WWII in a vacuum but rather that the "Allies" won. The "Allies" include a great number of countries although the chief players were the "Big Three" (Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt who was replace by Truman representing The Soviet Union, The British Empire, and The United States). This is well taught in American history books.

My point earlier, thanks.

[slim 1,525]

First, I don't think that the second amendment was written as a deterrent to foreign invasion. If you read the works of the founding fathers, the intention was to keep the government in check by giving the populace the ability to overthrow the government.

Yes, the principal reason for the 2nd Amendment was to keep the government in check. However, at the time it was added to the Constitution, much of the U.S. was still under threat from Indians, British, Spanish, and even the French - all foreign powers.

It was common for people of the day to form militia groups and training bands that would protect their community from either foreign invaders or augment the military in times of war. Much of the "defense" of the early United States was not from a standing army but rather the militia. Hence why militia is the oft-ignored first part of the 2nd Amendment.

For reasons incomprehensible to me, folks have given up their Right to protect themselves and their community and entrusted the federal government to do it for them. However, our Right to form a well-regulated militia is still right there in black and brown. (And don't confuse well-regulated to mean there are a bunch of laws or rules. Well-regulated means "they practice a lot.")

Advances in military technology have changed this balance considerably.

Advances in technology have not changed this balance. Increases in ignorance and apathy have.

On the first day of the war in '75, 14,000 effective colonial rebels marched on Boston, which was garrisoned by about 3,500 British soldiers, sailors and Marines. The first shots fired in anger that day quickly turned into a battle in which the government's troops were seriously outnumbered - although not necessarily outgunned.

The Redcoats had military-grade muskets, cartridge boxes, and most importantly - bayonets. They had infantry, cavalry, grenadiers and Marines. They were supported by artillery that had cannons. Ships in Boston harbor could effectively cover every hill of the surrounding area. The King's troops were the most highly trained, highly feared fighting force of the day. Simply put, they were the equivalent of what our military today would be.

Yet, the colonials didn't hesitate to stand shoulder to shoulder with their friends, family and neighbors - bearing arms - to resist the tyranny imposed upon them by their government. They stood on the green with fowling pieces and hunting muskets passed down from their fathers to face the most feared army in the world.

When you compare and contrast the weapons of that day to those of today, you'll see the Brown Bess musket wasn't too dissimilar to the colonial's fowling pieces or hunting muskets. You could even argue an M-16 and AR-15 could be compared similarly.

In those days, much like today, the military has more advanced military hardware. Cannons, ships, etc. But, what won the war wasn't the more advanced military hardware, tactics, techniques, etc. The war was won by the efforts of the common man who transitioned from civilian, through the militia, to a soldier.

We simply could not do that today. I'll agree with you that there's no way we could defeat the military today. But I can't agree it's because of their advanced technology. It's because of our apathy and the loss of our Heritage as Marksman.

I find it somewhat revisionist to claim that an armed populace protected the US from invasion during WWII.

Like I said to Tigger, I won't claim the armed populace had everything to do with it, but I will say they played a part. See below for more.

Any conqueror who would wish to take over the US, as opposed to simply obliterating it with nuclear weapons, would have to consider the cost he would endure. Partly because Americans are not...well...French, and partly because we have guns.

Yamamoto was asked by his superior why he hadn't prepared an invasion plan of the U.S. His classic reply was, "Behind every blade of grass would be a man with a rifle."

While I'm sure the carriers SMR mentioned played a part in it (along with a host of other factors) it has to be considered that "men with rifles" contributed to his decision. It certainly contributed to our decision to use the A-bomb instead of invading mainland Japan.

While I realize we would've been fighting an army and they would've been fighting civilians or augmented military units, Yamamoto personally witnessed what the American man of the day was capable of doing with his rifle. Prior to Pearl Harbor, Yamamoto studied in the U.S. He knew first-hand what was waiting for his troops if they came here.

People can say all day the U.S. wasn't invaded because of something other than it's armed population - and they may be right - but to deny it's deterrent effect is to misunderstand warfare entirely.

Determined people with guns can stand down an invader

The Finns lost the Winter War. But I guarantee, the Soviets didn't "win."

Look more recently to Georgia. I remember a poster here in the RUB forum talking about in-laws who lived in the region. A woman from their village was raped. Toothbrushes were stolen from toothbrush holders.

While it's foolish to say me and my buddies could stop the Russian army from doing such things here in the U.S. state of Georgia, I can say with confidence, they'd think twice. If they were still intent upon doing those things, they'd eventually do them. But it would be over my dead body and the bodies of ten times as many of their comrades.

That is the deterrent effect. That's what the Soviets learned in Finland in the winter of '40. Pearl Harbor was in '41. Think Yamamoto, after witnessing first-hand what American men were capable of, and then hearing about the Winter War over the wire service, do you think maybe, just maybe that may've influenced his decisions in '42?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

For Slim...good points as usual.

But y'all miss an important point. You do not have to defeat, or be capable of defeating, the military. You only need to be more unpalatable than the alternative. There was NO WAY the NVA and Viet Cong could defeat the US military in terms of technology or ability, not even a contest. Even with clandestine US help there was NO WAY the Afghans could defeat the Red Army in the 1980s. They COULD simply make it not worthwhile. War, like anything else, is a decision. One decides when to start it and end it. You start it when it is to your advantage to gain something, you end it when it is to your advantage not to lose something. In very few instances in warfare has the enemie's abilty to wage war been destroyed. Germany was an example in WW2 but that is about it. The other wars ended because it simply became not profitable to continue. The return on investment made no sense. THAT kind of resistance CAN be accomplished by armed citizens.

Terry & Tigger...Vodka kills a LOT of people, enough that the Russian male has a life expectancy fully 20 years less than a US man. Russia banned guns and the men learned to shoot themselves with Vodka. If firearms ownership had anything to do with life expectancy, Russian men would live far longer than Americans.

Regarding the Japanese plan of the war, it has been widely accpted that Japan KNEW they could not win an out and out war with the US, and never had any plan to "take over" the US, they hoped to cripple us for 6 months to a year (basically they accomplished that) and then hoped we would just leave them alone and decide it wasn't worth the return on investment to defend China, Korea and a bunch of far flung islands no one ever heard of.

[Terry&Tigger 4]

Gee guys.... thanks for all your help and input in defending my guns....

I do find it rather odd in your haste to defend the Second Amendment your eagerness to trample the First Amendment. Even though I may not agree with Tigger's thoughts on firearms, I do believe she has the right to her own opinions and to express those opinions in an intelligent manner. Many men gave their lives in defense of the Constitution in its entirety..... not just one or two Amendments. Did her comments really warrant the level attacks? Did you honestly (sitting there with your pistols cocked and locked) feel threatened? Really nice way to make someone feel welcome to a new and strange place.

Thanks a million!!

Terry

[Brad and Vika 129]

Gee guys.... thanks for all your help and input in defending my guns....

I do find it rather odd in your haste to defend the Second Amendment your eagerness to trample the First Amendment. Even though I may not agree with Tigger's thoughts on firearms, I do believe she has the right to her own opinions and to express those opinions in an intelligent manner. Many men gave their lives in defense of the Constitution in its entirety..... not just one or two Amendments. Did her comments really warrant the level attacks? Did you honestly (sitting there with your pistols cocked and locked) feel threatened? Really nice way to make someone feel welcome to a new and strange place.

Thanks a million!!

Terry

Hey now! See my post (#162) above.

[SMR 368]

Gee guys.... thanks for all your help and input in defending my guns....

I do find it rather odd in your haste to defend the Second Amendment your eagerness to trample the First Amendment. Even though I may not agree with Tigger's thoughts on firearms, I do believe she has the right to her own opinions and to express those opinions in an intelligent manner. Many men gave their lives in defense of the Constitution in its entirety..... not just one or two Amendments. Did her comments really warrant the level attacks? Did you honestly (sitting there with your pistols cocked and locked) feel threatened? Really nice way to make someone feel welcome to a new and strange place.

Thanks a million!!

Terry

I apologize if Terry or Tigger or anyone felt that someone was being personally attacked, threatened, or silenced. I honestly haven't read the whole thread, but I didn't read any sort of attacks. An opinion was expressed and other people expressed a disagreeing opinion. As far as I saw the discussion was structured, civil, and respectful. Unfortunately, the internet can be impersonal and misunderstandings can arise. I don't think any offense was intended.

In the spirit of civil and respectful disagreement, I disagree with your invocation and interpretation of the first amendment. The first amendment is not a carte blanche that says you can say whatever you want and people have to agree with you. That would be both ridiculous and impossible. In the modern world, the greatest threat to free speech is the disbarring of speech that someone deems offensive. The first amendment inherently grants others the right to disagree with you. If not for that, it would cease to exist.

[slim 1,525]

Gee guys.... thanks for all your help and input in defending my guns....

I do find it rather odd in your haste to defend the Second Amendment your eagerness to trample the First Amendment. Even though I may not agree with Tigger's thoughts on firearms, I do believe she has the right to her own opinions and to express those opinions in an intelligent manner. Many men gave their lives in defense of the Constitution in its entirety..... not just one or two Amendments. Did her comments really warrant the level attacks? Did you honestly (sitting there with your pistols cocked and locked) feel threatened? Really nice way to make someone feel welcome to a new and strange place.

Thanks a million!!

Terry

Welcome, Terry.

Attacks? I'd like one example of an attack. Not a single poster here attacked, insulted or said anything other than "you are wrong about your views on firearms because of your ignorance. Once you've been educated more on the issue and have more experience we can talk." I don't remember anyone posting in anything other than a respectable manner either.

Does disagreement = trampling on the 1st Amendment?

Well, then what's the proper way to disagree?

Also, she insinuated that guns were bad, evil, and the way our system is set up is somehow "wrong." Those are her opinions and she's entitled to them. However, if she would've come here and said "American highways are dangerous and cars are too fast." I'm pretty sure we would've had to disagree with that as well and trample on her 1st Amendment rights a little more by pointing out the way stuff really works here in the U.S. If she would've said "there's something wrong with borrowing money to buy a house and working the rest of your life to pay for it." I would've agreed in principal, but argued that's just how we do it here. Still trampling?

Perhaps we (and she) should stick to agreeable topics like sunshine and puppy dogs, unicorns and rainbows? Or perhaps maybe, just maybe, the adults in this forum can wear their big girl panties and if they don't agree with something they can either deal with it here in a respectable and sensible manner (which she did very well, I thought) or ignore it.

Keep in mind... this is the internet and it's really not that serious. I'll agree with you, trampling on 1st Amendment rights is serious. But we usually leave that to the drive-by posters from Canada or the UK.

Hope to see you on here a bit more, Terry. Seems the cause for all this "guns are bad" talk and the subsequent "trampling of rights" was because your fiancee and you don't see eye to eye on the issue either. Care to expound on that?