Talking bollocks thread #3

If the price is right, Russia, Finland or China would gladly build icebreakers for Canada so she can enforce her MW Passage claim against the US "International Strait" status fog leaf covering their own designs in the Arctic.

they wouldn't need that many to do a lot more than the Vulcans did.

The Tu-160 carries 148 tons of fuel... the Il-78 can fly 2,500km and transfer 30 tons of fuel to another aircraft and still be able to return to base... which means you will be sending inflight refuelling planes to refuel inflight refuelling planes as well as other IFR planes to refuel the bombers... after flying 2,500km it will probably take about three Il-78s to top up one Tu-160 assuming it is carrying a full weapon load of 45 tons and did not take off with a full fuel load... so after flying 2,500km towards the target area three Il-78s can load up to 90 tons of fuel on to each aircraft, who can then continue to fly towards the target area and execute the attack...

As I have already said... doing it today you could just use land attack cruise missiles with cratering munitions to fly low and fast down runways releasing cratering munitions as they fly low and fast down the runway... attacks that could be launched from a submarine from quite some distance away.

Of course once they realise what you are doing it could be easily stopped... any fighter plane with an IR guided short range AAM could shoot down a low flying subsonic cruise missile...

The point is that it is much simpler and cheaper and more flexible to have an aircraft carrier with the group of ships that could offer air protection during the entire voyage... a proactive Argentina could have sent her sub to intercept the British ships in the middle of the Atlantic...

true, & it's a fact of life that exaggerated claims r plentiful anywhere there is rivalry between people &/ governments.

It is propaganda and if you ignore it or accept it then they are winning... screw them.

Canadians have dellusions of grandeur for sure. There is really no scenario where Canada could cope with a determined Russian military without nuclear weapons.

The really disturbing thing is that they even think the Russians want to invade Canada and somehow take control of things there... somehow confusing the control freak to their south with Russia... but whatever...

Canada is a US client state, nothing more.

Only because they let it be so...

The Russians have icebreakers and are building more because they have a use for them. For the US it really doesn't have any sensible reason for operating around the north pole except to annoy Russia. Russia is doing this to improve trade between Asia and Europe, the US can simply transfer things they need to send to Europe to their east coast and ship straight across the atlantic without needing to go through any canals or ice filled seas...

• Range: 2,265 nmi (2,607 mi, 4,195 km)
  
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Vulcan#Specifications_(B.1)
  

• Range: 12,300 km (7,600 mi, 6,600 nmi) practical range without in-flight refuelling, Mach 0.77 and carrying 6 × Kh-55SM dropped at mid range and 5% fuel reserves^[97]
  
  
• Combat range: 2,000 km (1,200 mi, 1,100 nmi) at Mach 1.5
  
  

(7,300 km (4,536 mi)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160#Specifications_(Tu-160)



 The.. Tu-160 strategic bomber,..develops a supersonic speed of up to 2.5 thousand km / h, overshooting any air defense system, and is capable of climbing to an altitude of 22 km, where no potential enemy fighter can reach it. 
https://nvo.ng.ru/gpolit/2020-10-01/12_1111_aviation.html



The air travel (bird fly) shortest distance between Argentina and Saint Helena is 6,140 km= 3,815 miles.
https://www.distancefromto.net/distance-from-argentina-to-saint-helena



Ascension Island to Argentina distance is 5,965 км

Even the older Tu-160s wouldn't need as many tankers, if at all, as Vulcan used to get to the Falklands, much less to the mainland. To avoid detection & save fuel, they could fly slow part of the way there. Besides, they LR CMs would have added to their dafety & combat range.

GarryB wrote:
The US does not have the capacity to operate anywhere just using land based aircraft and inflight refuelling tankers.

There is NO REASON a cruiser should be able to see further then a corvette..expecially a largish one.

How many corvettes currently have AEGIS radars on them?  And even if they did how close to the water would they be?

AEGIS cruiser AESA radars are not good enough for this century... Russian Cruisers will have enormous radar sets bigger than those for the S-500 system, which will give them exceptional range and performance...

There are planes that can haul 500 KM radar so no reason a corvette cannot haul a powerful radar, and drone recon platforms.

If every Corvette had such a radar they would not be able to do much else... if you specialise your Corvettes to roles then you add the management problem of always needing one available for every mission/fleet...

When laser weapons arise they will be easily installed on smaller ships. The Chinese laser cannon test platform is not very large at all.

Wrong end of the spectrum... you are talking about close range systems to dazzle optically guided anti ship missiles... using such a weapon against Zircon would be like holding up a sheet of paper to stop it.

To shoot hypersonic missiles flying very high and very fast for long enough to do serious damage enough to make it break up and destroy itself in flight is going to have to be rather big and rather more powerful than any laser previously deployed.

If you say 12 zircons can sink 12 corvettes then I would say 1-2 will sink a cruiser. But that assumption is the ships are all defenceless

The difference is that 12 Corvettes on their own will be defenceless against a hypersonic missile because at best they will have short and medium range missiles.... a Cruiser on the other hand has a full set of short, medium, long and anti satellite/anti ICBM type missiles, which means it has much more chance of defending itself.



Russia can learn from the clear mistakes of the USN and build aircraft carriers that are not 100K ton... they don't need to be that big nor that expensive. They need to put their best fighter on board, which means a naval Su-57, and a fixed wing AWACS aircraft that also has an inflight refuelling model on board would be ideal.

They can take the gloves off too... a hypersonic missile designed to fit in their internal weapon bay with a range of 3,000km at a speed of mach 10 and a nuclear warhead as standard is what they need to make it clear it is for US and HATO targets and they wont be playing nice if the brown stuff hits the air conditioning appliance.

The F-14 is now obsolete... technology has moved on... if the USN had any brains a naval carrier capable F-15 would be something they should be looking into.

The problem is, with the KH-22 the standoff range exceeded the detect, deploy and no escape range of the F-14, so it was essentially useless for its primary purpose of fending of air attacks on the CBG from the USSR. This is why they turned it into the Bomcat.

The original Kh-22s had a range of about 460km which did not exceed the range of the F-14 and Phoenix. The Kh-22M had a range of about 600km and a flight speed of about mach 3.

It is only the Kh-32 with its 1,000km range and its mach 4.5 flight speed at 40km altitude that is a problem for the F-14/phoenix comb to deal with, which is no great surprise because they spent very little money improving the F-14 once they decided they were going with the Hornet and F-35.

It would not take a huge amount of money to upgrade the Phoenix... even just a solid rocket booster on its rear end to get it to climb to that altitude and take on the target. The ABM models of the Standard SAM should also offer some problems for the missile.


And the point is that the inclusion of a carrier makes a group of surface ships much much harder to defeat than getting rid of all large ships and replacing them with Corvettes.

BTW the most powerful navy in the ME must be the Iranian navy with all its bog hammers, and the americans called them. Problem is that the easiest solution to a swarm of such targets is ship launched ATGMs like Hellfire or Kornet and they are not a problem any more.



They are, but the options for that carrier group are just as large... they will have plenty of anti sub helicopters and subs of their own and any ship that strays in range can be shot down because of its suspicious activity... as long as war is declared that carrier group can go hunting for anything it likes... and all the communications needed to organise the sort of attack that would be needed to be successful would also be easy to detect and they can start attacking your forces before you even form up ready to attack.

You can say aircraft carriers are obsolete, but aircraft are not obsolete and ships without aircover are vastly more vulnerable than ships with air cover.



BTW I find it amusing that carriers are dead because the US has shit air defences and have hobbled their own fighter options for their carriers... Russia can put their best fighter and all their best air defence systems... missile gun laser and EW equipment on these ships and aircraft but they are automatically obsolete too?

I think you look too much in the rear view mirror with this. The Aegis antennas on the Burkes are not mounted very high at all. You have corvettes with different specialties and missiles get smaller and longer ranged all the time. For example, why can't Kinzhal not become a long range SAM with some changes. It can become a booster for a much smaller manuverable missile once delivered to the "no escape zone". Carriers are only obsolete in a war between tier 1 powers. As I said they are useful in global rivalry. With the KH-22 I think you don't play out that scenario clearly. Assuming the TU-22 approachs the attack at M1.8, when will it be detected as an attack, how long will it take to get an F-14 with enough fuel vectored and up to M2 to intercept. Will the F-14 be able to get there and launch missiles so they can REACH the Tu-22 before KH-22 is launched to prevent the launch? AT 600 KM its extremely difficult. The KH-22s can spend all day spooking the carrier with fake attacks rendering it ineffective. I am pretty sure Granit missiles can be launched from outside the range of anti-sub helos. This is all obsolete tech we are talking about, not what is on the drawing boards. LASER tech is continually being developed. The actual net power (in terms of KWH) to destroy a missile is really not that much, its the pulse strength that matters most. Intercepting supersonic platforms is very difficult. The Russians can monitor when the Americans launch their CAP and using all kinds of tactics make the interception impossible.

Its wrong to think the US and Canada have no interest in the Arctic at all, the NorthWest passage offers potentially much better access to markets. The Russian need is even greater and since Russia cannot dominate and guarantee sea access to markets against the massive USN , (which has been built to do exactly this)in traditional shipping lanes, it has chosen the Arctic because it has some great advantages that enable it to dominate this region. China, which has no long naval tradition and is uneasy about securing sea lanes, has gone with a land option of Road and Belt, although land transport is much more expensive then sea transport when ranges start to grow. The USNs #1 goal is to secure shipping lanes, and #2 deny them in war. Their desire to operate in the Arctic is #2, although there are great potential resources and logistic possibilities in the arctic.

mnztr wrote:Its wrong to think the US and Canada have no interest in the Arctic at all, the NorthWest passage offers potentially much better access to markets. The Russian need is even greater and since Russia cannot dominate and guarantee sea access to markets against the massive USN , (which has been built to do exactly this)in traditional shipping lanes, it has chosen the Arctic because it has some great advantages that enable it to dominate this region. China, which has no long naval tradition and is uneasy about securing sea lanes, has gone with a land option of Road and Belt, although land transport is much more expensive then sea transport when ranges start to grow. The USNs #1 goal is to secure shipping lanes, and #2 deny them in war. Their desire to operate in the Arctic is #2, although there are great potential resources and logistic possibilities in the arctic.

For who?  Canada?

The North-East passage along Russia's coast is a shorter path between China and Europe.  



Also, the waters in the channels of the Canadian Archipelago are icebound for longer and are shallow and rocky.

kvs wrote:

mnztr wrote:Its wrong to think the US and Canada have no interest in the Arctic at all, the NorthWest passage offers potentially much better access to markets. The Russian need is even greater and since Russia cannot dominate and guarantee sea access to markets against the massive USN , (which has been built to do exactly this)in traditional shipping lanes, it has chosen the Arctic because it has some great advantages that enable it to dominate this region. China, which has no long naval tradition and is uneasy about securing sea lanes, has gone with a land option of Road and Belt, although land transport is much more expensive then sea transport when ranges start to grow. The USNs #1 goal is to secure shipping lanes, and #2 deny them in war. Their desire to operate in the Arctic is #2, although there are great potential resources and logistic possibilities in the arctic.

For who?  Canada?

The North-East passage along Russia's coast is a shorter path between China and Europe.  



Also, the waters in the channels of the Canadian Archipelago are icebound for longer and are shallow and rocky.  

Yes the Russian route is superior and as I said Russian infrastructure in the Arctic leads the world. But Canada may want the NW passage to get its norther resource to market. wayyyy into the future I agree. The Northern Sea route is something Russia needs and is already moving vast amounts of LNG through.

Even the older Tu-160s wouldn't need as many tankers, if at all, as Vulcan used to get to the Falklands, much less to the mainland. To avoid detection & save fuel, they could fly slow part of the way there. Besides, they LR CMs would have added to their dafety & combat range.

Tu-160 didn't exist in 1982 in service anywhere, and those numbers are amusing... to attack dozens of airfields it would need a large payload of dumb bombs dropped in a long string... which means flight range would be dramatically reduced and altitude ceiling is 15km anyway... Argentina is a long narrow country... there would be very little chance a Blackjack based anywhere could execute the attacks that would be required to take out all of Argentinian fighter capacity on the mainland....

The Aegis antennas on the Burkes are not mounted very high at all.

The electronics and power supply needed to run them would mean a Corvette could not have anything else on board, so one corvette for the radars... and they are one of the reasons I am not impressed with AESA radars... they were supposed to be amazing and able to identify a target by counting the turbine blades in the engines of the targets they are tracking.... but in practice couldn't tell an Airbus that was climbing from an F-14 that was descending to attack them...

For example, why can't Kinzhal not become a long range SAM with some changes.

It probably could if you were prepared to spend enormous amounts of money on the project, but the problem is that in the space of one Kinzhal missile you could probably fit four 400km S-400 missiles which would be much more use... or 16 9M96 missiles with 150km range or 16 9M96 missiles with 60km range, or 64 9M100 short range self defence missiles...

Why try to turn Corvettes into cruisers... think of it as an Army unit... a Corvette is a platoon... obviously essential... but not really that much use on its own... you need large numbers linked together to form a useful force.

Having hundreds of separate platoons that you bring together to do jobs is a pain in the ass because it means each vessel will need to be carefully specialised and if you don't have the corvette types you need then you can't do what you need to do...

Conversely a Cruisers is not specialised... a Cruiser will have weapons and sensors of all types to do all sorts of jobs, and will often be able to perform different jobs at once.

I rather suspect when you add up the cost of all these little corvettes that having 20 odd corvettes to do the job of one Cruiser you will find the Corvettes are less capable, and probably not cheaper at all.

BTW using the same logic will all strategic bombers and long range fighter aircraft and interceptors like Tu-160M2 and Su-57 and MiG-41 be replaced with millions of hand launched drones any time soon?

I mean the other side don't have a million SAMs to shoot them down so those little drones will be much safer because HATO couldn't shoot down half of them... but the problems like keeping a million drones charged up means a lot of charge cables or charging systems, and a lot of people monitoring them and even if you could make them... why would you? They can't do what you need them to do...

Carriers are only obsolete in a war between tier 1 powers. As I said they are useful in global rivalry.

I don't know how many times I have said... Russia does not need aircraft carriers to fight WWIII, they are for economic and trade disputes and issues, and power projection... things an enormous number of corvettes would be bloody useless for...

Assuming the TU-22 approachs the attack at M1.8, when will it be detected as an attack, how long will it take to get an F-14 with enough fuel vectored and up to M2 to intercept. Will the F-14 be able to get there and launch missiles so they can REACH the Tu-22 before KH-22 is launched to prevent the launch? AT 600 KM its extremely difficult. The KH-22s can spend all day spooking the carrier with fake attacks rendering it ineffective

The Tu-22M3 can only carry three Kh-22M missiles.... the carrier could launch three AWACS aircraft and position them 500km away from the carrier... the Tomcats can land with four Phoenix missiles so having 24 Tomcats in the air at all times each with four Phoenix missiles plus some sidewinders on a rotational basis would not be an issue... whether they shoot down the Tupolevs is irrelevant... they just need to shoot down the Kh-22Ms and the missiles fly at mach 3 at about 22km altitude which should be pretty straight forward for them... that is what they were designed for...

Obviously 40km altitude Mach 4.5 Kh-32s would be a much bigger problem and of course Kinzhals and soon Zircons make it even harder, but aircraft carriers with long range fighter interceptors and AWACS aircraft make surface ships safer... not more vulnerable.

The Russians can monitor when the Americans launch their CAP and using all kinds of tactics make the interception impossible.

All the missiles and weapons and tactics the Russians have developed have been specifically because a carrier group is one of the hardest nuts to crack.

You talk about Russia doing this and doing that... but it can only happen within 2,000km of Russia or it wont work... on the rest of the planet the US carrier groups are essentially safe still.

More importantly... which country has the most formidable air defence network... Russia right? The irony is that the western ADNs are shit except on their ships... the US air defence network on their carrier groups is actually pretty good, while at the moment the Russian one is in tatters because they are in the process of rebuilding it, but the system they are building should actually be rather better than anything HATO has on land or at sea...

What I am saying is that a Russian carrier group with big carriers and long range fighters and proper AWACS platforms that can detect targets to great distances is a good thing and is what they should be aiming for to ensure their own financial security so they don't need to rely on the international community for access to markets around the world... because history has shown Russia can't rely on the west to be nice or even fair... a Georgian invasion where they murdered VDV peacekeepers in South Ossetia was blamed on Russia as something they caused... what happens if Japan wants some Islands back...

Its wrong to think the US and Canada have no interest in the Arctic at all, the NorthWest passage offers potentially much better access to markets. The Russian need is even greater and since Russia cannot dominate and guarantee sea access to markets against the massive USN , (which has been built to do exactly this)in traditional shipping lanes, it has chosen the Arctic because it has some great advantages that enable it to dominate this region.

What an odd view of things. The NSR across the northern part of Russia reduces the time to ship goods from Asia to the EU by 14 days. The USN has nothing to do with it. There is no canal to sail through and pay fees for, but likely there will be fees for icebreaker escort...

The USNs #1 goal is to secure shipping lanes, and #2 deny them in war. Their desire to operate in the Arctic is #2, although there are great potential resources and logistic possibilities in the arctic.

Number one goal is secure them for itself, and deny them to others when it suits... the US is always at war...

The USN has no legal right to enter the NSR as it is mostly inside Russian territorial waters and honestly none of their business.

What they do in the NW passage... I doubt Russia could care less... most US shipping would likely go via the Panama Canal as it would probably be faster and cheaper than navigating through northern Canada just to transfer goods from one side of the US to the other.

The Northern Sea route is something Russia needs and is already moving vast amounts of LNG through.

What is also missing from that drawing is the northern sea ports along the Russian far east coast with rail links heading south into Siberia and lots of runways and new military bases that can provide access to the resources of Siberia to send to either Asia or Europe quickly and efficiently.

In comparison the NW passage seems to be a northern attempt to transfer goods from one side of America to the other... so possibly of interest to the US, but why would Canada... or Russia care?

GarryB wrote:

In comparison the NW passage seems to be a northern attempt to transfer goods from one side of America to the other... so possibly of interest to the US, but why would Canada... or Russia care?

Anything going coast to coast in the US can also be from Western Canada to Eastern USA, also Canada would like to develop its arctic where there are vast resources also for the taking that can be shipped to the USA, Asia or Europe. Canada is building some Artic Patrol ships, but of course compare to the Russian nuclear ice breakers they are somewhat toy like. Not even sure if they are armed to be honest.

They will be operating through Canadian territory.... I don't understand why anyone would think they would need to be armed...

It is not like China is going to send some ships to strong arm Canada out of their own territory... it is just paranoid bullshit... I guess what the US has is infectious...

mnztr wrote:

GarryB wrote:

In comparison the NW passage seems to be a northern attempt to transfer goods from one side of America to the other... so possibly of interest to the US, but why would Canada... or Russia care?

Anything going coast to coast in the US can also be from Western Canada to Eastern USA, also Canada would like to develop its arctic where there are vast resources also for the taking that can be shipped to the USA, Asia or Europe. Canada is building some Artic Patrol ships, but of course compare to the Russian nuclear ice breakers they are somewhat toy like. Not even sure if they are armed to be honest.

The Canadian Arctic is devoid of oil and gas deposits outside of the Mackenzie River delta region. The Siberian shelf is full of them. As for minerals, there really is not
that much need to dig for them in the Arctic. Canada's nickel deposits are far south in contrast to those of Russia. And if the discussion is about rare earth elements
(e.g. lithium) then there is one project in Quebec that is again far south. In other words, Canada has no economic incentive to develop resource extraction in its Arctic
zone.

Maximmmm wrote:...Problem with Kuzya is that it's expensive and risky to go far with him.
I really like the way the intrepid museum is set up in NY, was awesome to visit. Something like that would be super cool.

Well Intrepid has quite a history under it's belt while Kuznetzov's one deployment boiled down to unsuccessful trial run

I doubt it will stay in one piece past it's decommissioning

GarryB wrote:...Quite a history of white supremacy and colonialist murder...

Ah yes, the white supremacy that prevented those poor totally not imperial and genocidal Japanese from taking over entire Pacific and exterminating half the local population in the process

Tip: If you ever run into Chinese, Korean, Taiwanese, Philippine or anyone from the area don't talk about history with them (you will be healthier)

PapaDragon wrote:

GarryB wrote:...Quite a history of white supremacy and colonialist murder...

Ah yes, the white supremacy that prevented those poor totally not imperial and genocidal Japanese from taking over entire Pacific and exterminating half the local population in the process

Tip: If you ever run into Chinese, Korean, Taiwanese, Philippine or anyone from the area don't talk about history with them (you will be healthier)

Well now they are under US control...

Isos wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

GarryB wrote:...Quite a history of white supremacy and colonialist murder...

Ah yes, the white supremacy that prevented those poor totally not imperial and genocidal Japanese from taking over entire Pacific and exterminating half the local population in the process

Tip: If you ever run into Chinese, Korean, Taiwanese, Philippine or anyone from the area don't talk about history with them (you will be healthier)

Well now they are under US control...

Lucky for them

I don't think they would enjoy being Nanjing'd and they know it

Ah yes, the white supremacy that prevented those poor totally not imperial and genocidal Japanese from taking over entire Pacific and exterminating half the local population in the process

Tip: If you ever run into Chinese, Korean, Taiwanese, Philippine or anyone from the area don't talk about history with them (you will be healthier)

The magic Americans... the Americans and British blockade the Japanese and force her to expand and then after a delay while they run rough over the locals they come in with their shining armour saving everyone like Knights of old...

Exterminating local populations... the Japs were amateurs compared with the white europeans...

The fact that you think the Japs are the bad guys but the Brits and Yanks are the good guys just shows they are on a different level...

Well now they are under US control...

Which was always the goal... the Pacific had to go through WWII to achieve that...

Well now they are under US control...

European taught history of the war in the Pacific is just as fucked up as Japanese taught history of the same period...

Which was always the goal... the Pacific had to go through WWII to achieve that...

It didn't last that long. Today most of the countries depend on Chinese economy rather than US including Japan and Australia.

China is already proposing to use its currency instead of dollars in the region but without interferring in their political life contrary to US with dollars.

US are already out of pacific life. They only can have Indian's support and their bases. But both are useless against China.

GarryB wrote:...the Americans and British blockade the Japanese and force her to expand...

Ah yes of course, it was American and British who forced Japanese to kill 20 million Chinese

It makes perfect sense

PapaDragon wrote:

Maximmmm wrote:...Problem with Kuzya is that it's expensive and risky to go far with him.
I really like the way the intrepid museum is set up in NY, was awesome to visit. Something like that would be super cool.

Well Intrepid has quite a history under it's belt while Kuznetzov's one deployment boiled down to unsuccessful trial run

I doubt it will stay in one piece past it's decommissioning

Considering how underdeveloped everything was, I thought the Syria mission was interesting. At least it gave the people involved some valuable experience for if we ever actually decide to build carriers.

PapaDragon wrote:

GarryB wrote:...the Americans and British blockade the Japanese and force her to expand...

Ah yes of course, it was American and British who forced Japanese to kill 20 million Chinese

It makes perfect sense

European slavery in Asian countries was just as bad as Japanese one. Hitler, supported by pretty much all europe/USA was even worse for humans.

Of course Japan invasions were hell on earth for local populations but that doesn't scale down white's actions in Asia.

US war in Viet Nam killed more than 1 million civilians there for their elite's racist interests.

Isos wrote:...Of course Japan invasions were hell on earth for local populations but that doesn't scale down white's actions in Asia.

Whites could have torched entire Asia the ground, it still doesn't change the fact that Japanese killed 20 million Chinese and it never will

This is some Trampoline Man levels of denial and and excuses

Someone else did something so you are somehow not guilty of your own shit? It don't work that way

PapaDragon wrote:

Isos wrote:...Of course Japan invasions were hell on earth for local populations but that doesn't scale down white's actions in Asia.

Whites could have torched entire Asia the ground, it still doesn't change the fact that Japanese killed 20 million Chinese and it never will

This is some Trampoline Man levels of denial and and excuses

Someone else did something so you are somehow not guilty of your own shit? It don't work that way

I'm just saying it works both way. Japanese atrocities shouldn't make you forget european atrocities which by the way weren't inventoriated. Hard to know the real numbers.

Japan was forced to look for resources because of white naval blockades... the Japs went in to China just after the British left... Opium wars and all that...

20 million chinese... stalin killed 100 million Russians blah blah blah... white people are so hard to impress so numbers are inflated so they notice... but they don't care.

Most white people talk about WWII like it was battle of britain, pearl harbour, d-day and then the nukes were dropped to end it all... 39-45 or for the Americans 41-45...

The Japs aren't the bad guys because they are helping us fight the Soviets... they kill 20 million Chinese which is rather more than any western absurd estimate of the number Stalin supposedly killed but who in the west sees Japan as more evil that Stalin?

History is bullshit.

Those that talk about Stalin but never mention butcher Trotsky show they are liars. Most of the deaths before WWII in the USSR
were due to the civil war which was under the supervision of Trotsky and saw him use terrorist tactics to win it.

Stalin gets saddled with all sorts of Holodomor hoaxes. The gulags did not have 20% annual death rates. That was a one off
peak during 1942 when Russia was starving from the destruction of crops and food storage depots by the Nazi invaders. The
cumulative deaths in the gulags are just over 800,000. Not millions and millions. The civil war saw over 10 million die.
If anyone accuses me of being an apologist, the can go and get fucked. The 1930s were horrible and that was not all Stalin's
fault. The Communist Party was dominated by scum like Khruschev who were eager Beavers in repressing the "enemies" of the
people. Stalin actually had to put the breaks on Khruschev. That is why Khruschev is likely involved in Stalin's death and
the execution of Beria.

Khruschev was thankfully removed by Brezhnev. The Brezhnev years were the best period of the USSR. From the 1960s
to the 1970s. Stagnation hit in the second half of the 1970s and led to the decline the culminated in Gorbie's rule and
the collapse in 1989-1991.

GarryB wrote:...Japan was forced to look for resources because of white naval blockades...

And all it cost was 20 million of those pesky Chinese

It was quite a bargain (if you ask the Japs)

GarryB wrote:...History is bullshit.

So why not make up our own, right?

kvs wrote:Those that talk about Stalin but never mention butcher Trotsky show they are liars. Most of the deaths before WWII in the USSR
were due to the civil war which was under the supervision of Trotsky and saw him use terrorist tactics to win it.

And don't forget the biggest shitstain of them all: Lenin, the architect of the whole fucking treason, war and genocide

Bottom line it that they were all commies and were willing to kill as many Russians as needed (and more) to implement their parasite dogma and to prop up some random minorities