Topic: Okay, advice for getting into shape in under 18 days.
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Russian Communism mixing with West Europe Socialism possibly wouldve mellowed out the Soviet Union in a way Kruschev would never accomplish.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And having Europe under Soviet control would have been a walk in the park.
Sorry we wasted our time.
A completely separate issue from what was asked. And anyway, why you say "we", postmodern boy? You weren't even born at the time.
So I brought it into the fold, now it's a part of the equation, and really should have been all along, if you're working with the assumption that US involvement in Europe was completely useless, as you seem to be.
And I say we as in America, like when I say WE won whatever war or when you say "YOU" lost whatever war. I didn't lose Vietnam, I wasn't born yet. I didn't win WWII, I wasn't born yet. If we're going to get tripped up on second person pronouns, we might as well stop discussing now.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: k, what happens if due to whatever reason I forget to do pushups until really late at night is it still benficial to do them? I'm doing them anyways on the safe side.
So, you forgot to do your pushups, but remembered to posts 18 times on hatrack yesterday?
Priorities, dude.
Y'know what might be a really good exercise for you? Every time you hit 'add reply', drop down and crank out 5 pushups. You should be done by the time the thread refreshes, and throughout the course of the day you'd get some serious work in.
[ January 25, 2007, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: El JT de Spang ]
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, At your level of strength, you don't really have to worry about over-doing pushups or hurting yourself by doing them at the wrong time. The amount you are doing is going to cause very minor injuries at worst. You should actually be pushing yourself as hard as you can at this stage. It's going to hurt, but it's not dangerous and it'll give you the best gains over a short period of time.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously Blayne for your sake, turn the computer off and focus. Unless you're trying to in basic training as bad as possible.
Posts: 796 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know that that advice is very useful, Wowbagger. It's solid, it makes sense, and Blayne would undoubtedly benefit from following it, but I don't think that turning off the computer is on the table as an option for Blayne right now. Given that, I think that JT's advice about his doing some kind of exercise every time he posts something is a good idea.
For that matter, Blayne, you could expand it and do a half dozen situps or something every time you save a game you're playing/complete a level/whathaveyou.
quote:So I brought it into the fold, now it's a part of the equation, and really should have been all along, if you're working with the assumption that US involvement in Europe was completely useless, as you seem to be.
We were discussing whether the US contributions to WWII were decisive for victory over Germany. You were unable to produce any argument showing that it was. You brought in the victory over the USSR instead; this is a red herring, and a dishonest form of argument.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The US could not have prevented the USSR from gaining any clear advantage in a military struggle for the Hegemony of Europe had the USSR attacked in 1949. The Soviet Army was at its most efficient, best organized, trained and best equiped. The Red Army between 1945-1953 was an Army of Victory and possessed the military might, industrial productivity, infastructure and political will to overrun the West.
The Red Army had easily 300 combat ready Divisions, every infantry division had a tank battalion, every tank division had a heavy tank battalion, the army was all in all equipped with an ungodly amount of artilery, and possessed an extremely large and at this point well experianced modern airforce.
Had they wanted to I see in no certain terms that the West could have held off the Russians, its possible the Maginot Line could've held them off but not for long, France had not recovered from German occupaton and England was far to exshausted from the war to give a good fight against a determined, well equipped, battle hardened Soviet Army.
It would have been the United States Army doing most of the fighting and their airforce, the US Army wasnt that large of a presence in Europe with the longest supply line possible 8000 miles of Ocean, significant versus the germans but not against the massive amount of upgraded T-34's, IS-3 tanks, and depending on how long the war lasted T-54's.
The discussion is about whether the US and the West made any significant difference to the War in europe, if you wish to discuss whether they could have stopped the Soviet Union should the USSR kept going after taking Berlin... The Allies would have put up a fight yes and would have been the most desparate fight the west has ever put up but would they have held off the Russians without giving up massive amounts of land in the process? Doubtful.
IP: Logged |
quote:The Red Army between 1945-1953 was an Army of Victory and possessed the military might, industrial productivity, infastructure and political will to overrun the West.
It reads like something ripped from a propaganda pamphlet. It is nice to see a worldview free of the the wrongthink taint of the capitalist running-dog western lackeys!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was no way the Soviet Union could have put up the kind of fight against the West that they did against the Germans. The subject populations would rise in instant revolt - fighting the Nazis is one thing, and even at that, the regime tottered before the death squads moved in; but against the democratic West? The supply lines would grind to a halt without Lend-Lease supplies. Moscow would be nuked. The T-34 was showing its age badly even against German equipment, much less against the new stuff coming online in 1947 - just in time for the party! As for the IS-3, it was a monstrosity, completely impossible to supply with the amounts of fuel it consumed. There would be instant German re-unification and rearmament, and this time they'd be supplied from the West - Hitler's dream of the bulwark against Bolshevism, without the stupidities of the Nazi administration. China would invade Siberia. (Gnarf! China bite ankles!)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sounds like someone needs to make an alternative reality rule-book for Axis and Allies!
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
my source is Liddel Hart and about a dozen other WestermGenerals who wrote extensively about the Red/Soviet Army. So unless your sporting Stars on your soldiers and possess their experiance and tactical and strategic knowhow...
IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't occur to you that generals after WWII had an obvious ulterior motive for exaggerating the strength of the Red Army? In any case, appeal to authority is a really bad form of argument, especially when it's so vague as "a dozen generals". My dozen generals can beat your dozen generals any day of the week, and anyway I gave an actual argument for my position; why don't you go see whether your sources dealt with that argument or not? Then, if they do, tell us how.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: The Soviet Army was at its most efficient, best organized, trained and best equiped. The Red Army between 1945-1953 was an Army of Victory and possessed the military might, industrial productivity, infastructure and political will to overrun the West.
The Red Army had easily 300 combat ready Divisions, every infantry division had a tank battalion, every tank division had a heavy tank battalion, the army was all in all equipped with an ungodly amount of artilery, and possessed an extremely large and at this point well experianced modern airforce.
Had they wanted to I see in no certain terms that the West could have held off the Russians, its possible the Maginot Line could've held them off but not for long, France had not recovered from German occupaton and England was far to exshausted from the war to give a good fight against a determined, well equipped, battle hardened Soviet Army.
Give me a link for proof Blayne. A real link. Russia has NEVER won an offensive war in their history except for, to use the term, going along for the ride. They have, however, won every defensive war.
Edit to add: Blayne, use the spell check. You were getting so good.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Russia has NEVER won an offensive war in their history except for, to use the term, going along for the ride.
Oh, come now. That's an even worse argument than appeal to authority. What is the magic of that word, 'offensive', that suddenly turns Russian soldiers to mud?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Manstein, Gudarian, Model, Hart, and a few American ones as well.
posted
In their history, they have never won an offensive war. Battles, yes. I don't know why, and no one else I know of knows why either. But if you want to get into a pissing match, I'm not game for it. It's past 6pm over here, and I am late for the bar call. I have better places to be.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Also Russia won vs Sweden in an offensive war here:
quote:So I brought it into the fold, now it's a part of the equation, and really should have been all along, if you're working with the assumption that US involvement in Europe was completely useless, as you seem to be.
We were discussing whether the US contributions to WWII were decisive for victory over Germany. You were unable to produce any argument showing that it was. You brought in the victory over the USSR instead; this is a red herring, and a dishonest form of argument.
I don't think it's irrelevant, but fine, we'll stick to US contributions to victory over Germany.
Without the US Britain would have lost, either starved out our just plain beaten from lack of materiel. We sent them food at great cost, and in the early stages resupplied their air force. And the USSR would have lost on the east. Why? Lend-Lease. Russia wouldn't have had a functional air force without us, wouldn't have produced nearly enough tanks to win (because they only produced .1% of the 2000 locomotives the heavily rail dependent nation got during the war), and they wouldn't have been able to move materiel around nearly well enough without us providing 2/3rds of the trucks used to move supplies around during the war as well. And that's just the tip of the iceberg of the materiel they recieved from us. Crediting the USSR with winning the whole thing while ignoring what allowed them to do it is a bit dishonest too don't you think?
To say nothing of the US bombing efforts that hurt German industry and supplies, and considering how quickly they increased production, one wonders how much worse it would have been without help.
I remain wholly unconvinced that Germany could have been repulsed, let alone totally overrun without US involvement.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Without the US Britain would have lost, either starved out our just plain beaten from lack of materiel. We sent them food at great cost, and in the early stages resupplied their air force. And the USSR would have lost on the east. Why? Lend-Lease. Russia wouldn't have had a functional air force without us, wouldn't have produced nearly enough tanks to win (because they only produced .1% of the 2000 locomotives the heavily rail dependent nation got during the war), and they wouldn't have been able to move materiel around nearly well enough without us providing 2/3rds of the trucks used to move supplies around during the war as well. And that's just the tip of the iceberg of the materiel they recieved from us. Crediting the USSR with winning the whole thing while ignoring what allowed them to do it is a bit dishonest too don't you think?
All right; this is fair enough. I'm not completely convinced Lend-Lease was decisive in the Russian victory, but it was certainly a large factor. However, that doesn't have anything to do with the military contributions of the US; and as you will recall, we were originally discussing military history and traditions.
quote:To say nothing of the US bombing efforts that hurt German industry and supplies, and considering how quickly they increased production, one wonders how much worse it would have been without help.
The effectivenes of the strategic bombing campaign was rather dubious. Sure, it hurt the Germans, but there's quite a bit of evidence that it hurt the Americans even more by tying up their production. For the metal and labour involved in one bomber, you could get a large number of tanks and trucks, which might have been Lend-Leased or used for an earlier Normandy invasion. Not to mention all that skilled manpower lost as bombing crews.
Blayne, could you please edit that long URL so it doesn't screw up the page?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread cracks me up. What's it going to migrate to next? The controversy of using atomic bombs on Japan? Utilitarian justifications for Apartheid? Dutch medical ethics? The Bell Curve? Revisionist history worship of Mao? It's a journey of mystery!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, actually, I didn't. Unless I was sleep-moderating. And without sleeping even.
Have you been doing your exercises for each of these posts today? I notice your posting rate has gone way down since yesterday....
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I sure as heck didnt fix it, whe I got the message on my screen it was fixed and yes I am doing 5 pushups. my arms hurt.
IP: Logged |
posted
I call that poor logistics and an advance to the rear.
A proper beating would be if they ran because they were out gunned even with a numerical advantage. If you have no food or ammo, its smart to advance to the rear, and then come back better equipt later.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
Personally I think trying to identify a single factor that lead to Allied victory in WWII is a futile exercise.
What I'm getting at is that in my opinion there can be no "one deciding factor" in a conflict so widespread and which was fought on so many fronts.
Had the US not become involved, things would have turned out differently. US aid helped Britain to continue fighting through until 1942, and we held out without having to fight an invading force or worse surrender. It scares me to think how the UK would have behaved under Nazi occupation. I rather fear we would have adapted very well. Perhaps a counter-factual for another day.
However, history shows that the US did join in, the Axis forces were defeated and the Red Army stopped it's advance in Berlin. A final act before the iron curtain closed and we settled down to 40+ years of cold war.
Now then - imagine Stalingrad falls. Russians are pushed back and the Nazis reach the oil and gas in Georgia and the Caspian. What happens next?
Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
if Stalingrad fell the 6th Army would still have gotten smashed with Zhukov's counter attack, the germans had way too little manpower defending way to large a front.
IP: Logged |
posted
If your arms hurt, you're very likely not doing the push ups correctly. Push ups barely use any muscles in the arms. The area that should be aching is your arm pit/outside chest area. Where on your arms are you hurting?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I sure as heck didnt fix it, whe I got the message on my screen it was fixed and yes I am doing 5 pushups. my arms hurt.
That's awesome! Stick with it and you'll have guns so big you'll have to register them with the government. Though you'd probably be better served chopping your arms off and giving them to a U.S. spec ops soldier.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
they ache somewhatabove th elboe joint.
IP: Logged |
posted
Sounds like your tricep. We are talking about the back of your arm, right? That's an odd place to ache, but it does get used somewhat. How are you doing the push-ups?
Standard position is to have your body straight, legs together, hands touching the ground on a line a little below the shoulder - lined up around the upper chest, and out enough that your arms make around an 80-85 degree angle with the ground when your whole body is touching the ground.
The force from the push up comes nearly completely from your pectoral muscles. You should be feeling the strain there. Of course, if you're feeling an ache, as opposed to any sort of sharp pain in your triceps, I don't know that it is anything to get to worried about.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's been my experience that standards pushups target the triceps at least as much as they do the pecs. Unfortunate, but inevitable.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
