Really? Do you have a source on that one, Firefly? I’d love to read it :D[/quote]
I cant remember the author but the book is called Reconnaisance in Force, its a cracking read about the Mongol incursion into Europe in the 13th century.[/quote]
Thanks, I’ll see what I can find. :D[/quote]
That might be true from what i understand of ancient eastern history. Funny enough … Blitzkrieg was a term coined by the British.
Really? Do you have a source on that one, Firefly? I’d love to read it :D[/quote]
I cant remember the author but the book is called Reconnaisance in Force, its a cracking read about the Mongol incursion into Europe in the 13th century.[/quote]
Thanks, I’ll see what I can find. :D[/quote]
That might be true from what i understand of ancient eastern history. Funny enough … Blitzkrieg was a term coined by the British.[/quote]
That would be strange, given that Blitzkrieg is a German compound word (Blitz = lightning, Krieg = war)
if im not mistaken the Blitzkrieg combines a fast, swift attack of air and mobil land forces. i dont believe that the mongols had tanks and planes in the 1200-1300’s 
although maybe they invented the concept of a fast and quick attack…
Well this is purely from memory, I will have to look for the book later.
Far from being a Horde of maniacal bloodthirsty gits (which they were) the Mongols also had an organised military system based around the Regiment (Tuman).
I cant remember the exact structure but it reflects modern day and Roman usage, eg sections, platoons companies etc. Each man was equipped in a similar uniform and each carried a composite bow and sword.
Mobility was the essence of the Mongol war machine, as was rapid penetration of enemy lines and communication over great distances to coordinate the force.
In essense it was a Blitzkrieg style of warfare. Mongol armies would separate, penetrate deep behind enemy lines and go for strategic points, often recombining their armies at just the right moment for battle. Each warrior/trooper had several mounts and would change them frequently during these mobile operations.
I find it fascinating to see the same apparrent discoveries made through the ages. Blitzkrieg is the same in essence whether you use a horse, a tank, or a hoverthingy…
I don’t know about the name but the concept was invented by the British.
I’ll have to look into the name.
The mongols were very organised and had all kinds of innovative, at the time, tactics.
Also, their bows were made of bone and horse glue, as there were few trees where they came from!!!
I agree with what some have siad here:
The US public would not have supported war against Russia at the end of WWII. The US had just lost 410,000 lives in WWII, and was surely not in a mood to lose another lot to war that did not seem necessary.
Furthermore, it took a few years for the US to fully realize that Russia was not playing the “Big Brotherly” role for Eastern European nations that they agreed to at the end of the war. That period of time surely allowed the pain of WWII to sink in a bit more, and further the resolution that another war was not desirable.
The US and UK sold Eastern Europe down the river mate, from Yalta on. We knew what we were doing, its shamefull that the UK in particular went to war for Polish sovereignty and then washed their hands of them in 1945.
i think that the US knew that Russia wasnt going to be fair to the eastern european countries. but sadly, they probably didnt care that much. after a world war, worrying about some tiny undeveloped country thousands of miles away seems like a petty concern to the worlds new greatest super power that lost thousands of men in WW2. :?
Doesn’t always follow - in 1918/19, the UK, France and IIRC one or two others got involved in the Russian Revolution, sending forces to Murmansk and the surrounding area to try and help the Whites. The UK and France had just lost around 2 million dead over the past four years, so I suspect that logic doesn’t quite hold water. Unless of course the US are complete pussies when compared to the French
hahaha the US pussies, compared to the french?
But, those countries didnt all out invade russia, i doubt that any of the countries took over a thousand casualties.
Doesn’t always follow - in 1918/19, the UK, France and IIRC one or two others got involved in the Russian Revolution, sending forces to Murmansk and the surrounding area to try and help the Whites. The UK and France had just lost around 2 million dead over the past four years, so I suspect that logic doesn’t quite hold water. Unless of course the US are complete pussies when compared to the French [/quote]
WWI and WWII were completely different scenarios. At the end of WWII, the American public thought of Russia as it’s friend. It was not untill the late 1940’s and after the Russians developed “the bomb” that America began to get a different understanding of the Russians.
The change in American understanding of Russian policy did not occurr overnight.
I’m overlooking the “pussies” comment as a matter of my own maturity.
EDITED TO ADD:
In fact, it was not untill the late 1940’s that Russia itself became a different animal after defeating the Germans andgetting nuke technology.
The US the French and the British all aided the white russians in some way or another as far as Im aware. Im quite impressed by the impetus with which you have rejoined the forum IRONMAN.
Wow. A political satire cartoon. How educational.
Yes, the US aided Russia, even during WWII they sent thousands of planes and mega-tons of canned meat. So? That changes nothing.
The image is a Primary source.
The US were not “friends” with Russia as you claim at the end of the first world war.
Am I missing something? what does the color have to do with anything? :shock:
White Russians were the “old guard” the Tsarists, the royalists the industrialists and the right wing political figures. The Army and the like.
The Red Russians were the Communists the new order, the returning soldiers from the war angered by their leaders and having their land stolen behind them whilst they were at war.
The Red Russians and the White Russians had a war in 1917 (forcing Russia to pull out of the WW1) the Whites were backed to some degree by the UK USA and France, but naturally with the end of the war in the West still a year away and with the Germans able to redeploy troops from their Eastern borders to the Western front, We failed to send enough aid to the White Russians to secure them a vicotry.
Consequently the Red Russians under their promise of “peace, food and land” secured a victory and thus formed hte worlds first communist state.
White Russian is a political identifier and not a skin colour-based remark
As an American who has an infinately greater understanding of American cultural history than you, you can take it to the bank: the US was not an enemy of Russia until at least a few years after WWII. It was the actions of Russia in overbearingly supervising the Eastern European nations and getting nuclear technology that changed that, and that was not 1945.
In fact, it was not until the early 1950’s that the American public became sorely afraid of the Russians for having nukes. That’s when all of the porpaganda and thought of having a bomb shelter in your cellar came about.
At the end of WWII, the American people and government believed Russia to be it’s friend, and had no reason to think otherwise. This idea that the US somehow failed to do something about the Russians at the end of WWII is cultural hogwashery. It’s just one more silly excuse for someone not in the US to point the finger at the US for not saving the world from communism and oppression, then point it at them again later for trying to! :lol
Hypocricy!
Why didn’t the British do something? For the same reason: Nobody knew that Russia would become hell-bent on spreading communism in the world or take an aggressive stance against the US after WWII like they did.
The fact is, the US was not the enemy of Russia untill Russia made it plain that they were the enemy of the US.
IRONMAN - exactly what you have jsut written has already been written in this thread by the British!
get over your self!
Nice post Bluffcove…thanks for the info. You know what they say…you learn something new everyday. 
Let me check the treaty of Locarno Hitler starts to build an army unde licence in Russia.
Germany and Russia form a pact, the Molotov pact (IIRC). Germany invade a cuple of Nation states around Europe Britain declares war on the Nazi party and its supporters - Russian and Germans get along like a synagogue on fire for a large part of the early 1940’s until Adolf invades Russia and the honeymoon ends!