Without question your favourite read? It’s soft, it’s strong and thoroughly absorbent I am led to believe.
well at the moment its full of shit!
or are we talking about the book…
the answer still stands.
You mean the agreement reached on February 4-11, 1945? Shortly before the end iof the war? Yea, it was a surprise to the Allies that Russia made such a demand and later did not relent control of those countries later.
Yup, it sure was.
Now, I suppose you are going to start some thing about the US wimping out and not trying to “make” Russia not insist on their control over eastern Europe, but that would be a biggy booboo, since Russia had a hubungus army and the US had not desire to get into a war with them.[/quote]
Did you even go and read it? How can you still call it a surprise! The only reason the allies never went for Berlin was that agreement!!! The reasoning was, why fight for territory that they would have to just hand back to the Soviets. I now understand why others are so frustrated with your miopic views on things, sheesh, read the damned thing all the way through.
Ive been reading Arrse since the start, but as a Crab, wouldnt dare post, my bravery only goes so far.
Provided you aren’t a mover you’re fairly safe 
After all, they haven’t killed and eaten Erwin yet, despite him posting some fairly… revisionist… websites about the Falklands, and there are one or two live spam members.
No, scum of the earth movers are my mortal enemy, for instance my Sqn is flying out on Sat at 9 am, when are the bastardo movers checking us in?
0800 friday orning, grrr dont even get me started on that pile of fly ridden shite with their Nazi armbands!!!
Sounds like you’d fit in perfectly! There is a 26 page thread dedicated to that already (although titled “I HATE CRABS I HATE CRABS I HATE CRABS I HATE CRABS I HATE C” it is actually going on about movers).
http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=9099/highlight=movers.html
You mean the agreement reached on February 4-11, 1945? Shortly before the end iof the war? Yea, it was a surprise to the Allies that Russia made such a demand and later did not relent control of those countries later.
Yup, it sure was.
Now, I suppose you are going to start some thing about the US wimping out and not trying to “make” Russia not insist on their control over eastern Europe, but that would be a biggy booboo, since Russia had a hubungus army and the US had not desire to get into a war with them.[/quote]
Did you even go and read it? How can you still call it a surprise! The only reason the allies never went for Berlin was that agreement!!! The reasoning was, why fight for territory that they would have to just hand back to the Soviets. I now understand why others are so frustrated with your miopic views on things, sheesh, read the damned thing all the way through.[/quote]
…and I was right. You did. :lol:
IRONMAN please qualify your last comment,
what were you right about and what did you do?
What happens at metre 501?
especially as you have now told Erwin that Standard rifles are effective to 600 metres!
That is true Mr. Schätzer, it is a light rifle, and as such, it did not shoot pistol ammunition. Albiet a weak rifle, but effective at it’s maximum effective range, as are all weapons. It may not be effective at 600m, like a standard or sniper rifle, but it was a dandy little weapon.
More importantly if an M1 carbine is not the same as a “standard” rifle, is it an assault rifle in that case?
that is 3 questions I would like 3 individual answers.
thankyou.
Firefly, I suppose you are trying to imply that the US suspicion of the Russian was unwarrented? Even in light of Soviet actions around the globe to push communism into every corner of the world over the following 40 years?
So, the Soviets didn’t support communists in Korea, Central America, Cuba, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc with money and weapons? They didn’t attempt to put nuclear missles in Cuba? They didn’t do any of that eh? No reason to suspect them eh? We should have just considered them to be our good buddies eh?
I suppose you think it would have been better for the world to just let the Soviets have their way all over the world and turn as many countries as they can into puppet states armed with nuclear weapons?
Is that why the comment…
…which is quite incorrect? The US had just fought the most horrific war in history, and you think they wanted to do it all over again against the Soviet Union???
Is it that very lack of understanding that prompts you, in the face of good information, to make such loser and gutteral commentary as…
It seems so. When you think you can prove that the US was willing to go to war against the Soviets at the end of WWII, post it here. It would be interesting to see your alternate views of how the world should run and how many should suffer and die for your ill-gotten, forum-based-education and boargame philosophies.
…which is quite incorrect? The US had just fought the most horrific war in history, and you think they wanted to do it all over again against the Soviet Union???
Is it that very lack of understanding that prompts you, in the face of good information, to make such loser and gutteral commentary as…
It seems so. When you think you can prove that the US was willing to go to war against the Soviets at the end of WWII, post it here. It would be interesting to see your alternate views of how the world should run and how many should suffer and die for your ill-gotten, forum-based-education and boargame philosophies.
[/quote]
Nice rant Homus Ferrous!
You absolutely totally missed my point. I will explain it simply for you.
-
There was a Yalta agreement in 45 - which divided Europe into 2 spheres of influence. UK/US and Soviet. The lines of influence were drawn on the map and Germany was to be separated into East and West. So its no surprise at all then, cut and dry in paper months before the wars end.
-
And here is where you fail to comprehend - I didnt mention fighting the Soviets. I said that the US and UK could have easily reached Berlin in May 45 before the Soviets did. There was no point however in Eisenhowers mind that he didnt want to take unecessary casualties in fighting the Germans into Berlin just to hand it back to the Soviets, as US forces that had reached Czechoslovakia did.
There you are, plain and simple, I did not mention the cold war et all that you proceeded to rave on about. I suggest you read the words in front of you in future instead of interpriting it the way you want to.
Firefly,
Your statement was obviously slanted. However, you grotesquely misunderstood the Yalta Agreement. The agreement did not divide Europe into 2 spheres of influence as you said, per se. It did not hand over eastern Europe to the Soviets for control. It allowed the US and the Soviet Union to become trustees of those nations. But instead of acting merely as a trustee, and in congruence with my previous statement that the Soviets proved themselves untrustworthy, the Soviets simply took totalitarian control of those nations, unlike the US, and occupied them militarily, controlled their governements, surpressed their human rights, levied taxes and appropriated monies from them to benefit the Soviet Union, and dissolved the independace of their military and political powers, and prevented them from having representation in the west.
None of that was a part of the Yalta Agreement, none of those acts were expected to be taken by the Soviet Union, and it was indeed a big surprise and dissapointment, as I had told you, that the Soviet Union took such liberties with those nations.
It did not divide Europe into 2 speres of influence or give the Soviets any rights to do any of the things they did. It did, however, call for the establishment of free and independant governments in Poland,
“The Provisional Government which is now functioning in Poland should therefore be reorganized on a broader democratic basis with the inclusion of democratic leaders from Poland itself and from Poles abroad. This new Government should then be called the Polish Provisional Government of National Unity.”
“When a Polish Provisional of Government National Unity has been properly formed in conformity with the above, the Government of the U.S.S.R., which now maintains diplomatic relations with the present Provisional Government of Poland, and the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the United States of America will establish diplomatic relations with the new Polish Provisional Government National Unity, and will exchange Ambassadors by whose reports the respective Governments will be kept informed about the situation in Poland.”
…BTW, this is not how things turned out. The Soviets did not allow Poland or any other eastern European nation to be free and independant, or send diplomats to the west…
Yugoslavia,
“That the Tito-Subasitch agreement should immediately be put into effect and a new government formed on the basis of the agreement. (b) That as soon as the new Government has been formed it should declare…”
Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and Japan, and it made agreement that those nations, Austria and Greece shall respect the national borders and governments of each other.
Nowhere in the agreement is provision which gave the Soviet Union the liberties to occupy and control those nations as they did. The Soviets immediately broke all trust of the agreement and militarily occupied and politically controlled those nations, prevented them from having representation to the US, and denied them Human rights.
The Yalta Agreement did not divide Europe into 2 spheres of influence.
The Yalta Agreement did not allow for the “handing” of any territory to the Soviet Union. Sure, undue concessions were made to the Soviets for provisional management, but it did not provide for them to do the things that they did.
You may have read it, but did not understand it. Read it again. Like I said, the Yalta Agreement did not provide for 2 “spheres of influence”, as the US, USSR, and Britain were agreeed to manage and have representation from those countries jointly.
Like I said, the actions of the USSR were quite unexpected and a huge dissapointment, and ultimately, they proved that the suspicions that the American public had of communists was not unjustified. The Soviets proved it all the more with their actions over the next 40 years.
Please know what you are talking about before you jump onto some dingbat bandwagon of ignorance-based insults towards someone.
As we clearly see, they are unjustified, and your claim of my ignorance has only proven your own. Should I start calling you FlyBrain?
Naaa. I’m not like you.
Admittedly the wall they built was a bit of a surprise?
but then we had purposefully not invited the USSR to discussions of forming the new currency (problems to do with a capitalist and Communist regime sharing a currency)
Please answer this question, and then we will discuss evasion of questions.
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=210
an assult rifle is pretty worthless at 600m and soldiers are not going to shoot together at men 600m away with them.
VS
That is true Mr. Schätzer, it is a light rifle, and as such, it did not shoot pistol ammunition. Albiet a weak rifle, but effective at it’s maximum effective range, as are all weapons. It may not be effective at 600m, like a standard or sniper rifle, but it was a dandy little weapon
.
does this quote mean that a standard rifle is effective at 600 metres unlike the M1 carbine, IRONMAN?
Does this mean a Carbine is different to a standard rifle?
Please answer the lower question!
Oh for fucks sake, you’re back again.
Seeing as you like a good debate, why don’t you go over to the ARRSE website, where I believe you have already had a username set up for you and a password sent to you and we can all have a good argument without cluttering up these threads with opinionated bullshit.
Tubby we have been more gracious than that!
there is this one too.
http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=17346/highlight=M1.html
and IRONMAN even has some supporters at the Effective range thread!
might even make a friend yet,
Your own ally! IRONMAN imagine it you and him shoulder to shoulder, facing down the ignorant retarded Squaddies! It will be your finest hour!
well maybe not. I dont know how many men you have faced down previously :?
Damn, I must have missed that one. I’ve been spending far too much time away from my computer! 
The opinions I have seen from you are certainly bull. I’d say you’re pretty lost overall. I’d say you have a pretty foul mouth too. A poor upbringing can lead to that though.
The opinions I have seen from you are certainly bullshit. I’d say you’re pretty lost overall.[/quote]
Ironman, do you not find it strange and indicative of something that everyone on this site thinks you are a tool, and have no idea what you’re on about?? :? I’m sure you have useful things to add, but you need to learn to wind your neck in a bit.
and if you cant wind your neck in,
please answer this question,
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=210
Quote:
an assult rifle is pretty worthless at 600m and soldiers are not going to shoot together at men 600m away with them.
VS
That is true Mr. Schätzer, it is a light rifle, and as such, it did not shoot pistol ammunition. Albiet a weak rifle, but effective at it’s maximum effective range, as are all weapons. It may not be effective at 600m, like a standard or sniper rifle, but it was a dandy little weapon
.
does this quote mean that a standard rifle is effective at 600 metres unlike the M1 carbine, IRONMAN?
Does this mean a Carbine is different to a standard rifle?
we know that you said it, so please, agree that these are your words and you have shown yourself to be an TWAT-LIN (an anagram of tinwalt, I do apologise im dyslexic me!!! - shuttup Ale)
The opinions I have seen from you are certainly bullshit. I’d say you’re pretty lost overall.[/quote]
Ironman, do you not find it strange and indicative of something that everyone on this site thinks you are a tool, and have no idea what you’re on about?? :? I’m sure you have useful things to add, but you need to learn to wind your neck in a bit.[/quote]
Not a bit. Forums do draw those who think they know it all. It’s a shame however, that once they spread untruths on them and someone comes along and corrects a couple of their bogus claims for the good of the young and impressionable who may read their claims and believe them, that they typically gang-up on that person in desperation to prevent their false claims from emberessing themselves.
Nothing new going on that I can see. That kind of thing happens on virtually every forum that has ever been on the Net.
“It’s legal to carry a weapon covered up on the back seat of a car in the US without a concealed weapons liscence.”
“Jet engines have nothing in them that the term “fan” could be used to describe”
“The US did nothing to develop the jet engine until after WWII”
“The US didn’t do anything with the jet engine until they got hold of German designs.”
“A jet engine twice the size of another weighs “pretty much the same.””
“The M1 Carbine uses pistol ammunition.”
“The M1 Carbine was develped as a replacement of the .45.”
(That’s a good one. Lots of people believe that one. It was to be a light rifle capable of heavy firepower at closer ranges for support personel and commanders. Not a replacement for the .45. Commanders typically carried both and could have used an M1 Garand instead, but the carbine was issued to them. )
“The USMC at Chosin achieved thier 10-1 kill ratio because the cold killed so many the Chinese.”
“The M1 Carbine does not fit the role of an assult rifle circa WWII.”
“The secondary mission of the SDM is to engage key targets from 300 to 500 meters with effective, well-aimed fires using the standard weapon system and standard ammunition. He may or may not be equipped with an optic. The SDM must, therefore, possess a thorough understanding and mastery of the fundamentals of rifle marksmanship as well as ballistics, elevation and windage hold-off, sight manipulation, and range estimation”
:!: Nothing about section fire at 600m there eh? Figures.
(BTW, recognizing a human as a tiny blob at 600m does not mean section fire at 600m either. )
“I can make out the leg of a man at 600m with open sights!”
“The Yalta Agreement divided Europe into 2 spheres of influence.”
…and quite a few others.
There have been plenty of bogus claims made that I have seen. It has happened on every forum since Day One. It’s just sad that when someone shows a few of them to be false, the persons who made the claim can’t act like a man and admit they have been shown that their claim was incorrect… which leads to sissy name calling and insults on their behalf, and making additional bogus claims to try to support the first one they made which, is impossible to do anyway.
I’ve admitted on a few occasions that I was incorrect. It’s just sad that some of you are not mature enough to do the same.