PDA

View Full Version : Why were U.S soldiers marching in Red Square?




Warrior_of_Freedom
05-12-2010, 01:53 PM
Wut?
7:32
YouTube - World War II Victory Parade Red Square, 2010 - Part IV Allied Troops March (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j-oY7zXi0s&feature=related)

Elwar
05-12-2010, 01:56 PM
Early practice for when we're a Communist country.

Kludge
05-12-2010, 01:58 PM
They were glad to have defeated Fascism, too?

(Kind of ironic, I guess...)

Todd
05-12-2010, 02:22 PM
if it's the part at 7:32, those aren't Marines. Those are U.S. Army service blues. :eek:

Warrior_of_Freedom
05-12-2010, 02:29 PM
if it's the part at 7:32, those aren't Marines. Those are U.S. Army service blues. :eek:

well shows how much i know about the military :P

Vessol
05-12-2010, 02:40 PM
if it's the part at 7:32, those aren't Marines. Those are U.S. Army service blues. :eek:

Yeah, I was about to say.

"More important question: Why are Marines marching in Army blues?"

Pericles
05-12-2010, 02:51 PM
Early practice for when we're a Communist country.

Would have been my first reaction, except that it was the first time AFAIK that allied nations with Russia have been invited or participated in the WWII victory parade of the Soviet Union. Although I have to say that watching the US Army (at least our guys were carrying M-14s) and the Irish Guards trying to keep step with the different cadence of the Russian Army was painful.

The YouTube was of the Allied nations, starting with Albania, and going alphabetically by country.

Vessol
05-12-2010, 02:54 PM
Uh..why were Irish marching in the parade? Ireland was strictly neutral.

And am I the only one who finds Poland marching in the parade hilarious? Considering that Russia was all for doubleteaming them until Germany turned on the USSR.

Pericles
05-12-2010, 03:01 PM
Uh..why were Irish marching in the parade? Ireland was strictly neutral.

And am I the only one who finds Poland marching in the parade hilarious? Considering that Russia was all for doubleteaming them until Germany turned on the USSR.

The Irish Guards are a regiment in the British Army. The Brigade of Foot Guards consists of the Coldstream Guards, Grenadier Guards, Scots Guards, Welch Guards, and Irish Guards.

Kludge
05-12-2010, 03:17 PM
Germany's Merkel was there, too.

I don't think any industrialized nations would today support Nazi Germany.... -- It's a good excuse to build up bonds.

JK/SEA
05-12-2010, 03:24 PM
Its nice to see everybody getting along........warms my heart.

HOLLYWOOD
05-12-2010, 03:29 PM
They were glad to have defeated Fascism, too?

(Kind of ironic, I guess...)


yeap... They were glad the US stole Fascism!

mconder
05-12-2010, 03:59 PM
I would not have participated, even if ordered under threat of court martial and the possibility of imprisonment. Were the hell did integrity go?

Umbro2914
05-12-2010, 04:22 PM
Uh..why were Irish marching in the parade? Ireland was strictly neutral.

And am I the only one who finds Poland marching in the parade hilarious? Considering that Russia was all for doubleteaming them until Germany turned on the USSR.


The Poles were the first ones to fight against Nazi Germany, and this parade was commemorating the defeat of Nazi Germany, thus to exclude the Poles would have been a travesty. however yes, i see what your alluding too.
Also, the Poles looked the best in the video :) just my unbiased opinion. Polish military uniform > All other.

Pericles
05-12-2010, 04:24 PM
This is the more interesting part:

YouTube - Victory Day Parade on Red Square, Moscow, 9 May 2009 (High Quality) - 5/6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENKjiSmJnvY)

Almost everything shown are post Cold War equipment designs.

nate895
05-12-2010, 04:30 PM
They aren't officially communist anymore. I don't see anything inherently wrong with this march.

Vessol
05-12-2010, 04:39 PM
Am I the only one who finds military parades highly disturbing? To me it's basically the State showing off its force to both its own people and the rest of the world.

NoHero
05-12-2010, 05:01 PM
My grandpa was in the navy, and said they were marched out of Shanghai when the communists took over. Said a lot of white pantlegs were red from the blood of all the republicans in the streets. After that and Korea, he loathed war and blood.

Inflation
05-12-2010, 09:51 PM
It's about time!

It should have happened a few weeks after we marched through Berlin.

The Army wanted to take out the Red Menace, but FDR was too much of a communist [Mormon].

eproxy100
05-13-2010, 12:34 AM
Some of you guys are acting like the cold war never ended. Sheesh. Please follow the founding fathers' advice and stop being so belligerent.

aspiringconstitutionalist
05-13-2010, 01:00 AM
That horse walks with the beat really well.

Vessol
05-13-2010, 01:13 AM
Some of you guys are acting like the cold war never ended. Sheesh. Please follow the founding fathers' advice and stop being so belligerent.

This.

Our Founding Fathers preached non-interventionism.

Inflation
05-13-2010, 07:05 PM
This.

Our Founding Fathers preached non-interventionism.



:rolleyes:

Except when they were practicing direct intervention in North Africa, and expanding rapidly in North America at the expense of many other Nations:


More than two hundred years ago the newly established United States made its first attempt to fight an overseas battle to protect its private citizens by building an international coalition against an unconventional enemy. Then the enemies were pirates and piracy. The focus of the United States and a proposed international coalition was the Barbary Pirates of North Africa.

Pirate ships and crews from the North African states of Tripoli, Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers (the Barbary Coast) were the scourge of the Mediterranean.


Thomas Jefferson, United States minister to France, opposed the payment of tribute, as he later testified in words that have a particular resonance today. In his autobiography Jefferson wrote that in 1785 and 1786 he unsuccessfully "endeavored to form an association of the powers subject to habitual depredation from them. I accordingly prepared, and proposed to their ministers at Paris, for consultation with their governments, articles of a special confederation." Jefferson argued that "The object of the convention shall be to compel the piratical States to perpetual peace." Jefferson prepared a detailed plan for the interested states. "Portugal, Naples, the two Sicilies, Venice, Malta, Denmark and Sweden were favorably disposed to such an association," Jefferson remembered, but there were "apprehensions" that England and France would follow their own paths, "and so it fell through."

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtjprece.html

eproxy100
05-13-2010, 10:10 PM
:rolleyes:

Except when they were practicing direct intervention in North Africa, and expanding rapidly in North America at the expense of many other Nations:

Pirates were attacking US ships in neutral waters, therefore you cannot say the attacks on the pirates in North Africa were uncalled for.

Vessol
05-13-2010, 10:29 PM
That and I don't see how it was interventionism as it was interfering with a non-State entity, and after it was over it's not like we stayed in North Africa and did nation building.

foofighter20x
05-13-2010, 10:44 PM
God, they suck at marching.

Diagonals, people! Watch them!

libertarian4321
05-14-2010, 02:37 PM
It's about time!

It should have happened a few weeks after we marched through Berlin.

The Army wanted to take out the Red Menace, but FDR was too much of a communist [Mormon].

Well, not the entire Army- a couple of well known (and notoriously hot-headed) generals did.

Do you have any idea what a task it would have been to defeat the Soviet Army in May 1945?

Not only were we still fighting the Japanese, they had a MASSIVE and very formidable Army.

Remember, the Soviets did MOST of the ground fighting in Europe- D-Day and the battles following from June '44 to May '45 were little more than "mop up" duty, and the battles in Italy, while not a picnic, were tiny compared to the battles the Soviets and Germans fought.

In May of '45, the Soviet forces on continental Europe were much larger than all the other allied forces combined. Not only that, but they were far more battle hardened than our guys were. In addition (and this is not something you will read in US HS History books), much of their weaponry was Superior (their tanks were far better than ours, for example- the T-34 medium tank was the best all around tank of the war, and we had nothing that could stand up to their heavy JS tanks).

We would have had an advantage in the air, and a huge naval advantage (although that may not have helped much in slogging through a European ground war).

We might have been able to beat them, but it would have been a war like this country has never fought before- would have lasted for years and cost millions of American lives.

Not something the American people would have supported, and there is even less chance that war-weary Britain, France, etc would have supported us.

Bottom line: Attacking the Soviets in May '45 would have been a VERY bad idea, one that could have had catastrophic consequences for us.

Pericles
05-14-2010, 02:55 PM
True as far as it goes. The us supplied over half the trucks used in the Soviet Army (lend -lease), and the Army was just about bled dry defeating the Germans, while the US never fully mobilized.

This is like saying there is no way to take on the USA because we kicked butt in Sandbox I and the Army is well trained as a result of Sandbox II.

"What was really amazing was the speed with which the Americans adapted themselves to modern warfare. Starting from scratch an army has been crafted in the very minimum of time, which, in equipment, armament and organization of all arms, surpasses anything the world has yet seen." Erwin Rommel

SamuraisWisdom
05-14-2010, 04:43 PM
If the US military is going to march anywhere in the world I'd rather it be in this way.