I’m not surprised that Liberals don’t know that Russia still uses Mosins in their lower echelon marksmen teams, but I am disappointed that they’re believing this narrative.
The US does this to literally everyone that is even remotly threatening to him. It goes from the axis, to socialists countries, to third world countries, everyone is completelly unprepared, unequiped and falling to pieces, but they still are an threat to the most powerfull country in the world, somehow.
I recently played call of duty 1 where they have that storyline. Its quite funny, when you play that mission you dont have a gun, and all the rifles carried by other soldiers disappear into thin air the moment they die. Its a miracle that Russia won the battle under such circumstances.
It’s regarded as ahistoric nonsense by a wide array of historians, including anti-communist ones. But anti-communist armchair historians are still like “yeah but, it’s real tho right? because I learned about it in Enemy at the Gates, and Hollywood would never lie to me”
It doesnt make any sense if you take just a few moments to think about it. Russia was a major military producer back then (still is), producing 57 thousand T-34 tanks. And such a country cant produce some simple rifles? Besides, whats the use in sending unarmed soldiers to war, if they could be used to produce weapons instead?
I’m not surprised that Liberals don’t know that Russia still uses Mosins in their lower echelon marksmen teams, but I am disappointed that they’re believing this narrative.
They’re literally doing the “red army soldiers were sent into Stalingrad with one rifle per 5 men” bullshit again.
The paradox of the Soviet soldier: endlessly unequiped and incompetent while being endlessly threatening to the West.
When westoids want to puff their chest and claim their superiority over the ‘savages’
When westoids hear a sound at night and shit themselves thinking “it must be those gommies again!11”
The US does this to literally everyone that is even remotly threatening to him. It goes from the axis, to socialists countries, to third world countries, everyone is completelly unprepared, unequiped and falling to pieces, but they still are an threat to the most powerfull country in the world, somehow.
I recently played call of duty 1 where they have that storyline. Its quite funny, when you play that mission you dont have a gun, and all the rifles carried by other soldiers disappear into thin air the moment they die. Its a miracle that Russia won the battle under such circumstances.
It’s regarded as ahistoric nonsense by a wide array of historians, including anti-communist ones. But anti-communist armchair historians are still like “yeah but, it’s real tho right? because I learned about it in Enemy at the Gates, and Hollywood would never lie to me”
It doesnt make any sense if you take just a few moments to think about it. Russia was a major military producer back then (still is), producing 57 thousand T-34 tanks. And such a country cant produce some simple rifles? Besides, whats the use in sending unarmed soldiers to war, if they could be used to produce weapons instead?
Thats the difference between someone that actually knows history, and someone that is high on that cool juice.