Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 46
  1. #1
    Need to validate email

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    55
    Post Thanks / Like

    Should the Allies have invaded Russia right after World War II?

    George Patton originally proposed this idea as he imagined that the Soviets would become enemies with the United States soon after the war.

    Pros:
    The Soviets didn't have a nuclear stockpile until 1950 and didn't have a competitive stockpile until the 1960's. We could have defeated Russia before they obtained nuclear weapons and before revolutionary China would get involved. The Allies could have prevented the entire cold war.

    Cons:
    The U.S. was in a mountain of debt, an invasion on the USSR would have made repairing Europe less of priority, there were many communist spies in the US, and if the invasion turned out to be a failure, all hope for the world would have been lost.
    Either way, it would have been a decision that would completely change history and it is something worth thinking about.

  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    6,328
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the Allies have invaded Russia right after World War II?

    Sounds like a bad idea to me. Attacking Russia has always proven to be a bad move in the past. Its too big and too harsh to mount an easy invasion.

    The only harm that really came from Russia was the wars in Vietnam and Korea, but in truth they were more emulating Russia than falling under its direct control.

  3. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    485
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the Allies have invaded Russia right after World War II?

    I agree with the reasoning behind it but I am convinced the attack would have been a failure for these reasons.

    They would have had a massive advantage because they were fighting in Russia. Maps were considered top secret in the USSR, so much so that the average Soviet soldier was never taught how to use one, and you would be going into a massive country with only a general idea of what lies ahead.
    The difficulty of supplying an army large enough to attack Russia is immense considering the size of the country alone, and then you must take into account the harsh Russian winters and the 2 or 3 month long melting season where Russia's dirt roads become mud and are virtually impassable. The fact that the Russians had also just finished fighting a defensive campaign would also be to their advantage, as they would likely still have fortifications and first hand knowledge of the lay of the land.

    Now we come to the armies themselves, where I am not so convinced that the Allies would have had an edge. The Allies relied heavily on massive amounts of close air support and artillery combined with overwhelming numerical superiority to defeat the Germans. The Allies likely would have had air superioity, though not in as dominant a fashion as they did over the Luftwaffe, but they would have been outgunned in terms of artillery by the Red Army, who had more mortars than every other combatant combined in WW2.
    In armor, the Soviets would have held a decisive edge. In numbers they would have held a slight edge, but in quality the T-34-85, newly produced IS-2, and SU-152 "animal hunter" would have outgunned the Sherman tank which was the main tank of both the British and Americans.

    I don't know if the Soviets would have been able to mount a counterattack and take Western Europe, but I don't think there was any chance an invasion of RUssia would have succeeded.
    "I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived in President, during I arrived in President."
    Dubya

  4. #4
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    9,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the Allies have invaded Russia right after World War II?

    The Red Army was on the verge of collapse at the end of WWII, hyperinflation dramatically over extended supply lines and a lack of general party control made the force barely able to sustain itself. If anyone has ever read "Panzer Battles" Von Mellenthin points out that it was wide spread belief in the German army that they would assist the allies in a drive on the soviets, his last job was planning resupply and movement operations in that effort. I think an allied invasion of Russia is certainly feasible, especially if you restrain it to the Ural mountains and liberation of eastern Europe.

    However, in a larger picture sense the utter failure of the Soviet Union is a much better example of why Communism and Socialism are terrible ideas than a preemptive invasion.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  5. #5
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the Allies have invaded Russia right after World War II?

    First, of all, we should ask this question -

    Would the people approve? The citizens of the Allies countries were already extremely unpleased with the war. With such a high death toll, would the nation's leaders truly be capable of doing exactly what Hitler did and backstab them? Not only that, but the citizens of the nation would we rioting, protesting that this was insanity. Why would the Allies, who had lost millions, even think about invading Russia? Sure, they might have a chance to win. But at what cost? Another couple million people dead? Millions of more dollars for whatever scare amounts of fuel they had left? Also, unless Patton managed to create another one of his Blitzkriegs, it would be incredibly hard to make full headway into Russia - let alone the action taking a full headway into his supplies.

    Furthermore, who would have wanted the world in more disarray? Even the Germans at that point were welcoming surrender.
    Nun, Volk, steh' auf, und Sturm, brich' los!

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    ..:: ( Comtesse ) ::..

  6. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago IL
    Posts
    1,222
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the Allies have invaded Russia right after World War II?

    Russia is a big country, with a lot of people.

    While the military was in shambles, history proves that the Russians do not roll over easily. There are a lot of them, and they will band together to fight off a common enemy.

    Regardless of the political state, or the lack of a nuclear stock pile, such an attempt would have been a waste of time, money, and more importantly lives. What good would knocking the Russians out do? Expand our debt? Get us involved in a country so filled with turmoil and strife that there was no hope of fixing it.

    Beyond that... what nuclear stock pile did we have right after The Second World War? None. Sure, we had the tech, but it takes a good deal of time and money to build these.

    Overall: waste of time, money, people, resources etc. It would have ended in a stalemate. How many invasions of Russia have been successful? It is not worth the time. They may have been sloppy, unorganized, and poor, but they were mean as hell, and fought like all hell to push the Germans all the way back. In all honesty, the Russians dealt with a lot more on the Eastern Front then we did on the Western, and we dealt with a lot more on the Eastern than the Western too... ironically. Not worth the time and resources.

  7. #7
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    9,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the Allies have invaded Russia right after World War II?

    I disagree, a liberation of Eastern Europe and maybe even parts of Russia would have dramatically curtailed Soviet power and would have provided a fully modern Europe fifty years earlier.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  8. #8
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    51
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the Allies have invaded Russia right after World War II?

    There seems to be a pretty good case for invading Russia, but I agree with Comtesse's point that the public would broadly be against it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347
    However, in a larger picture sense the utter failure of the Soviet Union is a much better example of why Communism and Socialism are terrible ideas than a preemptive invasion.
    That's true, but if you could prevent the half century of misery, would it not be preferable to invade?
    I try never fall into the trap of believing my own theories.

  9. #9
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Where ever you tell me, Drill Sergeant!
    Posts
    2,199
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the Allies have invaded Russia right after World War II?

    If we had bent Japan to surrender before Germany, I think it probably would have happened. A great deal of the Soviet materiel was already in Europe, in close proximity to our armies. We could have fought them in Europe instead of Russia. But, we still had Japan to contend with.
    The Signature Religion is the one true religion. I know this is true, because it says so right here in this signature.

  10. #10
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    909
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the Allies have invaded Russia right after World War II?

    During the Cold War the USA lost about 350,000 casualties of war (from Wikipedia, rough estimates from Vietnam + Korean wars) . Germany lost about 3 million soldiers fighting on the Eastern Front.

    It is true that the USSR was weakened, etc etc, but given the disparity I really doubt that the USA would have lost less than 350,000 casualties in an invasion. With that kind of math, it was a good idea not to invade.

    (I admit this is an oversimplification.)

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    B-town
    Posts
    11
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the Allies have invaded Russia right after World War II?

    well the correct thing to do would have been to nuke russia into submission the same way they did Japan; problem is, ever since the "people" have had a say in anything; the government isnt allowed to get anything practical done.

    in the end there has to be 1 nation in control of the planet. basically play risk with 4 other people and youll see what im talking about.

    ---------- Post added at 11:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:10 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
    If we had bent Japan to surrender before Germany, I think it probably would have happened. A great deal of the Soviet materiel was already in Europe, in close proximity to our armies. We could have fought them in Europe instead of Russia. But, we still had Japan to contend with.
    thats easily the most tactically disastrous idea i've heard in a while.

    the enemy of my enemy is my friend....until said friend kills said enemy for me. im referring to americans fighting russians in europe while still having to deal with germans; Japan was and always will be just an island that poses no real threat to anyone. sure many allied soldiers died in the pacific. but the pacific war was also won in under half the time the european war was fought.

  12. #12
    Need to validate email

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    55
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the Allies have invaded Russia right after World War II?

    Quote Originally Posted by Comtesse View Post
    First, of all, we should ask this question -

    Would the people approve? The citizens of the Allies countries were already extremely unpleased with the war. With such a high death toll, would the nation's leaders truly be capable of doing exactly what Hitler did and backstab them?
    Popular opinion shouldn't decide policy. Just because people "don't like" war doesn't mean it is not necessary.

  13. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Where ever you tell me, Drill Sergeant!
    Posts
    2,199
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the Allies have invaded Russia right after World War II?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gothik View Post

    thats easily the most tactically disastrous idea i've heard in a while.

    the enemy of my enemy is my friend....until said friend kills said enemy for me. im referring to americans fighting russians in europe while still having to deal with germans; Japan was and always will be just an island that poses no real threat to anyone. sure many allied soldiers died in the pacific. but the pacific war was also won in under half the time the european war was fought.
    Ah, another armchair general. This will be easy.

    We were talking about taking on Russia AFTER the Germans... so, we wouldn't have had the Germans to worry about. After Hitler was gone, there was very little resistance among the Wehrmacht; a few SS companies had gone to ground to attempt a guerrilla action, but we stomped them out pretty quickly. There was no German Army to speak of two weeks after Hitler's death.

    Japan was a threat to mainland Asia, having conquered Manchuria and some of Mongolia, but by that point in the war they were effectively out-maneuvered and over extended. It only took us half the time to take them out because it took us the first half of the war to get our manufacturing and industrial base turned to the war effort. By the time we started concentrating on the Pacific Theater with any real commitment, the victory in Europe was a foregone conclusion. The entire industrial power of the US had been unleashed.

    However, if Japan had unconditionally surrendered before Germany, leaving us with no declared enemies, I don't see it as implausible in the least to think we would have struck at the Russians after German capitulation. If not a full-scale invasion of Mother Russia, at the very least Eastern Europe.
    The Signature Religion is the one true religion. I know this is true, because it says so right here in this signature.

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    B-town
    Posts
    11
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the Allies have invaded Russia right after World War II?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
    Ah, another armchair general. This will be easy.
    o rly?

    *ahem*

    you make the mistake of assuming that an enemy who has not yet surrendered is beaten (the germans, ww1??lol??), if japan had indeed surrendered before the germans and the americans had engaged russia on euro soil...well i think its safe to say that little war would have cost both sides nothing but a body count.
    Please tell me the point of fighting someone on someone elses ground? if the goal was to take russia, youd want to press them back into their own land quickly and force them to fall back on their age old tactics of burn and run. but having learned from napolean and hitlers mistakes, secured your supply lines while slowing yet steadily moving into their lands (much easier to just nuke them imo)

    you mention an invasion of europe without a full scale invasion of russia; that would be awesome if the goal was to take europe i suppose. (im twisting your words on purpose!)

    and as for the pacific war, though it really doesnt pertain to this argument; yes we spent half the time preparing and the other half fighting, that doesnt change the fact that the allies slaughtered thousands of japanese soldiers and crushed their military forces in just a few years. pearl harbour being the only time, and as close as the japanese got to american soil.

    but back to the issue; a very strained american military was stationed in europe at the end of the war; to ask these men who just fought their way out of the fire that was normandy, into the frying pan of berlin, to even contemplate invading russia, or engaging russia in any would have been pure lunacy.

    plus now you have to gain support from countries that have just endured 6 years of hell, to aid you in creating a possible 6 more? cause we all know that no 1 nation can or ever will take russia, i mean....it took an entire world just to stop germany! im sorry but any invasion or confrontation with russia at that point would have been disastrous.

    the only tactically sound move would have been to nuke the living crap out of russia till they cried uncle louder than the japs.

    and you would do well to offer your "armchair generals" a little bit more respect sir; reading a history textbook doesnt make you sun tzu.

  15. #15
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Where ever you tell me, Drill Sergeant!
    Posts
    2,199
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the Allies have invaded Russia right after World War II?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gothik View Post
    o rly?

    *ahem*

    you make the mistake of assuming that an enemy who has not yet surrendered is beaten (the germans, ww1??lol??),
    Uh... what the hell are you talking about? If Japan had surrendered before the Germans, they would have been beaten... And the Germans in WWI? It took them YEARS to reconstitute. They were beaten, for a loooooong time.

    if japan had indeed surrendered before the germans and the americans had engaged russia on euro soil...well i think its safe to say that little war would have cost both sides nothing but a body count.
    Based on what?


    Please tell me the point of fighting someone on someone elses ground?
    Because it wasn't Russia! That's the whole point! If the Russian Army (or a great part of it, anyway) was NOT IN RUSSIA, with it's harsh winters, long supply lines, and dug-in defensive nightmare positions for attackers to deal with, then fighting the Russian army somewhere other than Russia makes a ton of sense, doesn't it?

    if the goal was to take russia, youd want to press them back into their own land quickly and force them to fall back on their age old tactics of burn and run.
    Or beat them in Europe, and march into Russia at your leisure, during the next convenient summer. No burning. No running. Just a stroll (and the occasional peasantry with pitchforks to deal with).

    but having learned from napolean and hitlers mistakes, secured your supply lines while slowing yet steadily moving into their lands (much easier to just nuke them imo)
    Supply lines... IN THE WINTER. And nukes? A city or two, maybe. If it came to that. But honestly, even if we did "start" a war with Russia at that point, I don't think nukes would have been viable, not after using them on Japan. I think public opinion of the US would have drastically turned against us if we were to use nukes in a "war of aggression" (even if we somehow justified that war to the masses), or even on a second country. Bullies, indeed.

    you mention an invasion of europe without a full scale invasion of russia; that would be awesome if the goal was to take europe i suppose. (im twisting your words on purpose!)
    All of Europe, NOT united under the USSR. Most of their industrial base, natural resources, and population was and still is largely located in Eastern Europe. It would have marginalized Russia (and the Soviet Union) from the outset. And besides, Moscow is pretty close to Ukraine and Belarus.

    and as for the pacific war, though it really doesnt pertain to this argument; yes we spent half the time preparing and the other half fighting, that doesnt change the fact that the allies slaughtered thousands of japanese soldiers and crushed their military forces in just a few years. pearl harbour being the only time, and as close as the japanese got to american soil.
    You made the claim that the Japanese weren't really a threat, and attempted to justify that claim by stating that we finished them off so quickly, they must not have been a threat. I simply stated that we didn't pay as much attention to the Pacific in terms of manpower and materiel until late in the war, when our industrial might had already peaked. It's kind of like playing Command and Conquer or Star Craft - if you get your resources and industry up to such a point that the enemy simply cannot compete with what you are sending at them, then you've won... but the build-up takes time. We were fighting Germany long before all of our attentions were turned to the war effort, so naturally it took a bit longer (also considering that Germany had been doing it's own build up long before we even entered the war; we were playing catch up at first).

    And you are quite simply wrong about the Japanese never getting closer than Pearl Harbor.

    The first block on this Wiki entry covers Japanese attacks on the US and Canada.

    While not totally devastating, the tactics were essentially harassment, designed to distract us from other endeavors. Some succeeded in harming our shipping, while others incited panic on the West Coast.

    but back to the issue; a very strained american military was stationed in europe at the end of the war; to ask these men who just fought their way out of the fire that was normandy, into the frying pan of berlin, to even contemplate invading russia, or engaging russia in any would have been pure lunacy.
    Quite a few of those men went straight to the Pacific Theater after Germany's surrender. How is this different?

    plus now you have to gain support from countries that have just endured 6 years of hell, to aid you in creating a possible 6 more?
    Russia was originally on Germany's side, sort of. Would those abused by the Wehrmacht have cared? I don't know; I didn't live in Europe at the time. In fact, I didn't live at all then. But would the US have cared what Europe thought? I don't think we would have. We would have done what we thought we had to do.

    cause we all know that no 1 nation can or ever will take russia,
    Support?

    i mean....it took an entire world just to stop germany!
    Except for Italy, Japan, and at first Russia. And the non-involvement from the US for a number of years.

    im sorry but any invasion or confrontation with russia at that point would have been disastrous.
    Again, we had the numbers and materiel in theater already. I don't see where all this disaster would come from that you speak of. I'm not saying an invasion would have been a good idea, or a moral idea, or the right idea, but I don't think it would have been disastrous, and I do think it would have happened if Japan was already subdued.

    the only tactically sound move would have been to nuke the living crap out of russia till they cried uncle louder than the japs.
    Wouldn't have to, if you destroyed their army while it was in Europe. Give them the long supply lines and deny them their defensive positions and hostile terrain in their home territory, I don't think it would have come down to nukes.

    and you would do well to offer your "armchair generals" a little bit more respect sir; reading a history textbook doesnt make you sun tzu.
    First of all, I am in the process of quitting smoking; I am short tempered and medicated, so I apologize for the condescension. However, if you don't like the attitude, you should probably police yourself as well - "thats easily the most tactically disastrous idea i've heard in a while" wasn't exactly respectful either, per se. And I think it's pretty obvious I'm passably knowledgeable in WWII history; I am currently in the profession of Arms, so some of this "war" stuff has not only academic appeal to me, but also practical application. You could say I've done more than just glanced at a textbook.

    I also use proper punctuation and capitalization. That goes a long way toward being taken more seriously.
    The Signature Religion is the one true religion. I know this is true, because it says so right here in this signature.

  16. #16
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    485
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the Allies have invaded Russia right after World War II?

    Gothik well the correct thing to do would have been to nuke russia into submission the same way they did Japan; problem is, ever since the "people" have had a say in anything; the government isnt allowed to get anything practical done.
    The US's arsenal included only four nuclear weapons, two of which were used on Japan. As we didn't have nuclear ICBMs at this time, the delivery would have had to have been via strategic bomber. This bomber would have had to fly over hundreds of miles of Soviet controlled territory and through countless layers of air defense. Then, they would have to bomb a blacked out city who's exact location isn't known. Suffice to say, this was not a viable option.

    Japan was and always will be just an island that poses no real threat to anyone.
    The Far East disagrees.
    http://www.fasttrackteaching.com/map16Japanese.html


    but the pacific war was also won in under half the time the european war was fought.
    The Pacific War began ( for America) when Pearl Harbor and the Philippines were attacked in the first two weeks of December of 1941, and ended in August of 1945. The War in Europe lasted from June of 1944 and ended 11 months later.

    the only tactically sound move would have been to nuke the living crap out of russia till they cried uncle louder than the japs.
    I hope you now know that this simply could not have happened.
    "I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived in President, during I arrived in President."
    Dubya

  17. #17
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    9,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the Allies have invaded Russia right after World War II?

    Quote Originally Posted by cdubs View Post
    The US's arsenal included only four nuclear weapons, two of which were used on Japan. As we didn't have nuclear ICBMs at this time, the delivery would have had to have been via strategic bomber. This bomber would have had to fly over hundreds of miles of Soviet controlled territory and through countless layers of air defense.
    Actually just for accuracy's sake the Russian air defense system was virtually non-existent, they had only one type of non-us fighter that was a disaster and did not have the capacity to produce replacement parts for the US lent ones.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  18. #18
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    485
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the Allies have invaded Russia right after World War II?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Actually just for accuracy's sake the Russian air defense system was virtually non-existent, they had only one type of non-us fighter that was a disaster and did not have the capacity to produce replacement parts for the US lent ones.
    Yes, but the Soviets also had an entire branch of their armed forces dedicated to Air Defense, and having just warded off the bombings of the Luftwaffe they were likely experienced and well positioned.

    It is unlikely that these AA gun emplacements would have advanced en masse because they were towed pieces and likely would not have been very helpful for an army that stressed constant advance regardless of losses; but also because according to Wiki six months after the Battle of Kursk the Russians had a 3:2 loss ratio in the air. Considering that in June of 1944 the Soviets had 14,700 aircraft in Europe and that the Germans had 4,600 ( a portion of which likely would have been in the West in anticipation of the imminent Allied invasion) it is not unreasonable to assume that the Russians had air superiority and would not have needed AA formations.

    statistic on plane numbers
    http://www.angelfire.com/ct/ww2europe/stats.html
    "I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived in President, during I arrived in President."
    Dubya

  19. #19
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    9,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the Allies have invaded Russia right after World War II?

    Quote Originally Posted by cdubs View Post
    Yes, but the Soviets also had an entire branch of their armed forces dedicated to Air Defense, and having just warded off the bombings of the Luftwaffe they were likely experienced and well positioned.
    They didn't really fend of an attack from the Luftwaffe though, the Luftwaffe just ceased to exist. Their ADA was not of any kind that could reach a B-29 at altitude.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  20. #20
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    184
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should the Allies have invaded Russia right after World War II?

    Defeating the Soviet Union and trying to occupy it after wards, are 2 different things I believe.

    The occupation, would have been disasterous in my opinion. The land is just too large, and the people have attributes that would have made occupation very difficult.

 

 
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 2008 South Ossetia War
    By Oh snap in forum International Affairs
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: October 12th, 2009, 09:27 AM
  2. God's Creation of the World
    By yogurt252 in forum Religion
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: March 5th, 2007, 05:59 PM
  3. Is this the God you worship?
    By Trendem in forum Religion
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: February 15th, 2007, 01:03 AM
  4. Equality : A Practical and Ethical Plan to Save the World!
    By Hope in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: December 9th, 2006, 12:30 AM
  5. Sushi
    By Snoop in forum Hobbies
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: April 14th, 2006, 10:42 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •