Probably because the Germans handed Russia's arse to it on a silver platter before it was stopped by the Russian winter and commitments elsewhere. Russia did not defeat the Germans. The Germans did. So was England, America, and Japan. Actually, Russia relied extensively on western aid in terms of materials for the entire war. Even their vaunted production effort wasn't enough to contain the German advance. In addition, as has already been stated in posts you obviously hadn't bothered to read or dismssed as being irrelevant, Germany could not commit entirely to Russia while the western allies remained undefeated. Therefore, the statement that Russia could have won the war single handed is false (or at least not proven to be true), and you have not addressed the op.
But not capitalistic which is what you said. Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets.[1] Income in a capitalist system takes at least two forms, profit on the one hand and wages on the other. There is also a tradition that treats rent, income from the control of natural resources, as a third phenomenon distinct from either of those. In any case, profit is what is received, by virtue of control of the tools of production, by those who provide the capital. Often profits are used to expand an enterprise, thus creating more jobs and wealth. Wages are received by those who provide a service to the enterprise, also known as workers, but do not have an ownership stake in it, and are therefore compensated irrespective of whether the enterprise makes a profit or a loss. In the case of profitable enterprise, profits are therefore not translated to workers except at the discretion of the owners, who may or may not receive increased compensation, whereas losses are not translated to workers except at similar discretion manifested by decreased compensation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism So you now see that being a Facist or Dictator isn't a Capitalistic way of running a country.
Whatever, my point is that communism is a peaceful ideology, as opposed to anti-equality ideologies like both fascism and capitalism.
Not quite sure what you're saying? I might be reading it wrong. Japan was heavily commited in SE Asia by then; they wouldn't have had much available to do so. They probably could have, had they reacted differently to America's entry into the war. A change in military direction once things are flowing doesn't happen overnight, though. Particularly when, as was the case with Japan at that stage, things appeared to be progressing quite well.
So is Democracy when implemented properly by good leaders. Democracy is better to me because it has a way for the best to rise to the surface and make more of themselves. Opportunities arise everyday within a Democracy to become anything that you want to become, even the President , if you want to.
Except when capitalists keep you down; are you forgetting about the billions around the world who are exploited each and every day?
Show me the difference between exploiting someone with a Communistic system as opposed to a Capitalistic one. Do you see any differences if so tell me what they are.
People under true communism are not exploited; it is because of capitalist influence and oppression that communistic endeavors are corrupted.
But you see that's the problem there's no perfect person or perfect people. If you had only one person controlling everybody then that person could take advantage of them moreso than a person who is freely elected every 2 or 4 years.
I am assuming the original premise of the (drunken) thread. Only Russia fights. No U.S Entry, no U.K Entry. No France entry(unless attack I guess).
No that can't be true. Communism selects its leaders from a governmental body of other like minded people so nothing ever really changes. And with Democracy comes capitalism as well.
There are far too many variables at work here. I doubt russia could have, without worrying about a Western front Germany could deliver a total eastern push into Russia which would have meant taking over the tooling factories for the T34 and IS which had only barely been moved in the actual war. But if they could have held the germans back while the IS and IS-2 tanks were being produced they could have annihilated the German panzers and tigers with the IS series Which were far superior in firepower, speed, and frontal armor. So it comes down to whether the Russians could have withstood the onslaught long enough to allow the IS series of tanks to come online.
=> "true communism" is a utopia that can never exist. Which is to say that it might be a nice idea, but one should be very careful of where its pursuit will actually lead you, in the real world.
I have yet to seen casualties sustained not given as a measurement of power. No, the western Allies split Hitler's forces, and that was a major cause of Axis defeat. The Luftwaffe's weakening was largely due to the efforts of western Allies.
