(False) Historical stereotypes

You have to admit desertion was a major issue in the Russian Army, which hardly goes in their favour as a great army.

Well they had home court advantage. The constructions they made to hide from the Americans were ingenious. It caused confusion and hurt american morale.

I wasn't disagreeing with your overall conclusion, just pointing out the flaws in the Russian Army, to restore some balance to the situation.

The russians were not prepared! They didn't have enough shoes, food, weapons, or clothing for the massive peasant army they conscripted. You cant argue with that. But that doesn't mean that the Russians sucked, either. The peasants didn't want to fight! the army was were most of the communist talk began! The army at the time was poor, out dated and hungry. That is why the Russian Empire fell.

Well when I was trying to point out some it's flaws (which made the army so crippled it had to abandon offenses) you kept hiding behind numbers that meant nothing. Was it the Russians that killed all of the Germans and Austrians in WWI?

-Napoleon was short. In actuallity the his height was 5'7 which was above average for the time period. The reason for misconception were the differences between the English and French measurement systems.
-Queen Marie Antionette never said "Let them Eat Cake". It was most likely made by some anti-royalist either during or after the revolution as propoganda.
-Jimmy Carter was the first Southener elected President since the Civil War.Lyndon Johnson waas born in Texas and Woodrow Wilson in Viriginia and served before Carter.
-Thomas Edison invented the Lightbulb. Edison actually invented very little and stole ideas from his workers, including the lightbulb which had been invented in the 1830's but wasn't until Edison actually found a way to make it last longer did it really start to take off.

Yae, Thomas Edison was a salesman. He knew how to sell ideas.

Oh, and on the subject of Japan, here's another one:

Banzai attacks were devastating ambushes. (Not)

Wait, what are getting mad about? Why can't I give my thoughts on the subject (which is backed up by historical facts) without you devolving into an angry sixth-grader? And when I asked about the numbers, that was an actual question. Were the numbers you got specifically about the Russians?

I am sorry I disagree with you. I say we move into another historical topic.

Well the Battle of Tannenburg had a resounding effect for the rest of the war. The heavily outgunned and outmaned German forces beating back the Russians. It quickly shattered the myth of the Russian steamroller and ended with the suicide of General Samsonov. Or if you want to move to the Western front the 100 Days Offensive, pushing the Germans behind the Hindenburg Line and signaling the end of the war.

Ad hominem attacks are always fun.

When your source says that casualties are difficult to determine numbers become unreliable.

Not using Wikipedia would be a good start.

It mostly proves that the Ottomans and Austrians were just as bad as the Russians. The Turkish fronts proved to be large indecisive and Brusilov was one of Russia's rare successes. Two successful operations do not prove anything, if they did then you have to explain to me Stallupon, Gumbinnen, Tannenberg, both battles of the Masurian Lakes, Lodz, and Riga. At the end of the day Russia's only real choice as Baron von Kuhlmann said, "is with what sort of sauce they shall be eaten with.

More ad hominem.

@D3adtrap I suggest you use more professional language, you are a mod for Christ sake, no excuses

Are YOU kidding me!? YOU ACTUALLY THINK THE RUSSIANS WERE PREPARED!? Ok here are some citations:A Little History of the World by E.H Gombrich, The Russian Revolution by Sheila Fitzpatrick, A Military Atlas of The First World War by Arthur Banks, World War One by Norman Stone, and a History of Russia by Nicholas V. Riasanovsky and Mark D. Stienberg. EDIT: Oh and of course, Eyewitness Books: World War I.