|
|
On March 04 2014 04:17 SilentchiLL wrote:
Putin isn't ready to go to war with the western world as Hitler was,
I'm sorry but I stopped reading here. You don't know what you're talking about.
Hitler didn't plan to go to war with Britain or France until 1946. He was not ready for war with the west. Look it up.
Better yet, here is a source:
A J P Taylor in his book "The Origins of the Second World War" writes:
"Hitler never intended a major war and at most was prepared for only a limited war against Poland."
"In 1938-39, the last peacetime years, Germany spendt on armaments about 15 percent of her gross national product. The British proportion was almost exactly the same. German expenditure on armaments was actually cut down after Munich and remained on this lower level, so that british production of aeroplanes, for example, was way ahead of Germany by 1940. When the war broke out in 1939, Germany had 1,450 modern fighter planes and 800 bombers; Great Britain and France had 950 fighters and 1,300 bombers. The German had 3,500 tanks; Great Britain and France had 3,850. These numbers do not suggest that Germany had planned and prepared a great war that they started in 1939."
"One of Hitler's Generals, Keitel, wrote in his diary about the German-Italian military talks in April 1939, which were initiated after Italian pressure. It turned out that the Italians insisted on to tell that they could only be ready for war earlist in 1942. The German representatives agreed with them."
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/lesson31.htm
"Hitler did not think Britain would go to war over Poland, having failed to do so over Czechoslovakia."
Again, I am well versed in history.
The fact is, Hitler did not expect Britain or France to declare war on Germany. He was not prepared. It is well known he thought they were bluffing. Remember the phony war period? Yeah, it was because no one was actually prepared...
|
On March 04 2014 04:22 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 04:10 Jaaaaasper wrote:On March 04 2014 04:05 Nyxisto wrote:
Although historic resemblances come to mind here please don't act like Putin is literally Hitler. The decisions that need to be made here are very concrete and I doubt that "hey, the situation vaguely remembers me of Hitler annexing Czechoslovakia about a hundred years ago" is a very good argument. Well he is taking the "protecting ethnic russians" right out of the hitler play book, and a british leader named chamlberlain's manhood did just shrivel back up into his body. And he has rigged elections while claiming to be the beloved leader of his nation, and he is setting a minority up to be discriminated against and even lynched to distract his people from the shit hes doing,so this is better than most of the times a world leader has been called literally hitler. The playing field is very different now. The economy of Europe and the US combined are now 15x larger than Russias. We have weapons around now that I don't want to see being used in a WW III scenario. Russia isn't a superpower any more. Sharp economic sanctions, especially hitting the Russian leadership and important state companies are probably way more potent now then getting into a military conflict. Russia, simply for economic reasons, can't afford to mess up it's relationships much more. We already have the bigger leverage and can sit this one out.
He's referring to the point that it seems like the UK is ruling out any significant economic sanctions by keeping the city open to russians. Obviously economic sanctions are the way to go, but if the EU can't even get its act together on those. The way it looks now is that the EU will get together, make a 'strong' statement and do nothing, which would only embolden Putin to do it again.
What should happen is to make this hurt for Russia, and certain EU members with a shit foreign policy record to begin with (UK, DE, NL) care more about the money in the bank than doing something to show that Russia can't decide to take another part of another country next. Then again, strategic foreign policy vision in europe died a long time ago.
|
On March 04 2014 04:27 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 04:22 Nyxisto wrote:On March 04 2014 04:10 Jaaaaasper wrote:On March 04 2014 04:05 Nyxisto wrote:
Although historic resemblances come to mind here please don't act like Putin is literally Hitler. The decisions that need to be made here are very concrete and I doubt that "hey, the situation vaguely remembers me of Hitler annexing Czechoslovakia about a hundred years ago" is a very good argument. Well he is taking the "protecting ethnic russians" right out of the hitler play book, and a british leader named chamlberlain's manhood did just shrivel back up into his body. And he has rigged elections while claiming to be the beloved leader of his nation, and he is setting a minority up to be discriminated against and even lynched to distract his people from the shit hes doing,so this is better than most of the times a world leader has been called literally hitler. The playing field is very different now. The economy of Europe and the US combined are now 15x larger than Russias. We have weapons around now that I don't want to see being used in a WW III scenario. Russia isn't a superpower any more. Sharp economic sanctions, especially hitting the Russian leadership and important state companies are probably way more potent now then getting into a military conflict. Russia, simply for economic reasons, can't afford to mess up it's relationships much more. We already have the bigger leverage and can sit this one out. He's referring to the point that it seems like the UK is ruling out any significant economic sanctions by keeping the city open to russians. Obviously economic sanctions are the way to go, but if the EU can't even get its act together on those. The way it looks now is that the EU will get together, make a 'strong' statement and do nothing, which would only embolden Putin to do it again.
Yes, I agree. They obviously need to do pass some meaningful sanctions now . But I think it's important to not perceive Russia as the 'giant threat in the east'. It's simply a corrupt country that scrambles along and does what every shitty country does, namely waging war on it's neighbours to deflect from internal problems.
|
|
|
On March 04 2014 04:27 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 04:17 SilentchiLL wrote:
Putin isn't ready to go to war with the western world as Hitler was,
I'm sorry but I stopped reading here.
I'm slightly sorry, but I stopped reading here.
Putin can't afford a full-out war with the west, which is why he isn't ready to do so, denying that would be pretty hilarious since the foreign policy of the entire cold war was based on that.
And next time you tell your conversational partner that you completely ignored his opinion, don't write such a long post yourself, since that's the point where people stop taking you serious.
|
On March 04 2014 04:33 SilentchiLL wrote:
And next time you tell your conversational partner that you completely ignored his opinion, don't write such a long post yourself, since that's the point where people stop taking you serious.
I did not ignore your opinions, I judged your opinions that were based on statements that were not factual, and were false. I was arguing with someone ignorant of history.
This situation (Russia invading Crimea) has far more in common with what happened in Czechoslovakia than than most people know, because they don't understand history. The claims you've made to try to prove that wrong, has just shown how ignorant you are regarding the situation prior to WW2.
You could admit "hell I was wrong, this situation does have a lot in common" but I don't expect you to do that. Why? Because people who don't know often can't admit they are wrong, otherwise they would know (people who can admit they are wrong and change their views become right more often because of this trait).
On March 04 2014 04:33 SilentchiLL wrote:
Putin can't afford a full-out war with the west, which is why he isn't read to do so,
Hitler couldn't either. And that ended really well didn't it?
|
In my opinion, what should happen is that we should sent a fleet to the black sea. I am not suggesting an all-out war with Russia, but Crimea is a peninsula and we (Britain and France?) could secure it quite easily. Send a fleet, issue an ultimatum, let Putin be the one to back down.
|
On March 04 2014 04:34 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 04:33 SilentchiLL wrote:On March 04 2014 04:27 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 04:17 SilentchiLL wrote:
Putin isn't ready to go to war with the western world as Hitler was,
I'm sorry but I stopped reading here. Putin can't afford a full-out war with the west, which is why he isn't read to do so, Hitler couldn't either. And that ended really well didn't it?
Hitlers army was a lot larger than the Russian army is currently
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/ukraine-the-dc-battle-that-wasnt-104162.html?ml=po_r
A Pew survey published in December even found that for the first time, a majority of Americans say that the United States should “mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own.” Fifty-two percent of respondents agreed with that proposition, while only 38 percent disagreed.
“This is the most lopsided balance in favor of the U.S. ‘minding its own business’ in the nearly 50-year history of the measure,” Pew reported.
Another job well done by President Bush.
|
On March 04 2014 04:34 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 04:33 SilentchiLL wrote:On March 04 2014 04:27 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 04:17 SilentchiLL wrote:
Putin isn't ready to go to war with the western world as Hitler was,
I'm sorry but I stopped reading here. Putin can't afford a full-out war with the west, which is why he isn't read to do so, Hitler couldn't either. And that ended really well didn't it?
Why do you ignore that back then the west wasn't so united?
The Americans wouldn't have had to get into the conflict, britain and france nearly didn't do so either.
You keep on bringing up these comparisons that make so little sense with the slightest bit of detail used, how long did it take for the US to intervene in WW2?
Nowadays the US wouldn't have to intervene in a foreign conflict like back then, it would be THEIR conflict.
|
On March 04 2014 04:33 SilentchiLL wrote:
And next time you tell your conversational partner that you completely ignored his opinion, don't write such a long post yourself, since that's the point where people stop taking you serious.
I did not ignore your opinions, I judged your opinions that were based on statements that were not factual, and were false. I was arguing with someone ignorant of history.
This situation (Russia invading Crimea) has far more in common with what happened in Czechoslovakia than than most people know, because they don't understand history. The claims you've made to try to prove that wrong, has just shown how ignorant you are regarding the situation prior to WW2.
You could admit "hell I was wrong, this situation does have a lot in common" but I don't expect you to do that. Why? Because people who don't know often can't admit they are wrong, otherwise they would know (people who can admit they are wrong and change their views become right more often because of this trait).
On March 04 2014 04:36 Ramong wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 04:34 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 04:33 SilentchiLL wrote:On March 04 2014 04:27 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 04:17 SilentchiLL wrote:
Putin isn't ready to go to war with the western world as Hitler was,
I'm sorry but I stopped reading here. Putin can't afford a full-out war with the west, which is why he isn't read to do so, Hitler couldn't either. And that ended really well didn't it? Hitlers army was a lot larger than the Russian army is currently
This is laughable.
A J P Taylor in his book "The Origins of the Second World War" writes:
"Hitler never intended a major war and at most was prepared for only a limited war against Poland."
"In 1938-39, the last peacetime years, Germany spendt on armaments about 15 percent of her gross national product. The British proportion was almost exactly the same. German expenditure on armaments was actually cut down after Munich and remained on this lower level, so that british production of aeroplanes, for example, was way ahead of Germany by 1940. When the war broke out in 1939, Germany had 1,450 modern fighter planes and 800 bombers; Great Britain and France had 950 fighters and 1,300 bombers. The German had 3,500 tanks; Great Britain and France had 3,850. These numbers do not suggest that Germany had planned and prepared a great war that they started in 1939."
Russia's army advantage over Ukraine is massive. Germany didn't have an army advantage. Germany wasn't ready for war in 1939!
|
On March 04 2014 04:34 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 04:33 SilentchiLL wrote:
And next time you tell your conversational partner that you completely ignored his opinion, don't write such a long post yourself, since that's the point where people stop taking you serious.
I did not ignore your opinions, I judged your opinions that were based on statements that were not factual, and were false. I was arguing with someone ignorant of history. This situation (Russia invading Crimea) has far more in common with what happened in Czechoslovakia than than most people know, because they don't understand history. The claims you've made to try to prove that wrong, has just shown how ignorant you are regarding the situation prior to WW2. You could admit "hell I was wrong, this situation does have a lot in common" but I don't expect you to do that. Why? Because people who don't know often can't admit they are wrong, otherwise they would know (people who can admit they are wrong and change their views become right more often because of this trait). Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 04:33 SilentchiLL wrote:
Putin can't afford a full-out war with the west, which is why he isn't read to do so,
Hitler couldn't either. And that ended really well didn't it?
You can't really compare the relative strength of Putin's army now to Hitler's in 1938. American/NATO forces would ROFLstomp the Russian military in a way that the Allies could only dream of doing in World War II.
|
On March 04 2014 04:35 hzflank wrote:
In my opinion, what should happen is that we should sent a fleet to the black sea. I am not suggesting an all-out war with Russia, but Crimea is a peninsula and we (Britain and France?) could secure it quite easily. Send a fleet, issue an ultimatum, let Putin be the one to back down.
here we go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War ,like old times
|
Why do we talk about Germany and WW2 all over again? I guess it may be an intersting topic but not helpful now.
|
On March 04 2014 04:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 04:34 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 04:33 SilentchiLL wrote:
And next time you tell your conversational partner that you completely ignored his opinion, don't write such a long post yourself, since that's the point where people stop taking you serious.
I did not ignore your opinions, I judged your opinions that were based on statements that were not factual, and were false. I was arguing with someone ignorant of history. This situation (Russia invading Crimea) has far more in common with what happened in Czechoslovakia than than most people know, because they don't understand history. The claims you've made to try to prove that wrong, has just shown how ignorant you are regarding the situation prior to WW2. You could admit "hell I was wrong, this situation does have a lot in common" but I don't expect you to do that. Why? Because people who don't know often can't admit they are wrong, otherwise they would know (people who can admit they are wrong and change their views become right more often because of this trait). On March 04 2014 04:33 SilentchiLL wrote:
Putin can't afford a full-out war with the west, which is why he isn't read to do so,
Hitler couldn't either. And that ended really well didn't it? You can't really compare the relative strength of Putin's army now to Hitler's in 1938. American/NATO forces would ROFLstomp the Russian military in a way that the Allies could only dream of doing in World War II.
For the third time:
A J P Taylor in his book "The Origins of the Second World War" writes:
"In 1938-39, the last peacetime years, Germany spendt on armaments about 15 percent of her gross national product. The British proportion was almost exactly the same. German expenditure on armaments was actually cut down after Munich and remained on this lower level, so that british production of aeroplanes, for example, was way ahead of Germany by 1940. When the war broke out in 1939, Germany had 1,450 modern fighter planes and 800 bombers; Great Britain and France had 950 fighters and 1,300 bombers. The German had 3,500 tanks; Great Britain and France had 3,850. These numbers do not suggest that Germany had planned and prepared a great war that they started in 1939."
Throw Poland's forces into the mix, and the Allies greatly outnumber the Germans prior to WW2. It isn't even close. Look this stuff up guys before you blindly state such stuff.
http://ww2-weapons.com/Orders-of-battle/Germany/Wehrmacht/September-1939.htm
http://ww2-weapons.com/Orders-of-battle/UK/Britsih-Army/September-1939.htm
http://ww2-weapons.com/Orders-of-battle/France/Forces-1939.htm
http://ww2-weapons.com/Orders-of-battle/Poland/Forces-September-1939.htm
1939 German Forces total:
3,706,104 men (103 divisions), 3,478 tanks, over 7,000 guns
4,093 planes (inc. 1,176 bombers, 1,179 fighters, 335 dive-bombers) - see Luftwaffe Orders of Battle
2 old battleships, 2 battlecruisers, 3 pocket battleships, 8 cruisers, 22 destroyers, 56 submarines
1939 British Forces total:
897,000 men, 26 divisions, 1,146 tanks, about 2,600 guns
1,911 planes (747 fighters, 871 bombers)
15 capital ships, 6 aircraft carriers, 61 cruisers, 181 destroyers, 59 submarines
1939 French Forces total:
5,000,000 men, 99 divisions, 4,200 tanks, about 11,000 guns
2,916 planes (1,114 fighters, 1,002 bombers)
7 capital ships, 1 aircraft carrier, 19 cruisers, 70 destroyers, 75 submarines
1939 Polish Forces total:
2,500,000 men (40 divisions), 1,140 armored fighting vehicles, over 1,800 guns
433 planes
4 destroyers, 5 submarines
|
On March 04 2014 04:39 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 04:33 SilentchiLL wrote:
And next time you tell your conversational partner that you completely ignored his opinion, don't write such a long post yourself, since that's the point where people stop taking you serious.
I did not ignore your opinions
Seriously?
On March 04 2014 04:27 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 04:17 SilentchiLL wrote:
Putin isn't ready to go to war with the western world as Hitler was,
I'm sorry but I stopped reading here.
And please don't insult me like you did in the rest of your post, you have a very simplified view of history and yet call me "ignorant" in regards to it.
I'm sorry but I just can't take you serious anymore, if you want to keep this discussion up, write me a PM, I won't answer you, but atleast it'll keep you from clogging up this thread even more with your theories.
EDIT:
On March 04 2014 04:39 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 04:33 SilentchiLL wrote:
And next time you tell your conversational partner that you completely ignored his opinion, don't write such a long post yourself, since that's the point where people stop taking you serious.
You could admit "hell I was wrong, this situation does have a lot in common" but I don't expect you to do that. Why? Because people who don't know often can't admit they are wrong, otherwise they would know (people who can admit they are wrong and change their views become right more often because of this trait).
Atleast this conversation ended on a funny note.
|
Yet again Putin is not Hitler, Krim is not Poland, its not 1933.
|
Seems that 4th article was finally invoked.
|
I dont think anyone can deny there are a lot of similarites with 1938. Id like to point out that according to wikipedia 25% of Estonian citizens are russian minority. Estonia - next Danzig? You can say Estonia is in NATO shes safe right? Well guess what, Poland in 1939 was allied to 2 colonial superpowers (France, GB) and it didnt helped a lot.
And I dont think that saying that the world is different now and in 1939 is strong argument. Before WWII, no one would think about a possibility that Germans (civilized, cultural nation) would proceed to murder millions of civilians because they were wrong nationality.
|
On March 04 2014 04:42 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 04:41 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2014 04:34 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 04:33 SilentchiLL wrote:
And next time you tell your conversational partner that you completely ignored his opinion, don't write such a long post yourself, since that's the point where people stop taking you serious.
I did not ignore your opinions, I judged your opinions that were based on statements that were not factual, and were false. I was arguing with someone ignorant of history. This situation (Russia invading Crimea) has far more in common with what happened in Czechoslovakia than than most people know, because they don't understand history. The claims you've made to try to prove that wrong, has just shown how ignorant you are regarding the situation prior to WW2. You could admit "hell I was wrong, this situation does have a lot in common" but I don't expect you to do that. Why? Because people who don't know often can't admit they are wrong, otherwise they would know (people who can admit they are wrong and change their views become right more often because of this trait). On March 04 2014 04:33 SilentchiLL wrote:
Putin can't afford a full-out war with the west, which is why he isn't read to do so,
Hitler couldn't either. And that ended really well didn't it? You can't really compare the relative strength of Putin's army now to Hitler's in 1938. American/NATO forces would ROFLstomp the Russian military in a way that the Allies could only dream of doing in World War II. For the third time: A J P Taylor in his book "The Origins of the Second World War" writes: "In 1938-39, the last peacetime years, Germany spendt on armaments about 15 percent of her gross national product. The British proportion was almost exactly the same. German expenditure on armaments was actually cut down after Munich and remained on this lower level, so that british production of aeroplanes, for example, was way ahead of Germany by 1940. When the war broke out in 1939, Germany had 1,450 modern fighter planes and 800 bombers; Great Britain and France had 950 fighters and 1,300 bombers. The German had 3,500 tanks; Great Britain and France had 3,850. These numbers do not suggest that Germany had planned and prepared a great war that they started in 1939." Throw Poland's forces into the mix, and the Allies greatly outnumber the Germans prior to WW2. It isn't even close. Look this stuff up guys before you blindly state such stuff.
Who gives a shit about the numbers that you're quoting when Hitler turned around and buttfucked France and drove the British out of Europe in 6 weeks? Russia couldn't do anything similar to that today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
