|
|
On March 04 2014 05:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 04:55 m4ini wrote:On March 04 2014 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2014 04:42 BronzeKnee wrote: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. I just looked up his "source", which is a book calling hitler not just a normal german leader, but a normal western leader, the same as chamberlain, daladier or stresemann. It's only this book (weirdly enough, A J P Taylors most controversal book, who wouldve thought) that could be used as a source for bs like that. Quoting this as a source by someone who is "well versed in history" is, well. The obvious point that he's missing is the clear technological superiority of Western (particularly US) forces to Russian forces. No where is this disparity more apparent than in comparing the air forces. That's why it is stupid to even make the comparison in the first place.
Only the US. The EU military power is extremely weak and diluted, I really doubt we'd stand a chance in a conventionnal war against Russia. That being said the US military superiority changes a lot of things compared to the 30s, making the situation really different. Who would have thought.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
Meanwhile@Crimea:
http://itar-tass.com/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/1018463
Short recap: so, Crimea's governing forces decided for the better of their own people to.... remove sources of information (some TV channels) because they 'do not provide truthful information'. Hey, Russia, i want this too, i dream of getting rid of our TV. Can anyone confirm?
|
On March 04 2014 04:59 whiteLotus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 04:46 Roman666 wrote:
Seems that 4th article was finally invoked. lol it was invoked like 3 days ago by lithuania,poland and someone else, it does absolutely nothing.
lol it was invoked but no actual meeting under 4th article took place.
|
On March 04 2014 04:59 SilentchiLL wrote:
I don't know if it was mentioned before, but the US is currently preparing sanctions, the use of which are "likely".
They won't do much if Europe doesn't prepare them aswell.
|
On March 04 2014 05:06 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2014 04:55 m4ini wrote:On March 04 2014 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2014 04:42 BronzeKnee wrote: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. I just looked up his "source", which is a book calling hitler not just a normal german leader, but a normal western leader, the same as chamberlain, daladier or stresemann. It's only this book (weirdly enough, A J P Taylors most controversal book, who wouldve thought) that could be used as a source for bs like that. Quoting this as a source by someone who is "well versed in history" is, well. The obvious point that he's missing is the clear technological superiority of Western (particularly US) forces to Russian forces. No where is this disparity more apparent than in comparing the air forces. That's why it is stupid to even make the comparison in the first place. Only the US. The EU military power is extremely weak and diluted , I really doubt we'd stand a chance in a conventionnal war against Russia. That being said the US military superiority changes a lot of things compared to the 30s, making the situation really different. Who would have thought.
I don't know, I talked to a guy who served in the russian army already and according to him their equipment had quite a lot of... experience.
|
On March 04 2014 05:06 lolfail9001 wrote:Meanwhile@Crimea: http://itar-tass.com/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/1018463Short recap: so, Crimea's governing forces decided for the better of their own people to.... remove sources of information (some TV channels) because they 'do not provide truthful information'. Hey, Russia, i want this too, i dream of getting rid of our TV. Can anyone confirm?
Transforming Crimea into another Russia province. Time to get added to the Russian internet backbone too, install some filters so that innocent citizens dont get polluted by Western ideas.
|
|
|
On March 04 2014 05:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 04:55 m4ini wrote:On March 04 2014 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2014 04:42 BronzeKnee wrote: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. I just looked up his "source", which is a book calling hitler not just a normal german leader, but a normal western leader, the same as chamberlain, daladier or stresemann. It's only this book (weirdly enough, A J P Taylors most controversal book, who wouldve thought) that could be used as a source for bs like that. Quoting this as a source by someone who is "well versed in history" is, well. The obvious point that he's missing is the clear technological superiority of Western (particularly US) forces to Russian forces. No where is this disparity more apparent than in comparing the air forces. That's why it is stupid to even make the comparison in the first place.
I only mentioned a comparison of forces to point that Hitler was not prepared in 1939 as people claimed he was for war with the Britain or France. Their forces dwarfed his. Russia's forces today are in a far better position compared to Hitler's in the case of a limited war. Russia has local superiority, Hitler did not. Luckily, Britain and France did nothing 1939.
On paper, Russia is far more of a threat than Hitler was in 1939. Will Russia get bold and do anything else? Who knows.
But if the western response today is the same as it was pre-WW2 to Hitler, Russia might get bold.
|
Article 4 is just people coming togeather to talk. Article 5 is the one that means war is coming and has only been invoked once after 9/11 2001 for obvious reasons.
If anything I think the largest thing to come out of this may be that ukraine joins NATO as well possible the baltic states.
|
On March 04 2014 05:07 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 04:59 SilentchiLL wrote:
I don't know if it was mentioned before, but the US is currently preparing sanctions, the use of which are "likely".
They won't do much if Europe doesn't prepare them aswell.
Maybe the rest of the european states and the US can pressure the UK into changing its mind in that regard, we'll have to wait for the statements of the other nations.
|
On March 04 2014 05:08 SilentchiLL wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 05:06 corumjhaelen wrote:On March 04 2014 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2014 04:55 m4ini wrote:On March 04 2014 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2014 04:42 BronzeKnee wrote: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. I just looked up his "source", which is a book calling hitler not just a normal german leader, but a normal western leader, the same as chamberlain, daladier or stresemann. It's only this book (weirdly enough, A J P Taylors most controversal book, who wouldve thought) that could be used as a source for bs like that. Quoting this as a source by someone who is "well versed in history" is, well. The obvious point that he's missing is the clear technological superiority of Western (particularly US) forces to Russian forces. No where is this disparity more apparent than in comparing the air forces. That's why it is stupid to even make the comparison in the first place. Only the US. The EU military power is extremely weak and diluted , I really doubt we'd stand a chance in a conventionnal war against Russia. That being said the US military superiority changes a lot of things compared to the 30s, making the situation really different. Who would have thought. I don't know, I talked to a guy who served in the russian army already and according to him their equipment had quite a lot of... experience.
So does most of the equipment for regulars in EU countries. That's not exclusive of Russia. Or atleast, that was my experience in the army.
|
On March 04 2014 05:06 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2014 04:55 m4ini wrote:On March 04 2014 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2014 04:42 BronzeKnee wrote: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. I just looked up his "source", which is a book calling hitler not just a normal german leader, but a normal western leader, the same as chamberlain, daladier or stresemann. It's only this book (weirdly enough, A J P Taylors most controversal book, who wouldve thought) that could be used as a source for bs like that. Quoting this as a source by someone who is "well versed in history" is, well. The obvious point that he's missing is the clear technological superiority of Western (particularly US) forces to Russian forces. No where is this disparity more apparent than in comparing the air forces. That's why it is stupid to even make the comparison in the first place. Only the US. The EU military power is extremely weak and diluted, I really doubt we'd stand a chance in a conventionnal war against Russia. That being said the US military superiority changes a lot of things compared to the 30s, making the situation really different. Who would have thought.
I think you're shortselling EU power a bit and overestimating the Russians. Correct me if I am wrong, but the Russians are more or less using the same shit that Saddam used back in 1991. The EU has better stuff than that.
|
On March 04 2014 05:05 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 04:56 r.Evo wrote:On March 04 2014 04:48 Ramong wrote:
Holy f***, do you think quoting that book makes what you say any more right?
Russia can't take on Europe, let alone NATO militarily even if he wanted.
the Russian army is far to small to occupy anything larger than Ukraine The issue is that it's completely irrelevant who can take on who in a conventional war. Risking a war between nuclear powers because "in a conventional war we'd win easily" is a pretty dangerous game to play. Especially when it's about the pretty much only country in Europe Russia can get away with doing this to without risking escalating the situation themselves. Well, technically there is Finland and Sweden I assume but I don't know enough about their specific situations to know if they have any other non-NATO aces up their sleeves. I don't see what makes you so convinced that western leaders will step up to the plate in the hypothetical scenario where Russia decides to annex part of the baltics. Lithuania isn't exactly worth risking nuclear war over either.
The good news for the Baltics is, Putin waits between 4-6 years before starting the next foreign adventure so by the time 'fascist nazi junta in Vilnus wishes to exterminate Russians so we must intervene' starts being broadcast on TV, he might be safely dead. And then they will take another 10 years to build up cult of personality around Igor Sechin. Although I guess with modern computers maybe the can just glue Sechin's face on Putin's torso when he is wrestling bears or flying jets or whatever else he spends his days doing when he isnt invading neighbors.
|
On March 04 2014 05:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 05:06 corumjhaelen wrote:On March 04 2014 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2014 04:55 m4ini wrote:On March 04 2014 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2014 04:42 BronzeKnee wrote: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. I just looked up his "source", which is a book calling hitler not just a normal german leader, but a normal western leader, the same as chamberlain, daladier or stresemann. It's only this book (weirdly enough, A J P Taylors most controversal book, who wouldve thought) that could be used as a source for bs like that. Quoting this as a source by someone who is "well versed in history" is, well. The obvious point that he's missing is the clear technological superiority of Western (particularly US) forces to Russian forces. No where is this disparity more apparent than in comparing the air forces. That's why it is stupid to even make the comparison in the first place. Only the US. The EU military power is extremely weak and diluted, I really doubt we'd stand a chance in a conventionnal war against Russia. That being said the US military superiority changes a lot of things compared to the 30s, making the situation really different. Who would have thought. I think you're shortselling EU power a bit and overestimating the Russians. Correct me if I am wrong, but the Russians are more or less using the same shit that Saddam used back in 1991. The EU has better stuff than that.
Russia uses the same stuff as Saddam back in 1991?! You don't know about their "export variants" do you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_variants_of_Soviet_military_equipment
"For example, the inferior 3VBM8/3BM17/18 APFSDS 125 mm smoothbore rounds were exported for use in the T-72 family of tanks. It was specifically designed for export and had a penetration of sloped armor at 2000 m that was half as much as that of the original Soviet model."
Fyi, best tank Iraq had in 1991, was the T-72. Exported from the Soviet Union. It was the monkey model (aka export variant).
"Monkey-model weaponry was used mainly by non-communist Soviet allies, such as Egypt, Iraq and Syria. Eastern Bloc states generally used fully capable versions of Soviet weaponry, although poorer states often used earlier generations of weapons."
The best Russian armor is equivalent to the best western armor today.
The biggest advantage the Russians have today is local superiority. It would be a logistical nightmare to assemble an army to actually challenge the Russians on any piece of territory owned by the former Soviet Union.
|
On March 04 2014 05:10 SilentchiLL wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 05:07 Godwrath wrote:On March 04 2014 04:59 SilentchiLL wrote:
I don't know if it was mentioned before, but the US is currently preparing sanctions, the use of which are "likely".
They won't do much if Europe doesn't prepare them aswell. Maybe the rest of the european states and the US can pressure the UK into changing its mind in that regard, we'll have to wait for the statements of the other nations.
good luck to change the mind of the City
|
On March 04 2014 05:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 05:06 corumjhaelen wrote:On March 04 2014 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2014 04:55 m4ini wrote:On March 04 2014 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2014 04:42 BronzeKnee wrote: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. I just looked up his "source", which is a book calling hitler not just a normal german leader, but a normal western leader, the same as chamberlain, daladier or stresemann. It's only this book (weirdly enough, A J P Taylors most controversal book, who wouldve thought) that could be used as a source for bs like that. Quoting this as a source by someone who is "well versed in history" is, well. The obvious point that he's missing is the clear technological superiority of Western (particularly US) forces to Russian forces. No where is this disparity more apparent than in comparing the air forces. That's why it is stupid to even make the comparison in the first place. Only the US. The EU military power is extremely weak and diluted, I really doubt we'd stand a chance in a conventionnal war against Russia. That being said the US military superiority changes a lot of things compared to the 30s, making the situation really different. Who would have thought. I think you're shortselling EU power a bit and overestimating the Russians. Correct me if I am wrong, but the Russians are more or less using the same shit that Saddam used back in 1991. The EU has better stuff than that.
On behalf of the german army: no we don't. Not in the appropriate numbers.
Sincerly, former armored infantery, learned on a tank built (literally) in the 70s.
|
On March 04 2014 05:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 05:06 corumjhaelen wrote:On March 04 2014 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2014 04:55 m4ini wrote:On March 04 2014 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2014 04:42 BronzeKnee wrote: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. I just looked up his "source", which is a book calling hitler not just a normal german leader, but a normal western leader, the same as chamberlain, daladier or stresemann. It's only this book (weirdly enough, A J P Taylors most controversal book, who wouldve thought) that could be used as a source for bs like that. Quoting this as a source by someone who is "well versed in history" is, well. The obvious point that he's missing is the clear technological superiority of Western (particularly US) forces to Russian forces. No where is this disparity more apparent than in comparing the air forces. That's why it is stupid to even make the comparison in the first place. Only the US. The EU military power is extremely weak and diluted, I really doubt we'd stand a chance in a conventionnal war against Russia. That being said the US military superiority changes a lot of things compared to the 30s, making the situation really different. Who would have thought. I think you're shortselling EU power a bit and overestimating the Russians. Correct me if I am wrong, but the Russians are more or less using the same shit that Saddam used back in 1991. The EU has better stuff than that.
Apart from the nukes the EU military could probably blast the Russians off the map in a week.
|
On March 04 2014 05:10 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 05:08 SilentchiLL wrote:On March 04 2014 05:06 corumjhaelen wrote:On March 04 2014 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2014 04:55 m4ini wrote:On March 04 2014 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2014 04:42 BronzeKnee wrote: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. I just looked up his "source", which is a book calling hitler not just a normal german leader, but a normal western leader, the same as chamberlain, daladier or stresemann. It's only this book (weirdly enough, A J P Taylors most controversal book, who wouldve thought) that could be used as a source for bs like that. Quoting this as a source by someone who is "well versed in history" is, well. The obvious point that he's missing is the clear technological superiority of Western (particularly US) forces to Russian forces. No where is this disparity more apparent than in comparing the air forces. That's why it is stupid to even make the comparison in the first place. Only the US. The EU military power is extremely weak and diluted , I really doubt we'd stand a chance in a conventionnal war against Russia. That being said the US military superiority changes a lot of things compared to the 30s, making the situation really different. Who would have thought. I don't know, I talked to a guy who served in the russian army already and according to him their equipment had quite a lot of... experience. So does most of the equipment for regulars in EU countries. That's not exclusive of Russia. Or atleast, that was my experience in the army.
So you shot a cannon that was probably from WW2 as well? 
On March 04 2014 05:11 Makro wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 05:10 SilentchiLL wrote:On March 04 2014 05:07 Godwrath wrote:On March 04 2014 04:59 SilentchiLL wrote:
I don't know if it was mentioned before, but the US is currently preparing sanctions, the use of which are "likely".
They won't do much if Europe doesn't prepare them aswell. Maybe the rest of the european states and the US can pressure the UK into changing its mind in that regard, we'll have to wait for the statements of the other nations. good luck to change the mind of the City
Nothing is impossible.
|
On March 04 2014 05:10 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 05:05 Derez wrote:On March 04 2014 04:56 r.Evo wrote:On March 04 2014 04:48 Ramong wrote:
Holy f***, do you think quoting that book makes what you say any more right?
Russia can't take on Europe, let alone NATO militarily even if he wanted.
the Russian army is far to small to occupy anything larger than Ukraine The issue is that it's completely irrelevant who can take on who in a conventional war. Risking a war between nuclear powers because "in a conventional war we'd win easily" is a pretty dangerous game to play. Especially when it's about the pretty much only country in Europe Russia can get away with doing this to without risking escalating the situation themselves. Well, technically there is Finland and Sweden I assume but I don't know enough about their specific situations to know if they have any other non-NATO aces up their sleeves. I don't see what makes you so convinced that western leaders will step up to the plate in the hypothetical scenario where Russia decides to annex part of the baltics. Lithuania isn't exactly worth risking nuclear war over either. The good news for the Baltics is, Putin waits between 4-6 years before starting the next foreign adventure so by the time 'fascist nazi junta in Vilnus wishes to exterminate Russians so we must intervene' starts being broadcast on TV, he might be safely dead. And then they will take another 10 years to build up cult of personality around Igor Sechin. Although I guess with modern computers maybe the can just glue Sechin's face on Putin's torso when he is wrestling bears or flying jets or whatever else he spends his days doing when he isnt invading neighbors.
Add the underwater artifacts excavation and wreckage salvaging to the list of his hobbys.
|
On March 04 2014 05:12 SilentchiLL wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 05:10 Godwrath wrote:On March 04 2014 05:08 SilentchiLL wrote:On March 04 2014 05:06 corumjhaelen wrote:On March 04 2014 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2014 04:55 m4ini wrote:On March 04 2014 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2014 04:42 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 04:41 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2014 04:34 BronzeKnee wrote:
[quote]
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).
[quote]
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. I just looked up his "source", which is a book calling hitler not just a normal german leader, but a normal western leader, the same as chamberlain, daladier or stresemann. It's only this book (weirdly enough, A J P Taylors most controversal book, who wouldve thought) that could be used as a source for bs like that. Quoting this as a source by someone who is "well versed in history" is, well. The obvious point that he's missing is the clear technological superiority of Western (particularly US) forces to Russian forces. No where is this disparity more apparent than in comparing the air forces. That's why it is stupid to even make the comparison in the first place. Only the US. The EU military power is extremely weak and diluted , I really doubt we'd stand a chance in a conventionnal war against Russia. That being said the US military superiority changes a lot of things compared to the 30s, making the situation really different. Who would have thought. I don't know, I talked to a guy who served in the russian army already and according to him their equipment had quite a lot of... experience. So does most of the equipment for regulars in EU countries. That's not exclusive of Russia. Or atleast, that was my experience in the army. So you shot a cannon that was probably from WW2 as well? .
Even better, i carried a MG42.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
