|
|
On March 04 2014 05:09 Sermokala wrote:
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.
Baltic states are already a part of NATO.
|
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.
I'm really not an expert, but I have above average knowledge of the French military (I was a member of it, I did not serve in it, but many of my friends had first hand experience there). It's already turning at full capacity, we can barely get our soldiers sufficient rest time and the disparity of efficiency between regiment is very high. We couldn't have been to Mali, an ex-colony where we sent a big infantry regiment, without american help. Our equipment is in many domains inedequate at best. Our intelligence service has been rendered useless. And more importantly, our population is absolutely not ready to wage war, losing 10 soldiers is a trauma to us.
A conventionnal war against any medium-strength country is basically out of a question for France alone. England probably is a bit better, but I honestly doubt it's much more. For many reasons, we've given up on our military power, and that explains a lot...
|
On March 04 2014 05:13 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 05:12 SilentchiLL wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Lucky you, we only have the MG3 (a downgraded version of the MG42). Still was fun.
Edit: point being, in germany, you have to contingents of tanks. The total number of them doesn't matter, since they're split in "ready for usage in foreign countries, meaning working condition", and the ones you get trained on.
On my tank in particular, we had hydraulic loss as a problem at least once or twice a day, forcing me to handcrank the turret. So.. I don't know about other countries, but the german army is certainly not a matchwinner.
|
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.
It's not unlikely that France's army would lose to itself in 1991, before profesionnalisation and the end of drafting.
|
On March 04 2014 05:13 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 05:12 SilentchiLL wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Noice, though I don't think we should hold the rest of europe up to spanish standards in regards to their armies... no offense.
|
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.
The UK has a modern military, perhaps a couple of years behind the US. The big problem is we don't have much of it. For example, while our missiles might be as good as American ones, they have dozens if not hundreds of times as many missiles.
A big problem with the current UK military is that we decomissioned our carriers before the new ones are ready. Thankfully, the French have carriers that we can use.
Europe can easily defend itself from Russia. Invading Russia would be an altogether different thing, due to the geographical size of it and out limited quantity of forces.
|
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
Yeah the UK does what the city wants. You can do what you want, as long as you don't touch the banker's money.
|
The similarities between Russia / Nazi Germany and Putin / Hitler are very striking. As a person who studies modern history - especially the world war conflicts - I can't help but see this.
First, Putin is the very definition of a fascist dictator. Ironic, considering Russia's usage of "fighting fascists" as one method to scapegoat their way into Ukraine. The point is, Russia is not a communist state anymore. It's a nationalist right-wing state with all the fixings. It even has the hallmark of a minority group that the government is actively vilifying in order to strengthen nationalist identity and fervor. It happens to be homosexuals, but it could just as easily be blacks, Jews or any other minority, so long as it suites the purpose of homogenizing the majority of the populace.
In addition, Putin's justification and motivation for territorial expansion into the West is uniquely equivalent to that of Nazi Germany in the 30's. The justification is simply that ethnic Russians living abroad want to rejoin Russia and are under threat (obviously a bogus claim) The real motivation is that the Russian government feels that it's former territories were unjustly separated from the homeland after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It feels that the West is responsible for this occurring and it wants these territories back.
These states include Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, Poland, Moldova, Belarus, Romania, Georgia, etc. Putin has not only alluded to this on several occasions verbally, but he has also acted to require territory during the Russo-Georgia war. It's quite clear what Russia's motivations are - the question is, how far will Putin go in order to achieve his objectives?
Obviously the former Eastern Bloc states already know all of this, which is why some spectators may be surprised at the military mobilization and sense of panic coming from them. These states know and understand what's going on here. If Putin has the opportunity to vacuum up former satellite territories without serious intervention it will absolutely do it.
What spectators should consider is that Putin may be gambling that the West will not intervene militarily to protect these Eastern European states (even NATO states) due to the possibility of a costly war. It's easy to parallel this event-chain to Germany's gamble that Britain would not honor it's guarantee with Poland in 1939 (Danzig crisis). It is well known that Hitler was both surprised and shocked when Britain declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland. Because even as Britain had guaranteed Poland's sovereignty, Hitler felt that Britain didn't have the "stomach" to declare war unless it was directly threatened, thus opening the way to require former territories. The risk here is that Putin may be thinking along the same lines.
TLDR: This is a gamble by Russia. Putin will attempt to vacuum up as much former Soviet territory as possible until he meets sufficient resistance. The risk is that Putin will go too far, believing that the West doesn't have the stomach to go to war over NATO states. It is a very real and dangerous situation.
|
On March 04 2014 05:17 hzflank 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. Europe can easily defend itself from Russia. Invading Russia would be an altogether different thing, due to the geographical size of it and out limited quantity of forces.
I don't think anybody still thinks that invading russia is a good idea...
|
On March 04 2014 05:16 SilentchiLL wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 05:13 Godwrath wrote:On March 04 2014 05:12 SilentchiLL wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Noice, though I don't think we should hold the rest of europe up to spanish standards in regards to their armies... no offense.
None taken, but mind you, in my experience the only ones with modern equipment was GB, and France to a lesser extent. I had no experience with German army, so you could count that one in (even tho we already had a poster with similar experiences as mine).
|
On March 04 2014 05:17 hzflank 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. The UK has a modern military, perhaps a couple of years behind the US. The big problem is we don't have much of it. For example, while our missiles might be as good as American ones, they have dozens if not hundreds of times as many missiles. A big problem with the current UK military is that we decomissioned our carriers before the new ones are ready. Thankfully, the French have carriers that we can use. Europe can easily defend itself from Russia. Invading Russia would be an altogether different thing, due to the geographical size of it and out limited quantity of forces.
Solid analysis, it's true that the EU will probably not launch a land invasion of Russia. 
|
I think Putin knows very well that eu/us wont go to war over crimea and thats why he is taking this oppurtunity. Whats ironic is that there are alot more russian monorities being discriminated and abused IN russia, perhaps he should deal with that instead of using the army and playing with peoples lifes over made up storys. Russians in ukraine havent been targeted in any way and its frightning that russian media is so willing to provoke and send out these signals.
I really hope thousands of young men dont have to die once again because a few mighty men are sitting in their safe castles playing what they think is a game.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On March 04 2014 05:20 SilentchiLL wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 05:17 hzflank wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Europe can easily defend itself from Russia. Invading Russia would be an altogether different thing, due to the geographical size of it and out limited quantity of forces. I don't think anybody still thinks that invading russia is a good idea...
There have been enough of attempts to invade russia to understand that it is never a good idea. Containing Russia within her own limits on other hand... Ouch.
|
On March 04 2014 05:23 Alzadar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 05:17 hzflank wrote: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:
[quote]
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. The UK has a modern military, perhaps a couple of years behind the US. The big problem is we don't have much of it. For example, while our missiles might be as good as American ones, they have dozens if not hundreds of times as many missiles. A big problem with the current UK military is that we decomissioned our carriers before the new ones are ready. Thankfully, the French have carriers that we can use. Europe can easily defend itself from Russia. Invading Russia would be an altogether different thing, due to the geographical size of it and out limited quantity of forces. Solid analysis, it's true that the EU will probably not launch a land invasion of Russia.
Hey, you might joke now, but considering how many times europeans have tried it before you can never rule it out 
|
On March 04 2014 03:31 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:
There is only one but relativly big and good thing about this conflict, Putin forced ukrainian people to unite more, from east to west, which wasn't that easy while Maidan...
does your father still want my teeth?
|
Looks like the polish were very active when EU discussed actions against Russia. No wonder... Almost the same thing happened to them 74 years ago.
History repeats itself indeed.
Good thing is we are prepared this time... I hope.
|
On March 04 2014 05:22 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 05:16 SilentchiLL wrote:On March 04 2014 05:13 Godwrath wrote:On March 04 2014 05:12 SilentchiLL wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Noice, though I don't think we should hold the rest of europe up to spanish standards in regards to their armies... no offense. None taken, but mind you, in my experience the only ones with modern equipment was GB, and France to a lesser extent. I had no experience with German army, so you could count that one in (even tho we already had a poster with similar experiences as mine).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_equipment_of_the_German_Army
Looks okay to me, though to be honest, with the German weapon manufracturers it'd be pretty disappointing if we wouldn't have modern equipment.
|
On March 04 2014 05:00 BronzeKnee wrote:
Where did I quote Chamberlain's speech? I posted up a video of him making the speech... how could I have misquoted him?
On March 04 2014 03:42 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 03:40 Derez wrote:On March 04 2014 03:39 Sub40APM wrote:What a surprise, the English prefer laundering Putin's money than defending an emerging democracy's borders. Nick Robinson Political editor tweets: BREAKING Government will not curb trade with Russia or close London's financial centre to Russians an official document reveal The EU response so far is deeply depressing. Peace in our time brah. It worked, oh so well.
Chamberlain never held a speech with the content of those words. Misquote.
As I said, it was probably just an accident!
|
The german army does not lack that much in technology, even though the armoured infantry still uses a 70s model "Marder", which still is okish looking at what it might face and for what purpose it was built for.
But the problem is much more the whole stuff behind the operating forces and their material. We lack the capability to supply enough spare parts (many vehicles are down for maintenance or serving as spare part sources), to re-locate heavy gear and troops in sufficient numbers and the numbers of vehicles overall (downsized several times, as the german army was intended as a pure defensive army).
And dont call my beloved MG3 a downgraded MG42 please! the MG3 is a beast and a better MG than the MG42 was. =P
|
On March 04 2014 05:26 SilentchiLL wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 05:22 Godwrath wrote:On March 04 2014 05:16 SilentchiLL wrote:On March 04 2014 05:13 Godwrath wrote:On March 04 2014 05:12 SilentchiLL wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Noice, though I don't think we should hold the rest of europe up to spanish standards in regards to their armies... no offense. None taken, but mind you, in my experience the only ones with modern equipment was GB, and France to a lesser extent. I had no experience with German army, so you could count that one in (even tho we already had a poster with similar experiences as mine). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_equipment_of_the_German_ArmyLooks okay to me, though to be honest, with the German weapon manufracturers it'd be pretty disappointing if we wouldn't have modern equipment.
Until 2 weeks ago, we didn't even know why our superduper awesome G36 fails to hit anything after 30 minutes of combat... (while other nations had no issue with the G36)
Turned out the outer parts of the ammo by some German manufacturer melted under the heat... brilliant, truly brilliant
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
