Will the europeans ever be powerful?

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
Most of Europe's militaries are in a very degradated state right now; all of Europe united at this moment would only equal a quarter of the military strength of the United States currently. Europe is very indebted, and their economies are crap at the moment. Germany's military just recently had to take another funding cut, making it almost incapable of being able to perform its duty.

As for individual European armies that are extremely small, it is very easy for them to have extremely well-trained troops because those soldiers are so few. If you've got a huge army to train, things are different.

The only real "European" military at this moment with any real fighting ability is Britain, and they themselves don't like to necessarily be referred to as "European."

If Europe's individual militaries were as powerful as people try to make out, you'd see a lot more of Europe being involved in foreign affairs, to help secure their interests abroad as well.

This might give some details about EU military capabilitys www.european-defence.co.uk... and other details about industry, that is shown in public.

Not to forget that long as economy goes even 1% better and it only tells about inside EU markets, dont forget how much countrys and corporations invest to China and other countrys, that doesnt show in EU overall growth.

And cutting military just shows that theres no military threat to Germany for example, or do you think any sane would cut from military if seen some threat? You should look the figures that EU puts on non militaric activitys abroad to provide safe enviroment for its citizens to travel abroad. And i would be foolish to say EU try to match US in mere military power, instead its power is based on humanitarian areas and economy to provide those required conditions to not strive people for war.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
The Germans managed just fine with whatever problems their tanks had. The French didn't.

- Well talk about stating the bleeding obvious!
That was not the point we were debating over.

They didn't have horrible tanks. I never said they did. They still didn't have enough modern, competent tanks to compete with Germany.

- This is simply wrong. The allies had more tanks than Germany.

....and as far as modern goes, in the case of the Char S - 35 the French had 400 of these facing 350 Panzer 3's.

I've never heard that. This certainly doesn't agree with you:

Two days later Denmark surrendered, totally unprepared for invasion. But the Norwegians, similarly surprised, did not succumb. They even managed to sink the German Blücher off the coast of Oslo. Their small army then prepared to face attacks up the coast and in the north. They were offered support from 12,000 British and French troops.

www.bbc.co.uk...

- ....and what? There was a British force that went to Norway were just a little too late.

Most Europeans seemed to simply crawl into a hole when they saw Germany come. The French sure as hell didn't show much resolve.

- Not only is this just plain factually incorrect but so crassly ignorant of what was going on. People resisted in various large and small ways across the continent for years.

But the day you find yourself living under an utterly amoral and murderously cruel regime do let me know how you get on resisting it, hmm?

How about all the concessions you made to the Germans before you finally declared war? Just look at how Churchhill was treated when he was calling for the British to stand-up to Hitler.

- and what?

"Concessions"? The whole point about the so-called 'concessions was that almost the entire world believed Germany had been treated unduly harshly by the allies at the conclusion of WW1. Allowing Germany to recover what was in any case hers anyway was hardly much of a concession.

(and we can thank US Pres Wilson for abandoning his original '10 principles' and giving in to the French desire for a harsh vengence for all that by the way)

Churchill was seen as a dangerous war-monger - and not without some reason either.

He happened to be right (in the end) about Hitler.

It just goes to show that one can be right some of the time and wrong some of the time. 'Thinking' in total absolutes and black and whites is not much of a guide, hmmm?

I suppose I have no right to talk about history that didn't happen in America now. Or any politics. That's the message I keep getting from you Europeans.

- You have as free a right as anyone, who said otherwise?
However whether your comments are actually genuinely informed or ignorant and your mind is closed is an entirely different matter, I'm afraid.

Unfortunately, none of you have any problem talking about mistakes America is, or has made.

- Well when it's as obvious as things are at the mo with many of you guys

It's all speculation.

- No. Actually the point it that this is absolutely not speculation. We know what the original plan was, it was a lightly warmed over Schliefen plan.

Granted it didn't happen so we'll never know the detail of what would have happened but we can reasonably speculate what the likely outcomes - given the limited objectives - would have been.

Basically WW1 all over again a little further west with tanks and planes complicating the mix.

The Germans may have attacked at the wrong place, but they still would have attacked with better tactics.

- You are ignoring the whole issue of the objectives of the proposed campaign.

.....and as the 'order to halt' (the tanks before Dunkirk) showed the Germans weren't always that good at recognising and siezing opportunities not in the original plans.

This has nothing to do with what I said. I asked how you guys planned on fighting the Germans when you declared war. If you declare war on someone, you should be prepared to take that war to them. Germany should never have been able to invade anyone after Poland. Hell, it should never even have gotten to Poland.

- .....in which case I would suggest that you ideas of the capacity then for waging war are deeply unrealistic.

The Western allies fought the war they could fight. ....and won it.

Too big? The Germans were already at Moscow. They had pretty much already beaten the Russians, and by all means should have. Russia has been conquered in the past. The Mongols did it with complete ease. Had the Germans simply not stopped for three measely weeks to handle problems in the Balkans, they would have had Russia. They could have taken Moscow had they done just a few things differently during the battle.

- Like many you imagine Moscow the be-all and end-all of the eastern campaign. It was not.

Too prepared...Now that's not something you hear often. Who would have called Russia prepared to fight the Germans during WW2? They were completely caught off guard. Their military was in shambled at the time.

- Yes their military was in need of complete revision - and got it despite the original 'version' being devastated - and went on to complete a crushing victory. That's what I call too big.

As for prepared? Well I was of course referring to the USSR's productive capacity. Which they moved out of Germany's range well in time and which them proceeded to arm the Russians like there was no tomorrow.

That's being prepared, they might not have been completely prepared but once again it was a case of certainly just well prepared enough.

.....and whilst you are sneering at how prepared or otherwise Europe and Russia was how about the good ol USA?

It was only a stroke of luck that Russia managed to fight the Germans off, and only the Western front which allowed the Russians to mount a successful counter-offensive.

- LMAO.
The Russians had contained the Germns in the north by late dec 1941 and already successfully pushed them back away from Moscow.
The summer 1942 campaign was Hitler's delusion and was never going anywhere, was shattered by jan 1943 and after Kursh in summer 1943 the Russians never moved back except for Manstein's little bit of skill at Kharkov.

You guys got lucky during WW1.

- No. 'We' won, convincingly.
Germany had to stop thanks to the blockade, something that was so effective and that 'we' never had to face.

Why in gods name would anyone want to use that strategy again? The German offensive was stopped merely because of short supply lines, and even then the Germans only lost because they were over-cautious.

- It worked is the main reason.

As for your imaginings over what would have happened "except for.....", or a host of "but......" and this German invincibility you seem to prefer to hold you work away, history is rather against you on the matter though.

Didn't I ask you for quotes from your article that show this a while ago?

- Too lazy to find them yourself, huh? Ok try this -

The extent of use of independent horse cavalry units by the Germans varied inversely with German fortunes. During the first 3 years of the war, when Germany was ascendant, such units were almost abandoned completely; they never exceeded one division. From 1943, new cavalry units were formed, and by early 1945 there were six cavalry divisions and two cavalry corps.

I think Europe's survival outweighs a few American companies seeing a better profit margin.

- Our 'survival' was never in doubt and your companies did do very well out of the deal for decades, not fogetting the territories you guys were able to get in payment too. Guam turned out rather handy didn't it, hmmm?

I'd say its the belief held by most military analysts, and generals.

I, personally, would put a lot of a faith in what Patton truly wanted. I'll take a look at the numerous military failures in Russia's history, and even their marginal successes. There is nothing to be scared of.

- A handful of loopy war-perv nutters who believe a successful war with Russia could have been fought is hardly much of a basis to believe this nonsense.

Nukes being fired anywhere would effect everyone on the planet. So no, it would hardly be contained anywhere.

- Glad we agree on something.

I don't know what Soviet doctrine you're talking about, though. Care to actually explain yourself?

- You'll find (if you bother to look) that it was standard Russian doctrine to view nuclear weapons as they viewed any artillery. Russian would have gone nuclear in their attack without a qualm, it would have triggered an in- theatre response which would have provoked a strategic response which would have been countered etc etc.
Lights out and welcome to the stone-age, everyone.

As I said, you became dependent on America's military. There may very well come a day when you are on the opposite side of America. There may be a day when America won't come to your aid, because most of Europe has not been faithful to America. Even the few nations that have stayed by our side have populations that are overwhelmingly against us. I, for one, have no concern what happens to the British population. I'd call for American arms to help you guys only to repay our debts.

- LMAO.

Yeah right, let's put it like this. The day the US and Europe truely do sit on opposing sides threatening each other properly is the day each of our economies collapse and the value of most of the world's real estate goes down the pan.

Wake up.

The fact is Europe mostly just laughs at (but in truth also loaths) the US right-wing, which is not 'America', just a small part of it.

Eastern Europe itself was an act of aggression. They should never have been satellite states. Russia had no real right to do what they did.

- Er, yes they did, actually.
It was agreed at several conferences between the leaders of the allies including the USA.

And how about their invasion of Afghanistan?

- What you mean after the CIA had attempted to stir up Islamic fundamentalists in an attempt to play little power games in the hope of provoking insurrection(s) in Russia's southern Muslim states?

(hmmm, get the irony of America's war-pervs short-sightedly winding up Islamic fundamentalists though, huh?)

members.austarmetro.com.au...

Their actions with Korea?

- Which ones? The idea of the 'west' arbitarily dividing Korea cos it didn't like the idea of one that looked to their neighbours Russia nd China?

Arms limitations? Is that supposed to be a good thing?

- Arms limitations and reductions to bring about a more rational peaceful world?
Yes, I'd call that a 'good thing'.

I wouldn't have wanted peace with a government like Russia's because regardless of how you viewed their foreign policy, they were a brutal bunch of thieves.

I don't think peace should come at that cost.

- ....and you don't think a lot of that was about the idiotic power games being played to put one over on the other? All rooted in mistrust and deceptions?

I'd rather have started building sane relationships 40yrs ago rather than just 20, we'd be a lot further on towards a more stable world.

The only time Russia really had trouble with the West was when they acted aggressively, minus maybe Napoleon and Hitler.

- LMAO. "maybe minus N & H".
That's funny.....in a sick tragic ' oh my God what are American kids like these days' kind of way.

They started wars in the Middle East.

- Yeah, all alone.
How dare they have alliances with countries opposed by countries backed by the US.

They chose to get involved with WW1.

- Through alliances and being treaty bound.

They were the ones waging wars of aggression to get ports at the Black Sea for centuries.

- You, as an American, are not going to whine about old wars of agression and attempts to sieze territory, are you? Jayzuss wept, more crass irony!

You can't build forces up in secret, but America already has the force, and Europe doesn't.

- Oh I see, so your 'vision' is one of USA v Europe?
Too funny.

Sorry but we in Europe aren't playing your stupid war-perv fascist games.
Go pretend to be threatened by someone else.

We could mobilize and invade before Europe could ever react. Just like you can't build up weapons in secret, you can't produce competent militaries overnight. You can't rely on raw numbers. You can't mass-produce modern technology like you could before.

- ....and why would we want to?
The US isn't going to invade Europe. You can barely handle 20million Iraqis never mind the near 500million of us. Wise up and wake up.

And this war could come from anywhere. That's the point.

- No it couldn't. That is the point, actually.

We face no credible serious threat.
We could be attacked but that is not a war akin to a major war like we have faced before.
No way.

WW1 was called the War to End all Wars, after all. Most in Europe didn't even predict another war during the late 30's with all the German aggression. What makes you think Europe would act so much differently today?

- Late 1930's? I don't think so.

The fact is no-one has the wealth nor the productive capacity to militarily build up and threaten us quickly and anyone that tried would be seen trying.

The only nation(s) with the existant capacity to do it would be the USA or Russia, neither of whom are going to cos it would destroy the global economy something each benefits from mightily.

787's are hardly cutting edge technology.

- A plane that hasn't even flown yet utilising some of the latest engine, structural and computing technology isn't "cutting edge" enough for you?!

They aren't going to help China improve their military.

- I see. So giving them access to composite materials construction tech, the state of the art engine tech and flight control computer tech has no possible carry-over into the military field!?

Time to check your med dosage I'd suggest.

I am against anyone giving help to China. It pisses me off that Clinton gave them technology during the 90's. It pisses me off even more that Israel goes behind our backs to give advanced technology to China.

- Yeah well you worry about what you guys are giving them (and what you have been doing via your Israeli pals) before you come bitching to us.

Everyone does have the right to make whatever choice they want. At the same time, they have to face the consequences. Freedom to choose doesn't mean you can go around doing whatever the hell you want and not face any consequences. France and Germany have to earn America's friendship. They in no way deserve it right now.

- So just because they disagreed with your Iraq disaster you're happy to just simply ignore all their help in Afghanistan?

This isn't just about Iraq, either. The anti-American sentiments in all of Europe did not start with Iraq. This isn't about Bush, or WMD's, or any of that other bull. That was just what brought the bad blood to the surface.

- No, the US right-wing can dress it up how they like - cos they'd love it if all Americans were to come into the circle of paranoid wagons with them - but it is almost entirely about just them.
Many of us like Americans actually, we just despise the US right-wing as the gang of crazies they actually are.

It isn't paranoia, it's the reality. What message should I get when Chirac goes to China and gives speeches on how they have to work together to stop the spread of American culture?

- Er, maybe you should be getting that the world has every right to reject the current move towards a horrible and very boring mono-culture - especially one like America's?

It is pure paranoia to read anything more than a comment about culture into this kind of comment.

Who could honestly believe Putin's goals are to simply make a peaceful, happy Russia?

Is that why the number of Russian spies in America are believed to have gone back to Cold War levels? OH, that crippled military of Russia's is starting to get back on its feet, too.

Russia isn't as dumb as they used to be. They won't go back to being cut off communists. They'll adopt a system closer to the West's economically, and build their military to become a global power once again. Putin and Russia are not content being a second world nation. They are not happy having America as the world's lone super power.

- Russia is nothing like the power she once was and has no intention to be - and even if the did intend that they are spending nothing like enough to attain that anyways.

Spies? So what?
Everyone spies on everybody to some degree or another. If you think that heralds a situation anything likethe cold war I suggest another med check.

As for China, they, too, have a massive number of spies here in America. Their air defenses have pretty much been designed for the singal goal of stopping America.

- Spies again huh?

Who else's air forces do you think China should be worried about then hmm? What with the massive deployments of permanentlty stationed US troops and kit in and around Japan, Korea and Taiwan?

Get real.

They had military advisors in Iraq. They designed Iraq's missile defenses. They studied the campaign in Iraq to find weaknesses in America's military. They've been buying advanced American weapons technology from traitors like Israel.

China basically has ripoffed the F-16, and Patriot, and many other weapons.

- China will acquire any means she thinks she needs to defend herself. What do you expect?

As for who helped Iraq I notice the US doesn't like to talk about the European subsidaries of well known US firms that did, your VP might face some tricky questions if they did.

And god willing we won't. I never want to see an America forced to bow down to petty dictators like Europe had to with Hitler.

- So stop pretending you ever have had to or will likely have to.

France and Germany produce a few thousand barrels of oil a day, and consume millions. I don't think I need to say much more.

- On the basis of controlled usage and distribution in an emergency we'd not be in the instant dire straights you painted is all I'm saying.

You don't seem to get the idea of cause and effect. Iraq didn't run all over the Middle East because American troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia to prevent it.

- Er, Kuwait was invaded before the US arrived, actually.

He would have sold it. He just would have jacked up prices. If you did something he didn't like, he'd cut you off. He would have massive political power all over the world.

- ....and if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. Fantasize away.

And no one in the world besides America could have reacted quickly enough to stop Saddam besides America. Europe doesn't have the ability to move tens of thousands of troops anywhere in the world within a relatively short period. Even Russia could not have done it.

- Maybe the rest of us wouldn't have 1) been so crassly blind as to support and substantially build up a horror like Saddam in the first place or 2) leave him with the distinct impression that an invasion of Kuwait was fine by us.


[edit on 6-2-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Sorry I haven't replied for some time, but have been "busy".

I see Sminkey has joined the fray, hows your head mate? All this banging it against a brick wall must hurt after a while, I know mine does

Right, first off:

William the Conqueror was NORMAN, who came from NORMANDY - A part of france

Normandy was part of the French kingdom, granted, but the Normans themselves are actually descendants of Vikings and are a completely seperate ethnic group.

So technically, we where invaded by French speaking Vikings.

Stumason, I don't think you see my point quite on my ideas, as I do not see them as imperialism the way you do; not saying you are wrong in your opinions (based on how you are interpreting what I write), just I don't think, through reading pure words, that you can get the drift of what I am trying to say (nor can I express it that way). We'd need to be talking in person.

Broadsword, agreed mate. Alot of the art of conversation is lost through the medium of text. A face to face would probably see us reaching a middle ground where we agreed.

posted by Broadsword20068
I disagree on this "trigger-happy" business. Believe me, if the U.S. soldiers over in Iraq were trigger-happy, it would be all over the news. That one soldier shot that "unarmed" man, and what happens? No one bothers to question if the man was really unarmed (he could've been hiding a pistol or something), instead, the embedded reported transmits the scene and it is on the news worldwide just like that. Yes, a few other civilians have been shot here and there, but all in all, American troops have resisted from firing. If the U.S. troops were trigger-happy, the liberals all over would be screaming that our troops need to leave for that reason. Many do scream it for that reason, but the majority of said people really don't know what they are talking about

Hmm. There are more than one instance in Iraq, but I am also referring to the US Army on a whole. My father, brother, uncles and several friends have all served (couldn't myself unfortunately, due to Rugby injuries), and every single one of them can tell you interesting stories about American behaviour on the battlefield (simulated or otherwise).

Shoot first, and possibly ask questions later, if you stop shooting, and can be bothered is the way it usually is.

posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I wouldn't call it debating when the other person is ignorant of the facts on both sides of an issue...

Pot calling the kettle black. I have provided multiple sources to back up my arguments, as well as Sminkey, but you refuse to look at them or believe them because you don't remember it happening or cannot accept the fact you're erroneous.

That was talking about one case in Hatra, not all the mass graves. It said 1.3 million were estimated to have gone missing under Saddam. I guess I'll just have to go find more proof, though:

You say that, but then provide a quote from another article which claims 300,000 where killed. Which is it? 1.3 million? 300k? or 30? Pick a number.....

We have an idea of where they are. We have pictures of large shipments heading across the borders into Syria, and Iran.

Show me,. If they are there, then why the hell is Bush not shouting about it? Why did you not chase them down? If you can photograph them, why can you not blow them up? Why are you not concerned about them getting to terrorists? Why..why...why.....so many valid questions, and you offer up nothing in return.

You were losing territory long before WW2. The British were no longer the world's strongest military. You no longer had dominance over the seas. Your economy was in shambles. You could no longer afford to fight lengthy wars overseas.

Where we? Strange that, as the British Empire was it's largest ever after WW1, and remained the same until the end of WW2.

Nothing in there talks about force. It merely states failure to abide by the resolution will lead to, "Consideration of additional measures."

That's opposed to Iraq

Its exactly the same as Iraq.

Not against tanks. Horses had their use then, but in frontline combat, they weren't effective.

Actually they are still used today. The British Army still maintains fighting horses, for use where a 60-ton killing machine cannot go (as in mountains, wet/winter conditions etc)

Intelligence agencies have more idea of what's going on then some two-bit French official. I put a lot of stock in what the best intelligence agencies in the world are saying.

That two-bit French official was their Foreign Minister. Shall I call Condi Rice a two-bit American official from now on shall I?

We've found "chemical factories" in Iraq. We have pictures of missile sites being rapidly torn down before the invasion. We have pictures of large shipments heading across Iraq's borders just before the invasion.

I don't know where you get this BS from, but it is pure fantasy. Those "Missile" site, where the (albeit, slightly illegal) missile Program, where the range was about 20 miles over its proscribed limit.

And chemical factories? Get real. The ones that where actually factories where shut down years ago. If this was true, then we would have had it shoved down our throats by Bush et al.

posted by Broadsword20068
But Europe's military today is pretty weak. They may individually have quality soldiers, but altogether at the moment, Europe could only raise a military about one fourth of what the United States can produce. Europe has about 100 million more people than the U.S., but their military itself doesn't have the funding or the equipment to match the United States. Individually, Europe's economies are too unstable, which is one of the reasons why their militaries have grown to such a degradated state.

No, it isn't. Europe has a current standing Military (combined) of 1.9 million men. US has 1.6 million. And on the equipment, we can, and do have tech as good as, or in some cases better than the US. Germany alone can muster at least 2500 Leopard MBT's. Thats something to be afraid of in itself!

posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Eastern Europe itself was an act of aggression. They should never have been satellite states. Russia had no real right to do what they did. And how about their invasion of Afghanistan? Their actions with Korea?

They invaded Afghanistan to try and stop an Islamic Revolution. But Sminkey has covered that.

posted by Disturbed Deliverer
You can't build forces up in secret, but America already has the force, and Europe doesn't. We could mobilize and invade before Europe could ever react. Just like you can't build up weapons in secret, you can't produce competent militaries overnight. You can't rely on raw numbers. You can't mass-produce modern technology like you could before.

We have more men, more tanks, more Aircraft combined than the US. In order to invade the EU, the US would have to mobilise an invasion fleet across the Atlantic, giving us ample warning and plenty of time to get our men in position. And just try and invade the UK. Hasn't been done for over 1000yrs......despite many attempts.

posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I am against anyone giving help to China.

Why? They are the reason that the US hasn't bankrupted itself. Without them, you would be up sh1t creek without a paddle, and a very leaky boat!

posted by Disturbed Deliverer
There are only two types of people on this matter. The educated, and the ignorant.

Which one are you?

posted by Disturbed Deliverer
And Germany does not have a military better trained than America. Their military isn't even considered the best military in Europe, even though they have the largest of them all. Germany's military possesses almost no offensive capability.

No offensive capability? I would call 2500 MBT's plus thousands of IFV's quite darn offensive.

posted by Disturbed Deliverer
NOTHING stops America from returning to that level except the demand for it.

Nothing, apart from a dwindling pile of cash........

posted by Broadsword20068
Most of Europe's militaries are in a very degradated state right now; all of Europe united at this moment would only equal a quarter of the military strength of the United States currently. Europe is very indebted, and their economies are crap at the moment.

Are they? News to us. A quarter you say? Last I checked, we outnumbered you, quite considerably. Indebted? Don't make me laugh...... look at where you borrow your money from to pay for you exorborant, bloated war-machine.

posted by Broadsword20068
If Europe's individual militaries were as powerful as people try to make out, you'd see a lot more of Europe being involved in foreign affairs, to help secure their interests abroad as well.

No, you wouldn't (apart from the UK's foray into Iraq). We don't do the whole invading thing. We might have peacekeeprs thoughout Africa, in former colonies for example, but that is to stop killings and genocide.

Anyway, good day, I shall be back.

Observer83

Not to forget that long as economy goes even 1% better and it only tells about inside EU markets, dont forget how much countrys and corporations invest to China and other countrys, that doesnt show in EU overall growth.

America is the larget invester in nations like China. If anyone is making money off China, it's America. And we see more raw economic growth than Europe by far.

And cutting military just shows that theres no military threat to Germany for example, or do you think any sane would cut from military if seen some threat? You should look the figures that EU puts on non militaric activitys abroad to provide safe enviroment for its citizens to travel abroad. And i would be foolish to say EU try to match US in mere military power, instead its power is based on humanitarian areas and economy to provide those required conditions to not strive people for war.

I'd say Europe is cutting their military to simply pay for their bloaded social programs which keep putting them further into debt, slowing down their economy, and increasing their unemployment.

sminkeypinkey

- Well talk about stating the bleeding obvious!
That was not the point we were debating over.

I thought it was over you severely underestimating the German tanks.

....and as far as modern goes, in the case of the Char S - 35 the French had 400 of these facing 350 Panzer 3's.

Wow. Panzer 2's were as good as those S-35's. They shouldn't be compared to the number of Panzer 3's.

- This is simply wrong. The allies had more tanks than Germany.

And Iraq had more tanks than America during the Gulf War.

- ....and what? There was a British force that went to Norway were just a little too late.

They weren't invading, and they basically backed down from the Germans.

- Not only is this just plain factually incorrect but so crassly ignorant of what was going on. People resisted in various large and small ways across the continent for years.

There will always be some resistance, but it was a small minority.

"Concessions"? The whole point about the so-called 'concessions was that almost the entire world believed Germany had been treated unduly harshly by the allies at the conclusion of WW1. Allowing Germany to recover what was in any case hers anyway was hardly much of a concession.

This would explain maybe allowing them to rebuild their military to a point where they could at least defend themselves. This is no excuse for allowing Germany to go make land-grabs.

(and we can thank US Pres Wilson for abandoning his original '10 principles' and giving in to the French desire for a harsh vengence for all that by the way)

Wilson did more than any of the other allied leaders to try and secure peace, and America had the least reason to care.

Churchill was seen as a dangerous war-monger - and not without some reason either.

He happened to be right (in the end) about Hitler.

It just goes to show that one can be right some of the time and wrong some of the time. 'Thinking' in total absolutes and black and whites is not much of a guide, hmmm?

I don't know what Churchhill was wrong on. He's predictions came true, now didn't they? Europe could have put a stop to Hitler early on without such major costs, and instead decided to appease him.

- You have as free a right as anyone, who said otherwise?
However whether your comments are actually genuinely informed or ignorant and your mind is closed is an entirely different matter, I'm afraid.

By ignorant and closed minded I guess you mean I don't agree with your liberalistic European bull.

- Well when it's as obvious as things are at the mo with many of you guys

How about you worry about your own leaders. Blair is supposed to be an American puppet, yet he'll be re-elected. Chirac is a crook who has only made the situation with the French economy worse. And Schroeder is just an incompetent twit who just goes along with what Chirac says.

Granted it didn't happen so we'll never know the detail of what would have happened but we can reasonably speculate what the likely outcomes - given the limited objectives - would have been.

Basically WW1 all over again a little further west with tanks and planes complicating the mix.

I think you're severely underestimating the difference modern tanks and planes would have made, as well as how much the German tactics would have effected things. The bottom line is that the concentrated tanks of Germany would have had the advantage. Germany would have had complete air superiority.

.....and as the 'order to halt' (the tanks before Dunkirk) showed the Germans weren't always that good at recognising and siezing opportunities not in the original plans.

The Germans have made mistakes, but they still kicked the rest of Europe around in both of those wars.

- .....in which case I would suggest that you ideas of the capacity then for waging war are deeply unrealistic.

The Western allies fought the war they could fight. ....and won it.

The Western allies would have fallen on their own. I suppose you Brits were going to fend off the Germans all on your own, though, right...?

- Like many you imagine Moscow the be-all and end-all of the eastern campaign. It was not.

What would have Russia done after Moscow? How would they have rebuilt their military? Who would have continued to fund their production?

- Yes their military was in need of complete revision - and got it despite the original 'version' being devastated - and went on to complete a crushing victory. That's what I call too big.

Their "crushing victory" was a stroke of luck and came at very dear costs which were never really necessary.

As for prepared? Well I was of course referring to the USSR's productive capacity. Which they moved out of Germany's range well in time and which them proceeded to arm the Russians like there was no tomorrow.

This means they were prepared? It only got to this point because of German mistakes, and in spite of what the Russians did.

.....and whilst you are sneering at how prepared or otherwise Europe and Russia was how about the good ol USA?

America wasn't prepared, but it would have been a very long while before Germany could ever threaten us. We hadn't said we would go to war with Germany like the British and French. We didn't sit back and watch as the Germans built up on our borders like the Russians.

- LMAO.
The Russians had contained the Germns in the north by late dec 1941 and already successfully pushed them back away from Moscow.
The summer 1942 campaign was Hitler's delusion and was never going anywhere, was shattered by jan 1943 and after Kursh in summer 1943 the Russians never moved back except for Manstein's little bit of skill at Kharkov.

And the million plus men on the Western front wouldn't have tipped the scales? Look how long it took the Russians to make their way to Berlin. If the Germans had more troops, they could have launched a counter-offensive.

It still doesn't matter. The Germans should have finished the Russians off long before any Russian offensive started. They came ridiculously close to defeating Russia. It's unbelievable that someone would say their victory was impossible.

- No. 'We' won, convincingly.
Germany had to stop thanks to the blockade, something that was so effective and that 'we' never had to face.

Germany was hardly done. Had they not started playing defensively, they would have gotten the job done.

As for your imaginings over what would have happened "except for.....", or a host of "but......" and this German invincibility you seem to prefer to hold you work away, history is rather against you on the matter though.

The Germans would have attacked the same place, but they would have done it in a very different way. They did not plan on doing the same thing they did during WW1.

And the idea is to win at the as low of a cost as possible. That cautious attitude loses more than it wins.

quote: The extent of use of independent horse cavalry units by the Germans varied inversely with German fortunes. During the first 3 years of the war, when Germany was ascendant, such units were almost abandoned completely; they never exceeded one division. From 1943, new cavalry units were formed, and by early 1945 there were six cavalry divisions and two cavalry corps.

This doesn't back up any of your claims at all. It doesn't talk about horses being sent to the frontlines, and it even says that they weren't used much at the beginning of the war.

- Our 'survival' was never in doubt and your companies did do very well out of the deal for decades, not fogetting the territories you guys were able to get in payment too. Guam turned out rather handy didn't it, hmmm?

Your survival was never in doubt, yet you let America station thousands on your land?

- A handful of loopy war-perv nutters who believe a successful war with Russia could have been fought is hardly much of a basis to believe this nonsense.

Top generals (among the best in history) no less then you, huh?

- You'll find (if you bother to look) that it was standard Russian doctrine to view nuclear weapons as they viewed any artillery. Russian would have gone nuclear in their attack without a qualm, it would have triggered an in- theatre response which would have provoked a strategic response which would have been countered etc etc.
Lights out and welcome to the stone-age, everyone.

America had many of the same weapons. It doesn't mean they'd be used freely. It's about intimidating the other side.

Yeah right, let's put it like this. The day the US and Europe truely do sit on opposing sides threatening each other properly is the day each of our economies collapse and the value of most of the world's real estate goes down the pan.

You never know what could happen.

- Er, yes they did, actually.
It was agreed at several conferences between the leaders of the allies including the USA.

None of the allies ever liked Russia going around turning them into their puppets. It's part of the reason we were so desperate to end the war with Japan.

- What you mean after the CIA had attempted to stir up Islamic fundamentalists in an attempt to play little power games in the hope of provoking insurrection(s) in Russia's southern Muslim states?

The Soviet invasion came long before any aggressive action by America. America wasn't training rebels until Soviet tanks roled into Afghanistan.

- Which ones? The idea of the 'west' arbitarily dividing Korea cos it didn't like the idea of one that looked to their neighbours Russia nd China?

Turning down the idea of an election in Korea that would have settled everything, then backing the North's attack on the South, and even sending pilots to fight with us.

- Arms limitations and reductions to bring about a more rational peaceful world?
Yes, I'd call that a 'good thing'.

Peace shouldn't be made with things like the USSR.

- ....and you don't think a lot of that was about the idiotic power games being played to put one over on the other? All rooted in mistrust and deceptions?

I'd rather have started building sane relationships 40yrs ago rather than just 20, we'd be a lot further on towards a more stable world.

If we had done that, then the Soviet Union would probably still be around today. I guess the people of Eastern Europe and Russia don't really matter as long as the West is safe, though, right?

- LMAO. "maybe minus N & H".
That's funny.....in a sick tragic ' oh my God what are American kids like these days' kind of way.

...

- Yeah, all alone.
How dare they have alliances with countries opposed by countries backed by the US.

I'm going back to the Czars, not in the past half century. Most of America's involvement in the Middle East has been necessary because of European actions in the past, as well.

- You, as an American, are not going to whine about old wars of agression and attempts to sieze territory, are you? Jayzuss wept, more crass irony!

America was free to take over all of Canada and Mexico for a very long while. Our small run at a colonial power was short lived, and a lot less bloody then the European and Russian attempts.

- Oh I see, so your 'vision' is one of USA v Europe?
Too funny.

I'm not threatened by Europe. I know we could crush Europe now, and in the future.

Sorry but we in Europe aren't playing your stupid war-perv fascist games.
Go pretend to be threatened by someone else.

I'd say the EU is a very real attempt at trying to surpass America.

- ....and why would we want to?
The US isn't going to invade Europe. You can barely handle 20million Iraqis never mind the near 500million of us. Wise up and wake up.

Keep dreaming. America has screwed around in Iraq. Can anyone honestly say that America has used its full strength in Iraq? We haven't even used a fraction.

The only nation(s) with the existant capacity to do it would be the USA or Russia, neither of whom are going to cos it would destroy the global economy something each benefits from mightily.

Until things change, and they can change fast.

- A plane that hasn't even flown yet utilising some of the latest engine, structural and computing technology isn't "cutting edge" enough for you?!

No, a jetliner is not cutting edge. Do you think it's anywhere near as technologically advanced as military planes?

- Yeah well you worry about what you guys are giving them (and what you have been doing via your Israeli pals) before you come bitching to us.

I'm not going to ignore one problem just because another exists elsewhere.

- So just because they disagreed with your Iraq disaster you're happy to just simply ignore all their help in Afghanistan?

They haven't given much more then the token effort in Afghanistan.

- No, the US right-wing can dress it up how they like - cos they'd love it if all Americans were to come into the circle of paranoid wagons with them - but it is almost entirely about just them.
Many of us like Americans actually, we just despise the US right-wing as the gang of crazies they actually are

Well, from my own experiences with Europeans, and going to Europe, and from everyone I know, this isn't the case.

- Er, maybe you should be getting that the world has every right to reject the current move towards a horrible and very boring mono-culture - especially one like America's?

They have the right to keep their own culture. But when someone goes to another nation talking about fighting the spread of our cutlure, and takes steps to help arm that other nation, that seems pretty aggressive to me. I see no reason why politicians should be worried about what movies their people are watching.

I'd say that this is a sign of a lot more paranaoia then what you find from America's right wing.

- Russia is nothing like the power she once was and has no intention to be - and even if the did intend that they are spending nothing like enough to attain that anyways.

They aren't spending now because they can't. Give it another decade. With a more open economy they'll be able to spend a whole lot more then what they did during the Cold War, and they will be.

I guess there's nothing at all strange about Putin's actions to you, though. I mean, he's only gone and pretty much crushed free speech and democracy in his country.

Spies? So what?
Everyone spies on everybody to some degree or another. If you think that heralds a situation anything likethe cold war I suggest another med check.

It's not like the Cold War because Russia still can't reach their old level of power, and they aren't recognized as even a growing threat anymore by most.

Who else's air forces do you think China should be worried about then hmm? What with the massive deployments of permanentlty stationed US troops and kit in and around Japan, Korea and Taiwan?

Most of the military in the region is just left over from the Cold War, and menat to deal with Russia.

If we wanted to wage war with China, we would have done so by now. We sure as hell had the capability.

As for who helped Iraq I notice the US doesn't like to talk about the European subsidaries of well known US firms that did, your VP might face some tricky questions if they did.

Yea yea...more Halliburton scandel. These questions are asked plenty in America by Democrats. They've never come up with a damn thing.

Until someone has evidence of actual corruption taking place, I don't want to hear it. American officials weren't taking payments from Saddam.

- Er, Kuwait was invaded before the US arrived, actually

Yes, and nothing would have stopped them from going further. That was my point.

- ....and if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. Fantasize away.

Was there any unrealistic about what I said? Saddam would have had control over the world's oil reserves, something that the Western world completely relies on.

- Maybe the rest of us wouldn't have 1) been so crassly blind as to support and substantially build up a horror like Saddam in the first place or 2) leave him with the distinct impression that an invasion of Kuwait was fine by us.

He was buying Russia, and French weapons, not American.

It's nowhere near that simple. America didn't blindly support Saddam. If we didn't, we would have had Iran gaining control over even more oil resources.

Originally posted by stumason
I see Sminkey has joined the fray, hows your head mate? All this banging it against a brick wall must hurt after a while, I know mine does

- Naaa, I think he's been on before & done this kind of routine a wee while back. He seems to like flitting from one semi-connected point to another.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I thought it was over you severely underestimating the German tanks.

- No it was you initially claiming (12.37 3/2/05; page 6) "They were unadvanced. Germany mostly used their horses for troop and supply transportation. The rest of Europe were using them on the frontlines. Neither the British or the French had the number of tanks and other modern equipment that the Germans had."

This has been shown to be false as the allies did have more tanks than the Germans and many of them were fully comparable if not superior to the best of german tanks they used invading France in 1940.

Wow. Panzer 2's were as good as those S-35's. They shouldn't be compared to the number of Panzer 3's.

- This is plain wrong. Clearly you don't know what you are talking about.

And Iraq had more tanks than America during the Gulf War.

- So what? Your initial claim was that the allies (in 'our' terrible state of unpreparedness) had less tanks than the Germans.

You were wrong.
My point stands, it was not numbers but tactic that won the battle of France in 1940.

They weren't invading, and they basically backed down from the Germans.

- The UK attempted to garrison Norway after mining here ports (something which had the Norweigan ambassador going to complain to London gov about).

There will always be some resistance, but it was a small minority.

- Who said anything about a 'majority'? Of course the majority keep their heads down and hope to survive.

This would explain maybe allowing them to rebuild their military to a point where they could at least defend themselves. This is no excuse for allowing Germany to go make land-grabs.

- Except that these 'land-grabs' were all about regaining historic German territory right up until Czechoslovakia in 1938.

Wilson did more than any of the other allied leaders to try and secure peace, and America had the least reason to care.

- Wilson started out with great intentions of justice and allowed himself to be steered into a program of petty revenge which in large part brought the dsaster of WW2.

I don't know what Churchhill was wrong on.

- Then I suggest a little study into the man might enlighten you, right?

He's predictions came true, now didn't they?

- If you knew about him you'd know some of his predictions were spot on and some were far of the mark and never came to pass; given his history and his attitudes and his strong claims many preferred him to be ignored and left on the side-lines; many believed him to be a dangerous man intent on raising panic.

Europe could have put a stop to Hitler early on without such major costs, and instead decided to appease him.

- More 'ifs', 'buts' and 'maybes', hmmm?

By ignorant and closed minded I guess you mean I don't agree with your liberalistic European bull.

- I could care less whether you agree with me or not, a little open-mindedness that there are other facts you are clearly unaware of and that things are not the neat linear version you seem to imagine them to be would be a better starting point though if you don't mind my saying.

How about you worry about your own leaders. Blair is supposed to be an American puppet, yet he'll be re-elected.

- His right-wing opponents in the UK love to claim that about him, personally I find the "puppet" claim laughable and I look forward to his reelection. The Labour gov he leads is the best option by far IMO.

(You might want to try to think beyond leaders when you're talking about Europe by the way).

Chirac is a crook who has only made the situation with the French economy worse. And Schroeder is just an incompetent twit who just goes along with what Chirac says.

- Chirac is a French politician, and what? Their affair, their laws I could care less.

......and if you think France and Germany are some kind of quasi-marxist clapped out economies you are fooling yourself. They are good places to live. Wake up.

I think you're severely underestimating the difference modern tanks and planes would have made, as well as how much the German tactics would have effected things. The bottom line is that the concentrated tanks of Germany would have had the advantage. Germany would have had complete air superiority.

- I think you are imaging something way beyond what their original plans called for.

We can speculate all day long about what might have happened but my bet would be that the probable achievement of their initial objectives fairly early on would have led to relief and hesitency in the German leadership (as did happen in the actual campaign) along with a desire to secure their gains.

The Germans have made mistakes, but they still kicked the rest of Europe around in both of those wars.

- They had some initial successes....... and then proceeded to lose.
Not 'just' lose either but lose so utterly that all traces of the German body politic that existed pre-WW1 and pre-WW2 were totally wiped away never to return.

The Western allies would have fallen on their own. I suppose you Brits were going to fend off the Germans all on your own, though, right...?

- What you mean like 'we' did?

Cos along with our commonwealth 'we' not only fended off the Germans with great success 'we' also managed to begin taking the war to Germany quite successfully.

What would have Russia done after Moscow? How would they have rebuilt their military? Who would have continued to fund their production?

- Russia would have done what she has always done and moved much further east - as they planned to do, if it had come to it, in 1941.

Their "crushing victory" was a stroke of luck and came at very dear costs which were never really necessary.

- "Luck"?!

Naaa you really don't know what you're talking about do you?

Germany could have taken Moscow and like Napoleon found no-one there.....

........ and still the 'river of tanks and planes' produced so far out of German bomber range would have come to swallow them up.

That's not luck, thats preparation.

This means they were prepared? It only got to this point because of German mistakes, and in spite of what the Russians did.

- No. Stalin began moving the factories long before the German assault. You are quite wrong.

America wasn't prepared, but it would have been a very long while before Germany could ever threaten us. We hadn't said we would go to war with Germany like the British and French. We didn't sit back and watch as the Germans built up on our borders like the Russians.

- So are you saying the USA was blind to the threat and even when it had all started kept out of it to begin with despite the shared risk of German control of the world's trade routes etc?

....and as far as the Russians were concerned they did everything they could to stave off the war as they too needed time.
Which they got and which they made great use of.

And the million plus men on the Western front wouldn't have tipped the scales? Look how long it took the Russians to make their way to Berlin. If the Germans had more troops, they could have launched a counter-offensive.

- Given the threat of invasion on the western side how would those million have been released?

Even if they had there is no guarantee that sheer man power would have made the slightest difference.

Germany need tanks and aircraft - neither of which she could produce in sufficient number.
A million troops and their kit would have made little difference.

It still doesn't matter. The Germans should have finished the Russians off long before any Russian offensive started. They came ridiculously close to defeating Russia. It's unbelievable that someone would say their victory was impossible.

- Back to the 'ifs', 'buts' and 'maybes' again huh?

Well you can keep you little dream that a German arrival in Moscow in 1941 would have meant the end. You are wrong though.

The fact remains they couldn't even hold the vast territories they did supposedly 'occupy' and they had no answer to the 'ocean' of world-beating tanks and the swarms of capable excellent combat aircraft the Russians were to unleash on them.

Germany was hardly done. Had they not started playing defensively, they would have gotten the job done.

- LMAO. Do you actaully know anything about this stuff or are you just game-playing?

German was on the verge of total collapse when she cried enough. Her people were starving to death and they faced utter ruin.

Hence the disaster of post-WW1 Germany.

The Germans would have attacked the same place, but they would have done it in a very different way. They did not plan on doing the same thing they did during WW1.

And the idea is to win at the as low of a cost as possible. That cautious attitude loses more than it wins.

- Well dream on old son, the fact is we know what they originally planned.

This doesn't back up any of your claims at all. It doesn't talk about horses being sent to the frontlines, and it even says that they weren't used much at the beginning of the war.

- It says cavalry was not used to begin with but was later. Can you read? Do you understand the meaning of the term 'Cavalry'? You ought to being an American.

Your survival was never in doubt, yet you let America station thousands on your land?

- .....and we developed and funded our own nuclear deterrent weaponry and the means to effectively deliver them etc etc.

Top generals (among the best in history) no less then you, huh?

- "Top Generals" so what? Some of the world's "Top Generals" have also turned out to be raving war-perv nutters of the 1st order.

Politics (and the whole business of not having actual unnecesary wars) tends, generally, not to be a General's strong point.

They may have done a good job at points in their careers but that doesn't make them the font of all knowledge at all times. Check out General 'let's nuke 'em all' MacArthur for proof.

America had many of the same weapons. It doesn't mean they'd be used freely. It's about intimidating the other side.

- No it's not about having the same weapons, it's about a doctrine that sees nuclear weapons as no different from any other type of artillery. Russia if it had happened would have attacked with nuclear weapons on day one.

You never know what could happen.

- Yeah well when you are prepared to fret about that kind of outrageously extreme possibility it really ought to be occurring to you that there really are a host of more plausible ones that should be taking up your attentions first, hmm?

None of the allies ever liked Russia going around turning them into their puppets. It's part of the reason we were so desperate to end the war with Japan.

- "The allies" as you put it were prepared to go along with Russian plans to let them create a 'buffer zone' under their control because 'we' could see the justcie of it and also we needed their help.

.....and given the way many of those eastern European states had happily supplied men and equipment to help the German attack on Russia who can blame the Russians (or the allies for that matter) in not being exactly overly concerned about the feelings of those same eastern Europeans on the matter?

The Soviet invasion came long before any aggressive action by America. America wasn't training rebels until Soviet tanks roled into Afghanistan.

- Well if you bother to look you'll find 'Operation Cyclone' began long before the Afghan invasion.

Turning down the idea of an election in Korea that would have settled everything, then backing the North's attack on the South, and even sending pilots to fight with us.

- I hardly think the US is in a position to talk about respecting democratic mandates when it comes to Korea, right?

(By the way, you might like to consider why so many south Koreans defend north Korea's attitude to the US.)

Peace shouldn't be made with things like the USSR.

- LMAO! Tell that to Reagan!

If we had done that, then the Soviet Union would probably still be around today.

- Pulling some more guesses out of thin air again are we? You have absolutely no grounds for this claim other than your own prejudices.

I guess the people of Eastern Europe and Russia don't really matter as long as the West is safe, though, right?

- ...and yet my point was all about everyone's greater safety.

I'm going back to the Czars, not in the past half century. Most of America's involvement in the Middle East has been necessary because of European actions in the past, as well.

- Yeah right, all everyone elses doing and nothing to do with America and the alliances she has persued. Try telling that to the Iranians, Iraqis and Israelis.

America was free to take over all of Canada and Mexico for a very long while. Our small run at a colonial power was short lived, and a lot less bloody then the European and Russian attempts.

- I'll bet the Mexicans get real comfort from that.

I'm not threatened by Europe. I know we could crush Europe now, and in the future.

- Laughable small jibes aside the fact is you raised the point about US attacking Europe. It isn't going to happen and the nutter element in the US can just look for someone else to help out in their paranoid and delusionary power games.

I'd say the EU is a very real attempt at trying to surpass America.

- Jayzuss how stunningly self-centred are you people?
The EU is all about maximising Europe's potential economically for the betterment of the people of Europe.

If you honestly see that as somehow threatening to you I suggest a visit to the 'special doctor' again.

Keep dreaming. America has screwed around in Iraq. Can anyone honestly say that America has used its full strength in Iraq? We haven't even used a fraction.

- .....and what?
The point is you can't.
Just like in Vietnam you can't go the whole hog cos then you lose everything there anyways.

Until things change, and they can change fast.

- No they can't.
Not today.
They can't 'just' quickly change as they take vast funding, a long time to build up and train and cannot be done secretly on the required scale.

No, a jetliner is not cutting edge. Do you think it's anywhere near as technologically advanced as military planes?

- Sorry but this is ill-thought out rubbish, sadly again.

I think you'll find the composite construction technology will advance Chinese tech in this field enormously, similarly as with the fly-by-wire computer tech (Jayzuss you guys threw a fit over the export of Playstation 2 to China ferchrissakes!) and giving them access to some of the latest biggest and most powerful and fuel efficient jet engines will also give them a major leg-up.

I'm not going to ignore one problem just because another exists elsewhere.

- No you're 'patriotic' in your 'problem-vision' ain't you?

They haven't given much more then the token effort in Afghanistan.

- Like I said, you utterly ignore and sneer at the help they have given you.

Well, from my own experiences with Europeans, and going to Europe, and from everyone I know, this isn't the case.

- Sorry to break it to you but your cosy little self-reinforcing anecdotes and claims are hardly conclusive or universal.

They have the right to keep their own culture.

- Wow, how big of you.

But when someone goes to another nation talking about fighting the spread of our cutlure, and takes steps to help arm that other nation, that seems pretty aggressive to me.

- Hmm so there is talk about a common concern about cultural integrity - and this connects with a handfull of comments calling for the relaxation of the EU restrictions on the export of arms to China how, exactly?

Cos France hasn't exported so much as a bullet to China so far.

I see no reason why politicians should be worried about what movies their people are watching.

- Until the boot gets onto the other foot, right?

I'd say that this is a sign of a lot more paranaoia then what you find from America's right wing.

- The childishly pathetic 'freedom fries' BS says everything anyone might need to know on that score, don't you worry about that.

They aren't spending now because they can't. Give it another decade. With a more open economy they'll be able to spend a whole lot more then what they did during the Cold War, and they will be.

- ....and exactly why would they repeat the pointless waste once again? Just cos you guys are beyond help on that score doesn't mean everyone else is.

I doubt very much they are ever coming to play that absurd little 'game' ever again.

But even if they do the world will see it coming over the years - hell we don't even need military surveilance anymore the civillian satellites cover most of the globe these days and are covering more and more as time marches on.

I guess there's nothing at all strange about Putin's actions to you, though. I mean, he's only gone and pretty much crushed free speech and democracy in his country.

- Putin is doing just what you lot are up to; using the supposed threat of 'global terror' to justify repression.
In fact in his case due to the very real and frequent on-going problems with Chechnya he probably has far more cause and justification.

He may have gone slightly further than Bush but we look on in horror at Patriot Act and Patriot Act 2.
I see little real difference.

It's not like the Cold War because Russia still can't reach their old level of power, and they aren't recognized as even a growing threat anymore by most.

- So why not stop trying to claim they 'might be' when you think it suits you then, hmmm?

Most of the military in the region is just left over from the Cold War, and menat to deal with Russia.

- I'm sure they could care less what your 'justification' for it all is. The fact is it's still there and it shouldn't be a great surprise that they might feel it threatens them and they might wish to be able to counter it.

If we wanted to wage war with China, we would have done so by now. We sure as hell had the capability.

- But only fairly recently a loopy enough administration to give the matter any kind of serious consideration.

Yea yea...more Halliburton scandel. These questions are asked plenty in America by Democrats. They've never come up with a damn thing
Until someone has evidence of actual corruption taking place, I don't want to hear it. American officials weren't taking payments from Saddam..

- I doubt very much anyone could come up with anything for you.

Yes, and nothing would have stopped them from going further. That was my point.

- But they didn't go any further.
You claimed they would have without the US presence.
I pointed out there was no US presence at that point and they did not go any further.

How come? Cos you are convinced it would seem that they should have done seeing as there was no-one to stop them.

Was there any unrealistic about what I said? Saddam would have had control over the world's oil reserves, something that the Western world completely relies on.

- Saddam never had any intention to take over the world's oil supplies, that is the unrealistic thing you have been saying on this. It is pure wild speculation and totally unfounded.

Why would he it would be guaranteed to bring about his removal and downfall?
As it is his mild gambling did so (bearing in mind that he fully believed he had been given the ok by the USA to invade Kuwait over his dispute with them).

He was buying Russia, and French weapons, not American.

- Oh for Gawd's sakes don't you even know the history of how this was all done?
It's all about the Iran Iraq war.
Reagan could hardly be seen to be supplying both sides now could he?
Illegally supplying Iran was bad enough but he could hardly have had the world see Iraq and Iran at each other's throats (in a war the west fully intended would drag on and on and weaken both Muslim countries) equipped with US arms.

Reagan supplied Saddam with the funding specifically so that Saddam would go and buy European.

It's nowhere near that simple. America didn't blindly support Saddam. If we didn't, we would have had Iran gaining control over even more oil resources.

- Exactly, the politics of expedience. It costs everyone in the end. 'We' found that out when it was our people out there just as you are finding out now.

The only way to break the cycle is to stop 'playing the game' and stop pandering to the power and war-pervs in your country who will always tell you the answer is to put more of your people into the grinder - along with whatever jingoistic crap they think you will listen to.

But you guys won't be doing anything so sensible for a long long time yet and, sadly, not until there has been further great cost to yourselves.

This has been shown to be false as the allies did have more tanks than the Germans and many of them were fully comparable if not superior to the best of german tanks they used invading France in 1940.

They had some equal to the Panzer 2 in less numbers. The tanks were inferior.

- This is plain wrong. Clearly you don't know what you are talking about.

They were equally in many aspects, and the French tanks had serious design flaws. The Panzer 2's were in greater number. How exactly am I wrong?

You were wrong.
My point stands, it was not numbers but tactic that won the battle of France in 1940

It the most technical sense, yes. My point was that the Germans had the advantage with tanks, and they did.

- Who said anything about a 'majority'? Of course the majority keep their heads down and hope to survive.

So what exactly about Europe's struggle showed great resolve...?

- Except that these 'land-grabs' were all about regaining historic German territory right up until Czechoslovakia in 1938.

The land-grabs were against the will of the people in those regions. With Czechoslovakia, France had said they would act if Hitler took action against the region. He did, and France continued their appeasement alongside the British. Hitler even made blatant threats, and you just let him get away with it.

How could anyone be fooled by Hitler's intentions by that point?

- Wilson started out with great intentions of justice and allowed himself to be steered into a program of petty revenge which in large part brought the dsaster of WW2.

You British went along with the same thing.

- Then I suggest a little study into the man might enlighten you, right?

I guess that's because you yourself can't say what he was actually wrong about, then?

The bottom line is that he was right about Hitler, and right about what would happen if you kept giving him everything he wanted. If you had listened, tens of millions of lives could have been saved.

- More 'ifs', 'buts' and 'maybes', hmmm?

There's no if's, but's or maybe's about it. It wouldn't have been hard to stop Hitler in the early 30's.

- I could care less whether you agree with me or not, a little open-mindedness that there are other facts you are clearly unaware of and that things are not the neat linear version you seem to imagine them to be would be a better starting point though if you don't mind my saying.

I'm sure there are facts I'm unaware of, but you've yet to show me any.

- His right-wing opponents in the UK love to claim that about him, personally I find the "puppet" claim laughable and I look forward to his reelection. The Labour gov he leads is the best option by far IMO.

So, you'll re-elect a man who went into Iraq, but insult America for doing the same?

Why exactly was America so wrong for re-electing Bush?

......and if you think France and Germany are some kind of quasi-marxist clapped out economies you are fooling yourself. They are good places to live. Wake up.

I don't like any place that takes away peoples freedoms, whether they're economic or social freedoms. Welfare states like France are not my idea of good places to live. I don't care if they get a little more vacation time than Americans. Americans are free to do the same thing, they choose not to. I know its hard to believe, but we don't need the government controlling our lives for us. We aren't children.

We can speculate all day long about what might have happened but my bet would be that the probable achievement of their initial objectives fairly early on would have led to relief and hesitency in the German leadership (as did happen in the actual campaign) along with a desire to secure their gains.

It's hardly safe to say they would have failed as you were.

- They had some initial successes....... and then proceeded to lose.
Not 'just' lose either but lose so utterly that all traces of the German body politic that existed pre-WW1 and pre-WW2 were totally wiped away never to return.

They dominated most of WW1 and 2. That's not a little success to start, that's a lot of success. They were fighting mostly alone, as well. They took great risks, and because of that suffered great consequences.

Cos along with our commonwealth 'we' not only fended off the Germans with great success 'we' also managed to begin taking the war to Germany quite successfully.

You fended off the Germans because of, once again, stupid decisions made by Hitler. You were saved after the Battle of Britain for the time being, but you had no actual means of taking the war to Germany. They were still on the offensive.

- Russia would have done what she has always done and moved much further east - as they planned to do, if it had come to it, in 1941

With what forces? How much of their military was actually left after Moscow? Once they made the decision to defend Moscow, that was basically it. The majority of their remaining forces were there. No Russian offensive would ever have been possible.

Germany could have taken Moscow and like Napoleon found no-one there.....

I've never heard of any Russian plans to burn Moscow like they did with Napoleon. Many Russians were ready to welcome the Nazis at the time. The Nazis would not have been in the situation Napoleon was.

........ and still the 'river of tanks and planes' produced so far out of German bomber range would have come to swallow them up

Who would have flown those planes and tanks? They would have lost huge chunks of their army. Russia did not have an endless number of soldiers at its disposal. They didn't have the funds, either. Do you think the allies would have supported the Russians so much had they lost Moscow?

- No. Stalin began moving the factories long before the German assault. You are quite wrong

That had nothing to do with what I said. The German invasion caught Stalin completely off guard. The military wasn't prepared to fight in the least.

- So are you saying the USA was blind to the threat and even when it had all started kept out of it to begin with despite the shared risk of German control of the world's trade routes etc?

America didn't see it as America's problem, at least the people. Our government was supporting the war effort in every way possible. America wasn't even allowed to join the war effort, anyway. Our hands were tied.

....and as far as the Russians were concerned they did everything they could to stave off the war as they too needed time.
Which they got and which they made great use of.

What the hell did Stalin do to "stave" off the war? He took no precautions. He completely underestimated Hitler and the Nazis. For some unkown reason, one of the most paranoid men in history decided to trust Hitler of all people...

- Given the threat of invasion on the western side how would those million have been released?

There wouldn't have been any threat of an invasion without America.

Germany need tanks and aircraft - neither of which she could produce in sufficient number.
A million troops and their kit would have made little difference.

It was only the superior Western bombers which crushed Germany's production capability. They could have produced enough to fight the Russians on their own.

The fact remains they couldn't even hold the vast territories they did supposedly 'occupy' and they had no answer to the 'ocean' of world-beating tanks and the swarms of capable excellent combat aircraft the Russians were to unleash on them.

The Germans had the superior aircraft. Tank wise, they had some that were far better then the T-34. They also had the best infantry weapons. The Russians also had no navy.

German was on the verge of total collapse when she cried enough. Her people were starving to death and they faced utter ruin.

Hence the disaster of post-WW1 Germany.

They cried enough once allied forces were making their way into the heartland of Germany. It should never even have gotten to that point. France should have been overrun, and the British would have been isolated to their island.

- Well dream on old son, the fact is we know what they originally planned.

Who cares? You want to talk about if's, but's, and maybe's, well, this is way bigger than anything I suggested. The Germans lost both wars for themselves. It wasn't brilliance of the French and British in WW1.

- It says cavalry was not used to begin with but was later. Can you read? Do you understand the meaning of the term 'Cavalry'? You ought to being an American.

It also said it was mostly used for transporting troops and supplies.

- .....and we developed and funded our own nuclear deterrent weaponry and the means to effectively deliver them etc etc.

Was that supposed to scare off a Soviet invasion?

- "Top Generals" so what? Some of the world's "Top Generals" have also turned out to be raving war-perv nutters of the 1st order.

Politics (and the whole business of not having actual unnecesary wars) tends, generally, not to be a General's strong point.

They may have done a good job at points in their careers but that doesn't make them the font of all knowledge at all times. Check out General 'let's nuke 'em all' MacArthur for proof.

Politics has absolutely nothing to do with whether America could have beaten Russia in a war.

- No it's not about having the same weapons, it's about a doctrine that sees nuclear weapons as no different from any other type of artillery. Russia if it had happened would have attacked with nuclear weapons on day one.

Yes, but your only proof of this is that they developed nukes for everything. America did the same thing. What made the two different?

- "The allies" as you put it were prepared to go along with Russian plans to let them create a 'buffer zone' under their control because 'we' could see the justcie of it and also we needed their help.

Russia deserved everything it got during that war. They helped Hitler start the damn thing. There was no justice in it.

And the Allies never intended for the Russians to install puppet governments, but to rebuild the territories they took.

.....and given the way many of those eastern European states had happily supplied men and equipment to help the German attack on Russia who can blame the Russians (or the allies for that matter) in not being exactly overly concerned about the feelings of those same eastern Europeans on the matter?

They had more reason to hate the Russians then the other way around.

- Well if you bother to look you'll find 'Operation Cyclone' began long before the Afghan invasion.

And before Operation Cyclone the Soviets were still involved.

America's early involvement in Afghanistan were more or less humanitarian efforts.

- I hardly think the US is in a position to talk about respecting democratic mandates when it comes to Korea, right?

Why's that?

- LMAO! Tell that to Reagan!

Reagan didn't make "peace" with Russia. I believe you Europeans were the ones whining he was going to start a war.

- Pulling some more guesses out of thin air again are we? You have absolutely no grounds for this claim other than your own prejudices.

The Soviet Union would have had all the more cash to spend. The government would have been more secure. That's a fact.

- ...and yet my point was all about everyone's greater safety.

Safety in exchange for freedom.

- Yeah right, all everyone elses doing and nothing to do with America and the alliances she has persued. Try telling that to the Iranians, Iraqis and Israelis.

What poor examples. Iraq and Iran were thrown into turmoil by BRITISH colonialism. Israel was formed because of the holocaust in Europe.

We intervened in Iran because because the British were begging us.

With Israel, I suppose you would have liked us to just abandon the nation to die, right?

- I'll bet the Mexicans get real comfort from that.

The Mexicans were hardly innocent. Mexico basically wants to become part of America right now, anyway.

- Jayzuss how stunningly self-centred are you people?
The EU is all about maximising Europe's potential economically for the betterment of the people of Europe.

The economic ties will become social and military ties eventually. You'll be one nation.

Go take a look at who the biggest supporters of the EU have been. The Gaullists in France are all about opposing America.

- .....and what?
The point is you can't.
Just like in Vietnam you can't go the whole hog cos then you lose everything there anyways.

America lost in Vietnam because we didn't go all out. If we had just invaded the North, the thing would have been over. Our troops were limited to the point where they were basically peacekeepers.

- No they can't.
Not today.
They can't 'just' quickly change as they take vast funding, a long time to build up and train and cannot be done secretly on the required scale.

I was talking about the relationship between America and Europe.

I think you'll find the composite construction technology will advance Chinese tech in this field enormously, similarly as with the fly-by-wire computer tech (Jayzuss you guys threw a fit over the export of Playstation 2 to China ferchrissakes!) and giving them access to some of the latest biggest and most powerful and fuel efficient jet engines will also give them a major leg-up.

You think any of what's in a commercial plane compares even to what you find in planes like a C-130?

- Like I said, you utterly ignore and sneer at the help they have given you

Do you deny that the French and Germans could have given more? They could have each donated several thousand troops.

- Hmm so there is talk about a common concern about cultural integrity - and this connects with a handfull of comments calling for the relaxation of the EU restrictions on the export of arms to China how, exactly?

Everything France is doing is basically about building up strong alternatives to America.

Cos France hasn't exported so much as a bullet to China so far.

Not true. They've already sold some weapons technology to China.

- The childishly pathetic 'freedom fries' BS says everything anyone might need to know on that score, don't you worry about that.

There aren't any papers in America based on being anti-French, at least.

- ....and exactly why would they repeat the pointless waste once again? Just cos you guys are beyond help on that score doesn't mean everyone else is.

Because as Russians they feel they should be on the strongest? To simply get more power? Why does Putin feel the need to be a tyrant?

- Putin is doing just what you lot are up to; using the supposed threat of 'global terror' to justify repression.
In fact in his case due to the very real and frequent on-going problems with Chechnya he probably has far more cause and justification.

He's been doing this stuff long before any War on Terror started. He has as much control over the Russian media as the old Soviet Union at this point.

He may have gone slightly further than Bush but we look on in horror at Patriot Act and Patriot Act 2.
I see little real difference.

Care to explain what is so horrible about the Patriot Act? I've asked that of several people, and I've never gotten much of an answer. It's certainly nothing like crushing democracy and free speech.

- So why not stop trying to claim they 'might be' when you think it suits you then, hmmm?

If I didn't see signs coming from Russia, I wouldn't say anything. Putin isn't someone to be trusted, and he's gained way too much power.

- But only fairly recently a loopy enough administration to give the matter any kind of serious consideration.

Then why has China been doing it a lot longer then before Bush?

You Europeans have no right insulting Bush, or Americans. You didn't like Reagan, either. All of your claims about him turned out wrong.

- I doubt very much anyone could come up with anything for you.

That probably has something to do with the fact that there isn't any scandel with Halliburton. They were picked in Iraq for the same reason they were picked in Kosovo years before in the exact same way.

- But they didn't go any further.
You claimed they would have without the US presence.
I pointed out there was no US presence at that point and they did not go any further.

America began to send troops to Saudi Arabia not too long after the invasion of Kuwait. Iraq didn't do anything because they didn't have time.

- Saddam never had any intention to take over the world's oil supplies, that is the unrealistic thing you have been saying on this. It is pure wild speculation and totally unfounded.

The guy was power crazy. Why would you take the chance?

Why would he it would be guaranteed to bring about his removal and downfall?
As it is his mild gambling did so (bearing in mind that he fully believed he had been given the ok by the USA to invade Kuwait over his dispute with them).

During the first Gulf War, he did think he could compete with the West militarily, or at least hold us to a draw. Most of the world thought he could.

- Oh for Gawd's sakes don't you even know the history of how this was all done?
It's all about the Iran Iraq war.
Reagan could hardly be seen to be supplying both sides now could he?
Illegally supplying Iran was bad enough but he could hardly have had the world see Iraq and Iran at each other's throats (in a war the west fully intended would drag on and on and weaken both Muslim countries) equipped with US arms

I don't think you're aware of the history of the war. The weapons Iran had were given to them before the Shah was overthrown. It wasn't until later in the Iran-Iraq war that we began to give arms to Iran again, and that was due to what we saw as a shifting balance of power.

The only way to break the cycle is to stop 'playing the game' and stop pandering to the power and war-pervs in your country who will always tell you the answer is to put more of your people into the grinder - along with whatever jingoistic crap they think you will listen to.

The only mistake America has made is not going into the Middle East and getting rid of some of these governments sooner.

Saddam, or his sons, were potentially a huge threat to the region; it wasn't a matter of whether or not he intended to take over the oil itself; it is a matter of what kind of military threats he might have established over there.

As for the U.S. military, it has plenty of cash available, just the gov't doesn't appropriate the proper funds for it at the moment. Which is what makes many in the military dislike a lot of the gov't right now. It is more Europe's militaries that have decreased so far due to a "dwindling pile of cash," mainly because their economies are badly structured and they must pour too much money into social programs. True, they don't need a military that can go out and exert global force as a superpower, but they do need militaries to defend their borders. No one knows the future. After WWI, no one ever dreamed such a war would happen again. And WWII happens soon after. 2050, there might be a big battle somewhere, no one knows. One can never fortell the future.

And people, Europe only outnumbers the United States by about 100 million people; that number doesn't mean much in comparison to their military capability. And that number is going to drop consideraly within the next few decades because Europe has had an enormous drop in their birthrate lately. Their population will probably have decreased by 80 million by 2050.

As a European I really enjoy this topic, and to tell ya'll the truth, It made me register for the forum.

A comment to all you eager posters, keep down the info, and all this quotes makes it impossible to follow up any good discussions! Just a hint, dunno what you think, but maybe I'm correct!

To the point:

First of all, comparing US and Europe is a total miss... You guys aren't really close to the target, less actually close to the flippin' range.

Second, Europe is strong.

.......................................................................................................................

I will make my statment as short as possible, but really there is loads of BS that makes me really wanna give your old History and Geography teachers a good spanking.

Europe is as you all know many countries, the "EU" on it's side represented in 2004, 25 COUNTRYS!!!! Not only The Brits,The Dutch,The French... and a few other "Sauerkraut" eating individuals
Besides the EU there are small countries like NORWAY, a uniqe country that DOESEN'T have any debt in a US bank, but infact is richer than any country in the world!, if not second og third.... doesen't matter....

My point beeing, IF and ONLY IF there where any reason att all for Europe to unify and stand together vs. "The Mighty US".. I'm afraid you'd be suprised.

..........................................................................................................................

As to which millitary units that rule the battlefield, also this discussion is totally off the target. How can you really compare units when they are actually ALL EXPERTS in their field and on their turf? It's like comparing a hockeyplayer versus a baskeballplayer.. The only common thing they have is that they actually have to succeed to win!?

All of the countries have capabillities that anothercountry may lack... THEREFORE, units like SAS have wintertraining in Norway, WITH NORWEGIAN INSTRUCTORS!!! Does that make Norwegians better winterarriors?, I doubt it, but we have the know how!...

And Who did Norwegian Spec-Ops coach in Afghanistan?? Yes, you guessed correctly..US Troops, American "10th mountain" among others. And who did whoop American Seals butts on Excersise in Norway... I'll tell you, our own "DRAFTED" MarineJaegers. But then again, that was on our turf.

I'll end this before my head boils over..
And just a small thought in the end, "Why did I have to memorize all the states in America, and describe the continents landscape from east to west, north to south, when the securityguy that i talked to in SF california said; "Norway??? really is that ABROAD or sumtin??""

You figure out.

And yeah, in Norway Bush wouldn't even make it to chairman, in a board of a flippin' toy store...

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
They were equally in many aspects, and the French tanks had serious design flaws. The Panzer 2's were in greater number. How exactly am I wrong?

1) The allies had more tanks than the Germans and
2) several of the designs were either equal to or superior to the German types in use then.

Each of those points you originally claimed the opposite for, indeed you claimed they were using tanks from WW1 (with the implication that this was common, which it was not)

It the most technical sense, yes. My point was that the Germans had the advantage with tanks, and they did.

- ....and as has been pointed out several times the German advantage was in their usage of their tanks, not the numbers of design of their 'kit'.

By the way, please back up your claim that about the Char S-35 & 40 "It didn't take much firepower to split the hull." (5/2/05, page 7)

So what exactly about Europe's struggle showed great resolve...?

- By resisting (across every occupied territory as well as within Germany itself) in sufficient numbers and with such significance in the various acts as to always be a source of great difficulty for Hitler and his degenerate gang.

The land-grabs were against the will of the people in those regions.

- Oh please, feel free to detail the number pre-war "land-grabs" that were made against the will of the people there.
(This ought to be good! )

With Czechoslovakia, France had said they would act if Hitler took action against the region. He did, and France continued their appeasement alongside the British. Hitler even made blatant threats, and you just let him get away with it.

How could anyone be fooled by Hitler's intentions by that point?

- Which point?
Are you just deliberatly confusing the issues surrounding the Sudeten-Germans and the later occupation of the remainder of Czechoslovakia in march 1939?

You British went along with the same thing.

- To our shame and great regret later, yes.
Did I say 'we' didn't?

I guess that's because you yourself can't say what he was actually wrong about, then?

- No it's my usual response to an idle mouth-piece that makes claims as if they know the full ins and outs of a situation or person when clearly they don't.

Try not to expect everything served up to you on a plate and go learn about the guy yourself, hmmm?

It can't be too hard to source quality info - try this www.chu.cam.ac.uk..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.chu.cam.ac.uk...

The bottom line is that he was right about Hitler, and right about what would happen if you kept giving him everything he wanted. If you had listened, tens of millions of lives could have been saved.

There's no if's, but's or maybe's about it. It wouldn't have been hard to stop Hitler in the early 30's.

- Yeah, it's that simple.

I'm sure there are facts I'm unaware of, but you've yet to show me any.

- Like I said, a game-playing closed mind.
No doubt you impress your smug self immensly.

So, you'll re-elect a man who went into Iraq, but insult America for doing the same?

- The US intel services misled the Brits. It's that simple.
As the House of Commons Foreign Affair committee said after the war, the UK was far too reliant on intel sources some of whom they believed unconnected to the US which turned out later to be US sources.

The UK went to war on the basis of 'good faith'.
We now know Bush intended war all along.
Big difference.

.....and I do not see life as so one-dimensional that I cannot disagree with Blair and the Labour gov over the war and yet agree with their overall performance as a gov and wish them to remain in gov.

Why exactly was America so wrong for re-electing Bush?

- Frankly I doubt America has ever genuinely voted Bush.

I don't like any place that takes away peoples freedoms, whether they're economic or social freedoms.

- LMAO.

Welfare states like France are not my idea of good places to live. I don't care if they get a little more vacation time than Americans. Americans are free to do the same thing, they choose not to. I know its hard to believe, but we don't need the government controlling our lives for us. We aren't children.

- ...and neither are we and unlike you guys we ditched the childish idea that a society 'needs' such 'incentive' as utter destitution as some kind of spur on to better things.

It's hardly safe to say they would have failed as you were.

- Why not?
Even using their (initially) innovative tactics they still ended up the absolute losers and got wiped out so comprehensively that failure came to have an entirely new meaning.

They dominated most of WW1 and 2. That's not a little success to start, that's a lot of success. They were fighting mostly alone, as well. They took great risks, and because of that suffered great consequences.

- No, they are called pyrrhic victories, worthless and extremely temporary success.

Big deal.

You fended off the Germans because of, once again, stupid decisions made by Hitler. You were saved after the Battle of Britain for the time being, but you had no actual means of taking the war to Germany. They were still on the offensive.

- Keep it coming your ignorance is amusing to say the least.

The truth is the Germans stopped attacking the UK as they has no ability to do anything but make moderately damaging attacks on 'soft' targets, at enormous cost to themselves.

They had no answer to the mounting heavy night loses their bombers were sustaining thanks to 'our' radar equipped night-fighters from late 1940 onwards.

As for the British means to fight Germany?
Did you skip the part about how the bomber force began attacking in earnest in 1941 and would go on, having developed the ability to smash Germany night after night (with seriously heavy attacks as opposed to the light attacks from the USAF's B17s and their - as the RAF song of the time put it - tiny weeny bomb)?
Or how the Brits were fighting Germany and would eventually win in Africa?

Don't you know anything much about the war?

With what forces? How much of their military was actually left after Moscow?

- So where did the fresh forces come from that defended Moscow, if Moscow was 'it', then?

This is yet again ignorant rubbish.
Clearly you know practically nothing about the Russian part of the war too.

Once they made the decision to defend Moscow, that was basically it. The majority of their remaining forces were there. No Russian offensive would ever have been possible.

- Garbage.
Russia had enormous reserves in it's eastern unoccupied areas.
Reserves they started to bring to bear very successfully once it became clear Japan had no interest in attacking Russia in the far east.

I've never heard of any Russian plans to burn Moscow like they did with Napoleon.

- So? Just because you aren't aware of the plans does not mean they didn't exist.
Check out what they did when they had to leave Kiev and the enormous cost that was to the Germans when it happened.

Many Russians were ready to welcome the Nazis at the time. The Nazis would not have been in the situation Napoleon was.

- Oh yeah, just like some of the Ukranians welcomed the Germans initially, then they found out just what Germany had in mind for them, slavery and/or death.

Certainly the German position would have been different to Napoleon's, it was much worse as news about what they were really at spread!

Who would have flown those planes and tanks?

- Er, how about the people who actually did fly them?

They would have lost huge chunks of their army.

- Er, they did lose huge chunks of their forces anyway....

.....where do you think the replacements came from when the Germans were occupying large parts of the western USSR for so long, hmmm?

Russia did not have an endless number of soldiers at its disposal.

- Compared to Germany she did, actually.

They didn't have the funds, either. Do you think the allies would have supported the Russians so much had they lost Moscow?

- Russia had sufficient wealth to fund what they needed.
Obviously, they did it didn't they?

The allies helped matters but the Russians produced and funded their huge fleets of T-34's, Su -100's, Is2's and 3's and Yak 3 series all on their own and in numbers Germany never even came close to never mind being able to counter.

That had nothing to do with what I said. The German invasion caught Stalin completely off guard. The military wasn't prepared to fight in the least.

- If you think the Russians didn't foresee a war coming you are fooling yourself.
Stalin hoped it wasn't happening when it finally came, he dreaded not being ready and, to begin with, for a few days, he hid from his people and deluded himself that it wasn't happening that is true.....

...... but to claim the Russian military and political leadership were completely unawares and unprepared in any way for the (obviously) approaching was is simply wrong.

They were very poor in their responses to begin with but by God they learnt quickly.

What the hell did Stalin do to "stave" off the war? He took no precautions. He completely underestimated Hitler and the Nazis. For some unkown reason, one of the most paranoid men in history decided to trust Hitler of all people...

- It was all about buying time.
The non-agression pact bought Stalin several months (during which time the factories were being moved far to the east and rebuilt ready for volume production in late 1941/early 1942.
Just in time.

There wouldn't have been any threat of an invasion without America.

- Oh really?

Considering Americans were outnumbered on D-Day by British and Canadians I fail to see quite why the US was pivotal to the whole thing happening.

Without US forces the Commonwealth would most likely have simply stepped up and the US would have done what it like doing best, keeping out of it and making money from the arms sales.

What was actually genuinely pivotal to the allied victory was the amazing efforts of the Polish French and British cryptographers who broke every German machine code they came up with along with the stupifyingly pig-headed arrogant moronity of the German leadership who could not bring themselves to even consider whether their signal coding had been compromised.

That and radar.

It was only the superior Western bombers which crushed Germany's production capability. They could have produced enough to fight the Russians on their own.

- German output rose as they decentralised in response to the bombing campaign.

The fact is Germany had it all wrong as far as arms production went. Despite having volume car producing firms which could have shown them proper mass-production techniques they never became very interested in that.

They preferred the craftsman angle on production and it meant that even the UK out-produced Germany in most aspects.

As far as comparison with Russian kit goes and comparative suitability for the job (in the conditions within which it was expected to operate) the majority of the beautifully made German kit was to all intents and purposes grossly inferior to the Russian.

Like I said, in any case they could never have produced sufficient planes and tanks in time and a million more bodies knocking about would have done nothing to halt the Russian tidal wave of men and equipment heading west.

The Germans had the superior aircraft.

- To begin with that is true of the german fighters.

But that is not true after 1943 when the later Yak 3 series aircraft could take on any German plane.

....and since when were a relatively small number of fighters the be-all and end-all of air operations on the eastern front anyway?

Germany had nothing like enough aircraft and certainly nothing like enough ground attack aircraft comparable to the hoardes of the Ilyushin Shturmovik series (the most numerously produced plane ever)

Tank wise, they had some that were far better then the T-34.

- So what?
Have you ever seen a comparison of German versus Russian tank production?

It's true the Germans made some capable AFV's (actually far too many different types of AFV.....as well as just about everything else, they couldn't standardise on and properly develop a single type to save their lives, litterally!).
But in many cases these impressive pieces were built in numbers of a few hundred to the Russians thousands and tens of thousands.

Tiger and Panther and Panzer 4 production verses T34 (alone)?

They also had the best infantry weapons.

- So?
They had far less infantry and the difference was pretty marginal anyway especially given the conditions most of the year the stuff was meant to be useable in - not to mention the various partisan militias that were giving them hell roaming around in their rear areas.

The Russians also had no navy.

- More ill-informed rubbish.
Wrong, plain and simply wrong.

They cried enough once allied forces were making their way into the heartland of Germany. It should never even have gotten to that point. France should have been overrun, and the British would have been isolated to their island.

- Yeah, right you are.

Except of course that it did get to that point and the allies defeated Germany so comprehensively it was pitiable.

Who cares? You want to talk about if's, but's, and maybe's, well, this is way bigger than anything I suggested.

- Yeah interesting idea. We know their original attack plans and what they intended and you think drawing conclusions about that is more of a specultive leap than your 'just being appreciative of imperial and nazi Germany' ideas about how (except for this, that and the other) they would have won!

The Germans lost both wars for themselves. It wasn't brilliance of the French and British in WW1.

- Germany was utterly defeated by the allies in both wars, they didn't just happen to lose it themselves.
They were fought and they lost, utterly, twice.

It also said it was mostly used for transporting troops and supplies.

- It makes specific reference to the increasing German use of horses as the war went on in combat.

Or are you just going to play the tedious quibbling adolescent troll continually?

Was that supposed to scare off a Soviet invasion?

- Well clearly it worked cos they didn't attempt to invade us, right?

Politics has absolutely nothing to do with whether America could have beaten Russia in a war.

- It is a blindness to political realities that make generals so blinkered in their approach.

It is the lack of consideration of consequence that has those same blinkered fools blind to the 'victory' not being worth attaining as the world would by then have been toast.

Yes, but your only proof of this is that they developed nukes for everything. America did the same thing. What made the two different?

- The 'proof' was in the confirmation 'we' got that this was so through the defections of some of their senior personnel, actually.

Russia deserved everything it got during that war. They helped Hitler start the damn thing. There was no justice in it.

- Better go cry a river about that one to Roosevelt then, huh?

And the Allies never intended for the Russians to install puppet governments, but to rebuild the territories they took.

- How would you know? You clearly know so little about what was decided then.

I suggest you go look up the whole idea about 'sphere's of influence' and what 'we' already knew about Stalin's plans before you make silly unfounded claims about what 'we' intended.

They had more reason to hate the Russians then the other way around.

- Er, and what? Talk about irrelevant. They lost.
They could hardly look to Russia or the western allies (especially considering the treatment many meted out to Russians when they thought they were winning) and start looking for much sympathy.

And before Operation Cyclone the Soviets were still involved.

- Operation Cyclone began in summer 1979, the Afgah invasion was in dec 1979.

America's early involvement in Afghanistan were more or less humanitarian efforts.

-
Yeah, getting the Taliban started, up and running and a host of other Islamic fumdamentalists egged on to go nuts is, to you, 'humanitarian'.

Why's that?

- You might want to consider who in Korea ever gave a 'mandate' for partition, hmmm?

Reagan didn't make "peace" with Russia.

- He and Gorbachev began the peace. Wise up.

I believe you Europeans were the ones whining he was going to start a war.

- Up until he dropped all that 'evil empire' crap he was well on the road to doing so, yes.

The Soviet Union would have had all the more cash to spend. The government would have been more secure. That's a fact.

- No it isn't.

Even in Nixon's day they knew Russia was flat broke. Had the will been there (and people not persuaded to stay on the tax-payers - money-go-round) meaningful moves towards peace with communist Russia - just like happened in the 1980's with communist Russia - could have begun much sooner.

Safety in exchange for freedom.

- You are simply deluded. We were already 'free' and we would have been safer.

One might also reasonably conclude (seeing as this is exactly what actually did happen when it all did eventually happen) that greater freedom would have come to central and eastern Europe fairly quickly too.

What poor examples. Iraq and Iran were thrown into turmoil by BRITISH colonialism. Israel was formed because of the holocaust in Europe.

We intervened in Iran because because the British were begging us.

With Israel, I suppose you would have liked us to just abandon the nation to die, right?

-
Back to your black and white "there is only one way" version of history, right?

You guys just had to do what you did, you had no other choices.

(I have not claimed the European influence in the ME was completely benign but it was hardly the mess it is now.....

......and try not to blame everyine else for the messes you are currently constructing, hmmm?)

The Mexicans were hardly innocent.

- The USA stole huge tracts of valuable real estate from Mexico only a relatively short time ago.

Mexico basically wants to become part of America right now, anyway.

- Oh well, that justifies everything then. Back on your high-horsey!

The economic ties will become social and military ties eventually. You'll be one nation.

- Rubbish.

We have no intention of entering into the same insane military mind-set your gov has. We simply will not fund a ludicrously bloated military for no reason.

...... and if you think the 25 (soon to be 27) nations are on the verge of "becoming one" anytime soon (within the next 100yrs?) you are quite simply and obviously deeply deluded and totally nuts.

Go take a look at who the biggest supporters of the EU have been. The Gaullists in France are all about opposing America.

- You and your President can take your 'with us or against us' paranoid delusions and place them where the sun don't shine.

The gaullists in France have - quite rightly - warned against the corruption of French culture (and European culture generally) by the alien America 'culture' ( )and the clear American intent to have the developed world bend only to the US will.

Standing up for one's self is not 'anti-American' when one is not American - but the American attitude to that does speak volumes about the sad childish state of a, sadly, sizable segment of American political thinking today.

America lost in Vietnam because we didn't go all out.

- Oh wake up. You couldn't go 'all out'.

If we had just invaded the North, the thing would have been over. Our troops were limited to the point where they were basically peacekeepers.

- Rubbish.
You'd have proked a global conflict and toasted us all.
You couldn't do it which is why you didn't do it.

I was talking about the relationship between America and Europe.

- Oh I see, back to this idiocy about a potential US and European conflict now are we?

Like I said away and find someone else to exercise your ludicrous paranoia over.

You think any of what's in a commercial plane compares even to what you find in planes like a C-130?

- When one is talking the very latest composite construction techniques and materials, engine tech and control tech, yes.
It is inconcievable that none of this will be very new to the Chinese and a boost to their capabilities.

Do you deny that the French and Germans could have given more? They could have each donated several thousand troops.

- Maybe they could, maybe they couldn't. I honestly have no idea.
The fact is they did contribute and you have no regard for it whatsoever, in fact worse you sneer at their help.

Everything France is doing is basically about building up strong alternatives to America.

- Good....and why not?
What is so wrong in wanting the freedom to choose the alternatives we wish to choose rather than the spurious freedom to only have what the US serves us up?
Who the hell wants a world dominated by America? Especially evangelical fundy 'Christian' America.
Jayzuss H, talk about absurd, suffocating and deeply boring.

Not true. They've already sold some weapons technology to China.

- Like what?
Please let us all know what technology France has supplied the Chinese, cos I have looked and cannot find a thing.

There is an EU directive restricting sales at the moment (basically to things China can make herself anyway) so please let us know where France has breeched this, hmmm?

There aren't any papers in America based on being anti-French, at least.

- Oh please.
There is an entire large chunk of the US media devoted to laughable jingoistic flag waving.
Try to say 'fair and balanced' without feeling embarrassed, hmm?

Because as Russians they feel they should be on the strongest?

- No stop projecting.
That is the current ludicrous American administration's mentality.

To simply get more power?

- Projecting again.

Why does Putin feel the need to be a tyrant?

- Possibly because he's following Bush's example......except he actually does face a regular terrorist threat at home?

He's been doing this stuff long before any War on Terror started.

- Well it obviously is news to you but 9/11 and the so-called WOT is not when the world's problems with terrorism began.

He has as much control over the Russian media as the old Soviet Union at this point.

- According to whom? What proves this?
That sounds like one of those trite little dumb comments we're meant to just accept.....except it is crap and stands no examination whatsoever.

Russia has an independant media unlike in the soviet days.

Care to explain what is so horrible about the Patriot Act? I've asked that of several people, and I've never gotten much of an answer. It's certainly nothing like crushing democracy and free speech.

- Truy looking over this site alone there's a stack of discussion about it.

The fact is it's not what they are doing with it now that is the problem it is that it is all set up and waiting for anyone you're unlucky enough to get with a serious fascist inclination.

Enjoy.

If I didn't see signs coming from Russia, I wouldn't say anything. Putin isn't someone to be trusted, and he's gained way too much power.

- I would worry about Bush long before I'd lose a wink of sleep over Putin.

Then why has China been doing it a lot longer then before Bush?

- Er because the US forces have been there decades.
D'uh.

You Europeans have no right insulting Bush, or Americans. You didn't like Reagan, either. All of your claims about him turned out wrong.

- Reagan surprised many by turning more human-like - with regard to international relations - in his 2nd term and actually working for peace.

By and large we Europeans loath the US right-wing. The current version of it is not only loathsome but pretty laughable with it.

That probably has something to do with the fact that there isn't any scandel with Halliburton. They were picked in Iraq for the same reason they were picked in Kosovo years before in the exact same way.

- Yeah right.

America began to send troops to Saudi Arabia not too long after the invasion of Kuwait. Iraq didn't do anything because they didn't have time.

- If Saddam had the intent you claim how come he restricted his initial moves to Kuwait when the US and allied forces were so far away?
Kuwait was a small place and Iraq had a big military.

The fact is he was only ever interested in persuing his dispute with Kuwait.

.....and after gulf war mk 1 (and the week in week out regular allied attacks on Iraq in the no-fly zones and the periodic heavy attacks like 'Desert Fox') the idea that he was ever deluded enough to imagine being able to sieze and hold the world's ME oil supplies is just risible garbage.

The guy was power crazy. Why would you take the chance?

- Because he did not have the capacity and could not have accomplished anything before being wiped out by allied forces stationed nearby even if he'd tried, which he did not.
Wake up.

During the first Gulf War, he did think he could compete with the West militarily, or at least hold us to a draw. Most of the world thought he could.

- That is avoiding the point, he believed the US ambassadors comment that "the US had no opinion" in regard to his dispute with Kuwait was a signal he could do what he liked with Kuwait.
It began with nothing to do with attempting a fight with the allies in any way whether for a draw or not.

I don't think you're aware of the history of the war. The weapons Iran had were given to them before the Shah was overthrown.

- Well d'uh.
Of course originally that was so. Then following the fall of the Shah there was an arms embargo.

Why are you trying to confuse the time-line?

It wasn't until later in the Iran-Iraq war that we began to give arms to Iran again, and that was due to what we saw as a shifting balance of power.

- No.
Reagan sent Saddam the finance to go buy European weaponry and sent US weapons and spares through Poindexter and North's illegal little operation.

The whole intent all along was to have these two countries slug it out to a ruinous exhaustion, with the US helping each side just enough to keep them going but with neither having enough to beat the other.

Playing one off against the other in your own interests with no regard for the costs they will suffer. As per usual.
.....and then you wonder why so much of the world is less than welcoming and open-armed towards you guys these days.

The only mistake America has made is not going into the Middle East and getting rid of some of these governments sooner.

- LMAO!

America loves those guys when they play the game the way the US administration likes it played.

Freedom and democracy my @ss!

Just like your gov still loves the blood soaked barbarian who smiles at the good ol'US of A. Who do you think you're kidding?


[edit on 7-2-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
And people, Europe only outnumbers the United States by about 100 million people;

- No.
Actually current estimates say the USA is approx 290 - 300 millions and (EU) Europe is currently approx 475millions with a genuine realistic potential to grow in the next 15 - 20yrs to approx 550millions.

We are a union of 25 countries with a further 2 (Romania and Bulgaria) joining in 2007, with a further 2 countires (Croatia and Turkey) awaiting the begining of full exploratory talks.

[edit on 7-2-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by NorwegianPatriot
As a European I really enjoy this topic, and to tell ya'll the truth, It made me register for the forum.

- Welcome aboard NorweiianPatriot, glad you've joined us.

(The point about the quoting is that the posts are pretty long and it's to try and make sure each point made gets addressed.
Hopefully you'll stick with it and it'll get easier and that it doesn't make things too difficult to follow. )

The current US Administration is one of the fewer sensible ones we've had. The previous one sucked up to the United Nations, degrated our military, and tried to hand over forms US sovereignty to the UN multiple times.

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
The current US Administration is one of the fewer sensible ones we've had. The previous one sucked up to the United Nations, degrated our military, and tried to hand over forms US sovereignty to the UN multiple times.

I think the term is reduced it to a sensible size and improveing relations with other countries, also when does the US care about sovereignty any more?

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
The current US Administration is one of the fewer sensible ones we've had. The previous one sucked up to the United Nations, degrated our military, and tried to hand over forms US sovereignty to the UN multiple times.

I think the term is reduced it to a sensible size and improveing relations with other countries, also when does the US care about sovereignty any more?

Not only that but the current regime is bankrupting the future high tech potential of the US military ....being traded away to fund these wars.

1) The allies had more tanks than the Germans and
2) several of the designs were either equal to or superior to the German types in use then.

Number two is a half-truth at best. Sorry, they didn't have the number of competent tanks as the Germans, and you have not shown otherwise. Only about half the French tanks were really on par with the Panzer 2.

By the way, please back up your claim that about the Char S-35 & 40 "It didn't take much firepower to split the hull." (5/2/05, page 7)

The S35 had, however, quite a few weaknesses : the cast upper hull bolted to the lower section (so that it split apart along the length of the vehicle if struck by an AP projectile), the one-man turret (which required the commander to load, aim and fire the gun, leaving short time for actual commanding), and the cast turret and hull (which produced a terrific "bell resonance" effect when the tank was simply hit even by MG shots).

www.geocities.com...

- By resisting (across every occupied territory as well as within Germany itself) in sufficient numbers and with such significance in the various acts as to always be a source of great difficulty for Hitler and his degenerate gang.

What difficult was caused? How many German soldiers did these resistance groups kill?

- Oh please, feel free to detail the number pre-war "land-grabs" that were made against the will of the people there.
(This ought to be good! )

All of them? Which ones were thrilled to have Hitler take over?

- Which point?
Are you just deliberatly confusing the issues surrounding the Sudeten-Germans and the later occupation of the remainder of Czechoslovakia in march 1939?

The latter part. This can back my previous claim as well:

With Austria secured, Hitler turned his attention to Czechoslovakia. His first order of business was to seize the Sudetenland, a mostly mountainous area corresponding to the frontier region along the whole border of the Czech Republic. With Austria in German hands, the western part of Czechoslovakia was nearly surrounded. Following lengthy negotiations, and blatant war threats from Hitler, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain went out of his way with French leaders to appease Hitler, even though the United Kingdom had earlier guaranteed the security of Czechoslovakia. However, the Munich Agreement of September 30, 1938, then allowed German troops to occupy the Sudetenland. Czechoslovak representatives were not allowed at the conference; their government strongly opposed giving up the Sudetenland but they were powerless in the face of German military might and British and French unwillingness to support them. A few months after that, on March 15, 1939, the remaining Czech lands passed into German hands as well, after one day before (on March 14) Slovakia had declared her independence, recognized by France, Britain and other important powers (see under Jozef Tiso). The Slovak state tried to avoid nazification, but was finally occupied by Nazi-Germany in September, 1944 after the defeat of a Slovak anti-Nazi uprising (known as the Slovak National Uprising), which broke out in August 1944.

Source - en.wikipedia.org...

It can't be too hard to source quality info - try this www.chu.cam.ac.uk...

I can't access that site.

- The US intel services misled the Brits. It's that simple.
As the House of Commons Foreign Affair committee said after the war, the UK was far too reliant on intel sources some of whom they believed unconnected to the US which turned out later to be US sources.

I guess you just can't admit your nation made the same "mistake" as America, huh? A lot of that "faulty" intelligence was provided directly by your intelligence agencies.

- Why not?
Even using their (initially) innovative tactics they still ended up the absolute losers and got wiped out so comprehensively that failure came to have an entirely new meaning.

And this happened in spite of British incompetence.

As for the British means to fight Germany?
Did you skip the part about how the bomber force began attacking in earnest in 1941 and would go on, having developed the ability to smash Germany night after night (with seriously heavy attacks as opposed to the light attacks from the USAF's B17s and their - as the RAF song of the time put it - tiny weeny bomb)?
Or how the Brits were fighting Germany and would eventually win in Africa?

You wouldn't have been able to keep bombing Germany much longer. Had Hitler continued to focus on the RAF itself instead of targeting the civillian population you guys would have most likely lost the Battle of Brittain. You were the on verge of defeat before that decision was made.

And without America, your bombing probably wouldn't have been enough.

So where did the fresh forces come from that defended Moscow, if Moscow was 'it', then?

They were the Russians who had basically just ran when they saw the Germans invading. Many weren't even actual soldiers.

Russia had enormous reserves in it's eastern unoccupied areas.
Reserves they started to bring to bear very successfully once it became clear Japan had no interest in attacking Russia in the far east.

They had what, a few hundred thousand troops on the border? Hardly anything the Germans couldn't handle. It took millions to defeat the Germans.

Certainly the German position would have been different to Napoleon's, it was much worse as news about what they were really at spread!

Apparently the news didn't spread to Moscow, because people were hanging banners up in that city welcoming the Nazis while Stalin was getting ready to run.

The allies helped matters but the Russians produced and funded their huge fleets of T-34's, Su -100's, Is2's and 3's and Yak 3 series all on their own and in numbers Germany never even came close to never mind being able to counter.

They couldn't have done that without the huge amounts of resources provided by the Allies.

...... but to claim the Russian military and political leadership were completely unawares and unprepared in any way for the (obviously) approaching was is simply wrong.

They didn't take any action, though, because Stalin wouldn't allow it.

Considering Americans were outnumbered on D-Day by British and Canadians I fail to see quite why the US was pivotal to the whole thing happening.

Americans took the toughest beaches, and we still went farther then the British troops. And its doubtful the British could have gained air superiority without Americans. And the Americans were the ones who tore through France, not the British and the Canadians.

The American navy, and funds were also necessary to the invasion. Not to mention the entire thing was planned by an American...

- Germany was utterly defeated by the allies in both wars, they didn't just happen to lose it themselves.
They were fought and they lost, utterly, twice.

You can keep pretending all you want. Anyone who denies how close the Germans actually came against overwhelming odds is willfully ignorant.

- Operation Cyclone began in summer 1979, the Afgah invasion was in dec 1979.

I didn't say the invasion took place before, now did I?

Yeah, getting the Taliban started, up and running and a host of other Islamic fumdamentalists egged on to go nuts is, to you, 'humanitarian'

More like we were fixing the country up.

Even in Nixon's day they knew Russia was flat broke. Had the will been there (and people not persuaded to stay on the tax-payers - money-go-round) meaningful moves towards peace with communist Russia - just like happened in the 1980's with communist Russia - could have begun much sooner.

That had to do with the huge military spending. The less they were spending on that, the more money they'd have.

- You are simply deluded. We were already 'free' and we would have been safer.

"We" were free, but the Eastern Europeans certainly weren't.

- The USA stole huge tracts of valuable real estate from Mexico only a relatively short time ago.

Not like the Mexicans who had tried to invade...

Please let us all know what technology France has supplied the Chinese, cos I have looked and cannot find a thing.

There is an EU directive restricting sales at the moment (basically to things China can make herself anyway) so please let us know where France has breeched this, hmmm?

France hasn't broken the embargo on China. It's not a complete ban on anything military related.

www.sinodefence.com...
www.fas.org...

I think I've addressed about as much as I care to. Most of your responses simply involve calling my statements "rubbish," and a lot of laughing emoticons.

The U.S. cares a good deal about sovereignty these days, or else all those forms of legislation giving it away would've passed.

The U.S. cares a good deal about sovereignty these days, or else all those forms of legislation giving it away would've passed.

The comment on the French tank is not I could find duplicated anywhere else.
Maybe a 88 could manage it if it was lucky but regardless you'll find the tank's qualities appreciated elsewhere and the same thing being said.
Great tank for it's day but badly used, which is what I said.

Your comments on the German pre-war "land-grabs" are as laughable as they are incorrect.
Clearly you know nothing of the plebiscites held endorsing the German return/annexation.
Holding up the final "grab" of the remainder of Czechoslovakia is hardly proving your point.

Similarly your absurd comments regarding the great saving of Russia, where you seem to think all those who would otherwise have been captured by the Germans ran eastwards in their millions (?) to form the victorious red army later.

Pathetic.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
France hasn't broken the embargo on China. It's not a complete ban on anything military related.

www.sinodefence.com...
www.fas.org...

- LMAO.
An old 70's-based ship's radar and control system, is that the best you can come up with to whine about?

I think I've addressed about as much as I care to. Most of your responses simply involve calling my statements "rubbish," and a lot of laughing emoticons.

- Well, I hate to break it to you but your infantile troll routine is very very boring and your ignorant quibbling is the height of tedium.

I suggest you try some new way to alliviate your boredom.

I see your troll characteristics have been noted elsewhere too.
Shame.



[edit on 8-2-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
The comment on the French tank is not I could find duplicated anywhere else.
Maybe a 88 could manage it if it was lucky but regardless you'll find the tank's qualities appreciated elsewhere and the same thing being said.
Great tank for it's day but badly used, which is what I said.

You mentioned previously the Mk III, this was armed with a high velocity 50 mm tank gun cpable of penetrating the Char.
This however was at the beginning of the war where tank design was untested in combat - the Germans and the Russians learned damn quickly about tank design.
The lessons can be especially on the Western Front where the Tiger and Panther dominated. The only real contender was the M26 Pershing, which made a cameo at the end of the war.

IF we want to talk about all powerful tanks then the JS-III takes the cake.

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
The U.S. cares a good deal about sovereignty these days, or else all those forms of legislation giving it away would've passed.

What about iraq?
Wasnt that a soverign nation?