It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will the europeans ever be powerful?

page: 7
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
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.


- If you are going to talk WW2 could you please talk in fact and not the mythical fantasy BS you seem to be hanging on to; please? ::@:

British and French forces substantially outnumbered the German forces both in terms of men and armour at the start of WW2.
Actually.

www.wargamesdirectory.com...

It was the revolutionary tactics, a genius for organisational detail and ultimately a will to gamble so heavily that led to the early German victories and not a set of weak, small and/or morally corrupted forces, nor was there anything lacking about the allied leadership's 'will to win' either.
Actually.

If you are going to opine about WW2 I'd suggest that maybe you should go away and study what actually happened rather than giving opinion about what you imagine happened.

You are wrong about the use of the horse in German usage (which, if you'd bothered to look at the link I gave, showed horses in widespread front line usage by Germany all the way through the war) and you are again quite simply 100% wrong about the strengths of the opposing sides at the start of the war.

You are actually insulting those poor people that suffered and died in all of that carnage with your ill-informed rubbish - which, let's be honest, is basically all about trying to make your contemporary American politics and attitudes to events of today fit with what you think happened then. It is really nothing to do with what happened then.


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


- Jayzuss wept
; the irony and cheek of it!




posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
You are actually insulting those poor people that suffered and died in all of that carnage with your ill-informed rubbish - which, let's be honest, is basically all about trying to make your contemporary American politics and attitudes to events of today fit with what you think happened then. It is really nothing to do with what happened then.

OH Come on!! Not that old- " How dare you?.. What you say insults them.. They died fighting for you.. " rubbish! Face it Europe was in no position to fight another war with Germany so soon after WW1. You have to admit to that fact-
. What is so amazing about that period was that the Germans rebuilt their economy and military in such a short span. That truly was a testement of their dedication- not that I support waht they did of course!
Actually the russkies were the ones who saved Europes face- not that they believed that they were part of Europe anyway
.

Comming Back to the topic Europes greatest strenght is its economic power and they should concentrate on strenghtening that instead of going military. With the rate of immigration in Europe and the level of unemployment in Europe [ Ex-Germany ] I think that Europe needs to build greater ties within its constituent countries and foster more confidence with each other before they put their hands into international issues. The Iraq war was a perfect example: Half of Europe was for the war and the other half was against, their is no united European voice and so the world doesn't consider Europe as a single entity but rather a small group of bickering nations . Also for europe stay as a economic power it would have to beat China , Japan , India along the way and this would be not an easy task as these countries have massive industrial potential which is still untapped and can cut costs to rediculous levels. Maybe the European Union should try to reign in the Euro because thats what hurting exporters in Europe the most I think.


Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Jayzuss wept
; the irony and cheek of it!

Irony indeed for Europe at one point ruled almost the entire world and is now reduced to so many small nations with so much division.

IAF



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
OH Come on!! Not that old- " How dare you?.. What you say insults them.. They died fighting for you.. " rubbish!


- No, it's not just a 'how dare you!', it's also a 'you are actually plain wrong, very wrong'.


Face it Europe was in no position to fight another war with Germany so soon after WW1. You have to admit to that fact-
.


- ......and yet the fact of the matter is also that the allied forces in western Europe outnumbered German forces quite comfortably.

Fact

(and quite contrary to what was stated)


What is so amazing about that period was that the Germans rebuilt their economy and military in such a short span.


- I don't deny it, although the hows and whys of this have long been preferred to have been forgotten about.

.....as your current Presidents relatives might prefer, Prescott Bush comes to mind, but, of course, he was hardly alone in helping them rebuild.


That truly was a testement of their dedication- not that I support waht they did of course!


- ....and lets be complete about this it was also testament to the blind greed of all those - especially the foreigners - who helped finance them and help them along and the deranged 'power-politics' of the geopolitical fools who saw them as part of the game in resisting the USSR (not completely unlike todays neo-con loons).


Actually the russkies were the ones who saved Europes face- not that they believed that they were part of Europe anyway
.


- Correct.


Comming Back to the topic Europes greatest strenght is its economic power and they should concentrate on strenghtening that instead of going military.


- Oh there's no danger of that. Why should we?
We will let you guys play that game alone and to your own great cost.


With the rate of immigration in Europe and the level of unemployment in Europe [ Ex-Germany ] I think that Europe needs to build greater ties within its constituent countries and foster more confidence with each other before they put their hands into international issues.


- Hmmm, not sure what that has to do with immigration or unemployment.

But so what? European levels of unemployment are sustainable and our immigration policies will respond if the need arises.


The Iraq war was a perfect example: Half of Europe was for the war and the other half was against,


- I think you'll find it was a bit more than half against.


their is no united European voice and so the world doesn't consider Europe as a single entity but rather a small group of bickering nations .


- Well that does rather depend on what this weeks 'line' is to be, a sneering moan about the - supposedly - anti-business monolitic corporatist fascist dictatorship of the EU or a smirking about weak disparate permanently squabbling small/medium states, right?


Also for europe stay as a economic power it would have to beat China , Japan , India along the way and this would be not an easy task as these countries have massive industrial potential which is still untapped and can cut costs to rediculous levels. Maybe the European Union should try to reign in the Euro because thats what hurting exporters in Europe the most I think.


- You have to take into account that 80% of the trade EU Europe does is internal within the EU itself. We're pretty well insulated from the currency shocks many are exposed to.

A more 'competitive' (ie cheaper) Euro might be nice but it is hardly a looming disaster.....and a strong Deutschmark hardly held Germany back did it, hmmm?

Although we export a lot in cash terms the high Euro has some benefits, raw materials priced in other currencies for instance are getting cheaper. It is a far from one-dimensional story.


Irony indeed for Europe at one point ruled almost the entire world and is now reduced to so many small nations with so much division. IAF


- Hang on a minute; besides the example of the Roman Empire when did "Europe rule almost the entire world" as anything other than the "small nations" they are today?

Those times were unique and never to be repeated, what has that to do with today?

(Although it is a fact that once again Europe leads the world.
This time in creating and sustaining the worlds largest wealthiest democratic and free single commercial block with ever deepening mutually beneficial political union.)


[edit on 4-2-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I just can't understand why people have to go round boasting about 'power'. Who cares? As long as we all live a long and prosperous life in unity, that is all that matters. I love America and I'm sure Americans deep down will say the same about the UK. This bickering is just silly.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Devilwasp

Because horses are reliable.


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


Germany has always had a bigger army and they had access to a bigger ammount of materials.
Besides we made up for numbers with training.
Ever heard of the incident with the BEF and the german army?


Germany had the best trained military in the world during the time. They had the most fanatical soldiers next to the Japnanese. They had the best equipment.


The name sort of gives its biased away....


Because a paper has the name USA in it, its biased? Give me a damn break. It's a very respected paper. It's considered more liberal than anything, so it has no reason to lie. If the USA Today is biased for a title, then the BBC is a state-owned propaganda machine.


And intelgence serivces are reliable at best?


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.


Funny, never did happen did it.....


This is just idiotic. Of course Iraq didn't attack. They were destroyed first.


So you have pictures of ICBM's or chemical factories clearly seen in plane sight....?
I would like to see these....


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.


No one could afford another war after WW2, we could after a few years.
And the fact is our navy was still the strongest.


America clearly could afford another war. Our economy was soaring. We did have a war not too soon after WW2, as well. This statement is just bogus. Everyone did not have the debt Europe had.

And no, your navy was not still the strongest at the time. America really did have the most powerful military at the end of WW2 all across the board.


"Addistional measures" can mean force , if you didnt know


It said consideration of additional measures. In UN terms that's sanctions and talk. Even the wording used with Iraq, something like sever penalties, most likely didn't translate into something as aggressive as war.

And the key word remains CONSIDER. This was an issue that should have been brought up in front of the Security Council.


So america no longer believes in diplomacy?
Wow sure sounds like the "World leader in democracy" doesnt it....


You Europeans were all involved with the war. Where do you get off throwing insults towards America for it?

sminkeypinkey

British and French forces substantially outnumbered the German forces both in terms of men and armour at the start of WW2.
Actually.


The French tanks weren't up to par with the German tanks. They didn't have as many of the MODERN tanks as the Germans.


It was the revolutionary tactics, a genius for organisational detail and ultimately a will to gamble so heavily that led to the early German victories and not a set of weak, small and/or morally corrupted forces, nor was there anything lacking about the allied leadership's 'will to win' either.


So, how exactly did the brave British and French plan on living up to the treaty they signed to defend Poland? I mean, why was it Hitler who had to bring the war to both the British and French while they sat back behind their fixed fortifications?


You are wrong about the use of the horse in German usage (which, if you'd bothered to look at the link I gave, showed horses in widespread front line usage by Germany all the way through the war) and you are again quite simply 100% wrong about the strengths of the opposing sides at the start of the war.


Your link did not show horses being used on the front lines for combat. Go find me some quotes that really back this up.


You are actually insulting those poor people that suffered and died in all of that carnage with your ill-informed rubbish - which, let's be honest, is basically all about trying to make your contemporary American politics and attitudes to events of today fit with what you think happened then. It is really nothing to do with what happened then.


European politics were forever changed since WW1. If you don't want to accept that, I really don't care. Europe has been militarily complacent and weak.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 10:37 PM
link   
At the beginning of World War I, Germany had the most powerful and well-trained army (and overall military) on the face of the Earth. What made them lose was they ended up fighting so many people, and then they P.O.ed the United States by sinking U.S. ships, so when the U.S. military came in, they were screwed. Horses were used at the start of WWI due to the fact that most militaries were trained for cavalry warfare at that point. Even General Patton in his young years trained with the French as a cavalryman. But then they tried doing cavalry charges against machine gun fire, which proved horribly fatal.

At the start of WWII, Germany had the best-trained military on Earth pretty much. Japan's military was one of the best too, their army being modeled after the Germans and their Navy being modeled after the British. What screwed Germany over was a couple of things. For one, trying to fight all of Europe, Russia, AND the United States was a bit of a mistake. Also, they didn't have radar. So no matter how brilliant the German Air Force commanders were, they couldn't really surprise attack the Allies because they didn't know Britain had radar. Then Britain cracked the German code (which the Germans suspected but the Nazis said it was impossible since they were a superior race). Also, the Germans didn't build the big boats that ride up to the shore and spill out all the soldiers.

In comparison to France and everyone else, Germany had pretty much the best tanks, but also the best ways to COMMAND their tanks. The French tanks had no radios and were poorly commanded, whereas the German tanks were very well organized and had radios allowing the tankers to communicate with each other. Also, France WAS prepared for a WWII; they had spent years digging tunnels underground and building trenches, only that was their key mistake.....they prepared to fight WWII with WWI technology. They didn't take into account that technology changes a lot over years (which at that time I don't think 20 or so years was all that big of a difference in military technology; WWII and afterwards was when what is super high tech right now is old-fashioned 10 years down the road.

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.

America's military actually, although the strongest at the end of World War II, wasn't really strongest because America had the strongest military necessarily; it was more the strongest because everyone else had had the crap bombed out of them. This is actually one of the reasons the Korean War proved so much trouble for the United States. The United States goes to go into Korea, because our military, although weakened by WWII, should be back up to standards, right??? Nope, instead, the stupid gov't had cut the funding so that the U.S. military at the start of the Korean War was at essentially the same strength it was at the END of World War II. After the Korean War, defense spending got huge boosts, with Russia developing a nuclear bomb, then putting satellites into space (which really weren't as big a threat as made out to be), etc....so the United States upped its military spending from then on.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Not against tanks. Horses had their use then, but in frontline combat, they weren't effective.

Who said they used them to fight against tanks with?
Besides they had just begun makeing the swap between tanks and horses..



Germany had the best trained military in the world during the time. They had the most fanatical soldiers next to the Japnanese. They had the best equipment.

So we've moved from WW1to WW2 huh?
The average soldier wasnt fanatical, those were SS troopers not the average joe blog.




Because a paper has the name USA in it, its biased? Give me a damn break. It's a very respected paper. It's considered more liberal than anything, so it has no reason to lie. If the USA Today is biased for a title, then the BBC is a state-owned propaganda machine.

How has it no reason to lie?
Saying "its more liberal" has F all to do with not being biased.
The BBC is more likely to be biased since it is state supplied BUT the BBC has noted and reported many times on the gov's bad points and its wrong doings, so it can be taken ethier way.



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.

I am makeing a statement of how intelegence services are not always the best in the know, not whether they know more than a french official and you dont think he has his own intel services....



This is just idiotic. Of course Iraq didn't attack. They were destroyed first.

....Yeah and all those lovely weapons of mass destruction where never used in defense, but isnt that what they are desinged for....



We've found "chemical factories" in Iraq.

What the "chemical plant" pictures I have seen could NOT repeat NOT have made chemical weapons.


We have pictures of missile sites being rapidly torn down before the invasion.

Really? Havent seen these shown to the world as evidence....


We have pictures of large shipments heading across Iraq's borders just before the invasion.

Large shipments of what?
Grain?
Water?
Salt?
Money?
I see no pictures....



America clearly could afford another war. Our economy was soaring. We did have a war not too soon after WW2, as well. This statement is just bogus. Everyone did not have the debt Europe had.

So you iran at the time was going to fight a war with every one? NO I am talking about the major powers, also the US couldnt afford another massive loss of life....


And no, your navy was not still the strongest at the time. America really did have the most powerful military at the end of WW2 all across the board.

Really?
Proof to this or is this another picture thing....



It said consideration of additional measures. In UN terms that's sanctions and talk.

Really?
So now your WMD exspert, intel exspert, weapons exspert, history exspert and now a high level UN member?
Wow amazeing, funny this is only an opinion you state...


Even the wording used with Iraq, something like sever penalties, most likely didn't translate into something as aggressive as war.

The UN is not about force.
Do you americans understand nothing but brute force?


And the key word remains CONSIDER. This was an issue that should have been brought up in front of the Security Council.

Yeah the security council has the major world powers does it not?
Or are you saying america isnt a major power?



You Europeans were all involved with the war. Where do you get off throwing insults towards America for it?

Because it was near us and we had an obligation to do so.
Because we have the exsperience and the knowledge of war.
We had a war that involved you started for less action!




The French tanks weren't up to par with the German tanks. They didn't have as many of the MODERN tanks as the Germans.

Smaller army, better equipment...



So, how exactly did the brave British and French plan on living up to the treaty they signed to defend Poland?

It was meant to stop another war, but america seems only to understand war so we might as well of went in and claimed it for our own.


I mean, why was it Hitler who had to bring the war to both the British and French while they sat back behind their fixed fortifications?

Because he was seen by many world wide as a good man, even your pres thought he was ok.
The acts he commited where kept quiet.



Your link did not show horses being used on the front lines for combat. Go find me some quotes that really back this up.

Mostly because they were used for supplying things , cavalry could be stopped by machine guns.



European politics were forever changed since WW1. If you don't want to accept that, I really don't care. Europe has been militarily complacent and weak.

Really?
So the fact we faught a war with a larger country and several thousand miles from home makes us weak?
Because we won against another country which had better tech, more manpower, more munitions and more supplies than we had means we where? Oh i dunno weak?
Get your facts straight DD.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed DelivererThe French tanks weren't up to par with the German tanks. They didn't have as many of the MODERN tanks as the Germans.


- You're kidding. Go look up how the German tank force was composed and tell me the Panzer 1 and 2 was "modern" for the time.

Sorry but they weren't and they were, by far, the bulk of the German invasion tank force.

Panzer 3's were but Matilda 2, the Hotchiss H - 35 & H - 39, the Renault R - 35 and the Char Somua S - 35 were, in many ways, their equal.
Sloped armour for instance was widely used by the French tank designers, they knew their stuff and their products were good (save for the fashion - which was widespread - of over-working the commander with gun duties).

The Panzer 4 was the best tank of the campaign but there were few of them and it was not armed with a main gun for tank to tank battles.

Like I said it was the revolutionary tactics the Germans employed, a genius for organisational detail and ultimately a will to gamble so heavily that led to the early German victories, not particularly the quality of the arms in allied hands.


So, how exactly did the brave British and French plan on living up to the treaty they signed to defend Poland?


- The hope was that the genuine threat of a major war would prevent the attack on Poland.
Sorry, is that not obvious? Is there something so hard to understand about that?


I mean, why was it Hitler who had to bring the war to both the British and French while they sat back behind their fixed fortifications?


- Wow, how little about all this do you actually know?

You'll find the 'phoney war' was a period when those involved tried to avoid the abyss that stood before them.

Like I said the allies thought they were going to fight a different kind of war. Tactics.


Your link did not show horses being used on the front lines for combat. Go find me some quotes that really back this up.


- Actually it did, it even showed you a picture of them. Are you blind?

What is this then?


The Waffen-SS cavalry brigade which served in Russian in 1941 was an elite unit, and like other Waffen-SS outfits had special clothing and equipment.



European politics were forever changed since WW1. If you don't want to accept that, I really don't care.


- Er, what has this to do with anything?

......and who said European politics hadn't changed since WW1?
You'll find they also changed after WW2 and after the 1950's, the 1960's, the 1970's, the 1980's and especially the 1990's etc etc.
Change is permanent and on-going.

I really don't see what you are trying to say here at all.


Europe has been militarily complacent and weak.


- LMAO.

No, Europe has fully met her military needs and remained 'free' (the proof of what I am saying no less).

....and "weak" compared to what? The combined military power of Europe is hardly "weak" by any sane definition.
Maybe compared to a USSR that bankrupted itself in an absurd and highly dangerous 'competition' with the USA it seems less?
Or a USA bloating out it's military to an ever more laughable degree as it wallows in ever more ludicrous levels of paranoia?

Naaaa, you carry on pal, it's your party so you can pick up the tab. We in Europe will look on aghast at what so many of you are taking as normality and we'll get on with our own thanks very much.

At least with our level of military spending your more crazy politicians will have a job convincing the bulk of your people about the military 'threat' some want to portray us as.



[edit on 5-2-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by benedict arnold
i dont think they ever will. THeir days are over. The british ditched india 60 years ago. The french are busy eating crepes and snails and the germans cant get over sauerkraut. Ok seriously they just cant get project any power nowadays. India could whip the French.

But do you think the europeans wil ever have an important part to play in world affairs in the next 100 years. I got nothing to do so please respond.


Comment: What planet are you on? The Euro is smashing the dollar for the past few years, and you ask the question if Europeans will play an important part in the world? The EU is squashing vitamins and health foods, so Europeans can take horrible pharmaceuticals, and you are asking about European power?



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Devilwasp

The average soldier wasnt fanatical, those were SS troopers not the average joe blog.


German soldiers were extremely loyal to Germany, and the Nazis.


How has it no reason to lie?
Saying "its more liberal" has F all to do with not being biased.
The BBC is more likely to be biased since it is state supplied BUT the BBC has noted and reported many times on the gov's bad points and its wrong doings, so it can be taken ethier way.


A liberal paper isn't going to go around lying for the American government. That should be pretty damn obvious.

Your statements on the BBC show a complete lack of understanding of how it, or any other media organization works.


I am makeing a statement of how intelegence services are not always the best in the know, not whether they know more than a french official and you dont think he has his own intel services....


No, a French official does not have his own intel services. He gets what's most likely limited intelligence from those intelligence services, and that's if he's lucky.

And when every intelligence service is saying the same thing, I tend to believe them.


....Yeah and all those lovely weapons of mass destruction where never used in defense, but isnt that what they are desinged for....


That would have done what for Iraq and Saddam? It wouldn't have kept him in power. It would have only justified what America was doing.


What the "chemical plant" pictures I have seen could NOT repeat NOT have made chemical weapons


You'd know this how? Are you some kind of expert now? I'll take the words of America's weapons inspectors over you.


Really? Havent seen these shown to the world as evidence....


It's been shown to the UN, and reported a number of times.


Large shipments of what?
Grain?
Water?
Salt?
Money?
I see no pictures....


Iraq just decided right before an invasion to start trading with Syria? That's logical.


So you iran at the time was going to fight a war with every one? NO I am talking about the major powers, also the US couldnt afford another massive loss of life....


We fought with China just after the war. We fought with Russians in the air. And America suffered the fewest casualties of all the major powers. There's a reason Patton wanted to continue straight to Moscow...


Really?
Proof to this or is this another picture thing....


Proof? You made the statement you had the strongest navy first. Where's your proof? That's right...You don't ever have to provide proof of anything you say.

The American navy had the most experience in WW2 I'd say. We had the greatest victories. We did most of the work against the Japanese.


Really?
So now your WMD exspert, intel exspert, weapons exspert, history exspert and now a high level UN member?
Wow amazeing, funny this is only an opinion you state...


I'm going on interpretations by those who deal with the UN. And you know, while you argue this, you're completely justifying Iraq, where harsher words were used.


The UN is not about force.
Do you americans understand nothing but brute force?


Yet you take the wording used with Kosovo to justify war? That's just complete hypocracy.


Yeah the security council has the major world powers does it not?
Or are you saying america isnt a major power?


I don't see what you're trying to say. Kosovo was never brought up to the Security Council. NATO acted without getting any permission.


Because it was near us and we had an obligation to do so.
Because we have the exsperience and the knowledge of war.
We had a war that involved you started for less action!


OH...So you didn't want American help with Kosovo, huh? I guess seeing European pilots come home in body bags would have been fine...


Smaller army, better equipment...


The Germans were better trained and better equipped, and weren't facing any real number advantage from the French.


Because he was seen by many world wide as a good man, even your pres thought he was ok.
The acts he commited where kept quiet.


So...you declared war on him, but didn't act because you thought he was ok?

Honestly, do you actually read have any idea what you're responding to? It really doesn't seem like it.

sminkeypinkey

- You're kidding. Go look up how the German tank force was composed and tell me the Panzer 1 and 2 was "modern" for the time.


The Panzer 2 was comparable to anything the French had.


The Panzer 4 was the best tank of the campaign but there were few of them and it was not armed with a main gun for tank to tank battles.


That's because it wasn't designed to go up against enemy tanks.


- The hope was that the genuine threat of a major war would prevent the attack on Poland.
Sorry, is that not obvious? Is there something so hard to understand about that?


That wasn't what I asked. I know what was intended. How did they plan on actually fighting? The Germans never had to go attack them. They seemed to have no plans of actually attacking the Germans.


Like I said the allies thought they were going to fight a different kind of war. Tactics.


What kind of war was that? Sitting behind the magenta line and throwing insults at the Nazis?


- Actually it did, it even showed you a picture of them. Are you blind?


Are those guys fighting? It doesn't seem so.


No, Europe has fully met her military needs and remained 'free' (the proof of what I am saying no less).


You remained free because of American support. You Europeans could not have withstood an attack from the Russians.


....and "weak" compared to what? The combined military power of Europe is hardly "weak" by any sane definition.
Maybe compared to a USSR that bankrupted itself in an absurd and highly dangerous 'competition' with the USA it seems less?
Or a USA bloating out it's military to an ever more laughable degree as it wallows in ever more ludicrous levels of paranoia?


I define weak as any nation that can't protect itself from actual threats. Europe could not have withstood a Soviet invasion.

I guess Russia wasn't enough of a threat to you guys, though, right? That was all American paranoia...

You currently don't even have enough military force to defend yourselves against any major military.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
sminkeypinkey
The Panzer 2 was comparable to anything the French had.


- I've just given you several French tanks the equal of and some significantly superior to the Panzer 2.
I suggest you examine the specs more closely.

For instance -
Panzer 2 - 1 x 20mm cannon with co-axial 1 x 7.92mm machine guns

Char Somua S - 35 - 1 x 47mm cannon with 1 x 7.5mm co-axial machine gun.

Panzer armour - 30mm max

Char Somua S - 35 - 56mm max

Panzer max speed - 25mph

Char Somua S - 35 max speed 23mph

The French tank was better armed, better protected and an alround better AFV.
.....and the S - 40 version, just entering service in 1940, was all of the above with a much more powerful motor
Their problem was not their kit (which was very very good for it's day - so good the Germans used much of it later on) but how they used their kit.


That's because it wasn't designed to go up against enemy tanks.


- At that stage, yes, I know.

The intention was that the Panzer 3 would be the 'anti-tank tank'. This was available in limited numbers in France (approx 350) and which was in any case no marked step up compared to the allied tanks either.
It was yet another lightly armed German tank (37mm main gun to start with).

[quoteThat wasn't what I asked. I know what was intended. How did they plan on actually fighting? The Germans never had to go attack them. They seemed to have no plans of actually attacking the Germans.

- I f you think Germany was not attacked until the summer of 1940 you are very much mistaken.

Other 'theatres' were active, Norway for instance.

But each side used the lull in the west to prepare (and the western allies in particular were very glad of that preparation). It made the winning of the Battle of Britain possible for a start.

A war like WW2 was never going to be concluded quickly. It took almost 6yrs of effort across the whole globe, something most people today cannot conceive of never mind properly grasp.

So what that the first few months in western Europe were 'quiet'; there was activity and in any case some were attempting to see if the war could be avoided even at that late stage.


What kind of war was that? Sitting behind the magenta line and throwing insults at the Nazis?


- Now don't be silly.
They expected a relatively slow moving thrust, something similar to what happened in WW1, which they would have time to counter.

In fact until shortly before the actual attack this is exactly what the Germans had planned!

Unfortunately for the allies those original German plans were compromised and the Germans changed them.

It is quite likely that had this not happened the allies might well have stopped the German advance and the war taken a very very different course.


Are those guys fighting? It doesn't seem so.


- .....and when you see pictures of pilots standing besides their aircraft not fighting do you doubt they ever were in combat with their planes too?

(Try reading the text.)


You remained free because of American support.


- I think we all 'benefited' from our alliances, we could have done without some of the more stupid aspects of some of it where fears were stoked deliberately and utterly unnecessarily but there we are; at least we came out of it all without an insane and suicidal nuclear conflict.


You Europeans could not have withstood an attack from the Russians.


- Well that would kind of depend on the type of attack they launched.
....and anyway who could have withstood an all out attack?
We would all have been toast in short order had they attacked.

Just because parts of the US or Russia (or Europe for that matter) might have sustained a stone-age community to eek out a horrible existance post nuclear war I would hardly laud that as 'with standing' an attack.


I define weak as any nation that can't protect itself from actual threats. Europe could not have withstood a Soviet invasion.


- Well we certainly did enough to withstand the threat of one, didn't we?


I guess Russia wasn't enough of a threat to you guys, though, right? That was all American paranoia...


- Well we have no reason to believe Russia seriously wanted to attack the western countries of Europe.
We left them alone and they left us alone and the moment we all managed to calm down and cut out the threats and posturing we had some progress towards a peaceful situation.

Of course, the many examples of unfounded dangerous US paranoia (the imaginary 'Bomber gap' and the later 'Missile gap' being prime) didn't help calm the situation at all and by the 1980's had brought us all to the brink of insanity, that is true.


You currently don't even have enough military force to defend yourselves against any major military.


- LMAO!

What "major military"? Exactly.

You guys? China?

The idea that Europe faces any serious external threat is laughable.

In any case we have 2 nations equipped with modern submarine based 'MIRV'd' nuclear missiles, any serious attempt to attack us brings down the curtain on whoever has a go and thinks they can pull it off.

Like I said, if your yardstick is right-wing America, enjoy, knock yourselves out.
You Americans the only ones dumb enough to be wasting your time, effort, talent and vast amounts of your resources having an arms race with only the one contestant, yourselves.

Now run along and be ever so impressed with yourselves.

You're number 1!


[edit on 5-2-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Yes, the US Army is huge and powerful - in retrospect that their power comes from their sheer size and the fact they have they have the best manufacturing process in the world - I mean look at how quick they churned out tanks, ships, planes and weapons in WW2. So in that respect the US is definitely the most powerful in the world.

We have to remember that although America is probably the most powerful nation on the planet, if put vs. a whole set of countries it will not secure a victory easily. As if it were for a defence or invasion to be done, forgetting nukes for the moment, the EU would inevitably be working together to manufacture and build forces, which I'm pretty sure - together, would surpass America's army size, and let's not forget either, that when you have lots of enemy's on your hands it's difficult to watch every single one of their motives. Plus going back to WW2 again, if I remember correctly, Germany was a pretty big army and when confronted by a large number of countries they just couldn't keep up - as so many things would be going on simultaneously. When considering this, America would definitely have a tough fight on their hands and victory probably wouldn’t be possible, but then I guess they could always throw the Nukes in, if they wanted to. But I'm pretty sure the rest of the world and maybe even Americans themselves would think that's going a little too far - as undoubtedly they’d gain even more enemies. So really, America would gain no benefit destroying Europe with nukes, because they’d gain much bigger problems.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
German soldiers were extremely loyal to Germany, and the Nazis.

They where loyal but they werent fanatical.



A liberal paper isn't going to go around lying for the American government. That should be pretty damn obvious.

Really?
Why wouldnt it?
Whats to stop one person publishing something supporting the government?



Your statements on the BBC show a complete lack of understanding of how it, or any other media organization works.

Yet again DD you insult people, please desist.
I believe i understand this and many forms of media quite well.



No, a French official does not have his own intel services. He gets what's most likely limited intelligence from those intelligence services, and that's if he's lucky.

He gets intelegence from more than one intel service.
Now you have quotted one source, i am also getting at there are more than one intelegence serive in the world and more than one in france.


And when every intelligence service is saying the same thing, I tend to believe them.

And when every intelgence service revokes that claim you dont believe them why?



That would have done what for Iraq and Saddam? It wouldn't have kept him in power. It would have only justified what America was doing.

It would have allowed him to fight back against america, in a more hard hitting way.



You'd know this how? Are you some kind of expert now? I'll take the words of America's weapons inspectors over you.

And I'll take the UN inspectors and CIA inspectors over them.
i am no exspert but i recognise when one report is wrong.



It's been shown to the UN, and reported a number of times.

Really, any links?



Iraq just decided right before an invasion to start trading with Syria? That's logical.
[/qutoe]
Possibley, who's to know.
Yet again I see no pictures, i believe that these "pictures" are you makeing this up?


So
We fought with China just after the war.

No you faught them 5 years after the war, and might i add with help from many countries.


We fought with Russians in the air. And America suffered the fewest casualties of all the major powers. There's a reason Patton wanted to continue straight to Moscow...

Yeah you took part the shortest too.



Proof? You made the statement you had the strongest navy first. Where's your proof? That's right...You don't ever have to provide proof of anything you say.

No if you want me to provide proof i will, but i request you preform the same....this is not a condition just a request. Deny it at your pleasure.




The American navy had the most experience in WW2 I'd say. We had the greatest victories. We did most of the work against the Japanese.

America fought against the japanese we fought the germans and the japanese , we had equal exsperience i would say.



I'm going on interpretations by those who deal with the UN.

Your interpretations are not the same as every elses.


And you know, while you argue this, you're completely justifying Iraq, where harsher words were used.

As i said before its consideration, now tell me what part of that means definate.



Yet you take the wording used with Kosovo to justify war? That's just complete hypocracy.
[/qoute]
War is never justified, period, but what i am saying is what that meant.



I don't see what you're trying to say. Kosovo was never brought up to the Security Council. NATO acted without getting any permission.

I believe we are confused here...



OH...So you didn't want American help with Kosovo, huh? I guess seeing European pilots come home in body bags would have been fine...

OH we didnt care if you helped at all!
We dont like seeing any body bags come home.


The Germans were better trained and better equipped, and weren't facing any real number advantage from the French.

Really, tactical exspert are we now?



So...you declared war on him, but didn't act because you thought he was ok?

Exscuse me?
We didnt take action before due to our apeasement stratagy by our PM.
And we did take action by sending our troops over but they where outflanked.


Honestly, do you actually read have any idea what you're responding to? It really doesn't seem like it.
[/qute]
I dont really CARE what YOU think.










[qoute]
I define weak as any nation that can't protect itself from actual threats. Europe could not have withstood a Soviet invasion.

Really, so you call yourself weak?
Since america cant possible protect itself from terror, i mean the only real proper way to do that would be to close all borders.


I guess Russia wasn't enough of a threat to you guys, though, right? That was all American paranoia...
[/qoute]
You think russia was a "big" threat?
We have faced worse threats before!


You currently don't even have enough military force to defend yourselves against any major military.

Really, and what major military would this be?
Tell me what military is going to attack britain?
Really come on tell me...



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thao
Yes, the US Army is huge and powerful - in retrospect that their power comes from their sheer size and the fact they have they have the best manufacturing process in the world - I mean look at how quick they churned out tanks, ships, planes and weapons in WW2. So in that respect the US is definitely the most powerful in the world.



A major reason they turned out so much during WW2 compared to the other countries, was that they didnt have their industry and inferstructure being bombed on a regular basis. So comparing the two is a little unfair to say the least.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   
I'm not even sure if I've replied to the right thread now tbh lol. There's so many of these threads about America vs whatever, I get lost.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   

- I've just given you several French tanks the equal of and some significantly superior to the Panzer 2.
I suggest you examine the specs more closely.


I don't look just at specs to make my decision. I look at total design. The S-35 had several major design flaws. The commander had to carry out most tasks, which is just a minor inconeniance, but a huge disadvantage. It allows the enemy to react faster. And while heavier armored, it had some major weak points. It didn't take much firepower to split the hull.

The Panzer was not as slow as you say, either. It could go 40mph, just like the S-35.

There were only some 400 S-35's produced, as well. This was the best tank the French really had.


Their problem was not their kit (which was very very good for it's day - so good the Germans used much of it later on) but how they used their kit.


They did not use the French tanks on the frontlines. They served secondary roles.


- I f you think Germany was not attacked until the summer of 1940 you are very much mistaken.

Other 'theatres' were active, Norway for instance.


I think you're idea of attacking is a bit skewed. The Germans innitiated the fighting in Norway. It wasn't the British doing the attacking. They mostly just retreated. The invasion of France soon followed.


But each side used the lull in the west to prepare (and the western allies in particular were very glad of that preparation). It made the winning of the Battle of Britain possible for a start.


That was my point. You were completely unprepared to fight. You were even pretty unwilling.


So what that the first few months in western Europe were 'quiet'; there was activity and in any case some were attempting to see if the war could be avoided even at that late stage.


This is what I'd call complacency and cowardice.


- Now don't be silly.
They expected a relatively slow moving thrust, something similar to what happened in WW1, which they would have time to counter


Sounds more like they just got out smarted. This doesn't really explain how they intended to fight the Germans since the Germans didn't have to even attack France to begin with. It only explains how they planned on surviving.


- .....and when you see pictures of pilots standing besides their aircraft not fighting do you doubt they ever were in combat with their planes too?


It depends on what the aircraft was. If it were a C-130, I wouldn't think those pilots were going off to shoot down some flankers.

I never said horses weren't used, I said they didn't serve as the frontline combat force of the German army.


- I think we all 'benefited' from our alliances, we could have done without some of the more stupid aspects of some of it where fears were stoked deliberately and utterly unnecessarily but there we are; at least we came out of it all without an insane and suicidal nuclear conflict.


Europe "benefited" a whole lot more than America did.


- Well that would kind of depend on the type of attack they launched.
....and anyway who could have withstood an all out attack?
We would all have been toast in short order had they attacked.


The American military could have gone head to head with the Soviets, and won, and did so without as much bloodshed as people would expect.

There wouldn't have been any nuclear war because no side has anything to gain from firing it. No nation in history, nor any nation that will exist, will doom themselves simply to destroy the enemy unless they know that themselves, and their own people will be whiped off regardless of what they do.


- Well we certainly did enough to withstand the threat of one, didn't we?


The only thing you did to stop an invasion was let American troops be stationed in your countries.


- Well we have no reason to believe Russia seriously wanted to attack the western countries of Europe.
We left them alone and they left us alone and the moment we all managed to calm down and cut out the threats and posturing we had some progress towards a peaceful situation.


No reason? How about the fact that they had a history of aggression? One only had to look at how they acted after WW2 to see that their main goal was getting more power, not peace.


The idea that Europe faces any serious external threat is laughable.


At this point, you don't yet face any major external threat. That may not last, though. If a major war broke out within the next decade, I'd say Europe would be completely caught off guard.

You in fact are helping future threats develop. The French and Germans undemrining America with Iraq, supporting Russia, and arming China may seem cute now, but we'll see how you feel when you become their bitches. They won't be as gentle as America is.


You Americans the only ones dumb enough to be wasting your time, effort, talent and vast amounts of your resources having an arms race with only the one contestant, yourselves.


This type of attitude is extremely dangerous.

Go take a look at what China and Russia are both doing. Do they have the capacity today? No. Will they in the future? It's very possible. While Europe takes it easy, and even helps these two nations, America will keep building its military up so it doesn't find itself in a situation like Europe did during WW2.

Europe doesn't have to be threatened directly. What the hell would you do if someone cut off your oil? Hell, Saddam and Iraq would have completely had you guys by the balls if it weren't for America. If they had swept across the Middle East, Europe would have been nearly powerless to stop them. Iraq would have gone from being a petty nuissance to the one of the world's greatest powers.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Ok, we help each other and we work better 'combined'. Now, am I the only one here who is sick of this 'Nation bashing'? Seriously I think these types of threads provoke the worst out of people.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

Europe doesn't have to be threatened directly. What the hell would you do if someone cut off your oil? Hell, Saddam and Iraq would have completely had you guys by the balls if it weren't for America. If they had swept across the Middle East, Europe would have been nearly powerless to stop them. Iraq would have gone from being a petty nuissance to the one of the world's greatest powers.


This is some series BS and as you said US invaded Iraq in first gulf war cause of oil, before that US had good relations with Saddams goverment not to forget all the build up George senior assasination attempts. Oil comes from other places than middle-east too. And Europe doesnt require such high quantitys of oil, theres other energy sources available. And i doubt US is only country that has about 50 years reserves of oil, at least i bet many european countrys got oil to run war if its for their existance. So conclusion of this whole Saddamn get EU on its balls just prooves, US hold EU balls. If EU would have fought war in Iraq on gulf war I, it would have just been slower. And how did Iraq stay weak still gulf war II is thanks to sanctions that were favor to both US and European countrys.

Also you dont really build in a day world super power by oil, you need markets for it etc. So i really doubt Iraq would have become super power very quick, just look living example Venezuela country blessed with oil, doesnt do so well today. Not trying to say it has aim to become superpower, but as country its infrastucture doesnt only run with oil.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Europe doesn't have to be threatened directly. What the hell would you do if someone cut off your oil? Hell, Saddam and Iraq would have completely had you guys by the balls if it weren't for America. If they had swept across the Middle East, Europe would have been nearly powerless to stop them. Iraq would have gone from being a petty nuissance to the one of the world's greatest powers.


We have our own oil and gas supplies, so Saddam would have tried to grab us by the balls but just got cloth!!!

www.worldenergy.org...



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   

We have our own oil and gas supplies, so Saddam would have tried to grab us by the balls but just got cloth!!!


I didn't realize Europe is a net exporter of oil now...


This is some series BS and as you said US invaded Iraq in first gulf war cause of oil, before that US had good relations with Saddams goverment not to forget all the build up George senior assasination attempts. Oil comes from other places than middle-east too. And Europe doesnt require such high quantitys of oil, theres other energy sources available. And i doubt US is only country that has about 50 years reserves of oil, at least i bet many european countrys got oil to run war if its for their existance. So conclusion of this whole Saddamn get EU on its balls just prooves, US hold EU balls. If EU would have fought war in Iraq on gulf war I, it would have just been slower. And how did Iraq stay weak still gulf war II is thanks to sanctions that were favor to both US and European countrys.


The Middle East is by far the largest source of oil, and Saddam's military could have over run most, if not all of it. Europe did not have the capability to deploy large forces to the region quickly enough to stop Saddam.

There are NO alternatives to oil at this time. All are economically impossible to implement.


Also you dont really build in a day world super power by oil, you need markets for it etc. So i really doubt Iraq would have become super power very quick, just look living example Venezuela country blessed with oil, doesnt do so well today. Not trying to say it has aim to become superpower, but as country its infrastucture doesnt only run with oil.


Venezuela has rather small supplies compared to other big oil suppliers. Their problem is political instability, and not economics.

Iraq would have had control over the worlds largest oil reserves. He would have controled something like 2/3rd's of the world's oil.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join