lol, she is Ukranian, not Georgian. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Printable View
lol, she is Ukranian, not Georgian. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
EXACTLY we've been doing this for years
In fact invading for humanitarian reasons is a break in US doctrine supported by all political parties
Therefore Vuk is Hitler :wink:
Keeping an ally strong against a hostile power, protecting gas lines, etc. does not qualify as in our best interests?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
If we did what was in our best interests, we would have invaded China and Russia directly after WWII, put the Chinese Emporer back into power, and freed the Russians from a bloody and horrible dictator. THAT would have been in our best interests, but we did not do it.
Maybe becuase that would've been logistically impossible and the American people wouldn't have stood for itQuote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Armies and nations are not simply the inexhsuastable monoliths video games portray them as
I would have never had to explain this two years ago
Actually, it is General Douglas McArthur suggested, and he enjoyed a great deal of popularity amongst the American people. (so much in fact that if he had run for President, he almost definately would have won)Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
You are right, nations are not inexhaustable, which is exactly why it would be possible. The US had been drained far less than any country in the war. Russia and China esp had been bled almost dry. It would not have taken a lot to make either of them fall, and we would have been able to rely on the support of friendly nationals whose country we would have been freeing. (esp in the case of China, but also very much in the case of Russia)
Also, when we were done, Europe would have been bled even whiter than it ended up being, Russia would take a century to recover. China would be weak, but not having a communist government, it would soon become a strong ally. The two world super-powers would have been the US and China, both would be on the same side for at least a few decades, and the US would be the strongest by far.
I mean that if Norway is not able to maintain a friendly relationship with Russia and keep the traditional trade going, we might as well abandon northern Norway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Now.... While that may not be something I would be against, I have to deal with realities, and that reality is that's never going to happen. So, since we are going to keep a few hundred thousand people living there, I would prefer an economy up there so the people living the can have jobs instead of relying on subsidies from southern Norway. And the only way to have an economy up there is to maintain a friendly and cooperative relationship with Russia, something which we finally have. Russia is Norway's neighbor, whether we like it or not, and having them on friendly terms benefits both of us, as we have seen recently, with the resolution of the Stockman oil field and finally settling the 50-year old border dispute we had with them. Both of those thingd are crucial to economic development in the north, and neither had been resolved without the friendship we currently have.
Probably because both would've been impossible...Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Invading Russia simply cannot be done.
A: You don't need to invade and conquer Russia to force it to negotiate. Defeating its armed forces and bombing/nuking the heck out of it (or simply the threat of that) would go a long way.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
B: Yes actually, it could be done.
I'm with HoreTore. Post WW2 the USSR had the most fearsome army on the planet. Allied tanks were a joke, but had better planes and Navy. The reason the two sides didn't go for each other was that neither side saw a way of winning without losses that were so vast as to make any victory pointless.
The Germans would have taken the Russians with more preparation - especially if the Italians hadn't screwed up in the Balkans. Attack as the Spring progresses. There was basically the one chance - but with their nukes no chance.
~:smoking:
Sorry, but I disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Russia had two main advantages:
Terrain/hometurf
Good armour
The US had:
Significant anti-government forces (Tzarists amongst them) to coordinate with.
Better airforce.
Much better economy.
More professional military.
Better equipment overall.
Large recruitment pool.
The burnt out ends of Europe.
The fact that there would be no war on their turf.
The fact that Russians could not take much more war.
The possibility of China aiding the invasion.
The possibility of aid from the many liberated countries that Russia would be broken into.
etc.
Both Napoleon and Hitler has proved that no, invading Russia cannot be done.
Both invasions were supposed to be done in a summer, both failed completely and lead to the demise of both aggressors. Logistics will kill any such adventure in the winter.
Edit: swap "China" with "Japan" on that list, and you will have Hitlers situation in 1941. He failed. Hard.
Also, may I point out that the post-ww2 US army completely failed to defeat the much small and utterly bonkers mad army of Kim Il Sung? They didn't win against that tiny strip of land, and you believe they had a chance against the vast Russian steppe....?
This is so offtopic it hurts.
More professional? Maybe at the lower levels. More effective? Nein.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Ummm... what?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Correction. We pounded the much small and utterly bonkers mad army of Kim Il Sung, all the way to the Chinese border. Then the vast and utterly bonkers Chinese Red Army joined the fun...Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Hence the old adage never fight a land war in Asia and basically you swap that for Eurasia and you get the same resultQuote:
Originally Posted by drone
Why would China be a strong ally?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Anyway, had your plan failed Russia would have rolled all the way to the Norman coast, and you're be utterly screwed.
I fail to see how China would have been useful in any way, shape or form just after the Allied victory.
As far as I can tell this is what Vuk has said:
A. OMG, Russia is big powerhouse now, MW2 campaign inevitable? Help from China!?!?!
B. Nah, Russia can be invaded, just threaten them with nukes or use nukes at them (oblivious to Cold War).
haha this doesnt mean crap. we spend more money than that yearly.
thumbs down for dumb questions
No, Vuk never said that Russia was a 'big powerhouse'. I simply said that you cannot completely discount it and say that it is incapable of waging or winning wars.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Against countries like Georgia? Yeah, you are right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Against countries that are not like Georgia? No, Russia isn't really a threat in conventional war.
Unless you're the mongols.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Ajax
Yeah but some preconditions would have to be met first:Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
1) That Russia holds only 1/50 of the territory it holds today
2) That that 1/50 is divided between 10+ princes who don't like each other
3) That you win only against a few of them and that you get them to pay you some money
Russia isn't a threat to EU and there is at the moment strong commercial interest for both parties to continue developing relations...
Even with 650bn Russian military isn't a threat to EU. In a few decades they might be, but I don't see how Russian interest would be served by attacking rest of the Europe...
YOU GUYS WANT TO TALK ABOUT A GAME CHANGER? HERE ITS IS: CHANGING THE GAME:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaKcl0Qg13o
since you haven't bothered to answer any of my objections, i am unable to counter this "fear-russia" fallacy any further.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
@Vuk's MacArthur-mania:
Except China would not be an ally. Public support in China leaned actually (in as much as it wasn't a case of a pox on all their houses) towards the communists after the WW2 because they were at that time basically the only party that didn't treat the average Chinese like dirt or otherwise expendable. At that time there was a strong party discipline which among other things proscribed that members had to treat other Chinese --including those who were ostensibly lower in traditional social rank-- with basic respect and common courtesy. This obligation was met enough to leave a favourable impression on a society where people were used to being downtrodden and intimidated on a near daily basis. This was rather different from the nationalists who were much the same as the despots and the Japanese before them in this regard: simply take what you want, and who cares about some poor person anyway?
Communists weren't successful at that time their influence pretty much centered around Manchuria alone, but that changes rapidly in the aftermath because they essentially were the only option if you didn't fancy yourself being treated as dirt/expendable. Of course once Mao had secured his rule things changed, but in 1947 for instance this was not yet the case.
World War 3 will start between China and Russia in the Northern Pacific and on their contiguous border. These spending increases are meant to deter China, using the ruse that it is intended to deter Japan and NATO
I'm guessing the americans will be sitting back giggling to themselves as it's rivals kill each other.
Except that Russia and China have pretty good relations that will in all probability get even better, just like EU-Russia relations. Bah, no threat there, move along...
Where is that "small, mobile, modernized force" that we were talking about a few years back, boys?? Anyway, I guess they intend to pay this off with tourism revenue from Sochi.
AND NO IT'S NOT A GAME CHANGER.