French special forces operation foiled by villagers

[Kralizec]

Vuk, you've never been in the military have you?

Neither have I, but I'm not the one lecturing the people who have.

Also someone who has a habit of making rude and offensive posts doesn't get to complain when others do the same.

[Myth]

I'd just like to point out that by the account of the two brothers, the French attempted to run them over with their rented 4x4 vehicle and when that failed, they stopped and came out swinging. That's when homeboy got his nose broken. The others were shot in the legs as they were coming at the Bulgarians, not as they were running.

Also, these guys were trained skydivers and had equipment for mountaineering and scuba-diving so even if they sucked at CQB they were conditioned pretty well. One of the two brothers said that they "were very well prepared physically" and that "they put up a good fight initially". When the reporter asked him if he and his brother were not dismayed by the numerical disadvantage he stated that they can take a group of up to 7-8 comfortably. Lol..

[Myth]

No one can beat the Bulgarians.

We were at war with them and they still stand. And if Serbian army can't do it, no one can.

Let's take a look what happened with everyone else foolish enough to pick a fight with us:

1) Byzantium - gone
2) Ottoman Empire - gone
3) Habsburgs - gone
4) Third Reich - gone
5) Soviet Union - gone

So, there's no shame in losing to Bulgarians.

I have huge respect for Serbia. Balkan wars aside, you guys STOOD UP TO THE USA, you took down A STEALTH BOMBER and you danced a reel on top of it. And now, after you've been bombed to oblivion, the highway going to Hungary is spotless and you're building a second one, no EU funds or anything.

[Myth]

I don't think Japan has culled it's ambition. If they had Russia's nuclear arsenal they'd be all over the place.

[Tellos Athenaios]

horrible, utter, soul-crushing defeat--that's what it took for Europe and Japan, after all.

No.

[Brenus]

"When the reporter asked him if he and his brother were not dismayed by the numerical disadvantage he stated that they can take a group of up to 7-8 comfortably" Well. Even I can do it. Especially as we still don't know from were the bullets are coming from... Give me a Assault Gun with enough munitions, I can take 100 unarmed people. And how the brothers did stop the car? And why? There are a lot of holes in this story. If the French were in the car, how did the brothers know they had dark skin? And I suppose that the gypsies do not rent 4x4 car to steal potatoes...

[Tellos Athenaios]

Yes. The only winner in WW2 was the USA. Your entire continent was destroyed, depopulated, and rebuilt by us. That's why you no longer have an appetite for large wars.

Yeah the destruction did a lot to drive a point home. Except 1914-1918 should've done it by that logic.

[gaelic cowboy]

Yeah the destruction did a lot to drive a point home. Except 1914-1918 should've done it by that logic.

WW2 laid waste to civilian population centers on a far larger scale than WW1

[Tellos Athenaios]

True. But my point lies more in what followed, which is where WW1 and WW2 had different outcomes. Destruction alone was not quite enough to dissuade Europeans from going to war, they did fight some fairly bloody wars to retain colonies for instance and plenty volunteered for Korea and Vietnam.

WW2 ended in Liberation, nukes, a complete realignment of power, dismantling of colonial empires, Cold War, Wirtschaftswunder, various European integration/collaboration projects, discrediting of Nazism and related ideologies.

It's not that there weren't "doves" in Europe prior to 1914, or 1939. It's that they were not listened to. But it makes for a different story when there are two vastly more powerful empires using your countries as pieces in their foreign policy, have enough armed forces to enforce their decisions on you and you do need their approval as you cannot do anything alone. Heck the Suez crisis was a nice little Franco-British-Israel vs Egypt match, until ... the USA told them off for threatening their delicate diplomacy with the USSR.

As an added bonus, the threat of nukes.

[Greyblades]

Yeah, but once upon a time Sweden was a fairly successful and violent empire, no?

I'm sure some day we'll settle down too, but not until we've learned the hard way through horrible, utter, soul-crushing defeat--that's what it took for Europe and Japan, after all.

Huh, so that explains why the UK has so much in common with the USA, we haven't had as bad a defeat as the rest of europe.

[Greyblades]

I highly doubt the scale of defeats in WW2 were the main reason, I think the inability to do much in he world without the threat of nukes from one side or another and the increased prevelance of free media making a lower public tolerance to high casualties and resulting reluctance in publically elected governments were the deciding factors IMO.

[Tellos Athenaios]

That's what I'm saying, though. WW2 drove home to most Europeans the utter fear of war on their own doorstep.

Yeah except none of what I mentioned was actually in WW2. Take your argument again, and apply:

Massive casualties, guaranteed destruction? People knew that going in, those facts were well appreciated even before WW2 due to WW1 and that fear is what drove appeasement policies. It didn't work.
Massive casualties, guaranteed destruction? People knew that going in, those facts were well appreciated even before WW1 due to Napoleonic wars and the proof of concept demonstrated in 1870/71 and that fear is what drove the Concert of Europe. It didn't work.

European foreign policy since Waterloo is predicated on avoiding full scale, all out war on the European mainland.

Ask yourself: the desire was there so why didn't it work? What changed to make it work this time?

Answer #1 everyone was liberated -- nobody was defeated. Even the Germans were liberated, from the Nazis. Perhaps the exception was the "East" bloc, but they suffered the USSR...
Answer #2 European powers were stripped of their power.
Answer #3 new powers rose and they demanded peace & compliance from Europe.
Answer #4 economy (eventually) picked up whilst protectionism and trade disputes were removed.
Answer #5 instead of a tangled web of bilateral agreements something more comprehensive and inclusive was done. The various European projects were deliberately all-inclusive.
... and lot's more.


... Don't get me wrong: the promise of utter ruin is a powerful component of it all. But by itself I don't think it is what made the difference. Make-love-not-war was ultimately an American export, even if it resonated perhaps more strongly in Europe.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Interesting complete analysis. I like it.

But in terms of the American attitude, i think my point still stands. Although we have known "defeat" in far off lands and in limited wars, we have never personally paid the price at home.

I hope that day never comes, but if it does i think it is the only thing that would wake most Americans to the fact that war is hell, and should be avoided.

Yet, you had a bloody Civil War that should have taught you the lesson, with the combined horrors of WWI and II - it didn't work

Fact is, WWI was far worse that WWII - casualties on all sides (except the USSR) were much higher during WWI than WWII and the four years of grinding was destroyed far more overall, and left a greater scar, than the aerial bombing campaigns of WWII.

[Ironside]

Yet, you had a bloody Civil War that should have taught you the lesson, with the combined horrors of WWI and II - it didn't work

Fact is, WWI was far worse that WWII - casualties on all sides (except the USSR) were much higher during WWI than WWII and the four years of grinding was destroyed far more overall, and left a greater scar, than the aerial bombing campaigns of WWII.

On the battlefield area yes. But I don't think Dolchstoßlegende had worked if Belin was shelled.

[gaelic cowboy]

Yet, you had a bloody Civil War that should have taught you the lesson, with the combined horrors of WWI and II - it didn't work

Fact is, WWI was far worse that WWII - casualties on all sides (except the USSR) were much higher during WWI than WWII and the four years of grinding was destroyed far more overall, and left a greater scar, than the aerial bombing campaigns of WWII.

To be honest PVC WW1 was merely a bad case of a normal intra-euro war, casualties might be higher in WW1 but that's for combatants and as a result the didn't tend to come home so people were able to forget/mytholigise that War.

However civilian casaulties allied with widespread destruction on top of combatant deaths means WW2 is far more likley to have softened Europes cough.






edit: the US civil War was easy forgot because in 1860 the population was round 30ish million and by 1890 it had doubled and by 1920 it was into the 100 million mark.

[Kralizec]

Of course saying "except the USSR" makes a huge difference to the picture. Germany also had almost twice as many deaths. The western allies generally had less casualties across the board, that much is true.

That's just military casualties. Civilian casualties overall were far, far higher the second time around for obvious reasons.

As bad as WW1 trench warfare was locally, it happened on a relatively thin strip of land across northern France and through Belgium, and pales in comparison to WW2.

[Montmorency]

Fact is, WWI was far worse that WWII - casualties on all sides (except the USSR) were much higher during WWI than WWII and the four years of grinding was destroyed far more overall, and left a greater scar, than the aerial bombing campaigns of WWII.

Well, I have a few problems with this.

USA and Germany both took (many) more casualties in WW2.

As for damage: WW1 was devastating to a swathe of mostly rural French and Belgian land, and the rest of Western Europe was basically untouched. In WW2, urban Germany was annihilated, to say nothing of refugees and displacement throughout the continent. Whether that's more or less destruction depends on one's interpretation the post-war recovery. Pastorophilia may color it. I note that Western Europe was majority-urban by WW2.

[HoreTore]

Time adds weight to Strike's claim that Roma will live better lives if they can escape the clutches of Europe and make their way to the New World.

Just as with the Jews: America is the one place in the world where people can be safe and free.

[Major Robert Dump]

What this thread has devolved to is precisely why I took a small vacation and have failed to update my vacation thread. Some of you people exhaust me.