Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump rattles NATO, questioning its value, assailing Germany

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • You and I must have different definitions of the word "starve". Being forced to eat Rutabagas just might mean one is starving. Do you eat Rutabagas?

    The United Kingdom could buy food from abroad. They could bring in foreigners to work the farms, import fertilizer and they could import draft animals. The colonies also were a big help, although food supplies there could be upset. Canada and the US sent a lot of wheat and canned meats. Argentina was more than glad to sell Beef to the UK.

    Pruitt
    Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

    Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

    by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

    Comment


    • Back to NATO and the whine of the day: NATO was broken during the Cold War when I was there, and it's even worse now. It's useless, it's a huge waste of money - most of it from America as usual - and it accomplishes absolutely nothing that serves the current goals of America.

      There is ZERO reason for America to "defend" European nations that are doing billions of Euros worth of business every single year with Russia, the country they claim they need to be "protected" from. And definitely no reason to protect nations that don't like us and constantly demonstrate against our leader while expecting us to do things for them.


      If Europe wants to be protected, then they can do it for themselves, like we have to. Then we can whine and gripe about them for a change.

      And while we're on the subject, the only nation on the European continent that is a nuclear power pulled out of NATO 43 years ago and yet no European nation ever whines or complains about France, and they don't constantly attack the leader of France either. Why not? A little too close to home?

      Here, I'll start you off with a list of jokes about France: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ssed-them.html

      Here is one of my favorites: Why did the French give America the Statue of Liberty?

      Because she has only one arm raised.

      Last edited by Mountain Man; 21 Jul 18, 20:02.
      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
        You and I must have different definitions of the word "starve". Being forced to eat Rutabagas just might mean one is starving. Do you eat Rutabagas?

        The United Kingdom could buy food from abroad. They could bring in foreigners to work the farms, import fertilizer and they could import draft animals. The colonies also were a big help, although food supplies there could be upset. Canada and the US sent a lot of wheat and canned meats. Argentina was more than glad to sell Beef to the UK.

        Pruitt
        Starvation is when people die from hunger because of shortage of food .
        The following is from "War,Agriculture and Food Rural Europe from the 1930s to the 1950s ".PP 17 ,18,..
        Table 2.1 The Effects of Wars on Agricultural output (1913 = 100)
        Gross Output 1915-1918
        France : 80
        Germany : 68
        UK : 100
        Wheat 1915-1918
        France :62
        Germany : 62
        UK 117
        British food output remained stable and its wheat production was going up, NOTWITHSTANDING its food imports fell by 20 % in 1917 .
        IMO this can only be explained by a higher production at home .
        And ,about starvation in Germany , from the same source :ít is unclear wether the population really starved during winter 1917, as claimed by German scholars after war .
        The decline of the German agriculture output was bigger (32% ) than the loss of imports :some 55-60% of imports were lost during WWI =17-18% of the total output,which should give an output of 82-83 ,but the output declined to 68.The reason was that the German agriculture had no reserves to use during a war : no wasteland, no workforce,...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
          Argentina was more than glad to sell Beef to the UK.

          Pruitt
          But it wasn't :
          before the war (1908-1913) "Argentina "(better : British companies in Argentina )was selling annually 271000 tons of meat to Britain.
          In 1914 :300000 tons
          1915 :255000
          1916 : 202000
          1917 :134000
          1918 : 99000
          The decline started already in 1915, before the U Boat offensive .
          Source : farmers and consumers under strain Allied meat supplies in the First World War .

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ljadw View Post

            Your mistake is
            1) assuming that by allocating more resources into the Battle of The Atlantic,Germany could strangle all seaboard communications between the Western and Eastern hemispheres
            2) assuming that strangling these communications would result in a German victory in the East .

            1. I don't believe I was mistaken in claiming that,had Germany devoted more resources to the Battle of the Atlantic, it would have been crucial. It was their best chance of winning the war in the west.
            2. On the other hand, I'm making no assumption regarding the outcome of the Great Patriotic War. Nobody can be dogmatic about what might have happened if it had devolved into pure USSR versus Fascism conflict. And neither,I think, can you.
            "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
            Samuel Johnson.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
              But it wasn't :
              before the war (1908-1913) "Argentina "(better : British companies in Argentina )was selling annually 271000 tons of meat to Britain.
              In 1914 :300000 tons
              1915 :255000
              1916 : 202000
              1917 :134000
              1918 : 99000
              The decline started already in 1915, before the U Boat offensive .
              Source : farmers and consumers under strain Allied meat supplies in the First World War .
              This is just one country, Argentina. If the prices rose on Argentinian Beef, the UK could have started buying from other countries. Brazil and other countries could have stepped in. In the UK, pastureland could have been converted to growing crops. Being able to pick and choose, the UK could bring in draft animals, fertilizer, cattle and farm labor.

              Pruitt
              Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

              Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

              by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

              Comment


              • Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post

                1. I don't believe I was mistaken in claiming that,had Germany devoted more resources to the Battle of the Atlantic, it would have been crucial. It was their best chance of winning the war in the west.
                2. On the other hand, I'm making no assumption regarding the outcome of the Great Patriotic War. Nobody can be dogmatic about what might have happened if it had devolved into pure USSR versus Fascism conflict. And neither,I think, can you.
                No war in the West would not mean a stronger Ostheer : in the OTL (war in the west and the east) there were 150 divisions available for Barbarossa and 50 were tied elsewhere;in the ATL ( no war in the west ) there would still be at leat 50 divisions tied elsewhere, at least , because one can argue that the defeat of Britain would result in the occupation of Britain and the occupation of Britain would claim additional forces , thus a weaker Ostheer .
                The Germans knew that they had no chance in a long war against the SU, that's why they did stake everything on a short campaign .
                About the Battle of the Atlantic : more resources were not available. besides more UBoats does not mean more sinkings of MV, one can argue that more UBoats would result in more sinkings of UBoats as in 1943/1944 .,and the Battle of the Atlantic would be a long campaign (there was no chance to force Britain to surrender in 1940/1941) and a long campaign would inevitably result in a DoW by the USA and than,there was no chance to win the BoA .
                At PH ,Britain had gained more GRT than it had lost by UBoats .
                The loss relation between U Boats and MV (including damaged ones ) was 1/4 : 760 /3000
                The U Boats failed in WWI, there was no reason that they would succeed in WWII .

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  Back to NATO and the whine of the day: NATO was broken during the Cold War when I was there, and it's even worse now. It's useless, it's a huge waste of money - most of it from America as usual - and it accomplishes absolutely nothing that serves the current goals of America.

                  There is ZERO reason for America to "defend" European nations that are doing billions of Euros worth of business every single year with Russia, the country they claim they need to be "protected" from. And definitely no reason to protect nations that don't like us and constantly demonstrate against our leader while expecting us to do things for them.


                  If Europe wants to be protected, then they can do it for themselves, like we have to. Then we can whine and gripe about them for a change.

                  And while we're on the subject, the only nation on the European continent that is a nuclear power pulled out of NATO 43 years ago and yet no European nation ever whines or complains about France, and they don't constantly attack the leader of France either. Why not? A little too close to home?

                  Here, I'll start you off with a list of jokes about France: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ssed-them.html

                  Here is one of my favorites: Why did the French give America the Statue of Liberty?

                  Because she has only one arm raised.

                  NATO is a defensive alliance whose conerstone is article 5 which call for others countries to defend one member against an attack. Article 5 is not mandatory. It has been called once by USA after September 11 for operations in Afghanistan. Others country responded to the call. More than 70 French soldiers gave they live for you. That's for real world. Let you now for your childish babling about both an Alliance an country you know about next to nothing...

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                    You are also wrong about 1941 : 1941 was disastrous for Germany , at the end of the summer of 1941 Germany had lost and the Soviets would parade in Berlin, and this BEFORE the first LL transports arriuved at Russian ports .
                    No. The failure to beat the Soviets in 1941 was only disastrous because of the Anglo-Americans.
                    The Soviet Union did not possess some supernatural war-making ability. Maybe a third of what they had was provided by Lend-Lease, taking into account direct military supplies and critical raw materials and equipments.

                    Also 1941 was the Germans peak effort against the Soviets. From then on an increasing share of their military power had to be allocated to combating the Anglo-Americans.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Gooner View Post

                      No. The failure to beat the Soviets in 1941 was only disastrous because of the Anglo-Americans.
                      The Soviet Union did not possess some supernatural war-making ability. Maybe a third of what they had was provided by Lend-Lease, taking into account direct military supplies and critical raw materials and equipments.

                      Also 1941 was the Germans peak effort against the Soviets. From then on an increasing share of their military power had to be allocated to combating the Anglo-Americans.
                      The Germans failed to defeat the SU in the summer of 1941, without any LL help for the Soviets .
                      LL arrived AFTER 1941 and had no influence on the outcome of 1941 .
                      Germany would also have failed in 1941 if Britain was neutral or was occupied : in the OTL Germany started Barbarossa with 150 divisions, 50 divisions being tied elsewhere .In the ATL ( Britain neutral or occupied) Germany would have less divisions for Barbarossa .
                      AFTER 1941, Germany had no chance to defeat the SU, even in the ATL .
                      The truth is that Germany was too weak and the SU was too strong: the SU was invincible .

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                        The Germans failed to defeat the SU in the summer of 1941, without any LL help for the Soviets .
                        LL arrived AFTER 1941 and had no influence on the outcome of 1941 .
                        Germany would also have failed in 1941 if Britain was neutral or was occupied : in the OTL Germany started Barbarossa with 150 divisions, 50 divisions being tied elsewhere .In the ATL ( Britain neutral or occupied) Germany would have less divisions for Barbarossa .
                        AFTER 1941, Germany had no chance to defeat the SU, even in the ATL .
                        The truth is that Germany was too weak and the SU was too strong: the SU was invincible .
                        That the SU was invincible is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. However IMHO the SU could have won alone, without any help IN ANY WAY from Anglo American forces would have added years to the conflict (who can say how many years) and at least one ACG member whom I hold in high regards on his knowledge of WWII and the SU in particular, has the opinion it would have been a "bloody stalemate"...
                        https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...12#post4482712

                        The above from the following thread:

                        https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...p-russians-say

                        Regards, Kurt
                        Our world at Khe Sanh was blood, death, and filth with deafening gunfire and blinding explosions as a constant soundtrack...Barry Fixler
                        http://sempercool.com/

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Kurt Knispel View Post

                          That the SU was invincible is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. However IMHO the SU could have won alone, without any help IN ANY WAY from Anglo American forces would have added years to the conflict (who can say how many years) and at least one ACG member whom I hold in high regards on his knowledge of WWII and the SU in particular, has the opinion it would have been a "bloody stalemate"...
                          https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...12#post4482712

                          The above from the following thread:

                          https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...p-russians-say

                          Regards, Kurt
                          The Germans were convinced that they could not defeat the SU in a long campaign, that they could not afford a long campaign, and that a victorious long campaign would not help them , that's why they opted for a short campaign of not more than 10 weeks, something as Fall/Gelb/Fall Blau .But already before August 1941,it was obvious that not only the SU was not defeated but that it started a big counter-offensive which resulted in a German loss of 200000 men in August .And this happened before the start of L L.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                            AFTER 1941, Germany had no chance to defeat the SU, even in the ATL .
                            The truth is that Germany was too weak and the SU was too strong: the SU was invincible .
                            Germany was stronger than the Soviet Union in 1942 how can it be too weak?

                            Invincible, my arse, the Soviet Union had just lost a huge percentage of its pre-war army, its population, its industry and its material resources,
                            To even attempt to make good the losses of no Lend-Lease the Soviets would have to demobilise millions in the face of German forces stronger in every which way. That is the truth of this ATL.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gooner View Post

                              Germany was stronger than the Soviet Union in 1942 how can it be too weak?

                              Invincible, my arse, the Soviet Union had just lost a huge percentage of its pre-war army, its population, its industry and its material resources,
                              To even attempt to make good the losses of no Lend-Lease the Soviets would have to demobilise millions in the face of German forces stronger in every which way. That is the truth of this ATL.
                              No,it is the opposite :
                              The Ostheer was weaker in 1942 than in 1941,2 of the German AGs were on defensive and were heavily attacked by the Red Army that was stronger in 1942 than in 1941 .It was not possible in 1942 to defeat the SU by military means, that's why the Germans hoped that ,if they could capture the Caucasian oil,the SU would collapse,although the economic experts had warned the OKW that this was only wishful-thinking ,which it was .
                              In 1941 the three German AGs attacked from the East Sea to the Black Sea;in 1942 only ONE AG was able to attack .
                              Soviet arms production :
                              Tanks : 1941:6274/1942 :24690
                              Artillery :1941 : 42300/1942 : 127000
                              Aircraft :1941 : 15700 /1942 : 25000

                              Comment


                              • No army in any time period was invincible. Even the excellent ones lose from time to time. The Russians have never cared how many troops they lose as there are always more Russians. Their huge losses in War II are indicative of this attitude.
                                We are not now that strength which in old days
                                Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                                Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                                To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X