View Full Version : WW3or4
wif a war is to break who you think will be involved and why.and also which place/countries might start this war.
even beter the sides you think they will belong to.
try not to show the out come of the war but do try label the advantages each may have.
why i brought this up is becuase i do pay this another game which is about warring, where we began a conversation about who can/will start and how it will effect others nation around them.we all came to some type of closure that abig war is in the vwery near future with the crap is going on.
i will start
the main reason to me will about Energy such as oil.
i personally think it will start in MIDEAST. Isearl/Palastine will erupt very soon and yuo will see the arabs coutnries(Iran,Syria main ones) come to aid the People of palastine. the reason well Hamas wnats to prove a pojt once again that it will not be pushed around, Iran joins in becuase it wants to be the region power and its distastefull views towards the state of Isreal. Isreal can take pallastine but its more then one front which makes hard for them to war, so what you get US to aid Isreal being the allie os isreal in anything. US is al ready tied up in Iraq and Afghan. it can only ploy so much. seeing this Russia joins in to help Iran( Russia knows US is scattered, so great time to give a beating). Iran begins hitting Nato troops in Iraq while Russia starts off in Afghanstan.
Seeing as Iran is picking influnce in MIDEAST this triggers Suadi Arabia and they will not let Iran be a power in the region at any cost so they join in on the side os Isreal/US(they wont aid Isreal for obvious reasons) this sets path for a Sunni vs Shia war( it is important for Iran to ebcome a super power as the Shias control/greatly influnce most of the oil in MIDEAST)
AS Russia entres into Afganstan this alarms Pakistan and automatically entre the war to defend against Russia. India comes to aid of Russia and Pakistan has to fronts and heavily outnumbered.( Russia is still pissed about loosing to Afghanstan which meant warring Pakistan aswell as they were one of the main guys training and warring with in 1970's)
Iran takes over Iraq with ease as the poeple were with Iran. US,Japan,UK and others and others invade Iran from there sea and end up taking southern part of Iran now Pakistan has another front to help out Iran.
Pakistan is surrouned so they ask for China's assistance which they adn India gets invaded. China takes control of north parts of India and at same time takes over Taiwan where Japan enters the war to aid Taiwan.
You have your full blown war.
Sida A
Isreal , US, Uk, Suadia Arabia, Japan, Taiwan, India
and other small players such as Australia,some EU states, Canada,Egypt, Jordan, Turkey
Side B
Iran, Russia, China, Pakistan, Syria, Venzueala
small players such as Al-qaeda. hazbullah, some fo the ex Soviet States, Cuba, Lebnon and few others
this my scenerio
some Countries do not go World wide and yet stay to defend there own states such as pakistan
There is no way the UK would get involved with another middle eastern war, even if Iran threatened to wipe out Israel. We only just tolerated Iraq, another war would topple the government that tried it.
Shabaz K
02-01-2009, 23:31
we we are talking about full out war and seeing as how UK kisses US ***, i wouldn't be too suprised at this.
and if this has to happen well UK may get hit even if tries to be neutral state
Missionary
02-02-2009, 16:41
There is no way the UK would get involved with another middle eastern war, even if Iran threatened to wipe out Israel. We only just tolerated Iraq, another war would topple the government that tried it.
if iran threatened to wipe out israel, israel would just hammer the crap out of them.
if iran threatened to wipe out israel, israel would just hammer the crap out of them.
Israel can't do much to Iran on the ground, and the Iranians have been buying a lot of Russian SAM systems and such. It would get very messy.
if iran threatened to wipe out israel, israel would just hammer the crap out of them.
i dont tihnk Isreal will be able to wipe Iran, sure they have air power atm, but Iran is biulding up. Isreal will have 3 fronts to battle, it just cant go anf think it can win all three battles.
heck i dont think the isreal will be able to beat the people of palastine.
Israel could utterly annihilate the palestinians if it wanted to, but it would become an international pariah in the process.
Max Logan
02-04-2009, 18:54
i dont tihnk Isreal will be able to wipe Iran, sure they have air power atm, but Iran is biulding up. Isreal will have 3 fronts to battle, it just cant go anf think it can win all three battles.
heck i dont think the isreal will be able to beat the people of palastine.
ehh...a tank division could beat the crap out of pakistan
it`s called politics
Mrmcjoey15
02-04-2009, 19:46
if there's gonna be a WW3 i think kamran has it totaly wrong.
with the recent aggressive actions by Russia in Georgia i do believe that Russia would not be an ally. With the US putting in the anti-nuke machine thingy in Poland im sure russia feels very threaten. Next WW will be a weapons struggle and heres how i see it.
US does something dumb to piss Russia off and Russia takes over some remote US controlled island or something. US ignores it and trys to talk about it. that dosnt work so the US waits till it can get UN help to fight off russia and gets UK France and other ussless such nations to aid against russia. Russia now out numbered seeks help from low life nations such as iran pakistan and North korea. US gets japan and we call it a war.
US is losing so they ask the mexicans to join and the mexicans turn the tide and win the war
all but that last part was for real lol
if there's gonna be a WW3 i think kamran has it totaly wrong.
with the recent aggressive actions by Russia in Georgia i do believe that Russia would not be an ally. With the US putting in the anti-nuke machine thingy in Poland im sure russia feels very threaten. Next WW will be a weapons struggle and heres how i see it.
US does something dumb to piss Russia off and Russia takes over some remote US controlled island or something. US ignores it and trys to talk about it. that dosnt work so the US waits till it can get UN help to fight off russia and gets UK France and other ussless such nations to aid against russia. Russia now out numbered seeks help from low life nations such as iran pakistan and North korea. US gets japan and we call it a war.
US is losing so they ask the mexicans to join and the mexicans turn the tide and win the war
all but that last part was for real lol
Serve for Citizenship..... seems possible
Mrmcjoey15
02-04-2009, 21:47
Serve for Citizenship..... seems possible
ur sig is way to big maggio is gonna throw a fit and i got u a better one if u go on MSN FOOL
Missionary
02-05-2009, 03:59
i dont tihnk Isreal will be able to wipe Iran, sure they have air power atm, but Iran is biulding up. Isreal will have 3 fronts to battle, it just cant go anf think it can win all three battles.
heck i dont think the isreal will be able to beat the people of palastine.
you think if Israel would hesitate to throw a nuke around if they were loosing on 3 fronts? i dont think they would. plus they have air striked Iran several times to prevent there aim to become a nuclear power.
i do believe that WW3 will be USA and Europe (bar Switzerland lol) vs Russia, Japan, maybe China and a load of Arab states.
i think it will be down to another prevention USA put into place to under mime Russian power which will piss the Russians off. with all the diplomatic dislike towards russia recently it wont take long for several others to fall in on USA's side. Russia have in the last few years upset alot countries:
1) Aload of North East European countries when cutting off fuel supplies through Ukraine. aswell as Ukraine
2) The UK with that spy guy scandal aswell as the diplomatic strains, plus the continuation of there long bomber and submarine scouting missions. where a bomber had to be escorted out of scottish air space.
3) The continued strained relations with the USA.
4) everyone they pissed off invading croatia.
ITS ONLY A MATTER OFF TIME PEOPLE!!!!! lol
Japan would help USA not russia
Missionary
02-05-2009, 04:29
depends how dependant Japan are on Russian export. cant say i know but would have though alot of there fuel comes from Russia.
yea but most of our imports are from Japan.....so they need us to... besides we can sell the oil :)
Missionary
02-05-2009, 04:32
japan exports stuff to mexico? :P
nope they import oil from USA :)
4) everyone they pissed off invading croatia.
I think you mean Georgia:)
shhh its vinnie hes stupid
ehh...a tank division could beat the crap out of pakistan
it`s called politics
i wouldn't be too surprised, then again i know nothing of Pakistan.
what i do know is if the war escaltes to guerialla tactics then you just cant simply say they will win easily. Pakistan has great ties with Al-qeada and other Pakistani created groups (In India,Indian controlled Kashmire).
and sure its poiltics but guerilla war can easily be placed in palastine conflict, they can easily enter into Isrealthen its makes even more harder.
You dont beleive then look in Afghanstan or iraq. Iran has Usa and others stuck in there. Sure USA military is powerful but its not built to fight against this type of warfare. Iran oicked this type of Idea from Pakistan and has groups such as Hazbulloh and same with what ever group in Palastine(cant remember the name)
we we are talking about full out war and seeing as how UK kisses US ***, i wouldn't be too suprised at this.
and if this has to happen well UK may get hit even if tries to be neutral state
i thought the *** was sent back to texas?
Bram Gotink
02-07-2009, 15:30
I think all of you are wrong.
WW III:
A joint venture of: the U.S.A., the U.K., Japan and China.
Other countries supporting them: the entire Muslim Middle East (so that excludes Israel) except the Palestines.
Countries against: Israel, Germany
People in favor of the war: neo-nazis
People opposed to the war: most of the US government, Europeans, People from Antwerp, people who deal in diamonds, ... All Christians, Jews and Muslims.
The War itself is: All the countries in the joint venture nuke Israel.
Pro: finally the endless war between Palestina and Israel is over, and finally the Jews will stop their endless nagging about the holocaust. (*)
The Muslim Middle East will finally be the same as the entire middle east, without the "last bastion of the Jews in their land"
Contra: Millions of people killed, Jerusalem nuked. The Jew lobbies in the U.S. will definetly not like this.
WW IV:
A joint venture of: The U.S.A. and Europe especially Ukraine and Georgia
Other countries supporting them: OPEC
Countries against: Russia
People in favor of the war: European fuel gas consumers
People opposed to the war: Gazpron
The War itself is: The countries supporting this joint venture will attack Russia because it has too much control over the fuel gas in the major part of Europe. This has already been proven by their "arguments" with Ukrain which resulted (twice) in a lot of European countries losing their fuel gas for quite some time. The last time was 01/2009, during a period of extremely cold temperatures.
Pro: finally no more Russian control over our fuel gas. Ukrain will be able to take control (and they probably won't argue with themselves, so that problem is solved). Georgia can finally have revenge for what Russia did to them a couple of months ago.
Contra: None what so ever.
(*: They do. I'm afraid you have no choice but agreeing with me on that matter...)
Bram is now the official forum Nazi:P
Nah will that will be ur title forever :) Bram can come in as a close second
Divine Intervention
02-08-2009, 13:42
I think you mean Georgia:)
i dont know whats worse, that Russia got outplayed by Georgia in a propaganda war or the fact that most Westerners are/were stupid enough to believe said propaganda.
yea and ur opinion isnt bias
Bram Gotink
02-08-2009, 15:26
i dont know whats worse, that Russia got outplayed by Georgia in a propaganda war or the fact that most Westerners are/were stupid enough to believe said propaganda.
Georgia was right lol
Those two provinces of Georgia were and are still part of Georgia and not of Russia. Thus Russia has no right to be there without the permission of Georgia, let alone attack Georgia to "liberate" the Russians in those provinces. News flash: they aren't Russians, they're Georgians ! That's where they live, remember !!
yea and ur opinion isnt bias
Yeah, if you look up bias in the dictionary, Antons picture is next to it :o :D
Nah will that will be ur title forever :) Bram can come in as a close second
But someone has to be the forum commie:) maybe Z?
Divine Intervention
02-08-2009, 17:41
Georgia was right lol
Those two provinces of Georgia were and are still part of Georgia and not of Russia. Thus Russia has no right to be there without the permission of Georgia, let alone attack Georgia to "liberate" the Russians in those provinces. News flash: they aren't Russians, they're Georgians ! That's where they live, remember !!
Yeah, if you look up bias in the dictionary, Antons picture is next to it :o :D
http://xs230.xs.to/xs230/08336/D709.gif
newsflash n00b. Georgians began a military assault which resulted in the deaths and injuries of Russian citizens (civilians and peacekeepers stationed there). The Russian constitution allows in such cases for military force to be used to protect them.
Georgias fault:
http://en.rian.ru/world/20080830/116412855.html
America helping Georgia spread its propaganda:
http://exiledonline.com/the-cnn-effect-georgia-schools-russia-in-information-warfare/#more-291
Good examples of Georgian propoganda:
http://russia-insider.livejournal.com/25329.html
Expert opinion of former assistant secretary to the treasury in Ronald Reagan's administration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOJiVqg9_20&feature=user
Eye witness report of the conflict. Fox censorship.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kFKCNqxFyw
oh and not to mention, the whole Ossetia being part of Georgia is a moot point. During the break up of the Soviet Union, South Ossetia voted against leaving USSR and as such its breakoff and inclusion as part of the new Georgian republic is questionable from a legal point of view. Why else do you think theyve had several civil wars with Georgia? Its all simple really, Saakashvilli promised to continue the ceasefire with South Ossetia (which simply wants to be independant from Georgia), then goes and breaks his promise the next day and begins military actions against it which result in the death of Russian civilians living there and Russian peacekeepers present there (not to mention the destruction of peaceful infrastructure like hospitals etc etc on a mass scale). So Russia stepped in and protected the region from Georgian aggression. Contrary to retard belief, Russia did not go and invade Georgia itself (although we should have, so easy and nothing anyone can do jack **** about) and whats even more funnier, the footage sometimes shown on Fox etc etc of bombing runs on towns is actually footage of Georgian military bombing the South Ossetian towns.
anyway, there we go. and theres no point arguing because i will school your ignorant ***** *** Fox news brainwashed asses on this subject.
Contrary to retard belief, Russia did not go and invade Georgia itself (although we should have, so easy and nothing anyone can do jack **** about)
^
Why Georgia needs NATO membership ASAP.
Divine Intervention
02-08-2009, 18:45
Georgia doesn't need anything since Russia doesn't have any aggressive ambitions against Georgia. Furthermore, if Georgia wants NATO membership it went completly the wrong way about it since no way will they let in a country which has currently got such unresolved conflicts. What they should have done was wait till they had their scummy membership then do their even more scummier war against South Ossetia.
True, but either way you're British now and shouldn't worry about what Russia does unless it hurts Britain in which case you should oppose it:)
Bram Gotink
02-09-2009, 11:00
again, a news flash: I don't watch Fox !
About you saying that the Russian constitution allows it:
Oh, our constitution allows us to bomb the Netherlands. Let's do it! =cough= no =cough=
Disclaimer: this is completely fictional, Belgium has no plans to bomb the Netherlands at all.
EDIT: this is a reaction to Antons last post on the previous page.
KelpKris
02-09-2009, 11:19
There is no need to show Russia in good light because they aren't better and in my opinion what happens in Georgia is no business of Russia.
Yes, Russia fed up with western countries in WWII and defeated Nazi Germany but on the same time we got occupied. There is still vast amount of Russians in Estonia who have lived here for their whole life and still can't speak Estonian a single word and some of them think Estonia is still part of the USSR.
Nazism is one of the greatest taboo these days but nobody seems to care that under the flag of communism same things happened in the USSR.
And when we tried to relocate a Russian war monument to more appropriate location last year Russians started riots in our capital city and after that relations between Russia and Estonia almost ceased to exist (can't say they were good before though).
Bram Gotink
02-09-2009, 11:27
May I add to my previous statement about WW III and WW IV that Israel is getting closer to its doom every day? Extremist right factions are gaining votes, Israelian politicians are talking about new war instead of peace, a war to end Palestine once and for all... They're becoming fascists, and I fear that Hitler II has arisen in Israel.
Divine Intervention
02-09-2009, 12:53
There is no need to show Russia in good light because they aren't better and in my opinion what happens in Georgia is no business of Russia.
Yes, Russia fed up with western countries in WWII and defeated Nazi Germany but on the same time we got occupied. There is still vast amount of Russians in Estonia who have lived here for their whole life and still can't speak Estonian a single word and some of them think Estonia is still part of the USSR.
Nazism is one of the greatest taboo these days but nobody seems to care that under the flag of communism same things happened in the USSR.
And when we tried to relocate a Russian war monument to more appropriate location last year Russians started riots in our capital city and after that relations between Russia and Estonia almost ceased to exist (can't say they were good before though).
okay so lets use an exaggerated example. say the Russian President goes and says: lets kill all Germans/French/Estonians/insert random nationality since it doesn't affect the example. Since its happening in Russia, does that mean that the countries from which those people come from should just continue merrily as if nothing happened? Russian citizens, civilians and peacekeepers died and were injured as a direct result of Georgian military actions against a territory to which they promised a ceasefire (atleast) the day before :thumbdown: anyway, your point is completely off topic and on a different matter altogether.
maybe taboo for the rest of the world by not for Baltics + Ukranians (****ing Banderos *****es) eh?
http://en.rian.ru/world/20081215/118873788.html
http://en.rian.ru/world/20081119/118396557.html
Parades in honor of Waffen-SS veterans, involving veterans from the Latvian Legion and the 20th Estonian SS Division and their supporters, are held annually in Latvia and Estonia.
not to mention the fact that scum like this are actually given war veteran status or w/e and given war pensions by the goverment. heck, why not..."you killed some jews in 1940s? who cares, you probably also killed lots of Red army soldiers, have a nice fat pay check to see out the rest of your days"
@ Bram - wtf you going on about.
@ Will - dual nationality *****.
Bram Gotink
02-09-2009, 14:04
@ Bram - wtf you going on about.
Edit: gefunden !
http://www.deredactie.be/polopoly_fs/1.465647!image/2258632925.jpg_gen/derivatives/large/2258632925.jpg
The person on your right, with a clear look on his face going "Look, I'm a looney XD", is the extreme right candidate for the elections of today. They predict his faction getting 1/3 of the votes.
He clearly stated in an interview with the press that he wants to start another war in Palestine, and this time to finish them off.
Some of his supporters were already (yesterday) "celebrating" their victory and the imminent crushing of Palestina.
YISRAEL BEYTENU (Israël Ons Thuis)
Deze extreemrechtse partij wordt vooral gesteund door immigranten uit de voormalige Sovjet-Unie.
Partijleider Avigdor Lieberman was vroeger lid van Likoed.
Yisrael Beytenu en Lieberman nemen een zeer harde houding aan in het Israëlisch-Palestijnse conflict en willen Hamas keihard aanpakken.
De partij wil alle Arabische Israëliërs overplaatsen naar de Palestijnse gebieden en is tegen de oprichting van een Palestijnse staat.
YISRAEL BEYTENU (Israel Our Home)
This extremist right party is primarily supported by immigrants of the ex-USSR.
Party-leader Avigdor Lieberman used to be member of Likoed.
Yisrael Beytenu and Lieberman have a point of view concerning the conflict Israel-Palestina that can only be called "hard/tough" and want to deal with Hamas.
The party wants to transfer all Arab Israeli to Palestina and are against founding a Palestinian state.
Mrmcjoey15
02-09-2009, 22:25
There is no need to show Russia in good light because they aren't better and in my opinion what happens in Georgia is no business of Russia.
Yes, Russia fed up with western countries in WWII and defeated Nazi Germany but on the same time we got occupied. There is still vast amount of Russians in Estonia who have lived here for their whole life and still can't speak Estonian a single word and some of them think Estonia is still part of the USSR.
Nazism is one of the greatest taboo these days but nobody seems to care that under the flag of communism same things happened in the USSR.
And when we tried to relocate a Russian war monument to more appropriate location last year Russians started riots in our capital city and after that relations between Russia and Estonia almost ceased to exist (can't say they were good before though).
wow thats a shame! stupid russians not respectin estos! theyll pay when skycat bombs thm er somthin
KelpKris
02-10-2009, 08:21
okay so lets use an exaggerated example. say the Russian President goes and says: lets kill all Germans/French/Estonians/insert random nationality since it doesn't affect the example. Since its happening in Russia, does that mean that the countries from which those people come from should just continue merrily as if nothing happened? Russian citizens, civilians and peacekeepers died and were injured as a direct result of Georgian military actions against a territory to which they promised a ceasefire (atleast) the day before :thumbdown: anyway, your point is completely off topic and on a different matter altogether.
maybe taboo for the rest of the world by not for Baltics + Ukranians (****ing Banderos *****es) eh?
http://en.rian.ru/world/20081215/118873788.html
http://en.rian.ru/world/20081119/118396557.html
not to mention the fact that scum like this are actually given war veteran status or w/e and given war pensions by the goverment. heck, why not..."you killed some jews in 1940s? who cares, you probably also killed lots of Red army soldiers, have a nice fat pay check to see out the rest of your days"
Let me give you a short overview of Estonian history on WWII.
1.1939 Estonia was forced to sign a pact with USSR to allow 25 000 Soviet soldiers on Estonian soil.
2.1940 90 000 Soviet soldiers marched to Estonia, occupied it and new Soviet government was established.
3.1941 Mass deportation took place, more than 10 000 Estonians were sent to Siberia within 4 days, most of them died. Soon after Soviet Union started conscripting Estonians, total of more than 30 000, but due to unreliability they were used as labor force, so lots of them died.
4.Germany took over Estonia and at first they were welcomed as liberators. During 1941-1944 many volunteers joined because they had lost a relative in deportations or wanted to protect Estonia from bolshevism - most of them didn't share nazi ideology and were mainly fighting for their former homeland.
5.When Germany lost it's momentum and Red army was pressing on, somewhere between 50 000 - 100 000 Estonians had joined the Waffen-SS. They held back Red army for about 6 months and their ultimate aim was to restore the independence of Estonia, but this didn't turn out.
6.New deportations in 1949. Tens of thousands were sent to Siberia and thousands of civilians were killed.
Btw few hundred jews were also deported by USSR in 1941 together with Estonians.
I hope you get my point. Latvia and Lithuania share about the same fate in WWII.
Regarding those 2 links -
Parades in honor of Waffen-SS veterans, involving veterans from the Latvian Legion and the 20th Estonian SS Division and their supporters, are held annually in Latvia and Estonia.
That's one of the reason I gave a little overview of Estonian history. The only veteran gathering what I can think of what disturbs Russians is for the soldiers who fell in the battle of Tannenberg Line - the bloodiest battle ever fought on Estonian soil:
German side: 22 250 troops, 7 tanks, 80 assault guns, 49 bombers
Soviet Union side 136 830 troops, 150 tanks, 1680 assault guns, 546 aircraft.
Outcome:
German casualties 10 000 troops, 2 500 of them dead 6 tanks
Soviet Union side 170 000 troops, 35 000 of them dead, 113 tanks
Usually there are always Russian provokers and reporters there so these kind of news are nothing new.
The dismantling in Tallinn, capital of Estonia, of the Soviet war memorial, the Bronze Soldier, just before the May 9, 2007 Victory Day celebrations in Russia led to street protests in which over 1,000 people were arrested and one Russian national was killed.
From this paragraph it appears like we blew the "Bronze soldier" up but it was just relocated (like I said before) to Military Cemetery. The main problem here is that Russians see themselves as liberators and we see them as occupants. And so what that 1000 people were arrested, most of them were too busy robbing and smashing everything and it is uncertain who killed that one Russian.
Anyway this news site leaves out some very important facts and therefor pends the truth.
Divine Intervention
02-10-2009, 09:55
@ Kris - i fail to see how we have gone from discussing Georgia to Russian-Estonian relations and how any of that has any relation to the matter at hand i.e. Russians involvement in the South Ossetia conflict. maybe because i replied to your offtopic response regarding Nazi taboo etc.
regarding the battle of tannenberg...eh? that was during WW1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tannenberg_(1914)) unless you confused something?
@ Statue - no it doesn't imply that it was blown up but thats not the point. You don't just go round digging up, dismantling and relocating to some backwater cemetary statues which commemorate the deaths of hundreds of thousands who lost their lives liberating Estonia. Contrary to w/e propoganda people may have been brainwashed i highly doubt that the average Red army soldier went into battle with the thought of "omg, im so happy that me fighting here could help USSR add a bit more land to its empire..**** i love Stalin"...but rather more along the lines of "im helping rid this land of Nazi scum responsible for the deaths of millions". Its not as if the statue was built honouring Stalin and the KGB or something :rolleyes: The average soldier was not fighting for the love of Communism....which im not a fan of...destroyed Russia as a country and was responsible for a genocide much much greater than the Holocaust.
anyway, this is all off topic regarding the initial Georgia issue which i came here to post about, so if anyone has any points regarding that id be happy to answer them :thinking:
@ Bram - im sorry, you must be confused, thinking that Belgium politics and their plans for Palestine interest me :(
@ Hoebawt - get lost or else ill report you to Immegration Services regarding youre expired Green Card and youll be sent to w/e backwater peso yielding Central-south American country you crawled out of.
jks, :wub: you buddy :tt1:
USSR was fing evil.... Stalin was a pansy
KelpKris
02-10-2009, 17:38
@ Kris - i fail to see how we have gone from discussing Georgia to Russian-Estonian relations and how any of that has any relation to the matter at hand i.e. Russians involvement in the South Ossetia conflict. maybe because i replied to your offtopic response regarding Nazi taboo etc.
All I'm saying is that I don't believe Russia would just help Aphasia and South-Ossetia unless they have smt in it for themselves.
regarding the battle of tannenberg...eh? that was during WW1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tannenberg_(1914)) unless you confused something?
No mistake, I said "battle of Tannenberg Line".
@ Statue - no it doesn't imply that it was blown up but thats not the point. You don't just go round digging up, dismantling and relocating to some backwater cemetary statues which commemorate the deaths of hundreds of thousands who lost their lives liberating Estonia. Contrary to w/e propoganda people may have been brainwashed i highly doubt that the average Red army soldier went into battle with the thought of "omg, im so happy that me fighting here could help USSR add a bit more land to its empire..**** i love Stalin"...but rather more along the lines of "im helping rid this land of Nazi scum responsible for the deaths of millions". Its not as if the statue was built honouring Stalin and the KGB or something :rolleyes: The average soldier was not fighting for the love of Communism....which im not a fan of...destroyed Russia as a country and was responsible for a genocide much much greater than the Holocaust.
Exactly, "liberating" Estonia and on the same time occupying it. So the conflict here is obvious and our government made the right decision relocating the statue. Now the things have calmed down and young Russian activist don't have such a good place to meet anymore.
About average Red army soldier - I think that when Germany was on the doorstep of Moscow the average soldier just wanted to save his motherland. Maybe afterwards it was more like revenge.
@ Statue - no it doesn't imply that it was blown up but thats not the point. You don't just go round digging up, dismantling and relocating to some backwater cemetary statues which commemorate the deaths of hundreds of thousands who lost their lives liberating Estonia. Contrary to w/e propoganda people may have been brainwashed i highly doubt that the average Red army soldier went into battle with the thought of "omg, im so happy that me fighting here could help USSR add a bit more land to its empire..**** i love Stalin"...but rather more along the lines of "im helping rid this land of Nazi scum responsible for the deaths of millions". Its not as if the statue was built honouring Stalin and the KGB or something :rolleyes: The average soldier was not fighting for the love of Communism....which im not a fan of...destroyed Russia as a country and was responsible for a genocide much much greater than the Holocaust.
I think the average Red army soldier went into battle thinking "I'd better do as I'm told or me and all my family will be sent to Siberia"
yea your def right will :)
Divine Intervention
02-10-2009, 18:11
@ Kris - well of course they have something in it for themselves. theyre protecting Russian civilians/citizens/peacekeepers who are residing there. Im sure that if Canada began butchering American citizens then USA would also intervene and it wouldn't be a mild "please stop, ok? pleaaaaaaase" type of plea...regarding the statue...so the reason to remove it was because it was a meeting place for violent activists (i guess the yearly 90 year old war veteran meetings can get too much for the local police when the vodka kicks in :p?) not just a move to spite the memories of brave soldiers against whom you have no right to hold some kind of grudge against because at the end of the day, whether they were fighting out of fear or out of revenge, i wouldn't be suprised if the "occupation" was the last thing on their minds...
"violent activists" likely refers to neo-nazi groups/skinheads, or possibly extreme left wing groups but the former is more likely.
Considering the general behaviour of Russian soldiers in the countries they occupied (and not just germany) then the locals have every right to dislike them. The red army was easily the worst behaved of any of the victorious powers after WW2, looting, rape, murder were rampant. This is undeniable.
Divine Intervention
02-10-2009, 18:53
"violent activists" likely refers to neo-nazi groups/skinheads, or possibly extreme left wing groups but the former is more likely.
Considering the general behaviour of Russian soldiers in the countries they occupied (and not just germany) then the locals have every right to dislike them. The red army was easily the worst behaved of any of the victorious powers after WW2, looting, rape, murder were rampant. This is undeniable.
regarding your first point its so wrong that it makes me laugh. regarding your second point (which also makes me laugh): yeah, sure the Germans didn't go round with the purpose of exterminating all slavs and Jews. good one Will. of and you make it sound as if there was a choice of armies to compare. The Brits + Americans didn't have anything to "rape, murder and loot" because they mostly fought in africa and we all know, no one wants to rape or loot (well, nothing to loot) anything there. also, any reason why you specify the Russians? do you have any source which proves that they were disproportionately more aggressive than any other nationality involved in WW2? plox sharez.
Bram Gotink
02-11-2009, 07:39
@ Anton: just to make sure you know I'm not kidding about Israel: Article in The Sun (http://www.nysun.com/foreign/israels-lieberman-calls-for-tougher-stance/45120/)
Dutch vid (Het Journaal op Eén) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vMSRqwNYCw) (was better on tv, youtube idiot did some editing, but the msg is still clear... )
regarding your first point its so wrong that it makes me laugh. regarding your second point (which also makes me laugh): yeah, sure the Germans didn't go round with the purpose of exterminating all slavs and Jews. good one Will. of and you make it sound as if there was a choice of armies to compare. The Brits + Americans didn't have anything to "rape, murder and loot" because they mostly fought in africa and we all know, no one wants to rape or loot (well, nothing to loot) anything there. also, any reason why you specify the Russians? do you have any source which proves that they were disproportionately more aggressive than any other nationality involved in WW2? plox sharez.
Where did I say the Germans didn't commit atrocities? We're talking about the Red Army here not the Wehrmacht or the SS. And although you don't like to admit it, they behaved like beasts compared to the western powers, even in countries that switched sides like hungary. Out of the 4 occupying powers it went something like:
Russia
France
US
Britain
Worst to best in terms of crimes against German civilians.
And the British and Americans only fought in Africa? did you not cover what happened on June 6th, 1944 when you did History Anton?
Try going to sleep tonight without reading Stalin's account of the war beforehand. It will do you a world of good:)
Bram Gotink
02-12-2009, 15:24
Where did I say the Germans didn't commit atrocities? We're talking about the Red Army here not the Wehrmacht or the SS. And although you don't like to admit it, they behaved like beasts compared to the western powers, even in countries that switched sides like hungary. Out of the 4 occupying powers it went something like:
Russia
France
US
Britain
Worst to best in terms of crimes against German civilians.
And the British and Americans only fought in Africa? did you not cover what happened on June 6th, 1944 when you did History Anton?
Try going to sleep tonight without reading Stalin's account of the war beforehand. It will do you a world of good:)
I've seen a lot of things about the Red army being exceptionally violent. IIRC, Stalin gave his army one day to do whatever they liked, including rape, pillaging, murder,...
Sorry, Antony, but you are wrong.
Divine Intervention
02-12-2009, 15:33
Where did I say the Germans didn't commit atrocities? We're talking about the Red Army here not the Wehrmacht or the SS. And although you don't like to admit it, they behaved like beasts compared to the western powers, even in countries that switched sides like hungary. Out of the 4 occupying powers it went something like:
Russia
France
US
Britain
Worst to best in terms of crimes against German civilians.
And the British and Americans only fought in Africa? did you not cover what happened on June 6th, 1944 when you did History Anton?
Try going to sleep tonight without reading Stalin's account of the war beforehand. It will do you a world of good:)
heh, maybe out of the allied powers, but you can't even begin comparing it to what the Germans did. June 6th 1944? i know perfectly well what happened. im not even going to bother trying to compare the efforts of the USSR, its people and its army to some fighting in africa, some bombing runs and a beach landing 1 year before the war is over. :spam::
heh, maybe out of the allied powers, but you can't even begin comparing it to what the Germans did. June 6th 1944? i know perfectly well what happened. im not even going to bother trying to compare the efforts of the USSR, its people and its army to some fighting in africa, some bombing runs and a beach landing 1 year before the war is over. :spam::
How about the Battle of Britain? or Lend lease? If Hitler had won the BoB, and invaded the UK he would have been laughing. The US would never have gotten involved without the UK free, and without the US the USSR could have said goodbye to lend-lease. Hitler would have been free to devote the whole of the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe to Barbarossa, no need to keep planes/AA guns (some of which could be used for anti-tank purposes) back to stop British/American bombers, no need to keep divisions in France or send them to North Africa. If Britain had gone down you would see a German advance across either Turkey or Persia into the Cacausus oil fields which would utterly screw Russia.
Stop saying that WW2 was some kind of Russian victory with a little help from the British and Americans. That is as dishonest as it gets.
I agree with u 100% Will..... Russia would have fallen if ti wasnt for lend lease....also if UK did Fall US would have ended up backing the Germans since Germany was a favorite in USA :)
Bram Gotink
02-12-2009, 15:56
How about the Battle of Britain? or Lend lease? If Hitler had won the BoB, and invaded the UK he would have been laughing. The US would never have gotten involved without the UK free, and without the US the USSR could have said goodbye to lend-lease. Hitler would have been free to devote the whole of the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe to Barbarossa, no need to keep planes/AA guns (some of which could be used for anti-tank purposes) back to stop British/American bombers, no need to keep divisions in France or send them to North Africa. If Britain had gone down you would see a German advance across either Turkey or Persia into the Cacausus oil fields which would utterly screw Russia.
Stop saying that WW2 was some kind of Russian victory with a little help from the British and Americans. That is as dishonest as it gets.
I concur. If WW II was any kind of victory, it was an allied victory. And a bloody one as well.
I've seen the figures, and IIRC, far more Russian citizen died than Russian soldiers ... which I found odd.
More German citizens died than soldiers. Perhaps the bombing of Dresden etc. had anything to do with that?
To quote my prof. Philosophy: "In the 20th century, we lost some morals & values. In 1900, there was a clear difference between soldiers and citizens. During the 20th century, we somehow lost that difference so that now, citizens and soldiers are slaughtered alike."
No one should call this a true victory. Okay, the allied forces "won" the war, but I wouldn't actually call it a victory b/c of the very high price paid by humanity.
Divine Intervention
02-12-2009, 16:22
How about the Battle of Britain? or Lend lease? If Hitler had won the BoB, and invaded the UK he would have been laughing. The US would never have gotten involved without the UK free, and without the US the USSR could have said goodbye to lend-lease. Hitler would have been free to devote the whole of the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe to Barbarossa, no need to keep planes/AA guns (some of which could be used for anti-tank purposes) back to stop British/American bombers, no need to keep divisions in France or send them to North Africa. If Britain had gone down you would see a German advance across either Turkey or Persia into the Cacausus oil fields which would utterly screw Russia.
Stop saying that WW2 was some kind of Russian victory with a little help from the British and Americans. That is as dishonest as it gets.
Theres no chance that Hitler would have been able to invade the UK even if he had won the BoB. The only way i can see is some sort of massive German Airborne paratrooper attack. And BoB was over before the invasion of USSR began.
Acctually Hitler had a plan called Operation Sea LIon.... where he was gonna use Hybrid Tank transport to attack ENgland
Divine Intervention
02-12-2009, 16:42
for a succesful invasion to occur the British navy, airforce, coastal defences. submarine force and the mine fields all had to be destroyed. not to mention Nazi German didn't have the scale to facilite a mass invasion that would have been needed to complete their objective. i doubt the 120k or w/e max they could have transported through a combination of amphibious assaults and air landings would have been suffiicient (let alone possible considering what would have been needed to be done prior in order to achieve this).
for a succesful invasion to occur the British navy, airforce, coastal defences. submarine force and the mine fields all had to be destroyed. not to mention Nazi German didn't have the scale to facilite a mass invasion that would have been needed to complete their objective. i doubt the 120k or w/e max they could have transported through a combination of amphibious assaults and air landings would have been suffiicient (let alone possible considering what would have been needed to be done prior in order to achieve this).
No, all that would be needed was air superiority over the Channel and parts of southern England, plus an open sea corridor. At most, Germany would have been delayed for several months, perhaps a year before sufficient transport capacity could be built to establish a beachhead. Once a decent German force had landed, there is no way they would have been stopped on the ground. 500k troops would have been sufficient to defeat the British forces on home soil, since a lot of heavy equipment had been lost at dunkirk in 1940 meaning German tanks would be almost impossible to stop.
Divine Intervention
02-14-2009, 18:09
you are just using impossible scenarious to win your argument. let me try. yeah and whilst Hitler was busy sending 500k troops to conquer Britian, USSR would have created a 10million man army (with nukes being in development already) and steamrolled everything to Gibrlatar :rolleyes:
you are just using impossible scenarious to win your argument. let me try. yeah and whilst Hitler was busy sending 500k troops to conquer Britian, USSR would have created a 10million man army (with nukes being in development already) and steamrolled everything to Gibrlatar :rolleyes:
What is impossible about delaying Barbarossa for a year?
What is impossible about delaying Barbarossa for a year?
nothing...besides the fact that they would face a larger number of T34's and K1 tanks. Which they at that time didnt have anything against. Well except the 88's
nothing...besides the fact that they would face a larger number of T34's and K1 tanks. Which they at that time didnt have anything against. Well except the 88's
The Russians didn't have the capability to launch a long term offensive in 1942. It wasn't until lend lease got properly underway that the red army had the motorisation to pull it off. Besides, Stalin was afraid of Germany and wouldn't have attacked lightly.
The Russians didn't have the capability to launch a long term offensive in 1942. It wasn't until lend lease got properly underway that the red army had the motorisation to pull it off. Besides, Stalin was afraid of Germany and wouldn't have attacked lightly.
im not talking about invasion...the USSR wasnt ready to do anything like that...not in 1941 or in 1942.
Oh, well, in that case Hitler would have had ample time to build up, with the added benefit of captured British Industry/Workers.
Divine Intervention
02-16-2009, 16:14
you forgot, USSR managed to develop nucleur weapons in the meanwhile :rolleyes: you of all people should know that British people wouldn't have just calmly, cooly and entirely without incident just drop their pants and use the British industry to help the Nazi war machine...
you forgot, USSR managed to develop nucleur weapons in the meanwhile :rolleyes:
Of course, because Russia never does anything wrong, the Poles at Katyn were killed by the Germans, and Britain was secretly planning to shell leningrad from it's Finnish bases which is why the USSR had to invade there.:rolleyes:
Divine Intervention
02-16-2009, 16:51
Of course, because Russia never does anything wrong, the Poles at Katyn were killed by the Germans, and Britain was secretly planning to shell leningrad from it's Finnish bases which is why the USSR had to invade there.:rolleyes:
1) they were
2) the British maybe weren't but the Finns were offered a very very good exchange of land all along peninsula in exchange for moving the border next to Leningrad so that they wouldn't be able to shell our city from within their borders....for some strange reason they rejected....hmmm wonder why that unpopulated land was so precious to them...oh but of course the Soviet invasion was because of our imperialistic ambitions. which is why of course we didnt attack along our extremely big and from Finlands point of view - undefended border and instead attacked headlong into their most fortified positions :rolleyes:
anyway, stop getting off topic with youre hate mongering. i have proven my point about Georgia, so all you n00bs can get back to your little theories about WW3.
1) they were
2) the British maybe weren't but the Finns were offered a very very good exchange of land all along peninsula in exchange for moving the border next to Leningrad so that they wouldn't be able to shell our city from within their borders....for some strange reason they rejected....hmmm wonder why that unpopulated land was so precious to them...oh but of course the Soviet invasion was because of our imperialistic ambitions. which is why of course we didnt attack along our extremely big and from Finlands point of view - undefended border and instead attacked headlong into their most fortified positions :rolleyes:
anyway, stop getting off topic with youre hate mongering. i have proven my point about Georgia, so all you n00bs can get back to your little theories about WW3.
The Russian government admitted they did Katyn, so where does that leave you?
Finland was not going to shell Leningrad for no reason, the Winter War was naked aggression against a small harmless country. The only deal that woudl have been even remotely acceptable was the ceding of the whole Karelian Peninsula (including murmansk) in exchange for the Mannerheim Line.
Most likely the reason you didn't attack along the border was down to Voroshilov being in charge, who was incompetent.
Hitler would have had the nukes b4 the russians.....
Shabaz K
02-16-2009, 17:46
isn't this thread about the future big war yet we these wars showing up
Divine Intervention
02-16-2009, 18:17
The Russian government admitted they did Katyn, so where does that leave you?
Finland was not going to shell Leningrad for no reason, the Winter War was naked aggression against a small harmless country. The only deal that woudl have been even remotely acceptable was the ceding of the whole Karelian Peninsula (including murmansk) in exchange for the Mannerheim Line.
Most likely the reason you didn't attack along the border was down to Voroshilov being in charge, who was incompetent.
urrg. why do i have the urge to teach you.
the Russian government are traitors. through out history we have had leaders who have done more harm than good to our country.
no, the only deal remotely acceptable TO YOU would have been that. im suprised you didn't parts of Siberia to that or something :rolleyes:
no, because it wasn't a war of conquest.
anyway, if you want me to continue pwning you on this topic ill talk to you on MSN when i log on. im trying to keep my post count down you know. and if i keep it down we will see less useless **** spam from Hoebawt in his attempt to overtake me ;)
It wasnt spam.... Hilter would have had Nukes way b4 the russians.... Especially if the Brits never sank the ferry carrying the heavy water back to the development facility
Max Logan
02-17-2009, 02:38
you forgot, USSR managed to develop nucleur weapons in the meanwhile :rolleyes: you of all people should know that British people wouldn't have just calmly, cooly and entirely without incident just drop their pants and use the British industry to help the Nazi war machine...
I just read so far, but this made me laugh!
It`s common knowledge how USSR developed nuclear weapons in 8 days...they stole the info from USA, to be more precise 'bought' it of one of the Manhattan project scientist.
urrg. why do i have the urge to teach you.
the Russian government are traitors. through out history we have had leaders who have done more harm than good to our country.
no, the only deal remotely acceptable TO YOU would have been that. im suprised you didn't parts of Siberia to that or something :rolleyes:
no, because it wasn't a war of conquest.
anyway, if you want me to continue pwning you on this topic ill talk to you on MSN when i log on. im trying to keep my post count down you know. and if i keep it down we will see less useless **** spam from Hoebawt in his attempt to overtake me ;)
Actually I have to see you pwn them all first. The only 'proof' you present, if it can be called so, is Russian biased sites and youtube.com (most reliable). Which is quite hilarious actually as you claim to be unbiased and not affected by propoganda and claiming everyone else is.
Just find it funny...and sad really. Stalin would be disappointed...
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.