re: Former Deputy Commander of NATO: West and Russia on course for war

quote:

---

MrLarson

---

quote:

---

We can no longer afford to pay for people to sit at home and get paid so I say we will be in some BS war before long just to get rid of people under the guise of some patriotic horse shite.

---

Then I take it that you are okay with you and your family being a part of the "herd" that gets thinned right?

quote:

---

Then I take it that you are okay with you and your family being a part of the "herd" that gets thinned right?

---

Thin or be thinned

quote:

---

Then I take it that you are okay with you and your family being a part of the "herd" that gets thinned right?

---

Some probably will and No I'm not okay with it. I would prefer we as a country started minding our own damn business. But I am not in charge and neither are you. We are just a number to the ones that control us.

quote:

---

Those numbers means that the daily average loss for the Germans in the French campaign was roughly half an infantry division lost every day, about 2 complete Staffel (squadrons) of fighters lost every day, and about 2/3 a complete panzer company lost EVERY SINLGE DAY.

---

And the Germans suffered through that with an industrial under-mobilization.

quote:

---

The last REFORGER was in 93 and it only involved forces already in Europe. The last "real" REFORGER was in 92 and even it was small. The last big one was in early 90, which ironically enough I took part in. Anyway, I wonder what it would look like if we tried a REFORGER today? How long do you think it would take us to pull it off?

---

Our technological advancements can project force with lower numbers. Our light antitank missile technology is a gamechanger as well as the JSOW

quote:

---

Russia is not the enemy. Islam is the enemy.

---

Nah. Russia feels penned in. They are more dangerous. I don't see a reason why they would want to go into Paris or Germany, but I could easily see them annex eastern Ukraine and the Ukrainians could do nothing about it.

quote:

---

Right now they look at America and see a military ground down from two decade long wars and reeling from a morale standpoint due to progressive social engineering. The see an American army that's at its smallest since before WWII. They see a leader is is both clueless and spineless. And most importantly, they see that we don't have enough forces in Europe to do more than defend one single good sized city, much less blunt a full scale invasion.

---

quote:

---

That's higher losses than we took in the Battle of Bulge or any other battle for that matter.

---

Taking losses doesn't equate to effectiveness Darth. Respectfully, the French loss of the Battle of France is, arguably, the most disastrous war loss by a western power in history. Stunning both in their incompetence and overall results. I don't doubt the fighting spirit of the average French soldier during the conflict, but much like Alexander said - an army of lions, led by a sheep, is nothing to fear.

German intelligence analysis after the battle concluded that the operation could not have gone better if Gamelin had been a Gestapo infiltrator. Winston Churchill made a last ditch visit around the 11/12/13 of June timeframe (roughly the time the Prefecture met at Tours) and was unsatisfied with overall French situational awareness. He left in what was considered a snub to the French, after pressing them to fight on, but he privately expressed concerns about his safety with the French not knowing where their own or German troops were and seeming not to care.

So, on paper, the French had the finest standing army in the world in May 1940 and were defeated in 6 weeks. However costly they made the German victory, making it a costly defeat would have been far more effective and impressive.

If the truth be known - the French were utterly exhausted by war. They did not revel in it as a people, and were only slightly enthusiastic under Napoleon. So, between the Napoleonic Wars, Franco-Prussian, WWI and, at this point, the Battle of France - they had been through 4 extremely deadly and costly wars in just 130 years - essentially 1 per generation for that whole time. I understand they were tired and just rolled over, essentially.

But, let's not twist words and spin some kind of moral victory for them. If anything, the resistance should get credit, because they were really alone and operating under highly dangerous circumstances.

I mean, when you consider the relative strengths at the start of the conflict, the Polish Army fought harder than France did against the Wehrmacht.

quote:

---

But if Russia ever did start driving west,

---

This is the big if, and where I've disagreed with you in the past. I just don't see a reason for them to move into Central Europe.

quote:

---

Taking losses doesn't equate to effectiveness Darth. Respectfully, the French loss of the Battle of France is, arguably, the most disastrous war loss by a western power in history. Stunning both in their incompetence and overall results. I don't doubt the fighting spirit of the average French soldier during the conflict, but much like Alexander said - an army of lions, led by a sheep, is nothing to fear. German intelligence analysis after the battle concluded that the operation could not have gone better if Gamelin had been a Gestapo infiltrator. Winston Churchill made a last ditch visit around the 11/12/13 of June timeframe (roughly the time the Prefecture met at Tours) and was unsatisfied with overall French situational awareness. He left in what was considered a snub to the French, after pressing them to fight on, but he privately expressed concerns about his safety with the French not knowing where their own or German troops were and seeming not to care. So, on paper, the French had the finest standing army in the world in May 1940 and were defeated in 6 weeks. However costly they made the German victory, making it a costly defeat would have been far more effective and impressive. If the truth be known - the French were utterly exhausted by war. They did not revel in it as a people, and were only slightly enthusiastic under Napoleon. So, between the Napoleonic Wars, Franco-Prussian, WWI and, at this point, the Battle of France - they had been through 4 extremely deadly and costly wars in just 130 years - essentially 1 per generation for that whole time. I understand they were tired and just rolled over, essentially. But, let's not twist words and spin some kind of moral victory for them. If anything, the resistance should get credit, because they were really alone and operating under highly dangerous circumstances. I mean, when you consider the relative strengths at the start of the conflict, the Polish Army fought harder than France did against the Wehrmacht.

---

I agree 100% with your assessment. I was only pointing out that France did not just roll over and surrender without a fight in 1940 as many here believe.

The fact they still lost in spectacular fashion is not in debate, at least not from me.