Argonath RPG - A World of its own
Argonath RPG Community => Speakerbox => World and local news => Topic started by: KhornateMonkey on May 13, 2012, 03:58:54 pm
-
Two British servicemen have been shot dead in southern Afghanistan by members of the Afghan national police force, the Ministry of Defence has said.
One was a soldier from 1st Battalion Welsh Guards and the other an airman from the Royal Air Force. The MoD said the two had been providing security near a base in the Lashkar Gah district of Helmand province. Their next of kin have been informed. The number of UK military deaths in Afghanistan since 2001 is now 414.
The men, who were serving as part of an advisory team, were killed on Saturday as they provided security for a meeting with local officials near Patrol Base Attal. Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said he believed one of the gunmen was then killed by his Afghan police colleagues, while a second escaped.
[Read more (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18047242)]
-
Arnt the police supposed to be helping the British military? :poke:
-
Arnt the police supposed to be helping the British military? :poke:
You can join the police force if you have a clear background, and guess what: A lot of terrorists are completely clean.
-
You can join the police force if you have a clear background, and guess what: A lot of terrorists are completely clean.
And thats why Britain should just pull out and leave the country screw itself over.
Innocent British soldiers are dying due to the countries government letting every dick join their armed forces.
-
And thats why Britain should just pull out and leave the country screw itself over.
It's an illegal war started by Bush anyway so I really don't know what's holding them up there. The answer would probably be profit that western goverments including yours are making out of it.
Innocent British soldiers are dying due to the countries government letting every dick join their armed forces.
My condolences to their families. In a war there will be casualties, and with what we know about Afghanistan and the corruption there including the terrorrism it was a matter of time for this to happen again (It's the 16th time it happens by the way)
-
It's an illegal war started by Bush anyway so I really don't know what's holding them up there. The answer would probably be profit that western goverments including yours are making out of it.
My condolences to their families. In a war there will be casualties, and with what we know about Afghanistan and the corruption there including the terrorrism it was a matter of time for this to happen again (It's the 16th time it happens by the way)
The 16th time corrupt cops kill military troops? :wow:
-
He told BBC One's Andrew Marr show so-called green-on-blue attacks - in which members of the Afghan security forces attack international allies - were rare, and the motivation for the latest incident remained unclear
There have been 22 "green-on-blue" deaths - mostly Americans - so far this year, compared with 35 for the whole of 2011.
A dozen British service personnel have been killed in such attacks since 2009.
Afghan intelligence officials have told the BBC the Taliban want to create a climate of mistrust where Afghan and Nato soldiers cannot work together.
The BBC's Bilal Sarwary said a senior Afghan official in Kabul said the issue of rogue soldiers and Taliban infiltration was an even bigger threat than suicide attacks and Taliban attacks.
He said it was a Taliban "strategy, not a tactic" applied by insurgent groups across Afghanistan, which had officials worried despite their insistence that fresh security measures were in place.
Around 130,000 coalition troops are fighting alongside 350,000 Afghan security personnel against the Taliban-led insurgency.
International combat troops have begun their withdrawal and are due to pull out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014.
Key to that timetable is the training and mentoring of Afghan forces so they can take control of the security of their country themselves.
Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy told Sky News more needs to be done to protect British troops who remain in Afghanistan.
He said: "If these killers, who carried out this attack, weren't even members of the armed forces then it raises another question which is that in 2015 - when Britain is only doing a training role in Afghanistan and our combat troops have been fully withdrawn - who's going to look after the British trainees."
Source is BBC News related article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18047242)
-
Maybe they should remove the guns from their police officers to it cannot happen.
-
Maybe they should remove the guns from their police officers to it cannot happen.
A grand idea, let's take away guns from law enforcement officers in a warzone, so only the enemy has firearms. Good job.
Our troops are beginning to pull out, and they're training up local militias to carry on their duties. Making those militias unarmed would result in their quick deaths right after the coalition pulls out.
-
Considering that there are no reasonable gun laws in Afghanistan and even a kid can, literally have an RPG it would be a bad idea to leave them unarmed for the time being.
-
Considering that there are no reasonable gun laws in Afghanistan and even a kid can, literally have an RPG it would be a bad idea to leave them unarmed for the time being.
Wasnt really aware of that, maybe their government should try to be more like another country such as the UK when it comes to law.
-
Wasnt really aware of that, maybe their government should try to be more like another country such as the UK when it comes to law.
Oh the world would definitely be a better place if everyone had a similar goverment to western europe. But sadly, it can't be.
-
How on earth can they not have killed the Taliban after a decade of coalition forces combing Afghanistan all over?
Politicians.
-
How on earth can they not have killed the Taliban after a decade of coalition forces combing Afghanistan all over?
Politicians.
Caves, and lots of them.
-
Caves, and lots of them.
Caves didn't help Saddam.. :razz:
This.
How on earth can they not have killed the Taliban after a decade of coalition forces combing Afghanistan all over?
Politicians.
-
I highly doubt one of the most advanced militaries in the world lacks the capability to exterminate a target inside a cave.
Of course, a powerful gun run by idiots (politicians) only has the same value as the idiots themselves.
-
If I were in-charge, I'de just nuke the whole continent after pulling out all my troops, gets rid of the problem as 1 whole, although I guess you'd be killing milltions of innocent lives in the process. :razz:
-
If I were in-charge, I'de just nuke the whole continent after pulling out all my troops, gets rid of the problem as 1 whole, although I guess you'd be killing milltions of innocent lives in the process. :razz:
This is my view also. The only downside I can see is the potential fallout from using that kind of weaponry, and the fact that it would take awhile before we could move in to repopulate the land. Also the liberals would get really, really butthurt about it and that's just annoying.
-
Wasnt really aware of that, maybe their government should try to be more like another country such as the UK when it comes to law.
The UK is an awful example, due to the government heavily propagating a "nanny state".
Caves didn't help Saddam.. :razz:
We're talking about Afghanistan, not Iraq. They're in completely different regions.
If I were in-charge, I'de just nuke the whole continent after pulling out all my troops, gets rid of the problem as 1 whole, although I guess you'd be killing milltions of innocent lives in the process. :razz:
You would nuke Eurasia, killing yourself in the process?
This is my view also. The only downside I can see is the potential fallout from using that kind of weaponry, and the fact that it would take awhile before we could move in to repopulate the land. Also the liberals would get really, really butthurt about it and that's just annoying.
People like you should be dragged into the middle of nowhere and shot. A fat, self-entitled atheist Brit is a far bigger burden on the world than an afghan farmer.
-
that is the least of the worries.
Almost everyone in afghanistan hates the presense of international troops, i personally am surprised incidents like these are still rare..
-
If I were in-charge, I'de just nuke the whole continent after pulling out all my troops, gets rid of the problem as 1 whole, although I guess you'd be killing milltions of innocent lives in the process. :razz:
You'd first need to worry about not being a puppet of USA before thinking about starting your own wars.
Sorry but the 19th century is long gone, and gone is the time when British were big shots of anything in geopolitics.
-
People like you should be dragged into the middle of nowhere and shot. A fat, self-entitled atheist Brit is a far bigger burden on the world than an afghan farmer.
You seem upset. :)
-
You'd first need to worry about not being a puppet of USA before thinking about starting your own wars.
Sorry but the 19th century is long gone, and gone is the time when British were big shots of anything in geopolitics.
Sorry JayL I know your still pissed about the Falklands and I'm not trying to offend you or anything before you go forum banning or muting me again, but if the UK still werent as powerful, why have we not been successfully invaded since 1797 in which case, the French that did it were quickly completely owned and made to surrender, why have we not lost the Falklands to you Argentinians and why did you all lose the battle for them, why do British soldiers train many of Americas and Iraqs soldiers, if the UK werent as civilised as it is today, you could bet your ass the British Empire could easily return.
I don't get your personal grudge with the British, I know the British Empire was once the worlds strongest and most unbeatable, until they got beaten of course, but that doesn't change the fact that the British Empire ruled the world for 300 years, and yes, I'm a big fan of their work. ;)
People like you should be dragged into the middle of nowhere and shot. A fat, self-entitled atheist Brit is a far bigger burden on the world than an afghan farmer.
Actually, yes the UK government has it's flaws, but atleast it's in a civilised control of it's country and people, unlike some governments around the world, Iraq as an example, some people are highly jealous of the way the British people used to be, and are today, and who are you to call him fat? :roll:
Please enjoy this educational video which shows how 'un-powerful' the british are.
The British Are Coming - British Military Power [2012] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hnk8XlBnSF8#)
-
This is my view also. The only downside I can see is the potential fallout from using that kind of weaponry, and the fact that it would take awhile before we could move in to repopulate the land. Also the liberals would get really, really butthurt about it and that's just annoying.
panda man i like you and all but that's just wrong man
And Mikal, look for a second at Jay's flag - he's Brazilian. And he's also half-right: the British Empire is long gone.
and panda's also a bit overweight
-
panda man i like you and all but that's just wrong man
And Mikal, look for a second at Jay's flag - he's Brazilian. And he's also half-right: the British Empire is long gone.
and panda's also a bit overweight
these things are all true
-
Actually, yes the UK government has it's flaws, but atleast it's in a civilised control of it's country and people, unlike some governments around the world, Iraq as an example, some people are highly jealous of the way the British people used to be, and are today, and who are you to call him fat? :roll:
There's a big difference between the British army and British civilians.
-
There's a big difference between the British army and British civilians.
They are all British. ;)
-
They are all British. ;)
Yes, that's certainly not one of the differences Oliver was trying to point out.
-
Sorry JayL I know your still pissed about the Falklands
I am not from Argentina. Your argument is invalid.
Perhaps you should start using your eyes and check the country flag in my profile.
And actually good reminder - if I catch you again with attitude it will be a month ban...
-
I am not from Argentina. Your argument is invalid.
Perhaps you should start using your eyes and check the country flag in my profile.
And actually good reminder - if I catch you again with attitude it will be a month ban...
I dealt with the last ban, no I'm not trying to get another one, but I believe my last one was invalid anyway.
Free un-offensive speech is not against forum rules.
-
mikaln ure countrie is like ncs from the minecraf, i owned it . :_____) ;) :alert"
-
mikaln ure countrie is like ncs from the minecraf, i owned it . :_____) ;) :alert"
Your probibly a British descendant yourself so, if anything the UK owned you..
And NCS is pretty much non exsistant now, just like AK.
-
Your probibly a British descendant yourself so, if anything the UK owned you..
And NCS is pretty much non exsistant now, just like AK.
exinscuse me ??? is my f**king hq f**king broken now ,,, no I am thinking maybe that is NCS hq u are thinking about . Also I am not ******** britany
-
Sorry JayL I know your still pissed about the Falklands and I'm not trying to offend you or anything before you go forum banning or muting me again, but if the UK still werent as powerful, why have we not been successfully invaded since 1797 in which case, the French that did it were quickly completely owned and made to surrender, why have we not lost the Falklands to you Argentinians and why did you all lose the battle for them, why do British soldiers train many of Americas and Iraqs soldiers, if the UK werent as civilised as it is today, you could bet your ass the British Empire could easily return.
1. Because you are an island with little value except as strategic defense.
2. Becuase there has not been war in your area the last 70 years.
3. Because you have licked the ass of the USA enough to get their support foe keeping some dots on a map.
-
1. Because you are an island with little value except as strategic defense.
The UK isn't an island. :gand:
Great Britain is the island (Scotland, Wales, England)
North Ireland + Scotland, Wales, England is the United Kingdom.
Then we have the BOT's (British Overseas Territories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_overseas_territories)) and the British Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Islands) and don't forget that we are the head of The Commonwealth Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations)
2. Becuase there has not been war in your area the last 70 years.
There has been war. Such as The Troubles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles).
3. Because you have licked the ass of the USA enough to get their support foe keeping some dots on a map.
:eek: :trust:
-
3. Because you have licked the ass of the USA enough to get their support foe keeping some dots on a map.
:drunk:
Your wrong there, the British/Americans have an agreement with 3 other English based countries (Australia, Canada and New Zealand) which started when all these countries started sharing intelligence on the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and several eastern European countries, and I guess the relations have gone alot further since then, with the UK assisting America in Iraq and such.
The UK isn't an island. :gand:
Great Britain is the island (Scotland, Wales, England)
North Ireland + Scotland, Wales, England is the United Kingdom.
Then we have the BOT's (British Overseas Territories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_overseas_territories)) and the British Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Islands) and don't forget that we are the head of The Commonwealth Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations)
There has been war. Such as The Troubles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles).
:eek: :trust:
Someones been doing their homework. :razz:
-
Don't forget the part where America saved your asses in WWII. :D
-
The UK isn't an island. :gand:
Great Britain is the island (Scotland, Wales, England)
North Ireland + Scotland, Wales, England is the United Kingdom.
Then we have the BOT's (British Overseas Territories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_overseas_territories)) and the British Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Islands) and don't forget that we are the head of The Commonwealth Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations)
There has been war. Such as The Troubles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles).
:eek: :trust:
Ok so you are a bunch of islands. Big deal.
And The Troubles was not a war. Little more than an armed protest.
-
:drunk:
Your wrong there, the British/Americans have an agreement with 3 other English based countries (Australia, Canada and New Zealand) which started when all these countries started sharing intelligence on the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and several eastern European countries, and I guess the relations have gone alot further since then, with the UK assisting America in Iraq and such.
Someones been doing their homework. :razz:
I told you you have been asslicking to America.
-
Ok so you are a bunch of islands. Big deal.
And The Troubles was not a war. Little more than an armed protest.
Armed Protesting is basicly war..
I told you you have been asslicking to America.
Even if that were true, atleast America support/work with the British & vice versa. :roll:
And OMG, you can double post!
-
There has been war. Such as The Troubles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles).
Yes, because the Irish had the clear intention of invading Great Britain.
Don't forget the part where America saved your asses in WWII. :D
It was Hitler's incompetence that lost the war, not the American troops. They did more harm than good with their lack of discipline and the American tradition of shooting at allies. The Brits would've won without the help of the yanks.
Armed Protesting is basicly war..
Even if that were true, atleast America support/work with the British & vice versa. :roll:
It's a one-sided relationship, mate. The Americans wouldn't help you like you've helped them.
-
And The Troubles was not a war. Little more than an armed protest.
To many it was a war.
Yes, because the Irish had the clear intention of invading Great Britain.
I never said anything about Invading Great Britain.
-
I never said anything about Invading Great Britain.
Well Gandalf's point was that Britain hasn't been in a war where they suffered from a potential invasion since world war two.
-
Well Gandalf's point was that Britain hasn't been in a war where they suffered from a potential invasion since world war two.
Good point, I see that now, misread it at first.
-
It's a one-sided relationship, mate. The Americans wouldn't help you like you've helped them.
They are obligated to in certain circumstances with the treaty that both sides signed during the cold war, I doubt America wants to be seen as the country that pussys out when the country thats helping them defeat the Taliban asks for support.
Don't forget the part where America saved your asses in WWII. :D
Not saying this just because I'm British and I want to defend my countrys name, but thats just wrong, the UK would have finished the job without any outside support, the UK may be a small country but it's defences are more than capable of keeping the enemy out.
-
I doubt America wants to be seen as the country that pussys out when the country thats helping them defeat the Taliban asks for support.
They have a very powerful propaganda machine. They would disregard that treaty and make you seem like the bad guys.
-
Not saying this just because I'm British and I want to defend my countrys name, but thats just wrong, the UK would have finished the job without any outside support, the UK may be a small country but it's defences are more than capable of keeping the enemy out.
nigga plz, If it wasn't for Russia and America, we wouldn't be so well off.
-
They have a very powerful propaganda machine. They would disregard that treaty and make you seem like the bad guys.
yeah this
-
nigga plz, If it wasn't for Russia and America, we wouldn't be so well off.
If the two countries you mentioned did not join the Allied cause in WWII, then we'd probably be seeing Hitler as our Great Founder or something similar today.
-
If Russia did not join the Allied cause in WWII, then we'd probably be seeing Hitler as our Great Founder or something similar today.
Fixed
-
Fixed
That works too.
Everyone knows the Brits were pretty much worn out by the time the Yanks and Russians joined in to finish Hitler, and I pretty much doubt Great Britain could take down the Axis Powers without assistance. Even in defense alone, people in the capital itself were in bomb shelters.
-
Yeah but similarly if Hitler wasn't around, we'd hail Stalin as our great founder
-
Stalin was worse than Hitler, so that would've been pretty bad.
Also, the Russians didn't as much "join in" as "fight back" through the masses of their country that they'd given up to the German advances.
If Hitler hadn't attacked Russia like an idiot then he probably would've won the war, USA or not.
Even in defense alone, people in the capital itself were in bomb shelters.
You state this as if it means anything. If I remember correctly, Dresden was basically annihilated by allied air forces, and bombing raids on German cities were as regular as German raids on us. Winning the Battle of Britain awarded us air superiority which halted any British invasion plans that Hitler may have had.
-
Stalin was worse than Hitler
:rofl:
-
If Hitler hadn't attacked Russia like an idiot then he probably would've won the war, USA or not.
If he hadn't taken control of his army instead of letting his generals do their jobs like a complete idiot, Germany would've crushed Russia.
Guderian had a clear shot at taking Moscow and instead he was forced to turn south towards Kiev and was later relinquished from his command due to complaining about it.
:rofl:
Yes, he was. The only way he was "better" was that he killed people without looking at their race or religious beliefs.
-
They have a very powerful propaganda machine. They would disregard that treaty and make you seem like the bad guys.
Oh please, the UK could do the same back to them if they even tried to do that.
nigga plz, If it wasn't for Russia and America, we wouldn't be so well off.
Why not? The UK had already done enough before America and Russia got involved and Britain was still operating like they were at the beginning.
-
Oh please, the UK could do the same back to them if they even tried to do that.
No you can't
Why not? The UK had already done enough before America and Russia got involved and Britain was still operating like they were at the beginning.
No you weren't
-
Yeah but similarly if Hitler wasn't around, we'd hail Stalin as our great founder
Stalin and Russia would never attack a country without being attacked first.
Even the part of Poland that was taken was disputed as Russian territory before the war.
As for Hitler almost taking Moscow, the Mongols took Moscow, Napoleon took Moscow. But nobody ever defeated Russia.
-
No you can't
No you weren't
Of course I can't. :D
Do I look like I work for the government?
Stalin and Russia would never attack a country without being attacked first.
Even the part of Poland that was taken was disputed as Russian territory before the war.
As for Hitler almost taking Moscow, the Mongols took Moscow, Napoleon took Moscow. But nobody ever defeated Russia.
I doubt anyone ever could defeat Russia, they are so quiet and controlled and their military is just. :wow:
-
Oh please, the UK could do the same back to them if they even tried to do that.Why not? The UK had already done enough before America and Russia got involved and Britain was still operating like they were at the beginning.
The importance of the UK was that they did not give up. Because of that, Hitler had to fight at two fronts.
If the UK would have given up the fight, Hitler and Stalin would have divided Europe between them.
-
Hitler and Stalin would have divided Europe between them.
That's pretty much what Stalin and the Allies did afterwards, when Hitler was gone.
Stalin and Russia would never attack a country without being attacked first.
Even the part of Poland that was taken was disputed as Russian territory before the war.
As for Hitler almost taking Moscow, the Mongols took Moscow, Napoleon took Moscow. But nobody ever defeated Russia.
Russia's most important allie has always been the winter and cold, especially when Napoleon invaded.
-
Russia's most important allie has always been the winter and cold, especially when Napoleon invaded.
One does not simply challenge the Russian weather without being a Russian, do they now?
Had the United Kingdom given up or had the United States not entered the war, it will be a whole different story. Depending on which side of Europe you live in, you would be revering Hitler and Stalin as your Great Leader / Great Ally, and all the gulags and "cleansings" would be "hearsay stories told by some old folk".
-
you would be revering Hitler and Stalin as your Great Leader / Great Ally
That's where you're wrong. Hitler and Stalin could never have been allies and the attack on Russia was inevitable. You can't have a bunch of ideological enemies running a global superpower, now can you?
Not to mention that half of Europe already worshipped Stalin as "great leader" until the collapse of the USSR.
-
That's where you're wrong. Hitler and Stalin could never have been allies and the attack on Russia was inevitable. You can't have a bunch of ideological enemies running a global superpower, now can you?
Weren't they pretty much allies until Hitler turned against Stalin?
-
That's where you're wrong. Hitler and Stalin could never have been allies
They were in a form of ally when they annexed Poland and split it into half though.
-
Weren't they pretty much allies until Hitler turned against Stalin?
Hitler only allied himself with Stalin so he didn't have to fight a war on two fronts, which is why the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact was signed. Hitler had every intention of invading Soviet Russia after he had dealt with Britain and France.
He spoke about the war between ideals (Fascism/Communism) and races (Germanic/Slavic) in Mein Kampf. To him, war between Germany and Russia was inevitable.
-
There's a difference between an ally and someone you have a non-aggression pact with. Germany and Russia have never been allies.
-
Stalin and Russia would never attack a country without being attacked first.
Your argument is invalid. I wish to see how you're going to argument the fact that Soviets invaded Lithuanians with no actual reason.
:rofl:
Dont see the point of your laugh. Stalin WAS worse than Hitler. My country was invaded by the Soviets for over 50 years. It's the result of the current national downfall.
My grandma lived back then. She still tells me stories about her exhile to Syberia.
A little example my grandma gave me :
A german soldier - a cleaned, washed, shiny uniform with even more shiny boots, knocking on the door, coming and gently asking for water.
Soviet soldier - Kicking the door of the house, yelling on my grandma, asking for "Vodka", when my grandma says she aint got any, they beat her, steal her goat and leave.
I believe there is a reason why Lithuanian armed resistance was a lot stronger on Soviets than on Germans.
-
There's a difference between an ally and someone you have a non-aggression pact with. Germany and Russia have never been allies.
Yes however the Ribendolf - Molotov pact was a form of a temporary alliance for a specific purpose..and Soviet with Nazi soldiers parading and getting drunk surely sounds friendly.
-
There's a difference between an ally and someone you have a non-aggression pact with. Germany and Russia have never been allies.
I knew I should of went with a different word, lol. I didn't mean ally as in parading about, best of pals. Hitler only kept good relations with Stalin with the intention of one day invading Russia after he'd dealt with the Western Front.
But yeah whatever.
-
A german soldier - a cleaned, washed, shiny uniform with even more shiny boots, knocking on the door, coming and gently asking for water.
Soviet soldier - Kicking the door of the house, yelling on my grandma, asking for "Vodka", when my grandma says she aint got any, they beat her, steal her goat and leave.
Such bullshit thinking is what made Baltics go through what they went.
Stalin did not make you pay back fully what you owed after sucking up to the Nazis.
-
Such bullshit thinking is what made Baltics go through what they went.
Stalin did not make you pay back fully after sucking up to the Nazis.
We never sucked up to the Nazis.
We all been on the Nazi control ,as all countries controled by Nazi regime. Let me remind you Lithuania was the only country in baltics that refused to form an Waffen SS division.
P.S , this is no bullshit, this is the real life happenings that my grandma told me she had to went through.
The only thing anyone owes anything is Russia owes us our gold that you stolen when you occupied us.
-
We never sucked up to the Nazis.
You just did a few posts above. :|
-
Hitler did no crimes to my the people of my nation , but Stalin did.
As an overall, none , Hitler or Stalin were good.
They were both same evil. But as you know, history is being written by the victors, and Stalin did win the war.
What is irritating me is that people look at Stalin as the saviour, when he did even double the crimes Hitler did.
BTW JayL, i hate your avatar :mad:
-
Such bullshit thinking is what made Baltics go through what they went.
Stalin did not make you pay back fully what you owed after sucking up to the Nazis.
The Russians occupied us first, before the Germans invaded them. In one short year, we forgot all about our hatred towards the Germans and hailed them as saviours when they "liberated" us from the Soviet occupation because the living conditions were truly and utterly shit. We were way better off with Germany during wartime than we ever were with the USSR.
So please feel free to f**k off and shut up the next time you have anything to say about the illegal Soviet occupation in the Baltics.
P.S. Don't get me wrong, I am in no way condoning the actions of the Nazis. I'm just saying that we suffered far less with the Germans than with the Russians.
Think: Hitler saw the Slavic people (that means you & your granny too) as the "untermenschen".
Lithuanians are Baltic, and as such are not Slavic. The Germans, instead of counting the Balts among the "undermenschen", saw them as a subject race with the potential of "Germanizing". That's why some of us, those with enough "Aryan" features, were taken into the Waffen-SS.
-
Tell me, are you rather a slave, together with your whole family, or have you rather, as your granny describes, have a soldier bust your door open asking for vodka. Study some history before telling shit you don't even know of.
We (At least us, in Estonia and Latvia, don't know so much about Lithuania) had been ruled over by the Germans for 700 years. While they certainly didn't grant us any rights, they didn't hassle us more than the Russians. They still let us speak our language, and wear our clothing, while the Russians were constantly trying to "Russify" us.
You might argue that we were under the Russian Empire from 1710-1918, but the everyday affairs over here were still conducted by the Baltic Germans.
-
but the everyday affairs over here were still conducted by the Baltic Germans.
Then what was so shitty about Russian Empire???
-
Oh the world would definitely be a better place if everyone had a similar goverment to western europe. But sadly, it can't be.
You mean such as in Holland and Greece? Not willing to make laws that actually are for the better for the country, afraid to lose voters?
Countries are suffering and just because they want their parties to be the biggest, and they're not making any decisions unless it gains them voters.
-
Then what was so shitty about Russian Empire???
I haven't said anything about the Russian Empire. We're talking about the Soviet Union.
-
This is my view also. The only downside I can see is the potential fallout from using that kind of weaponry, and the fact that it would take awhile before we could move in to repopulate the land. Also the liberals would get really, really butthurt about it and that's just annoying.
There's some drugdealers on the corner just by your house... Hmm.. Let's nuke it. Sure, you'd kill a bunch of innocents but at least you've gotten rid of the pest. And well, you can repopulate after a while anyway so no-one's going to cry over it except for some idiot liberal politicians. Right?
-
It would still be in the Middle Ages.
Like Finland. Right? I also recall the small matter of our War of Independence where we, with a little aid from the Brits and some Scandinavians, gave your bolshevik armies quite a good thrashing.
(Estonia and the others rather entered the Soviet union basically)
Because it was either "join us or die". You had military bases in our countries and you were able to build them because of the aforementioned "let us or die" policy Stalin was so keen on using.
Besides that, if you (what would happen 100% if the Soviet armies weren't there) got occupied by the Nazi forces, claiming they would try to 'Germanize' the locals, is bullshit over the limit.
My grandfather served in the SS. I don't think they would've let "untermenschen" join it.
They didn't do it to Poland, and other occupied lands in the East
Because they were slavs.
they firstly en-prisoned all the Jews, and then do the same to the local civilization
They never imprisoned any Estonian, Latvian or Lithuanian due to their race. They only took the jews, gypsies and slavs.
That was Hitler's vision, to create an environment strictly for the German master race as he claimed.
Along with the subjugated people who weren't deemed scum, for example the French, the English and us.
so it's hard to hate something that did less harm to you than something that did more and I understand that. But just know that if you would be occupied by the Nazi for AS LONG AS the SU 'did'
As I've said countless times, we passionately hated the Germans for having enslaved us for the past 700 years, and ONE BLOODY YEAR IN THE USSR CHANGED IT.
In your past post, you described that the Nazi tried to Germanify Estonia. Isn't that exactly the same? The only difference is that the Russians ruled longer over the Baltics than the Germans did.
If you had to choose, would you rather be seen as German or Russian? The choice is quite obvious.
If at all possible, we would've of course resisted it, like we did with the USSR.
Also note that nowadays, whole Eastern Europe relies on Russia, including Estonia. Remember the Ukranian oil scandal about a year or two ago?
A big chunk of the world "relies" on Russia. Should they actually "close the pipes" then we'd find something else.
ANYWAYS, this thread has been massively derailed. I'm dropping out.
-
Lithuanians are Baltic, and as such are not Slavic. The Germans, instead of counting the Balts among the "undermenschen", saw them as a subject race with the potential of "Germanizing". That's why some of us, those with enough "Aryan" features, were taken into the Waffen-SS.
Nazi go home.
-
Why did the allies work with the SU and not with Hitler?
Because Hitler made the initial aggressive move against the allied countries, and as the saying goes: "the enemy of my enemy is my ally".
-
Stalin did not create the USSR, Lenin did and he did not use that policy.
We beat Lenin. This is about Stalin.
was your grandfather forced to join, or was he just hoping to achieve something more with the Nazi than he could with the SU?
A lot of Estonians enlisted in the 20th SS division and the Wehrmacht to kill Russians and show the world they still had fight in them. While we had no interest in condoning any of the actions that the Nazi party took while in power, a lot of us jumped at the chance to impale a Russian on their bayonet.
For 1 year of an invasion. What would happen after, for example, 10 years of occupation by the 3rd reich? The Baltics would be completely wiped out with everyone and everything in it what is not German.
I see you still think of yourselves as "liberators". No matter what the Germans would have done, the Soviets did it worse.
But do you think that the Nazi were seen any different?
They were at war with the Allies.
Why did the allies work with the SU and not with Hitler?
The principle of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
So would you like to be seen as a Nazi collaborator, which is generally seen as cowardly betrayal, or a 'Communist'
A Nazi collaborator any day of the week, although I would choose death over killing innocent people.
Our people who worked with the commies were also branded as "collaborators", so your point is moot. The exact same cowardly betrayal.
a member of a society who gave you food, gas, civilization, structure in socety and protection? No.
You gave us absolutely nothing that we didn't have before.
food - We grow our own food. Have you ever heard of bread, fruit and animals? Oh right, you believe that without your kolhozes we would've starved.
gas - We could have imported it from the west.
civilization - Apparently you consider killing culture people "giving people civilization". Because of you, a lot of our writers, poets and otherwise people who were well off fled the country. Culture-wise, the Soviet Union gave us jack shit and halted most of our cultural progress until the late 1980s.
structure in society - Whoopee, you killed off/deported our own politicians and replaced them with puppets of Moscow. Not to mention deporting thousands of others who you found too "competent" to survive in a communist society.
It's quite dreadful to see that people from Russia like still exist who still think that without their shitty Union, where nothing worked like it was supposed to, everyone in Eastern Europe would've died due to not knowing how to eat or sleep.
Apparently the 20 years during which we were independent led to our complete ruin and when the Soviets marched in, they were greeted by men resembling primates.
-
What the hell happened to this topic? It's like a train derailed and crashed into a nuclear power plant.
-
Your argument is invalid. I wish to see how you're going to argument the fact that Soviets invaded Lithuanians with no actual reason.
Dont see the point of your laugh. Stalin WAS worse than Hitler. My country was invaded by the Soviets for over 50 years. It's the result of the current national downfall.
My grandma lived back then. She still tells me stories about her exhile to Syberia.
A little example my grandma gave me :
A german soldier - a cleaned, washed, shiny uniform with even more shiny boots, knocking on the door, coming and gently asking for water.
Soviet soldier - Kicking the door of the house, yelling on my grandma, asking for "Vodka", when my grandma says she aint got any, they beat her, steal her goat and leave.
I believe there is a reason why Lithuanian armed resistance was a lot stronger on Soviets than on Germans.
So because your country was invaded by the Soviets, Stalin is worse?
Stalin was a saint compared to Hitler.
-
What the hell happened to this topic? It's like a train derailed and crashed into a nuclear power plant.
The topic title gives a hint
On topic: Both hitler and stalin are dead, stop acting like immature kids and grow up. Neither of them or their armies would of given a shit what you say on this board if they were alive, your really defending people who dont care if you live or die...
Seriously you get branded so easily, stop fighting eachother over who was better, neither of them gives a shit if we are any good.
-
We beat Lenin. This is about Stalin.
A lot of Estonians enlisted in the 20th SS division and the Wehrmacht to kill Russians and show the world they still had fight in them. While we had no interest in condoning any of the actions that the Nazi party took while in power, a lot of us jumped at the chance to impale a Russian on their bayonet.
I see you still think of yourselves as "liberators". No matter what the Germans would have done, the Soviets did it worse.
They were at war with the Allies.
The principle of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
A Nazi collaborator any day of the week, although I would choose death over killing innocent people.
Our people who worked with the commies were also branded as "collaborators", so your point is moot. The exact same cowardly betrayal.
You gave us absolutely nothing that we didn't have before.
food - We grow our own food. Have you ever heard of bread, fruit and animals? Oh right, you believe that without your kolhozes we would've starved.
gas - We could have imported it from the west.
civilization - Apparently you consider killing culture people "giving people civilization". Because of you, a lot of our writers, poets and otherwise people who were well off fled the country. Culture-wise, the Soviet Union gave us jack shit and halted most of our cultural progress until the late 1980s.
structure in society - Whoopee, you killed off/deported our own politicians and replaced them with puppets of Moscow. Not to mention deporting thousands of others who you found too "competent" to survive in a communist society.
It's quite dreadful to see that people from Russia like still exist who still think that without their shitty Union, where nothing worked like it was supposed to, everyone in Eastern Europe would've died due to not knowing how to eat or sleep.
Apparently the 20 years during which we were independent led to our complete ruin and when the Soviets marched in, they were greeted by men resembling primates.
That is why you still hold Nazi marches,. support Nazi thoughts and act like Nazis.
Estonians are still fascists, who now attempt to make their own population pay because they were beaten and Stalin attempted to free the country of Nazism by removing all war criminals.
Russia gave you free education, free health care and free gas. Russians provided you with income from tourism. You repaid them by being fascists.
On the first possible moment, you claimed independence, and also on the fisrt possible moment you gave your independence away to the EU, knowing that on its own your country would never stand a chance of survival.
-
Russia gave you free education
In Russian. My parents were forbidden to speak Estonian in school (though the law wasn't strict) and they had to revere Lenin as the "Greatest revolutionary".
free health care
To the "upper class" of the Communist society, yes. Neither of my parents were given any benefits whatsoever. My father's friend was sent to clean up Chernobyl after the accident and his health is still completely f**ked up, it's a wonder he's not dead or sterile.
My father himself was sent to Siberia for two years to build a missile launch facility for the USSR government.
Russians provided you with income from tourism.
We're getting plenty of tourists these days as well. Have you ever been to Tallinn in the summer? It's quite difficult to find any Estonians on the street.
You repaid them by being fascists.
A desperate move with the hopes of preserving our independence. Since that turned out to be completely impossible, we chose the lesser of two evils.
On the first possible moment, you claimed independence, and also on the fisrt possible moment you gave your independence away to the EU, knowing that on its own your country would never stand a chance of survival.
The EU has helped us get our economy up and running pretty damn good. They've done more for us in 8 years than the Russians did in 45.
I am aware of the numerous sanctions and the fact that the EU is quite unstable right now. Nothing we can do about that.
-
Why do I see Russians standing up for Stalin but no Germans standing up for Hitler? That's a good arguement.
-
In Russian. My parents were forbidden to speak Estonian in school (though the law wasn't strict) and they had to revere Lenin as the "Greatest revolutionary".
To the "upper class" of the Communist society, yes. Neither of my parents were given any benefits whatsoever. My father's friend was sent to clean up Chernobyl after the accident and his health is still completely f**ked up, it's a wonder he's not dead or sterile.
If you find it such a bad thing then why deny Russians their language now?
Free healthcare in the Soviet Union was for all, and at least in Russia there still is free health care.
Anyone denying that is a liar.
My father himself was sent to Siberia for two years to build a missile launch facility for the USSR government.
Means he was pretty high skilled if he was working on a secret base.
We're getting plenty of tourists these days as well. Have you ever been to Tallinn in the summer? It's quite difficult to find any Estonians on the street.
Because you are easy with giving visa's to Russians. Though I wonder why they visit people who claim to hate them.
A desperate move with the hopes of preserving our independence. Since that turned out to be completely impossible, we chose the lesser of two evils.
The EU has helped us get our economy up and running pretty damn good. They've done more for us in 8 years than the Russians did in 45.
I am aware of the numerous sanctions and the fact that the EU is quite unstable right now. Nothing we can do about that.
Actualy it was our only hope on once belonging to the German Reich.
-
To the "upper class" of the Communist society, yes.
No Soviet Estonia state would have survived if the population was not being given any satisfaction. Which brings your argument down.
-
Stalin was a saint compared to Hitler.
In what way? Care to expand?
Stalin was easily one of the worst people to have ever lived.
Why do I see Russians standing up for Stalin but no Germans standing up for Hitler? That's a good arguement.
Nobody should ever realistically stand up for someone like Hitler. Indeed, nobody should stand up for Stalin either, for the same reasons.
Also, communism < fascism any day.
-
I see the word "Communism" is used interchangeably with "Socialism" here. Soviet Russia never achieved true Communism, but stayed in Socialism, which is theoretically the "transitional state towards True Communism".
Communism is about removing class barriers and making sure the population have what they need as opposed to the rich-poor system prevalent in Capitalism. Ironically, Heaven in Christianity is an example of Communism (since regardless of if you are rich or poor, you will be living in bliss for eternity), meaning all "capitalist" christian states were worshiping a religion with Communism as its end goal. For those who will argue that there are class divisions in Heaven, I highly doubt you could live in eternal bliss if you were "poor" in the afterlife.
The only difference between the end goals of Socialism and Christianity is that the former achieves Communism on earth, while the latter ensures Communism after death.
As for Stalin, even if compared to Hitler, he is no Saint.
Both of them ordered the execution of millions, the majority of which had no plausible charge.
Both of them were paranoid against those closest to them, with Stalin constantly executing his high officials and Hitler turning against his closest officials.
Both of them had cults of personality.
Both of them were loathed (and respected) after their time; Khrushchev enacted a policy of destalinization while Germany had denazification.
What differs among them is who they fought alongside in the war. If the war dragged on and Hitler won it in the end, we would be seeing Stalin as the most hated dictator in the world instead of Hitler; history is written by the victors of the war.
-
In what way? Care to expand?
Stalin was easily one of the worst people to have ever lived.
Hitler had a wicked ideology, he thought that Jews were the evil in the world and that he was doing something for the Lord to wipe them out, killing millions of Jews in the process. Not only Jews were killed but also crippled people, homosexuals and so on.
His ideology also states that the Aryans (blond hair blue eyes) was the perfect kind of human.
Stalin?
He didn't make a move before being forced to.
-
They're not comparing them, but their actions which have similarities to be honest.
-
When Stalin came to power he inherited a country in big trouble. Due to the revolution most of the people who were leaders were killed or fled. What was left was a number of peasants almost without any organization. The Revolution threatened to fall apart as the land was without leaders.
Stalin understood that the only way to keep things together was by a strong leadership and by controlling the new leaders who had no experience.
For this he let his right hand man, Beria found the KGB.
In order to feed the population he needed to organize farming. This became especially clear when a couple of years in a row there was a low harvest and famine raged. In order to feed the population, he disowned private farms and took whatever extra production was there. Those who objected (and many of those lived in Ukraine) were either killed or left without any food. This was the first time he caused major deaths.
After the famine, the WW2 arose. The Soviet Union had a lot of people, but no organization and very little war materials. But a country as big as Russia is not easily defeated. Factories were built, and engineers given the chance to build weapons that equaled those of the Germans, and exceeded them.
Until they were ready, Stalin used his advantage in numbers. 29 million people died, many of them got the orders that if they needed weapons they had to take them from the enemy.
With the war over, Stalin began to develop paranoia. He understood many people around him wer out to take his place, and trusted as good as nobody. This became the real black page in history of Stalin.
Due to his paranoia, when people were called to meet him they did not know what to expect. Either they would get a promotion, or death. Beria controlled the KGB, and would remove any opponent. The famous practices of black cars picking up people and letting them disappear, children ratting on their parents and all other things people in the West learned about Communism happened.
When Stalin died, the new leaders made his crimes public. Many of his helpers were found guilty and went to jail or were killed. This is something almost nobody knows today.
Stalin was a strong leader at a time the country needed one. He had no mercy for anyone opposing, regardless if it was friend or foe. Either you followed him, or you died.
Without him the Soviet Union would never have becoma a world power, and would probably have failed.
Without him the German Reich would have a better chance of winning the war.
Without him millions of people would not have died.
Without him nobody knows who could have led the country.
Stalin is in some ways an example of how the Russian society works. People do what they have to for survival. Wht is good for one, is bad for another. People do not intentionally do good and people do not intentionally do bad. They do what they have to do, from their culture, upbringing and mind.
When you condemn every act of Stalin, you forget that he built a strong country. When you fully support his acts, you forget he was guilty of many crimes. See him as you wish, but understand that nobody in this world is all bad or all good.
Russians are aware of what Stalin did, both good and bad. They are (mostly) aware Stalin was not a Russian by birth. They understand that Stalin laid the foundation for the power of the Soviet Union, and Russia still has power because of him. They also understand he was guilty of many crimes, of which a lot because of his paranoia.
The rest of the world finds it hard to understand why people would not fully condemn him. Or why Russians today would still see him as an important person in history.
To those who wish to compare Stalin and Hitler, think not of the similarities but of one vital difference.
The work of Hitler was destroyed once he left power. The work of Stalin lasted 40 years after his death.
-
The work of Hitler was destroyed once he left power. The work of Stalin lasted 40 years after his death.
Cause the first one lost the war, and the second on won it, spreading his sphere of domination from Vladivostok to Berlin.
Saying Stalin did what he had to, cause USSR was collapsing, and that cause of it he shouldn't be judge, is like saying Hitler had to have a strong leadership and ideology, cause he founded a destroyed Germany and Austra, after WWI, ashamed of their lost.
Hitler and Stalin were playing a game of a personel rivalty, from the start till the end, and the stakes were their lifes, country, and their nations.
Believe it or not, they were close to each other a lot, even had a friendship approach, and respect toward each other.
-
The work of Hitler was destroyed once he left power. The work of Stalin lasted 40 years after his death.
Well actually he called for the creation of the Autobahn Project and the Peoples Car to name a few, so I would say that he contributed a lot of positives to Germany that lasted after the war. Another example would be that he pushed for medical experiments that have led to the progression of modern medicine (yes they did these experiments in inhumane ways but thats not my point)
-
Well actually he called for the creation of the Autobahn Project and the Peoples Car to name a few, so I would say that he contributed a lot of positives to Germany that lasted after the war. Another example would be that he pushed for medical experiments that have led to the progression of modern medicine (yes they did these experiments in inhumane ways but thats not my point)
A changed flag does not mean a country was deleted and a new one was put in there. You still can't even compare the fate of Hitler's work to that of Stalin's work.
-
Cause the first one lost the war, and the second on won it, spreading his sphere of domination from Vladivostok to Berlin.
Saying Stalin did what he had to, cause USSR was collapsing, and that cause of it he shouldn't be judge, is like saying Hitler had to have a strong leadership and ideology, cause he founded a destroyed Germany and Austra, after WWI, ashamed of their lost.
Hitler and Stalin were playing a game of a personel rivalty, from the start till the end, and the stakes were their lifes, country, and their nations.
Believe it or not, they were close to each other a lot, even had a friendship approach, and respect toward each other.
There was no friendship, as Stalins paranoia already convinced him Hitler would one day attack him.
As for Hitler creating the Autobahn, he was just modernizing the principles of the Roman empire who built large roads to easier transport troops.
The main parallel between them is that they provided the 'villain' for America's ' hero'
-
There was no friendship, as Stalins paranoia already convinced him Hitler would one day attack him.
As for Hitler creating the Autobahn, he was just modernizing the principles of the Roman empire who built large roads to easier transport troops.
The main parallel between them is that they provided the 'villain' for America's ' hero'
Correct, Stalin only became an ally with Hitler to get more time, to get the right army to defend Russia against Hitler.
Sadly enough for him, the "blitzkrieg" was faster then expected.
-
Correct, Stalin only became an ally with Hitler to get more time, to get the right army to defend Russia against Hitler.
To also attack Poland from other side, get Baltic states as was stated in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and to try and conquer Finland.
-
immature kids
Define.
-
To also attack Poland from other side, get Baltic states as was stated in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and to try and conquer Finland.
In reply to Germany taking their ' parts' they took what they claimed in the pact, to prevent Germany expanding their claims as they noticed already happening a couple of times.
-
In reply to Germany taking their ' parts' they took what they claimed in the pact, to prevent Germany expanding their claims as they noticed already happening a couple of times.
Gandalf, could you please explain the beginning of World War II?
My History teacher says that Germany did not get what was rightfully theirs in the pact at the end of WWI, and Adolf Hitler took advantage of this situation.
-
My History teacher says that Germany did not get what was rightfully theirs in the pact at the end of WWI, and Adolf Hitler took advantage of this situation.
Something like that. At the end of WWI Germany was a ruined country and they paid huge war compensations to the winners and people could be easily brainwashed and seduced by an "almighty nationalist hero", not implying that they all didn't know Hitler's intentions. In addition, the high class of Germany mostly included Jewish people whilst the German majority was in a disastrous situation.
-
Something like that. At the end of WWI Germany was a ruined country and they paid huge war compensations to the winners and people could be easily brainwashed and seduced by an "almighty nationalist hero", not implying that they all didn't know Hitler's intentions. In addition, the high class of Germany mostly included Jewish people whilst the German majority was in a disastrous situation.
I heard something about the fact the Jewish stole off the Germans.
-
As Germany had lost WW1, people were of course not happy about losing a war. On top of that cam the Great Depression, a situation similar to how things are in Greece nowadays, but without help as almost every country was in the same situation.
People had no money, no jobs and needed something to believe in. In such situation a strong leader that will unite people against an enemy can get a lot of followers. Hitler made the Jews the main enemy, as developments in Russia showed that removing all people with money causes chaos.
By focusing on a single group he gathered enough following to be elected (yes he was elected in a democratic process). Once elected he used his position to change the system from democracy to dictatorship, using the adverse situation to his benefit. Also he started campaigns in parts of Austria and Czechoslovakia to get them to become part of Germany. The countries united under the treaty of Versailles let this happen at the time, even if some were worried about the expansion.
Hitler boosted the economy by letting people build things like roads and weapons. However for this a country needs money, and taking away money from its own (Jewish) citizens was always going to be ending. There for the only way to for Germany not to collapse in to en even worse crisis was using the weapons to take more and more territory. Having been encouraged by his success in taking territories so far, Hitler orchestrated a conflict with Poland, which effectively started WW2.
-
Something like that. At the end of WWI Germany was a ruined country and they paid huge war compensations to the winners and people could be easily brainwashed and seduced by an "almighty nationalist hero", not implying that they all didn't know Hitler's intentions. In addition, the high class of Germany mostly included Jewish people whilst the German majority was in a disastrous situation.
As Germany had lost WW1, people were of course not happy about losing a war. On top of that cam the Great Depression, a situation similar to how things are in Greece nowadays, but without help as almost every country was in the same situation.
People had no money, no jobs and needed something to believe in. In such situation a strong leader that will unite people against an enemy can get a lot of followers. Hitler made the Jews the main enemy, as developments in Russia showed that removing all people with money causes chaos.
By focusing on a single group he gathered enough following to be elected (yes he was elected in a democratic process). Once elected he used his position to change the system from democracy to dictatorship, using the adverse situation to his benefit. Also he started campaigns in parts of Austria and Czechoslovakia to get them to become part of Germany. The countries united under the treaty of Versailles let this happen at the time, even if some were worried about the expansion.
Hitler boosted the economy by letting people build things like roads and weapons. However for this a country needs money, and taking away money from its own (Jewish) citizens was always going to be ending. There for the only way to for Germany not to collapse in to en even worse crisis was using the weapons to take more and more territory. Having been encouraged by his success in taking territories so far, Hitler orchestrated a conflict with Poland, which effectively started WW2.
Thanks, cleared up a big gap for me.
I'm playing two games called Hearts of Iron 3 and Victoria 2, I'm trying to stick to the historical path rather than completely derail it and screw over the world.
-
Thanks, cleared up a big gap for me.
I'm playing two games called Hearts of Iron 3 and Victoria 2, I'm trying to stick to the historical path rather than completely derail it and screw over the world.
What's the point of playing HOI and Vicki2 if you're not gonna change the course of history in them?
-
What's the point of playing HOI and Vicki2 if you're not gonna change the course of history in them?
It's interactive, you can see how it happens visually and how it affects other nations as well as what they were doing as it was happening
-
It's interactive, you can see how it happens visually and how it affects other nations as well as what they were doing as it was happening
The same as today, they do nothing until you cross a limit, then they bomb the hell out of you. :D
-
The same as today, they do nothing until you cross a limit, then they bomb the hell out of you. :D
Sadly V1, V2 and V3 rockets and bombs take about 40 years to create even if you are Germany, but they are still fun to use if you bomb the crap out of a country before invading it in a war
-
Victoria 2
Get Pop Demand Mod if you want more-historical things.
-
Get Pop Demand Mod if you want more-historical things.
Alright. I'll get it when I manage to get this savegame to the end of the war.
-
YESSS
we rolling HARD with jay on PDM
-
My History teacher says that Germany did not get what was rightfully theirs in the pact at the end of WWI, and Adolf Hitler took advantage of this situation.
Initially Germany expected to recieve Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points - some of which were the general discouragement of armaments; an association to be established to protect political and territorial interests of big and small countries alike (which became the League of Nations); and navigational freedom in the seas in times of peace and war alike - as the basis for their terms of surrender.
However, they were instead presented with the Treaty of Versailles which made drastic military restrictions, territorial alterations and placed upon Germany huge reparations in the amount of around 132 billion marks. Furthermore, Germany was to accept full responsibility for the war.
The German people were infuriated and wanted revenge. They also felt they had been "stabbed in the back" by the officials who agreed and signed the treaty. The terms of the treaty, specifically the reparations, led Germany to a state of depression. The social and economical situation allowed Hitler to attract a lot of support.
In times of desperation, people will support whoever promises change. The Golden Years of the Wemair Republic gives credit to that line as the 1920s saw little to no success for the Nazi Party as times then were good in Germany and so people didn't vote extreme. That is until 1929 when the Wall Street Crash occured and Germany was once again thrown into a desperate situation. The 1930s saw huge success for the Nazis as Hitler once more took advantage of cirucmstances.
So yes, Hitler took FULL advantage of the situation and a lot of his success and support stemmed from the injustice the German people felt they had been dealt through the Treaty of Versailles.
-
Yeah but Hitler did change everything
just sayin
-
Yeah but Hitler did change everything
just sayin
Yeah when he had sufficient power to do so, no doubt.