Whats the point for countries other than Russia, China and US to own an army?

Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Panmisiek, Jun 12, 2018.

  1. Victor Maitland

    Victor Maitland Brown Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    3,505
    Likes Received:
    3,151
    Keep an army for home defence !
    If I was running the UK I would have a well stocked military just for home defence and not used as globalist pawns , like they are now.
    No more acting as world police for the corrupt NATO .
     
  2. Rusk

    Rusk Black Belt

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2012
    Messages:
    6,741
    Likes Received:
    2,541
    Sure but i guess you and @Melas Chasma need to have a talk. You seem to kind of disagree.

    I personally like Finno-Ugric History and i think it is a lot to gain there for Fins by promoting it, it is even a lot to gain there for Russians if they could look at their history with open mind.

    Its like saying that as long as i did not get KTFO in a fight i win. So like i said Fins did good but objectively it is not a win. The enemy was not really monstrous either just study some soviet military history before Cold War. You will see that Soviet army was sooo bad that the fact that the soldiers could operate and win wars and battles is a true testimony to toughness/craziness (of course it says something bad about Russians too) of Russian people. It is also testimony to how evil the regime was. I see whole Soviet history as one big fuck up with some surprisingly good outcomes.

    If we gonna play numbers game then Soviet won Afgan war and US won Vietnam.

    ohhh i love you too :p
     
  3. TheGreatA

    TheGreatA Red Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Messages:
    8,746
    Likes Received:
    12,560
    Location:
    Finland
    It was not really a win for the Soviets either because they did not really achieve their objective of A. showcasing their strength to the world B. neutralizing Finland as a threat. They also lost a massive amount of troops and equipment for little gain. It has been said that the Soviet struggles against Finland, played a big part into Hitler's decision to invade the Soviet Union. It created the false impression that the Russian defensive morale was as bad as their offensive morale, which obviously proved to be very, very wrong, as Hitler came to find out.

    The Soviets in Winter War were far from monstrous, because of Stalin's purges, but the Soviets also made a huge push into Karelia in 1944 and lost 200,000 troops. This was basically the Red Army at its peak offensive strength, yet they still couldn't break the stalemate against the Finns. With similar shows of force, and sometimes even less, they conquered basically all of the Eastern Europe. The Soviets used over half a million troops in this operation, so it was a very legitimate attempt to break down Finnish defences.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vyborg–Petrozavodsk_Offensive

    The last major battles in the war ended in Finnish defensive victories:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tali-Ihantala
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vuosalmi
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nietjärvi
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ilomantsi

    I personally think that the battles of 1944 are more impressive than the battles in 1939-1940, even if the Winter War was more one-sided as far as the casualties go, in favour of the Finnish, due to terrible strategy on the part of the Soviets. In 1944, the Soviet threat was much more legitimate, but they still couldn't conclusively break through the lines, even though they were able to do that on virtually every front, other than the Karelian front.

    My grandfather took part in some of these battles, and after the war he actually grew to respect the Russians and never allowed anyone in his house to speak badly of them. For example, he would get the belt out for anyone who used the derogatory name "Ryssä" to describe Russians. So it's not really as simple as Finns "hating" Russians because of WW2. In fact, WW2 seemed to increase the respect of Finns towards Russians, atleast for the generation that actually fought them. There was more bad blood prior to WW2 than there was after. At the end of the day, Finland's economic growth in the 60's and 70's was largely due to their trade with the Soviet Union.

    It's mostly acknowledged, except by the globalist types, that good relations with Russia are a much better alternative to hostile relations.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2018
  4. superpunch

    superpunch Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages:
    10,901
    Likes Received:
    10,499
    You don't know you need an army until you need it. The west lives in an ignorance is bliss world regarding military strength and geopolitics because the US does the "immoral" heavy lifting for them.
     
  5. Panmisiek

    Panmisiek Brown Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2015
    Messages:
    2,737
    Likes Received:
    3,546
    You all missing the point.

    Idc how good is Australian, Japanese or other army for that reason. 1 or 2 nukes of good magnitude all your best Swiss, French, US armies are swept.

    And my question again.

    Whats the point for armies in the world except said countries?
     
  6. caxias

    caxias Purple Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1,781
    Likes Received:
    252
    And the best part: it was for nothing.
     
  7. Prutfis

    Prutfis Master of pups

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2015
    Messages:
    6,693
    Likes Received:
    7,904
    Location:
    Riding on the back of Jörmungandr
    Usually is when joining the US in military operations. They do have a pretty shitty record since ww2.
     
  8. Rusk

    Rusk Black Belt

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2012
    Messages:
    6,741
    Likes Received:
    2,541
    I dont think that Soviets objectives were to showcase their strength, not to begin with at least. So although it is a bad victory it is still a victory, occupying enemy territories is a victory. Finland lost something and got nothing, Soviets lost something and got something.
    But i am sure we can agree to disagree.

    When it comes to Hitler i dont think he had the wrong impression about Soviet capability. Just look at Barbarossa, total disaster and if i am not mistaking that is when soviets had most of their casualties. Hitler`s assumption was logical, but that is why he overlooked the human factor. German mind is the mind of an engineer so it was natural for then to view war through a scientific/deterministic lens, and that is where they fucked up when they invaded SU.

    Regarding 1944 one should take into consideration that Finland was a sideshow on Eastern Front and had help from Germany. With that said i dont deny that Finland did good in both wars. One should also not overlook the smart political decisions made by Fins that made Finland secure for the future, because if not for political moves Soviets would have taken over Finland eventually, and even if not after Continuation War, it would have probably been another war somewhere down the line. But that is just hypotheticals of course. Historically Russia is never really out, there is always a 2nd and 3rd and 4th round... Examples are wars against Sweden, France, Germany, Japan and Chechnya.

    Your grandfather remind me of one of my friends who fought in Chechnya, he also started to respect and even like Chechens after the war. It is a strange fenomen but some people do indeed start to like/respect their enemies after the war, i wonder if it is legit, or just some psychological condition. Maybe it got something to do with guilt.

    As for Fins view of Russians my personal real life experience with Fins was very shitty. I visited Vaasa and Helsinki as a tourist. One can also just look at internet comments.

    But i know many russians in Finland are very content, especially doctors. Also many Russians say that Fins treat Russians better than other Russians, i can believe that.
     
  9. TheGreatA

    TheGreatA Red Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Messages:
    8,746
    Likes Received:
    12,560
    Location:
    Finland
    I was just speaking of the Winter War. In the end, the Soviet territorial gain was miniscule in importance as Finland re-conquered those areas in a matter of weeks. So USSR's worst fears were realized anyway. Where they lucked out, is that U.S diplomatic pressure as well as Mannerheim's allegiance to the Russian population, made it so that the Finns would not assist in conquering Leningrad, Murmansk among other nearby Russian cities, which were left exposed from the flank.

    True enough, but I think Barbarossa was partly a disaster because the men fighting did not feel like they were fighting for their homelands. Not to mention old drunkards like Budyonny in charge. Once the main Russian cities were threatened, the morale was boosted infinitely. The same thing happened in Russia's 1944 push towards Finland. The Finns initially retreated, but once they reached the Finnish border, they fought back fiercely.

    That's a part of the reason why I believe that borders aren't merely "lines drawn on the map". They meant something, obviously, to these men. When a man goes from retreating like a dog, to suddenly fighting back like an animal, there certainly seems to be great power in these "borders". I suppose we are, in the end, territorial animals, and once the territory that we have grown emotionally attached to is invaded, we make our last stand.

    There were only a few thousand Germans involved in the battles though, so they didn't really make much of an impact on a battlefield involving hundreds of thousands of troops. By 1944, the Germans could no longer afford giving up any resources to Finland either.

    Historically speaking Finland vs Russia was not the first time that Finns and Russians met on the battlefield. The wars of Sweden vs Russia were objectively-speaking Finland vs Russia, as the troops involved, including many commanders, were largely Finns. Tavastian Finns and Karelian Finns had also fought battles for centuries against the Novgorodians.

    In fact, when the Swedes surrendered to Russia and allowed Finland to be annexed, this was seen as a great disgrace as the Finnish forces were still perfectly capable of fighting, and the morale was still relatively high. But the Swedes had had enough, spending the entire war retreating and avoiding conflict, and this was indeed the last battle they would ever fight in over 200 years (to this date).

    It was that last war against the Russians which made the Finns realize that they were, in the end, a separate people from the Swedes, considering how anemically the Swedes had fought to keep Finland a part of the Empire. This gave room to a national sentiment that had not previously existed, enhanced by the Czar giving Finland autonomy, until the later Czars who largely turned out to be hacks incapable of properly governing the Russian Empire.

    I don't think it is guilt as much as it is simply respect. Compared to Nazis vs Soviets, the Soviet vs Finn battles had relatively few atrocities and most of the "kills" involved, were between man-to-man on the battlefields. Russians also often preferred dying to surrendering, which won the respect of many Finnish veterans. The most famous book about the war (of which many movies have been made), "The Unknown Soldier", written by a WW2 vet, often depicts the Russian sympathetically, and as strong and determined fighters.

    The Finn army was pretty old school and had not adopted the "total war" tactics that shaped much of WW2 warfare. Mannerheim spent his life serving the Czar, against Germany, and had won many battles for Russia. Finns also didn't buy the war-time propaganda and often had a hostile relationship with authority, which made them quite different from the Nazis. Strict obedience was never truly a strong suit for Finns, they were just good individual fighters because almost every Finn at that time was a hunter and well acclimated to war-time conditions.

    My personal experience in Helsinki is shitty as well. I prefer the "in-land" Finland to coastal Finland. Too much Swedish/globalist influence on the coast, I'm afraid.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2018
    Rusk likes this.
  10. superpunch

    superpunch Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages:
    10,901
    Likes Received:
    10,499
    Imagine there's an oil pipeline that supplies 99% of your oil. Now, imagine another country decides to just "take it" and use their control of it to blackmail you into submission and to control your politicians. Who owns it and why? Are you willing to start a nuclear war over an oil pipeline?

    Or.. do you need an army?
     

Share This Page