Poll shows many Europeans do not support providing military aid to a fellow NATO ally

[norseamd]

You are most certainly providing dishonest revision of history. The defeat of Germany by the Western European powers alone was not possible. Russia was not on their side and Russia proved to be vital to defeat Germany. Facts.

Nope. The Russians were vital to the war against Germany but it may still have been possible to check or even destroy Germany.

 

[Whiskey16]

This is just more fat cat entitled and sheltered EU citizens from Germany who got rich off exploiting the poor countries in the EU not wanting to possibly lose an inch of their entitled lifestyle.

Time to repeat:


TODAY: Unlike Germany of the late 1930s against the rest of Western Europe, the Russian contemporary military does not have the numbers nor practical ability to defeat only the European members of NATO, let alone the addition of the USA. Putin is most certainly aware of that and this is why an only possible threat against the public of the classical NATO Western European states is if they engage in direct warfare against Russia. By choice, unlike Germany of WWII, and as during the Cold War, Russia does not have a realistic option of successfully engaging them.

To maintain power, Putin is playing the strongman to his domestic audience. He has no choice. To lose power will be to lose his life. For domestic consumption, Putin is trolling for attention. Ever 5 years or so, another slight expansion for a display of strength. With classic maskirovka he'll continue to feign, deny, and sneak on upon slivers of territories that are relatively easy pickings (Georgia, Ukraine...). Putin ain't Hitler nor Stalin.

Militarily with the West -- détente.

Don't engage him nor provide blustering soundbites (here's looking at you, Harper) to feed his need. To bring him down and lose the balance of the Russians for domestic support, consistent long term sanctions and isolation are key.

 

[Whiskey16]

...but it may still have been possible to check or even destroy Germany.

How did such ignorant optimism work out for most of the US military campaigns of the past 50 years?

Wishing it to be so it will be a success. Snap the fingers. Simple........... Dumb.

I repeat:

WWII: Alone, just what could have the Western states of Europe done against Germany and Italy? An offensive for what gains?

The facts were, that in 1939, those states lacked the military strength to check Germany, let alone defeat them. The facts of WWII, were that a defeat of the European Axis was not possible without Russia on their side. That was not the case until much later.

Beyond that, France and Britain were well aware that any chance against Germany was the hope to delay their further aggression. No other option was practical nor possible. Excluding Russia, Germany was the big boy on the continent. Time was necessary to build up their strengths, and even then, there would never be an ability for them alone to defeat Germany. As it stood, the German conquering of France was hardly a cakewalk, with the French inflicting over 50,000 deaths upon the invading German forces.

 

[irishScott]

Absolutely not. With an inability to defeat Germany in 1939, the Western European powers most certainly feared the horrors of WWI.

You are most certainly providing s dishonest revision of history. The defeat of Germany by the Western European powers alone was not possible. Russia was not on their side and Russia proved to be vital to defeat Germany. Facts.

irishScott, care to comment on the discussion of Putin, or just to deflect to with a flat out wrong comparison of Putin's Russia to Hitler's Germany?

Outright, unconditional surrender, marching-on-Berlin defeat? Yeah that was likely impossible. Keeping them in check so they don't conquer most of Europe before finally meeting some real resistance? Perhaps making them sue for peace? With or without Russia that was indeed possible, particularly after they declared war and Germany was otherwise occupied with Poland. It was also common knowledge that the Russian-German treaty was a farce to buy time for both sides. If France had actually attacked and injured Germany, which they were more than capable of doing, and made them less of a threat Stalin likely would have dropped the Germans and snatched up the rest of Poland, among other territories.

As for the Putin discussion, for all my being an ignorant, uneducated yank you seem to be the one with the reading problem. I never compared Hitler's Germany to Putin's Russia, I compared the European reactions to both. Apparently a substantial majority, or in some cases near half of the NATO European public are against taking military action against Russia even if a NATO state is invaded. I find that attitude to be remarkably similar to general European sentiment about Germany prior to WWII, only a lot more stupid because we now have historical examples of what happens when you ignore invasions of allies.

 

[Whiskey16]

European public are against taking military action against Russia even if a NATO state is invaded.

Quite dishonest by you in light of what has already been presented in this thread.

A false equivalency made into an argumentative point by you that all NATO states are equally perceived by the general public. No. There is quite the real perception of the former Eastern Bloc states now apart of NATO not being on par with the historical and security proximity of the classical western NATO states. That's reality and what is reflected in the OPs poll and the hypothetical cost/benefit worthiness of a destabilising war with Russia.

I find that attitude to be remarkably similar to general European sentiment about Germany prior to WWII, only a lot more stupid because we now have historical examples of what happens when you ignore invasions of allies.

Yes you're making all to apparent that the wimpy Euro weak kneed appeasement myth remains alive and strong in yankee land. Facts be damned of the military land power disparity to Germany in 1939. Revisionism for a show of balls rather than the practical realisation of a quicker and more devastating loss. Stalin would have happily waited on the sidelines while western Europe prematurely rushed to an ill-prepared fight to Germany. It was best to hold out and build up. Without that, the expeditionary force of Britain would certainly not have mostly escaped and the UK would have faced an invasion and fall.

Start a new thread on your revised WWII fantasy, irishScott. This thread is about a contrasting rather than comparable scene with Putin.

Another irrational false equivalency by you. The facts are, that unlike Germany of 1939 having had the overwhelming military power advantage in taking on western European states, contemporary Russia (as the non-axis western European states against Germany) is well aware of its inability for warfare against even just the European NATO states and not even counting the USA. To invade and conquer, the general rule of thumb is not to go on a lucky hunch that a rational loss won't manifest when attacking without an advantage in military strength.


To repeat:

Putin is most certainly aware of that (lack of military advantage over western Europe) and this is why an only possible threat against the public of the classical NATO Western European states is if they engage in direct warfare against Russia. By choice, unlike Germany of WWII, and as during the Cold War, Russia does not have a realistic option of successfully engaging them. Snippets of Georgia and the Ukraine are satisfying enough piecemill for Putin to boast home about.

This is all about a Russian narcissistic autocrat trolling for external responses to present to a home audience and remain in power. Not a a megalomaniac Hitler out to conquer and purge all of Europe, nor Stalin and the expansion of a Soviet bloc.

To maintain power, Putin is playing the strongman to his domestic audience. He has no choice. To lose power will be to lose his life. For domestic consumption, Putin is trolling for attention. Ever 5 years or so, another slight expansion for a display of strength. With classic maskirovka he'll continue to feign, deny, and sneak on upon slivers of territories that are relatively easy pickings (Georgia, Ukraine...). Putin ain't Hitler nor Stalin.

Militarily with the West -- détente.

Don't engage him nor provide blustering soundbites (here's looking at you, Harper) to feed his need. To bring him down and lose the balance of the Russians for domestic support, consistent long term sanctions and isolation are key.

 

[norseamd]

A false equivalency made into an argumentative point by you that all NATO states are equally perceived by the general public. No. There is quite the real perception of the former Eastern Bloc states now apart of NATO not being on par with the historical and security proximity of the classical western NATO states. That's reality and what is reflected in the OPs poll and the hypothetical worthiness of war with Russia.

Well if you will not support defending the Poles and Balts as might have been expected then maybe we need to form our own North European Defense Council since you guys will not do anything even when you are bound by treaties.

 

[Whiskey16]

Well if you will not support defending the Poles and Balts...

Ah shuttup with your manufactured bullshit.

From post #9 on the first page of this thread:

I'm not stating right nor wrong on not wanting to military engage Russia if it invaded the NATO and formerly Soviet bloc states... Just giving you the very true rational as to why public opinion may be against going to war with Russia.

Ignore Putin. I've already stated the best course of action.

Putin is relatively rational and doesn't want a war with NATO, only posturing to remain in power with his domestic audience by every 5 years or so going after easy snippets of territory among the likes of Ukraine and Georgia -- not a NATO state.

I REPEAT:

Putin is most certainly aware of that (lack of military advantage over western Europe) and this is why an only possible threat against the public of the classical NATO Western European states is if they engage in direct warfare against Russia. By choice, unlike Germany of WWII, and as during the Cold War, Russia does not have a realistic option of successfully engaging them. Snippets of Georgia and the Ukraine are satisfying enough piecemill for Putin to boast home about.

This is all about a Russian narcissistic autocrat trolling for external responses to present to a home audience and remain in power. Not a a megalomaniac Hitler out to conquer and purge all of Europe, nor Stalin and the expansion of a Soviet bloc.

To maintain power, Putin is playing the strongman to his domestic audience. He has no choice. To lose power will be to lose his life. For domestic consumption, Putin is trolling for attention. Ever 5 years or so, another slight expansion for a display of strength. With classic maskirovka he'll continue to feign, deny, and sneak on upon slivers of territories that are relatively easy pickings (Georgia, Ukraine...). Putin ain't Hitler nor Stalin.

Militarily with the West -- détente.

Don't engage him nor provide blustering soundbites (here's looking at you, Harper) to feed his need. To bring him down and lose the balance of the Russians for domestic support, consistent long term sanctions and isolation are key.

 

[Ventanni]

Outright, unconditional surrender, marching-on-Berlin defeat? Yeah that was likely impossible. Keeping them in check so they don't conquer most of Europe before finally meeting some real resistance? Perhaps making them sue for peace? With or without Russia that was indeed possible, particularly after they declared war and Germany was otherwise occupied with Poland. It was also common knowledge that the Russian-German treaty was a farce to buy time for both sides. If France had actually attacked and injured Germany, which they were more than capable of doing, and made them less of a threat Stalin likely would have dropped the Germans and snatched up the rest of Poland, among other territories.

As for the Putin discussion, for all my being an ignorant, uneducated yank you seem to be the one with the reading problem. I never compared Hitler's Germany to Putin's Russia, I compared the European reactions to both. Apparently a substantial majority, or in some cases near half of the NATO European public are against taking military action against Russia even if a NATO state is invaded. I find that attitude to be remarkably similar to general European sentiment about Germany prior to WWII, only a lot more stupid because we now have historical examples of what happens when you ignore invasions of allies.

I agree with points on both sides here.

Europe will face some credibility loss as Russia moves over the coming decades. Non-NATO states are no match for the Russian military, which is incredibly lethal and growing in size/capability under Putin. But on the other hand, the Russian military is no match for even just European-NATO, and Putin knows that. I have to agree with Whiskey on this one in that you really can't compare the "European attitude to Hitler" with the "European attitude to Putin". Even despite still walking in the ashes of WW1, Germany of the 1930s was a very dominant and powerful nation of Europe. They were also frothing with vengeance at the way they were treated, and France/UK/others dang well knew that. Today, Russia of the 2010's is economically and militarily small in comparison to the European Union. They cannot be compared to Germany of the 1930's.

That's why you see Europeans going, "Meh...not worth it."

 

[Whiskey16]

Thank you, Ventanni.

 

[chucky2]

We're talking about a set of nations that couldn't get 14 helicopters to the UN in the Sudan to stop a genocide that the UN sat and did nothing for until they finally got guilted into doing something. 14 helicopters. You all cannot think that these countries which are blowing through their cash on social services instead of maintaining a military to stop Russia, instead allowing dumbass America - World Police to blow its money instead (all too happily), are suddenly going to stop spending all that social services money (after their citizens have become completely indoctrinated to receiving it) and instead start blowing it on their share of a military to effectively stop Russia (if it came to that). The EU without the US is like a series of small to medium speed bumps to Russia if it came to that.

 

[norseamd]

We're talking about a set of nations that couldn't get 14 helicopters to the UN in the Sudan to stop a genocide that the UN sat and did nothing for until they finally got guilted into doing something. 14 helicopters. You all cannot think that these countries which are blowing through their cash on social services instead of maintaining a military to stop Russia, instead allowing dumbass America - World Police to blow its money instead (all too happily), are suddenly going to stop spending all that social services money (after their citizens have become completely indoctrinated to receiving it) and instead start blowing it on their share of a military to effectively stop Russia (if it came to that). The EU without the US is like a series of small to medium speed bumps to Russia if it came to that.

Not exactly. And I doubt their social services are why they are not spending sufficient money on their militaries.

 

[werepossum]

I correctly stated that for the Western European powers alone, this was not a practical possibility. An invasion and defeat of Germany required Russia. Russia was not on the side of Western Europe.

Facts, irishScott, not the bullshit that you feel to be. I am accurate. You are incorrectly revising history.

Duh.... You read nor accepted nothing for what I wrote.

Try to learn.

An ignorant Yankee trait, I guess. You feel it to be therefore it is -- just do it pussies!

Maybe right after they declared war. Maybe. However, France alone could easily have walked over Germany when Germany first violated the Treaty. At that point, Germany was all bluff. Instead, we (well, Europe) gave them Czechoslovakia, with trucks, tanks, and artillery the Germans used until war's end, in exchange for "peace in our time". (Although admittedly the Czech tanks were demoted to prime movers after the first year or so.)

Exactly. Remember how many Americans are against war now just because we lost instead of moral concerns? They were all for going to war is the Near East and slaughtering Muslims until we lost and were embarrassed.

Remember how many conservatives in America are oppossed to any actions against the Russians and even supportive of Putin and the Muscovites?

Um, where exactly did we lose? Seems to me that in two nations we easily deposed the existing leadership and gave the people democracy. If both nations are still shitholes, well, that's the beauty of democracy - you get the leadership (and the nation) you deserve.

 

[irishScott]

Quite dishonest by you in light of what has already been presented in this thread.

You see to prove dishonesty you have to prove that I'm trying to deceive someone. Which I'm not and which you haven't even tried to prove. So...

A false equivalency made into an argumentative point by you that all NATO states are equally perceived by the general public. No. There is quite the real perception of the former Eastern Bloc states now apart of NATO not being on par with the historical and security proximity of the classical western NATO states. That's reality and what is reflected in the OPs poll and the hypothetical cost/benefit worthiness of a destabilising war with Russia.

Yes, they are perceived almost exactly as Czechoslovakia and Poland were perceived by the allies in WWII. Which is my only point.

Yes you're making all to apparent that the wimpy Euro weak kneed appeasement myth remains alive and strong in yankee land.

Actually I'm just making a simple factual comparison and pointing out a perceived pattern. You're welcome to continue putting words in my mouth, though. You're also welcome to continue calling me a yank. Why do foreigners always expect us to get pissed off about that? Yankee Doodle is one of our patriotic songs that every American learns as a child. It's sung by the Boy Scouts around campfires and performed at Independence Day celebrations. It's even the state anthem of Connecticut!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzRhFH5OyHo

Facts be damned of the military land power disparity to Germany in 1939. Revisionism for a show of balls rather than the practical realisation of a quicker and more devastating loss. Stalin would have happily waited on the sidelines while western Europe prematurely rushed to an ill-prepared fight to Germany. It was best to hold out and build up. Without that, the expeditionary force of Britain would certainly not have mostly escaped and the UK would have faced an invasion and fall.

Start a new thread on your revised WWII fantasy, irishScott. This thread is about a contrasting rather than comparable scene with Putin.

Oh you sure showed me with all your non-facts! I'm getting my information primarily from interviews of surviving members of the WWII French and German commands, in addition to well-known historical facts that you can look up on wikipedia. Where exactly is your theory coming from? Anger and sanctimony don't qualify as sources.

Another irrational false equivalency by you. The facts are, that unlike Germany of 1939 having had the overwhelming military power advantage in taking on western European states, contemporary Russia (as the non-axis western European states against Germany) is well aware of its inability for warfare against even just the European NATO states and not even counting the USA. To invade and conquer, the general rule of thumb is not to go on a lucky hunch that a rational loss won't manifest when attacking without an advantage in military strength.

I'm not sure what you're referencing here or how it's relevant. Perhaps you accused me of making yet another equivalency that by the rules of English grammar I didn't make and in your childish anger forgot to edit it out?

To repeat:

Putin is most certainly aware of that (lack of military advantage over western Europe) and this is why an only possible threat against the public of the classical NATO Western European states is if they engage in direct warfare against Russia. By choice, unlike Germany of WWII, and as during the Cold War, Russia does not have a realistic option of successfully engaging them. Snippets of Georgia and the Ukraine are satisfying enough piecemill for Putin to boast home about.

This is all about a Russian narcissistic autocrat trolling for external responses to present to a home audience and remain in power. Not a a megalomaniac Hitler out to conquer and purge all of Europe, nor Stalin and the expansion of a Soviet bloc.

To maintain power, Putin is playing the strongman to his domestic audience. He has no choice. To lose power will be to lose his life. For domestic consumption, Putin is trolling for attention. Ever 5 years or so, another slight expansion for a display of strength. With classic maskirovka he'll continue to feign, deny, and sneak on upon slivers of territories that are relatively easy pickings (Georgia, Ukraine...). Putin ain't Hitler nor Stalin.

Militarily with the West -- détente.

Don't engage him nor provide blustering soundbites (here's looking at you, Harper) to feed his need. To bring him down and lose the balance of the Russians for domestic support, consistent long term sanctions and isolation are key.

Feel better now? Got all that out of your system (again)? Good, because I agree with almost all of this part. I never said Putin was planning to invade NATO, I never compared Putin's Russia to Hitler's Germany. I merely pointed out a similarity in historical European reaction to the possibility of war. The only reason you're angry is you're putting words, ideologies, and personality traits in my mouth. Well actually you're likely doing that because you're angry about something unrelated.

But if you need to keep up your tirades to feel better about something, then by all means continue! I'm just a lying, ignorant, uneducated pompous yank; and you're the wise, righteous foreigner who know the real story and can show up that stupid, chest-thumping yank for the glory of Canada! (or whatever's going on in your head)

 

[norseamd]

I never said Putin was planning to invade NATO,

Well that depends because some countries that are in the NATO alliance are actually dealing with intimidation and clandestine operations right now.

 

[Albatross]

Public opinion is one thing,decision making is another.

 

[TheSlamma]

What could the western states have done? They could have attacked Germany after declaring freaking war, for starters. While Germany was occupied with Poland they had almost no tanks on the Western front, if the West hadn't been so defensive they could have struck Germany itself with great effect. The French army rivaled the Germans in manpower and material, it was lack of leadership and a commitment to WWI-style defensive warfare that defeated them, and a general reluctance for war. There are accounts of French officers allowing Germans to play soccer within visual range of their guns.

And 50,000 casualties to take out an entire country, and Germany's chief continental military rival, in mechanized total war is the definition of cakewalk. In WWI generals on both sides would have killed for such low figures. They were losing 50,000+ men every two weeks!

If there's any cultural revisionism it appears to be on your side, trying to cover up mistakes and lack of initiative with the "it was all part of the plan" excuse.



As for today, Russia invading a NATO state, and NATO not responding, would be catastrophic for all NATO members and shatter the organization's credibility. But apparently a very large chunk of the European population is fine with that, and sees no problem with poo-pooing defensive alliances if it means they might have to seriously use their militaries for once.

You are fast forwarded too far, they were already breaking the treaty of Versailles by the time they were building arms and sending them to Spain for their civil war.

Heck he was showing off all his new arms by 1935 even. While they broke the treaty before this at that point it was blatant enough that other countries should have intervened then before they had the buildup they did by 1939.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Actually I'm just making a simple factual comparison and pointing out a perceived pattern. You're welcome to continue putting words in my mouth, though. You're also welcome to continue calling me a yank. Why do foreigners always expect us to get pissed off about that? Yankee Doodle is one of our patriotic songs that every American learns as a child. It's sung by the Boy Scouts around campfires and performed at Independence Day celebrations. It's even the state anthem of Connecticut!

Why do you think Yank is intended as an insult? You are just perceiving it that way
Every kid here grows up learning that song and Boy Scouts sing it around campfires

 

[Orignal Earl]

We're talking about a set of nations that couldn't get 14 helicopters to the UN in the Sudan to stop a genocide that the UN sat and did nothing for until they finally got guilted into doing something. 14 helicopters. You all cannot think that these countries which are blowing through their cash on social services instead of maintaining a military to stop Russia, instead allowing dumbass America - World Police to blow its money instead (all too happily), are suddenly going to stop spending all that social services money (after their citizens have become completely indoctrinated to receiving it) and instead start blowing it on their share of a military to effectively stop Russia (if it came to that). The EU without the US is like a series of small to medium speed bumps to Russia if it came to that.

So the US let's genocides happen in Africa to teach Europeans lessons about defending their countries?
You crazy Americans

 

[cabri]

Why do you think Yank is intended as an insult? You are just perceiving it that way
Every kid here grows up learning that song and Boy Scouts sing it around campfires

I'm assuming it's a common ignorant Yank trait

I would expect that the phrase and choice of words that was used should be an obvious clue.

 

[irishScott]

Why do you think Yank is intended as an insult? You are just perceiving it that way
Every kid here grows up learning that song and Boy Scouts sing it around campfires

Well part of it's the sanctimonious tone of the rest of Whiskey's posts and the insults he often included in the same phrase, but I've also seen and heard "yank" trotted out by a fair number of English-speaking Europeans, typically in a slur or put-down, accompanied by a look like they expect to get a rise out of the subject. It's like being called a cracker. I'm not even sure what the attempted offense is.

Interesting to know that song's gotten that deep into Canada though, I didn't think our Patriotic music spread very far beyond our borders in terms of adoption, although I guess a good number of Americans have moved to Canada over the years, and the original was from the 7-years war when Canada and the US were both British colonies.

 

[Orignal Earl]

I would expect that the phrase and choice of words that was used should be an obvious clue.

I don't see it, Yank is just another name like American.

Interesting to know that song's gotten that deep into Canada though, I didn't think our Patriotic music spread very far beyond our borders in terms of adoption, although I guess a good number of Americans have moved to Canada over the years, and the original was from the 7-years war when Canada and the US were both British colonies.

It's more like a nursery rhyme here
We don't sing ring around the rosey to remind us of the plague either
Canadians grow up watching American TV and news, and visa versa for at least the northern states.
We share a very common culture
I think where I live shares a lot in common with southern states

Cracker here is not really an insult either, I have a tshirt that says Cracker
My Filipino bro has a tshirt with the N word on it, he didn't know it may be offensive, he thought it meant friend

edit- I should say it does mean friend/bro to him

 

[Whiskey16]

Oh you sure showed me with all your non-facts! I'm getting my information primarily from interviews of surviving members of the WWII French and German commands, in addition to well-known historical facts that you can look up on wikipedia. Where exactly is your theory coming from? Anger and sanctimony don't qualify as sources.

Yes, I will. Eat crow:

German composition for the Battle of France:

Germany had mobilised 4,200,000 men of the Heer, 1,000,000 of the Luftwaffe, 180,000 of the Kriegsmarine, and 100,000 of the Waffen-SS. When consideration is made for those in Poland, Denmark and Norway, the Army had 3,000,000 men available for the offensive on 10 May 1940.[57] These manpower reserves were formed into 157 divisions. Of these, 135 were earmarked for the offensive, including 42 reserve divisions.[

..
Communications
The Panzers all had radios that allowed voice communication with other units. This enabled German armour to respond rapidly to a constantly changing battlefield situation. It allowed for last-minute changes in tactics and improvisations to be formed far more quickly than the enemy could. Some commanders regarded the ability to communicate to be the primary method of combat.[66] Radio drills were even considered more important than firing accurately.[66] Communication allowed German armour to coordinate their formations, bringing them together for a mass firepower effect in the attack or defence.

Luftwaffe
One of the German strengths was the Luftwaffe. It divided its forces into two groups. In total, 1,815 combat, 487 transport and 50 glider aircraft were deployed to support Army Group B, while a further 3,286 combat aircraft were deployed to support Army Groups A and C.[72] In the first year of the war, the Luftwaffe was the best-trained, modern and experienced air force in the world.[
..
Anti-aircraft defences
It is generally supposed that the Germans also had a major advantage in anti-aircraft guns, or Flak. In reality, the generally cited figure of 2,600 88 mm (3.46 in) heavy Flak guns and 6,700 37 mm (1.46 in) and 20 mm (0.79 in) light Flak seems to refer to the German armed forces total inventory, including the anti-aircraft defences of Germany's cities and ports and the equipment of training units.

Allied forced and disposition:

Due to a declining birthrate during the period of the First World War and Great Depression and the large number of men who died in World War I, France had a severe manpower shortage relative to its total population, which was barely half that of Germany. To compensate, France had mobilised about one-third of the male population between the ages of 20 and 45, bringing the strength of its armed forces to 5,000,000.[77] Only 2,240,000 of these served in army units in the north. The British contributed a total strength of 897,000 men in 1939, rising to 1,650,000 by June 1940. In May, it numbered only 500,000 men, including reserves. Dutch and Belgian manpower reserves amounted to 400,000 and 650,000, respectively.[
..
There were 117 French divisions in total, of which 104 divisions (including 11 in reserve) were for the defence of the north. The British Army contributed 13 divisions, three of which had not been organized when the campaign began. Some 22 Belgian, 10 Dutch and two Polish divisions[78] were also a part of the Allied order of battle.

Air forces
In the air, the Allies were numerically inferior: the French Armée de l'Air had 1,562 aircraft, and RAF Fighter Command committed 680 machines, while RAF Bomber Command could contribute some 392 aircraft to operations

A greatly inferior air force, and lesser army division than Germany had set for Western Europe. 164 divisions, not all prepared nor set for the north of France, and 11 in reserve. That versus Germany's 135 divisions earmarked for the invasion of France with 42 in reserve. An overall balance for army 2 more divisions to Germany. Upon tank warfare, the French had greatly inferior communications and agility for change of orders while a tank force focussed on supporting the infantry as opposed to Panzer's being the focus for an independent and agile spearhead.

To argue that the western allies could easily invade and conquer Germany is an absolute historical revisionism. In a feign argumentative point, to no avail you can bally all you want about apparent disparity and quality between units as well. The practical historical record displayed that in a fairly short time, those armies fell in France to Germany. Despite recorded reality, irishScott agues the inferior number and practical ability of the western allies could have rushed to conquer Germany, alone.... Luckily a portion of those divisions managed to flee to Britain or else the UK likely would have fallen.

The western European forces hardly had the significant 1939 advantage over Germany that you claim. Certainly not for an invasion and conquering of Germany alone, and certainly with no ability for air superiority. That was why the only option western Europe had was to hope for time to build and situations in the east to change before Germany began its invasion.

With irishScott having lost his argument to compare early action against Germany and of apparent inaction against contemporay Russia, let's please return to the Putin topic at hand.

 

[TheSlamma]

Yes, I will. Eat crow:





A greatly inferior air force, and lesser army division than Germany had set for Western Europe. 164 divisions, not all prepared nor set for the north of France, and 11 in reserve. That versus Germany's 135 divisions earmarked for the invasion of France with 42 in reserve.

In a feign argumentative point, you can bally all you want about apparent disparity and quality between units as well. To argue that the western allies could easily invade and conquer Germany is an absolute historical revisionism. The facts were, that in a fairly short time, those armies fell in France to Germany. Luckily a portion of those divisions managed to flee to Britain or else the UK likely would have fallen.

The western European forces hardly had the significant 1939 advantage over Germany that you claim. Certainly not for an invasion and conquering of Germany alone, and certainly with no ability for air superiority. That was why the only option western Europe had was to hope for time to build and situations in the east to change before Germany began its invasion.

With irishScott having lost his argument to compare early action against Germany and of apparent inaction against contemporay Russia, let's please return to the Putin topic at hand.

You are again too far ahead in the timeline. Europe should have intervened no later than 1936 but really should have zero excuse not to have by 1935 which is LONG before the military that went into Poland was the size it was. (buildup of military didn't go into high gear until after 1936)

If they would have nipped it then before it was all owed to become a problem they would not have been so powerful. Maybe Europe doesn't know the point of treaties though?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles#Military_restrictions

 

[irishScott]

Yes, I will. Eat crow:





A greatly inferior air force, and lesser army division than Germany had set for Western Europe. 164 divisions, not all prepared nor set for the north of France, and 11 in reserve. That versus Germany's 135 divisions earmarked for the invasion of France with 42 in reserve.

In a feign argumentative point, you can bally all you want about apparent disparity and quality between units as well. To argue that the western allies could easily invade and conquer Germany is an absolute historical revisionism. The facts were, that in a fairly short time, those armies fell in France to Germany. Luckily a portion of those divisions managed to flee to Britain or else the UK likely would have fallen.

The western European forces hardly had the significant 1939 advantage over Germany that you claim. Certainly not for an invasion and conquering of Germany alone, and certainly with no ability for air superiority. That was why the only option western Europe had was to hope for time to build and situations in the east to change before Germany began its invasion.

With irishScott having lost his argument to compare early action against Germany and of apparent inaction against contemporaty Russia, let's please return to the Putin topic at hand.

I'm eating nothing. I never said they could conquer Germany. In fact nothing you just posted even touches my argument, which rests on the physical disposition of German forces at the start of the war. Germany's advantage, as what you've posted verifies, was in its Panzer units and Blitzkrieg tactics, and Germany only had the resources to use those on one front at a time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War

A French offensive in the Rhine river valley area (Saar Offensive) started on 7 September, four days after France declared war on Germany. Since the Wehrmacht was occupied in the attack on Poland, the French soldiers enjoyed a decisive numerical advantage along their border with Germany. However, the French took no meaningful action to assist the Poles. Eleven French divisions advanced along a 32 km (20 miles) line near Saarbrücken against weak German opposition. The attack did not result in the diversion of any German troops. The all-out assault was to have been carried out by roughly 40 divisions, including one armoured, three mechanised divisions, 78 artillery regiments and 40 tank battalions. The French Army had advanced to a depth of 8 km (5.0 miles) and captured about 20 villages evacuated by the German army, without any resistance. However, the half-hearted offensive was halted after France seized the Warndt Forest, 7.8 km2 (3.0 sq mi) of heavily mined German territory.

On 12 September, the Anglo French Supreme War Council gathered for the first time at Abbeville. It was decided that all offensive actions were to be halted immediately as the French opted to fight a defensive war, forcing the Germans to come to them.

While most of the German army was engaged in Poland, a much smaller German force manned the Siegfried Line, their fortified defensive line along the French border. At the Maginot Line on the other side of the border, British and French troops stood facing them, but there were only some local, minor skirmishes, while in the air there were occasional dogfights between fighter planes. The Royal Air Force dropped propaganda leaflets on Germany and the first Canadian troops stepped ashore in Britain, while western Europe was under a period of uneasy calm for seven months.


People of Warsaw outside the British Embassy with a banner which says "Long live England!" just after the British declaration of war with Nazi Germany
When Leopold Amery suggested to Kingsley Wood that the Black Forest be bombed with incendiaries to burn its ammunition dumps, Wood—the Secretary of State for Air—amazed the member of parliament by responding that the forest was "private property" and could not be bombed; neither could have weapons factories, as the Germans might do the same.[3] Indeed, the sense of unreality was maintained when some British officers imported packs of foxhounds and beagles in 1939, but were thwarted by the French authorities in their attempts at introducing live foxes.[4] Civilian attitudes in Britain to their German foes were still not as intense as they were to become after The Blitz. In April 1940 a German Heinkel bomber crashed at Clacton-on-Sea in Essex, killing its crew and people on the ground. They were all laid to rest in the local cemetery which was provided with support from the Royal Air Force. Wreaths with messages of sympathy for the casualties were displayed on the coffins.[5]

But whatever. Back to Putin.

 

[Genx87]

Yes, I will. Eat crow:





A greatly inferior air force, and lesser army division than Germany had set for Western Europe. 164 divisions, not all prepared nor set for the north of France, and 11 in reserve. That versus Germany's 135 divisions earmarked for the invasion of France with 42 in reserve. An overall balance for army 2 more divisions to Germany. Upon tank warfare, the French had greatly inferior communications and agility for change of orders while a tank force focussed on supporting the infantry as opposed to Panzer's being the focus for an independent and agile spearhead.

To argue that the western allies could easily invade and conquer Germany is an absolute historical revisionism. In a feign argumentative point, to no avail you can bally all you want about apparent disparity and quality between units as well. The practical historical record displayed that in a fairly short time, those armies fell in France to Germany. Despite recorded reality, irishScott agues the inferior number and practical ability of the western allies could have rushed to conquer Germany, alone.... Luckily a portion of those divisions managed to flee to Britain or else the UK likely would have fallen.

The western European forces hardly had the significant 1939 advantage over Germany that you claim. Certainly not for an invasion and conquering of Germany alone, and certainly with no ability for air superiority. That was why the only option western Europe had was to hope for time to build and situations in the east to change before Germany began its invasion.

With irishScott having lost his argument to compare early action against Germany and of apparent inaction against contemporay Russia, let's please return to the Putin topic at hand.

Eh take Germany in 1938 before the Munich Agreement vs the Allies. The Munich agreement funded and setup the Germany army of 1940 for the invasion of France. 1938 is the point at which the allies should have stood up to Hitler. Not only would they have had Czechoslovakia for Hitler to deal with, they may have had the Soviets who were in a defensive treaty with Czech. The material,skilled labor, natural resources, and equipment from the Czech army amount to about 20-30% of the German firepower for the invasion of France. Standing up to Hitler in 1938 would deny the German army resources to conduct the invasion of Poland and France on their original dates.

I agree with you that Hitler vs Putin is apples and orange right now. Though Putin is using the same rationale for stealing land from his neighbors as Hitler. But Russian military capability is not in a state to drive into the heart of Europe. Russia inability to drive into the heart of Europe is based on some underlying assumptions about Europe's capability or willingness to stop Putin if he were to roll through Ukraine up to Polands border. This poll questions those assumptions. Would NATO sacrifice an eastern European country to avoid war?