Kirun
Buzzfeed Editor
Pretty easy actually in a country that's 10 time zones wide, that US can't invade, and satellite surveillance is nonexistent
Pretty easy actually in a country that's 10 time zones wide, that US can't invade, and satellite surveillance is nonexistent
Poland was no innocent virgin either who was Eiffel Towered by 2 mean dictators as Poland annexed chunks of Sudetenland in 1938 as well.
LOL Britain
That's a good one.
Britain sucked up all of the magical Lendlease and contributed about 0.02% to the war. They got chased off the mainland and never made it back until Germany was broken.
The Soviets had nuclear weapons during the Korean War. Their first nuclear test was in 1949. Korean War was 1950-1953.
Japan would get my vote (guess) for strongest overall in 1938. They had the second best Navy with 3 fleet carriers and a fully battle hardened army that had been fighting in China for years. Their Aircraft was some of the best at the time, with a lot of them in production. They skimped on armor, small arms, and other areas to use those resources on the Navy and Aircraft, though.
All argument aside, I think Rajaah must have went to the worst high school in the world because he mentions being misled by his textbook/school in basically every single post.
So your vote is for Germany?
I think you're the first person I've seen argue that Japan was strongest (or was stronger than Germany for that matter). Good points though. A lot of people don't know how advanced Japan's navy actually was. They had some really impressive, modern ships.
Putting aside how badly it fared, Japan's Yamato really was the archetype of a battleship:
View attachment 485086
I have this big chip on my shoulder lately about "how much I've been lied to". Particularly by news media and movies, but I also suspect the history books are pretty far off given they're biased towards the winners. So much of what I learned turned out to later be grossly oversimplified or distorted in favor of a narrative. Nothing against my textbooks (I don't even remember what exactly they said), it's more that the bar for my expectations has gotten so low that it has burrowed into the Earth's crust.
Edit: We should probably have a WW2 thread, lot of interesting stuff here and it's in a thread for a movie
Once you accept that history (outside of the time and the place) is the subjective retelling by human actors, it's a bit easier to move forward in learning about it. Best you can get is multiple independent accounts to verify any information. I find archology and anthropology rather boring, but it's really great when there is supporting evidence, from those fields, for a historical event with multiple accounts.Over the past few years I basically stopped reading any history from the last 300 years because the expectation for honesty is basically zero even about shit that happened in the 1700s
That's true but a lot of history books in last 30 years have a noticeable SJW "white people bad" slant. But it often doesn't pop up until you're about 150 pages into the book and then you're like "god fucking dammit. It's one of those". And then it's a sunken cost dilemmaOnce you accept that history (outside of the time and the place) is the subjective retelling by human actors, it's a bit easier to move forward in learning about it. Best you can get is multiple independent accounts to verify any information. I find archology and anthropology rather boring, but it's really great when there is supporting evidence, from those fields, for a historical event with multiple accounts.
I like thinking about Cesar as an example. We can verify much of his life, from various accounts from other contemporaries and archology, but (afaik) a decent amount of his "brilliance" in battle is only known because of the book he wrote about himself.
Saying the USSR was not actively annexing land prior to WW2 is laughably false.
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Parts of Finland
Besserabia
China was fifth but it was a WHILE later, like mid 1960's.
, or B) Jump in and slice off their own piece of western Ukraine while their armed forces are all over in the east.
. Britain and France had them soon afterwards, probably because the US was spreading them around like Johnny Appleseed.
What planet are you on? Cause it sure as shit isn't this one.
Have you missed the build up of Polish forces to secure the border with Belarus due to the alleged threat from Wagner forces being exiled/stationed there?
Poland and NATO are infinitely more concerned with securing the Suwałki Gap between Kaliningrad and Belarus, than Poland annexing parts of the country it's taken more refugees from than anyone else
The US stopped co operating with Britain on nukes after ww2 via the Atomic Energy Act
This belongs in a different thread at this point, but I could see Poland trying to seize part of western Ukraine if the opportunity presented itself, like if Ukraine's government and military collapsed or were about to collapse and most of it is about to fall to Russia, Poland may try to create a buffer zone. My point is that Poland seems opportunistic and I don't think they're looking out for anyone except Poland.
Araysar Thoughts?
They were just playing defense bro.Saying the USSR was not actively annexing land prior to WW2 is laughably false.
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Parts of Finland
Besserabia
, like if Ukraine's government and military collapsed or were about to collapse and most of it is about to fall to Russia,
I wish my country only thought of itselfThis belongs in a different thread at this point, but I could see Poland trying to seize part of western Ukraine if the opportunity presented itself, like if Ukraine's government and military collapsed or were about to collapse and most of it is about to fall to Russia, Poland may try to create a buffer zone. My point is that Poland seems opportunistic and I don't think they're looking out for anyone except Poland.
Araysar Thoughts?
That's not what you said originally and lol at tagging in the Russian larp-bot
Jump in and slice off their own piece of western Ukraine while their armed forces are all over in the east.
What I said later:
like if Ukraine's government and military collapsed or were about to collapse and most of it is about to fall to Russia,
No,
Because A) makes it sound like Poland is a potential aggressor about to steal land from Ukraine whilst Ukraine can't defend itself. B) turns Poland from potential aggressor against Ukraine into pre-emptively defending itself against an imminently victorious Russia.
It was A) that is absurd.
Even more absurd if you ACTUALLY look at the map - specifically the aforementioned Suwałki gap in the NE corner of Poland which borders Kalingrad (Russian) and Belarus (Russian Ally). That bit of Polish land is what's separating Kalingrad from Belarus. So it makes no strategic or geographic sense for Poland to suddenly annex parts of Eastern Ukraine to the SE of Poland as a "buffer zone" when Russia can just march in through Belarus or Kalingrad
Just go and read up about it The most dangerous place on earth