Europe under extreme duress

[Notanaviator]

Yeah, gonna go ahead and once again ask you to source that claim.

It makes perfect sense to say that Afghanistan was/is a tribal country with no sense of national identity, but I don't think the same rings true for Iraq.

Have recommended it before, but a good portion of The Prize by Daniel Yergin covers the geopolitical history of the Middle East through the lens of the oil and gas industry, development of which created all the lines on the map. Iraq is pretty much the F-35 of the region. Three distinct cultures, smushed into one country, with nobody really happy.

 

[Mirage]

The Ukrainians would have been forced to live under a pro-Russian regime with all that that entails. Any freedoms in terms of criticizing such, and anything Western-style, would have been prohibited.

Iraq was never really a "country" in the sense of having any national sense of nationhood though, and I don't think those troops really believed the U.S. would subjugate them in spite of Saddam's propaganda. They also knew their own level of actual training and that the U.S. and coalition forces were likely far better trained and equipped. Whereas the Ukrainian troops had received training from NATO and very much have a national sense of identity, a sense of Ukrainian nationhood, and do not want to be subjugated by Russia.

I can name dozens of militaries who fell apart when the bullets started flying that were facing far worse potential oppression than the Ukrainians did. I can also name plenty of militaries trained by the US and our allies who fell apart. Hell, we trained and equipped Afghan soldiers for near 2 decades and they lasted a couple days before changing uniforms because of some thugs with small arms.

If you're trying to prove that it is not abnormal historically (or a minor miracle) that Ukrainians stood and fought, I'm not following your argument.

 

[Random8145]

I can name dozens of militaries who fell apart when the bullets started flying that were facing far worse potential oppression than the Ukrainians did. I can also name plenty of militaries trained by the US and our allies who fell apart. Hell, we trained and equipped Afghan soldiers for near 2 decades and they lasted a couple days before changing uniforms because of some thugs with small arms.

If you're trying to prove that it is not abnormal historically (or a minor miracle) that Ukrainians stood and fought, I'm not following your argument.

What are some of the dozens of militaries? (not saying your argument is wrong, but I mean out of curiosity). On Afghanistan, that again was never really a country. There was likely no real sense of national pride or sense of nation on the part of the Afghan soldiers for them to bother fighting the Taliban forces.

In terms of the type of country Ukraine is, I do not see how it is abnormal that they stood and fought. In WWII, when the Germans were initially overrunning everyone, countries tried to fight back, they just got quickly defeated.

 

[Mirage]

What are some of the dozens of militaries? (not saying your argument is wrong, but I mean out of curiosity). On Afghanistan, that again was never really a country. There was likely no real sense of national pride or sense of nation on the part of the Afghan soldiers for them to bother fighting the Taliban forces.

In terms of the type of country Ukraine is, I do not see how it is abnormal that they stood and fought. In WWII, when the Germans were initially overrunning everyone, countries tried to fight back, they just got quickly defeated.

Countries during WW2 hardly fought back when they were invaded.. most soldiers put on civilian clothes a cowered away. England being an exception. France militarily had the ability to put up far more of a fight than they did. Hardly anyone actually fought Germans in most of Europe.. the Germans showed up to empty streets or even parades welcoming them. That's quite a few countries right there in one war.

Romans, Greeks, Ottomans, Huns.. throughout history, no matter the scale, the most likely thing by far that will happen if a force that appears far superior shows up is that they will meet little resistance. The examples of people believing themselves greatly outmatched and still fighting on are few and far between (Leonidas, Alamo, etc.) That's why people make such a big deal about it when it happens.

Of course, now in hindsight we know the Russians did not outmatch the Ukrainians so much.

And on Afghanistan.. did they have the strongest national identity? No.. but neither did their attackers. Your point was having NATO training was the key.. which Afghan forces had much more of than the Ukrainians.

 

[wink]

The examples of people believing themselves greatly outmatched and still fighting on are few and far between (Leonidas, Alamo, etc.) That's why people make such a big deal about it when it happens.

Battle of Sargarhi. Should be more well known.

 

[Random8145]

Countries during WW2 hardly fought back when they were invaded.. most soldiers put on civilian clothes a cowered away. England being an exception. France militarily had the ability to put up far more of a fight than they did. Hardly anyone actually fought Germans in most of Europe.. the Germans showed up to empty streets or even parades welcoming them. That's quite a few countries right there in one war.

Romans, Greeks, Ottomans, Huns.. throughout history, no matter the scale, the most likely thing by far that will happen if a force that appears far superior shows up is that they will meet little resistance. The examples of people believing themselves greatly outmatched and still fighting on are few and far between (Leonidas, Alamo, etc.) That's why people make such a big deal about it when it happens.

My thinking was Poland tried to fight back but was overrun. Czechoslovakia Hitler threatened and they told him to go fly a kite and mobilized their military. Hitler was stopped (initially) because the Czech military was actually quite sizable. Britain fought back as we know and France tried, but was out-fought. That said, I do get your point. I guess to me the reason the Ukrainians standing and fighting wasn't all that shocking is given the fierce national pride Ukrainians seem to have. I have a feeling that even without NATO training they still would probably have tried to fight back.

Of course, now in hindsight we know the Russians did not outmatch the Ukrainians so much.

And on Afghanistan.. did they have the strongest national identity? No.. but neither did their attackers. Your point was having NATO training was the key.. which Afghan forces had much more of than the Ukrainians.

IMO, their attackers didn't need national identity as they have a just-as-good equivalent, which is extreme religious zeal/identity. Also I didn't say NATO training was the key but rather NATO training combined with patriotism/strong national identity. Also don't forget the Soviets in WWII. Initially, everyone expected the Soviet Union would collapse, and initially the Red Army was comically inept against the Germans, but they still fought back very ferociously.

 

[Mos]

Czechoslovakia Hitler threatened and they told him to go fly a kite and mobilized their military. Hitler was stopped (initially) because the Czech military was actually quite sizable.

What makes you think the Czech mobilization deterred Hitler, as opposed to the willingness of Britain and France to entertain negotiations?

Also, how is this relevant? Following that mobilization the Czech government's cession of Sudetenland preempted its military playing any meaningful role, so we didn't get to see how the Czech military would've held up against the German army.

 

[Random8145]

What makes you think the Czech mobilization deterred Hitler, as opposed to the willingness of Britain and France to entertain negotiations?

Hitler's generals were terrified of any major conflict with Czechoslovakia because of the capability and size of the Czech military and warned Hitler that the German military was not in any state to take on that country. The Czechs had been building up their military for two decades at that point. They had a very professional and capable general staff, ability for rapid mobilization, first-rate equipment (very good tanks, artillery, firearms, etc...) and a sizable force that was roughly comparable to Germany's when comparing to the German forces with actual capability, and mountainous terrain with lots of fortifications, whereas Germany was still in the building up process. The Czechs had the best arms factories in the world at the time as well, and the addition of the country to Hitler's empire helped greatly increase its strength.

Hitler himself later admitted, "When after Munich, we were in a position to examine Czechoslovak military strength from within, what we saw of it greatly disturbed us; we had run a serious danger. The plan prepared by the Czech generals was formidable. I now understand why my generals urged restraint.”

In addition, had Hitler attacked, Britain and France might well have attacked as well and German would almost certainly have been defeated.

Also, how is this relevant? Following that mobilization the Czech government's cession of Sudetenland preempted its military playing any meaningful role, so we didn't get to see how the Czech military would've held up against the German army.

I was responding to Mirage's post about what the Germans faced in conquering Europe and peoples standing up to aggressors.

 

[Brett327]

Hitler's generals were terrified

I’m terrified to even contemplate that Random here has opinions on Hitler’s generals. ?

 

[Random8145]

I’m terrified to even contemplate that Random here has opinions on Hitler’s generals. ?

Any opinions of Hitler's generals I have are from having read books/articles by qualified authors.

 

[Brett327]

Any opinions of Hitler's generals I have are from having read books/articles by qualified authors.

How do you verify the authors' qualifications?

 

[Mirage]

Hitler's generals were terrified of any major conflict with Czechoslovakia because of the capability and size of the Czech military and warned Hitler that the German military was not in any state to take on that country. The Czechs had been building up their military for two decades at that point. They had a very professional and capable general staff, ability for rapid mobilization, first-rate equipment (very good tanks, artillery, firearms, etc...) and a sizable force that was roughly comparable to Germany's when comparing to the German forces with actual capability, and mountainous terrain with lots of fortifications, whereas Germany was still in the building up process. The Czechs had the best arms factories in the world at the time as well, and the addition of the country to Hitler's empire helped greatly increase its strength.

Hitler himself later admitted, "When after Munich, we were in a position to examine Czechoslovak military strength from within, what we saw of it greatly disturbed us; we had run a serious danger. The plan prepared by the Czech generals was formidable. I now understand why my generals urged restraint.”

In addition, had Hitler attacked, Britain and France might well have attacked as well and German would almost certainly have been defeated.

I was responding to Mirage's post about what the Germans faced in conquering Europe and peoples standing up to aggressors.

Don't worry about Brett.. he likes to criticize people rather than their arguments.

At any rate, you're saying lots of stuff that has nothing to do with our discussion, and what is relevant isn't well thought out. Talking about how the Czech capability scared Hitler has nothing to do with why soldiers decide to stand and fight or not. Meanwhile, saying France tried to fight but was simply out fought is just wrong. Likewise, attributing Ukrainian soldiers willingness to fight to a "fierce national pride" implies that is something other Euro nations lack. The French have as much of that as the Ukrainians, and a much more capable military compared to their attacker, yet they folded in embarrassing fashion.

 

[Brett327]

Yes... "how do you verify the source material for your research?" The worst kind of Ad Hominem attack.

 

[Mirage]

I’m terrified to even contemplate that Random here has opinions on Hitler’s generals. ?

Here's what I was referring to. Your question regarding his sources is just silly.. do you have some info that makes you question something he's stated? If so, what is it? Please contribute to the discussion. Attacking him and questioning his sources contributes nothing.

 

[Random8145]

How do you verify the authors' qualifications?

Their credentials and standing within the community of people knowledgeable about the subject.