Re: ww3

On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 7:56:40 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Dienstag000014, 14.01.2025 um 09:53 schrieb Bertietaylor:

On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 7:15:51 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
>

Am Donnerstag000009, 09.01.2025 um 11:01 schrieb Bertietaylor:
>

NATO already has ships in the Black Sea.
>

>
Possibly yes, but there is no war between Russia and NATO till now.
>
Important is, what would happen in the case of a conflict.

>
Russia would get it's ass kicked even more than it's getting its ass
kicked now.

>
Germany has tried to do this several times and lost every single war
with Russia- mostly very miserably.

>
>
Bullshit, in 1ww Germany beat Russia and forced
to  a separate peace.

>
True but a century earlier they thrashed the French.

>
Napoleon was a shithead from Corsica and has invaded Prussia.
>
The French forced Prussia to participate in the war against Russia, what
the Prussians disliked.
>
The scumbag named 'Napoleon' later left the war unharmed, but the
Prussians didn't and died there in large numbers.
>
 From Prussian perspective this war had the sole aim to decimate
Prussians.
>
As a revenge the Prussians helped the British to destroy Napoleon in
Waterloo.

>
Russians and Germans were feudal and imperial whereas France was modern
and egalitarian.
>
Napoleon ranks with Alexander, Caesar and Hitler as among the four top
European leaders, for egalitarianism and modernity.

>
All of them did essentially the same thing:
>
they have sent their armies into territories, which were not theirs and
forced the inhabitants of the occupied regions to fight in their army.
>
In case of Napoleon this was a disaster for the Prussians, which died in
large numbers in the Russian winter.
>
That stupid corsian piece of shit didn't do that, however, but left the
Prussians there to die together with the French soldiers.
>
Hitler did almost the same thing.
>
Hitlers occupation involved more serious crimes however, which were much
more devastating for the German soldiers.
>
E.g. Hitler refused to occupy Leningrad.
>
This was extremely stupid, because Leningrad has a harbor and having a
harbor there would allow the Wehrmacht to use ships (instead of walking
through the Russian winter).
>
To prevent German success, the Nazis had to surround Leningrad and
starved 1 million Russians to death, which was a very serious crime,
too.
>
But it was also extremely stupid, because with occupation of Leningrad
the Baltic Sea would have been entirely under German control.
>
That in turn would allow Navi-ships to move quite safely back and forth
and that in  turn would have saved millions of lifes.
>
>
Also the Stalingrad campaign was extremely stupid and extremely deadly.
>
It made not sense of any kind to invade that region in the first place.
>
But especially the city Stalingrad was of no particular interest and the
campaigned served no obvious purpose (despite wiping out an entire
army).
>
So: Hitler was a piece of shit, too, but for very similar reasons as
Napoleon.

Pale versions of Genghis Khan.
No sentimentality or squeamishness, just take the existing order and
destroy it like a natural force, like forest fire, tsunami, volcano,
etc.

>
>
>
>
>
>
....
>
>
TH