Everyone was as (in)competent as the others, but the strongest won .wm wrote:Then who were the competent people at that time?
?
Saying that some were competent, is also saying that others were incompetent .And that is very questionable .
Everyone was as (in)competent as the others, but the strongest won .wm wrote:Then who were the competent people at that time?
?
Isn't that true without The Afrika Korps the Italian "damaging" efforts would have ended very early on - resulting in another example of gross incompetence?BDV wrote:Unfortunately, it seems British themselves suffer of DAKsnobbery.
Much like the HawkerHurricane doing the most damage in BoB, Italians did most of the damage in North Africa fighting.
wm wrote:"BDV":Unfortunately, it seems British themselves suffer of DAKsnobbery.
Isn't that true without The Afrika Korps the Italian "damaging" efforts would have ended very early on - resulting in another example of gross incompetence?
Looks like I’ll be doing the quote thing after all...wm wrote:Then who were the competent people at that time?
The British, who despite having naval supremacy, "ruling the waves", and even advance warnings allowed the game changing naval invasion of Norway to succeed?
Or the small German force to rampage through North Africa for so long?
Or the French, who having more tanks, soldiers, artillery, basically more everything were defeated so ignominiously that even today for many the French equals cowards (once dropped, never used)?
Or the Americans and their numerous allies who allowed Japan to conquer vast territories, to be laboriously reconquered later at the price of 364,748 casualties.
Or even the Germans or the Japanese, starting their unwinnable wars?
Basically I've said it isn't true they "made huge military and diplomatic mistakes which nearly ended their regime" - from the point of view of the regime, which obviously is the only that counts.maltesefalcon wrote:It implies something has changed to make the USSR hypercompetent, thus also implying that it was not, IRL. I asked for further details on what changed in the country and how it happened. Those comments were addressed to the OP.
A huge but poor country, full of barely literate peasants and former peasants is lacking by definition.maltesefalcon wrote:There was definitely something lacking.
Depends what you mean by "huge". The attacks on Finland are a pretty big deal given the cost they entailed. Same for the removing the Latvian speed bump.wm wrote:Basically I've said it isn't true they "made huge military and diplomatic mistakes which nearly ended their regime" - from the point of view of the regime, which obviously is the only that counts.
More correctly not political, but territorial goals/wm wrote:All the annexations were long standing Soviet political goals.
Hitler allocated the annexed territories to Stalin in the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, in exchange Stalin gave Hitler free hand in Romania. It would be unreasonable to reject such one in a million opportunity. And it was pointless to be friendly towards the Romanians after they had been given to Hitler earlier.
There was no point in signing the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and then not consuming its benefits.
The Nazis weren't nice to Romania too, they forced the Romanians to cede Northern Transylvania to Hungary (and southern Dobruja to Bulgaria). Some say it was much greater shock to the Romanians than the half-expected Soviet annexation of Bessarabia.
Should that not have read "3 minutes since my last post"?Lars wrote:More than 7 years since my last post. Oh well..