British Officers Don't Duck!

His entire persona is a gimmick at this point

>>2048159
> 60.000 casualties in the killing zone on the first day of the Somme
> h-hey but morale is great....

>>2048159
Clearly watching my officer get his head blown off by shrapnel makes me more willing to fight Jerry. I don't see what's wrong with the video.

File: 1444678737466.jpg (26KB, 313x286px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 313x286px

>>2048159
>18 minutes of badly misinformed rambling

>>2048189
and then his/ make fun of Zhukov

>>2048159
Lindy pls, get a job.

>>2048195
Just like any other video of him lately.

>>2048159
>british officers dont duck
>fucks off back to his island while the french fight and die to cover his retreat

lindy is well informed of history, he just refuses to let go of nationalism

File: lindyinchargeofphysics.png (18KB, 305x177px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 305x177px

can we make a compilation of Lindy going full retard in the comment sections?

>>2048242
context?

>>2048195
I don't see you refuting him.

>>2048252
It's from his latest video (which is also full of shit but that's for another thread) where he said his stirling engine produced about 1W of power, where this guy said that's way too much. So he responded with "1W/month". Maybe he was trolling

File: 1479406809576.png (48KB, 585x320px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 585x320px

>>2048242

>>2048401
He's not wrong though. The Russians, for example, saw Napoleon in very similar terms to Hitler, and used the parallels of the '1812 Patriotic War' as it was known, in propaganda throughout the war.

To Americans, Hitler's main point of note is that he killed a load of Jews. In Europe however, the main memory is that he was a populist, nationalist rabble rouser that invaded and/or bombed the shit out of their countries, killing soldiers and civilians alike. The latter being exactly the same as Napoleon (except the bombing part obviously).

In the US, people think of Hitler as a killer of Jews. In Poland, he's seen as a killer of Poles. In Russia he's seen as a killer of Russians. This is identical to how many nations at the time (Russia and Britain especially, but also Portugal, Spain, Austria, Prussia and others) saw Napoleon.

>>2048662
What about these then

>no one used swords, axes
>no one used horses
>no one used throwing knives
>no one used double strap arm shields
>no one used scythes
>no one used mail coifs
>no one used torches
>Pikemen didn't fight each other
>no one spoke French during the French revolution
>no one spoke Latin during the Roman Republic
>battle of Zama didn't happen
>Romans carried one pilum
>Vikings weren't real
>berserkers weren't real
>climate change isn't real
>stagnant social mobility isn't real
>castles were defended by three soldiers
>butted mail is better than riveted mail
>operation market garden was a success

>>2048710
kek every time

>>2048159

Fuck right off, French officers in the battle of the Frontiers (and countless other engagements) stood upright on the battlefield and died gallantly.

Where can I get shirts with those collard?!?!?

>>2048710
He doesnt actually claim most of these

>>2048735
Got any eye-witness reports of that?

We know for a fact they did a whole lot of surrendering in WW2

>>2048710
>castles were defended by three soldiers

But this is true (if exaggerated), often castles had very tiny garrisons. Especially in peacetime or if they were in an isolated backwater (like Wales).

>>2048748
Battle of the Frontiers was ww1. French were insanely brave in that war

File: 1459463323730.png (42KB, 732x441px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 732x441px

>>2048242
Eurofags BTFO

>>2048748

Read any one of a half dozen good WWI histories. French poilus were tough motherfuckers who suffered because of pre-WWI decisions by the General staff.

>>2048754
Lead by brave and heroic officers who died off before WW2?

Why do the heroic and tough french surrender when paris falls?

>>2048768

Don't equate defeat in WW2 to some sort of national level cowardice. It was more complex than that, and you know it.

>>2048710
>no one used swords, axes
Never said this, he has said that they were backup weapons, and less effective than maces/hammers, which is true.

>no one used horses
Never said this, he said the idea of riding horses when chariots were in use must have been crazy, similar to the "who thought up milking cows" thing.

>no one used throwing knives
Unless we're talking Hunga Mungas, no one really did.

>no one used double strap arm shields
Literally never said this.

>no one used scythes
No one did. Agricultural scythes are very fragile.

>no one used mail coifs
Literally never said this.

>no one used torches
Literally never said this.

>Pikemen didn't fight each other
Didn't explicitly say this, but he implied it, and yeah it's retarded, he's wrong.

>no one spoke French during the French revolution
Literally never said this.

>no one spoke Latin during the Roman Republic
Literally never said this.

>battle of Zama didn't happen
Literally never said this.

>Romans carried one pilum
We don't actually have any primary sources stating explicitly how many or what kind of pila Legionnaires carried, this is just speculation.

>Vikings weren't real
He said the term Viking in reference to an entire people is stupid. He's right, the word (vikingr) means to adventure/to sail far across the sea.

>berserkers weren't real
There is little primary source information on berserkers, so it's largely speculation.

>climate change isn't real
Literally never said this.

>stagnant social mobility isn't real
Literally never said this.

>castles were defended by three soldiers
Never said 3 specifically, but they were defended by very small numbers of men. Harlech castle was defended, during Owain Glindwr's rebellion by a garrison equipped with "three shields, eight helmets, six lances, ten pairs of gloves, and four guns", for 2 YEARS.

>butted mail is better than riveted mail
He said it's easier to make. Which it is.

>operation market garden was a success
Literally never said this.

>>2048768
Because literally half of the military age men of france died in ww1 and they hadnt recovered by the time ww2 rolled around

>>2048788
You're wrong on market garden; in a youtube comment he defends MG first by saying that "patton" regarded it as a success or some shit but then goes on to imply that what patton said was true by using a fact that the area lost was eventually recaptured by the allies.

>>2048801
>You're wrong on market garden; in a youtube comment he defends MG first by saying that "patton" regarded it as a success or some shit but then goes on to imply that what patton said was true by using a fact that the area lost was eventually recaptured by the allies.

Link or gtfo.

>>2048801
sorry not patton montgomery iirc

>>2048788
>>Pikemen didn't fight each other
I believe his actual statements are that medieval pike formations tended to fight each other with sidearms rather than their pikes

He also specifically points out that the Swiss pikemen were famous for actually engaging other pikemen with their pikes

>>2048802
I'm at work so I don't have on hand but hopefully someone will post it.

File: thisisntweed.jpg (31KB, 640x458px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 640x458px

>>2048159
This guy is so retarded.

>>2048784
Surrendering unconditionally is pretty cowardly if you still have a large army in the field

>>2048814
Yes but it was the upper echelons of the military and government who were cowardly rather than the soldiery or average citizen

>>2048401
But he's right.

>>2048814

France's army was cut off from its industrial and logistical base. This is not a trivial thing in any era, especially not in modern warfare.

Besides, there was plenty of heroic self sacrifice from French units throughout the war.

>>2048814
You know germany did exactly this in ww1

>>2048834

The German army had been decisively defeated. By early November it was melting away.

>>2048823
They still controlled the bulk of the country, and a north african empire

>>2048837

With no substantial military units to defend it. France is not like Russia, they couldn't withdraw into the vast wastes. France is a relatively small country. When its armies were neutralized, then the country could be occupied quickly enough to prevent the raising of new armies.

File: Ney-at-Kowno.jpg (345KB, 1620x1280px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1620x1280px

>>2048159
Shall we really compare Wellington to Lasalle, Ney or Murat?

>>2048814
>being this ignorant

back to /pol/ my friend

>>2048836
As the French had been

>>2048802
http://4archive.org/board/k/thread/30122563

Reference is made to it here; I've seen a screencap but I cant find his comment. You can see multiple anons calling him out on the bullshit in that archive though.

>>2048845
Wellington was smart enough to nurse his army through a day long battle and emerge victorious, Ney was to thick to understand fear

>>2048853

When?

File: 1477506281496.png (77KB, 841x637px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 841x637px

>>2048802
There you go asshole

>>2048856
>Reference is made to it here; I've seen a screencap but I cant find his comment.
Ah, you've -seen- a screencap, that proves it.

>You can see multiple anons calling him out on the bullshit in that archive though.
Yeah 4chan users, notorious for watching and properly comprehending videos posted in the OPs of threads. Such as the one we're in.

Nice job trying to evade the fact that you have literally no proof of what you're saying and you're just talking shit.

>>2048867
When their army was outflanked and cutoff and the entire heartland of their nation was undefended

>>2048878
>>2048891
This amuses me

>>2048892

I don't dispute France was defeated in WWII. It just wasn't due to cowardice on the part of the common soldier.

>>2048878
>>2048891
fucking kek nice one
desu tho do you know if what he says is wrong or no?

>>2048891
>>2048878
Thanks to whoever blew you the fuck out, you buttmad anglo

File: wellingfail65.png (491KB, 968x736px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 968x736px

>>2048859
And yet each time they met, Ney prevailed

>>2048902
Not when it mattered

Why is WW2 even on the table if we're comparing France and Britain's military histories?
Britain was as pathetic as France in that war
What does getting saved by geography has to do with quality of officers?

>>2048898
I know, thats what I said. Either you misread or I was unclear

>>2048159
This video isn't bad, most of it his him reading a firsthand account of a soldier.

>>2048662
Napoleon didnt massacre Russian civilians en mass like Hitler, on the contrary he treated them pretty well (the few they hadnt fled the French advance and were still there under his occupation)
That's the reason why Russians didnt chimp out and mass rape French women (like they did to the Germans during WW2) when they zerg rushed ¨Paris in 1814

>>2048221
>lindy is well informed of history,
He isn't though.

>>2048788
>and less effective than maces/hammers, which is true.
It isn't, though.

>>2048808
>I believe his actual statements are that medieval pike formations tended to fight each other with sidearms rather than their pikes
He claims both.
It's more "THEY TOTALLY DIDN'T FIGHT BUT IF THEY DID THEY DIDN'T USE THE PIKES BECUSE REENACTORS LOL WHATS A PRIMARY SOURCE?"

He's wrong on both counts. Not uncommon.

>>2048973
Well fair enough. You have a link to any primary sources discussing pike formations fighting?

>>2048975
Not off hand, no. Pikemen using their pikes is such a common and well understood thing that I've never bothered taking note of sources for it. It's honestly like asking me for sources that archers shot arrows at each other in battle instead of having arm wrestling matches.

>>2048963
I mean he hasn't claimed to be a historian, just someone who has an interest in history. I don't watch his videos to learn true facts about history, just to watch someone ramble about it.

>>2048662
Absolute nonsense. From his exile on St. Helena:
>Lowe created a set of petty rules that included restricting Napoleon to the Longwood estate and requiring that the British not address Napoleon by his proper titles, but only as a general. He demanded that Napoleon pay for part of his imprisonment, so Napoleon offered up some Imperial silver for sale. This created such a backlash in Europe that the demand had to be canceled. He refused to provide sufficient firewood. News that Napoleon was burning his furniture to stay warm again caused such a backlash of public sympathy that the supply of firewood was restored.
You think, if Hitler had been captured and imprisoned rather than killing himself, people in 1950 who have been protesting against ill treatment? Half of Europe saw Napoleon as a great leader or a liberator, and the other half at least begrudgingly respected him, including the British and Russians. Really the only people I can think of that had a consistently negative attitude of him were the Prussians.

>>2048986
Why do people always use this retarded excuse? Just because you admit your uniformed, doesn't give you the right to spout bullshit

>>2049011
>doesn't give you the right to spout bullshit
Everybody has this right.

No one should be watching him for meticulously researched historical conclusions

>>2049019
>Everybody has this right.
Clearly wasn't talking about the legal right, retard.

>No one should be watching him for meticulously researched historical conclusions
You may not, but there are clearly people who are dumb enough to do so, and him admitting to being an ignoramus doesn't absolve him of responsibility for misinforming people. If you don't know about a topic, a good rule of thumb is to just shut up about it until you get more educated.

>>2049033
>Clearly wasn't talking about the legal right, retard.
Nor was I

>but there are clearly people who are dumb enough to do so, and him admitting to being an ignoramus doesn't absolve him of responsibility for misinforming people
Yes it does. He gives his opinions on topics he repeatedly states he is not an expert in, if anybody takes what he says as gospel truth then its their own damn fault for being morons

>>2049008
Are Anglos the most petty and passive aggressive people in existence?

>>2048966
It's half true. Maces and hammers were more effective against plate mail, since they were bludgeoning weapons and could damage the armor more than a sword could. However, most infantry did not wear plate mail. Judging by how the sword later became a mark of the aristocracy, I'm going to make an educated guess that axes and hammers (easy to produce, lots of uses outside of killing people) were likely the most popular weapons throughout the Middle Ages.

>>2049068
>I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'm going to say stupid shit anyway, just because I can, and you can't criticize me because I said it was just my opinion
Literally the cancer that is killing Western civilization, kys

>>2049083
>I'm going to make an educated guess that axes and hammers (easy to produce, lots of uses outside of killing people)
No.

File: e34.jpg (34KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 640x640px

>>2049089

>>2048217

At least try and get the right war, anon.

File: molyjew.jpg (12KB, 426x240px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 426x240px

>>2049101

File: 1445568639341.jpg (70KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 640x480px

>>2048753

Lindy doesn't usually trigger me like it does half of /his/ but what the fuck.

>>2049110
He triggers the autists who dont have a steady grip on reality

>>2048753
>abstract concepts like 'kilos' instead of actual weights like pounds
Christ what has to happen to a person to make them so dumb?

>>2048753
Finally, somebody with the courage to speak the truth.

>>2048662
>Countries see Hitler as the killer of their people
>America sees Hitler as the killer of Jews
That says it all, really.

File: beigeman1.png (1003KB, 958x718px) Image search: [Google]

1003KB, 958x718px

"When you play chess, you take turns. But... why do you take turns? Well, it's in the rules isn't it? Yes, but how would that play out? Let's say I have a big, strong knight and on my turn I have him crush an enemy pawn and... then what? An enemy bishop shows up and he just stands there, faffing about? Of course not, this is a highly trained knight! He should be able to retreat or better yet, he should be able to fight back against a mere bishop".

"And why is white allowed to go first anyway? Medieval armies didn't just decide "well, your side has the brightest colors so you're allowed to go first!". If that were the case everyone would be wearing white. Having the initiative is based on experience and training and mettle, not how much sunlight your clothes reflect. I propose that the player who first touches the piece he wants to use gets to move his piece first. It'll make the game fast paced, a lot more fun and most importantly a lot les rubbish".

What did he mean by this?

>>2049362
He means he's stupid.

Also, 10 second timers, go or you lose the turn do far more to speed up chess. It also forces a lot of people to use-and develop-a different skillset.

File: british languages classrooms.jpg (36KB, 614x133px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 614x133px

if the english are so fucking proud of being english then maybe they should do something about english people being replaced in their capital city by immigrants

File: bishop.gif (86KB, 300x351px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 300x351px

>>2049362
>An enemy bishop shows up and he just stands there, faffing about? Of course not, this is a highly trained knight! He should be able to retreat or better yet, he should be able to fight back against a mere bishop".
>fight back against a mere bishop
>mere bishop

Problem being that many Bishops had been trained as knights, and loved kicking the shit out of people as much as the next feudal lord.

>>2048159
this isn't history, this nationalist bullshit hysteria.

>>2048753
>imperial system is good
>metric system makes no sense
I bet he also misses the Shilling and calls the decimalization a mistake kek

>>2048189
"I must unite the british officers under one mass grave"

t. general lord Zhukount

>>2048905
It mattered every single time. Had the british won any one of these battles, it would've been huge.

The war of France against the world was very asymmetrical, the french couldn't take any punches, they needed a flawless victory or it was over.

>>2048217

>expecting French men to actually be able to defend France is too much
>it's all the fault of the British, somehow

>>2048750

One castle in Herefordshire I think was defended by one man. He wasn't even a knight or soldier. He was a porter who basically kept the place livable until it was needed

>>2048908

Why is using geography to your advantage seen as a bad thing?

>>2050198
Because geographical use in military conflicts is unbalanced as hell
>France uses Ardennes forest as natural obstacle against German tanks
>they just rolled through all the trees there wooow gg ez

>>2049362
Sounds like a comedy bit really.

So for the haha's.

>>2048753
>actual weights
lol

>>2050210

>the man is now such a walking meme, people are legitimately unable to tell made up comedy versions from his actual material

>>2048710
kek
he spreads so much misinformation

>>2050287

>implying that pasta itself isn't misinformation
>implying he isn't actually correct about most of those points

The guy says enough stupid stuff without needing to exaggerate.

>>2049634
Did he really say that?

>>2048750
>especially in peacetime

So it literally means fuck all. Of course the garrison would consist of fuck all if there wasn't an actual threat to the fortification.

File: War_hammer2.jpg (8KB, 160x553px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 160x553px

>>2049083
>hammers
>lots of uses outside killing people

Do you even fucking know how a war hammer looks like? They didn't go to war with fucking mallets.

>>2048176
>His entire persona is a gimmick at this point

He's larping amirite fellow under20s?

>>2049420
what could you possibly do? London is a different beast

>>2050354
It's probably not what a peasant would have used. That example likely comes from a collection of older weapons that have survived the ages. Do you think a peasant's hammer is going to make it into an armory case, or a knight's?

That hairy fuck is way too old not to have a job

File: bald hema man.jpg (66KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1280x720px

Opinions on this human being?

>>2050345

Except when rebellions broke out. They could quite rapidly seize the initiative and capture castles that were poorly manned in, ostensibly, peacetime.

It really does matter.

>>2049008
>Really the only people I can think of that had a consistently negative attitude of him were the Prussians
And Spanish

>>2051455
Holy shit you're retarded.

>>2048753
>I use imperial because it is good

>>2048891
>>2048878
B T F O
T
F
O

>>2051729
Why the fuck would you have a job when you're getting all that sweet youtube money.

>>2048159
>thinks men in combat actually look up to idiots that stand around in the open instead of seeking cover

>>2051455
>hurr durr peasant levies armed with wooden pitchforks were the main infantry force during the middle ages

A peasant most likely wouldn't be on the battlefield to begin with. And certainly not during the fucking period plate armour was commonplace enough to warrant specialized weaponry like war hammers.

>>2054309
Professional soldiers are a novelty in human history, so unless you specify a period, then a "peasant" is very, very likely to be found on a battlefield.

>>2054311
No, you fucking retard, a middle class freeman would most likely be found on the battlefield, you know, the guy that would actually be able to afford himself some actual equipment?

"Peasants armed with pitchforks" is a fucking meme, why would any fucking feudal lord send out his main source of income to just get slaughtered in the field?

>professional soldiers are a novelty in human history

I wasn't aware that mercenaries were a recent development.

>>2052445

How is that retarded? It's pretty much accepted that only a small fraction of medieval arms and armour survive and the bulk of that fraction is made up of the finest examples that were pretty or impressive enough to keep around, the rest sold for scrap or simply thrown away.

Lindy is kawaii tho, who likes the french anyway? =3

>>2048748
>We know for a fact they did a whole lot of surrendering in WW2

But not enough of running to be part of the British Army unfortunately :^)

>>2054321
>a middle class freeman
This is a specific period. Read my post before you enter autist rage mode.

>I wasn't aware that mercenaries were a recent development.
I am sorry to hear that. You should study more.

>>2054364

Once again

> expecting French men to defend France is too much
>the British are perfidious for looking to defend themselves and their men, in addition to many French soldiers

>>2054377
>pressure France into waging war against Germany, promising them their full adherence to the war effort
>"errm, like what, like France actually expects us to do our part in this war, like erm wtf"

>>2054386

So yeah, expecting France to actually be able to defend itself IS too much?

>the anglos made me do it!!!!!

>>2053853
this. The guy is fucking delusional

>>2054393 #
Considering the numerical superiority owed to Germany by the sheer size of its population, engendering that it could only have been alleviated by Britain shouldering France throughout the fighting, yes.

>the Anglos made me do it
Would France have dared threaten Germany with war, without being secured by Britain that they would fight Germany by uniting their numbers?

>>2054410


So France is so pathetic they can'tdo ANYTHING, including defending themselves, without British backup? And this is Britain's fault?

France, not even a real country.

>>2054425
>haha, you mean to tell me that France can't defeat an army that has twice its number of divisions, tanks, fighters, and a stronger industrial base
>haha what a loser!

t. the country to never have won any European war without pertaining to a coalition of countries

>>2054444

>France shouldn't have bothered to get itself into a position where it has more or better versions of all of those things
>Better just rely on the British defending them instead

Still just stacking up evidence for France not being a real country

>>2054444
But France had more tanks, more dudes, more planes, more factories, more ships, more forts and more everything than Germany.
The germans boosted their force by conquering and adding to their bulk from the east, including equipment, factories and guys.

France literally watched Germany grow and eclipse her.

>>2054459
>More tanks
One of the few points of yours that is true, but many of the French tanks were relatively useless light tank forces; by contrast the Germans had good Czech tanks.
>More dudes
The French Army had 2,240,00 troops. The Germans had 3,000,000. If we get into population it gets far worse, France had 40,000,000, while Germany was around 80,000,000. French troops were on average 10 years older than their German counterparts and had lower physical fitness, since to match German numbers more French had to be recruited proportionately.
>More planes
The Germans had aerial superiority over the Allies as a whole in the West, the French air force alone was dismally smaller.
>More factories
France's share of world industrial capacity was circa 5%, Germany's was around 15%.
>More ships
This is a land war, how does this count?
>More forts
The only other point you made with some relevance, but given that the fighting happened in a theatre that was without French fortifications...

>France literally watched Germany grow and eclipse her.
France wanted to intervene against Germany throughout the 1930s, but they decided that they needed British support to do so. Since the British tried to appease the Germans, the French had to go along too. I would advise reading The Preventative War that Never Happened:Britain, France, and the Rise of Germany in the 1930s.

The greatest tragedy of the whole affair is that the British did not sow what they reaped and instead it was only the continental Europeans who had to pay the price of British arrogance in setting loose the Hun onto Europe.

>>2054482
You are ignoring french colonies.
You are ignoring that Germany gained much from its "interwar period" conquests, diplomatic and armed.

You are being dishonest, and I won't reply to you further.

>>2054459
>France had more tanks, more dudes, more planes, more factories, more ships, more forts and more everything than Germany.
On its own? The only facet wherein France might've outweighed the Germans were in tank numbers, and with the design fitted on the French tanks being superior.
>more factories
Actually, one of the Versailles treaties' failures was moored in that it ineffectively downgraded Germany's own industrial capacity, and by 1939, Germany's industry which had it been sheltered from the Great War, eclipsed that of France whichnhad been battered by the fighting across Eastern France.

>France literally watched Germany grow and eclipse her.
Then are we discounted that it was per Britain's reluctance to commit men that the Saar offensive was cancelled?
And that Britain had ascertained follow in its foolish path of appeasement in the years leading to the conflict?

And lastly,
>The germans boosted their force by conquering and adding to their bulk from the east, including equipment, factories and guys.
Which is also what transpired when the Heer captured France's equipment by the end of the fall of France. By your own logic:
>Britain litteraly watched German grow and eclipse her xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

>>2054375
>This is a specific period. Read my post before you enter autist rage mode.


Or maybe you should read the entire reply chain so you'd be aware that I'm talking about a specific period?

>I am sorry to hear that. You should study more.
>gets proven wrong
>still acts as a smartass

You're conflating professional soldiers with national standing armies. Mercenaries are career soldiers, and there's nothing novel about them.

Retard.

>>2054494
Germany never eclipsed Britain. Britain has always been the stronger state, as it is today as well.

>>2054498
>sheltering yourself in your island because you'd be bullied anywhere else
>"Germany never eclipsed Britain"
Hmmm.

>>2054500
>better navy
>better airforce
>better antiairforce
>better radar tech
>better radio tech
>more allies

Hmmm.

>>2054502
>>better navy
Until the Enigma encryptions were deciphered, "no".
>better airforce
Which is unequivocally owed to Britain stumbling on radar technology first.
>better anti-airforce
Quite so, but should you be reminded that Britain was only urged into maturing anti-airforce for themselves because until 1943, they were on the receiving end of bombarding tactics, with Coventry being all but discarded as a city.
>better radio tech
You're reaching so far anon.
>better allies
Wouldn't the need for allies certify that you're more eager for them, and are therefore more in a stance of weakness? Especially when it transpires that it has you allying with the USSR, your arch-enemy.

>>2054513
>ussr, your arch enemy
lol

>>2054500

>Using geography to your advantage is a bad thing now.

Do you also sperg out about everyone who doesn't fight in a flat, open field on a warm summers day?

>>2054522
REEEEEEEEE russians stop retreating over your humongous landmass REEEEEEEEEE our supply trains can't stretch that far REEEEEE REEEEE REEEEEEEEE

>>2054516
What is Churchill and Chamberlain reviling the USSR all throughout the 30s, and even pondering on perhaps triggerring a war between themselves by raiding Caucasian airfields?
Can you inti history anon, rather than carefully sifting through my replies, deigning only to answer meekly wherever there is an opening for you to insert "lol"s.

>>2054522
I wasn't repreving that, was I though? However, once you're confined to your island because the German army frobids you entry anywhere else, you're not at the luxry of saying that you weren't eclipsed by Germany.

>>2054530
Britain fought, and lost, a war with the USSR between 1918 and 1920. After that there was no chance for another invasion, only wishful thinking and political talk.

Maybe YOU should learn some history.

>>2054539
>you can't be somebody's enemy if you can't invade them
Hmmm.

Chamberlain logic in appeasing Germany was litterally rooted in the belief that Germany might endorse the responsability of being the state to blockade a potential USSR drive into Europe.
When you're acquiescing to the requests of a fanatical dictator as was Hitler if only to fuck with the USSR, then yes, I'd say that the USSR is your enemy.

>>2049634
Bishops were elephants in the original versions of chess anyway

>>2054548
>russian-german exchange of engineers and scientists underway
>"i am sure the germans will be our shield against the russians"

>>2054555
>oooh, ooh look at me, I can quote events from 1939 to 1941!!! aren't i smart
>lemme just forget about the events from 1936 to 1939 to which anon was referring though

>>2054558
Remind me, Germany started gobbling up clay, factories, armories of equipment and manpower when, exactly?

>>2054562
What does this have to do with anything?

Are you saying that Europe was bereft of any instances of Hitler occupying foreign countries in the years to have preceded 1939?

Can someone recommend me some good channels about military strategy ?

This british is tiring.

>>2054567
The earliest one is the union with Austria, in 1938. You can argue if this is a conquest, since there was no fighting, and both sides agreed.
There had already been talks with Russia before the second earliest, taking land from Czechoslovakia, happened in late 1938 (approved by France and England).

So no, they weren't taking land years earlier, as you suggest.

>>2054580
By what you're arguing then, I'm presuming that only occupation of sovereign states matters enough for you to account them as ways in which Germany threateningly strengthened themselves, but shouldn't the remilitarization programs and the occupation of the Rhineland (both in 1936) be weighed in too?

>There had already been talks with Russia before the second earliest,
Genuinely was foreign to this. Examples? Thank you in advance.

>>2054530

I take it you missed all those campaigns and battles between the British and Axis forces in Africa, Italy, Greece, Scandinavia, Burma etc etc ?

>>2054458
>France shouldn't have bothered to get itself into a position where it has more or better versions of all of those things

>lose the greatest proportion of men in WWI than any other European country
>be afflicted with sensible pacfiist policies throughout the 1930s, which the British likewise follow through with
>lose your entire industrial base as the fighting from WWI transpired in Eastern France
>"haha like, why didn't they conjure up men and weapons and factories from thin air :P"

>>2054600

Why not? Germany apparently managed it.

>>2054596
>Scandinavia,
Occured prior to the battle for France, so are these worthy of being featured?
>Greece
From which they were readily ousted in a month.
>Africa
Fighting against a feeble army ordered only to withstand blows from te British army, while the Heer preoccupied themselves with the Russian campaign, although Rommel transgrressed them and put that German army in a situation of redrawal
>Burma
Has nothing to do with Germany.

>>2054592
>occupation of the Rhineland
Occupying your own land??
Yes, soldiers were introduced to the borders there without international consent, but the Rhineland was never outside of Germany.

>Genuinely was foreign to this. Examples? Thank you in advance.
I mean the preliminary talks to the German-Soviet Credit Agreement of 1939.
Germany was buying rubber, oil and metal ores from the USSR, and importing wheat and soy beans from her, and in return loaned out money, including the huge 200 million Reichsmark loan and sending engineers to work on fortifications and ships for the USSR.

So in 1937-1938 Germany was asking for more and more minerals (and food), and the USSR was not sure it wanted to agree. This kept for a while, and Germany was between the Allies and USSR in terms of making such a deal, then Stalin agreed (for the engineers and the loan) and Germany switched to USSR friendly.

"Feeding the German Eagle: Soviet Economic Aid to Nazi Germany" is a pretty expensive book, and the blog which I downloaded it from is now dead, so you'll have to find it.

>>2054604
>Germany

>factories destroyed in WWI
>implying
>manpower diluted as severely as France
>implying
>pacfisit polices
>implying

>>2054606

So all those things happened? But I thought Germany was forbidding them access to anywhere else?

>>2054609

So France couldn't rebuild factories in the 20 years between wars and were a bunch of peaceniks? Still not helping the French position.

>>2054615
They were, but how could it have been conceivable to forbid that the British be forbidden access to sites in which they already were.
Maybe I should rephrase myself to "progressively forbidding the British access anywhere else" as they were steadily ousted from Greece, Libya, and Burma.

>>2054621
They could, but they couldn't dismiss the headstart that an undamaged German industry might've been endowed with.

>>2048282
How is 1 (one) watt of power "way too much"?

File: 1417302803039.jpg (3MB, 1687x1340px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1687x1340px

>>2048814
okay you nigger, this is a late reply but I hope it fucking haunts you.

The jewel of french manhood was expunged from the genome. The slaughter left 8-10% of her male population dead, crippled, or missing. She was utterly crippled. I mean fucking all 4 legs broken and being pulled behind the barn.

The Germans too suffered quite a bit, however after the war the average home in Germany gave birth to 6 children, while in France it was on average 1-2.

So by the beginning of the second war, France was 3 times behind in new generation numbers, as well as pouring the absolute cream of her tax money into the maginot left other areas of their military in anachronistic shambles, such as mechanization research.

If you made it this far into the post, lets get to the real tragedy of France during this time period, Petain. Petain who kept the french army from melting away into mutiny, who cared about each soldier instead of demanding they go off and die in droves.

The man was a national hero and is quite literally the only reason France did not fall into itself with revolt.

Petain saw what the first world war did to his country, and saw the utter decimation of her bravest and best. France would not have survived another gruesome experience, so he opted for the only way he could preserve the integrity of his country.

The shame of capitulation was nothing compared to the countless men who would've died carrying the same baton their fathers carried.

The french fucking frogs, and at this point is where they lose all semblance of respect and should only be treated with disdain, took the greatest war hero of their recent history and confined him to a cell until he became senile and hanged him as a traitor.

The french are dead, in the genome and in the mind.

tl;dr: Never post your sorry shit again, not because you're wrong, but because misunderstanding their mistakes is a great shame to everything France once stood for.

Also, fuck de gaulle.

>>2048753
what a cunt

>>2054489
I'm sure the uneducated and dirt poor black people from the colonies were great benefits compared to 40 million people of an industrial economy...
Furthermore stating the actual historical condition in 1940 is hardly being dishonest… this is not dealing with a war in the 1930s, but with the actual 1940 conflict.

>>2054656
The french could have taken care of the problem in 1936, when Germany hadn't doubled her arsenal by confiscating from her neighbors.

>>2054637
>posts a painting which symbolizes the triumph of the French revolutionary heritage
>defends Pétain
Its like me arguing for monarchy while posting pictures of the US constitution.

>>2054659
If you read my original post before the reply to it, then you could see why they decided to do not do so…

>>2054666
Seen it on /pol/.

>>2054666
>triumph of the French revolutionary heritage
>revolutionary heritage
To be fair, the painting depicts the July revolution, in which the French rallied themselves for the Orléans (Valois) dynasty to recover the status of the Bourbons (Charles X) then in rule.

>>2054681
Which is French revolutionary heritage, since it overturned the Bourbons, marked the shift to popular sovereignty, the continued expansion of liberalism and constitutional government, and it continued the legacy of the French revolution.
It is no surprise that the Goddess of Liberty carries the French tricolor, which in 1830 is still not singularly the national symbol of France, as the French flag was at that time a white banner, but instead a revolutionary statement.
It represents a spirit which is inherently opposed to Pétain's national revolution.

>>2050354
english longbowman literally used the same mallets that they hammered their stakes into the ground with in order to beat Frenchmen to death at Agincourt

>>2054880
Yeah, against bogged down, wounded, and exhausted french. They might as well used rocks to bash their heads in at that point.

File: 0efdxxq.jpg (342KB, 1104x702px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1104x702px

>>2048159
British officers don't fuck
Their wives on the other hand....

>>2049134
kekkerino

>>2055238

>posting literal Nazi propaganda

>>2054637
Your post does not haunt me, it amuses me.

France declared war on Germany, so it was looking for a fight.

It was only when they were outmanuvered and faced loosing Paris and northern France did (your idea) of an heroic surrender occur to them

Im sorry if you are offended by my calm sober assessment, but frankly giving up when you still have a chance is disgraceful

>>2054579
Military History Visualized at least does some effort to back up his claims and cites his sources that aren't his anus, unlike some anglo that gets spammed all over /his/

>>2054635
That thing was barely spinning so 1W or 1Nm/s sounds quite optimistic
also the point is that 1W/month doesn't make any fucking sense
desu though i'm surprised he used an evil metric unit instead of horse power or some bullshit unit like Btu/h

>>2055562
>France declared war on Germany, so it was looking for a fight.

Not really
They had let Germany conquer several small countries without doing anything, and only when the Germans attacked Poland they though maybe they though maybe they should intervene this time
And even then, they just sat behind the Maginot Line while Germany was ravaging Poland, hoping the Germans would forgot they had declared war

France has been a warmongering nation many times in history, but 1940 wasnt one of these

>>2048710
Seems like most of these are observations of specific events that have been generalized and stated as fact out of context

>>2054311
Professional soldiers have been around since ancient babylon. Not that it's even relevant since even medieval conscripts had good equipment either issued if they were poorer or their own if they were middle class. Certain states of medieval Germany required all military age men to own swords despite it being illegal for non knights to wear a sword on their person around town. Same with England requiring hours of practice with the bow for all men every Sunday. Just because a military was levied does not mean they were with equipment and training, it was done just as nations that still conscript do today, like the Swiss.

>>2054880
Some did. Maybe. Those same long bowmen were known for carrying swords, bucklers, and fucking poleaxes.

Along with being well armored on a regular basis.

>>2054311
Professional soldiers go waaaaaaay back in history, Tiglath-Pileser III of Assyria had a standing army of professional soldiers whose only job was to train and fight for the king.

>>2058192
>>2059110
>you have to own a weapon and have to answer the call to war
>thus you are a mercenary

No.

>>2048710
this
>>2048788

If you actually listen to him instead of switching off at the clickbait titles you'd learn something

and if you're gonna say "Hurr durr why listen to him when hes wrong" you're worse than him for spewing all this crap without listening to the guy

File: nothanks.jpg (124KB, 693x693px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 693x693px

>>2048753
Reading this made my head hurt
Do people actually care what THIS GUY has to say?

>>2048216

>lately

Literally 99% of what he says that isn't completely banal is wrong.

>>2049634

I can only talk for my country but we don't even call them bishops

>>2049362
Hey, I posted that pasta on /tg/! Glad to see it caught on (sort of).

>>2054637
t. collaborator
That Petain had good intentions is not disputed, but the "shield" theory is retarded. What he did in WW1 20 years earlier has no relevance to his 1940 situation.

>>2057557
they actually invaded Germany while Germany invaded Poland.

>>2059509
Im not even talking about mercenaries, Tiglath-Pileser III established a standing army of assyrian men so that he could campaign at any given time instead of depending on farmers who had to go back to take care of their crops. These were men whose only job was to fight and they did not offer their services to anyone else, they were the army of Assyria. It was one of the reforms that made Assyria a super power again after a period of decay.

>>2059911
Thats just land owners being forced to fight for the state, in exchange for being allowed to own land.
Almost every early society had that, the greeks and romans at times too.
Its an early and micro version of the "lord" of later periods.
The lord isn't a professional soldier. He is just expected to soldier when necessary, in exchange for being given rights when he isn't soldiering.

Someone posted a link to a stream he had with that fat bearded fuck Sargon and some random power metal looking fag. It was the most autistic thing I've seen since /co/ tricked me into watching Steven Universe.

>>2055562

I am not him, but I agree on Petain saving's France future

My argument is this:

-Before the French Revolution France was the most populated European country by far
-Napoleonic age + French Revolution were as bad for France as the XXth century world war because of the hundreds of thousands, surely over a million, who died in the revolution, in the reign of terror, the "genocide" in the vendee, the napoleonic battles, the Peninsular war and the Invasion of Russia.
-Because of what happened in France in that time period, the population of Germany was suddenly far larger in both ww1 and ww2.
-they won in ww1, but also lost a huge number of men, the best of their generation at least in terms of fitness.
-Petain knew France would be hurt PERMANENTLY, if they had to endure another war with millions of dead people, or something like the Spanish resistance to Napoleon, Germany had had only 1 world war, France had had 2, the revolutionary period+napoleon which lasted decades, and ww1, and couldnt allow itself the luxury of having millions of dead men again.
-the best thing for France's future was to minimize the loss of men, and surrender, as what happened in Vichy.

Without Petain, France nowadays could have a population in the 50 millions instead of 60 millions, with a higher proportion of foreigners-foreign descended people.

>>2060226
>Napoleonic age + French Revolution were as bad for France as the XXth century world war because of the hundreds of thousands, surely over a million, who died in the revolution, in the reign of terror, the "genocide" in the vendee, the napoleonic battles, the Peninsular war and the Invasion of Russia.
Dubious. The total death toll of all those conflicts is estimated to be around 5 million on both sides. Let's assume half of those were French (even though only half of the Grande Armée was French so we're looking at closer to a quarter here), that's 2.5 million. Out of a population of 30 million that's significant, but not a death sentence.

What ruined France was not how many people had died (look at diseases and wars throughout history: birth rates recover. After the world wars, according to some demographers the end result of the Trentes Glorieuses was comparable to the population France would've had without the world wars) but the still somewhat inexplicable decline in birth rates. French women simply stopped having as much children while British and German women kept reproducing like there was no tomorrow.

I agree that the Vichy government sought to minimize the impact on France after a disastrous first world war, but you overestimate the demographic consequences of the French Revolution significantly.

>>2060273
I remember reading that what ruined France after the Napoleonic wars was that the horse population never recovered.

File: grm.png (39KB, 325x625px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 325x625px

>>2060273
>(even though only half of the Grande Armée was French so we're looking at closer to a quarter here)

When will the retarded meme end?
The only moment the Grande Armee had a significant ammount of foreigners was during the Russian campaign (and even then French were still the majority)

Why do people always need to exaggerate things like that?
It's like retards who claim half the RAF was Polish during WW2, or that Strayans were the main British force at Galipolli