What are some humiliating losses revisioned as victories in history?

>>2515934
Battle of Mons

>>2515934
Dieppe, full stop

>>2515934
Civilian boat evacuated like 5% of the troops. Most of the heavy lifting was done by the navy.

Second Persian invasion of Greece.
>goal was to punish Athens and Sparta and gain influence in Greece
>Athens burned to the ground, everyone who doesn't flee was enslaved
>king and elite of Sparta slaughtered to a man
>several Greek cities become Persian vassals
>Greeks celebrate this as a glorious victory

The British are masters of this:
> Got invaded by the Dutch
> The king is overthrown
> The Dutch install Stadtholder as the king
> IT WAS JUST A GLORIOUS REVOLUTION GUYS

I don't know how British historiography depicts 1066, I guess it was yet another glorious victory for the British.

>>2516374
We literally invited him in.

>>2516381
You'd have invited Hitler if Sea Lion had been a success.

>>2516356
Retard

>>2515934

don't let Lindybeige catch you posting this, or else he'll hunt you with his BrenGun

>>2515934
Nobody claims this as a victory, simply as overcoming defeat as the British were able to bring soldiers home to be able to repel the German invasion. Evacuating was the best thing to do as France was done. Over 200,000 French soldiers were also evacuated.

>>2515965
Nobody claims this as a victory, just represents the British holding the line while outnumbered

>>2515979
Nobody claims this as a victory, period.

>>2516374
The protestant population (majority) of Britain wanted the Protestant Dutch prince to overthrow the Catholic king.

How comes /his/ knows shit about history?

>>2516374
>I don't know how British historiography depicts 1066

1066, the year the British conquered Britain.

>>2516425
England*

Britain was never conquered

>>2516419
He thinks England won 100yw, doesn't he?

>>2516398

t. Dimitrios

>>2515934
Winter war

>>2516439
It was a defensive victory for Finland as Russia could not annex Finland which damaged Russian reputation and was one of the reasons why Hitler thought his eastern offensive would be successful.

>>2516430

they did, also nobody used swords, horses were used only in transport, and not in actual battle.

British Naval guns can shoot down the moon if they want to and the English longbow is way more accurate than a modern sniper rifle.

if you don't agree you're a frog and probably Napoleon too (because Napoleon is literally Hitler)

>>2516356
>Second Persian invasion of Greece.
>google this
>aaaand there goes my morning reading about the greek city states vs persians


fuggin love this board.

>>2516424

Because /his/ is /int/ with dates. Country dickwaving is WAY more important than history.

File: war_Finno-Russian war.jpg (40KB, 427x336px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 427x336px

>>2516443
>we won because the enemy didn't annex us
at last i truly see. thank you for correcting the record jorma

>>2516467

don't forget /pol/ posting, and Arabic tripfags

>>2516470
If you're talking about Sir Shoutsalot, he's Mexican, not Arabic.

>>2515934
Tet offensive

>>2516478

aren't there more tripfags around ?, or is this all the Mexican ?

>>2516356
>hurr Thermopylae, ignores Salamis and Plataea
>hurr why Athenians let their city burn?

>>2516468
I guess you're just a little meme-plastering faggot but not getting annexed is a very good goal for a defensive war of that magnitude. Finland had shit compared to the soviets.

>>2516485
This is a good example.

Maybe the War of 1812 considering how so many Americans think that we won that war.

>>2516521
>accomplish all objectives
>doesn't count because they didn't win every battle

Keep crying, Spiros

>>2516547
What were the objectives of the invasion, pray tell?

>doesn't count because they didn't win every battle
Those military victories forced Xerxes' army to abandon Greece.

>>2515934
Fuck sake it wasn't viewed as a victory, but more the avoidance of a catastrophe.

>>2516374
Are you really this retarded?

The same French guy keeps posting the same thing about Dunkirk all over 4chan, insisting that France aren't cowards and Britain is the reason France fell to the Nazis.

>>2516578
>What were the objectives of the invasion, pray tell?
See>>2516356

>>2516607
The invasion was a complete failure then because Persian influence in Greece actually eroded due to Xerxes' invasion. The Persians also failed to punish Sparta and Athens militarily, and on top of the failed invasion, Ionians revolted against Persian soon after.

>>2515934
Battle of Hastings
You know why.

>>2516526
still not a victory

>>2516538

>We

You aren't American stop pretending.

>>2515934
>>2515965
>>2515979
>>2516374

it looks like this board really doesn't like britain

no one claims any of these were victories

>>2516598
>act like you're a major military power
>completely fail to defend your own country
>blame a real military power for not defending your country hard enough

File: ___.png (497KB, 594x598px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 594x598px

>>2515934
>what is a strategic victory

Dunkirk could have been a catastrophe that led to the loss of the entire British Expeditionary Force and almost every single trained soldier in the British army. Instead they lost a lot of material, but relatively few soldiers, all of whom were able to return and train the next cadre for the campaigns ahead.

>the rest of your post

Oh never mind, this is a butthurt frogpost by a person who has no idea what the fuck they're talking about. I'll bite.

>without much fighting at all
Apart from the German army encircling the French and British armies and threatening their total annihilation

>entire allied country falls fighting to keep the entirety of your military alive

The French barely lost any of their territory before surrendering, don't pretend that they got very far at all. It was their strategic position that made an allied victory untenable.

>cowardice having accomplished nothing
If by nothing, you mean stopping the war ending in an Axis victory in 1940 and France forever under German occupation until the death of its culture.

>Call the French cowards years later

You're conveniently forgetting the thousands of French soldiers who were evacuated at the expense of many Brits, who then proceeded to immediately go back home and surrender to the Germans once they were back on the European mainland.

>>2516356
Holy fuck is this a joke?

Not only did Xerxes get humiliated at Salamis personally, but his massive army got blown the fuck out in a pitched battle at Plataea. Thermopylae and Artemesium managed to give the southern Greeks time to get out of their surrender-funk and then trash the Persians.

Oh, and you're pretending that the Persian Wars weren't a Greek victory since you likely have never actually read writers like Thucydides, who outright talks about the Greek counterattack in Asia Minor leading to the total demolition of the Persian fleet and the liberation of not only the conquered Greek states in Greece proper, but the poleis of Ionia, the conquest of which had been what led to the Persian Wars in the first place.

Read a book, kid.

PERFIDY
E
R
F
I
D
Y

File: 1481273050601.jpg (2MB, 2283x1281px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2283x1281px

>>2516468
>Be tiny poor irrelevant country of 3,000,000 people
>Massive country next door with more troops than you have adult male population invades you
>Kick their ass
>Preserve your independence and make them look a laughing stock
>Not a victory

File: IMG_0451.jpg (74KB, 600x620px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 600x620px

>>2517083
This

Why is it that even in 2017 people still don't go completely and wholly by the saying "history is written by the victors, and the enemy is the one that lost"???

>>2517382
Because it's demonstrably untrue? Haven't you ever seen stuff like the Lost Cause southerners, the Stab-in-the-back myth for the end of WW1, or the entire Old Testament?

File: Smug pepe.jpg (27KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 600x600px

>>2515934
>Call the French cowards years later

Hey now, be fair. The French fought valiantly for several years to defend their Nazi occupiers as soon as the British had evacuated the last Frenchman from Dunkirk.

>>2517382
Because this isn't true. For example, captured German commanders formed the foundation of western historiography on the European theater of WW2, it was they who came up with memes like "if only Hitler listened to his Generals" and "Russians only won by sending a human wave after a human wave".

File: 1488214821970.jpg (338KB, 710x748px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 710x748px

>>2517083
Highland Division never forget

>>2517454
>wear skirts
>call yourself men

>>2517083
>Dunkirk could have been a catastrophe that led to the loss of the entire British Expeditionary Force and almost every single trained soldier in the British army.

>I'M STUPID!

https://cgsc2.leavenworth.army.mil/CARL/nafziger/940BIEA.pdf

>>2516356
Goal was to punish Athens. Sparta joined the fight.

Though Persia accomplished their goal in burning down Athens, they suffered heavy fucking losses despite the fact there were an infinitely higher number of Persian troops than Greek ones. It was a Pyrrhic victory for Persia at best. It isn't like Athens is the only city-state in Greece.

>>2517469
xD

>>2516694
Not an argument

>>2516356
>Persians literally got kicked out of Europe, despite Greece not giving a shit before when they invaded Thrace
>Ionia and coastal cities mostly re-captured
>Persians forced to sign a treaty to end further wars
>makes Persians look like bitches, Egypt continues to routinely revolt knowing that they aint shit

>>2516356

> Greeks celebrate this as a glorious victory

Erm, because it was?

The Persians were beaten both at land and sea;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plataea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Salamis

and their hold of Greece is completely lost.

What you are stating is like saying the Ottomans won the Great Turkish War because they still held Bosnia.

>>2517689
Or that Napoleon's invasion of Russia was successful.

File: original19039207.jpg (106KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1200x800px

>>2515934
> What are some humiliating losses revisioned as victories in history?

The entire Great Patriotic War;

> have the largest army on the planet
> by a LONG shot
> murder most of your own officers
> ally with an insane dictator
> dictator who openly says he’ll invade you
> get you ass kicked by… Finland?
> sit around with your thumb up your ass
> get invaded by insane dictator
> get absolutely wrecked despite huge numerical advantage
> spend the next 4 years zerg rushing into the teeth of enemy firepower
> get everything from shoes to ammo to food to planes handed to you by America
> meanwhile the Western allies starve and bomb Germany to shit
> continue to get absolutely wrecked
> lose 10 million military dead
> lose another 17 million civilian dead

Za Rodina!

>>2517774
it wasn't the largest army on the planet "by a long shot" though, the Germans actually had a numerical numerical advantage in their attacks in Operation Barbarossa

>>2517805
Just because the USSR made a big mess trying to defend Ukraine

>>2517864
Not him, but da fuck? No, at the outset of Barbarossa, June 22nd, 1941, the Germans and their allies had about a million more men at the front than the Soviets did. That is well, well before the Kiev debacle, which is what I assume you're talking about.

>>2516383
Top kek

>>2516424
Can't let facts get in the way of a good /int/posting session.

>>2515934
The War of 1812
>But we burned the White House!

>>2516450
This invasion is what got me into ancient history in the first place

File: 8862566dvp.jpg (385KB, 1800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 1800x1200px

>>2517805
>>2517880

“When Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, in Operation Barbarossa, the Red Army's ground forces had 303 divisions and 22 separate brigades (6.8 million soldiers), including 166 divisions and 9 brigades (3.2 million soldiers) garrisoned in the western military districts.

The Axis forces deployed on the Eastern Front consisted of 181 divisions and 18 brigades (3 million soldiers). Three Fronts, the Northwestern, Western, and Southwestern conducted the defense of the western borders of the USSR. In the first weeks of the Great Patriotic War the Wehrmacht defeated many Red Army units.

The Red Army lost millions of men as prisoners and lost much of its pre-war matériel. Stalin increased mobilization, and by 1 August 1941, despite 46 divisions lost in combat, the Red Army's strength was 401 divisions.”

Soviet tank production alone from 1932-40 was over 26,000 tanks, more then the rest of the planet combined, which puts the lie to Soviet claims that the Red Army was purely defensive...

>>2518665
Shhh, don't break the narrative.

>>2518665
>I will completely ignore that the Axis offensive was not composed entirely of ethnic Germans, and thus ignore all of their troops. For that matter, I will also ignore all the troops that Germany had mobilized everywhere else. I will ALSO ignore the fully mobilized forces of the British commonwealth, which despite mostly being posted to backwater areas, is actually larger than either.

>Soviet tank production alone from 1932-40 was over 26,000 tanks, more then the rest of the planet combined, which puts the lie to Soviet claims that the Red Army was purely defensive...

How exactly does that "put it to the lie"? The British built more heavy bombers than the rest of the world combined before 1938; does that mean they were also planning an offensive war? (Against whom?)

Pearl Harbor.

>sink four obsolete battleships
>two of them get repaired anyway
>fail to cause any significant damage to your enemy's critical infrastructure
>avoid sinking the ships that actually matter
>give your enemy a 100% perfect motivation for its people to devote themselves to your destruction thus solving literally the only problem that their war plan had

It was a far bigger victory for the Americans in general than anything they did on the battlefield. Because America was basically unstoppable; the ONLY question was if they'd see through a war with the Axis through to the end. Pearl Harbor in all its perfidy confirmed that they would.

>>2518734
>avoid sinking the ships that actually matter

Which were which ones exactly? You'd have a hard time making a case that any of the Pacific Fleet ships represent a critical point of failure for the USN.

>>2518709
>The British built more heavy bombers than the rest of the world combined before 1938

"When Britain and France declared war on Germany in September 1939, the RAF had no heavy bomber. The Handley Page Halifax and Avro Lancaster both originated as twin engine bombers, but were rapidly redesigned for four Rolls-Royce Merlin engines and rushed into service once the technical problems of the larger Rolls-Royce Vulture emerged. The Halifax joined squadrons in November 1940 and flew its first raid against Le Havre on the night of 11–12 March 1941."

>>2518750
>Which were which ones exactly?

The aircraft carriers, but then they weren't in Pearl Harbor at the time.

>>2517774
You had me until
>Zerg Rush
fuck off

>>2518764

If you're going to quote wikipedia, then you might want to look at their actual definitions, which are not based on " having four engines" and are based on

>Heavy bombers are bomber aircraft with the greatest bomb load carrying capacity and longest range of their time.

The RAF did in fact have those planes; things like the Wellington and Blenheim, even if 2 engined and later far outclassed, had long ranges and heavy bombloads for 1939, much more so than anything anyone else had with the possible exception of the Soviets and their TB series.
>>2518768
So what if they were sunk? It wouldn't have given the Japanese long term superiority, they can't stop the construction of the Essexes, and the U.S. was on the defensive in the opening stages of the war. They might have had to do so a little while longer, but it doesn't change the long term projection even if both (out of 7 pre-war carriers) are sunk and cannot be raised at the start of the war.

>>2518772
Tee bee aytch, it's a fairly accurate description of early Soviet counter-offensives.

>>2518787
Yes, and they saw it didn't work so stopped doing it.

Why does this board autisticly screech at Britain?

>>2515934
Another glorious victory for England!

>>2518665
The Germans deployed one independent regiment, one separate motorized training brigade and 153 divisions for Barbarossa, which included 104 infantry, 19 panzer and 15 motorized infantry divisions in three army groups, nine security divisions to operate in conquered territories, four divisions in Finland and two divisions as reserve under the direct control of OKH.[93] These were equipped with about 3,350 tanks, 7,200 artillery pieces, 2,770 aircraft (that amounted to 65 percent of the Luftwaffe), about 600,000 motor vehicles and 625,000–700,000 horses.[94][95] Finland slated 14 divisions for the invasion, and Romania offered 13 divisions and eight brigades over the course of Barbarossa.[3] The entire Axis forces, 3.8 million personnel,[2] deployed across a front extending from the Arctic Ocean southward to the Black Sea,[76] were all controlled by the OKH and organized into Army Norway, Army Group North, Army Group Center and Army Group South, alongside three luftflotten (air fleets, the air force equivalent of army groups) that supported the army groups: Luftflotte 1 for North, Luftflotte 2 for Center and Luftflotte 4 for South.[3]

This is compared to 3.2 million Soviet soldiers garrisoned in the region. Thus, the Axis held a numerical advantage.

Furthermore, even if the numbers you state are true, it certainly shows that the myth that the Russians were a vast army which outnumbered the Germans terribly is just that, a myth.

>>2518665
Also how does Soviet tank production mean that the USSR is offensive? Just building tanks in no way means that a state is aggressive. One can show a huge list of other things to demonstrate the USSR being aggressive, but simply having a large tank fleet imparts little on a nation's political and military operational strategy.

France in the 1930s had the largest tank fleet in the world. Does that mean that France was a hyper-aggressive nation, at the same time that it was engaged in appeasement to the Germans?

>>2518852
they deserve it
the eternal anglo is the devil

>>2518852
They're jelly England basically was extremely lucky throughout history and succesful, so try to put England down every chance

>>2518779
>So what if they were sunk? It wouldn't have given the Japanese long term superiority, they can't stop the construction of the Essexes, and the U.S. was on the defensive in the opening stages of the war. They might have had to do so a little while longer, but it doesn't change the long term projection even if both (out of 7 pre-war carriers) are sunk and cannot be raised at the start of the war.
Not him but the argument is that it could have given Japan another six months to a year to do as they wished, since the USN might have been hesitant to risk any more carriers in the south Pacific, giving Japan more leeway in its campaign there, against Port Moresby, and trying to cut off Australia.

America still would have won.

>>2516920
Most of the board is sick of the British acting like white niggers thinking every part of their history is perfect.

>>2517446
>>2517386
Hi /r/history. Fuck off your to website and leave us alone.

History is always written by the victors so kys.

>>2518779
Jesus fuck. Can you stop being a pretentious contrarian cunt?

File: 8862568n68.jpg (382KB, 1800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 1800x1200px

>>2518779
> ” having four engines"

The Brits still didn’t have more bombers then the rest of the world combined, meanwhile the Soviets had over 10,000 aircraft in 1939 with 350,000+ Soviet airforce personnel, compared to the UK’s 7,900 and Germany’s 8,300 aircraft.

But hay, it was purely defensive! Because you never know when Poland, with less then 700 tanks and 1400 planes, might strike for Moscow!…

>>2518734
pretty much this. Pearl Harbour was pretty much the biggest military cock up in history, on a political and a strategic level, and yet for some reason it's a cornerstone of Japan's military reputation.

>>2519046

>The Brits still didn’t have more bombers

Good thing that's not what I said.

> compared to the UK’s 7,900 and Germany’s 8,300 aircraft.

But those figures are wrong you fucking retard.

https://ww2-weapons.com/raf-squadrons-in-september-1939/

https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-Luftwaffe/AAF-Luftwaffe-2.html

Seriously, stop getting your shit from Wikipedia.

And you still haven't even begun to say why the mere existence of tanks proves offensive intent, or even provide a framework that can say "This many tanks is for defensive purposes, but X+1 means you're going to expand."

File: carrier IJN_Shokaku_1942.gif (26KB, 1100x500px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 1100x500px

>>2518779
> So what if they were sunk?

The U.S. only had three carriers in the Pacific and if Japan had sunk Enterprise and Lexington, that would have left only Saratoga in San Diego and the Japanese with 10 carriers in control of the whole Pacific.

File: world-estonia-map.gif (61KB, 700x550px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 700x550px

>>2518885
>This is compared to 3.2 million Soviet soldiers garrisoned IN THE REGION.

The point was the Soviets had the largest army in the world, meanwhile they're surrounded by dangerous enemies like Estonia...

>>2519134

For starters, the U.S. has 4 other carriers they can transfer (maybe not the Ranger, it had some seaworthiness issues). The things can move, you realize, and they weren't exactly needed for Atlantic service; Hornet, Yorktown and Wasp were all fucking sunk in the Pacific.

Secondly, the Japanese held the advantage in open waters away from U.S. bases and land based air anyway, at least until pilot attrition and the huge reverse of Midway.

In any case, it's irrelevant. The U.S. did not take to real offensive of areas controlled by the Japanese at the start of the war until 1944. That is plenty of time to build carriers from scratch, and by the time of the beginning of the invasion of the Marshalls, you had 5 brand new Essex class carriers, (and numerous smaller ones) which alone were probably a match for the entire Combined Fleet.

File: schneider-amc-p16-half-track-01.png (180KB, 800x606px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 800x606px

>>2518897
>France in the 1930s had the largest tank fleet in the world. Does that mean that France was a hyper-aggressive nation

France wasn't espousing global revolution and hadn't attacked its neighbors, unlike the Soviets.

>>2519193
Not him, but the Soviets hadn't attacked any of their neighbors since Stalin ascended to leadership until the MR pact came along and Germany egged them onto it.

Besides which, for the early 30s, France was openly occupying part of Germany.

>>2519123

“The British built more heavy bombers than the rest of the world combined before 1938”

t. Ima Faggot

> unsourced site shilling vidya games

Go away, kid.

> wall of text

“Do the leg work for me!”

>>2519179
>For starters, the U.S. has 4 other carriers they can transfer

Sure, eventually and thru the Panama Canal, where the Japanese can have 10 carriers of their own waiting.

Nobody is saying the Japanese could have won WWII but you can't shrug off the loss of two carriers.

>>2519207
>Soviets hadn't attacked any of their neighbors since Stalin

The Soviets carried out both ground and air incursions into Poland throughout the 1920-30s.

Seriously, are you suggesting the U.S.S.R. under Stalin wasn't preparing to invade their neighbors (as they would literally come to do)?

>>2519272

>Go away, kid.
For someone who literally provided no sources whatsoever, that's awfully pathetic.

And, since you need to be spoonfed: Concerning the Luftwaffe

https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-Luftwaffe/AAF-Luftwaffe-2.html

>On September 2, 1939, the Luftwaffe possessed 4,161 aircraft: 604 reconnaissance, 1,179 fighters, 1,180 bombers, 366 dive bombers, 40 ground attack, 240 coastal, and 552 transports.

But please, do amuse me about how The Strategy for the Defeat of the Luftwaffe is trumped by whatever it is you have.

>>2519287
>Sure, eventually and thru the Panama Canal, where the Japanese can have 10 carriers of their own waiting.

I'm not even sure the Japanese have the fuel to get all the way to Panama and back, and they sure as hell aren't going to go so near as to be under the possibility of attack from land based planes. That' in large part, is what makes the loss of carriers non decisive; they only restrict American action in areas that are not coverable by land; a well prepared land based air force is going to chew up most carriers and one of the reasons that the American offensives against Japanese islands took so long wasn't to be able to defeat their carriers (which had been sunk long before for the most part), but to present a large enough bastion of CVP as to be able to overwhelm an islands air garrison.

>Nobody is saying the Japanese could have won WWII but you can't shrug off the loss of two carriers.

Sure you can, when the country in question built 18 brand new ones in the course of the war, each of which were considerably better than the pre-war vessels, and could have built even more than that if they saw a need.

>>2519300

>The Soviets carried out both ground and air incursions into Poland throughout the 1920-30s.

You mean, before Stalin (Russo-Soviet war) and after the MR pact? As in, very quick responses to the political factors around them and long outside the time period where the military buildup happened?

>Seriously, are you suggesting the U.S.S.R. under Stalin wasn't preparing to invade their neighbors (as they would literally come to do)?

No, I'm saying is that Stalin is above all a cautious, pragmatic, risk-averse leader, who will invade his neighbors if and only if it appears he can do so without risk.

Given that large portions of this military buildup was done long before conditions like the MR pact removed risk factors, it seems pretty clear that the buildup was primarily as a form of insurance and keeping his strategic options flexible, not out of a plan of attack of anyone. (although he certainly would have should it appear safe/profitable to do so.)

Nonetheless, indications as to Soviet willingness or plans to invade other people are found IN THOSE PLANS AND ACTIONS, the MR pact, the annexation of Bessarabia, etc. "THEY BUILT A LOT OF TANKS!" is not evidence of jack shit; because there exists no framework I'm aware of to correlate the size of a military buildup with offensive plans. Hitler invaded his neighbors with far less. You have considerable military buildups in places like France and Great Britain in the interwar periods without any indication of wanting to invade people then.

Yom Kippur War is a big one. It's not considered a great Arab victory in the West but in Egypt, Syria, etc it's celebrated as a national holiday and the Arabs think they won big time.

>>2516356
First persian invasion of greece.
>goal was to conquer mainland greece and punish them for supporting ionian revolt
>get completely fucked at marathon and got surrounded by a much smaller force
>btfo so hard they couldn't invade again until 10 years later
>invade again
>lose again

>>2519390

I can sort of see Egypt celebrating even if the territory they gained was less than the territory they lost, it was still a qualified success/failure, and they they did get somewhere. But what on earth did Syria have to celebrate about? Crushing a few Kibbutzim?

>>2515934
>Be British
>Swear to protect ally
>Enemies show up
>Enter France, attempt to help french
>Realise that the french have spent all their money constructing gigantic fortifications in one area, ignoring possibility of german advance on the other
>germans advance via the other
>bloody frogs
>Get to beach while your entire allied country shits itself, surrenders, flails about like the autists they are
>wonder what on earth Ney would think of them
>Hop on some civilian boats and run away, rescue entire army
>ask french for their ships
>french are so autistic they refuse to hand over ships, preferring to give them to the FUCKING ENEMY because they're that buttflustered
>Blow up ships
>save france
>again

>>2518946
most of our history is perfect though

>>2516450
>you weren't already aware of the plethora of Greco-Persian conflicts
huh?

>>2518946
Brits are the whites, niggers are the fucking /int/posters ghettoizing this board while constantly bitching bout how "whitey iz keeping uz down".

>>2519508
Egypt didn't gain anything from the war. By wars end Israel was actually possessing more Egyptian territory than before it. They lost 6 of theirs for every Israeli and their army was encircled in the Sinai.

>>2518950
>>2517382
"history is written by the victors" is meant to be a tool for skepticism, not a mantra to judge all of history by
How do you apply that to the histories that have been written in modern times for ancient societies that didn't leave a history of their own

>>2519581

Oh, to be sure. But at least they achieved *something* however meaningless it might have been operationally. I can't even think of anything the Syrians did that constituted even that much of a "victory".

>>2519337
>On September 2, 1939, the Luftwaffe possessed 4,161 aircraft

Which only reinforces my point; that the U.S.S.R. was preparing for war and would have invaded had Hitler not gotten the jump on Stalin.

>>2519612

>Which only reinforces my point; that the U.S.S.R. was preparing for war and would have invaded had Hitler not gotten the jump on Stalin.

I can't see how. In fact, I can't see any correlation you've suggested so far concerning armament levels and war preparation. Say, did you know that the U.S. had more than 3 times the battleships of Germany and Russia COMBINED on the water of September 1st, 1939? And an infinitely greater ratio of carrier vessels! Who were they planning on invading?

File: stalin-laughing-02.jpg (14KB, 238x256px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 238x256px

>>2519386
>long outside the time period where the military buildup happened?

The 1930s was "long outside the time" of the Soviet's massive military build up?

> not out of a plan of attack of anyone.

Who of the U.S.S.R's neighbors was capable of attacking them, that the Soviets needed 26,000 tanks and 10,000 planes and almost 8 million troops?

> Stalin was a gud tovarish, he dindu nuffin!

File: strawman.jpg (150KB, 333x500px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 333x500px

>>2519645

>The 1930s was "long outside the time" of the Soviet's massive military build up?

There was one intervention on Polish soil, and it happened in 1939. That was well after the bulk of that tank construction.

>Who of the U.S.S.R's neighbors was capable of attacking them, that the Soviets needed 26,000 tanks and 10,000 planes and almost 8 million troops?

Germany, for starters. And there was always the paranoia about internal revolt

> Stalin was a gud tovarish, he dindu nuffin!

Pic related, and please re-read my comments upthread>>2519386

So far, you've stated

A) That there was an enormous buildup of Soviet military forces

B) This buildup, IN AND OF ITSELF, constituted proof of expansionist tendencies.

However, you refuse to accept a corollary that other countries with their own rather large military buildups constituted equal "proof" of their expansionism, nor have you presented any clear indication that Stalin's risk-aversion would suddenly disappear when it didn't either before or after WW2.

ITT butthurt frogs and dumb pollacks (who should be thankful they're even allowed to exist) hating on Britain again.

If it weren't for Britain neither of you would be alive today.

>>2519540
>being This retarded in every single thread about ww2

>>2519193
Which is an entirely different thing than having a tank fleet
The poster made it out that having a large tank production equals an aggressive nation
There is no link between these, France had the largest tank fleet in the world but was not aggressive.
The USSR was an aggressive nation, but using a tank fleet fleet as the reason why they were aggressive is a terrible way to be an example of that, as a nation can have a large army with huge numbers of tanks (again, France), and not be aggressive.

>>2519152
Then why don't you show what the German numbers were in 1941. You showed what the Soviet full numbers were and then compared them only to German numbers in the region, being purposefully deceptive.

>>2519540
>managing to get almost the entire post wrong
impressive

>>2517117
>Kick their ass
Not really. The USSR still accomplished their goals.

>>2520435
If it wasn't for Britain the world wouldn't be so ruined that France and Poland would have needed Britain

>>2515934

Nothing humiliating about Dunkirk tbqh. Wasn't worth sacrificing the entire British Army for a country that couldn't be bothered to defend itself

>>2517774

> spend the next 4 years zerg rushing into the teeth of enemy firepower
> get everything from shoes to ammo to food to planes handed to you by America
> continue to get absolutely wrecked
That's bullshit and you know it

>>2520695
How? Their goal was to annex Finland, they didn't lose their independence as far as I know

>>2521287

[citation needed]

>>2516468
You know that the Red Army alone had something like five times the population of Finland, right?

>>2516538
Canadian wank is about 300× worse, the war was a draw, nobody won.

t. Canadian

File: 1485180179510.jpg (130KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 499x499px

>>2517066
>Britain
>real military power

>>2518852
Because Britain loves to jerk it's history and shove it down people's throats.

>>2520435
>Britain fucks up the world HARD for the two centuries prior to WWII
>Bitches about everyone else making a mess of things when it wouldn't be that way without them.

I bet you ignore the fact that your Queen and her husband are both Huns.

>>2516547
Their army and navy was ultimately defeated and they were pushed out of Europe. I guess they did manage to achieve the war goal of messing up Greece, but at a huge price.

>>2521319
so you can claim that they achieved all their goals without even stating any, but the other anon needs citations?

>>2521427

>royal family are germans

our last german-born monarch was 400 years ago, so this is just WE WUZZery

>>2516694
What would you require for it to be a victory? Would the Fins need to conquer Moscow? or march victoriously through Russia all the way to the pacific?

>>2521450

What? I never made that claim. I'm asking for a citation that the Soviet's goals in Finland were annexation. I'm not >>2520695, but in his defense, I would bring up the following.


http://www.winterwar.com/War%27sEnd/moscow_peace_treaty.htm

Article 2 lays out the territorial concessions

>The national frontier between the Republic of Finland and the U.S.S.R. shall run along a new line in such fashion that there shall be included in the territory of the U.S.S.R. the entire Karelian Isthmus with the city of Viipuri and Viipuri Bay with its islands, the western and northern shores of Lake Ladoga with the cities of Kexholm and Sortavala and the town of Suojärvi, a number of islands in the Gulf of Finland, the area east of Märkäjärvi with the town of Kuolajärvi, and part of the Rybachi and Sredni peninsulas, all in accordance with the map appended to this treaty.

As for the Soviets' goals, I admit I only have wikipedia, but

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

>he Soviet Union ostensibly sought to claim parts of Finnish territory, demanding—amongst other concessions—that Finland cede substantial border territories in exchange for land elsewhere, claiming security reasons, primarily the protection of Leningrad, which was only 32 km (20 mi) from the Finnish border.[28][29][30] (Though the border that was "only 32 km (20 mi)" from Leningrad was the end of a narrow finger of coastline about 15 km (9.3 mi) long by 5 km (3.1 mi) wide; most of the Finnish border was more than 50 km (31 mi) from Leningrad.

I've certainly come across nothing to indicate they wanted the annexation of Finland.

>>2521427
>being this salty

>>2521479
I guess i stand corrected. Thank you.
I guess it was more of a pyrrhic Russian victory then.
My apologies for mistaking you for >>2520695. It just seemed convenient to start demanding citations at that point.

>>2521503
No, it's fine. I should have been clearer I was a new guy stepping into the ring, especially since I didn't bump up the post count as I've made previous posts in this thread.

File: T-35.jpg (119KB, 1417x933px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1417x933px

>>2520686
> The USSR was an aggressive nation, but using a tank fleet fleet as the reason why they were aggressive

Which I didn’t do, I was simply pointing out that the U.S.S.R. wasn’t in any kinda danger from its neighbors to justify the HUGE military it had and based on past aggressions by the Soviets, that HUGE military was _offensive_ in nature and Stalin intended on invading his neighbors (as the Soviets would in fact do).

> Then why don't you show what the German numbers were in 1941.

That HUGE Soviet military was being built long before Hitler rose to power and was in no way a reaction to later German rearmament, it was an offensive army intended for expanding the Soviet empire but Hitler beat them to the punch.

File: winterwar.png (8KB, 307x85px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 307x85px

>>2515934
Winter War

>137 posts
>no Gallipoli
Such a proper and orderly withdrawal!

>>2521885

>That HUGE Soviet military was being built long before Hitler rose to power and was in no way a reaction to later German rearmament, it was an offensive army intended for expanding the Soviet empire but Hitler beat them to the punch.

No, actually it was largely being built up starting in 35, right around the same time Hitler started re-arming.

https://books.google.com/books?id=DdBlCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179&dq=Red+Army+expansion+in+30s&source=bl&ots=THnArKAOlB&sig=QOmmsfihsXsw6FHv_0-gvBzSwPU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixq8HxjN7SAhUBxYMKHSOsDRYQ6AEIQjAG#v=onepage&q=Red%20Army%20expansion%20in%2030s&f=false


>The most significant increase was due to the enlargement of the army from 1935 onwards, including the required construction (barracks and new training fields)

http://www.cfr.org/germany/lessons-learned-hitlers-rearmament-germany/p27631

>On March 16, 1935, Adolf Hitler announced that he would rearm Germany in violation of the Treaty of Versailles.

File: P-39_Airacobra.jpg (414KB, 2354x1285px) Image search: [Google]

414KB, 2354x1285px

>>2520702

Except its not bullshit, the Soviet overall strategy (due to their shit economy and retarded Communist system) was to essentially to drown the Germans in Russian blood in a primitive war of straight-up attrition and if not for American Lend-Lease keeping them in the game, the Soviets would have been forced to sign a cease fire with Germany in 1942 and concede the loss of most of European Russia.

>>2521479
>moscow_peace_treaty

AFTER the Soviets had their asses handed to them in the Winter War.

>>2516450
Even normies know about this after 300, where have you been living?

File: Panzer I_Ausf__B_by_DarkWizard83.jpg (690KB, 1304x978px) Image search: [Google]

690KB, 1304x978px

>>2521925
> No, actually it was largely being built up starting in 35, right around the same time Hitler started re-arming.

Germany only built 800 Panzer I tanks from 1934-36, that was the entire extant of the Panzerwaffe at the time and was absolutely zero threat to the Soviets.

And again; you can’t just shit out a link and expect your readers to do the leg work for you and find whatever relevant quotes you think support your position.

>>2522032

I provided the fucking quote you fucking idiot. Germany started re-arming. Soviets started expanding their military at the same time. I guess to you, this is just some staggering coincidence. I'll repeat it, in all caps, so you can't possibly miss it.

>THE MOST SIGNIFICANT INCREASE WAS DUE TO THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE ARMY FROM 1935 ONWARDS INCLUDING THE REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION (BARRACKS AND NEW TRAINING FIELDS)

Now remember, how you said, ONE fucking post ago, that

>That HUGE Soviet military was being built long before Hitler rose to power

And how you are objectively, clearly, WRONG? How Hitler in fact "rose to power" well before 1935? Do you just have no idea what you're talking about, or are you so blinded by ideology that you can't string together a basic bit of cause and effect?

I also really, really do not grasp your insistence that it's tanks and tanks alone that are the measure of a country's military might, but I suspect that the answer to that would actually hurt to listen to. Nor is it particularly credible the Soviets would have no cause for worry about German re-armament, given what happened the last time the Germans flipped out and marched east.

>>2521885
>Tanks

"Soviet tank production alone from 1932-40 was over 26,000 tanks, more then the rest of the planet combined, which puts the lie to Soviet claims that the Red Army was purely defensive..."

You claimed that the fact that the Soviets produced 32,000 tanks put the lie to the Red Army being purely defensive.

But just the fact that the Red Army produced 32,000 tanks in no way imparts whether the USSR was an aggressive state or not, as shown with the French. The French had a large army, but were not aggressive.

>numbers

The original claim made concerning army size was that the Soviets had been;

> have the largest army on the planet
> by a LONG shot

And then proceeded to lose against a small German invading force.

I said that this was wrong and that the Soviets were actually outnumbered in the invasion (this is especially true when one takes into account constant losses at the front for the USSR).

The reply was that the Germans concentrated 3 million soldiers to invade, against 3.2 million Soviets and 6.8 million soviets in total, I then replied with correct figures that the Soviets had 3.2 million soldiers to the Axis 3.8 million in the invasion. Then the counter-response was to show that the Soviets were the largest, with the point that 3.2 million were the number in the region, but this was false and purposefully deceitful since it assumed that we should take the total Red Army size (6.8 million) without comparing it to the Axis total size, with only comparison to Axis forces for the invasion which were 3.8 million. Your intent on discussing the aggression of the USSR is a tangent.

Furthermore, as related with the tanks, simply maintaining a large army does not impart whether a state is aggressive is not. The USSR was aggressive, but possessing a large army does not in of itself make somebody an aggressive state, and you should not conflate the two.

File: 03_haertel_neurussland_ukraine_EN.jpg (127KB, 475x372px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 475x372px

>want to take around 50% of Ukraine
>annex 4% and occupy another 2% of it
>great strategist and chess master Putin

>>2522086

They don't, it all about fucking with Ukraine and preventing them from becoming part of the Western Sphere of Influence.

>Stupid fucking American who watched red dawn.

>>2522046
>Germany started re-arming. Soviets started expanding their military at the same time.

The Soviets had _already_ been rearming prior to the Nazis getting elected in 1933, you fucking idiot.

>>2522702

And yet their military appropriations budgets don't really seem to bear that out. Would you mind putting up a source to back up this point you're making?

>>2522063

You keep ignoring the massive Soviet military prior to WWII, Soviet aggression towards its neighbors and the fact that the U.S.S.R. was in no danger from its two-bit one-horse neighbors, while insisting on only focusing on a specific narrow period in time and only the western military districts, because that’s the only way to support the bullshit you’re shilling (i.e. Stalin dindu nuffin).

>>2522763
>You keep ignoring the massive Soviet military prior to WWII, Soviet aggression towards its neighbors


What aggression? Show me some aggression in between Stalin being in charged and the signing of the MR pact, you know, when opportunistic diplomatic conditions made it safe for him to attack his neighbors, which also happened 4 years after the start of this military buildup that you're so focused on.

>>2522086
>be this retard in a /his/ board

>>2522763
>I openly repeat several times that I view the USSR as an aggressive state
>Somehow this translates me into saying that the USSR was not an aggressive state
maybe you're confusing me with the other poster or maybe you're just being retarded, maybe both. I am criticizing you because you're conflating having a large army with this forcibly meaning that the state must be aggressive. The Soviets were aggressive, but having a large army does not prove this, as your previous comments were trying to claim as so.

>>2523236

The other poster, myself, is also saying that the USSR was aggressive, just aggressive as a manner of opportunism and willing to back down when the risks are too great (consider things like the withdrawal from Persia/Iran), and that the weight of evidence argues against any expansionist intent when ordering the huge overhaul and increase of the Red Army in 1935.

It is enormously more likely that the army was simply a hedge against the likely destabilization of Europe (Hitler had just openly announced he was ignoring a fairly major provision of Versailles and nothing seemed to be happening to him), and wanting to have a large armed force on hand to react however the situation might have turned. This is also not long before the purges of the Red Army begin, and it would help to have a whole lot of new guys who wouldn't have developed things like friendship and loyalty to the officer corps you were planning on getting rid of.

>>2517774
The casualty ratio was 1.4:1

Moron

>>2523214
>>2522413
>It's a victory for great Pootin guys, I swear
Fucking retards

>>2516383
It's a timehonored european tradition

>THE ANTHROPOPHAGUS HAS QUITTED HIS DEN
>THE CORSICAN OGRE HAS LANDED AT CAPE JUAN
>THE TIGER HAS ARRIVED AT CAP
>THE MONSTER SLEPT AT GRENOBLE
>THE TYRANT HAS PASSED THOUGH LYONS
>THE USURPER IS DIRECTING HIS STEPS TOWARDS DIJON
>BONAPARTE IS ONLY SIXTY LEAGUES FROM THE CAPITAL He has been fortunate enough to escape his pursuers
>BONAPARTE IS ADVANCING WITH RAPID STEPS, BUT HE WILL NEVER ENTER PARIS
>NAPOLEON WILL, TOMORROW, BE UNDER OUR RAMPARTS
>THE EMPEROR IS AT FONTAINEBLEAU
>HIS IMPERIAL AND ROYAL MAJESTY arrived yesterday evening at the Tuileries, amid the joyful acclamation of his devoted and faithful subjects

>>2524773
Kill yourself, Jewish millennial homo cuck

>>2518852
/his/ is full of butthurt frogs, krauts and taigs.

>>2516374
Normans made Britain great for the first time desu, they should see it as a victory.

>>2516598
The reason France fell National socialists is that the french nationalists wanted the Germans to come in kek

>>2521389
nah the British absolutely won. Sure Canada was a part of Britain but it was Britain that won the war and not them.

>Invade Canada and burn some shit but ultimately fail to achieve objective
>Navy is BTFO
>British veterans of the Napoleonic wars show up
>Brits lose a totally inconsequential battle and recover fast
>Utterly crush American forces and scatter them to the wins
>Washington DC burned to ground
>A fort in Boston gets shelled all night and just because it doesnt surrender Americans claim victory, despite the fact this battle had almost no impact
>On the Naval front, British Blockade is wildly succesful.
>Americans only victories come in raids on merchant ships and small 1v1 actions that are irrelevant
>British sign an extremely generous peace treaty towards the americans
>only after the war is literally over do Americans see a "decisive" military victory
>it doesnt matter anyway
>British lose nothing, burnt down washington, didnt give in to any american demands, and americans still pretend like they won the war
wew lads

>>2516374
no one wanted that catholic cuckold

>>2517475
>I'M STUPID!

Yes. You are.

>>2526338
>muh strategic stalemate

If a country begins or joins a war and does not achieve the bulk of its objectives, it has lost.

This is what Americans don't tend to get about Vietnam either.

>>2526390

Ok, since I'm so stupid, can you explain to me how the loss of the BEF, some 10 divisions total, could, and I quote "led to the loss of almost every single trained soldier in the British army" and how those people were necessary to "return and train the next cadre for the campaigns ahead", when the BEF was less than 50% of the British army, and even if they all were wiped out to a man, you still would have had the ability and continuity to train new troops.

For that matter, can you cite to ANYTHING indicating that those BEF troops were in fact used in that capacity?