Soviet Union was ironically, the last saving grace for Britain and France

Britain, i don't know, but they didn't xant wxar too

Because all the millions killed in the east would have had to fall in the west instead

Soviet Union just fucked up Europe

They even counted on this scenario

Yes they didn't want war

That's what kid says when he must go do a chore "I don't want tooooo"

Reality is, consequences were clear

Consequences of lack of proper response to another German agression

i don't put the fault on them defense

but the fact is

It is well known that only complete fools get tricked with same trick twice (pre-emptive invasion through Belgium)

soviet union fucked up europe

Even greater and even more impossible fact

in fact, the fault is hitler's

is that British and France *planned in advance* that they will defend again in northern france and will repeat WW I

Which is utterly horrific

and deeper in fact, the fault is french's Traité de Versailles

You pledge to repeat the same completely flawed strategy because last time it ended with your pyrrhic victory

France didn't accept reality, tactitians were uncompetant

And partake no pre-emptive action yourself

It's par exellence the type of burreaucratic thinking common to Europeans

"stick with what worked last time"

Soviet Union is the result of all of that

Hitler-Stalin pact is the result of French and British incompetence

Which would have never happened have they only pledged to invade Germany as soon as it reoccuppied Rhineland, or mess with a neighbouring nation

All the beggining is Napoleon

like said @Salt

They only had to pledge to do so, because Hitler would've never did all he did if he didn't observe complete lethargy

Well, Napoleon was in many ways a better leader than what followed

He was ambitious yes, but his "acts" were always backed up by rifles and boots

He was distrustful of burreaucracy

in Hearths of Iron 4, i invade earth cause it's cool

in the real world, this is stupid

Hitler paid too

like many other empires

Napoleon never really invaded countries just like that

It was a complex, but not entirely outrageous series of consecutive vents

events *

He left all major monarchies intact

In fact, he created some more, like Italy

Napoleon wanted for himself dominant spot in Europe and he wasn't the first or last European to try to do so

Napoleonic wars were mostly defensive, but the consequence was the spread of 1789's ideas

I don't really believe that Napoleon was agent of these ideas

Nor helped their proliferation

he was not, he stopped the mess in France, but he had some of it

His position towards revolution itself was entirely cynical

Funny thing is, while Stalin commited many great errors in his domestic rule

the human's rights was one of his prime ideas

He was way more serious in his foreign policy

Which was recognized by Hitler, who considered Stalin (he didnt directly say it) his greatest opponent

Not only due to the immediacy of their conflict

STALIN DID NOT SMOKE ROYAL YACHT

Americans were more powrful

IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER

STALIN SMOKED "HERZEGOVINA FLOR"

AND NEVER CLEANED HIS PIPES

But because he understood that Stalin "owed nothing to demagogy" (Hitler's words)

MR. MUNDUNGUS

DEMAGOGY => DEMOTISM

Stalin surely did make mistakes in his strategic thinking

But more importantly

He never forgave mistakes

That's why he was Hitler's ultimate enemy

And Britain's saving grace

Studying all of medicine for a big test son

soon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mG5ecRXELoY

I wonder, was the removal of the Turks in the Balkans a positive consequence of 1789 ideas or was it the result of something else?

KIM PHILBY = STALIN'S REVENGE ON UK

Removal of Turks was imminent

In fact, it's miraculous how Turks persisted for so long

Mostly thanks to British support

And Austrian caution towards Russia

But otherwise, Ottoman position was incredibly fragile and perilous

They pesisted only thanks to cunning in diplomacy, in their good fashion

The fact that it was defeated by Balkan League,and alliance of conscripted peasant armies, displayed how completely sub-standard was Ottoman force

It's society, the Muslim population, was weakened, soft, dwelled in towns, markets and dealed solely with trade and craft

It's officer corps drafted from that population, corrupt, ambitious, selfish and unpatriotic

Turkey rallied only in WW I

to become much better force

did the British supplied equipments? at that times the Ottoman were mostly agrarians

AFAIK Turks used mostly French and German equipment

But they had considerable manpower, and long history of conflict and experienced officer corps

How average Mormon looks like

https://youtu.be/TiXT8koTeas?t=1m24s

lame shirt that doesnt fit, on a lame physique, tucked into pants that dont fit, tied with a waist that doesnt fit

face that has given up on anything else besides office and subscription to cable TV

and betraying country

https://beefshield.bandcamp.com/album/the-deep-state-experience

I think that city living is anti-human, city-dwellers know nothing else than cities, and every cities of the world are the same, this is how you kill allegiance and you end up with males with gay haircuts and tight jeans, this is why I think infrastructures are more dangerous than ideology, they built themselves an universe removed from the world

http://www.amerika.org/politics/forging-a-perfect-conservatism/

http://www.deathmetal.org/out.cgi?http://www.cnn.com/

@Salt I agree and have been trying to get prozak to understand for years

Westerners think their happiness is one purchase away

That's what all boils down to

No identity

No real values or loyalties, only imagined stuff

They imagine what they value but in reality are as water, dissapearing without trace facing any trial or test

They refuse the only and most logical option that can improve them vastly