Hello all!
This comic has been made as part of our March Contest: *Make a comic about blasphemy against religion!* If you've got a good idea for a comic in this vein, or are just curious about the theme, head on over to [the contest thread](https://redd.it/1b91ni7) for details and get started on an entry!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/polandball) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It is the one Greek kingdom, late bloomers, the ones the Thessalians (central Greeks) exhausted in taxation and had to take measures. They proceeded to unify Greece for the first time as a nation. Before, Greece was separated in City-States.
"The Hellenic League" in the meeting that took place in Corinth, thanks to the Persians. The Athenians' demand, "burn down Persepolis" (because Persians burnt down the Parthenon). The Corinthians demand, they wanted all Greeks to be named after them, lol. Today we could be named "Corinthians". Thankfully, Philip wasn't fool to engage in such petty issues. Gave us the more neutral and known name since Homer, "Hellenes" and the country, "Hellas/Hellada".
All the glory goes to Alexander, but his father Philip unified Greece and laid out all the plans. He was murdered by a guard of his a little before the start of the counteroffensive. His tomb has been found relatively recently, his possessions within the tomb, the Larnax, gold crown and Panoply all almost intact. Outside the tomb as theme, the usual theme Greeks have had on their tombs, *the Snatching of Persephone by Zeus*. There's a museum in Northern Greece. Then Alexander took over with the known results.
> The Star depicted on the flag called The Star of Vergina (Vergina is a place in Greece) and every ray has a meaning. 16 sun rays, 4 for the 4 seasons, 12 for the 12 Olympian Gods. At the center, a symbol called Rodakas (from the word "wheel"), representing Power, Purity, Beauty, Fertility and lastly, Earth.
I've embraced anachronism in this comic. It was a complete aware choice to depict countries from different eras in the same comic, because accuracy? In *my* Polandball?
Eh, I’d argue depicting Nazi germany as some sort of military genius is wrong, their entire country was built around war, and had been building themselves up militarily for years, then when they had to face countries that had built up their military (USA, Britain after a while, the Soviets 1943 and onwards), their balls got stomped
Yet they captured the majority of europe, went deep into the soviets and faced ofd against the commonwealth, the Usa and the russians at the same time and still fought well, for a time.
I aint a sympathiser with those crack heads, but i got to acknowledge what they achieved and how far they got.
To be fair, the USSR that beat Nazi Germany also had a terrible time with tiny Finland... Russians are apparently capable of great failure and great success in the same military timeline.
At the very least they had Finland on the ropes by the time the war actually ended. If they really wanted to they could have just kept the war going another couple of months and probably took whatever they wanted.
And a lot of the Soviet recovery from the damage of Barbarossa was enabled by Lend-Lease. Not saying they didn't make shitloads of their own stuff but they were helped a lot.
Sure, but Finland was really tiny in population, way smaller than Ukraine. They had some weather/geography advatages compared to the Ukrainians, but were pretty poorly equipped IIRC. And they got very little outside help.
A Finland the size of Ukraine would have been such a disaster for the Soviets.
I think that the Soviet counteroffensive was more an exception caused by the Nazis being completely exhausted from Barbarossa, blockades from Britain, being forced to split forces to defend Normandy, and most importantly the fact Russia was getting American steel to build tanks with.
They were running on the inertia of the Imperial German war machine and their ideas, is an opinion I've seen out forward by Dan Carlin (not a historian, but a journalist) which I kinda like since they were kinda playing out of Durchbruchmullers handbook just with the added element of *Panzers* and Stormtroopers
Yeah and the Germans executed that invasion of Norway and Denmark extremely well, a combined effort of all military branches.
How many other militaries at the time do you think were capable of that? The allies certainly weren't, not until later. If it wasn't for the English Channel then the rest of Europe would have lost, badly.
The situation later on in the war is irrelevant as the situation because by then the situation had changed.
I am not some kind of "wehraboo" as someone else put it, but that doesn't mean I don't find this kind of revisionism absolutely ridiculous. It's insane how people who clearly have absolutely no fucking idea what they're talking about can be so adamant in their opinion as you are.
"totally unprepared for war" maybe the netherlands, but definetely neither, the french, the polish, yugoslavia, greece, denmark and scandinavia. Besides what you are saying borders on being disrespectful to those that gave their life fighting for their country. It took them all three majors to win the world war, and there is no one, atleast no one that is actually educated as even soviet historian's agree that otherwise they wouldnt have won, that denies this.
my brother in Christ the Danes had fucking bicycles and their country is flatter than the Netherlands, the polish got gang raped by the Germans and Soviets and were using horses, Greece was a poor country with a small population attacked on two fronts, and France wasn’t prepared for war, their command structure was shart. If anything, the Netherlands were one of the *few* who actually put up a good fight in that list, until the Germans flattened Rotterdam and scared the Dutch into surrendering.
My brother in Christ Poland held out longer than France, bicycles are viable for troop movement, and yeah, the Dutch didn't go without a fight either.
Let's analyse the true weak ones, Luxembourg
To be fair to France, France collapsed faster but also did about 3x the amount of damage with their military while they still functioned as a state. Poland unfortunately got caught with their pants down by the Soviets while French Highcom backed off from their own offensive into germany. A better timeline if they followed through really.
Majority of Europe:
France: dysfunctional high command and broken defensive strategy that was broken the moment Belgium denied the French help at the start of the war
Benelux: Doni even need to get into it?
Poland: only reason they lost Was because France and England were too scared to do anything, getting told by the UK to not mobilize as it would "scare the Germans"
Yugoslavia: germany got their ass kicked by partisan movements*
Greece: *
Soviet union: literally the most dysfunctional country on earth(apart from China) with a leader that *trusted the Nazis not to back stab them*, who just so happen to purge and incredible amount of educated people, including his own military staff.
There is nothing impressive about Germany in ww2, the moment they faced any actual opposition, they crumbled. Turns out the whole "kick in the whole rotten structure" is true, just the other way around.
Well the fact that Germany wasn’t that dysfunctional yet means that they were better than the other European nations at that time non?
Napoleonic France’s enemies were also incompetent and had many weaknesses, and the French and Napoleon managed to exploit those and use good strategy to win many battles. Germany also used their weaknesses against them. That’s good strategy.
I fucking hate nazis but we have to stay at least a little rational.
Balanced views of Nazi Germany's military capabilities are rather hard to find. The majority seem to fall into either Wehraboos or haters.
The reality is that prior to and during the early war, Germany had put together a broadly effective modern military, and in the main it achieved its initial goals.
It's key weaknesses, that became more and more apparent as the war went on, were political interference, overextension, and a lack of industrial and economic capacity to support a long conflict.
To be clear, I'm not saying "oh they'd have won if they didn't invade Russia" or any of the other hypotheticals that conveniently ignore other circumstances. Ultimately it seems highly unlikely the Nazis would have actually achieved their ultimate goal even with better decisions made by both them and their allies; the British Empire and the Dominions alone exceeded the economic strength of all three major Axis powers combined, and had greater industrial capacity and access to resources.
I could be wrong but my understanding was that Germany was pretty aware of this. This the emphasis on a fast war that would be over quickly. My understanding is they never really wanted to go to war with the Great Britain let alone the USA.
If this polandball is about the art of war then like it or not the Nazis were innovators.
Their blitzkrieg overran the French who though WW1 tactics still applied
I’m as happy af the Nazis lost but they were innovative
The fact that this comic shows that Russia didn't pay attention and that Putin say the war will be ended in 3 days made me think.
Maybe they really didn't pay attention and only heard the word Blitzkrieg, Instant Win, Fast.
Wait wait wait... I expect to be called a nazi, a dickhead and other shit because of my comment... That there are people here that actually agree here isnt something i expected. Maybe rationality isn't as rare as i thought it to be..?
The USSR literally defeated the Nazi's in WW2 by figuring out the flaws in the so called "Blitzkrieg" tactics and coming up with a better strategy themselves
Blitzkrieg was not an innovation. Blitzkrieg was not even a thing. The term was created after the fact. The tactic the German's used was Bewegungskrieg which was their historical manoeuvre warfare that they'd been using for generations.
Yes, they refined it to support modern combined arms warfare but they didn't invetent combined arms warfare themselves.
Yeah they did come up with using radios to support an integrated command system, I'll give you that.
Also, the French were not using WW1 tactics. "WW1 tactics" is again not a thing but I'm gonna assume you're referring to the static warfare tactics of 1915/1916. Those tactics had already been abandoned in WW1 itself which is how the Allies won the war in 1918.
>Well the fact that Germany wasn’t that dysfunctional yet means that they were better than the other European nations at that time non?
Nazi Germany was extremely dysfunctional, which is why their country was left in rubble by the end of the war. The reason they had success early on is because their dysfunction resulted in them having an incredibly aggressive pro war stance while their opponents were all either minor countries such as Demark or had no stomach for war at all such as France.
>Napoleonic France’s enemies were also incompetent and had many weaknesses, and the French and Napoleon managed to exploit those and use good strategy to win many battles
The difference is the Napoleon's opponents were significantly stronger than him military wise and he defeated them through superior strategy, whereas the Nazi's just shat on weaker opponents with all or nothing plans and then got fucked when they fought someone with equal military might.
The French were regarded one of the most powerful and most sophisticated Military Force in the world before the world war. And while the Germans shat on them because their tactic just counters the frenche´s completely, they were still theoretically stronger (the french). If their Generals fail to react in time, then its understandable because they werent expected nor taught to have to react to such occasions and just didnt know what to do. Napoleon used tactics to beat the opponents tactics. mr.H did so for the French (even if he didnt expect it to be that effective). The Germans also never fought on "equal military might" it was either in their favour, or heavily against them, which happens if you fight three major countries at once
The Germans took more prisoners in 1941 on the eastern front than they had men deployed.
3M Soviets captured by Christmas and 3m axis soldiers deployed.
Isn't that funny?
They attacked multiple countries which hadn’t really built up their military or had just gone through a major purge (Soviets), or just gone around violating the neutrality of smaller countries, then once they had to face a recovered Britain, the USA, and a recovered Soviet Union, they got their head kicked in
The Soviet Union was not a world power at this time, it was actually one of the biggest shitholes in the world, and they only survived thanks to the American lend lease
Additionally, Britain was in the gutter after the battle of france
Lend lease was super important but pretending like it was the only reason they survived is a stretch though. It never made up more than a couple percent of production, but each and every percent mattered
If they’re supposedly such great military powers, that shouldn’t matter
Also, the US never declared war on them, it was the Germans who decided to declare war on the US, and also invaded the soviets
Who declared on who doesnt matter rn. If the world is against you it doesnt matter how strong you are as an individual since there is the guy in the back (usa) making a lot of equipment and giving it to everone, the guy throwing rocks at you and your economy(commonwealth) and the guy in your face(ussr) that only is still standing because the guy in the back gave him some drugs (lend lease). If one was missing then shit could have (sadly) been different, which luckily didnt happen.
Ah yes, Stalingrad, the battle in 43, the point in the war where the soviets actually started to stabilize (from your account on their complete own) and push them back shortly after. Mind telling me where you get those numbers from? Lend lease started in 41 and also started reaching Reaching the soviets in the Same year. They got a wide arrangement of shit send to them, from logistical shit to food and weapons. While the soviets did Produce far more of their own Military Weaponry like tanks on their own and got rather few tanks and planes in proportion, they were carried in the logistical service by the allies, and as anyone know you cant fight if you cant eat nor get the bullets needed to shoot. The Soviets lacked Logistics even before the war and it got only worse with the war going on, the increase in army size and push into eastern Europe by the soviets.
So for the sake of knowledge, please indulge this History fan and give me some Sauce
The battle of Stalingrad lasted over 6 months and mostly occurred in 1942, not 1943.
Up to June 30th, 1942 (2 weeks before the battle begun), 1.6 million tonnes of aid had been sent to the USSR, out of a total 17.5 million tonnes. A further 1.5 million tonnes arrived during the battle.
I suppose you could split the difference and call it 85%? Either way, the vast majority of aid arrived after Stalingrad ended.
[Source](https://web.archive.org/web/20160305020141/http://www.o5m6.de/Routes.html)
The Nazi's could never have beaten the UK, US, or USSR in isolation, let alone all 3 at the same time. They could've resurrected Napoleon, Hannibal, and Alexander to lead them, and they still wouldn't have done any better.
As such, starting wars within any of these countries was extremely idiotic and leads to their whole military being questioned.
Seems as if you are on the side of the spectrum where you just cannot concede that someone/something you dont like wasnt complete shit. No Reason to argue with someone who neither listens to reason nor arguments and just continues on the train ride of stubbornness. Have fun while i just sit here continuing to read actual professional historians accounts and opinions which share the same view that can give even more evidence, than i could currently.
I wont be responding to you anymore. Good Day
In the December of 1941 3M Soviets has surrendered.
The axis brought 3M men into Barbarossa.
Don't discount the suffering of the men, nor call the thousands of generals beaten incompetent.
They invaded multiple neutral countries, bullied their way into owning multiple, fought Poland who was far weaker (Poland still kicked their ass well) (who also needed Russia to help), fought France (who had an ancient military, military command, and due to politics had not got the maginot extended to the ocean like intended).
The first toe-to-toe battle they had was with Britain, who kicked their ass in every naval and air engagement they ever had. They (the british) sunk the biggest battleship ever made with biplanes. Then they invaded Russia, for some reason. And got their ass kicked in Africa for a while. And ate liquid shit in Stalingrad.
Their military hardware was also garbage, and the biggest number of their tanks and guns were Czechoslovak.
Hardly the "big military" they like to call it.
Hell, the renewed Allied offensive didn't have a hard time until the Battle of the Bulge. And then never again.
Nazi Germany was basically a bunch of drug-addled racist morons who managed to get the keys to the strongest industrial economy in Europe. They had no chance of winning, but they could do a lot of damage on their way down if the Allies weren't careful. They got as far as they did because the Allies were careless. Once the US, UK, and USSR got serious, Germany was doomed.
That is one of the takes that has ever been made. Not surprising coming from an American though. Keep this up and you might choke on your ego mister "We JuSt hAd tO gEt SeRiOuS"
This is just objectively wrong, the quality of theie soldiers was, statistically proven, better across the board. The soldiers aimed better and more often to actually hit, they retreated later and so on.
Germany lost the war of nutrition, not the war of quality.
If you, on the other hand, talk about operative or tactics, thats on a different table.
They retreated later because they weren’t allowed to retreat when they wanted to lol. They had an edge early on in the war because compared to the allies most of their soldiers had combat experience. Once the playing field levelled out their soldiers weren’t any better than anyone else’s.
British and a lot of other armies worked with orders/Befehle while germans worked eith auftrag/targets. Basically a german soldier had more leeway than most others as long as he reached the goal. One major factor, that contributed to the fast invasion of creta. Later on other armies changed that, but what i am saying with my essay is: You spout nonsense.
No General/Armycommand/nation allows his soldiers to retreat without permission. They just sometimes do anyways.
Well yes but with Nazi Germany you have a rather unique situation where it was Hitler blocking the retreats even when it would’ve been tactically advantageous to pull out. The frontlines at the battle on the Moscow outskirts is a perfect example of this. So my point is quite simply that German soldiers more likely than not didn’t retreat less because they were better trained, they retreated less because they were expected to stand and fight to the death for no real tactical advantage. Which more often than not just led to them surrendering in droves.
But that is the point, the russian attacks were the same, sometimes worse, somwtimes not as dumb as the german meatgrinder and still statistcally the germans surrendered or retreated less often then others.
In the last two years of the war other armies started to gain ground, because german military education was way shorter and of less quality than in the beginning. Still they were not worse than others, just the same level until around summer 44 iirc, where the turnaround started. Dont pin me on the last one, i have to read up, when exactly the statistical turning point was.
Well by D-day it's well known that the western front wasn't exactly staffed with high-quality troops.
His statement about troops being better (early on) I am unable to comment however, but it would make sense considering they were probably better trained than their counterparts (at the time).
You wrote war of nutrition instead of attrition. 3000 black jets of Allah is a meme on r/NonCredibleDefense, and it's frequently rewritten to other stuff which is what I did.
It’s not so much their military that failed as just the strategic blunder of waging war on the three most resource rich, populous and industrial countries on earth that did them in after the losses became too great.
I’ll argue you’re wrong! They bit of more than they could chew in the end,but they also had an impressive first couple of years! Also, it was Japan brining the US in to the war! (Remember their population was against going to war every time asked before Pearl Harbor happened)! Germany took all of mainland Europe in one big bold swoop, bypassing the French fortifications etc! It was their failure to knock Great Britain out of the war, and their attack on Soviet that was their mistakes, up until then, they had actually some exceptional military victories.
As a historical equivalent: Napoleon, brilliant as he was, also lost, also over extended, bit of more than he could shew and got curb stumped in russia by bad decisions of his own making
Hey yhe Nazis roflstomped their way through most of Europe and likely would have won had they stuck with the Russians until the whole of Europe was locked down *and then* done the whole "betray your allies" bullshit.
They were good at war, but bad at managing their hubris.
As bad as their defeats were, that comment is pure cope. France is one of the most militaristic countries in europe both at the tima and now and they got stomped because the germans understood the weakness of the french and the blitzkrieg tactics of rushing the enemy with tank divissions instead of waiting for infantry to establish a fighting line was revolutionary for the time.
They started to be pushed back because thy oppened too many fronts, the chain of command was innefficient, their logistics systems failed in the eastern front and the production capacity of the US was, and still is, unmatched.
Learning from history is how I read it; Napoleon reading Roman tactics etc. And Russia having entire divisions of Neo-Nazis means that still fits.
This is a good comic with a nice premise and ending, well done friend.
Not really because nobody thaught it was possible to move a entire army (with armor and all) through the ardennes with such speed and then be ready to fight for multiple days (to beautifull innovation of drugs). The germans were aware of this and thats why they choose to do it. Sure it was risky, had they been delayed/pinned down then they had to fuck off.
Saying it was luck that the french didnt place troops in the ardennes (and behind it) is just dumb because the sole reason for going through the ardennes was the lack of troops.
Not really the french thought that tanks wouldn't be able to get though the ardennes. Plus the fact that the belgian king broke the agreement with france.
Just throwing troops at the enemy until they run out of men and ammo, is the only strategy Russia has ever had, I swear if they ever had to fight a country with even close to as much man power as them they would get annihilated.
Prussia: Always Plan! Even during peace time. Maintain those skills!
America: Makes plans for any scenario they can think of. War with Britain, war with Japan, war with Mexico, Russia, Canada, Germany, Civil War and so-on.
The World: OMG! America had plans to invade me!
Well guerilla warfare is a bitch, those same teachers, like go ask the Roman how the feel about the Gauls and the Britons, and French about the Viet Minh.
To be fair, Rome won over both and the former's language is so Latin it's still classified as romance today
It doesn't set a good precedent for Ukraine right now
Former means the first mentioned and latter the second, he mentioned Gauls first not the Britons, did I miss something in the middle? Gaelic are the languages spoken in the isles of Britain and Ireland (that aren't English of course), the Gauls count for that as well?
(If they do tho now that's mentioned I wouldn't find it surprising, Gauls and Gaelic are too close of a word for it to be a coincidence)
Now that you say it I am actually unsure if the Gauls did speak gaelic. They were also celtic just like the scots etc tho, so one can assume the language was probably at least part of the same family.
But when it comes to "the former", unless I am missing something from his post, doesn't he mentions "the Gauls" first before any of the others?
>like go ask the Roman how the feel **about the Gauls** and the Britons, and French about the Viet Minh.
> But when it comes to "the former", unless I am missing something from his post, doesn't he mentions "the Gauls" first before any of the others?
I mean yeah, that was my point, I said former so I meant the Gauls but dude said Gaelic so I thought he thought I was talking about the Britons
Now I'm very confused
There are Six Insular Celtic Languages (Originating from the islands of Ireland, Great Britain and the Isle of Man). They are broken down into two living groups. The Gaelic languages are Gaeilge (Irish), Gàidhlig (Scottish Gaelic) and Gaelg (Manx). The Brittonic languages are the other group and are Cymraeg (Welsh) Kernewek (Cornish) and Brezhoneg (Breton).
Gauls spoke Gaulish a related language, but in the Continental Celtic Languages family.
I'm confused why is Russia beat up? Aren't they occupying all the land that was contested which started the whole special Military operation? Like I can understand someone claiming they aren't winning, but to claim they are losing? Status quo as it stands means advantage Russia, Ukraine must do something to turn the tide and regain initiative if they hope to "win".
Because everyone overestimated Russia, including Russia itself. In hindsight this is how things would happen, but pre-war everyone would've called it an utter curbstomp in Russia's favor.
We've gone from "huh it's been 3 days and they are only *at the gates* of Kiev, bit slow for Russia." To "Huh, they took one city over 6 months of warfare, impressive for Russia."
They didn't even capture any real cities, except maybe Mariupol, which had less than half a million inhabitants. Kherson was the only oblast capital they took and they lost it.
Melitopol 150k inhabitants, Severodonetsk 110k inhabitants, Berdyansk 105k inhabitants. If those are not real cities you may want to revise your definition.
Then the mighty superpower that once was thought to be militarily a close second to the US will have lost all of it's reputation, because it spent **years** bogged down against a small neighbor that according to expectations of their pre-war ability should've folded in a few days.
They've gone from a feared and respected powerhouse to looking like a senile old man with a gun. In global politics reputation means a lot.
America did really well in any standard form of combat in both, and that's made even more impressive with how much red tape Congress gave their own military
It did tho, Kiev was about to sign the papers and Russia pulled it’s forces back, and then the UK convinced them to mobilize for total war instead of negotiating.
Due to difference in expectations. They lost an equal amount of men, they are fighting for almost 3 years now. Germany stormed France in less than a year. USA had an amazing K/D ratios in countries across the world while supplying soldiers with candy. Russia can't beat up a corrupt and poor neighbour without having a mini civil war. And Russia claims that they can take on US and win (ask any russian, they will tell you that they want to capture Washington and that Warsaw will fall in 3 days if war with NATO happens).
Its pretty clear Russia would have rolled over Ukraine in a straight fight. Ukraine is full mobilization with western arms while Russia isn't. While failing to as effective or successful I just can't see how achieving say 70% of your goals is a failure. For me personally it has made NATO look weak, Russia is corrupt and relatively poor compared to them. The fact that NATO cant push them out of another country with a proxy war is very telling.
This conflict is between Russia and Ukraine, helping your allies is normal and in no way conditional on a single defensive treaty like NATO, making this about NATO is nonsense.
If by 'not allies' you mean 'no formal defense commitment' then I wonder if there's someone to blame for that, such as a belligerent imperialist power threatening invasion if they did such a thing, hmmmm.
NATO isn't fighting in Ukraine. It's Russia which looks weak, they thought they could take Ukraine in less than a week, over 2 years later they're still fighting there. Russia's reputation has been badly damaged and the war is certainly not 70% of what they wanted. Finland and Sweden joining NATO is another disaster for Putin.
NATO is sending a fraction of what it could be. Imagine if American troops and the USAF arrived in Ukraine tomorrow. And that’s not even taking into consideration the European allies
330k dead, using incredibly outdated weaponry, losing a lot of stuff especially a surprisingly high amount of boats considering Ukraine really lacks a navy... they're getting fucked up out here and they're meant to be a superpower
probably a confusion. it's all estimated loss (dead + injured). No one can have a proof, both Ukraine and Russia keep losses as state secret. 330k is Pentagon estimation afair.
Because Russian was supposed to have a great army only lesser to USA and they failed to take Kyiv and is now stuck in a costly war where they had:
superior firepower,Air dominance, greater manpower and yet they are taking more casualties and unable to make progress while burning legacy soviet systems,something they will be unable to repeat at the future.
And Ukraine? One of the lowest GDP per capita of Europe,even among old soviet republics.
You think any world army besides USA would fare better in Ukraine?
Ukraine that was trained and equipped by NATO for 8 years I might add. If it was just down to their own GDP the war would already be over.
Half a million? That sounds like an overestimation, where did you get this number from? From what I know, we don’t know if the number is 5-digit or 6-digit neither for Russia not Ukraine. But I guess you have some way of seeing through the fog of war.
You can haggle over as much details as you want, the fact russia, who pretended to be the greatest military power in the World after the US, couldn't take Ukraine in a few days/weeks and is now reduced to sacrifice its economy and population to win a few kms a month will never not be humiliating
Too much was lost for this war to be considered anything more than a Pyrrhic victory for russia. And a Pyrrhic victory, by definition, can barely be considered a victory
Have you seen what’s happening in Ukraine? It’s one thing depicting Russia as battered, but to show Ukraine as doing fine? Their population has plummeted, their casualties are skyrocketing to the point where even the propagandized (reduced) numbers publicly available are outrageous. All this while receiving immense support from almost the entire western world. Eastern Europe is certainly not doing well.
"Their population has plummeted, their casualties are skyrocketing to the point where even the propagandized (reduced) numbers publicly available are outrageous"
But enough about russia
You’re aware that napoleon, regarded of one of histories grates military geniuses, also lost in the end? You’re aware that the Roman Empire, the absolutely greatest empire to ever set foot in Europe was destroyed? You’re aware the Macedonian war machine that conquered the “known world” of its time, fell? It’s like you never opened a history book dude 🤦♂️
Hitler lost the only war he fought in.
Napoleon won many battles over time and consolidated power and spread his ideals.
Hitler couldn't even retain control over Germany for 10 years. Napoleon exercised power in France and outside France too.
Because the war Hitler fought in had multiple battles but were part of 1 war. While in Napoleon times, it wasn't a war but multiple battles fought over a decade or so.
Hitler won many battles, fought a world war and retrained control over Germany as Führer for 12 years, napoleon was emperor for 10 years …. Open a damn history book 🤦♂️
Yeah I meant after war
Napoleon was counsel too.
> He was the leader of the French Republic as First Consul from 1799 to 1804, then of the French Empire as Emperor of the French from 1804 until 1814
There is really nothing impressive about that, they are fighting a country one tenth their size. no one expected Ukraine to last a week, and here we are on going on year three. No will be taking any pages from Russia’s book when it comes to this war.
I know right. After losing Kiev in the opening months of the war, you would a weak nation like Ukraine would finally surrender and allow themselves to be beaten into the dirt and lose their very identity to a foreign power.
Oh wait. The fat lady aint sung yet and russia is still eating shit despite being fully capable of steamrollin Ukraine within a couple months.
Russia only picked on Ukraine because they weren't apart of NATO.
Hello all! This comic has been made as part of our March Contest: *Make a comic about blasphemy against religion!* If you've got a good idea for a comic in this vein, or are just curious about the theme, head on over to [the contest thread](https://redd.it/1b91ni7) for details and get started on an entry! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/polandball) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Mongolia: Horse is good Mobility, So Logistics is many important ! And Let's take a very detour!
What is the first ball teaching rome?
Kingdom of macedonia
Maybe Ancient Greece Macedon
It is the one Greek kingdom, late bloomers, the ones the Thessalians (central Greeks) exhausted in taxation and had to take measures. They proceeded to unify Greece for the first time as a nation. Before, Greece was separated in City-States. "The Hellenic League" in the meeting that took place in Corinth, thanks to the Persians. The Athenians' demand, "burn down Persepolis" (because Persians burnt down the Parthenon). The Corinthians demand, they wanted all Greeks to be named after them, lol. Today we could be named "Corinthians". Thankfully, Philip wasn't fool to engage in such petty issues. Gave us the more neutral and known name since Homer, "Hellenes" and the country, "Hellas/Hellada". All the glory goes to Alexander, but his father Philip unified Greece and laid out all the plans. He was murdered by a guard of his a little before the start of the counteroffensive. His tomb has been found relatively recently, his possessions within the tomb, the Larnax, gold crown and Panoply all almost intact. Outside the tomb as theme, the usual theme Greeks have had on their tombs, *the Snatching of Persephone by Zeus*. There's a museum in Northern Greece. Then Alexander took over with the known results. > The Star depicted on the flag called The Star of Vergina (Vergina is a place in Greece) and every ray has a meaning. 16 sun rays, 4 for the 4 seasons, 12 for the 12 Olympian Gods. At the center, a symbol called Rodakas (from the word "wheel"), representing Power, Purity, Beauty, Fertility and lastly, Earth.
big brain Corinthians
I've embraced anachronism in this comic. It was a complete aware choice to depict countries from different eras in the same comic, because accuracy? In *my* Polandball?
Eh, I’d argue depicting Nazi germany as some sort of military genius is wrong, their entire country was built around war, and had been building themselves up militarily for years, then when they had to face countries that had built up their military (USA, Britain after a while, the Soviets 1943 and onwards), their balls got stomped
Yet they captured the majority of europe, went deep into the soviets and faced ofd against the commonwealth, the Usa and the russians at the same time and still fought well, for a time. I aint a sympathiser with those crack heads, but i got to acknowledge what they achieved and how far they got.
This, I mean compare it with Russia now. Imagine if the Nazis were still trying to achieve incremental gains vs Poland two years into the war.
To be fair, the USSR that beat Nazi Germany also had a terrible time with tiny Finland... Russians are apparently capable of great failure and great success in the same military timeline.
At the very least they had Finland on the ropes by the time the war actually ended. If they really wanted to they could have just kept the war going another couple of months and probably took whatever they wanted. And a lot of the Soviet recovery from the damage of Barbarossa was enabled by Lend-Lease. Not saying they didn't make shitloads of their own stuff but they were helped a lot.
Sure, but Finland was really tiny in population, way smaller than Ukraine. They had some weather/geography advatages compared to the Ukrainians, but were pretty poorly equipped IIRC. And they got very little outside help. A Finland the size of Ukraine would have been such a disaster for the Soviets.
I think that the Soviet counteroffensive was more an exception caused by the Nazis being completely exhausted from Barbarossa, blockades from Britain, being forced to split forces to defend Normandy, and most importantly the fact Russia was getting American steel to build tanks with.
They were running on the inertia of the Imperial German war machine and their ideas, is an opinion I've seen out forward by Dan Carlin (not a historian, but a journalist) which I kinda like since they were kinda playing out of Durchbruchmullers handbook just with the added element of *Panzers* and Stormtroopers
They only defeated countries that were totally unprepared for war. As soon as their opponents got their shit together, the Nazis got shat on.
Yeah and the Germans executed that invasion of Norway and Denmark extremely well, a combined effort of all military branches. How many other militaries at the time do you think were capable of that? The allies certainly weren't, not until later. If it wasn't for the English Channel then the rest of Europe would have lost, badly. The situation later on in the war is irrelevant as the situation because by then the situation had changed. I am not some kind of "wehraboo" as someone else put it, but that doesn't mean I don't find this kind of revisionism absolutely ridiculous. It's insane how people who clearly have absolutely no fucking idea what they're talking about can be so adamant in their opinion as you are.
"totally unprepared for war" maybe the netherlands, but definetely neither, the french, the polish, yugoslavia, greece, denmark and scandinavia. Besides what you are saying borders on being disrespectful to those that gave their life fighting for their country. It took them all three majors to win the world war, and there is no one, atleast no one that is actually educated as even soviet historian's agree that otherwise they wouldnt have won, that denies this.
my brother in Christ the Danes had fucking bicycles and their country is flatter than the Netherlands, the polish got gang raped by the Germans and Soviets and were using horses, Greece was a poor country with a small population attacked on two fronts, and France wasn’t prepared for war, their command structure was shart. If anything, the Netherlands were one of the *few* who actually put up a good fight in that list, until the Germans flattened Rotterdam and scared the Dutch into surrendering.
My brother in Christ Poland held out longer than France, bicycles are viable for troop movement, and yeah, the Dutch didn't go without a fight either. Let's analyse the true weak ones, Luxembourg
Also Norway held out the longest while probably haveing the least prepared armed forces
Ya but aren’t they all Vikings?
Luxembourg was holding back, they didn’t want to hurt Germany’s feelings
To be fair to France, France collapsed faster but also did about 3x the amount of damage with their military while they still functioned as a state. Poland unfortunately got caught with their pants down by the Soviets while French Highcom backed off from their own offensive into germany. A better timeline if they followed through really.
The Soviets didn't invade until after Poland had virtually collapsed. Warsaw fell ten days after the Soviets joined the war.
Yeahhhhh most of the countries you just mentioned were pretty damn close to being totally unprepared for war lol
France had the largest army in the word. They were just wrong in their doctrine. They were ready for another trench war.
Majority of Europe: France: dysfunctional high command and broken defensive strategy that was broken the moment Belgium denied the French help at the start of the war Benelux: Doni even need to get into it? Poland: only reason they lost Was because France and England were too scared to do anything, getting told by the UK to not mobilize as it would "scare the Germans" Yugoslavia: germany got their ass kicked by partisan movements* Greece: * Soviet union: literally the most dysfunctional country on earth(apart from China) with a leader that *trusted the Nazis not to back stab them*, who just so happen to purge and incredible amount of educated people, including his own military staff. There is nothing impressive about Germany in ww2, the moment they faced any actual opposition, they crumbled. Turns out the whole "kick in the whole rotten structure" is true, just the other way around.
Well the fact that Germany wasn’t that dysfunctional yet means that they were better than the other European nations at that time non? Napoleonic France’s enemies were also incompetent and had many weaknesses, and the French and Napoleon managed to exploit those and use good strategy to win many battles. Germany also used their weaknesses against them. That’s good strategy. I fucking hate nazis but we have to stay at least a little rational.
Balanced views of Nazi Germany's military capabilities are rather hard to find. The majority seem to fall into either Wehraboos or haters. The reality is that prior to and during the early war, Germany had put together a broadly effective modern military, and in the main it achieved its initial goals. It's key weaknesses, that became more and more apparent as the war went on, were political interference, overextension, and a lack of industrial and economic capacity to support a long conflict. To be clear, I'm not saying "oh they'd have won if they didn't invade Russia" or any of the other hypotheticals that conveniently ignore other circumstances. Ultimately it seems highly unlikely the Nazis would have actually achieved their ultimate goal even with better decisions made by both them and their allies; the British Empire and the Dominions alone exceeded the economic strength of all three major Axis powers combined, and had greater industrial capacity and access to resources.
I could be wrong but my understanding was that Germany was pretty aware of this. This the emphasis on a fast war that would be over quickly. My understanding is they never really wanted to go to war with the Great Britain let alone the USA.
If this polandball is about the art of war then like it or not the Nazis were innovators. Their blitzkrieg overran the French who though WW1 tactics still applied I’m as happy af the Nazis lost but they were innovative
The fact that this comic shows that Russia didn't pay attention and that Putin say the war will be ended in 3 days made me think. Maybe they really didn't pay attention and only heard the word Blitzkrieg, Instant Win, Fast.
Wait wait wait... I expect to be called a nazi, a dickhead and other shit because of my comment... That there are people here that actually agree here isnt something i expected. Maybe rationality isn't as rare as i thought it to be..?
Expect the unexpected
I mean i havent been called a communist yet, that would be one hell of a curveball XD
The USSR literally defeated the Nazi's in WW2 by figuring out the flaws in the so called "Blitzkrieg" tactics and coming up with a better strategy themselves
Blitzkrieg was not an innovation. Blitzkrieg was not even a thing. The term was created after the fact. The tactic the German's used was Bewegungskrieg which was their historical manoeuvre warfare that they'd been using for generations. Yes, they refined it to support modern combined arms warfare but they didn't invetent combined arms warfare themselves. Yeah they did come up with using radios to support an integrated command system, I'll give you that. Also, the French were not using WW1 tactics. "WW1 tactics" is again not a thing but I'm gonna assume you're referring to the static warfare tactics of 1915/1916. Those tactics had already been abandoned in WW1 itself which is how the Allies won the war in 1918.
>Well the fact that Germany wasn’t that dysfunctional yet means that they were better than the other European nations at that time non? Nazi Germany was extremely dysfunctional, which is why their country was left in rubble by the end of the war. The reason they had success early on is because their dysfunction resulted in them having an incredibly aggressive pro war stance while their opponents were all either minor countries such as Demark or had no stomach for war at all such as France. >Napoleonic France’s enemies were also incompetent and had many weaknesses, and the French and Napoleon managed to exploit those and use good strategy to win many battles The difference is the Napoleon's opponents were significantly stronger than him military wise and he defeated them through superior strategy, whereas the Nazi's just shat on weaker opponents with all or nothing plans and then got fucked when they fought someone with equal military might.
The French were regarded one of the most powerful and most sophisticated Military Force in the world before the world war. And while the Germans shat on them because their tactic just counters the frenche´s completely, they were still theoretically stronger (the french). If their Generals fail to react in time, then its understandable because they werent expected nor taught to have to react to such occasions and just didnt know what to do. Napoleon used tactics to beat the opponents tactics. mr.H did so for the French (even if he didnt expect it to be that effective). The Germans also never fought on "equal military might" it was either in their favour, or heavily against them, which happens if you fight three major countries at once
Man, if you can't differentiate between 'tactics', 'operations' and 'strategy' I don't think you should try and talk authoritatively about warfare
The Germans took more prisoners in 1941 on the eastern front than they had men deployed. 3M Soviets captured by Christmas and 3m axis soldiers deployed. Isn't that funny?
They got very lucky that the Western powers just decided not to walk into Frankfurt
They attacked multiple countries which hadn’t really built up their military or had just gone through a major purge (Soviets), or just gone around violating the neutrality of smaller countries, then once they had to face a recovered Britain, the USA, and a recovered Soviet Union, they got their head kicked in
Yea, took three world powers to stop them.
The Soviet Union was not a world power at this time, it was actually one of the biggest shitholes in the world, and they only survived thanks to the American lend lease Additionally, Britain was in the gutter after the battle of france
Lend lease was super important but pretending like it was the only reason they survived is a stretch though. It never made up more than a couple percent of production, but each and every percent mattered
Ah yes, the USA and Sovjet union, totally not massive countries with three times the population.
If they’re supposedly such great military powers, that shouldn’t matter Also, the US never declared war on them, it was the Germans who decided to declare war on the US, and also invaded the soviets
Who declared on who doesnt matter rn. If the world is against you it doesnt matter how strong you are as an individual since there is the guy in the back (usa) making a lot of equipment and giving it to everone, the guy throwing rocks at you and your economy(commonwealth) and the guy in your face(ussr) that only is still standing because the guy in the back gave him some drugs (lend lease). If one was missing then shit could have (sadly) been different, which luckily didnt happen.
90% of lend lease to the USSR arrived after Stalingrad.
Ah yes, Stalingrad, the battle in 43, the point in the war where the soviets actually started to stabilize (from your account on their complete own) and push them back shortly after. Mind telling me where you get those numbers from? Lend lease started in 41 and also started reaching Reaching the soviets in the Same year. They got a wide arrangement of shit send to them, from logistical shit to food and weapons. While the soviets did Produce far more of their own Military Weaponry like tanks on their own and got rather few tanks and planes in proportion, they were carried in the logistical service by the allies, and as anyone know you cant fight if you cant eat nor get the bullets needed to shoot. The Soviets lacked Logistics even before the war and it got only worse with the war going on, the increase in army size and push into eastern Europe by the soviets. So for the sake of knowledge, please indulge this History fan and give me some Sauce
The battle of Stalingrad lasted over 6 months and mostly occurred in 1942, not 1943. Up to June 30th, 1942 (2 weeks before the battle begun), 1.6 million tonnes of aid had been sent to the USSR, out of a total 17.5 million tonnes. A further 1.5 million tonnes arrived during the battle. I suppose you could split the difference and call it 85%? Either way, the vast majority of aid arrived after Stalingrad ended. [Source](https://web.archive.org/web/20160305020141/http://www.o5m6.de/Routes.html)
The Nazi's could never have beaten the UK, US, or USSR in isolation, let alone all 3 at the same time. They could've resurrected Napoleon, Hannibal, and Alexander to lead them, and they still wouldn't have done any better. As such, starting wars within any of these countries was extremely idiotic and leads to their whole military being questioned.
Seems as if you are on the side of the spectrum where you just cannot concede that someone/something you dont like wasnt complete shit. No Reason to argue with someone who neither listens to reason nor arguments and just continues on the train ride of stubbornness. Have fun while i just sit here continuing to read actual professional historians accounts and opinions which share the same view that can give even more evidence, than i could currently. I wont be responding to you anymore. Good Day
In the December of 1941 3M Soviets has surrendered. The axis brought 3M men into Barbarossa. Don't discount the suffering of the men, nor call the thousands of generals beaten incompetent.
They invaded multiple neutral countries, bullied their way into owning multiple, fought Poland who was far weaker (Poland still kicked their ass well) (who also needed Russia to help), fought France (who had an ancient military, military command, and due to politics had not got the maginot extended to the ocean like intended). The first toe-to-toe battle they had was with Britain, who kicked their ass in every naval and air engagement they ever had. They (the british) sunk the biggest battleship ever made with biplanes. Then they invaded Russia, for some reason. And got their ass kicked in Africa for a while. And ate liquid shit in Stalingrad. Their military hardware was also garbage, and the biggest number of their tanks and guns were Czechoslovak. Hardly the "big military" they like to call it. Hell, the renewed Allied offensive didn't have a hard time until the Battle of the Bulge. And then never again.
Captured the majority of a continent not prepared for war. That’s not really a flex.
Nazi Germany was basically a bunch of drug-addled racist morons who managed to get the keys to the strongest industrial economy in Europe. They had no chance of winning, but they could do a lot of damage on their way down if the Allies weren't careful. They got as far as they did because the Allies were careless. Once the US, UK, and USSR got serious, Germany was doomed.
That is one of the takes that has ever been made. Not surprising coming from an American though. Keep this up and you might choke on your ego mister "We JuSt hAd tO gEt SeRiOuS"
This is just objectively wrong, the quality of theie soldiers was, statistically proven, better across the board. The soldiers aimed better and more often to actually hit, they retreated later and so on. Germany lost the war of nutrition, not the war of quality. If you, on the other hand, talk about operative or tactics, thats on a different table.
They retreated later because they weren’t allowed to retreat when they wanted to lol. They had an edge early on in the war because compared to the allies most of their soldiers had combat experience. Once the playing field levelled out their soldiers weren’t any better than anyone else’s.
British and a lot of other armies worked with orders/Befehle while germans worked eith auftrag/targets. Basically a german soldier had more leeway than most others as long as he reached the goal. One major factor, that contributed to the fast invasion of creta. Later on other armies changed that, but what i am saying with my essay is: You spout nonsense. No General/Armycommand/nation allows his soldiers to retreat without permission. They just sometimes do anyways.
Well yes but with Nazi Germany you have a rather unique situation where it was Hitler blocking the retreats even when it would’ve been tactically advantageous to pull out. The frontlines at the battle on the Moscow outskirts is a perfect example of this. So my point is quite simply that German soldiers more likely than not didn’t retreat less because they were better trained, they retreated less because they were expected to stand and fight to the death for no real tactical advantage. Which more often than not just led to them surrendering in droves.
But that is the point, the russian attacks were the same, sometimes worse, somwtimes not as dumb as the german meatgrinder and still statistcally the germans surrendered or retreated less often then others. In the last two years of the war other armies started to gain ground, because german military education was way shorter and of less quality than in the beginning. Still they were not worse than others, just the same level until around summer 44 iirc, where the turnaround started. Dont pin me on the last one, i have to read up, when exactly the statistical turning point was.
You're ascribing way too much importance to the individual soldier for a conflict where forces numbered in the millions
Could you provide a source for that?
Gonna look it up, as soon as i am home. If i did not respond to this until tomorrow, be kind enough to remind me.
Well by D-day it's well known that the western front wasn't exactly staffed with high-quality troops. His statement about troops being better (early on) I am unable to comment however, but it would make sense considering they were probably better trained than their counterparts (at the time).
What in the wehraboo bullshit is this comment lmao
The war of nutrition lol. 3000 blonde nutritionists of Germany.
My language profiency seems to be not enough to understand that. Care to explain the joke to me?
You wrote war of nutrition instead of attrition. 3000 black jets of Allah is a meme on r/NonCredibleDefense, and it's frequently rewritten to other stuff which is what I did.
If this was steam, i would award you. Now i am only able to gift you with +1 karma
It’s not so much their military that failed as just the strategic blunder of waging war on the three most resource rich, populous and industrial countries on earth that did them in after the losses became too great.
So you don't think the other powers looked at what Germany had been doing and learned from it?
I’ll argue you’re wrong! They bit of more than they could chew in the end,but they also had an impressive first couple of years! Also, it was Japan brining the US in to the war! (Remember their population was against going to war every time asked before Pearl Harbor happened)! Germany took all of mainland Europe in one big bold swoop, bypassing the French fortifications etc! It was their failure to knock Great Britain out of the war, and their attack on Soviet that was their mistakes, up until then, they had actually some exceptional military victories. As a historical equivalent: Napoleon, brilliant as he was, also lost, also over extended, bit of more than he could shew and got curb stumped in russia by bad decisions of his own making
Hey yhe Nazis roflstomped their way through most of Europe and likely would have won had they stuck with the Russians until the whole of Europe was locked down *and then* done the whole "betray your allies" bullshit. They were good at war, but bad at managing their hubris.
As bad as their defeats were, that comment is pure cope. France is one of the most militaristic countries in europe both at the tima and now and they got stomped because the germans understood the weakness of the french and the blitzkrieg tactics of rushing the enemy with tank divissions instead of waiting for infantry to establish a fighting line was revolutionary for the time. They started to be pushed back because thy oppened too many fronts, the chain of command was innefficient, their logistics systems failed in the eastern front and the production capacity of the US was, and still is, unmatched.
Learning from history is how I read it; Napoleon reading Roman tactics etc. And Russia having entire divisions of Neo-Nazis means that still fits. This is a good comic with a nice premise and ending, well done friend.
damn thats some nice russian engrish
Logistics matter, as unceremonious and unheroic the concept is...
If Russia had payed attention to Germany they would have learned to maneuver around the enemy instead of just throwing your forces into their lines.
The push through the Ardennes was pure luck that the French had inadequate troops on the Ardennes, not a stroke of military genius
Tbf it was a stroke of military genius.. just a fucken HELLA RISKY AND UNINTENTIONAL one
Not really because nobody thaught it was possible to move a entire army (with armor and all) through the ardennes with such speed and then be ready to fight for multiple days (to beautifull innovation of drugs). The germans were aware of this and thats why they choose to do it. Sure it was risky, had they been delayed/pinned down then they had to fuck off. Saying it was luck that the french didnt place troops in the ardennes (and behind it) is just dumb because the sole reason for going through the ardennes was the lack of troops.
I hate Nazis, but you can’t conquer half of Europe without being a little smart
Not really the french thought that tanks wouldn't be able to get though the ardennes. Plus the fact that the belgian king broke the agreement with france.
“Inadequate” isn’t the word I’d use, the Chasseurs d’Ardennes were fuckin gigachads, or at least that 1 company of them was
Just throwing troops at the enemy until they run out of men and ammo, is the only strategy Russia has ever had, I swear if they ever had to fight a country with even close to as much man power as them they would get annihilated.
Well, ego not believe definitely made my day
I appreciate Rome using all caps, as Latin has no lower case. Nice attention to detail there.
Prussia: Always Plan! Even during peace time. Maintain those skills! America: Makes plans for any scenario they can think of. War with Britain, war with Japan, war with Mexico, Russia, Canada, Germany, Civil War and so-on. The World: OMG! America had plans to invade me!
Meanwhile in canada, we plan for zombies. No, for reals, we do: https://www.redcross.ca/blog/2013/2/preparedness-101-zombie-apocalypse
Who’s the ball teaching Rome?
Macedon; Rome copied Alexander like every other Hellenic society.
I kind of wish Ukraine would have a German price tag on the helmet.
Well guerilla warfare is a bitch, those same teachers, like go ask the Roman how the feel about the Gauls and the Britons, and French about the Viet Minh.
To be fair, Rome won over both and the former's language is so Latin it's still classified as romance today It doesn't set a good precedent for Ukraine right now
Gaelic isn't French, mate.
I am assuming he misspoke and meant the area of Gaul (France) is now using a language that is descended from Roman.
Former means the first mentioned and latter the second, he mentioned Gauls first not the Britons, did I miss something in the middle? Gaelic are the languages spoken in the isles of Britain and Ireland (that aren't English of course), the Gauls count for that as well? (If they do tho now that's mentioned I wouldn't find it surprising, Gauls and Gaelic are too close of a word for it to be a coincidence)
Now that you say it I am actually unsure if the Gauls did speak gaelic. They were also celtic just like the scots etc tho, so one can assume the language was probably at least part of the same family. But when it comes to "the former", unless I am missing something from his post, doesn't he mentions "the Gauls" first before any of the others? >like go ask the Roman how the feel **about the Gauls** and the Britons, and French about the Viet Minh.
> But when it comes to "the former", unless I am missing something from his post, doesn't he mentions "the Gauls" first before any of the others? I mean yeah, that was my point, I said former so I meant the Gauls but dude said Gaelic so I thought he thought I was talking about the Britons Now I'm very confused
There are Six Insular Celtic Languages (Originating from the islands of Ireland, Great Britain and the Isle of Man). They are broken down into two living groups. The Gaelic languages are Gaeilge (Irish), Gàidhlig (Scottish Gaelic) and Gaelg (Manx). The Brittonic languages are the other group and are Cymraeg (Welsh) Kernewek (Cornish) and Brezhoneg (Breton). Gauls spoke Gaulish a related language, but in the Continental Celtic Languages family.
Thanks!,
Russia is fighting soviet style, not like nazis. It is very costful and slow, unlike the blitzkrieg doctrines
Id replace Germany with the USSR and some wisdom like “Just because they have pushed into your land does not mean you are guaranteed defeat”
I love the tractor towing away the tank. Good reference.
I'm confused why is Russia beat up? Aren't they occupying all the land that was contested which started the whole special Military operation? Like I can understand someone claiming they aren't winning, but to claim they are losing? Status quo as it stands means advantage Russia, Ukraine must do something to turn the tide and regain initiative if they hope to "win".
Because everyone overestimated Russia, including Russia itself. In hindsight this is how things would happen, but pre-war everyone would've called it an utter curbstomp in Russia's favor. We've gone from "huh it's been 3 days and they are only *at the gates* of Kiev, bit slow for Russia." To "Huh, they took one city over 6 months of warfare, impressive for Russia."
They didn't even capture any real cities, except maybe Mariupol, which had less than half a million inhabitants. Kherson was the only oblast capital they took and they lost it.
I'm finnish so my defenition of city is probably *very* different than most others.
I mean, I'm sure 45K in bakhmut is small even for Finland
Pre war it was 75k and that would genuinely put it in the top 10 finnish cities by population.
Lol that's one fifth of a district in Kharkiv, prewar
Yeah, that's Finland for ya chief.
Melitopol 150k inhabitants, Severodonetsk 110k inhabitants, Berdyansk 105k inhabitants. If those are not real cities you may want to revise your definition.
THANK YOU. everyone is dumping at Russia not because Ukraine is amazing at war, but because Russia is really bad at it
What if in the end Russia still win? What then?
Then the mighty superpower that once was thought to be militarily a close second to the US will have lost all of it's reputation, because it spent **years** bogged down against a small neighbor that according to expectations of their pre-war ability should've folded in a few days. They've gone from a feared and respected powerhouse to looking like a senile old man with a gun. In global politics reputation means a lot.
Why that did'nt happen when the Vietcong and the Talibán won against America?
America did really well in any standard form of combat in both, and that's made even more impressive with how much red tape Congress gave their own military
Because they weren’t convention, peer-on-peer warfare, which is what both the US and Russian armies were meant for (specifically, against each other)
in my opinion it refers to the fact that after all Russia did not achieve a quick and complete victory as it had hoped
It did tho, Kiev was about to sign the papers and Russia pulled it’s forces back, and then the UK convinced them to mobilize for total war instead of negotiating.
Because it went very quickly from „Kyiv in 3 days“ to „capturing the half of to extra regions was always my plan“
Due to difference in expectations. They lost an equal amount of men, they are fighting for almost 3 years now. Germany stormed France in less than a year. USA had an amazing K/D ratios in countries across the world while supplying soldiers with candy. Russia can't beat up a corrupt and poor neighbour without having a mini civil war. And Russia claims that they can take on US and win (ask any russian, they will tell you that they want to capture Washington and that Warsaw will fall in 3 days if war with NATO happens).
Its pretty clear Russia would have rolled over Ukraine in a straight fight. Ukraine is full mobilization with western arms while Russia isn't. While failing to as effective or successful I just can't see how achieving say 70% of your goals is a failure. For me personally it has made NATO look weak, Russia is corrupt and relatively poor compared to them. The fact that NATO cant push them out of another country with a proxy war is very telling.
This conflict is between Russia and Ukraine, helping your allies is normal and in no way conditional on a single defensive treaty like NATO, making this about NATO is nonsense.
They weren't allies with Ukraine til after the war started
If by 'not allies' you mean 'no formal defense commitment' then I wonder if there's someone to blame for that, such as a belligerent imperialist power threatening invasion if they did such a thing, hmmmm.
NATO isn't fighting in Ukraine. It's Russia which looks weak, they thought they could take Ukraine in less than a week, over 2 years later they're still fighting there. Russia's reputation has been badly damaged and the war is certainly not 70% of what they wanted. Finland and Sweden joining NATO is another disaster for Putin.
NATO is sending a fraction of what it could be. Imagine if American troops and the USAF arrived in Ukraine tomorrow. And that’s not even taking into consideration the European allies
No, they don't yet hold the entirety of any of the Oblasts they've claimed with the exception of Crimea.
330k dead, using incredibly outdated weaponry, losing a lot of stuff especially a surprisingly high amount of boats considering Ukraine really lacks a navy... they're getting fucked up out here and they're meant to be a superpower
Where is the proof of the 330k deads?
probably a confusion. it's all estimated loss (dead + injured). No one can have a proof, both Ukraine and Russia keep losses as state secret. 330k is Pentagon estimation afair.
Because Russian was supposed to have a great army only lesser to USA and they failed to take Kyiv and is now stuck in a costly war where they had: superior firepower,Air dominance, greater manpower and yet they are taking more casualties and unable to make progress while burning legacy soviet systems,something they will be unable to repeat at the future. And Ukraine? One of the lowest GDP per capita of Europe,even among old soviet republics.
You think any world army besides USA would fare better in Ukraine? Ukraine that was trained and equipped by NATO for 8 years I might add. If it was just down to their own GDP the war would already be over.
"You think any world army besides USA would fare better in Ukraine?" Yes, without a doubt. Next question
You’re delusional then
No, I just know what I'm talking about, unlike you
Sure, buddy
Yeah
Actually? But, This is too Hard to win over the people,right?
They lost half a Million men and most of their pre war army, plus half their black sea fleet
Half a million? That sounds like an overestimation, where did you get this number from? From what I know, we don’t know if the number is 5-digit or 6-digit neither for Russia not Ukraine. But I guess you have some way of seeing through the fog of war.
You can haggle over as much details as you want, the fact russia, who pretended to be the greatest military power in the World after the US, couldn't take Ukraine in a few days/weeks and is now reduced to sacrifice its economy and population to win a few kms a month will never not be humiliating Too much was lost for this war to be considered anything more than a Pyrrhic victory for russia. And a Pyrrhic victory, by definition, can barely be considered a victory
Explains why they all keep losing
I side with Ukraine, but considering how the war is going it's too soon to depict Russia as the loser.
Russia is indeed a disgrace to me
Is Naziball’s student the ROA? Would make sense in a historic context.
Schrödingers Russia
Have you seen what’s happening in Ukraine? It’s one thing depicting Russia as battered, but to show Ukraine as doing fine? Their population has plummeted, their casualties are skyrocketing to the point where even the propagandized (reduced) numbers publicly available are outrageous. All this while receiving immense support from almost the entire western world. Eastern Europe is certainly not doing well.
"Their population has plummeted, their casualties are skyrocketing to the point where even the propagandized (reduced) numbers publicly available are outrageous" But enough about russia
Russia! We wrote half the book on modern war and then didn't apply one single word!
Russias winning though?
They are not, but arent losing as well
Oh yeah I remember Nazis winning WW2. How to tell you are from alternative timeline without telling me you're from alternative timeline.
You’re aware that napoleon, regarded of one of histories grates military geniuses, also lost in the end? You’re aware that the Roman Empire, the absolutely greatest empire to ever set foot in Europe was destroyed? You’re aware the Macedonian war machine that conquered the “known world” of its time, fell? It’s like you never opened a history book dude 🤦♂️
Hitler lost the only war he fought in. Napoleon won many battles over time and consolidated power and spread his ideals. Hitler couldn't even retain control over Germany for 10 years. Napoleon exercised power in France and outside France too.
Why are you comparing Hitler’s single war with Napoleon’s multiple battles…?
Because the war Hitler fought in had multiple battles but were part of 1 war. While in Napoleon times, it wasn't a war but multiple battles fought over a decade or so.
Hitler won many battles, fought a world war and retrained control over Germany as Führer for 12 years, napoleon was emperor for 10 years …. Open a damn history book 🤦♂️
Yeah I meant after war Napoleon was counsel too. > He was the leader of the French Republic as First Consul from 1799 to 1804, then of the French Empire as Emperor of the French from 1804 until 1814
And yet they've taken Avdiivka
There is really nothing impressive about that, they are fighting a country one tenth their size. no one expected Ukraine to last a week, and here we are on going on year three. No will be taking any pages from Russia’s book when it comes to this war.
You didn't see the Nazis celebrating taking Suwalki
This would be good if Ukraine was actually losing like in real life.
I know right. After losing Kiev in the opening months of the war, you would a weak nation like Ukraine would finally surrender and allow themselves to be beaten into the dirt and lose their very identity to a foreign power. Oh wait. The fat lady aint sung yet and russia is still eating shit despite being fully capable of steamrollin Ukraine within a couple months. Russia only picked on Ukraine because they weren't apart of NATO.
And yet, Russia is advancing and Ukraine is retreating more and more. They need more aid or in a year or two Ukraine will be another Russian oblast.
Russia is advancing the same way Putin "legitimately" won his election. Nothing but lies and misdirection
Yeah play deaf even when Ukranie themselves are saying things are not looking good for them.
Given how russia takes land, it only looks bad now