|
Post by John Marston on Apr 29, 2021 15:10:45 GMT
Eurasia? by that logic, British belonged to all continents. That's wrong. They had colonies in all continents. But European USSR is a part of USSR as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Apr 29, 2021 15:11:21 GMT
I don't know about culturally, but technologically the most developed nation is US. Or are you talking about China? I am talking about the USA and China. After WW2 it shifted East, to the US, then the USSR, then China, causing the major sphere of operations to be in China-US.
|
|
|
Post by Inactive user on Apr 29, 2021 15:11:39 GMT
Eurasia? by that logic, British belonged to all continents. What i meant is that after WW1, and certainly WW2, the European nations became weaker, while the US economy was great.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2021 15:11:54 GMT
by that logic, British belonged to all continents. That's wrong. They had colonies in all continents. But European USSR is a part of USSR as a whole. European part of USSR was the dominant one, who lived in Asian parts other central Asians?
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Apr 29, 2021 15:12:22 GMT
I don't know about culturally, but technologically the most developed nation is US. Or are you talking about China? I am talking about the USA and China. After WW2 it shifted East, to the US, then the USSR, then China, causing the major sphere of operations to be in China-US. That is true. But USSR?
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Apr 29, 2021 15:14:31 GMT
That's wrong. They had colonies in all continents. But European USSR is a part of USSR as a whole. European part of USSR was the dominant one, who lived in Asian parts other central Asians? 23% of her population
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2021 15:17:40 GMT
European part of USSR was the dominant one, who lived in Asian parts other central Asians? 23% of her population That's the central Asians.
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Apr 29, 2021 15:20:13 GMT
That's the central Asians. That's the whole of Russian Asia, but you maybe right. It could be central Asians (mostly). How if they sold a part of Siberia to USA? That would be the craziest thing possible
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2021 15:22:39 GMT
That's the central Asians. That's the whole of Russian Asia, but you maybe right. It could be central Asians (mostly). How if they sold a part of Siberia to USA? That would be the craziest thing possible No matter how useless that land Economically, it still has strategic advantage, since invading from that direction was synonym of committing national suicide.
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Apr 29, 2021 15:24:04 GMT
That's the whole of Russian Asia, but you maybe right. It could be central Asians (mostly). How if they sold a part of Siberia to USA? That would be the craziest thing possible No matter how useless that land Economically, it still has strategic advantage, since invading from that direction was synonym of committing national suicide. That is why I labelled it the craziest thing possible (Man I am starting to love using italics now)
|
|
|
Post by Inactive user on Apr 29, 2021 15:24:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2021 16:45:57 GMT
Was the thread somewhat alternated? Cuz when I read the very first posts again it was indeed
|
|
|
Post by Erwin Rommel '44 on Apr 29, 2021 16:48:29 GMT
Well I think cuz he ended up in Saint Helena and being poisoned there to death. And his conquest for conquering Russia ended in an disaster. Well, conquest ONLY IN RUSSIA ended up in disaster. He lost huge army there, but you can't ignore his great victories. Every general has his share of victories and defeats, except in Napoleon's case, the stakes were much higher as he was the emperor Uhhhhh, Suvorov was never defeated in attle for the entirety of his military career. While he may have failed some campaings, Napoleon also had setbacks as well. Aspern-Esling, where he lost Lannes, an invaluable Marshall, and others. Feel free to criticise Suvorov.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2021 16:51:26 GMT
Well, conquest ONLY IN RUSSIA ended up in disaster. He lost huge army there, but you can't ignore his great victories. Every general has his share of victories and defeats, except in Napoleon's case, the stakes were much higher as he was the emperor Uhhhhh, Suvorov was never defeated in attle for the entirety of his military career. While he may have failed some campaings, Napoleon also had setbacks as well. Aspern-Esling, where he lost Lannes, an invaluable Marshall, and others. Feel free to criticise Suvorov. Aspern-Esling by Archduke Karl and Wagram was different only because of overwhelming French and its client states Numerical superiority.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2021 16:51:45 GMT
I would rather criticize napoleon more. Napoleon led himself to his own doom. Suvotov doesn't say me anything
|
|