Top Ten Armies of the World

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 NEXT

civvystreet and nationalistic 4/1/2004 11:40:50 AM

This getting ridiculously nationalistic-and innane-I mean come on guys-besides the US which we all agree is the most powerful- no other country belongs on the same pedestal. Sorry mate, but they are no seconds- Great Britain, France, Sweden, Upper Volta... However: - first, DPRK?! LOL a "we are the world" extravaganza is more appropriate. Their annual GDP is something like 5 billion. Need I say mo'

Quote Reply

Ad RE:and nationalistic 4/1/2004 11:43:54 AM

?Sorry mate, but they are no seconds? What a ridiculous thing to say. Surely the ?second? most power military nation would be second behind the US?

Quote Reply

civvystreet Hardly 4/1/2004 11:47:31 AM

"What a ridiculous thing to say. Surely the ?second? most power military nation would be second behind the US?" Well -yes but, there is such a huge gap. I mean the US is a Giant in Lilliput

Quote Reply

civvystreet RE:Hardly 4/1/2004 11:53:24 AM

France and UK are I believe on par and have historically fought each other to a standstill. WWII was an aberration- they were caught relying on cavalry from WW1 and static defenses a la Maginot. Point being that how can you, one logically rate "second" except to say that it is very distant from first and probabaly indeterminate within the confines of this medium. By way it wasn't only the French who were caught napping- I recall that little affair of the lend lease act.

Quote Reply

civvystreet RE:AD 4/1/2004 11:57:45 AM

All the allies helped each other- the U.S provided destroyers, supplies etc. before it even got into the war. So the fact that the Great Britain helped Russia does not diminish their pivotal contribution. Just as the US aid to the UK does not subtract from British and commonwealth heroism.

Quote Reply

Ad RE:AD 4/1/2004 12:16:10 PM

?France and UK are I believe on par and have historically fought each other to a standstill? Care to make a historical reference? ?All the allies helped each other- the U.S provided destroyers, supplies etc. before it even got into the war. So the fact that the Great Britain helped Russia does not diminish their pivotal contribution. Just as the US aid to the UK does not subtract from British and commonwealth heroism? It wasn?t me who questioned this in the first instance, it was Fabio, who claimed Britain were some how ?saved? by Russia.

Quote Reply

civvystreet Historical reference 4/1/2004 12:59:06 PM

Well I think what Fabio was trying to say in his own way, was that Russia or rather the USSR, basically broke the back of the Wehrmacht in Continental Europe. It emerged consequently as the pre-eminent power along with the U.S. I think it is safe (though perhaps not entirely morally justified) to argue that the US and the USSR made the principal contributions during WW11. So they were poised to take on the mantle of superpowers.Both countries had mediocre armies at the start of the war. Both went on to tap their economic base to build war machines that eclipsed those of France and Great Britain. As far as France and GB go, I meant that both powers sort of historically contained each other on along term strategic level. Though in the later part of the 18th century, Great Britain did pull ahead of its contender. Plus yes it did have the industrial revolution first and yes tactically speaking I agree that the GB was superior- Agincourt, Crecy, Waterloo (that Napoleon was a tough nut to crack)... though wasn't 1066, the Norman conquest basically a French invasion? I think I've opened a pandoras box. However, as things stand today, I think one would have to place UK & France on par. Both also have virtually identical GDPs (I don't know the GNP figures).

Quote Reply

Ad RE:Historical reference 4/1/2004 1:09:30 PM

I wasn?t contending Russia?s contribution to the Second World War. ?Agincourt, Crecy, Waterloo (that Napoleon was a tough nut to crack)... though wasn't 1066, the Norman conquest basically a French invasion? I think I've opened a pandoras box.? Don?t forget Blenhiem! The treaty of Utrecht which followed this was really the even which gave the rise of the British Empire (British following the Union with Scotland in 1707 of course). And don?t forget the Seven Years War! And no, it was a Norman invasion, if people in New York can claim that they are half Irish after over one hundred and fifty years of their family living inside America, then I can claim that the Normans were Norsemen, who had settled in Northern France and had been there one hundred and ninety years. Actually, the Norman culture was quite unique and differed greatly to that of the rest of France. It is clearly visible in the architecture of Norman buildings in Normandy and Southern Britain.

Quote Reply

RM-Nod RE:Historical reference - civvy - Russia rant 4/1/2004 1:41:43 PM

Russia in WW2 made a huge contribution and no one is denying that but what would have happened if Britain had not won the battle of britain (or the e-boat war or the battle for the atlantic for that matter)? The Luftwaffe would have went on to dominate the skys over Britain and eventualy the Germans would have invaded and conquered Britain. The knock on effect of this is total German dominance in the atlantic, the mediteranean (with the italians), Africa, the middle east (huge supplies at there disposal), this would have also meant German industry would not be hindered by bombing raids and that the German forces could concentrate fully on Russia. Because Britain has been conquered it would be logical to think Hitler would wait untill more forces could be pulled out of Britain to fight Russia so a short amount of time could have been enough to avoid the Russian winter and German forces would have had a much easier time in Russia. There would also be no supplies going to Russia either. So it could be argued that if it wasn't for Britian Russia would be speaking German. Ofcourse that is an insult to Russia because Russia did a hell of a lot in her defence but so did Britain and to say Russia or the US "saved" us is simplistic and insulting to say the least. Rant over

Quote Reply

Ad RE:Historical reference - civvy - Russia rant 4/1/2004 1:52:41 PM

Just to back up what RM-Nod said. It annoys when some Americans decide to ignore Britain?s role in the Second World War. France would still be German now had it not been for Britain winning the Battle of Britain, as Russia wouldn?t have been supplied with much needed war essentials, Germany wouldn?t of had to keep her forces split between North Africa and Northern France. Not to mention the fact that D-Day would not have occurred if Britain hadn?t of won in 1940. It stands a good chance that India would of fallen had it not been for Britain and the Commonwealth nations; Operation Downtown for instance, by the Chindits set up an excellent counter offensive inside Burma. The Italian front would of never opened up had it not been for the large British force in North Africa, which allowed the Allies to control the Med. Each power, Russia, Britain and the Commonwealth and the US added the essentials for the victory. Whether it was professionalism, sheer man power or industrial might, with out either of the ?big? three, victory would not have been achieved.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 NEXT