Don’t forget how the Soviet Union saved the world from Hitler [W:115]

[NoC_T]

You did that with your statement "Because, like America, Europe plays 'world cop' and delights in engineering regional instability and regime change".

Sarcasm, dude.

And these countries would then be 'stable'?

They wouldn't be getting bombed. That would help. What's to discuss here, really?

 

[Montecresto]

Found todays VE coverage rather disgusting as there was almost no mention of the Russians.. only mention I saw was some media making fun of a broken down new super tank at the VE day parade in Moscow.. sorry but that is disrespectful of the millions of Russians that sacrificed their lives in defeating Hitler.

Haven't you noticed, it's fashionable in the West at present to be strongly anti Russian.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Haven't you noticed, it's fashionable in the West at present to be strongly anti Russian.

Unpopularity goes hand-in-hand with invasions and illegal annexations.

 

[blackjack50]

If Hitler had pulled every single one of their troops and tanks from the west and from Africa and sent them to the Eastern Front, it still would not have mattered. Why? Because all of those added together might have equaled what, maybe ten, twelve more divisions...and this was a relative drop in the bucket compared to the forces involved on both sides. What killed the Wehrmacht wasn't the quality or quantity of the troops - it was the logistics. It had an ever-lengthening supply line hampered by the different rail gauge and by partisans and - especially - by the incredible amounts of mud in the spring, and the bitter cold in the winter. The Soviets' supply lines, on the other hand, were getting ever shorter, and so it took them much less time to get what they needed where they needed it to go...and the big enabler in this was Stalin's order to move the thousands of factories back to the Urals.

And besides, by the time our bombing campaign against the German homeland was really beginning in earnest, the tide had already swung in the East. The first big bombing raid was against Cologne on May 30, 1942, but the battle for Moscow - the most important of the three big battles of Moscow, Stalingrad, and Kursk - had already been won the previous January. The High Command had wanted to send the armies for another push on Moscow, but Hitler overrode them and demanded that they be used to take Stalingrad...and I recommend Anthony Beevor's "Stalingrad" so you can see how that was doomed from the beginning. Even if the German High Command had gotten their way and got to Moscow first, yes, that was an important logistics hub and would have provided a psychological boost for the Wehrmacht, but it wouldn't have mattered in the end - the factories were in the Urals, and the Soviets would simply have said, "Fine - you've got Moscow. So did Napoleon, and see what good it did him." It was only a matter of time.

Well said. But I still feel that not having to waste resources on a western front would have had lethal consequences for the Russians. Additionally, would we say that the U.S. Was still fighting Japan in the pacific? Because of Japan had spread they might have forced Russia to divert resources .

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Well said. But I still feel that not having to waste resources on a western front would have had lethal consequences for the Russians. Additionally, would we say that the U.S. Was still fighting Japan in the pacific? Because of Japan had spread they might have forced Russia to divert resources .

But, as the Soviets' legendary spy Richard Sorge found, the Japanese had no intention of invading Russia to begin with. They were much more concerned with securing the oil that FDR was denying them unless they pulled out of China.

And back to your first sentence, again, it's a matter of logistics, not of firepower or numbers of divisions. Go back to post #132 and you'll see what I mean - you can try to send all the extra troops and equipment you want, but if your logistics situation is abysmal - as my reference in post #132 clearly shows - you're well and truly screwed anyway. That's why amateurs talk firepower (including sizes of forces involved) while professionals talk logistics. Admittedly I'm not a professional military historian...but I do listen to the ones who are.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Many Americans had fled Europe because of their wars, religious persecution, lack of opportunities, and so on. Just 20 years after WWI, the "War to End All Wars", the Europeans were at it again. Of course most Americans were against getting involved in yet another European war, but they eventually did.

Does Europe appreciate the sacrifices made by the American people. Some certainly do but the number of Europeans who were, and are, anti American remains pretty much constant. The 'likes' for calling the American people 'cowards' underlies these attitudes.

The 'sacrifices' of the American people? Guy, look back to WWI and the battles of the Somme, Ypres, Verdun, and others - in EACH of most of these battles, France lost nearly as many casualties as America did in our entire Civil War. America has never - repeat, NEVER - had to truly fight such a terrible war on our soil, and we have NEVER had to deal with anything close to the horrendous number of casualties suffered by France, England, Germany, and Russia.

Think about that - France was losing hundreds of thousands of men in each battle, again and again (and it wasn't because their leadership was terrible - it was more of a function of the world's militaries having to adapt to new tech and new ways of warfare)...and yet they still stood their ground. The Brits lost just as many in relative terms since as a naval power, their land army was much smaller in comparison. Uncommon valor was a common virtue there, too.

Many among the Right love to refer to the French as 'surrender monkeys'...but to do so shows greatly undeserved disrespect to a nation that suffered far more than we ever have...and France and England did not start either war - to refer to the wars as a 'European affair' is disingenuous. Yes, we helped a great deal in WWI and in WWII we freed France and kept her from becoming part of the Soviet bloc, but remember, without France forcing the surrender of Cornwallis, America might not be the nation we are today - we should remember that the gratitude goes both ways.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I don't think there is much anti-European feeling in the US, primarily because most Americans no longer really care about Europe and consider it too weak to count for much. If there is any feeling at all it is mostly contempt.

In Europe there is clear anti-Americanism with some, born mainly from feelings of inferiority and envy when faced with US strength.

It is a sorry state of affairs.

"Feelings of inferiority and envy when faced with US strength"? Lemme see here - they've got the preeminent science facility on the planet (CERN), and the populations of most of the nations of Europe have longer life expectancies than we do (mostly thanks to their universal health care that our American Right despises so much), several of their nations have higher standards of living than we do, the EEC as a whole is the largest economy on the planet, and ALL of their nations (including the ones with large immigrant populations) have MUCH less violence on their streets (thanks to gun control which our American Right despises so much)...

...yeah, we're militarily stronger, but just because a nation is militarily stronger doesn't make it a better nation.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Since the arrival of the Internet many more Americans have come to realize the anti Americanism in Europe and have responded in kind. Most no longer take Europeans very seriously and many look upon it, as they did decades earlier, as the source of the world's problems but never the solution. Of course opinions may vary by degrees but I would say that is roughly accurate.

Europe is somehow the source of the world's problems????

I think the families of the 100,000 or so of the Iraqi men, women, and children who were killed as a direct result of our needless invasion (and who now have to live under a puppet government controlled by Iran) would disagree with you.

Come to think of it, so would the families of two million or so Vietnamese.

Guy, even with all that, we're not the source of the world's problem, but neither are our hands clean in the matter. There's blame enough for everyone...including America.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I don't know how you equate the two. Let's just say there'd be a whole hell of a lot less bombs raining down on much weaker nations.

I strongly disagree - nature abhors a vacuum...and this applies to politics and nations, too. Just because we're not bombing a nation doesn't mean that nation won't be suffering war and privation. It might be just a matter of supplanting one set of problems for another.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Found todays VE coverage rather disgusting as there was almost no mention of the Russians.. only mention I saw was some media making fun of a broken down new super tank at the VE day parade in Moscow.. sorry but that is disrespectful of the millions of Russians that sacrificed their lives in defeating Hitler.

The Russians - now as then - are no angels...but we should have a very healthy respect for what they did in WWII. They fought and died FAR more than we did - they lost something like a quarter of their entire population along the way. We had something like 100M people at the time - imagine what America would be like if we'd lost 25M in WWII, and then some other powerful nation would scoff at our sacrifice.

They might be our rival and perhaps even our enemy...but it's a mistake on a grand scale to fail to respect what they have done and are still capable of doing.

 

[Grant]

The 'sacrifices' of the American people? Guy, look back to WWI and the battles of the Somme, Ypres, Verdun, and others - in EACH of most of these battles, France lost nearly as many casualties as America did in our entire Civil War. America has never - repeat, NEVER - had to truly fight such a terrible war on our soil, and we have NEVER had to deal with anything close to the horrendous number of casualties suffered by France, England, Germany, and Russia.

Why are you surprised that there were more French casualties when the war began in Europe and the Germans invaded France? Americans made sacrifices because they left the safety of their homes to help the Europeans. The Europeans 'sacrifices' were created by other Europeans.

Think about that - France was losing hundreds of thousands of men in each battle, again and again (and it wasn't because their leadership was terrible - it was more of a function of the world's militaries having to adapt to new tech and new ways of warfare)...and yet they still stood their ground. The Brits lost just as many in relative terms since as a naval power, their land army was much smaller in comparison.

Yes, they stood their ground for six weeks while Canadians, Americans, and many other nations helped to win it back. Nonetheless, there has never been a short supply of anti Americanism in France..

Many among the Right love to refer to the French as 'surrender monkeys'...but to do so shows greatly undeserved disrespect to a nation that suffered far more than we ever have...and France and England did not start either war - to refer to the wars as a 'European affair' is disingenuous. Yes, we helped a great deal in WWI and in WWII we freed France and kept her from becoming part of the Soviet bloc, but remember, without France forcing the surrender of Cornwallis, America might not be the nation we are today - we should remember that the gratitude goes both ways.

Yes, we should all be grateful to those 60 French souls who lost their lives but "Anglo-French War, (1779-1783)-Also known as the American Revolution. Also involved Spain, the United States and the Netherlands against Britain. Can also be considered as an Anglo-French War, Anglo-Spanish War and a Anglo-Dutch War".

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Why are you surprised that there were more French casualties when the war began in Europe and the Germans invaded France? Americans made sacrifices because they left the safety of their homes to help the Europeans. The Europeans 'sacrifices' were created by other Europeans.

Guy, the French were grateful...but they knew that the sacrifices of the Americans was minimal compared to their own.

Yes, they stood their ground for six weeks while Canadians, Americans, and many other nations helped to win it back. Nonetheless, there has never been a short supply of anti Americanism in France..

Six weeks? I'm referring to WWI - and it lasted for four years . They lost nearly one-eighth of their ENTIRE population. And they have never been as "anti-American" as you seem to believe - it's more a case of "we don't like France so they must not like us, either."

Yes, we should all be grateful to those 60 French souls who lost their lives but "Anglo-French War, (1779-1783)-Also known as the American Revolution. Also involved Spain, the United States and the Netherlands against Britain. Can also be considered as an Anglo-French War, Anglo-Spanish War and a Anglo-Dutch War".

Again, guy, you - and so many Americans - need to learn to have a deep and healthy respect for those who have suffered much more than we Americans ever have. We don't have to like them, and we don't have to kiss and make up to them...but we MUST respect them for what they have done and what they suffered...for failure to respect one's enemy almost always leads to underestimating one's enemy.

We haven't walked a mile in their moccasins. Pray that we never have to.

 

[blackjack50]

But, as the Soviets' legendary spy Richard Sorge found, the Japanese had no intention of invading Russia to begin with. They were much more concerned with securing the oil that FDR was denying them unless they pulled out of China.

And back to your first sentence, again, it's a matter of logistics, not of firepower or numbers of divisions. Go back to post #132 and you'll see what I mean - you can try to send all the extra troops and equipment you want, but if your logistics situation is abysmal - as my reference in post #132 clearly shows - you're well and truly screwed anyway. That's why amateurs talk firepower (including sizes of forces involved) while professionals talk logistics. Admittedly I'm not a professional military historian...but I do listen to the ones who are.

Honestly I was more thinking of Germany being able to halt a Russian advance. Pushing forward and taking land was maybe not the best of ideas. But having 12 more divisions and no bombed out infrastructure...in my view...could have produced a stagnant war. an all out push to capture the whole of Russia isn't possible, but could the Russians have overrun Germany if they had 12 extra divisions? Assuming they don't outrun their supply line and don't push too far.

Ps

How was the German infrastructure prior to our air raids? I don't know much. But I do know that the Russians had to rely on us for air power as well.

 

[Fenton]

"Feelings of inferiority and envy when faced with US strength"? Lemme see here - they've got the preeminent science facility on the planet (CERN), and the populations of most of the nations of Europe have longer life expectancies than we do (mostly thanks to their universal health care that our American Right despises so much), several of their nations have higher standards of living than we do, the EEC as a whole is the largest economy on the planet, and ALL of their nations (including the ones with large immigrant populations) have MUCH less violence on their streets (thanks to gun control which our American Right despises so much)...

...yeah, we're militarily stronger, but just because a nation is militarily stronger doesn't make it a better nation.

Look up the Cyclotron atom smasher. Americas first partical accelerator invented in 1932.

From the Transistor to the ARPANET, the predecessor to the Internet , American inventions have had a profound and positive impact on the lives of people all over the world.

There is NO reason for any American to feel inferior to any other Nation.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Look up the Cyclotron atom smasher. Americas first partical accelerator invented in 1932.

From the Transistor to the ARPANET, the predecessor to the Internet , American inventions have had a profound and positive impact on the lives of people all over the world.

There is NO reason for any American to feel inferior to any other Nation.

Did I say we should feel inferior? No, I did not. One doesn't have to feel that to respect someone is the same thing as thinking that other person's superior.

I think you're confusing respect with pride.

And FYI, if you really want to count inventions, what about paper (China) and the compass (also China) and gunpowder (China again) and the telescope (Italy) and democracy (Greece) and representative government (England) and how to measure longitude (also England) and the very first computer AND computer language (also England) and the theories of general and special relativity (Einstein was a German citizen at the time) and the entire industrialized world's system of numbers (somewhere in the Middle East - there's a reason why they call them Arabic numerals), and the Higgs boson which gives mass to...everything (CERN in France (mostly).

And what about weapon tech? How about missiles (Germany), SLBM's (USSR), stealth tech (USSR - they developed the theory but didn't pursue the application), sloped armor for tanks (USSR), the tank itself (England), combined arms assault (France and England together in 1918), first use of ship-launched aircraft in a raid (Japan in 1914 - yes, 1914), first actual aircraft carrier (England).

I can go on all day with this, guy. We're inferior to no one...but neither are we truly superior to anyone. Remember that.

 

[Fenton]

Did I say we should feel inferior? No, I did not. One doesn't have to feel that to respect someone is the same thing as thinking that other person's superior.

I think you're confusing respect with pride.

And FYI, if you really want to count inventions, what about paper (China) and the compass (also China) and gunpowder (China again) and the telescope (Italy) and democracy (Greece) and representative government (England) and how to measure longitude (also England) and the very first computer AND computer language (also England) and the theories of general and special relativity (Einstein was a German citizen at the time) and the entire industrialized world's system of numbers (somewhere in the Middle East - there's a reason why they call them Arabic numerals).

And what about weapon tech? How about missiles (Germany), SLBM's (USSR), stealth tech (USSR - they developed the theory but didn't pursue the application), sloped armor for tanks (USSR), the tank itself (England), combined arms assault (France and England together in 1918), first use of ship-launched aircraft in a raid (Japan in 1914 - yes, 1914), first actual aircraft carrier (England).

I can go on all day with this, guy. We're inferior to no one...but neither are we truly superior to anyone. Remember that.

You realize Von Braun wanted to land the entire Apollo rocket on the Moon ?

Lol ! Yep. It was a AMERICAN engineer who came up with the concept of a lunar lander.

The American MIT engineer that programmed the lunar landers computer used a system of interupts that prioritized memory resources based on importance.

That same interrupt concept is still used today in computer Operating programs

Everyone after the War absconded with German Scientists. The reason why America was able to use those resources to do thing like land men on the moon 6 times is because of the fundamental principles this Nation was built on.

Freedom and liberty lead to exceptional innovation. Exceptional innovation leads to an exceptional Nation.

The Transistor is STILL the basic building block for for everything from the American invention the Microprocessor to RAM memory.

We are still superior in MANY ways.

Conservatives are doing their best to keep America that way while Progressives do their best to undermine Americas exceptionalsim based on a twisted world view and their own personal issues with envy and guilt.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Honestly I was more thinking of Germany being able to halt a Russian advance. Pushing forward and taking land was maybe not the best of ideas. But having 12 more divisions and no bombed out infrastructure...in my view...could have produced a stagnant war. an all out push to capture the whole of Russia isn't possible, but could the Russians have overrun Germany if they had 12 extra divisions? Assuming they don't outrun their supply line and don't push too far.

Ps

How was the German infrastructure prior to our air raids? I don't know much. But I do know that the Russians had to rely on us for air power as well.

To answer both, bear in mind that by the time our bombing campaign really began in earnest, the battle outside Moscow - the largest and arguably the most critical of the three great battles of Moscow, Stalingrad, and Kursk - had been over for several months - it ended in January 1941 and the Germans had suffered a strategic defeat. Think about that - the most important battle, against the very best of the Wehrmacht, had been soundly defeated barely more than a month after we even entered the war.

What's more, it was about this time that their spy Richard Sorge in Japan found out that the Japanese had no intention of invading Russia, and so this freed the winter-hardened troops from Siberia to be sent west...and this was why Russia's winter offensives were so successful.

And what defeated the Germans? More than any other single factor, logistics. All the extra men and guns and whatever won't help at all if you can't get them where they need to be, WHEN they need to be there. There's a reason why it's said that Russia's two greatest generals are named 'Winter' and 'Mud'.

 

[Grant]

Guy, the French were grateful...but they knew that the sacrifices of the Americans was minimal compared to their own.

Isn't it generally the case that the country under attack would suffer more casualties? Did those silly French expect the Americans would suffer greater casualties???

Six weeks? I'm referring to WWI - and it lasted for four years . They lost nearly one-eighth of their ENTIRE population. And they have never been as "anti-American" as you seem to believe - it's more a case of "we don't like France so they must not like us, either."

Oh, beg pardon. I was referring to WWII. But you would have thought the French would have learned a few lessons from the first war. And of course you don;t know much about the historical French attitude towards Americans. You are just guessing and, despite a 50/50 chance and access to the Internet, you chose wrong.

Again, guy, you - and so many Americans - need to learn to have a deep and healthy respect for those who have suffered much more than we Americans ever have. We don't have to like them, and we don't have to kiss and make up to them...but we MUST respect them for what they have done and what they suffered...for failure to respect one's enemy almost always leads to underestimating one's enemy.

In fact I like the French and have spent a fair bit of time in France, but the truth is there whether I like them or not.

We haven't walked a mile in their moccasins. Pray that we never have to.

We'll probably in the same chaussures during the next confrontation between the democracies and those who choose to conquer them.

 

[Grant]

Did I say we should feel inferior? No, I did not. One doesn't have to feel that to respect someone is the same thing as thinking that other person's superior.

I think you're confusing respect with pride.

And FYI, if you really want to count inventions, what about paper (China) and the compass (also China) and gunpowder (China again) and the telescope (Italy) and democracy (Greece) and representative government (England) and how to measure longitude (also England) and the very first computer AND computer language (also England) and the theories of general and special relativity (Einstein was a German citizen at the time) and the entire industrialized world's system of numbers (somewhere in the Middle East - there's a reason why they call them Arabic numerals), and the Higgs boson which gives mass to...everything (CERN in France (mostly).

And what about weapon tech? How about missiles (Germany), SLBM's (USSR), stealth tech (USSR - they developed the theory but didn't pursue the application), sloped armor for tanks (USSR), the tank itself (England), combined arms assault (France and England together in 1918), first use of ship-launched aircraft in a raid (Japan in 1914 - yes, 1914), first actual aircraft carrier (England).

I can go on all day with this, guy. We're inferior to no one...but neither are we truly superior to anyone. Remember that.

Americans are not superior to anyone and that's clear from the number of immigrants who have arrived and succeeded from other countries.

What does make America superior is the freedom of its people being encouraged and allowed to succeed, a history of success now under some jeopardy. There is a reason why many people arrive from all over the world to try to improve their lives and it is that the USA offers greater opportunities than most anywhere else in the world. Plus world class scenery and life style diversities..

 

[Wiggen]

I know fully about the invasion of Crete and what happened. Regardless they did have plenty of para troops and you dont need that many to take over a few fields to fly in more, or take one of the ports. The British Army had serious defensive issues due to the lack of material and denying this fact despite the historical fact and military records we do know off.. is just pure nationalistic bull**** and sticking your head in the sand.. or moors in the case of the UK.



Err never said they had. Maybe you should learn to read. I said that if Hitler had not switched to bombing cities instead of continuing the offensive against the RAF, then the Germans WOULD have had command of the air because the RAF was a day or two from total collapse when the Germans changed strategy. If you had bothered to read up the battle of Britain you would know this. For one, the death rate of RAF pilots was far higher than the replacement and during the offensive against the RAF, the replacement of planes fell far far far below what was being destroyed on the ground or in the air. Collapse was damn close, there is no doubt about that.



And for god sake learn to read. First off there would be no invasion before the RAF was gone. Any military commander knew this. That is why ressoruces were pumped into the RAF once the British were defeated in France. Hell Churchill refused to send more RAF planes to France during the fighting because he and his commanders knew that they were the only real line of defence the UK had. Now the utter defeat of the RAF almost happened but in the end German tactical changes meant the RAF could recover and fight off the Germans. Now the irony is, that the reason the Germans changed tactics was because one of their own mistakenly bombed the outskirts of London (he got lost) which resulted in the retaliatory raid by the RAF on Berlin which so infuriated Hitler that he overruled (yet again) his own commanders.

Secondly, the Royal Navy? HAHAHAHHAHAHAH The Royal Navy stayed far from southern England in fear of being blown out of the water. It would be an utter suicide mission to try to prevent the Germans landing with the Germans in command of the air and their subs of course. The only reason the Germans did not blow the D-Day landing ships out of the water was that they did not command the air.

Sorry but until you learn to read and understand basic history that is not tainted by British nationalism, then you will understand that Britain was a day or two away from total defeat in 1940 had the RAF been eliminated as the Germans were close to doing.

As usual, wrong on almost every claim you made. Your remarks about the Royal Navy are particularly silly. And you persist with this paratrooper nonsense. What the Spitfires and Hurricanes would have done to the thin-skinned German transport planes bringing in paratroopers would have been slaughter. Your hatred of the Brits and your love of the Nazi military seriously erodes your credibility on any of these issues.

And by the way, I read just fine. I know what you said and so do you.

 

[Wiggen]

Obviously you haven't spent much time at DP yet.

Americans react on this forum to the constant stream of anti-Americanism from European posters such as you by firing back exactly what they receive. I know you would like it better if we just agreed with the nonsense posted or simply didn't react, but that isn't happening.

 

[PeteEU]

As usual, wrong on almost every claim you made. Your remarks about the Royal Navy are particularly silly.

Why are they silly? Why is it that the Royal Navy did next to nothing in the English Channel until D-Day?

And you persist with this paratrooper nonsense. What the Spitfires and Hurricanes would have done to the thin-skinned German transport planes bringing in paratroopers would have been slaughter.

What Spitfires and Hurricanes if the RAF was defeated?

Your hatred of the Brits and your love of the Nazi military seriously erodes your credibility on any of these issues.

Now you are talking absolute nonsense. Not my fault that you have never read a history book on the subject.

And by the way, I read just fine. I know what you said and so do you.

 

[blackjack50]

To answer both, bear in mind that by the time our bombing campaign really began in earnest, the battle outside Moscow - the largest and arguably the most critical of the three great battles of Moscow, Stalingrad, and Kursk - had been over for several months - it ended in January 1941 and the Germans had suffered a strategic defeat. Think about that - the most important battle, against the very best of the Wehrmacht, had been soundly defeated barely more than a month after we even entered the war.

What's more, it was about this time that their spy Richard Sorge in Japan found out that the Japanese had no intention of invading Russia, and so this freed the winter-hardened troops from Siberia to be sent west...and this was why Russia's winter offensives were so successful.

And what defeated the Germans? More than any other single factor, logistics. All the extra men and guns and whatever won't help at all if you can't get them where they need to be, WHEN they need to be there. There's a reason why it's said that Russia's two greatest generals are named 'Winter' and 'Mud'.

But aren't you arguing that the Russians would have advanced upon the Germans by the time we didn't enter the war? Wouldn't their supply lines then get smaller? Simplifying logistics? And of course...an increase in factories to support those logistics.

 

[Montecresto]

Unpopularity goes hand-in-hand with invasions and illegal annexations.

True enough, the very unpopular invasion of Iraq supports that.

 

[Montecresto]

"Feelings of inferiority and envy when faced with US strength"? Lemme see here - they've got the preeminent science facility on the planet (CERN), and the populations of most of the nations of Europe have longer life expectancies than we do (mostly thanks to their universal health care that our American Right despises so much), several of their nations have higher standards of living than we do, the EEC as a whole is the largest economy on the planet, and ALL of their nations (including the ones with large immigrant populations) have MUCH less violence on their streets (thanks to gun control which our American Right despises so much)...

...yeah, we're militarily stronger, but just because a nation is militarily stronger doesn't make it a better nation.

To the bolded. Ha, says you.