UK Politics Thread VII: Wake me DUP inside [can't wake UUP]

[Alvecia]

Being contrary for the sake of it helps no-one.

Idk.
10th man doctrine seems sound.

The Tenth Man. To avoid unwanted surprises like The Yom Kippur war with Egypt and Syria in 1973, Israel had instituted a policy known as “the tenth man.” It goes like this: When nine people agree on something, it's the tenth man's responsibility to disagree no matter how improbable the idea.

Making Devils Advocacy a rule that is expected to be upheld can reveal things otherwise overlooked, provide plans and ideas that can be put into place should unthinkable things occur, etc.

I won't disagree it's got merit, but I think it's definitely got its limits.

[Questers]

too.Starting WW3 right off the back of WW2, as the aggressor, and after telling the troops they can come home soon and such, would have been suicide.

That's not true. Britain was quite ready to finish with Japan even after VE day.

It's obviously very dificult to say what would happen, not least because morale is a metric you can only measure reliably ex poste facto. But the Soviet Army was even more worn out, even more exhausted, and even more unlikely to want to fight than our and the American armies. When Hitler invaded Russia swathes of Soviet soldiers simply surrendered. More Russians surrendered in the few months after Barbarossa than the strength of the whole French Army in 1940. Entire Armies lay down their weapons and simply walked into captivity.

It's quite possible that after initial successes due in part to surprise, local and strategic aerial superiority, and offensive action, the allied Armies would simply force most of the Soviet forces to surrender, as they did in 1941. Not definite, of course, but more likely than a mass-mutiny of the allied armies in Europe in 1945.

[Irona]

I didn't realise I was literally Corbyn. Good to know.

No, no I was implying you would follow his religious word. I should have made that clearer.

Then no, I don't support getting rid of trident or leaving NATO. But I do support Corbyns position of attacking Russian money in London to send a message to Putin.

[Proctopeo]

It was heavily supported by Allied lend-lease, so all the Allies would have to do is hold them long enough until they run out of equipment, then push to Vladivostok.

So the Soviets would have to replace broken American trucks with their own vehicles. Even though the Soviets were quite content with most machines provided by the Americans, it would be foolish to believe the Red Army couldn't do without those vehicles in 1945.

The period of time between "the American equipment broke" and "don't worry, we have our own now" would be a slight disaster. Especially knowing Stalin.

[Washington Resistance Army]

No, no I was implying you would follow his religious word. I should have made that clearer.

Then no, I don't support getting rid of trident or leaving NATO. But I do support Corbyns position of attacking Russian money in London to send a message to Putin.

That's a shitty message. Putin is a bully and they only understand force.

[The Parkus Empire]

too.Starting WW3 right off the back of WW2, as the aggressor, and after telling the troops they can come home soon and such, would have been suicide.

That's not true. Britain was quite ready to finish with Japan even after VE day.

It's obviously very dificult to say what would happen, not least because morale is a metric you can only measure reliably ex poste facto. But the Soviet Army was even more worn out, even more exhausted, and even more unlikely to want to fight than our and the American armies. When Hitler invaded Russia swathes of Soviet soldiers simply surrendered. More Russians surrendered in the few months after Barbarossa than the strength of the whole French Army in 1940. Entire Armies lay down their weapons and simply walked into captivity.

It's quite possible that after initial successes due in part to surprise, local and strategic aerial superiority, and offensive action, the allied Armies would simply force most of the Soviet forces to surrender, as they did in 1941. Not definite, of course, but more likely than a mass-mutiny of the allied armies in Europe in 1945.

If America became that powerful afterward though...I don't know. And communism would die a martyr's death

[Freezic Vast]

Why exactly is Corbyn shilling for Russia? That hardly seems like a Labour cause.

Really, because to me, it always seemed like Labour has shilled themselves to Russia in one way or another.

[Hurdergaryp]

How many casualties did the Soviets suffer in the war, and what was their manpower by the end of the war in Europe? Also think about how weak their economy would be since a lot of industry in cities like Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad were seriously damaged by the oncoming invasion, not to mention the damage they cause to the German territory they conquered.

They had a 2.5 to 1 numerical superiority to US and UK forces.

And an industrial capacity that was amazingly untouched by the war, given how the Soviets relocated their key industries necessary for manufacturing military equipment to places way out of reach of the Luftwaffe and the Wehrmacht. By 1945 tens of thousands of tanks, artillery guns, planes and other machines had been manufactured.

[Questers]

What's more likely is simply that the allied air forces lay waste to all infrastructure around the Vistula and the Soviet Army starves to death.

There isn't that much food in Europe in 1945. There's even less in central Europe because the harvest is not yet come by April 1945. Smashing the rail and road links over the major logistical lines from Russia to its frontal forces is a comparatively easy task for allied air power. Then where's the food and petrol going to come from?

Russia in 1945 is also dependent on the US and Britain for food on a strategic level anyway.

[The Parkus Empire]

Why exactly is Corbyn shilling for Russia? That hardly seems like a Labour cause.

Really, because to me, it always seemed like Labour has shilled themselves to Russia in one way or another.

Russia is no longer leftist

[Vassenor]

No, no I was implying you would follow his religious word. I should have made that clearer.

Then no, I don't support getting rid of trident or leaving NATO. But I do support Corbyns position of attacking Russian money in London to send a message to Putin.

This, in a nutshell.

[Hurdergaryp]

What's more likely is simply that the allied air forces lay waste to all infrastructure around the Vistula and the Soviet Army starves to death.

There isn't that much food in Europe in 1945. There's even less in central Europe because the harvest is not yet come by April 1945. Smashing the rail and road links over the major logistical lines from Russia to its frontal forces is a comparatively easy task for allied air power. Then where's the food and petrol going to come from?

Russia in 1945 is also dependent on the US and Britain for food on a strategic level anyway.

A heavily armed Soviet Army with every reason to go West. Your merry little fantasy conveniently leaves out the possibility of a Soviet response.

[Ifreann]

Really, because to me, it always seemed like Labour has shilled themselves to Russia in one way or another.

Russia is no longer leftist

Which is why Jez doesn't shill for them. It just looks that way sometimes because he's opposed to basically everyone who's opposed to Russia. The US, NATO, the EU, the Tories.

[Freezic Vast]

What's more likely is simply that the allied air forces lay waste to all infrastructure around the Vistula and the Soviet Army starves to death.

There isn't that much food in Europe in 1945. There's even less in central Europe because the harvest is not yet come by April 1945. Smashing the rail and road links over the major logistical lines from Russia to its frontal forces is a comparatively easy task for allied air power. Then where's the food and petrol going to come from?

Russia in 1945 is also dependent on the US and Britain for food on a strategic level anyway.

A heavily armed Soviet Army with every reason to go West. Your merry little fantasy conveniently leaves out the possibility of a Soviet response.

And you completely forget America had the bomb, the USSR did not. If the U.S. had tried to make peace with Japan and insist they go to war with the Soviets, a war on two fronts would happen and the Soviets would be obliterated by a mix of invasions from both sides and nuclear bombs destroying their cities.

[Questers]

Britain may as well give up both Trident and NATO.

In the first place, nuclear forces are significantly weakened without the conventional forces to protect them. An SSBN in very hostile territory is not that hard of a target. It becomes an impossible target when properly protected. Our Fleet is rotting, however (although it would probably still destroy Russia's terrible fleet quite easily.) We don't spend enough on naval and air forces to protect the nuclear deterrent when it's at sea, so its utility is vastly reduced. If we want to be a "nuclear power" it's much cheaper to simply buy more Tomahawks and develop a nuclear warhead, which is technically a nuclear weapon, but not really. Of course the obvious option is to buff defence spending to 3% GDP +.

In the second place, NATO is not of much use to Britain. There are only three useful countries in NATO besides Britain: the US, France, and Poland. The US will not allow Britain to be occupied by a foreign power for obvious strategic reasons, and if it ever would, it would simply ignore NATO anyway. We can co-operate with those countries (and Norway) without being in NATO. The only time when British territory was actually subject to foreign invasion and occupation was 1982 and NATO did nothing then. Only the US actually helped. So what use is it to be in NATO? I don't advocate leaving it but there's certainly no utility to being in it.

[Questers]

What's more likely is simply that the allied air forces lay waste to all infrastructure around the Vistula and the Soviet Army starves to death.

There isn't that much food in Europe in 1945. There's even less in central Europe because the harvest is not yet come by April 1945. Smashing the rail and road links over the major logistical lines from Russia to its frontal forces is a comparatively easy task for allied air power. Then where's the food and petrol going to come from?

Russia in 1945 is also dependent on the US and Britain for food on a strategic level anyway.

A heavily armed Soviet Army with every reason to go West. Your merry little fantasy conveniently leaves out the possibility of a Soviet response.

?

There's no food or petrol in western Europe in 1945, other than in temporary allied supply dumps.

The Soviet Army's not big not enough to break the allied armies in Europe in 45 before it simply starves because nowhere in Europe has any food and they can't get any petrol to the front.

[Hurdergaryp]

Russia is no longer leftist

Which is why Jez doesn't shill for them. It just looks that way sometimes because he's opposed to basically everyone who's opposed to Russia. The US, NATO, the EU, the Tories.

Is it also known what he's in favour of?

A heavily armed Soviet Army with every reason to go West. Your merry little fantasy conveniently leaves out the possibility of a Soviet response.

And you completely forget America had the bomb, the USSR did not. If the U.S. had tried to make peace with Japan and insist they go to war with the Soviets, a war on two fronts would happen and the Soviets would be obliterated by a mix of invasions from both sides and nuclear bombs destroying their cities.

Yeah, America had the bomb. What America didn't have back in 1945 was a vast atomic arsenal. Building up one of those takes time. It also takes a lot of money that suddenly was not so easily available, given how the war had ended and with it the war economy.

[Irona]

.

[Irona]

.

[Irona]

Then no, I don't support getting rid of trident or leaving NATO. But I do support Corbyns position of attacking Russian money in London to send a message to Putin.

That's a shitty message. Putin is a bully and they only understand force.

Putin is reliant on Russian Oligarchs, and they defiantly understand losing their money. The idea that the only way to send a message is to kill people is just jingoism.

[Questers]

What we should really do is simply kill the oligarchs.

[Washington Resistance Army]

That's a shitty message. Putin is a bully and they only understand force.

Putin is reliant on Russian Oligarchs, and they defiantly understand losing their money. The idea that he 'only understands force' is just jingoism.

And the moment they go against Putin they get shot 12 times in the chest outside the Kremlin by a random assailant. Jingo did nothing wrong.

[Hurdergaryp]

Putin is reliant on Russian Oligarchs, and they defiantly understand losing their money. The idea that he 'only understands force' is just jingoism.

And the moment they go against Putin they get shot 12 times in the chest outside the Kremlin by a random assailant. Jingo did nothing wrong.

Accidents happen. Tragic, but what can you do?

[Irona]

Putin is reliant on Russian Oligarchs, and they defiantly understand losing their money. The idea that he 'only understands force' is just jingoism.

And the moment they go against Putin they get shot 12 times in the chest outside the Kremlin by a random assailant. Jingo did nothing wrong.

Having his supporters turn against him, and then having to kill them one by one, is clearly pretty big message.

[The Parkus Empire]

What we should really do is simply kill the oligarchs.

Putin would love that since they are his only competition for power. He's exiled many and killed one



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_B ... usinessman)