-

[The Serbian Empire]

They also had the largest submarine force in the world.

I suggest making the submarine force exclusively female.

We have enough dick jokes and sailor jokes and miscellaneous soldier homoerotica to last us a thousand years.

Also, total shame when the Soviet Union did like my great-grand-uncle and shat itself during it's heart attack... And then it's grandchildren sold all his bejeweled dildos.

A lesbian's dream... a submarine full of women!

[Imperializt Russia]

They also had the largest submarine force in the world.

As much of a Soviet fanboy as I am, military matters are more your expertise, is there really a great deal of truth to the wehraboo creed that the Wehrmacht was better at almost everything than the Red Army?

Charitably, the simplest answer is that the Germans did what they did relatively well.

A lot of what they did was be foolish, however. Like thinking that Germany was the predestined ruler of Europe and this could be realised through killing everyone in eastern Europe.
It depends heavily on what you consider "better". The Russians were willing to expend the lives of men and materiel more than the Germans were in the pursuit of objectives. This led to a great many assaults where the Russians only "won" because both sides were completely smashed on the field and the Germans lost momentum and either withdrew or dug in. Also led to the Russians losing about three times as many men in the Eastern Front and thousands more tanks.

[The Rich Port]

As much of a Soviet fanboy as I am, military matters are more your expertise, is there really a great deal of truth to the wehraboo creed that the Wehrmacht was better at almost everything than the Red Army?

Charitably, the simplest answer is that the Germans did what they did relatively well.

A lot of what they did was be foolish, however. Like thinking that Germany was the predestined ruler of Europe and this could be realised through killing everyone in eastern Europe.
It depends heavily on what you consider "better". The Russians were willing to expend the lives of men and materiel more than the Germans were in the pursuit of objectives. This led to a great many assaults where the Russians only "won" because both sides were completely smashed on the field and the Germans lost momentum and either withdrew or dug in. Also led to the Russians losing about three times as many men in the Eastern Front and thousands more tanks.

Hitler hyping himself up like an exclusive Xbox One title; that is to say, too much. Also.

[Uxupox]

Charitably, the simplest answer is that the Germans did what they did relatively well.

A lot of what they did was be foolish, however. Like thinking that Germany was the predestined ruler of Europe and this could be realised through killing everyone in eastern Europe.
It depends heavily on what you consider "better". The Russians were willing to expend the lives of men and materiel more than the Germans were in the pursuit of objectives. This led to a great many assaults where the Russians only "won" because both sides were completely smashed on the field and the Germans lost momentum and either withdrew or dug in. Also led to the Russians losing about three times as many men in the Eastern Front and thousands more tanks.

Hitler hyping himself up like an exclusive Xbox One title; that is to say, too much. Also.

Yea the German war machine was really hampered by stupid in command.

[Ostroeuropa]

As much of a Soviet fanboy as I am, military matters are more your expertise, is there really a great deal of truth to the wehraboo creed that the Wehrmacht was better at almost everything than the Red Army?

Charitably, the simplest answer is that the Germans did what they did relatively well.

A lot of what they did was be foolish, however. Like thinking that Germany was the predestined ruler of Europe and this could be realised through killing everyone in eastern Europe.
It depends heavily on what you consider "better". The Russians were willing to expend the lives of men and materiel more than the Germans were in the pursuit of objectives. This led to a great many assaults where the Russians only "won" because both sides were completely smashed on the field and the Germans lost momentum and either withdrew or dug in. Also led to the Russians losing about three times as many men in the Eastern Front and thousands more tanks.

Their strategic goals were insane, because nazis.
Their strategic execution was pretty damn good.
Their tactic execution too.

So... competent maniacs.

"We shall conquer russia and murder EVERYBODY! AHahAhhHAhaHA!"
If you were an insane nutcase, they did very well with this goal. Better than they should reasonably have expected to do even.

However, if you were more sane, you would have said:

"The Fuhrer wants to conquer russia. We'll swoop in, and instead of bringing out the nooses and xyclon-b when the locals cheer our arrival to free them from the Shithead Stalin, we'll say "Hey guys, we're here to liberate you from the shithead stalin, who everybody fucking hates so much that it'd take, like, some major bigger fish kind of threat to distract you all from how you're all seething with fucking hatred for this shithead. Death to communism!" and the war will be over very shortly. We'll install a puppet state of fascist russians, carve out a piece of territory for ourselves as a housewarming gift and a thankyou, and then great britain commits suicide."

All in all, it's quite delicious that the Germans totally could have won world war two decisively.
If they weren't fucking nazis.

[Ethel mermania]

To answer the OP, sexism.

[The Rich Port]

Charitably, the simplest answer is that the Germans did what they did relatively well.

A lot of what they did was be foolish, however. Like thinking that Germany was the predestined ruler of Europe and this could be realised through killing everyone in eastern Europe.
It depends heavily on what you consider "better". The Russians were willing to expend the lives of men and materiel more than the Germans were in the pursuit of objectives. This led to a great many assaults where the Russians only "won" because both sides were completely smashed on the field and the Germans lost momentum and either withdrew or dug in. Also led to the Russians losing about three times as many men in the Eastern Front and thousands more tanks.

Their strategic goals were insane, because nazis.
Their strategic execution was pretty damn good.
Their tactic execution too.

So... competent maniacs.

"We shall conquer russia and murder EVERYBODY! AHahAhhHAhaHA!"
If you were an insane nutcase, they did very well with this goal. Better than they should reasonably have expected to do even.

However, if you were more sane, you would have said:

"The Fuhrer wants to conquer russia. We'll swoop in, and instead of bringing out the nooses and xyclon-b when the locals cheer our arrival to free them from the Shithead Stalin, we'll say "Hey guys, we're here to liberate you from the shithead stalin, who everybody fucking hates so much that it'd take, like, some major bigger fish kind of threat to distract you all from how you're all seething with fucking hatred for this shithead. Death to communism!" and the war will be over very shortly. We'll install a puppet state of fascist russians, carve out a piece of territory for ourselves as a housewarming gift and a thankyou, and then great britain commits suicide."

All in all, it's quite delicious that the Germans totally could have won world war two decisively.
If they weren't fucking nazis.

It's also that the Soviets just happened to be even more batshit crazy than Hitler and his boys could ever hope to be, as people were fond of reminding me when I was a straight up socialist even though I've never hurt a soul... Who didn't deserve it.

[Ostroeuropa]

Their strategic goals were insane, because nazis.
Their strategic execution was pretty damn good.
Their tactic execution too.

So... competent maniacs.

"We shall conquer russia and murder EVERYBODY! AHahAhhHAhaHA!"
If you were an insane nutcase, they did very well with this goal. Better than they should reasonably have expected to do even.

However, if you were more sane, you would have said:

"The Fuhrer wants to conquer russia. We'll swoop in, and instead of bringing out the nooses and xyclon-b when the locals cheer our arrival to free them from the Shithead Stalin, we'll say "Hey guys, we're here to liberate you from the shithead stalin, who everybody fucking hates so much that it'd take, like, some major bigger fish kind of threat to distract you all from how you're all seething with fucking hatred for this shithead. Death to communism!" and the war will be over very shortly. We'll install a puppet state of fascist russians, carve out a piece of territory for ourselves as a housewarming gift and a thankyou, and then great britain commits suicide."

All in all, it's quite delicious that the Germans totally could have won world war two decisively.
If they weren't fucking nazis.

It's also that the Soviets just happened to be even more batshit crazy than Hitler and his boys could ever hope to be, as people were fond of reminding me when I was a straight up socialist even though I've never hurt a soul... Who didn't deserve it.

This is true. But at the onset of the war, there was a wealth of anti-soviet sentiment in the populace that they not only failed to capitalize on, but basically turned into anti-nazi sentiment.

An army of pissed off soviet peasantry, huntsmen, deserters, and defefctors etc alongside the germans and a second russian revolution would have probably swung it.

It was the brutality of the nazi invasion and their comic book villain levels of racism that made soviet victory inevitable.

Even following that, the soviets didn't really get their war on until the propoganda switched from "Save communism!" to "Save russia!"

Even with lunatic racists barging down their doors to hang them and shit, they STILL couldn't get pumped up to go to war for stalin until he stopped reminding them why they hated him.

It's a huge blunder. Yes, the soviets were single minded and determined once they decided to go for it, but that decision took a while.

[Imperializt Russia]

They capitalised on it fantastically. In eastern Europe, lands where nations were briefly independent as the Russian Empire collapsed then re-conquered by the Stalinist USSR, the Nazis were able to enlist anti-Jewish militias so violent that the Nazis felt the need to step in and reign them the fuck in.

[Ostroeuropa]

They capitalised on it fantastically. In eastern Europe, lands where nations were briefly independent as the Russian Empire collapsed then re-conquered by the Stalinist USSR, the Nazis were able to enlist anti-Jewish militias so violent that the Nazis felt the need to step in and reign them the fuck in.

I meant capitalized for the war effort, though that again underlines the whole "insane strategic goals" problem.

"How should we enlist the locals? Spies? Sabouters? Infantry? Facto-"
"Get them to kill jews ofcourse!"

[Natapoc]

First of all, the draft should not exist.

To answer your question, patriarchal gender roles and misogynist beliefs are the historical reason why women were seen as unfit for service and thus not subject to the draft. The military is a very conservative institution and they are just now starting to allow women to have equal roles as men.

The draft will eventually catch up.

edit: What's with this weird nazi derailment?

[Ostroeuropa]

First of all, the draft should not exist.

To answer your question, patriarchal gender roles and misogynist beliefs are the historical reason why women were seen as unfit for service and thus not subject to the draft. The military is a very conservative institution and they are just now starting to allow women to have equal roles as men.

The draft will eventually catch up.

That's A reason, but it is not The reason, despite how much you wish it were so.

[The Rich Port]

First of all, the draft should not exist.

To answer your question, patriarchal gender roles and misogynist beliefs are the historical reason why women were seen as unfit for service and thus not subject to the draft. The military is a very conservative institution and they are just now starting to allow women to have equal roles as men.

The draft will eventually catch up.

That's A reason, but it is not The reason, despite how much you wish it were so.

... Said the #1 proponent of the MRAs on NationStates.

[Ostroeuropa]

That's A reason, but it is not The reason, despite how much you wish it were so.

... Said the #1 proponent of the MRAs on NationStates.

I have always maintained that an androcentric narrative is not sufficient for gender equality.
You are whining at me that when Natapoc claims the picture is of two faces, and I say
"It is not merely of two faces."
"But, but, you're always talking about the vase!"

Yeh.
Because somebody has to and because its necessary to understand the full picture.

http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/2012669.gif

The exclusive nature of the feminist claims are what makes feminism a hate movement, not the claims themselves.
That it declares the gynocentric perspective of sexism to be true rather than a matter of opinion or just a viewpoint and declares androcentrism to be sexism.

It is the difference between someone insisting there is a picture of a face and going apeshit at people who notice the vase, and someone who wants to talk about the vase because a bunch of close minded idealogues have shut down any counter narratives to their obsessive cult.

If every feminist shut the fuck up for a whole year, i'd talk about sexism from both perspectives. As is, I feel obligated to provide balance.

[Crusader occupied mecca]

IIRC both Israel and South Korea have the draft. I think in Israel women also get drafted, not sure how they do it in S Korea.

[Natapoc]

... Said the #1 proponent of the MRAs on NationStates.

I have always maintained that an androcentric narrative is not sufficient for gender equality.
You are whining at me that when Natapoc claims the picture is of two faces, and I say
"It is not merely of two faces."
"But, but, you're always talking about the vase!"

Yeh.
Because somebody has to and because its necessary to understand the full picture.

http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/2012669.gif

The exclusive nature of the feminist claims are what makes feminism a hate movement, not the claims themselves.
That it declares the gynocentric perspective of sexism to be true rather than a matter of opinion or just a viewpoint and declares androcentrism to be sexism.

It is the difference between someone insisting there is a picture of a face and going apeshit at people who notice the vase, and someone who wants to talk about the vase because a bunch of close minded idealogues have shut down any counter narratives to their obsessive cult.

If every feminist shut the fuck up for a whole year, i'd talk about sexism from both perspectives. As is, I feel obligated to provide balance.

So you want women to just shut up. Typical I suppose, but it's 2016 and that kind of attitude is about 2 centuries out of date.

Feminists will never shut up, not for a year, not for a minute and no amount of male entitlement will change this.

[Ostroeuropa]

I have always maintained that an androcentric narrative is not sufficient for gender equality.
You are whining at me that when Natapoc claims the picture is of two faces, and I say
"It is not merely of two faces."
"But, but, you're always talking about the vase!"

Yeh.
Because somebody has to and because its necessary to understand the full picture.

http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/2012669.gif

The exclusive nature of the feminist claims are what makes feminism a hate movement, not the claims themselves.
That it declares the gynocentric perspective of sexism to be true rather than a matter of opinion or just a viewpoint and declares androcentrism to be sexism.

It is the difference between someone insisting there is a picture of a face and going apeshit at people who notice the vase, and someone who wants to talk about the vase because a bunch of close minded idealogues have shut down any counter narratives to their obsessive cult.

If every feminist shut the fuck up for a whole year, i'd talk about sexism from both perspectives. As is, I feel obligated to provide balance.

So you want women to just shut up. Typical I suppose, but it's 2016 and that kind of attitude is about 2 centuries out of date.

Feminists will never shut up, not for a year, not for a minute and no amount of male entitlement will change this.

Feminists /=/ Women, so you're being a disingenuous person as usual.
You also fail to engage with the rest of the post, probably because you aren't able to pretend it's sexist, nor spread lies and misinformation in response to it.

I also never claimed I wanted them to shut up. Merely what my response would be.
So you're a disingenuous person on two different levels there.

Tell me, Nat, why should I believe you when you say you aren't sexist if you can't even be intellectually honest on the most basic of levels?

[The Rich Port]

IIRC both Israel and South Korea have the draft. I think in Israel women also get drafted, not sure how they do it in S Korea.

South Koreans are very traditional/conservative, so I doubt they draft women.

Women do serve, though.

And they're cute while doing it.

[Natapoc]

So you want women to just shut up. Typical I suppose, but it's 2016 and that kind of attitude is about 2 centuries out of date.

Feminists will never shut up, not for a year, not for a minute and no amount of male entitlement will change this.

Feminists /=/ Women, so you're being a disingenuous person as usual.
You also fail to engage with the rest of the post, probably because you aren't able to pretend it's sexist, nor spread lies and misinformation in response to it.

I also never claimed I wanted them to shut up. Merely what my response would be.
So you're a disingenuous person on two different levels there.

Your post had little content, it was your usual about how you believe feminism is a hate movement. It's not a hate movement but patriarchy is.

And, getting back to the topic, the gender roles and misogynist expectations enforced by the hate movement of patriarchy are why there is no draft of women.

[Uxupox]

Feminists /=/ Women, so you're being a disingenuous person as usual.
You also fail to engage with the rest of the post, probably because you aren't able to pretend it's sexist, nor spread lies and misinformation in response to it.

I also never claimed I wanted them to shut up. Merely what my response would be.
So you're a disingenuous person on two different levels there.

Your post had little content, it was your usual about how you believe feminism is a hate movement. It's not a hate movement but patriarchy is.

And, getting back to the topic, the gender roles and misogynist expectations enforced by the hate movement of patriarchy are why there is no draft of women.

Can you provide examples?

[Natapoc]

Your post had little content, it was your usual about how you believe feminism is a hate movement. It's not a hate movement but patriarchy is.

And, getting back to the topic, the gender roles and misogynist expectations enforced by the hate movement of patriarchy are why there is no draft of women.

Can you provide examples?

Until recently it was believed that women were mentally and physically incapable of combat, additionally women were viewed as belonging in the home to take care of children.

Just last year women were allowed to have some combat roles that were previously male only.

[Ostroeuropa]

Feminists /=/ Women, so you're being a disingenuous person as usual.
You also fail to engage with the rest of the post, probably because you aren't able to pretend it's sexist, nor spread lies and misinformation in response to it.

I also never claimed I wanted them to shut up. Merely what my response would be.
So you're a disingenuous person on two different levels there.

Your post had little content, it was your usual about how you believe feminism is a hate movement. It's not a hate movement but patriarchy is.

And, getting back to the topic, the gender roles and misogynist expectations enforced by the hate movement of patriarchy are why there is no draft of women.

I was pointing out that the exclusivity of feminist claims is what makes it a hate movement due to its dismissal of any androcentric perspectives as sexism.

Gender roles, misogynistic, and misandristic expectations enforced by society are why there is no draft of women.
Traditionalism is one source of misogyny and misandry.
Feminism is another.

[United Marxist Nations]

First of all, the draft should not exist.

To answer your question, patriarchal gender roles and misogynist beliefs are the historical reason why women were seen as unfit for service and thus not subject to the draft. The military is a very conservative institution and they are just now starting to allow women to have equal roles as men.

The draft will eventually catch up.

edit: What's with this weird nazi derailment?

No, it isn't, this is a fucking meme born from not understanding that this is the most peaceful era in human history; in prior times, if you lost 20,000 women, you were in serious danger of your people dying out, if you lost 20,000 men, a remaining 50,000 could pick up the slack easily. It isn't because "muh male privilege" it is the opposite, it is that men are, demographically, expendable.

[Uxupox]

Can you provide examples?

Until recently it was believed that women were mentally and physically incapable of combat, additionally women were viewed as belonging in the home to take care of children.

Just last year women were allowed to have some combat roles that were previously male only.

People that don't pass the physical requirements to part of some kind of combat MOS shouldn't allowed up there. The standards also shouldn't be lowered to satisfy some kind of external influence in exchange of lowered combat effectiveness of a unit.

[United Marxist Nations]

I have always maintained that an androcentric narrative is not sufficient for gender equality.
You are whining at me that when Natapoc claims the picture is of two faces, and I say
"It is not merely of two faces."
"But, but, you're always talking about the vase!"

Yeh.
Because somebody has to and because its necessary to understand the full picture.

http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/2012669.gif

The exclusive nature of the feminist claims are what makes feminism a hate movement, not the claims themselves.
That it declares the gynocentric perspective of sexism to be true rather than a matter of opinion or just a viewpoint and declares androcentrism to be sexism.

It is the difference between someone insisting there is a picture of a face and going apeshit at people who notice the vase, and someone who wants to talk about the vase because a bunch of close minded idealogues have shut down any counter narratives to their obsessive cult.

If every feminist shut the fuck up for a whole year, i'd talk about sexism from both perspectives. As is, I feel obligated to provide balance.

So you want women to just shut up. Typical I suppose, but it's 2016 and that kind of attitude is about 2 centuries out of date.

Feminists will never shut up, not for a year, not for a minute and no amount of male entitlement will change this.

>instead of argument just spamming [current year]
>male entitlement
What exactly are we asking entitlement to? Those of us whose lives are awful are tired of hearing that we have privilege.