Page 441 of 500

PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2019 12:20 am
by Jack Thomas Lang
Duhon wrote:Unsettling, but not ultimately damaging -- it'll be like the British acquisition of southeast Asian territories during the 18th and 19th centuries by the vicissitudes ot war, only to surrender them once hostilities cease.

I think its main impact would be felt elsewhere, in the States. The Russian fleet in Australia would have distracted some portion of the Anglo-French Pacific Fleet from carrying out operations against the US west coast. Ultimately though, it'd be moreso embarrassing than damaging. I imagine the Russians would have arrived, calmly looted the place and left before their fleets could be blockaded in port.

PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2019 12:21 am
by Torrocca
Totally Not OEP wrote:
Torrocca wrote:I like how you've disproven literally nothing here since ABH only claimed there were two M1A1 battalions in NORTHAG and not the entire fucking defensive network lmao


And as I pointed out talking about NORTHAG is pointless because the U.S. main zone of deployment was in CENTAG.


Which is irrelevant to the entire point being made that NORTHAG was fucking useless to the Soviet tank divisions, which was the most likely place to be attacked.

GL HF having all your tanks capable of defeating T-80s massed together in one cluster that's easily encircled because everyone else couldn't tackle them with their tanks.

You sure could provide some proof instead that they did it all on their own. :)


I don't recall saying that, but I can definitely say Reconstruction funds did not exist to rebuild the South.


Me: "And I'm certain they did all of that on their own"
You: "Actually yes"

Fucking LMAO. Sure. You totally didn't say that at all.

Half of your fucking arguments revolve around bitching about semantics LMAO. And it's not semantics to say they rejoined the Union but barely acted like it lol.


Again, please do explain how literally commanding the main theater of warfare in the Spanish-American War is barely acting like rejoining the Union in the case of Wheeler? :)


Doesn't mean shit when he helped perpetuate the lie that the Union was to blame for the Civil War. :^)

I'm sorry, are you implying the entirety of Indiana was the KKK?


Of course not, but I am saying it's weird to use Forrest's attachments to the Klan as a way of claiming him to be Anti-American; can you use Indiana's position as the main bastion of the Klan during the 1920s to claim it too was barely a part of the Union?


That's, again, fucking irrelevant. Forrest willingly chose to become the KKK to the point of being a Grand Wizard. I'm doubtful Indiana sanctioned the KKK.

PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2019 12:30 am
by Jack Thomas Lang
Torrocca wrote:Doesn't mean shit when he helped perpetuate the lie that the Union was to blame for the Civil War. :^)

That's insane, his actions trump any personal opinions he had. If he later served as a US military commander, I'd say that he integrated back into the US well enough.

PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2019 12:31 am
by Totally Not OEP
Torrocca wrote:
Which is irrelevant to the entire point being made that NORTHAG was fucking useless to the Soviet tank divisions, which was the most likely place to be attacked.

GL HF having all your tanks capable of defeating T-80s massed together in one cluster that's easily encircled because everyone else couldn't tackle them with their tanks.


Thank goodness 70% of Soviet tank strength is T-54/55s, T-64s, and the like.

Thank goodness the U.S. can transfer forces from CENTAG to NORTHAG.

Thank goodness the Anglo-Germans also have tanks with the same armor or equal variety to the M1's.

Thank goodness the aforementioned are also using the 120mm cannon on their tanks, again just like the M1s.

Should I continue? :)

Me: "And I'm certain they did all of that on their own"
You: "Actually yes"

Fucking LMAO. Sure. You totally didn't say that at all.


Care to repeat the full quotation?

Doesn't mean shit when he helped perpetuate the lie that the Union was to blame for the Civil War. :^)


I'm still waiting.

That's, again, fucking irrelevant. Forrest willingly chose to become the KKK to the point of being a Grand Wizard. I'm doubtful Indiana sanctioned the KKK.


It's completely relevant, because otherwise you're holding a double standard that doesn't make logical sense. And yes, actually Indiana did:

By 1922 the state had the largest organization nationally, and its membership continued to increase dramatically under the leadership of D.C. Stephenson. It averaged 2,000 new members per week from July 1922 to July 1923, when he was appointed as the Grand Dragon of Indiana. He led the Indiana Klan and other chapters he supervised to break away from the national organization in late 1923.

Indiana's Klan organization reached its peak of power in the following years, when it had 250,000 members, an estimated 30% of native-born white men. By 1925 over half the elected members of the Indiana General Assembly, the Governor of Indiana, and many other high-ranking officials in local and state government were members of the Klan. Politicians had also learned they needed Klan endorsement to win office.

PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2019 12:31 am
by United Muscovite Nations
Get a room, you two.

PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2019 12:41 am
by The Xenopolis Confederation
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Get a room, you two.

Bad ship, ProcTorra's better.

PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2019 12:42 am
by United Muscovite Nations
The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Get a room, you two.

Bad ship, ProcTorra's better.

Pretty sure Torra believes in polyamory so there's room in OEP's slave ship for Torra and Proct.

PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2019 12:51 am
by The Xenopolis Confederation
United Muscovite Nations wrote:
The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Bad ship, ProcTorra's better.

Pretty sure Torra believes in polyamory so there's room in OEP's slave ship for Torra and Proct.

Ironic.

PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2019 12:58 am
by Torrocca
Totally Not OEP wrote:
Torrocca wrote:
Which is irrelevant to the entire point being made that NORTHAG was fucking useless to the Soviet tank divisions, which was the most likely place to be attacked.

GL HF having all your tanks capable of defeating T-80s massed together in one cluster that's easily encircled because everyone else couldn't tackle them with their tanks.


Thank goodness 70% of Soviet tank strength is T-54/55s, T-64s, and the like.


Which is irrelevant to the devastation the T-80s alone would bring upon NORTHAG.

Thank goodness the U.S. can transfer forces from CENTAG to NORTHAG.


>TFW CENTAG forces can just magically cut through the 1st Guards Tank Army that'd be eating apart NORTHAG
>TFW they can just completely ignore the attacking 8th Guards Tank Army that'd specifically be attacking CENTAG forces to pin them down and prevent shit like that from happening
>TFW NATO can magically afford to weaken an entire army group to save another
>TFW they can somehow do these things despite not having the ability to have M1A1s present in a stronger force in NORTHAG in peacetime

lol

Thank goodness the Anglo-Germans also have tanks with the same armor or equal variety to the M1's.


And none of the killing potential against the T-80s.

Thank goodness the aforementioned are also using the 120mm cannon on their tanks, again just like the M1s.


>TFW recent reports for the Leopard 2A4 show it incapable of defeating T-80s because of shit ammunition
>TFW the Chieftain and Challenger both also had shitty ammo for their 120mms and couldn't share American shells

RIP.

Should I continue? :)


Nah, you've made it laughable enough.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:
The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Bad ship, ProcTorra's better.

Pretty sure Torra believes in polyamory so there's room in OEP's slave ship for Torra and Proct.


Cease this shit at once.

PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2019 1:16 am
by Totally Not OEP
Torrocca wrote:Which is irrelevant to the devastation the T-80s alone would bring upon NORTHAG.


Not at all, because if 70% of the Soviet tank force is quickly slaughtered NORTHAG has won; the Soviet tank armies will have been destroyed and the T-80s are irrelevant then.

>TFW CENTAG forces can just magically cut through the 1st Guards Tank Army that'd be eating apart NORTHAG


That won't be happening at all in the first place, given the West Germans and Brits have large, well trained and equipped units with the ability to fight the Soviets with ease, but yes; 1st Guards can't stand against two NATO Army Groups. They'd be outnumbered to the point of irrelevancy and the tech edge by 1985 is shifting firmly to NATO. By 1989, the date cited by ABH, any Cold War confrontation is an absolute slaughter of the Soviets.

>TFW they can just completely ignore the attacking 8th Guards Tank Army that'd specifically be attacking CENTAG forces to pin them down and prevent shit like that from happening


Yes, because Fulda is the only real route of attack against CENTAG; such favors the defenders, and CENTAG is more than large enough to divert units to NORTHAG if needed.

>TFW NATO can magically afford to weaken an entire army group to save another


Yes, that's how armies work and have always worked. You can shifted forces from either as needed, as long as the capacity to do so exists.

TFW they can somehow do these things despite not having the ability to have M1A1s present in a stronger force in NORTHAG in peacetime

lol


Because NORTHAG is not the U.S. zone of responsibility; it's like claiming the U.S. Army is weak in WWII because the British took Hamburg without them. In CENTAG, the U.S. had a massive amount of M1s to the tune of four armor divisions.

And none of the killing potential against the T-80s.


Actually they have greater killing potential; the 120mm gun can penetrate the frontal armor of the T-80 even at distance. Said 120mm also has a longer range. Once again, shitty Communist engineering just can't compete. :)

>TFW recent reports for the Leopard 2A4 show it incapable of defeating T-80s because of shit ammunition
>TFW the Chieftain and Challenger both also had shitty ammo for their 120mms and couldn't share American shells

RIP.


Lmao, how desperate do you have to be to use an article about the state of affairs in 2015 for discussions of the 1980s? :lol:

PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2019 4:11 am
by Grenartia
Benuty wrote:
Grenartia wrote:
Traitors, the lot of them. Minus the slaves and Union sympathizers.

That didn't exactly negate their point, and the greatest treason was what occurred following the end of the war. Reconstruction for all intents, and purposes was an abject failure that did nothing to truly reconstruct southern society at all other than sprinkle in northern blood into the aristocracy.


The only bad thing about Reconstruction was the traitors' reaction to it. Change my mind.

Rostavykhan wrote:


CSA still in my heart T.T gone too soon.

> TFW no Syndie CSA or Left-Wing Southern Nationalist movements to fight against Yankee Capitalist oppression and corrupt Southern Oligarchy.

Image


That image gave me cancer.

Nazbols get out.

PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2019 4:19 am
by Duhon
The one thing worse than Southern traitors reacting to Reconstruction is Northerners reacting to their reaction... in the most undesirable, bigotry-coddling, Jim Crow-enacting manner -- and this till the latter half of the next century.

PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2019 4:38 am
by Hanafuridake
As much as I find Neo-Confederates deplorable (because the rules don't let me express my true feelings) there is something ironic about non, or even anti-,nationalists suddenly acting as though they're extremely nationalistic. What with all of the talk about “traitors,” even from Torra who's an anarchist (therefore, by definition, disloyal to the American state). I'm sorry, I sympathize with your arguments against the Confederacy, but there feels like there is an underlying hypocrisy which is not being addressed.

PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2019 4:44 am
by The Xenopolis Confederation
Hanafuridake wrote:As much as I find Neo-Confederates deplorable (because the rules don't let me express my true feelings) there is something ironic about non, or even anti-,nationalists suddenly acting as though they're extremely nationalistic. What with all of the talk about “traitors,” even from Torra who's an anarchist (therefore, by definition, disloyal to the American state). I'm sorry, I sympathize with your arguments against the Confederacy, but there feels like there is an underlying hypocrisy which is not being addressed.

Yeah, the use of "traitor" type rhetoric does seem uncharacteristically jingoistic for many of the posters here, even if it is an understandable reaction against slavery.

PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2019 4:55 am
by Conserative Morality
Hanafuridake wrote:As much as I find Neo-Confederates deplorable (because the rules don't let me express my true feelings) there is something ironic about non, or even anti-,nationalists suddenly acting as though they're extremely nationalistic. What with all of the talk about “traitors,” even from Torra who's an anarchist (therefore, by definition, disloyal to the American state). I'm sorry, I sympathize with your arguments against the Confederacy, but there feels like there is an underlying hypocrisy which is not being addressed.

Traitors to basic humanity. :)

PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2019 9:53 am
by Luminesa
Grenartia wrote:
Benuty wrote:That didn't exactly negate their point, and the greatest treason was what occurred following the end of the war. Reconstruction for all intents, and purposes was an abject failure that did nothing to truly reconstruct southern society at all other than sprinkle in northern blood into the aristocracy.


The only bad thing about Reconstruction was the traitors' reaction to it. Change my mind.

Rostavykhan wrote:
CSA still in my heart T.T gone too soon.

> TFW no Syndie CSA or Left-Wing Southern Nationalist movements to fight against Yankee Capitalist oppression and corrupt Southern Oligarchy.



That image gave me cancer.

Nazbols get out.

Reconstruction was of course also a difficult time for African-Americans, who struggled to get voting rights and decent jobs. Sure, much of the problem came from the Confederate South, but the North after the Civil War only cared so far as they tried to pull States back into the Union. Once that was done, they mostly forgot about the African-Americans. It was a mess on a national scale that saw malice against African-Americans from both sides, both enabled or otherwise.

PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2019 10:23 am
by Kowani
Luminesa wrote:
Grenartia wrote:
The only bad thing about Reconstruction was the traitors' reaction to it. Change my mind.



That image gave me cancer.

Nazbols get out.

Reconstruction was of course also a difficult time for African-Americans, who struggled to get voting rights and decent jobs. Sure, much of the problem came from the Confederate South, but the North after the Civil War only cared so far as they tried to pull States back into the Union. Once that was done, they mostly forgot about the African-Americans. It was a mess on a national scale that saw malice against African-Americans from both sides, both enabled or otherwise.

Andrew Johnson and Hayes killed Reconstruction, sadly.

PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2019 10:36 am
by Genivaria
Hanafuridake wrote:As much as I find Neo-Confederates deplorable (because the rules don't let me express my true feelings) there is something ironic about non, or even anti-,nationalists suddenly acting as though they're extremely nationalistic. What with all of the talk about “traitors,” even from Torra who's an anarchist (therefore, by definition, disloyal to the American state). I'm sorry, I sympathize with your arguments against the Confederacy, but there feels like there is an underlying hypocrisy which is not being addressed.

This is why even though I'm sympathetic to syndicalism I reject the term 'anarchist' because I am actually still proud to be American.

PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2019 12:37 pm
by Communist Zombie Horde
Hanafuridake wrote:As much as I find Neo-Confederates deplorable (because the rules don't let me express my true feelings) there is something ironic about non, or even anti-,nationalists suddenly acting as though they're extremely nationalistic. What with all of the talk about “traitors,” even from Torra who's an anarchist (therefore, by definition, disloyal to the American state). I'm sorry, I sympathize with your arguments against the Confederacy, but there feels like there is an underlying hypocrisy which is not being addressed.

Add liberals to the list of traitors and remove the small government patriots that you call hel-Confederates. Thy support the confederate because only the confederates supported states rights and deregulation- not because slavry or racism.

PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2019 12:39 pm
by Communist Zombie Horde
Duhon wrote:The one thing worse than Southern traitors reacting to Reconstruction is Northerners reacting to their reaction... in the most undesirable, bigotry-coddling, Jim Crow-enacting manner -- and this till the latter half of the next century.

The north started popular racism

PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2019 12:49 pm
by Genivaria
Communist Zombie Horde wrote:
Hanafuridake wrote:As much as I find Neo-Confederates deplorable (because the rules don't let me express my true feelings) there is something ironic about non, or even anti-,nationalists suddenly acting as though they're extremely nationalistic. What with all of the talk about “traitors,” even from Torra who's an anarchist (therefore, by definition, disloyal to the American state). I'm sorry, I sympathize with your arguments against the Confederacy, but there feels like there is an underlying hypocrisy which is not being addressed.

Add liberals to the list of traitors and remove the small government patriots that you call hel-Confederates. Thy support the confederate because only the confederates supported states rights and deregulation- not because slavry or racism.

That's not what the Confederates themselves said.

PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2019 12:51 pm
by Communist Zombie Horde
Genivaria wrote:
Communist Zombie Horde wrote:Add liberals to the list of traitors and remove the small government patriots that you call hel-Confederates. Thy support the confederate because only the confederates supported states rights and deregulation- not because slavry or racism.

That's not what the Confederates themselves said.

The confederates are dead right now

PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2019 12:52 pm
by Duhon
Communist Zombie Horde wrote:
Duhon wrote:The one thing worse than Southern traitors reacting to Reconstruction is Northerners reacting to their reaction... in the most undesirable, bigotry-coddling, Jim Crow-enacting manner -- and this till the latter half of the next century.

The north started popular racism


Hahahahahaha no.

PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2019 12:55 pm
by Novus America
Communist Zombie Horde wrote:
Hanafuridake wrote:As much as I find Neo-Confederates deplorable (because the rules don't let me express my true feelings) there is something ironic about non, or even anti-,nationalists suddenly acting as though they're extremely nationalistic. What with all of the talk about “traitors,” even from Torra who's an anarchist (therefore, by definition, disloyal to the American state). I'm sorry, I sympathize with your arguments against the Confederacy, but there feels like there is an underlying hypocrisy which is not being addressed.

Add liberals to the list of traitors and remove the small government patriots that you call hel-Confederates. Thy support the confederate because only the confederates supported states rights and deregulation- not because slavry or racism.


Actually they restricted states rights by banning states from ending slavery.
The US Constitution of the time provided greater states rights ironically.

And again
“But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact.
But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away.
This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races.
This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us.
Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were.
They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men.
The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.”
Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President, CSA

Look I have nothing against you.
I think you mean well.
But there is no reason to support a failed rebellion against the US if you support the US.

PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2019 12:56 pm
by Novus America
Communist Zombie Horde wrote:
Genivaria wrote:That's not what the Confederates themselves said.

The confederates are dead right now


Yes. The Confederacy is dead, so no reason to not leave it dead.