They're a joke given the technological superiority of todays modern armies, and the training they've undergone since the first Gulf War.
In hindsight, yes, you can laugh about it, but what, at the time, made you laugh about their military? They were supplied by the Russians.
Yeah, but nevertheless, the comparison with hitlerite Germany is just plain stupid.
Iraq's army was mostly equiped with 20 to 40 year old soviet tank models - T54 and T72 - well known to US strategists, whereas the Germans had state of the art military research and development enabling them to build tanks and aircraft second to none.
Furthermore, the personality of the two is different. Hussein was your typical third world dictator with an attitude, whereas Hitler was clearly a homicidal killer with a mission. Where it took Hussein some 20 years to fight Iran and almost 30 years to invade Kuweit, Hitler needed 3 years to reoccupy provinces held by France and 6 years to start a world war.
Where it took Hussein some 20 years to fight Iran and almost 30 years to invade Kuweit,?
The Iran-Iraq war lasted for roughly ten years, the invasion of Kuwait was, well, a stroll on the beach.
Quote:
?Hitler needed 3 years to reoccupy provinces held by France and 6 years to start a world war.
The reoccupation of Alsace-Lorraine only took place after WW2 began.
As for the re-militarisation of the West Bank of the Rhine, it was not held by France; in 1922, French troops (along with a few Belgians) entered the Rheinland and the Ruhr industrial basin to ?encourage? Germany to pay the war reparations (whose total amounted to the ludicrous sum of 132 billion gold marks). By late 1924, the troops left.
So when Germany re-militarised the Rheinland (in flgarant violation of its signed commitments) in 1936, it was some twelve years after the last French soldiers left.
Other than that, it sis certainly accurate to point out the fundamental differences between Germany of the nineteen-thirties and Iraq of the nineteen-eighties, the first a technological industrial powerhouse (left unscathed by the war, unlike France and Belgium), and able to efficiently organise its military; the second an underdeveloped country relying mostly on the manna of one raw commodity, and the incompetence which goes with it, and while they had some valuable offensive artefacts manufactured in Russia, France, and Czechoslaovakia (and later from the U.S.A. and Germany as well), they weren't even able to overcome the Iranian army, greatly weakened by the post-revolutionary purges (which is why Saddam Hussain was tempted to invade).
But Iraq in 1989 was certainly a threat to all its immediate neighbours except Turkey and Syria (and Iran, as was shown in th eprevious years). Yet the comical oil sheikdoms may have had the latest in Yaknqui hardware, but they were military non-entities.
As for the re-militarisation of the West Bank of the Rhine, it was not held by France; in 1922, French troops (along with a few Belgians) entered the Rheinland and the Ruhr industrial basin to ?encourage? Germany to pay the war reparations (whose total amounted to the ludicrous sum of 132 billion gold marks). By late 1924, the troops left.
You are right, I stand corrected. So much for relying on my fading memory of history classes in school
You are right, I stand corrected. So much for relying on my fading memory of history classes in school.
It happens to everyone, I for example had once forgotten the Challenger tragedy happened in 1986 and mistakently wrote it was in 1984 (but then I am somewhat obsessed with ?eighty-four).
Furthermore, the personality of the two is different. Hussein was your typical third world dictator with an attitude, whereas Hitler was clearly a homicidal killer with a mission. Where it took Hussein some 20 years to fight Iran and almost 30 years to invade Kuweit, Hitler needed 3 years to reoccupy provinces held by France and 6 years to start a world war.
Your 3 and 6 year numbers are actually somewhat reasonable (but not relating to France), because Hitler did not actually come to power until 1933. Which, then means it took 3 years to start the expansion of Germany to its pre-WW1 borders (entering the Rhineland in 1936) and 6 years to start the war (with the invasion of Poland in September 1939).
Which is, to say, not at all the equivalent of Hussein in Iraq.
Your 3 and 6 year numbers are actually somewhat reasonable.
Ha! I feel vindicated
Anyhow, let's not discuss a year give and take, my main point was that Hitler was a class of his own. All dictators are inherently aggressive, but few are that fast and that deadly.
Among the world-league dictators, I feel that only Stalin measures up to Hitler, with Pol Pot and Mao Tse Dong already trailing behind (since they were much less expansive).
I'd really like to see a genocide top 10 (excluding wars) - I figure it should be roughly like this:
- Hitler/Nazi Germany 5 - 10mio
- Stalin/USSR 5 - 10mio (?)
- Pol Pot ~3mio
- Mao 2mio during civil war, 20 mio from hunger
- Ruanda 1mio
- Conquest of South America, colonialization of Africa ?
- US genocide of native americans 1mio?
- Hussein 300K
- Milosevitch ?
Of course, the numbers are vague, since differentiating between war victims and the victims of atrocities is not always possible (WW II victims of the Wehrmacht, the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
Comments
Originally posted by Common Man
The left would be concerned that it would make us look bad in the eyes of "the international community"
Look, what's that? The troll is back!
Originally posted by X X
They're a joke given the technological superiority of todays modern armies, and the training they've undergone since the first Gulf War.
In hindsight, yes, you can laugh about it, but what, at the time, made you laugh about their military? They were supplied by the Russians.
Yeah, but nevertheless, the comparison with hitlerite Germany is just plain stupid.
Iraq's army was mostly equiped with 20 to 40 year old soviet tank models - T54 and T72 - well known to US strategists, whereas the Germans had state of the art military research and development enabling them to build tanks and aircraft second to none.
Furthermore, the personality of the two is different. Hussein was your typical third world dictator with an attitude, whereas Hitler was clearly a homicidal killer with a mission. Where it took Hussein some 20 years to fight Iran and almost 30 years to invade Kuweit, Hitler needed 3 years to reoccupy provinces held by France and 6 years to start a world war.
Originally posted by Smircle
Where it took Hussein some 20 years to fight Iran and almost 30 years to invade Kuweit,?
The Iran-Iraq war lasted for roughly ten years, the invasion of Kuwait was, well, a stroll on the beach.
?Hitler needed 3 years to reoccupy provinces held by France and 6 years to start a world war.
The reoccupation of Alsace-Lorraine only took place after WW2 began.
As for the re-militarisation of the West Bank of the Rhine, it was not held by France; in 1922, French troops (along with a few Belgians) entered the Rheinland and the Ruhr industrial basin to ?encourage? Germany to pay the war reparations (whose total amounted to the ludicrous sum of 132 billion gold marks). By late 1924, the troops left.
So when Germany re-militarised the Rheinland (in flgarant violation of its signed commitments) in 1936, it was some twelve years after the last French soldiers left.
Other than that, it sis certainly accurate to point out the fundamental differences between Germany of the nineteen-thirties and Iraq of the nineteen-eighties, the first a technological industrial powerhouse (left unscathed by the war, unlike France and Belgium), and able to efficiently organise its military; the second an underdeveloped country relying mostly on the manna of one raw commodity, and the incompetence which goes with it, and while they had some valuable offensive artefacts manufactured in Russia, France, and Czechoslaovakia (and later from the U.S.A. and Germany as well), they weren't even able to overcome the Iranian army, greatly weakened by the post-revolutionary purges (which is why Saddam Hussain was tempted to invade).
But Iraq in 1989 was certainly a threat to all its immediate neighbours except Turkey and Syria (and Iran, as was shown in th eprevious years). Yet the comical oil sheikdoms may have had the latest in Yaknqui hardware, but they were military non-entities.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
As for the re-militarisation of the West Bank of the Rhine, it was not held by France; in 1922, French troops (along with a few Belgians) entered the Rheinland and the Ruhr industrial basin to ?encourage? Germany to pay the war reparations (whose total amounted to the ludicrous sum of 132 billion gold marks). By late 1924, the troops left.
You are right, I stand corrected. So much for relying on my fading memory of history classes in school
Originally posted by Smircle
You are right, I stand corrected. So much for relying on my fading memory of history classes in school.
It happens to everyone, I for example had once forgotten the Challenger tragedy happened in 1986 and mistakently wrote it was in 1984 (but then I am somewhat obsessed with ?eighty-four).
Originally posted by Smircle
Furthermore, the personality of the two is different. Hussein was your typical third world dictator with an attitude, whereas Hitler was clearly a homicidal killer with a mission. Where it took Hussein some 20 years to fight Iran and almost 30 years to invade Kuweit, Hitler needed 3 years to reoccupy provinces held by France and 6 years to start a world war.
Your 3 and 6 year numbers are actually somewhat reasonable (but not relating to France), because Hitler did not actually come to power until 1933. Which, then means it took 3 years to start the expansion of Germany to its pre-WW1 borders (entering the Rhineland in 1936) and 6 years to start the war (with the invasion of Poland in September 1939).
Which is, to say, not at all the equivalent of Hussein in Iraq.
Originally posted by agent302
Your 3 and 6 year numbers are actually somewhat reasonable.
Ha! I feel vindicated
Anyhow, let's not discuss a year give and take, my main point was that Hitler was a class of his own. All dictators are inherently aggressive, but few are that fast and that deadly.
Among the world-league dictators, I feel that only Stalin measures up to Hitler, with Pol Pot and Mao Tse Dong already trailing behind (since they were much less expansive).
I'd really like to see a genocide top 10 (excluding wars) - I figure it should be roughly like this:
- Hitler/Nazi Germany 5 - 10mio
- Stalin/USSR 5 - 10mio (?)
- Pol Pot ~3mio
- Mao 2mio during civil war, 20 mio from hunger
- Ruanda 1mio
- Conquest of South America, colonialization of Africa ?
- US genocide of native americans 1mio?
- Hussein 300K
- Milosevitch ?
Of course, the numbers are vague, since differentiating between war victims and the victims of atrocities is not always possible (WW II victims of the Wehrmacht, the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki).