Since when America protects Europe???

[Panmisiek]

The delusion of morons who think America needs Europe more than Europe needs America.

Europe would get fucking walked if it wasn't for the support America has given them all of these years. Now that Europe has siphoned enough money and protection and technology from the USA, their bark is big...

Either way, as far as I am concerned Europe have no intentions of waging any wars at the moment and I doubt it will in future. We are good, had turbulent past, but its safe to say its all behind us now. The only threat we could possibly face is Russia, but any intervention of US would end up in nuclear war anyway, might be wise for Europe to just stock up on their own nukes, at least we got some as well.

Europe dont need US, and If I was in charge I would dismantle NATO at once.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Jesus! This idiot is delusional!

9/11 happen on American soil, not European! Europe was unaffected by middle east hostility until after 9/11 when US gathered allies for Iraq. Its yankies who came and destabilised middle east. And because of yanks, middle easterns are now hostile and vengeful, spawning terrorist attacks all over the Europe.

Yanks showed middle finger to Europe during WW2, (oh yea, handful of silvers from Marshall Plan but my country seen none of it, so go see Germans, Brits and French to repay you).

Now Trump raging that Europe is pumping money to Russia for their gas. (oh yea herr Trump, we gonna buy American, twice as expensive, makes sense)

At this point of time I would rather side with Putin than America. At least I know on what grounds I stay on with Putin.

Yeah, Muslims never attacked Europe before 9/11....

1985 -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Rome_and_Vienna_airport_attacks

1988-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Poros_ship_attack

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

 

[MiroHa]

That's interesting. It still doesn't change the fact that they only got to the Ukraine before D Day. I'm not saying that USSR didn't do their part. I'm saying that if Germany wasn't forced to fight two wars on each side it probably would've been a different outcome. You're not taking in the account of Germany's resources and mobility (their trains) having to be stretched so thin.

Once Soviets really started advancing in 1944 Germany couldn't achieve any major victories in the East. I think only successful large defensive battle was the Tali-Ihantala battle in Finland where around 50k Finns and 4k German allies were able to stop the Soviet offensive around 150k strong. This lead to Finnish-Soviet ceasefire which forced Finns to drive Germans to retreat to Norway.

It's true that Germany was stretched thin with three fronts by the end of the war but AFAIK the Western front comprised mostly of older and younger soldiers as the best of Wehrmacht had been fighting in the East for three years. Once they had to start taking steps back in the East they sent more troops to the Western front and actually had some brief success but the Germans were running out of men and resources to change the tide.

I'd still retain my stance about WW2 in Europe being largely decided on the Eastern Front. It was suppose to be a crushing victory to the Germans but then their offensive lines stopped around Leningrad-Moscow-Stalingrad line, remained there for two years running low on men and resources and then Soviets started pushing back with superior numbers they had been building up.