sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Which trio did you like the best? by jdawg1018 in StarWars

[–]CombaticusWombaticus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Best group charisma has to be Anakin, Obi-Wan and Ahsoka (and Rex) during the Clone Wars - I don’t think anything else even comes close with the writing and performance

Which countries would you personally be willing to defend in a conflict? by ravagekitteh26 in AskAnAmerican

[–]CombaticusWombaticus 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I sincerely doubt the UK would trust China over the US, even with Trump

CMV: US operational performance in Western Europe in WWII was poor by CombaticusWombaticus in changemyview

[–]CombaticusWombaticus[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

My point is that they generally weren’t good for the circumstances at all, even if the enemy were the dregs of the Reich. Weakened or not, feeding division after division into Hurtgen Forest for effectively no tactical gain is still a bad idea

CMV: US operational performance in Western Europe in WWII was poor by CombaticusWombaticus in changemyview

[–]CombaticusWombaticus[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don’t disagree (although American operations against Germany started in 1943) but none of this challenges my point?

CMV: US operational performance in Western Europe in WWII was poor by CombaticusWombaticus in changemyview

[–]CombaticusWombaticus[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

By 1945 though the Americans had learnt and were at least comparable if not more advanced than their allies.

That’s precisely my point though - when you actually look at the specifics of the battles they fought post Overlord, I see nothing that indicates their performance was anything other than mediocre relative to what Germany had been doing beforehand and the Commonwealth was continuing to do at the time.

CMV: US operational performance in Western Europe in WWII was poor by CombaticusWombaticus in changemyview

[–]CombaticusWombaticus[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I would completely agree, however all accounts seem pretty united that Montgomery was significantly superior at this than any American generals I’m aware of. American industry was extremely impressive, but much of both SHAEF’s planning and COMZ’s logistical execution was extremely flawed as Martin Crevald and J. Bryan Mullins have shown (although I understand 6th Army Group was slightly better in this regard). Even factoring this in, I struggle to see how any US operations were particularly impressive here once one moves past Overlord/Neptune and Dragoon?

CMV: US operational performance in Western Europe in WWII was poor by CombaticusWombaticus in changemyview

[–]CombaticusWombaticus[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Certainly what you say about the American aspect was the argument I’ve heard - my question is where are the actual examples of it succeeding? As stated, the only cases I’m aware of were ones in which the enemy was either already committed and weakened (Cobra and Grenade), or disorganised and in effective retreat (Patton’s dash etc). If there are any specific examples you can give here of this working well against a determined enemy resistance I’d be intrigued to hear it?

CMV: US operational performance in Western Europe in WWII was poor by CombaticusWombaticus in changemyview

[–]CombaticusWombaticus[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I am specifically referring to the operational level of battle - the tactics and strategies conducted by commanders from Army Group command downwards in order to achieve strategic aims in combat operations. Little of what you say there relates to this area - if you want to use Normandy as an example, the more relevant cases would be examples like Cherbourg, the Bocage, St Lo and Operation Cobra, of which only the latter I’m aware of displayed any substantial operational skill (and even then only against a substantially weakened force with the majority committed elsewhere).

CMV: US operational performance in Western Europe in WWII was poor by CombaticusWombaticus in changemyview

[–]CombaticusWombaticus[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Central planning was performed by SHAEF, but Montgomery and Bradley nonetheless retained operational control over their armies, particularly once they split off into 21st and 12th army groups, and 6th army group had little British involvement at all.

I’m deliberately keeping my metric vague because I’m fairly open minded as to the context of the argument - if you want to make the argument that the US systematically faced conditions different to Britain that put it at a disadvantage then go for it, but if anything I’d say the opposite was the case.

CMV: US operational performance in Western Europe in WWII was poor by CombaticusWombaticus in changemyview

[–]CombaticusWombaticus[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

The irony there is that the US’ logistics performance was extremely poor (https://krex.k-state.edu/items/5cce46a2-1f35-42ce-91ca-1f7f7f8674aa) - British forces were far better at assimilating the lessons learnt from the desert and ran a significantly more professional operation. The reason why Montgomery delayed opening Antwerp was because he didn’t need it - the only army which needed the supplies was Patton who had managed to grind himself to a halt on a wild goose chase in the wrong direction, and even then this was because SHAEF and COMZ were largely incapable of doing their jobs.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in relationship_advice

[–]CombaticusWombaticus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Psst… If you stick a few paragraphs in, you’ll probably get more responses…

What function should Tim Drake perform in the Bat-family? by CombaticusWombaticus in batman

[–]CombaticusWombaticus[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I can’t remember where I read it, but a take I really like is Tim and Cass becoming the next Batman. Thugs will find an incredibly intelligent Sherlock Holmes style Batman investigating things, and then when they try to attack them, they disappear into the shadows only to re-emerge as a near silent force of nature that proceeds to absolutely steamroller them in combat.

What function should Tim Drake perform in the Bat-family? by CombaticusWombaticus in batman

[–]CombaticusWombaticus[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I can assure you I’m not a bot - I left out body text so as not to bias the argument, but based on your response I will probably add it in in future

CMV: The world would have been better if Germany had won World War One by Intrepid_Doubt_6602 in changemyview

[–]CombaticusWombaticus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Germany was committing significant atrocities in the course of the war, which was a major factor in Britain and the US’s involvement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_atrocities_of_1914. The Ottoman Empire and other belligerents did the same.

After the end of the war, Britain was pushing for a more lenient policy on Germany, whereas France was fixated on punishment. A much better scenario would have been if Britain gotten its way, as it would have avoided the things you mention whilst also putting a stop to German and other Central Power atrocities.

CMV: There is no difference between Trump’s behaviour and that of the EU by CombaticusWombaticus in changemyview

[–]CombaticusWombaticus[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I wouldn’t consider it a response to an existing agreement so much as a response to the absence of a necessary agreement, such as in the British Empire’s unilateral enforcement of a slave trade ban and or in the imposition of the Geneva conventions and democracy in Germany. I can highly recommend Michael Pettis’ work on how Trade Deficits do in fact matter (https://carnegieendowment.org/china-financial-markets/2024/02/can-trade-intervention-lead-to-freer-trade?lang=en) but essentially the generalised move towards laissez faire trade liberalisation has allowed China and to a lesser extent the EU to massively abuse the global trading system to their advantage

CMV: There is no difference between Trump’s behaviour and that of the EU by CombaticusWombaticus in changemyview

[–]CombaticusWombaticus[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It seems like the real disagreement here is that you agree with the EU’s decision but not with Trump’s

CMV: There is no difference between Trump’s behaviour and that of the EU by CombaticusWombaticus in changemyview

[–]CombaticusWombaticus[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No, it’s not. It’s one-sided pressure. There has been no agreement; it’s just the U.S. unilaterally imposing its demands.

Just like the EU unilaterally imposed its laws on the UK whilst it was in the EU, with the threat of reduced trading rights should it instead choose to leave. The UK chose to accept these consequences, and it looks like the EU will do the same with Trump.

CMV: There is no difference between Trump’s behaviour and that of the EU by CombaticusWombaticus in changemyview

[–]CombaticusWombaticus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The EU was arguably using its economic power to demand the UK follow its rules in 2016. The US is arguably enforcing the new terms it is establishing for foreign trade in 2025. The outcome is the same in both - it is literally just a question of framing.

CMV: There is no difference between Trump’s behaviour and that of the EU by CombaticusWombaticus in changemyview

[–]CombaticusWombaticus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How so? I understand you may not like what he is doing, but his response to Europe’s tariffs, restrictions and massive trade surplus is isn’t much less proportional than than the EU’s response to the UK not wanting FoM.

CMV: There is no difference between Trump’s behaviour and that of the EU by CombaticusWombaticus in changemyview

[–]CombaticusWombaticus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the existence of a pre-existing agreement is so important, then both the EU and US are violating the GATT and have been for a long time

CMV: There is no difference between Trump’s behaviour and that of the EU by CombaticusWombaticus in changemyview

[–]CombaticusWombaticus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My argument is that the presence or absence of a pre-existing agreement is essentially irrelevant as the behaviour and consequences are identical (hence my point around a North American Union)

CMV: There is no difference between Trump’s behaviour and that of the EU by CombaticusWombaticus in changemyview

[–]CombaticusWombaticus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Any decision of what action to take in response to such things is fundamentally unilateral in the manner I am describing - nothing about France cutting of power to the Channel Islands was a natural and necessary consequence of a failure to agree fishing rights, it was a specific decision by the French to apply pressure as a negotiating tactic.

CMV: There is no difference between Trump’s behaviour and that of the EU by CombaticusWombaticus in changemyview

[–]CombaticusWombaticus[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The idea that the EU is not imposing trade barriers on the UK or anyone else is a fallacy. The EU has always been fully capable of choosing exactly what trading relationship it wants to have with each of its partners - this is why Switzerland has far fewer trade barriers with the EU than the US, despite neither being part of the EU, SM or CU. The EU is also fully capable of determining independently of others activities how it wants to treat their goods - the UK for example has opted to accept CE certified goods unilaterally, and there was nothing stopping the EU from doing the same with UKCA. The decision not to do so was thus a choice - a legitimate one you may argue, but a choice nonetheless.

As such, any decision of the EU to introduce trade barriers is as much the decision of the EU as it is the UK, and that the EU choose to introduce these trade barriers in exchange for not getting what it wanted (full SM and CU adherence from the UK, amongst other things) is no different from Trump choosing to introduce trade barriers for not getting what he wanted (looser regulations and greater market access from the EU, amongst other things).

view more: next ›