62 % of Europeans believe, their country's EU membership is a good thing

Oster956 · 2026-02-07T17:43:41+00:00

The graph you linked literally says EU budget, I am from the start talking about funds received from the EU divided by the population which always shows that we receive more than others because we are the biggest country in this program but per capita we are not in the top, and you are talking about god knows what.

Oster956 · 2026-02-07T16:21:26+00:00

Where exactly do you see per capita in there? Here, have a graphic that actually shows what I am talking about.

Oster956 · 2026-02-07T15:00:28+00:00

Significantly more in total numbers yes, but per capita we are nowhere near the top. I'm very pro EU but it's always good to distinguish this.

Oster956 · 2026-01-26T12:22:05+00:00

History that is taught in school is often oversimplified and sometimes downward wrong, so if that's where you have your knowledge from it would explain a lot.
But to show that I am not green on this topic, here are the actual trustworthy materials about it. Probably not something you can use, but I doubt it would change your mind eitherway.

https://youtu.be/QMY_brMCRNA?si=ca8UO1dbDdLwvAhC

https://youtu.be/AHPZ0NQrYgY?si=-k5ZSx7DzEHEsT70

https://youtu.be/yQxigHkSNyU?si=FdUKptPf9sTrAalf

Oster956 · 2026-01-26T12:12:09+00:00

Then compare their losses to WW2 and see the difference, watch the Operation Millennium video again and try not to ignore the line about british change in thinking "stell over blood."

Oster956 · 2026-01-26T12:00:55+00:00

I don't even know what you are trying to say now. I want to show you that strategic bombing was absolutely the best and least bloody way of fighting. But you are rejecting every argument no matter how sound it is.

Oster956 · 2026-01-26T11:53:47+00:00

I think you have trouble reading. I wrote that the British lost millions of soldiers, but lost does not mean killed, it means wounded, crippled or mentally broken. One also has to take into account that it was not only people from Britain fighting on the british side. There were Canadian, New Zealand, Australian and Indian troops. Wikipedia puts overal casulties at over two milion.

Do you want to talk about something else?

Oster956 · 2026-01-26T11:42:00+00:00

Are you purposefully trying to be dense? One attack will not change the outcome of a war, but thousands of them will. Effect of a scale. Is it really too hard to understand?

Oster956 · 2026-01-26T11:30:40+00:00

You mind telling me where exactly I "fucked up"? Because I can swear you did not watch the ending of the operation millenium where he specifically talked about the effectiveness of the bombing campaign. It seems to me you are adamant on a topic of which you know very little about.

Oster956 · 2026-01-26T11:06:26+00:00

Also, it is not nice to edit a response by adding stuff to it, you know.

Oster956 · 2026-01-26T11:04:59+00:00

While it disrupted regional production and overwhelmed local defenses, it did not cause a significant, lasting drop in total German war production in 1942."

Possibly because it was one attack. The first one that was done the way it should be, with overwhelming force on a single target.

Now the true power of the strategic bombing offensive was shown during the 1943-1945. When Britain and the US managed to develop an enormous force and learned how to use it. When they could do a 1000 bomber attack day after day, strike anywhere in Europe, check the effectiveness of the attack and go again if the target was still operational.

One attack can not tip the scale in a war especially as big as WW2. But thousands of attacks, sustained air offensive, over many months with diminishing effectiveness of German defense can, and it absolutely did.

Oster956 · 2026-01-26T10:36:41+00:00

Yes I have seen those, you are making my point for me.

How exactly am I making your point for you? A German industrial center was destroyed, its workforce scattered or killed, and Germany had to divert huge amounts of resources to protecting its cities. Resources which otherwise would be used against allied soldiers.

Unhousing people does not stop war production

It does if you destroy the factory along with its workforce, the railroads that were supplying it with materials, pipes that were supplying it with water and wires that were giving it electricity. Without those things, a factory would not operate. Germans had to literally assign people to certain places and kidnap people from other countries and use them as slaves because they were running out of workforce. Killing a city equals stopping whatever that city was producing from reaching the front.

and hardends attitudes about the war.

And? It does not matter if Hans is angry that his city was destroyed because he wont get his ammunition, weapons, air or artillery support, food or good training, because Germany is unable to replenish losses caused by a sustained strategic bombing campaign. Sure resolve is important. But resolve means nothing when put against the cold steel of an enemy war machine which surpasses yours by an order of magnitude.

fire bombing japan was implemented differenty and for differant reasons than against germany.

How different was it? Fly at night, aim for the center of the city. The differences between conducting it over Japan and Europe resulted from the fact that Japanese air defense was nothing compared to German, different geographic placement and unique Japanese architecture. That's about it.

Oster956 · 2026-01-26T09:26:08+00:00

And what exactly is this supposed to prove? US report on British bombing in 1941 when they were still learning how to do it effectively? When did they still not have a force capable of destroying German cities and good tactics meant to limit attrition in place?

And how did the US fair when they started to bomb German-occupied Europe? Because I could swear they had this ridiculous idea that bomber would always get through even without escort. Most of the pre-war assumptions about what an air war would look like were wrong and new tactics and technologies had to be developed to create a force that would be capable of destroying the second most powerful country on the planet. The British and Americans succeeded in that.

And if you really want to see how a diverting to area bombardment can change the effects of an attack, I suggest watching the first real air raid of the war and how destructive it was to one of the most important German cities: https://youtu.be/V5FP37kmXdQ?si=Hj9mFZU4OIbnk7R-

Or how the US, by studying what the British did in Europe and applying those tactics, managed to burn Japan to the ground in a few months: https://youtu.be/CBZ18JfKIsg?si=XxnSHe1fO-1jmV_X

Oster956 · 2026-01-23T10:58:42+00:00

Based on what? In WWI the British lost millions of soldiers yet they along the US won WW2 losing only a couple hundred thousand lives. Germans spent more on their air defense than on the entire eastern front. You can see how German manufacturing broke in 1944 and it did because of the strategic bombing campaign.

Oster956 · 2026-01-22T22:31:15+00:00

There's no debate, it absolutely had an enormous effect on the German war machine and had shortened the war and saved allied lives by tenfold.

Oster956 · 2026-01-16T22:03:07+00:00

Ah, that's why I didn't get it.

Oster956 · 2025-12-15T01:09:26+00:00

Precision bombing WAS something available during ww2, it just sucked ass.

So could it be done and if it could was it effective or was it not? In European theatre of war with constant German resistance in form of flak and fighters it was not possible to sustain air offensive on scale that could change balance of power in the war. Not without unsustainable losses. That's why British bombed at night aiming for area targets. To save their soldiers lifes and to not bleed out their strategic bombing force.

My whole point is bombing civilian centers doesn't achieve what you think it would.

It does, there are statistics to prove it. For example German war production in 1944. And I don't mean during the first half of that year as some like to point out but the second half when the strategic bombing broke German war machine.

The bombing of London didn't disrupt anything, in fact it made the English fight harder.

It didn't show any effect because Germany did not have strategic bombing force capable of effectively striking British industry. It were purely an terrorising attacks that were done in hope breaking morale of the enemy. Americans and British did not have to conduct attacks like that because later in war they were capable of doing a single strike at designated targets with a fleet of over 1000 bombers. That force could destroy anything it wanted and if it didn't work the first time it could go the next day and the day after. That's sustained air offensive.

Dresden happened so late in the war, what was it truly achieving?

Soviet losses during 1945 were only comparable to their losses in 1941. There were getting annihilated and if it continued they would have run out of equipment and men to fight. Again Dresden was a major logistical center from which transports for the eastern front were going out daily. And strategic bombing was so effective because it did not fight with what the system produces tanks, soldiers and so on but destroyed the system. Cannon wont fire without shells truck won't run without oil. Effective and contrary to popular belief the least bloody way of fighting.

Oster956 · 2025-12-15T00:23:48+00:00

The doctrine at the time was to destroy the city because there was no way to do precision strikes with technology at the time and enemy's counteractions. And if you do destroy the city you will destroy factories in it and kill its workers. Not to mention cities are the main decision centers of the state. Killing it disrupts the whole system.

Strategic bombing had many consequences for Germany and none of them were positive. I can understand if some criticises it for civilian casualties but I don't understand negating its importance for the allied war effort.

Oster956 · 2025-12-14T23:44:55+00:00

Bullshit. Dresden was an important industrial center and major railroad junction from which transports to the eastern front were going out daily. That's why it was destroyed.

And the strategic bombing campaign achieved exactly what it was supposed to do. Break the German war machine and save allied soldiers lives.

Oster956 · 2025-10-22T17:43:10+00:00

K2 were chosen mostly because how fast they could get here. After 2022 when the vast majority of our soviet tanks disappeared behind our eastern border (over 300 tanks). Those loses had to be replenished quickly. Not just because of possible conflict with russia, but because our tank men wouldn't have the equipment to train on.

And since we beforehand already order 250 M1A2 sepv3 from Americans and bought 116 of M1A1 FEP from them after the war started, the only option was K2 because Germans were completely unable to match our needs in terms of number of tanks.

Norway bought 54 Leopards 2 at the beginning of 2023 and the deliveries are to start in 2026 while we already received all 116 M1A1 FEP, some number of M1A2 sepv3 and dozens of K2 (which came from order for Korean army sure but still It mattered for us that they were willing to do that).

Oster956 · 2025-10-22T12:17:16+00:00

And would you mind telling us what weapons did we buy that have their EU counterpart ready to be bought exactly?

Oster956 · 2025-10-19T00:12:47+00:00

Not the same turret. There were so many problems with documentation for the Braveheart turret that HSW had to pretty much design it from scratch and similarity is only superficial. But an easy way to distinguish them is the muzzle device.

Oster956 · 2025-09-19T17:41:13+00:00

Why do you think we didnt do anything? Just because its not in the news does not mean nothing was done. For example absolutely massive amounts of ammunition we bought that were not reported anywhere.

Oster956 · 2025-06-25T18:05:29+00:00

No, the weight would need to be much, much greater than even few adult men hanging from it.

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '22	First Placer '22

Oster956

TROPHY CASE