10e8d3 No.682804 [View All]
Let's discuss what went wrong and why it was everything.
Was the Schlieffenplan a conceptual mistake?
Would a defensive stance against the French in Elsass-Lothringen coupled with Prussian maneuver warfare autism against the Russian Empire in the east have been a better plan, especially considering the eternal Anglo wouldn't have immediately closed all the shipping lanes with Belgium being uninvolved?
And if the Central Powers managed to somehow win, wouldn't (((they))) be apt to choose Germany as their primary European base of Operations for enacting their subversive master plans?
The German Empire did harbor plenty of Juden at the time.
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
443afc No.682852
>>682851
That I know, what I'm asking is what could have happened if the war had been prolonged.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
110d1b No.682863
>>682838
>Austro-Hungaro-Croatian Monarchy
Austro-Hungaro-Croato-Czech monarchy :^)
Really, though, estabilishment of Austria-Hungary pissed Czechs off to an extreme level. Up until then the mainstream thought was "we should remain in the empire, but gain more autonomy, move towards a federation". After A-H became a thing, the new mainstream was "Austrians are unwilling to compromise. Total independence is our only option." It was similar in other parts of the empire. Victory in the Great War wouldn't have fixed these issues – it'd just delay the inevitable.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66bfc7 No.682864
>>682848
I never said he wasn't. Just that tying up the whole eurosphere under German leadership (without war) was something he would have been all over
Sorry you can't into reading.
Sage for off topic
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
1197cf No.682869
>>682863
This. The only way A-H could had work is through further decentralization. The Austrians and the Hungarians should had made agreements with the Croats and the Czechs exactly like the the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 and turn the empire into A-H-C-C/"Great Danubia". I'm still more inclined to say that Prussia should had just invade the German parts of Austria after the battle of Königgrätz and let Hungary and Czechia become independent, but that deserves an entirely new discussion.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
10e8d3 No.682870
>>682826
So there'd have been a CETO and a NATO on top of whatever the Japs would try to cook up in their respective colonial empire?
Why does this sound so familiar?
>>682852
Probably nothing unless they started dicking around in the russian far east, german colonial possessions and their military presence in Asia were meme tier anyway.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b6337f No.682873
>>682834
>Eternal Anglo complains about honor
never change, America, never change
>>682863
A squadron of hussars charging into a crowd of uppity peasants always fixes such issues.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
6b8267 No.682874
>>682864
> Just that tying up the whole eurosphere under German leadership (without war) was something he would have been all over
Wouldn't you?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
10e8d3 No.682875
>>682874
It would've been under the leadership of a low functioning autist roachlover and his Junker retainers.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
071ad5 No.682878
>>682804
Everyone knows that the schlieffen plan lost germany the war, von moltke the younger let it get all fucked up.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
2c0d93 No.682879
Here's Willhelm's memoirs for anyone interested.
>>682842
Weren't the French still trying to using cuirassiers at the beginning of the war, thinking that their breastplates would protect them?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c263be No.682884
>>682847
>Sounds like Bismarck would be a fan of Merkel
why would he be a fan of a polish jews who's the rothschild's local slavemaster?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c263be No.682885
>>682878
https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-10-biggest-misconceptions-about-the-first-world-war-1570327966
>2. "The Germans invaded Belgium and France using the Schlieffen Plan"
>Instead, it would be more accurate to say they used the Schlieffen-Moltke plan, or just the Moltke Plan.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
10e8d3 No.682888
How would the Russian Republic have dieded if Wilhelm II. hadn't sent Lenin over?
Would Trotsky have assumed control much to the chagrin of leftypol?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e7e19d No.682889
>>682885
>>682885
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Schlieffen Plan,
is in fact, Schlieffen-Moltke Plan, or as I've recently taken to calling it, Schlieffen plus Moltke Plan.
Moltke Plan is not an tactical plan unto itself, but rather another free component
of a fully functioning Schlieffen Plan made useful by the Schlieffen documents, shelling
civilians and vital meatshield components comprising a full Plan as defined by Großer Generalstab.
Many living meatshields run a modified version of the Schlieffen Plan every day,
without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of Plan
which is widely used today is often called "Moltke", and many of its users are
not aware that it is basicaly the Schlieffen Plan, developed by the Großer Generalstab.
There really is a Moltke Plan, and these meatshields are using it, but it is just a
part of the Plan they use. Moltke is the deployment plan: the Plan in the grand strategy
that allocates the warmachine's resources to the other Plans that you run.
The deployment plan is an essential part of an healthy invasion , but useless by itself;
it can only function in the context of a complete and total war. Moltke is
normally used in combination with the Schlieffen operating plan: the whole system
is basically Schlieffen Plan with Moltke added, or Schlieffen=Moltke. All the so-called "Moltke"
Plans are really Plans of Schlieffen-Moltke.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
66bfc7 No.682896
>>682884
Because she succeeded where wilhelm and adolf failed. although it looks like spearheading all the import of second-hand ottomans is going to blow up in her face
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
1ad599 No.682903
>>682896
I don't Bismark's and Hitler's goal was to genocide ethnic Germans.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ea49af No.682912
>>682903
Bismark probably wouldn't stand for it, but it does seem to be the end result of Hitler's efforts.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c4849c No.682914
>>682896
>>682912
>mutts being retarded again
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
762c82 No.682918
In WW1, Germany has about 100.000 yids.
Yids flock to Germany AFTER WW1.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
dcfe63 No.682925
>>682918
It was time to feed on the wounded Eagle. Just like how hohols now have a "comedian" kile for a president.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
52b4ad No.682927
>>682896
>Because she succeeded where wilhelm and adolf failed.
how so?
>>682896
> although it looks like spearheading all the import of second-hand ottomans is going to blow up in her face
which was forced on germany in the 60's by it's jewish-american masters
>>682903
>I don't Bismark's and Hitler's goal was to genocide ethnic Germans.
have you gone full retard mali kurvin sin, jesili glupan
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
52b4ad No.682928
>>682888
>How would the Russian Republic have dieded if Wilhelm II. hadn't sent Lenin over?
The Russian bolshevist jews were largely paid by the American-Jewish bankers, the gold Germany sent with Lenin was only a very small part of the overall wealth the judeo-bolshevists got.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c327da No.682929
>>682928
Lenin was a Chaos Champion. Obviously only lenin could have stirred the shitpot that was 1919 Russia and not thousands of others.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
65e800 No.682931
>>682885
>>682889
Semantics, the point is that moltke's butchering of schlieffen's plan was what caused the war to go in the direction that it did
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
52b4ad No.682932
>>682929
Nope, some other kike would have taken his place.
>>682931
That and the little fact that the usa supported britain and france with gigantic material support and credits to buy these war materials. which is the real reason why the usa joined the war, so the jewish bankers didn't lose their repayment of the credits in a case of german victory.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c327da No.682968
>>682932
>>682932
>autismus
>sarcasmus
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b661be No.682996
>>682804
>what went wrong
Having the highest Jewish (read: Polish) population in Europe
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a102d3 No.683003
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a7bf4a No.687646
The germans were building a railroad to turkey, this was the equivalent of a new silk road and the kikes running standard oil which was the monopoly of the day were not only threatened but faced collapse had that new route of commerce be completed. So they jewed up some excuses and blamed all of Germany.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
10e8d3 No.687664
>>687646
Petroleum was a mistake.
Free as in freedom energy when?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
142ba1 No.687670
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
2b464a No.687675
>>682929
This. Germany could have sent a revolutionary of any political persuasion to Moscow and some kind of revolution would have happened pretty quickly.
>>687664
>Free as in freedom energy when?
As soon as you can find a way to make the project profitable enough to the right people.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
2682fd No.687682
>>687664
>Free as in freedom energy when?
The freedom to use the energy as you wish, for any purpose.
The freedom to study how the energy is produced, and change the method so it does your conversion as you wish. Access to the blue prints and physical background documentation is a precondition for this.
The freedom to distribute your power so you can help your neighbor.
The freedom to distribute stored forms of your converted energy to others. By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your conversion method and energy storage solutions. Access to the physical background documentation is a precondition for this.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
53b5f9 No.687742
Invidious embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>687664
>>687670
Try one better
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_carbonization
Chuck some dead leaves, water, and a lemon into a pressure cooker, 10 bar, 180 C, and 12 hours later you have a pressure cooker full of low-quality brown coal mixed with water.
Basically no infrastructure requirements so long as you have a pressure vessel that can safely take it. Do it at home and post results.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
70e3b4 No.687746
Invidious embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>somebody bumped the thread
Finally I have an excuse to post
WILLY DID NOTHING WRONG
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
33109d No.687895
>>682840
Basically, political considerations. Russia gets their second army destroyed and calls out for help. France and UK can't really do anything, they're on the wrong side of Europe, but don't want to sit around like a pack of assholes either. So, they half-bake a plan (if you could be so generous to call it that) with the goal of 'diverting the enemy's resources' and get minor successes at unacceptable losses without actually helping. Then it happens again to the French in the battle of Verdun; the other allies are pressured to make premature offensives in an attempt to divert resources or reserves that never actually are diverted, when they should have been marshaling strength and properly planning an offensive. French troops begin to mutiny? British launch the third battle of Ypres to raise morale.
Eventually you got commonwealth, and later, American (Pershing was called the most stubborn man in Europe), officers who were less susceptible to this and more willing to innovate rather than rely on magical thinking, which was also a big problem.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
381232 No.687920
>>682847
> the art defense (big ass fortresses with modern repeating mounted guns using overlapping fields of fire) was useless
Except for the bit where all decisive battles indeed saw 18th century fortresses playing a key role.
Strategically their role was null as indeed heavy artillery could deal with them easily, but tactically it was still a gigantic pain in the butt that led to the systematic stalling of German offensives, the Germans would advance, stumble upon an "old but good" fortress (Vauban-designed fortress are designed with overlapping fire angles for 300m range for rifles, 2000m for guns emplacements. A fortress being in fact a complex of fortified gun positions and not a single place. The man was a military genius that had completely anticipated the evolution of artillery and guns for centuries. AFAIK none of them fell in combat until WWI. And even then the way the buildings were designed proved to provide really good cover for anything but the largest shells) so they had to wait for their heavy gun support. Meanwhile the entente would reorganize and counter-attack en force, forcing the now exhausted and low on supply Germans back too far so the scarce heavy guns couldn't be risked to be too close.
Rince-repeat.
WWI is a terrible war were all the basis of maneuver warfare are there… except the real mobility of the forces is actually dreadful, until the Russian and the Allied army of Orient managed two gigantic cavalry (as in horseback cavalry) assaults that virtually wipe-out Austro-Hungarian and Bulgarian forces, forcing Germany to call it quits. Because horses had proper sustainable mobility.
People think that mechanized warfare won WWI… when every major offensive with tanks against Germany were actually repelled for the exact same reason old fortresses were still useful, tank offensives worked on a strategical level but they fizzled out all the same due to a lack of support on the tactical level due to their dreadful mobility.
But if you tell people that horses won WWI you sound like a nutjob.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
453850 No.687934
>>687920
Would fortresses still work in this day and age, or would the enemy just cruise missile them into oblivion? I mean, you could try to put so much AA on them that the would run out of missiles before the fortress runs out of ammunition, but I have the doubts about that.
>until the Russian and the Allied army of Orient managed two gigantic cavalry (as in horseback cavalry) assaults that virtually wipe-out Austro-Hungarian and Bulgarian forces, forcing Germany to call it quits
Which were these two offensives?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
4c5ad5 No.687941
>>687934
Vardar Offensive is the second one, the first I think is Bruselov's Offensive where Cossacks did as they do best.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
2b464a No.688036
>>687934
>Would fortresses still work in this day and age, or would the enemy just cruise missile them into oblivion?
Who are you planning on fighting from this fortress? If it's the Americans, Russians, any other 1st rate army, then you're going to get either cruise missiles, air strikes, or artillery falling on you until you either surrender or can't defend the position any more. Against insurgents or the like they'd probably do relatively well (although there have been several cases of insurgents/terrorists developing bargain basement artillery kit by now) but they'd probably cost much more than they were worth in that scenario. Especially if you have to start filling it with high end AA with a large stockpile of ammo.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
743a5e No.688334
>>682826
Sounds like you're quoting the Treaty of Versailles but with France swapped with Germany
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c9107f No.688336
>>688334
No matter who would've won, it would have given harsh terms, so a reverse versailles is to be expected
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
140359 No.688366
>>687934
Depends on how you define a fortress and its function and what level of effectiveness we're talking about, strategic or tactical.
Then we gotta take the scope of the conflict into account, and the belligerents, of course.
It's a complex question to be sure.
The function of a fortress has always been deterrence by making its conquest as costly as possible, thereby denying the enemy a specific strategic area. Things done changed, however.
With symmetric warfare being pretty much dead, or only conducted between shithole countries riding around in technicals and post-war soviet equipment without proper training, I think a modern fortress would have to look quite differently even from the Maginot line.
As an aside however, I do believe that in these middle-eastern and African conflicts, any kind of fort will provide a major strategic and tactical advantage to the owner since none of these militaries have adequate artillery training or equipment. Which is exactly what ISIS found out after capturing Syrian artillery. Turns out you need actual training and a working supply chain for artillery to work as more than Napoleonic howitzers.
Getting back on track, I'd say Grozny was the example of a modern fortress. Using the maze-like structure of a city to lure in the enemy and finishing them piecemeal while riding high on the propaganda front by mixing in civvies with your army, making the enemy scared of shooting at anything, and if they do, they're the bad guys.
All modern states rely on public support more than anything and if that wanes, even the jewnited states can be beaten.
Now, the Russians in particular have learned from Grozny and would nowadays fry whole blocks with thermobaric ammo before moving even an inch forward, but I believe it's only them that are smart and hardcore enough to actually pull such a stunt.
Last I checked, NATO have stopped using thermobaric ordnance because they're a bunch of limp-wristed faggots.
Lastly, I would say that if you want your modern fortresses, you gotta think so big you actually have to turn your whole country into a fortress, like 50 miles deep to actually hinder the enemy long enough. Modern armies are nothing if not mobile and would therefore only have to poke a little hole in your line of defense to get to the juicy bits.
Turning your whole country into a fortress is exactly what best Korea did and that's why they're successful: They've made themselves not worth the effort, even discounting the nukes. And in that capacity, one could say that fortresses are indeed not obsolete and can work quite well, in fact, it's just that their scope and cost would probably cost you more than an army, and thus defeating the point of fortresses for most countries.
All in all a very interesting question which deserves to be thought about more.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e000e7 No.688367
>>688366
These are the kind of posts that make me come back here
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b756cb No.688380
>>688366
> denying the enemy a specific strategic area
Then you need to consider what actually is a strategic area in modern times.
Because most of those are going to be cities, doubly so if modern fortresses need to be city-sized to start with, and the cities are strategic because they create wealth.
Wealth that isn't going to be there after you've used them as a fortress. Your Grozny theory only works in shithole countries to start with because they have nothing to lose. If you tried doing that with, say, New York, you'd ruin what makes the city a strategic point in the first place in the first couple hours of battle. You'd only deny the wealth to the enemy too, but you could get the same result by just blowing up the city and calling it a plot by enemy saboteurs.
There's a reason why we stopped fortifying cities.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e000e7 No.688381
>>688380
>you need to consider what actually is a strategic area in modern times
Ports, factories and, of course, cities.
>If you tried doing that with, say, New York, you'd ruin what makes the city a strategic point in the first place
New York, just like most western cities, has disgusting modern nu-architecture. Blowing it up would be a good thing. The only thing that makes cities strategic is their ability to protect your troops in underground basements and slaughter the enemy if he dares enter. Wealth has nothing to do with it.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b756cb No.688384
>>688381
You don't fight wars for the fun of it. Economic resources are vital even before considering the fact that somebody has to pay for all that equipment and ammunition.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
49918d No.688385
>>682804
>Was the Schlieffenplan a conceptual mistake?
Calling the Schlieffenplan a mistake is just English propaganda that is repeated because the UK is still butthurt over the effect it had on them. It didn't help Germany win the Western Front, but it was a huge political success for the German Empire and made war easier for them. There was only one true way for France or Germany to attack each other and that was through the Low Countries, because all the other paths have mountains in the way. Historically the Low Countries were always the battlefield between armys that moved between west and central Europe. Belgium claimed to be neutral, but its geopolitical situation made it an ally of Great Britain, for both a French victory would be as bad as a German victory. German military planners knew that, they also knew of a secret treaty between Great Britian and France against Germany. So there was a threat of an French attack through Belgium against Germany, with limited hidden support by Belgium and Great Britian. It is also important to notice that historically neutrality in Europe allows for the passage of troops through the neutral country. By attacking France through Belgium, the German Empire would be provocative in terms of real politic, but officially they would not violate Belgian neutrality if they don't attack the Belgians directly.
So from a German point of view the Schlieffenplan could either go as planned and they have to deal with Great Britian and Belgium after they have defeated France, which would be a problem because the Belgians and British could cut off the supply to German troops inside France or it would force Great Britian and Belgium to make their hostility to Germany public. This would force their armies into an open land battle with the German Army, which the German military planners saw as possible and they almost did it before the USA intervened. Either way win win for Germany.
Meanwhile for the British the Schlieffenplan forced them to decide to either tolerate German supremacy over continental Europe or throw their army, which predominantly existed of expeditionary forces, into the meat grinder with the land army of a major continental power. They didn't like either of these choices.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
673b28 No.688386
>>687920
You're thinking of Séré de Rivières and Brialmont, the last Vauban forts were deactivated around the 1880s.
>>687934
Traditional walled forts are obsolete, but something like a modern-day Maginot Line would probably be really effective if the terrain allows for it. If nothing else they'd slow down the enemy's initial advance by a few days, which gives the defenders some much-needed time to prepare.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
dbd152 No.688390
>>688380
You are forgetting the type of conflict we are talking about. If modern, western cities come under attack by an organized military force, then we must assume that a major war is taking place, thus eliminating any economic prowess of a city in a flash.
Also, there are a lot more things of strategic value than cities, like major road/rail-lines, power plants, dams, manufacturing plants, oil refineries or oil fields, just to name a few at the top of my head.
I am not saying a fortress would have to be city sized, but that Grozny could be an example of a modern interpretation of a fortress.
If you re-read my post, I recommended something like the Maginot line on steroids, maybe twice its depth which would make any country doing that look like even more of a chump than the French with their OG one.
I was also explicitly stating that one would not need to fortify a city like Vauban, but rather use the existing city itself, like Mogadishu or Grozny.
I get the distinct impression you are willfully misreading my post to make your own point.
Come on, mang.
>>688385
marvelous post.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.