Congressional investigation finds that the US navy is barely fit for purpose

submitted by casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter from self.debatealtright

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnt63oAcoHc

Whew! I expected degeneration of US military prowess but not this fast. They're transitioning from Middle Imperial Roman army to late Roman army, but in the span of 15-20 years instead of 150-200.

Just twenty years ago in 2001, the US military was unparalleled in professionalism and combat prowess.

The navy seems to be the hardest hit for some reason. As of 2017, two-thirds of US naval aircraft couldn't get of the ground.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2017/02/06/grounded-nearly-two-thirds-of-us-navys-strike-fighters-cant-fly/

I recall hearing a story from the Clinton era. The left at the time was pushing for gay tolerance in the US military and a navy admiral in protest refused to salute Clinton during a ship inspection.

Men like that are long gone from the US military high command. Bush did some small scale purges but Obama did a huge purge of US military generals before he left office. Now its filled with yes men and closet homosexuals like Mattis and Miley.

An open fag has even run the US army! Here's the Jew York Times bragging about it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/opinion/sunday/an-openly-gay-man-runs-the-army.html

A lot of people have drawn parallels with Stalin's purges of the Red army in the 30s but I think there's another parallet that could be drawn: Hitler's purges.

In the early phase of the war, Hitler left running the war to the old Prussian nobility derived officers and they led Germany from victory to victory. However, after the German failure to take Moscow, Hitler increasingly began to micromanage matters.

He sacked Field Marshals Halder, Brauchwitsch, Von Bock, Rundstedt and Witzleben, all the executors of his past triumphs. He even removed Heizn Guderian from command. He increasingly surrounded himself with yes men with little combat experience.

His jihad on competence accelerated in the later years as the war turned against Germany. He even fired Manstein and Herman Balck. Needless to say, this trend of sacking competent generals and replacing them with yes men only accelerated Germany's defeat.

The US might be heading in a same direction. Its increasingly doubtful that they can defeat the Chinese or Russian militaries in open battle anymore.

all 10 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I hope Russia and China strike as soon as possible. I want this monster slain. Every day I have to live under US hegemony is a nightmare. I hate that country with every fiber of my being.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Just twenty years ago in 2001, the US military was unparalleled in professionalism and combat prowess.

I used to be of similar opinion, but the more I read, the more doubtful I become. I can't think of a single war in the last century that the US has fought in during which they did not enjoy an enormous material superiority.

The navy seems to be the hardest hit for some reason. As of 2017, two-thirds of US naval aircraft couldn't get of the ground.

That would be terrible news. In my opinion, the navy is perhaps the only American asset that can be considered universally useful to all political groups in the US.

In the early phase of the war, Hitler left running the war to the old Prussian nobility derived officers and they led Germany from victory to victory. However, after the German failure to take Moscow, Hitler increasingly began to micromanage matters.

He had always micromanaged the army. The Prussian officers didn't even want to go into Austria, Czechoslovakia or the Ardennes. Hitler basically had to force them into it. Where the German army command had more room for independent planning, like when it came to dealing with Britain, they did not actually use their freedom and showed zero initiative. The Prussian Junkers were good at politics, good at tactics and bad at strategy. This is especially true during the Second World War.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Going through the Ardennes was Erich von Manstein's idea. Hitler just took credit for it. Not to mention the fact that the entire Blitzkrieg model was Heinz Guderian's brainchild.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

He had always micromanaged the army.

That's false by the way. He took personal command after the Battle of Moscow, which was his own fault. Guderian - and others - pressed him to directly march towards Moscow before winter would arrive. Hitler refused because he wanted to take Ukraine first.

[–][deleted]  (6 children)

[deleted]

    [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    It's certainly possible, yes.

    [–]TheJamesRocket 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    The Kiev vs Moscow debate has been done to death. Its been a major trope in discussions of the Eastern front. The general consensus is that it would not have been possible for the Wehrmacht to attack Moscow in August/September 1941, because they had not built up a supply stockpile that could sustain that kindof operation.

    [–]douglas_waltersWhite Supremacist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Mosley claimed that the primary reason for their defeat wasn’t the decision to invade the Soviet Union in 1941, but the failing to finish off a weakened Britain in 1940 before American intervention in the war.

    That Hitler let sentimentality affect his strategic thinking.

    What say you?

    [–]TheJamesRocket 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Mosley claimed that the primary reason for their defeat wasn’t the decision to invade the Soviet Union in 1941, but the failing to finish off a weakened Britain in 1940 before American intervention in the war.

    It is of course true that if Germany had knocked Britain out of the war in 1940, that they would have had an easier time against the Soviet Union in 1941. Without Britain (or America) in the picture, Germany could have been victorious in a war of attrition against Russia.

    That Hitler let sentimentality affect his strategic thinking.

    To a point, this is true. Hitler never wanted to destroy Britain, he just wanted them out of the war. His reasoning for attacking the Soviet Union was that 1) They were the only existential threat facing Germany. 2) They were ideological enemys for the Nazis. 3) Conquering Russia would intimidate Britain into making peace.

    [–]douglas_waltersWhite Supremacist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Hitler never wanted to destroy Britain

    Couldn't Germany have subdued Britain while setting up a puppet government with Mosley in charge?

    Or, in Hitler's mind, would that be a waste of resources better utilised elsewhere (in this case, related to your third point)? So with the benefit of hindsight, we can say that was a complete miscalculation.

    [–]TheJamesRocket 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Couldn't Germany have subdued Britain while setting up a puppet government with Mosley in charge?

    In order to do that, they would have needed to gain a major victory over them. The only way Germany could actually conquer Britain was for the Luftwaffe to defeat the RAF, preparing the way for an amphibious invasion. Hitler gave it a good college try, but things didn't pan out the way he planned. Thats why he was forced to invade the Soviet Union.