Politics


Not sure if this really means anything or will lead to an end result that would be valuable... but.. its interesting..
Of course the only problem with that is the "new" current population of Boise and elsewhere.
 
@Red Leg, has put it perfectly to break the myth of red army poorly equipped, and abused as cannon meat during war.

To Add: in soviet military academies the tactis of retreat has not been thought untill well into the war, (because red army does not retreat), but this came with serious consequences togheter with fact that red army was removed from many capable oficers during stallins purges in 1930ties. This added to the losses count, in 1941.
But when things became tough, red army was learning fast. From putting capable officers in charge, like general Zhukov, to changing and adopting modern tactics, and implemetning retreat tactcis where necessary

Appropos, numbers, and industry in ww2, I found this in wikipedia:
tank production,
Germany (plus industry in occpied territories): 67429
Soviet union: 119.769.

airplane production:
Germany (plus industry in occpied territories): 133.387
Soviet union: 136.223

Artillery
Germany (plus industry in occpied territories): 73.484
Soviet union: 516.648

Source:

About the technology.
When the war started, germany was desperatly short on everything, including tanks. but due to brilliant new tactics and their commanders in first years of war they made noumerous victories, although for logisitcs they still heavliy depended on horses. (they started war with cca 500.000 transport horses, and by the end of war utilised up to 1.2 million).
For german panzers and panzer tactics, forming tank attack divisons nobody was ready, totally new concept. (Before the tanks were used only as support to infantry)

For example, French army at the beggining of war had biggest number of tanks in Europe, and french army was outmanouvered in 6weeks during battle of France.

Similar things happened in eastern front, at the begging of campaign. Soviets did not lack tanks. Soviets were caught by surprise, loosing terrtiroy and men, facing new type of enemy, but they had industry, production, still few of excellent officers, and they were learning fast, they had space, and were retreating slowly. They bought minimum time they needed to reorganise.

Apart from the lenght of war since it has started in the east (4years), and for better understanding the number of casualties in the east, it is also worth noting, that the longest front by lenght in history was eastern front in ww2, (accross entire euroepan continent from north to south)

When attack on russia started, eastern front from axis side it was kept by germany, italy, hungary, romania and all other axis power troops recruited from occupied europe. On russian side - only russians.
By 1944, eastern front stretched from Baltic sea, down to mediteranean.
Almost entirely kept by soviets. In later part of 1944, southern part of eastern front was given to Yugoslav partisans (allied army),from yugoslav border down to adriatic sea.
And in later part, of 1944 after romania and bulgaria were "liberated' they also joined forces with soviets.
So, in fact it was 4 years, of longest front in lenght ever, kept by russian on one side, and few other armies on another side.

One fact, remain interesting, and is to be highlited. war crimes.
Alhotugh, the german army were loosing ground steadily since 1943, in the same time concentration camp system was funcitioning flawlesly, practically till last moment, just untill few months before the end of war.Racial laws kept.

On ocupied territories, Policy 100 people shot for 1 german killed, kept. In attempt to try to control ressistant movements.
And as the war was steadily lost, more atrocities was invented, and ordered, in the lack of better solutions.
I have attached below, for another example, classified (Geheim) order to use explosive ammunition against enemy peronnel in the east. It is from the book, "German sniper 1914-1945" by Peter R. Senich. I dont see a practical or military reason for this, except for psichologcial effect, and intimadation of enemy, when the things became desperate.
(another order in writing).
Of course, this is a clear breach of Hague convention on ammunition in war, but illustaretes well the 3rd reichs war machine.

b patrone.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
there have been a few ideas floated with regard to state realignment. The oldest, which has been around since at least 1961 when I was in school was the forming of a new state made up of parts of Washington, Oregon and/or California- basically the rural areas banding together and separating from the urban centers. the newer idea does not make a new/additional state but just redraws the state lines. This idea has the stateline of Idaho moving west and south to include parts of Oregon, but other variations include some of Washington and California. Since there is no new state it is just changing lines and representative apportionment so less approvals are needed.
 
As I understand it, Washington DC has a population of under 700,000. Basically its nothing more than a medium size suburb. And yet there is a major push to make it a State. (Yes I know this is largely due to the vested interests of one particular party).

What would be the population size of the areas seeking to leave Oregon, Washington and California? Would the population size be similar to, or greater than, that of DC? Do they have a better moral claim to an independent State?
 
What would be the population size of the areas seeking to leave Oregon, Washington and California? Would the population size be similar to, or greater than, that of DC? Do they have a better moral claim to an independent State?
The areas involved have a low population density- it would surprise me if the total was anywhere close to 700,000. However DC is set aside in the constitution as a non-political area. the founders neve intended for it to become a place of permanent residence for politicians. To make it a state would require a change in the Constitution. My guess is that if the residence want full representation the District could be abolished as a political entity and the Potomac setting the boundary between the portions that are in Virginia and Maryland.
 
As I understand it, Washington DC has a population of under 700,000. Basically its nothing more than a medium size suburb. And yet there is a major push to make it a State. (Yes I know this is largely due to the vested interests of one particular party).

What would be the population size of the areas seeking to leave Oregon, Washington and California? Would the population size be similar to, or greater than, that of DC? Do they have a better moral claim to an independent State?
I would venture a guess, and I base this purely on speculation and without any research, that it is several rural counties with limited population. If it's anything like where I'm from, the entire county population is around 33,000 with 25k from the county seat. Let's round that off to 21 counties to equal population of D.C.

There is almost no sustainability for rural counties to combine and make their own state. They would need resources for state government, facilities, infrastructure (not the libtard definition), etc. Then you need the economy to support the state. Farming, ranching, oil, or other "rural" economic boosters would have a hard time keeping up with multi-billion dollar companies of large cities. ... Again, this is only my first reaction to the concept of statehood for such rural counties vs DC. I would have to do some research into per capita statistics and cost analysis to determine if my initial thought process is accurate or not. Someone else here may be better suited to confirm or correct me.

Long assessment short: I feel re drawing state lines makes far more sense than creating an all new state. I wish them luck in breaking away from socialist rule.
 
970ACCFB-ABBA-49B8-B6A2-D7B609BC7B70.jpeg

The voting of rural vs metropolitan is truly troubling when you look at it as land area instead of population. However, using my home state of Kansas as an example, 2 counties (Johnson & Sedgwick) effectively make up 50% of the state population. Next 2 most populus counties are suburbs of KC and are roughly 15% more of population. So 4 of 108 counties could potentially control the vote of entire state.
 
I so hope that it really does come to fruition that the eastern county's of Orygun unite with Idaho.

I would have to jump about two counties over for the win.

I would be glad to cast a vote against any Kaliforniican that relocates to Boise.
 
I would venture a guess, and I base this purely on speculation and without any research, that it is several rural counties with limited population. If it's anything like where I'm from, the entire county population is around 33,000 with 25k from the county seat. Let's round that off to 21 counties to equal population of D.C.

There is almost no sustainability for rural counties to combine and make their own state. They would need resources for state government, facilities, infrastructure (not the libtard definition), etc. Then you need the economy to support the state. Farming, ranching, oil, or other "rural" economic boosters would have a hard time keeping up with multi-billion dollar companies of large cities. ... Again, this is only my first reaction to the concept of statehood for such rural counties vs DC. I would have to do some research into per capita statistics and cost analysis to determine if my initial thought process is accurate or not. Someone else here may be better suited to confirm or correct me.

Long assessment short: I feel re drawing state lines makes far more sense than creating an all new state. I wish them luck in breaking away from socialist rule.
Final follow up to my own post: in KS, the 70 smallest population counties range from 1185 - 9749 people. Let's average that at 5k, and you need 140 counties (more than the 108 total in KS) to equal population of DC.
 
The areas involved have a low population density- it would surprise me if the total was anywhere close to 700,000. However DC is set aside in the constitution as a non-political area. the founders neve intended for it to become a place of permanent residence for politicians. To make it a state would require a change in the Constitution. My guess is that if the residence want full representation the District could be abolished as a political entity and the Potomac setting the boundary between the portions that are in Virginia and Maryland.
I would absolutely agree that the best solution to DC would be as you suggested. Giving a region, which only exists as machinery of government hub, an independent status as (either a state or a political entity) is a major mistake. A fundamental conflict of interest and a corruption of the system of Government. Surprisingly its a mistake many nations have made.
 
As I understand it, Washington DC has a population of under 700,000. Basically its nothing more than a medium size suburb. And yet there is a major push to make it a State. (Yes I know this is largely due to the vested interests of one particular party).

What would be the population size of the areas seeking to leave Oregon, Washington and California? Would the population size be similar to, or greater than, that of DC? Do they have a better moral claim to an independent State?
Morality has nothing to do with this, at least not directly.

What the rural western counties do have is the law (the US Constitution, admissions clause). They have the logistical hurdle of convincing their respective state legislatures, plus the US congress, to approve it.

Washington, D.C. doesn't even have that. D.C. was established the way it was so that no state could boast the federal capital.

Art I Sec 8, US constitution
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;"
 
Somewhere along the way the army forgot that its primary purpose is to kill people and to break shit..
 
@Red Leg - what is even more disheartening is the praise being heaped on the US Army add. "She knows what she's fighting for!"

IDGAF if you know what you're fighting for. If you're fighting on my behalf, I want you to win.

These people...IDK...I vacillate between them being intentionally obtuse, or simple stupidity. How does one confuse essentials with nice-to-haves?
 
I don’t even know what to say.
 
Whats lost on people with that recruiting ad is...

Combat soldiers generally dont care what you look like, sound like, where you come from, how many mommies you have, or whether or not you were birthed from a unicorn...

Whether youre a cook, an analyst, a logistician, a signaller, a mechanic, a computer repairman, infantryman, special forces soldier, or cannon cocker, etc... Generally, all another soldier cares about is that you do your job well.. Thats what matters...

The days of "be all that you can be" have apparently been replaced by "we dont care if youre good at your job.. we just care that you feel included..."
 
Last edited:
I don’t even know what to say.
Exactly. I'm confounded. That should really get the testosterone boiling in potential recruits huh? Make them need to pick up arms and defend the constitution?
Somewhere up top there are real military leaders collectively clawing at the pain in their chests.
 
Oh Lord - even the Army has decided to go with woke recruiting now. Comparison of newest US and Russian recruitment ads.

just based on these ads, if I were a betting man, the future is bleak for the US military superiority.
In the end, no matter how much technology you heap into it, wars are fought by hard men & women.
Rainbows, feelings and ideology have no place in the military world.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
60,498
Messages
1,318,762
Members
111,615
Latest member
ShondaPeas
 

 

 

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

Behind the scenes of taking that perfect picture.....






WhatsApp Image 2025-04-23 at 09.58.07.jpeg
krokodil42 wrote on Jager Waffen74's profile.
Good Evening Evert One.
Would like to purchase 16 Ga 2.50 ammo !!
Rattler1 wrote on trperk1's profile.
trperk1, I bought the Kimber Caprivi 375 back in an earlier post. You attached a target with an impressive three rounds touching 100 yards. I took the 2x10 VX5 off and put a VX6 HD Gen 2 1x6x24 Duplex Firedot on the rifle. It's definitely a shooter curious what loads you used for the group. Loving this rifle so fun to shoot. Africa 2026 Mozambique. Buff and PG. Any info appreciated.
Ready for the hunt with HTK Safaris
Treemantwo wrote on Jager Waffen74's profile.
Hello:
I’ll take the .375 Whitworth for $1,150 if the deal falls through.
Thanks .
Derek
[redacted]
 
Top