• RubicTopaz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      It is the Fourth Reich

      Oh wait, that's just post-WW2 West Germany

      There were more Nazis in West Germany’s justice department after WWII than during Third Reich for example

      Fully 77 percent of senior ministry officials in 1957 were former members of Adolf Hitler’s Nazi party, a higher proportion even than during the 1933-45 Third Reich, the study found.

      Nazis in post-WW2 Germany’s government

      From 1949 to 1973, 90 of the 170 leading lawyers and judges in the then-West German Justice Ministry had been members of the Nazi Party.

      Of those 90 officials, 34 had been members of the Sturmabteilung (SA), Nazi Party paramilitaries who aided Hitler’s rise and took part in Kristallnacht, a night of violence that is believed to have left 91 Jewish people dead.

      Alot of nazis basically kept doing what they already did like in the US’s operation bloodstone.

  • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    NATO colonies deserve their freedom. They need a backbone to stop being US slaves, and Trump demeaning demand terms, is an opportunity for that backbone. It is categorically absurd that Russia threatens to invade current NATO members, and the idiocy of continuing a war on Russia needs to be more obvious to the colonies.

        • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          that everyone believes CIA/US empire disinformation when a D is in the whitehouse does not mean the US empire is full of truth and love for all.

    • Estiar@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Tell this to an Estonian or a Pole or a Lithuanian and they’ll punch you. You might not know this, but Russia has been working on a cassus belli (A reason for war) against all those countries. You can read national defense strategies on each of those countries to see what they are concerned about.

      • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        It is so easy to make war necessary from fear. Your rulers get richer the more fear there is, and the CIA is welcome to ensure the right rulers stay, in addition to the direct US military occupation that controls Germany.

        There is zero possibility reality that Russia gains by occupying those countries. But like Ukraine, if fanatical hatred can be enhanced towards Russia, that can make a good CIA pawn sacrifice as your reward. The pure slavery, and the temptation to submit to harsher slavery as a plea for Trump to piss on you less is one path for those eastern colonies most consumed by hate.

  • inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I mean if Europe wants to increase their military funding and move items in house I think that would be a wonderful idea. Because America is not a reliable partner in this at all in the past two decades.

    • vga@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      We would eventually crush Russia in a real war, the problem is that without going to actual war, we get to use only a small part of that.

      • diffusive@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        In the game of nukes you don’t really need many.

        You can destroy the world just so many times.

        The rest is just for showing who has it bigger (the arsenal)

      • Resand@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        A lot of that is because rest of NATO is under US umbrella. Not like nukes are high tech at this point. Most of Europe could get nukes real fast if they wanted, but everyone has been better served by it being to many Nuclear Powers up to this point

      • Hackworth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        But are we bringing nukes to a biological warfare… umm… party? Or hell, AI drones/nanobots?

      • Chaos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        It took two nukes for Japan to wave the white flag. Do we really need 5,000+ nukes for anything? France has 290 and UK has 225. Thats enough to wipe one or multiple countries clean off of the map without any form of surrender.

        • scoobford@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Yes, antimissile systems will shoot down most of your missile volley, so you need to launch enough that they become overwhelmed and the few that make it through accomplish your goal.

          We don’t know exactly how much “most” is, but its enough that the powers that be consider our current level of armament to be necessary.

          • Chaos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            This is where I think there is a misunderstanding. You don’t just fire only nukes at a country. You fire a multi pronged attack with regular bombardment aswell.

          • Lumisal@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Shooting down a nuclear icbm doesn’t really help as much as you think, if it catches it.

            Not to mention the atmosphere lighting up wouldn’t be much better

              • Lumisal@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                Doesn’t that depend on how they’re set up? I’d imagine in the 50+ years since they’ve been invented they would have designed it so it could, specifically because modern anti missile defenses exist.

                I mean, I know world governments can be dumb, but I would imagine they’re not that dumb as to bother maintaining a key super weapon just to not upgrade it / design it so that it won’t work if used.

                • Madison420@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Maybe but no not really the triggering process is extremely fast but kinda fragile because everything needs to be compressed just so.

                  They upgrade them, it’s public knowledge for the budget. Usually it’s faster smaller or different form factor plus renewal programs.

            • Madison@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Yes, but to a way lesser degree.

              The bombs become really nasty by creating a big chain reaction (boom) and then radiating the dust the explosion creates (aftermath) which then spreads everywhere.

              Without a controlled explosion there will be significantly less radiating reactions and radioactive dust.

              It’s like deep inhaling the smoke of a package of burning fire starters VS throwing said burning fire starter into a warehouse full of fireworks (and for the sake of this argument you cant leave the warehouse and have no equipment whatsoever)

              Both will probably fuck you up a bit if you’re to close, but one is comparably insignificant.

    • COASTER1921@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yep, and thankfully the EU has seen the way the US is going and started to react appropriately.

  • RangerJosie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    It isn’t credible now. It likely won’t exist at all in 4 years. Unless it cedes even more decision making authority to the US and becomes even more of a puppet.

    • iwndwyt@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Let me get this straight, you’re siding with the enemy occupation? If not, then why would you have a problem with a sovereign nation retaking their own country.

      “A stay-behind operation is one where a country places secret operatives or organizations in its own territory, for use in case of a later enemy occupation. The stay-behind operatives would then form the basis of a resistance movement, and act as spies from behind enemy lines.”

      They leave spies in their own territory when being invaded in order to get their country back. How dare they‽

  • sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    I don’t think NATO is in any danger. Trump has a very aggressive and bombastic style of negotiation. You saw this with NAFTA. Trump called it the worst agreement in the history of the world. But the USMCA is just NAFTA with a new acronym and now it’s apparently the BEST trade agreement in the history if the world. Its the same with Trump and NATO. The Europeans are the worst freeloaders in the history of the universe…until they up their defense spending by half a percentage point to appease the Donald, and then NATO will be the best alliance ever. Typical bombastic bullshit.

    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Sorta, but not really tbh. The US was always intrinsically backstopping the security side of things. Without us in it - and I mean this very seriously - it’s not really a credible threat to Russia or anyone else anymore.

        • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          The article is only powerful if it’s enforced.

          I suspect that Putin’s direct report won’t really sign on to any sort of defense of European countries.