BF2S Forums Estonia True Paradise?

Yeah, you're right.

The first Assault rifles were maybe the STG-44 and the full auto SKS.

Superior Mind wrote:

Yeah, you're right.

The first Assault rifles were maybe the STG-44 and the full auto SKS.

The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally "storm rifle", as in "to storm a position"). The name was coined by Adolf Hitler[6] to describe the Maschinenpistole 43, subsequently re-named Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first assault rifle that served to popularise the concept and form the basis for today's modern assault rifles.

Lol my bad, looking up the BAR I find that the Germans had the first "assault rifle" so that knocks that one on the head.

Frotz wrote:

EDIT: from what I've read on wikipedia, the rounds that M1 carbine and the M2 fired are considered to be pistol ammo (slightly bigger ammo than some pistols though), also that it might violate one or several of the definition requirements (check out the assault rifle page).

afaik the .30 carbine has much higher energy and effective range than most SMGs

Weight      Velocity     Energy
110 gr     607 m/s     1,311 J

compare to .45 ACP

185 GR     373 m/s    835 J

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

I disagree and have read much of Kershaws work but feel you are misinterpreting him, while he is an appreciated authority on the subject he did not write the bible so to speak. I found that Kershaw moved away from the easy solutions to the difficult questions that were suggested by other historians and that you refer to.

Actually he have written the bible concerning the subject Adolf Hitler, and yes he moved away from the easy solutions and have written a book that explaines Hitler on a much deeper level than any other and have gotten very good reviews from "competing" authors/historians for his work.

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Hitlers genius was realized in the form of his Charisma. People famously left his rallies feeling that Hitler knew what was in their hearts. The Nazi party were elected on a completely unprecedented scale. The Nazis were the 1st people to take advantage of door to door campaigning, they offered to collect people from their home or place of work and drive them to the poling station before returning them (and no they didnt beat them up if they refused). The nazis were the first party to campaign from the air both by dropping huge numbers of leaflets and by flying in low over rallies to make an impressive 1st impression. Many of the techniques the Nazis pioneered are now standard practice in government elections.

Totally agree on this.

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Von Papen and Hindenburg did not have a choice on whether to allow Hitler to become Chancellor, it was inevitable purely due to the support the NSDAP had. They were not losing votes by the millions, all parties were losing votes as the turn outs became lower and lower as Papen and Hindenburg desperately struggled to form a credible government that did not include the NSDAP.

After Hitler ran for President and lost the NSDAP lost millions of votes, the economic depression was loosing its grip on Germany ... the exact seats in parliament they lost I don't have here right now but it was a major setback infront of his appointment as chancellor shortly after that actually came as a small surprice on Hitler ... Von Papen and Hindenburg wanted Hitler as vice chancellor but Hitler said no, Chancellor Schleicher wanted to desolve parliament and postpone the election for 60 days and if Hindenburg had done just that NSDAPs continuous loss of support at that time would prolly have changed history ... however Hindenburg said no and the rest is history ...

It was a gamble from Hitler and he won.

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Luck had little to do with it. Hitler positioned the NSDAP to take advantage of anything that came his way, as the saying goes "you make your own luck" and this is an area he excelled in.

Never argued against that ... but "you make your own luck" is with certain modifications, much of Hitler luck just fell in his lap ... he was unbelievable fortunate that so many opurtunities "just" came along ...

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Your final assessment of the Nazis as being capable only of Chaos falls far from the mark I am afraid. Once established the Nazi systems closest power structure is one of a feudal system with Barons vying for the Fuhrers influence. As gruesome as it was the final solution was highly organized. Infact it is mostly the cold hearted efficiency that people find so abhorrent.

But we don't single out the final solution alone as a point of how organized the Nazis was, one must take the entire system under scrutiny and in that sense they governed through chaos, no explicit guidelines from the top down, Hitler and his crew loosely spoke what they wanted and it was basically up to the rest to try and interpret that into action ... that's the simplyfied answer, a more indept one would take a very long time ...

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Hitlers biggest mistake was thinking he was a military genius. He wasnt. At all. No power has successfully invaded Russia or America yet Hitler declared war on both..

Never argued against that ...


We need our own thread

Kmar wrote:

Count me in.

Made a new thread for the WW2 stuff

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 3#p3567463

FEOS wrote:

Interesting discussion.

Has fuckall to do with Estonia's free-market economic model, though.

And the first stimulus (under Bush) was about injecting liquidity into the credit markets (seen as "bailing out the banking industry"). The GM bailout came later, under Obama...along with all that stimulus for those "shovel-ready jobs."

You forgot the socalled bipartisan talks somewhere in there, and you are correct .. it was under Obama but not by Obama alone ... big difference.

CapnNismo wrote:

Went from talking about Estonia's economy to Nazis and guns. God, I love BF2s.

Godwin's law

thread fails because it assumes opening your country up to ruthless free-market (ir)rationalism and selling all of your property to wealthy foreigners will, somehow, ensure a productive and cozy future. 'is paradise'? will be hell when that bubble bursts.

Varegg wrote:

Uzique wrote:

thread fails because it assumes opening your country up to ruthless free-market (ir)rationalism and selling all of your property to wealthy foreigners will, somehow, ensure a productive and cozy future. 'is paradise'? will be hell when that bubble bursts.

[sarcasm]But but but ... a nobel prize winner in economy said it was okay ???[/sarcasm]

Winning the Nobel Prize simply means you've made a significant contribution. It doesn't have to be necessarily correct, IIRC.

It an ideal world, it would likely work but this isn't an ideal world.

CapnNismo wrote:

Winning the Nobel Prize simply means you've made a significant contribution fuss in certain spheres.

fixed.