Germany versus Britain - shocking statistics

[Robinho]

And the Euro was not kept artifically low over the last decade?
One by one your pet theories are being dismantled leaving you exposed like a 15 year old virgin at a paedo meeting.

Germany is only 1 part of the Eurozone though isn't it, certainly all is not bright in Euroland.

[sasguru]

Germany is only 1 part of the Eurozone though isn't it, certainly all is not bright in Euroland.

No but your point of cheap money being the cause of the Uk's woes doesn't hold water does it.
anyway I'm about to be permabanned so have fun with your codswallop.

[Robinho]

No but your point of cheap money being the cause of the Uk's woes doesn't hold water does it.

Well, it kinda does. Unless you can point out a flaw with it.

[sasguru]

Well, it kinda does. Unless you can point out a flaw with it.

Yes the flaw is Germany had cheap money too. But it didn't cause the splurge that happened here.
Where does that leave your "economic laws"? Because a "law" must occur always, given certain preconditions.

[MyUserName]

There is absolutely no evidence that any soldier was sent into battle without a weapon.

So I think that the onus is on you to prove such a ridiculous claim

Actually you have made a positive claim here - therefore you are also under a burden of proof. If you had said "could you show me evidence of that, I have never seen any" that would be different. However, I will have a look. As I said, I am always interested in learning new things.

Your other points just go to prove and support my point - The soviet army was excellently equipped.
They got battered, but they were not short of good stuff.

My other points are not so clear cut - real like rarely is.

It seems that the Russian T34 was very good at the spec level in 1941 but seems to have been dogged by production issues and lack of resources to repair and rescue damages ones.

If they were so magnificent they would not have been suffering a 7:1 loss ratio.

I also asked a couple of questions, you can answer them if you like. I am mainly curious as to why this massive air force made little difference.

A couple of quotes I noticed (I know you said that you do not use google, I do):

The Yak-1 was a modern 1940 design and had room for development, unlike the mature 1935-origin design of the Messerschmitt Bf 109. The Yak-9 brought the VVS to parity with the Luftwaffe, eventually allowing it to gain the upper hand over the Luftwaffe until in 1944

The history I have just browsed through seems to state that the Russian airforce was large but was slaughtered by the Germans very early on. It is another fact of life, having something (like a large airforce) is useless unless you can effectively use it.

[darmstadt]

And Chelsea's and Mantuliptys millions never got Pep did they?

[EternalOptimist]

Actually you have made a positive claim here - therefore you are also under a burden of proof. If you had said "could you show me evidence of that, I have never seen any" that would be different. However, I will have a look. As I said, I am always interested in learning new things.




My other points are not so clear cut - real like rarely is.

It seems that the Russian T34 was very good at the spec level in 1941 but seems to have been dogged by production issues and lack of resources to repair and rescue damages ones.

If they were so magnificent they would not have been suffering a 7:1 loss ratio.

I also asked a couple of questions, you can answer them if you like. I am mainly curious as to why this massive air force made little difference.

A couple of quotes I noticed (I know you said that you do not use google, I do):



The history I have just browsed through seems to state that the Russian airforce was large but was slaughtered by the Germans very early on. It is another fact of life, having something (like a large airforce) is useless unless you can effectively use it.

'then the Russians simply threw people forward even if they did not have a gun'
you made a ridiculous claim. now either back it up, learn how to concede an error in a dignified way or cease bothering the good people here with nonsense.

[Robinho]

Yes the flaw is Germany had cheap money too. But it didn't cause the splurge that happened here.
Where does that leave your "economic laws"? Because a "law" must occur always, given certain preconditions.

As i have stated, Germany is part of a far larger monetary zone so it would be far more meaningful to look at the Eurozone as a whole and not a fraction of it.

Not that easy money is necessarily a bad thing, if the general supply of money is naturally high. The UK had a far higher multiplier at the time of the crash than the EU.

[sasguru]

As i have stated, Germany is part of a far larger monetary zone so it would be far more meaningful to look at the Eurozone as a whole and not a fraction of it.

Not that easy money is necessarily a bad thing, if the general supply of money is naturally high. The UK had a far higher multiplier at the time of the crash than the EU.

Oh I'm sorry I didn't realise I was talkingto a trained economist who undertood the difference between inflation, M0, M1, M3 and M4.
You really are a wannabe ignorant cock.

[Robinho]

Oh I'm sorry I didn't realise I was talkingto a trained economist who undertood the difference between inflation, M0, M1, M3 and M4.
You really are a wannabe ignorant cock.

Aww, baby out of arguments again?