Let me take a step back and ask a single question, mon ami, because you're getting increasingly angry that someone dare challenge you, and posting stupid shit about, for example, about cavalry, which in WWI was as valuable as your appendix, and when you're upset your ability to write coherent English degenerates and it is more and more difficult to figure out what the fuck you're even trying to say. A shit-ton of unconnected sentences and links don't construe an argument. You cannot....
Stay
on
Topic.
If America had not entered the war, who would have won?
Read the fucking links. I am not angry no. Just tired of your stupidity. I am speaking to somebody who cannot process information. It was rather obvious. But somehow you struggle? Tediously
That is not the topic. You're literally autistic. How is who won WW1 relevant to this topic. But you're telling me to stay on topic. Why do dumb people do this? They accuse somebody else of the thing they're guilty of. It's Autism.
We were discussing the weapons and tactics of how any current warfare is reminiscent.
Not the victors. This war could have none. Nukes. Or did you think a nuclear power will surrender. They might withdraw. Except that's their historic border. Meaning a loss. Except that's not very probable. So this war drags on, territory capture, and territory held. Causing far more seiges, and fortified lines. As it bleeds an opponent degrading their manpower and munitions and expenditure. In similarities. Never mind a few other strikingly similar coincidences.
But it shows the gaps in your education. You didn't take apart the tool, studying the mechanics. Instead you have diverted a thought, a submission of mine into USA USA. I don't know what you're trying to prove. You have trolled repeatedly. How many times. It's tedious.
Because of your inability to stay on topic, we went from similarities in WWI trench warfare and trench warfare in Ukraine today, the original topic, to your ethereal interludes about nuclear deterrence, railway logistics, artillery bombardments, star forts, the Czar, cavalry, and the portability of machine guns, etc. etc. etc. little of which has any bearing on my thesis, which is that none of that has anything to do with why there is trench warfare in Ukraine compared to WWI.
Russia is bleeding Ukraine white, like the Germans did to the French at Verdun.
My question of who would have won without American intervention is the resulting question from your inability to stay on topic, and your wandering in left field interpretation of things you think are applicable when they, in fact, not applicable. Combined with your inability to make a cogent argument in English longer than 4 sentences, you defer to insults regarding education and levels of intelligence.
And you can't answer it because it would surrender your wandering meanderings as pointless.
Let me take a step back and ask a single question, mon ami, because you're getting increasingly angry that someone dare challenge you, and posting stupid shit about, for example, about cavalry, which in WWI was as valuable as your appendix, and when you're upset your ability to write coherent English degenerates and it is more and more difficult to figure out what the fuck you're even trying to say. A shit-ton of unconnected sentences and links don't construe an argument. You cannot....
Stay
on
Topic.
If America had not entered the war, who would have won?
Read the fucking links. I am not angry no. Just tired of your stupidity. I am speaking to somebody who cannot process information. It was rather obvious. But somehow you struggle? Tediously
Answer the question. Stay on topic. Who would have won the war without American Doughboys?
That is not the topic. You're literally autistic. How is who won WW1 relevant to this topic. But you're telling me to stay on topic. Why do dumb people do this? They accuse somebody else of the thing they're guilty of. It's Autism.
We were discussing the weapons and tactics of how any current warfare is reminiscent.
Not the victors. This war could have none. Nukes. Or did you think a nuclear power will surrender. They might withdraw. Except that's their historic border. Meaning a loss. Except that's not very probable. So this war drags on, territory capture, and territory held. Causing far more seiges, and fortified lines. As it bleeds an opponent degrading their manpower and munitions and expenditure. In similarities. Never mind a few other strikingly similar coincidences.
But it shows the gaps in your education. You didn't take apart the tool, studying the mechanics. Instead you have diverted a thought, a submission of mine into USA USA. I don't know what you're trying to prove. You have trolled repeatedly. How many times. It's tedious.
Because of your inability to stay on topic, we went from similarities in WWI trench warfare and trench warfare in Ukraine today, the original topic, to your ethereal interludes about nuclear deterrence, railway logistics, artillery bombardments, star forts, the Czar, cavalry, and the portability of machine guns, etc. etc. etc. little of which has any bearing on my thesis, which is that none of that has anything to do with why there is trench warfare in Ukraine compared to WWI.
Russia is bleeding Ukraine white, like the Germans did to the French at Verdun.
My question of who would have won without American intervention is the resulting question from your inability to stay on topic, and your wandering in left field interpretation of things you think are applicable when they, in fact, not applicable. Combined with your inability to make a cogent argument in English longer than 4 sentences, you defer to insults regarding education and levels of intelligence.
And you can't answer it because it would surrender your wandering meanderings as pointless.
Once again, stay on topic.