Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-29-2019, 03:27 AM   #51  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,039
Default

Sure thing. Just because u think thats the way it happened doesnt mean it did.

Tide turned? Uhh must be a nordic history book ur getting that bad info from. U suppose the french were gona stopgap the soviets at the border? Instead of just eastern europe more likely all western europe nordic included would hav been included in the soviet bloc.

Absent the US presence and led invasion in western france the soviets would hav been compelled to advance through western europe to defeat the nazi forces.

Btw....who do you think was keeping the soviets supplied in the fight on the eastetn front?

The second neutral state players status did not suit the nazi or soviets it would have been all over.

Or were you sleeping when russia recently occuopied crimea?

The only nordic model i can apply to ww2 is while the world burned down around them they were apparently too busy smoking fish and making chewy candy ones to bother with getting involved.

Last edited by BobZ; 04-29-2019 at 03:48 AM.
BobZ is offline  
Old 04-29-2019, 05:39 AM   #52  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,029
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobZ View Post
Sure thing. Just because u think thats the way it happened doesnt mean it did.

Tide turned? Uhh must be a nordic history book ur getting that bad info from. U suppose the french were gona stopgap the soviets at the border? Instead of just eastern europe more likely all western europe nordic included would hav been included in the soviet bloc.

Absent the US presence and led invasion in western france the soviets would hav been compelled to advance through western europe to defeat the nazi forces.

Btw....who do you think was keeping the soviets supplied in the fight on the eastetn front?

The second neutral state players status did not suit the nazi or soviets it would have been all over.

Or were you sleeping when russia recently occuopied crimea?

The only nordic model i can apply to ww2 is while the world burned down around them they were apparently too busy smoking fish and making chewy candy ones to bother with getting involved.
Umm no, not a Nordic history book, but the opinion of the majority of American, Canadian, British, French, German and Russian historians. As far as keeping the Soviets supplied on the eastern front, that would be both the United States AND the United Kingdom and the OVERWHELMING majority of U.S. aid (97.9%) came after 1942, after the turning points of 1941.

And while the Germans were marching across Europe for two and a half years, and the Japanese were marching across much of Asia and the Pacific during that same time period, the U.S. sat by and watched, not bothering to get involved.

I am interested in how you draw the conclusion that the Soviets needed to be supplied in order to defend their front lines, but at the same time would have had the strength and manpower to then run roughshod all over Europe after sustaining massive casualties, as in around 27 million dead.

Of course none of this resolves the claim that the Nordic model would not be possible without U.S. military aid. Sweden sat directly on the front lines of the Cold War, not a member of NATO, and developed a robust home grown defense industry and weapons systems without the aid of the United States and NATO, while at the same time experiencing greater average GDP growth than the United States while simultaneously developing and maintaining the "Nordic Model".
NEDude is offline  
Old 04-30-2019, 09:13 AM   #53  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,039
Default

You have a peculiar take on historical facts.

The invasion of Poland was sept. 1939. The initial US supply of England began in 1940.

In addition to war material and humanitarian support, in the time from 1939 to Dec 7 1941, hundreds of Americans volunteeered and joined the English forces to fight the Germans.

Likewise American volunteers were engaged well ahead of official entry to conflict in the pacific/asia.

I wonder how many nordic model volunteers showed up?

Sweden allowed the nazis to use their rail-transportation to move military units to fight the russians. I suppose in the cold war the soviets didnt invade sweden was the same reason they didnt invade mexico.
BobZ is offline  
Old 04-30-2019, 10:15 AM   #54  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Half wing's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2014
Position: 787 right
Posts: 365
Default

How has this thread become an argument about the Nordic countries being better than the USA. Who gives a crap about the Nordic countries and their almost negligible contribution to the World economy. The only thing worth keeping from the Nordic countries would be their women’s volleyball teams. NAI still sucks.
Half wing is offline  
Old 04-30-2019, 11:46 AM   #55  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Half wing's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2014
Position: 787 right
Posts: 365
Default

Also, Previous Wow pilots and NAI pilots can argue all they want how Nordic Countries are better than the US but their arguments carry little weight when their airlines fail and they don’t even make a paycheck. I’ll take my 250k/yr. job and pay for my own education and healthcare insurance over no paycheck and crappy socialized medicine. Nedude, weren’t you a Wow pilot?
Half wing is offline  
Old 04-30-2019, 12:58 PM   #56  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,039
Default

If you arent catching....trolling with a cold beer in hand is next best.
BobZ is offline  
Old 04-30-2019, 11:07 PM   #57  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,029
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobZ View Post
You have a peculiar take on historical facts.

The invasion of Poland was sept. 1939. The initial US supply of England began in 1940.

In addition to war material and humanitarian support, in the time from 1939 to Dec 7 1941, hundreds of Americans volunteeered and joined the English forces to fight the Germans.

Likewise American volunteers were engaged well ahead of official entry to conflict in the pacific/asia.

I wonder how many nordic model volunteers showed up?

Sweden allowed the nazis to use their rail-transportation to move military units to fight the russians. I suppose in the cold war the soviets didnt invade sweden was the same reason they didnt invade mexico.
You are arguing all over the map here, and making no sense. You claimed it was the American supply of Russia that allowed Russia to withstand the Germans during the Battle of Moscow. You are also wrong in your claim that the United States began supplying England in 1940. The U.S. was bound by a policy of neutrality in the 1930s. In late 1940, the U.K. began inquiring about was to secure U.S. aid, but it was not until February 1941 that Congress began to debate ending its policy of neutrality and begin sending aid. The "Lend-Lease" policy, which was the policy of U.S. aid to allied countries, including the U.K., was signed into law on March 11, 1941. The first aid to the Soviet Union, using materials manufactured in and shipped by the U.K., with U.S. financing, did not begin until October 1, 1941. The vast majority of goods financed and/or supplied by the United States to the Soviet Union (97.9% based on tonnage) did not come until after the start of 1942, after the tide had turned against Germany.

Secondly, again, you have skirted the question as to how the modern "Nordic Model", which began well after WW2 ended, would not be possible without U.S. military aid when Sweden was able to develop it completely independent of any U.S. military aid or alliance.

You make an assumption, without any facts, about why the Soviet Union did not invade Sweden, and made an absolutely stupid comparison with Mexico. Sweden directly bumped up against the Soviet Union, separated only by a small stretch of the Baltic Sea from Soviet territory. Sweden also controlled(jointly with Denmark) the Soviet Union's naval access through the Baltic Sea to the Atlantic Ocean. Controlling Sweden would have given the Soviet Union a major strategic advantage in the Cold War. Mexico was an entirely different animal altogether, being across an ocean, significantly larger, and militarily aligned with the United States. So please provide some facts to back up your assertion that during the Cold War, the Soviet Union did not invade Sweden for the same reason it did not invade Mexico. I'll even settle for a somewhat reasonable logical argument for the reasons being the same now that you have received a bit of a geography lesson (I guess you did not pay enough for your education...)

Given the fallacy of your arguments and your inability to draw a logical conclusion, or answer a simple question, I would say you are spending a little too much of you $250k salary on beer and not enough on your education.

Yes, I did fly for WOW Air. Am I supposed to be embarrassed or ashamed by that? Please let me know if that is the case, and I will see if I can learn to feel that shame. I promise I will let you know if that happens.

Oh, and still no takers on the Chapter 11 question?
NEDude is offline  
 
 
 

 
Post Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WOW air gone - Icelandair buys 'em Andy Foreign 58 01-15-2019 05:44 PM
Sneak peek at Indigos plans for Wow Trowserchilli Frontier 39 12-20-2018 05:32 AM
NAI and the $65 (intro) US to Europe Fare BeamMeUp Foreign 118 03-07-2017 07:45 AM
That wow moment jetstar1 FedEx 15 09-06-2015 07:44 AM
WOW BP Dropped 20 pts!! jeepthrills Pilot Health 4 06-04-2007 09:44 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:31 PM.