Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pocotrader who wrote (1173181)	10/23/2019 4:11:43 PM
From: maceng2	Respond to of 1572134

It's odd isn't it? That both Germany and Russia invaded Poland at the same time, on previous agreement, and the country was split in two, half each. The history books tell us that Nazi Germany were the bad guys and we had to go to war with them. Isn't that a tad inconsistent? The discussion you answered was really about the Maginot line and the strategy of defense. I mentioned walls, but the concept lends itself further in dealing with an opponent. The Maginot line has been written off by the historical propaganda we receive in school, but far as I can tell it served it's purpose well. After WW1 the French population had been seriously denuded of young males and the German population was growing at a faster rate. As always, funds were limited but the French built a very significant deterrent on it's border with Germany, the Maginot line. A military and political alliance was supposed to protect the north west sector, but Belgium reneged on that and declared itself neutral in any future war. That and the reliance on the Ardenne forest being impassible made a weak point in the French defense. The truth was that tank design and reliability had improved considerably since WW1, and the German forces were all doped up on methamphetamine "Hitlers little helper". The "weak point" in the Maginot defense did cause other countries to be directly involved in the war. It was this factor, the fact that Hitler did not give a hoot about other nations, and demonstrated it by the invasion of the low countries, that eventually overwhelmed the Nazi military machine that was effectively unstoppable for the first few years. It wasn't just France that Hitler didn't care about and the Maginot Defense line helped prove that point. Even though the Maginot line was completely outflanked and the French were already effectively defeated, it was still a tough nut to crack. Not many people have a concept of strategic defense. They can only think of offensive strategy, and when one reads about games being won, we always hear about how magnificent the attack was. In actuality it's often the defensive strategy in the losing sequences in the war / game that set up the eventual victory. Same ideas can be seen in politics imho. A "weakness" is signaled. You make sure the opposition always have material to work on, but you try and set things up so all the offensive maneuvers just waste time and effort. It's important to keep em busy. It helps sometimes to look dumb as well. That way anything significant you do is underestimated by the opposition. I can think of one American politician who looks to me to be a dab hand at that kind of thing. He uses his twitter account like Jedi Knight uses a Light saber for example.