View Single Post
  #37  
Old 02-17-2010, 04:18 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kemper Boyd View Post
The Finnish and the Swedish armies are the ones in Europe which are practically untouched.
Well that statement is just completely wrong.

While I can't say with any certainty about Sweden without refering back to the books, I know for a fact Finland STRONGLY resisted both Soviet and NATO offensives through their country. They fought so hard and effectively they forced the Soviet offensive against NATO forces in Norway to falter and the Nato command to reassess their plans on a strategic scale after they too met with effective military resistance.

Do you really think the troops on the ground wouldn't have shot back at the Finns? Can you honestly say the industry and resources Finland possesses wouldn't have been subjected to AT LEAST intensive conventional strikes?

Anyone who believes that has got to be living in a dreamland.

We had a discussion recently about Australia and whether or not it would have been nuked. As a country not involved in the multiple wars in the northern hemisphere (although possibly in Korea as part of the UN), and the fact it's on the other side of the planet, the concensus was the country WAS nuked. A country in the direct line of fire such as Finland (and possibly Sweden) wouldn't have had a chance.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem

Last edited by Legbreaker; 02-17-2010 at 05:53 PM.
Reply With Quote