/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 22 KB, 95x93, 1299535241301.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 16:35:19 2011 No.2808891 [Reply] [Original]

Why are English people so fucking retarded when it comes to mathematics? Frenchfag here, and I've seen how they teach mathematics over there, it's all fucked up in the ass, you don't understand shit about how stuff works.

For example, I've seen English people write faggotry like this: <span class="math">\sqrt{4}=\pm 2[/spoiler]. Seriously go hang yourself brits.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 16:36:19 2011 No.2808898 Root 4 is plus or minus 2... Ignorant surrender monkey.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 16:40:19 2011 No.2808922 >>2808898 No.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 16:40:19 2011 No.2808928 How else can it be written then?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 16:41:19 2011 No.2808933 File: 34 KB, 500x389, 500px-HA_HA_HA,_OH_WOW.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2808898

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 16:41:19 2011 No.2808939 >>2808898 wolframalpha disagrees with you http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sqrt%284%29

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 16:42:19 2011 No.2808944 File: 54 KB, 300x321, lookslikeatroll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 16:42:19 2011 No.2808946 >>2808928 Oh God, let me think... <span class="math">\sqrt{4}=2[/spoiler]?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 16:43:19 2011 No.2808955 >>2808939 Wolfram Alpha isn't entirely accurate in this case then. (-2)(-2)=4, 2*2=4 Where is the problem?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 16:44:19 2011 No.2808961 >>2808946 but <span class="math">(-2)^2=4[/spoiler] too. How can you so quickly throw a way a corr... oh god, why am I even posting in this thread

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 16:45:19 2011 No.2808967 This is what Frenchfags actually believe.

>>	Shiro !NuJBxbKoek Thu Mar 31 16:49:19 2011 No.2808989 >>2808898 >>2808955 >>2808961 Correct. >>2808922 >>2808933 >>2808939 Samefaggin' like a madman.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 16:49:19 2011 No.2808993 IT CANT BE -2. ITS DEFINED AS THE POSITIVE ROOT SO IT HAS TO BE 2. WHY DO YOU THINK THEY WRITE A +- BEFORE A ROOT SINE.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 16:51:19 2011 No.2809000 >>2808891 I dunno mang. But if they weren't retarded they'd win the Fields Medal obviously.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 16:52:19 2011 No.2809005 >>2808891 Really? You've seen this from English professional mathematicians? Or are you judging the abilities of a country by its students? In which case, I have some bad news about France...

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 16:52:19 2011 No.2809006 Oh, the amount of times I had to explain this: 4 has one square root: 2. x²-4=0 has two solutions: sqrt(4)=2 and -sqrt(4)=-2.

>>	Bruse !!QaQRJei51dt Thu Mar 31 16:53:19 2011 No.2809015 File: 5 KB, 479x462, y_x_5E2.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This is a troll thread, right, guys? I mean, come on. Pic fucking related.

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 16:54:19 2011 No.2809016

You people are honestly retarded. The square root symbol is DEFINED as being THE POSITIVE ROOT ONLY.

That's why you have to write <span class="math">x=\pm \sqrt{2}[/spoiler] as the solution to the equation <span class="math">x^2=2[/spoiler]. Otherwise you wouldn't have to bother with the plus/minus.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 16:54:19 2011 No.2809021 They teach it terribly here in Canada. German guy came here in highschool and had already done our advanced math course's content a year before in standard level.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 17:02:19 2011 No.2809068 how can sqrt(4) be -2 if the square root is defined from R+ to R+?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 17:05:19 2011 No.2809086 >>2809068 <span class="math">-2 \in \mathrm{R}[/spoiler]

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 17:08:19 2011 No.2809114 >>2809086 but sqrt(x) is NOT defined on R, but on positive numbers

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 17:09:19 2011 No.2809119 I applaud you for your mathematical prowess good Frenchman.

>>	Bruse !!QaQRJei51dt Thu Mar 31 17:16:19 2011 No.2809154 Oh fuck, seems you guys are right. Thanks a lot, SCHOOL

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 17:16:19 2011 No.2809156

>>2809015
>>2809005
>>2808989
>>2808967
>>2808961
>>2808955
>>2808928
>>2808898
OP here. Seems like I've overestimated /sci/. Seriously, how old are you? Or is it only because you're American? I can't believe people can be that mentally disadvantaged, have you even finished high school or done some basic mathematics courses?

Bruse !!QaQRJei51dt Thu Mar 31 17:19:19 2011 No.2809187

>>2809156

I can't speak for others, but I've always assumed that the square root sign denoted the square root, and not just the principle square root.

Since the Wikipedia crash just now, I've learned that -2 is a square root of 4, but that sqrt(4) is 2.

No wonder people get it wrong.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 17:41:19 2011 No.2809275 I don't get why sqrt(x) is defined to be only positive, wouldn't it make more sense if it did return both positive and negative?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 17:48:19 2011 No.2809304 >>2809275 Then sqrt(x) wouldn't be a function.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 18:14:19 2011 No.2809452 >>2809304 If sqrt(2) = 2 (only), why isn't x^2 - 4 = 2 (only), and not +-2? Why the arbitrary definitions that aren't even uniform?

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 18:30:19 2011 No.2809536

HOW TO MAKE A TROLL MATH THREAD:

1) Find some concept where any definition has certain setbacks.

2) Ask 4chan to answer some problem, which is essentially asking "what's the definition of _____?"

3) Watch everyone argue because (as in 1), either side can make arguments to say why the other answer is unsatisfactory.

4) Zero profit

Examples:
Definition of decimal expansions
Definition of square roots
Definition of 0^0, 0!, or any empty product
Definition of log on the complex plane

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 18:37:19 2011 No.2809578 >>2809536 >definition of log on the complex plane dudewhat.jpg mybrainisfullofbillionsandbillionsoffuck.jpg

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 18:39:19 2011 No.2809598 >>2809304 You mean to tell me that not all mathematical operations yield functions?! THIS IS AN OUTRAGE.

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 18:41:19 2011 No.2809616
File: 208 KB, 1000x1500, cutey_Emma_Leno_Ass.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

poor OP. But he's right.
sqrt(4) is 2, whereas
x^2=4 has two solutions namely
+sqrt(4) and -sqrt(4)

If sqrt(4) could also be -2 then
"+sqrt(4) and -sqrt(4)"
would be pretty unneccesary.

A function from some field (like R) to another field (like R) always has only one value. Otherwhise is would map to some module space (or vector field)

like

f(4)=(+sqrt(4),-sqrt(4))=(2,-2)

Of coursel

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 18:43:19 2011 No.2809631
File: 1.01 MB, 1231x1650, cutey_EmmaRed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>1) Find some concept where any definition has certain setbacks.
>Examples:
>Definition of decimal expansions
>Definition of square roots
>Definition of 0^0, 0!, or any empty product
>Definition of log on the complex plane

>.<

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 18:43:19 2011 No.2809632 File: 1.11 MB, 1212x1615, 20100523100657!Andrew_wiles1-3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2809005 WHAT'S THIS FUCKER SAYING ABOUT US?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 18:45:19 2011 No.2809644 >>2809598 Better to have \sqrt{x} be a function. If you want the operation "return all real numbers which when squared yield the argument," you can use \pm sqrt{x}.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 18:45:19 2011 No.2809647 >>2809631 0! is easily defined. n! = n(n-1)! (n-1)! = n!/n n=1: (1-1)! = 1!/1 0! = 1 Q.E.D. protip: it's the same way they first defined negative powers.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 18:46:19 2011 No.2809654 File: 20 KB, 481x599, sir_isaac_newton_1702.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2809632 IS HE SLAGGING US OFF?

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 18:48:19 2011 No.2809662

>>2809536
>>2809536
there is absolute ZERO downside to making the square root symbol into an automorphism of the multiplicative group of positive reals.

It's the high school fucktards who have yet to learn what a function is that make these threads appear like troll threads.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 18:49:19 2011 No.2809667 File: 35 KB, 672x751, swh1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2809654 WHO THE FUCK DOES HE THINK HE IS?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 18:51:19 2011 No.2809673 To confuse things a bit more : -2 and 2 are the second roots of 4 2 is the square root of 4.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 18:52:19 2011 No.2809683 File: 72 KB, 363x430, CharlesBabbage.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2809667 THIS TWAT CAN'T HOLD SHIT TO US!

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 18:52:19 2011 No.2809684 To confuse things a bit more : -2 and 2 are the second roots of 4 2 is the square root of 4. But I disagree with OP statement : I believe many Frenchmen would do the same.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 18:54:19 2011 No.2809694 File: 43 KB, 435x533, 4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2809683 FUCKING GET HIM CHARLES!

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 18:54:19 2011 No.2809701
File: 39 KB, 700x535, 1280801196630.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Number of times France has beaten Britain in the IMO since hte year 2000: 1
Number of times France has beaten Britain in the IMO since the year 2000: 10

Average rank for French teams in the IMO since the year 2000: 31.9
Average rank for British teams in the IMO since the year 2000: 21.5

Why don't you and your countrymen stick to painting and growing vegetables, eh froggy?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 18:56:19 2011 No.2809709 >Number of times France has beaten Britain in the IMO since hte >year 2000: 1 >Number of times France has beaten Britain in the IMO since the >year 2000: 10 Englishfags : so good at math they count is Z/9Z

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 18:57:19 2011 No.2809719 File: 47 KB, 500x500, bertrand-russell.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2809694 FUCKING FROGS

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 18:57:19 2011 No.2809720
File: 106 KB, 450x360, Face_cool_Molly.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Why are English people so fucking retarded when it comes to mathematics? Frenchfag here, and I've seen how they teach mathematics over there, it's all fucked up in the ass, you don't understand shit about how stuff works. For example, I've seen English people write faggotry like this: \sqrt{4}=\pm 2. Seriously go hang yourself brits.

>>2809684
>But I disagree with OP statement : I believe many Frenchmen would do the same.

>implying OP was implying a statement about Frenchmen.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 18:57:19 2011 No.2809721 OP, t'es ingé ? En tant que normalien je peux te dire que les seuls matheux qui savent ce qu'ils font, ce sont les asiatiques ou les russes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 18:57:19 2011 No.2809723 >>2809709 0/-8

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 18:58:19 2011 No.2809726 >>2809701 >Number of times Britain has beaten France in the IMO since the year 2000: 10 Fixed

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:00:19 2011 No.2809742 >>2809723 9/1

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:01:19 2011 No.2809749 >>2809721 >>2809719 >>2809694 >>2809683 >>2809667 >>2809654 >>2809632 would like words with you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:01:19 2011 No.2809752 France has the most Fields medalists.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:01:19 2011 No.2809753 >>2809721 not OP Normalien en socio ? en anglais ? A quel niveau ce sont les seuls ?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:02:19 2011 No.2809765 >>2809753 En économie, à Ulm. Bah l'innovation et la créativité. Sont infoutus de réfléchir hors du carcan les anglo-saxons. On leur roule dessus en maths, pauvres rosbifs.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:05:19 2011 No.2809793 >>2809765 De l'éco à Ulm !? Ca s'intègre sur quoi, B/L ? Je vois vraiment d'example de ce que tu donnes (menfin, merci la prepa, les seuls étrangers qui aient jamais fait des maths un peu intenses avec moi étaient marocains)

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:05:19 2011 No.2809795 >>2809765 I don't think you've read this thread, have you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:08:19 2011 No.2809810 >>2809795 Mastermath languages only. Since typing in cyrilic or asiatic alphabets is a pain in the ass, you've got to speak french.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:08:19 2011 No.2809815 File: 28 KB, 301x356, Hardy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Fuck YOU frenchies

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:08:19 2011 No.2809816 >les anglo-saxons translator fail much?

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:09:19 2011 No.2809823

>>2809793

En effet, l'horrible BL.

J'ai rencontré un mathématicien issu de l'institut Stekhov à Ulm d'ailleurs. Les mathématiciens soviétiques, putain ça en jette. Multiplications de matrices 8x8 de tête. Itérations d'algorithmes et de la géométrie riemmanienne en discutant foot...

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:09:19 2011 No.2809828 File: 342 KB, 356x500, Cauchy0.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:10:19 2011 No.2809834 >>2809816 Going to teach me French now are you ?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:11:19 2011 No.2809842 >>2809810 I think the posts in this thread proved the English far superior to the French. Newton alone beats all French mathematicians hands down.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:11:19 2011 No.2809844 File: 31 KB, 400x533, Pierre-Simon_Laplace.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:12:19 2011 No.2809855 File: 10 KB, 300x314, Blaise_pascal.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:12:19 2011 No.2809858

>>2809823
Après ça vient sans doute de l'habitude : je sais (crois savoir) qu'en Russie, dès qu'on étudie un truc vaguement scientifique on doit se taper des monceaux de maths. France->prepa, idem. Asie S/E, je sais pas.

Sur ce, j'ai un exam de microEco demain; ingé FTW.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:12:19 2011 No.2809863 >>2809855 >>2809844 >>2809828 >laughinggirls.jpg

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:13:19 2011 No.2809866 >>2809834 No, im going to teach you to read the right hand pane of google translate properly and think "oh wait, that cant be right" before you paste it into the comment box... ...oh wait, I just did.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:13:19 2011 No.2809868 >>2809842 Pascal Descartes Galois Newton is nothing compared to them. Only Gauss is mightier.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:13:19 2011 No.2809870 File: 188 KB, 1018x660, fermat1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:14:19 2011 No.2809877 >>2809858 Microéconomie ? Infâme pseudoscience. Du gros n'importe quoi quand même. Heureusement la neuro-économie va enterrer cette branche pour de bon.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:14:19 2011 No.2809879 File: 215 KB, 793x1024, galois1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:14:19 2011 No.2809884 File: 33 KB, 711x813, Fourier2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:15:19 2011 No.2809887 >>2809868 nigga you just went full retard

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:15:19 2011 No.2809892 >>2809866 "Anglo-saxons" is the word used to describe Commonwealth + USA. Whether you like it or not, I don't give a shit. I'm French, you're not.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:16:19 2011 No.2809898 >>2809842 Google: "Cauchy's theorem" 59600 answers "Newton's theorem" 4910 ("Gauss's theorem" 25700). Newton is far more known as a physicist.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:16:19 2011 No.2809899 >>2809877 HEY GUYS, LOOK HOW COOL I AM, IM PRETENDING TO SPEAK A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE :)))))))

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:16:19 2011 No.2809900 >>2809887 Go cry some more. Newton is the poor man's Leibniz.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:17:19 2011 No.2809910 >>2809899 Really? Inferiority complex because you only know English? How sad.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:17:19 2011 No.2809912 >>2809900 >>2809898 >Implying physics doesn't consist of a shitload of maths.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:18:19 2011 No.2809924 File: 8 KB, 192x260, henri_poincare.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:18:19 2011 No.2809928 >>2809912 At that time, no. It's radically different today. Newton ==> F = M x A Wow, that's hard.

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:18:19 2011 No.2809929

>>2809877

Bah c'est sûr que c'est un peu "je fais des hypothèses idéeales" mais dans la mesure où c'est plus une ontro à la vraie économie qu'autre chose c'est sympa.
Et perso c'est surtout les maths derrière (enfin, le fait de construire une théroie) que je trouves kiffantes, un peu de théorie des jeux par dessus et ce serait le top.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:19:19 2011 No.2809940 >>2809928 >Implying Newton wasn't a professor of mathematics.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:19:19 2011 No.2809943 File: 4 KB, 109x160, adrien-marie_legendre.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:20:19 2011 No.2809945 >>2809912 Implying Newton's physics has math in it. Laplacian mechanics, on the other hand....

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:20:19 2011 No.2809947 >>2809924 Already been done. The load posted above trash your shit.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:21:19 2011 No.2809954 >>2809945 read >>2809940

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:22:19 2011 No.2809967 >>2809954 So what ? Dirac was a mathematician, so far I've only hear of him in engineering/physics.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:22:19 2011 No.2809972 >>2809929 C'est de la masturbation intellectuelle. Tant que tu prétends pas que ça ait une quelconque utilité, pas de problèmes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:24:19 2011 No.2809988 >>2809967 >Implying he wasn't a great mathematician.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:24:19 2011 No.2809989 >>2809954 So what ? He wasn't a great mathematician. He was a physicist. Adam Smith was a professor of moral philosophy, but he invented classical economics.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:25:19 2011 No.2809999 >>2809972 Cela dit ça a vraiment été utilisé historiquement(CPP et monopole) ou il y a eu des correctifs un peu plus réaliste qui on tout de suite été appliqué ? Neuro-eco c'est quoi, l'étude des choix de cons ?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:25:19 2011 No.2810003 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:French_mathematicians gives 348 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:English_mathematicians gives 281 and this is on the english language version of wikipedia!

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:25:19 2011 No.2810006 >>2809999 Cons=consommateurs, obviously

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:26:19 2011 No.2810012 >>2809989 Even if I concede that, >>2809632 solved what's considered the hardest maths problem ever posed.

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:26:19 2011 No.2810013

Why are French people so fucking cowardly when it comes to war? Scotlandfag here, and I've seen how they teach warfare over there, it's all fucked up in the ass, you don't understand shit about how war works.

For example, I've seen French people write faggotry like this: "Holy shit our neighbours have crossed the border, better retreat incompetently now and surrender so that Britain can fight the rest of our rear guard action for us" . Seriously go hang yourself France.

Fixed it for you op.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:26:19 2011 No.2810016 >>2810006 >obviously You're not French, are you

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:28:19 2011 No.2810030

>>2809999

Ouais. Une prof de l'INSEAD a fait un cours au collège de France sur la neuro-éco en utilisant une barre de chocolat.

Bernard Guerrien, prof de micro-éco à Paris I a un site internet très marrant sur l'inutilité de la micro-éco.

Et oui la CPP a été utilisée par Walras & co. Seulement, la lourdeur des axiomes diminue la force du truc forcément.

Aujourd'hui, à part de la masturbation sur des délires tangents aux équilibres de Nash, y a rien quoi en micro-éco.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:28:19 2011 No.2810031 File: 11 KB, 273x326, Lebesgue_2..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:28:19 2011 No.2810035 >>2810003 >Implying the English consider mediocre mathematicians worthy of that list. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cambridge_mathematicians alone to get a good idea of how many English mathematicians there really are.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:29:19 2011 No.2810042 >>2809945 >implying Newton didn't invent fucking Calculus to describe elliptical orbits.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:29:19 2011 No.2810049 >>2810012 Perelman is more hardcore IMHO. But Fermat was a nice thing yes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:30:19 2011 No.2810055 >>2810042 No, that was Leibniz and Euler.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:31:19 2011 No.2810068 File: 251 KB, 1169x1371, napoleon4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2810013 world's greatest general

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:31:19 2011 No.2810071 >>2810055 >Implying he didn't invent it first, whereas Leibniz merely had a better notation.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:32:19 2011 No.2810080 >>2810013 "Why won't we die while the english escape" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_evacuation

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:33:19 2011 No.2810083 >>2810071 Nope.exe

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:34:19 2011 No.2810096

>>2810035
the photos here i think show that many many of the names you come across while learning maths are french

basically the english had a dreadful period between newton and hardy, that's 200 years wasted.

though they've caught up since

britfag, btw

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:35:19 2011 No.2810109 >Implying Lebesgue didn't create ultimate integral. But I must admit, I've always been very impressed by Taylor's work.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:36:19 2011 No.2810111 File: 1.05 MB, 1117x1466, Sir_Arthur_Wellesley_Duke_of_Wellington.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2810068 THIS MAN WOULD LIKE A WORD WITH YOU.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:37:19 2011 No.2810120 >>2810083 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus#Modern Yes.jpg

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:37:19 2011 No.2810127 >>2810111 No, seriously, don't even try. Napoleon belongs with Hannibal, Alexander the Great and Gengis Khan. Your best shot is William Wallace.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:38:19 2011 No.2810133 >>2810120 > English wikipedia > Objective

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:38:19 2011 No.2810140 >>2810127 best shot is duke of marlborough

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:38:19 2011 No.2810142 ITT: The British invent stuff and foreigners improve it. This is nothing new for the British.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:39:19 2011 No.2810144 File: 19 KB, 460x288, alan-partridge460_795711c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2810127 >mfw napoleon was italian

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:40:19 2011 No.2810151 >>2810144 If Napoleon is Italian, Wellington is French, England being a French colony.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:40:19 2011 No.2810152 >>2810127 >Implying Wellington didn't walk over Napoleon. >Implying Wellington wouldn't have walked over Europe if he'd tried.

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:41:19 2011 No.2810161
File: 55 KB, 474x764, britannia_yellow.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2810068

it's funny because under his leadership the french were fucking raped by the english on land and sea. we simultaneously defeated the world's 2 greatest powers in 1 go because we are bad ass motherfuckers.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:41:19 2011 No.2810163 >>2810133 HAHAHAHA OOOOH GOD YOU'RE CALLING THE RACE CARD? Don't make me laugh. You do realise that most of that is written by Americans anyway?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:41:19 2011 No.2810174 >>2810144 Millitary educated in France.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:42:19 2011 No.2810177 >>2810152 He was a mediocre tactican. Quit being so deluded. The only general up to Napoleon's level in the same era was Suvorov, but he died in 1799. captcha : Poincaré nice

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:42:19 2011 No.2810182

>>2810151

oh i see, you think franks and normans are the same thing. ok, carry on being retarded as long as you stay your side of the channel.

on a more serious note can you please nuke all the immigrants hanging around calais waiting to hitch a ride out of your shithole to the land of opportunity? thanks bro.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:42:19 2011 No.2810183 >>2810152 he beat a last gasp post-exile napolean with a huge alliance. i'm british, but know it is retarded to call wellington the better general

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:42:19 2011 No.2810184

>>2810151

Nah, the reason Napoleon was Italian is because he was born on an island which spoke Italian, and was born into an Italian noble family. Nothing to do with who ruled what. By the way, the Normans spoke French and lived in what is now Northern France, but were actually Scandinavians.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:42:19 2011 No.2810185 >>2810151 Norman, in fact. At the time of the Norman invasion Normandy was not part of France. nicetry.exe

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:43:19 2011 No.2810193 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimalrechnung#Geschichte_der_Infinitesimalrechnung

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:44:19 2011 No.2810199

>>2810161

Napoleon never set foot on a warship. He knew he had shitty admirals and asked his own man to step down and let the Spanish do the planning. Vice-admiral Shithead refused and got everyone killed.

That's Trafalgar. You never beat Napoleon, never will. France just had limits : shitty admirals.

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:45:19 2011 No.2810204

when the objective of war is to win, is the better general the man who wins or the man who accumulates the most objective "style points"?

if you go for the person who wins then obviously napolean is only 2nd best. calling him the better general is like saying arsenal are the best team in the world because although they don't win everything people enjoy watching them play. meanwhile manchester united continue to accumulate trophies.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:45:19 2011 No.2810206 >>2810185 But it was afterwards. And the Normans spoke French. Evidence of that ? Meat, aka food for the rich are all French words in English. Pork = Porc Beef = Boeuf I was just replying to a strawman by a strawman. etc.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:46:19 2011 No.2810208 >>2810199 >never beat napolean ahem, waterloo, cough cough

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:46:19 2011 No.2810210 >>2810206 Just because someone speaks French it doesn't make them French. The Normans were Scandinavian. Deal with it bro.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:46:19 2011 No.2810214 >>2810204 What the fuck man ? Napoleon won shitloads of battles. You don't get recognized as a living legend with flashy tactics.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:47:19 2011 No.2810219 All I have to say is this, Einstein!

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:47:19 2011 No.2810220 BTW : did you know that their has been a contreversy between Descates and Fermat to know who invented the derivative ? 50 years before Newotn.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:47:19 2011 No.2810221 >>2810199 NEVER BEAT NAPOLEON? RIGHT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo Even the Germans were fucking impressed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellington's_Victory

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:48:19 2011 No.2810227 >>2810204 not really the better general may be beaten by sheer weight of numbers germany in WW2 had dozens of amazing generals, the allies had maybe two in the european theatre who were as good. but the germans lost.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:49:19 2011 No.2810230 >>2810199 >Napoleon never set foot on a warship Yeah he went to Egypt by Turkey.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:49:19 2011 No.2810231 Napoleon got his butt kicked by russia!

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:49:19 2011 No.2810232

>>2810199

in that case he knew he was ultimately doomed to failure and everything he did was for self-glorification. if france never had a reasonable chance of defeating the royal navy even combined with the might of spain then they would never have been able to achieve anything in any case. oh and then he marched in russia in winter. great general? idontthinkso.

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:49:19 2011 No.2810234

>>2810208

Coalition of 6 countries, and casualties were the same on both sides.

It just wasn't a victory. A draw was all it took to defeat Napoleon since he didn't have anything left at this point.

Waterloo is a pathetic stalemate you have to herald as a victory because the English suck at war.

The Germans don't even recall participating in Waterloo, they have actual battles to draw from.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:50:19 2011 No.2810239 >>2810227 >Implying the Allies outnumbered the Germans on the Western Front before 1944.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:50:19 2011 No.2810240 >>2810234 >suck at war >rule the world

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:52:19 2011 No.2810254

>>2810232

Military academies around the world have 90% of their curriculum about Napoleon's battles, but yeah it's just shitty tactics.

Napoleon went for broke since he knew England was the key to winning all of it. He took his chance. Lost due to shitty vice-admiral. Shit happens.

What happened during the Russian campaign is not clear. Some say he lost his mind.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:52:19 2011 No.2810255 >>2810234 hey remember montgomerey, from wwII, what a fucking ass hat.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:52:19 2011 No.2810257 >>2810234 agincourt crecy blenheim

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:52:19 2011 No.2810262 >>2810234 What is this German empire you speak of?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:53:19 2011 No.2810272 >>2810240 Yeah. It's called being a trade empire, like the Dutch (united provinces), but better. France is not a trade empire, our geography wasn't made for this. We aren't protected by the sea. Why are you so stupid?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:53:19 2011 No.2810273 >>2810239 there was no western from from 1940 -1944 so idk what this post even means it is indisputable that germany had better generals than anyone else and lost the war

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:54:19 2011 No.2810278

>>2810234

i don't think you can be serious in your claim that the british suck at war considering that we are demonstrably the greatest conquerers in the whole of human history.

i'm not belittling france, you guys had a good run, but nothing can compare to the greatness of the british empire.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:54:19 2011 No.2810284 >>2810273 Zhukov was the brighest general alive during WW2.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:55:19 2011 No.2810291 >>2810272 since when did having a trade empire make it not an empire?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:55:19 2011 No.2810292 >>2810273 NO NOT AT ALL. THE ENGLISH CHANNEL JUST DIDN'T EXIST.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:55:19 2011 No.2810293 >>2810255 monty was a pretty shit general i'm british, but it is true william slim was best WW" british general

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:56:19 2011 No.2810304

>>2810278

You legitimately suck at war. You're not a nation of warriors, but a nation of merchants.

To each their own. Just don't pretend to be better than us at our game. French people make shitty businessmen, we never denied it.

You're alone on a fucking Island and you never managed a good foothold in Europe. Speaks volume about how much you suck.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:56:19 2011 No.2810308 >>2810272 Of course not. It was totally impossible for you to colonise. You have no coastline, so you definitely would not be able to maintain a trade empire.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:57:19 2011 No.2810312 >>2810291 Never said that. A trade empire is just a type of empire that does not rely on warfare. Therefore, don't go bragging about warfare.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:57:19 2011 No.2810314 >>2810284 he was the only one who was as good as the german generals, maybe chiukov, patten too macarthur was obviously, but different theatre

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:57:19 2011 No.2810316 >>2810304 Never managed a good foothold in Europe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splendid_isolation

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:58:19 2011 No.2810329 >>2810308 Borders, do you know what they are ? Spain, Germany, Holland, Italy, Switzerland. 5 countries ready to claw away at your territory if we devote our resources towards a navy rather than a ground force. Are you really that stupid?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:58:19 2011 No.2810330 >>2810304 And that's why the Royal Navy was the largest and most powerful navy in the world for 200 years.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:58:19 2011 No.2810332 >>2810304 you forget the hundred years war

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:58:19 2011 No.2810333

>>2810013
Samefag here. F5ed after 10 mins.

Successful troll has successfully managed to derail the fuck out of this troll thread. Marks out of 10 for the scale of this shitstorm?

Conclusions: the English and the French are insecure about the tactical performance of a few guys who have been dead for centuries.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:58:19 2011 No.2810334 >>2810304 Yeah... it's called Hannover Also it does require warfare, India didn't just get traded to death. By the way, controlling India was much more impressive than taking some of mainland Europe.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:59:19 2011 No.2810341 >>2810316 Yeah, they stopped trying eventually. Never were good at it to begin with.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 19:59:19 2011 No.2810346 Americans are demonstrably the greatest conquerors in the whole of human history

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:00:19 2011 No.2810348 >>2810329 >Implying you need a large navy to colonise. >Implying that is why Britain had a large navy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:00:19 2011 No.2810354 >>2810330 Totally irrelevant. It's just a way to secure trade routes for the British.

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:01:19 2011 No.2810357

>>2810304

we are anglo-saxon conquerers, we are viking conquerors, we are norman conquerors, we are the fearsome warriors of north, the untameable picts, the wild scots, we are the scourge of the world. you think we aren't warriors? you have your head in the sand.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:01:19 2011 No.2810360 >>2810304 >never managed a good foothold in Europe. still have one Gibraltar

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:01:19 2011 No.2810362 >>2810334 At least we didn't massacre them (much), unlike the French in French Indochina.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:02:19 2011 No.2810368 >>2810348 Yeah, we need a large navy to destroy the English navy and re-colonize England. It's been the main problem in French politics for the last 800 years. Ever heard of "Perfidious Albion" ?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:02:19 2011 No.2810371 >>2810354 >totally irrelevant lol. nope. u mad?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:02:19 2011 No.2810378 >mfw I enter this thread and see someone trying to brag about French "victories" >mfw Napoleon was Italian, therefore Italian victories.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:02:19 2011 No.2810379 >>2810346 >laughinggirls.jpg If America and Britain were both at their heights and an equivalent technological level, America would get destroyed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:03:19 2011 No.2810384 >>2810371 The English navy is a dissuasion force used to secure trade routes. Not a war machine. If you don't know what your own country is about, I have no hope for you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:04:19 2011 No.2810394 >>2810379 well, when america was just a few settlers, who won?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:04:19 2011 No.2810395 >>2810354 No, it was to defend itself from European threats. The large navy just happened to come in useful in colonising, but was not entirely necessary.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:04:19 2011 No.2810396 >>2810379 Independance war. Britain got raped.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:04:19 2011 No.2810398 >>2810394 France. I think we've come full circle with this.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:06:19 2011 No.2810407 >>2810394 >Implying Britain was at its height. >Implying America wasn't helped by the French. >Implying Britain wasn't already distracted. >Implying Britain didn't just happen to take retarded strategies in that one instance.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:07:19 2011 No.2810411 >getting mad over semantics in mathematics Square roots are always positive but you almost always have to put +/- in front of it. Otherwise (4-5/2)^2 = (5-5/2)^2 sqrt both sides 4 - 5/2 = 5 - 5/2 +5/2 4 = 5

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:07:19 2011 No.2810412 >>2810407 Occam's razor. Simplest explanation is this : you suck.

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:07:19 2011 No.2810413

>>2810384
sure

jutland never happened

quiberon bat never happened

spanish armada never happened

taranto never happened

battle of the nile never happened

i guess you imagine the royal navy sucures trade routes by looking pretty

battle of atlantic never happened

sluys never happened

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:07:19 2011 No.2810415 File: 621 KB, 250x187, l 1276703769986.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >mfw france is so shitty it's on its third or fourth republic due to its shittiness

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:08:19 2011 No.2810426 >>2810415 Fifth Republic. England is still a monarchy with a State religion. Guess who is more advanced?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:09:19 2011 No.2810429 >>2810412 >Implying that was a legitimate answer to me blowing you out of the water.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:09:19 2011 No.2810430 >>2810407 >implying britain didn't also lose the war of 1812 haha fucker, uk is shit tier war

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:09:19 2011 No.2810434 >>2810413 Literally nothing over such a large period of time. You just needed a few skirmishes for dissuasion to work.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:10:19 2011 No.2810441 >>2810395 i guess the dreadnought class battleship didn't actally render every other battleship obsolete really, you are being fucking stupid uk sucks at land warfare, but was perhaps the greatest naval nation ever historically.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:10:19 2011 No.2810444 >>2810429 I didn't even bring up the independance war myself. Regardless, the English got raped.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:10:19 2011 No.2810448 >>2810411 >>2810411 those two numbers weren't even equivalent in the first place. derp

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:11:19 2011 No.2810450 File: 126 KB, 450x373, nujwfr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2810426 even shittier than i expected, and not even surprised

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:11:19 2011 No.2810456 >>2810430 >Implying it did lose. America lost twice as many men with a smaller initial force. >Once again implying Britain wasn't concerned with France for the vast majority.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:11:19 2011 No.2810462 >>2810450 So a monarch who derives his/her powers from an imaginary invisible friend is somewhat better?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:12:19 2011 No.2810466 >>2810434 >clutching at straws battle of the atlantic was dissuasion? jutland wasn't part of a four year blockade made possible by crushing superiority at arms? herpity derpity

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:13:19 2011 No.2810479 >>2810444 For reasons I already explained. OH WAIT YOU'RE AMERICAN. >HURR DURR LOGICAL FALLACIES WHILST I IGNORE VALID REFUTATIONS

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:13:19 2011 No.2810480 >>2810448 >>2810448 I herped derped (4-9/2)^2 = (5-9/2)^2

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:13:19 2011 No.2810481 >>2810466 You do know you lost at Jutland right?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:14:19 2011 No.2810488 >>2810434 >Implying they don't show it could get its shit together if needed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:14:19 2011 No.2810492 >>2810479 Not American. Not even close. Thou furious?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:14:19 2011 No.2810496 >>2810441 I'm not disputing this. I was just refuting whatever that retarded frog said/

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:14:19 2011 No.2810497 >>2810384 >not a war machine nope i'm american, and uk had the best navy in the world from maybe 1600s up until 1930s that sure is a long time

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:15:19 2011 No.2810500 >>2810496 umad?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:15:19 2011 No.2810502 >>2810492 >Implying that rebuts my point.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:16:19 2011 No.2810507 no other country on earth has EVER wielded the power America has, not to mention we have NEVER lost a war, unlike the UK who got their ass kicked by America.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:16:19 2011 No.2810508 >>2810497 Having the best navy doesn't mean it's a war machine. It's used to secure business interests. Nothing else.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:16:19 2011 No.2810510 hey remember that time in the last 50 years when uk did anything noteworthy, military, science, economic, anything? yep, me neither. oh wait, house and gordon ramsey.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:16:19 2011 No.2810511 >>2810500 Hello EK. I guess this confirms you are British then.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:16:19 2011 No.2810514 >>2810502 You didn't have a point to begin with. Therefore it's self-rebutted.

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:16:19 2011 No.2810516

>>2810481
>lost at jutland

HAHAHAHAHAHA

it was indecisive tactically. a draw.

but germany never ventured out of port again.

so strategically it was a result

and the blockade eventually won the war as germany collapsed in 1918

can't tell if troll or stupid

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:17:19 2011 No.2810519 File: 204 KB, 383x352, not this thread again.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Thread arguing about petty differences in notation of mathematical concepts >198 posts and 29 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view. >mfw

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:17:19 2011 No.2810522 >>2810511 Not EK. I wish I had boobs to play though however.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:17:19 2011 No.2810524 >>2810507 >NEVER lost a war. Vietnam

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:18:19 2011 No.2810529 >>2810507 >Vietnam >USA gets anally raped by some villagers using AK-47s

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:19:19 2011 No.2810534 >>2810508 well, now you are just being silly it secured business interests by being the best war machine.

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:19:19 2011 No.2810535

>>2810516

Given how many more resources you dedicated to it than Germany, I'd say you lost.

Plus Germany isn't a naval nation like you, so it's even more humiliating.

The German navy was just a secondary element for them, and it raped you.

No excuse, sorry.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:19:19 2011 No.2810536 >>2810510 >Implying one of the best mathematicians and the best theoretical physicist around at the moment aren't both British.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:20:19 2011 No.2810542 >>2810507 You got your arses kicked by canada in1812

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:20:19 2011 No.2810543 >>2810535 >Implying how much effort you put into something is relevant.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:20:19 2011 No.2810545 >>2810534 Fear machine, not war machine. A war machine doesn't intimidate. It kills to conquer. The English are not conquerors, they are businessmen. It's not bad you know, just accept your differences. It obviously worked out well.

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:20:19 2011 No.2810548

NO other country has ever wielded the power the United states has, not to mention we have never ever lost a war and have saved MANY countries from starving and from speaking German twice! England got their ass kicked by a bunch of American farm hands too!

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:20:19 2011 No.2810551 >>2810535 If Germany won then why did the blockade of German ports continue?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:21:19 2011 No.2810558 >>2810543 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhus_of_Epirus That's what he thought. Turns out he was wrong.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:21:19 2011 No.2810563 >>2810545 Why fight a war when you don't have to? It sounds like Britain were the more intelligent faction in the past if what you say is correct.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:22:19 2011 No.2810575 >>2810548 Stop repeating yourself. You're talking shit and you know it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:22:19 2011 No.2810576 war of 1812 was a stale mate, canada just likes to THINK they won!

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:22:19 2011 No.2810577 >>2810535 troll or tard you choose

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:22:19 2011 No.2810579 >>2810551 Because Germany fights on the ground. They're not a naval empire. They don't give a fuck. Inflicting heavy losses with few resources is a victory in and of itself. The main opponent was France. England is just a cameo in WW1.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:23:19 2011 No.2810585 >>2810536 Well, this is true. One of the best mathematician at the moment is not British.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:23:19 2011 No.2810588 >>2810577 See >>2810558

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:24:19 2011 No.2810594 >>2810579 Please look at forces pledged. Look who is in second place behind Russia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:24:19 2011 No.2810596 >>2810536 According to the laws of reality, brilliant physicists are German. Sorry.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:25:19 2011 No.2810598 >>2810579 A victory which got them absolutely nowhere? If they won then why was there absolutely no change? Why did the blockade continue if Germany won?

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:25:19 2011 No.2810603

>>2810535
>secondary element

nope

build up to 1914 was the one time when germany decided to be a major naval power

the naval arms race was intense

germany blooded britain's nose, but then fled

if that is raping, well, i guess you are just trollling

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:26:19 2011 No.2810609 >>2810529 Don't even bother, more than half of America's population genuinely believe they won that war.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:26:19 2011 No.2810610 >>2810598 A has 50 dollars. B has 100 dollars. A loses 40 dollars, B loses 90 dollars. Both have 10 dollars; but A won.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:26:19 2011 No.2810612 german uboats were one of the most feared in the seas, they were very naval!

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:27:19 2011 No.2810622 germany was kicking British ASS badly!

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:27:19 2011 No.2810624 Russia clearly had the best military. Kicked Germany's ass in WWII, and held a huge amount of land. The puny Europeans couldn't hold a candle to glorious mother Russia.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:27:19 2011 No.2810626 >>2810594 > Pledge your entire able-bodied population. > Send 50 guys to France. Seriously...

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:28:19 2011 No.2810627

>>2810579
>>2810579
the blockade was what caused germany's collapse and defeat

and you are wrong about germany not giving a fuck about the navy

they had better ships, though fewer, and were empire building in africa. they were an emerging major player naval wise, until jutland

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:28:19 2011 No.2810629 >>2810610 >Implying the British were the stronger force. >Implying the British lost more than the Germans. >Implying the British weren't the rulers of the seas after the German loss.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:28:19 2011 No.2810633 >>2810624 Yeah, Napoleon recognized Suvorov has a role model. Russians are very tough.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:30:19 2011 No.2810643 >>2810626 What the shit are you on about?

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:30:19 2011 No.2810644

>>2810610

No. Both have 10 dollars, so it is a draw with a wider tactical advantage for A. In reality Britain didn't lose, because the German blockade continued.

A has 100 dollars
B has 90 dollars
A loses 50 dollars, B loses 40 dollars. B continues to lose 2 dollars a day.

A wins.

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:30:19 2011 No.2810647

>>2810629
>>2810627

Germany isn't on a island. It was never a naval power, and it never reallistically tried to.

It just wanted to conquer England.

Funny how you think a side pet project by Germany destroyed most of England's might, and yet the latter call it a victory. It's like a random dude matching Usain Bolt and Bolt saying he's proud of himself.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:30:19 2011 No.2810650 >>2810610 more like B loses 60 dollars and A runs away never to come back but the argument was about whether the royal navy is a real fighting force, or just some weird, can't fight but still somehow secures sea lanes force

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:31:19 2011 No.2810656 >>2810643 Britain barely participated on the ground in WW1.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:32:19 2011 No.2810662 How can a navy secure trade lanes and yet not be able to fight? Not sure where I read that retard argument in this thread. But it made no sense, and you should kill yourself whoever you are.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:32:19 2011 No.2810665 >>2810647 Destroyed England's might? They lost the arms race, lost the Battle of the Atlantic and lost the war.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:32:19 2011 No.2810668 >>2810647 keep saying it, maybe it becomes true for you germany wanted a world empire and the navy to support it

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:32:19 2011 No.2810670 >>2810650 Of course it can fight, never said it couldn't. I just said it wasn't its purpose. It's a trade empire for a reason. It wants trade. How do you trade with corpses ?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:33:19 2011 No.2810671 File: 5 KB, 225x225, undefined.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2810656 >mfw Britain contributed more men to the war than every other nation except Russia

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:33:19 2011 No.2810674 >>2810650 I think you're getting confused as to who is A and who is B. I think I'm right in saying you both think Britain won.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:34:19 2011 No.2810678 >>2810670 Of course it was to fight. If a navy cannot fight then it hasn't got a purpose. A navy which cannot fight won't be able to secure trade lanes. You're retarded.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:34:19 2011 No.2810680 >>2810665 Yep, an amateur not quite surpassing an established naval empire in a few years. The fact that England was threatened is a loss in and of itself.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:34:19 2011 No.2810683 >>2810647 You think Germany is a land-locked country. What kind of retardation were you diagnosed with?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:34:19 2011 No.2810684 >>2810671 and Germany.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:34:19 2011 No.2810685 >>2810674 No, I think it was a draw, but a tactical loss for Germany as the blockade continued. Quite simple really.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:35:19 2011 No.2810687 >>2810671 No they didn't.

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:35:19 2011 No.2810690

>>2810647
>destroyed most of England's might

both forces lost a fraction of their might, then germany ran away.

srsly, a few cruisers and battle cruisers where lost on either side

when there were like 40+ battleships in the fight

so i guess you've proved yourself to know nothing

again

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:36:19 2011 No.2810699 >>2810683 I was born with eyesight. On maps, I can read words like "Poland", "France", "Austria". Germany is landlocked, unless it manages to kill off all of Europe.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:36:19 2011 No.2810700 >>2810670 >never said it couldn't >backpedalling perhaps you should read the thread back

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:37:19 2011 No.2810705 File: 106 KB, 479x356, 234234324.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:37:19 2011 No.2810707 >>2810687 They contributed the 3rd most amount of men. They still contributed more than France, which was what the argument was about. Some idiot said that France was the main opponent, with Britain being only a side problem.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:37:19 2011 No.2810708 >>2810690 Lost quite many ships and thousands of deaths. It's a tactical draw, but a strategic loss. It's like emptying 100 magazines to kill a rabbit. It's dead, but you lost.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:38:19 2011 No.2810714 >>2810680 >troll why u so mad?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:38:19 2011 No.2810715 >>2810699 I don't think landlocked means what you think it means.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:39:19 2011 No.2810719 >>2810700 Perhaps you should read my replies.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:39:19 2011 No.2810720 >>2810707 They pledged a lot of men. They sent little. France lost far more men than all the Commonwealth combined + the US

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:40:19 2011 No.2810728 >>2810715 It means what I decide it means. In warfare, Germany is landlocked. It has far too many borders to even consider discarding the ground threats. It shouldn't even consider naval warfare.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:40:19 2011 No.2810729 >>2810708 >thinks continuing the blockade is a strategic loss >thinks german navy of 1916 was a rabbit >thinks less than 10% loss is many ships planet retarded

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:41:19 2011 No.2810738 >>2810720 I don't think you're interpreting the word "pledged" correctly in this context. I mean that more British took part in the military conflict than did French.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:41:19 2011 No.2810742 >>2810699 >doesn't know what landlocked means

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:42:19 2011 No.2810745 >>2810728 >It means what I decide it means. I decide I win. amidoinitrite?

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:42:19 2011 No.2810748

>>2810699

Does your retardation not allow you to see bodies of water like North Sea and Baltic sea? Or does your retardation not allow you to see the words on the map. Or does your retardation allow you to see the words and not understand them? Or does your retardation not allow you to nuderstand that the North Sea is adjacent to the Alantic ocean?

Your retardation is more interesting than any of the retarded things you say.

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:42:19 2011 No.2810750

>>2810729

The continued the blockade because they couldn't invade. Which is a victory. Preventing land invasion was the sole purpose or Jutland.

That's what the Schlieffen manoeuver is all about : reinforcing the eastern flank. Not attacking by the eastern flank.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:43:19 2011 No.2810756 >>2810728 >It means what I decide it means. yes, i think this is your problem history is what you decide it is i'm thinking probably aspergers

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:43:19 2011 No.2810767 >>2810748 > No arguments left. > Uses 280948904 times the word retarded in a shitty tl;dr paragraph to make up for it. Thank god you're not a general. You don't understand anything about geostrategy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:44:19 2011 No.2810769 >>2810750 >Preventing land invasion was the sole purpose of Jutland. you are just soooo stupid

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:44:19 2011 No.2810772 >>2810756 I thought you English were big on interpretation, you know, Common Law and all. Schizophrenia then ?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:45:19 2011 No.2810773 >>2810750 >Implying they were unable to invade.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:45:19 2011 No.2810778 >>2810769 > No arguments left. > Let's throw around insults.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:45:19 2011 No.2810780 >>2810767 not that guy but you have pretty much proved you are dumb by that jutland wasn't about the blockade claim

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:46:19 2011 No.2810782 >>2810767 Several people have already brought this point up. Singling out one for an irrelevant point, ironically, means you're falling prey to your own derision.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:46:19 2011 No.2810784 >this thread gotta love /sci/

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:46:19 2011 No.2810785 >>2810772 I don't think you understand the English language.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:46:19 2011 No.2810786 >>2810773 Obviously were unable to do so : the Kaiserliche Marine held them at bay.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:47:19 2011 No.2810794 >>2810785 I have a far better grasp on this language than you ever will.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:48:19 2011 No.2810801 >>2810778 Is that your only argument left? You have been repeatedly shown to be wrong. I think people now have the right to insult you because you refuse to change your tune.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:48:19 2011 No.2810802 >>2810778 it's true, there are no arguments against someone such as yourself. someone who is wrong, and remains wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:48:19 2011 No.2810806 >>2810786 Confirmed for troll. I'm guessing you're German, right?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:49:19 2011 No.2810809 >>2810782 All the arguments I've had so far against me were the grumpy reassertion that German is in fact a naval country and that WW1 is a naval war. Also, Germany is an island.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:49:19 2011 No.2810810 >>2810794 You have shown yourself to misinterpret words for your own abuse. I think I'm in the stronger position here.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:50:19 2011 No.2810814 >>2810802 > I do not need arguments because you are wrong. God exists because I say so! You know we're on /sci/ right? >>2810806 Polyglot. Not quite the same.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:50:19 2011 No.2810816 >>2810786 red herring invasion was not the issue it was enforcing blockade, and preventing high sea raisers from escaping, returning to germany

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:51:19 2011 No.2810821 >>2810810 England is a Common Law system. I can interpret words like I see fit. Landlocked = locked by land. Germany is tied to Europe due to borders. It's landlocked enough in geostrategical terms. Going to cry now?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:51:19 2011 No.2810822 >>2810809 >Implying we said Germany was an island. Here is irrefutable proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_I#Anglo.E2.80.93German_naval_race

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:51:19 2011 No.2810823 >>2810671 Proving once again that Russia was superior.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:52:19 2011 No.2810825 >>2810816 Invasion was the issue. What generals say =/= what generals think.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:52:19 2011 No.2810832 >>2810814 We have shown you to be wrong. You are now going in circles.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:53:19 2011 No.2810837 >>2810822 Yes, Germany wanted to keep Britain distracted. So what ? They wanted to conquer France and not get disturbed by nuisances. A sound plan. Doesn't make them a naval country.

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:54:19 2011 No.2810843

>>2810809
>made up shit

no, the arguments were a piece by piece critique of such nonsense as

>jutland destroyed fleets

when it was really a skirmish that showed a full battle wasn't in germany's interest

>jutland wasn't about the blockade

herp derp

>britain's navy wasn't a fighting navy, oh, but actually i meant it was

i'm guessing you are underaged, and also kind of autistic

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:54:19 2011 No.2810844 >>2810821 Holy shit you are hilarious. Semantics are irrelevant anyway. Germany has a northern coastline that it considered vital for its war efforts in WWI. What can you not accept about this?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:54:19 2011 No.2810846 >>2810832 > Pretend you have proof > Disregard any argument Sure is some Schopenhauer'in in here.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:55:19 2011 No.2810851 >>2810825 >making stuff up without any evidence except my telepathic powers confirmed troll

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:56:19 2011 No.2810859

>>2810844

It's just simply untrue.
The Northern coastline was a nuisance that needed to be left unexploited by the British.

The Schlieffen manoeuver (Germany's plan for WW1) said as much, which is why the eastern flank was spiked with defensive precautions (East being England, West being Italy).

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:56:19 2011 No.2810860 >>2810846 Please, present your arguments again then. Feel free to ignore the mass of rebuttals already in this thread.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:56:19 2011 No.2810862 File: 96 KB, 556x640, napoleondino.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2810068 And yet not a single Fuck was given this day.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:57:19 2011 No.2810868 >>2810860 > (Insults)^99999999 = rebuttals

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:58:19 2011 No.2810873 >>2810859 You're forgetting about Germany's efforts in the Atlantic. There were a lot of U-Boats.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:58:19 2011 No.2810876 >>2810859 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:58:19 2011 No.2810881 >>2810859 You don't know your directions on a compass. There is no way England is east from Germany by any reasonable standards.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 20:59:19 2011 No.2810885 >>2810868 troll^99999999

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:00:19 2011 No.2810894 >>2810881 If you're a German general with your eyes set on Paris, then yes. Derp. If you don't know your way around the cardinal directions, this thread is hopeless. Their eastern flank was open to Britain.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:01:19 2011 No.2810899 >>2810868 Thanks for your arguments. Confirmed for troll.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:02:19 2011 No.2810903 >>2810894 i think you mean the right flank you don't change eat/west because the observer has rotated

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:02:19 2011 No.2810905 >>2810894 Idontthinkthatmeanswhatyouthinkitmeans

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:04:19 2011 No.2810913 >>2810894 landlocked and compass directions redefined okay, you are getting kind of funny now i guess you should redefine a battlecruiser as a battleship now

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:04:19 2011 No.2810916 >>2810905 >>2810903 In the Imperial Germany military, yes you do. Alfred von Schlieffen wrote about East and West flanks in his papers. I have read them.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:05:19 2011 No.2810920 >>2810913 It would not suit my purposes to do so. Thus, I must decline.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:06:19 2011 No.2810929 >>2810916 You're very keen on the Schlieffen plan. I don't think you actually know what it was, because it had absolutely nothing to do with the German Navy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:07:19 2011 No.2810935 >>2810916 so have i. do you know what his last words were?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:07:19 2011 No.2810937 >>2810920 Guys, he's not even hiding his trollness.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:08:19 2011 No.2810939 >>2810929 Of course it had everything to do with it. All forces are intertwined. Do you think everyone had a different plan ? I can imagine : Air force bombs target X, Navy disembarks all troops on X. All landtroops die due to friendly fire.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:09:19 2011 No.2810945 >>2810935 "Right wing" is a bad translation, indeed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:09:19 2011 No.2810948 >>2810767 Are you really that retarded that you think that a military power that has a border on a sea that is part of an ocean wouldn't have a navy? Well, you said a paragraph was too much for you to read so you might actuallbe retarded.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:10:19 2011 No.2810956 >>2810945 no, in german, do you know what his last words were?

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:11:19 2011 No.2810963

>>2810939

The Schlieffen Plan was not the overarching German warplan. It was a part of it that specifically involved taking Paris.

I'm starting to think you don't know anything about this at all and that you're regurgitating half-chewed bits of GCSE history.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:12:19 2011 No.2810971 >>2810956 Wiki says "Macht mir den rechten Flügel stark", but it's wrong.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:13:19 2011 No.2810984 >>2810971 >everyone is wrong except me troll or personality disorder

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:14:19 2011 No.2810990 >>2810963 GCSE, that's like English high school exams right?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:14:19 2011 No.2810991 >>2810971 "Keep the right flank strong." I'm pretty sure that's correct.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:15:19 2011 No.2810997 >>2810991 The quote I remember was about East. It doesn't matter in the end. Schlieffen wanted the Brits out of the picture.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:15:19 2011 No.2810999 >>2810990 English exams taken at 16. The main exams here are A-Levels, taken at 18.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:17:19 2011 No.2811006 >>2810997 >another climbdown i detect a dunning kruger fucktard

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:17:19 2011 No.2811009 >>2810999 That's what I remembered. Are 15 year old kids taught the Schlieffen plan and underlying tactics of WW1? Pretty nice if it is so.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:18:19 2011 No.2811012 >>2810997 >wanted brits out of the picture well, astounding, an adversary wanting an enemy out of the picture

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:18:19 2011 No.2811013 >>2811006 It's not a climbdown. We were arguing semantincs for fun. Right = East. The plan was to hold the Brits at bay.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:19:19 2011 No.2811016 >>2811012 And yet, you people denied this for the 150 or so last posts.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:19:19 2011 No.2811020 >>2811009 IIRC WWI is taught at 14 the herpity in this thread is, i suspect, about that age >>2811006 precisely

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:20:19 2011 No.2811026 >>2811009 It's what I did when I took it. We studied the build-up to and events of WW1, America and Germany between the wars and Britain during WW2. The Schlieffen plan along with British, French and Russian reactions were a pretty integral part.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:20:19 2011 No.2811027 >>2811020 Oh right, I understand why they get so angry then.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:21:19 2011 No.2811031 >>2811016 nope we denied your claims about what jutland was about, and what occurred there, and what east and west mean in german, and what the royal navies capabilities and function was, etc, etc,

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:22:19 2011 No.2811034 >>2811020 Which side are you on? The historical one or the Germany is landlocked and Britain is to the east one?

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:24:19 2011 No.2811047

>>2811031

What East means in a military context when looking at Paris, which was not even my main point to begin with, since East = Right regardless of semantic context.

I never said anything about the English navy capabilities, but its function is to secure trade routes, something that gets you angry somehow.

And you insist on calling Jutland a victory when it was a crushing strategic defeat because the English couldn't break through the German's defense wall for their land invasion.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:25:19 2011 No.2811054 >>2811034 > Are you with the good guys or the bad guys ? /sci/ - anything but scientific rigor.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:25:19 2011 No.2811056 >>2811047 >Implying that Jutland was a defeat because it did not lead directly to an invasion. >Implying it wasn't a tactical victory anyway.

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:25:19 2011 No.2811058

>>2811027
i think exasperated is more accurate then angry.

when people claim absurd nonsense as truth, and when the error is pointed out deny it, or shift the discussion away from their errors to other, marginally related errors not yet refuted, it can be exasperating.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:27:19 2011 No.2811071 >>2811058 Absurd nonsense, as opposed to coherent nonsense ? And I thought I was the one who couldn't write in proper English.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:29:19 2011 No.2811090 >>2811071 You are making no sense. Please refute our points if you are so right, rather than repeating your original ones (occasionally).

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:32:19 2011 No.2811112

>>2811090

No general battles on two fronts simultaneously. It's a military axiom.

Therefore, WW1 was not a naval war, because Germany made France its top priority. Hence the name "trench wars" for WW1.

The Schlieffen manoeuver further reinforces my point, as it is said that flanks are weak spots to be defensed, not to be drawn upon for offensive purposes.

But you chose to go along the "ROYAL NAVY FUCK YEA 1§1&!1§1§one1!1one" path, something I cannot refute with actual arguments.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:34:19 2011 No.2811122 >>2811112 defended*

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:35:19 2011 No.2811136

>>2811112

I'm not making the argument that the Royal Navy is what won the war or anything like that. I am making the argument that Britain made more than a side contribution to the war, as has been demonstrated many times. Without the blockade of Germany, Germany would have won the war without question.

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:35:19 2011 No.2811137

>>2811047
>What East means in a military context when looking at Paris, which was not even my main point to begin with, since East = Right regardless of semantic context.

in the military east means east, not right. and yes the german military of 1914-1918 too

>I never said anything about the English navy capabilities, but its function is to secure trade routes, something that gets you angry somehow.

this was but one of it's functions, blockade was another. and some anon, probably you, claimed it wasn't the best fighting navy in the world, when it was

>And you insist on calling Jutland a victory when it was a crushing strategic defeat because the English couldn't break through the German's defense wall for their land invasion.

this is your most glaring error and shows you know nothing about jutland. it was an attempt by the germans to attack the british piecemeal and so break the blockade.

the blockade was maintained, though it cost more to britain materially than the germans, so a costly victory. read up on it. oh i know, whatever you read will be wrong. of course it is.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:37:19 2011 No.2811147 >>2811047 >jutland was about invasion where on earth do you get this sillyness?

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:38:19 2011 No.2811153

>>2811137

I don't read wikipedia, I read military analysis.
I never said anything about the English navy's capabilities, as I do not know whether it was the best or not, something that depends entirely on the admiral and not on the sheer numbers.

Jutland was a hit and run harassment move with defensive purposes. I know, crafty tactics are hard to comprehend for you.

Cardinal points are sometimes self-referenced, like it or not. It is an old custom though, and it went away some decades ago.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:38:19 2011 No.2811154 >>2811071 as opposed to plausible nonsense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit you aren't even that

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:39:19 2011 No.2811162 >>2811153 >implying i said anything about wikipedia i think that kind of proves you do

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:39:19 2011 No.2811164 >>2811154 Something cannot be both plausible and nonsense. Nice try though.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:40:19 2011 No.2811168 >>2811162 > think that kind of proves Nope, don't even go there.

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:42:19 2011 No.2811174

>>2811153
>Jutland was a hit and run harassment move with defensive purposes

hit and run to weaken blockade

or are you now going to move to this position and claim you held it all along

>Cardinal points are sometimes self-referenced, like it or not. It is an old custom though, and it went away some decades ago.

citation needed

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:45:19 2011 No.2811189 >>2811164 of course it can, unless you have perfect knowledge oh i forgot, you do eg. phlogiston was plausible nonsense once, as was luminiferous ether nice try though

Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:45:19 2011 No.2811193

>>2811174

1. I still maintain it had defensive purposes. It makes far more sense on a strategic level. Breaking the blocade would yield nothing significant in itself.

2. I can't think of any book that treated the subject, but the original "right and left" do not come from directional aspects at all. Right having to do with morals and justice, and left being "sinistra" a satanic flaw and awkwardness. They only replaced the cardinals as self-reference points when those slipped away from language.

Look it up in a philology book.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:46:19 2011 No.2811196 >>2811168 It's called being sardonic.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:46:19 2011 No.2811199 >>2811168 so why mention it? and where did the poor translation of the last words come from? confirmed bullshitter

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:47:19 2011 No.2811201 >>2811189 Nonsense = something that doesn't make sense Plausible = something that MAKES sense, but isn't necessarily true. It's a contradiction in terms. Sorry bro, better luck next time.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:48:19 2011 No.2811215 >>2811199 Poor translation is spontaneous. "Tradutore, traditore", said the Italians.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:48:19 2011 No.2811216 >>2811193 >Breaking the blocade would yield nothing significant in itself. lolwut? >irrelevant etymology so you did just make it up then, thought so

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:48:19 2011 No.2811219 >>2811201 Plausible = something that appears to make sense, but isn't necessarily true. Fix'd. You have to be careful about that one.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:50:19 2011 No.2811240 >>2811219 The "appear" isn't needed at all. Something that makes sense = something that appears to make sense. We're talking immediate rationality here. Hence the distinction with truth.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:51:19 2011 No.2811246 >>2811216 - lolwut - irrelevant Nice rebuttals.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:52:19 2011 No.2811251 >>2811201 >aspie definition you do actually have aspergers don't you? i recognise the signs only too well

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:53:19 2011 No.2811258 >>2811246 >et toi, aussi

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:54:19 2011 No.2811263 >>2811240 so you think appearances are never deceptive? aspie

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:54:19 2011 No.2811261 >>2811251 And we come back to insults. How creative. Also, it's not signs but symptoms. Signs are objective.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:55:19 2011 No.2811267 >>2811258 I have to provide arguments against "lolwut"?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:55:19 2011 No.2811268 >>2811261 aspergers is not an insult pedant is so aspie y/n?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:56:19 2011 No.2811271 >>2811267 not at all. as i don't have to provide rebuttals against the absurd

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:57:19 2011 No.2811277 >>2811263 You give pet names to psychiatric syndromes now ? Cute. Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensualism All of these people have Asperger's as well ?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:57:19 2011 No.2811280 >>2811268 I'm not retarded in any way, shape or form. You're funny.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:58:19 2011 No.2811284 >>2811277 aspergers is not a psychiatric condition, it is developmental and the abbreviation is well known

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:58:19 2011 No.2811285 >>2811271 Then the "absurd" won. You may leave now.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:59:19 2011 No.2811294 >>2811280 aspergers is rarely co morbid with mental retardation so i take that as a yes to aspergers why are you ashamed?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 21:59:19 2011 No.2811295 >>2811284 Maybe if you live constantly surrounded by retards, an abbreviation is justified. I've never seen anyone with this syndrome. Nor do I care.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 22:00:19 2011 No.2811303 >>2811294 I see. Who is supposed to diagnose with this syndrome of yours ?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 22:00:19 2011 No.2811304 >>2811285 > needs to be right

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 22:01:19 2011 No.2811312 >>2811304 Isn't that the whole point ? History isn't a science, it's a game. You so funny.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 22:02:19 2011 No.2811315 >>2811303 your grammar skills are going

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 22:03:19 2011 No.2811323 >>2811315 You can't even punctuate or capitalize and still you accuse me of poor grammar? That's rich.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 22:03:19 2011 No.2811321 >>2811295 lies, you are so aspie you can't even admit it on an anon imageboard you must be very ashamed

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 22:04:19 2011 No.2811330 >>2811312 it may be your point i'd prefer a self correcting approach

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 22:05:19 2011 No.2811333 >>2811321 Your genealogic method attacks are sorely lacking. Freud did it way better in his time. But then again, he stole it from Nietzsche who was very proficient at it. I don't have any syndrome whatsoever. You however can't even write properly.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 22:06:19 2011 No.2811340 >>2811330 Self-correcting approach ? It's a reality-driven approach. And reality is dictated by the victors, said Brasillach.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 22:06:19 2011 No.2811347 >>2811323 >mixes "can't" with "chooses not to" weak attempt you must be knew here and haven't noticed some of the conventions regarding capitalisation and punctuation

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 31 22:07:19 2011 No.2811355 >>2811347 "you must be knew" 0/10

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]