Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
Mini-history wars

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern
 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Tannin Capricorn

Can't remember


Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 4:29 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Finally, David, you of all people really should be able to tell the difference between using the word "invasion" in its correct technical sense, and abusing it in the incompetent and obviously biased way the author does: his clear implication is that the Soviets (there was no Russian state at that time - here is another indication of his historical incompetence) initiated a "barbaric" crime when they, in fact, were defending themselves (and you) against the most barbaric modern state there has ever been.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 4:30 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

...and committing some barbaric crimes along the way. Unless of course you think mass rape of civilians is not so bad in the broader scheme of things.

ronrat wrote:
David, are you suggesting the allies should have stopped at the bordersand hoped the good Nazis would have released all the POWS and the Gypsies and Jews in concentration camps after a good hearty meal and a train ticket home. And not destroyed evidence of war crimes or tried to escape with falsified papers.


No.

Sorry, but if people can't be bothered reading whole posts before replying then I'm just wasting my time responding.

pietillidie wrote:
In the end these debates are always lost in the anthropomorphising of empty constructs like "nation", "country" and "people". These entities have no morality in and of themselves, yet such debates keep ascribing moral properties to them. You simply can't move seamlessly between individual morality and "mass morality" and pretend you're talking sense. (Note, "mass morality" is quite different from meaningful statistical constructs such as "standard of living", "safety", "stability", and so on).

When we talk about "wrongdoing", we have to decide what sort of "wrongdoing" we're dealing with: Classical individual wrongdoing, forced wrongdoing, wrongdoing necessitated or incited by context, a strategic eye-for-an-eye wrongdoing, some mix of these, and so on. But the minute we ascribe personal wrongdoing to some dumb mass entity like a country is the minute we're accusing all kinds of innocent or plain ignorant/unaware/unresourced/unstable/un~ people of "wrongdoing".

If we're serious these are really useless conversations to start with, hence they never result in anything but louder claims of "wrongdoing". The best we can say IMO is that certain actions, policies, responses and situations are better or worse, more or less desireable. Leave both the individual focus and mass anthropomorphising out of it.


This is the most intelligent critique of Lynch's piece that I've read so far, and I'm inclined to agree. Unfortunately, I think the nuance will be lost on people who think Russian or American atrocities were justified and/or not worthy of being described in such 'harsh' language.

The response to this (on here, too) has been far more illuminating than the original piece. Goes to show the real dehumanising effect of war.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace


Last edited by David on Mon Apr 21, 2014 4:35 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
1061 



Joined: 06 Sep 2013


PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 4:30 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Tannin wrote:
(You could have added the entirely pointless and terrible Allied destruction of Dresden to your list, but perhaps three examples were enough to make the point.)


I could have but this is a Bulletin Board and IMO Posts should be short and to the point not long winded drawn out "wankfests" as I have said before.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Wokko Pisces

Come and take it.


Joined: 04 Oct 2005


PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 6:08 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Tannin wrote:
David, you are still writing about the "Russian invasion of Germany" as if it was something the Soviets "decided to do", rather than dealing with the fact that it was a necessary and utterly vital part of their defence against gross aggression, and of our safety from that Nazi aggression. You really need to gain some understanding of history.

Wokko, you are so busy finding things to hate about the Soviets that you have distorted the facts so far as to make your post almost meaningless. Learn some bloody history FFS instead of making idealogically-driven assumptions. In reality, the Soviet Union was hopelessly unready for the Nazi invasion; had no idea it was coming, and was so confident that it would not come that they dismantled much of their western defence system. In that invasion, the Soviets lost the entirety of their commonwealth west of Asia, including most of their economic assets and vast numbers of their people. A rough equivalent would be for us to loose Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales.

Was Stalin a nice bloke? Hell no. He was a brutal oaf. But Stalin and his people did more good for the world than anyone else in that era. You are alive and free today more because of the sacrifice and heroism of Stalin's people than for any other reason.


I do know History, quite well in fact and to suggest the Soviet Union had demobilized is absolute utter nonsense. Russia had 3.8x the tanks and 2.6x the Aircraft on the border with the Reich in 1941. Stalin saw the peace with Germany as a chance to build up while Germany was engaged with France and Britain and received dozens of warnings and reports of Barbarossa. He executed agents who told him Hitler would invade and was convinced it was a disinformation plot of the Western Allies.

There are even sources that claim that Stalin had his own invasion westward scheduled for 1941 and the reason for the ease of the start of Barbarossa was that Germany was facing offensive rather than a defensive set up, so don't claim some kind of divine knowledge on a subject you seem far less educated on that you'd like to appear.

Allied (USA, UK & USSR) war crimes are indeed swept clean in many laypersons recounting of WW2, but on that count you're spot on as far as I can see. Reading about the firestorms of German civilian centers from survivors and witnesses is a harrowing experience, as are the tales of nuclear strikes that were purely political, Japan was completely militarily destroyed before they were dropped.

No need to ascribe personal ideology to my posts either, I find both Nazi German and Soviet Russian atrocities and regimes to be evil, brutish expansionist empires. It's a matter of History that Hitler acted first, both in Poland to bring the UK and France into the War and then by invading Russia. Indeed the Russian people did more to win the war than the Western allies, but I'm not going to whitewash history either. If the USSR had invaded Europe first, I'd be saying the same things about those glorious Germans who saved us from Communist aggression, but then my family wouldn't exist because my partner's Grandparents fled the invading Russians from Hungary in 1956 (her Grandfather was incarcerated for years after the war).

Lets not pretend the Soviets didn't invade Europe after the war, because they did, in order to create the Eastern Bloc and scoop up as many unwilling countries into their sphere of influence as they could.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Tannin Capricorn

Can't remember


Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 6:31 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

I did not suggest that the Soviet Union had demobilised, and it is dishonest of you to claim that I did. The Soviet Union leadership had, however, no expectation that Hitler would invade, and the massive success of Barbarossa demonstrates this - not just in terms of territory gained, but also truly huge numbers of Soviet prisoners, and an almost complete loss of their warfighting equipment. Stalin was deeply shocked by the Nazi invasion, and continued to disbelieve it until it was already well underway.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
3.14159 Taurus



Joined: 12 Sep 2009


PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 6:36 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Wokko wrote:

I do know History, quite well in fact and to suggest the Soviet Union had demobilized is absolute utter nonsense. Russia had 3.8x the tanks and 2.6x the Aircraft on the border with the Reich in 1941. Stalin saw the peace with Germany as a chance to build up while Germany was engaged with France and Britain and received dozens of warnings and reports of Barbarossa. He executed agents who told him Hitler would invade and was convinced it was a disinformation plot of the Western Allies.

Lets not pretend the Soviets didn't invade Europe after the war, because they did, in order to create the Eastern Bloc and scoop up as many unwilling countries into their sphere of influence as they could.


If you did know history you would know that the difference wasn't numbers, it was hard-ware.
The most advanced fighter the Russians had was a biplane and it's tanks were little better an mobile tin-cans.
Moral was another factor.
The Germans believed they were on a crusade to liberate the world from communism.
They were better prepared (for the invasion if not the long haul through winter) and they were battle hardened.
Stalin was warned of operation Barbarossa but he refused to believe it was possible Hitler was attacking him.
As for a Russian arms build up prior to the invasion, ho ho ho!
The defence of Russia was a triumph of shed made improvisation and tenacity against a technologically superior opponent.

Wokko wrote:

There are even sources that claim that Stalin had his own invasion westward scheduled for 1941 and the reason for the ease of the start of Barbarossa was that Germany was facing offensive rather than a defensive set up.

...
Are you serious?
Can you name these sources? ^^^


Last edited by 3.14159 on Mon Apr 21, 2014 6:43 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Wokko Pisces

Come and take it.


Joined: 04 Oct 2005


PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 6:38 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Tannin wrote:
I did not suggest that the Soviet Union had demobilised, and it is dishonest of you to claim that I did. The Soviet Union leadership had, however, no expectation that Hitler would invade, and the massive success of Barbarossa demonstrates this - not just in terms of territory gained, but also truly huge numbers of Soviet prisoners, and an almost complete loss of their warfighting equipment. Stalin was deeply shocked by the Nazi invasion, and continued to disbelieve it until it was already well underway.


Agreed, however his intelligence apparatus did know it was coming, as did the UK and USA leaderships who both tried to warn him. As I said though, some historians see that success as due to Stalin's build up being offensive in nature and if two armies are both set up to attack rather than defend, the one that moves first will steamroll the other. Trying to untangle the weave of that tale through multiple layers of propaganda is very, very hard though and there are multiple schools of thought on many issues. I personally agree that you can't necessarily say that Russia "Invaded" while they were pushing back the German armies, but once they took Berlin, Hitler killed himself (or escaped to Antarctica on a submarine lol) and the Reich fell then it did indeed become an invasion and occupation. As did the USA/UK in West Germany and Japan.

Difference being the Western powers rebuilt their defeated foes into two of the greatest nation states on Earth while the Soviets raped and robbed Eastern Europe, both metaphorically and literally for decades.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
swoop42 Virgo

Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?


Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 6:40 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

I think one of you better do a Hitler rant video about the issue to sort it out.
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Wokko Pisces

Come and take it.


Joined: 04 Oct 2005


PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 6:47 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

3.14159 wrote:

If you did know history you would know that the difference wasn't numbers, it was hard-ware.
The most advanced fighter the Russians had was a biplane and it's tanks were little better an mobile tin-cans.
Moral was another factor.
The Germans believed they were on a crusade to liberate the world from communism.
They were better prepared (for the invasion if not the long haul through winter) and they were battle hardened.
Stalin was warned of operation Barbarossa but he refused to believe it was possible Hitler was attacking him.
As for a Russian arms build up prior to the invasion, ho ho ho!
The defence of Russia was a triumph of shed made improvisation and tenacity against a technologically superior opponent.

~Wokko said..
[b]There are even sources that claim
that Stalin had his own invasion westward scheduled for 1941 and the reason for the ease of the start of Barbarossa was that Germany was facing offensive rather than a defensive set up, so don't claim some kind of divine knowledge on a subject you seem far less educated on that you'd like to appear.
...
^^^Are you serious?^^^
"There are even sources that claim...". Laughing
Can you name them, because they have even less grasp of history than you do.

As I've pointed out Russia didn't have the ability, hardware, reason or desire to invade.
Poland was a free-hand-out to the Russians.


The T-34 was deployed in 1940 as was the KV-1. Many of the Russian modern monoplanes like the Mig 1 & 3, Lagg 1 & 3 and Yak 1 were all in service in 1940.

Not going to write an essay with footnotes on the issue of planned Soviet aggression, but here's a good start. As with any historical debate there are claims, counter claims, arguments about veracity of sources, allies, enemies etc. In fact the study of history is almost as brutal and Macchiavellian as history itself Laughing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:02 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

I have to say I didn't know the thread title would be so apt. Shocked

By the way, from one of the Wikipedia links I posted on page 1, here's another example of how words can be used to distort and manipulate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Allied_invasion_of_Germany

Quote:
The Western Allied invasion of Germany was the military overrun of Nazi Germany that was conducted by the Western Allies in the final months of the European Theatre in World War II. The invasion started with the Western Allies crossing the Rhine before fanning out and overrunning all of western Germany from the Baltic in the north to Austria in the south before the Germans surrendered on 8 May 1945. This is known as the "Central Europe Campaign" in United States military histories.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
Tannin Capricorn

Can't remember


Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 10:22 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

^ Strange post. What is there in your example that "distorts and manipulates"?
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 10:42 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

The use of a euphemistic term "Central Europe Campaign" as opposed to "invasion". I don't think there's anything terribly controversial about what I'm saying—all war histories reflect writers' prejudices, right down to certain word choices.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 10:50 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

swoop42 wrote:
I think one of you better do a Hitler rant video about the issue to sort it out.


As you wish.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWL9C1lazro

Very Happy

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
HAL 

Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.


Joined: 17 Mar 2003


PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 10:52 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Why, specificially?
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Tannin Capricorn

Can't remember


Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 11:03 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Wokko wrote:
The T-34 was deployed in 1940 as was the KV-1. Many of the Russian modern monoplanes like the Mig 1 & 3, Lagg 1 & 3 and Yak 1 were all in service in 1940.


Quite so. But to say this like that is very misleading. Actual practical combat deployment of modern equipment in substantial numbers would not take place until around the start of 1942. In 1941, the equipment of the Red Army and the Soviet air force was roughly equivalent in capability to that of Nazi Germany in the early to mid 1930s - i.e., a full generation behind. It's not really fair to regard it as "biplane standard" the way Three does - that suggests 1920s-level technology and aircraft in particular advanced an amazing amount between 1925 or so and 1939. But 1925 generation aircraft did not suddenly morph full-blown into the much faster, more powerful types that defined the state of the art in 1939 (machines like the English Hurricane, the German Bf-109, and the American P-39 Tomahawk); there was a whole generation of intermediate types such as the Gloster Gladiator, the Boeing P-26, and of course the Polikarpov I-16, which was still the mainstay of the Soviet fighter arm in 1941 even though it had been just barely competitive as long ago as the Spanish Civil War. The Soviet Union lost 4000 aircraft in the first week of the war! That makes the Pearl Harbor disaster or the fall of Singapore look like so much trivial minutiae. Soviet artillery was always good, but their tank development was at much the same stage as their aircraft development at this time, i.e., well behind the Germans. (Later on, the simple, cheap, rugged T-34 would prove to be the best medium tank in the world - the German ones were even better in some ways, but at the cost of huge complexity and vastly higher cost - and much superior to anything the English or the Americans produced in numbers until just after the war was over.)

Back to the main point now: it is interesting to see Wokko's reliance on a way-out fringe theory of Soviet history which is not generally taken seriously by historians. Indeed, it is telling that the very Wikipedia entry he cites as "evidence" for it states "the assertions that Stalin planned to attack Nazi Germany in the summer of 1941 ... are generally discounted". And rightly so. Given the huge disparity in fighting power between the two nations at that time, any such plan would have been suicidally absurd.

_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern All times are GMT + 11 Hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 2 of 6   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group