Mini-history wars

[Tannin]

His central argument is that Russia is throwing its weight around the region in a bid to recapture days of former Soviet glory and inflame local nationalist sentiment

Fine. No-one would disagree with that notion. Blind Freddie can see what Putin's up to. But the basic truth of his argument is no excuse for his choice to advance it (as if it needed any advancement in the first place) via disgraceful, ahistorical smears and implied lies. Now no-one even hears hears his main point, 'coz they are all offended by his lying, racist smear.

[nomadjack]

[HAL]

I have never considered 'outrage' exceptionally well Tannin . I chat with people on the Web.

[Tannin]

Yes, Nomadjack, I'm practicing to take over Andrew Bolt's spot.

[stui magpie]

This thread is whacked.

Not that I'm a student of history or WWII but I might as well lob in my ignorant opinion as well.

To say that Russia invaded Germany is a misleading use of words. They invaded Germany from one side exactly the same as the Allied troops "invaded" it from the other direction. In both cases, they were going in to finalise the end of a conflict that neither of them had started. "Invasion" is what Germany did to Poland and France.

On the other hand, the argument about Russia saving us all might be factually accurate but is also misleading in that the Soviets had no interest in helping anyone except themselves and they were just out to respond to Germany's attack on them. All those troops they lost weren't any noble sacrifice for the greater good to prevent countries like us from speaking German, it was purely selfish/defensive in motive and the fact that the troops were so poorly equipped was an indictment on the Soviet system.

One the USA and the Soviets met in Berlin, the whole cold war that followed was basically our captured (or liberated depending on your view) german scientists vs theirs.

[David]

[stui magpie]

Geezus, dog with a bone much? Germany started an armed confliict against Russia. The way to finish that was for the Soviets (and the Allies from the other side) to have to march into Germany.

WTF were they supposed to do, stop at the border?

The term may be technically correct but it's use in this context is misleading and you damn well know it.

[die4pies]

One of the great ironies of WWII is that most of 'us' (I know I am) are considered to be bloodlines of the 'master race'

Far from being "enslaved" by the NAZI tyranny...we could have been the enslavers.

Tony Abbott, under the tutelage of Herr Erica Betz (Great nephew of Herr Otto Abetz) is trying desperately to RIGHT that wrong for us now.

[Tannin]

Stui, you might be no student of history, but you evidently have a far better understaning of it than David or Wokko.

[David]

Considering that much of the resentment that fanned the flames of national socialism came from the perception of overly harsh treatment in the aftermath of WW1, I'm not actually sure that an occupation of Germany in 1918 would have achieved much good—indeed, it might have made things even worse (if possible). What would have achieved more good would have been to not deliberately bankrupt the German economy through reparations (which were unfair at any rate because all sides in WW1 were to blame—Germany simply had the misfortune of being on the losing team).

But that's all beside the point: I have never once argued in this thread that Russia should not have invaded Germany. Go back and check! I did suggest that not invading was an option, in the sense that running out into the middle of a busy highway is an option. Even in that post I acknowledged that doing so may well have been completely idiotic (though I'm willing to hear alternative arguments on this). Once again, it's you and Stui who are using a definition of "invasion" that simply doesn't exist.

[stui magpie]

I think if you get the distinction correct, Germany tried to invade Russia, Russia resisted and in turn pushed the German invading force all the way back to Berlin, at which point they smacked their leiderhosen and negotiated with the Allies as a conquering force to take half the country each.

Context is important to the usage of words.

[1061]

[Wokko]

Whenever you try and show WW2 (and even WW1) Germany as anything other than a cartoon villain this is what you get David. You're fighting against 60+ years of propaganda indoctrination. Looking to nuance when understanding history is necessary and a good student/historian will do that. Indeed the allies chose to invade Germany and arguing otherwise is pants on head retarded, but there you go.

Just like France was invaded in 1814 following Napoleon's downfall and the subsequent Congress of Vienna created a 'balance of power' in Europe, and the non invasion of Germany led to a harsh, vengeful treaty, there is more than one way to create a 'good' peace, and not all invasions are created equally.

Indeed to say that the horrendous cost put on Germany at the end of World War 1 sans a direct invasion were too lenient and allowed them to rebuild is just so crazy and misguided it boggles the mind. Weimar Germany was an impoverished, broken, bitter nation. It was because of the abject failure of this harsh treatment that the USA rebuilt Japan and Germany rather than attempt to economically ruin them.

[David]

Thanks Wokko. Glad to see someone agrees with this pretty elementary point.

[stui magpie]

"And the Soviets invade Germany for the Win. Delicious"

Actually Bruce, that's a little overly simplistic. The Germans came out hard with full on attack and really put the Soviets on the back foot. They needed to firstly absorb the pressure put on by the Germans and then they could start a counter attack. It took a while, but they did it centimeter perfectly. Once they absorbed the best that Germany had to offer and started to push back, Germany was in full on defensive retreat. The Soviets chased them all the way home and beat them up in their own kitchen.

Beautifully said as always Dennis.