News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

80th anniversary of Operation Barbarossa

Started by Zanza, June 22, 2021, 07:13:08 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Josquius

Yeah, we historically don't do armies. The entire concept of keeping a standing army was seen as pretty dictatorial and horrid.
Armies were to be drafted as and when they were needed rather than be kept as permanent standing forces.
Long ago the navy was the same, private ships pressed into service when needed, but then the Royal Navy was established as a standing navy.
The army never really got the same treatment and clear distinction between the Royal standing force and the ad-hoc.
██████
██████
██████

Sheilbh

Quote from: Tonitrus on June 23, 2021, 11:45:45 AM
As an aside, I have wondered why the British Air Force and Navy are "Royal", but the British Army, is not?

What I gather from wiki, is that the British Army specifically requires a kind of consent from Parliament.
Yeah I think the Royal Nacy and RAF are coherent, unified forces set up by the crown/state while the army is still technically a collection of regiments (some of which are royal like the Royal Artillery or the Royal Irish).

But I think at the back of it at least subliminally is that the army is not a loyal bit of the military/was kind of founded by Parliament/Cromwell with the New Model Army.
Let's bomb Russia!

grumbler

Quote from: Tonitrus on June 23, 2021, 11:45:45 AM
As an aside, I have wondered why the British Air Force and Navy are "Royal", but the British Army, is not?

What I gather from wiki, is that the British Army specifically requires a kind of consent from Parliament.

IIRC, the entire RAF originally counted as a single Royal regiment.  The Royal Navy is royal because it was originally a royal regiment detailed to serve on ships in company-sized formations (that's why there's reference to the "ship's company" and the CO being called "captain"). 

Curious bit of trivia for you:  In parade formation, the Household Cavalry has the highest precedence (forms farthest to the right) EXCEPT when the Royal Horse Artillery is on parade with its guns, when it takes highest precedence (without guns it is second).

In other trivia: in its 400 years of the pennant's existence, only one non-RN ship has ever flown the Admiralty Pennant (hoisted when the British Board of the Admiralty holds a formal meeting onboard the ship) and that was USS Enterprise CV-6.  That meeting was held in the fall of 1945 (when Big E was in the UK to pick up troops as part of Operation Magic carpet) to honor her achievements as the most-decorated US ship of the war.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

Sheilbh

On the other hand this sort of thing is disgraceful in minimising the effect of the war on Russia and Russians:
https://twitter.com/sumlenny/status/1407596612558467077?s=20

I think it is fine and possible to appreciate that this was a war on the Soviet Union and Germany faced Soviet soldiers rather than Russia per se, that it was particularly impactful in the Baltics, Belarus and Ukraine without minimising that because it was a war on the Soviet Union, Russia suffered and sacrificed an enormous amount in winning that conflict.
Let's bomb Russia!

Tamas

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 24, 2021, 05:59:02 AM
On the other hand this sort of thing is disgraceful in minimising the effect of the war on Russia and Russians:
https://twitter.com/sumlenny/status/1407596612558467077?s=20

I think it is fine and possible to appreciate that this was a war on the Soviet Union and Germany faced Soviet soldiers rather than Russia per se, that it was particularly impactful in the Baltics, Belarus and Ukraine without minimising that because it was a war on the Soviet Union, Russia suffered and sacrificed an enormous amount in winning that conflict.

Yeah that is disgustingly dishonest.

grumbler

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 24, 2021, 05:59:02 AM
On the other hand this sort of thing is disgraceful in minimising the effect of the war on Russia and Russians:
https://twitter.com/sumlenny/status/1407596612558467077?s=20

I think it is fine and possible to appreciate that this was a war on the Soviet Union and Germany faced Soviet soldiers rather than Russia per se, that it was particularly impactful in the Baltics, Belarus and Ukraine without minimising that because it was a war on the Soviet Union, Russia suffered and sacrificed an enormous amount in winning that conflict.

The tweet thread you linked to didn't even much mention Russia, let alone minimizing the effect of the war on the Russians.  It was all about the suffering in the Ukraine.  Maybe it changed between the time you first linked it and the time I read it.   There's certainly nothing there now to inspire outrage.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

Sheilbh

Quote from: grumbler on June 24, 2021, 06:25:04 AM
The tweet thread you linked to didn't even much mention Russia, let alone minimizing the effect of the war on the Russians.  It was all about the suffering in the Ukraine.  Maybe it changed between the time you first linked it and the time I read it.   There's certainly nothing there now to inspire outrage.
I think the only purpose of that map and framing the thread in the context of % of land occupied is to minimise the impact on Russia and the Russian casualties.

I think if you just want to focus on Ukraine, without doing that, you choose a different starting point.
Let's bomb Russia!

grumbler

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 24, 2021, 06:35:43 AM
Quote from: grumbler on June 24, 2021, 06:25:04 AM
The tweet thread you linked to didn't even much mention Russia, let alone minimizing the effect of the war on the Russians.  It was all about the suffering in the Ukraine.  Maybe it changed between the time you first linked it and the time I read it.   There's certainly nothing there now to inspire outrage.
I think the only purpose of that map and framing the thread in the context of % of land occupied is to minimise the impact on Russia and the Russian casualties.

I think if you just want to focus on Ukraine, without doing that, you choose a different starting point.

I think that the purpose of the map and the framing of the thread in the context of % of occupied land and reference to modern stories using "Russian" rather than "Soviet" is to highlight the fact that Hitler invaded the Soviet Union and fought the Soviet Union, not just Russia... and that other parts of the Soviet Union suffered as much, or more, than the Russia portion.

I think that, if you want to focus on  minimizing the effect of the war on the Russians, you choose a different starting point.  And if you want to highlight stories that focus on minimizing the effect of the war on the Russians, you choose a twitter thread that actually does that.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!