I found this on the net the other day I thought I'd share it. Some of you have probably already seen it. But meh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qfHgoSTm48&feature=related It seems to be fairly raw footage of the battle of Cologne.
It is hard to tell what is going on. I later found this .
http://www.anicursor.com/colpicwar2.html in which some research is done on the tank battle in the film. I disagree with one part of his analysis where he disagrees with the official report because he doesn't think it's realistic behavior for a tank crew. Under a very high stress environment it's difficult to judge what anyone will do. Besides that it seems well researched.
The way the battle plays out reminds me alot of how I played Combat mission which I suppose is to credit on how realistic that game is.
There are other videos of this same incident with narration, but the first one I found was raw footage and sat around trying to judge what was going on. Which I thought was interesting.
Anyway I hope you guys find this as interesting as I did.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 06, 2010, 11:28:32 AM
I found this on the net the other day I thought I'd share it. Some of you have probably already seen it. But meh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qfHgoSTm48&feature=related It seems to be fairly raw footage of the battle of Cologne.
It is hard to tell what is going on. I later found this .
http://www.anicursor.com/colpicwar2.html in which some research is done on the tank battle in the film. I disagree with one part of his analysis where he disagrees with the official report because he doesn't think it's realistic behavior for a tank crew. Under a very high stress environment it's difficult to judge what anyone will do. Besides that it seems well researched.
The way the battle plays out reminds me alot of how I played Combat mission which I suppose is to credit on how realistic that game is.
There are other videos of this same incident with narration, but the first one I found was raw footage and sat around trying to judge what was going on. Which I thought was interesting.
Anyway I hope you guys find this as interesting as I did.
Not sure what you are seeing as "the official report" claiming anything. I think it is quite reasonable to assume that the Sherman that was hit didn't know the Panther was there. Whether other troops had seen the Panther at that point is moot as far as the Sherman is concerned.
Interesting film, though. No question about that.
Yeah...enjoyed that. Thanks
Loved seeing that cathedral. I've seen it in real life and when you see it in historical, war footage, it brings it all closer to home, in a weird way...know what I mean? It's amazing it never came down during the war, I've read it was hit by over 70 bombs.
Quote from: grumbler on February 06, 2010, 01:54:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 06, 2010, 11:28:32 AM
I found this on the net the other day I thought I'd share it. Some of you have probably already seen it. But meh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qfHgoSTm48&feature=related It seems to be fairly raw footage of the battle of Cologne.
It is hard to tell what is going on. I later found this .
http://www.anicursor.com/colpicwar2.html in which some research is done on the tank battle in the film. I disagree with one part of his analysis where he disagrees with the official report because he doesn't think it's realistic behavior for a tank crew. Under a very high stress environment it's difficult to judge what anyone will do. Besides that it seems well researched.
The way the battle plays out reminds me alot of how I played Combat mission which I suppose is to credit on how realistic that game is.
There are other videos of this same incident with narration, but the first one I found was raw footage and sat around trying to judge what was going on. Which I thought was interesting.
Anyway I hope you guys find this as interesting as I did.
Not sure what you are seeing as "the official report" claiming anything. I think it is quite reasonable to assume that the Sherman that was hit didn't know the Panther was there. Whether other troops had seen the Panther at that point is moot as far as the Sherman is concerned.
And unless I missed something, I didn't see anything where he stated that the behavior of the tank crew was unrealistic, either.
Quote from: Josephus on February 06, 2010, 06:45:30 PM
Yeah...enjoyed that. Thanks
Loved seeing that cathedral. I've seen it in real life and when you see it in historical, war footage, it brings it all closer to home, in a weird way...know what I mean? It's amazing it never came down during the war, I've read it was hit by over 70 bombs.
As amazing as the cathedral was, seeing the rest of Cologne really got across how thorough a job Bomber Command did. :pinch:
Quote from: dps on February 06, 2010, 08:56:08 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 06, 2010, 01:54:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 06, 2010, 11:28:32 AM
I found this on the net the other day I thought I'd share it. Some of you have probably already seen it. But meh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qfHgoSTm48&feature=related It seems to be fairly raw footage of the battle of Cologne.
It is hard to tell what is going on. I later found this .
http://www.anicursor.com/colpicwar2.html in which some research is done on the tank battle in the film. I disagree with one part of his analysis where he disagrees with the official report because he doesn't think it's realistic behavior for a tank crew. Under a very high stress environment it's difficult to judge what anyone will do. Besides that it seems well researched.
The way the battle plays out reminds me alot of how I played Combat mission which I suppose is to credit on how realistic that game is.
There are other videos of this same incident with narration, but the first one I found was raw footage and sat around trying to judge what was going on. Which I thought was interesting.
Anyway I hope you guys find this as interesting as I did.
Not sure what you are seeing as "the official report" claiming anything. I think it is quite reasonable to assume that the Sherman that was hit didn't know the Panther was there. Whether other troops had seen the Panther at that point is moot as far as the Sherman is concerned.
And unless I missed something, I didn't see anything where he stated that the behavior of the tank crew was unrealistic, either.
I was referring to this
QuoteWhen the Panther had shot he probably was located in or near the dark tunnel (white arrow) and the US troops were not able to see it there before. The red point is the place where the Sherman was located - distance tunnel / Sherman: 340 m / 1.115 ft.. After the hit the Panther was driving to the crossing Marzellenstrasse where he later was destroyed (distance Panther there / Sherman: 120 m / 395 ft.. There are records saying the Panther was already located at the crossing when the Sherman reached Komödienstrasse and they thought it was knocked out. But this seems to be unrealistic. Tank crews typically will not take it for granted that a tank in no mans land would be knocked out. They would shoot at it until it burned, which is what the Sherman crew would have done if the Panther was in sight on the crossing Marzellenstrasse. Following several sources the German tank Mark V (Panther) Ausf. A was from 9. Pz.Div., II. / Pz.Rgt. 33.
It was odd that the Sherman didn't fireball.
Quote from: Strix on February 07, 2010, 10:32:01 AM
It was odd that the Sherman didn't fireball.
Not EVERY Sherman brewed up on the first hit. Contrary to rumors, a good number of them simply did not burn as every crew member was killed by whizzing shrapnel as the 75mm and 88mm rounds passed through them.
I came when the Panther burned.
Quote from: Strix on February 07, 2010, 10:32:01 AM
It was odd that the Sherman didn't fireball.
The Sherman had adequate ammo storage by this point in the war.
Well, that was depressing.
I need to find the cool footage that was shown on the History Channel showing a fight between three Panthers and an M18 Hell Cat Tank Destroyer.
Basically the three Panthers were grouped outside of a few destroyed buildings supporting some German infantry which had dug into the debris out front. The M18 came up behind the Panthers on the east side and pretty much took the cupola off one of the Panthers. It than reversed and went around the buildings to the west. By the time the Panthers got their turrets turned it came up behind the last two from behind to the west and shot another one from behind. The footage ended with the last tank fleeing in reverse so that it's frontal armor faced towards were the M18 was operating with all the infantry running helterskelter along side it. It was cool.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 07, 2010, 01:38:37 PM
Well, that was depressing.
What? War scares you?
Don't worry. There is always some dumbass loser willing to fight and die for you, for one reason or another.
Real men stay home taking care of their families.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 07, 2010, 11:27:59 AM
I came when the Panther burned.
:( What a waste of such a beautiful tank.
Quote from: derspiess on February 07, 2010, 09:28:54 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 07, 2010, 11:27:59 AM
I came when the Panther burned.
:( What a waste of such a beautiful tank.
Hey, it got better. They burned the nazis out of it.
Quote from: Siege on February 07, 2010, 07:41:54 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 07, 2010, 01:38:37 PM
Well, that was depressing.
What? War scares you?
Don't worry. There is always some dumbass loser willing to fight and die for you, for one reason or another.
Real men stay home taking care of their families.
He said depressed, not scared. Those dumbass losers happened to be draftees. Just average guys who would have preferred to stay home and taken care of their families. At least the American tank crew, I don't know about German tank crews, but American ones were mostly draftees (and at that stage in the war many had very little experience in tank warfare).
I am pretty sure that most German tank crews by that point of the war were:
1. Drafted, and
2. Not very competent either.
The ones who joined up prior to the war and were the experts in their craft where almost certainly dead by Colgone.
Kind of sad watching anyone die by that point of the war. Although that is kind of bullshit I guess - getting your ass killed in some stupid war is pretty sad no matter when it happens, I am sure.
Quote from: derspiess on February 07, 2010, 09:28:54 PM
:( What a waste of such a beautiful tank.
Pershing > Panther, you wannabe Nazi.
Quote from: Berkut on February 08, 2010, 09:22:23 AM
Kind of sad watching anyone die by that point of the war. Although that is kind of bullshit I guess - getting your ass killed in some stupid war is pretty sad no matter when it happens, I am sure.
Well, when I die, it is a tragedy no matter what, for sure. However, I agree with you that dying in a lost cause, which continues simply because the people in charge refuse to admit that their cause is lost, is more sad than people getting killed in a worthier cause. I mean, Torpedo Eight's saga at Midway is a pretty sad one - 54 guys launch, and ninety minutes later 51 of them are dead, and they never laid a glove on the Japanese fleet. Still, they were part of a victory, and so their deaths are less sad than those of 3100 of the
Yamato's 3300-man crew, because
Yamato never should have sortied.
Yeah, I'll never understand why Germany waited till Berlin was a flaming ruin to surrender. I know Hitler was delusional, but surely not all of his inner circle was... they should have been utterly ashamed of themselves for not removing him and surrendering before the bitter end.
For the same reason I also find it odd that there is a neo-Nazi movement in Germany (small as it may be): any true German nationalist should despise the Nazis for allowing Germany to be so thoroughly flattened.
Quote from: Kleves on February 08, 2010, 09:45:33 AM
Quote from: derspiess on February 07, 2010, 09:28:54 PM
:( What a waste of such a beautiful tank.
Pershing > Panther, you wannabe Nazi.
The Pershing was a fine tank-- it was functional, but it was also ugly.
Quote from: Caliga on February 08, 2010, 10:51:42 AM
Yeah, I'll never understand why Germany waited till Berlin was a flaming ruin to surrender. I know Hitler was delusional, but surely not all of his inner circle was... they should have been utterly ashamed of themselves for not removing him and surrendering before the bitter end.
The reasons of why they took so long to surrender are certainly rooted in more than a few things (the collective insanity of some of the high command, for example), but among them are the Allied doctrine of unconditional surrender. With the demand made for such, I think that it's understandable that the Germans, having recently gone through the wringer from the Treaty of Versailles, would think that things could get even
worse had they actually acquiesced before the bitter end.
In the light of the Allied demands, I think it's a bit easier to see why they might've gambled, as they did, on a few last-gasp offensives, wonder weapons and, at the end, simply wanted to see the destruction of Germany rather than a surrender of what little was left standing.
You can see german infantry at the 1:51 mark.
Quote from: Caliga on February 08, 2010, 10:51:42 AM
Yeah, I'll never understand why Germany waited till Berlin was a flaming ruin to surrender. I know Hitler was delusional, but surely not all of his inner circle was... they should have been utterly ashamed of themselves for not removing him and surrendering before the bitter end.
For the same reason I also find it odd that there is a neo-Nazi movement in Germany (small as it may be): any true German nationalist should despise the Nazis for allowing Germany to be so thoroughly flattened.
A stranger phenomena is Confederate fanboys. Not necessarily these days, but in the past support for the "Lost Cause" was nearly univeral among whites in the south, even though that cause totally wrecked their country and served no end.
A part of the attraction probably has to do with people having trouble psychologically admitting that the causes that got their family members killed and country devestated were wrong and reprehensible.
Quote from: Habbaku on February 08, 2010, 11:29:44 AM
The reasons of why they took so long to surrender are certainly rooted in more than a few things (the collective insanity of some of the high command, for example), but among them are the Allied doctrine of unconditional surrender. With the demand made for such, I think that it's understandable that the Germans, having recently gone through the wringer from the Treaty of Versailles, would think that things could get even worse had they actually acquiesced before the bitter end.
In the light of the Allied demands, I think it's a bit easier to see why they might've gambled, as they did, on a few last-gasp offensives, wonder weapons and, at the end, simply wanted to see the destruction of Germany rather than a surrender of what little was left standing.
Well, yeah, sure - that's what everyone has been saying. There never was a reason for the German leadership to surrender. Gambles on miraculous offensives and wonder weapons was part and parcel of what made the Weird Reich so weird. Hitler
wanted to see Germany destroyed by the end; he ordered additional destruction in order to punish Germany for having "failed" him.
What is less obvious is why the German people so long remained willing to die in order to buy him the time needed to kill more of them off. Part of it, for sure, was the myth of the Versailles "punishment" but I don't think the unconditional surrender demand extended the war by a day. There was never going to be a Hitler surrender, and there was never a point in 1945 at which German surrender would have been worse for the people than fighting on.
I think the Germans were simply unwilling to face the consequences of their own actions; it was always easier to just obey orders than to take the time and effort needed to think rationally about the best interests of one's own nation and family, especially in time of war.
Quote from: Caliga on February 08, 2010, 10:51:42 AM
Yeah, I'll never understand why Germany waited till Berlin was a flaming ruin to surrender.
Really?
Quote from: alfred russel on February 08, 2010, 12:19:43 PM
A stranger phenomena is Confederate fanboys. Not necessarily these days, but in the past support for the "Lost Cause" was nearly univeral among whites in the south, even though that cause totally wrecked their country and served no end.
A part of the attraction probably has to do with people having trouble psychologically admitting that the causes that got their family members killed and country devestated were wrong and reprehensible.
Yes, but this is most noticeable amongst the least educated, so it stands to reason. These are the kinds of people who don't question things, in any society.
Quote from: grumbler on February 08, 2010, 01:24:09 PM
Yes, but this is most noticeable amongst the least educated, so it stands to reason. These are the kinds of people who don't question things, in any society.
I'm not sure I agree with that first sentence.
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2010, 01:28:49 PM
I'm not sure I agree with that first sentence.
That's okay by me. I don't necessarily agree with a lot of the stuff you say about the people of the Yukon, so we are even.
Quote from: grumbler on February 08, 2010, 01:22:30 PM
I think the Germans were simply unwilling to face the consequences of their own actions; it was always easier to just obey orders than to take the time and effort needed to think rationally about the best interests of one's own nation and family, especially in time of war.
I agree with this in terms of the Western front, but I can't blame them for not lying down & surrendering to the Russians.
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2010, 01:28:49 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 08, 2010, 01:24:09 PM
Yes, but this is most noticeable amongst the least educated, so it stands to reason. These are the kinds of people who don't question things, in any society.
I'm not sure I agree with that first sentence.
It's probably not 100% accurate but I think it's true for the most part. The least educated are often the most vocal but when push comes to shove they tend to follow orders and not question what is occurring.
Quote from: derspiess on February 08, 2010, 02:14:10 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 08, 2010, 01:22:30 PM
I think the Germans were simply unwilling to face the consequences of their own actions; it was always easier to just obey orders than to take the time and effort needed to think rationally about the best interests of one's own nation and family, especially in time of war.
Quote from: derspiessI agree with this in terms of the Western front, but I can't blame them for not lying down & surrendering to the Russians.
Well, what they wanted was to find a way to make peace with the Western Allies and keep fighting against the Soviets. That wasn't really in the cards after the US entered the war. If the Germans had been able to keep the US neutral, eventually the British would have probably agreed to peace, though they'd have had to vote Churchill out of office first. The Germans AFAIK never had any demands that the British surrender; the UK could probably have had peace on the basis of the status quo any time after the fall of France.
Actually, even given the unconditional surrender demand, they probably could have gotten a conditional surrender as late as 1943. Italy's surrender, after all, was highly conditional. But they wouldn't have gotten a peace with the WA that allowed them to continue fighting in the east.
Quote from: dps on February 08, 2010, 03:43:52 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 08, 2010, 02:14:10 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 08, 2010, 01:22:30 PM
I think the Germans were simply unwilling to face the consequences of their own actions; it was always easier to just obey orders than to take the time and effort needed to think rationally about the best interests of one's own nation and family, especially in time of war.
Well, what they wanted was to find a way to make peace with the Western Allies and keep fighting against the Soviets. That wasn't really in the cards after the US entered the war. If the Germans had been able to keep the US neutral, eventually the British would have probably agreed to peace, though they'd have had to vote Churchill out of office first. The Germans AFAIK never had any demands that the British surrender; the UK could probably have had peace on the basis of the status quo any time after the fall of France.
I agree with this in terms of the Western front, but I can't blame them for not lying down & surrendering to the Russians.
Quote from: Habbaku on February 08, 2010, 03:47:13 PM
Quote from: dps on February 08, 2010, 03:43:52 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 08, 2010, 02:14:10 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 08, 2010, 01:22:30 PM
I think the Germans were simply unwilling to face the consequences of their own actions; it was always easier to just obey orders than to take the time and effort needed to think rationally about the best interests of one's own nation and family, especially in time of war.
Well, what they wanted was to find a way to make peace with the Western Allies and keep fighting against the Soviets. That wasn't really in the cards after the US entered the war. If the Germans had been able to keep the US neutral, eventually the British would have probably agreed to peace, though they'd have had to vote Churchill out of office first. The Germans AFAIK never had any demands that the British surrender; the UK could probably have had peace on the basis of the status quo any time after the fall of France.
I agree with this in terms of the Western front, but I can't blame them for not lying down & surrendering to the Russians.
Quote from: The Brain on February 08, 2010, 03:47:58 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on February 08, 2010, 03:47:13 PM
Quote from: dps on February 08, 2010, 03:43:52 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 08, 2010, 02:14:10 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 08, 2010, 01:22:30 PM
I think the Germans were simply unwilling to face the consequences of their own actions; it was always easier to just obey orders than to take the time and effort needed to think rationally about the best interests of one's own nation and family, especially in time of war.
Well, what they wanted was to find a way to make peace with the Western Allies and keep fighting against the Soviets. That wasn't really in the cards after the US entered the war. If the Germans had been able to keep the US neutral, eventually the British would have probably agreed to peace, though they'd have had to vote Churchill out of office first. The Germans AFAIK never had any demands that the British surrender; the UK could probably have had peace on the basis of the status quo any time after the fall of France.
I agree with this in terms of the Western front, but I can't blame them for not lying down & surrendering to the Russians.
Is anyone going to say anything?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2010, 06:00:47 PM
Is anyone going to say anything?
What would you like someone to say?
Quote from: Strix on February 08, 2010, 02:48:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2010, 01:28:49 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 08, 2010, 01:24:09 PM
Yes, but this is most noticeable amongst the least educated, so it stands to reason. These are the kinds of people who don't question things, in any society.
I'm not sure I agree with that first sentence.
It's probably not 100% accurate but I think it's true for the most part. The least educated are often the most vocal but when push comes to shove they tend to follow orders and not question what is occurring.
Again, I don't really agree with that. The "least educated" are almost by definition the least plugged into society and therefore tend to not follow anyone's orders, and question very highly the direction of society.
I suspect it's bias on the part of a highly educated forum to say that those with less education than us (annd whther it's formal education or not, this is a knowedgeable bunch) are more like sheep, and less questioning.
Quote from: Habbaku on February 08, 2010, 11:29:44 AM
In the light of the Allied demands, I think it's a bit easier to see why they might've gambled, as they did, on a few last-gasp offensives, wonder weapons and, at the end, simply wanted to see the destruction of Germany rather than a surrender of what little was left standing.
You DO realise, I suppose, that our demands were unconditional surrender and that all planners from the victors' side intended to carve Germany up, right?
Germany was to BE destroyed - nobody hid that intention. Surrender or no surrender.
So, it was moot if the Germans kept fighting or laid down their weapons - their country was going to be gone. The US even had the Morgenthau Plan, which planned the divison of Germany into two nations and the creation of several 'international' states.
Besides, he had even said that:
Quote from: Henry MorgenthauThere is the illusion that the New Germany left after the annexations can be reduced to a 'pastoral state'. It cannot be done unless we exterminate or move 25,000,000 people out of it."
http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2008/webarticles/080103_marshallplan.html
Small wonder that the Germans kept fighting.
How would YOU act if many great powers invaded the US with the express intent to destroy the country forever and kill/displace 100 million Americans, no matter what? Just give up and say 'okay, you're too strong, no point in trying to get some conditional peace that may allow the US to keep existing'?
In fact, the Germans ended up better than they expected, the country was only split into three (two if you don't count Austria).
And Germany could even have become reunited again by 1952, with no Berlin Wall ever, if the US had just accepted the USSRs' proposal of March 10th 1952 to reunify the country, but leaving it neutral as a buffer between both blocs.
But, alas, the allies were very keen on their new imperial possessions on the east side of the Rhine, so Germany remained divided until 1990 and had to endure a very painful division for decades.
EDIT: And the 'scorched Earth policy' of Hitler was also moot. Even if it is commonly said that his commanders were wise to ignore Hitlers' orders and ended up not destroying the German industry before it was conquered, the result was merely that the USSR packed up the German factories and sent them to the Union, while the Allies simply blew them up, as part of the plan to reduce the Germans to a pastoral state.
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 08, 2010, 09:19:46 PM
But, alas, the allies were very keen on their new imperial possessions on the east side of the Rhine, so Germany remained divided until 1990 and had to endure a very painful division for decades.
Those mean allies. :ultra:
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 08, 2010, 09:19:46 PM
You DO realise, I suppose, that our demands were unconditional surrender and that all planners from the victors' side intended to carve Germany up, right?
:huh: Did you even read the first half of my post?
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 08, 2010, 09:19:46 PM
But, alas, the allies were very keen on their new imperial possessions on the east side of the Rhine, so Germany remained divided until 1990 and had to endure a very painful division for decades.
It is a very curious kind of "imperialism" indeed that involves the conquerors turning the vanquished into a rich export powerhouse while simultaneously paying considerable sums of their own money for its defence.
Quote from: Warspite
It is a very curious kind of "imperialism" indeed that involves the conquerors turning the vanquished into a rich export powerhouse while simultaneously paying considerable sums of their own money for its defence.
Turned the vanquished? Or just the portion of them that suited you? What did you do to the Germans on the Soviet side?
Besides, the German achievements were done on their own merit - note that Austria *did* became a neutral nation between the two blocs, and its economy also flourished, without your alleged "help". And East Germany was the most prosperous nation of the Eastern Bloc.
As for your "sums for defence"... since Germany needed NONE, you merely served your own interests, not the Germans (who also had to pay for their militaries, and that went double as they had to pay for armies on both sides)
Quote from: Habbaku on February 08, 2010, 09:28:53 PM
:huh: Did you even read the first half of my post?
Yes, but you placed a good chunk of the issue on the German High Command, and you did not emphazise enough what the Germans knew was coming to them, and added the surrrender "of what was left standing". It did not do justice to the actual situation.
But at least you were one of the few that grasped that the Germans were forced to do their stand for other reasons than just fanaticism - they were fighting for their very existence.
Quote from: citizen k
Those mean allies. :ultra:
Yes, the USSR was disappointed with the Allies' decision to keep Germany divided.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/cwh/2004/00000004/00000002/art00003
I like that Msil isn't afraid to share the objective truth.
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2010, 10:54:35 PM
I like that Msil isn't afraid to share the objective truth.
Indeed. Because one man had a plan (A man, a plan, a canal, Panama!) that the Germans didn't even know about, it is easy to understand why they fought tooth and nail to keep another man in power who obviously planned to destroy them for failing him. :lol:
Thank god for Martim Silva! Without him, we would have to take turns being "the languish poster who has learned the least from a study of history."
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2010, 06:10:20 PM
Again, I don't really agree with that. The "least educated" are almost by definition the least plugged into society and therefore tend to not follow anyone's orders, and question very highly the direction of society.
I suspect it's bias on the part of a highly educated forum to say that those with less education than us (annd whther it's formal education or not, this is a knowedgeable bunch) are more like sheep, and less questioning.
You are teh funnay. Long live Captain Canada and his gullible sidekick!
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 08, 2010, 09:56:43 PM
Quote from: Warspite
It is a very curious kind of "imperialism" indeed that involves the conquerors turning the vanquished into a rich export powerhouse while simultaneously paying considerable sums of their own money for its defence.
Turned the vanquished? Or just the portion of them that suited you? What did you do to the Germans on the Soviet side?
Any attempt to help them would have resulted in the start of WWIII. ;)
Quote from: grumbler on February 08, 2010, 11:52:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2010, 06:10:20 PM
Again, I don't really agree with that. The "least educated" are almost by definition the least plugged into society and therefore tend to not follow anyone's orders, and question very highly the direction of society.
I suspect it's bias on the part of a highly educated forum to say that those with less education than us (annd whther it's formal education or not, this is a knowedgeable bunch) are more like sheep, and less questioning.
You are teh funnay. Long live Captain Canada and his gullible sidekick!
Please explain the funniness? I'm a bit lost.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2010, 12:45:37 AM
Please explain the funniness? I'm a bit lost.
Sorry, explaining it isn't my job.
Re-read the referenced post again, carefully, and see if you don't se why it is funny. Hint: it partly has to do with "bias on the part of a highly educated forum."
Quote from: grumbler on February 09, 2010, 01:18:41 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2010, 12:45:37 AM
Please explain the funniness? I'm a bit lost.
Sorry, explaining it isn't my job.
Re-read the referenced post again, carefully, and see if you don't se why it is funny. Hint: it partly has to do with "bias on the part of a highly educated forum."
I thought as a teacher, explaining is your job.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2010, 01:41:09 AM
I thought as a teacher, explaining is your job.
He's off the clock.
Regarding Italy
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/italy.asp
The armistice was harsh enough, and didn't give the Italians any guarantee about the future peace treaty. I think they were told that the conditions would depend on Italy's behavior, but that was all. They surrendered unconditionally.
On to Germany, the contrast between 1918 and 1945 is shocking and one is tempted to attribute it to the difference between Wilson's "points" and Roosevelt's "unconditional surrender", but there were several other factors in play, like
- Nazi Terror. Hitler almost started his rule murdering a fair share of his own associates and kept on in the same vein to the end...
- Fear of the Soviets. A very understandable fear, specially amongst those that knew what had been German occupation in Russia.
- Versailles. Not only because the new peace treaty was sure to be harsher, but because of what happened in 1918 from the Armistice on. What was to be gained by surrendering?
- Perhaps, the bombing of German cities, which conceivably did embitter civilians more than cower them. This is a contentious point, and by its own nature we lack conclusive evidence.
- Nazi regime policies. They did know what had happened in 1918 and always feared it could happen again, in two versions: Red revolution (to the point of fearing Germans units could appear any day in the front fighting in the Soviet armies) and civilian moral collapse. And the Nazis did work hard to avoid a new 1918...
- Goebbels and his propaganda machine. Much has been said about Hitler's oratory, but in recent times I think we have tended to underestimate Goebbels and his skills. And I'm no expert but I have read that in contrast Wilhelmine propaganda was notoriously crude and primitive, far inferior to the Allied efforts in this field.
- Allied blockade by necessity had to be far less successful than it was in 1918 due to Nazi Germany occupying so much of the European continent until well into 1944.
- War crimes, and specifically the holocaust. All involved - and they were many - knew they faced a very real risk of being judged and hanged. And rightly so...
In short, I think no single factor is enough if taken alone to explain why Germans fought to the end in 1945. But all combined are more than enough.
I am just waiting for Martim to start quoting from Other Losses. You know it is coming.
Quote from: Berkut on February 09, 2010, 09:11:41 AM
I am just waiting for Martim to start quoting from Other Losses. You know it is coming.
What is Other losses?
I suspect the single most important factor is the grip that the hardcore Nazis had over the army after the failed coup attempt.
The higher ranks fought because they risked dangling from SS meathooks if they didn't.
The Nazis ordered the fight to go on because they literally had no other options - they faced Allied nooses, or worse from the Soviets, and must have known it.
The Germans fighting against the Soviets is no surprise - the Soviet army was doing unto the German people as they had been done by, as they advanced. Given that the Western allies refused to be split from the Soviet alliance, that meant fighting against the west as well.
In short, the choice was between a military coup replacing the Nazis from within in the hope of cutting some sort of deal if the Germans *themselves* hanged their leadership, or fighting on. The coup was attempted and failed.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2010, 09:42:21 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 09, 2010, 09:11:41 AM
I am just waiting for Martim to start quoting from Other Losses. You know it is coming.
What is Other losses?
I believe he is referring to the book referenced here.
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/b/bacque-james/ambrose-001.html
You're a funny guy Martim.
The Germans didn't surrender because of an unpublished and unexecuted internal US memorandum.
The Russians would have respected "German neutrality," just like they respected 4 power control of Berlin and democratically elected governments of all the Warsaw Pact nations.
West German was an imperial possession. Leave it to the diabolical Americans to come up with the trick of paying tribute *to* our possessions.
Please, more, I beg you.
Quote from: Berkut
I am just waiting for Martim to start quoting from Other Losses. You know it is coming.
Cut the crap.
The often-spouted myth that the Western Allies were "amazing saviors" who were in total contrast with the Soviets in the Occupation of Germany has already been debunked by reputable works.
I advise you to read "After the Reich - the brutal History of Allied Occupation", by Giles McDonough. It is avaliable on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/After-Reich-Brutal-History-Occupation/dp/0465003389/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265804676&sr=8-1
It is not a disputed work. NOBODY says what is there was not true, because it WAS.
It just so happen that the pseudo-historians that usually write the books for Western audiences like to skip the 1945-1948 period of the Occupation, preferring to concentrate on the years when the allies decided to use the Germans as extra troops against the USSR and thus started to treat them more humanely.
IN FACT, during the early years of the Occupation, the Allies behaved far worse to the Germans than the Germans ever did to the French or the Poles. And believe me, that's hard to do.
As noted in the "The European Diary of John F. Kennedy", there was massive looting:
Quote from: JKF
The British had gone into Bremen ahead of us -- and everyone was unanimous in their description of British looting and destruction, which had been very heavy. They had taken everything which at all related to the sea -- ships, small boats, lubricants, machinery, etc."
http://www.amazon.com/Prelude-Leadership-European-Kennedy-Summer/dp/0895264595
Also, executions of anyone who disobeyed the occupation authorities were common, the German Red Cross was disbanded, the International Red Cross had its activities restricted to avoid giving much medical care to the population, food was heavily restricted, the number of dead civilians skyrocketed - over four million dead in just a few years.
Holocaust-level numbers, but which fit well with the "eliminating Germans to lower the country to a pastoral level" ideas of Morgenthau.
Not to mention the use of slaves - 750,000 to France, 300,000 to the US (mostly to do slave work in Texas), and 20,000 to Britain (the Brits only took a token number, they believed they had enough people in their colonies). The Union took five million.
Read it. It WILL change forever your idea of the Allies being "benign" in any way towards the Germans during the early years of the Occupation. The only leader who opposed this was Patton (who was outraged at the demands for slaves by Democracies).
Quote from: Admiral Yi
The Germans didn't surrender because of an unpublished and unexecuted internal US memorandum.
No, it's because all the Allies had made it plain clear what their goals were for Germany - which included getting rid of Germany, irrespective of any negotiation or regime in Berlin.
Quote from: Admiral Yi
The Russians would have respected "German neutrality," just like they respected 4 power control of Berlin and democratically elected governments of all the Warsaw Pact nations.
Russia would have respected German neutrality, just as it respected Austrian neutrality (both sides retreated from there), it respected Yugoslavias' decision to split from the bloc, it respected the line drawn with Churchill and kept out of Greece.
Besides, you should all have already know how the USSR saw the area by the Warsaw Pacts' war plans, which have been made public years ago - in case of war, we would have immediately answered with a massive nuclear assault on all your border positions, so it is DAMN MEANINGLESS where your troops would be stationed - you would not be able to "protect" anything.
And, of course, this plan shows well that there was no intent to conquer the area, just to make a buffer zone (no point in conquering wastelands).
Because what the USSR always wanted was a sanitary cordon between itself and potential threats. Which is why Austria, Yugoslavia, Greece and indeed East Germany were expendeable - they were not around the borders. The Bulgarians stayed because they like Russians.
Frankly, it's getting pretty tiresome to always listen to the same broken record coming from the West that "the Russians are BAAAD, so all our treaty-breaking and military buildup on their borders is *perfectly* justified, as we're saints who never attacked anyone ever".
PUH-LEASE. We see this shit even today. Russia has no intention of threatening anyone, yet NATO keeps moving eastwards (disregarding all treaties of non-expansion it signed), it is rearming Georgia (what, do you want them to start another war?) and it keeps putting missiles next to Russia (the ones in Rumania are very close to violating all the treaties on the Black Sea).
And all of this without even consulting first with Moscow. Yesterday I was on the line with Moscow (the Russian ambassador here is my friend from the happier times of the Union), and the Kremlin is *pissed*. All the moves took them by surprise. Russia feels ignored and surrounded by a pack of ravenous wolves that are trying to snap at its heels.
Honestly, how DENSE are you people? Are Russias' intentions so hard to grasp? I can't even beguin to see things from your perspective, all you do is move troops closer, place threats everywhere, and then have the incredible gall to say Russia is the threat!
Frankly, Hitler knew how to "read" us 1,000,000 better than you. For our misery. :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi
West German was an imperial possession. Leave it to the diabolical Americans to come up with the trick of paying tribute *to* our possessions.
We wanted to retreat and leave the Germans to rule themselves. Trade would not be restricted.
Because unlike the West, the Union did not feel an imperative need to keep its army on non-vital conquests. You refused, doomed them to decades of division, and them armed them to use as cannon fodder against the Union.
How incredibly friendly of you. And you still want them to thank you for it.
Besides, how we see in the Ukraine, you only help who you want. Without cash support, we see the gigantic disasters that western backed regimes are to their own peoples. It comes as no surprise that V.F. Yanukovych is now the President of the country and that the "wonderful" candidate you supported in 2004-2005 can't even get 5% of the vote.
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 10, 2010, 07:50:38 AM
Cut the crap.
The often-spouted myth that the Western Allies were "amazing saviors" who were in total contrast with the Soviets in the Occupation of Germany has already been debunked by reputable works.
:lmfao: I love this! "Cut the crap" followed by the biggest load of crap in the thread so far. The only person "oft" spouting this strawman argument about "the Western Allies were 'amazing saviors'" is you.
Have you no shame?
How did the Allies make clear their goal of getting rid of Germany?
Where did the Greek communists get their arms?
Does Georgia count when you say Russia has no intention of attacking anyone? Does the Ukraine?
Quote from: grumbler on February 10, 2010, 08:11:50 AM
:lmfao: I love this! "Cut the crap" followed by the biggest load of crap in the thread so far. The only person "oft" spouting this strawman argument about "the Western Allies were 'amazing saviors'" is you.
You only mention the Soviets in german fears. While they did fear us more (rightfully so), you were hardly angels to them.
And since you seem to be blind, note the posts about how the Allies "helped" the Germans (somehow the Western part equates to the whole of it).
You know VERY WELL that the vast majority of people here think that the Allied advance into Germany was not very brutal and that the occupation was immediately benign. FFS, the French were even raping the men.
Quote from: Admiral Yi
How did the Allies make clear their goal of getting rid of Germany?
You DO know that good chunks of the plans for Germany were announced often during the war, right?
Quote from: Admiral Yi
Where did the Greek communists get their arms?
Many of them from the retreating Germans. And we cut our supplies as soon as we made a deal with the British.
I know this is hard to grasp, because democracies instabreak any agreement of this kind and keep supplying friendly insurgents no matter what, but do try to keep in mind that words are kept sometimes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi
Does Georgia count when you say Russia has no intention of attacking anyone? Does the Ukraine?
If Georgia did not want to be put in line, the only thing it had to do was to NOT ATTACK THE OSSETIANS. Which they did because you gave them weapons. Russia merely protected the population.
When did we attack the Ukranians? Are you talking about the 1920s? The situation was fluid. The Poles and the French had been using it during their war with the USSR (De Gaulle was part of the French expeditionary force sent to Poland to attack the USSR, and he marched on Kiev), so it was out of the question to allow the existance of a territory that had such a hostile goverment. Moscow made a regime change operation and the new Ukraine wanted to join the Union.
Besides, why are you so protetive of the Americans? Aren't you Korean? The US and its allies committed massive war crimes on Korea.
The massacre on No Gun Ri is one that the US admits (but woe the German of Japanese who used the same excuse America does for its actions), but there are more cases of brutal masscres of civilians.
http://www.army.mil/Nogunri/
Especially by the Korean allies of the US, with Washingtons' knowledge:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/18/mass-killings-in-south-ko_n_102322.html
http://www.japanfocus.org/-C__J__Hanley___J_S__Chang/2827
But, of course, western sources often ignore this. The difference in coverage is immense:
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/11/business/media-troubling-historical-account-sensational-interview-raise-questions-about.html?pagewanted=1
Oh man, we haven't had a real live apologist for the Commies in so long. This is going to be fun.
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 10, 2010, 07:50:38 AM
Quote from: Berkut
I am just waiting for Martim to start quoting from Other Losses. You know it is coming.
Cut the crap.
The often-spouted myth that the Western Allies were "amazing saviors" who were in total contrast with the Soviets in the Occupation of Germany has already been debunked by reputable works.
I advise you to read "After the Reich - the brutal History of Allied Occupation", by Giles McDonough. It is avaliable on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/After-Reich-Brutal-History-Occupation/dp/0465003389/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265804676&sr=8-1
It is not a disputed work. NOBODY says what is there was not true, because it WAS.
So all the stuff in this boook about the brutal occupation fo Germany by the Soviets, the rape of 10 million Gemans by the Red Army, the killing of a couple million German civilians, by the Red Army, the destruction of Eastern Germany AFTER they were occupied, by the Red Army, the destruction of Poland and seizing of Polish territory, by the Red Army, is all true?
Because that is largely what this book is about - sure, there is plenty there about Western Allied brutality as well, but lets not kid ourselves - the difference was rather extreme between how the West treated Germany and how the USSR treated Germany.
Nobody has claimed that the Western treatment of Germany was benign, that is a strawman you have created.
But to compare it to how the USSR treated Germany, and Poland, and Romania, and Hungary? Wow - that is some serious chutzpah right there. There is no dispute about that amongst historians.
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 10, 2010, 07:50:38 AM
Russia would have respected German neutrality, just as it respected Austrian neutrality (both sides retreated from there), it respected Yugoslavias' decision to split from the bloc, it respected the line drawn with Churchill and kept out of Greece.
They kept out of Greece because they decided to do so - hardly because of any principal - Lord knows they were quite willing to supply communist wars elsewhere.
Quote
Besides, you should all have already know how the USSR saw the area by the Warsaw Pacts' war plans, which have been made public years ago - in case of war, we would have immediately answered with a massive nuclear assault on all your border positions, so it is DAMN MEANINGLESS where your troops would be stationed - you would not be able to "protect" anything.
And, of course, this plan shows well that there was no intent to conquer the area, just to make a buffer zone (no point in conquering wastelands).
What does this have to do with anything?
Quote
Because what the USSR always wanted was a sanitary cordon between itself and potential threats. Which is why Austria, Yugoslavia, Greece and indeed East Germany were expendeable - they were not around the borders. The Bulgarians stayed because they like Russians.
Frankly, it's getting pretty tiresome to always listen to the same broken record coming from the West that "the Russians are BAAAD, so all our treaty-breaking and military buildup on their borders is *perfectly* justified, as we're saints who never attacked anyone ever".
Strawman much?
Quote
PUH-LEASE. We see this shit even today. Russia has no intention of threatening anyone,
Of course not - the occasional Georgia notwithstanding, of course.
The fact that Russia is a paper tiger incapable of projecting any force beyond beating up on tiny nations on their border has more to do with this than any kind of benevolence.
Quote
yet NATO keeps moving eastwards (disregarding all treaties of non-expansion it signed), it is rearming Georgia (what, do you want them to start another war?) and it keeps putting missiles next to Russia (the ones in Rumania are very close to violating all the treaties on the Black Sea).
NATO is not threat to Russia though, so why would they care? The only threat NATO is to Russia is to Russias ability to bully her neighbors, which of course is why Russia cares.
Quote
And all of this without even consulting first with Moscow.
The US consults with Moscow all the time - too much, IMO. Why should they consult with moscow about their relationships with other independent nations?
Quote
Yesterday I was on the line with Moscow (the Russian ambassador here is my friend from the happier times of the Union), and the Kremlin is *pissed*.
Oh dear. You should call the US State Department, and let them know how mad they are - I don't think they have any idea. We did, after all, press the "reset" button.
Quote
All the moves took them by surprise. Russia feels ignored and surrounded by a pack of ravenous wolves that are trying to snap at its heels.
Ahhh, poor Russia feels ignored? Here is the real crux of the matter - poor Russia is feeling ignored. It is very sad. Maybe you should invade some tiny country again, so you can get back into the news and people will notice you.
Quote
Honestly, how DENSE are you people? Are Russias' intentions so hard to grasp? I can't even beguin to see things from your perspective, all you do is move troops closer, place threats everywhere, and then have the incredible gall to say Russia is the threat!
You are rather silly if you think there is any chance that NATO is going to invade Russia. NATO cannot agree to drop bombs on terrorists, much less invade another nation for shits and giggles.
Quote
Frankly, Hitler knew how to "read" us 1,000,000 better than you. For our misery. :(
You are so very misunderstood - it really is quite the sad story.
Yeah, if only NATO were run by someone like Hitler, who understands you. I guess that says something about your culture and policies, that it takes a totalitarian megalomaniac to understand you.
Putin and Hitler - comrades in understanding. It is very touching.
Quote
Quote from: Admiral Yi
West German was an imperial possession. Leave it to the diabolical Americans to come up with the trick of paying tribute *to* our possessions.
We wanted to retreat and leave the Germans to rule themselves. Trade would not be restricted.
Damn those Americans, forcing you to build that wall and enslave another nation for 50 years!
Quote
Because unlike the West, the Union did not feel an imperative need to keep its army on non-vital conquests.
Of course not - you only kept your army in "vital" conquests - defined as any conquests where you kept your army.
Quote
You refused, doomed them to decades of division, and them armed them to use as cannon fodder against the Union.
Refused what? It wasn't the West that had to build walls and shoot people trying to leave the workers paradise.
Quote
How incredibly friendly of you. And you still want them to thank you for it.
They mostly DO thank us for it. The condition of East Germany (and Eastern Europe more generally) made it pretty clear which system was better to operate under.
Quote
Besides, how we see in the Ukraine, you only help who you want.
Should we also help those we don't want to help?
Are you arguing that the USSR helped those it did not want to help, rather than those it wanted it to help?
Quote
Without cash support, we see the gigantic disasters that western backed regimes are to their own peoples.
Indeed, the West is just chock full of disastrous regimes that have been terrible for their people. That must be why the standard of living is so terrible in the West compared to ex Soviet bloc.
I like the comment that "Western sources ignore this" followed by a link... to the The New York Times!
I guess this is what is possible with thorough indoctrination - you can actually contradict yourself within a single sentence, and not even notice it.
Whom does the Martim Silva Sock belong to?
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/member.php?u=53507
Cyborgs are a danger to humanity.
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 10, 2010, 09:11:23 AM
You DO know that good chunks of the plans for Germany were announced often during the war, right?
I missed the part when the Allies announced the plan to eliminate Germany. When was that?
QuoteMany of them from the retreating Germans. And we cut our supplies as soon as we made a deal with the British.
And before the quid pro quo, Greece was in the potential buffer state category, right?
QuoteIf Georgia did not want to be put in line, the only thing it had to do was to NOT ATTACK THE OSSETIANS. Which they did because you gave them weapons. Russia merely protected the population.
Russia merely passed out passports to Ossetians and Abkezians and annexed their territory too, you forgot to mention that.
QuoteWhen did we attack the Ukranians? Are you talking about the 1920s? The situation was fluid. The Poles and the French had been using it during their war with the USSR (De Gaulle was part of the French expeditionary force sent to Poland to attack the USSR, and he marched on Kiev), so it was out of the question to allow the existance of a territory that had such a hostile goverment. Moscow made a regime change operation and the new Ukraine wanted to join the Union.
Russia has not attacked the Ukraine yet. I was referring to the Georgian passport trick which I believe has already been used in the Ukraine, the alleged assasination attempt on the Ukrainian president.
QuoteBesides, why are you so protetive of the Americans? Aren't you Korean? The US and its allies committed massive war crimes on Korea.
Yeah, my Korean half is angry at the US for its war crimes and my American half is angry at Korea for their war crimes.
I just don't like bullshit. If somebody makes up bullshit about the US, I object. If somebody makes up bullshit about Finland, Spain, or Mauritius, I object.
Mauritiunian are evil.
QuoteIf Georgia did not want to be put in line, the only thing it had to do was to NOT ATTACK THE OSSETIANS. Which they did because you gave them weapons. Russia merely protected the population.
South Ossetia and Abkhazia are of course legally part of Georgia, as far as my knowledge of international statute goes.
And before anyone shouts "Kossovo" at me as an example of a country formed from a legal part of another by force of foreign arms, I don't have a lot of time for the West's decision in that case either. It's set an awful precedent.
And Russia's crude bullying of the Ukraine is only going to backfire on them in the long run. If one is going to be a major energy supplier, one needs to be a reliable energy supplier.
He totally lost me. What about the slaves sent to Texas? I never heard of that.
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 10, 2010, 09:11:23 AM
You only mention the Soviets in german fears. While they did fear us more (rightfully so), you were hardly angels to them.
Neither you nor I were even alive in this time period, so the "us" and "you" bits here are inappropriate. I will attribute this to your lack of skill in the english language, rather than claiming you are over-identifying with dead people.
I don't think I mentioned the Soviets as a German fear
at all, let alone imply that it was their only one. As you note, "cut the crap."
QuoteAnd since you seem to be blind, note the posts about how the Allies "helped" the Germans (somehow the Western part equates to the whole of it).
As you seem to be blind, the Western Allies did help the Germans. See: Marshal Plan. The Soviets turned down Marshal Plan aide for the Germans living under their control, so if you want to blame someone for the Western part getting more Western help than the Eastern part, blame Stalin. As you note, "cut the crap."
QuoteYou know VERY WELL that the vast majority of people here think that the Allied advance into Germany was not very brutal and that the occupation was immediately benign. FFS, the French were even raping the men.
Don't presume to tell me what I know. You have no clue. And all these little horror stories about the French raping the men are pretty pathetic (it may have happened that a German man was raped by a Frenchman, but this was hardly policy and was in fact illegal and punished). As you note, "cut the crap."
Actually, I am just funnin' you about "cut the crap." :lol: I love your crap. As alternate history goes, it is miles better than Turtledove, and you can spout it with such mock-seriousness that it reads like some of the better stuff from The Onion.
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2010, 06:10:20 PM
Quote from: Strix on February 08, 2010, 02:48:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2010, 01:28:49 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 08, 2010, 01:24:09 PM
Yes, but this is most noticeable amongst the least educated, so it stands to reason. These are the kinds of people who don't question things, in any society.
I'm not sure I agree with that first sentence.
It's probably not 100% accurate but I think it's true for the most part. The least educated are often the most vocal but when push comes to shove they tend to follow orders and not question what is occurring.
Again, I don't really agree with that. The "least educated" are almost by definition the least plugged into society and therefore tend to not follow anyone's orders, and question very highly the direction of society.
I suspect it's bias on the part of a highly educated forum to say that those with less education than us (annd whther it's formal education or not, this is a knowedgeable bunch) are more like sheep, and less questioning.
I don't think is bias. I am less educated and I am more like sheep and less questioning.
I'm also pretty good at following orders.
Quoting is getting hard.
Quote from: Berkut
Because that is largely what this book is about - sure, there is plenty there about Western Allied brutality as well, but lets not kid ourselves - the difference was rather extreme between how the West treated Germany and how the USSR treated Germany.
Nobody has claimed that the Western treatment of Germany was benign, that is a strawman you have created.
I do not deny we hurt the Germans a lot, but the Western side does portray itself as having done very little wrong in Germany after the war.
In fact, the mere death of books that deal on how the Allies treated the Germans proves it. How many do you have about how Soviet troops behaved and how many about how the allies behaved.
For that matter, I remember a time when the western history books only spoke on how the Germans killed allied prisioners of war and never mentioned the opposite. It was not until Spielberg starting making movies about it that the knowledge that the allies routinely killed defenceless german POW became accepted.
Quote from: Berkut
They kept out of Greece because they decided to do so - hardly because of any principal - Lord knows they were quite willing to supply communist wars elsewhere.
No, it was a deal done with Churchill.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_11_50/ai_54517445/pg_2/
Quote from: Berkut
What does this have to do with anything?
People are saying that the Allies refused the Soviet proposal to reunify Germany because they feared the USSR would invade. The war plans prove that there was never any intention to invade that part of Europe.
Quote from: Berkut
The fact that Russia is a paper tiger incapable of projecting any force beyond beating up on tiny nations on their border has more to do with this than any kind of benevolence.
If you start with that, I'll start to mention the utter powerlessness of the European countries or the fact that the US is going bankrupt while funding just 400,000 troops abroad.
Quote from: Berkut
NATO is not threat to Russia though, so why would they care? The only threat NATO is to Russia is to Russias ability to bully her neighbors, which of course is why Russia cares.
I refer to the recent Russian plan: NATO is not a threat, but its expansion threatens the stability of the region, as it arms and encourages aggressions, like Georgia did.
Quote from: Berkut
The US consults with Moscow all the time - too much, IMO. Why should they consult with moscow about their relationships with other independent nations?
Yes, why should they?
Btw, how did you react when the USSR put missiles into Cuba?
Quote from: Berkut
Oh dear. You should call the US State Department, and let them know how mad they are - I don't think they have any idea. We did, after all, press the "reset" button.
I know nobody in the US State Department. The close I got was to look at the US Embassy from the spot point in the Chinese Embassy. It looked like an evil and gloomy place. I wouldn't put my feet in there.
Quote from: grumbler
Neither you nor I were even alive in this time period, so the "us" and "you" bits here are inappropriate. I will attribute this to your lack of skill in the english language, rather than claiming you are over-identifying with dead people.
I'll accept that garbage when you lot start referring to US actions in WW2 as "their" actions, instead of "ours" or "we did"...
Quote from: Berkut
I like the comment that "Western sources ignore this" followed by a link... to the The New York Times!
I guess this is what is possible with thorough indoctrination - you can actually contradict yourself within a single sentence, and not even notice it.
I have a dinner at the Russian Embassy today and will respond to everything tomorrow (your ignorant statements will give everyone good laughs), but I'll explain this last point:
I took great pains to quote Western sources, because I know you all are so brainwashed that if I put up a Russian, Chinese or other Lefitist link, you'll instantantly call it "unreliable", "a lie" and would dismiss it.
(North Korea, for example, has memorials about massacres commited by US soldiers. I doubt you'd give them any credit if I posted its links here).
Later
grumbler before me? Fucker. :mad:
*poopcorn*
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 10, 2010, 02:18:22 PM
(North Korea, for example, has memorials about massacres commited by US soldiers. I doubt you'd give them any credit if I posted its links here).
Using North Korea as an example, given the nature of its regime, will get you no credibility here. Derisory laughter is both likely and appropriate if you attempt it.
Hey Martim, how's the leftist invasion of Colombia coming along? :)
I thought this dude was crazy Portuguese not crazy Russian
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 10, 2010, 02:18:22 PM
I'll accept that garbage when you lot start referring to US actions in WW2 as "their" actions, instead of "ours" or "we did"...
Since I have
always referred here to US actions as actions of the US, you can stop your garbage (claiming personal credit for Soviet WW2 actions) about six posts ago. :smarty:
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on February 10, 2010, 02:43:58 PM
I thought this dude was crazy Portuguese not crazy Russian
I don't think he recognizes any difference. You may think that is crazy, but if you have known both Portuguese and Russians, it is a confusion easy to understand. Both hate to be rubbed.
Do they teach this sort of bizarre anti-Americanism in school or did he just pick it up along the way.
Quote from: grumbler on February 10, 2010, 01:27:37 PM
And all these little horror stories about the French raping the men are pretty pathetic (it may have happened that a German man was raped by a Frenchman, but this was hardly policy and was in fact illegal and punished).
Aw, come on grumbler, you
know that the homosexual rape of German men by the French was done on the direct orders of our glorious Supreme Leader Morganthau. Heck, you and I were right there in the room when he signed the papers. You even insisted on co-signing them--IN BLOOD! OK, it wasn't
your blood, it was the blood of a dozen or so Russians we had illegally enslaved that you had tortured to death for the personal amusement of yourself and Morganthau, but I have to admit that the sight of your signature in human blood on the document was worth some shit and giggles.
Having the orders written on parchment made from the skins of German POWs was just icing on the cake.
Quote from: dps on February 10, 2010, 07:41:51 PM
Aw, come on grumbler, you know that the homosexual rape of German men by the French was done on the direct orders of our glorious Supreme Leader Morganthau. Heck, you and I were right there in the room when he signed the papers. You even insisted on co-signing them--IN BLOOD! OK, it wasn't your blood, it was the blood of a dozen or so Russians we had illegally enslaved that you had tortured to death for the personal amusement of yourself and Morganthau, but I have to admit that the sight of your signature in human blood on the document was worth some shit and giggles.
Having the orders written on parchment made from the skins of German POWs was just icing on the cake.
:ultra: In the deal I cut with myself at the Nuremberg trials, I promised me that I would destroy all evidence of those happenings! Damn me! If I find me, I'm gonna hammer me good!
Quote from: Razgovory on February 10, 2010, 01:15:29 PM
He totally lost me. What about the slaves sent to Texas? I never heard of that.
I am surprised you didn't? My family owned a German when I was growing up. It made life a whole lot easier since he made the bed, did the laundry, cleaned up after us, and all the boring chores. Sadly we had to put him down a few years back. He was at peace at the end, we brought him out to a field where we used to let him run, and than pa put one round to the back of his head Stalin-style. Thankfully we thought ahead and had him dig his own grave first.
Man, I miss Karl-Heinz.
Okay, I'll take this a post at a time, to make quoting easier.
Quote from: Berkut
Ahhh, poor Russia feels ignored? Here is the real crux of the matter - poor Russia is feeling ignored. It is very sad. Maybe you should invade some tiny country again, so you can get back into the news and people will notice you.
More accurately, all warnings from Russia against NATO expansion and the arming of hostile regimes are ignored, so you are left open to the consequences.
Besides, the Western Media are extremely biased and do not give a fair image of Russia.
Few even noticed Presidente Medvedevs' latest iniciative to bring stability to Europe, or Russias' support for the Corfu Process, for example.
And when Russa notes that NATO moves bring instability, or that arming Georgians is a reckless move, the headlines go as "Russa Threatens" or "Russia sees menace".
They are not balanced.
And Russia merely acted to protect the Ossetians against a regime that waged war on them.
Didn't the US justified the attack on Yugoslavia with the protection of the Albanians? Isn't the US justifying its invasion of Iraq with the need to remove a regime that attacked its citizens?
Quote from: Berkut
You are rather silly if you think there is any chance that NATO is going to invade Russia. NATO cannot agree to drop bombs on terrorists, much less invade another nation for shits and giggles.
Moscow is never sure about that. The military budget of the US alone is 50% larger than that of all other countries on Earth combined, and it keeps arming regimes and moving missiles closer to the borders.
If you don't want to invade, at the very least you want your influence to dominate all nations around Russia - also not a desirable outcome.
How would you react if Russia tried to have great influence over countries in the Americas? Apart of the fact that you sent troops to invade Cuba, invaded Granada, sponsored a coup in Chile, are wary of Venezuela...
Quote from: Berkut
Damn those Americans, forcing you to build that wall and enslave another nation for 50 years!
The Union proposed a mutual retreat, followed by the reunification of Germany and turning the country to a neutral status like Austria.
You accepted Austria, you refused Germany (I suppose Austria had less recruits for you to mobilize).
That meant that Soviet troops needed to remain in Germany. We could not retreat if you did not. So after 1952 German division it is pretty much your fault.
Quote from: Berkut
Of course not - you only kept your army in "vital" conquests - defined as any conquests where you kept your army.
Same as the US. I see American troops remain in Germany, Italy, Japan and Korea. And the war ended what, 65 years ago?
Quote from: Berkut
Refused what? It wasn't the West that had to build walls and shoot people trying to leave the workers paradise.
You said NO to our proposal for a mutual withdrawal and waiver of rule over the parts of Germany we all had.
Quote from: Berkut
They mostly DO thank us for it. The condition of East Germany (and Eastern Europe more generally) made it pretty clear which system was better to operate under.
Yes, because most Germans aren't even made aware of the Soviet proposal, thanks to your "unbiased" media. The westerners don't even realize who is to blame for the division.
And the German system would be like Austria's - a country which is hardly known for its poverty.
Quote from: Berkut
Are you arguing that the USSR helped those it did not want to help, rather than those it wanted it to help?
The USSR helped all those it seemed in need. It helped Arab nations. It helped African nations. It helped Asian nations. It helped South American natons. It helped nations like Finland.
Much money and resources were spent. But when the Union needed help itself, none came from the outside.
Quote from: Berkut
Indeed, the West is just chock full of disastrous regimes that have been terrible for their people. That must be why the standard of living is so terrible in the West compared to ex Soviet bloc.
The ex-soviet bloc has been trying to emulate western capitalism for 20 years. We see the results.
And yes, you are disasters. Now that your easy credit has run out, we see western nation after western nation cracking under the weight of its debts. Your "prosperity" was based on borrowing more than you could afford.
Back soon.
Martim, what you are trying to accomplish is akin to walking into an orthodox jewish temple & convince them the Nazi were right.
It ain't going to work.
Back. Europarliamentarians are a pain.
Quote from: Admiral Yi
I missed the part when the Allies announced the plan to eliminate Germany. When was that?
Tecnhically, it started even before the war.
As Russia has been reminding people, in 1939 Poland demanded at least East Prussia and more land in Germany (they expected a WWI-style war where the Poles would be able to delay the Germans enough for the Allies to break through in the West, and even counted on Soviet help).
It was a given that, with the "inconditional surrender" demand, that would mean great losses for Germany.
(actually, Poland later demanded to annex all the land up to Cottbus, including Berlin, in order to "protect the slavs" which historically lived in these areas. The USSR noted that those same slavs were also being expelled by the Poles as "Germans", so Moscow denied Warsaws' claims)
And the Yalta conference advanced the biggest details, even before Potsdam, already after the war.
There were more announcements at least since 1942, especially regarding how war criminals would be treated. I'll get a chronology later when I get home.
Quote from: Admiral Yi
And before the quid pro quo, Greece was in the potential buffer state category, right?
Actually, it was more in the "revolutionary" category - people were rising against their oppressors. The USSR tends to help immediately when that happens.
Quote from: Admiral Yi
Russia merely passed out passports to Ossetians and Abkezians and annexed their territory too, you forgot to mention that.
Ossetia did ask to join the Federation, but hasn't done so yet. Abkhazia is independent. I guess your media don't bother to tell you that.
Note that Ossetia was part of Georgia because of administrative reasons, not because they had anything in common with the georgians. They always identified with Russia, not Georgia.
And the Abkhaz have the right to self-determination.
(actually, withouth them Georgia should revert to the name of Iberia, since 'Georgia' is the kingdom which resulted in the merger of Abkhazia and Iberia)
Quote from: Admiral Yi
Russia has not attacked the Ukraine yet. I was referring to the Georgian passport trick which I believe has already been used in the Ukraine, the alleged assasination attempt on the Ukrainian president.
You know, Ossetia and the Crimea were settled by Russians, and many have family in Russia. They are intitled to Russian passports.
And Russia doesn't attack unprovoked. As seen in the elections, the ukrainan people was tired of the economic disaster brought by the worthless policies of its pro-western leader and got rid of him. The relations between the two countries will now improve greatly.
Quote from: Agelastus
South Ossetia and Abkhazia are of course legally part of Georgia, as far as my knowledge of international statute goes.
And before anyone shouts "Kossovo" at me as an example of a country formed from a legal part of another by force of foreign arms, I don't have a lot of time for the West's decision in that case either. It's set an awful precedent.
And Russia's crude bullying of the Ukraine is only going to backfire on them in the long run. If one is going to be a major energy supplier, one needs to be a reliable energy supplier.
As the US kept saying over and over, no nation has the right to massacre its population, which is what the Georgian regime was trying to do. Russia intervened to stop that, just like NATO did in Kosovo and the US/UK did in Iraq.
I don't like these interventions either, but if the other side (which has a HUGE military budget) does it and you do not, you are putting yourself in a very weak diplomatic position indeed. In international diplomacy, precedents are very important.
Georgia also made many see exactly how truthful were allied promises of "help".
And Russia did not bully the Ukraine, it only opposed a bad regime. As you can see from the elections, the Ukrainan people felt so "bullied" that they freely elected the pro-russian candidate.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 10, 2010, 01:15:29 PM
He totally lost me. What about the slaves sent to Texas? I never heard of that.
You are a good example of how the western media blocks knowlege from its population by simply not mentioning things.
Usually, your pseudo-historians only mention the POWs in the US, and keep saying that they got "good treatment".
They *never* mention the others that were sent to America immediately after the war and forced to work in bad conditions (like those of blacks) for no wages.
After months of hard labour, they were interviewed by a US military officer, who asked them how were their lives in Nazi Germany.
If they replied "not bad" or "okay", he'd write "nazi" in their papers and they would be sent back to work.
They'd have to admit they'd lived horribly in a most evil regime to be allowed to return. The US called it part of "denazification".
Read the "After the Reich" book, it's all there.
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 11, 2010, 08:11:51 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 10, 2010, 01:15:29 PM
He totally lost me. What about the slaves sent to Texas? I never heard of that.
You are a good example of how the western media blocks knowlege from its population by simply not mentioning things.
Usually, your pseudo-historians only mention the POWs in the US, and keep saying that they got "good treatment".
Those mean western media and pseudo-historians. :ultra:
Quote from: grumbler
As you seem to be blind, the Western Allies did help the Germans. See: Marshal Plan. The Soviets turned down Marshal Plan aide for the Germans living under their control, so if you want to blame someone for the Western part getting more Western help than the Eastern part, blame Stalin.
As you seem to be a demagogue, you know very well that the Marshal Plan loaned money for the nations to buy US goods to rebuild themselves. It was a great way for American companies to make great sales, while at the same time gaining new markets.
It was done entirely out of self-interest by the US (as it would gain nothing if Europe remained in rubble) and a way to tie those economies to America, a tie they are still struggling to get rid of.
The USSR saw through this and flatly refused, of course. Nobody should become dependent on an Economy ran by Wall Street bankers.
Quote from: grumbler
And all these little horror stories about the French raping the men are pretty pathetic (it may have happened that a German man was raped by a Frenchman, but this was hardly policy and was in fact illegal and punished).
If that is your defence, rape was also illegal in the Red Army and some soldiers were executed for it. That hardly stops westerners from raising the accusations. The cases of male rape were about eight, but I was of course talking about man on man. Female rape by allies was much higher (and the US also shot some soldiers about it), but you never mention them.
Quote from: grumbler
Since I have always referred here to US actions as actions of the US, you can stop your garbage (claiming personal credit for Soviet WW2 actions) about six posts ago. :smarty:
How you speak is your own issue.
Do Americans usually refer about Pearl Harbour by saying that "they" were caught by surprise, or do they say "we" were caught by surprise?
Do you say "we won the war", or do you say "they" won the war?
Cut the lowly demagogery, it only makes you look ridiculous.
Quote from: grumbler
I don't think he recognizes any difference. You may think that is crazy, but if you have known both Portuguese and Russians, it is a confusion easy to understand. Both hate to be rubbed.
Paying attention, you may note that I refer to "us" when speaking about the Union, and "Russia/Russians" when speaking about the Russian Federation.
The USSR was ideological in nature, and all socialists can call it theirs. I was, in fact, told to to identify with it by the Union itself.
But I suppose its easy for Americans to get confused. You're probably too busy still thinking about the results of the Super Bowl, yes?
And Russia does like the Portuguese. Moscow would like to exempt all portuguese from visa demands, but the EU demands an agreement as a whole, so the issue is blocked.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 11, 2010, 07:35:29 AM
Martim, what you are trying to accomplish is akin to walking into an orthodox jewish temple & convince them the Nazi were right.
It ain't going to work.
You are probably right, but every time I spent some time with Russians, I get a little less patience than usual to the western "holier-than-thou"/"in-your-face"/"our- missiles-are-very-peaceful" attitude.
Lots of physical changes in Moscow and St. Petersburg lately. I miss the cities, I think I'll go back there soon.
What the fuck is all this?
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 11, 2010, 08:11:51 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 10, 2010, 01:15:29 PM
He totally lost me. What about the slaves sent to Texas? I never heard of that.
You are a good example of how the western media blocks knowlege from its population by simply not mentioning things.
Usually, your pseudo-historians only mention the POWs in the US, and keep saying that they got "good treatment".
They *never* mention the others that were sent to America immediately after the war and forced to work in bad conditions (like those of blacks) for no wages.
After months of hard labour, they were interviewed by a US military officer, who asked them how were their lives in Nazi Germany.
If they replied "not bad" or "okay", he'd write "nazi" in their papers and they would be sent back to work.
They'd have to admit they'd lived horribly in a most evil regime to be allowed to return. The US called it part of "denazification".
Read the "After the Reich" book, it's all there.
:lmfao: I love the whole
all of your many historians, politicians, and reporters lie to you - here is the single workl that contains all of the truth approach! It is
sooo credible (especially the part where Germans would have to admit that "they'd lived horribly in a most evil regime" before being sent home)!
Why don't you just say "I am making this up as I go along." At least it would have the virtue of honesty. And why don't you mention that your source compares your beloved Union's occupation policies in Prussia with Stalin's "deliberate starvation of the Ukrainian kulaks in the early 1930s?"
Any well-rounded examination of history does not lead one to conclude that the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe was more benign than the US/British/French occupation of western Germany. No examination of the trends in Europe compared to those in Russia would lead one to believe that Russia is moving in the same liberal direction as Europe. No one honestly placing themselves in the position of the citizens of any nation outside Russia (and many nations inside Russia) would conclude that they would rather be part of Russia than the West.
I have Russian friends, and nothing makes me sadder than seeing where Russia is going (right back to where it was under your beloved "Union"), but I don't think the process is reversible. I think the Russians value security over freedom, and would rather have a tsar than a president.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on February 11, 2010, 09:31:02 AM
What the fuck is all this?
:huh: It is exactly what it looks like.
Quote from: grumbler on February 11, 2010, 09:51:30 AM
:huh: It is exactly what it looks like.
An enormous waste of time? :huh:
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on February 11, 2010, 10:07:43 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 11, 2010, 09:51:30 AM
:huh: It is exactly what it looks like.
An enormous waste of time? :huh:
Way to go, exposing all of Languish like that.
Quote from: PDH on February 11, 2010, 10:37:51 AM
Way to go, exposing all of Languish like that.
This one goes above and beyond the usual waste of time that is Languish. Whatever. Carry on, and pass me some slaves.
Quote from: grumbler on February 11, 2010, 09:50:30 AM
:lmfao: I love the whole all of your many historians, politicians, and reporters lie to you - here is the single workl that contains all of the truth approach! It is sooo credible (especially the part where Germans would have to admit that "they'd lived horribly in a most evil regime" before being sent home)!
Why don't you just say "I am making this up as I go along." At least it would have the virtue of honesty. And why don't you mention that your source compares your beloved Union's occupation policies in Prussia with Stalin's "deliberate starvation of the Ukrainian kulaks in the early 1930s?"
Any well-rounded examination of history does not lead one to conclude that the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe was more benign than the US/British/French occupation of western Germany. No examination of the trends in Europe compared to those in Russia would lead one to believe that Russia is moving in the same liberal direction as Europe. No one honestly placing themselves in the position of the citizens of any nation outside Russia (and many nations inside Russia) would conclude that they would rather be part of Russia than the West.
I have Russian friends, and nothing makes me sadder than seeing where Russia is going (right back to where it was under your beloved "Union"), but I don't think the process is reversible. I think the Russians value security over freedom, and would rather have a tsar than a president.
I always figured the Portugese guy as more of a fascist rather then then a commie. Kind of a sympathizer of the old days.
Yes, I'm still thinking about the superbowl.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fz.about.com%2Fd%2Fgreekfood%2F1%2F0%2FO%2F5%2Feggplant_498.jpg&hash=d8da4d16d562045f96fc4d86800f733c75bf1c6d)
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 11, 2010, 08:01:22 AM
Tecnhically, it started even before the war.
As Russia has been reminding people, in 1939 Poland demanded at least East Prussia and more land in Germany (they expected a WWI-style war where the Poles would be able to delay the Germans enough for the Allies to break through in the West, and even counted on Soviet help).
It was a given that, with the "inconditional surrender" demand, that would mean great losses for Germany.
(actually, Poland later demanded to annex all the land up to Cottbus, including Berlin, in order to "protect the slavs" which historically lived in these areas. The USSR noted that those same slavs were also being expelled by the Poles as "Germans", so Moscow denied Warsaws' claims)
And the Yalta conference advanced the biggest details, even before Potsdam, already after the war.
There were more announcements at least since 1942, especially regarding how war criminals would be treated. I'll get a chronology later when I get home.
OK, so the Germans fought on in 45 because Polish claims made in 39 and war crimes trials announced during the war. It's an interesting theory, but it's nowhere close fear of elimination.
QuoteActually, it was more in the "revolutionary" category - people were rising against their oppressors. The USSR tends to help immediately when that happens.
But we can be sure the USSR would not have helped if the German working class had risen against their oppressors.
I found the date of Stalin's proposal interesting. 1952 was right in the middle of a hot war in Korea.
QuoteOssetia did ask to join the Federation, but hasn't done so yet. Abkhazia is independent. I guess your media don't bother to tell you that.
That's probably my fault, not the media's. Now that you mention it I do recall an announcement that Russia was recognizing Ossetia's and Abkhazia's independence, not annexation.[/quote]
QuoteNote that Ossetia was part of Georgia because of administrative reasons, not because they had anything in common with the georgians. They always identified with Russia, not Georgia.
And the Abkhaz have the right to self-determination.
Agree with this.
QuoteYou know, Ossetia and the Crimea were settled by Russians, and many have family in Russia. They are intitled to Russian passports.
And Russia doesn't attack unprovoked. As seen in the elections, the ukrainan people was tired of the economic disaster brought by the worthless policies of its pro-western leader and got rid of him. The relations between the two countries will now improve greatly.
Nobody in the world can have any objection to Russia granting ethnic Russians in the Ukraine, the Transcaucasus and the Baltics citizenship. What is problematic is the next step, using this recognition of citizenship as the rationale for territorial demands, breakaway republics and armed intervention.
I'm completely lost on the connection between worthless economic policies and assassination attempts.
I have to side with Martim on this one. After all if you try to get a job where he works and you don't speak six languages you're toast.
While Martim's posts are comedic gold, how an American can argue with a straight face that they respect the right of self determination by one portion of a sovereign nation against the will of the larger portion of said sovereign nation frankly beggars belief.
But that is all I will say on that subject; it is not germane to this thread.
Did any slaves come to California? Were they hot?
Quote from: Agelastus on February 11, 2010, 02:00:06 PM
While Martim's posts are comedic gold, how an American can argue with a straight face that they respect the right of self determination by one portion of a sovereign nation against the will of the larger portion of said sovereign nation frankly beggars belief.
The principle of self-determination is not nearly that simple.
I doubt most Americans (or anyone) who serisouly thinks about what "self-determination" means, and under what circumstances it is a valid reason for action, be it violent or political, would ever argue that it is any kind of foundational principle that trumps the practical realities that exist.
In other words - it depends.
Quote from: Berkut on February 11, 2010, 02:11:45 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 11, 2010, 02:00:06 PM
While Martim's posts are comedic gold, how an American can argue with a straight face that they respect the right of self determination by one portion of a sovereign nation against the will of the larger portion of said sovereign nation frankly beggars belief.
The principle of self-determination is not nearly that simple.
I doubt most Americans (or anyone) who serisouly thinks about what "self-determination" means, and under what circumstances it is a valid reason for action, be it violent or political, would ever argue that it is any kind of foundational principle that trumps the practical realities that exist.
So, in your opinion, was Woodrow Wilson a hypocrit, a demagogue, or just a dumbass? Or a combination?
Quote from: dps on February 11, 2010, 02:16:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 11, 2010, 02:11:45 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 11, 2010, 02:00:06 PM
While Martim's posts are comedic gold, how an American can argue with a straight face that they respect the right of self determination by one portion of a sovereign nation against the will of the larger portion of said sovereign nation frankly beggars belief.
The principle of self-determination is not nearly that simple.
I doubt most Americans (or anyone) who serisouly thinks about what "self-determination" means, and under what circumstances it is a valid reason for action, be it violent or political, would ever argue that it is any kind of foundational principle that trumps the practical realities that exist.
So, in your opinion, was Woodrow Wilson a hypocrit, a demagogue, or just a dumbass? Or a combination?
In regards to what? Did Woodrow Wilson express some kind of unilateral, foundational right to self-determination that extended to everyone, everywhere, under any and all circumstances?
Quote from: Berkut on February 11, 2010, 02:11:45 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 11, 2010, 02:00:06 PM
While Martim's posts are comedic gold, how an American can argue with a straight face that they respect the right of self determination by one portion of a sovereign nation against the will of the larger portion of said sovereign nation frankly beggars belief.
The principle of self-determination is not nearly that simple.
I doubt most Americans (or anyone) who serisouly thinks about what "self-determination" means, and under what circumstances it is a valid reason for action, be it violent or political, would ever argue that it is any kind of foundational principle that trumps the practical realities that exist.
In other words - it depends.
I agree, and I know its not.
The post was triggered by Yi's comment, actually.
Although in the last few minutes I've discovered that we can now blame all of the Ogaden's, and hence all Somalia's, troubles on the USA's violation of the "self-determination principle" as well!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 11, 2010, 01:32:06 PM
I'm completely lost on the connection between worthless economic policies and assassination attempts.
If there's a connection, we'll have to shoot 3/4 of Congress, most state legislators, and almost everyone who's served as an economic advisor in the exeutive branch in the last 20 years.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 11, 2010, 02:18:43 PM
The post was triggered by Yi's comment, actually.
What, that Abkhazians have the right to self-determination? I think they do, and so do the Georgians who live (or were driven out of) Abkhazia.
If 100% of the population of a given area is in favor of independence it seems like a no-brainer to me. You only have to work out the issues of jointly held assets and liabilities. Anything between 51% and 100% you enter a vast murky gray area.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 11, 2010, 03:16:33 PM
If 100% of the population of a given area is in favor of independence it seems like a no-brainer to me. You only have to work out the issues of jointly held assets and liabilities. Anything between 51% and 100% you enter a vast murky gray area.
You also enter a vast murky grey area working out what an appropriate "area" is to consider. A city...or small town...or county...or what? I'm sure you could find towns in Utah or Vermont where 90% plus are ready to go independent.
Even 100% is pretty murky, because then you ahve to ask - well, what size area?
What if 51% of some area want to remain, while 100% of some subset of that area do not?
And if you deide that some percentage of a majority warrants independence, that just encourages ethnic cleansing of those who do NOT wish for it, and the violence that goes along with trying to drive the people who don't agree with you out.
The right to self determination is a vast gray area period, I think.
The minimum size is more a practical issue than a moral one in my mind.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 11, 2010, 02:00:06 PM
While Martim's posts are comedic gold, how an American can argue with a straight face that they respect the right of self determination by one portion of a sovereign nation against the will of the larger portion of said sovereign nation frankly beggars belief.
But that is all I will say on that subject; it is not germane to this thread.
What are you talking about exactly.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 11, 2010, 05:44:55 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 11, 2010, 02:00:06 PM
While Martim's posts are comedic gold, how an American can argue with a straight face that they respect the right of self determination by one portion of a sovereign nation against the will of the larger portion of said sovereign nation frankly beggars belief.
But that is all I will say on that subject; it is not germane to this thread.
What are you talking about exactly.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say "The American Civil War," it being a definite action by the USA to suppress the right of self determination by one portion of a sovereign nation by the larger portion of said sovereign nation.
And also "Mew."
Quote from: jamesww on February 11, 2010, 06:10:18 PM
Isn't it common knowledge, that at the time the plan was publically known about ?
Never heard that.
What does any of this have to do with a German tank burning up anyway?
Quote from: jamesww on February 11, 2010, 06:10:18 PM
Isn't it common knowledge, that at the time the plan was publically known about ?
Who the fuck are you?
Quote from: Habbaku on February 11, 2010, 06:32:58 PM
Quote from: jamesww on February 11, 2010, 06:10:18 PM
Isn't it common knowledge, that at the time the plan was publically known about ?
Who the fuck are you?
Isn't it obvious. It's James Wilbur Whatley
Pubically
Quote from: Razgovory on February 11, 2010, 06:28:23 PM
What does any of this have to do with a German tank burning up anyway?
An ACW or WWII hijack is always appropriate.
Quote from: Berkut on February 11, 2010, 02:18:06 PM
Quote from: dps on February 11, 2010, 02:16:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 11, 2010, 02:11:45 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 11, 2010, 02:00:06 PM
While Martim's posts are comedic gold, how an American can argue with a straight face that they respect the right of self determination by one portion of a sovereign nation against the will of the larger portion of said sovereign nation frankly beggars belief.
The principle of self-determination is not nearly that simple.
I doubt most Americans (or anyone) who serisouly thinks about what "self-determination" means, and under what circumstances it is a valid reason for action, be it violent or political, would ever argue that it is any kind of foundational principle that trumps the practical realities that exist.
So, in your opinion, was Woodrow Wilson a hypocrit, a demagogue, or just a dumbass? Or a combination?
In regards to what? Did Woodrow Wilson express some kind of unilateral, foundational right to self-determination that extended to everyone, everywhere, under any and all circumstances?
No, just to whites.
Quote from: jamesww on February 11, 2010, 06:10:18 PM
Isn't it common knowledge, that at the time the plan was publically known about ?
The plan of the US Secretary of the Treasury? It was leaked to the press and used by the German propagandists, yes. I have never seen anything that indicates that the German people paid it much heed, though - their belief in official news was not high.
I thought Silva was crazy socialist from Portugal? Now he's a Russian communist? :unsure:
EDIT: Just got to his explanation, how Trotskyist of him.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 12, 2010, 12:29:54 AM
I thought Silva was crazy socialist from Portugal? Now he's a Russian communist? :unsure:
EDIT: Just got to his explanation, how Trotskyist of him.
The sad thing is that Europe is full of Martims.
Remember, kids: Don't feed the trolls! (except Yogi)
Quote from: Alatriste on February 12, 2010, 02:19:43 AM
Remember, kids: Don't feed the trolls! (except Yogi)
Hey Boo Boo!
Quote from: Alatriste on February 12, 2010, 02:19:43 AM
Remember, kids: Don't feed the trolls! (except Yogi)
Can't we keep this one, daddy? He's ever so much smarter and more fun that that other, ill-Fated troll.