Community >> View Thread

Author
Osmotic Jae




http://www.exile.ru/2006-December-15/war_nerd.html

Not exactly a run of the mill take on WWII. Think hes right about Stalin tho.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Messenger




> http://www.exile.ru/2006-December-15/war_nerd.html
>
> Not exactly a run of the mill take on WWII. Think hes right about Stalin tho.

Eh... seems like a psuedo-intellectual. He has a couple weak points here and there (mostly about Stalin being just as bad), but for the most part his moral comparisons between the Nazis and people like Churchill just ring hollow. He doesn't cite many statistics or provide that much evidence besides saying "and listen to this supposed quote of his from years ago." Sure, Churchill had an imperial outdated mindset compared to today and I have no doubt the English military committed war-crimes, but they were nowhere near as bad as Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.




Posted with Apple Safari on MacOS X
havokzhord




The English weren't really fascist.

Russia would have eventually beaten Germany on its own. So the U.S. entry into the War was really us racing the Soviets to the center of Europe.

The various Scandinavian countries weren't fascist, but they quickly became occupied by Germany/Austria.

The Japanese had hardcore hazing and indoctrination of their soldiers from childhood to adulthood. They were hardcore fascists.

China is China. It is our own mistake to think we are backing Chinese leaders who will turn into what we want them to be, but it happens every time.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.1 on Windows XP
Agent-D




> http://www.exile.ru/2006-December-15/war_nerd.html
>
> Not exactly a run of the mill take on WWII. Think hes right about Stalin tho.

His line about the sequel to Churchhills "fight them on the beaches" made me laugh a little. Through the UK, certain beaches along the east coast still have WWII era anti tank and troop landing counter meassures in place.
Generally these are big cubes about 2 by 2 meters, packed together in such a way that any land vechile would find it nearly impossible to get over it, and most soliders would be unable to squeeze past them, espcially with all their gear on.
The more damaged ones, you can see had iron bars inside them to help keep them together.

Generally these would be guarded by concrete bunkers (most are still around and are used by passerbys as toilets, not official toilets, but you get the picture) that would have a good view of the beaches and any hiding holes on them.

Unless they brought tanks with them somehow, or rocket launchers with fire power enough to destroy these baracades, and some good way to counter the bunkers who snipers could easily pick the enemy off at their leisure. All that, without taking out their own men with the resulting shrapnel.

And even if they did get past the first line of bunkers there were often a second line of bunkers after that.

So "for ten minutes" does sound about right, that's as long as we would have needed. Give or take.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Triple R




> http://www.exile.ru/2006-December-15/war_nerd.html
>
> Not exactly a run of the mill take on WWII. Think hes right about Stalin tho.

Hitler's invasion of Russia was likely his biggest mistake in WWII.

He's right that if Hitler had focused on western Europe, and continued to carve up the territory between Germany and Russia with Stalin, Hilter and Stalin would have continued to be strong allies. In actual application, Hitler's facism was quite similiar to Stalin's communism.

It's also true that Europe was firmly in the grip of facism/imperialism pre-1945.

Really, it was only America, Canada, and a few other nations, that were genuinely pro-libertarian (in any sense of the word) at the time.

I think that he's also right that a burgeoning economy, and effective war propaganda, is more important than sheer military might, in a long drawn-out war.

Germany and Japan *did* have the world's strongest militaries when WWII began, and through out much of the war.

It's just that Hitler made some breathtakingly bad strategic errors (invading Russia before he had western Europe thoroughly under his control, holding off on a land invasion of Great Britian, failing to court more allies, etc...), and the American war machine mobilized like nobody's business after Pearl Harbour, largely due to a booming economy, a vastly growing industrial sector, and very effective war propaganda.

When you think about it... America vs. Germany circa WWII is *much* more of an even fight than America vs. Iraq today... yet America won the former, and is having problems in the latter.

This is because America simply isn't able to get everybody on-side with a war effort like she used to be able to. The war propaganda doesn't sell well any more.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
havokzhord




Hitler sort of had to break the truce with the Soviets. They were between him and Oil in South-Eastern Europe.

The United States had been supplying the Soviets and the British for several years prior to entering the war. So we had the structure of our industrial complex sort of geared up for military production, just not fleshed out. just before we entered World War II we still had unemployment of anywhere between 20 and 40 percent(keeping in mind this didn't count women, much more of whom didn't work outside the home back then.) This means we had manpower to spare when we finally went all in.

The Soviets fulfilled the role they always did when someone was taking over Europe: Soaking up massive casualties until England marshals its overseas allies/colonies.

I don't know if the U.S. could be called "liberterian" by our current standards of the word. We were still economically moderate, and had very high progressive income taxes. Fortunately most Americans didn't earn enough to pay those higher tiers of income taxes. No, we weren't Liberterian. We were simple.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.1 on Windows XP
Jae






Remember the Eugenics movement at this time? Yikes!


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
RodimusPrime




> The English weren't really fascist.
>
> Russia would have eventually beaten Germany on its own. So the U.S. entry into the War was really us racing the Soviets to the center of Europe.
No, they wouldn't have. Had Hitler kept out of Russia, smashed our main invasion, and then regrouped and hit Russia, he would have slaughtered them and sent them running to the steppes. They would STILL be hiding up there.
>
> The various Scandinavian countries weren't fascist, but they quickly became occupied by Germany/Austria.
>
> The Japanese had hardcore hazing and indoctrination of their soldiers from childhood to adulthood. They were hardcore fascists.
>
> China is China. It is our own mistake to think we are backing Chinese leaders who will turn into what we want them to be, but it happens every time.
China is China, and it's worked for them so far. How long has that country been there. You think we're going to be here that long?


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
RodimusPrime




> This is because America simply isn't able to get everybody on-side with a war effort like she used to be able to. The war propaganda doesn't sell well any more.

The powers that be in the U.S. instigated Japan's attack so that they could pull the country into a war that nobody wanted to be in. Wow, history really does repeat itself. *rhe*
If you can find it, look up Charles Lindburgh's "Who are the Agitators?" speech. I think that should be required reading in public schools.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
jarkoer




> > This is because America simply isn't able to get everybody on-side with a war effort like she used to be able to. The war propaganda doesn't sell well any more.
>
> The powers that be in the U.S. instigated Japan's attack so that they could pull the country into a war that nobody wanted to be in. Wow, history really does repeat itself. *rhe*
> If you can find it, look up Charles Lindburgh's "Who are the Agitators?" speech. I think that should be required reading in public schools.

A lot of things ought to be required reading in public schools. It's good to know that China, all of South East Asia and all the various independant states in Oceana ought to sue America for Japan taking over their countries. And if I were a family member of one of the 60,000 American POW's who died in Japanese labor camps, I too would be suing the American Government for their direct involvement based on the opinion of an early 20th century socialist.

Afterwards, everybody in society must be forced to pay restitution to every criminal and murderer in prison for their involvement in forcing them into a life of crime. It's certainly wasn't Jeffrey Dahmer's fault for killing and canabalizing all those people. It was society's. Therefore, society must pay.

Wow. Isn't the American legal stystem great? There's no such thing as personal guilt or responsibility. I think I'll go spill some coffee on my lap, and sue a fast food restaurant for making me want their coffee so much.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
RodimusPrime




> > > This is because America simply isn't able to get everybody on-side with a war effort like she used to be able to. The war propaganda doesn't sell well any more.
> >
> > The powers that be in the U.S. instigated Japan's attack so that they could pull the country into a war that nobody wanted to be in. Wow, history really does repeat itself. *rhe*
> > If you can find it, look up Charles Lindburgh's "Who are the Agitators?" speech. I think that should be required reading in public schools.
>
> A lot of things ought to be required reading in public schools. It's good to know that China, all of South East Asia and all the various independant states in Oceana ought to sue America for Japan taking over their countries. And if I were a family member of one of the 60,000 American POW's who died in Japanese labor camps, I too would be suing the American Government for their direct involvement based on the opinion of an early 20th century socialist.
>
> Afterwards, everybody in society must be forced to pay restitution to every criminal and murderer in prison for their involvement in forcing them into a life of crime. It's certainly wasn't Jeffrey Dahmer's fault for killing and canabalizing all those people. It was society's. Therefore, society must pay.
>
> Wow. Isn't the American legal stystem great? There's no such thing as personal guilt or responsibility. I think I'll go spill some coffee on my lap, and sue a fast food restaurant for making me want their coffee so much.

Accountability in today's U.S.A. doesn't exist. There are a lot of reasons behind this too. First off, we have a completely backwards legal system. Second, people put too much into faith, when all it does is take responsibility away from them and puts it into the hands of a god that may or may not exist.
Though, if you were disagreeing with what I said, there is no question that our "leadership" antagonized Japan leading up to the attacks. FDR wanted to fight, the country and half his cabinet didn't, so he pulled some strings, antagonized Hirohito, looked the other way when he got a report that there was going to be an attack, and then rallied the country around a banner of patriotism after a couple thousand people got killed.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Deborah




>
> Accountability in today's U.S.A. doesn't exist. There are a lot of reasons behind this too. First off, we have a completely backwards legal system. Second, people put too much into faith, when all it does is take responsibility away from them and puts it into the hands of a god that may or may not exist.

How exactly do you think our legal system is backwards? Not that I think it's perfect, mind you, but I'd hardly say it's the worst either.

And as to the second remark, it's a generalization that appears to show a total lack of understanding of faith. Be it spirituality or religion ('cause they are not the same thing) most faiths -- and I don't only mean the Judeo-Christian traditions -- emphasize the importance of taking responsibility for one's actions.




Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 5 on Windows 95
RodimusPrime




> >
> > Accountability in today's U.S.A. doesn't exist. There are a lot of reasons behind this too. First off, we have a completely backwards legal system. Second, people put too much into faith, when all it does is take responsibility away from them and puts it into the hands of a god that may or may not exist.
>
> How exactly do you think our legal system is backwards? Not that I think it's perfect, mind you, but I'd hardly say it's the worst either.

The legal system is great if you have a lot of money. Kill your wife? No problem, drop about a million dollars, not guilty.
>
> And as to the second remark, it's a generalization that appears to show a total lack of understanding of faith. Be it spirituality or religion ('cause they are not the same thing) most faiths -- and I don't only mean the Judeo-Christian traditions -- emphasize the importance of taking responsibility for one's actions.
>
It's not a lack understanding. I used to be quite religious, but I realized the entire thing was a sham. If you look at history, the dominant faiths on this planet (Islam and Christianity/Catholocism), are built on a foundation of using god's name to do terrible things. The Crusades, the inquisition, the numerous genocides in Africa, slavery, the way women are forced to live in some middle-eastern countries, the KKK, the genocide of Native Americans, Islamofascist terrorism... ALL of these have been carried out and defended in the name of god by the people doing them. This is nothing more than terrible people doing terrible things to people that they think are not godly.
What I said was in no way an attack against people of faith. It was an attack against people that think they are above it all if they are faithful, and there are too many of them.
I choose to be athiest, fine. Somebody else chooses to follow faith, fine by them. I have no problem with that. I just have a problem with the things that have been done in the past, and terrible things that continue to be done daily, all in the name of god.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Deborah




Far too many atrocities have indeed been committed using some god or another as an excuse. In all those instances, however, they were done by people either abusing or not understanding religion. JMNSHO, but throwing out religion (deciding all religion is a sham) is throwing out the baby with the bath water. It also ignores all the good done every day and throughout the ages, often thanks to religion.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 5 on Windows 95
RodimusPrime




> Far too many atrocities have indeed been committed using some god or another as an excuse. In all those instances, however, they were done by people either abusing or not understanding religion. JMNSHO, but throwing out religion (deciding all religion is a sham) is throwing out the baby with the bath water. It also ignores all the good done every day and throughout the ages, often thanks to religion.

Like I said, nothing against people that are religious in general, I just lost it along the way. I've seen to much messed up stuff for me to truly believe that there is a loving and forgiving god.
People can go great things, good or evil, with or without God. It's just that, IMO, God gives people one more tool to place themselves in a station of life above others, and I think that, as a whole, humanity can do without it.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Deborah





>
> Like I said, nothing against people that are religious in general, I just lost it along the way. I've seen to much messed up stuff for me to truly believe that there is a loving and forgiving god.
> People can go great things, good or evil, with or without God. It's just that, IMO, God gives people one more tool to place themselves in a station of life above others, and I think that, as a whole, humanity can do without it.

That's ok. I understand you are not painting *everyone* with the same brush. I guess the logic just appears skewered, for two reasons. First, you say God becomes one more tool for evil, but you don't acknowlege (even though you do say people can do good as well) that God could be a tool for good. Second, you miss the point that God (by definition) isn't a tool for evil. And anyone who tries to make God so is in fact, either ignoring God, willfully misunderstanding, or is deluded.

Maybe it's my bias, but I can understand the logic: "I don't see evidence of any God (or anything spiritual or supernatural) so I don't believe." The logic I don't understand is (pardon the oversimplification) "God is bad, so I'm not going to believe."


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 5 on Windows 95

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software