 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
it is. at some point you even have to give them their marbles back.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
read my post above
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Ned is exactly on point about the US bomber campaign in Europe, and also what we did in Japan. Americans DIED because the US felt that indiscriminate bombing of civilians was wrong, as a policy that impacted all the way to our bomber design. Please note that by 1945 that policy was growing a bit threadbare, but even then we dropped the leaflets, AT RISK to the bombers dropping those (meaning we had Americans die to help save someone elses civilians). Even then, as Ned notes, it was the PEOPLE of the US, and the fear of it, that helped reinforce our leaders decision to drop the leaflets. That is the difference between representative government and a totalitarianism. The latter don't care. |
Oh, boo hoo! Politicians in London and Washington, as well as the people of the United States and the Empire, were growing uneasy about the results of British, Commonwealth, and American advantages in bomber campaigns well before 1945. Big, 4 engine planes. Many bombs. Horrendous casualties inflicted. This was not confined to the United States.
On March 28, under increasing pressure on the topic of civilian bombing, Churchill wrote the destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing... I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives, such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather then on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive.
Meanwhile, the night-time incendiary bombing of Japanese cities continued...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Patroklos
|
 |
Back home in good ole Norfolk VA
Dec 2001
time: 05:33
|
|
Serb you are a fool.
But like I said, I provide respected sources, the burden of proof is on you to provide you own (and I also tell you when I am stating pure opinion). Hell, at least SOMETHING, even an article from Pravada would be better than you expative litered rants.
And btw, when did I ever say 60+ million were killed by Stalin. I have always specifically stated that we are talking about Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, not Stalin and Hitler. You population numbers actually confirm my numbers, you are just too busy tying to wuss out by typing "bullsh!ter" intead of bieng a man and typing what you mean. I agree the numbers are amazing, you killed 26% of you total population between 1917-87. It would even be unbelievable, except it is unequivicably confirmed by fact. There were 1000 sources referanced in that book alone from every spectrum and every side (not that I expect you too look, your dimensia's self defense mechanism will keep you from actually researching, can't pop the bubble).
As to war dead, though I have said it twice now, but once more for hard headed Serb, if you include war inflicted casualties for one side you have to do it for all. So your war dead belongs to your number and Nazi war dead belongs to them. The book is "Death by Government," not genecide. The numbers are representative of people killed by their own government, to include thoese who died willingly for it (that is a hippie twist on numbers I don't agree with, but he uses that constant for all parites). Your WWII soldiers get no credit for killing Nazis, just like Nazis get no credit for killing you (combat deaths, I konw you are going try and put words in my mouth so I guess I will have to include lots of parethetical commetns) Both sides were doing the world a service by riding it of an evil entity, and both were doing it a diservice because they were at the same time supporting one. If Goering and Himmler get into a pistol fight do we really care which one wins/dies, the world can't lose. Now if we the third party happen to be fighting one of them at the time ourselves sure we would rather see that one go first, but that doesn't let the other off the hook.
You are right there is a discrepancy on the 26 million Soviet citiznes killed in WWII. 10 million to combat, 10 million to Nazi atrocities, and six million to....????Between Longitude 110 and 160, and Latitudes 60 and 70, there is a harsh cold land. Very few outsiders have visited the place, and none have been able to see let alone examine in any way a scattering of infamous locals. Can't let a little think like war against your ideological alterego get in the way of normal government buisness can you Serb. So glad killing off 26 percent of your work force made you able to hold off the evil West that you never actually had to fight. America was so pissed off when you culled all those unwanteds, they were the key for our take over of the Soviet Union  Daft cunning of you (Opinion).
I agree that this arguement is total based on people putting spin on the topic. Unfortunetly the source is the opposite of what you think. Who benefits more from ignoring 60 million dead murder vicims? Well Serb is proof of that, don't you think there is a reason he reacts like a rabid dog when the truth smaks him up side the head? 
Of course it he was not self conciously hiding something (and not very many of his Russian comrades deny that number) he could just respond to the accusations that America belongs on the list of mass murders like I am about to;
No, and the all important source (pay attention to this part Serb)
quote:
Putting together all the subtotals (lines 333 to 350), in this century the United States probably murdered about 583,000 people (line 350), conceivable even as many as 1,641,000 all told. Virtually all of these were foreigners killed during foreign wars. Domestically, throughout this century the American Federal or state governments were responsible for the murder of about 1 out of every 1,111,000 Americans per year. |
Note this of course is only for 1900-1996 and America did a far bit of killing before that, but do you really want me to tally up Russias grand total Serb? We will set paramerters here, as most of the thread is talking about modern age killers anyways.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
The problem of the Japanese incendiary campaign was the Japanese decentralization of their industry. They learned the Nazi lesson (from the Allied bombing campaign) all too well. However, the bombing worked, both directly and indirectly. Directly in that most organized factories were destroyed. Indirectly because the decentralized production had horrendous problems. The Japanese produced a world class fighter, the "George", before the end of the war. However, due to quality control and parts not fitting properly, fewer than half of those assembled actually flew. It could have been a significant problem to the B29 campaign had it achieved widespread production.
The other problem that many people don't realize, in hindsight, is that many of the results we know about today were still very unclear up through the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The post-analysis of the European bombing campaign was just getting underway, and nobody had the data all in one place so they could see how effective the US submarine warfare had been.
If the allies had 20-20 hindsight, I agree completely that the incendiary bombing of Japanese cities had been unnecessary. Just continue the submarine warfare, bomb anything that move during the day, and destroy anything remotely resembling fuel. You'll probably want some Tallboys from the Brits (earthquake bombs) to take out the coal mines (where your own POW's are being worked to death, but you don't know that yet). The problem is they didn't know it FOR SURE at the time. The determination to win caused some decisions that were BAD, best available data.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:33
|
|
Aside from the Japanese supposedly learning a lesson from German experience and then decentralising their means of production in a short 12 to 24 months tops...
I agree with the second and third paragraphs. The people in charge thought they were doing something to win the war, for the most part. There were a very few who seemed truely homicidally bent, and for that Bomber Harris is reviled more within Britain and the Commonwealth than without (I think in Britain, I know in Canada).
The truth remains that American, British, and Commonwealth thinkers and soldiers actually thought that the bombing of civilian targets would end wars sooner. This was a line of thought that led back into the 20's and originated with an Italian. Everybody, including the Germans, Soviets, and Japanese shared that opinion. The British and Americans simply designed better machines for it.
What some people won't like is that there were voices being raised against it before the war was over in Britain, the US, and within the armed services of both, prior to any studies being done to reach conclusions on how ineffective the bombing of civilians was in ending wars.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
I hardly think, though, that we would have lined up our German POWs and mowed them down.
As to Japan, we dropped leaflets warning of impending attacks. It is unfortunate that so many Japanese simply ignored our warnings (or were they forced to ingore them by the military?). The sole exception were Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which is why I lumped them in with Hamburg and Dresden.
Molly, you will admit, will you not, that Britain's response to Germany's attacks on London and Coventry far exceeded the scope of those attacks. I have no idea whether anyone ever considered negotiating a cease fire with Hitler on bombing civilians. He might have taken the deal when the tide turned against Germany.
|
I think Ned you should read something other than the Hallmark Card version of American history.
You could start with the Wild West:
‘The only good Indian is a dead Indian.’- Lt. Gen. Philip Sheridan, Head of Indian Territories, January 1869
Advertising surveys conducted for War Bond sales drives in WWII revealed that Americans tended to view the Japanese as
‘ungodly, subhuman, beastly, sneaky and treacherous’
V was for Victory : Politics and American Culture during World War II, John M. Blum
Has a familiar ring to it, doesn’t it?
Anthropologist Ruth Benedict in her book ‘The Chrysanthemum and the Sword’ explained Pearl Harbour as a result of inherent pathological aspects of the Japanese national character, and psychological warfare expert John M. Maki described the Japanese as being
‘mired in political mediaevalism’.
At a meeting of California law enforcement officials in January 1942, the Los Angeles district attorney
‘asserted that the U.S. Supreme Court was packed with leftist and other extreme advocates of civil liberty and that it was time for the people of California to disregard the law if necessary to secure their protection....
One high official was heard to state that he favoured shooting on sight all Japanese residents of the state.’
Roger V. Daniels, The Decision to Relocate the Japanese Americans
‘Killing a Japanese was like killing a rattlesnake- I didn’t always have that feeling in Europe about some poor German family man but I felt with a Jap it was like killing a rattlesnake.’
Lemuel C. Shepherd, oral history interview, U.S. Marine Corps Historical Centre
Halsey’s chief of staff Rear Admiral Robert B. Carney:
‘It would seem to be an unnecessary refinement to worry too much about....[the sinking of Japanese hospital ships].....[they] have undoubtedly been used for illegal purposes and they are caring for Nips, which we failed to kill in the first attempt. Every one who is restored to duty potentially costs the lives of many of our people.’
from: The Sacred Warriors: Japan’s Suicide Legions by Denis and Peggy Warner
In October 1943, MacArthur was informed over radio by Marshall of ‘deep concern...over current reports of atrocities committed by American soldiers’ in the Pacific theatre of war.
American incendiary attacks on Japanese cities began with Nagoya, undertaken by 21ST Bomber Command, but at this raid proved inconclusive, on 4th February an attack was launched against Kobe, using only incendiaries, delivered from high altitude.
The reason for using incendiaries was, of course, that 'precision bombing' proved so singularly ineffective.
Another high altitude raid followed on 25th February against Tokyo, delivered by more than 200 B-29 bombers. Result? 28 000 structures destroyed and the leveling of a square mile of the city.
On 8th March this was followed up by a low altitude raid, which ended in the incineration of sixteen square miles of Tokyo and the destruction over 267 000 buildings. It had the distinction of being the single most destructive bombing raid in history, and to give you an idea of its destructive power, it caused more damage than the razing of Moscow in 1812, or the San Francisco earthquake or the Great Fire of Chicago in 1871.
Casualties?
83 000 dead, 41 00 injured.
By early June, the industrial heartland of Japan, consisting of Kobe, Osaka, Tokyo-Yokohama, Nagoya and Kawasaki were a scene of devastation, with over 40% of their total urban area wreckage and ruins. 50 smaller cities and manufacturing centres went on to experience raids from LeMay’s 600 strong bomber force which was in a position to fly and bomb at will.
The leafleting of cities you describe was actually viewed as a psychological warfare tactic by the A.A.F., not as moral scrupulosity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
Molly, the problem of your "western" society is that you don't want to know truth. You already have "truth" that you need- Soviets killed millions and were evil freaks, now some morons even adds to this that they were even more evil than nazi. 
In your "advanced", "democratic" society you never print books that show thing in a bit different light. . |
As opposed to the printing of truth during Stalin's time, I suppose?
It was not my intent to propagandize on the part of the West- and I don't believe I did so.
You'll notice how I broke the figures down, instead of assuming that they all died in the Gulag. It is a little difficult to accept criticism from you if you are willing to gloss over Stalin's purges, the Katyn Massacre, the deliberate starvation of Ukrainians and the way in which the Red Army stood by while the Warsaw uprising was put down by the Germans.
I'm more than willing to acknowledge the millions killed by Western powers, in Viet Nam wars conducted by the French and the Americans and Australians, the genocide of the Guanches, the Bengal Famine, the Irish Potato Famine, and so on, but what I won't do is stick my fingers in my ears and go 'la la la, all you Westies say the Soviets were mass murderers and worse than the Nazis, la la la'.
It's offensive to the history of the Russians killed by their own government, if nothing else.
Not once did I say the Soviets were worse than the Nazis, nor did I use the phrase evil freaks. So go spread mouldy kasha somewhere else.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patroklos
Serb you are a fool...blah...blah...blah...hard headed Serb...blah...blah...blah...he reacts like a rabid dog...blah...blah...blah... |
Just like I expected.
F*** YOU, mister "I have a book which claims they murdered millions and it doesn't really matter they simply couldn't kill so much"
quote:
And btw, when did I ever say 60+ million were killed by Stalin. I have always specifically stated that we are talking about Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, not Stalin and Hitler. |
I already shown you that maximum what Stalin could kill if there was no WW1, Civil war, foreign intervention, hunger, epidemies, if millions of "whites" didn't migrate from Russia to the west and remain home, it's 37.69 millions.
So, the reset were killed in 1941-991, right?
quote:
You population numbers actually confirm my numbers, |
You don't have sense of logic and can't do a simple calculation. Just like I expected. You're hopeless.
quote:
I agree the numbers are amazing, you killed 26% of you total population between 1917-87. |
Oh really? Please, explain to me, how did you get this number?
quote:
As to war dead, though I have said it twice now, but once more for hard headed Serb, if you include war inflicted casualties for one side you have to do it for all. So your war dead belongs to your number and Nazi war dead belongs to them. The book is "Death by Government," not genecide. The numbers are representative of people killed by their own government, to include thoese who died willingly for it |
Oh great, now I see. So, it was Stalin fault that Hitler attacked Soviet Union and that Soviets resisted the invasion and 26,6 millions of them died.
quote:
Both sides were doing the world a service by riding it of an evil entity, and both were doing it a diservice because they were at the same time supporting one. If Goering and Himmler get into a pistol fight do we really care which one wins/dies, the world can't lose. Now if we the third party happen to be fighting one of them at the time ourselves sure we would rather see that one go first, but that doesn't let the other off the hook. |
You f*cker, you were in military alliance with Soviet Union, because Hitler declared war on YOU. It's great example of American thinking, just great. Americans are honorable and trustworthy allies. After such words, I don't see why anyone, ever should be an American ally.
FY bastard, millions of my countrymen died while not only saving our country, but fighting the enemy which was your enemy too. Now, such f*cker as you, whining that those millions were more evil than nazi invaders. Thanks for your gratitude, neonazi scum.
quote:
So glad killing off 26 percent of your work force made you able to hold off the evil West that you never actually had to fight. |
I understand it's a shock for you, but after the revolution of 1917, 14 foreign countries (including USA) intervented in attempt to crush communist government. After their attampt failed, they didn't abandon this idea. Churchill constantly agitated for new crusade against communism. Sure you wanted to destroy us after the war, but you didn't attack us only because you didn't have balls for this. We were strong enough already, thanks to harsh and cruel means Stalin took in 30's.
quote:
Of course it he was not self conciously hiding something (and not very many of his Russian comrades deny that number)
|
I doubt you know any Russians. Anyone who can think would ask himself- how the hell they could kill so much people, if there wasn't so many people?
Last edited by Serb on 17-01-2004 at 13:18
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
Not once did I say the Soviets were worse than the Nazis, nor did I use the phrase evil freaks. So go spread mouldy kasha somewhere else. |
I'm sorry, Molly. This Patroklos, really pissed me off. Those words were for him mostly, not for you.
p.s. Katyn was nazi's work.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
I'm sorry, Molly. This Patroklos, really pissed me off. Those words were for him mostly, not for you.
p.s. Katyn was nazi's work. |
Apology accepted- I understand the temptation to get angry, given how little emphasis is usually given to Russia's role in defeating the Axis powers, and how everyone conveniently forgot about the Red Army's defeat of the supposedly invincible Japanese in Nomonhan and elsewhere, but anger is not the best tool in argument.
By the way, you're wrong on Katyn:
' 5th March 1940, Stalin signed an order authorizing the N.K.V.D. to shoot over 20 000 Allied prisoners of war, who had been captured in joint German-Soviet operations in Poland the previous September. They were being held in three camps, at Kozielsk, Oshtakovo and Starobielsk, They were nearly all Polish reserve officers, and were shot in the head and buried in mass graves, the operation finishing on 6th June.
When Polish General Sikorski enquired of Stalin where the missing forces might be, Stalin replied 'they might have fled. To Manchuria, for instance.'
Soviet prosecutors raised the Katyn massacres at Nuremberg, but soon dropped the case and failed to pursue the prosecution of the alleged 'Nazi' war crime.
In 1990-91, both Gorbachev and then Yeltsin admitted Soviet culpability.'
from 'Europe: a History', Norman Davies
extracted from documents including:
N.K.V.D. to Stalin, 5th March 1940, n. 794/5, Central Committee Archives of the C.P.S.U. , document released by President Yeltsin, publ. Gazeta wyborcza (Warsaw) n. 243 (1016) 15th October 1992.
'Polish Society under German Occupation', J. T. Gross,
Conversation with Stalin in the Kremlin, 14 November 1941, from 'Conversations with the Kremlin and Despatches from Russia', by S. Kot, publ. London 1963
and Vladimir Abarinov, 'The Murderers of Katyn', trans. from the Russian, publ. Hippocrene Press, New York 1993.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:33
|
|
So, international investegation of 1944 (iirc) was wrong claiming it was a nazi work and Gorbi and Yeltzin were right?
I need some time to find the book "Katyn detective" to proove my point. When I'll find it, perhaps we will discuss it in separate thread? I'll PM to you, when I'll be ready. What do you think?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:33
|
|
Investigation held by representatives of allied nations, with participation of British and American experts, btw.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Molly, you will note that I stated the resolve was wearing pretty thin (concerning not targeting civilian targets) when we started firebombing Japanese cities. Your statements back that up.
quote:
The reason for using incendiaries was, of course, that 'precision bombing' proved so singularly ineffective. |
That's why I phrased it like I did. We were already getting some of the initial analysis of the effectiveness, and often the lack there of, of the precision bombing campaign against the Nazis. The daytime precision attacks were mostly ineffective, those those that were effective had very critical results (fuel primarily).
So the US decided to use the sledgehammer approach.
quote:
By early June, the industrial heartland of Japan, consisting of Kobe, Osaka, Tokyo-Yokohama, Nagoya and Kawasaki were a scene of devastation, with over 40% of their total urban area wreckage and ruins. 50 smaller cities and manufacturing centres went on to experience raids from LeMay’s 600 strong bomber force which was in a position to fly and bomb at will. |
Exactly. Note. Industrial heartland. Maufacturing centres. However, that's why I categorize the commitment to precision bombing as growing weak, they were very aware of the havoc they were producing. While the leaflets were psychological warfare (they failed, as it usually does) there was also hope?/justification? that they might save some civilians. Remember, LeMay (thank you Ned) was opposed to the A-bombs, so their was a disagreement even among the military (Notyoueither, agreeing with your point you made on that).
Notyoueither, you make one assertion that is patently wrong.
quote:
Aside from the Japanese supposedly learning a lesson from German experience and then decentralising their means of production in a short 12 to 24 months tops... |
Actually, under wartime pressures, the Japanese, Germans, and Soviets all produced wonders of relocation and/or dispersion in times well under 24 months, though their was production disruption. It was government policy, and has been documented. The Japanese had military observers in Nazi Germany, and were very aware of what they were going to be facing. The Japanese were helped by the fact they already had large numbers of a small "garage production" type and this portions of this decentralization continued up until the 1990's, where finally due to a variety of reasons that had started well before that the system pretty much fell apart.
Your other comments are right to the point, including the bombing of civilian targets and strategy. However, it was not the general policy of the US bomber commands to wipe out civilian targets. You could argue they needed an industrial excuse, or you could argue collateral damage. Unless we are willing to go over the actual records of the meetings (people who do that are professional historians, I'm only an amateur) we'll both be spinning our wheels.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
They had access to German records? Did Himmler send them by pidgeon? |
They had access to mass graves.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
So, international investegation of 1944 (iirc) was wrong claiming it was a nazi work and Gorbi and Yeltzin were right?
I need some time to find the book "Katyn detective" to proove my point. When I'll find it, perhaps we will discuss it in separate thread? I'll PM to you, when I'll be ready. What do you think? |
Well, Serb, an ‘international’ investigation in 1943, held under Nazi auspices, supported German claims.
So an ‘international’ investigation held in 1944 under Soviet auspices supporting Soviet claims, hardly comes as a great shock.
I don’t think the Allies are going to turn around in 1944 and say to Stalin- ‘o.k. Joe, we gotcha, bang to rights!’
Restrictions on Allied servicemen keeping them from attending Katyn memorial services show how far the Allies were willing to ignore an unpleasant truth.
The Black Book of Polish Censorship (during Poland’s membership of the Warsaw Pact) classified Katyn as a non-event, rather like an Orwellian nonperson, which could not be referenced even with respect to Nazi war atrocities. Anyone caught with the’ Lista Katynska’, the roll call of the dead, was subject to criminal prosecution.
The unwillingness to acknowledge Katyn as an N.K.V.D. war crime on the part of the Allies is a testament to the victors being the ones who write history. After Yeltsin’s and Gorbachev’s admission of guilt and the release of the incriminating evidence and documents, the British War Crimes Act was designed to specifically exclude any Allied criminals from its remit- possibly because some of the alleged N.K.V.D. executioners were still alive.
So what’s more important, Serb- finding out who did it, or denying that the N.K.V.D. did it?
Shawnmmcc- the B-29 which only came into full use in 1944 was the first superbomber the U.S.A. had which was capable of hitting Japanese targets from as afar away as Szechuan in China.
The U.S. attacked mainland Japanese targets when it could have attacked oil/petroleum production in the East Indies. It did so for psychological as much as strategical reasons.
By March 1945, the economic life of Japan had ceased, yet the U.S. carried on bombing Japanese cities. Resolve for bombing civilian targets was clearly not wearing thin in the Pacific- many in the U.S. military felt that targeting Japan's cities was payback for Hong Kong, Manila, Shanghai and Singapore - and Pearl Harbour, of course.
The resolve for 'precision bombing' of military/industrial targets was what had worn thin, on its proving inadequate at hampering Japan's war effort. In 1943, military analysts in the U.S. concluded that mass air attacks on Japanese urban targets using incendiary bombs was the solution- note, no distinction between industrial and 'civilian' targets.
Tests on models in America (at Dugway Proving ground, in Utah) had shown that bombing Japan's cities in which industrial areas and flimsy wooden civilian housing were sited cheek by jowl, would prove effective only if incendiaries were used in order to consume all in a general conflagration.
How does one target an industrial heartland without killing civilians? It is after all civilians who work in manufacturing centres, in factories, and mills, and cement works, and docks and loading bays. How do you destroy sixteen square miles of Tokyo without killing civilians?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
So what’s more important, Serb- finding out who did it, or denying that the N.K.V.D. did it?
|
The more important is who did it of course, but can you give me some time to find this book and make a bit of research about it? I want to find who did it by myself. If you can give me the text of this oder (N.K.V.D. to Stalin, 5th March 1940, n. 794/5,), it we'll be apriciated.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:33
|
|
quote:
Stalin's purges of the officer corps made sure the Red Army was totally unprepared for the German attack |
Oh really?
Those great strategists like Tukhachevsky were traitors or completely incompetent at best. Purges in Red Army was the main reason why Abver was so unsuccesful dealing with Soviets- most of the traitors were purged from the army. Or perhaps you're trying to say that Abver was successful? Then why it was so wrong about Soviet industrial and military capability? Why new Soviet tanks and other armaments were a real shock for Germans when they faced them in 1941? The answer is clear- their intellegence knew nothing about them. They knew nothing, because it was hard to find good agents, because most of the traitors were removed from their ranks. Sure many inocent suffered too (as my grand grandfather, I hope), but purges not weakened Red Army- they made it stronger. All of the modern arms, the arms that bring us victory- T-34, KV, Katyusha, Grabin's divisional gun, etc, were created just before the war, after the purges, when Stalin personaly intervened in arms manufacturing, because he didn't trust his generals anymore. All those great generals created sh!tloads of crap, like T-26, BT, I-15, etc that were destroyed by Germans within first months of war and cost us so many lives.
If nazi faced in 1941 the old agricaltural Russia, instead of strong, industrial Soviet Union, it would be a piece of cake for them to crush it, and to destroy Russia as nation. In 30's under Stalin, within years USSR acompished a goal, to complete which other nations required centuries. Stalin's industrialization was very cruel mean, many people suffered, but it also was huge leap for country, and without it we wouldn't survived.
quote:
had made sure millions of people in Soviet first saw the Germans as liberators. |
Another popular modern myth. Millions fought against them and finally won. There were traitors who greet them warmly, but that were thousands, and they were f*cking traitors, no less, no more, just f*cking traitors.
Last edited by Serb on 17-01-2004 at 16:25
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Molly, by the time the fully fledged bomber campaign was in operation against Japan, our submarine warfare had already cut off the Indonesian oil supplies. The Japanese were largely subsisting off of oil reserves, and in fact as I've noted simply could have been starved/fuel denied into helplessness. Unfortunately, someone still has to take the ground, and the US fixation with destroying enemy forces (a primary facet of army doctrine since the civil war, I'm not saying it was smart, but that WAS the doctrine) meant like idiots we were probably going to invade anyway.
The difference between Dresden versus the US firebombing campaign against Japan, or Hamburg, is in your own post.
quote:
How does one target an industrial heartland without killing civilians? It is after all civilians who work in manufacturing centres, in factories, and mills, and cement works, and docks and loading bays. How do you destroy sixteen square miles of Tokyo without killing civilians? |
That is the difference. Dresden had absolutely no military or industrial potential. It's only purpose was to kill civilians. It may seem a minor difference, but it is a critical one in judging the ethics involved in a war, probably the hardest area to apply that field to. Yes people wanted revenge. The purpose of the firebombing though was to destroy the industrial/military potential. We had already done it, the problem is that we weren't sure about it yet, and while an element of uncertainty existed, there was no choice given the stakes of the war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hurricane
|
 |
Arctic Hill
May 2001
time: 07:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
If nazi faced in 1941 the old agricaltural Russia, instead of strong, industrial Soviet Union, it would be a piece of cake for them to crush it, and to destroy Russia as nation. In 30's under Stalin, within years USSR acompished a goal, to complete which other nations required centuries. Stalin's industrialization was very cruel mean, many people suffered, but it also was huge leap for country, and without it we wouldn't survived. |
It is true that Soviet wouldn't have survived without industrialisation, but that doesn't change the fact, that Stalinism was one of the worst ways to achieve that goal. Had Russia developed its economy under normal market economy rules, it would have been much more stronger and better prepared.
quote:
Another popular modern myth. Millions fought against them and finally won. There were traitors who greet them warmly, but that were thousands, and they were f*cking traitors, no less, no more, just f*cking traitors. |
Just like today's Ukrainians, Belo-russians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Azerbadjans, Armenians, Kazachs etc, who preferred to live in their own sovereign countries, when they got the possibility. Are these all also f*cking traitors?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hurricane
It is true that Soviet wouldn't have survived without industrialisation, but that doesn't change the fact, that Stalinism was one of the worst ways to achieve that goal. Had Russia developed its economy under normal market economy rules, it would have been much more stronger and better prepared. |
Tzarist Russia had market economy, so what? Before WW1 it bought machine tools and even simple agricaltural tools from Germany. In WW1 it imported rifles and still didn't have enough to equip all troops. In WW2 USSR produced more small arms than all nations combined, not to mention best tanks of WW2 (T-34, KV, IS), best armored assualt attacker aircraft (IL-2) of WW2, best rocket artillery (Katyusha) of WW2, etc.
To create such industrial capcacity through market economy would take decades. Soviet Union didn't have so much time and it made a huge leap within years. You can compare industrial output of SU after industrialization with industrial output of Tzarist Russia or can compare industrial growtrh of USSR in 30's with industrial output of USA in 30's. Industrial output of USSR after years of industrialization wasn't doubled or tripled, it was multiplied several times. I don't have exact data right now, but I can assure you, such leap within such short time is simply impossible through market economy.
quote:
Just like today's Ukrainians, Belo-russians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Azerbadjans, Armenians, Kazachs etc, who preferred to live in their own sovereign countries, when they got the possibility. Are these all also f*cking traitors? |
Not like them. The f*cking traitors who joined the nazis, did it to save their pitty lives, because nazis bring only destruction and death when they invaded. They betrayed their country to save their worthless butts, f*cking traitors.
Who told you that all those people you've mentioned are happy about destruction of USSR? Most of them live MUCH, MUCH worse than in times of USSR.
The real f*cking traitors are Yeltzin&Co who signed the treaty and destroyed the country, and bring misery and death to millions of its citizens. Those are real f*cking traitors.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-01-2004 10:37
see you later 
|