|
Post by evileeyore on Dec 20, 2021 21:40:37 GMT
The idea of an imminent Soviet attack prompting Barbarossa was invented by German generals in the wake of WWII, and popularized by a Russian defector, Viktor Suvorov, in the 1980s. It has been thoroughly debunked. You should read Ronald Smeisner & Edward J. Davies: The Myth of the Eastern Front: The Nazi-Soviet War in American Popular CultureIt would be a good place for you to start, as you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Unnecessary. My point is unchanged, it wasn't Stalin, it was Hitler's poor tactics (multi-front war, ye olde invading Russia in the Winter, going unprepared into Africa... did the Germans learn nothing from Napoleon's defeats?) that saved France. Why the Nazi's initiated that front is irrelevant to the greater scope of the conversation.
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Dec 21, 2021 18:46:55 GMT
The idea of an imminent Soviet attack prompting Barbarossa was invented by German generals in the wake of WWII, and popularized by a Russian defector, Viktor Suvorov, in the 1980s. It has been thoroughly debunked. You should read Ronald Smeisner & Edward J. Davies: The Myth of the Eastern Front: The Nazi-Soviet War in American Popular CultureIt would be a good place for you to start, as you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Unnecessary. My point is unchanged, it wasn't Stalin, it was Hitler's poor tactics (multi-front war, ye olde invading Russia in the Winter, going unprepared into Africa... did the Germans learn nothing from Napoleon's defeats?) that saved France. Why the Nazi's initiated that front is irrelevant to the greater scope of the conversation. I'll agree with that. The biggest mistake was invading Russia. They didn't start the invasion in the winter, but various problems prevented them from reaching their goals before winter.
|
|
|
Post by Libtard on Dec 22, 2021 9:21:44 GMT
Why the Nazi's initiated that front is irrelevant to the greater scope of the conversation. Then why bring it up? And the broader scope of this conversation - or at least this exchange - was about how the US doesn't "fight for freedom," but for its own political-economic interests. You're the one who derailed it. And the American mythology surrounding WWII absolutely pertains to the broader subject - part of which is the extent to which history is propagandized in the US. The fact that you and Maxperson are regurgitating tired, inaccurate tropes - whether it be about the noble ("altrustic") motives of US foreign policy, or the idea that "Stalin didn't do shit" is quite adequate to demonstrate this.
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Dec 23, 2021 17:15:16 GMT
An aside, as part of a discussion. So i was the one claiming Stalin saved Europe from "teh nazis"? Nah mate, I was just countering that claim. I have no qualms with someone claiming that the US acts in the interest of those who control the US. History is propagandized everywhere. I learned that back when I was learning about history, in the late 80s early 90s. Except, and here's the part you won't like, Stalin didn't save Europe from the Nazis. The Nazis saved Europe from the Nazis (and France*, and England, and the US money and arms and equipment and eventual jumping in at "the last minute" saved Europe from the Nazis). Now it didn't hurt that Stalin had seen the writing on the wall and being a paranoid git had built up troops to stall an invasion from the West helped, but don't like Stalin was doing anything of the nature of "saving Europe". * Everyone always discounts the Maginol Line, but it did what it was supposed to do, force Germany to go around (yeah, that's not what France hoped it would do, but then they left their boarder with Belgium wide open).
|
|
|
Post by Libtard on Dec 24, 2021 7:04:11 GMT
It is unfortunate that you do not understand the extent to which you have been manipulated by post-WWII political historiography in the US; it is even more unfortunate that you show no interest in correcting some of your basic misconceptions. When I wrote earlier that "everything else was a side show" compared to the Eastern Front, I was not being hyperbolic. In terms of men, materiel - and human suffering - it was five times larger than every other theater combined. It dwarfed all other conflicts. The Red Army had 35 million troops under arms over the course of WWII, but at the outset it was actually demobilizing - Stalin made as many catastrophic blunders as Hitler during the first two years of the Russian conflict, which essentially consisted of two sociopathic autocrats killing and burning everything in sight. The effects of the Russian winter of 1941-2 can be overstated. It was a factor, but it certainly wasn't the deciding factor. The urge to - poetically - compare it to the Napoleonic disaster of 1812 was strong, and the USSR absolutely leveraged this in its own propaganda efforts. But by 1944 the Red Army was really fucking dangerous. It had largely bridged the technology gap with Germany, it increasingly outnumbered Germany, and most of its production had been relocated East of the Urals and was essentially untouchable. To say that "The Nazis saved Europe from the Nazis" is not without merit, but this isn't just about Hitler's bungling. It's like saying "Khwarazm fell because of Mohammed II, not because of Genghis Khan" or "The Achaemenids fell because of Darius, not Alexander." After WWII, the USA had to pivot very quickly in its propaganda efforts from "the Russian soldier is your friend" to "Communism is our godless enemy;" one reason that the history of WWII was - and remains - so obfuscated in the USA is that the accounts of the Eastern Front were moderated by captured Nazi officers, at a time when it was desirable to "rehabilitate" West Germany quickly into a burgeoning NATO, and against the new threat of communism.
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Dec 24, 2021 18:04:42 GMT
It is unfortunate that you do not understand the extent to which you have been manipulated... Same back at ya. It was efective. It really was, but not necessarily the weather (or not just, as it largely was with Napoleon's 'blunder'). No one who has invaded Russia has done so "properly", all three failed to account for Russia's scorched earth policy (though it's very hard to blame Charles XII since Peter 'invented' it), the absolutely devastating effect the Russian winter has, and just how far supply lines have to stretch. I laughingly accused Germany of failing to learn from Napoleon because they failed in similar arenas, not because they committed the exact same blunders (but it's funny to generalize it as so considering the immediate parallels of the 'crushing defeat' the Russian Winter handed them and the flailing Rommel did in Africa (Rommel did fine, he was just out maned, under equipped, and under supplied for a long sustained campaign, which is something you see all around the different German fronts that aren't the Western Front). No it really hadn't. Okay, if you squint and you accept that "quantity is it's own quality". Or if you put a lot of weight on the word "largely" and pretend real hard. And you completely ignore the Lend-Lease... yes, the USSR did a great job of vaguely copying the German tanks and mass producing an inferior copy (it wasn't that bad, but it wasn't up to German or American standards)... but again, "quantity is it's own quality". This is actually true. Well, yeah... I mean the Germans had all but made it into Moscow in the initial push (and the second push really came close to the Volgo oilfields) so that was a prerequisite if the USSR was going to stay in the fight and not just keep scorching eastward till they hit Japanese troops. Yes, but it's mostly a joking way to say "Stalin had less to do with it than USSR propaganda wants everyone to believe", instead of getting bogged down the quagmire of history debate and nuance. Also, it's fun to punch down on the commie propagandists and pretend that if Hitler "were just not a total clown he'd have won".
|
|
|
Post by Libtard on Dec 25, 2021 7:58:24 GMT
Well, if you're saying that Zhukov won WWII, I'm not going to disagree. He was the only person that Stalin was too scared to assassinate.
But at the end of the day he wasn't sitting on the throne ... er, General Secretary.
Merry Christmas btw.
|
|
|
Post by Libtard on Dec 25, 2021 8:53:00 GMT
And don't diss the T-34, dude. That's just bad form.
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Dec 25, 2021 20:44:45 GMT
And don't diss the T-34, dude. That's just bad form. The T-34 was a garbage tank. It was slower than it's German contemporaries, had improperly harden armor (the turrets being almost as soft as lead), and leaked like a sieve (hard rains destroyed it's electronics). What did the T-34 have over the American and German tanks? A bigger gun*. Also a far greater causality rate, suffering just over 50% losses in combat. It was a garbage tank... however, it was built in pieces in plants not originally designed to build tanks (especially tank armor), so one can forgive it's shitty performance. Post-war T-34s were much, much better, faster and more durable than the American Shermans. But the US shifted focus in tank design building different tanks for different combat purposes, where the USSR doubled down on 'bigger is better'. * And maneuverability, it used the same suspension as the Brit and American tanks, but had wider treads allowing it to take rough terrain better, in fact it could take terrain that Shermans couldn't even cross. But aside from slightly bigger gun (the Sherman's guns were upgraded several times during the war) and terrain handling, it was inferior in almost every other way (okay, the Sherman was always prone to spontaneously combusting... but that's another issue and why the Sherman was eventually retired completely). But none of this really get's to the heart of the issue which is the Biden Administration is terrible and the DNC needs to die in garbage fire.
|
|
|
Post by Libtard on Dec 25, 2021 22:19:18 GMT
And don't diss the T-34, dude. That's just bad form. The T-34 was a garbage tank. It was slower than it's German contemporaries Er... the T-34 had a top speed of 32 mph. That was faster than the Panzer I (24 mph), Panzer II (25 mph), Panzer III (25 mph), Panzer IV (25 mph), Panzer V (28 mph), and Tiger (24 mph). It was also faster than the Sherman (29 mph, tops). Why do you feel the need to lie?
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Dec 26, 2021 8:00:53 GMT
Er... the T-34 had a top speed of 32 mph. I like how you cherry pick the one spot I made an error (I read the Panzer's speed in kph as mph) but have no response to the fact that during the war, the T-34 was a hot mess of garbage. I mean the Sherman would self-combust if you looked at it funny, and yet it had a better survival percentage than the T-34.
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Jan 5, 2022 3:51:20 GMT
What the fuck are you talking about Joe? The economy is in the toilet, just ask roughly half of America:
So Joe, what is this blather about? What are you trying to sell us on now... oh I see...
... you're running cover for your class. Understood. I hope you and your entire cabinet and all your handlers eat a fucking bullet in the coming insurrection have a nice and pleasant day.
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Jan 6, 2022 2:24:02 GMT
What the fuck are you talking about Joe? The economy is in the toilet, just ask roughly half of America: So Joe, what is this blather about? What are you trying to sell us on now... oh I see... ... you're running cover for your class. Understood. I hope you and your entire cabinet and all your handlers eat a fucking bullet in the coming insurrection have a nice and pleasant day. So, looking at MANY measures, the economy IS better. Demand is hugely up, above what it was before the pandemic. Of course, prices are the big method that consumers use to determine if they feel better than they were. And, as I am sure you're aware, prices are hugely up. There are several reasons for this. That demand I mentioned hasn't been matched with an increase in supply. If I understand things correctly, it HAS in some cases gotten back to where it was pre-pandemic, but since demand is above that, prices have gone up. In most cases, supply still isn't at pre-pandemic levels. Of course, that means prices on those things have gone up even more. Then, it seems that prices are going up more than cost increases. Some companies are using the awareness of inflation to raise prices more than they need to so that they can increase their profit levels (so, if their profit margins were 5%, they have increased their prices so that their profit margins are more than 5%). Of course, there are also many places where the problem is not supply but getting the supply from place to place. There's also an increase in the cost of labor. But other indicators also show that the economy is doing well. Wages are going up. Unemployment is pretty low, only about a point higher than it was at its lowest. The stock market is up. And so on.
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Jan 8, 2022 8:31:08 GMT
Unemployment is pretty low, only about a point higher than it was at its lowest. I have quibbles with all your other points (aside from stocks being up, but that is a very poor metric of the economy), but this one? Really? You do realize that the only reason Biden can tout "Unemployment is low" is because once again the gov dropped unemployed people from the rosters and are only counting those receiving unemployment right? That doesn't mean they are working, just that they aren't able to receive unemployment because they've been unemployed since COVID began and Biden ended the COVID Unemployment continuation that Trump put into place. The Biden Admin is also cutting COVID sick leave recommendations to "five days", so avoid the hospitals folks, nurses and doctors with COVID will be treating people because they aren't allowed to remain home until they're over it.
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Jan 8, 2022 8:33:15 GMT
You know what... I agree with Biden we should defintiely impeach a President that is committing war acts without Congressional approval...
|
|