Oh Russia, it's that time of the month for you again i see

[Bubble181]

a) That you believe one statement to be true and the other not, is a tribute to how much our thoughts are governed by what we're taught. I happen to agree with you, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the exact same type of law. If you fail to see that these are, in fact, the exact same thing, I don't know what to say to you.

b) The Allies were facing a higher concentration of divisions after D-Day, because the Germans withdrew some of the troops (I forget which one, was it the 2nd army? No matter.) from the Eastern front. They'd been replacing and reinforcing the German troops on the Eastern front with people from the occupied territories who believed they were protecting the West from communism for months before.

c) First off, the crisis wasn't a singularly American thing. That it is often depicted as such is merely that. The US was hit heaviest because it was the economy everyone else depended on, as is the case now. Secondly, I don't know how Pau lKennedy decided to quantify and compare warmaking potential - I'm at work, I can't access any decent sources - but going by the official numbers released by the German, American and British ministries of defense, Germany had the strongest army as far as supplies and production capacity went in 1939. The US exploded its war production by redirecting its entire economic effort into the war - which Germany had already been doing for years - and overclassed Germany quite heavily by the later years of the war.

 

[BoringMetaphor]

a) That you believe one statement to be true and the other not, is a tribute to how much our thoughts are governed by what we're taught. I happen to agree with you, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the exact same type of law. If you fail to see that these are, in fact, the exact same thing, I don't know what to say to you.

No.. We have evidence of one, but not of the other. Therefore, we know one to be true. In fact, we also have evidence the other is false. So we know that to be a lie. Yes, the law is the same in spirit, but surely you must admit that one is suppressing the truth and the other is suppressing falsehoods.

b) The Allies were facing a higher concentration of divisions after D-Day, because the Germans withdrew some of the troops (I forget which one, was it the 2nd army? No matter.) from the Eastern front. They'd been replacing and reinforcing the German troops on the Eastern front with people from the occupied territories who believed they were protecting the West from communism for months before.

I dont really know more specific information, so I can't actually carry on this point any further. You could be right!

c) First off, the crisis wasn't a singularly American thing. That it is often depicted as such is merely that. The US was hit heaviest because it was the economy everyone else depended on, as is the case now. Secondly, I don't know how Pau lKennedy decided to quantify and compare warmaking potential - I'm at work, I can't access any decent sources - but going by the official numbers released by the German, American and British ministries of defense, Germany had the strongest army as far as supplies and production capacity went in 1939. The US exploded its war production by redirecting its entire economic effort into the war - which Germany had already been doing for years - and overclassed Germany quite heavily by the later years of the war.

I know the depression was worldwide. And yeah, I dont know where Kennedy got his numbers either, I dont have his book in front of me.

However, you're changing your point on me. You said:

Oh, and the US *didn't* have more production power than Germany and the USSR combined at the beginning of the war, though it did by '42. At the beginning of WWII, Germany was the biggest economy production wise in the world.

Now you are saying: "Germany had the strongest army as far as supplies and production capacity went in 1939. The US exploded its war production..." If you're talking about war production, that is different than production power. Obviously the US wasnt making military stuff in 1939. I was arguing that it had the bigger economic production potential in 1939, or 37, not that it had bigger military production.

 

[Bubble181]

Very well, I misstated; I withdraw my point. I think we can agree that the US had more raw production capabilities, and Germany *was* making more at the start of the war (since, you know, they were preparing for war and the US weren't, at least not in the same way).

As for the Russian law (to go back to the OP)... It depends on what you'll accept as proof, and what you won't. And it depends on what you're willing to have governed by the state, and what not.
Anyway; you've partially missed my point, which, once again, isn't too hard since I didn't expressly state it. Some anti-negationist laws go quite far - in Germany, people have been convicted for publishing books in which they doubt the "six million Jews" number, placing their estimates closer to 3 to 4 million. Scientists, historians, who simply believe that there isn't the hard evidence to put beyond doubt the higher number (and I'm aware some pressure groups claim it's 10 million or more; 6 million is most widely accepted though). Since we're not dealing with an exact science, we never will have conclusive proof of the exact number of Jews killed - it ought to be open to a decent debate. I can understand that this sort of law can be important to some people - but I simply can't accept laws as right that stifle scientific debate.
Also - bear in mind that in some countries, the anti-negationist laws were put into place long before there was real evidence to back up any precise claims, and the debate very much still needed to be held.
To make a bad comparison, the first estimates of the death toll of 9/11 was over 40,000 people. In the end, it turned out about 2,200 people died. For something of the magnitude of the Holocaust, this process takes far longer than for something like 9/11 - they're pretty much incomparable. Well into the 60s and 70s people found each other when they'd beleived the other to be dead.
In spirit, both laws are pretty much equal: defining what the "right" view of a certain historical act or event is, and illegalising all other views on the matter.

 

[Math242]

Very well, I misstated; I withdraw my point. I think we can agree that the US had more raw production capabilities, and Germany *was* making more at the start of the war (since, you know, they were preparing for war and the US weren't, at least not in the same way).

As for the Russian law (to go back to the OP)... It depends on what you'll accept as proof, and what you won't. And it depends on what you're willing to have governed by the state, and what not.
Anyway; you've partially missed my point, which, once again, isn't too hard since I didn't expressly state it. Some anti-negationist laws go quite far - in Germany, people have been convicted for publishing books in which they doubt the "six million Jews" number, placing their estimates closer to 3 to 4 million. Scientists, historians, who simply believe that there isn't the hard evidence to put beyond doubt the higher number (and I'm aware some pressure groups claim it's 10 million or more; 6 million is most widely accepted though). Since we're not dealing with an exact science, we never will have conclusive proof of the exact number of Jews killed - it ought to be open to a decent debate. I can understand that this sort of law can be important to some people - but I simply can't accept laws as right that stifle scientific debate.
Also - bear in mind that in some countries, the anti-negationist laws were put into place long before there was real evidence to back up any precise claims, and the debate very much still needed to be held.
To make a bad comparison, the first estimates of the death toll of 9/11 was over 40,000 people. In the end, it turned out about 2,200 people died. For something of the magnitude of the Holocaust, this process takes far longer than for something like 9/11 - they're pretty much incomparable. Well into the 60s and 70s people found each other when they'd beleived the other to be dead.
In spirit, both laws are pretty much equal: defining what the "right" view of a certain historical act or event is, and illegalising all other views on the matter.

Dude, are you a NAZI?

 

[Twitch]

I would note that the nuclear bomb is a valid point in every case. The Germans would not be able to "take over all of Europe." Especially not before we entered the war. We had a government that was dedicated to getting us in and a more prescient German threat would have only stepped that up. Operation Sea Lion would probably have been a failure no matter what, and by removing Hitler because of his failures you're also removing him from what he did to support the movement. He might have been the cause of the collapse but people are too quick to dismiss him from the rise and peak or Nazi control. Then he'd have to hold the leash of the Japanese somehow or Pearl Harbor would bring us in no matter what, most likely we would be expecting a war with such a concentrated front from the Germans and if we had not mobilized the fleets by then we would deserve to lose to the Germans. Very simply, they may have been the most powerful nation in the world but the rest of the world is still an impressive foe.

 

[BoringMetaphor]

Bubbles - facts about the numbers killed aside I think I agree with what you're saying. It's hard for me to even remotely come down against negation laws about the holocaust because there is so much bullshit from right wing extremists about it, even from "historians" like David Irwing. Because they are so extreme, I feel like we have to be extreme in oppressing that special sort of lying which seeks to distort the existence of such an atrocious event.

But in a general sense, I agree with you.

 

[Zonker]

Ooh, neat, a genuinely well thought out discussion of Russia's role in WWII! Neat.

How about this for a thesis: The role of the second front was to prevent all of Western Europe from becoming satellites of the Soviet Union. Discuss.

 

[Bubble181]

Metaphor (and Mathk, though I assume you were joking): like I said, I don't necessarily disagree with current numbers at all - it'd be pretty sad if I did, considering three of my four grandparents spent time either in concentration camps or work camps . I disagree with codifying such things into law and thus endangering historical debate; I don't think the way, say, Turkey handles the Armenian genocide is any better, believe me.

Zonker: yes, and no. I don't believe it was the actual role, however, it was at the very least a strong and important side effect.

 

[North_Ranger]

Bubble... I've taken a look at some of this legislation, and it would seem in most European countries that have such legislation, it's dealt as a matter of... what's the term... "inciting hatred against an ethnic group". That's a pretty direct translation of the term in Finnish (no, we don't have Holocaust legislation), so bear with me if it sounds crappy.

I think you're mixing up legitimate historical study with ideologically driven pseudo-science. I've had the dubious pleasure of arguing with some Holocaust deniers, and basically their "experts" are amateur/wannabe scientists at best - like a person who claimed he believed himself qualified as an engineer (and therefore qualified to study stolen samples from Auschwitz crematoria), while he had not studied engineering at all. His degree was in Arts, methinks. And even they seem rare compared to the number of Nazi apologists and conspiracy nuts.

And even if there isn't a mountain of evidence supporting the figure of 5-6m. dead Jews plus several hundred thousand dead Soviet POWs, homosexuals, handicapped, Roma etc., the whole debate about the figure seems... disgusting, to be honest. Whether it's two million, three million or six million... that is still a goddamn lot of innocent lives lost. People get so hung up with numbers they seem to forget that there's a face, a life, a person behind each digit.

I'm not angry at you or anything... this is just something that I'm rather passionate about, having met some pretty f***in' ignorant nutjobs who use such terms as "hollowcaust" or "holohoax" or "Zionist conspiracy". I consider myself a political liberal, but there's a line between actually studying history and twisting it for ideological purposes.

 

[Bubble181]

Rangey, I couldn't agree more - I've had my unfortunate dealings with negationists as well, and believe me, I find them to be quite repulsive, for the most part.
The point I'm trying to make is that, due to some pretty weird and, to my mind, wrong, legislation, the Holocaust is regarded as something "sacred", a complete and unassailable dogma, the epitome of all evil that ever has or ever will happen. A Belgian newspaper was convicted for calling the Tutsi-Hutu genocide in Rwanda in the 90s "akin to the Holocaust". Considering over 90% of the worldwide Tutsi population was killed, I think it's a fair comparison (somewhere between 900,000 and 1,1 million people). Yet it's illegal to make the comparison, because this'd make the Holocaust seem less unique and "special"....Gah.

 

[@Li3n]

How else would you determine which one was more important? Interviews? Maps? Guessing?? Numbers are the only solid evidence we have.

And unfortunately this solid evidence is not enough (unless you quantify everything else to numbers, and that's always subjective anyhow).

For example how do you decide that the economic numbers where more important that the number of troops etc.

You're confusing the memory of the war with the actual events of the war. In memory, the fall of 1940 is remembered as a turning points of sorts. In actuality, it isn't. But if you want to argue that in memory it was, which you kinda are, I'll accept that you're right.

Let me use your own obsession with numbers against you... did or did not the germans have way more planes and better production capabilities??! If we go by the logic you've been using they should have won... instead they where defeated, badly.

At this point I think Im just stating that the West was much more involved in defeating the Germans than we usually give them credit, because they were facing so much of the German war production. I can't actually link the article which has the research behind this because it's a closed database that it's on, but it's "East versus West in the defeat of Nazi Germany" by Phillips P. O'Brien, and in his own words

The purpose of this article is to challenge some of these basic notions. Through analysing what Germany produced, where it was sent and how it was destroyed, the West's contribution to defeating Germany moves from an ancillary position to a dominant one. Taking German war production as a whole, from 1943 onwards the West was responsible for tying down and destroying a significantly larger share than the Soviet Union.

So it was only before 43 that the Soviets where doing more...

And seriously, the reason why in the last decades more credit has been given to the soviets is because between the end of WW2 and the fall of the USSR they weren't given much at all...

And like i said, quantifying who did more is not really math i care to attempt.

The bombs where pretty late in the war, there's no telling what would have happened in the meantime without the russians tanking all that dps. An Axis invasion of the US could have easily have disrupted the research or the Nazis could have continued their own research with all the funds saved from not fighting russia etc.

The axis couldn't have invaded the US.

It was an example of the top of my head, didn't feel like going into a long winded explination on how it might have been possible (we where talking about alternate events after all).

Im not arguing that D-Day would've been successful without the eastern front.

When you said teh Allies would have won anyway that's exactly what you're saying (D-Day failing would have been a giant blow, making Europe safe for the Nazis for probably years).

If you're talking about war production, that is different than production power. Obviously the US wasnt making military stuff in 1939. I was arguing that it had the bigger economic production potential in 1939, or 37, not that it had bigger military production.

You do know what potential means, right?!

Considering over 90% of the worldwide Tutsi population was killed, I think it's a fair comparison

90% sounds more then the % of Jews the nazis killed actually...

c) First off, the crisis wasn't a singularly American thing. That it is often depicted as such is merely that. The US was hit heaviest because it was the economy everyone else depended on, as is the case now.

Actually the depression was world wide with world wide causes, but the US recovered the slowest (some argue because of the incompetence of the Federal Reserve).

How about this for a thesis: The role of the second front was to prevent all of Western Europe from becoming satellites of the Soviet Union. Discuss.

Doubtful to be something considered in teh beginning... especially since i recall that Stalin called them on not opening a 2nd front (and that the americans where so eager the british offered them Africa because they didn't think they where ready to take Fortress Europe - wow, what took me so long to use this name, i always loved it. )

 

[Zonker]

Zonker: yes, and no. I don't believe it was the actual role, however, it was at the very least a strong and important side effect.

Yeah, it's an important side effect, but it can't be true. We only knew that the Soviets would win after the battle of Kursk, and the serious preparations for the second front seemed to have started a long time before that. Although yeah, there was a whole year -- Kursk was in July 1943 and Normandy was about a year later. Hmm. That is kind of suspicious isn't it?

 

[BoringMetaphor]

And unfortunately this solid evidence is not enough (unless you quantify everything else to numbers, and that's always subjective anyhow).

For example how do you decide that the economic numbers where more important that the number of troops etc.

I will concede your point - numbers are not absolutely conclusive. But I will still stand by my point that they are immeasurably more quantifiable than merely looking at broad concepts like army vs army.

Let me use your own obsession with numbers against you... did or did not the germans have way more planes and better production capabilities??! If we go by the logic you've been using they should have won... instead they where defeated, badly.

I am trying to argue that the Germans had no chance at defeating Britain in an air war. I could bring up radar capacities, strategic planning, geography etc. You are badly characterizing my "obsession with numbers," it's actually an obsession with statements supported by evidence over broad general statements without proof.

So it was only before 43 that the Soviets where doing more...

And seriously, the reason why in the last decades more credit has been given to the soviets is because between the end of WW2 and the fall of the USSR they weren't given much at all...

And like i said, quantifying who did more is not really math i care to attempt.

I think we have agreed to disagree here!

It was an example of the top of my head, didn't feel like going into a long winded explination on how it might have been possible (we where talking about alternate events after all).

Teehee, I know. Sorry.

When you said teh Allies would have won anyway that's exactly what you're saying (D-Day failing would have been a giant blow, making Europe safe for the Nazis for probably years).

I didnt say without the Soviets they would've also attempted D-Day in 1944. I said the war would've taken longer. Now you're just making up stuff!

If you're talking about war production, that is different than production power. Obviously the US wasnt making military stuff in 1939. I was arguing that it had the bigger economic production potential in 1939, or 37, not that it had bigger military production.

You do know what potential means, right?!

.. Yes?


Zonker, I'll reply to you later this week when I have time.

Wheeee history.