Export thread
Oh Russia, it's that time of the month for you again i see
#1
@Li3n
@Li3n
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8166020.stm
Russia acts against 'false' history
What is worrying Russia? Why is the country convinced that it is the victim of a campaign to make it look bad?
President Dmitry Medvedev recently announced the setting up of a commission to counter the falsification of history. He said this was becoming increasingly \"severe, evil, and aggressive\".
\"This is absolute poppycock,\" says Robert Service, professor of Russian History at Oxford University. \"History is all about argument. There is no absolute historical truth about anything big in history.\"
Mr Service dismisses the Russian leader's suggestion that his country is facing some kind of academic aggression.
Instead, he sees a desire to dominate, worthy of the most repressive totalitarian regimes of fiction.
\"President Medvedev, following in the path of his predecessor President [Vladimir] Putin, wants to control history,\" he says.
\"And he wants to control history as a means of controlling the present. This is the classic George Orwell scenario.\"
'Hysterical reaction'
Many Russians, though, agree with their president.
Natalia Narochnitskaya, a former deputy in the Russian parliament and now a member of the new Historical Truth Commission, says that she is surprised by what she terms the \"almost hysterical reaction\" in the West.
\"In the Western media especially, there is a certain prejudice against Russia and Russian history,\" she says.
\"They always feel that Russia since, you know, Ivan the Terrible, is a certain country which is off the European civilisation.\"
Ask a few more questions, though, and these two apparently separate views begin to converge.
At least, they agree on what the key issue is - World War II. And here lies the clue as to the real reason for the establishment of the new commission.
This is what appears to anger today's Russian historical establishment: accounts of Red Army crimes on the march to Berlin; assertions by the Baltic countries and others in Eastern Europe that Soviet forces came as occupiers as much as liberators; any suggestion that Stalin's Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were anything but complete opposites and bitter enemies.
Here, perhaps, there is a clue as to the timing of the commission's founding.
Next month sees the 70th anniversary of the non-aggression pact between the USSR and Hitler's Germany, something Ms Narochnitskaya expects the West to make a lot of noise about.
\"In August there will be such a yelling about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, saying that that was the step that led to the Second World War, and that Germany and the Soviet Union were two equal, disgusting, totalitarian monsters.\"
Nationalist sentiment
Why does this matter today? Do these arguments have any great importance beyond the walls of universities? In Russia, the answer is yes.
The country sees its victory over Hitler's forces as the greatest moment of the 20th Century.
The war is sometimes discussed in the news media as if it were a recent event, not increasingly distant history.
Any attempt to tarnish the glory of that triumph is seen as a deliberate attempt to make Russia look bad.
Russia's past haunts its present. Recognising that, the authorities want to rule the version of the past which dominates today.
Tamara Eidelman, who teaches history at a Moscow High School, feels surrounded by nationalist sentiment.
\"So many people are speaking about strong, Orthodox Russia, military power,\" she says.
\"It is something that is very strong in historical tradition and in popular opinion. This commission is partly a response to this atmosphere.\"
The creation of this commission seems to go to the heart of what troubles modern Russia.
The chaos which followed the collapse of communism left many Russians deeply distrustful of politics and officialdom.
President Medvedev has complained of the corruption and \"legal nihilism\" which plague his country.
Russia's leaders today know that they need this shining, sacred, memory of victory to give their people something to believe in.
In the near future, it may even be backed up in law.
The Russian parliament is on its summer break at the moment, but legislation is being considered - legislation that would make it a criminal offence to \"infringe on historical memory in relation to events which took place in the Second World War\".
#2
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Wow, Russia wanting to hide it's war crimes against the states it conquered and held hostage for 50+ years. What a shocker.
Look... Russia, we REALLY appreciate you sending millions of your men and women to die at the hands of Hitler's armies. If you hadn't been tanking for the Allies, we wouldn't have been able to sneak in and backstab them at Normandy. We also appreciate you finally breaking their defenses and getting the killshot against Germany. That doesn't change the fact that your a loot whore. Don't try to fool us... we got logs of that shit.
Look... Russia, we REALLY appreciate you sending millions of your men and women to die at the hands of Hitler's armies. If you hadn't been tanking for the Allies, we wouldn't have been able to sneak in and backstab them at Normandy. We also appreciate you finally breaking their defenses and getting the killshot against Germany. That doesn't change the fact that your a loot whore. Don't try to fool us... we got logs of that shit.
#3
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
Yes, criminalising "alternate" views of history always works wonders for stamping it out.
#4
Cuyval Dar
Cuyval Dar
You, sir, win this thread.Wow, Russia wanting to hide it's war crimes against the states it conquered and held hostage for 50+ years. What a shocker.
Look... Russia, we REALLY appreciate you sending millions of your men and women to die at the hands of Hitler's armies. If you hadn't been tanking for the Allies, we wouldn't have been able to sneak in and backstab them at Normandy. We also appreciate you finally breaking their defenses and getting the killshot against Germany. That doesn't change the fact that your a loot whore. Don't try to fool us... we got logs of that shit.
#5
Heavan
Heavan
I'm a Canadian who is a History Major and Russia is my favorite country historically. I've read countless books by western writers from all parts of Russian history and none of them seemed unfair. Hell, one of them argued that Russia was a country that had its ups and downs, but always seemed to build itself back up into a huge power every time they fell. I admired that about them.
No idea why they think we're being more unfair about them than anyone else.
No idea why they think we're being more unfair about them than anyone else.
#6
North_Ranger
North_Ranger
Russia acting batshit crazy. News at eleven.
Trust me, when it comes to our wide-ass neighbour next door, these things don't surprise me the least. A few years back, there was the debacle about the Bronze Warrior statue in Tallinn. The Estonian officials wanted to move it to a less prominent place, as for the Estonians it symbolized Soviet occupation. The Estonian Russians and the Russians took offence because for them it symbolized liberation of Estonia from the Nazis... aaaaand then people started throwing bottles and looting in downtown Tallinn.
My Ukrainian friend had this to say about the whole thing: Stalin is still one if not the most popular Soviet leaders in Russia, because like him or not, he got shit done, turning a bass ackwards agrarian society into a military might after two major wars. And he is still popular after what he called "a minor revolution and twenty years of anti-communist propaganda".
Trust me, when it comes to our wide-ass neighbour next door, these things don't surprise me the least. A few years back, there was the debacle about the Bronze Warrior statue in Tallinn. The Estonian officials wanted to move it to a less prominent place, as for the Estonians it symbolized Soviet occupation. The Estonian Russians and the Russians took offence because for them it symbolized liberation of Estonia from the Nazis... aaaaand then people started throwing bottles and looting in downtown Tallinn.
My Ukrainian friend had this to say about the whole thing: Stalin is still one if not the most popular Soviet leaders in Russia, because like him or not, he got shit done, turning a bass ackwards agrarian society into a military might after two major wars. And he is still popular after what he called "a minor revolution and twenty years of anti-communist propaganda".
#7
Shegokigo
Serious fucking win.
Shegokigo
You, sir, win this thread.[/QUOTE]Wow, Russia wanting to hide it's war crimes against the states it conquered and held hostage for 50+ years. What a shocker.
Look... Russia, we REALLY appreciate you sending millions of your men and women to die at the hands of Hitler's armies. If you hadn't been tanking for the Allies, we wouldn't have been able to sneak in and backstab them at Normandy. We also appreciate you finally breaking their defenses and getting the killshot against Germany. That doesn't change the fact that your a loot whore. Don't try to fool us... we got logs of that shit.
Serious fucking win.
#8
Rubicon
Rubicon
Masterfully done good sir.Wow, Russia wanting to hide it's war crimes against the states it conquered and held hostage for 50+ years. What a shocker.
Look... Russia, we REALLY appreciate you sending millions of your men and women to die at the hands of Hitler's armies. If you hadn't been tanking for the Allies, we wouldn't have been able to sneak in and backstab them at Normandy. We also appreciate you finally breaking their defenses and getting the killshot against Germany. That doesn't change the fact that your a loot whore. Don't try to fool us... we got logs of that shit.
#9
@Li3n
@Li3n
I think they put something in the water. This girl in my masters degree class is from Moldova and when they had that little uprising a while back she went home for a while etc. and when she came back she was all "for some reason our mobiles and internet didn't work" and when i told her the government cut them off she didn't believe it was even technically possible for them to do that and when i insisted she started sounding like one of those pod people... freaked me out. She's otherwise relatively normal.North_Ranger said:My Ukrainian friend had this to say about the whole thing: Stalin is still one if not the most popular Soviet leaders in Russia, because like him or not, he got shit done, turning a bass ackwards agrarian society into a military might after two major wars. And he is still popular after what he called "a minor revolution and twenty years of anti-communist propaganda".
The funny thing is that the west does tend to downplay the role the USSR played in the Allied victory. But i guess complaining just about that wouldn't really be very russian.Look... Russia, we REALLY appreciate you sending millions of your men and women to die at the hands of Hitler's armies. If you hadn't been tanking for the Allies, we wouldn't have been able to sneak in and backstab them at Normandy. We also appreciate you finally breaking their defenses and getting the killshot against Germany. That doesn't change the fact that your a loot whore. Don't try to fool us... we got logs of that shit.
#10
North_Ranger
North_Ranger
@lien, I think it's a little counter-productive to say something like "they put something in the water". Their perspective is different from ours, surely, because they haven't just heard about what's it like there - they've been there.
As for downplaying... won't say anything about that. We don't really like to talk about. You know, because of the Winter War and the Continuation War...
As for downplaying... won't say anything about that. We don't really like to talk about. You know, because of the Winter War and the Continuation War...
#11
Green_Lantern
Green_Lantern
So... in sovietic russia the history writtes you?
someone come up with a better one >.<
someone come up with a better one >.<
#12
JONJONAUG
JONJONAUG
Now, historical revisionism is nothing new for any country, and every nation leaves out a good deal of skeletons in the closet from their standard education (for instance: not many schools teach much about US internment camps during World War II or that the United States had a compulsory sterilization program in effect for much of the 20th century, continuing even after World War II ended and only officially disbanded during the early 1980s).
But criminalizing it? That's pretty low.
But criminalizing it? That's pretty low.
#13
ElJuski
ElJuski
Alls I knows is a large portion of my family's side were sent to Siberia during Russian occupation. And that Lithuania fought to keep the communist oppression out of our country alongside Latvia and Estonia.
The Baltic states were equally fucked by the Nazis and the Commies until the fall of the USSR. When you're getting fucked in the ass it doesn't matter if it's coming from the left or the right.
The Baltic states were equally fucked by the Nazis and the Commies until the fall of the USSR. When you're getting fucked in the ass it doesn't matter if it's coming from the left or the right.
#14
North_Ranger
North_Ranger
Well said, Juski. Well said.
I hope you don't hold a grudge because Finland didn't get as thorough a bumfuck treatment
I hope you don't hold a grudge because Finland didn't get as thorough a bumfuck treatment
#15
BoringMetaphor
BoringMetaphor
Actually if anything the west gives too much credit to the USSR for the defeat of Nazi Germany.
If you look at the numbers, the bombing campaign had a much more significant impact on the german economy than anyone was willing to admit, including Speer. Though many historians look at the pure output of the economy in terms of tanks/guns/etc. and state that this proves it was only minimally effective, if you ask the question what it was producing, a different answer emerges.
80% of all 88mm in 1943 went towards anti aircraft guns, rather than anti tank. 750 000 soldiers were committed to the anti air war effort, as well as 1 million to civil defence and repair. The most important fact here which is often overlooked is the usage of the 88mm. What if they had been used at Kursk instead of fighting the Western bombing effort? It would have been a different battle, and a different eastern front.
Russians will never admit this, as the OP proves, but they were very close to losing in 1941-1943. The communist victory is not the story of russian grit, but of Allied supplies, and dead allied pilots, and Nazi mistakes.
If you look at the numbers, the bombing campaign had a much more significant impact on the german economy than anyone was willing to admit, including Speer. Though many historians look at the pure output of the economy in terms of tanks/guns/etc. and state that this proves it was only minimally effective, if you ask the question what it was producing, a different answer emerges.
80% of all 88mm in 1943 went towards anti aircraft guns, rather than anti tank. 750 000 soldiers were committed to the anti air war effort, as well as 1 million to civil defence and repair. The most important fact here which is often overlooked is the usage of the 88mm. What if they had been used at Kursk instead of fighting the Western bombing effort? It would have been a different battle, and a different eastern front.
Russians will never admit this, as the OP proves, but they were very close to losing in 1941-1943. The communist victory is not the story of russian grit, but of Allied supplies, and dead allied pilots, and Nazi mistakes.
#16
@Li3n
Truth is there are way more sources that downplay the russians role then those that overplay it.
Plus, air superiority was always one of the things on the list of "stuff that won the war for the Allies".
And see, you're also downplaying it, as if it would have played out the same even if the russians did a lot less.
Sure, the US not being bombed/invaded meant it could bankroll all the other allies and that also helped a lot, but that doesn't mean the Battle of Britain wasn't the 1st turning point in the war etc.
@Li3n
Really? How many movies, games or books have you seen that weren't about D-Day or the western front?Actually if anything the west gives too much credit to the USSR for the defeat of Nazi Germany.
Truth is there are way more sources that downplay the russians role then those that overplay it.
That works both ways, if the eastern front wasn't there how much more resources would Germany have to use in the west.If you look at the numbers, the bombing campaign had a much more significant impact on the german economy than anyone was willing to admit, including Speer. Though many historians look at the pure output of the economy in terms of tanks/guns/etc. and state that this proves it was only minimally effective, if you ask the question what it was producing, a different answer emerges.
80% of all 88mm in 1943 went towards anti aircraft guns, rather than anti tank. 750 000 soldiers were committed to the anti air war effort, as well as 1 million to civil defence and repair. The most important fact here which is often overlooked is the usage of the 88mm. What if they had been used at Kursk instead of fighting the Western bombing effort? It would have been a different battle, and a different eastern front.
Plus, air superiority was always one of the things on the list of "stuff that won the war for the Allies".
That's always how the russians do it... they get slaughtered at he beginning, the winter comes and they drive back the attackers by throwing waves of men into the meat grinder.Russians will never admit this, as the OP proves, but they were very close to losing in 1941-1943. The communist victory is not the story of russian grit, but of Allied supplies, and dead allied pilots, and Nazi mistakes.
And see, you're also downplaying it, as if it would have played out the same even if the russians did a lot less.
Sure, the US not being bombed/invaded meant it could bankroll all the other allies and that also helped a lot, but that doesn't mean the Battle of Britain wasn't the 1st turning point in the war etc.
#17
BoringMetaphor
Truth is there are way more sources that downplay the russians role then those that overplay it.[/quote]
I mean the idea that the USSR was the sole reason Germany was defeated - that the Allies never truly opened a second front until it was too late in the war. Maybe its more apparent in some of the history literature than in the media.
Plus, air superiority was always one of the things on the list of "stuff that won the war for the Allies". [/quote]
Allied air superiority is usually listed because of its tactical aid, or in stopping supplies from reaching the front, supposed "war production" damage, etc. Not because it diverted a significant percentage of the German war economy and German war effort.
And see, you're also downplaying it, as if it would have played out the same even if the russians did a lot less.
Sure, the US not being bombed/invaded meant it could bankroll all the other allies and that also helped a lot, but that doesn't mean the Battle of Britain wasn't the 1st turning point in the war etc.[/QUOTE]
Im not saying that the Russians didnt do alot for the war effort. Im just saying the the thousands of Allied air crews which died over Germany did just as much for diverting the Germans from defeating the Russians in 1942 or 43 as the Russians did for diverting the Germans from defeating us in 1944.
And I dont have a source to back this up at the moment other than the internet, but the US had a bigger economic capability than Germany and the USSR combined. If the Soviets had gone the way of Brest-Litovsk in 1942 or something, there's not a doubt in my mind the Americans and the Western Allies could've kept fighting the war and still beaten Germany. You can't say the same about the USSR if America hadn't gotten involved and started funneling trucks and supplies through Archangel and Siberia.
The battle of britain wasn't a turning point. It was just a failure for the Germans. There was no chance they could either a) invade britain or b) cause enough damage through an air campaign to make a significant dent in the British war effort. It was just the Germans throwing away aircraft and pilots because Hitler is an idiot.
BoringMetaphor
Really? How many movies, games or books have you seen that weren't about D-Day or the western front?Actually if anything the west gives too much credit to the USSR for the defeat of Nazi Germany.
Truth is there are way more sources that downplay the russians role then those that overplay it.[/quote]
I mean the idea that the USSR was the sole reason Germany was defeated - that the Allies never truly opened a second front until it was too late in the war. Maybe its more apparent in some of the history literature than in the media.
That works both ways, if the eastern front wasn't there how much more resources would Germany have to use in the west.If you look at the numbers, the bombing campaign had a much more significant impact on the german economy than anyone was willing to admit, including Speer. Though many historians look at the pure output of the economy in terms of tanks/guns/etc. and state that this proves it was only minimally effective, if you ask the question what it was producing, a different answer emerges.
80% of all 88mm in 1943 went towards anti aircraft guns, rather than anti tank. 750 000 soldiers were committed to the anti air war effort, as well as 1 million to civil defence and repair. The most important fact here which is often overlooked is the usage of the 88mm. What if they had been used at Kursk instead of fighting the Western bombing effort? It would have been a different battle, and a different eastern front.
Plus, air superiority was always one of the things on the list of "stuff that won the war for the Allies". [/quote]
Allied air superiority is usually listed because of its tactical aid, or in stopping supplies from reaching the front, supposed "war production" damage, etc. Not because it diverted a significant percentage of the German war economy and German war effort.
That's always how the russians do it... they get slaughtered at he beginning, the winter comes and they drive back the attackers by throwing waves of men into the meat grinder.Russians will never admit this, as the OP proves, but they were very close to losing in 1941-1943. The communist victory is not the story of russian grit, but of Allied supplies, and dead allied pilots, and Nazi mistakes.
And see, you're also downplaying it, as if it would have played out the same even if the russians did a lot less.
Sure, the US not being bombed/invaded meant it could bankroll all the other allies and that also helped a lot, but that doesn't mean the Battle of Britain wasn't the 1st turning point in the war etc.[/QUOTE]
Im not saying that the Russians didnt do alot for the war effort. Im just saying the the thousands of Allied air crews which died over Germany did just as much for diverting the Germans from defeating the Russians in 1942 or 43 as the Russians did for diverting the Germans from defeating us in 1944.
And I dont have a source to back this up at the moment other than the internet, but the US had a bigger economic capability than Germany and the USSR combined. If the Soviets had gone the way of Brest-Litovsk in 1942 or something, there's not a doubt in my mind the Americans and the Western Allies could've kept fighting the war and still beaten Germany. You can't say the same about the USSR if America hadn't gotten involved and started funneling trucks and supplies through Archangel and Siberia.
The battle of britain wasn't a turning point. It was just a failure for the Germans. There was no chance they could either a) invade britain or b) cause enough damage through an air campaign to make a significant dent in the British war effort. It was just the Germans throwing away aircraft and pilots because Hitler is an idiot.
#18
Necronic
Necronic
Title made me think "Red Tide"
#19
@Li3n
Of course if you're only talking about whether or not the USSR might have won even without D-Day that's another thing (and as you say next, US was a big help economically either way), as by '44 the tide had changed already and i doubt that Germany could have gone back on the offensive at that point (which does not exclude a stalemate).
Both where probably vital to the overall war effort, and we can't really know the lack of which would tilt the balance the other way more...
But economically yeah, without support from the US all the other Allies would have been screwed.
And again, there you go downplaying the soviets by saying the Allies would have won anyway... unless you're referring to the atom bomb that's one hell of an assumption.
@Li3n
There was no sole reason for the Axis's defeat except maybe Hitler's craziness (even Stalin didn't think he'd be opening up a 2nd front so soon, although i guess the Winter War made the soviets seem very weak, too bad they forgot about Napoleon and that the finish where also used to the winters).I mean the idea that the USSR was the sole reason Germany was defeated - that the Allies never truly opened a second front until it was too late in the war. Maybe its more apparent in some of the history literature than in the media.
Of course if you're only talking about whether or not the USSR might have won even without D-Day that's another thing (and as you say next, US was a big help economically either way), as by '44 the tide had changed already and i doubt that Germany could have gone back on the offensive at that point (which does not exclude a stalemate).
I think the tactical aid kinda covers that (they wouldn't have diverted the resources if the air advantage wasn't so effective on the battlefield - German tanks would have massacred US and British ones otherwise).Allied air superiority is usually listed because of its tactical aid, or in stopping supplies from reaching the front, supposed \"war production\" damage, etc. Not because it diverted a significant percentage of the German war economy and German war effort.
I don't really feel like actually getting into some sort of math-off with you over how much each counted and who gets the #1 spot on helping better.Im not saying that the Russians didnt do a lot for the war effort. Im just saying the the thousands of Allied air crews which died over Germany did just as much for diverting the Germans from defeating the Russians in 1942 or 43 as the Russians did for diverting the Germans from defeating us in
1944.
Both where probably vital to the overall war effort, and we can't really know the lack of which would tilt the balance the other way more...
Really? Have you actually bothered looking up the numbers for the Eastern Front!? What do you think would happen if all that manpower went back west? Without the russians the Allies might have held out (as they already did in Britain), but whether or not they would have actually gotten to Berlin is another question.And I dont have a source to back this up at the moment other than the internet, but the US had a bigger economic capability than Germany and the USSR combined. If the Soviets had gone the way of Brest-Litovsk in 1942 or something, there's not a doubt in my mind the Americans and the Western Allies could've kept fighting the war and still beaten Germany. You can't say the same about the USSR if America hadn't gotten involved and started funneling trucks and supplies through Archangel and Siberia.
But economically yeah, without support from the US all the other Allies would have been screwed.
And again, there you go downplaying the soviets by saying the Allies would have won anyway... unless you're referring to the atom bomb that's one hell of an assumption.
Seems you're confusing the continued bombing of Britain with the actual http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_britain . If they had air superiority they would have invaded Britain and as i recall most agree that the UK was in no shape to actually drive back a land invasion at the. And if Britain fell (or was a ground battlefield) or went for an armistice then D-Day would probably have not been feasible. English Channel weather FTW.The battle of britain wasn't a turning point. It was just a failure for the Germans. There was no chance they could either a) invade britain or b) cause enough damage through an air campaign to make a significant dent in the British war effort. It was just the Germans throwing away aircraft and pilots because Hitler is an idiot.
#20
ElJuski
ElJuski
haha...
argument
rebuttal
argument
rebuttal
pussy joke
argument
rebuttal
argument
rebuttal
pussy joke
#21
BoringMetaphor
Youre right, counter factual history is kinda just making stuff up. But when I go to work on Monday I can pull up an article which has the actual numbers which shows more of the German economy was spent on fighting the Allies. That is to say, in terms of who was facing the bulk of germany's resources and thus contributed the most to defeating the Germans, it was the West, not the USSR, despite the large number of forces engaged on the Eastern front.
The Germans had neither air superiority, or control of the seas, or the military knowledge to conduct an seaborne invasion, or even the transport capacity to do so. The battle of britain is not the story of the British forces turning the tide of a potential nazi invasion, it is the story of the atrocious German losses and a wasted effort because of the points I just listed.
If you look at the number of planes the Brits had it shows they were no where near in danger of losing the battle of britain:
June 3 - 162 Spitfires, 163 Hurricanes
June 30 - 247 S, 255 H
August 5 - 257 S, 373 H
September 1 - 208 S, 398 H
September 20 - 237 S, 391 H
Or, if you look at the BF 109 casualties from the Luftwaffe in 1940, on May 11 1940 there were 1110 BF109 pilots on duty. Between May-June 1940, they suffered 169 casualties (15.2%), between Jul-Sep 1940, 521 casualties (46.9%) and between May-Dec 1940, 720 casualties (65%). These are clearly completely unsustainable, and also demonstrates the British not only won the "battle of britain" by far, but there was no chance that they would lose it.
Again, this isn't a mathoff - these are just the numbers which I have in front of me and prove my point.
BoringMetaphor
Fair enoughThere was no sole reason for the Axis's defeat except maybe Hitler's craziness (even Stalin didn't think he'd be opening up a 2nd front so soon, although i guess the Winter War made the soviets seem very weak, too bad they forgot about Napoleon and that the finish where also used to the winters).
Of course if you're only talking about whether or not the USSR might have won even without D-Day that's another thing (and as you say next, US was a big help economically either way), as by '44 the tide had changed already and i doubt that Germany could have gone back on the offensive at that point (which does not exclude a stalemate).
Im not sure what you mean here. Tactical or operational use of air power isnt the same as strategic use.I think the tactical aid kinda covers that (they wouldn't have diverted the resources if the air advantage wasn't so effective on the battlefield - German tanks would have massacred US and British ones otherwise).
Im not getting into a mathoff, this is just the evidence. How else do you prove who is right except for facts??]I don't really feel like actually getting into some sort of math-off with you over how much each counted and who gets the #1 spot on helping better.
Both where probably vital to the overall war effort, and we can't really know the lack of which would tilt the balance the other way more...
Youre right, counter factual history is kinda just making stuff up. But when I go to work on Monday I can pull up an article which has the actual numbers which shows more of the German economy was spent on fighting the Allies. That is to say, in terms of who was facing the bulk of germany's resources and thus contributed the most to defeating the Germans, it was the West, not the USSR, despite the large number of forces engaged on the Eastern front.
Im saying the Allies (read: the US) had the economic, demographic and strategic capability of beating the Germans without the help of the USSR. It would've taken longer, but they could have done it. Again though, as this part is counterfactual, Im just kinda shooting the shit. I personally believe the numbers show this to be true, but I dont have any way to prove that.Really? Have you actually bothered looking up the numbers for the Eastern Front!? What do you think would happen if all that manpower went back west? Without the russians the Allies might have held out (as they already did in Britain), but whether or not they would have actually gotten to Berlin is another question.
But economically yeah, without support from the US all the other Allies would have been screwed.
And again, there you go downplaying the soviets by saying the Allies would have won anyway... unless you're referring to the atom bomb that's one hell of an assumption.
No I did not. I am saying there was no chance that Britain could have lost the air war in 1940, or even been invaded. Therefore, it was not a turning point, just a strategic error on the part of the Germans.Seems you're confusing the continued bombing of Britain with the actual http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_britain . If they had air superiority they would have invaded Britain and as i recall most agree that the UK was in no shape to actually drive back a land invasion at the. And if Britain fell (or was a ground battlefield) or went for an armistice then D-Day would probably have not been feasible. English Channel weather FTW.
The Germans had neither air superiority, or control of the seas, or the military knowledge to conduct an seaborne invasion, or even the transport capacity to do so. The battle of britain is not the story of the British forces turning the tide of a potential nazi invasion, it is the story of the atrocious German losses and a wasted effort because of the points I just listed.
If you look at the number of planes the Brits had it shows they were no where near in danger of losing the battle of britain:
June 3 - 162 Spitfires, 163 Hurricanes
June 30 - 247 S, 255 H
August 5 - 257 S, 373 H
September 1 - 208 S, 398 H
September 20 - 237 S, 391 H
Or, if you look at the BF 109 casualties from the Luftwaffe in 1940, on May 11 1940 there were 1110 BF109 pilots on duty. Between May-June 1940, they suffered 169 casualties (15.2%), between Jul-Sep 1940, 521 casualties (46.9%) and between May-Dec 1940, 720 casualties (65%). These are clearly completely unsustainable, and also demonstrates the British not only won the "battle of britain" by far, but there was no chance that they would lose it.
Again, this isn't a mathoff - these are just the numbers which I have in front of me and prove my point.
#22
North_Ranger
North_Ranger
Well, later in the war the situation could have been drastically different if the Germans had managed to get the Me 262 (the first fighter jet) production going. According to quite an interesting article I read, however, the Reich wasted that opportunity because Hitler insisted on making the Me 262s compatible as fighter-bombers... which effectively stalled the production and took out the edge the 262 had over Allied aircraft - its speed.
#23
Twitch
Twitch
I misread "sole reason" for "reason" and I was about to go on and on about how the axis couldn't have won if they were led by twenty Erwin Rommels. Then I paused to re-read.
#24
North_Ranger
North_Ranger
Well, they might not have won if they had twenty Erwin Rommels. But that would have been a bitchin' stage performance: The Singing Rommels.
... Yyyyyyeeaaaahhhhh... I think that's my cue to go get some sleep. Before they start doing the can-can.
... Yyyyyyeeaaaahhhhh... I think that's my cue to go get some sleep. Before they start doing the can-can.
#25
@Li3n
Sure, if you only use only the economic stuff you're right, but a war isn't run by accountants for a very good reason (they are pretty important though).
But of course you're not the first to argue that, and it's not a bad position, as it's geographic location meant it most likely would have had the time to actually bring all that economic might to bear (especially considering the lack of air power on Germany's part).
And this also ties in to the above about the economic numbers... as you can see more resources =/= victory...
@Li3n
Strategies must take into account tactical value etc. their tactical effectiveness meant that the Nazi's had to modify their strategy accordingly.Im not sure what you mean here. Tactical or operational use of air power isnt the same as strategic use.
If only it was that simple... the math-off is between lets say the economical effects vs the man-power and number of engagements (gross simplification for clarity's sake)...Im not getting into a mathoff, this is just the evidence. How else do you prove who is right except for facts??
Youre right, counter factual history is kinda just making stuff up. But when I go to work on Monday I can pull up an article which has the actual numbers which shows more of the German economy was spent on fighting the Allies. That is to say, in terms of who was facing the bulk of germany's resources and thus contributed the most to defeating the Germans, it was the West, not the USSR, despite the large number of forces engaged on the Eastern front.
Sure, if you only use only the economic stuff you're right, but a war isn't run by accountants for a very good reason (they are pretty important though).
The reason you can't prove it is because numbers aren't enough... there are all sorts of other factors one needs to consider.Im saying the Allies (read: the US) had the economic, demographic and strategic capability of beating the Germans without the help of the USSR. It would've taken longer, but they could have done it. Again though, as this part is counterfactual, Im just kinda shooting the shit. I personally believe the numbers show this to be true, but I dont have any way to prove that.
But of course you're not the first to argue that, and it's not a bad position, as it's geographic location meant it most likely would have had the time to actually bring all that economic might to bear (especially considering the lack of air power on Germany's part).
Oh, you're arguing that because the RAF's victory was so decisive/overwhelming it wasn't a turning point... i don't think many people will agree with that.No I did not. I am saying there was no chance that Britain could have lost the air war in 1940, or even been invaded. Therefore, it was not a turning point, just a strategic error on the part of the Germans.
The Germans had neither air superiority, or control of the seas, or the military knowledge to conduct an seaborne invasion, or even the transport capacity to do so. The battle of britain is not the story of the British forces turning the tide of a potential nazi invasion, it is the story of the atrocious German losses and a wasted effort because of the points I just listed.
If you look at the number of planes the Brits had it shows they were no where near in danger of losing the battle of britain:
June 3 - 162 Spitfires, 163 Hurricanes
June 30 - 247 S, 255 H
August 5 - 257 S, 373 H
September 1 - 208 S, 398 H
September 20 - 237 S, 391 H
Or, if you look at the BF 109 casualties from the Luftwaffe in 1940, on May 11 1940 there were 1110 BF109 pilots on duty. Between May-June 1940, they suffered 169 casualties (15.2%), between Jul-Sep 1940, 521 casualties (46.9%) and between May-Dec 1940, 720 casualties (65%). These are clearly completely unsustainable, and also demonstrates the British not only won the \"battle of britain\" by far, but there was no chance that they would lose it.
And this also ties in to the above about the economic numbers... as you can see more resources =/= victory...
Of course not, they only needed one, in place of Hitler...\"[URL=\"http://www.halforums.com/forum/member.php?u=254\" said:Twitch[/URL]\"]I misread \"sole reason\" for \"reason\" and I was about to go on and on about how the axis couldn't have won if they were led by twenty Erwin Rommels. Then I paused to re-read.
#26
Soliloquy
Soliloquy
You know, reading this argument, I'm not even sure what points are even trying to be made, here.
#27
BoringMetaphor
The first has to do with the OP, the second was just brought up in passing.
BoringMetaphor
On the other hand, you cant just look at the size of armies. I dont understand how you can dismiss the german war effort in terms of production by saying the german army is somehow more indicative of who was fighting "harder." USSR was fighting the bulk of the german army. The West was fighting the bulk of the entire German war effort. This doesnt diminish fighting the army, it just proves that the West was occupied with a lot more military power than we realize.Sure, if you only use only the economic stuff you're right, but a war isn't run by accountants for a very good reason (they are pretty important though).
No I can't prove it because it didn't happen. It's made up.The reason you can't prove it is because numbers aren't enough... there are all sorts of other factors one needs to consider.
But of course you're not the first to argue that, and it's not a bad position, as it's geographic location meant it most likely would have had the time to actually bring all that economic might to bear (especially considering the lack of air power on Germany's part).
No Im arguing that it wasnt a turning point because that implies that it turned away from something. Im saying since there was no chance the Germans could win, it's not a turning point.Oh, you're arguing that because the RAF's victory was so decisive/overwhelming it wasn't a turning point... i don't think many people will agree with that.
And this also ties in to the above about the economic numbers... as you can see more resources =/= victory...
Im arguing two things now: One, the Allies were facing the greater part of the German war effort (in terms of economy, war production of munitions and weapons,etc.), thus contributed more to defeating Germany than Russia. Two, that the battle of britain did not represent a turning point in the war.You know, reading this argument, I'm not even sure what points are even trying to be made, here.
The first has to do with the OP, the second was just brought up in passing.
#28
Twitch
Twitch
Two Words: Atomic Bomb
Germany loses. Even if every German citizen was Erwin Rommel.
Germany loses. Even if every German citizen was Erwin Rommel.
#29
Iaculus
Population crash ahoy!
Iaculus
Especially then, unless all those Rommels figured out a reliable means of asexual reproduction.Two Words: Atomic Bomb
Germany loses. Even if every German citizen was Erwin Rommel.
Population crash ahoy!
#30
@Li3n
Of course if you really want you can always add breaking Enigma to the western effort, which was an incredible advantage tactically and strategically.
@Li3n
That's exactly what i meant by a math-off... using the numbers to somehow determine which one was more important.On the other hand, you cant just look at the size of armies. I dont understand how you can dismiss the german war effort in terms of production by saying the german army is somehow more indicative of who was fighting "harder." USSR was fighting the bulk of the german army. The West was fighting the bulk of the entire German war effort. This doesnt diminish fighting the army, it just proves that the West was occupied with a lot more military power than we realize.
Well if we go by that we can't actually prove anything either way (including that the russians wouldn't have made it without aid - given as an example, i'm not arguing that or that using more 88's in the eastern front would have turned it around), so there's no point in this discussion.No I can't prove it because it didn't happen. It's made up.
Eh... the germans rolled over Europe and had victory after victory... then they got stalled there... sounds like a turning point to me (plenty of other decisive battles turning the tide of a war, like the Battle of Salamis - if we believe the sources on the numbers). They had superior numbers but where defeated by better tactics, and lost all momentum (in the west) as a result.No Im arguing that it wasnt a turning point because that implies that it turned away from something. Im saying since there was no chance the Germans could win, it's not a turning point.
That argument relies on the economy being more important then "no matter how much" man-power, which is debatable (which makes it a math-off).Im arguing two things now: One, the Allies were facing the greater part of the German war effort (in terms of economy, war production of munitions and weapons,etc.), thus contributed more to defeating Germany than Russia.
Of course if you really want you can always add breaking Enigma to the western effort, which was an incredible advantage tactically and strategically.
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 reasearch or the Nazis could have continued their own research with all the funds saved from not fighting russia etc.Two Words: Atomic Bomb
Germany loses. Even if every German citizen was Erwin Rommel.
#31
@Li3n
@Li3n
Speaking about the OP: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8372894.stm
Russia has now turned into a \"criminal state\", according to the man who was once its leading foreign investor.
Bill Browder of Hermitage Capital was reacting to the news that his lawyer had died in prison in Russia after being held for a year without charge.
He told the BBC that his lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, had effectively been \"held hostage and they killed their hostage.\"
Through Hermitage Capital Bill Browder campaigned against corruption at some of Russia's largest companies.
Russian officials say they are investigating Mr Magnitsky's death.
In 2005 Mr Browder was banned from Russia as a threat to national security, after allegations that his firms evaded tax, but Mr Browder says his company was targeted by criminals trying to seize millions of pounds worth of his assets.
Mr Browder says he was punished for being a threat to corrupt politicians and bureaucrats.
Since then, a number of Mr Browder's associates in Russia - as well as lawyers acting for his company - have been detained, beaten or robbed.
Before the accusations of tax evasion were raised, for many years Mr Browder had been one of the most outspoken defenders of the Russian government and its then-president Vladimir Putin.
'False confession'
According to Mr Browder, Sergei Magnitsky developed stomach and pancreas problems in prison which were diagnosed by a prison physician. He claims Mr Magnitsky was then moved to a new prison and then deprived of medical treatment.
\"They basically said to him if you sign the following false confessions then we'll give you medical treatment - otherwise we wont,\" claims Mr Browder.
Mr Magnitsky apparently wrote numerous complaints to the court, prosecutors and the prison authorities requesting medical treatment. Mr Browder claims that Mr Magnistky's pleas were first ignored and then denied.
Mr Browder believes that Mr Magnitsky's death is a direct result of tax evasion allegations against him.
\"They're trying to come up with any kind of charges they can against me and they were using him as their tool. He was their hostage and they killed their hostage by denying him medical attention, \" he says.
Sergei Magnitsky was one of the lawyers hired by Mr Browder to investigate whether fraud had been committed against his firms.
Mr Browder claims that when the police raided his office they took away corporate documents which they then used to steal his companies.
\"Sergei Magnitsky was one of the lawyers who discovered the whole crime, figured out who was responsible and then testified against the police officers and after he testified against the police officers the very same police officers had him arrested on spurious charges.\"
The circumstances surrounding Mr Magnitsky's death has caused Bill Browder to question his attitude to Russia under Putin.
'Criminal state'
\"When Putin first showed up and said he was going to tame the oligarchs I was the biggest fan of that particular concept. Then I realised that what he meant by taming the oligarchs was by sticking law enforcement people in their place,\" he says.
\"Now you have a bunch of law enforcement people who are essentially organised criminals with unlimited power to ruin lives take property and do whatever they like and that's far worse than I have ever seen in Russia before. Russia is essentially a criminal state now.\"
Mr Browder says he is going to do all he can to get justice for Sergei Magnitsky.
\"We're not going to let it rest until the people responsible for the death face justice,\" he said.
Responding to Mr Magnitsky's death, Russian Justice Minister Alexander Konovalov said he needed more evidence that the prisoner did not receive adequate medical care.
\"I would be grateful to human rights activists for providing specific information. In every case where there are doubts that assistance was timely and of good quality, there has to be a probe\".
The investigative committee for the Prosecutor's office said they were conducting a full investigation in the death.
\"As of now, we don't see a justification for starting a criminal case,\" said Moscow Investigative Committee chief, Anatoly Bagmet.
#32
Bubble181
Bubble181
To throw in my €0.02 - illegalising other views on history isn't "criminal". It's a pretty standard thing; most Western European countries have anti-negationist laws. Which I oppose on a matter of principle, but anyway. If France can make it illega lto say "the Germans didn't kill at least 4 million Jews in the camps", than Russia can make it illegal to say "The Russians oppressed Poland". It's just more of the same.
Anyway, being Belgian, having been in the center of the Western war effort....I still have to go with @li3n in this case. The Western front was very important, but without the Eastern front, the Allies couldn't have won. Heck, one of the reasons D-Day even succeeded was because the Atlantic Wall was heavily understaffed because the Germans had been diverting more and more troops to the Eastern front.
As for the atom bomb: if we're going alternate history anyway - Heisenberg wasn't much behind on Einstein. If the war had dragged on a year longer, or if the US hadn't joined the war that early (I still say the Nazis would've won if Japan had invaded Russia instead of the US Isles), or if Hitler hadn't been that big an idiot, there's a decent chance Germany'd have had a working bomb, too.
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.
Anyway, being Belgian, having been in the center of the Western war effort....I still have to go with @li3n in this case. The Western front was very important, but without the Eastern front, the Allies couldn't have won. Heck, one of the reasons D-Day even succeeded was because the Atlantic Wall was heavily understaffed because the Germans had been diverting more and more troops to the Eastern front.
As for the atom bomb: if we're going alternate history anyway - Heisenberg wasn't much behind on Einstein. If the war had dragged on a year longer, or if the US hadn't joined the war that early (I still say the Nazis would've won if Japan had invaded Russia instead of the US Isles), or if Hitler hadn't been that big an idiot, there's a decent chance Germany'd have had a working bomb, too.
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.
#33
@Li3n
@Li3n
Yeah, but i'm giving him the Great Depression as an explanation for that, and the US certainly had the potential for growth (as proven by having it by '42).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.
#34
BoringMetaphor
BoringMetaphor
How else would you determine which one was more important? Interviews? Maps? Guessing?? Numbers are the only solid evidence we have.That's exactly what i meant by a math-off... using the numbers to somehow determine which one was more important.
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.Eh... the germans rolled over Europe and had victory after victory... then they got stalled there... sounds like a turning point to me (plenty of other decisive battles turning the tide of a war, like the Battle of Salamis - if we believe the sources on the numbers). They had superior numbers but where defeated by better tactics, and lost all momentum (in the west) as a result.
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 wordsThat argument relies on the economy being more important then "no matter how much" man-power, which is debatable (which makes it a math-off).
Of course if you really want you can always add breaking Enigma to the western effort, which was an incredible advantage tactically and strategically.
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.
The axis couldn't have invaded the US.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 reasearch or the Nazis could have continued their own research with all the funds saved from not fighting russia etc.
#35
BoringMetaphor
Im not arguing that D-Day would've been successful without the eastern front. Im arguing that for the balance of the war, the Allies contributed as much to defeating the Germans as the Russians, if not more.
I dont know where you get your numbers from.
BoringMetaphor
ohhhhgod crisis. The big difference is that one of these statements is true and one of them isn't.To throw in my €0.02 - illegalising other views on history isn't "criminal". It's a pretty standard thing; most Western European countries have anti-negationist laws. Which I oppose on a matter of principle, but anyway. If France can make it illega lto say "the Germans didn't kill at least 4 million Jews in the camps", than Russia can make it illegal to say "The Russians oppressed Poland". It's just more of the same.
You have to be careful what you say here. If you look at the western front - particularly in the weeks after DDay, the Allies were facing a higher concentration of divisions per square kilometre than the Eastern front by far. France wasn't exactly empty, D-Day was successful because of strategic and operational surprise. And - to be fair- a lot gutsy soldiers.The Western front was very important, but without the Eastern front, the Allies couldn't have won. Heck, one of the reasons D-Day even succeeded was because the Atlantic Wall was heavily understaffed because the Germans had been diverting more and more troops to the Eastern front.
Im not arguing that D-Day would've been successful without the eastern front. Im arguing that for the balance of the war, the Allies contributed as much to defeating the Germans as the Russians, if not more.
This is a lie. Look up Paul Kennedy's Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. One of the tables he provides is the % of global warmaking potential in 1937. The US has 41.7%, while Germany has 14.4% and the USSR has 14%. That's a percent of the entire planet, and includes manpower, production capacity, etc. 1937 is still the tail end of the depression for America - No doubt the US was even bigger by 1939, and even larger by 1940, 41, etc.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.
I dont know where you get your numbers from.
#36
Bubble181
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.
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.
#37
BoringMetaphor
However, you're changing your point on me. You said:
BoringMetaphor
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.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.
I dont really know more specific information, so I can't actually carry on this point any further. You could be right!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 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.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.
However, you're changing your point on me. You said:
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.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.
#38
Bubble181
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.
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.
#39
Math242
Dude, are you a NAZI?
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?
#40
Twitch
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.
#41
BoringMetaphor
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.
But in a general sense, I agree with you.
#42
Zonker
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.
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.
#43
Bubble181
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.
. 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.
#44
North_Ranger
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.
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.
#45
Bubble181
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.
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.
#46
@Li3n
For example how do you decide that the economic numbers where more important that the number of troops etc.
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.
@Li3n
And unfortunately this solid evidence is not enough (unless you quantify everything else to numbers, and that's always subjective anyhow).How else would you determine which one was more important? Interviews? Maps? Guessing?? Numbers are the only solid evidence we have.
For example how do you decide that the economic numbers where more important that the number of troops etc.
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.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.
So it was only before 43 that the Soviets where doing more...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.
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.
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).The axis couldn't have invaded the US.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.
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).Im not arguing that D-Day would've been successful without the eastern front.
You do know what potential means, right?!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.
90% sounds more then the % of Jews the nazis killed actually...Bubble181 said:Considering over 90% of the worldwide Tutsi population was killed, I think it's a fair comparison
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).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.
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. )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.
#47
Zonker
Zonker
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?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.
#48
BoringMetaphor
Zonker, I'll reply to you later this week when I have time.
Wheeee history.
BoringMetaphor
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.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 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.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 think we have agreed to disagree here!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.
Teehee, I know. Sorry.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).
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!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).
.. Yes?You do know what potential means, right?!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.
Zonker, I'll reply to you later this week when I have time.
Wheeee history.