DogOnPorch Posted May 12, 2010 Report Share Posted May 12, 2010 (snicker) Ah...the poor French. Never the same post-Verdun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted May 12, 2010 Report Share Posted May 12, 2010 (snicker) Ah...the poor French. Never the same post-Verdun. The first world war shaped the consciousness of the French leadership.....that and they didn't have Degaulle leading their army... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 12, 2010 Report Share Posted May 12, 2010 (edited) During the 1940 campaign, the French high commander, General Gamelin, wouldn't use a radio to keep in touch with the front many miles away...instead prefering couriers and carrier pigeons. Col.Gen. Heinz Guderian, meanwhile, had a converted half-track with several types of radios and code machines to run things from right up front where the shooting was. Edited May 12, 2010 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted May 12, 2010 Report Share Posted May 12, 2010 When you see that photo of Rosevelt, Stalin and Churchill all cosied up and smiling as if they were all embarking on a great adventure has always been disturbing..as was the soft touch of Chamberlain in regards to Hitler..far as I am concerned we have tons of people in North America and Britian who still think that Hitlers agenda was a good thing. They sit on the boards of many companies and it looks like history will repeat itself in time...sad that we have learned nothing about the past..as for Stalin..he is the center boy for corporatism..get rid of all the intelligent and wise people and you will rule..same old same old..nothing has changed.------------oh and while I am at it..genocide has become very incrimental and more sophisticated..we have it here in a very glossed over form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted May 12, 2010 Report Share Posted May 12, 2010 When you see that photo of Rosevelt, Stalin and Churchill all cosied up and smiling as if they were all embarking on a great adventure has always been disturbing.. Disturbing but necessary: "If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." - Winston Churchill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted May 12, 2010 Report Share Posted May 12, 2010 What i still don't get is there is still a large number of Russians that rever stalin, as a hero, a great leader, and want to return to those days....even in the west we don't protray him as a Hilter equal... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted May 12, 2010 Report Share Posted May 12, 2010 What i still don't get is there is still a large number of Russians that rever stalin, as a hero, a great leader, and want to return to those days....even in the west we don't protray him as a Hilter equal... A lot of it has to do with the fact that Stalin's deeds were for decades better known outside of Russia than within. Even during the height of Destalinification under Kruschev, a lot of Russians didn't know, for instance, didn't know about the Polish massacres, the extent of Stalin's purges, of the millions who lost their lives due to his mad agricultural and relocation schemes. He, like Mao Zedong, has been protected by his own mythmaking and propaganda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 12, 2010 Report Share Posted May 12, 2010 Any y'all ever see Robert Duvall's portrayal of Stalin? That was damn good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted May 12, 2010 Report Share Posted May 12, 2010 A lot of it has to do with the fact that Stalin's deeds were for decades better known outside of Russia than within. Even during the height of Destalinification under Kruschev, a lot of Russians didn't know, for instance, didn't know about the Polish massacres, the extent of Stalin's purges, of the millions who lost their lives due to his mad agricultural and relocation schemes. He, like Mao Zedong, has been protected by his own mythmaking and propaganda. True..which is why calling their post molotov ribbintrop battles the great patriotuic war was more condusive to stalin image than calling it "stalin got clusterfocked by the germans" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted May 12, 2010 Report Share Posted May 12, 2010 (edited) So you think it's just a coinicidence that the invasion took place one week after the signing of the pact, or that the Russians, being courted by France and England to conclude a treaty that would have protected Poland, made so many impossible demands that a treaty became impossible (and instead looked towards Germany and begun negotiations)... It was done to prevent the Russians from attacking the Germans, not to tie up Polish troops to make it easier. Hitler had been demanding Polish concessions throughout the whole summer. The war plans were in action long before the deal was signed. So, yes. It was a coincidence that the Soviets and Germans were able to hammer out that deal. This is an example of a fallacy. Event A happens, then Event B, so therefore Event A must've caused B. France capitulated while they still had the bulk of their armed troops ready to fight. France was out manouvered and France, their whole strategy depended on refighting the first world war (maginot line).That being said.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland No one will ever know if Germany would have actaully invaded Poland without Russia's approval. All events previous to the invasion showed that Hitler prefered bluff and diplomacy to overt war. Of course we know. We've always known. He was planning the war for years. He felt the Wehrmacht wasn't yet strong enough to launch the attack on the USSR he had been dreaming of for years. As for the French being outmanoevered, I suppose it's impossible that the Polish were themselves heavily outmanoevered. On the otherhand...Polish plans were to defend for 6 months....this would have bought time for France and Britain to come to polands aid. Instead of 6 months, the war lasted 4 weeks with the material assisitance of Russia. In otherwords, had Russia not invaded, and Hitler attacked anyway Poland could have resisted longer and instead of defeat, occupation ad the ensuing phoney war leading up to the inavsion of France, Poland would have survived and Hitler's plans would have been bobbed. Had Russia signed a pact with France and Britain, the invasion of Poland would have never taken place with the threat of a Russian counter attack. So you're saying obsolete Polish military could've held out against one of the most advanced war machines the world had yet seen? Edited May 12, 2010 by nicky10013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted May 12, 2010 Report Share Posted May 12, 2010 True..which is why calling their post molotov ribbintrop battles the great patriotuic war was more condusive to stalin image than calling it "stalin got clusterfocked by the germans" Sometimes, even after 65 years, terms lose their original meaning. Apparently you can't seem to grasp that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted May 12, 2010 Report Share Posted May 12, 2010 It was done to prevent the Russians from attacking the Germans, not to tie up Polish troops to make it easier. Both are correct. You seem oblivious that the Germans has been pressing the Stalin to attack earlier, rather than later...ask yourself why. Hitler had been demanding Polish concessions throughout the whole summer. The war plans were in action long before the deal was signed. So, yes. It was a coincidence that the Soviets and Germans were able to hammer out that deal. This is an example of a fallacy. Event A happens, then Event B, so therefore Event A must've caused B. And you are making the false assumption that if there was a plan, that it folowed the plan had to be effected. Hitler delayed once...he would have possibly delayed further if the conditions were not right. As for the French being outmanoevered, I suppose it's impossible that the Polish were themselves heavily outmanoevered. They were out manouvered...their fall back position was ruined by the Soviets. So you're saying obsolete Polish military could've held out against one of the most advanced war machines the world had yet seen? How long did Stalingrad hold? How long did Greece hold? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted May 12, 2010 Report Share Posted May 12, 2010 Sometimes, even after 65 years, terms lose their original meaning. Apparently you can't seem to grasp that. Sometimes they do. But in Soviet Russia, they don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted May 12, 2010 Report Share Posted May 12, 2010 Funny, STALIN was not even a Russian..I believe he was a Georgian. My dad worked for a time at the Kremlin as an honour guard and he stood close to Stalin...He wishes that he ran the bastard through with a sharp spear..but then I would not be here to delight you all...better to have spared STALIN so you could have Oleg Bach...I am much nicer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted May 13, 2010 Report Share Posted May 13, 2010 Both are correct. You seem oblivious that the Germans has been pressing the Stalin to attack earlier, rather than later...ask yourself why. As far as I'm aware, the attack was always set for the 1st of September. And you are making the false assumption that if there was a plan, that it folowed the plan had to be effected. Hitler delayed once...he would have possibly delayed further if the conditions were not right. How can you say they weren't military related delays if there were ones. They were out manouvered...their fall back position was ruined by the Soviets. This assumes the fall back positions could've held which you can't How long did Stalingrad hold? How long did Greece hold? Greece was occupied. 2 million Russian troops died at the hands of half a million Germans at Stalingrad before the 6th Army surrendered. So you're saying that the far smaller and inferior Polish Army could've pulled off a similar feat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted May 13, 2010 Report Share Posted May 13, 2010 As far as I'm aware, the attack was always set for the 1st of September. Then your awareness is incorrect. The German assault was originally scheduled to begin at 04:00 on 26 August. However, on 25 August the Polish-British Common Defence Pact was signed as an annex to the Franco-Polish Military Alliance. In this accord, Britain committed itself to the defence of Poland, guaranteeing to preserve Polish independence. At the same time, the British and the Poles were hinting to Berlin that they were willing to resume discussions – not at all how Hitler hoped to frame the conflict. Thus, he wavered and postponed his attack until 1 September, managing to in effect halt the entire invasion "in mid-leap". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland This assumes the fall back positions could've held which you can't Why can't I assume that? The poles certainly did. Greece was occupied. You avoided the question.How long did Greece resist? 2 million Russian troops died at the hands of half a million Germans at Stalingrad before the 6th Army surrendered. So you're saying that the far smaller and inferior Polish Army could've pulled off a similar feat? Did you pull those numbers from your nether regions? Russian losses478,741 killed or missing 650,878 wounded and sick 40,000+ civilian dead http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad Your brave patriotic defense of the co-instigator of the second world war is truly inspiring, but you have lost. You can surrender now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted May 13, 2010 Report Share Posted May 13, 2010 Funny, STALIN was not even a Russian..I believe he was a Georgian. My dad worked for a time at the Kremlin as an honour guard and he stood close to Stalin...He wishes that he ran the bastard through with a sharp spear..but then I would not be here to delight you all...better to have spared STALIN so you could have Oleg Bach...I am much nicer. Well, he might have done the world a favor... or not. But he might not have done you any favors, because you probably would not have been born. But who knows? The accounts of Stalin's death, in particular of Beria's reaction, could almost have been written by Monty Python. Your father might have been shot on the spot, or have been part of a parade. The Soviet Union had a very weird government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 13, 2010 Report Share Posted May 13, 2010 Beria practically pulled an Al Haig. I am in control here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted May 13, 2010 Report Share Posted May 13, 2010 (edited) Then your awareness is incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland According to that, he wavered because of the British, not the Soviets. So in your zeal (some would say blind) attempt to prove me wrong, you just disproved your own point. Why can't I assume that? The poles certainly did. Yeah but the Poles lost, didn't they? You avoided the question.How long did Greece resist? No I didn't because the point you were trying to make was that Poland wouldn't be conquered and they had the ability to hold out. Or at least they would hold out until the British and French arrived. Greece isn't a proper comparison because they were conquered, and the British and the French had plenty of time to rescue Poland before the German invasion of France and the Low Countries anyways but the decided not to anyways. So who can honestly come to the conclusion that even if the Poles HAD held out against the Germans for 6 months that they would've had support coming from the British and French? Oh yeah, that's right, the people who selectively use facts to fit their arguments. 2 million Russian troops died at the hands of half a million Germans at Stalingrad before the 6th Army surrendered. So you're saying that the far smaller and inferior Polish Army could've pulled off a similar feat?Did you pull those numbers from your nether regions? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad Your brave patriotic defense of the co-instigator of the second world war is truly inspiring, but you have lost. You can surrender now... Oh, excuse me 1.1 million instead of two. The point was is the Polish had absolutely no where near the amount of troops the Russians threw at the Germans. Just because I got the numbers wrong doesn't mean the original point is invalid. More weak thinking. You're obfuscating and it's showing. Edited May 13, 2010 by nicky10013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted May 14, 2010 Report Share Posted May 14, 2010 According to that, he wavered because of the British, not the Soviets. So in your zeal (some would say blind) attempt to prove me wrong, you just disproved your own point. Another blonde moment. I never claimed that the delay was bercause of the soviets, I said he delayed once, he would have delayed again. Do try to pay attention and stop making this so easy. Oh, excuse me 1.1 million instead of two. The point was is.... I believe the point is, after so many factual errors, do you know what you are talking about? I believe not. I also believe you read something, saw "great patriotic war" parrotted it without understanding the meaning or the role Stalin played in helping ignite the second world war. But instead of owning up and saying oops, you dig yourself a whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted May 14, 2010 Report Share Posted May 14, 2010 Oh, excuse me 1.1 million instead of two. Since now say 1.1 instead of 2 million killed...I amd happy to point out you are still clueless... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted May 14, 2010 Report Share Posted May 14, 2010 What about the Ukrainian holocaust? Stalin destroyed the independent people who grew food in Russia's bread basket..My mother was there and as she watched her father die of starvation she made sure that we ate well -- The Jews who have a better public realations department than the UKEs...get all the credit for being victims of monsterous men..time that people realized that many nations have been holocausted (burned whole). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted May 14, 2010 Report Share Posted May 14, 2010 Since now say 1.1 instead of 2 million killed...I amd happy to point out you are still clueless... Which is why you never adressed anything else. Sorry pal, none of your arguments have stood up, so how is it again that I'm clueless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted May 14, 2010 Report Share Posted May 14, 2010 so how is it again that I'm clueless. Because instead of claiming that 2 million russian soldiers were killed defending Stalingrad, you now claim 1.1 million soldiers were killed... Like I said, you haven't a clue... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted May 14, 2010 Report Share Posted May 14, 2010 (edited) What about the Ukrainian holocaust? Stalin destroyed the independent people who grew food in Russia's bread basket..My mother was there and as she watched her father die of starvation she made sure that we ate well -- The Jews who have a better public realations department than the UKEs...get all the credit for being victims of monsterous men..time that people realized that many nations have been holocausted (burned whole). The issue here, as with the even more catastrophically fatal Great Leap Forward in China, is whether it was intentional mass murder, or sheer ineptitude. In the case of the six million Jews, it was very much a planned, orchestrated system of mass murder operating as a branch of the German government. The Holocaust wasn't just a random genocide or a genocide by consequence, it was a well-organized bureaucratic system to exterminate the entirety of European Jewry. In sheer numbers, Mao's Great Leap Forward is probably the most lethal mass death by government policy in the history of humanity, with anywhere between 20 million and 50 million people (some even estimate higher) being killed by Mao's lunatic economic and agricultural policies. But the USSR is just as guilty, both Stalin and Khrushchev were bamboozled by ludicrous agricultural policies, in large part the invention of that whackjob Lysenko, and as I recall, the Ukraine was a major beneficiary of Lysenko's pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo. Edited May 14, 2010 by ToadBrother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.