Jack Weber Posted February 22, 2011 Report Posted February 22, 2011 And yet neither George V or Wilhelm II were nearly as inept, or more to the point, George V was not in a constitutional position to do the kind of damage that Nicholas II, and Wilhelm II still had some pretty bright ministers and the potent Prussian Army at his disposal. Correct... Wilhelm had the likes of generals like Von Hindenburg and Ludendorf at his disposal.He had a massive technological and industrial advantage... What Imperial Germany did'nt have was a geographic strategic advantage AND it was saddled with being tied to a rapidly dying and divided Austro-Hungarian Empire.... The Czar was a dullard,inept military tactician,surrounded by yes men,corrupt generals,feebel indstry,and,a backwards society that he had deliberately orchestrated.His life of opulence insulated the Romanov's from the harsh daily life of the average Russian..This insulated him from the reality that he was hated and feared... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
DogOnPorch Posted February 22, 2011 Report Posted February 22, 2011 Correct... Wilhelm had the likes of generals like Von Hindenburg and Ludendorf at his disposal.He had a massive technological and industrial advantage... The heros of Tannenberg. Excellent Corp commanders like Von Francois in the 8th Army + an excellent rail system = Russia's first of many disasters at the front. What Imperial Germany did'nt have was a geographic strategic advantage AND it was saddled with being tied to a rapidly dying and divided Austro-Hungarian Empire.... Indeed...rotten troops in the Austro-Hungarian army. Luckily they were up against equally poor armies with the exception of the Serbs. The Czar was a dullard,inept military tactician,surrounded by yes men,corrupt generals,feebel indstry,and,a backwards society that he had deliberately orchestrated.His life of opulence insulated the Romanov's from the harsh daily life of the average Russian..This insulated him from the reality that he was hated and feared... It was all toy soldiers to Nicky. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Jack Weber Posted February 22, 2011 Report Posted February 22, 2011 The heros of Tannenberg. Excellent Corp commanders like Von Francois in the 8th Army + an excellent rail system = Russia's first of many disasters at the front. Indeed...rotten troops in the Austro-Hungarian army. Luckily they were up against equally poor armies with the exception of the Serbs. It was all toy soldiers to Nicky. Tannenburg!!!! Indeed... The result? Decisive German victory! VATER DEUTSCHLAND!!!! and the "Tovarishchi" can shove off!!! http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Battle_of_Tannenberg_(1914) Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Bryan Posted February 22, 2011 Report Posted February 22, 2011 He was better than Batista? Without question. Anyhow, that's not what they say. They make movies championing them. Have you seen the movie Sicko? The movie according to WikiLeaks the Cuban government banned because of a fear of outrage? Sicko was not banned in Cuba. They are extremely proud of that movie. It was shown in theatres, on national TV, and the clips from it are posted on a Cuban Government website. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted February 22, 2011 Report Posted February 22, 2011 Without question. Not if you're Michael Corleone. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Jack Weber Posted February 22, 2011 Report Posted February 22, 2011 Not if you're Michael Corleone. Or Ike.... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
DogOnPorch Posted February 22, 2011 Report Posted February 22, 2011 (edited) Or Ike.... (Smooch) I know it was you Fredo Ike...you broke my heart. You broke my heart. ---Castro Edited February 22, 2011 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
wyly Posted February 22, 2011 Report Posted February 22, 2011 You're mixing two entirely different eras. The Cold War was hardly triggered by the West, it was Stalin who wanted to build a bulwark of friendly states between the USSR and anyone who might want to invade like the Nazis had (though for a complete story, let's remember that Stalin seemed to have no problem selling the Germans steel right up until the morning of the invasion). Your version of history leaves out so many pieces that it becomes outright false. you make the common error of seeing historical events as distinct and unrelated, history is a sequence of related events, one event always leads to another...just as americans believe 911 came out of nowhere, it didn't...the form and time of the attack was unknown, the attack was predictable and expected based on previous historical events... then you give as a reason for the cold war exactly what I offered, the soviets had just grounds to fear agression from rightwing western powers, 1st the counter revolutionary invasion during the WW1, then invasion by Germany...and the soviets did in eastern europe was no different than the western powers did in europe set up governments that were friendly to them, it's just a different POV... I don't know about you, but I damned glad the Cold War was fought. I would not want to have lived under a Stalinist, or almost as bad, post-Stalinist Communist state, would you? that's irrelevant to the topic.... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
ToadBrother Posted February 22, 2011 Report Posted February 22, 2011 you make the common error of seeing historical events as distinct and unrelated, history is a sequence of related events, one event always leads to another...just as americans believe 911 came out of nowhere, it didn't...the form and time of the attack was unknown, the attack was predictable and expected based on previous historical events... And you make the error of leaving out rather important aspects of the story, rendering your version at best inaccurate, and at worst revisionist. then you give as a reason for the cold war exactly what I offered, the soviets had just grounds to fear agression from rightwing western powers, 1st the counter revolutionary invasion during the WW1, then invasion by Germany...and the soviets did in eastern europe was no different than the western powers did in europe set up governments that were friendly to them, it's just a different POV... The Soviets had paled up rather closely to Hitler. And what the Soviets did in the Soviet Bloc countries is considerably different. Your attempt at relativism is bizarre. that's irrelevant to the topic.... Or rather, you wish it was. Quote
wyly Posted February 22, 2011 Report Posted February 22, 2011 (edited) And you make the error of leaving out rather important aspects of the story, rendering your version at best inaccurate, and at worst revisionist. The Soviets had paled up rather closely to Hitler. And what the Soviets did in the Soviet Bloc countries is considerably different. Your attempt at relativism is bizarre. oh really, lets see what you important aspects you left out...Stalin was well aware of the Nazi threat early in the 1930's...Stalin approached the west first with an offer of an anti-fascist alliance, Chamberlin rejected Stalins offer "I must confess to the most profound distrust of Russia. I have no belief whatever in her ability to maintain an effective offensive, even if she wanted to. And I distrust her motives, which seem to me to have little connection with our ideas of liberty, and to be concerned only with getting everyone else by the ears."-N Chamberlin.... what did Chamberlin do instead, he paled up rather closely to the Nazis and signed Munich agreement with Hitler in sept 1938 pushing Hitler toward an eastward expansion first...Chamberlin just threw soviet russia under the bus, what message did that send to Stalin "screw you commie" ... in damage control mode Stalin did the only thing he could he fired the minister who was arranging his anti-fascist alliance Maxim Litvinov, his Jewish Commissar for Foreign Affairs and in August 1939 (a year after Chamberlin signed his agreement) signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact with Hitler, it was a stalling tactic Stalin knew the invasion would come but needed time to build his forces... Or rather, you wish it was.your clutching at straws, absolutely no relevance ...the point was the west created the hostile environment between the Soviet Union and itself... Edited February 22, 2011 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
ToadBrother Posted February 22, 2011 Report Posted February 22, 2011 oh really, lets see what you important aspects you left out... Stalin was well aware of the Nazi threat early in the 1930's...Stalin approached the west first with an offer of an anti-fascist alliance, Chamberlin rejected Stalins offer "I must confess to the most profound distrust of Russia. I have no belief whatever in her ability to maintain an effective offensive, even if she wanted to. And I distrust her motives, which seem to me to have little connection with our ideas of liberty, and to be concerned only with getting everyone else by the ears."-N Chamberlin.... what did Chamberlin do instead, he paled up rather closely to the Nazis and signed Munich agreement with Hitler in sept 1938 pushing Hitler toward an eastward expansion first...Chamberlin just threw soviet russia under the bus, what message did that send to Stalin "screw you commie" ... in damage control mode Stalin did the only thing he could he fired the minister who was arranging his anti-fascist alliance Maxim Litvinov, his Jewish Commissar for Foreign Affairs and in August 1939 (a year after Chamberlin signed his agreement) signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact with Hitler, it was a stalling tactic Stalin knew the invasion would come but needed time to build his forces... Not much of a stalling tactic. Stalin didn't prepare for an eventual war with Germany. He certainly was freaked out by Hitler, but not freaked out enough to actually prepare for the storm. When the Germans finally did invade, he literally disappeared, rendered impotent for days by the shock of it all. In the end the bloody Yanks had to keep the Soviets afloat until they could sufficiently build up their army, and in no small part of the officer corp, which Stalin had, during the time when he was so freaked out about Hitler, pretty much decimated through his paranoia-driven purges. your clutching at straws, absolutely no relevance ...the point was the west created the hostile environment between the Soviet Union and itself... There had always been tension between the West and Russia. You're acting like this started when the Bolsheviks seized power, and yet it had been constant of Russian-European relations for centuries. Quote
nicky10013 Posted February 22, 2011 Report Posted February 22, 2011 He's what you might call a populist autocrat, sort of like Putin in Russia. Popular, yes, but still with heavily autocratic leanings. Not all those with dictatorial tendencies have been unpopular. Julius Caesar was very popular with the Roman people, even if some believed him to be a threat to the Roman Republic. It's nothing like Putin. Putin isn't a dictator and frankly the only dictator in the world is Kim Jong-Il, but at least in Venezuela there are free and fair elections. As much as he wants to consolidate power, most of his referendums have failed and surprisingly he's respected the decisions the voters have made. In Russia, ironically there hasn't been a free election since the last days of the Soviet Union. Opposition leaders are arrested or assassinated, protestors are beaten to a bloody pulp. Just recently in the case of an imprisoned oil tycoon, allegations were that a judge was threatened to re-convict the man (Mikhail Khodorkovsky) on trumped up charges pushed by the Kremlin. He was orginially charged for tax evasion which was probably true but he wasn't tried until he became an opponent of the regime. Now, since he's served his time, they're charging him with some kind of treason so he can't get out. Putin is "popular" in the sense that no one else can be. You can't really say how popular he'd be if others were allowed to present an alternative. In Venezuela it seems as though the support is truly genuine. Quote
nicky10013 Posted February 22, 2011 Report Posted February 22, 2011 Not much of a stalling tactic. Stalin didn't prepare for an eventual war with Germany. He certainly was freaked out by Hitler, but not freaked out enough to actually prepare for the storm. When the Germans finally did invade, he literally disappeared, rendered impotent for days by the shock of it all. In the end the bloody Yanks had to keep the Soviets afloat until they could sufficiently build up their army, and in no small part of the officer corp, which Stalin had, during the time when he was so freaked out about Hitler, pretty much decimated through his paranoia-driven purges. Bingo. When he made the deal he honestly thought Hitler would keep his word. Stalin's intelligence agencies were warning him for months that an invasion was coming but he didn't believe it because he didn't think he could be two-timed. He wouldn't even believe the German ambassador that warned him of the coming invasion only a day or two before it commenced. There had always been tension between the West and Russia. You're acting like this started when the Bolsheviks seized power, and yet it had been constant of Russian-European relations for centuries. There has but it was made exponentially worse after the revolution. A relatively unknow fact is that the US, Great Britain, France and yes even Canada sent troops to fight with the White Army against the Red Army in the early 1920s. Quote
ToadBrother Posted February 22, 2011 Report Posted February 22, 2011 There has but it was made exponentially worse after the revolution. A relatively unknow fact is that the US, Great Britain, France and yes even Canada sent troops to fight with the White Army against the Red Army in the early 1920s. The Russians had distrusted the West since the days of the Teutonics Knights and their own early attempts at Lebensraum. Even at the height of the integration of the Russian and European aristocracies there was great distrust (it went both ways, mind you). By extension, the Russians were also feared by many of the populations that stood between the Russians and Western Europe, and the attempts to build buffer zones, like the multiple destructions of an independent Poland show a pattern of Western-Russian interplay that, while maybe magnified by the ultimate Bolshevik victories, was still part of an older trend. The chief change after WWII was the transference of the competition/enmity from the major European powers to the United States, which had become the pre-eminent naval power. Insofar is there is any blame for the Cold War, it's a two way street. Yes some Western nations had tried to get the moderate nationalists in control of Russia, but that too was simply part of a longer trend of attempts to undermine Russia by getting friendly aristocratic and bureaucratic elements. Russia played that game too, most masterfully by the two Greats, Peter and Catherine (Catherine being nothing more than a German princess anyways). Quote
August1991 Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) the soviet union and the cold war was also largely a creation of western policy... Wyly, you are utterly clueless. And you remind me of many Leftist Americans. In your view, every event in the world turns back to America. In the words of Shirley Valentine, you say you like Spring, they say they like Summer and the next thing you know, you're talking about what they like.... Stalin knew the invasion would come but needed time to build his forces... [sarcasm]And this explains why Stalin had a nervous breakdown in June 1941 and disappeared for several weeks. It also explains why the Soviet Union kept secret the details of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact until Yeltsin put them on public display in the 1990s.[/sarcasm]----- Wyly, you are not talking about the Soviet Union here, or Stalin or history or anything. You are really talking about America. Your opinion of America colours all of your viewpoints. Edited February 23, 2011 by August1991 Quote
August1991 Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 The chief change after WWII was the transference of the competition/enmity from the major European powers to the United States, which had become the pre-eminent naval power.Insofar is there is any blame for the Cold War, it's a two way street.... TB, you fail to note that the Bolsheviks/Soviets relied on a Marxist ideology that they geneuinely believed would bury the West, or at least supercede it. No Tsar had a similar ideology, nor does Putin today.As for your two-way street analogy, the United States is not an imperial power. It is a democratic, federal republic. Its success relies on restraining any central authority. It is absurd to compare the Soviet Union and the USA. One was a dictatorship run by a gang of criminals and the other is a functioning, civilized State. Quote
ToadBrother Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) TB, you fail to note that the Bolsheviks/Soviets relied on a Marxist ideology that they geneuinely believed would bury the West, or at least supercede it. No Tsar had a similar ideology, nor does Putin today. And yet to one extent or another the reality of Russia's position in the world remained the same even after the 1917 revolution. Whereas the last Czars had quite happily exported pan-Slavism as a means to weaken its European competitors, the Bolsheviks exported Marxist-Leninism with much the same goal. Different ideologies, and yet bizarrely similar goals. As for your two-way street analogy, the United States is not an imperial power. It is a democratic, federal republic. Its success relies on restraining any central authority. It is absurd to compare the Soviet Union and the USA. One was a dictatorship run by a gang of criminals and the other is a functioning, civilized State. Where did I compare the USSR and the United States? About the only thing they had in common in the post-WWII world was a desire to hasten the end of the old empires, and both encouraged decolonization. My observation was more that prior to WWII, Russia's chief competitors/antagonists were the European Great Powers. After WWII, with the the other Great Powers bankrupted and not so great any more, it basically left the USSR and the US, which had largely taken over the role that it had inherited from the Europeans, and in particular from the Brits, to butt heads. But though the identity of the Western belligerent in all of this had changed, and the face of Russia had changed since the 18th and 19th centuries when it was in its first ascendancy, at the end of the day it was all part of a much longer term conflict, and ideology was, and still is, basically little more than a paint job on the old warhorses. Even now the US still at times gives Russia a kick, as we saw with the NATO dance with Georgia and the ensuing South Ossetia conflict. The only problem now is that Russia is in a steep demographic decline, and its hold on Siberia is becoming shakier as the Chinese, ever hungry for new resources, gain traction in the region. While China and Russia have become buddy-buddy again, it wouldn't surprise if, as resources elsewhere become more scarce over the next century or so that we don't see a renewal somewhat of hostilities to one degree or another between China and Russia, as I see China taking over Russia's position as the counter-balancing power to the West. Edited February 23, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote
Shady Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 Not if you're Michael Corleone. Also, not if you're black. Not if you have AIDS. And not if you politically express your differences with the regime. Other than that, things are cool. Quote
wyly Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) Not much of a stalling tactic. Stalin didn't prepare for an eventual war with Germany. He certainly was freaked out by Hitler, but not freaked out enough to actually prepare for the storm. When the Germans finally did invade, he literally disappeared, rendered impotent for days by the shock of it all. In the end the bloody Yanks had to keep the Soviets afloat until they could sufficiently build up their army, and in no small part of the officer corp, which Stalin had, during the time when he was so freaked out about Hitler, pretty much decimated through his paranoia-driven purges. stalin didn't prepare! ...from 1939 to aug 1941 soviet military personal went from 2.5 million men to nearly 6 million...guns and mortars went from approximately 55,000 to 120,000...tanks 20,000 to 25,000 as well they had developed the best tanks in the world at that time the T34 and the KV1...increased aircraft about 8,000 to nearly 19,000...ya it sure sounds like they were sitting around doing nothing to prepare, the Soviet Union at the beginning of hostilities had the worlds largest military and second largest industrial production...may 1941 Stalin said "War with Germany is inevitable. If comrade Molotov can manage to postpone the war for two or three months that will be our good fortune, but you yourselves must go off and take measures to raise the combat readiness of our forces" ...right, according to your history he had no idea the war was coming... Stalin purging his officer corps was stupid but it`had nothing to do with not preparing...in fact by the end of Operation Barbarossa Dec '41 the Germans had been stopped and what followed a period of attrition that the Germans could not win...with the loss of the Battle of Stalingrad a little over a year later the war was essentially over for the Nazi regime...not bad for an "unprepared" soviet military There had always been tension between the West and Russia. You're acting like this started when the Bolsheviks seized power, and yet it had been constant of Russian-European relations for centuries.actually there weren't many issues between russia and the western powers, more often than not Russia was in some way in an alliance with other european powers...actual conflicts only one that I can think of at the moment can be blamed on russian aggression...Swedish imperialism-russia not at fault, Prussian imperialism- Russia not at fault, France/napoleon-allied with west not at fault, Crimean war-senseless war, 60% russia at fault ...the reality is Russia had little involvement militarily with western europe...the tension with the bolsheviks had nothing in common the Czar regimes that came before it, it was a whole new ball game that started with western powers attempting to destroy their political movement and return them to the oppression of the Czar and certain death...it would be ironic that you wouldn`t support them in that while I`m assuming you support the current rebellions in the Libya against autocratic rule ... it's clear your knowledge of history has a strong western bias based on the cold war where patriotic myth was more important than the truth and a honest objective look at the situation... Edited February 23, 2011 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) Bingo. When he made the deal he honestly thought Hitler would keep his word. Stalin's intelligence agencies were warning him for months that an invasion was coming but he didn't believe it because he didn't think he could be two-timed. He wouldn't even believe the German ambassador that warned him of the coming invasion only a day or two before it commenced. his actions/preparations would dispute that the soviet army was essentially doubled in size and formed up in depth on the western frontier...he had seen Hitler break the Munich Agreement he would under no illusion about Hitler not breaking the soviet/nazi pact when it suited him...it wasn`t a question if there would be a conflict but when and Stalin hoped to delay it as long as possible... Edited February 23, 2011 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 The Russians had distrusted the West since the days of the Teutonics Knights and their own early attempts at Lebensraum. Even at the height of the integration of the Russian and European aristocracies there was great distrust (it went both ways, mind you). By extension, the Russians were also feared by many of the populations that stood between the Russians and Western Europe, and the attempts to build buffer zones, like the multiple destructions of an independent Poland show a pattern of Western-Russian interplay that, while maybe magnified by the ultimate Bolshevik victories, was still part of an older trend. The chief change after WWII was the transference of the competition/enmity from the major European powers to the United States, which had become the pre-eminent naval power. Insofar is there is any blame for the Cold War, it's a two way street. Yes some Western nations had tried to get the moderate nationalists in control of Russia, but that too was simply part of a longer trend of attempts to undermine Russia by getting friendly aristocratic and bureaucratic elements. Russia played that game too, most masterfully by the two Greats, Peter and Catherine (Catherine being nothing more than a German princess anyways). Peter the Great was actually very pro western he sought out technical expertise from western europe to help russia catch up with western technology...many germans, french and others migrated to Russia during his reign... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) wow I'm absolutely stunned by the lack of history knowledge on display here and I thought Canadians were actually more knowledgeable than americans in that regard, nope... waldo may pwn at climate change but wyly pwns at history ... Edited February 23, 2011 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
DogOnPorch Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 wow I'm absolutely stunned by the lack of history knowledge on display here and I thought Canadians were actually more knowledgeable than americans in that regard, nope... You would have loved this back when it came out. Hours upon hours of fun for up to 6 folks if I recall. Assassinations included...duck, Kirov...lol. http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2665/russian-civil-war Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Jack Weber Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 wow I'm absolutely stunned by the lack of history knowledge on display here and I thought Canadians were actually more knowledgeable than americans in that regard, nope... waldo may pwn at climate change but wyly pwns at history ... "History"..As told by the bedwetters at Rabble.ca,perhaps... Along those lines,could you tell us how Uncle Joe and Good 'Ol Mao were "misunderstood"?? Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
scouterjim Posted February 23, 2011 Author Report Posted February 23, 2011 Folks, this isn't about who was what. It is about how politics is so screwed that people will excuse the actions of one group, while denouncing another group that does the same thing. Quote I have captured the rare duct taped platypus.
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.