Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    29 Jun '18 01:381 edit
    "Hoping for someone's death for political advantage is a pretty sick thing to do, Tom."
    --No1Marauder (to Tom Wolsey, about Ruth Bader Ginsberg's death)

    More generally speaking:

    In England, Protestants prayed for the death of Queen Mary I (a Catholic
    who was notorious for persecuting Protestants), and the succession of
    her Protestant half-sister, Queen Elizabeth I.

    In Germany, many Jews presumably prayed for the death of Hitler and
    his replacement by Hermann Göring (who was less anti-Semitic).
    If that had happened in early 1939, then the Second World War in Europe
    and the Holocaust probably could have been averted.

    In China, if Mao Zedong had died in 1950 and been replaced by Zhou Enlai,
    then the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution almost certainly
    would not have taken place, saving tens of millions of lives. China today
    probably would be considerable more strong and prosperous than it is.

    Around 1241-2, the Mongols (led by Subutai, one of history's great generals) were
    planning to invade the Holy Roman Empire, having already overrun much of Europe.
    The Mongol war machine (one of history's greatest) had outclassed European armies everywhere.
    European Christians prayed for a miracle to deliver them from the apparently invincible Mongols.
    Then Ögedei Khan died, and the Mongols had to return home to choose a successor.
  2. SubscriberWOLFE63
    Tra il dire e il far
    C'e di mezzo il mar!
    Joined
    06 Nov '15
    Moves
    22130
    29 Jun '18 02:27
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    "Hoping for someone's death for political advantage is a pretty sick thing to do, Tom."
    --No1Marauder (to Tom Wolsey, about Ruth Bader Ginsberg's death)

    More generally speaking:

    In England, Protestants prayed for the death of Queen Mary I (a Catholic
    who was notorious for persecuting Protestants), and the succession of
    her Protestant half-sister ...[text shortened]... cible Mongols.
    Then Ögedei Khan died, and the Mongols had to return home to choose a successor.
    I suppose a lot of Russians prayed for the death of Stalin.
    Especially after he was outsmarted by Hitler during Operation Barbarossa in June, 1941.
    It was an unnecessary blunder.
    Hitler had telegraphed his intent via his infamous book, "Mein Kampf" just eight years earlier.
    Presumably, Stalin was busy completing his purges and shoring up his defenses against the Far Eastern threat from Japan.

    Some historical accounts recorded that Stalin initially seemed on verge of suicide. He was certainly stunned and incommunicado during the first critical days. This delay cost thousands of Russian soldiers their lives.
    Luckily for the tyrant, he hadn't yet killed General Georgy Zhukov.
  3. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65530
    29 Jun '18 02:47
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    "Hoping for someone's death for political advantage is a pretty sick thing to do, Tom."
    --No1Marauder (to Tom Wolsey, about Ruth Bader Ginsberg's death)

    More generally speaking:

    In England, Protestants prayed for the death of Queen Mary I (a Catholic
    who was notorious for persecuting Protestants), and the succession of
    her Protestant half-sister ...[text shortened]... cible Mongols.
    Then Ögedei Khan died, and the Mongols had to return home to choose a successor.
    Reminds me of the sex shop opened in a small town. Dildos, blow-up dolls videos and the like. The god botherers staged a protest and prayed for the demise of the business.

    Next thing the shop burns down, the botherers are celebrating saying their prayers had been answered. So the shop owner threatens to sue them for the putting a curse on his business. Botherers are all back pedalling.
  4. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    29 Jun '18 03:366 edits
    Originally posted by @wolfe63
    I suppose a lot of Russians prayed for the death of Stalin.
    Especially after he was outsmarted by Hitler during Operation Barbarossa in June, 1941.
    It was an unnecessary blunder.
    Hitler had telegraphed his intent via his infamous book, "Mein Kampf" just eight years earlier.
    Presumably, Stalin was busy completing his purges and shoring up his defenses ...[text shortened]... ssian soldiers their lives.
    Luckily for the tyrant, he hadn't yet killed General Georgy Zhukov.
    Wolfe63 swallows a superficial popular Western account of Stalin.
    It's absurd to regard _Mein Kampf_ as a detailed road map for Hitler
    in the war because, for one thing, he did not expect Germany to go
    to war against the UK when he wrote that book.

    _Grand Delusion: Stalin and the German Invasion of Russia_ by Gabriel Gorodetsky (1998)
    presents Stalin not as acting as idiotically as some Western writers
    claim but as much more rationally and understandably. The author
    does not excuse Stalin for his clinging too long to his delusions.
    I do not necessarily agree with everything that Gorodetsky wrote.

    In general, the history of the Great Patriotic War has been deeply revised
    in recent decades after increasing access to much, though not all, of
    Soviet archives. (Much of this research is not published in English.)
    Unfortunately, Putin has attempted to criminalize unpatriotic history.

    By the way, Viktor Suvorov (alias of a right-wing GRU defector) claims
    that Stalin reasoned:
    1) The German General Staff always prepares thoroughly for war.
    2) Germany would not invade the USSR without preparing for a winter campaign.
    3) Soviet spies have found no evidence of German preparation to fight in winter.
    4) Therefore, the USSR needs not fear a Germsn invasion now.
  5. Standard memberHandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    At the edge
    Joined
    23 Sep '06
    Moves
    18031
    29 Jun '18 04:00
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    "Hoping for someone's death for political advantage is a pretty sick thing to do, Tom."
    --No1Marauder (to Tom Wolsey, about Ruth Bader Ginsberg's death)

    More generally speaking:

    In England, Protestants prayed for the death of Queen Mary I (a Catholic
    who was notorious for persecuting Protestants), and the succession of
    her Protestant half-sister ...[text shortened]... cible Mongols.
    Then Ögedei Khan died, and the Mongols had to return home to choose a successor.
    Ruth Bader Ginsburg has more to offer civilization than Queen Mary I, Hitler and Chairman Mao put together.
  6. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    29 Jun '18 04:23
    Originally posted by @handyandy
    Ruth Bader Ginsburg has more to offer civilization than Queen Mary I, Hitler and Chairman Mao put together.
    People rarely are all good or all bad.

    Queen Mary I was initially popular in England. She could be forgiving,
    pardoning some men for conspiring against her. She could have
    found a pretext to have Elizabeth executed or married off abroad
    to insure that her successor would be a Catholic. If she had been
    able to give birth to a healthy son, then he would have been accepted
    as the rightful king.

    Hitler was a very successful and popular leader in Germany, though
    a significant minority always loathed him. If Hitler had died in early 1939,
    then he likely would be remembered as a great, albeit ruthless, German leader.

    Mao Zedong was a good, if not great, leader in wartime, whose theory
    of guerrilla warfare would inspire many after him. But he generally
    was a disastrous leader in peacetime. Zhou Enlai, who had spent
    years living in Europe and spoke several European languages,
    was less insular than Mao.
  7. SubscriberWOLFE63
    Tra il dire e il far
    C'e di mezzo il mar!
    Joined
    06 Nov '15
    Moves
    22130
    29 Jun '18 04:52
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    People rarely are all good or all bad.

    Queen Mary I was initially popular in England. She could be forgiving,
    pardoning some men for conspiring against her. She could have
    found a pretext to have Elizabeth executed or married off abroad
    to insure that her successor would be a Catholic. If she had been
    able to give birth to a healthy son, then h ...[text shortened]... spent
    years living in Europe and spoke several European languages,
    was less insular than Mao.
    I do not need to research and write a scholarly article in this forum to understand that Stalin was nothing more than a Georgian thug.
    He murdered as many Russians as Hitler.
    He dishonorably entered into a pact with Hitler in order to invade and control Eastern Poland. He then cried for Western help once he, the betrayer, had himself been betrayed.

    If not for the United Kingdom and the USA: German would be a primary language in Moscow today.
  8. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    29 Jun '18 05:26
    Originally posted by @wolfe63
    I do not need to research and write a scholarly article in this forum to understand that Stalin was nothing more than a Georgian thug.
    He murdered as many Russians as Hitler.
    He dishonorably entered into a pact with Hitler in order to invade and control Eastern Poland. He then cried for Western help once he, the betrayer, had himself been betrayed.

    If not for the United Kingdom and the USA: German would be a primary language in Moscow today.
    The ignorant American Wolfe63 subscribes to the myth that the
    UK and the USA saved (how?) the USSR from being conquered.
    In fact, the Germans attest that the USSR did the lion's share of
    winning the war on land.
  9. SubscriberWOLFE63
    Tra il dire e il far
    C'e di mezzo il mar!
    Joined
    06 Nov '15
    Moves
    22130
    30 Jun '18 12:48
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    The ignorant American Wolfe63 subscribes to the myth that the
    UK and the USA saved (how?) the USSR from being conquered.
    In fact, the Germans attest that the USSR did the lion's share of
    winning the war on land.
    Once again your attitude reveals your immodesty: Does your ego, indeed, have no reset?

    "The ignorant American Wolfe63 subscribes to the myth that the
    UK and the USA saved [Russia](how?)"

    First of all, the United States, having just emerged from the self-inflicted trauma of the Great Depression, had no appetite to involve itself in another European war. Isolationism and apathy were well represented in the American ethos of the 1930's.

    Our view held that the Treaty of Versailles was at the root of Europe's problems. Especially because Wilson had warned Lloyd George and Clemenceau against being too punitive with Germany. His "Fourteen Points" seemed perfectly reasonable and, in our view, would have precluded extremist ascendance against the Weimar Republic.

    But, as the "clock struck twelve" in September 1939...the inevitable reality of U.S. involvement became clear. Roosevelt initiated measures to set America upon a defensive war footing; while simultaneously pledging assistance to Churchill via the Lend-Lease Act.

    Hitler was emboldened to attack Poland, precisely because of the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact. The agreement, concluded in late August, precipitated in Hitler's September 1st invasion.

    However, as fate would have it, Japan came to Stalin's rescue on December 7th, 1941 and Hitler sealed his own fate by declaring war upon the U.S. four days later.

    The fact of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was not forgotten by the remaining Allied nations as Stalin screamed for aid in 1942/43. His insistence upon the establishment of a 2nd Front via a continental invasion fell upon less than sympathetic ears.

    Though, Stalin found adequate solace from America's determination to avenge itself against Japan. This fact, as well as his spy network in Japan, enabled his comfort in bringing more Siberian Divisions to the West in order to subdue the invading Hun.

    War, like human nature, is filled with complexity. Simplistic sloganeering, by those with a propagandistic will to rewrite history, in order to suit themselves, is a shallow undertaking indeed.
  10. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    30 Jun '18 14:13
    Originally posted by @wolfe63
    Once again your attitude reveals your immodesty: Does your ego, indeed, have no reset?

    "The ignorant American Wolfe63 subscribes to the myth that the
    UK and the USA saved [Russia](how?)"

    First of all, the United States, having just emerged from the self-inflicted trauma of the Great Depression, had no appetite to involve itself in another European wa ...[text shortened]... gandistic will to rewrite history, in order to suit themselves, is a shallow undertaking indeed.
    You really are bad at history.

    Stalin throughout the 30s actively supported the concept of European "collective security" and joined with France and other countries in a series of mutual defense pacts. The French destroyed that relationship by agreeing to sell out the Czechs at Munich with neither the Czechs or the Soviets being allowed to attend those "talks" with Hitler. At that point, the Soviets, with good reason, distrusted the Western allies; they also had stood idly by while German and Italian troops and planes were dispatched to Spain to assist the Fascist takeover of that country.

    If historical research has proven anything, it is that the Nazis were going to attack Poland in 1939 irregardless of what any other nation did. The Soviets invited the Poles, French and British to high level military talks in Moscow that summer; the Poles absolutely refused the idea of any assistance from the USSR and the French and Brits sent low level functionaries who's message was that their countries could take little offensive actions against the Germans in the early stages of the war and that Poland would not willingly grant passage to Soviet troops even if invaded by Germany.

    Given that situation, Stalin's decision to cut a deal was cynical, but probably in the USSR's best interest. He avoided an immediate, probably disastrous war with the Germans to aid a country that didn't want his help and pushed the Soviet defense lines hundreds of kilometers west.

    The Siberian Divisions were dispatched to the West well before Pearl Harbor. The Soviets never entirely discounted the possibility of a Japanese attack, but by November an invasion of Siberia wasn't likely - the Siberian winter is much worse than one the Germans found so unpleasant in front of Moscow, there isn't much of immediate strategic worth in Siberia anyway and the Japanese had been badly mauled by Soviet forces at Khalkin Gol in the summer of 1939 and were wary of Soviet military strength. The idea that the US somehow saved the USSR from attack by the Japanese is a pretty silly one.

    The Soviets for most of the war faced the great majority of German land and air strength and decisively beat it though at almost unthinkable cost in lives and destruction. The timidity of Western war planning in 1942-43 given the situation on the Eastern Front is hard to understand but by summer 1943 the USSR had essentially turned the war to their strategic advantage despite the West's unwillingness to gamble.

    The bottom line is this; the Soviets were not to blame for Nazi aggressiveness and if the West had held the line on a collective security policy rather than appeasement, WW II would probably never have happened (heck a couple of French brigades resisting the takeover of the Rhineland in 1936 would have been sufficient to stop it and probably end Hitler's regime once and for all).
  11. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    iEn guardia, Ingles!
    tinyurl.com/y43jqfyd
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    30 Jun '18 17:26
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    People rarely are all good or all bad.

    Queen Mary I was initially popular in England. She could be forgiving,
    pardoning some men for conspiring against her. She could have
    found a pretext to have Elizabeth executed or married off abroad
    to insure that her successor would be a Catholic. If she had been
    able to give birth to a healthy son, then h ...[text shortened]... spent
    years living in Europe and spoke several European languages,
    was less insular than Mao.
    I think Mao was a military genius though a cold hearted and cynical one. He was indeed a terrible peacetime leader.
  12. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    30 Jun '18 18:251 edit
    Originally posted by @wolfe63
    Once again your attitude reveals your immodesty: Does your ego, indeed, have no reset?

    "The ignorant American Wolfe63 subscribes to the myth that the
    UK and the USA saved [Russia](how?)"

    First of all, the United States, having just emerged from the self-inflicted trauma of the Great Depression, had no appetite to involve itself in another European wa ...[text shortened]... gandistic will to rewrite history, in order to suit themselves, is a shallow undertaking indeed.
    The 'history troll' Wolfe spews nonsense. Almost all of his post is IRRELEVANT to
    this statement of mine that Wolfe63 has cocksurely dismissed as obviously wrong.

    "The ignorant American Wolfe63 subscribes to the myth that the UK and the USA
    saved (how?) the USSR from being conquered."
    --Duchess64

    The Axis invaded the USSR on 22 June 1941. Wolfe63 prattled about many things that
    the USA did that are IRRELEVANT because they had no effect on helping the USSR at war.

    "But, as the "clock struck twelve" in September 1939 ... [FDR] pledging assistance to
    Churchill via the Lend-Lease Act. "
    --Wolfe63

    Misleading. The Lend Lease Act did not become law in the USA until 11 March 1941.
    The USA's aid (via Lend Lease) to the UK was irrelevant to helping the USSR at war.

    "Japan came to Stalin's rescue on December 7th, 1941."
    --Wolfe63

    How? Shortly before 7 December 1941, the Germans ALREADY knew that they were not
    going to win the Battle of Moscow. On 5 or 6 December 1941 Generaloberst Guderian
    wrote in his journal, "We have suffered a defeat", and ordered his most advanced units
    to retreat. On 25 December 1941, Hitler sacked Guderian because Guderian had strongly
    argued against Hitler's 'no retreat' order. Guderian never again held a field command.

    "Stalin *screamed* [inflammatory exaggeration] for aid in 1942/43. His insistence upon
    the establishment of a 2nd Front via a continental invasion fell upon less than sympathetic ears."
    --Wolfe63

    Stalin wanted a Second Front much more than he wanted Lend-Lease.
    That Second Front did not come until June 1944, by which time the USSR already was
    well on its way in defeating the Axis.

    "Simplistic sloganeering, by those with a propagandistic will to rewrite history,
    in order to suit themselves, is a shallow undertaking indeed."
    --Wolfe63

    The extremely ignorant Wolfe63 (who presumably parrots US propaganda) unwittingly condemns himself.
  13. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    30 Jun '18 18:484 edits
    I shall explain how someone could rationally *attempt* to prove that my statement is mistaken.

    (Voting 'thumbs down' or hurling insults at me is NOT proof of anything except enmity.
    I recently got 'thumbed down' for my completely true statement about mathematics:
    "The Continuum Hypothesis cannot be proven or disproven from the standard axioms of ZF set theory." )

    "If not for the United Kingdom and the USA: German would be a primary language in Moscow today"
    --Wolfe63

    "The ignorant American Wolfe63 subscribes to the myth that the UK and the USA
    saved (how?) the USSR from being conquered."
    --Duchess64

    On 22 June 1941, the Axis invaded the USSR. Every historian agrees that the Axis had
    no hope of conquering the USSR after losing the Battle of Stalingrad (very early 1943).
    Therefore, we need consider only to what extent it would have been practicable for the
    Axis to conquer the USSR in 1941-42 AND whether UK or US aid had a DECISIVE effect
    (which is Wolfe63's implied claim) in preventing the USSR from being conquered.

    Regarding UK and US Lend-Lease aid to the USSR, this was important (more so than
    Soviet writers like to admit, less so that most American and British writers like to claim),
    but it became most important in 1943-44. In fact, only a small minority of Western aid arrived
    in the USSR during the critical period of 1941-42. Although some extremely ignorant
    Americans have attempted to take credit for the Soviet victory in the Battle of Stalingrad
    by claiming that RKKA (Red Army) depended upon US-made arms then, that's nonsense.

    In my view, Western Lend-Lease to the USSR had a minor effect on whether the USSR would lose the war.
    But Lend-Lease had a significant effect in helping the USSR win the war more easily.
    (I await the usual nearly illiterate fools severely misunderstanding what I write.)
    In particular, US-made trucks gave RKKA much needed mobility, when the Wehrmacht
    still mainly used horse-drawn transport.

    The onus is on the arrogant 'history troll' Wolfe63 (or his supporters) to prove that UK or
    US aid (which was trivial in 1941-42) had a DECISIVE effect in preventing the USSR from
    losing so many major battles so badly that the USSR could have been conquered.

    Exactly what battles does Wolfe63 fantasize that the USSR would have lost
    catastrophically IF it had not been supposedly blessed by UK or US aid in 1941-42?
    Producing a list (which I could easily do) of major Soviet defeats in 1941-42 is IRRELEVANT
    unless Wolfe63 could cite evidence that only UK or US aid prevented them from
    becoming decisive catastrophes?
  14. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    30 Jun '18 19:13
    Originally posted by @no1marauder to Wolfe63
    You really are bad at history.

    Stalin throughout the 30s actively supported the concept of European "collective security" and joined with France and other countries in a series of mutual defense pacts. The French destroyed that relationship by agreeing to sell out the Czechs at Munich with neither the Czechs or the Soviets being allowed to ...[text shortened]... n 1936 would have been sufficient to stop it and probably end Hitler's regime once and for all).
    I was disputing Wolfe63's absurd claim that UK or US aid was the only reason why the
    USSR was not conquered by the Axis rather than his claims about the origins of the war,
    which No1Marauder prefers to dispute.

    You [Wolfe63] really are bad at history."
    --No1Marauder

    I suspect that Wolfe63 has swallowed too much jingoistic US propaganda in the
    form of popular American books or documentaries about the Second World War.

    In 1919, Poland had invaded Russia (then embroiled in a civil war) and, despite almost
    losing Warsaw, had eventually emerged with much eastern territory inhabited mostly by non-Poles.
    During the Munich crisis, Poland sided with Germany and seized some of Czechoslovakia for itself.
    Until 1939, Poland regarded the USSR, not Germany, as its primary enemy in a war.

    "The Soviets for most of the war faced the great majority of German land and air strength..."
    --No1Marauder

    Partly misleading, regarding 'the great majority' of German 'air strength'.
    After the Battle of Kursk (July 1943), much of the Luftwaffe was transferred from the
    Ostfront to other fronts, particularly to defend Germany against the Allied bombing campaign.
    The VVS already enjoyed a numerical superiority over the Luftwaffe before the Battle of Kursk,
    and the VVS's numbers became increasingly overwhelming for the rest of the war.
  15. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    30 Jun '18 21:46
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    I was disputing Wolfe63's absurd claim that UK or US aid was the only reason why the
    USSR was not conquered by the Axis rather than his claims about the origins of the war,
    which No1Marauder prefers to dispute.

    You [Wolfe63] really are bad at history."
    --No1Marauder

    I suspect that Wolfe63 has swallowed too much jingoistic US propaganda in the
    ...[text shortened]... attle of Kursk,
    and the VVS's numbers became increasingly overwhelming for the rest of the war.
    It seems my statement was an exaggeration as regards the Luftwaffe; even before Kursk most planes had been diverted to other theaters:

    A substantial portion of the Luftwaffe strength still remained on the Russian front. Of the total aircraft available at the end of June, 38.7 percent were in the east; more specifically, 84.5 percent of all dive bombers, 27 percent of all fighters, and 33 percent of all bombers were serving in the east.65

    https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-Luftwaffe/AAF-Luftwaffe-5.html
Back to Top