historical dichotomy
November 17, 2006 7:15 AM Subscribe
Stalin's death camps killed more people than Hitler's. America's army in 1939 was smaller than Poland's. The casualties of the 1944 Warsaw uprising were the equivalent of the September 11th, 2001 attack on the World Trade Centre, every day for two months.
Whatever you think about the second world war is wrong.
Whatever you think about the second world war is wrong.
America's army in 1939 was smaller than Poland's.
Of course it was. America had demilitarized after WWI and was still mired in the Depression. Poland, on the other hand, was situated between two powerful nations that had been hostile to it for many, many years.
posted by psmealey at 7:20 AM on November 17, 2006
Of course it was. America had demilitarized after WWI and was still mired in the Depression. Poland, on the other hand, was situated between two powerful nations that had been hostile to it for many, many years.
posted by psmealey at 7:20 AM on November 17, 2006
Stalin did not have "death camps". They were brutal prison camps where one was likely to die rather quickly from maltreatment, disease, murder at the hands of fellow inmates, or punishment. Wrong as this is, it is not a death camp.
The Nazi's had death camps, camps whose purpose was to kill people in the most efficient way possible only because of their race. Gigantic facilities were constructed to kill and dispose of as many bodies as is possible. That is pure evil and a death camp.
There simply is no comparison.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:23 AM on November 17, 2006 [2 favorites]
The Nazi's had death camps, camps whose purpose was to kill people in the most efficient way possible only because of their race. Gigantic facilities were constructed to kill and dispose of as many bodies as is possible. That is pure evil and a death camp.
There simply is no comparison.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:23 AM on November 17, 2006 [2 favorites]
Stalin's death camps killed more people than Hitler's.
Papa says, “If you see it on Angelfire, it’s so.”
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:26 AM on November 17, 2006
Papa says, “If you see it on Angelfire, it’s so.”
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:26 AM on November 17, 2006
There simply is no comparison.
Yes there is. It's not "simple," but you certainly can make thoughtful comparisons between the two. At the very least, it's difficult to argue that Stalin didn't know what was happening at the camps. That said, the first link's "50 million" figure seems out of the ballpark. Wikipedia has a brief look at the number of Stalin's victims argument.
posted by mediareport at 7:30 AM on November 17, 2006
Yes there is. It's not "simple," but you certainly can make thoughtful comparisons between the two. At the very least, it's difficult to argue that Stalin didn't know what was happening at the camps. That said, the first link's "50 million" figure seems out of the ballpark. Wikipedia has a brief look at the number of Stalin's victims argument.
posted by mediareport at 7:30 AM on November 17, 2006
Davies has some issues with his treatment of the Holocaust as well--issues that led him to be denied tenure at Stanford. Nonetheless, he has built up an impressive body of work. Some of what he says about the Second World War is good--mainly that the Soviet Union basically won the conflict, with the UK and the U.S. as helpers. That's not to demean the incredible sacrifices made by Allied troops, but to state that the reality of the war was that the five largest battles were fought on the Eastern front, that 90% of German Army strength was committed on that front, and that the Soviets probably could have won the war without our help (although it would have been more costly).
Davies seems to indicate with this book that the Soviets really won the war overall. I'd say this--they won the war, but the peace was a draw between the western allies and the Soviet Union.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:33 AM on November 17, 2006
Davies seems to indicate with this book that the Soviets really won the war overall. I'd say this--they won the war, but the peace was a draw between the western allies and the Soviet Union.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:33 AM on November 17, 2006
I think the Second World War was a bad thing.
posted by Joeforking at 7:36 AM on November 17, 2006
posted by Joeforking at 7:36 AM on November 17, 2006
You know, that last link doesn't actually endorse the contention that "Whatever you think about the second world war is wrong."
This kind of hyperbolic statement usually requires very little effort to deflate, and even less when the text of the hyperbolic statement contains a link to a review that takes the air out of the statement. Way to make with the irony!
Also: Way to be borderline insulting! If you're going to be insulting, I say go big or go home. Don't just insinuate that we are dumb-asses who only know about WWII from John Wayne movies, come right out and say it.
Some of these links are interesting, and indeed there are probably people here that did not know some of these particulars; but this post comes off as condescending and didactic.
posted by Mister_A at 7:37 AM on November 17, 2006
This kind of hyperbolic statement usually requires very little effort to deflate, and even less when the text of the hyperbolic statement contains a link to a review that takes the air out of the statement. Way to make with the irony!
Also: Way to be borderline insulting! If you're going to be insulting, I say go big or go home. Don't just insinuate that we are dumb-asses who only know about WWII from John Wayne movies, come right out and say it.
Some of these links are interesting, and indeed there are probably people here that did not know some of these particulars; but this post comes off as condescending and didactic.
posted by Mister_A at 7:37 AM on November 17, 2006
I think the Second World War was a bad thing.
Unless you own stock in The History Channel
posted by Mick at 7:39 AM on November 17, 2006
Unless you own stock in The History Channel
posted by Mick at 7:39 AM on November 17, 2006
Whatever you think about whatever I think is wrong.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 7:39 AM on November 17, 2006
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 7:39 AM on November 17, 2006
Yay! Stalin time!
Yes Stalin was a bad man, no those are not death camps. Still, congratulations on linking to a page with some pretty cool pictures rather than (as happened last time) a race hate site.
posted by Artw at 7:40 AM on November 17, 2006
Yes Stalin was a bad man, no those are not death camps. Still, congratulations on linking to a page with some pretty cool pictures rather than (as happened last time) a race hate site.
posted by Artw at 7:40 AM on November 17, 2006
The idea of using kiddofspeed to explain the Gulag is kind of kitschy, but I have to admit those are some good photos... especially since Gulag pics on the web are invariably infected by 200 x 150 pixel tiny pic syndrome.
posted by zek at 7:40 AM on November 17, 2006
posted by zek at 7:40 AM on November 17, 2006
I will never forgive the Second World War for the Baby Boomers.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 7:41 AM on November 17, 2006 [6 favorites]
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 7:41 AM on November 17, 2006 [6 favorites]
Stalin knew what was going on in the Siberian camps. No doubt about it--remember, he had been an inmate in one under the Tsarist government.
Stalin did a great many horrible things and was an evil, paranoid man whose actions killed millions. Basically, Stalin wanted what he wanted and if people died that was fine. But his goals were not the death of an entire race for no reason other than personal animus. Those were Adolf Hitler's goals, of that there is no doubt.
Stalin's numbers are mostly the result of his terrible collectivization policy of the late 1920's and early 1930's. He ordered that all farms in the nation be made into collectives. The result was mass famine, as peasants killed all of their animals and let the crops go to waste rather than give up what they had gained in the Russian Revolution.
Stalin couldn't see until it was too late that his policy was destroying the entire countryside. Similarly, his orders in the Great Purges were meant to control his own followers. Instead, they set off a bloodbath that slipped beyond his control rapidly. For him to admit a problem would have meant loss of face--so the killings went on until the U.S.S.R. was terrible weakened. Only then was he able to stop the excesses of the purges, and only after blaming his excesses on the leaders of his security services.
It is that simple. I spent most of the 1990's getting my masters in European history with a focus on Germany and a secondary field in Russian history. There simply is no comparison. Stalin's crimes were that he didn't care about human life if it got in his way. Hitler's crime was much worse--he actively and irrationally sought to destroy human life because of his own emotional attitudes about Jewish people. One, Stalin, was a strongman willing to do nearly anything to get his way. The other, Hitler, was a mass murderer in the most criminal sense--someone whose emotional make up drove him to kill. Unfortunately for millions in Europe, that mass murderer was at one end of a telephone with which he could order senseless killings for no other reason other that to destroy for destruction's sake.
There's a huge and unfathomable gap between those two types of persons. Many leaders (and regular people) would act as Stalin did if they had the chance. Only a very few would kill in the way Hitler did.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:45 AM on November 17, 2006 [3 favorites]
Stalin did a great many horrible things and was an evil, paranoid man whose actions killed millions. Basically, Stalin wanted what he wanted and if people died that was fine. But his goals were not the death of an entire race for no reason other than personal animus. Those were Adolf Hitler's goals, of that there is no doubt.
Stalin's numbers are mostly the result of his terrible collectivization policy of the late 1920's and early 1930's. He ordered that all farms in the nation be made into collectives. The result was mass famine, as peasants killed all of their animals and let the crops go to waste rather than give up what they had gained in the Russian Revolution.
Stalin couldn't see until it was too late that his policy was destroying the entire countryside. Similarly, his orders in the Great Purges were meant to control his own followers. Instead, they set off a bloodbath that slipped beyond his control rapidly. For him to admit a problem would have meant loss of face--so the killings went on until the U.S.S.R. was terrible weakened. Only then was he able to stop the excesses of the purges, and only after blaming his excesses on the leaders of his security services.
It is that simple. I spent most of the 1990's getting my masters in European history with a focus on Germany and a secondary field in Russian history. There simply is no comparison. Stalin's crimes were that he didn't care about human life if it got in his way. Hitler's crime was much worse--he actively and irrationally sought to destroy human life because of his own emotional attitudes about Jewish people. One, Stalin, was a strongman willing to do nearly anything to get his way. The other, Hitler, was a mass murderer in the most criminal sense--someone whose emotional make up drove him to kill. Unfortunately for millions in Europe, that mass murderer was at one end of a telephone with which he could order senseless killings for no other reason other that to destroy for destruction's sake.
There's a huge and unfathomable gap between those two types of persons. Many leaders (and regular people) would act as Stalin did if they had the chance. Only a very few would kill in the way Hitler did.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:45 AM on November 17, 2006 [3 favorites]
Also:
I too have heard the 50 million number; Reagan was president when I heard it and I suspect that it was cooked up by cold warriors to foment anti-Russian sentiment.
If you think about it, 50 million is a near-impossible number, given the population of Russia and the republics. By one estimate, there were about 193 million people in the USSR in 1939-1940. Killing 50 million people in a population that size is a staggering undertaking, even assuming, as the nut-job in the link asserts, that the killings started in 1932 and continued until 1953.
posted by Mister_A at 7:46 AM on November 17, 2006 [1 favorite]
I too have heard the 50 million number; Reagan was president when I heard it and I suspect that it was cooked up by cold warriors to foment anti-Russian sentiment.
If you think about it, 50 million is a near-impossible number, given the population of Russia and the republics. By one estimate, there were about 193 million people in the USSR in 1939-1940. Killing 50 million people in a population that size is a staggering undertaking, even assuming, as the nut-job in the link asserts, that the killings started in 1932 and continued until 1953.
posted by Mister_A at 7:46 AM on November 17, 2006 [1 favorite]
Joeforking: I think the Second World War was a bad thing.
Well, you're wrong.
People who compare the current "situation" to WWII and find it similiar do tend to drive me bonkers though. Either they are horribly mis-informed or lying in a particularly low way (as opposed to no new taxes), either case being a sorry state for those in power.
posted by Bovine Love at 7:48 AM on November 17, 2006
Well, you're wrong.
People who compare the current "situation" to WWII and find it similiar do tend to drive me bonkers though. Either they are horribly mis-informed or lying in a particularly low way (as opposed to no new taxes), either case being a sorry state for those in power.
posted by Bovine Love at 7:48 AM on November 17, 2006
Whatever you think about the second world war is wrong.,
Unless... you know.. you where somewhat informed outside of movies and pop culture. None of the above facts are particularly surprising or even a blip on my "Oh I didn't know that!" meter, and it definitely sounds as thought the book was written a little bit sloppily and perhaps with a small chip on his shoulder.
What it sounds like it does do a good job of is demystifying WWII as a grand, noble, clean thing. War is, every war is, dirty, full of incompetence, fundamentally for humanity an assault on progress and civility. Every war fought is a failure on some basic level, WWII included. There is very little absolute moral high ground when the goal is to kill as many of them as it takes, that is true for the Persian Wars of 492 BCE and it is true for the current Iraq war.
posted by edgeways at 7:49 AM on November 17, 2006
Unless... you know.. you where somewhat informed outside of movies and pop culture. None of the above facts are particularly surprising or even a blip on my "Oh I didn't know that!" meter, and it definitely sounds as thought the book was written a little bit sloppily and perhaps with a small chip on his shoulder.
What it sounds like it does do a good job of is demystifying WWII as a grand, noble, clean thing. War is, every war is, dirty, full of incompetence, fundamentally for humanity an assault on progress and civility. Every war fought is a failure on some basic level, WWII included. There is very little absolute moral high ground when the goal is to kill as many of them as it takes, that is true for the Persian Wars of 492 BCE and it is true for the current Iraq war.
posted by edgeways at 7:49 AM on November 17, 2006
I think the Second World War was a bad thing.
I agree with this. And regardless of the distinction between "death camps" and "super shitty prisons where you'll probably die", I think Stalin was a bad man.
posted by Brave New Meatbomb at 7:51 AM on November 17, 2006
I agree with this. And regardless of the distinction between "death camps" and "super shitty prisons where you'll probably die", I think Stalin was a bad man.
posted by Brave New Meatbomb at 7:51 AM on November 17, 2006
Davies has some issues with his treatment of the Holocaust as well--issues that led him to be denied tenure at Stanford
To be clear: In 1986, Davies, a visiting prof, was denied tenure by a 12-11 vote by the history department mainly because some of them felt he minimized Polish complicity in the Jewish holocaust and focused too much on how standard histories tended to minimize Polish suffering. From Stanford's statement after Davies' lawsuit was tossed out on procedural grounds (i.e., visiting professors have no right to the standard grievance procedure):
Davies' works have been criticized at Stanford and elsewhere, by such experts as Lucy S. Dawidowicz (author of The War Against the Jews: 1933-1945) who said they felt Davies minimized historic anti- Semitism in Poland and tended to blame Polish Jews for their fate in the Holocaust. Davies' supporters contend that Poles suffered as much as Jews did in the war and could have done very little to save any of the 3 million Jews living in Poland at the time of the Nazi invasion in 1939.
Opinions vary as to whether Stanford's history department acted fairly or wisely in denying Davies tenure based on the pro-Polish angle of much of his work.
posted by mediareport at 7:51 AM on November 17, 2006
To be clear: In 1986, Davies, a visiting prof, was denied tenure by a 12-11 vote by the history department mainly because some of them felt he minimized Polish complicity in the Jewish holocaust and focused too much on how standard histories tended to minimize Polish suffering. From Stanford's statement after Davies' lawsuit was tossed out on procedural grounds (i.e., visiting professors have no right to the standard grievance procedure):
Davies' works have been criticized at Stanford and elsewhere, by such experts as Lucy S. Dawidowicz (author of The War Against the Jews: 1933-1945) who said they felt Davies minimized historic anti- Semitism in Poland and tended to blame Polish Jews for their fate in the Holocaust. Davies' supporters contend that Poles suffered as much as Jews did in the war and could have done very little to save any of the 3 million Jews living in Poland at the time of the Nazi invasion in 1939.
Opinions vary as to whether Stanford's history department acted fairly or wisely in denying Davies tenure based on the pro-Polish angle of much of his work.
posted by mediareport at 7:51 AM on November 17, 2006
Wait, there was a Second World War??
The things The Man has been keeping from me! Thank you, citizen!
posted by jonmc at 7:53 AM on November 17, 2006
The things The Man has been keeping from me! Thank you, citizen!
posted by jonmc at 7:53 AM on November 17, 2006
Has anyone read the book btw? Stop me if I'm wrong here, but weren't there other combatants in WWII?
posted by Mister_A at 7:59 AM on November 17, 2006
posted by Mister_A at 7:59 AM on November 17, 2006
About as many Russians died in the 3-month Battle of Moscow as the United States suffered in the entire war in Europe.
posted by stbalbach at 8:00 AM on November 17, 2006
posted by stbalbach at 8:00 AM on November 17, 2006
the issue not brought up: why did Hitler open a second front and thus get hell from both ends of the world, that is Russia and US /England? Or: why after chasing allies to Dunkirk, did he not invade England instead of letting allies escape ?
posted by Postroad at 8:06 AM on November 17, 2006
posted by Postroad at 8:06 AM on November 17, 2006
Some of what he says about the Second World War is good--mainly that the Soviet Union basically won the conflict, with the UK and the U.S. as helpers. That's not to demean the incredible sacrifices made by Allied troops, but to state that the reality of the war was that the five largest battles were fought on the Eastern front, that 90% of German Army strength was committed on that front, and that the Soviets probably could have won the war without our help (although it would have been more costly).
FYI, we were also fighting Japan.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:10 AM on November 17, 2006
FYI, we were also fighting Japan.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:10 AM on November 17, 2006
do you actually know what the word "dichotomy" means?
posted by Paris Hilton at 8:10 AM on November 17, 2006
posted by Paris Hilton at 8:10 AM on November 17, 2006
I'll use it in a sentence:
There is a dichotomy between what four sheets thinks we know and what we know.
posted by Mister_A at 8:17 AM on November 17, 2006
There is a dichotomy between what four sheets thinks we know and what we know.
posted by Mister_A at 8:17 AM on November 17, 2006
It may be an exercise in futility to attempt to de-Godwin this thread, but here's an interesting comparison of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao:
Who Was the Bloodiest Tyrant of the 20th Century?
The short answer is that we should give Hitler, Stalin, and Mao a three-way tie for last.
posted by jonp72 at 8:17 AM on November 17, 2006
Who Was the Bloodiest Tyrant of the 20th Century?
The short answer is that we should give Hitler, Stalin, and Mao a three-way tie for last.
posted by jonp72 at 8:17 AM on November 17, 2006
the issue not brought up: why did Hitler open a second front and thus get hell from both ends of the world, that is Russia and US /England? Or: why after chasing allies to Dunkirk, did he not invade England instead of letting allies escape ?
He had France pretty much sewn up and England on the run, so it wasn't really a 'second front' at the time. The allies turned it into a front later, and I'm sure it was a huge help to the soviets. Would they really have won without our help?
Well, let's think about that: if we had not gone into France, Hitler would have had the whole country of France to serve as a source for war material and industry. Instead, he got nothing. We also crippled their air power on the continent. We bombed at will, and the Germans could have bombed the fuck out of Russia if we hadn't taken away air supremacy.
posted by Paris Hilton at 8:19 AM on November 17, 2006
He had France pretty much sewn up and England on the run, so it wasn't really a 'second front' at the time. The allies turned it into a front later, and I'm sure it was a huge help to the soviets. Would they really have won without our help?
Well, let's think about that: if we had not gone into France, Hitler would have had the whole country of France to serve as a source for war material and industry. Instead, he got nothing. We also crippled their air power on the continent. We bombed at will, and the Germans could have bombed the fuck out of Russia if we hadn't taken away air supremacy.
posted by Paris Hilton at 8:19 AM on November 17, 2006
the issue not brought up: why did Hitler open a second front and thus get hell from both ends of the world, that is Russia and US /England? Or: why after chasing allies to Dunkirk, did he not invade England instead of letting allies escape ?
The answer to that question is simple--Hitler's primary goal in the Second World War was the invasion of the Soviet Union. He bailed on taking out the allies because he had covered his back for four years after the invasion of France. If he couldn't defeat Soviet Russia in six months, he never would.
FYI, we were also fighting Japan.
As for Japan, it was the 11th largest economy in the world at the time. Although it was the preeminent power in Asia at the time, it could never defeat the U.S. because of sheer numbers and economy. Number 11 took on Number 1 in a war where industrial production was the critical measurement of success.
It fought well in a conflict that it was bound to lose. Don't forget also that the great mass of Japanese Army strength was in Manchuria--where it was crushed by the vastly superior Red Army in August, 1945.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:22 AM on November 17, 2006 [1 favorite]
The answer to that question is simple--Hitler's primary goal in the Second World War was the invasion of the Soviet Union. He bailed on taking out the allies because he had covered his back for four years after the invasion of France. If he couldn't defeat Soviet Russia in six months, he never would.
FYI, we were also fighting Japan.
As for Japan, it was the 11th largest economy in the world at the time. Although it was the preeminent power in Asia at the time, it could never defeat the U.S. because of sheer numbers and economy. Number 11 took on Number 1 in a war where industrial production was the critical measurement of success.
It fought well in a conflict that it was bound to lose. Don't forget also that the great mass of Japanese Army strength was in Manchuria--where it was crushed by the vastly superior Red Army in August, 1945.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:22 AM on November 17, 2006 [1 favorite]
Ya Eto Videl — letters from Russian WWII veterans and their families.
posted by cenoxo at 8:23 AM on November 17, 2006
posted by cenoxo at 8:23 AM on November 17, 2006
There can be no Godwin's law when you are talking about the actual Nazis. Godwin is all about spurious name calling by comparing something to the Nazis that is totally unrelated to the Nazis. Here, we are talking specifically about comparing something to the Nazis. That's what this thread is discussing.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:26 AM on November 17, 2006
posted by Ironmouth at 8:26 AM on November 17, 2006
And to think I thought it was a war of ants, fought on a hilltop in Jersey.
I really was off the mark on that one.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:26 AM on November 17, 2006
I really was off the mark on that one.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:26 AM on November 17, 2006
It fought well in a conflict that it was bound to lose. Don't forget also that the great mass of Japanese Army strength was in Manchuria--where it was crushed by the vastly superior Red Army in August, 1945.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:22 AM EST on November 17
I see your point, but we could play this game all day. I'm sure the atomic bombs of august 6 and 9 didn't help the Japanese effort any.
Had the nazi's achieved the bomb sooner, or had dozens of other incidents gone another way, the outcome would have been different.
In the end, like in all wars, the military that chose to be the most brutal won. The U.S. killed over 210,000 people in three days - most of them civilians. That might be a per diem record. And we sent the message that the bombings would continue until they surrendered.
Sobering thought, given current events.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:44 AM on November 17, 2006
posted by Ironmouth at 11:22 AM EST on November 17
I see your point, but we could play this game all day. I'm sure the atomic bombs of august 6 and 9 didn't help the Japanese effort any.
Had the nazi's achieved the bomb sooner, or had dozens of other incidents gone another way, the outcome would have been different.
In the end, like in all wars, the military that chose to be the most brutal won. The U.S. killed over 210,000 people in three days - most of them civilians. That might be a per diem record. And we sent the message that the bombings would continue until they surrendered.
Sobering thought, given current events.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:44 AM on November 17, 2006
Following the Russian Army's humiliation during the Ruso-Japanese war and then again in World War I, I think the Soviet regime learned a thing or two and got their act together. The Romanov Dynasty was abysmal at 20th Century Warfare - Stalin corrected those mistakes.
I would agree that we tend to neglect the impact of the Soviet Union on World War II. Similarly in World War I, had the Germans kept all of their forces on the Western Front, World War I might have ended much sooner than it did.
posted by tgrundke at 8:44 AM on November 17, 2006
I would agree that we tend to neglect the impact of the Soviet Union on World War II. Similarly in World War I, had the Germans kept all of their forces on the Western Front, World War I might have ended much sooner than it did.
posted by tgrundke at 8:44 AM on November 17, 2006
And to think I thought it was a war of ants, fought on a hilltop in Jersey.
I really was off the mark on that one.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:26 AM CST on November 17
That was World War VI; most people forget about it because it got such shitty box office.
posted by COBRA! at 8:48 AM on November 17, 2006
I really was off the mark on that one.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:26 AM CST on November 17
That was World War VI; most people forget about it because it got such shitty box office.
posted by COBRA! at 8:48 AM on November 17, 2006
There simply is no comparison.
Kolyma znaczit smert
Ironmouth the problem is trying to compare one atrocity with another as if there is some checklist which will make one the winner of the Most Awful Crimes Against Humanity Award and everyone else sore losers.
posted by squeak at 8:51 AM on November 17, 2006
Kolyma znaczit smert
Ironmouth the problem is trying to compare one atrocity with another as if there is some checklist which will make one the winner of the Most Awful Crimes Against Humanity Award and everyone else sore losers.
posted by squeak at 8:51 AM on November 17, 2006
Or: why after chasing allies to Dunkirk, did he not invade England instead of letting allies escape ?
I think that's the primary significance of the aerial Battle of Britain; without German air superiority, an invasion simply wasn't feasible.
... the reality of the war was that the five largest battles were fought on the Eastern front, that 90% of German Army strength was committed on that front, and that the Soviets probably could have won the war without our help (although it would have been more costly).
Early in the invasion of Russia, Lend-Lease provided huge amounts of materiel without which the Russians would have had a difficult time. Before they had enough T-34s, they used Shermans. I think it's questionable that they would have won the war without Lend-Lease.
posted by me & my monkey at 8:52 AM on November 17, 2006
I think that's the primary significance of the aerial Battle of Britain; without German air superiority, an invasion simply wasn't feasible.
... the reality of the war was that the five largest battles were fought on the Eastern front, that 90% of German Army strength was committed on that front, and that the Soviets probably could have won the war without our help (although it would have been more costly).
Early in the invasion of Russia, Lend-Lease provided huge amounts of materiel without which the Russians would have had a difficult time. Before they had enough T-34s, they used Shermans. I think it's questionable that they would have won the war without Lend-Lease.
posted by me & my monkey at 8:52 AM on November 17, 2006
I think "The Economist" summarizes nicely the weaknesses of the book:
posted by caddis at 8:54 AM on November 17, 2006 [3 favorites]
What is sometimes missing—oddly, in a book that aims chiefly to supply the missing context—is a sense of fairness and proportion. Mr Davies is sometimes so keen to puncture myths that he sounds almost vindictive. It is true that the British population suffered very little compared with the Poles. But that does not make what he calls Churchill's “gamble” to fight on in 1940 any less splendid.Perhaps the book should have been titled, "You Forgot Poland."
posted by caddis at 8:54 AM on November 17, 2006 [3 favorites]
We also crippled their air power on the continent. We bombed at will, and the Germans could have bombed the fuck out of Russia if we hadn't taken away air supremacy.
The Allies did eventually achieve air superiority, but not without significant loss of life. The 8th air force performing strategic bombing suffered 47,000 casualties of which 24,000 died.
Before we make apple to apple comparions with the horrific numbers at Battles like Moscow or Leningrad, consider those 47,000 were aircrew in fighters and bombers.
Bombing at will was late in the war and hard earned.
posted by Andrew Brinton at 9:17 AM on November 17, 2006
The Allies did eventually achieve air superiority, but not without significant loss of life. The 8th air force performing strategic bombing suffered 47,000 casualties of which 24,000 died.
Before we make apple to apple comparions with the horrific numbers at Battles like Moscow or Leningrad, consider those 47,000 were aircrew in fighters and bombers.
Bombing at will was late in the war and hard earned.
posted by Andrew Brinton at 9:17 AM on November 17, 2006
Whatever you think about the second world war is wrong.
Isn't revisionism wonderful?
posted by bobbyelliott at 9:29 AM on November 17, 2006
Isn't revisionism wonderful?
posted by bobbyelliott at 9:29 AM on November 17, 2006
In the end, like in all wars, the military that chose to be the most brutal won. The U.S. killed over 210,000 people in three days - most of them civilians. That might be a per diem record. And we sent the message that the bombings would continue until they surrendered.
Sobering thought, given current events.
Ah, here we go.
A call to nuke Iraq, Pastabagel? You wouldn't be the first. You're forgetting, of course, Curtis LeMay's line: "I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal" - and the world would remember him in the same manner we remember Goering.
posted by kgasmart at 9:34 AM on November 17, 2006
Sobering thought, given current events.
Ah, here we go.
A call to nuke Iraq, Pastabagel? You wouldn't be the first. You're forgetting, of course, Curtis LeMay's line: "I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal" - and the world would remember him in the same manner we remember Goering.
posted by kgasmart at 9:34 AM on November 17, 2006
What I want to know is, when do the Civil War programs come on? You know that everything you think you know about the Civil War is wrong too.
posted by I Am Not a Lobster at 9:35 AM on November 17, 2006
posted by I Am Not a Lobster at 9:35 AM on November 17, 2006
"Whatever You Think About The Second World War Is Wrong!" is the way this headline reads at Digg.com, which is probably where four panels (not four sheets, Mister_A) cribbed it.
posted by cgc373 at 9:48 AM on November 17, 2006
posted by cgc373 at 9:48 AM on November 17, 2006
Um, or maybe from the first line of the article linked at the end of the post. Benefit of the doubt, four panels. Sorry for doing that annoying "via" thing.
posted by cgc373 at 9:52 AM on November 17, 2006
posted by cgc373 at 9:52 AM on November 17, 2006
When I visited the military museum in either in St. Petersburg or Moscow (can't remember now) WWII was called something along the lines of "The Great War in Defense of the Motherland." At least that's how my uncle, a fluent speaker and professor of Russian and history translated it. (Memory is somewhat vague, this was back in the summer of 2000)
posted by Hactar at 9:53 AM on November 17, 2006
posted by Hactar at 9:53 AM on November 17, 2006
Kolyma znaczit smert
Плиз тайп ин Рашен.
posted by Krrrlson at 9:53 AM on November 17, 2006 [1 favorite]
Плиз тайп ин Рашен.
posted by Krrrlson at 9:53 AM on November 17, 2006 [1 favorite]
I like the four questions:
1. Can you name the five biggest battles of the war in Europe? Or, better still, the ten biggest battles?
2. Can you name the main political ideologies that were contending for supremacy during the war in Europe?
3. Can you name the largest concentration camp that was operating in Europe in the years 1939–45?
4. Can you name the nationality which lost the largest number of civilians during the war?
No way Americans on the whole can answer any of them correctly. But the triumphalism of historians like Victor Davis Hanson ensures that we'll never have to endure such discomforting questions. Indeed, I'll always remember this particular Hanson essay less-than-fondly:
The Americans and British went from the windswept and hard-to-supply beaches of Normandy to the heart of Germany — on some routes about the same distance as Moscow to Berlin — in about a fourth of the time it took the beleaguered Red Army to cross into Germany
Damned Russian slackers.
posted by kgasmart at 10:03 AM on November 17, 2006
1. Can you name the five biggest battles of the war in Europe? Or, better still, the ten biggest battles?
2. Can you name the main political ideologies that were contending for supremacy during the war in Europe?
3. Can you name the largest concentration camp that was operating in Europe in the years 1939–45?
4. Can you name the nationality which lost the largest number of civilians during the war?
No way Americans on the whole can answer any of them correctly. But the triumphalism of historians like Victor Davis Hanson ensures that we'll never have to endure such discomforting questions. Indeed, I'll always remember this particular Hanson essay less-than-fondly:
The Americans and British went from the windswept and hard-to-supply beaches of Normandy to the heart of Germany — on some routes about the same distance as Moscow to Berlin — in about a fourth of the time it took the beleaguered Red Army to cross into Germany
Damned Russian slackers.
posted by kgasmart at 10:03 AM on November 17, 2006
Kgasmart, I'm not exactly sure how you got that reading out of what Pastabagel said.
posted by Sandor Clegane at 10:03 AM on November 17, 2006
posted by Sandor Clegane at 10:03 AM on November 17, 2006
The actual war was probably pretty bad but I I really liked the videogame.
posted by Artw at 10:08 AM on November 17, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 10:08 AM on November 17, 2006 [1 favorite]
A call to nuke Iraq, Pastabagel? You wouldn't be the first. You're forgetting, of course, Curtis LeMay's line: "I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal" - and the world would remember him in the same manner we remember Goering.
posted by kgasmart at 12:34 PM EST on November 17
Yes, I am suggesting we nuke Iraq. That's precisely what I said.
In fact, we should nuke it with the extra strong nuke bombs, you know, the kind that are really pointy in the front? Pointy nukes says we mean business. Lots of rockets too, for faster speed. Oh, and we should have lasers on the nukes. Lasers that go "Pyoo! Pyoo!"
Or maybe, jackass, I was suggesting that the enemy we are fighting in Iraq, the one that is chopping the heads off of hostages on videotape, may be more brutal than we are and may win the war as a result. Perhaps I was also suggesting that if becoming more brutal than that is what is required to win, maybe the war isn't worth winning.
But the lasers thing is cool too, as long as there's a suitable hero named Dirk Chisel or Man Cheston to lead us to victory.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:08 AM on November 17, 2006
posted by kgasmart at 12:34 PM EST on November 17
Yes, I am suggesting we nuke Iraq. That's precisely what I said.
In fact, we should nuke it with the extra strong nuke bombs, you know, the kind that are really pointy in the front? Pointy nukes says we mean business. Lots of rockets too, for faster speed. Oh, and we should have lasers on the nukes. Lasers that go "Pyoo! Pyoo!"
Or maybe, jackass, I was suggesting that the enemy we are fighting in Iraq, the one that is chopping the heads off of hostages on videotape, may be more brutal than we are and may win the war as a result. Perhaps I was also suggesting that if becoming more brutal than that is what is required to win, maybe the war isn't worth winning.
But the lasers thing is cool too, as long as there's a suitable hero named Dirk Chisel or Man Cheston to lead us to victory.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:08 AM on November 17, 2006
Sequals almost always suck. WWIII would have emptied the theatres.
posted by CynicalKnight at 10:18 AM on November 17, 2006
posted by CynicalKnight at 10:18 AM on November 17, 2006
Or maybe, jackass, I was suggesting that the enemy we are fighting in Iraq, the one that is chopping the heads off of hostages on videotape, may be more brutal than we are and may win the war as a result. Perhaps I was also suggesting that if becoming more brutal than that is what is required to win, maybe the war isn't worth winning.
Let's put rubber to the road then, bud.
If the enemy in Iraq is winning because he is more brutal than us, then the obvious choice is for us to increase our level of brutality.
How, then, should we do this?
In towns where American forces take insurgent fire, should we perhaps round up all the men and execute them? Well, no, no one's suggesting anything like that.
But how about if we level the whole city, in order to teach the bastards a lesson?
Why yes - yes, I have heard people suggest this. Because, you know, we firebombed Dresden; look what we did to Japanese cities. And we won that war. And our failure to win this one is directly attributable to our reticence to use such tactics again.
But this isn't World War II. Then, Japan attacked us, Germany declared war on us. Iraq did neither.
And we seem to have this strange idea that leveling, say, Najaf or even Baghdad would somehow leave the people in those cities less dead than if we rounded them up and shot them - or nuked them.
You're right - if this war requires more brutality than a democracy that is ostensibly acting in the name of morality is willing to exercise, then maybe it isn't worth winning.
Too bad we didn't ask that question before we mached on in.
posted by kgasmart at 10:18 AM on November 17, 2006
Let's put rubber to the road then, bud.
If the enemy in Iraq is winning because he is more brutal than us, then the obvious choice is for us to increase our level of brutality.
How, then, should we do this?
In towns where American forces take insurgent fire, should we perhaps round up all the men and execute them? Well, no, no one's suggesting anything like that.
But how about if we level the whole city, in order to teach the bastards a lesson?
Why yes - yes, I have heard people suggest this. Because, you know, we firebombed Dresden; look what we did to Japanese cities. And we won that war. And our failure to win this one is directly attributable to our reticence to use such tactics again.
But this isn't World War II. Then, Japan attacked us, Germany declared war on us. Iraq did neither.
And we seem to have this strange idea that leveling, say, Najaf or even Baghdad would somehow leave the people in those cities less dead than if we rounded them up and shot them - or nuked them.
You're right - if this war requires more brutality than a democracy that is ostensibly acting in the name of morality is willing to exercise, then maybe it isn't worth winning.
Too bad we didn't ask that question before we mached on in.
posted by kgasmart at 10:18 AM on November 17, 2006
kgasmart - that quote is horrifyingly stupid - people take this guy seriously?
posted by Artw at 10:19 AM on November 17, 2006
posted by Artw at 10:19 AM on November 17, 2006
Artw: Oh yes - he's the right-wingers favorite historian. Which explains a lot.
More from the link:
Revisionists now tend to credit the lion's share of the Allied victory over Hitler to the Soviets who probably killed two out of every three soldiers of the Wehrmacht. Yet the Russians waged a one-front war in comparison to the Anglo-Americans. They did not invade Italy or North Africa, and opportunistically took on an already defeated Japan only in the very last days of the war. Global submarine campaigning, surface naval warfare, long-range strategic bombing, massive logistical aid — all vital to the allied success, were beyond the scope of monolithic Russian power.
Damned Russkis, too busy dying in droves at Kursk and Stalingrad to build a proper navy.
posted by kgasmart at 10:26 AM on November 17, 2006
More from the link:
Revisionists now tend to credit the lion's share of the Allied victory over Hitler to the Soviets who probably killed two out of every three soldiers of the Wehrmacht. Yet the Russians waged a one-front war in comparison to the Anglo-Americans. They did not invade Italy or North Africa, and opportunistically took on an already defeated Japan only in the very last days of the war. Global submarine campaigning, surface naval warfare, long-range strategic bombing, massive logistical aid — all vital to the allied success, were beyond the scope of monolithic Russian power.
Damned Russkis, too busy dying in droves at Kursk and Stalingrad to build a proper navy.
posted by kgasmart at 10:26 AM on November 17, 2006
WWII was different for the primary reason of media saturation. WWI would have been fought differently if CNN was broadcasting the storming of Normandy live via satellite. REading about destroying a city is one thing. Seeing it and watching people who live there pick through the rubble is another thing entirely.
How, then, should we do this?
We shouldn't. But I think this issue is what motivated a lot of torture apologists (i.e. "We aren't as bad as them" etc.)
I don't think this war is militarily winnable, unless fought as a war of attrition. Better, in my mind, to let the insurgents have the cities and we camp the oilfields and de facto carve up the country. But I'm not even sure that's worth it. In the long run, let the oil come onto the market, and our banks and financiers will screw them over just as they screw everyone else over.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:36 AM on November 17, 2006
How, then, should we do this?
We shouldn't. But I think this issue is what motivated a lot of torture apologists (i.e. "We aren't as bad as them" etc.)
I don't think this war is militarily winnable, unless fought as a war of attrition. Better, in my mind, to let the insurgents have the cities and we camp the oilfields and de facto carve up the country. But I'm not even sure that's worth it. In the long run, let the oil come onto the market, and our banks and financiers will screw them over just as they screw everyone else over.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:36 AM on November 17, 2006
I don't think this war is militarily winnable, unless fought as a war of attrition. Better, in my mind, to let the insurgents have the cities and we camp the oilfields and de facto carve up the country. But I'm not even sure that's worth it. In the long run, let the oil come onto the market, and our banks and financiers will screw them over just as they screw everyone else over.
Agreed; pax, then.
posted by kgasmart at 10:42 AM on November 17, 2006
Agreed; pax, then.
posted by kgasmart at 10:42 AM on November 17, 2006
I think that in order to actually try to get world peace we have to refine our standards as time goes on. If we agree that the gold standard for outrageous bloodshed will be the bloodiest conflicts of the modern age, and that our emotions of outrage must be normalized against that standard, then we will always be able to tolerate another small scale or mid scale war.
Maybe that's what's preferable.
posted by nervousfritz at 10:45 AM on November 17, 2006
Maybe that's what's preferable.
posted by nervousfritz at 10:45 AM on November 17, 2006
Before they had enough T-34s, they used Shermans.
Um, no. When the German Army invaded Russia, the Red Army had more tanks than the rest of the world combined. Most were obsolescent at the time, but they also had the best tank in the world as well. Overall, the Soviets only used 4000 Shermans, most of which were delivered
By comparison, the Soviets built 34,000 T-34's in the period 1940-1944. Those 4,000 Shermans did very little for the Soviets.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:50 AM on November 17, 2006
Um, no. When the German Army invaded Russia, the Red Army had more tanks than the rest of the world combined. Most were obsolescent at the time, but they also had the best tank in the world as well. Overall, the Soviets only used 4000 Shermans, most of which were delivered
By comparison, the Soviets built 34,000 T-34's in the period 1940-1944. Those 4,000 Shermans did very little for the Soviets.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:50 AM on November 17, 2006
"Whatever You Think About The Second World War Is Wrong!" is the way this headline reads at Digg.com, which is probably where four panels (not four sheets, Mister_A) cribbed it.
posted by cgc373 at 12:48 PM EST on November 17[+][!]
Um, or maybe from the first line of the article linked at the end of the post. Benefit of the doubt, four panels. Sorry for doing that annoying "via" thing.
posted by cgc373 at 12:52 PM EST on November 17[+][!]
Yes, except that the article goes straight into showing how silly such a claim is while this post takes the opposite approach.
posted by caddis at 10:50 AM on November 17, 2006
posted by cgc373 at 12:48 PM EST on November 17[+][!]
Um, or maybe from the first line of the article linked at the end of the post. Benefit of the doubt, four panels. Sorry for doing that annoying "via" thing.
posted by cgc373 at 12:52 PM EST on November 17[+][!]
Yes, except that the article goes straight into showing how silly such a claim is while this post takes the opposite approach.
posted by caddis at 10:50 AM on November 17, 2006
Stalin knew what was going on in the Siberian camps. No doubt about it--remember, he had been an inmate in one under the Tsarist government.
I am sure that he knew - but the Tsarist prisons were a cakewalk compared to the Communist prisons.
posted by orange swan at 10:51 AM on November 17, 2006
I am sure that he knew - but the Tsarist prisons were a cakewalk compared to the Communist prisons.
posted by orange swan at 10:51 AM on November 17, 2006
The Tsarist famines probably left people dead in a much nicer way as well.
posted by Artw at 11:18 AM on November 17, 2006
posted by Artw at 11:18 AM on November 17, 2006
I just don't get the whole strategy employed by the Allies in WW2.
If Call of Duty has taught me anything, it's that one soldier, carrying multiple weapons and near endless ammo, supplied regularly with health packs, can take out an entire German division.
So why not just drop a couple of those guys in there, and let them wreak havoc? Christ, maybe drop in an Alien or Predator while you are at it. Take that Hitler!
posted by WinnipegDragon at 11:29 AM on November 17, 2006
If Call of Duty has taught me anything, it's that one soldier, carrying multiple weapons and near endless ammo, supplied regularly with health packs, can take out an entire German division.
So why not just drop a couple of those guys in there, and let them wreak havoc? Christ, maybe drop in an Alien or Predator while you are at it. Take that Hitler!
posted by WinnipegDragon at 11:29 AM on November 17, 2006
Oh, and we should have lasers on the nukes.
All he's asking for is some fricken nukes with fricken lasers on them. Is that too much to ask?
posted by lodurr at 11:29 AM on November 17, 2006
All he's asking for is some fricken nukes with fricken lasers on them. Is that too much to ask?
posted by lodurr at 11:29 AM on November 17, 2006
Wow. Our last stalin was a bad man post wasn't even a month ago. How time flies!
posted by Artw at 11:35 AM on November 17, 2006
posted by Artw at 11:35 AM on November 17, 2006
Плиз тайп ин Рашен.
I only know a bit of spoken russian, mind translating that for me? Paldies.
posted by squeak at 11:36 AM on November 17, 2006
I only know a bit of spoken russian, mind translating that for me? Paldies.
posted by squeak at 11:36 AM on November 17, 2006
Why pick one if you can have 'em all in one sick smoothie? Hemoclysm explained.
posted by Bravocharlie at 11:38 AM on November 17, 2006
posted by Bravocharlie at 11:38 AM on November 17, 2006
Squak, it says "please type in Russian", it should've read пожалуйста напишите на русском языке
posted by Bravocharlie at 11:42 AM on November 17, 2006
posted by Bravocharlie at 11:42 AM on November 17, 2006
Ironmouth:
By comparison, the Soviets built 34,000 T-34's in the period 1940-1944. Those 4,000 Shermans did very little for the Soviets.
4000/34000 = 11.8%.
11.8%>>very little.
posted by Mister_A at 11:46 AM on November 17, 2006
By comparison, the Soviets built 34,000 T-34's in the period 1940-1944. Those 4,000 Shermans did very little for the Soviets.
4000/34000 = 11.8%.
11.8%>>very little.
posted by Mister_A at 11:46 AM on November 17, 2006
squeak: no russian involved, unfortunately. only cyrrillic.
Krrrlson wins.
posted by acid freaking on the kitty at 12:54 PM on November 17, 2006
Krrrlson wins.
posted by acid freaking on the kitty at 12:54 PM on November 17, 2006
History is written by the winners.
You haven't looked around a university history department. More often than not, history is written by the wieners.
posted by pracowity at 1:03 PM on November 17, 2006 [3 favorites]
You haven't looked around a university history department. More often than not, history is written by the wieners.
posted by pracowity at 1:03 PM on November 17, 2006 [3 favorites]
Few things will piss off an American warhawk more than telling him that America's participation in the European Theatre was seriously overstated.
Without the US, the European war might have lasted another few months or a year, and the USSR would have, afterwards, expanded its reach further West. The US propaganda machine is so pervasive that much of the world thinks that the US won the war single-handedly. Given, they kicked ass in the Pacific. But in Europe? Thanks for the help, but we'd have made it without you, too.
posted by solid-one-love at 1:03 PM on November 17, 2006
Without the US, the European war might have lasted another few months or a year, and the USSR would have, afterwards, expanded its reach further West. The US propaganda machine is so pervasive that much of the world thinks that the US won the war single-handedly. Given, they kicked ass in the Pacific. But in Europe? Thanks for the help, but we'd have made it without you, too.
posted by solid-one-love at 1:03 PM on November 17, 2006
It fought well in a conflict that it was bound to lose. Don't forget also that the great mass of Japanese Army strength was in Manchuria--where it was crushed by the vastly superior Red Army in August, 1945.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:22 AM EST on November 17
The Russians engaged the Japanese for a few days before the surrender, then promptly ransacked Manchuria for anything and everything bolted down or not. As well as invading and taking the Kuril Islands. They played little to no role in the defeat of the Japanese Empire. Heck, a Non-Aggression Treaty had existed between the two up until the Soviet attack at the end.
The whole reason for the Japanese troops massed in Manchuria and China was due to the Chinese forces, which when combined, were equal in number.
The Soviets played a critical role in the war, but they did not win it for us. Lets also not forget about the Soviet indulgence in Poland in 1939, as well as its first aborted attempt to invade Finland without provocation. As well as the Katyn Forest Massacre, which the Soviets tried to pin on the Nazis.
posted by Atreides at 1:09 PM on November 17, 2006
posted by Ironmouth at 11:22 AM EST on November 17
The Russians engaged the Japanese for a few days before the surrender, then promptly ransacked Manchuria for anything and everything bolted down or not. As well as invading and taking the Kuril Islands. They played little to no role in the defeat of the Japanese Empire. Heck, a Non-Aggression Treaty had existed between the two up until the Soviet attack at the end.
The whole reason for the Japanese troops massed in Manchuria and China was due to the Chinese forces, which when combined, were equal in number.
The Soviets played a critical role in the war, but they did not win it for us. Lets also not forget about the Soviet indulgence in Poland in 1939, as well as its first aborted attempt to invade Finland without provocation. As well as the Katyn Forest Massacre, which the Soviets tried to pin on the Nazis.
posted by Atreides at 1:09 PM on November 17, 2006
"Those 4,000 Shermans did very little for the Soviets."
????!!!!
4,000 tanks is significant - even by WWII standards.
"Few things will piss off an American warhawk more than telling him that America's participation in the European Theatre was seriously overstated."
Funny, I was thinking the same thing last week while my wife's elderly grandfather was telling me how cold he was during the Battle of The Bulge and how it seemed like it would never end.
posted by MikeMc at 1:47 PM on November 17, 2006
????!!!!
4,000 tanks is significant - even by WWII standards.
"Few things will piss off an American warhawk more than telling him that America's participation in the European Theatre was seriously overstated."
Funny, I was thinking the same thing last week while my wife's elderly grandfather was telling me how cold he was during the Battle of The Bulge and how it seemed like it would never end.
posted by MikeMc at 1:47 PM on November 17, 2006
But in Europe? Thanks for the help, but we'd have made it without you, too.
What? Dude, you're Canadian. Yeah, I know, Juno beach, blah, blah, but still. Not European.
posted by Snyder at 1:54 PM on November 17, 2006
What? Dude, you're Canadian. Yeah, I know, Juno beach, blah, blah, but still. Not European.
posted by Snyder at 1:54 PM on November 17, 2006
Stalin knew what was going on in the Siberian camps. No doubt about it--remember, he had been an inmate in one under the Tsarist government.
Don't be ridiculous. Here's Uncle Joe's description of doing time in Siberia:
As for Norman "Poland is the center of the universe" Davies, he's written a book on WWII that's currently being plugged. Woo-hoo.
posted by languagehat at 2:18 PM on November 17, 2006
Don't be ridiculous. Here's Uncle Joe's description of doing time in Siberia:
There were some nice fellows among the criminals during my exile. I hung around mostly with the criminals. I remember we used to stop at the saloons in town. We'd see who among us had a rouble or two, then we'd hold our money up to the window, order something, and drink every kopeck we had. One day I would pay, the next someone else would pay and so on, in turn. These criminals were nice, salt-of-the-earth fellows. But there were lots of rats among the political convicts. They once organized a comrades' court and put me on trial for drinking with the criminal convicts, which they charged was an offence.(You can see foreshadowing there of his future lenience towards criminals and viciousness towards political prisoners in the Gulag.) And here's a description of his next spell in Siberia, from Robert Conquest's Stalin: Breaker of Nations (pp. 46-47):
There, billeted in local homes with a government allowance sufficient for board and lodging, he spent much of the time reading and writing... [He wrote cocky letters to Lenin:] These letters had been intercepted and copied by the Okhrana [the Czarist political police], and supervision of his exile became stricter. However, he was released on the expiry of his sentence in June 1911...Yup, sounds just like Kolyma to me.
As for Norman "Poland is the center of the universe" Davies, he's written a book on WWII that's currently being plugged. Woo-hoo.
posted by languagehat at 2:18 PM on November 17, 2006
thanks bravocharlie and acid freaking on the kitty, reread my last comment ;)
posted by squeak at 2:20 PM on November 17, 2006
posted by squeak at 2:20 PM on November 17, 2006
Hactar writes "When I visited the military museum in either in St. Petersburg or Moscow (can't remember now) WWII was called something along the lines of 'The Great War in Defense of the Motherland.'"
It's typically called the "Great Patriotic War" in Russia.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:25 PM on November 17, 2006
It's typically called the "Great Patriotic War" in Russia.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:25 PM on November 17, 2006
Germany invaded the Soviet Union with 166 divisions on June 22, 1941. Meanwhile, the Afrika Korps had two German divisions and eight Italian divisions.
The Soviets had already stopped the Germans at Stalingrad by the time the Allies landed in North Africa on November 6, 1942, and the Soviets counter-attacked on November 19. Operation Torch was in response to the Soviets pressing the British and Americans for a second front to pressure the Germans, but the Germans had alrady reached their high-water mark on the Eastern Front. Germany's last major offensive in the East, at Kursk, was in July 1943.
On D-Day (June 6, 1944), the Allies invaded with 39 divisions. The Germans had 58 divisions in France, Belgium and Holland; they had 239 divisions on the Eastern Front. (Map of the Eastern Front in April 1944.)
The Allies adopted a "Germany First" strategy at the Arcadia Conference in December 1941-January 1942.
Incorrect on several counts. France surrendered to Germany in June 1940. Vichy France collaborated with Germany. Germany occupied Vichy France as a defensive measure in November 1942, after the Operation Torch landings in North Africa. Germany didn't do much strategic bombing other than The Blitz; they either bombed airfields during offensives or terror bombed cities. Luftwaffe in the East 1941-1945 Besides, the Soviet Union did a massive evacuation of their industry to the rear in 1941.
Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks: The World War II Memoirs of Hero of the Soviet Union Dmitriy Loza (brief review)
Speaking of World War II and Iraq, later this month the war in Iraq will have lasted longer than the United States involvement in World War II.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:37 PM on November 17, 2006 [1 favorite]
The Soviets had already stopped the Germans at Stalingrad by the time the Allies landed in North Africa on November 6, 1942, and the Soviets counter-attacked on November 19. Operation Torch was in response to the Soviets pressing the British and Americans for a second front to pressure the Germans, but the Germans had alrady reached their high-water mark on the Eastern Front. Germany's last major offensive in the East, at Kursk, was in July 1943.
On D-Day (June 6, 1944), the Allies invaded with 39 divisions. The Germans had 58 divisions in France, Belgium and Holland; they had 239 divisions on the Eastern Front. (Map of the Eastern Front in April 1944.)
In September 1944, no more than 700,000 German troops confronted the Western Allies. On the eastern front, 4.3 million Axis troops were deployed against the Soviet army. Even by the beginning of 1945, 68.5% of Germany's 5.4 million troops were deployed on the eastern front.The Japanese had 2,000,000 troops in China. "More Japanese troops were quartered in China than deployed elsewhere in the Pacific Theater during the war."
The Nazi command suffered its heaviest losses on the Soviet-German front: more than 75% of its officers and troops, 75% of its tanks and aircraft, 74% of its artillery.
FYI, we were also fighting Japan.
The Allies adopted a "Germany First" strategy at the Arcadia Conference in December 1941-January 1942.
Well, let's think about that: if we had not gone into France, Hitler would have had the whole country of France to serve as a source for war material and industry. Instead, he got nothing. We also crippled their air power on the continent. We bombed at will, and the Germans could have bombed the fuck out of Russia if we hadn't taken away air supremacy.
Incorrect on several counts. France surrendered to Germany in June 1940. Vichy France collaborated with Germany. Germany occupied Vichy France as a defensive measure in November 1942, after the Operation Torch landings in North Africa. Germany didn't do much strategic bombing other than The Blitz; they either bombed airfields during offensives or terror bombed cities. Luftwaffe in the East 1941-1945 Besides, the Soviet Union did a massive evacuation of their industry to the rear in 1941.
Between July and November 1941, 1523 industrial enterprises, including more than 1,360 large plants, were evacuated to the rear--226 to the Volga region, 667 to the Urals, 244 to western Siberia, 78 to eastern Siberia, and 308 to Kazakhstan and Central Asia.Trucks and locomotives were probably more significant than the Shermans. The US sent about 375,000 trucks and 48,000 Jeeps to the Soviet Union via Lend Lease.
Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks: The World War II Memoirs of Hero of the Soviet Union Dmitriy Loza (brief review)
Speaking of World War II and Iraq, later this month the war in Iraq will have lasted longer than the United States involvement in World War II.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:37 PM on November 17, 2006 [1 favorite]
What? Dude, you're Canadian.
"We" as in "We Allies", not "We Europeans."
posted by solid-one-love at 3:50 PM on November 17, 2006
"We" as in "We Allies", not "We Europeans."
posted by solid-one-love at 3:50 PM on November 17, 2006
The Allies did not land 39 divisions on D-Day, of course. They landed elements of 6. 39 was the final number of divisions involved. But the rest of what you said is right on.
The Jeeps and locomotives are important, and often overlooked were the boots. A large proportion of Red Army boots were made in U.S.A.
U.S. trucks were also important. I remember reading a German officer's account of finding a Red army train parked on a siding filled with Studebaker trucks.
But in the end, it was the Soviet forces which defeated the Red Army. I'm a huge patriot, but I have no problem admitting that the Russians did the heavy lifting in the war.
4000 tanks isn't much, especially when you think of the huge numbers the Soviets used and the fact that their tanks esp. the T-34, were much better than anything the U.S. ever put on the battlefield.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:04 PM on November 17, 2006
The Jeeps and locomotives are important, and often overlooked were the boots. A large proportion of Red Army boots were made in U.S.A.
U.S. trucks were also important. I remember reading a German officer's account of finding a Red army train parked on a siding filled with Studebaker trucks.
But in the end, it was the Soviet forces which defeated the Red Army. I'm a huge patriot, but I have no problem admitting that the Russians did the heavy lifting in the war.
4000 tanks isn't much, especially when you think of the huge numbers the Soviets used and the fact that their tanks esp. the T-34, were much better than anything the U.S. ever put on the battlefield.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:04 PM on November 17, 2006
Actually without being all rah rah rah for the yanks and their weirdo right wing theories I have to say that I'm quite glad that they got involved and that we didn't all end up speaking Russian.
Of course if they hadn't that whole cold war thing probably wouldn't have gone that well for them.
posted by Artw at 4:06 PM on November 17, 2006
Of course if they hadn't that whole cold war thing probably wouldn't have gone that well for them.
posted by Artw at 4:06 PM on November 17, 2006
It's a sad fact that there's enough evil in the world to go around. To wit, Hitler and Stalin were both horrible murderers. And if Hitler had ruled for decades like Stalin, he'd probably give the 50 million number a good run. But if we must quanitfy genocide (as is necessary sometimes), Stalin takes the bloody cake.
There's lots of anger tied up in all of this, but I don't understand why pointing out that Stalin killed more people than Hitler is read as being tantamount to Holocaust denial. Absolutist ideologies tend to get lots of people killed, always. And nobody would excuse John Wayne Gacey simply because he didn't have as many victims and Jeffrey Dahmer (or did I get that backwards?).
posted by bardic at 4:07 PM on November 17, 2006
There's lots of anger tied up in all of this, but I don't understand why pointing out that Stalin killed more people than Hitler is read as being tantamount to Holocaust denial. Absolutist ideologies tend to get lots of people killed, always. And nobody would excuse John Wayne Gacey simply because he didn't have as many victims and Jeffrey Dahmer (or did I get that backwards?).
posted by bardic at 4:07 PM on November 17, 2006
No one has to fuck around with the definition of "killed" to get the body counts for Gacey or Dahmer.
posted by Artw at 4:09 PM on November 17, 2006
posted by Artw at 4:09 PM on November 17, 2006
Note that the "other tanks" reference by ArtW comes to 106,334 armored fighting vehicles manufactured by the Soviets during the war. Adding 4000 Shermans means very little, especially when you consider that Soviet tanks were far, far superior to the Sherman, which the Germans called the Zippo for its propensity to burst into flames on account of its aviation gas powered engine. The T-34 ran on diesel.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:12 PM on November 17, 2006
posted by Ironmouth at 4:12 PM on November 17, 2006
Stalin did not commit genocide, bardic. Genocide is the destruction of a race. Gen=meaning genetic group. Stalin was scum, but his killings were not genocide. That's the key difference. Genocide is worse, because there's no logic at all to it. Its just on account of race. Stalin had other purposes he was trying to achieve, none of which were justified, but he was not killing for killing's sake.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:15 PM on November 17, 2006
posted by Ironmouth at 4:15 PM on November 17, 2006
I very much doubt Tiger crews were shitting themselves at the prospect of fighting shermans.
Of course they all ran out of fuel and got blown up by P-51Ds before tank superiority was much of an issue.
posted by Artw at 4:17 PM on November 17, 2006
Of course they all ran out of fuel and got blown up by P-51Ds before tank superiority was much of an issue.
posted by Artw at 4:17 PM on November 17, 2006
Stalin did not commit genocide
Tell that to Ukrainian peasants.
FWIW, I'm a pragmatist by temperment and a Pragmatist in philosophical terms, but please put this to rest. Most serious historians have.
To quote Mr. Mackey -- Hitler and Stalin were both bad, mkay? Hitler was certainly less guarded about this goals, but Stalin's whole demeanor (the humor, the bad jokes, the drinking) was, arguably, a simple bit of cover. He knew exactly what was going on when the peasants were resorting to cannibalism. He knew exactly what was going on in Siberia.
As for "Hitler was worse because he killed solely based on race"? Please, you've heard of the Plot Against theDoctors Jews, correct?
posted by bardic at 4:25 PM on November 17, 2006
Tell that to Ukrainian peasants.
FWIW, I'm a pragmatist by temperment and a Pragmatist in philosophical terms, but please put this to rest. Most serious historians have.
To quote Mr. Mackey -- Hitler and Stalin were both bad, mkay? Hitler was certainly less guarded about this goals, but Stalin's whole demeanor (the humor, the bad jokes, the drinking) was, arguably, a simple bit of cover. He knew exactly what was going on when the peasants were resorting to cannibalism. He knew exactly what was going on in Siberia.
As for "Hitler was worse because he killed solely based on race"? Please, you've heard of the Plot Against the
posted by bardic at 4:25 PM on November 17, 2006
(Race is actually vitally crucial to understanding Stalin and his power. His hatred of Jews is obvious, but his own attempts to obscure his Georgian heritage are worthy of note, while at the same time both using and abusing "Russianess" to his own ends at various times. Complicated stuff, no doubt. But like I said previously, there's enough evil in the world to go around. To call what Stalin did "genocide" hardly demeans the term.)
posted by bardic at 4:32 PM on November 17, 2006
posted by bardic at 4:32 PM on November 17, 2006
Bardic - So why exactly is Stalin being worse than Hitler such a big deal for you guys?
posted by Artw at 4:32 PM on November 17, 2006
posted by Artw at 4:32 PM on November 17, 2006
Because it's a fact. Human life should be treated with dignity, across lines of race and religion. Stalin abused this principle 25-40 million times. Hitler did it 7 million times. And thankfullly ruled for years rather than decades, or else things might have been different.
More simply, if what Stalin did to his own people isn't genocide, you're really quick to water down that word.
posted by bardic at 4:38 PM on November 17, 2006
More simply, if what Stalin did to his own people isn't genocide, you're really quick to water down that word.
posted by bardic at 4:38 PM on November 17, 2006
Hmm... I'd actually disagree with you (25 years of Hitler would be incalculably worse than 25 years of Stalin) but I see you have a point. And I think everybody here is in agreement that they were very, very bad people.
What I'm curious about is WHY is this such an emotive issue for you guys (and I'm being presumtive here and assuming thjat you fall into the category "conservative American who is a frequent poster to internet communities". Forgive me if I'm wrong) and why you feel the need to raise it again and again and again (frequentlly presented as if Stalin being a bad man was some kind of closely guarded secret or something).
posted by Artw at 4:51 PM on November 17, 2006
What I'm curious about is WHY is this such an emotive issue for you guys (and I'm being presumtive here and assuming thjat you fall into the category "conservative American who is a frequent poster to internet communities". Forgive me if I'm wrong) and why you feel the need to raise it again and again and again (frequentlly presented as if Stalin being a bad man was some kind of closely guarded secret or something).
posted by Artw at 4:51 PM on November 17, 2006
seems like one of those things where people feel they need to keep repeating it, because everytime they say it, someone jumps in with, What?!
posted by cell divide at 4:59 PM on November 17, 2006
posted by cell divide at 4:59 PM on November 17, 2006
Well, while it's macabre to admit, there weren't many Jews left in Western Europe for Hilter to kill.
and I'm being presumtive here and assuming thjat you fall into the category "conservative American who is a frequent poster to internet communities".
Lol. Feel free to check out my posting history.
I don't think you have to be Norman Finkelstein to realize that to focus only on the attrocities of Hitler upon the Jews is to miss out on the attrocities of Stalin (and Tojo and Mussolini for that matter). People in power who slaughter millions are bad, mkay? And it wasn't just happening in Western Europe, but around the globe during the 1930's and 1940's. No single race or religion has cornered the market on suffering for ever and ever is all I'm trying to say. There's enough human history to indicate this, unfortunately.
So there. I've invoked Finkelstein. Does that mean I'm the anti-Godwin or something?
posted by bardic at 4:59 PM on November 17, 2006
and I'm being presumtive here and assuming thjat you fall into the category "conservative American who is a frequent poster to internet communities".
Lol. Feel free to check out my posting history.
I don't think you have to be Norman Finkelstein to realize that to focus only on the attrocities of Hitler upon the Jews is to miss out on the attrocities of Stalin (and Tojo and Mussolini for that matter). People in power who slaughter millions are bad, mkay? And it wasn't just happening in Western Europe, but around the globe during the 1930's and 1940's. No single race or religion has cornered the market on suffering for ever and ever is all I'm trying to say. There's enough human history to indicate this, unfortunately.
So there. I've invoked Finkelstein. Does that mean I'm the anti-Godwin or something?
posted by bardic at 4:59 PM on November 17, 2006
Okay, but where does the assumption that no-one is aware that Stalin was a very bad man come from? Because it seems to me that everyone is very aware of that, here at least, even if they disagree on teh relative-level-of-badness.
posted by Artw at 5:34 PM on November 17, 2006
posted by Artw at 5:34 PM on November 17, 2006
More simply, if what Stalin did to his own people isn't genocide, you're really quick to water down that word.
Genocide is a term defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group
Were Stalin's actions really genocide in this definition. He just killed anyone he perceived to be his political enemy, not members of any particular ethnic or other group.
posted by caddis at 5:35 PM on November 17, 2006
Genocide is a term defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group
Were Stalin's actions really genocide in this definition. He just killed anyone he perceived to be his political enemy, not members of any particular ethnic or other group.
posted by caddis at 5:35 PM on November 17, 2006
What I'm curious about is WHY is this such an emotive issue for you guys (and I'm being presumtive here and assuming thjat you fall into the category "conservative American who is a frequent poster to internet communities".
Well, that's a stupid assumption. I'm an anarchist who migrated from the Left, and I assure you I have no connection with the category "conservative American who is a frequent poster to internet communities," and yet somehow I care about fact. Stalin killed a lot more people than Hitler: fact. People get much more wrought up about Hitler's killings for various historical reasons: fact. Therefore there tends to be a disconnect between people's historical understanding and the facts, and those of us who care about historical accuracy are constantly in the position of repeating the annoying facts. You can call it an "emotive issue" if that makes you feel better.
posted by languagehat at 5:38 PM on November 17, 2006
Well, that's a stupid assumption. I'm an anarchist who migrated from the Left, and I assure you I have no connection with the category "conservative American who is a frequent poster to internet communities," and yet somehow I care about fact. Stalin killed a lot more people than Hitler: fact. People get much more wrought up about Hitler's killings for various historical reasons: fact. Therefore there tends to be a disconnect between people's historical understanding and the facts, and those of us who care about historical accuracy are constantly in the position of repeating the annoying facts. You can call it an "emotive issue" if that makes you feel better.
posted by languagehat at 5:38 PM on November 17, 2006
OK, he went after the Jews and Ukranians, among others, but mostly it was the "malcontents."
posted by caddis at 5:39 PM on November 17, 2006
posted by caddis at 5:39 PM on November 17, 2006
Well, I got prickly at Ironmouth's assertion that what Stalin did wasn't "genocide." To me, that smacks of trying to lesson his evil in comparison to Hitler's, which is not only disingenuous, but factually incorrect. There have been some really good books about Stalin in the last 20 years that have put to rest the notion that "Uncle Joe" was sort of a more evil version of Reagan -- asleep at the wheel, oblivious, really not responsible for all the horrible things the people under him did. And although he killed millions of more people than Hitler, well, they were from different religious and ethnic groups, so it wasn't as calculatedly evil as the Holocaust.
Simply put, that's total bunk. I'm happy to know that if there is a hell, Stalin and Hitler are both being gang-raped with feces-encrusted pitchforks, and trying to quantify which one was worse is somewhat absurd. However, that's exactly what other people are doing when they try to parse words so that while Stalin demonstrably killed more people than Hitler, but it wasn't a genocide per se.
posted by bardic at 5:43 PM on November 17, 2006
Simply put, that's total bunk. I'm happy to know that if there is a hell, Stalin and Hitler are both being gang-raped with feces-encrusted pitchforks, and trying to quantify which one was worse is somewhat absurd. However, that's exactly what other people are doing when they try to parse words so that while Stalin demonstrably killed more people than Hitler, but it wasn't a genocide per se.
posted by bardic at 5:43 PM on November 17, 2006
Actually, a better place to start would be the Pogroms in general. Doctor's Plot came relatively late.
But honestly, look at what you're doing here -- ameliorating Stalin's demonstrable anti-semetism by saying that he wasn't as effective at putting it into practice as Hilter. The poor dear.
posted by bardic at 5:52 PM on November 17, 2006
But honestly, look at what you're doing here -- ameliorating Stalin's demonstrable anti-semetism by saying that he wasn't as effective at putting it into practice as Hilter. The poor dear.
posted by bardic at 5:52 PM on November 17, 2006
But the real crime against humanity here has been my spelling, and for that I apologize.
posted by bardic at 5:59 PM on November 17, 2006
posted by bardic at 5:59 PM on November 17, 2006
on that last point, you and me both; Matt, bring back the spellchecker, please.
I know of the Pogroms. Still, Hitler took genocide to an extreme. He wasn't alone, ask the Armenians, but Stalin was an all inclusive, multi-racial, multi-whatever, kind of killer. This is not to detract from his overall reputation for evil, for which he has few competitors. Hitler's evil, at least his mass killing of innocents, was very focus by ethnicity, whereas Stalin was less focused and in his way more evil in his willingness to kill anyone for his own gains.
posted by caddis at 6:21 PM on November 17, 2006
I know of the Pogroms. Still, Hitler took genocide to an extreme. He wasn't alone, ask the Armenians, but Stalin was an all inclusive, multi-racial, multi-whatever, kind of killer. This is not to detract from his overall reputation for evil, for which he has few competitors. Hitler's evil, at least his mass killing of innocents, was very focus by ethnicity, whereas Stalin was less focused and in his way more evil in his willingness to kill anyone for his own gains.
posted by caddis at 6:21 PM on November 17, 2006
Of course they all ran out of fuel and got blown up by P-51Ds before tank superiority was much of an issue.
Not to nitpick, but it was the p47. The west's main ground attack fighter at the time. The majority of the p51's duties (and indeed, it's intended purpose) were fighter escorts for bomber groups and air superiority missions.
/nitpick
posted by IronLizard at 6:35 PM on November 17, 2006
When I visited the military museum in either in St. Petersburg or Moscow (can't remember now) WWII was called something along the lines of "The Great War in Defense of the Motherland." At least that's how my uncle, a fluent speaker and professor of Russian and history translated it. (Memory is somewhat vague, this was back in the summer of 2000)
Yes, and for the Russians this war was 1941-1945. Always made me chuckle. I remember arguing with an old Russian woman that the war started in 1939, when Stalin and Hitler invaded Poland.
Just got a blank stare. No, no, the part where we were Hitler's buddies doesn't count. Go figure.
posted by Brave New Meatbomb at 7:24 PM on November 17, 2006
Yes, and for the Russians this war was 1941-1945. Always made me chuckle. I remember arguing with an old Russian woman that the war started in 1939, when Stalin and Hitler invaded Poland.
Just got a blank stare. No, no, the part where we were Hitler's buddies doesn't count. Go figure.
posted by Brave New Meatbomb at 7:24 PM on November 17, 2006
My genocide is bigger than your genocide.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:27 PM on November 17, 2006
posted by five fresh fish at 10:27 PM on November 17, 2006
Genocide is worse, because there's no logic at all to it. Its just on account of race
oh, there was a definite 'logic' to the holocaust. Your basic ethnic cleansing, with Hitler taking the opportunity to solve what right-wing Europe saw as the Juden Fragen "so oder so" [his words].
The Communists, gays, Roma, genetically-challenged Germans. . . were all on the list for elimination. . .
This is probably skating on dangerous ground rhetorically, but IMV the average German treated with the average Jew just about how the average [idiot, but I repeat myself] American relates to the prototypical resident [observant] Muslim today. . . suspicion, intolerance, and a wish that they would take their alien belief system and get the hell back to where-ever they came from.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 3:54 AM on November 18, 2006
oh, there was a definite 'logic' to the holocaust. Your basic ethnic cleansing, with Hitler taking the opportunity to solve what right-wing Europe saw as the Juden Fragen "so oder so" [his words].
The Communists, gays, Roma, genetically-challenged Germans. . . were all on the list for elimination. . .
This is probably skating on dangerous ground rhetorically, but IMV the average German treated with the average Jew just about how the average [idiot, but I repeat myself] American relates to the prototypical resident [observant] Muslim today. . . suspicion, intolerance, and a wish that they would take their alien belief system and get the hell back to where-ever they came from.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 3:54 AM on November 18, 2006
to focus only on the attrocities of Hitler upon the Jews is to miss out on the attrocities of Stalin (and Tojo and Mussolini for that matter)
It also misses out on Hitler's atrocities against non-Jews. For example, the Germans killed over 3 million Soviet POWs.
for the Russians this war was 1941-1945
That leaves out their invasion of Poland in September 1939 (some interesting photos of German and Soviet soldiers meeting in Poland), invasion of Finland in November 1939, and occupations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in June 1940.
Can you name the five biggest battles of the war in Europe? Or, better still, the ten biggest battles?
I'm not going to try to research this, but I'd bet they're all on the Eastern Front, and guess Moscow, Stalingrad, Leningrad, Kursk, and Berlin.
Can you name the nationality which lost the largest number of civilians during the war?
The Soviet Union lost 11,500,000 civilians.
Stalin's death camps killed more people than Hitler's.
"It seems insane, given two nearly incomprehensible events, events that take place outside of the accepted notions of what it is to be human, to say which is worse." From a review of Martin Amis' Koba the Dread, which is an interesting examination of Stalin's atrocities and the popular conceptions of Hitler and Stalin. Don't miss the UK paperback covers's insanely fun photo of Stalin.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:40 AM on November 18, 2006
Every time I start staring at numbers like the above, and every time people start yelling at each other about who's suffered more, I'm reminded of an English Roma saying: "Honky swali mali asbestos." Which, roughly translated, means 'Fuck you Jack, I'm fire-proof.' The Romani population of Eastern Europe was either decimated or up-rooted as a result of 'The Great Devouring,' and while they remember, they do not dwell. The Second World War is obsessed over by most of what we would consider the civilized world; the Roma ignore it. It's common-place to say that the problem with the world today is that nobody knows their history. Sometimes I wonder.
posted by Football Bat at 9:40 AM on November 18, 2006
posted by Football Bat at 9:40 AM on November 18, 2006
"for the Russians this war was 1941-1945"
That leaves out...
Uh, yeah, that was his point.
Football Bat: The Roma fascinate me for exactly that reason. Their fellow wanderers the Jews and Armenians have always been obsessed with their history and lost homelands (re-found in the former case, of course, but the Armenians still gaze longingly at Ararat); the Roma just ignore whatever happened before yesterday. I think it's Isabel Fonseca's Bury Me Standing that has an amazing anecdote about asking a Gypsy where his people were from originally. "Why, Borolenko" (or whatever the name of the miserable Eastern European hamlet they were in was). "No, I mean before you got to Borolenko." Blank look: "We've always been here in Borolenko." An account of the history of the travels of the Roma through the medieval Middle East into Europe met with amused contempt. No, no, you can believe such stories if you like, but we've always been here in Borolenko! And the world would probably be a better, if less interesting, place if everyone had that attitude.
posted by languagehat at 12:25 PM on November 18, 2006
That leaves out...
Uh, yeah, that was his point.
Football Bat: The Roma fascinate me for exactly that reason. Their fellow wanderers the Jews and Armenians have always been obsessed with their history and lost homelands (re-found in the former case, of course, but the Armenians still gaze longingly at Ararat); the Roma just ignore whatever happened before yesterday. I think it's Isabel Fonseca's Bury Me Standing that has an amazing anecdote about asking a Gypsy where his people were from originally. "Why, Borolenko" (or whatever the name of the miserable Eastern European hamlet they were in was). "No, I mean before you got to Borolenko." Blank look: "We've always been here in Borolenko." An account of the history of the travels of the Roma through the medieval Middle East into Europe met with amused contempt. No, no, you can believe such stories if you like, but we've always been here in Borolenko! And the world would probably be a better, if less interesting, place if everyone had that attitude.
posted by languagehat at 12:25 PM on November 18, 2006
History, it is said, is written by the winners. I'd like to suggest it is written by the idiots on the winning side.
Consider that 50% of the people think Saddam caused 9-11 AND 50% think Bush caused it to justify attacking Iraq. Well, that sure adds up to apocalypse.
Re: brutality winning wars. It's interesting that much of the discussion surrounding torture was about how it would impact the future, as in, "if our enemies capture us, we don't want to be tortured." And of course, the only people we're likely to fight are those who wouldn't abide by this anyway.
When Iran gets the bomb, none of this will matter anyway.
posted by tomrac at 3:27 PM on November 18, 2006
Consider that 50% of the people think Saddam caused 9-11 AND 50% think Bush caused it to justify attacking Iraq. Well, that sure adds up to apocalypse.
Re: brutality winning wars. It's interesting that much of the discussion surrounding torture was about how it would impact the future, as in, "if our enemies capture us, we don't want to be tortured." And of course, the only people we're likely to fight are those who wouldn't abide by this anyway.
When Iran gets the bomb, none of this will matter anyway.
posted by tomrac at 3:27 PM on November 18, 2006
I find it amusing that some people are more afraid of Iran having the bomb than they are of Pakistan having it.
posted by lodurr at 2:12 PM on November 19, 2006
posted by lodurr at 2:12 PM on November 19, 2006
What I'm curious about is WHY is this such an emotive issue for you guys
Artw, my in-laws are from Latvia and were witness to what the Germans and the Russians did during that time. Some members of the family were involved in politics under Czar Nicholas, considered bourgeois and/or practising the wrong religion. Some lost their lives because of it, others were sent to german work camps and the lucky ones were eventually able to start a new life in Canada.
(little late but what the hey)
posted by squeak at 3:02 PM on November 19, 2006
Artw, my in-laws are from Latvia and were witness to what the Germans and the Russians did during that time. Some members of the family were involved in politics under Czar Nicholas, considered bourgeois and/or practising the wrong religion. Some lost their lives because of it, others were sent to german work camps and the lucky ones were eventually able to start a new life in Canada.
(little late but what the hey)
posted by squeak at 3:02 PM on November 19, 2006
lodurr, Pakistan already has it so there is less that can be done about it, but more importantly Pakistan is less likely to drop one on Israel.
posted by caddis at 3:18 PM on November 19, 2006
posted by caddis at 3:18 PM on November 19, 2006
... Pakistan already has it ...
...and...? (You may not see a point in worrying about it. You're not really who I'm amused by.)
... Pakistan is less likely to drop one on Israel.
Oh, there's the "and".
My point in response to the "facts on the ground" approach (Pak already has it so why worry) is that Pakistan is a military dictatorship where the military hierarchy is largely comprised of conservative islamists. It's politically unstable. Iran is comparatively stable, politically. They are activist and aggressive and scary as hell as on the ground terrorist promoters, but my sense is that the Iranian ayatollahs are far more conservative in the normal sense of that term than the wahhabi sunnites -- by which I mean, they're less likely to be interested in bathing a holy city in the cleansing fire of Allah's Atoms.
I'm being provocative, sure, and I don't really expect anyone to buy my arguments. But I still find it amusing that we worry so much more about Iran than Pakistan. At least the Iranians are relatively honest about what they're after...
posted by lodurr at 10:37 AM on November 20, 2006
...and...? (You may not see a point in worrying about it. You're not really who I'm amused by.)
... Pakistan is less likely to drop one on Israel.
Oh, there's the "and".
My point in response to the "facts on the ground" approach (Pak already has it so why worry) is that Pakistan is a military dictatorship where the military hierarchy is largely comprised of conservative islamists. It's politically unstable. Iran is comparatively stable, politically. They are activist and aggressive and scary as hell as on the ground terrorist promoters, but my sense is that the Iranian ayatollahs are far more conservative in the normal sense of that term than the wahhabi sunnites -- by which I mean, they're less likely to be interested in bathing a holy city in the cleansing fire of Allah's Atoms.
I'm being provocative, sure, and I don't really expect anyone to buy my arguments. But I still find it amusing that we worry so much more about Iran than Pakistan. At least the Iranians are relatively honest about what they're after...
posted by lodurr at 10:37 AM on November 20, 2006
« Older Sprouts! | I second that emotion Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by orthogonality at 7:18 AM on November 17, 2006