Entrenchment!- A solution to soviet manpower!

[Lokioftheaesir]

Fellows

An objective viewpoint..

Let us simply agree that he germans made many wrong choices and/or turned a blind eye to what..
(by current civilised standards is moraly and ethically wrong) happened in their country.
They can hardly be singled out as pariahs for following in the low ethical and moral tradition established by every other country on earth.
(a tradition that continues to this day)

Look at the wholesale slaughter of peoples in south america under the aegis of the european church. (just S,America for starters)
Or the slaughter of indigenous peoples in north america and australia by white exploiters.
The mass killings under Stalin in the years before WW2.
The general lack of respect for any human life that was not 'moneyed' or 'of class' prevalent across the entire planet for thousands of years before germany was even a nation.

You think Germans had any sort of monopoly on turning the blind eye!!!
A brief reading of history will produce a whole tally of holocausts that the germans had nothing to do with.
What i think is that the world was amazed and fascinated by the German attempt to dominate, we can sit back and babble on about how they did this and that bad thing but the stigmata of the Swastika looms above all this.
The gall of them, the raw power of the hooked cross, the black unform and the panzer. To take on the entire world.
That is why even after nearly 60 years the entire event of the Third Reich catches the imagination
of so many.

Yes, the Nazi system was inherently evil, but it was evil with style.* (If such a subjective concept can be accepted)

Loki

* As opposed to Stalin, who was just plain evil. And thus his mammoth crimes always seem to take second place to Nazi Germany. (if i were to walk out on the street and ask 10 people who was the greatest mass murderer of all time, Hitler or Stalin. I reckon 8 out of 10 would say Hitler.)
As the old political saying goes, perception is more important than reality.

(edit to fix my crappy spelling)

[davewolf]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn
Oh, I don't know, your admission that it your statement was a mistake more or less clears things up about the issue I was responding to..

Ed

I'd like to see that as well. But obviously that won't happen. There are always some last-word-fetishists out there. I came to the conclusion, the best choice is just letting them do whatever they want. Worrying about that is just waste of time and energy.
Don't get me wrong. We think alike about this thread's topic. And a certain person will surely post a reply to that. So what?

Dave

[davewolf]

Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir
Yes, the Nazi system was inherently evil, but it was evil with style.* (If such a subjective concept can be accepted)



* As opposed to Stalin, who was just plain evil. And thus his mammoth crimes always seem to take second place to Nazi Germany. (if i were to walk out on the street and ask 10 people who was the greatest mass murderer of all time, Hitler or Stalin. I reckon 8 out of 10 would say Hitler.)
As the old political saying goes, perception is more important than reality.

Loki
This is no flame or whatever. I'm just curious (again). What kind of style do you mean or what are the differences between Hitler (the Nazis) and Stalin (and his comrades) which you apply on? (I know there were some certain differences. I'd just like to know which of them you'd call 'stylish'.)
Let me repeat: I'm nothing but curious.

Dave

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by davewolf

There are always some last-word-fetishists out there.

Although I try not to be, sometimes I fall into this category when dealing with certain individuals.

But, so what?

I understand what you're saying, but sometimes with some people some things just can't be ignored. The situation would make more sense if you were aware of the history, which goes back to flame wars that preceded your arrival in this group.

[davewolf]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn
Although I try not to be, sometimes I fall into this category when dealing with certain individuals.

Perhaps this is not necessary, even thogh I'd like to mention that I didn't mean you.

I understand what you're saying, but sometimes with some people some things just can't be ignored. The situation would make more sense if you were aware of the history, which goes back to flame wars that preceded your arrival in this group.

Well, yes. I read some posts about - hmm, how to call it without offending anyone? - some 'international differences' when I first entered this forum. Maybe there was even more before that. I don't know.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir

The mass killings under Stalin in the years before WW2.

and after WW2.

You think Germans had any sort of monopoly on turning the blind eye!!!

Well, keep in mind this discussion started out referring to Germny's professional military high command specifically, not Germans in general.

As for domination, its an interesting idea. If you can step back and look at the bigger picture, before Hitler, going back to Alexander the Great, you can, I think, actually sympathise with the German people. They found themselves a fractured sea of medieval kingdoms surrounded by major powers, powers that considered any super-state in the center of the continent a major threat.

Yes, the Nazi system was inherently evil, but it was evil with style.*

Stylish? I'm going to chicken out and leave this one alone.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by davewolf

'international differences'

You're being wonderfully polite today, Dave.

[Lokioftheaesir]

Originally posted by davewolf

Loki
This is no flame or whatever. I'm just curious (again). What kind of style do you mean or what are the differences between Hitler (the Nazis) and Stalin (and his comrades) which you apply on? (I know there were some certain differences. I'd just like to know which of them you'd call 'stylish'.)
And, I have to repeat: I'm nothing but curious.

Dave

Dave.

To answer your question, and Ed's ..."Stylish? I'm going to chicken out and leave this one alone."

Firstly the post was purely objective.

Please understand straight off that evil is evil in my eyes. Nazi instigated evil and Stalins' evil are equal abominations against what i believe are the inherent rights of all peoples. I am firmly in your camp and consider gratuitous violence to be the first and last words of the ignorant, the stupid or moral relativists.

I hesitated a while before i used that word style.
I was sure it would get a comment but thought 'lets see what happens' in the typical manner of LOKI (my namesake):)
This is why, after the statement was "(If such a subjective concept can be accepted)" It was a qualifier on the word style to highlight that the underlying acts of the Nazis were in no way being justified.

The Uniforms, symbols and names connected with the 3rd Reich still have a high recognition factor even after 60 years. Why is this? If i show my nephew a Swastika, recognition is instant. If i show him a Hammer and Sickle i get a blank Look.
Say the word SS and you get a recognition, say NKVD and you get none.
Show the head profile of a german soldier (with helmet) and usually the identification is instant. Show the same of just about any other army and you will get 'a soldier'

A lot of this is because of effective propaganda and the fact that the 3rd Reich was the most powerfull and the hardest to defeat 'bady' that has risen in the world for a long time.
But the Nazi's also knew how to manipulate symbols to strike the greatest recognition in all that came in contact with them. The Deaths head, the SS flashes, the black uniforms, all are still remembered to this day and thus their efforts far exceed their hopes.
The Swastika is the major accepted symbol of white aryan supremacy. Not anything the KKK has come up with. They understood psychology.
They knew what strings to pull in the dark side of the human psyche (beware the dark side, Luke)
This is what i mean by 'style', not classy or refined but simply memorable even after all this time. I can mail order an SS uniform no problem. Can i mail order an NKVD one? Nyet.. (Well maybe i can but certainly not as easily)

All the best

Loki

[davewolf]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn
You're being wonderfully polite today, Dave.

I'm trying...

[Lokioftheaesir]

Dave and Ed

'International differences??',,Oh! you mean..
Oh yes, i see.. (was that subtle enough?)

I'll just keep my head below the lip of trench
here in case someones lightbulb goes off.

Loki

[davewolf]

Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir
'International differences??',,Oh! you mean..
Oh yes, i see.. (was that subtle enough?)

Could become a running gag, always mentioning, well..., ehm..., a certain topic this way...

[Muzrub]

I understand what you're saying, but sometimes with some people some things just can't be ignored. The situation would make more sense if you were aware of the history, which goes back to flame wars that preceded your arrival in this group.

Maybe I am paranoid but what is this in refernce to?

Was it when you flamed me over tarriffs Ed? when you were proved wrong Ed? When you flamed me and I produced the proof that you were in error? and now I feel that you are saying I was flaming am I correct in that assumption?

But I do hope this is not in anyway a reference to myself- but I cannot but feel that it is maybe?.
But I can see Dave is looking for allies while he cries about past misdeeds and complains about a past that wont change and never would have! And Ed attacks myself over one "word".


Other members of this boared have already told me not to reply to what is written here. But I can only see it one way. Ed believes he owns the board and Dave is a member of the lonely hearts band.

I'd like to see that as well. But obviously that won't happen

But I did in that case (the one word arguement!) . But ignore it though it suits you- turn a blind eye, its in your blood!

[davewolf]

Originally posted by Muzrub

But I can see Dave is looking for allies while he cries about past misdeeds and complains about a past that wont change and never would have! And Ed attacks myself over one "word".

Other members of this boared have already told me not to reply to what is written here. But I can only see it one way. Ed believes he owns the board and Dave is a member of the lonely hearts band.

But I did in that case (the one word arguement!) . But ignore it though it suits you- turn a blind eye, its in your blood!

Thanks a lot, lad! Glad to see you still alive!

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Muzrub

Was it when you flamed me over tarriffs Ed? when you were proved wrong Ed? When you flamed me and I produced the proof that you were in error?

You have a strange recollection of what was actually said, and by whom.....

As for "owning" the board, I merely exercise my privilege to question what others say on this board if I feel it warrants a response. If you think I'm abusing my privileges on this board feel free to report me to the Matrix moderators.

[Muzrub]

You have a strange recollection of what was actually said, and by whom.....

Go back and check Ed.

Another member of this board and I had a discussion, I mentioned American Tarriffs on Australian goods, and you said NO- we dont have them.

As it turned out after I provided proof the US did and then you then ceased to reply.

Thats what happened Ed- look it up- if I truely cared I would myself.
So stop distorting the truth!

Sorry Ed I dont run to moderators and your version of the truth is not always correct- as such it is my right and others to say what we wish- though you interperate a negative response to your "truth" as flaming. You have cried about this before in concern to others and myself. Its rather boring.

Thanks a lot, lad! Glad to see you still alive!

Always alive and well! Your self?
:p

[Mark_BookGuy]

This thread goes in a lot of different directions, but here's my two cents worth:

First, the German ad hoc groups were often succesful to a point, but were notorious for grinding up personnel. Their losses were often much higher than established units. This is less a question of entrenchment than command and control, and general desperation of the moment. The 1943 Kharkov attack wasn't exactly ad hoc as it involved a number of divisions. Usually, ad hoc meant small battle groups of battalion size or less. Because of the scale of WIR, you really can't use ad hoc units.

Second, the decision to shift Army Group Center for attacks at Kiev and in the north were greatly debated within the German high command. If you recall, the original German plan was NOT to take Moscow, but to defeat the Soviet armies in the field. I don't think the Kiev decision was a bad one, given the circumstances. The real failure was the massive pre-war intelligence failure and arrogance to properly estimate and understand Soviet resources. Barbarossa accomplished everything it set out to do. The problem, and the original plan recognized this, was that if the Soviets didn't surrender after their armies were defeated, well... beyond here, dragons lay.

Third, Speer's books must be read carefully. He was as self-serving and desperate to cover his attrocities as was Manstein and many others.

Ciao.

[Montenegro]

Well, I am part and parcel to blame for this great discourse (see pages 1 and 2), but I think many have levied critical, good points re Barbarossa, the German High Command, etc. etc.

I will paraphrase Rommel: "...being a soldier meant something again." Versailles and the Allied treatment of the Germans after WWI was a major contributor to the already fomenting nationalism in Germany from 1920 onwards, and as a result, helped fan the flames of WWII. Economy and Colonialismn of the First WW looked like Boy Scout factors compared to the all out wrath that Hitler unleashed on Europe and beyond, and folks, there is blood on a lot of people's hands for that. Perhaps someone from the Western Allied powers might have investigated all those "tractors" being built in the 1930's in Germany or for that matter, stood up to Hitler by let's say, oh, 1938. Unfortunately, hindsight is 20/20. The fact remains that many a German wanted blood and many a German supported Hitler because he, like all leaders of charisma and guile, tells you what you want or need to hear.

As for Barbarossa and the precceeding post: Moscow, for all intents and purposes, was a strategic objective because had the Germans been in a position to actually attack it, it would have been one of the lasts stands of certainly Stalin's regime in Russia, if not the Soviet state as we knew it. Kiev was a costly victory in time and material and had Bock and Guderian had their way, Moscow would have been attacked.

Anywho, this forum is a great way to converse, isn't it???

Regards,

Montenegro

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Mark_BookGuy
the original German plan was NOT to take Moscow, but to defeat the Soviet armies in the field.

No, the original plan was to do both. From Directive #21, "Operation Berbarossa":

"Only after the fulfilment of this first essential task, which must include the occupation of Leningrad and Kronstadt, will the attack be continued with the intention of occupying Moscow, an important center of communications and of the armaments industry."

[Montenegro]

True. Kiev to me was all part of Hitler's war economy tactic, and I use the term tactic VERY loosely in his case. Yet another reason Guderian was strong was that he was one of the few who put it in bold terms for Hitler in July/Aug about the importance of AG Centre driving on to Moscow.

Montenegro

[Ed Cogburn]

(Attention: this is likely to be the continuation of an old flame war, so those with weak constitutions should avoid wasting their time reading this long post and the rest of this thread.)

Originally posted by Muzrub

Go back and check Ed.

I did. As usual you are interpreting things your own way, and as for *me* flaming *you* over tariffs, that's a baldface lie. Anyone who wants to see for themselves can look up the thread "true story about US navy" and go to page 3. This old thread doesn't display correctly anymore so it can be hard to read, but the facts are there. You were the one to bring tariffs up first:

Australia and the US have other issues ie agriculture. Which is a battle of subsidiesed US farmers V's non-subsidiesed Aussie ones. But thats another issue and one I do ot wish to pursue.

My response didn't address tariffs directly, it was reacting to that old tactic of bringing something up then claiming you don't want to talk about it:

I love that tactic! Bring it up out of the blue, state your position, then claim you don't want to pursue it. Ok, you're somewhat wrong, but I won't pursue it either.

You ignored the fact that I wasn't trying to argue with you over tariffs, only your attitude in that thread so far, and finally I said this:

Sigh .... That wasn't my point, Muzrub, I was trying to show that you had already escalated this little argument to a mild personal attack by suggesting your opposition is in an abnormal state of mind, all because of your remark about agricultural subsidies. As best as I can honestly remember, I've never accused someone of being insane, or even just a little paranoid, during an argument, at least not here (I've gotten a lot nastier elsewhere), and I can't see escalating an argument like that when the subject of debate is agricultural subsidies. Is that really worth *us* fighting over? Let our governments fight over that, we can surely come up with more emotional, engaging, important things to argue about, can't we?

Subsidies wasn't the real issue anyway, it was just the content of an assertion set forth in a way I've seen many times before, yes, the "tactic", that is what I objected to, and you answered my objection by questioning my sanity in a cute little way. Definitely extra points for cuteness. No matter how mild though, if you're really trying to stop an argument before it gets started, its a good idea not to claim your opposition is nuts, even a little nuts, because they objected to something you said, that generally doesn't help.

You also contradicted yourself, as you clearly did decide to pursue the subsidies argument with a direct and detailed response when 2 posts ago you said you didn't want to pursue it. Again, we're back to that tactic, something I've seen many times, like I said, and in so many of those cases the author ends up wanting to pursue it after all. If you are willing to argue about it, fine, there's nothing wrong with that, but don't make the cute remark about about not wanting to pursue it after bringing it up. That's the kind of tactic people use to tweak their opponent's nose when they really do want to keep an argument going, or start an entirely brand new one. Unfortunately, right or wrong, good or bad, I'm the kind of person who goes into skirmish mode when that tactic is used on me. I'm partly responsible for the length of this thread, I know, but not totally responsible, paranoid or not.

The only point I would have made about subsidies was all nations have agricultural subsidies, its a matter of degrees and specific products. Europe, and France in particular, subsidize their farmers much more than the US does. US farmers are less subsidized than most, except for sugar farmers who have a nice scam going on at the expense of the American taxpayer. Its an issue I've heard about at least twice. So as far as that would-be argument goes, I agree with you. America is doing some double-talk on this score.

You remember this Muzrub? At the end there I actually agreed with you about tariffs! Where's the flame from me to you about tariffs Muzrub? You couldn't quit either, you just kept ranting along until some posts later you said

"I have another reason to dislike your people!".

That pretty much sums things up Muzrub. You have problem with the US and Americans, your own statements reinforce this, and I'm not the only one who noticed. You want to start this all over again, I'm more than ready to oblige. Fire at will.