The Day of Victory

Mist · Post by **Mist** » Wed May 09, 2001 6:22 pm

Today Russia and most of republucs of former USSR celebrate The Day of Victory.
Exactly 56 years ago, German officier had signed act of capitulation of German Armed Forces to Soviet Union. I want to congratulate everyone with this remarkable date. Let us remember about all those innumerable innocent victims who suffered and died during this war and all those soldiers who gave away their lives on this war. I hope that real truth about this war will never be forgotten.
At last, I want to ask everyone. When do you guys celebrate similrar date in your countries and what is its name?

[ May 09, 2001: Message edited by: Mist ]

Svar · Post by **Svar** » Wed May 09, 2001 7:57 pm

Originally posted by Mist:
Today Russia and most of republucs of former USSR celebrate The Day of Victory.
Exactly 56 years ago, German officier had signed act of capitulation of German Armed Forces to Soviet Union. I want to congratulate everyone with this remarkable date. Let us remember about all those innumerable innocent victims who suffered and died during this war and all those soldiers who gave away their lives on this war. I hope that real truth about this war will never be forgotten.
At last, I want to ask everyone. When do you guys celebrate similrar date in your countries and what is its name?

[ May 09, 2001: Message edited by: Mist ]

Mist,

In the United States, it is celebrated on May 8 I think and it is known as VE Day which stands for Victory in Europe Day. It is not a national holiday here. Congratulations to the peoples of the former Republics of the Soviet Union in celebrating their defeat of Nazi Germany. The world is a better place today because of their sacrifice.

Svar

Kuniworth · Post by **Kuniworth** » Thu May 10, 2001 3:05 am

Nowhere is the memory of the war so strong as in former Sovietunion. My russian girlfriend celebrated today by buying a bottle of wine. This is a very important day. In Sweden 7th may(I think) usually is considered the date when the war in europe ended. But its not a big thing, we are ashamed of the past. And we should be, in the end what does it matters if the soldier that dies comes from russia, us, gb or sweden if it helps the world become a better place?

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Thu May 10, 2001 4:04 pm

Originally posted by Kuniworth:
we are ashamed of the past

This is new to me. What did Sweden do to be ashamed of?

Yogi Yohan · Post by **Yogi Yohan** » Thu May 10, 2001 5:15 pm

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

This is new to me. What did Sweden do to be ashamed of?

Nothing at all. Just sat by watching others die to defend our freedom, while we kept selling iron ore to the Germans and allowing them to transit troops through our country. OK, we were to weak at the time to hold our own, but being unprepared is never an excuse. One of my favourite quotes is "If you want peace, prepare for war". A quote lost on my country...

jager506 · Post by **jager506** » Fri May 11, 2001 5:49 pm

Especially to Yogi and all other Swedes:

Call me a devil's advocate and a supreme pragmatist, but I think what Sweden (and Switzerland, Spain and Portugal) did during WWII was brilliant in terms of self-preservation and realpolitik. IMHO, there's nothing to feel ashamed about. No amount of preparation could have prevented a German victory had Hitler decided to invade any of the remaining neutral countries.

Look at what happened to Yugoslavia. They tried to stand up to Hitler and got blitzed and the occupation of their country was extremely harsh.

It's easy and idealistic to say it's morally wrong to collaborate with the 'devil', but if it means sparing countless thousands/millions of your own countrymen suffering AND more importantly, especially if military resistance is DOOMED to failure anyway. It's different if Britain had decided to call it quits. Britain had her empire and had the means to ward off Germany (with US help) but after France fell, no other European country could have resisted the Germans successfully during the period in question.

From a different perspective, most of Asia didn't have that option when Japan did its own blitzkrieg in 1941-1942. Thailand did a similar thing by becoming a virtual Japanese satellite, allowing them transit for troops, basing facilities etc. What the Japanese did to POWs/innocent civilians is well documented - to this day, there are many who still refuse to buy/eat Japanese products.

And today, a short 50 or so years later, Japan is a close US ally (along with South Korea and Taiwan) to keep China in check. That's why international relations is such a fascinating topic.

Kuniworth · Post by **Kuniworth** » Fri May 11, 2001 6:08 pm

Originally posted by jager506:
Especially to Yogi and all other Swedes:

Call me a devil's advocate and a supreme pragmatist, but I think what Sweden (and Switzerland, Spain and Portugal) did during WWII was brilliant in terms of self-preservation and realpolitik. IMHO, there's nothing to feel ashamed about. No amount of preparation could have prevented a German victory had Hitler decided to invade any of the remaining neutral countries.

Look at what happened to Yugoslavia. They tried to stand up to Hitler and got blitzed and the occupation of their country was extremely harsh.

It's easy and idealistic to say it's morally wrong to collaborate with the 'devil', but if it means sparing countless thousands/millions of your own countrymen suffering AND more importantly, especially if military resistance is DOOMED to failure anyway. It's different if Britain had decided to call it quits. Britain had her empire and had the means to ward off Germany (with US help) but after France fell, no other European country could have resisted the Germans successfully during the period in question.

From a different perspective, most of Asia didn't have that option when Japan did its own blitzkrieg in 1941-1942. Thailand did a similar thing by becoming a virtual Japanese satellite, allowing them transit for troops, basing facilities etc. What the Japanese did to POWs/innocent civilians is well documented - to this day, there are many who still refuse to buy/eat Japanese products.
a .

Well for your knowledge the swedish primeminister Goran Persson have apologized in public for swedens actions during ww2. Much of the criticism falls back on the socialdemocratic party and I think its entitled. Im myself an active party-member of the socialdemocrats and I truely feel ashamed when I know that we didnt act against the nazi-challenge.

Of course its always easy to put your head in the sand and pretend that it doesnt matter if your neighbours are invaded. And true much of the welfare-state built up after the war is a result of our country not beeing a war-scene. And I think we would do it again if war comes close to our country, but its moraly WRONG.

Its also a diffrence between neutrality and joining alliances. I think that you cant be neutral if the devil knocks on tour neighbours door.

However joing alliances is another thing. We didnt have to join the allies, but we had an obligation I think not to indirectly support aggresive manners such shown by germany.

jager506 · Post by **jager506** » Fri May 11, 2001 7:45 pm

Hi Kuniworth
Hope no offense was taken by my earlier post.
Out of curiosity though, what would you have done if you were Sweden's leader in say 1940-41?

As Yogi pointed out, Sweden allowed the Germans to move at least a division through the country and also provided them with iron ore. Would you have refused Adolf these things? As for staying neutral, that's what the Belgians and Dutch tried to do and look what happened. At least you guys didn't have a traitor like Norway (Quisling).

I still feel that military resistance should be offered if and only if there's a realistic chance of victory or at least stalemate. For me, there's a very clear difference in being a hero and a suicidal nut. Take the example of the Japanese kamikaze/suicide pilots. They'd load up their aircraft with bombs and crash into US ships. In terms of sheer bravery, that has to top the list, but foolhardiness too I think.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Sat May 12, 2001 11:01 am

Originally posted by jager506:
I still feel that military resistance should be offered if and only if there's a realistic chance of victory or at least stalemate. For me, there's a very clear difference in being a hero and a suicidal nut.

Ok, I can't resist this. I'd like to hear from a Taiwanese on this.

China cannot currently threaten Taiwan, because of a lack of amphibious capability and unimpressive air force. But suppose they started a massive building program and 4 years from now have a large amphibious component along with the rest of their Navy and enough airpower to dominate the beachheads. Does Taiwan surrender without firing a shot because its "hopeless" according to the pundits, or fight to the death on the beaches, holding out hope for something to go their way, like outside intervention?

Its been 2 centuries since my country has been in a situation where it had to answer that question. Its not an easy question to answer.

When defending on your own country's land, fighting not only for your buddies around you but also for a way of life (free-market democracy) that is far more important than the desires of a typical tyrant, the line between bravery and "suicidal nut" blurs does it not?

jager506 · Post by **jager506** » Sat May 12, 2001 1:40 pm

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
Ok, I can't resist this. I'd like to hear from a Taiwanese on this.

China cannot currently threaten Taiwan, because of a lack of amphibious capability and unimpressive air force. But suppose they started a massive building program and 4 years from now have a large amphibious component along with the rest of their Navy and enough airpower to dominate the beachheads. Does Taiwan surrender without firing a shot because its "hopeless" according to the pundits, or fight to the death on the beaches, holding out hope for something to go their way, like outside intervention?

Hi Ed
Well, the situation Taiwan faces today (vis-a-vis China) is very different from what Sweden had with Germany. Sweden had no allies to speak of (Britain wouldn't be able to help much and the US was too far away and not armed in 1940-41) and no way to hold off Germany at all.

Taiwan's situation is more optimistic. Even if the US does not intervene militarily in the face of a full-scale Chinese invasion (highly unlikely in my opinion - mostly Chinese bluster and rhetoric), as you pointed out China does not have the amphibious capability to ferry its monster armies over, and thanks to the US we have better aircraft and ships. Plus China has to retain sizeable forces on its long borders with India and former Soviet Union, and with satellite recon Taiwan would have plenty of advance warning. In ten years though, at the rate the Chinese economy is growing, the strategic picture could be different.

Personally though, I feel that all this bickering is daft, but it has its roots in history unfortunately. After all, most Taiwanese are of Chinese extraction anyways - it would be somewhat analogous to Brits against Yanks back in 1775, except that this time the "mother country" is just a strip of water away and not a whole ocean

As they say, blood is thicker than water. The "reunification" issue is the crux of the matter. Look at Germany you might say. They got back together. Yeah, but the separate Germanys never had a war. Taiwan was formed when Mao's commies kicked Chiang's butt back in the late 1940s and he had to flee to Taiwan to found his "own" version of China.
So lots of bad blood there. Both sides have so much to gain by peaceful trade and investments (Taiwan is one Asia's strongest economies after Japan and China will eventually overtake Japan)

OK I'm rambling, but I guess I'm too pragmatic to believe in blind patriotism. And while I love wargames and simulations, I don't care for REAL war. It's hell. In any political/military crisis, the best thing to do would be to take a long objective and REALISTIC look at the situation, and decide then and there whether putting up your dukes is a feasible solution or not.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Sun May 13, 2001 10:02 am

Originally posted by jager506:

OK I'm rambling, but I guess I'm too pragmatic to believe in blind patriotism.

I wasn't suggesting blind patriotism. I was thinking about a nation that sees its own imminent destruction by forces they know they can't stop. Do you fight anyway like Poland did despite being attacked by both Germany from the west and the USSR from the east? Or do you just fold like Austria or the remnants of Czechoslovakia when annexed by
Germany?

I don't think its fair for someone like me, living in the most powerful nation of the last century, to try to find fault with what Sweden or Switzerland did concerning Hitler. My country has never faced such a situation and most likely never will.

My 2 cents worth? Taiwan may one day face a nearly hopeless situation, and only the Taiwanese can decide what the right response should be. No one outside Taiwan has any postiton from which to comment or analyze their choice. As for Sweden, the Swedes on this board should stop flogging themselves over what their nation did or didn't do versus the most powerful military force Europe had seen since Napoleon. Once Poland, France, and the low countries had fallen, your position was impossible. Outliving Nazi Germany was the only obligation you had to the next generation. Its old history; let it go.

jager506 · Post by **jager506** » Sun May 13, 2001 3:54 pm

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
I don't think its fair for someone like me, living in the most powerful nation of the last century

And I honestly believe it will (economically and militarily at least) remain the most powerful for this century too. The only way the US can lose its superpower status is if (God forbid) another civil war or the like rips the country apart, and while there ARE some serious social problems out there, this is a highly unlikely scenario.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
My 2 cents worth? Taiwan may one day face a nearly hopeless situation, and only the Taiwanese can decide what the right response should be. No one outside Taiwan has any postiton from which to comment or analyze their choice.

Guess it depends on how you define "hopeless". A peaceful reconciliation is not all that bad. Look at Hong Kong. A former British colony, it's "rejoined" China for almost 4 years now, and if anything, it's converting the Chinese to the virtues of market capitalism and free markets rather than becoming dumbass commies. And while this is a War in Russia forum, I for one don't mind anyone commenting on China, Taiwan or anywhere else for that matter. I've encountered quite a few Americans (academics, history buffs etc) who know more about Asia than most Asians. Most if not all the Americans on this forum, for example, know a pleasantly surprising amount of non-US stuff, which is why these discussions are so invigorating. More power to them I say.

Lokioftheaesir · Post by **Lokioftheaesir** » Sun May 13, 2001 5:42 pm

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

As for Sweden, the Swedes on this board should stop flogging themselves over what their nation did or didn't do versus the most powerful military force Europe had seen since Napoleon. Once Poland, France, and the low countries had fallen, your position was impossible. Outliving Nazi Germany was the only obligation you had to the next generation. Its old history; let it go.

I agree. No one i have ever talked to about the war has ever had a bad word to say on Sweden. I my opinion fighting Germany would have gained you naught but dead swedes for little change in the ballace in Europe.

Jager 506

I dont think the taiwanese situation is hopeless at all. In fact i think the mainland will slowly swing your way till in 10 or 20 years there is little for you to fight about.
As for the mainland building up their Amph
forces for an invasion i cant see any benefit for them in taking taiwan but a lot of bad feeling in the world if they did.
Besides i think the US would step in on an invasion and the PRC would discover first hand the awsome power of 2 or 3 Nimitz class
CVN's ( one of the main items that make the US a military superpower)

jager506 · Post by **jager506** » Sun May 13, 2001 7:09 pm

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir:
I dont think the taiwanese situation is hopeless at all. In fact i think the mainland will slowly swing your way till in 10 or 20 years there is little for you to fight about.
As for the mainland building up their Amph
forces for an invasion i cant see any benefit for them in taking taiwan but a lot of bad feeling in the world if they did.
Besides i think the US would step in on an invasion and the PRC would discover first hand the awsome power of 2 or 3 Nimitz class
CVN's ( one of the main items that make the US a military superpower)

Hey Loki
Yeah, some of those in charge in both China and Taiwan still remember what happened 50 years ago or may have lost relatives/friends etc. Old memories die hard, I'm afraid, but it's not as bad as say Israel and the Palestinians. Don't believe all the stuff you watch on CNN or read in the papers. There's a lot of "invisible" trade and investment between China and Taiwan. Most of what you see is just bombast and rhetoric.

In any case, a military invasion, even IF it succeeded, would not help China. Losses would assuredly be very heavy, and what's the point of reducing Taiwan to rubble anyways. They want Taiwan for its economy and infrastructure (like Hongkong) not a busted up island.

No argument about the Nimitz carriers. BTW, do you guys know that it's the BRITS who invented the aircraft carrier? You never hear anything about THEIR carriers today, eh?
Also, Ed in an earlier post said that China's airforce is unimpressive. Relative to the USAF in quality terms certainly, but I do believe it is the second or third most powerful after the US (depending on where you place the Russian airforce today).

Incidentally Loki as an Aussie I'd like to ask you what you think of Aussie-NZ relations. There was a recent attempt to merge both countries' stock exchanges but it fell through. Any comments? Also what do you think about the two countries merging in say 10 to 20 years? Now I've heard different things about the love-hate relationship you guys seem to have. (Seems as there's a lot of it in the world. Why can't we just bloody get along?)

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Sun May 13, 2001 10:13 pm

Originally posted by jager506:
There's a lot of "invisible" trade and investment between China and Taiwan. Most of what you see is just bombast and rhetoric.

Not invisible at all, its all out in the open. If the political situation gets bad, the trading becomes low profile and tries to stay out of sight, but when the political situation is stable, the trading and investment is right out in the open.

You never hear anything about THEIR carriers today, eh?

They can't afford to maintain full size CVs, never mind nuclear powered carriers. They rely on mini carriers designed for the Harrier jump jet. Thats what they used in the Falklands Islands war. They won, but the whole operation was touch and go.

Also, Ed in an earlier post said that China's airforce is unimpressive. Relative to the USAF in quality terms certainly, but I do believe it is the second or third most powerful after the US.

"The People's Liberation Army Air Force, PLAAF, currently possesses about 4,350 aircraft, of which the majority are combat aircraft. IDDS estimates that the inventory of Chinese combat aircraft on 1 January 2000 includes the following: 1900 J-6/MiG-19 (all roles and models: fighter, reconnaissance, trainer); 720 J-7/MiG-21 (all roles and
models: fighter, reconnaissance, trainer); ... 440 Q-5 (modified MiG-19); ..."

So, out of 4,300 planes more than 3,000 are Mig19/21 type aircraft which are considered obsolete in most of the rest of the world. Taiwan has a smaller but much better air force. These planes just don't have a chance against F14 Tomcats and F15C Eagles. The quote above is from:
http://www.comw.org/cmp/fulltext/iddschina.html

Also what do you think about the two countries merging in say 10 to 20 years? Now I've heard different things about the love-hate relationship you guys seem to have.

You mean there's actually been talk about a union? I've never heard of this before. Learn somethin' new every day.

jager506 · Post by **jager506** » Mon May 14, 2001 8:33 am

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
[QB]
You mean there's actually been talk about a union? I've never heard of this before. Learn somethin' new every day.

So far only their stock exchanges only I believe. As an Aussie, Loki would know better. Certainly it would be win-win in the long run for both sides, but a New Zealander would likely oppose it because it would mean the loss of his national identity, "freedom" - the usual things. Personally I feel that the future will belong to countries of a certain critical mass and size, the US of course is the best example, but if big countries like China, India, Russia and Brazil get their acts together and move forward instead of backward, they will also become economic superpowers eventually. Gone are the days where a small "mother country" (England, Spain, Holland) could dominate a vast empire via colonies.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Mon May 14, 2001 9:24 am

Originally posted by jager506:
So far only their stock exchanges only I believe. As an Aussie, Loki would know better. Certainly it would be win-win in the long run for both sides

Australia is short on nearby economic trading partners, so at least an economic union would make sense. Indonesia is too backward and unstable to be a trading partner, and who's left? Maybe Australia/NZ should invite themselves into the Free Trade of the Americas discussions?

The first question though should be who are Australia's biggest trade partners? NZ would be at the top of the list due to proximity, but is Australia's market oriented towards the Americas or Asia?

[ May 14, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

Lokioftheaesir · Post by **Lokioftheaesir** » Mon May 14, 2001 10:35 am

Quote Jager505
"Incidentally Loki as an Aussie I'd like to ask you what you think of Aussie-NZ relations. There was a recent attempt to merge both countries' stock exchanges but it fell through. Any comments? Also what do you think about the two countries merging in say 10 to 20 years? Now I've heard different things about the love-hate relationship you guys seem to have. (Seems as there's a lot of it in the world. Why can't we just bloody get along?)

[/QB][/QUOTE]

Jager505

I'm afraid i know little about proposed mergers betwwen NZ and Ausralia as i have not been keeping up with recent world or local events. I can however say that most Kiwis i know have a feeling that we treat them as a 'little brother' and thus they tend to fall back on patriotism and the 'we dont really need you' line. The general attitude though
is that we are good friends and many Kiwis come to live here. In the future? It could happen and why not.

Ed I think the current trade ballance is pretty even between the Americas and Asia but it is tipping towards Asia at a fair clip.Our dollar at the moment has dropped low against the greenback and this is hurting our trade with the US.