Live data from Hacker News

World War II was totally unrealistic

squid314.livejournal.com

61–70 of 156 posts

Re: World War II was totally unrealistic

#61
post #50
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And to lots of people in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq, the Israeli and American leaderships are as close to pure evil as has ever existed. "Evil" is a concept useful for propaganda and little else.

"Evil" is a concept useful for propaganda and little else. Really? Can you read _Lord of the Flies_ and conclude that what the boys are doing isn't evil, because all ethics are relative?

It's not about ehtics being relative, it's about "evil" being a label that's used to condemn (often falsely) and discourage discussion.

Seeing WWII completely in terms of how valiant US soldiers defeated the evil Nazis is a great way to avoid noticing tendencies in the US that the Nazis would feel right at home with.

Re: World War II was totally unrealistic

#62
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is our all generations' responsibility to work together in the whole world to prevent such atrocities happening again.

Shame we're not doing great. Just look at Rwanda. A genocide in the mid 1990s

Okay there is no way to say this that is nice, but:

It is Africa, and as much as it sucks for the people there, it has always been so and will properly be so long after we are gone.

Re: World War II was totally unrealistic

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I mentioned before, not only do the Nazis have an urgent plan to conquer the world ASAP, but they also have super science weapons research. Stealth bombers, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and jet planes. Yet, at the beginning of the war, they faced cavalry charges ! There are real life super-scientists engaged in real-life super-science intrigue to keep nuclear secrets out of Nazi hands. And on top of that,…

"these guys are worse or on a par for atrocities with anyone ever, real or imagined" If you look at the total number of people killed, hitler's atrocities pale in comparison with those of Stalin and Mao.

What kind of asshole draws historical conclusions based on /numbers/ dead? Reducing the dead to numbers and comparing a lost life to another an atrocity in itself.

Re: World War II was totally unrealistic

#65
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention the aircraft carriers made out of ice, the campaign to firebomb Japanese cities using bats with incendiaries tied to them, or the brilliant idea to starve out Japanese island garrisons by airdropping pigs onto them in the hope that the pigs would eat the grains before the Japanese ate the pigs (failed).

Someone should do a post or web comic about pig projectiles in warfare.

Pig projectiles?

What about nukes kept warm by live chickens:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Peacock

Re: World War II was totally unrealistic

#66
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the main point is that the history of WW2 is full of 'plot holes' and hard to believe stories (if it was a TV show)

Only because we believe, because of the movies, that largescale event SHOULD behave as if orchestrated by a logical, sane author. History is just, all of us, doing things selfishly.

That is actually why Hitler had an incursion in the USSR while waging war in North Africa and the Atlantic, creating an anti-Hitler coalition and thus having no chance of an outcome that isn't a catastrophe for Germany. Surely an unwise decision.

The Soviets knew in advance of the invasion of the USSR but Stalin could not believe that the Germany could do such thing. Not because he trusted Hitler, but because such a decision would be stupid - Hitler himself claimed that war on two fronts was unwinnable for Germany since WWI and because he didn't see an adequate preparation for an invasion - sure you have troops near the border, but they were in no way prepared for Russian roads, Russian winter or the Russian distances. There was no way Germany could defeat the USSR before winter sets in with no planning.

Stalin planned an invasion of Nazi-controlled Europe, before the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union. But the Germans had their invasion a few weeks before the planned. But since the troops and materiel were prepared for an offensive war they could react adequately in the beginning. The Russians had only bombers and a million trained paratroops - this is definitely a preparation for an offensive war.

The Germans couldn't achieve any major objective in the USSR anyway:

* they didn't destroy the Russian industrial capability: Moscow and Leningrad weren't taken and behind them you have the Volga and Ural areas, which produced materiel and provided manpower which let the USSR win the war and conquer for itself half of Europe. Plus even much of the plants that were in Ukraine and Belarus were evacuated of their skilled workers and expensive machinery and new ones quickly were formed deep behind the lines of combat and the ranges of Wehrmacht air power.

* no major resource was lacking in the USSR - certainly not oil, which was one of the critical ones. Germany barely had enough from Romania for its own needs. France, the Balkans, Northern Europe, North Africa were invaded with Soviet provided oil, thanks to the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact.

* they didn't isolate Russia politically - they couldn't convince the Japanese to attack them in the back while Soviets had instant allies - Britain and United States which generously provided even more materials and technology.

And this was exactly because the war was started by a logical, sane author.

Stalin overestimated Hitler, thinking he wouldn't do such a thing. Germany had no realistic way of winning a war against the USSR with those conditions. I am not saying that USSR was unbeatable. Just that the Germans didn't have a feasible plan to do it and it was obvious to Stalin.

Re: World War II was totally unrealistic

#67
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Often, those who say this haven't been on the receiving end of much evil. Also, please name a government that hasn't done anything evil. There's none! Governments are dangerous things.

Usually, those who are most enthusiastic about dividing things into "good" and "evil" are themselves extremely evil by common standards. Case in point: the Nazis, to whom the Jews were evil incarnate, and they themselves the valiant defenders of the Aryan race. Calling an action "evil" does not explain it or help prevent it - it's usually a way to express revulsion and avoid further thinking. Calling specific people…

"Usually, those who are most enthusiastic about dividing things into "good" and "evil" are themselves extremely evil by common standards."

True, but it isn't always about dividing things... Sometimes there's just no other word to describe certain actions or groups of people. Mentioned elsewhere in the thread were the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin, Mao -- what is one to say about those? "Oh, it's just a matter of perspective?" I think not.

Re: World War II was totally unrealistic

#69
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the main point is that the history of WW2 is full of 'plot holes' and hard to believe stories (if it was a TV show)

Only because we believe, because of the movies, that largescale event SHOULD behave as if orchestrated by a logical, sane author. History is just, all of us, doing things selfishly.

Not just large-scale events. Many people make the mistake of reading their own lives as literature, even though as far as I know, even the ones who believe in God do not believe he is an Author who imposes a literary aesthetic on his creation.

Re: World War II was totally unrealistic

#70
post #62
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shame we're not doing great. Just look at Rwanda. A genocide in the mid 1990s

Okay there is no way to say this that is nice, but: It is Africa, and as much as it sucks for the people there, it has always been so and will properly be so long after we are gone.

There is nothing special about Africans that will make them "properly[sic?] be so long after we are gone". The same tendency for long wars is everywhere. The history of Europe in the 19th century and earlier was almost a series of continuous wars. The main difference is that the cost of war is now too high for advanced countries. Even WWI wasn't enough. People recognize it and made the League of Nations, which still wasn't enough so the lesson had to be repeated with bigger losses.
Post reply on HN