World War II was totally unrealistic

Post by whyenot » Mon, Jul 12, 2010, 5:25 PM UTC

arethuza wrote: post #46

patio11 wrote: 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).

What about bombs bouncing on water or giant weaponized Catherine Wheels: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panjandrum

Post by stcredzero » Mon, Jul 12, 2010, 5:32 PM UTC

william-newman wrote: post #72

jakevoytko wrote: post #20

This is the effect of telling the histories of nations as if they were groups of 5 people. It's convenient to say sentences like, "Germany then instigated the Battle of Britain, causing Churchill to say X and beginning a lengthy battle," but anything like this is a gross simplification. When nations take action, the whole org-chart needs to move into gear, which takes extra planning and arguing and wrangling and doub…

"Trimming facts off at the first few levels of details makes everything feel, well, oversimplified." But it's not just oversimplification of collective action, the plot was overblown even at the level of purely individual events in individual characters' lives. Arguably the greatest theoretical/experimental crossover physicist of the century takes the occasion of accepting his Nobel Prize to escape with his Jewish wi…

Post by kuurnn » Mon, Jul 12, 2010, 5:42 PM UTC

zokier wrote: post #80

malkarouri wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The difference between Africans and Europeans is that Europeans didn't have more advanced civilization constantly prodding and poking them (and drooling for their resources), and that is what makes Africa prone to constant warfare. The best thing for Africa imho currently would be a big fence around it, and a label on the gate reading "Do not open before year 3000 AD. Sincerely, the people of 2000 AD."

Post by stcredzero » Mon, Jul 12, 2010, 5:49 PM UTC

brazzy wrote: post #48

stcredzero wrote: post #36

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…

Post by riffraff » Mon, Jul 12, 2010, 6:15 PM UTC

arethuza wrote: post #95

riffraff wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

isn't this a reductionist view? the night of the long knives is just the first example I can think of, but I'm pretty sure there were more examples of people _becoming_ undesirable.

But in the Soviet Union the arrests were made to quota to feed the slave labor camps of the gulag - not because of anything the prisoners had actually done (of course, they had to confess). There were some courageous Germans who chose to defy the Nazis (e.g. the White Rose group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose ) but that to me is quite different. The overwhelming majority of Germans, if they didn't belong to…