Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Warsaw, August 1947

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 86 posts

Re: Warsaw, August 1947

#31

Post by vacri »

INTPenis wrote: post #26
lostlogin wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The appalling behavior of the Red Army and of the USSR in general at the time is briefly covered in the Wikipedia entry. Churchill in particular seems to have tried very hard to do the right thing.

>Churchill in particular seems to have tried very hard to do the right thing. I'm not saying what's right and what's wrong but your sentence made me think of the age old quote "history is written by the victors".

It's worth noting that the UK was drawn into the war through the alliance it made with Poland in an attempt to contain German acquisitions - the UK was a friend to Poland with no real quarrel. 'Protecting Poland' was their call to war. It's not the greatest stretch of the imagination to consider the UK as doing right by Poland.

The Soviets, on the other hand, had a desire for Polish territory.

Re: Warsaw, August 1947

#32

Post by vacri »

kendalk wrote: post #14
lostlogin wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to look at a longer time frame. Humans are slowly, but surely becoming less violent. Way too slowly though. The below link is probably the most interesting thing I've stumbled across on the Internet, although this is in a different form compared to how I first found it. http://edge.org/conversation/mc2011-history-violence-pinker

Quark: "Let me tell you something about Hew-mons, Nephew. They’re a wonderful, friendly people, as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts, deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers, put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people... will become as nasty and as violent as the most bloodth…

Meh, it's not particularly insightful: "make someone fight for their survival and they'll fight for their survival" is what that quote boils down to. A sci-fi race that doesn't fight for survival when pressed is usually depicted as an uber-pacifistic race.

Re: Warsaw, August 1947

#33

Post by lostlogin »

INTPenis wrote: post #26
lostlogin wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The appalling behavior of the Red Army and of the USSR in general at the time is briefly covered in the Wikipedia entry. Churchill in particular seems to have tried very hard to do the right thing.

>Churchill in particular seems to have tried very hard to do the right thing. I'm not saying what's right and what's wrong but your sentence made me think of the age old quote "history is written by the victors".

It certainly is. Over the last few years there seems to have been a fair bit of WW2 history written that is less loaded with Cold War prejudice. While lots is still unavailable it has made for some interesting reading. I hope this carries on as it's been fascinating.

Re: Warsaw, August 1947

#34

Post by lostlogin »

vacri wrote: post #32
kendalk wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quark: "Let me tell you something about Hew-mons, Nephew. They’re a wonderful, friendly people, as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts, deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers, put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people... will become as nasty and as violent as the most bloodth…

Meh, it's not particularly insightful: "make someone fight for their survival and they'll fight for their survival" is what that quote boils down to. A sci-fi race that doesn't fight for survival when pressed is usually depicted as an uber-pacifistic race.

The fascinating thing about the Second World War is that several countries weren't fighting for survival, but for victory and power. Surely the big winner was the US. However Britain was in it to win from early on, as survival wasn't really the issue. The richer you were, the better you fared, unsurprisingly.

Re: Warsaw, August 1947

#35

Post by carlob »

vacri wrote: post #30
ternaryoperator wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it doesn't compare to Russian deaths, 388,000 UK deaths is a staggering number in its own right.

Compare it to US deaths in Vietnam (60,000) and in Iraq/Afghanistan (~7,000). The irony is that for all the warmongering politics of the US, the population are highly sensitive to actually losing soldiers in battle. There were single days in WWI (and the US Civil War) that saw single countries having more combat deaths than the US has seen this century in total. The US public wants wars it can win effortlessly (consc…

This just goes to show how asymmetrical Afghanistan and Iraq are in terms of war. We just don't know what is like to be on the receiving end of war.

Think about it: an Australian soldier in Afghanistan has made a choice (maybe forced by her economic condition, sure) to risk her life in Afghanistan. Afghan civilians didn't really have that choice.

The estimates for civilian deaths in Iraq are above 100k, around 20k for Afghanistan and there doesn't seem to be an end in sight for this quagmire the US has put themselves in, so I really don't know what you mean by not a particularly difficult war.

Re: Warsaw, August 1947

#36

Post by arethuza »

ternaryoperator wrote: post #20
znowi wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being curious I looked up the numbers. UK death toll: 326,000 military and 62,000 civilian. Russia: 10 million each. "Absolutely titanic" is about right.

While it doesn't compare to Russian deaths, 388,000 UK deaths is a staggering number in its own right.

If you think that is bad then consider WW1 - UK 995,939 deaths, France 1,697,800. No wonder people here were rather skeptical about another war.

On the subject of Soviet deaths though - my father, who served in the RAF during WW2, always said if I asked who beat the Nazis that it had been "the Soviet people". The suffering that country had to endure in the 20th century is staggering - WW1, the Revolution and Civil War, the famines and purges of the 30s and then WW2...

Re: Warsaw, August 1947

#37

Post by Kociub »

vacri wrote: post #31
INTPenis wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Churchill in particular seems to have tried very hard to do the right thing. I'm not saying what's right and what's wrong but your sentence made me think of the age old quote "history is written by the victors".

It's worth noting that the UK was drawn into the war through the alliance it made with Poland in an attempt to contain German acquisitions - the UK was a friend to Poland with no real quarrel. 'Protecting Poland' was their call to war. It's not the greatest stretch of the imagination to consider the UK as doing right by Poland. The Soviets, on the other hand, had a desire for Polish territory.

This is unfortunately not true. Great Britian declared war on Germany, but provided none support to Poland. This was also the case during the Warsaw Uprising. After the war has ended Poland has been sold by under the Russian occupacion. The polish fighter squadrons that took part in the battle of britain were not even allowed to join the wining parade. They were sent home to what was now considered an enemy state. The Brits may have done a lot of things, but most certailny not the right thing.

Re: Warsaw, August 1947

#38

Post by skore »

leoc wrote: post #5

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_destruction_of_Warsaw

The other day, I was talking to a friend in England and the topic of The Second came up. I told her that even though I have no first hand knowledge, I still find it deeply, deeply disturbing and humbling to ponder what happened during that time.

She offered words of consolation: 'Well, but that really was a long time ago.' - 'Maybe, but all those people are still dead.'

I refuse to find closure with that part of my countries' history. The least I can do is be eternally sad about what my country has done to the world.

Thank you to the OP and thank you for sharing those links. They have reminded me once again to stay deeply disturbed and humbled.

Re: Warsaw, August 1947

#39

Post by Kociub »

lostlogin wrote: post #34
vacri wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meh, it's not particularly insightful: "make someone fight for their survival and they'll fight for their survival" is what that quote boils down to. A sci-fi race that doesn't fight for survival when pressed is usually depicted as an uber-pacifistic race.

The fascinating thing about the Second World War is that several countries weren't fighting for survival, but for victory and power. Surely the big winner was the US. However Britain was in it to win from early on, as survival wasn't really the issue. The richer you were, the better you fared, unsurprisingly.

Very well put

Re: Warsaw, August 1947

#40

Post by simonh »

carlob wrote: post #35
vacri wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compare it to US deaths in Vietnam (60,000) and in Iraq/Afghanistan (~7,000). The irony is that for all the warmongering politics of the US, the population are highly sensitive to actually losing soldiers in battle. There were single days in WWI (and the US Civil War) that saw single countries having more combat deaths than the US has seen this century in total. The US public wants wars it can win effortlessly (consc…

This just goes to show how asymmetrical Afghanistan and Iraq are in terms of war. We just don't know what is like to be on the receiving end of war. Think about it: an Australian soldier in Afghanistan has made a choice (maybe forced by her economic condition, sure) to risk her life in Afghanistan. Afghan civilians didn't really have that choice. The estimates for civilian deaths in Iraq are above 100k, around 20k fo…

That's entirely true, but did that Afghan civilian not have that choice "to get embroiled in a war pushed on them by Western imperial overreach", or did they not have a choice "to be dominated by an extremist militant Jihadist movement that imposed a ruthless ideological dictatorship and pursued an aggressive terrorist agenda, which we are attempting to free ordinary Afghans from".

Yes we have lost dozens of soldiers, but the US also lost thousands of civilians on 9/11. The UK lost 67 people that day. Even Australia lost 11. There are reasons we are in Aghanistan. Whether you believe those are good reasons is the issue.

Post reply on HN