Live data from Hacker News

Warsaw, August 1947

facebook.com

81–86 of 86 posts

Re: Warsaw, August 1947

#81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look for manufacturing consent and Noam Chomsky to understand why the facts that I tell seem outlandish to you. He speaks right about indoctrination, the indoctrination that turns white into black and vice-versa. It says about "landowners, saboteurs, factory owners, lawyers, officials and priests". The same cleanup was done in the Soviet Union 10 years earlier. It is class struggle. There is nothing national in this…

ah! I knew you were joking! Sorry for giving you space for a reply ;)

When you are telling truth it is better to make it a joke. But, truth is the best joke itself, sometimes.

Re: Warsaw, August 1947

#82
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The British Empire was rapidly weakening. It didn't have the resources to maintain it's massive navy, and the head-start it had in the Industrial Revolution had waned. Germany was an ascendent power and the UK was no match for it. The UK was very much fighting for survival - the counterbalancing alliances of European powers had been in considerable tension since at least Germany unified. Look what it took to bring Ge…

Britain made more planes than Germany except in 1944, made more tanks, except in 43 and 44 (when imports radically increased. It's navy was growing throughout the war. It out produced Germany in many important measures. The army grew and the workforce grew. Yes, it was hard, but total war was what the Russians and Germany fought, not the British. Casualty figures tell us that.

Total war refers to how a society mobilies resources for war, not the casualties it sustains. The UK shipped children out of London, introduced rationing, blackouts, sustained and conducted bombing runs against civilian centres to strike at production, engaged in conscription, sustained and conducted sinking of merchant vessels, and used its political power to pull in every ally it could find. Just because an army didn't land on Great Britain and lay waste to the land doesn't mean it wasn't total war.

Re: Warsaw, August 1947

#83
post #61
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind that no-one but the Germans were aware that blitzkreig would be as fast as it was. Up until that point, war was a somewhat leisurely affair - this is the exact reason why France fell so ignomiously. War was declared, now we can start shifting things into place while the Poles hold the Germans and... holy shit, the Poles have collapsed in only five weeks. Same thing happened to the French - the German arm…

"Keep in mind that no-one but the Germans were aware that blitzkreig would be as fast as it was" Yeah, that's a great excuse. That should be written in the anglo-polish military alliance: "in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence, and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty's Government would feel themselves bound at…

What you can't reasonably argue though, is that they tried to really help Poland in the beginning of WW2

The UK allied with Poland in an attempt to contain Germany, as I've already said. It's normal for countries to make such big gestures in their own interest. Should the UK have just allied with Poland out of a sense of charity? What in particular had Poland done for the UK before this time, to demand the UK's unquestioning selfless military intervention? What became Poland was, after all, part of the central powers that opposed the UK in WWI.

And, like I said, no-one knew how rapidly Poland would fall under Blitzkreig; the mobility of the German armies was still not countered by the time they invaded France months later.

The war was immenent, and everybody seemd to know that except for Chamberlain.

Chamberlain was buying time to rearm the UK. I've always found it amusing that people take the position that the UK is responsible for 'letting Germany annex Czechoslovakia'. Apparently the other powers in the region didn't have a moral responsibility to protect an unrelated central European country, only the UK.

One wonders, if it's all about morals rather than capabilities, why Poland didn't step in and prevent Germany from annexing Czechoslovakia?

There was no real plan to take the Soviets on, because the Allies had no real stake in it.

The rest of the Allies had a huge stake in preventing the Soviets from dominating Europe. They just had no way to feasibly follow it through.

Re: Warsaw, August 1947

#84
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Britain made more planes than Germany except in 1944, made more tanks, except in 43 and 44 (when imports radically increased. It's navy was growing throughout the war. It out produced Germany in many important measures. The army grew and the workforce grew. Yes, it was hard, but total war was what the Russians and Germany fought, not the British. Casualty figures tell us that.

Total war refers to how a society mobilies resources for war, not the casualties it sustains. The UK shipped children out of London, introduced rationing, blackouts, sustained and conducted bombing runs against civilian centres to strike at production, engaged in conscription, sustained and conducted sinking of merchant vessels, and used its political power to pull in every ally it could find. Just because an army di…

How would you describe the difference between the war experiences of those from USSR and Germany compared to Britain? There is a fairly striking difference. Part of this is due to a totalitarian regime, but more is due to the catastrophic effects of the war. Rich countries had a considerably easier war than poor countries. Britain was a rich country. While it didn't finish paying for its World War Two loans until 2006, it is a sign of an incredible wealth that it got the loans in the first place. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6215847.stm

Edit: And to more directly address a couple of those points, many countries had starvation, with vast numbers of deaths in both civilian and military populations. Britain didn't as far as I know. Children fought in many battles and the elderly and infirm too (as much as possible). These things also didn't occur in Britain, with the exception of children who lied to get into the armed forces, which at times may have been officials turning a blind eye. Perhaps it was total war in Britain, but it was certainly an easier and cheaper war than others experienced. A low grade total war?

Re: Warsaw, August 1947

#85
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Survival wasn't really the issue? At the height of the U-Boat campaign we had a only few weeks worth of food supplies left in the country. We were loosing well over half a million tons of ships a month. If Japan had never attacked Pearl Harbour, the US would have just sat on it's hands and watched Britain collapse. Yes we broke the U-Boat codes, but without US ships and aircraft covering the western Atlantic, we woul…

And yet the army was built up and arms manufacturing was built up, at the expense of food production. Troops and tanks were being sent to Africa, even as Germany looked poised to in invade Britian. Yes, it was tight, but Britain was in it to win, not defend. British production outstripped Germany and when the Empire was included, it was vastly superior. It took time to ramp up, but Britain wasn't facing defeat. The t…

You're promoting a false dichotomy: "If you're fighting for victory, you can't be fighting for survival".

In WWII if you weren't victorious, you didn't survive. The governments of Hitler? Mussolini? Antonescu? Even Tiso? Japan did keep it's emperor, but he was always a figurehead and Japan's governance was heavily reformed.

Re: Warsaw, August 1947

#86
post #53
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, in the grand scheme of things I think the A-bombs did relatively little damage, both in terms of human losses and material damage, compared to all the conventional bombing going on. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not destroyed in the sense many fire-bombed cities in Japan and Germany were.

90% of Hiroshima and 45% of Nagasaki were destroyed. So pretty much the same as the big firebombing runs. Handshakes all around.

90%? Mea culpa then, remembered it was quite a bit less.
Post reply on HN