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

The Real War 1939-1945 (1989)

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–172 of 172 posts

Re: The Real War 1939-1945 (1989)

#171

Post by chaostheory »

dflock wrote: post #170
chaostheory wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but someone has to be willing to pay for it. I'm not wrong.

In a national/publicly funded national health system, that system (i.e., taxpayers) should fund it, because better mental health in the population will improve the economic performance of the nation, increasing tax receipts etc... That is, if they can get over that calvinist/puritan mental health == weakness/stigma thing, which seems to be slowly happening.

I agree that it should be funded. I’m just pointing out that even places like Canada don’t fund it

Re: The Real War 1939-1945 (1989)

#172

Post by eduction »

notacoward wrote: post #138
eduction wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know (and can see from this thread) that emotions run high around anything touching on the ex USSR but I don’t think the current war in Ukraine is at all germane to this article from 1989 about ww2 (or to the content of my posts on HN about it).

It's just as germane as turning a story about the (almost universal) horrors of war into some kind of scorekeeping exercise, and nobody's showing more emotion than you. Why don't you try addressing my main point about accessibility and incremental value of primary sources, instead of picking one literally parenthetical comment to quibble about? It's the same thing you did with OP: sniping instead of engaging. Contrar…

Missed this at the time. Belated thoughts:

Hmm. I didn't address the point about primary sources because it didn't seem like the main point. Right after you brought that issue up, the next sentence seemed to cast aside the importance of the issue: "Also what, exactly, would adding those [sources] change about his essential point..."

I wasn't sure the key point, and the last sentence seemed to be the most likely crux of what you were saying, but maybe I misread.

Maybe you're right about the sources, I can't claim to have looked for books or papers by ex Soviet soldiers. Although given how many Soviet soldiers there were, and given the USSR's incentives to highlight German brutality, are you sure on this score that there are not raw recollections of brutal war in USSR in ww2?

Anyway, I think a piece by the same author without such a sweeping and judgmental title ("real" is a very loaded word in this context that, as I've said, I don't think is earned here) would work just as well.

Post reply on HN