Russians to try to rewrite history on Sov Afghan War

[nik mond]

4 hours ago, danfrodo said:

Nik Mond -- all our wars have nationalist mythology springing out of them.  I hadn't thought about civil war when I said that.  In what way do you see the textbook history subjective?  I know there's a whole world of mythology trying to say the war was not about slavery, which doesn't even pass the laugh test (not that it's funny that such propaganda still lives).  Everyone at the time, including some of the state constitutions, clearly state that it was all about slavery.  Later some clever marketing types rebranded it as some ridiculous "war of northern aggression" and that it was about "states' rights".  Yes, states' rights to do what?  Make coffee?  have state fairs?  No, state rights to enslave human beings and treat them as property, with rights equal to farm animals (meaning none).  The nearly 100 years of oppression & Jim Crow to follow rather put the lie to the whole thing rather emphatically I would think.

I'm probably on the same page as you. A possible reason why the door is left open for re branding is because the beginning of the war: 1861-1862  gets skewed, skipped, glossed over, or just plain fast-forwarded straight to the Battle of Antietam, and then the emancipation proclamation in 1863. Going back to the beginning: The expansion of slavery is ceased for any new state (west) entering the union. Policies are set in motion to phase it out everywhere else in time. Now 11 states seceded. Yes the American Civil war was very much about slavery. Did the union go to war for the reason of freeing the slaves in the south?  No, well not initially, the south was winning battles in the beginning. The union even looked for a compromise. Remember Lincoln did not want to interfere with the institution of slavery as he initially stated at his inauguration. There was a push to appease the border states and even pro slavery democrats in the North were appointed. So who freed the slaves?  I suppose General Fremont gets initial credit for this in August 1861, he declared martial law in Missouri and freed the slaves there... But Lincoln removed him from command and modified his order. So the poor slaves are not free anymore. Again, it was the big fear of tipping neutral states to the Confederacy. These were the dynamics of the time, which explain so many things. Once the union started gaining momentum, the neutral states became irrelevant. Enter January 1863: The emancipation proclamation. Remember all soldiers were volunteers, and it was at this point they were fighting in support of this.

[Sublime]

how do you figure the Union Army was all volunteer? LOL not true.  Not only did things such as pressgangs still very much exist, and not only was it common for wealthy men to pay someone else to go for them, but yes starting fall 1862 there WAS a Union draft. In fact it specifically started some MAJOR riots in NYC

[nik mond]

22 minutes ago, Sublime said:

how do you figure the Union Army was all volunteer? LOL not true.  Not only did things such as pressgangs still very much exist, and not only was it common for wealthy men to pay someone else to go for them, but yes starting fall 1862 there WAS a Union draft. In fact it specifically started some MAJOR riots in NYC

At this point (In time). The draft was not enacted until March 1863. Prior to this it was a volunteer Army up until, and at the time of the proclamation.  However, saying all was a bad choice in words because it excluded the questionable practice of pressing criminals, and immigrants into service.

Speaking of press gangs it looks like your thread got pretty well shanghaied.

[Sublime]

Ah well I derail plenty of threads so it doesnt bother me. In fact if it goes towards intellectual conversation at all and not just constant insults and people telling everyone to shutup because BFC Im very pleased

For example I did not know the draft didnt actual start until the following spring.

[Sublime]

Dont be fooled just because we have drastically different views. A proper argument backed up with proof if needed can sway my opinion. I do not have a SET world view

[danfrodo]

worst riots in american history were the July 1863 draft riots, New York City.  (mainly) Irish NY men did not want to go fight in the war they didn't want and feared freeing slaves would cause more competition for their already meager jobs.  South succeeded based on North's antipathy toward slavery, and the election of Lincoln was considered the final straw in that ongoing argument.  And no, Lincoln did NOT engage fighting with the south to free all the slaves.  He fought to preserve the union, meaning the United States of America (always odd when I see a vehicle w a confederate and a US flag on the same bumper).  We have a letter written by Lincoln that he would very much end the war WITHOUT ending slavery if he could, then slavery fight could go back to being legislative bickering to be settled at some future time.  As Nik-Mond said, after Gettysburg, Lincoln made ending slavery an absolute outcome of the war.  Civil war is complex but it was all driven by the slavery issue -- the south was economically addicted to it and the north was against it.  For decades there had been a vicious legislative and propaganda war going on.  Any given soldier had own reason for fighting - duty, patriotism, profit, coercion, but slavery was the cause of the war.   Look at the memoirs of Germans who were fighting in Normandy for a "united europe", not understanding why US/Brits wouldn't just join them in this altruistic quest.  That's the power of brainwashing via propaganda -- actually pretty impressive job of it I must admit.

Yes, have sidetracked this thread.  Going back to russia, I am not a Stalin fan but I sure like playing Red Thunder as the Russians.  every soldier has his own reasons.

[General Jack Ripper]

1 hour ago, danfrodo said:

Going back to russia, I am not a Stalin fan but I sure like playing Red Thunder as the Russians.  every soldier has his own reasons.

I recently made a post on another media of mine, I think might be relevant.

It was in reference to a news article complaining about how West Point Military Academy still had some Confederate memorials or somesuch on the Campus, and still taught lessons about the Confederacy. The argument proposed in the article was that in a "Post Charlottesville" world, we need to remove all traces of the CSA from existence.

Now, I have my own position on the recent political schism that has occurred, (mostly that it's not recent, and not one-sided) but in the interest of preserving useful lessons of history, I tried to leave this comment on the article in question:

 

Quote

Any study of military history with a focus on training successful military commanders will always have to study the Confederate States of America, given the fact Robert E. Lee was one of the most successful military commanders of the age, and ranks very highly in historians idea of some of the most successful commanders in all of human history. His victories at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville are absolutely flawless in execution, taking a force only a fraction of the size of his opponents, and defeating them with such rapidity and finality it nearly caused the Union to quit the war. If you choose to blame the military commander for the policies of the nation for which he owed his allegiance, you engage in a miscarriage of historical study. One CAN divorce the martial accomplishments of an army in the field from the heinous nature of the nation for which they fought. Those who study WW2 do much the same thing when learning about German military accomplishments. The insidious nature of the Third Reich does not disqualify the Wehrmacht from claiming legitimate martial achievements on the field of battle. (Not nearly as many as people think, but I digress.) If you are incapable of such nuance you ought not to study history, else you will inflict upon your psyche severe trauma, for history is hardly a pleasant subject of study. However, a complete ignorance, or misrepresentation of history by means of serving up a more pleasant or less traumatic alternative does far more harm than good, by engendering a naïve belief in the inherent goodness of humankind, despite the reams of evidence to the contrary. We are not a nice species. It goes with the biological position of being the apex predator on the planet. Whether or not we can overcome our biology to become a kinder, gentler, more fluffy alternative to ourselves remains to be proven, or even seriously attempted.

 

The re-writing of the past to satisfy someone's fragile modern sensibilities is one of the most disgusting things I can imagine.

[sburke]

15 minutes ago, General Jack Ripper said:

I recently made a post on another media of mine, I think might be relevant.

It was in reference to a news article complaining about how West Point Military Academy still had some Confederate memorials or somesuch on the Campus, and still taught lessons about the Confederacy. The argument proposed in the article was that in a "Post Charlottesville" world, we need to remove all traces of the CSA from existence.

Now, I have my own position on the recent political schism that has occurred, (mostly that it's not recent, and not one-sided) but in the interest of preserving useful lessons of history, I tried to leave this comment on the article in question:

The re-writing of the past to satisfy someone's fragile modern sensibilities is one of the most disgusting things I can imagine.

Yeah this is part of the problem with that whole discussion.  It is one thing to talk about Civil War history.  It is another discussion to talk about reconstruction and the actions to undermine the political and economic power of the newly freed slaves.  This is when most of the statues were actually put up.  They weren't there to remember the history of the civil war, they were meant to show who was back in charge.  The history of reconstruction is one of the most ignored but fascinating moments in the development of our democracy mostly because it was a moment where we failed our ideals.

Sadly, that we can't separate the two and have an open discussion of our history both good and bad just seems to be the norm now.

Edited January 12, 2019 by sburke

[danfrodo]

adding to Nik-Mond's earlier post:  worst riots in american history were the 1863 draft riots, New York City.  (mainly) Irish NY men did not want to go fight in the war they didn't want and feared freeing slaves would cause more competition for their already meager jobs.  South succeeded based on North's antipathy toward slavery, and the election of Lincoln was considered the final straw in that ongoing argument.  And no, Lincoln did NOT engage fighting with the south to free all the slaves.  He fought to preserve the union, meaning the United States of America.  We have a letter written by Lincoln that he would very much end the war WITHOUT ending slavery if he could, then slavery fight could go back to being legislative bickering to be settled at some future time.  As Nik-Mond said, after Gettysburg, Lincoln made ending slavery an absolute outcome of the war.

[danfrodo]

Removing confederate statues has been contentious.  But we have to ask why were we honoring these men?  One could say that Jefferson and Washington were slavers but we honor them for what they did despite being slavers.  When we honor Gen Lee, we honor him ONLY for fighting to uphold slavery. There's no other notable thing he ever that would merit a public statue.  And if one's ancestors were slaves and if Lee had his way more generationswould have been slaves, it is unconscionable that these statues should be tolerated.  It's like putting up statues of the foremost torries from the American Revolution -- worse, actually for descendents of slaves, which make up over 10% of the population in once-confederate states.  So unless one has a reason to honor the Lee & friends OTHER than trying to keep folks enslaved, they might actually have a case for a statue. 

[sburke]

2 hours ago, danfrodo said:

Removing confederate statues has been contentious.  But we have to ask why were we honoring these men?  One could say that Jefferson and Washington were slavers but we honor them for what they did despite being slavers.  When we honor Gen Lee, we honor him ONLY for fighting to uphold slavery. There's no other notable thing he ever that would merit a public statue.  And if one's ancestors were slaves and if Lee had his way more generationswould have been slaves, it is unconscionable that these statues should be tolerated.  It's like putting up statues of the foremost torries from the American Revolution -- worse, actually for descendents of slaves, which make up over 10% of the population in once-confederate states.  So unless one has a reason to honor the Lee & friends OTHER than trying to keep folks enslaved, they might actually have a case for a statue. 

Much as I agree I think we are treading into a very much more political discussion here.

[danfrodo]

Good Heavens SBurke, but how I do prattle on.  Yes, you are right.  I'll shut up.

[General Jack Ripper]

11 hours ago, danfrodo said:

But we have to ask why were we honoring these men?

I don't want to engender a political debate, but I can answer this question with my previous post:

Quote

If you choose to blame the military commander for the policies of the nation for which he owed his allegiance, you engage in a miscarriage of historical study. One CAN divorce the martial accomplishments of an army in the field from the heinous nature of the nation for which they fought.

I firmly believe this to be true. You can go all the way back to the Assyrian Empire and blame everyone for every bad thing that ever happened throughout history, or you can do the mature and reasonable thing, and engage in a bit of historical relativism.

To be clear, I address this topic from the Historical Scholarship angle, not trying to state a Political point.

[danfrodo]

Completely agree.  It's just that historical scholarship requires no public statues.  I am not condemning Lee, nor soldiers that fought in the south.  I do not condemn soldiers doing what they perceive to be their duty, they are caught up in larger tides than themselves.  I don't want to tread any farther into a subject that could get folks upset.  Meanwhile, I am quite stuck in Stoumont and my troops really do require my attention so I should go do that.  With the poor progress and losses inflicted on me so far by the Americans I can be quite sure I'll never see a statue for my military prowess.

[sburke]

3 hours ago, General Jack Ripper said:

I firmly believe this to be true. You can go all the way back to the Assyrian Empire 

True.  Damned Assyrians.  They never have been exposed for the damage they have done to humanity. 

A side note that actually is kind of amazing.  There are still Assyrian militias that have had success fighting ISIL.  These folks have been around close to 5000 years.  It must all be their fault.

Edited January 13, 2019 by sburke

[Erwin]

This gives other outfits, from ancient history to ISIS, justification to destroy statues of any culture that they find offensive. 

We are appalled by ancient societies who wiped out their enemies' cultural heritage as a way of destroying their societies forever, (in more recent history that's what Hitler was trying to do in the east).   

What's next?  Destroying statues and monuments to the Pilgrims cos of what they did the Indians etc?  As said above, we can go back to the dam Assyrians and who knows who came b4 - their statues were probably wiped out.

[danfrodo]

Erwin, very good point.  Very good indeed.  I guess along with the question of "why is this person honored with a statue?" it must also be asked "and why does this person wish to remove it?"

 

[sburke]

we are headed for a lock on this if we do not change direction.  If that happens I will blame the Assyrians.

[mjkerner]

Just don’t blame the friggin’ cheesemakers! That thread got nuked right quick-like after they entered the picture, lol.

[Michael Emrys]

Do cheesemakers actually frig? I was under the impression that they just spontaneously appear on the land after a heavy rain, like certain species of frogs.

Michael

Edited January 14, 2019 by Michael Emrys

[Erwin]

Be careful.  You are off-topic, again!  Hall monitor is probably hovering.

[General Jack Ripper]

23 hours ago, danfrodo said:

It's just that historical scholarship requires no public statues.

So what?
Are we required to conduct a historical dissection of everyone before we build a statue of them?

I'm sure there are plenty of statues of Lenin around, but no matter how much I dislike Communism, I'm not running around trying to tear them all down.

[General Jack Ripper]

17 hours ago, sburke said:

If that happens I will blame the Assyrians.

Me too.

[sburke]

6 minutes ago, General Jack Ripper said:

So what?
Are we required to conduct a historical dissection of everyone before we build a statue of them?

I'm sure there are plenty of statues of Lenin around, but no matter how much I dislike Communism, I'm not running around trying to tear them all down.

The Ukrainians likely differ with you on that. 

[DerKommissar]

On 1/12/2019 at 12:23 PM, danfrodo said:

Yes, have sidetracked this thread.  Going back to russia, I am not a Stalin fan but I sure like playing Red Thunder as the Russians.  every soldier has his own reasons.

I've been holding on for this dank meme for some time:

That's how mafia works. Old Joe was an outlaw that generated a lot of revenue for the Bolsheviks by robbing banks and pulling off train heists. Not a good military commander, though. He failed to link up with Tukhachevsky during the Battle of Warsaw (the prequel) and was blamed for their defeat in Poland. Funny enough, both Tukhavhevsky and Trotsky, the people in charge of that campaign, ended up dead prior to WW2. These purges came from intel provided by German agents... it was quite a shock for him when Barbarossa happened.

Virtually all Soviet officers were WW1 vets, and a lot of them came from Brusilov's camp. They're the ones behind Red Army's successes in the war, and if it wasn't for the purges -- there would be more of them around. It's kinda funny how Stalin got this image of Communist Generalissimos, while he was just a thief and with a military bad-call streak as bad as than Conrad Von Hotzendorf.

In the upcoming RT module, we'll see him try to meddle in military matters again. He could manipulate people and managed to sic a few WW1 vets, namely Vasilevsky and Zhukov, to compete for Berlin. They had the situation in the bag, and rushed when they didn't have to. The result was Seelow Heights, losing forces that would be critical to partitioning Germany.