Jasper Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Interesting parochial views coming from a company that pays lip service to international customers. [* The above opinion is without basis in fact. I think that the 5% of the world that comes up as idiot's is shared part time by all of us. The above would be an example of my 5% contribution. It was unworthy of my, and BTS and this board in general. *] PS - If you spend much time debating military issues in anything close an international forum - you'll learn to call it the American Civil War when referring to that conflict. The Swiss called it "The War in Russia". Of course in the 1940's there was no need to say which war in Russia they were referring to. [This message has been edited by Jasper (edited 02-15-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Originally posted by Jasper: Interesting parochial views coming from a company that pays lip service to international customers. PS - If you spend much time debating military issues in anything close an international forum - you'll learn to call it the American Civil War when referring to that conflict. The Swiss called it "The War in Russia". Of course in the 1940's there was no need to say which war in Russia they were referring to. In Canada the ACW is often referred to as The War Between the States. If people really want to take offence, they will generally go out of their way to find something to take offence with. This entire thread is disgustingly silly. People have been arguing over the names of battles and campaigns for years - Bull Run is still called Manassas in many circles. So what? My suggestion to you is to call things whatever the hell you want and keep your snide comments about "lip service" to yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Originally posted by Jasper: (snip whining) PS - If you spend much time debating military issues in anything close an international forum - you'll learn to call it the American Civil War when referring to that conflict.. And why is that? Is it because others get their panties all in a bunch, or because the term "Civil War" is not specific enough to communicate effectively? Since I have great respect for most people, I am going to assume the latter rather than the former. The *only* valid objection to the term "East Front" is one based upon someone not knowing what it means. If that is not the case, quit the freaking whining over soething so abundantly stpid. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Bates Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: And why is that? Is it because others get their panties all in a bunch, or because the term "Civil War" is not specific enough to communicate effectively? Since I have great respect for most people, I am going to assume the latter rather than the former. The *only* valid objection to the term "East Front" is one based upon someone not knowing what it means. If that is not the case, quit the freaking whining over soething so abundantly stpid. Jeff Heidman It's not as black and white as that. It's just your opinion. Your "freaking and whining" is someone else's thoughts and ideas. BTS: Standard terms are used for a reason. Common term for the fighting between the Third Reich, and its allies, and the Soviet Union, and its allies, is the Eastern Front. It is no less accurate than The Great Patriotic War, nor is it any better than the Russo-German War (which is also used). I'd agree with that. I would include common usage as a factor in the use of "Eastern Front" as well as the empathy which Westerners tend to have for the German soldier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Originally posted by M. Bates: It's not as black and white as that. It's just your opinion. Your "freaking and whining" is someone else's thoughts and ideas. That's "freaking whining". It might be someone's thoughts and opinions, but it is also whining. And it is exactly as black and white as all that. You are trying to create an issue that does not exist, and you are the one accusing people who use a extremely commonly accepted term of being racist without their even knowing it. You made a claim, and it got shot down. Your response to getting shot down is to just state that everyone gets their opinion. No real effort to deal with the points made at all. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it might be. And I am entitled to the opinion that your opinion is ignorant. I'd agree with that. I would include common usage as a factor in the use of "Eastern Front" as well as the empathy which Westerners tend to have for the German soldier. Common usage is the ONLY factor. It has nothing to do with empathy or racism, no matter how much you wish it did. If you disagree, please provide us with some evidence other than bald assertion of fact that is unsupported and unsupportable. Many have pointed out the reasons why the term is used, and you have yet to refute a single one of them. When you accuse people of racism and empathy for Nazi's, you should probably be prepared to support that claim with something. It's funny that the guy who called people racists is now the one getting offended by the response. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Jasper wrote: Interesting parochial views coming from a company that pays lip service to international customers. What a bunch of horsecrap. I was explaining that there are few standard world wide terms for wars, theaters, and sometimes even battles. M. Bates claimed that Eastern Front was just a German thing, I and was CLEARLY demonstrating that it was also a Western Allied term as well. So tell me... what non-country centric term should we can use in place of the Eastern Front? I'll sugest one: The War between The Peoples of the CCCP, a faction from Poland, a little bit from Finland, at one point Rumanians and Hugarians versus Germans, Finns (for a while anyway), Rumanians (for a while anyway), Hungarians (for a while anyway), Slovaks (for a while anyway), French, Italians (for a while anyway), Croatians, Polish, Spanish (for a while anyway), Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Tatars, Russians, Ukrainians, White Russians, Don Cossacks, Dutch, Norwegians (a few), Swedes (a few), and some others from Here and There All Fighting on Territory East of the Danube, to the City of Stalingrad, Down to the Carpathian Mountains, and over to The Aagean Sea and Up the Adriatic Coast. Hey, that works out pretty well, although I am sure I missed a few things. If you spend much time debating military issues in anything close an international forum - you'll learn to call it the American Civil War when referring to that conflict. I guess my words stating that I was speaking ONLY WITHIN THE UNITED STATES didn't really ring any intellectual bells in your head, eh? Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>- Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 What a ridculous thing to get upset about. How about you pick something a little more confusing like American natives being called Indians. But when you start talking about the people from the Indian subcontient, what are you going to refer to those folks as, if Indians is already taken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Bates Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Perhaps your interpretation of racism of different to mine, I have no problem with that. And I said empathy with the German soldier, not empathy with the Nazi party. You are trying to create an issue that does not exist, and you are the one accusing people who use a extremely commonly accepted term of being racist without their even knowing it. That's just about what I said and I stand by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 M. Bates wrote: I would include common usage as a factor in the use of "Eastern Front" as well as the empathy which Westerners tend to have for the German soldier. Uhm... since it was common for Western Allied forces in WWII to use the term "Eastern Front", I doubt there was much empathy behind its initial use. Perhpas it was coined because it was a fairly simple term that was easily recognizable? I mean, what should the Western Allies have called things: Our Front and Their Front? Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Hey, that works out pretty well, although I am sure I missed a few things. Kuban Cossacks ------------------ Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 You are trying to create an issue that does not exist, and you are the one accusing people who use a extremely commonly accepted term of being racist without their even knowing it. ---------------------------------------------M. Bates responded: That's just about what I said and I stand by it. Heheh.. snort, chuckle... boy I am glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read this. Holy Crap. What position on a high horse without the horse. Cripes man. Why not say that anybody talking about Western Europe is a racist, since they are CLEARLY excluding the dirty scum that is in Eastern Europe. Opps... I blew my cover. I am not exposed for what I am. A racists. Damn, and I thought I could keep people fooled. M. Bates... some advice. Drop the rather silly position and concentrate your energies on ANYTHING that is more relevant to reality. Sheesh... one of the most POINTLESS threads in months. Well, at least it was good for a chuckle or two. Bates... answer me this one question: What do you call that particular part of the war? I'd love to see what "non-racist" term you have invented to put yourself up on such a high horse. Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 02-14-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyStrike Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Originally posted by M. Bates: Perhaps your interpretation of racism of different to mine, I have no problem with that. Another brainwashed, crusading soldier advancing under the diversity-crushing banner of Political Correctness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Bates Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Originally posted by Big Time Software: M. Bates wrote: Uhm... since it was common for Western Allied forces in WWII to use the term "Eastern Front", I doubt there was much empathy behind its initial use. Perhpas it was coined because it was a fairly simple term that was easily recognizable? I mean, what should the Western Allies have called things: Our Front and Their Front? Steve Without getting bogged down in the terminology of Eastern Front - a term which altho I questionned I would still use - my broad, general point is that Westerners empathise with Germans because they are aggressive Europeans. It's not the only factor, and it probably isn't even the major one, but I think that it is something which exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Bates Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Originally posted by LuckyStrike: Another brainwashed, crusading soldier advancing under the diversity-crushing banner of Political Correctness. No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Originally posted by Big Time Software: Sheesh... one of the most POINTLESS threads in months. Well, at least it was good for a chuckle or two. This one is battling with the troll about Dresden for Pointless Thread of the Month honors. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 And seriously... at the risk of echoing what others have said, there is a certain amount of historical simplification we can (and should) make for the sake of simplicity. For example, the Vietnam War is more properly referred to as the Second Indochinese War...yet even that is a bit misleading since war was never oficially declared. Yet when was the last time you heard anyone refer to it as anything but the Vietnam War? We do so because it is convenient to do so and it does not create any confusion. The First Crusade was not a unified action, but took place over the span of several years, with several different groups fighting in several different places with often quite divergent goals, yet it is convenient as a point of reference to refer to it as the First Crusade. The Reagan Doctrine was neither universally conceived nor uniformly applied, yet it is convenient to refer to it as if it were. If you want to get persnickety, you can find fault with all of these terms, and probably assign some sort of ulterior motive towards doing so - ie, one could argue that referring to the Second Indochinese War as the Vietnam War ignores the earlier French efforts. Yet this is not an issue that comes up very often, simply because it is neither important nor useful to harp on it. Bottom line, why bother? ------------------ Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Bates Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: This one is battling with the troll about Dresden for Pointless Thread of the Month honors. Jeff Heidman ...Something which you persist in repeating, yet you've contributed as much as anyone else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Bates, you are REALLY putting your foot into it now... my broad, general point is that Westerners empathise with Germans because they are aggressive Europeans. As opposed to aggressive non-Europeans? Before the invasion of Poland, how many countries did Nazi Germany invade and how many did the Soviet Union invade? And since WWII, how many wars has Germany been involved in, and countries occupied, as opposed to the Soviet Union. Nope, if we here in the "West" were out to idolize brutal aggression, I'd say the Russians (note I mean that particular nationality) have a damned fine track record to worship. Now... if your point is that there is sympathy for the German side of the war, in the West, more than the Soviet side... that is a different case. And I don't think it has much to do with racism rather than political philosophy. We in the West had the Soviet Union as our enemy far longer than Nazi Germany. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Originally posted by M. Bates: ...Something which you persist in repeating, yet you've contributed as much as anyone else Are you kidding? I'd like to think I've contributed more. However, that post was the first mention I had made of the pointlessness of arguing with you about this. This post makes the 2nd. Really, I think at this point you are just being obstinate. You painted yourself into a corner and have no idea how to get out wihtout losing face. Bit of advice: It takes more courage to just admit you were wrong and let it go than it does to dig your heels in even when you know you overstated your case. Jeff Heidman [This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 02-14-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>- Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 I would call the Vietnam conflict what the Vietnamise call it. The American war. But I'm not gonna call Chupacabra a racist cuz he thinks I should refer to it as something else. Why put a Value Judgement on something so sematical? Are you gonna to call Lions "bad" cuz they kill other mammals for food? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tss Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Big Time Software wrote: Hey, that works out pretty well, although I am sure I missed a few things. What about Ingrians (a few on both sides) and Vepsäläiset (a few on both sides) If somebody knows whether there is any English term at all for the latter, I would appreciate hearing it. Anyway, they are (or, after Stalin's work, were) the people living between Karelians and Russians NE of Lake Ladoga. - Tommi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Can't we all just get along? <Ducks and runs for cover...> This PC thing does get sticky at times doesn't it? Thanks for the interesting exchange fellas, it's been a hoot following it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Bates Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Are you kidding? I'd like to think I've contributed more. However, that post was the first mention I had made of the pointlessness of arguing with you about this. This post makes the 2nd. Really, I think at this point you are just being obstinate. You painted yourself into a corner and have no idea how to get out wihtout losing face. Bit of advice: It takes more courage to just admit you were wrong and let it go than it does to dig your heels in even when you know you overstated your case. Jeff Heidman I concede that this may be the case. <Looks at watch> isn't this where MadMatt enters and says, "okay guys I think you are all wrong, and you are all right, but I'm locking this one up for obvious reasons Originally posted by Big Time Software: Bates, you are REALLY putting your foot into it now... As opposed to aggressive non-Europeans? Before the invasion of Poland, how many countries did Nazi Germany invade and how many did the Soviet Union invade? And since WWII, how many wars has Germany been involved in, and countries occupied, as opposed to the Soviet Union. Nope, if we here in the "West" were out to idolize brutal aggression, I'd say the Russians (note I mean that particular nationality) have a damned fine track record to worship. Now... if your point is that there is sympathy for the German side of the war, in the West, more than the Soviet side... that is a different case. And I don't think it has much to do with racism rather than political philosophy. We in the West had the Soviet Union as our enemy far longer than Nazi Germany. Steve Hmmm. All I will say is this: there seems to be a "cult" made out of the German soldier or fearless panzer commander and I can't quite put my finger on it. Perhaps there is nothing in it or perhaps there is, who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Originally posted by M. Bates: Hmmm. All I will say is this: there seems to be a "cult" made out of the German soldier or fearless panzer commander and I can't quite put my finger on it. Perhaps there is nothing in it or perhaps there is, who knows. No more so than there is a "cult" of the hard-working, All-American Ohio boy throwing back the Huns with a Garand and a grenade (see SPR) or the fanatical Soviet defender of Stalingrad sacrificing his (or her) own life to hurl a molotov cocktail onto a Panzer's engine deck, or the grim, determined Finn, or the doughty Englishman, or, or, or... the list goes on. ------------------ Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sten Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Can't you all see that Bates is right? I often feel very offended when people refer to Sweden as "a country in Northern Europe" Since this clearly implies that we are more distanced from the center-of-action than others. I also try not to use the words "floor" and "ceiling" as it would be extremely prejudicial, and would belittle other parts of the room. I think anyone who uses these two terms are just showing their empathy towards the aggressive middle part of the room. - Nurse, did I really get the right pills...? Sten [This message has been edited by Sten (edited 02-14-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts